Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #118044 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-09 00:32 +0200 |
| Last post | 2018-09-09 23:54 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 287 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-09-09 00:32 +0200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-09 17:19 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-09-09 11:26 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2018-11-06 09:14 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-06 23:23 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-09 18:17 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-09 11:50 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server anon <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-09-10 15:26 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-10 13:34 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-10 16:39 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-10 17:34 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server anon <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-09-10 16:56 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-11 13:34 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-10 18:39 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-11 16:35 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-11 06:51 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-12 08:41 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-11 14:42 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2018-09-11 16:51 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-11 14:55 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-11 06:21 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-12 08:46 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-11 14:47 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-12 13:47 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-12 06:51 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2018-11-06 09:21 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2018-11-06 10:48 -0600
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 11:59 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server anon <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-09-10 20:39 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-09-10 23:20 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-11 16:30 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-11 14:59 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-09-11 17:08 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-12 00:28 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-09-11 20:46 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-12 18:17 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-09-12 19:34 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-13 13:59 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-09-13 16:57 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-13 22:39 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Elden <usenet@moondog.org> - 2018-09-14 20:13 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-15 11:54 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-09-15 08:41 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-15 16:04 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-15 15:55 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2018-11-06 09:24 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2018-11-06 15:53 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 12:29 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 12:34 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 12:51 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 12:55 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 13:35 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-06 11:17 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 17:51 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-06 15:05 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 20:00 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-06 17:29 -0800
OT: About OS/2 (Was:Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server) Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-07 09:16 -0500
Re: OT: About OS/2 (Was:Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server) SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 09:58 -0500
Re: OT: About OS/2 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-09 19:07 +0000
Re: OT: About OS/2 Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 14:25 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nobody <nobodysaysitalldoesntit@nobo.org> - 2018-11-06 18:14 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 20:01 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 19:06 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 14:13 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2018-11-07 18:58 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 18:04 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-07 17:13 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 14:58 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 21:19 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 21:25 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-07 09:25 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 09:33 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 10:44 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 11:13 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-07 08:43 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 11:46 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-07 11:51 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 12:05 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 12:36 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 13:11 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 12:41 -0600
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-07 14:23 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 00:33 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 09:20 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 10:49 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-08 10:13 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 07:45 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 14:12 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 14:22 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 13:22 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 19:00 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 20:10 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 22:16 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 20:18 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 21:09 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-08 10:06 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 15:00 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-08 12:37 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 19:08 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-08 16:19 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 14:31 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-09 11:56 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 15:51 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 17:11 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 19:25 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 21:12 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 17:46 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 00:33 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 08:58 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 10:49 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 21:03 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 22:13 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 20:22 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 20:06 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 22:19 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 21:29 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-10 08:38 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-10 09:53 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-10 11:13 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-07 14:19 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-07 13:51 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 00:33 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 07:47 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 10:49 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 09:15 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 11:57 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 11:09 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 13:23 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 12:14 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-08 10:10 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 00:33 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 08:48 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 09:33 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 10:49 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 11:56 -0600
