Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #52452 > unrolled thread

29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-11-20 13:11 -0600
    Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-21 09:08 +1300
      Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-20 20:37 -0500
        Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Recliner <recliner2-news@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-20 19:57 -0600
          Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-21 19:08 +1300
            Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> - 2013-11-21 07:24 +0000
              Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping John Holt <me@foo.net> - 2013-11-21 15:21 -0500
                Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-21 20:34 -0500
                  Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-22 02:21 +0000
                    Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-21 23:24 -0500
                      Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-21 23:38 -0500
                      Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-22 15:29 +0000
                      Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2013-11-22 14:55 -0500
                        Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-23 00:56 -0500
                      Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-24 05:43 +0100
                  Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-22 18:36 +1300
                    Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-22 01:06 -0500
                  Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-11-22 18:20 +0000
                    Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-22 11:34 -0700
                      Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-11-22 19:22 +0000
                        Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-22 16:12 -0700
                          Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-11-23 03:34 +0000
                            Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-22 21:36 -0700
                              Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-11-23 12:02 -0800
                                Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-23 15:58 -0700
                              Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-11-23 22:34 +0000
                        Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-11-23 20:55 +0000
            Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Recliner <recliner2-news@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-21 01:51 -0600
              Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-22 09:28 +1300
        Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-21 01:42 -0500
          Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-21 11:49 -0500
            Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-21 11:56 -0500
        Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-21 09:07 -0700
          Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-21 11:53 -0500
            Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-21 11:56 -0500
              Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-21 12:30 -0500
                Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-21 13:00 -0500
            Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-22 09:33 +1300
              Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-11-21 15:54 -0500
                Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Recliner <recliner2-news@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-21 18:47 -0600
                  Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-22 11:07 +0000
      Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Matthew Lybanon <lybanon@earthlink.net> - 2013-11-21 12:04 -0600
        Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-11-22 09:31 +1300
    Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2013-11-20 18:27 -0800
    Re: 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping "Mr. Strat" <mrstrat@nospam.gmail.com> - 2013-11-21 06:42 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#52452 — 29 Years Ago: The Flop that keeps on Flopping

Reminds me of the VTR Wars. The one that became dominant was inferior there
as well...

<http://ct.cnet.com/clicks?t=1308216783-c3d1a4e0f74002d0468009323e725a42-bf&
brand=NEWS&s=5>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#52455

In article <CEB26571.A4503%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
<ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Reminds me of the VTR Wars. The one that became dominant was inferior there
> as well...

It's usually the case that the cheapest or the most popular wins (or
simply the most entrenched), which isn't necessarily the same as being
the best.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52464

On 11-20-2013, 15:08, Your Name wrote:
> In article <CEB26571.A4503%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
> <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Reminds me of the VTR Wars. The one that became dominant was inferior there
>> as well...
>
> It's usually the case that the cheapest or the most popular wins (or
> simply the most entrenched), which isn't necessarily the same as being
> the best.

"entrenched" -- Yep, when Macintosh was announced, there were plenty of 
DOS boxes already in use.  And the first Mac, in my opinion, wasn't very 
impressive.  When I heard the announcement, I went to a store to check 
it out.  I crashed it five times in ten minutes.  I wasn't trying to, 
either.  And I was far from "l33t."  My day job was teaching 
maintainance of digital and analog sonar system with an embedded 
file-cabinet sized computer from the mid-1960s, programmed by toggling 
bits on a control panel.  My "home computer" was a Z80 Heathkit with a 
CP/M-like O.S.

I note though, that ONE-year after Macintosh was announced, "after TWO 
years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised 
Microsoft Windows."

In other words, though MS is often (justly) accused of copying Apple, 
either they actually did something original, or there was a heck of a leak.

