Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #133949 > unrolled thread
| Started by | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-08-10 04:52 -0400 |
| Last post | 2020-08-17 08:59 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 146 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-10 04:52 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-10 08:02 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-11 02:49 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-11 07:13 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-11 14:04 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-11 20:39 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-11 19:22 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-11 09:39 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 09:50 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-11 14:08 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-11 20:37 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 17:02 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 12:27 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 08:09 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 21:29 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 14:34 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 20:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-12 22:23 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 22:43 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 19:52 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 04:26 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-13 02:44 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 08:10 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-13 19:15 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-13 19:47 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-14 00:33 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-14 03:40 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2020-08-17 08:45 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-13 09:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-13 13:39 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-13 19:19 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 23:21 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-13 19:47 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-14 00:35 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-14 03:43 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 04:24 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-11 19:22 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 16:58 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 12:32 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 08:10 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 21:32 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 14:36 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 20:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-12 22:29 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 22:43 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 04:29 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 08:44 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-16 08:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 17:11 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-17 09:14 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-17 17:43 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-16 14:17 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-16 19:00 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 21:09 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-17 01:14 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-17 07:10 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-17 21:45 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-18 11:02 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-18 21:01 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 01:30 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-18 18:39 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 05:57 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-19 00:39 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 10:00 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 06:34 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-19 10:57 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 20:29 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 16:49 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 17:00 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 21:05 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-20 03:36 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-19 21:28 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-19 10:56 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 00:32 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Krzysztof Mitko <invalid@kmitko.at.list.dot.pl> - 2020-08-21 13:45 +0200
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-16 16:13 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 21:23 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-17 09:37 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-17 17:35 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-17 13:46 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-17 09:27 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-17 17:48 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-17 14:56 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-17 15:21 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-18 18:05 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 00:32 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 07:14 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 06:34 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 05:58 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 10:11 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 16:45 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 17:00 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 18:38 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 18:58 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 23:51 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-20 00:27 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-20 06:12 