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 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 16:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <190820201635183437%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134097 |
In article <hq5cjtFpb2eU6@mid.individual.net>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> > obviously, classic could not exist on the intel platform without a > >> > shitload of additional effort, > >> > >> Sheepshaver could have been improved with tighter integration in the > >> file system. > > > > sheepshaver has absolutely nothing to do with classic or apple. > > > >> The advantage is that Booting "classic" in it is self > >> contained and not dependent on classic libraries existing and being > >> updated on OS-X so less maintenance needed by Apple. > > > > false. > > Human interaction tip: if you think he is wrong then explain what you think is > the correct view. You might even show evidence, but for a quick comment that > is not really needed. You will come off as far less arrogant, far less focused > on your own insecurities, and far more knowledgable about tech if you do so. > > And you might find you learn more about tech, too... such as the example where > you thought Apple did not care about virtualization even though their last > update included fixes for virtualization. While I was patent enough to help > educate you about your error, others might not be so kind. here's a human interaction tip: do not lie about what other people say. i *never* said apple doesn't care about virtualization. in fact, what i said was the *opposite*, that apple fully supports virtualization and is the road forward, and you argued against that. i also said that apple doesn't care about is virtualization of windows in particular, and they do not. apple only provides the framework for others to do whatever they want with it, on both intel and apple silicon. i realize you do not understand any of this, but maybe one day you will. > >> But as the Mac picked up momemtum and mreo and mreo applicatiosn were > >> returning to the platform, the need to maintain "classic" went away. > > > > that part is true. > > > > at the time intel macs were introduced, classic was no longer needed. > > Well, you can argue many things are not NEEDED, but there were many who could > still benefit from it and still want it. not enough to justify the significant effort to implement it, which is what i said an which you snipped, deliberately trying to alter context. see above for not lying about what people say. classic was intended to *transition* from classic mac os to mac os x, so that users could keep using their existing classic apps until they were updated to mac os x native. once that transition was done, classic was no longer needed. very simple. at the time intel macs were introduced, classic was used by less than 5% of users. it was an incredibly easy choice. > Heck, I used Classic Mac the other > day to show you a feature that was pretty much universal on it, of which you > showed little understanding (and never did show any contrary examples): as was explained to you, that is *not* a function of the os, but rather a function of the app. > This was a pretty cool feature common in Classic Mac -- the norm -- which is > not generally seen, if ever, in modern macOS. There are alternate solutions, > such as profiles, that do much the same. it was never the norm and can be done in mac os x, should an app developer choose to implement it. the reason it's not is because it's an unintuitive idea and a complete hack and mac os x has much better methods. > I snipped several other examples where you just declare someone else wrong but > offer nothing about tech. That makes the conversation be about YOU... and your > insecurities. Do you see this yet? i see that you're lying and trolling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 21:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hq5i8vFpb2eU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #134099 |
On Aug 19, 2020 at 1:35:18 PM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <hq5cjtFpb2eU6@mid.individual.net>, Snit
> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > obviously, classic could not exist on the intel platform without a
>> >> > shitload of additional effort,
>> >>
>> >> Sheepshaver could have been improved with tighter integration in the
>> >> file system.
>> >
>> > sheepshaver has absolutely nothing to do with classic or apple.
>> >
>> >> The advantage is that Booting "classic" in it is self
>> >> contained and not dependent on classic libraries existing and being
>> >> updated on OS-X so less maintenance needed by Apple.
>> >
>> > false.
>>
>> Human interaction tip: if you think he is wrong then explain what you think
>> is
>> the correct view.
Notice you ignored this. You did not speak of what you thought was right...
you just insisted someone else was wrong.
>> You might even show evidence, but for a quick comment that
>> is not really needed. You will come off as far less arrogant, far less
>> focused
>> on your own insecurities, and far more knowledgable about tech if you do so.
>>
>> And you might find you learn more about tech, too... such as the example
>> where
>> you thought Apple did not care about virtualization even though their last
>> update included fixes for virtualization. While I was patent enough to help
>> educate you about your error, others might not be so kind.
Notice your response to this: to play victim. You do that a lot, too. What do
you think that says about you?
> here's a human interaction tip: do not lie about what other people say.
>
> i *never* said apple doesn't care about virtualization.