-- 
Wes Groleau

Change is inevitable.
Liberals need to learn that “inevitable" is not a synonym for “good."
Conservatives should learn that “inevitable" is not a synonym for “bad.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52465

Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 11-20-2013, 15:08, Your Name wrote:
>> In article <CEB26571.A4503%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
>> <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Reminds me of the VTR Wars. The one that became dominant was inferior there
>>> as well...
>> 
>> It's usually the case that the cheapest or the most popular wins (or
>> simply the most entrenched), which isn't necessarily the same as being
>> the best.
> 
> "entrenched" -- Yep, when Macintosh was announced, there were plenty of
> DOS boxes already in use.  And the first Mac, in my opinion, wasn't very
> impressive.  When I heard the announcement, I went to a store to check it
> out.  I crashed it five times in ten minutes.  I wasn't trying to,
> either.  And I was far from "l33t."  My day job was teaching maintainance
> of digital and analog sonar system with an embedded file-cabinet sized
> computer from the mid-1960s, programmed by toggling bits on a control
> panel.  My "home computer" was a Z80 Heathkit with a CP/M-like O.S.
> 
> I note though, that ONE-year after Macintosh was announced, "after TWO
> years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised Microsoft Windows."
> 
> In other words, though MS is often (justly) accused of copying Apple,
> either they actually did something original, or there was a heck of a leak.

Reading the linked article, it looks like both were "inspired" by Xerox
Parc, research, and recruited Parc staff. So MS didn't copy Apple, but
neither was really original either. Apple did get the Lisa out first,
however, but it was an expensive flop (and, yes, I did evaluate a Lisa, but
it didn't have any usable apps). 

But what most of the these articles fail to mention is that what made the
early Macs succeed was DTP, with low cost desktop laser printers and
Postscript. I was a big fan of WriteNow in the mid 1980s as it was a huge
improvement on the text word processors of the day.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52467

In article
<870820284406691443.013702recliner2-news-yahoo.co.uk@news.btinternet.com>
, Recliner <recliner2-news@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> > On 11-20-2013, 15:08, Your Name wrote:
> >> In article <CEB26571.A4503%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
> >> <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Reminds me of the VTR Wars. The one that became dominant was inferior
> >>> there as well...
> >> 
> >> It's usually the case that the cheapest or the most popular wins (or
> >> simply the most entrenched), which isn't necessarily the same as being
> >> the best.
> > 
> > "entrenched" -- Yep, when Macintosh was announced, there were plenty of
> > DOS boxes already in use.  And the first Mac, in my opinion, wasn't very
> > impressive.  When I heard the announcement, I went to a store to check it
> > out.  I crashed it five times in ten minutes.  I wasn't trying to,
> > either.  And I was far from "l33t."  My day job was teaching maintainance
> > of digital and analog sonar system with an embedded file-cabinet sized
> > computer from the mid-1960s, programmed by toggling bits on a control
> > panel.  My "home computer" was a Z80 Heathkit with a CP/M-like O.S.
> > 
> > I note though, that ONE-year after Macintosh was announced, "after TWO
> > years of delays, Microsoft was finally ready to debut the much-promised
> > Microsoft Windows."
> > 
> > In other words, though MS is often (justly) accused of copying Apple,
> > either they actually did something original, or there was a heck of a leak.
> 
> Reading the linked article, it looks like both were "inspired" by Xerox
> Parc, research, and recruited Parc staff. So MS didn't copy Apple, but
> neither was really original either. Apple did get the Lisa out first,
> however, but it was an expensive flop (and, yes, I did evaluate a Lisa, but
> it didn't have any usable apps). 
> 
> But what most of the these articles fail to mention is that what made the
> early Macs succeed was DTP, with low cost desktop laser printers and
> Postscript. I was a big fan of WriteNow in the mid 1980s as it was a huge
> improvement on the text word processors of the day.

The Apple Lisa was released on 19 January, 1983.

Windows 1.0, the first version, was released in 1985.

It's well publicised that Bill Gates used to visit Apple's HQ,
apparently able to look at almost everything they were doing and
talking to anyone he liked ... until Steve Jobs put a stop to it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52471

Your Name wrote:
>
> It's well publicised that Bill Gates used to visit Apple's HQ,
> apparently able to look at almost everything they were doing and
> talking to anyone he liked ... until Steve Jobs put a stop to it.

Bear in mind that before the Macintosh was relseased Mico Soft was an
Apple II hardware and software vendor, Probably their most notable
product was a CP/M coprocessor board. 