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-20 08:25 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-22 21:39 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-22 21:55 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-22 23:06 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-22 23:48 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-23 22:36 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 06:22 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-23 04:41 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 06:42 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 11:24 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-23 19:33 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 21:11 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-24 13:11 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 06:21 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-23 04:34 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 06:42 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-23 19:06 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 23:31 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 21:11 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 11:19 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 06:42 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 06:34 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 19:24 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 16:35 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 21:01 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 18:58 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 20:42 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 21:21 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 18:41 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 18:58 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-20 03:31 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-16 08:03 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2020-08-10 14:16 +0100
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-08-11 10:04 +1200
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-11 07:14 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-16 08:31 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 17:13 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-10 08:20 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-11 03:07 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 17:12 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-12 00:59 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 22:23 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-12 19:28 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 20:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 12:37 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-16 07:54 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 17:06 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-16 14:17 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-17 08:59 -0400
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 21:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrj8nv9.2g0s.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #133993 |
In message <rh10p0$65c$2@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > On 2020-08-12 5:32 a.m., Lewis wrote: >> In message <rgvbb0$lvl$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>> On 2020-08-11 4:22 p.m., nospam wrote: >>>> In article <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker >>>> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> I beleive the last one they had >>>>>>> was on a PowerPC 601. A few years in the 1990s meant a lot had changed >>>>>>> so not sure how much was still usable, but they would have have the boot >>>>>>> loader stuff already. >>>>>> >>>>>> nope. it took a few months from when apple bought next to when they >>>>>> were first able to boot openstep on a powerpc mac, and that was just >>>>>> the kernel, not the entire thing. >>>>> >>>>> NeXT did begin a project on PowerPC. They just never finished it. >>>> >>>> then it doesn't count. >>>> >>>> lots of companies have unfinished projects, including apple. >> >>> It counts in the context of whether or not they use "PowerPC at all". >> >> No, it doesn't. They never used PowerPC. They LOOKED at using PowerPC. They >> THOUGHT abotu it. They abandoned those plans before they were completed. > They clearly didn't abandon them until a lot of work porting the OS > would already have been done. There's that "clearly" again. You are pulling a JF and making shit up with no basis in fact at all. >>> Clearly, if NeXT got to the point of having prototype motherboards, they >>> had already done most if not all of the work of porting >>> NeXTStep/OpenSTEP to PowerPC. >> >> "Clearly" is always an indication that something is definitely not at all clear >> and is almost always an indication that the following statement is incorrect. >> >>>> here's a timeline: >>>> <http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/4B800F78-0F75-455A-9681- >>>> F186A4365805_files/droppedImage_4.png> >> >>> I'd avoid using Dilger as your source. He's well-known as a starry-eyed >>> fan boy with little in the way of objectivity. >> >> Irrelevant, these are facts. You are free to provide proof they are wrong, if >> uch proof exists (it does not, this timeline has been confirmed by many people >> who worked at Apple at the time). > They had pre-production components. For an entirely different hardware platform years before the Apple acquisition. > That means they had it working before that. Irrelevant, and certainly not a fact, just a supposition. It's quite possible they abandoned it because they did NOT have it working. -- A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rh1nc4$ipe$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #133999 |