You said they did not care "much" in response to my noting that they do not
care enough to stay on Intel.
nospam:
-----
apple never cared much about virtualizing windows, making your
notation incorrect.
-----
Now you are agreeing with me that their level of concern is not very great.
Good to see you finally understand what I have been telling you and you have
been arguing against.
> in fact, what i said was the *opposite*, that apple fully supports
> virtualization and is the road forward, and you argued against that.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple_silicon/about_the_rosetta_translation_environment
-----
What Can't Be Translated?
Rosetta can translate most Intel-based apps, including
apps that contain just-in-time (JIT) compilers. However,
Rosetta doesn’t translate the following executables:
* Kernel extensions
* Virtual Machine apps that virtualize x86_64 computer
platforms
-----
I noted I agree with Apple. If you disagree then by all means explain why.
> i also said that apple doesn't care about is virtualization of windows
> in particular, and they do not.
So you agreed with me as I agreed with Apple but felt the need to insist you
disagreed... failing to make ANY technical point but just arguing to argue.
Sure. But WHY do you do that?
> apple only provides the framework for others to do whatever they want
> with it, on both intel and apple silicon.
As opposed to what? What is this even in response to?
> i realize you do not understand any of this, but maybe one day you will.
See: here you are making up stories ahoy what people do and and do not know.
You do this to try to feel better about yourself, and you do it a lot.
>> >> But as the Mac picked up momemtum and mreo and mreo applicatiosn were
>> >> returning to the platform, the need to maintain "classic" went away.
>> >
>> > that part is true.
>> >
>> > at the time intel macs were introduced, classic was no longer needed.
>>
>> Well, you can argue many things are not NEEDED, but there were many who
>> could
>> still benefit from it and still want it.
>
> not enough to justify the significant effort to implement it, which is
> what i said an which you snipped, deliberately trying to alter context.
I did no such thing. Direct copy and paste from the post I responded to:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> But as the Mac picked up momemtum and mreo and mreo applicatiosn were
> returning to the platform, the need to maintain "classic" went away.
that part is true.
at the time intel macs were introduced, classic was no longer needed.
> >> Openstep on Mach (aka: Nextstep with updated API from the Openstep
> >> developments) had 0 compatibility with existing Mac applications.
> >
> > nobody said it did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice there was no further content from you AT ALL in that section of your
text, no less something to alter the meaning of that one sentence.
> see above for not lying about what people say.
If you really thought that you would be able to quote a lie. You lash out to
try to feel better about yourself.
> classic was intended to *transition* from classic mac os to mac os x,
> so that users could keep using their existing classic apps until they
> were updated to mac os x native. once that transition was done, classic
> was no longer needed. very simple.
>
> at the time intel macs were introduced, classic was used by less than
> 5% of users. it was an incredibly easy choice.
Did you think I suggested it was a hard choice or the wrong one? If so, where
did you get that impression?
>> Heck, I used Classic Mac the other
>> day to show you a feature that was pretty much universal on it, of which you
>> showed little understanding (and never did show any contrary examples):
>
> as was explained to you, that is *not* a function of the os, but rather
> a function of the app.
I spoke of the SYSTEM as a whole. And you failed to show a single counter
example. In fact you snipped the link to the video where I even show you what
I was speaking of:
https://youtu.be/IouS4iDvsOQ
You avoided speaking of the very topic being discussed to, again, just declare
yourself right and others wrong, even though you fail to back your point. As
far as I know there were NO programs on Classic Mac that had a preferences
file where this did not work (which is not to say none existed, but I do not
recall running into any). Do you? I bet not.
>> This was a pretty cool feature common in Classic Mac -- the norm -- which is
>> not generally seen, if ever, in modern macOS. There are alternate solutions,
>> such as profiles, that do much the same.
>
> it was never the norm
Then surely you can show an app that did not do this.
But you will not. You make claims you do not support.
> and can be done in mac os x, should an app
> developer choose to implement it.
>
> the reason it's not is because it's an unintuitive idea and a complete
> hack and mac os x has much better methods.
I noted where SOME apps have better methods -- I am glad you understood that
(specifically I spoke of profiles).
>> I snipped several other examples where you just declare someone else wrong
>> but
>> offer nothing about tech. That makes the conversation be about YOU... and
>> your
>> insecurities. Do you see this yet?
>
> i see that you're lying and trolling.