Once the Macintosh was released, for many years Microsoft was the largest
vendor of Macintosh software.

Without Word and Excel, the Mac may not have been anywhere near as
successful as it was. 

Geoff.

-- 
Geoffrey S. Mendelson,  N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52490

On 2013-11-21 07:24:13 +0000, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> said:

> Your Name wrote:
>> 
>> It's well publicised that Bill Gates used to visit Apple's HQ,
>> apparently able to look at almost everything they were doing and
>> talking to anyone he liked ... until Steve Jobs put a stop to it.
> 
> Bear in mind that before the Macintosh was relseased Mico Soft was an
> Apple II hardware and software vendor, Probably their most notable
> product was a CP/M coprocessor board.
> 
> Once the Macintosh was released, for many years Microsoft was the largest
> vendor of Macintosh software.
> 
> Without Word and Excel, the Mac may not have been anywhere near as
> successful as it was.
> 
> Geoff.


I think you meant MultiPlan, not Excel.  Not sure about Word.  I used 
Mac Write at the time.

-- 
John Holt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52501

On 11-21-2013, 15:21, John Holt wrote:
> On 2013-11-21 07:24:13 +0000, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
>> Without Word and Excel, the Mac may not have been anywhere near as
>> successful as it was.>
>
> I think you meant MultiPlan, not Excel.  Not sure about Word.  I used
> Mac Write at the time.

I'm not so sure that Word and Excel did that much for the Mac.
My second civilian employer used Mac System 7.5 crashed many times every 
day--if Word or Excel were running.  No crashes on the rare day when 
those beasts weren't in use.  Someone who used them every day, or who 
wasn't very observant, would think it was Apple's fault.

-- 
Wes Groleau

  Guidelines for judging others:
  1. Don't attribute to malice that which
     can be adequately explained by stupidity.
  2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
     can be adequately explained by ignorance.
  3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
     can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
  4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
     can be adequately explained by alcohol.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52502

In message <l6mcbe$5f9$1@dont-email.me> 
  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 11-21-2013, 15:21, John Holt wrote:
>> On 2013-11-21 07:24:13 +0000, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
>>> Without Word and Excel, the Mac may not have been anywhere near as
>>> successful as it was.>
>>
>> I think you meant MultiPlan, not Excel.  Not sure about Word.  I used
>> Mac Write at the time.

> I'm not so sure that Word and Excel did that much for the Mac.
> My second civilian employer used Mac System 7.5 crashed many times every 
> day--if Word or Excel were running.  No crashes on the rare day when 
> those beasts weren't in use.  Someone who used them every day, or who 
> wasn't very observant, would think it was Apple's fault.

What version of Word? I ran Word 3 4 and 5 on the Mac for many years. I
couldn't swear it ever crashed.

-- 
This man was clearly mad, but at the heart of his madness was a cold,
dreadful sanity, a core of pure interstellar ice in the centre of the
furnace. She'd thought him weak under a thin shell of strength, but it
went a lot further than that. Somewhere deep inside his mind, somewhere
beyond the event horizon of rationality, the sheer pressure of insanity
had hammered his madness into something harder than diamond.  --Wyrd
Sisters

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52504

On 11-21-2013, 21:21, Lewis wrote:
>    Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 11-21-2013, 15:21, John Holt wrote:
>> I'm not so sure that Word and Excel did that much for the Mac.
>> My second civilian employer used Mac System 7.5: crashed many times every
>> day--if Word or Excel were running.  No crashes on the rare day when
>> those beasts weren't in use.  Someone who used them every day, or who
>> wasn't very observant, would think it was Apple's fault.
>
> What version of Word? I ran Word 3 4 and 5 on the Mac for many years. I
> couldn't swear it ever crashed.

That's a heck of a question to ask an old man thirty years after the 
event!  :-)

It was from January 1996 until shortly after Windows NT came out.  They 
switched to NT, which crashed even more often.  Although the admittedly 
superior user-space architecture was in NT, the implementation was still 
poor, and many apps were still able to crash the whole system.