On 2020-08-12 2:32 p.m., Lewis wrote: > In message <rh10p0$65c$2@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >> On 2020-08-12 5:32 a.m., Lewis wrote: >>> In message <rgvbb0$lvl$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>>> On 2020-08-11 4:22 p.m., nospam wrote: >>>>> In article <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker >>>>> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> I beleive the last one they had >>>>>>>> was on a PowerPC 601. A few years in the 1990s meant a lot had changed >>>>>>>> so not sure how much was still usable, but they would have have the boot >>>>>>>> loader stuff already. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> nope. it took a few months from when apple bought next to when they >>>>>>> were first able to boot openstep on a powerpc mac, and that was just >>>>>>> the kernel, not the entire thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> NeXT did begin a project on PowerPC. They just never finished it. >>>>> >>>>> then it doesn't count. >>>>> >>>>> lots of companies have unfinished projects, including apple. >>> >>>> It counts in the context of whether or not they use "PowerPC at all". >>> >>> No, it doesn't. They never used PowerPC. They LOOKED at using PowerPC. They >>> THOUGHT abotu it. They abandoned those plans before they were completed. > >> They clearly didn't abandon them until a lot of work porting the OS >> would already have been done. > > There's that "clearly" again. You are pulling a JF and making shit up > with no basis in fact at all. > >>>> Clearly, if NeXT got to the point of having prototype motherboards, they >>>> had already done most if not all of the work of porting >>>> NeXTStep/OpenSTEP to PowerPC. >>> >>> "Clearly" is always an indication that something is definitely not at all clear >>> and is almost always an indication that the following statement is incorrect. >>> >>>>> here's a timeline: >>>>> <http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/4B800F78-0F75-455A-9681- >>>>> F186A4365805_files/droppedImage_4.png> >>> >>>> I'd avoid using Dilger as your source. He's well-known as a starry-eyed >>>> fan boy with little in the way of objectivity. >>> >>> Irrelevant, these are facts. You are free to provide proof they are wrong, if >>> uch proof exists (it does not, this timeline has been confirmed by many people >>> who worked at Apple at the time). > >> They had pre-production components. > > For an entirely different hardware platform years before the Apple > acquisition. For a POWERPC platform. The instructions were PowerPC. > >> That means they had it working before that. > > Irrelevant, and certainly not a fact, just a supposition. It's quite > possible they abandoned it because they did NOT have it working. Really? They built pre-production motherboards, because it WASN'T working? Why are you fighting the obviousness of this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 20:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <120820202025215514%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134001 |
In article <rh1nc4$ipe$2@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > >> They had pre-production components. > > > > For an entirely different hardware platform years before the Apple > > acquisition. > > For a POWERPC platform. > > The instructions were PowerPC. except that the hardware was totally different, so the kernel and drivers would be different. also, the powerpc g4 had altivec, which would not have been available for their earlier attempt. they had to start from scratch for mac hardware, including the build environment. it's not like they could just import old project builder files into codewarrior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 22:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <AA1ZG.61807$qo5.57851@fx23.iad> |
| In reply to | #134008 |
On 2020-08-12 20:25, nospam wrote: > except that the hardware was totally different, so the kernel and > drivers would be different. also, the powerpc g4 had altivec, which > would not have been available for their earlier attempt. And the hardware between the last NextSTEP poduced on 80486 was also different. PowerPC maintained its overall architecture which is the toughh part of having your OS on an architecture (the various exec modes, memory protection schemes, vistyla memory etc. Apple already had modern C compiler for then current PowerPC which took advantage of the added instructions. (though not clear if original NeXTSTEP was written in C or ANSI C, which require conversion from C to ANSI C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 22:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <120820202243242482%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134013 |
In article <AA1ZG.61807$qo5.57851@fx23.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > Apple already had modern C compiler for then current PowerPC which took > advantage of the added instructions. (though not clear if original > NeXTSTEP was written in C or ANSI C, which require conversion from C to > ANSI C. nextstep was written in objective c. it would have been impossible to write it in c and certainly not c++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-13 04:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrj9gcf.unq.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134001 |
In message <rh1nc4$ipe$2@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > On 2020-08-12 2:32 p.m., Lewis wrote: >> In message <rh10p0$65c$2@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>> On 2020-08-12 5:32 a.m., Lewis wrote: >>>> In message <rgvbb0$lvl$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>>>> On 2020-08-11 4:22 p.m., nospam wrote: >>>>>> In article <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker >>>>>> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I beleive the last one they had >>>>>>>>> was on a PowerPC 601. A few years in the 1990s meant a lot had changed >>>>>>>>> so not sure how much was still usable, but they would have have the boot >>>>>>>>> loader stuff already. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> nope. it took a few months from when apple bought next to when they >>>>>>>> were first able to boot openstep on a powerpc mac, and that was just >>>>>>>> the kernel, not the entire thing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> NeXT did begin a project on PowerPC. They just never finished it. >>>>>> >>>>>> then it doesn't count. >>>>>> >>>>>> lots of companies have unfinished projects, including apple. >>>> >>>>> It counts in the context of whether or not they use "PowerPC at all". >>>> >>>> No, it doesn't. They never used PowerPC. They LOOKED at using PowerPC. They >>>> THOUGHT abotu it. They abandoned those plans before they were completed. >> >>> They clearly didn't abandon them until a lot of work porting the OS >>> would already have been done. >> >> There's that "clearly" again. You are pulling a JF and making shit up >> with no basis in fact at all. >> >>>>> Clearly, if NeXT got to the point of having prototype motherboards, they >>>>> had already done most if not all of the work of porting >>>>> NeXTStep/OpenSTEP to PowerPC. >>>> >>>> "Clearly" is always an indication that something is definitely not at all clear >>>> and is almost always an indication that the following statement is incorrect. >>>> >>>>>> here's a timeline: >>>>>> <http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/4B800F78-0F75-455A-9681- >>>>>> F186A4365805_files/droppedImage_4.png> >>>> >>>>> I'd avoid using Dilger as your source. He's well-known as a starry-eyed >>>>> fan boy with little in the way of objectivity. >>>> >>>> Irrelevant, these are facts. You are free to provide proof they are wrong, if >>>> uch proof exists (it does not, this timeline has been confirmed by many people >>>> who worked at Apple at the time). >> >>> They had pre-production components. >> >> For an entirely different hardware platform years before the Apple >> acquisition. > For a POWERPC platform. So what? There is a fuck of a lot more to designing a system that the CPU. >> Irrelevant, and certainly not a fact, just a supposition. It's quite >> possible they abandoned it because they did NOT have it working. > Really? > They built pre-production motherboards, because it WASN'T working? > Why are you fighting the obviousness of this? Because you are MAKING SHIT UP and you are claiming something is true with absolutely not a shred of evidence for it. There is a reason they never released this, and it is IRRELEVANT to the Mac hardware of 1998. -- "They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself." Andy Warhol
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 08:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <120820200844166079%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #133979 |
In article <rgvbb0$lvl$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > > Clearly, if NeXT got to the point of having prototype motherboards, they > had already done most if not all of the work of porting > NeXTStep/OpenSTEP to PowerPC. having a working prototype only means you can start porting. what is unknown is how much functionality the prototype boards actually had and how far they took the project. what *is* known is that it was never a shipping product, therefore it was never completed. > > here's a timeline: > > <http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/4B800F78-0F75-455A-9681- > > F186A4365805_files/droppedImage_4.png> > > > > I'd avoid using Dilger as your source. He's well-known as a starry-eyed > fan boy with little in the way of objectivity. logical fallacy and that timeline is correct. > NeXT was clearly working on a PowerPC workstation, and had actual > prototype motherboards, so they also quite clearly had software to run > on the inevitable wire-wrap machines they would have already created. > > In short, much of the work of porting NextSTEP/OpenSTEP to PowerPC had > already been done. very little had been done, mainly because the underlying hardware was completely different. in particular, pci macs used open firmware and whatever next might have had a decade earlier did not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-16 08:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <XA9_G.53893$Ml5.30366@fx24.iad> |
| In reply to | #133959 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes: > > Ur isn't clear to me that "kept alive" is the correct term. The > Wikipedia articel stated that prior to being bought by Apple, NeXT had > already switched away from NeXTSTEP and forpcsed on OpenStep which was a > set of APIs sold to folks like Sun and banks etc. At the time that I was given a copy of OPENSTEP, there wasn't a NeXTSTEP being sold. OPENSTEP was the product and it was what they called the OS. > OS-X is a superset that includes NeXTSTEP , and components from MacOS 9 > as well as new stuff for OS-X. I actually thought (and still do to some extent) that Mac OS X was a downgrade from OPENSTEP. :-) They took a thoroughbred (OPENSTEP) and crossed it with an old nag (Mac OS) and the result was a mongrel that had very little of the beauty of the originals. The result seemed a bit, well, confused.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-16 17:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrjiq6r.21u5.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134045 |
In message <XA9_G.53893$Ml5.30366@fx24.iad> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes: >> >> Ur isn't clear to me that "kept alive" is the correct term. The >> Wikipedia articel stated that prior to being bought by Apple, NeXT had >> already switched away from NeXTSTEP and forpcsed on OpenStep which was a >> set of APIs sold to folks like Sun and banks etc. > At the time that I was given a copy of OPENSTEP, there wasn't a NeXTSTEP > being sold. OPENSTEP was the product and it was what they called the > OS. >> OS-X is a superset that includes NeXTSTEP , and components from MacOS 9 >> as well as new stuff for OS-X. > I actually thought (and still do to some extent) that Mac OS X was a > downgrade from OPENSTEP. :-) They took a thoroughbred (OPENSTEP) and > crossed it with an old nag (Mac OS) and the result was a mongrel that > had very little of the beauty of the originals. The result seemed a bit, > well, confused. There's a reason that NextStep/OpenStep did not succeed, and that reasons can very much be summed up by looking at it next to OS X. Anyone can use OS X, only someone who is really into computers can do much of anything in NS/OS. Guess which category of people contains many orders of magnitude more people? You can go even further if you want. Anyone can use OS X, only super nerds can use Unix, and yet Unix is right there as the foundation of OS X and now macOS. There will never be a year of linux on the desktop" because anyone with the slightest sense who wants a desktop with Unix uses macOS. -- I'm no psychologist (although I play one when I'm picking up chicks over by the asylum)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-17 09:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8pv_G.131825$GQ4.90875@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #134054 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > In message <XA9_G.53893$Ml5.30366@fx24.iad> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: >> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes: > >>> >>> Ur isn't clear to me that "kept alive" is the correct term. The >>> Wikipedia articel stated that prior to being bought by Apple, NeXT had >>> already switched away from NeXTSTEP and forpcsed on OpenStep which was a >>> set of APIs sold to folks like Sun and banks etc. > >> At the time that I was given a copy of OPENSTEP, there wasn't a NeXTSTEP >> being sold. OPENSTEP was the product and it was what they called the >> OS. > >>> OS-X is a superset that includes NeXTSTEP , and components from MacOS 9 >>> as well as new stuff for OS-X. > >> I actually thought (and still do to some extent) that Mac OS X was a >> downgrade from OPENSTEP. :-) They took a thoroughbred (OPENSTEP) and >> crossed it with an old nag (Mac OS) and the result was a mongrel that >> had very little of the beauty of the originals. The result seemed a bit, >> well, confused. > > There's a reason that NextStep/OpenStep did not succeed, and that > reasons can very much be summed up by looking at it next to OS X. > > Anyone can use OS X, only someone who is really into computers can do > much of anything in NS/OS. Guess which category of people contains many > orders of magnitude more people? NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP were very easy to use. There were several reasons they didn't succeed. One was Jobs. He spent money in the wrong places, built a factory that was overkill, and insisted on changes that delayed release of products. It was almost a repeat of the Lisa, and of the early Mac models. Apple was able to keep going because it still had the Apple ][ to tide it over until the Mac started selling. NeXT didn't have that. > > You can go even further if you want. Anyone can use OS X, only super > nerds can use Unix, and yet Unix is right there as the foundation of OS > X and now macOS. OS X MacOS _are_ Unix. You don't need to be special to use Unix or to use a Mac. (Or to use Linux, or Windows, or DOS, or OS/2, etc.) > > There will never be a year of linux on the desktop" because anyone with > the slightest sense who wants a desktop with Unix uses macOS. There doesn't have to be a "year of Linux on the desktop." People who want to use it do so. People who don't, don't. Macs are better for some thing, Linux running on various platforms is better for other things. Even Windows is better for some thing (although they're not things that I do). I have been perfectly happy using Linux as my desktop for years. I was happy using FreeBSD and Solaris on the desktop too. I'm now happy using MacOS on the desktop. I even switch back and forth between Linux and MacOS. Today I'm on my Mac and tomorrow I might be on Linux. My wife loves her laptop running Linux Mint. She's not a "super nerd."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-17 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrjlget.1s09.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134067 |
In message <8pv_G.131825$GQ4.90875@fx02.iad> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: >> In message <XA9_G.53893$Ml5.30366@fx24.iad> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: >>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes: >> >>>> >>>> Ur isn't clear to me that "kept alive" is the correct term. The >>>> Wikipedia articel stated that prior to being bought by Apple, NeXT had >>>> already switched away from NeXTSTEP and forpcsed on OpenStep which was a >>>> set of APIs sold to folks like Sun and banks etc. >> >>> At the time that I was given a copy of OPENSTEP, there wasn't a NeXTSTEP >>> being sold. OPENSTEP was the product and it was what they called the >>> OS. >> >>>> OS-X is a superset that includes NeXTSTEP , and components from MacOS 9 >>>> as well as new stuff for OS-X. >> >>> I actually thought (and still do to some extent) that Mac OS X was a >>> downgrade from OPENSTEP. :-) They took a thoroughbred (OPENSTEP) and >>> crossed it with an old nag (Mac OS) and the result was a mongrel that >>> had very little of the beauty of the originals. The result seemed a bit, >>> well, confused. >> >> There's a reason that NextStep/OpenStep did not succeed, and that >> reasons can very much be summed up by looking at it next to OS X. >> >> Anyone can use OS X, only someone who is really into computers can do >> much of anything in NS/OS. Guess which category of people contains many >> orders of magnitude more people? > NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP were very easy to use. Not for my Mom, my father in law, my aunts and unless and all the cousins who are not computer nerds. No, it was not, >> You can go even further if you want. Anyone can use OS X, only super >> nerds can use Unix, and yet Unix is right there as the foundation of OS >> X and now macOS. > OS X MacOS _are_ Unix. You don't need to be special to use Unix or to > use a Mac. (Or to use Linux, or Windows, or DOS, or OS/2, etc.) Maybe you need to get out more an see people who simply use their computers to do basic things without programming them or even knowing what a command line is. The whole point of Mac OS for 99.9% of users is that they do not even KNOW there is unix command line. >> There will never be a year of linux on the desktop" because anyone with >> the slightest sense who wants a desktop with Unix uses macOS. > There doesn't have to be a "year of Linux on the desktop." People who > want to use it do so. People who don't, don't. And the vast majority of users have no fucking idea what linux on the desktop means. > I have been perfectly happy using Linux as my desktop for years. Irrelevant to nearly all people on the planet who would NOT be happy if someone foisted a linux desktop on them. > My wife loves her laptop running Linux Mint. She's not a "super nerd." She has someone around to deal with it. Try that with, say, someone who doesn’t have a super nerd around. Well, no don't. That would just be cruel. -- "What's a Velvet Underground?" "You wouldn't like it." "Oh, Be-bop."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-16 14:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <160820201417037818%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134045 |