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 13:23 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 21:07 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 22:06 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 20:11 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 22:19 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 20:32 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-09 09:54 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-09 11:48 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 11:45 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-09 21:35 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 12:01 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-09 21:33 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 15:13 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-09 22:19 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 15:23 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-09 22:29 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 15:46 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-09 23:27 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 16:50 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-10 00:19 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 21:29 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-10 09:40 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-10 11:17 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-09 17:59 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 15:09 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 15:20 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 19:41 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-10 00:51 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 21:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-10 18:14 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-10 11:17 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-10 18:27 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 21:26 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-10 18:22 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-10 18:56 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-11 12:09 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 16:08 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-11 16:38 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 17:26 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-11 18:01 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 11:30 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-11 18:53 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 12:54 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-11 21:03 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 14:52 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-11 22:26 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 15:39 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-11 19:26 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-12 02:43 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 20:45 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 20:43 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-12 09:03 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-12 12:08 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-12 13:40 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-12 18:33 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-13 08:53 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-12 16:35 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-12 14:22 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-12 22:00 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-13 08:51 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-13 23:49 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-13 19:51 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 13:22 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-15 09:27 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 16:35 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-15 12:09 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 17:17 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-15 12:49 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 18:01 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-15 13:23 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 18:36 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 19:01 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-15 14:32 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 19:47 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-15 15:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 21:09 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 20:02 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-15 13:49 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-10 09:48 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-10 11:16 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-10 18:20 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-10 18:57 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-11 09:06 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-11 17:11 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 17:26 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 21:27 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 14:57 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 15:21 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 14:57 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2018-11-08 15:05 -0600
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2018-11-08 15:35 -0600
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 19:09 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-09 14:35 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 14:50 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 14:23 -0600
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 19:02 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 19:04 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 19:39 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 14:50 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2018-11-09 13:19 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 17:11 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 17:11 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 19:38 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 20:08 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 21:33 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 22:22 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-10 10:02 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-10 13:55 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 19:47 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 20:08 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 21:45 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 22:22 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-09 14:53 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 10:20 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 09:29 -0600
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 15:13 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 20:56 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 10:49 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 20:57 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 09:05 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-08 12:35 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 18:56 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 20:11 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 12:41 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 13:11 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-07 11:47 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 12:31 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 13:11 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-07 14:31 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 00:33 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 09:11 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 17:55 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 00:33 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-12 16:11 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-09-12 14:10 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-12 18:35 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 23:54 +0800
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
| From | Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 12:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ps26lj$11te$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #119295 |
On 2018-11-08 12:00 PM, Wolf K wrote: > On 2018-11-08 13:06, Alan Baker wrote: >> On 2018-11-07 11:23 AM, Wolf K wrote: >>> On 2018-11-07 12:11, nospam wrote: >>> [...] >>>> microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on >>>> windows. >>> [...] >>> >>> https://www.reference.com/technology/history-microsoft-word-534eb9f5980d955 >>> >>> >> >> The first version of Word for the Mac was released in 1985. >> >> The first version for Windows didn't arrive until 1989, and very >> nearly the end of 1989 at that (November). > > From the cuted souirce: > > "Microsoft Word, first released in 1983 as "Multi-Tool Word," is a word > processor available as a standalone product and as a component in the > Microsoft Office suite. The first version of Microsoft Word was based on > the framework of Bravo, the world's first word processor with a > graphical user interface. > > Following the renaming of Multi-Tool Word to Microsoft Word, Microsoft > released its first version of Word in October 1983 for the IBM PC. " > > Seems like some people want to insist that the first Word, a non-WYSIWYG > program, was not Word. > > Well, if you want to quibble, the quibbling contest is over that-away. > Are you incapable of READING? "microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on WINDOWS." Do you see the WORD you're consistently MISSING?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 19:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <me4FD.963398$Vl2.327698@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #119300 |