See: you just lash out with MORE accusations, as if you cannot stop yourself.
Curious.
--
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 | 2020-08-19 18:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <190820201858369293%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134105 |
In article <hq5i8vFpb2eU10@mid.individual.net>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > > in fact, what i said was the *opposite*, that apple fully supports > > virtualization and is the road forward, and you argued against that. > > > https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple_silicon/about_the_rosetta_tran > slation_environment > ----- > What Can't Be Translated? > > Rosetta can translate most Intel-based apps, including > apps that contain just-in-time (JIT) compilers. However, > Rosetta doesn¹t translate the following executables: > > * Kernel extensions > > * Virtual Machine apps that virtualize x86_64 computer > platforms > ----- > > I noted I agree with Apple. If you disagree then by all means explain why. the above is *not* in dispute and has never been in dispute. not a single person has ever disagreed with it. you are lying again. as has been explained to you many times before, you don't understand what you're quoting. it does not say what you think it does. in particular, you do not understand and refuse to learn about the difference between virtualization, emulation and translation. what you quote above *contradicts* what you have said about apple and virtualization. > >> > at the time intel macs were introduced, classic was no longer needed. > >> > >> Well, you can argue many things are not NEEDED, but there were many who > >> could still benefit from it and still want it. > > > > not enough to justify the significant effort to implement it, which is > > what i said an which you snipped, deliberately trying to alter context. > > I did no such thing. Direct copy and paste from the post I responded to: yes you did. stop lying. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > But as the Mac picked up momemtum and mreo and mreo applicatiosn were > > returning to the platform, the need to maintain "classic" went away. > > that part is true. > > at the time intel macs were introduced, classic was no longer needed. > > > >> Openstep on Mach (aka: Nextstep with updated API from the Openstep > > >> developments) had 0 compatibility with existing Mac applications. > > > > > > nobody said it did. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Notice there was no further content from you AT ALL in that section of your > text, no less something to alter the meaning of that one sentence. notice that you are lying. here's the relevant quote: In article <190820200032159996%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > obviously, classic could not exist on the intel platform without a > shitload of additional effort, which could not be justified. when intel > macs were introduced, there was no classic, nor was it needed. > >> Heck, I used Classic Mac the other > >> day to show you a feature that was pretty much universal on it, of which > >> you > >> showed little understanding (and never did show any contrary examples): > > > > as was explained to you, that is *not* a function of the os, but rather > > a function of the app. > > I spoke of the SYSTEM as a whole. you claimed it was an os function. it is not. you are wrong and you refuse to admit your error. > You avoided speaking of the very topic being discussed to, again, just declare > yourself right and others wrong, even though you fail to back your point. i did back my point, and as usual, you did not understand and ignored it. > As > far as I know there were NO programs on Classic Mac that had a preferences > file where this did not work (which is not to say none existed, but I do not > recall running into any). Do you? I bet not. there were many apps that did not. it was the exception, not the rule. as previously explained to you, app developers had to explicitly special case handling pref files to do what you claim. if they did not, then the app did *not* switch prefs. mac os x apps can easily do the same thing, should the app developer choose to do so, but given that it is unintuitive, a gross hack and better methods exist, none do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 20:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrjr3m2.1ib4.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134097 |
In message <hq5cjtFpb2eU6@mid.individual.net> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On Aug 19, 2020 at 3:34:26 AM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> In article <TI6%G.94055$355.57871@fx27.iad>, JF Mezei >> <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> >>> >>> > obviously, classic could not exist on the intel platform without a >>> > shitload of additional effort, >>> >>> Sheepshaver could have been improved with tighter integration in the >>> file system. >> >> sheepshaver has absolutely nothing to do with classic or apple. >> >>> The advantage is that Booting "classic" in it is self >>> contained and not dependent on classic libraries existing and being >>> updated on OS-X so less maintenance needed by Apple. >> >> false. > Human interaction tip: if you think he is wrong then explain what you think is > the correct view. This has been done dozens of times over years, but JF is a FUDster and incapable of reading anything for comprehension. He repeats the same bullshit lies and idiotic assumptions over and over again. > Well, you can argue many things are not NEEDED, but there were many who could "Many" is a weasel word. There were an insignificantly small percentage of users who wanted Classic to stay and an even less significant percentage of those people now. Is that many? It might be 5 people, and you might call that many, but it is not meaningful to claim "many", Hint: Most Mac users have never heard of Classic or have only dim memories of the app's existence and never used it for anything. -- Ninety percent of true love is acute, ear-burning embarrassment. --Wyrd Sisters