In article <XA9_G.53893$Ml5.30366@fx24.iad>, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > > Ur isn't clear to me that "kept alive" is the correct term. The > > Wikipedia articel stated that prior to being bought by Apple, NeXT had > > already switched away from NeXTSTEP and forpcsed on OpenStep which was a > > set of APIs sold to folks like Sun and banks etc. > > At the time that I was given a copy of OPENSTEP, there wasn't a NeXTSTEP > being sold. OPENSTEP was the product and it was what they called the > OS. see other post for the difference, which is nothing significant. > > OS-X is a superset that includes NeXTSTEP , and components from MacOS 9 > > as well as new stuff for OS-X. > > I actually thought (and still do to some extent) that Mac OS X was a > downgrade from OPENSTEP. :-) it's not. it's *significantly* better in all sorts of ways... > They took a thoroughbred (OPENSTEP) and > crossed it with an old nag (Mac OS) and the result was a mongrel that > had very little of the beauty of the originals. The result seemed a bit, > well, confused. ...however, they totally fucked up classic mac os, notably finder, which still to this day does not work properly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-16 19:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hpte32F60d1U14@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #134057 |
On Aug 16, 2020 at 11:17:03 AM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <XA9_G.53893$Ml5.30366@fx24.iad>, Bud Frede > <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > >> > Ur isn't clear to me that "kept alive" is the correct term. The >> > Wikipedia articel stated that prior to being bought by Apple, NeXT had >> > already switched away from NeXTSTEP and forpcsed on OpenStep which was a >> > set of APIs sold to folks like Sun and banks etc. >> >> At the time that I was given a copy of OPENSTEP, there wasn't a NeXTSTEP >> being sold. OPENSTEP was the product and it was what they called the >> OS. > > see other post for the difference, which is nothing significant. > >> > OS-X is a superset that includes NeXTSTEP , and components from MacOS 9 >> > as well as new stuff for OS-X. >> >> I actually thought (and still do to some extent) that Mac OS X was a >> downgrade from OPENSTEP. :-) > > it's not. > > it's *significantly* better in all sorts of ways... > >> They took a thoroughbred (OPENSTEP) and >> crossed it with an old nag (Mac OS) and the result was a mongrel that >> had very little of the beauty of the originals. The result seemed a bit, >> well, confused. > > ...however, they totally fucked up classic mac os, notably finder, > which still to this day does not work properly. It works differently. I, too, miss the spacial Finder (though you can largely get that back by hiding the toolbar), but the new Finder also has MANY benefits. What weaknesses are you thinking of? For me one of the things I miss from Classic Mac OS is being able to launch programs from Preferences files and having different sets of preferences to do different things. Wish they had moved that to macOS... though I also know only a very small number of users even knew of that feature. -- 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-16 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrjj83e.2bon.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134058 |
In message <hpte32F60d1U14@mid.individual.net> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On Aug 16, 2020 at 11:17:03 AM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> In article <XA9_G.53893$Ml5.30366@fx24.iad>, Bud Frede >> <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: >> >>> > Ur isn't clear to me that "kept alive" is the correct term. The >>> > Wikipedia articel stated that prior to being bought by Apple, NeXT had >>> > already switched away from NeXTSTEP and forpcsed on OpenStep which was a >>> > set of APIs sold to folks like Sun and banks etc. >>> >>> At the time that I was given a copy of OPENSTEP, there wasn't a NeXTSTEP >>> being sold. OPENSTEP was the product and it was what they called the >>> OS. >> >> see other post for the difference, which is nothing significant. >> >>> > OS-X is a superset that includes NeXTSTEP , and components from MacOS 9 >>> > as well as new stuff for OS-X. >>> >>> I actually thought (and still do to some extent) that Mac OS X was a >>> downgrade from OPENSTEP. :-) >> >> it's not. >> >> it's *significantly* better in all sorts of ways... >> >>> They took a thoroughbred (OPENSTEP) and >>> crossed it with an old nag (Mac OS) and the result was a mongrel that >>> had very little of the beauty of the originals. The result seemed a bit, >>> well, confused. >> >> ...however, they totally fucked up classic mac os, notably finder, >> which still to this day does not work properly. > It works differently. I, too, miss the spacial Finder (though you can largely > get that back by hiding the toolbar), but the new Finder also has MANY > benefits. Since I OFTEN have two windows on my screen for the same folder, I am very glad to be away from the spacial finder. I have been disagreeing with John Siracusa on this since 2001 and the old days of the macosx-talk mailing list. > What weaknesses are you thinking of? Having recently used a Mac OS 8.1 machine, there is nothing I miss. I thought maybe the old Apple menu, but nope, not even that. > For me one of the things I miss from Classic Mac OS is being able to launch > programs from Preferences files and having different sets of preferences to do > different things. Wish they had moved that to macOS... though I also know only > a very small number of users even knew of that feature. And it was rarely useful. iTerm2 has profiles, and a lot of apps that would benefit from user profiles or different work profiles have mechanisms for this. -- 'He's mad, isn't he?' 'No, mad's when you froth at the mouth,' said Gaspode. ' He's insane. That's when you froth at the brain.'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-17 01:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hpu3vtF60d1U28@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #134060 |