On 2018-11-08 15:37, Alan Baker wrote: > On 2018-11-08 12:00 PM, Wolf K wrote: >> On 2018-11-08 13:06, Alan Baker wrote: >>> On 2018-11-07 11:23 AM, Wolf K wrote: >>>> On 2018-11-07 12:11, nospam wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>> microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on >>>>> windows. >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> https://www.reference.com/technology/history-microsoft-word-534eb9f5980d955 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> The first version of Word for the Mac was released in 1985. >>> >>> The first version for Windows didn't arrive until 1989, and very >>> nearly the end of 1989 at that (November). >> >> From the cuted souirce: >> >> "Microsoft Word, first released in 1983 as "Multi-Tool Word," is a >> word processor available as a standalone product and as a component in >> the Microsoft Office suite. The first version of Microsoft Word was >> based on the framework of Bravo, the world's first word processor with >> a graphical user interface. >> >> Following the renaming of Multi-Tool Word to Microsoft Word, Microsoft >> released its first version of Word in October 1983 for the IBM PC. " >> >> Seems like some people want to insist that the first Word, a >> non-WYSIWYG program, was not Word. >> >> Well, if you want to quibble, the quibbling contest is over that-away. >> > > Are you incapable of READING? > > > "microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on WINDOWS." > > Do you see the WORD you're consistently MISSING? Yes, and I think it's not especially relevant. Windows was just DOS with a pretty face at the time. But that's a quibble. :-) I'll grant you that the WYSIWIG version was made for mac-os before it was ported to DOS/Windows. OK? -- Wolf K kirkwood40.blogspot.com "Gentics is not genealogy." (Gragham Coop, Ph.D.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 16:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ps2jrc$1mgo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #119314 |
On 2018-11-08 4:08 PM, Wolf K wrote: > On 2018-11-08 15:37, Alan Baker wrote: >> On 2018-11-08 12:00 PM, Wolf K wrote: >>> On 2018-11-08 13:06, Alan Baker wrote: >>>> On 2018-11-07 11:23 AM, Wolf K wrote: >>>>> On 2018-11-07 12:11, nospam wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>>> microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on >>>>>> windows. >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> https://www.reference.com/technology/history-microsoft-word-534eb9f5980d955 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> The first version of Word for the Mac was released in 1985. >>>> >>>> The first version for Windows didn't arrive until 1989, and very >>>> nearly the end of 1989 at that (November). >>> >>> From the cuted souirce: >>> >>> "Microsoft Word, first released in 1983 as "Multi-Tool Word," is a >>> word processor available as a standalone product and as a component >>> in the Microsoft Office suite. The first version of Microsoft Word >>> was based on the framework of Bravo, the world's first word processor >>> with a graphical user interface. >>> >>> Following the renaming of Multi-Tool Word to Microsoft Word, >>> Microsoft released its first version of Word in October 1983 for the >>> IBM PC. " >>> >>> Seems like some people want to insist that the first Word, a >>> non-WYSIWYG program, was not Word. >>> >>> Well, if you want to quibble, the quibbling contest is over that-away. >>> >> >> Are you incapable of READING? >> >> >> "microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on >> WINDOWS." >> >> Do you see the WORD you're consistently MISSING? > > Yes, and I think it's not especially relevant. Windows was just DOS with > a pretty face at the time. But that's a quibble. :-) But WORD for Windows was a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROGRAM that Word for DOS. > > I'll grant you that the WYSIWIG version was made for mac-os before it > was ported to DOS/Windows. It wasn't ported. > > OK? Sure. But why the HELL did it take so long?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <081120182152362638%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #119316 |
In article <ps2jrc$1mgo$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> wrote: > >>> Seems like some people want to insist that the first Word, a > >>> non-WYSIWYG program, was not Word. > >>> > >>> Well, if you want to quibble, the quibbling contest is over that-away. > >>> > >> > >> Are you incapable of READING? > >> > >> > >> "microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on > >> WINDOWS." > >> > >> Do you see the WORD you're consistently MISSING? > > > > Yes, and I think it's not especially relevant. Windows was just DOS with > > a pretty face at the time. But that's a quibble. :-) > > But WORD for Windows was a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROGRAM that Word for DOS. which was different than word for mac, all with three different code bases. many years later, microsoft tried having a common codebase for the mac and windows versions with word 6, but that turned out to be a complete disaster. > > I'll grant you that the WYSIWIG version was made for mac-os before it > > was ported to DOS/Windows. > > It wasn't ported. > > > > > OK? > Sure. But why the HELL did it take so long? some people just don't get it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 14:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <YflFD.143312$Ol2.74793@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #119316 |
On 2018-11-08 19:19, Alan Baker wrote: > On 2018-11-08 4:08 PM, Wolf K wrote: [...] >> I'll grant you that the WYSIWIG version was made for mac-os before it >> was ported to DOS/Windows. > > It wasn't ported. Agreed. "Ported" is one of those words whose technical meaning has been hopeless obscured. Hence its use in the cited article. >> >> OK? > Sure. But why the HELL did it take so long? Dunno. Mebbe because I had other things on what's left of my mind. I've been using it for almost 8 decades, so it's getting kinda frazzled. -- Wolf K kirkwood40.blogspot.com "Gentics is not genealogy." (Gragham Coop, Ph.D.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 11:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ps4op3$1b88$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #119365 |
On 2018-11-09 11:31 AM, Wolf K wrote: > On 2018-11-08 19:19, Alan Baker wrote: >> On 2018-11-08 4:08 PM, Wolf K wrote: > [...] >>> I'll grant you that the WYSIWIG version was made for mac-os before it >>> was ported to DOS/Windows. >> >> It wasn't ported. > > Agreed. "Ported" is one of those words whose technical meaning has been > hopeless obscured. Hence its use in the cited article. I'm not at all sorry to say that while it might be "one of those words" to you, that doesn't make what the article said any more correct. And even referring to the what "reference.com" wrote as an "article" is seriously devaluing the meaning of that term. I mean, come on: 4 paragraphs, the last of which is just about the donation of the source code? And it gets major facts wrong. Microsoft was NOT 'the first word processor to introduce the concept of "What You See Is What You Get," or WYSIWYG,'. > >>> >>> OK? >> Sure. But why the HELL did it take so long? > > Dunno. Mebbe because I had other things on what's left of my mind. I've > been using it for almost 8 decades, so it's getting kinda frazzled. May I suggest slowing down, actually reading what is being said to you, and thinking for a moment before you reply. There is actually no rush to hit "Send", you know. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 15:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JrmFD.650287$cL2.156632@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #119367 |
On 2018-11-09 14:56, Alan Baker wrote: > May I suggest slowing down, actually reading what is being said to you, > and thinking for a moment before you reply. > > There is actually no rush to hit "Send", you know. > > :-) Touche. -- Wolf K kirkwood40.blogspot.com "Gentics is not genealogy." (Gragham Coop, Ph.D.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 17:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <091120181711412249%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #119365 |
In article <YflFD.143312$Ol2.74793@fx17.iad>, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote: > >> I'll grant you that the WYSIWIG version was made for mac-os before it > >> was ported to DOS/Windows. > > > > It wasn't ported. > > Agreed. "Ported" is one of those words whose technical meaning has been > hopeless obscured. its meaning has *not* been obscured. > Hence its use in the cited article. in other words, sloppy reporting, and it's not the only error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 19:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ZzpFD.371638$vJ1.175857@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #119377 |