I _think_ the Word version on the Mac was 5.1, and I have no idea of the 
Excel version.  I can't remember which was worse, Word or Excel, but 
part of the difference between your experience and mine might have been 
file size.  So many of my colleagues in the defense business would write 
specifications of three hundred to a thousand pages, mostly fluff.  And 
they'd put the entire thing in a single file!

I wrote a Software Requirements Specification of eighty pages that 
people eventually admitted was complete and well-done.  But at first 
they were so convinced that something they could pick up with only one 
hand wasn't ready for review that they wouldn't pick it up at all.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    Curmudgeon's Complaints on Courtesy:
    http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52505

In article <l6mm97$ft9$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> >> I'm not so sure that Word and Excel did that much for the Mac.
> >> My second civilian employer used Mac System 7.5: crashed many times every
> >> day--if Word or Excel were running.  No crashes on the rare day when
> >> those beasts weren't in use.  Someone who used them every day, or who
> >> wasn't very observant, would think it was Apple's fault.
> >
> > What version of Word? I ran Word 3 4 and 5 on the Mac for many years. I
> > couldn't swear it ever crashed.
> 
> That's a heck of a question to ask an old man thirty years after the 
> event!  :-)
> 
> It was from January 1996 until shortly after Windows NT came out.  They 
> switched to NT, which crashed even more often.  Although the admittedly 
> superior user-space architecture was in NT, the implementation was still 
> poor, and many apps were still able to crash the whole system.
>
> I _think_ the Word version on the Mac was 5.1, and I have no idea of the 
> Excel version.  I can't remember which was worse, Word or Excel, but 
> part of the difference between your experience and mine might have been 
> file size.  So many of my colleagues in the defense business would write 
> specifications of three hundred to a thousand pages, mostly fluff.  And 
> they'd put the entire thing in a single file!

in 1996, it would likely have been word 6 which was a piece of shit.

microsoft wanted to have a unified code base between mac and windows,
and it didn't work out as well as they would have liked (that strategy
rarely, if ever, does).

word first came out in 1985 and helped the mac a *lot*. it was *much*
better than macwrite at the time. 

excel for mac also came out in 1985, well before it came out for
windows. many people said it was so good that anyone who wants to use a
spreadsheet should buy a mac just for excel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52515

In message <l6mm97$ft9$1@dont-email.me> 
  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 11-21-2013, 21:21, Lewis wrote:
>>    Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>> On 11-21-2013, 15:21, John Holt wrote:
>>> I'm not so sure that Word and Excel did that much for the Mac.
>>> My second civilian employer used Mac System 7.5: crashed many times every
>>> day--if Word or Excel were running.  No crashes on the rare day when
>>> those beasts weren't in use.  Someone who used them every day, or who
>>> wasn't very observant, would think it was Apple's fault.
>>
>> What version of Word? I ran Word 3 4 and 5 on the Mac for many years. I
>> couldn't swear it ever crashed.

> That's a heck of a question to ask an old man thirty years after the 
> event!  :-)

> It was from January 1996 until shortly after Windows NT came out.  They 
> switched to NT, which crashed even more often.  Although the admittedly 
> superior user-space architecture was in NT, the implementation was still 
> poor, and many apps were still able to crash the whole system.

That sounds like maybe it was Word 6 <spit> then (which came out in
1993). This is commonly known as the worst version of Word for the Mac,
and people had to suffer with it for 5 years until Office 98 came out.

It was, honestly, dreadful. I held on to Word 5.1 until I switched to OS
X and haven't used Office/Word since.

> I _think_ the Word version on the Mac was 5.1, and I have no idea of the 
> Excel version.  I can't remember which was worse, Word or Excel, but 
> part of the difference between your experience and mine might have been 
> file size.  So many of my colleagues in the defense business would write 
> specifications of three hundred to a thousand pages, mostly fluff.  And 
> they'd put the entire thing in a single file!

I'm not sure how many 1000 page files we had, but we had many files of
several hundred pages in word 5.1. I believe Word 3 had a hard limit on
pages so you had to split long books.