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hq5jf8Fpb2eU12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #134100 |
On Aug 19, 2020 at 1:42:42 PM MST, "Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <hq5cjtFpb2eU6@mid.individual.net> Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On Aug 19, 2020 at 3:34:26 AM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >>> In article <TI6%G.94055$355.57871@fx27.iad>, JF Mezei >>> <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> > obviously, classic could not exist on the intel platform without a >>>> > shitload of additional effort, >>>> >>>> Sheepshaver could have been improved with tighter integration in the >>>> file system. >>> >>> sheepshaver has absolutely nothing to do with classic or apple. >>> >>>> The advantage is that Booting "classic" in it is self >>>> contained and not dependent on classic libraries existing and being >>>> updated on OS-X so less maintenance needed by Apple. >>> >>> false. > >> Human interaction tip: if you think he is wrong then explain what you think >> is >> the correct view. > > This has been done dozens of times over years, but JF is a FUDster and > incapable of reading anything for comprehension. He repeats the same > bullshit lies and idiotic assumptions over and over again. Perhaps... but I do not see how the excuses the poor behavior of others. >> Well, you can argue many things are not NEEDED, but there were many who >> could > > "Many" is a weasel word. There were an insignificantly small percentage > of users who wanted Classic to stay and an even less significant > percentage of those people now. Is that many? It might be 5 people, and > you might call that many, but it is not meaningful to claim "many", > > Hint: Most Mac users have never heard of Classic or have only dim > memories of the app's existence and never used it for anything. At the time it was removed there were a fair number not happy with it... though that does not imply I think it was a bad choice. -- 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 | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 18:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <LUh%G.156552$I15.95577@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #134107 |
On 2020-08-19 17:21, Snit wrote: > At the time it was removed there were a fair number not happy with it... > though that does not imply I think it was a bad choice. Sheepshaver provides a way to run the Classic apps. Less integration than the apple provided "Blue Box" but enough. So the pain of Apple pulling the plug on its implemnentation wasn't has big.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 18:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <190820201858389385%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134107 |
In article <hq5jf8Fpb2eU12@mid.individual.net>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> Well, you can argue many things are not NEEDED, but there were many who > >> could > > > > "Many" is a weasel word. There were an insignificantly small percentage > > of users who wanted Classic to stay and an even less significant > > percentage of those people now. Is that many? It might be 5 people, and > > you might call that many, but it is not meaningful to claim "many", > > > > Hint: Most Mac users have never heard of Classic or have only dim > > memories of the app's existence and never used it for anything. > > At the time it was removed there were a fair number not happy with it... no there weren't. the number of people who cared about classic in 2006 when intel macs were introduced was almost none. they were just vocal about it. dropping classic did not impact mac sales at all. in fact, sales went *up* with it gone, by a *lot*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-20 03:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrjrrl3.2b36.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134107 |
In message <hq5jf8Fpb2eU12@mid.individual.net> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On Aug 19, 2020 at 1:42:42 PM MST, "Lewis" > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> In message <hq5cjtFpb2eU6@mid.individual.net> Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On Aug 19, 2020 at 3:34:26 AM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> In article <TI6%G.94055$355.57871@fx27.iad>, JF Mezei >>>> <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> > obviously, classic could not exist on the intel platform without a >>>>> > shitload of additional effort, >>>>> >>>>> Sheepshaver could have been improved with tighter integration in the >>>>> file system. >>>> >>>> sheepshaver has absolutely nothing to do with classic or apple. >>>> >>>>> The advantage is that Booting "classic" in it is self >>>>> contained and not dependent on classic libraries existing and being >>>>> updated on OS-X so less maintenance needed by Apple. >>>> >>>> false. >> >>> Human interaction tip: if you think he is wrong then explain what you think >>> is >>> the correct view. >> >> This has been done dozens of times over years, but JF is a FUDster and >> incapable of reading anything for comprehension. He repeats the same >> bullshit lies and idiotic assumptions over and over again. > Perhaps... but I do not see how the excuses the poor behavior of others. We're tired of repeating ourself to a jackass who refuses to read. >>> Well, you can argue many things are not NEEDED, but there were many who >>> could >> >> "Many" is a weasel word. There were an insignificantly small percentage >> of users who wanted Classic to stay and an even less significant >> percentage of those people now. Is that many? It might be 5 people, and >> you might call that many, but it is not meaningful to claim "many", >> >> Hint: Most Mac users have never heard of Classic or have only dim >> memories of the app's existence and never used it for anything. > At the time it was removed there were a fair number not happy with it... Again, weasel words. How many? Did it slow down adoption of the new non-Classic OS (it do not). Was there a huge outcry as if a million voices had all been silenced? There was not. Were there people complaining? of course, there are ALWAYS people complaining. Apple just changed the Test flight icon. I did not notice the change, but saw people complaining about the change. -- The reaper does not listen to the harvest. --Reaper Man
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-16 08:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Ag9_G.83777$qo5.37510@fx23.iad> |
| In reply to | #133950 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: > In article <7V7YG.151250$HY4.66027@fx37.iad>, JF Mezei > <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> >> >> So Steve Jobs invested in NeXT in 1985, a computer company, and invested >> in Pixar in 1986, also a computer company. > > he did much more than just invest in next. He founded NeXT, along with I think 5 people that he took from Apple when he left. He put a lot of money into it too, and later conned Ross Perot into investing. (IBM and Canon also invested and lost money.) > >> Pixar had proprioetary CPU, NeXT used a 68k CPU fom motorola. BTW, NeXT >> also migrated from 68k to PowerPC. > > no they didn't. next did not use powerpc at all until they were bought > by apple nearly a decade later. > Agreed. >> NeXTSTEP was also ported to PA-RISC (HP_ and SPARC (Sun) workstations. > > that part is true. > It was OPENSTEP AFAIK that was ported to PA-RISC and SPARC. I played with OPENSTEP SPARC once at the local Sun offices when they were showing it off. >> While NeXTSTEP >> ran on Intel boxes, the porting of the valious Apple frameworks (Carbon >> etc) was done to NextSTEP on PowerPC only. > > nope. mac os led a secret dual-life on intel, which was explained to > you before. Agreed. It would have been really stupid of them to have stopped the Intel port.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-10 14:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rgrhbl$lol$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #133949 |
On 10/08/2020 09:52, JF Mezei wrote: > Have been going back in history on computer graphcs and stumbled on the > history of Pixar Not sure where it fits into all this, but I know they rendered the original Toy Story on a cluster of Sun SPARCstation 20's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 10:04 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <rgsg99$h6o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #133951 |
On 2020-08-10 13:16:38 +0000, Calum said: > On 10/08/2020 09:52, JF Mezei wrote: >> Have been going back in history on computer graphcs and stumbled on the >> history of Pixar > > Not sure where it fits into all this, but I know they rendered the > original Toy Story on a cluster of Sun SPARCstation 20's. The computer graphic scenes of the TV show SeaQuest DSV were done on Amiga computers. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 07:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrj4haq.1mts.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #133956 |
In message <rgsg99$h6o$1@gioia.aioe.org> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > On 2020-08-10 13:16:38 +0000, Calum said: >> On 10/08/2020 09:52, JF Mezei wrote: >>> Have been going back in history on computer graphcs and stumbled on the >>> history of Pixar >> >> Not sure where it fits into all this, but I know they rendered the >> original Toy Story on a cluster of Sun SPARCstation 20's. > The computer graphic scenes of the TV show SeaQuest DSV were done on > Amiga computers. :-) Many effects were done on Amigas thanks to the Video Toaster. All the effects for Babylon 5 and many other shows. B5 was, I believe, the first show to have all its effects done by computer. -- 'I'm a raven, aren't I?' it said. 'One of the few birds who speak. The first thing people say is, oh, you're a raven, go on, say the N word... If I had a penny for every time that's happened, I'd-'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-16 08:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9G9_G.161292$zX4.19874@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #133956 |