On 2018-11-09 17:11, nospam wrote: > In article <YflFD.143312$Ol2.74793@fx17.iad>, Wolf K > <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote: > >>>> I'll grant you that the WYSIWIG version was made for mac-os before it >>>> was ported to DOS/Windows. >>> >>> It wasn't ported. >> >> Agreed. "Ported" is one of those words whose technical meaning has been >> hopeless obscured. > > its meaning has *not* been obscured. For people in the trade, of course not. But you can't control how people outside the trade use the word. We don't have an Academie Anglaise to police our vocabulary. >> Hence its use in the cited article. > > in other words, sloppy reporting, and it's not the only error. Nah, just run-of-the mill writing for a general audience. No matter how you/I/every tech fulminate agianst it, technical terms' meanings become obscured. Technically, words don't have meanings, they have uses. When people outside the trade pick up a word, they will use it as seems good to them. The odds are that at the very least the term will be used with a wider scope. I don't know of a single technical term that escaped into the wild world of general usage whose use(s) didn't change in one or more ways. We all use words that no longer have their original, often technical, meaning. Eg, your use of "sloppy" above. Its earliest meaning was "muddy". Even "reporting" meant something other than "conveying the news" originally. The original meaning of "run-of-the-mill" is now so obscure that most people haven't a clue. "Audience" earlier meant "The royal act of listening to a subject's petition." And so it goes. While I agree that "ported" is the wrong technical term for what was actually done, for most people the technical difference between porting and building a new code base is irrelevant. The end result is what matters to them, so they will use the handiest word to express their meaning: what was written to run one OS was somehow rewritten to run on another. That's a meaning with a larger scope than the original, which it includes. You can't win. You can't break even. You can't get out of the game. -- Wolf K kirkwood40.blogspot.com "Genetics is not genealogy." (Graham Coop, Ph.D.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <081120182152342522%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #119314 |
In article <me4FD.963398$Vl2.327698@fx46.iad>, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote: > >> Following the renaming of Multi-Tool Word to Microsoft Word, Microsoft > >> released its first version of Word in October 1983 for the IBM PC. " > >> > >> Seems like some people want to insist that the first Word, a > >> non-WYSIWYG program, was not Word. > >> > >> Well, if you want to quibble, the quibbling contest is over that-away. > >> > > > > Are you incapable of READING? > > > > "microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on WINDOWS." > > > > Do you see the WORD you're consistently MISSING? > > Yes, and I think it's not especially relevant. Windows was just DOS with > a pretty face at the time. But that's a quibble. :-) it's very relevant. > I'll grant you that the WYSIWIG version was made for mac-os before it > was ported to DOS/Windows. that's what i originally said, except for it being ported, which it was very clearly not (especially *to* dos), nor did i mention dos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <081120181630081690%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #119295 |
In article <DB0FD.1322538$YL3.766711@fx48.iad>, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote: > >>> microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on windows. > >> > >> > >> https://www.reference.com/technology/history-microsoft-word-534eb9f5980d955 > >> > > > > The first version of Word for the Mac was released in 1985. > > > > The first version for Windows didn't arrive until 1989, and very nearly > > the end of 1989 at that (November). > > From the cuted souirce: > > "Microsoft Word, first released in 1983 as "Multi-Tool Word," is a word > processor available as a standalone product and as a component in the > Microsoft Office suite. The first version of Microsoft Word was based on > the framework of Bravo, the world's first word processor with a > graphical user interface. > > Following the renaming of Multi-Tool Word to Microsoft Word, Microsoft > released its first version of Word in October 1983 for the IBM PC. " > > Seems like some people want to insist that the first Word, a non-WYSIWYG > program, was not Word. seems like some people, namely you, is fixated on the dos version of word when dos was *never* *mentioned*. > Well, if you want to quibble, the quibbling contest is over that-away. it's not quibbling when you're yapping about irrelevant bits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 21:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <126FD.234747$X82.72926@fx22.iad> |
| In reply to | #119295 |
On 2018-11-08 3:00 p.m., Wolf K wrote: > On 2018-11-08 13:06, Alan Baker wrote: >> On 2018-11-07 11:23 AM, Wolf K wrote: >>> On 2018-11-07 12:11, nospam wrote: >>> [...] >>>> microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on >>>> windows. >>> [...] >>> >>> https://www.reference.com/technology/history-microsoft-word-534eb9f5980d955 >>> >>> >> >> The first version of Word for the Mac was released in 1985. >> >> The first version for Windows didn't arrive until 1989, and very >> nearly the end of 1989 at that (November). > > From the cuted souirce: > > "Microsoft Word, first released in 1983 as "Multi-Tool Word," is a word > processor available as a standalone product and as a component in the > Microsoft Office suite. The first version of Microsoft Word was based on > the framework of Bravo, the world's first word processor with a > graphical user interface. > > Following the renaming of Multi-Tool Word to Microsoft Word, Microsoft > released its first version of Word in October 1983 for the IBM PC. " > > Seems like some people want to insist that the first Word, a non-WYSIWYG > program, was not Word. > > Well, if you want to quibble, the quibbling contest is over that-away. Found this: <http://toastytech.com/guis/word115.html> -- SilverSlimer Minds: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 17:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <WWJED.530367$Ac3.259745@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #119217 |
On 2018-11-07 12:11 p.m., nospam wrote: > In article <SoFED.470277$um3.190179@fx32.iad>, SilverSlimer > <silver@slim.er> wrote: > >>>> Windows was DOS with a pre-built menu system plus a few simple to use >>>> settings (such as customising the menus for different users). It was >>>> essentially useless until 3.x. >>> >>> win 3.x was only slightly better than earlier versions. as i said, >>> windows '95 was when it was actually usable. >> >> Not true, essentially since many companies at the time used Windows 3.11 >> for their businesses and some still use it to this day. > > win 3.x was only slightly better than dos. it wasn't until win '95 when > windows took off because only then was it functionally better than what > existed before. > > put another way, win '95 caught up to where mac os was a decade earlier. > > microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on windows. True about the first part, but Windows 95 was actually a much better operating system than the Mac OS of the time so they didn't catch up as much as they improved upon Apple's archaic design. >>>> There's more. FWIW, I preferred DOS over Windows, and OS/2 over both. >>>> I liked Mac OS, but didn't like Apple's unwillingness to permit device >>>> customisation beyond what they decided was acceptable. A DOS machine, >>>> and hence Windows, was almost infinitely customisable. >>> >>> complete nonsense. >>> >>> apple did not stop *anyone* from customizing anything, and in fact, mac >>> os was designed to be tweaked and modified in all sorts of ways, with >>> full documentation as to how to do it. >>> >>> because of that, a whole category of mac software and hardware existed, >>> doing things not possible on dos or windows. >> >> That must be why Steve Jobs specifically stated that he wanted the Mac >> to have proprietary ports, no internal expansion slots and an operating >> system which looked the same no matter whose machine you were using. In >> other words, that must be why Jobs did the exact opposite of what >> Wozniak did with the Apple ][ whereupon he insisted on forcing people to >> upgrade a whole computer to get one or two additional functions. > > he didn't say that, the ports weren't proprietary, and nobody had to > upgrade a whole computer to get additional functions. The original Mac line was very much proprietary. Read the line about the Macintosh 128k at Wikipedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K#Peripherals> Absolutely none of what the Macintosh included as ports was standard and that's one of the many reasons you couldn't just buy any printer and had to rely on whatever Apply would ship. > in fact, the pinouts of the ports were documented in inside macintosh, > a book available in any bookstore, along with full documentation of mac > os. *anyone* could buy it, not just developers. the information was not > secret. > > mac os was *very* customizable. anyone who claims otherwise doesn't > know what they're talking about, regurgitating the old myths. You have a very bizarre idea of what proprietary means. It's not closed, it's proprietary meaning that it belongs to Apple and is not shared by other companies. Proprietary comes from the French word "propriété" meaning that it has an owner which, in this case, is Apple. In the same way that the Macintosh had proprietary connectors, so did the PCjr and the PS/2 in the MCA internal expansion port. >>>> As was >>>> Commodore's OS, but that's another story. >>> >>> actually, not as much, but the key problem was it had very little >>> software available compared to mac, dos and windows. software >>> developers were not interested. >> >> In comparison, sure. THAT is a correct statement especially the further >> users got into the lifespan of a Commodore Amiga machine. However, fewer >> titles does not translate into a machine being completely ignored by the >> public or developers either. > > it was mostly ignored. not zero, but close enough. That's a much fairer assessment. -- SilverSlimer Proud recipient of special entitlements and fierce adversary of equal rights Minds: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 00:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <081120180033254276%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #119231 |