> I wrote a Software Requirements Specification of eighty pages that 
> people eventually admitted was complete and well-done.  But at first 
> they were so convinced that something they could pick up with only one 
> hand wasn't ready for review that they wouldn't pick it up at all.

Sounds like the Pentagon-approved recipe for brownies, which clocks it
at 25 pages, as I recall.

-- 
The night is always old. He'd walked too often down dark streets in the
secret hours and felt the night stretching away, and known in his blood
that while days and kings and empires come and go, the night is always
the same age, always aeons deep. Terrors unfolded in the velvet shadows
and while the nature of the talons may change, the nature of the beast
does not. --Jingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52519

On 11/21/13, 11:24 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
<snip>
> --
> Wes Groleau
>
>     Curmudgeon's Complaints on Courtesy:
> http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html

got a 404 on that one

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52527

On 11-22-2013, 14:55, M. John Matlaw wrote:
> On 11/21/13, 11:24 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> <snip>
>> --
>> Wes Groleau
>>
>>     Curmudgeon's Complaints on Courtesy:
>> http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html
>
> got a 404 on that one

Some of my .sigs are pretty old.

Reviewing .sig files is not what I do first.

-- 
Wes Groleau

You always have time for what you do first.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52581

Wes Groleau wrote:

> On 11-21-2013, 21:21, Lewis wrote:
>>    Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>> On 11-21-2013, 15:21, John Holt wrote:
>>> I'm not so sure that Word and Excel did that much for the Mac.
>>> My second civilian employer used Mac System 7.5: crashed many times every
>>> day--if Word or Excel were running.  No crashes on the rare day when
>>> those beasts weren't in use.  Someone who used them every day, or who
>>> wasn't very observant, would think it was Apple's fault.
>>
>> What version of Word? I ran Word 3 4 and 5 on the Mac for many years. I
>> couldn't swear it ever crashed.
>
> That's a heck of a question to ask an old man thirty years after the 
> event!  :-)
>
> It was from January 1996 until shortly after Windows NT came out.  They 
> switched to NT, which crashed even more often.  Although the admittedly 
> superior user-space architecture was in NT, the implementation was still 
> poor, and many apps were still able to crash the whole system.

I think you are probably referring to NT 4.0 there; NT 3.5 then 3.51
came out earlier, but it was with 4.0 that sales really took off.  3.51
had the WIndows 3.n style interface but 4.0 got the Windows 95 makeover.

In early 1997 I got a system specified to run NT 4.0 and put together by
a custom system builder who knew what he was doing. I only had two or
three full system crashes in the year I was using it and those were down
to bad drivers and a cable which came adrift after I'd been inside it.

The DOS subsystem responsible for running 16 bit stiff would pack in
every few weeks though.  No error messages or other diagnostics;
fortunately I had a tape drive on it so saving work done since the daily
backup and doing a full restore was only an hour away...

> I _think_ the Word version on the Mac was 5.1, and I have no idea of the 
> Excel version.  I can't remember which was worse, Word or Excel, but 
> part of the difference between your experience and mine might have been 
> file size.  So many of my colleagues in the defense business would write 
> specifications of three hundred to a thousand pages, mostly fluff.  And 
> they'd put the entire thing in a single file!
>
> I wrote a Software Requirements Specification of eighty pages that 
> people eventually admitted was complete and well-done.  But at first 
> they were so convinced that something they could pick up with only one 
> hand wasn't ready for review that they wouldn't pick it up at all.

That mentality is probably to blame for the overly thick manuals I had
to wade through in my brief venture into the Windows Server world. 
There was an awful lot of crap to wade through before getting to
anything of interest.  It definitely  contributed to my decision to
avoid WIndows in the future (OK there were other frustrations there as
well).