On Aug 16, 2020 at 2:09:02 PM MST, "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: ... >> It works differently. I, too, miss the spacial Finder (though you can >> largely >> get that back by hiding the toolbar), but the new Finder also has MANY >> benefits. > > Since I OFTEN have two windows on my screen for the same folder, I am > very glad to be away from the spacial finder. I have been disagreeing > with John Siracusa on this since 2001 and the old days of the > macosx-talk mailing list. I see benefits to both. I like being able to set a folder to a specific view and knowing when I go to that folder it will have THAT view. MY view. The view I want. But, really, it is not that big of a deal... means I have to switch from icon to list or whatever... sometimes a sort option. And there are benefits to having a back buttons and the like. >> What weaknesses are you thinking of? > > Having recently used a Mac OS 8.1 machine, there is nothing I miss. I > thought maybe the old Apple menu, but nope, not even that. I am sure there are a few other things I would like... but nothing comes to mind off hand other than what I note below. >> For me one of the things I miss from Classic Mac OS is being able to launch >> programs from Preferences files and having different sets of preferences to >> do >> different things. Wish they had moved that to macOS... though I also know >> only >> a very small number of users even knew of that feature. > > And it was rarely useful. But there were times it was -- with no good way to do it now. Hardly a deal breaker though. > iTerm2 has profiles, and a lot of apps that would benefit from user > profiles or different work profiles have mechanisms for this. Even with things like Pages it might be good to have "sets" of preferences for how I want the toolbar set up along with some other options -- but, really, NOT a big deal. It is not like I run into issues often where I think how great it would be. -- 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-17 07:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <170820200710458541%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134058 |
In article <hpte32F60d1U14@mid.individual.net>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > ...however, they totally fucked up classic mac os, notably finder, > > which still to this day does not work properly. > > It works differently. I, too, miss the spacial Finder (though you can largely > get that back by hiding the toolbar), but the new Finder also has MANY > benefits. > > What weaknesses are you thinking of? another reading fail. i did not say weaknesses. i said it doesn't work properly, which it does not. > For me one of the things I miss from Classic Mac OS is being able to launch > programs from Preferences files and having different sets of preferences to do > different things. Wish they had moved that to macOS... though I also know only > a very small number of users even knew of that feature. yet another thing you do not understand. what you describe is a function of the *app*, not the os, and uses an api that is available on mac os x. it's was rarely used, not intuitive (even more so on mac os x) and mac os x app developers have much better options.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-17 21:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hq0c3rFf4arU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #134064 |
On Aug 17, 2020 at 4:10:45 AM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <hpte32F60d1U14@mid.individual.net>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> > ...however, they totally fucked up classic mac os, notably finder, >> > which still to this day does not work properly. >> >> It works differently. I, too, miss the spacial Finder (though you can >> largely >> get that back by hiding the toolbar), but the new Finder also has MANY >> benefits. >> >> What weaknesses are you thinking of? > > another reading fail. i did not say weaknesses. i said it doesn't work > properly, which it does not. I do not care what hair you are splitting to say not working "properly" is somehow not a "weakness", but I will note you changed the topic away from the Finder and any flaws it has to your need to insult. You don't talk tech -- you just attack. I will give you another chance: what do you think is not working properly with the Finder? I can point to areas where I see room for improvement -- and have even spoken to you about them. But can you? I bet not -- I bet you just just try to hide the fact you have no clue what you are talking about behind yet more insults. Please prove me wrong. Seriously... it would make this conversation much better. > > >> For me one of the things I miss from Classic Mac OS is being able to launch >> programs from Preferences files and having different sets of preferences to >> do >> different things. Wish they had moved that to macOS... though I also know >> only >> a very small number of users even knew of that feature. > > yet another thing you do not understand. > > what you describe is a function of the *app*, not the os, and uses an > api that is available on mac os x. > > it's was rarely used, not intuitive (even more so on mac os x) and mac > os x app developers have much better options. I noted most were not aware of this in Classic Mac. You have now shown you were one who did not understand this worked pretty much universally there. And not on OS X / macOS. Thanks for backing my point. Here, so you can understand better what I am talking about: https://youtu.be/IouS4iDvsOQ If you can show ANY app with preferences that does not do this in Classic Mac I would love to see it. But I bet you won't. It was the standard in Classic Mac... it was rare for ANY app to not respect this. I do not know of a single one which did not (though of course I did not try every single app I used!) -- 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-18 11:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <180820201102534764%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134076 |