In article <WWJED.530367$Ac3.259745@fx45.iad>, SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: > >>>> Windows was DOS with a pre-built menu system plus a few simple to use > >>>> settings (such as customising the menus for different users). It was > >>>> essentially useless until 3.x. > >>> > >>> win 3.x was only slightly better than earlier versions. as i said, > >>> windows '95 was when it was actually usable. > >> > >> Not true, essentially since many companies at the time used Windows 3.11 > >> for their businesses and some still use it to this day. > > > > win 3.x was only slightly better than dos. it wasn't until win '95 when > > windows took off because only then was it functionally better than what > > existed before. > > > > put another way, win '95 caught up to where mac os was a decade earlier. > > > > microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on windows. > > True about the first part, but Windows 95 was actually a much better > operating system than the Mac OS of the time no, it definitely wasn't. > so they didn't catch up as > much as they improved upon Apple's archaic design. mac os wasn't archaic in the least and was well ahead of what existed at the time. win95 & win98 still had dos under the hood. > >>>> There's more. FWIW, I preferred DOS over Windows, and OS/2 over both. > >>>> I liked Mac OS, but didn't like Apple's unwillingness to permit device > >>>> customisation beyond what they decided was acceptable. A DOS machine, > >>>> and hence Windows, was almost infinitely customisable. > >>> > >>> complete nonsense. > >>> > >>> apple did not stop *anyone* from customizing anything, and in fact, mac > >>> os was designed to be tweaked and modified in all sorts of ways, with > >>> full documentation as to how to do it. > >>> > >>> because of that, a whole category of mac software and hardware existed, > >>> doing things not possible on dos or windows. > >> > >> That must be why Steve Jobs specifically stated that he wanted the Mac > >> to have proprietary ports, no internal expansion slots and an operating > >> system which looked the same no matter whose machine you were using. In > >> other words, that must be why Jobs did the exact opposite of what > >> Wozniak did with the Apple ][ whereupon he insisted on forcing people to > >> upgrade a whole computer to get one or two additional functions. > > > > he didn't say that, the ports weren't proprietary, and nobody had to > > upgrade a whole computer to get additional functions. > > The original Mac line was very much proprietary. it was not. > Read the line about the > Macintosh 128k at Wikipedia: > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K#Peripherals> > > Absolutely none of what the Macintosh included as ports was standard and > that's one of the many reasons you couldn't just buy any printer and had > to rely on whatever Apply would ship. nonsense. the original mac used two industry standard rs422 serial ports, a superset of rs232. wikipedia is wrong when it calls rs422 nonstandard. as for printers, that required little more than writing a printer driver, or putting postscript in the printer. there were non-apple printers, although not that many early on since writing a printer driver was fairly involved and printer companies were still deciding whether supporting the mac was worth it from a business perspective. apple did not prevent anything. > > in fact, the pinouts of the ports were documented in inside macintosh, > > a book available in any bookstore, along with full documentation of mac > > os. *anyone* could buy it, not just developers. the information was not > > secret. > > > > mac os was *very* customizable. anyone who claims otherwise doesn't > > know what they're talking about, regurgitating the old myths. > > You have a very bizarre idea of what proprietary means. It's not closed, > it's proprietary meaning that it belongs to Apple and is not shared by > other companies. Proprietary comes from the French word "propriété" > meaning that it has an owner which, in this case, is Apple. In the same > way that the Macintosh had proprietary connectors, so did the PCjr and > the PS/2 in the MCA internal expansion port. apple did design quite a bit and the ip did belong to them, however, the details were available for anyone to write apps or design hardware. many companies did exactly that. as i said, inside mac was sold in normal bookstores alongside other computer books. *anyone* could buy a copy and start writing apps, without apple even knowing about it, let alone approve it. > >>>> As was > >>>> Commodore's OS, but that's another story. > >>> > >>> actually, not as much, but the key problem was it had very little > >>> software available compared to mac, dos and windows. software > >>> developers were not interested. > >> > >> In comparison, sure. THAT is a correct statement especially the further > >> users got into the lifespan of a Commodore Amiga machine. However, fewer > >> titles does not translate into a machine being completely ignored by the > >> public or developers either. > > > > it was mostly ignored. not zero, but close enough. > > That's a much fairer assessment. and quite accurate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 08:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ziXED.643698$cL2.14429@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #119246 |
On 2018-11-07 11:33 p.m., nospam wrote: > In article <WWJED.530367$Ac3.259745@fx45.iad>, SilverSlimer > <silver@slim.er> wrote: > >>>>>> Windows was DOS with a pre-built menu system plus a few simple to use >>>>>> settings (such as customising the menus for different users). It was >>>>>> essentially useless until 3.x. >>>>> >>>>> win 3.x was only slightly better than earlier versions. as i said, >>>>> windows '95 was when it was actually usable. >>>> >>>> Not true, essentially since many companies at the time used Windows 3.11 >>>> for their businesses and some still use it to this day. >>> >>> win 3.x was only slightly better than dos. it wasn't until win '95 when >>> windows took off because only then was it functionally better than what >>> existed before. >>> >>> put another way, win '95 caught up to where mac os was a decade earlier. >>> >>> microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on windows. >> >> True about the first part, but Windows 95 was actually a much better >> operating system than the Mac OS of the time > > no, it definitely wasn't. > >> so they didn't catch up as >> much as they improved upon Apple's archaic design. > > mac os wasn't archaic in the least and was well ahead of what existed > at the time. > > win95 & win98 still had dos under the hood. It had DOS as much as it needed to since people, by using Windows 95, were migrating from a massive platform onto a new one and still needed some sort of assurance that their software would continue to operate. Much of it could within Windows 9x, but some couldn't and being able to load DOS to run it became necessary. However, 9x in general was more capable than MacOS at the time and even Apple knew it. That's why they started to develop Copland in response to it and eventually felt the obligation to attempt to purchase BeOS. It didn't happen and they moved onto NeXT. >>>>>> There's more. FWIW, I preferred DOS over Windows, and OS/2 over both. >>>>>> I liked Mac OS, but didn't like Apple's unwillingness to permit device >>>>>> customisation beyond what they decided was acceptable. A DOS machine, >>>>>> and hence Windows, was almost infinitely customisable. >>>>> >>>>> complete nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> apple did not stop *anyone* from customizing anything, and in fact, mac >>>>> os was designed to be tweaked and modified in all sorts of ways, with >>>>> full documentation as to how to do it. >>>>> >>>>> because of that, a whole category of mac software and hardware existed, >>>>> doing things not possible on dos or windows. >>>> >>>> That must be why Steve Jobs specifically stated that he wanted the Mac >>>> to have proprietary ports, no internal expansion slots and an operating >>>> system which looked the same no matter whose machine you were using. In >>>> other words, that must be why Jobs did the exact opposite of what >>>> Wozniak did with the Apple ][ whereupon he insisted on forcing people to >>>> upgrade a whole computer to get one or two additional functions. >>> >>> he didn't say that, the ports weren't proprietary, and nobody had to >>> upgrade a whole computer to get additional functions. >> >> The original Mac line was very much proprietary. > > it was not. You clearly see the Mac's history with rose-coloured glasses and have a skewed definition of proprietary. >> Read the line about the >> Macintosh 128k at Wikipedia: >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K#Peripherals> >> >> Absolutely none of what the Macintosh included as ports was standard and >> that's one of the many reasons you couldn't just buy any printer and had >> to rely on whatever Apply would ship. > > nonsense. the original mac used two industry standard rs422 serial > ports, a superset of rs232. wikipedia is wrong when it calls rs422 > nonstandard. > > as for printers, that required little more than writing a printer > driver, or putting postscript in the printer. > > there were non-apple printers, although not that many early on since > writing a printer driver was fairly involved and printer companies were > still deciding whether supporting the mac was worth it from a business > perspective. apple did not prevent anything. Yet, had Apple used the same ports as what the PC and other platforms were using, chances are that the number of available printers would have been multiplied. They purposely chose a different standard and limited a customer's options. >>> in fact, the