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52506

In article <l6mcbe$5f9$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 11-21-2013, 15:21, John Holt wrote:
> > On 2013-11-21 07:24:13 +0000, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
> >> Without Word and Excel, the Mac may not have been anywhere near as
> >> successful as it was.>
> >
> > I think you meant MultiPlan, not Excel.  Not sure about Word.  I used
> > Mac Write at the time.
> 
> I'm not so sure that Word and Excel did that much for the Mac.
> My second civilian employer used Mac System 7.5 crashed many times every 
> day--if Word or Excel were running.  No crashes on the rare day when 
> those beasts weren't in use.  Someone who used them every day, or who 
> wasn't very observant, would think it was Apple's fault.

Yep, Microsoft and Adobe are the two worst makers of Apple software
when it came to crashing the system, partly thanks to Adobe stupidly
using Microsoft libraries to make it easier to port their software from
Windows.

Of course, many people will tell you that System 7.5 itself was the
buggiest of the now-Classic Mac OS versions, but I never had any real
probkems with it that weren't directly related to Microsoft or adobe
products.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52508

In article <221120131836217328%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> Yep, Microsoft and Adobe are the two worst makers of Apple software
> when it came to crashing the system, partly thanks to Adobe stupidly
> using Microsoft libraries to make it easier to port their software from
> Windows.

where in the hell did you get that crazy idea? 

adobe does not in any way use microsoft's libraries, nor do they port
*from* windows. 

quite a few of adobe's apps began on the mac first, later ported *to*
windows, notably photoshop. adobe uses their own cross platform
framework, and it works quite well. all of their cross platform apps
are designed to be cross platform. they are not ports. 

not only that, but the mac versions of microsoft apps share very little
code. for instance, mac internet explorer used a different html
rendering engine than windows internet explorer. only the name was the
same. microsoft tried the cross-platform approach with word 6, which
was a disaster. 

> Of course, many people will tell you that System 7.5 itself was the
> buggiest of the now-Classic Mac OS versions, but I never had any real
> probkems with it that weren't directly related to Microsoft or adobe
> products.

invalid sample size.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52516

On 22/11/2013 01:34, in article l6mcbe$5f9$1@dont-email.me, "Wes Groleau"
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

>   Guidelines for judging others:
>   1. Don't attribute to malice that which
>      can be adequately explained by stupidity.
>   2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
>      can be adequately explained by ignorance.
>   3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
>      can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
>   4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
>      can be adequately explained by alcohol.

    5. Don't attribute to alcohol that which
       can be adequately explained by religion.

-- 
Bill Findlay
with blueyonder.co.uk;
use  surname & forename;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52517

In article <CEB550DA.3B92B%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>, Bill Findlay
<yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> On 22/11/2013 01:34, in article l6mcbe$5f9$1@dont-email.me, "Wes Groleau"
> <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> 
> >   Guidelines for judging others:
> >   1. Don't attribute to malice that which
> >      can be adequately explained by stupidity.
> >   2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
> >      can be adequately explained by ignorance.
> >   3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
> >      can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
> >   4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
> >      can be adequately explained by alcohol.
> 
>     5. Don't attribute to alcohol that which
>        can be adequately explained by religion.

      6. Don't attribute to religion that which
         can be adequately explained by political
         dogmatism masquerading as religion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52518

On 22/11/2013 18:34, in article 221120131134470694%foo@bar.com, "Michelle
Steiner" <foo@bar.com> wrote:

> In article <CEB550DA.3B92B%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>, Bill Findlay
> <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On 22/11/2013 01:34, in article l6mcbe$5f9$1@dont-email.me, "Wes Groleau"
>> <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> 
>>>   Guidelines for judging others:
>>>   1. Don't attribute to malice that which
>>>      can be adequately explained by stupidity.
>>>   2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
>>>      can be adequately explained by ignorance.
>>>   3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
>>>      can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.
>>>   4. Don't attribute to misunderstanding that which
>>>      can be adequately explained by alcohol.
>> 
>>     5. Don't attribute to alcohol that which
>>        can be adequately explained by religion.
> 
>       6. Don't attribute to religion that which
>          can be adequately explained by political
>          dogmatism masquerading as religion.

There is a difference?

-- 
Bill Findlay
with blueyonder.co.uk;
use  surname & forename;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web