In article <hq0c3rFf4arU7@mid.individual.net>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > > >> > ...however, they totally fucked up classic mac os, notably finder, > >> > which still to this day does not work properly. > >> > >> It works differently. I, too, miss the spacial Finder (though you can > >> largely > >> get that back by hiding the toolbar), but the new Finder also has MANY > >> benefits. > >> > >> What weaknesses are you thinking of? > > > > another reading fail. i did not say weaknesses. i said it doesn't work > > properly, which it does not. > > I do not care what hair you are splitting to say not working "properly" is > somehow not a "weakness", but I will note you changed the topic away from the > Finder and any flaws it has to your need to insult. i did not change anything nor did i insult anyone. 'does not work properly' is not the same as 'weakness'. it's a failure. that you thought the former is the same as the latter is a reading fail. you have many reading fails, with this being yet another on an ever growing very long list. > You don't talk tech -- you just attack. I will give you another chance: what > do you think is not working properly with the Finder? get off your high horse. you are not the arbitrator who doles out chances to others. it was clear from the start you were trolling, which you've confirmed. > I can point to areas where I see room for improvement -- and have even spoken > to you about them. But can you? I bet not -- I bet you just just try to hide > the fact you have no clue what you are talking about behind yet more insults. > Please prove me wrong. Seriously... it would make this conversation much > better. what would make this and other conversations better would be if you weren't combative and desperately trying to derail yet another thread. > >> For me one of the things I miss from Classic Mac OS is being able to > >> launch > >> programs from Preferences files and having different sets of preferences > >> to > >> do > >> different things. Wish they had moved that to macOS... though I also know > >> only > >> a very small number of users even knew of that feature. > > > > yet another thing you do not understand. > > > > what you describe is a function of the *app*, not the os, and uses an > > api that is available on mac os x. > > > > it's was rarely used, not intuitive (even more so on mac os x) and mac > > os x app developers have much better options. > > I noted most were not aware of this in Classic Mac. You have now shown you > were one who did not understand this worked pretty much universally there. And > not on OS X / macOS. i'm well aware of it and unlike you, i know how it works internally. it is *not* an os level function and never worked universally, nor could it for reasons you obviously do not understand and don't appear to have any interest in learning. the only thing the os does is provide a list of documents to the app upon launch, if any, which occurs in both classic mac os and mac os x. at that point, it's up to the app how to handle it. prefs files would need to be special cased, versus simply opening a normal user document. go read apple developer documentation for more information, not that you will understand any of it. as usual, you are *way* out of your league, but you'll no doubt argue anyway. > Thanks for backing my point. i'm not backing anything you said. stop lying. > Here, so you can understand better what I am > talking about: i know exactly what you're talking about, how it works and have even written apps that did that (and much more) on classic mac os, but that was long, long ago. you have not, nor could you if you tried, even with an easy to follow tutorial. as usual, you're talking out your butt and pretending to know more than you actually do. you might consider to stfu and learn something for a change, rather than look like a complete idiot while your ass is being handed to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-18 21:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pR__G.354093$PN2.133602@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #134077 |
On 2020-08-18 11:02, nospam wrote: > the only thing the os does is provide a list of documents to the app > upon launch, if any, which occurs in both classic mac os and mac os x. > > at that point, it's up to the app how to handle it. prefs files would > need to be special cased, versus simply opening a normal user document. While an application is free to have its preferences fiels anywhere it wants, generally operating systems provide some standards of where preferences should be stored. (and in the case of IOS, the app is more dansboxed so has to follow standards). OS-X has a confusing set of locations. in ~/Library, some apps have their own directory, some in Application Support, some in Preferences. And then there are the system-wide equivalents in /Library and /System/Library. This matters when you want to reset an application, or delete it and have no idea where its preferences are stored. (gets worse with Adobe CS6 where the licence is stored under another company's name). Apple has done a pretty good job of setting the standard of /Applications for where application "files" should be stored. But preferences are less obvious. No OS ios perfect. I this Windows had done he registry thing which was very organized but a hell to manage. Unix has no standard, so many apps stored their prfs in ~/.something to make them hidden.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 01:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrjp05h.2kks.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134081 |
In message <pR__G.354093$PN2.133602@fx48.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > Apple has done a pretty good job of setting the standard of > /Applications for where application "files" should be stored. But > preferences are less obvious. No, Preferences are stored in the Preferences folder, either inside the Library folder top level, or inside a Container folder in the Library. > Unix has no standard, so many apps stored their prfs in ~/.something to > make them hidden. No Mac apps, no. -- "Are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "I think so, Brain, but 'Snowball for Windows'?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web