pinouts of the ports were documented in inside macintosh, >>> a book available in any bookstore, along with full documentation of mac >>> os. *anyone* could buy it, not just developers. the information was not >>> secret. >>> >>> mac os was *very* customizable. anyone who claims otherwise doesn't >>> know what they're talking about, regurgitating the old myths. >> >> You have a very bizarre idea of what proprietary means. It's not closed, >> it's proprietary meaning that it belongs to Apple and is not shared by >> other companies. Proprietary comes from the French word "propriété" >> meaning that it has an owner which, in this case, is Apple. In the same >> way that the Macintosh had proprietary connectors, so did the PCjr and >> the PS/2 in the MCA internal expansion port. > > apple did design quite a bit and the ip did belong to them, however, > the details were available for anyone to write apps or design hardware. > > many companies did exactly that. > > as i said, inside mac was sold in normal bookstores alongside other > computer books. *anyone* could buy a copy and start writing apps, > without apple even knowing about it, let alone approve it. We're still at an impasse in regards to your definition of proprietary. Proprietary does not prevent anyone from developing for a platform. Windows is proprietary yet people develop for it all the time. However, on the PC side, only the operating system is proprietary if you use Windows and the hardware is very much standardized across the board, unlike the original Mac and much of Apple's hardware going into the late 90s. < snip > -- SilverSlimer Minds: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 10:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <081120181049101184%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #119253 |
In article <ziXED.643698$cL2.14429@fx43.iad>, SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: > > It had DOS as much as it needed to since people, by using Windows 95, > were migrating from a massive platform onto a new one and still needed > some sort of assurance that their software would continue to operate. > Much of it could within Windows 9x, but some couldn't and being able to > load DOS to run it became necessary. win 95 was a shell on top of dos, which greatly limited what it could do. > However, 9x in general was more > capable than MacOS at the time and even Apple knew it. nonsense. > That's why they > started to develop Copland in response to it and eventually felt the > obligation to attempt to purchase BeOS. It didn't happen and they moved > onto NeXT. no, that's not why they started to develop copland. copland actually began in the late 1980s, long before there was a windows 95 or even win 3.x, but by 1995, it was a mismanaged mess, in a mismanaged company. > >> The original Mac line was very much proprietary. > > > > it was not. > > You clearly see the Mac's history with rose-coloured glasses and have a > skewed definition of proprietary. more accurately, you have a clear *lack* of knowledge about many things apple, believing many of the myths. > >> Read the line about the > >> Macintosh 128k at Wikipedia: > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K#Peripherals> > >> > >> Absolutely none of what the Macintosh included as ports was standard and > >> that's one of the many reasons you couldn't just buy any printer and had > >> to rely on whatever Apply would ship. > > > > nonsense. the original mac used two industry standard rs422 serial > > ports, a superset of rs232. wikipedia is wrong when it calls rs422 > > nonstandard. > > > > as for printers, that required little more than writing a printer > > driver, or putting postscript in the printer. > > > > there were non-apple printers, although not that many early on since > > writing a printer driver was fairly involved and printer companies were > > still deciding whether supporting the mac was worth it from a business > > perspective. apple did not prevent anything. > > Yet, had Apple used the same ports as what the PC and other platforms > were using, chances are that the number of available printers would have > been multiplied. They purposely chose a different standard and limited a > customer's options. completely wrong. apple did not limit anything. the imagewriter was actually a c.itoh printer which used a standard rs232 connection, and in fact, worked with dos computers. the issue was writing drivers for graphic output instead of using it as a generic dot matrix printer that spits out whatever ascii text it receives in a single font. in mac os, a printer was just another window, just one that was rendered on paper rather than screen, which was how all apps could be wysiwyg without any additional effort by the developer. writing mac printer drivers was a fair amount of work, and a lot of printer makers chose not to do it, at least until the mac gained some traction and became worth their effort. apple not only didn't limit what printers could be used, but they had documentation on how to write printer drivers and also offered tech support to anyone who wanted to do it. not only that, but there was at least one mac software company that wrote printer drivers for printer manufacturers. macs also supported postscript, another industry standard, however, that was better suited for laser printers and high end typesetting equipment than cheap dot matrix printers. > > We're still at an impasse in regards to your definition of proprietary. > Proprietary does not prevent anyone from developing for a platform. > Windows is proprietary yet people develop for it all the time. However, > on the PC side, only the operating system is proprietary if you use > Windows and the hardware is very much standardized across the board, > unlike the original Mac and much of Apple's hardware going into the late > 90s. apple uses industry standards wherever possible. the problem is that many of those are not that good, so apple either chose something more capable or they designed something better. the original mac had rs422 serial ports, which were a superset of rs232. existing rs232 devices worked perfectly fine without *any* issue, however, they could never be as fast as rs422 devices. the mac ii's slots were nubus, which was designed by texas instruments. later, apple switched to pci slots, also not their design. as mentioned above, macs supported postscript, another industry standard. the list goes on...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 21:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <HV5FD.234743$X82.231542@fx22.iad> |
| In reply to | #119270 |
On 2018-11-08 9:49 a.m., nospam wrote: > In article <ziXED.643698$cL2.14429@fx43.iad>, SilverSlimer > <silver@slim.er> wrote: > >> >> It had DOS as much as it needed to since people, by using Windows 95, >> were migrating from a massive platform onto a new one and still needed >> some sort of assurance that their software would continue to operate. >> Much of it could within Windows 9x, but some couldn't and being able to >> load DOS to run it became necessary. > > win 95 was a shell on top of dos, which greatly limited what it could > do. That's how most people saw it as well and I have to admit that I had no reason to think otherwise but Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy made a decent case for why it _wasn't_ just a shell. >> However, 9x in general was more >> capable than MacOS at the time and even Apple knew it. > > nonsense. Nope. >> That's why they >> started to develop Copland in response to it and eventually felt the >> obligation to attempt to purchase BeOS. It didn't happen and they moved >> onto NeXT. > > no, that's not why they started to develop copland. > > copland actually began in the late 1980s, long before there was a > windows 95 or even win 3.x, but by 1995, it was a mismanaged mess, in a > mismanaged company. Regardless of when the development started, there was no doubt that Copland was going to end up being a response to Windows 9x since 9x remedied many of the drawbacks of MacOS. >>>> The original Mac line was very much proprietary. >>> >>> it was not. >> >> You clearly see the Mac's history with rose-coloured glasses and have a >> skewed definition of proprietary. > > more accurately, you have a clear *lack* of knowledge about many things > apple, believing many of the myths. I have no reason to doubt the historians especially since they are not zealots in any way. >>>> Read the line about the >>>> Macintosh 128k at Wikipedia: >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K#Peripherals> >>>> >>>> Absolutely none of what the Macintosh included as ports was standard and >>>> that's one of the many reasons you couldn't just buy any printer and had >>>> to rely on whatever Apply would ship. >>> >>> nonsense. the original mac used two industry standard rs422 serial >>> ports, a superset of rs232. wikipedia is wrong when it calls rs422 >>> nonstandard. >>> >>> as for printers, that required little more than writing a printer >>> driver, or putting postscript in the printer. >>> >>> there were non-apple printers, although not that many early on since >>> writing a printer driver was fairly involved and printer companies were >>> still deciding whether supporting the mac was worth it from a business >>> perspective. apple did not prevent anything. >> >> Yet, had Apple used the same ports as what the PC and other platforms >> were using, chances are that the number of available printers would have >> been multiplied. They purposely chose a different standard and limited a >> customer's options. > > completely wrong. apple did not limit anything. > > the imagewriter was actually a c.itoh printer which used a standard > rs232 connection, and in fact, worked with dos computers. > > the issue was writing drivers for graphic output instead of using it as > a generic dot matrix printer that spits out whatever ascii text it > receives in a single font. > > in mac os, a printer was just another window, just one that was > rendered on paper rather than screen, which was how all apps could be > wysiwyg without any additional effort by the developer. > > writing mac printer drivers was a fair amount of work, and a lot of > printer makers chose not to do it, at least until the mac gained some > traction and became worth their effort. > > apple not only didn't limit what printers could be used, but they had > documentation on how to write printer drivers and also offered tech > support to anyone who wanted to do it. > > not only that, but there was at least one mac software company that > wrote printer drivers for printer manufacturers. > > macs also supported postscript, another industry standard, however, > that was better suited for laser printers and high end typesetting > equipment than cheap dot matrix printers. Quite possible, I won't challenge that. >> We're still at an impasse in regards to your definition of proprietary. >> Proprietary does not prevent anyone from developing for a platform. >> Windows is proprietary yet people develop for it all the time. However, >> on the PC side, only the operating system is proprietary if you use >> Windows and the hardware is very much standardized across the board, >> unlike the original Mac and much of Apple's hardware going into the late >> 90s. > > apple uses industry standards wherever possible. > > the problem is that many of those are not that good, so apple either > chose something more capable or they designed something better. > > the original mac had rs422 serial ports, which were a superset of > rs232. existing rs232 devices worked perfectly fine without *any* > issue, however, they could never be as fast as rs422 devices. > > the mac ii's slots were nubus, which was designed by texas instruments. > later, apple switched to pci slots, also not their design. > > as mentioned above, macs supported postscript, another industry > standard. > > the list goes on... You make a good case and I'd be a fool to challenge you. I surrender to your wealth of knowledge, good sir. -- SilverSlimer Minds: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <081120182152392780%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #119322 |
In article <HV5FD.234743$X82.231542@fx22.iad>, SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: > >> It had DOS as much as it needed to since people, by using Windows 95, > >> were migrating from a massive platform onto a new one and still needed > >> some sort of assurance that their software would continue to operate. > >> Much of it could within Windows 9x, but some couldn't and being able to > >> load DOS to run it became necessary. > > > > win 95 was a shell on top of dos, which greatly limited what it could > > do. > > That's how most people saw it as well and I have to admit that I had no > reason to think otherwise because that's what it is. > but Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy > made a decent case for why it _wasn't_ just a shell. much of what he says is wrong, especially about macs. > >> However, 9x in general was more > >> capable than MacOS at the time and even Apple knew it. > > > > nonsense. > > Nope. not nope. win95 was catching up to where mac os was a decade earlier, but still wasn't quite there. apple's problem was that they mostly sat on their butt all that time, with a lot of internal infighting and canceled projects, plus microsoft abused their monopoly position. > >> That's why they > >> started to develop Copland in response to it and eventually felt the > >> obligation to attempt to purchase BeOS. It didn't happen and they moved > >> onto NeXT. > > > > no, that's not why they started to develop copland. > > > > copland actually began in the late 1980s, long before there was a > > windows 95 or even win 3.x, but by 1995, it was a mismanaged mess, in a > > mismanaged company. > > Regardless of when the development started, there was no doubt that > Copland was going to end up being a response to Windows 9x since 9x > remedied many of the drawbacks of MacOS. nope. copland began well before win95 and was very definitely *not* a response to win95. > >>> > >>> there were non-apple printers, although not that many early on since > >>> writing a printer driver was fairly involved and printer companies were > >>> still deciding whether supporting the mac was worth it from a business > >>> perspective. apple did not prevent anything. > >> > >> Yet, had Apple used the same ports as what the PC and other platforms > >> were using, chances are that the number of available printers would have > >> been multiplied. They purposely chose a different standard and limited a > >> customer's options. > > > > completely wrong. apple did not limit anything. > > > > the imagewriter was actually a c.itoh printer which used a standard > > rs232 connection, and in fact, worked with dos computers. > > > > the issue was writing drivers for graphic output instead of using it as > > a generic dot matrix printer that spits out whatever ascii text it > > receives in a single font. > > > > in mac os, a printer was just another window, just one that was > > rendered on paper rather than screen, which was how all apps could be > > wysiwyg without any additional effort by the developer. > > > > writing mac printer drivers was a fair amount of work, and a lot of > > printer makers chose not to do it, at least until the mac gained some > > traction and became worth their effort. > > > > apple not only didn't limit what printers could be used, but they had > > documentation on how to write printer drivers and also offered tech > > support to anyone who wanted to do it. > > > > not only that, but there was at least one mac software company that > > wrote printer drivers for printer manufacturers. > > > > macs also supported postscript, another industry standard, however, > > that was better suited for laser printers and high end typesetting > > equipment than cheap dot matrix printers. > > Quite possible, I won't challenge that. not only possible, but that's exactly what happened. > >> We're still at an impasse in regards to your definition of proprietary. > >> Proprietary does not prevent anyone from developing for a platform. > >> Windows is proprietary yet people develop for it all the time. However, > >> on the PC side, only the operating system is proprietary if you use > >> Windows and the hardware is very much standardized across the board, > >> unlike the original Mac and much of Apple's hardware going into the late > >> 90s. > > > > apple uses industry standards wherever possible. > > > > the problem is that many of those are not that good, so apple either > > chose something more capable or they designed something better. > > > > the original mac had rs422 serial ports, which were a superset of > > rs232. existing rs232 devices worked perfectly fine without *any* > > issue, however, they could never be as fast as rs422 devices. > > > > the mac ii's slots were nubus, which was designed by texas instruments. > > later, apple switched to pci slots, also not their design. > > > > as mentioned above, macs supported postscript, another industry > > standard. > > > > the list goes on... > > You make a good case and I'd be a fool to challenge you. I surrender to > your wealth of knowledge, good sir. thanks. sometimes i'm surprised at how much i remember from back then. btw, i dug up inside mac, and not only did it give the pinouts for the various ports, but it even gave partial schematics, in addition to how to write drivers. <https://i.imgur.com/P369DRz.jpg> <https://i.imgur.com/kAACU57.jpg> anyone who wanted to design hardware or software for the mac could easily do so, something which many companies did. those who claim apple blocked anything were simply looking for an excuse to blame someone else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 22:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tX6FD.289279$XG2.181257@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #119335 |
On 2018-11-08 9:52 p.m., nospam wrote: > In article <HV5FD.234743$X82.231542@fx22.iad>, SilverSlimer > <silver@slim.er> wrote: > >>>> It had DOS as much as it needed to since people, by using Windows 95, >>>> were migrating from a massive platform onto a new one and still needed >>>> some sort of assurance that their software would continue to operate. >>>> Much of it could within Windows 9x, but some couldn't and being able to >>>> load DOS to run it became necessary. >>> >>> win 95 was a shell on top of dos, which greatly limited what it could >>> do. >> >> That's how most people saw it as well and I have to admit that I had no >> reason to think otherwise > > because that's what it is. > >> but Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy >> made a decent case for why it _wasn't_ just a shell. > > much of what he says is wrong, especially about macs. Well, he _has_ been proven wrong on several occasions but he tends to get things right along the way. >>>> However, 9x in general was more >>>> capable than MacOS at the time and even Apple knew it. >>> >>> nonsense. >> >> Nope. > > not nope. > > win95 was catching up to where mac os was a decade earlier, but still > wasn't quite there. > > apple's problem was that they mostly sat on their butt all that time, > with a lot of internal infighting and canceled projects, plus microsoft > abused their monopoly position. To me, it's fairly debatable as to whether Microsoft already had a monopoly position by the time Windows 95 was released. If there was a moment in time at which other companies could still oust Microsoft, it was 1994/1995 but admittedly, once 95 was released, it was pretty clear that a monopoly was forming. Nobody could deny that it was an unprecedented success. As for Mac sitting on its ass, I agree since that's more or less what I experienced. The PC was moving forward fairly quickly but it seemed that Apple, most of the time, just came up with pointless ideas which didn't benefit the company or users in any way. They seemed to be banking on the fact that their product wasn't the PC and was therefore interesting as an alternative. >>>> That's why they >>>> started to develop Copland in response to it and eventually felt the >>>> obligation to attempt to purchase BeOS. It didn't happen and they moved >>>> onto NeXT. >>> >>> no, that's not why they started to develop copland. >>> >>> copland actually began in the late 1980s, long before there was a >>> windows 95 or even win 3.x, but by 1995, it was a mismanaged mess, in a >>> mismanaged company. >> >> Regardless of when the development started, there was no doubt that >> Copland was going to end up being a response to Windows 9x since 9x >> remedied many of the drawbacks of MacOS. > > nope. copland began well before win95 and was very definitely *not* a > response to win95. What I'm saying is that had it released, it would have been _perceived_ as a response to Windows 95. >>>>> there were non-apple printers, although not that many early on since >>>>> writing a printer driver was fairly involved and printer companies were >>>>> still deciding whether supporting the mac was worth it from a business >>>>> perspective. apple did not prevent anything. >>>> >>>> Yet, had Apple used the same ports as what the PC and other platforms >>>> were using, chances are that the number of available printers would have >>>> been multiplied. They purposely chose a different standard and limited a >>>> customer's options. >>> >>> completely wrong. apple did not limit anything. >>> >>> the imagewriter was actually a c.itoh printer which used a standard >>> rs232 connection, and in fact, worked with dos computers. >>> >>> the issue was writing drivers for graphic output instead of using it as >>> a generic dot matrix printer that spits out whatever ascii text it >>> receives in a single font. >>> >>> in mac os, a printer was just another window, just one that was >>> rendered on paper rather than screen, which was how all apps could be >>> wysiwyg without any additional effort by the developer. >>> >>> writing mac printer drivers was a fair amount of work, and a lot of >>> printer makers chose not to do it, at least until the mac gained some >>> traction and became worth their effort. >>> >>> apple not only didn't limit what printers could be used, but they had >>> documentation on how to write printer drivers and also offered tech >>> support to anyone who wanted to do it. >>> >>> not only that, but there was at least one mac software company that >>> wrote printer drivers for printer manufacturers. >>> >>> macs also supported postscript, another industry standard, however, >>> that was better suited for laser printers and high end typesetting >>> equipment than cheap dot matrix printers. >> >> Quite possible, I won't challenge that. > > not only possible, but that's exactly what happened. > >>>> We're still at an impasse in regards to your definition of proprietary. >>>> Proprietary does not prevent anyone from developing for a platform. >>>> Windows is proprietary yet people develop for it all the time. However, >>>> on the PC side, only the operating system is proprietary if you use >>>> Windows and the hardware is very much standardized across the board, >>>> unlike the original Mac and much of Apple's hardware going into the late >>>> 90s. >>> >>> apple uses industry standards wherever possible. >>> >>> the problem is that many of those are not that good, so apple either >>> chose something more capable or they designed something better. >>> >>> the original mac had rs422 serial ports, which were a superset of >>> rs232. existing rs232 devices worked perfectly fine without *any* >>> issue, however, they could never be as fast as rs422 devices. >>> >>> the mac ii's slots were nubus, which was designed by texas instruments. >>> later, apple switched to pci slots, also not their design. >>> >>> as mentioned above, macs supported postscript, another industry >>> standard. >>> >>> the list goes on... >> >> You make a good case and I'd be a fool to challenge you. I surrender to >> your wealth of knowledge, good sir. > > thanks. sometimes i'm surprised at how much i remember from back then. > > btw, i dug up inside mac, and not only did it give the pinouts for the > various ports, but it even gave partial schematics, in addition to how > to write drivers. > > <https://i.imgur.com/P369DRz.jpg> > <https://i.imgur.com/kAACU57.jpg> > > anyone who wanted to design hardware or software for the mac could > easily do so, something which many companies did. > > those who claim apple blocked anything were simply looking for an > excuse to blame someone else. It's hard to imagine that the people reminiscing about the old days in technology have a bone to pick with Apple but it is possible that they are very biased in reporting what the company was doing. -- SilverSlimer Minds: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 20:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g4kcs3Fu0e6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #119341 |
On 11/8/18 8:13 PM, SilverSlimer wrote: > On 2018-11-08 9:52 p.m., nospam wrote: >> In article <HV5FD.234743$X82.231542@fx22.iad>, SilverSlimer >> <silver@slim.er> wrote: >> >>>>> It had DOS as much as it needed to since people, by using Windows 95, >>>>> were migrating from a massive platform onto a new one and still needed >>>>> some sort of assurance that their software would continue to operate. >>>>> Much of it could within Windows 9x, but some couldn't and being >>>>> able to >>>>> load DOS to run it became necessary. >>>> >>>> win 95 was a shell on top of dos, which greatly limited what it could >>>> do. >>> >>> That's how most people saw it as well and I have to admit that I had no >>> reason to think otherwise >> >> because that's what it is. >> >>> but Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy >>> made a decent case for why it _wasn't_ just a shell. >> >> much of what he says is wrong, especially about macs. > > Well, he _has_ been proven wrong on several occasions but he tends to > get things right along the way. He is wrong more often than he is right. >>>>> However, 9x in general was more >>>>> capable than MacOS at the time and even Apple knew it. >>>> >>>> nonsense. >>> >>> Nope. >> >> not nope. >> >> win95 was catching up to where mac os was a decade earlier, but still >> wasn't quite there. >> >> apple's problem was that they mostly sat on their butt all that time, >> with a lot of internal infighting and canceled projects, plus microsoft >> abused their monopoly position. > > To me, it's fairly debatable as to whether Microsoft already had a > monopoly position by the time Windows 95 was released. If there was a > moment in time at which other companies could still oust Microsoft, it > was 1994/1995 but admittedly, once 95 was released, it was pretty clear > that a monopoly was forming. Nobody could deny that it was an > unprecedented success. Even before that they had the lion's share of the market. > As for Mac sitting on its ass, I agree since that's more or less what I > experienced. The PC was moving forward fairly quickly but it seemed that > Apple, most of the time, just came up with pointless ideas which didn't > benefit the company or users in any way. They seemed to be banking on > the fact that their product wasn't the PC and was therefore interesting > as an alternative. They were struggling to modernize, and had a number of years where they were not innovating as much as I would have liked. Jobs coming back was a HUGE benefit to them. And their customers... and really the industry as a whole. >>>>> That's why they >>>>> started to develop Copland in response to it and eventually felt the >>>>> obligation to attempt to purchase BeOS. It didn't happen and they >>>>> moved >>>>> onto NeXT. >>>> >>>> no, that's not why they started to develop copland. >>>> >>>> copland actually began in the late 1980s, long before there was a >>>> windows 95 or even win 3.x, but by 1995, it was a mismanaged mess, in a >>>> mismanaged company. >>> >>> Regardless of when the development started, there was no doubt that >>> Copland was going to end up being a response to Windows 9x since 9x >>> remedied many of the drawbacks of MacOS. >> >> nope. copland began well before win95 and was very definitely *not* a >> response to win95. > > What I'm saying is that had it released, it would have been _perceived_ > as a response to Windows 95. Maybe... but that is quite different than BEING one. :) ... >> btw, i dug up inside mac, and not only did it give the pinouts for the >> various ports, but it even gave partial schematics, in addition to how >> to write drivers. >> >> <https://i.imgur.com/P369DRz.jpg> >> <https://i.imgur.com/kAACU57.jpg> >> >> anyone who wanted to design hardware or software for the mac could >> easily do so, something which many companies did. >> >> those who claim apple blocked anything were simply looking for an >> excuse to blame someone else. > > It's hard to imagine that the people reminiscing about the old days in > technology have a bone to pick with Apple but it is possible that they > are very biased in reporting what the company was doing. > Do you not see bias now? It was the same then. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web