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> writes: > On 2020-08-10 13:16:38 +0000, Calum said: >> On 10/08/2020 09:52, JF Mezei wrote: >>> Have been going back in history on computer graphcs and stumbled on the >>> history of Pixar >> Not sure where it fits into all this, but I know they rendered the >> original Toy Story on a cluster of Sun SPARCstation 20's. > > The computer graphic scenes of the TV show SeaQuest DSV were done on > Amiga computers. :-) Along with Babylon V of course. :-) I think that I read that after the first season they used other things (SGI?), but the Amiga was what they started with (and they did some amazing stuff with it).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-16 17:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrjiq8u.21u5.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134046 |
In message <9G9_G.161292$zX4.19874@fx41.iad> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> writes: >> On 2020-08-10 13:16:38 +0000, Calum said: >>> On 10/08/2020 09:52, JF Mezei wrote: >>>> Have been going back in history on computer graphcs and stumbled on the >>>> history of Pixar >>> Not sure where it fits into all this, but I know they rendered the >>> original Toy Story on a cluster of Sun SPARCstation 20's. >> >> The computer graphic scenes of the TV show SeaQuest DSV were done on >> Amiga computers. :-) > Along with Babylon V of course. :-) > I think that I read that after the first season they used other things > (SGI?), but the Amiga was what they started with (and they did some > amazing stuff with it). According to the main SFX guy whose name I cannot remember, but who I heard on a podcast, all of B5 was done on the Amiga. -- Law of Probability Dispersal: Whatever hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-10 08:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rgrok8$u4v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #133949 |
On 2020-08-10 1:52 a.m., JF Mezei wrote: > Have been going back in history on computer graphcs and stumbled on the > history of Pixar > > > Promotional video from 1988: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhhGfdkK9Ek > > Note the speed at which it rendes 1 frame for the clown or the plane. I > remember those days. Now, an iPhoen does this at over 30 frames per > socond in your hand. > > > Wikipedia: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar > > Lucasfilm, after Star Wars decided to hire some computer engineers to > help develop computer graphics im 1979. They built computers called > "Pixar". They didn't sell well, so Lucasfilm spun it off in 1986 and > guess who bought majority? Steve Jobs for $10m dollars. (eventually > increased his stake by investing $50m) The new company was named... wait > for it.... Pixar. It remained focused on selling computers but also > developped the imaging software. (if you have watched the video above, > you will have seen they had medical, mapping and other coprporate goals, > not just movies), Pixar never made a computer; not in the sense we understand one anyway. Pixar made what was essentially a special add-on Sun or Silicon Graphics workstation. > > > The Pixar Image COmputer was very much custom designed, and they had > their own CPU chip called CHAP. They own bus "YAPBUS (Yet Another Pixad > BUS). So like DEC, they decigned all of their computers. It was high > performance for images but not muchj else. > > Important: The folks at Lucasfilm/Pixar developped the concep]t of Alpha > channel for images). Wrong. So very wrong. The alpha channel was invented in the late 1970s and was fully developed by 1984. > > The CPU was quite interesing. As with others at the time, single core, > single execution stream. But, each instruction acted on 4 sets of values > at the same time. You didn't add 1 to register A, you added 1,1,1,1 to > registers A B C D in one instruction. > > This way, each instruction did the same to all 4 values makiing up a > pixel in an image (R B G and alpha). > > So for processing images, this machines was significantly faster than a > VAX 75 which was branc new at the time. > > http://www.ricomputermuseum.org/Home/equipment/pixar-image-computer > > > So Steve Jobs got majority of Pixar for $10m (so total value around $20m > ) in 1986. It was sold to Disney for $7.4b in 2006. > > > After the Pixar and Pixar II cpmpiters worked well, but sold fewer than > 200 units, they abandonned hardware and focused on sofwtare in 1990. > > > Can't remember which software package it was, but it cane with a > diskette for RenderMan (I think it was a Macromedia precursor to > Extreme 3D). Wrong. > > So Steve Jobs invested in NeXT in 1985, a computer company, and invested > in Pixar in 1986, also a computer company. Jobs created NeXT from scratch. > > Pixar had proprioetary CPU, NeXT used a 68k CPU fom motorola. BTW, NeXT > also migrated from 68k to PowerPC. Wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 03:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <btrYG.147801$Av7.105577@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #133952 |
On 2020-08-10 11:20, Alan Baker wrote: > Pixar never made a computer; not in the sense we understand one anyway. If you followed the links, you would have seen actual hi=rez pictures of the computers after which the company was named after Lucasfilm spun it off. (The Pxiar. There were 2, the Pixer and Pixar 2. > Pixar made what was essentially a special add-on Sun or Silicon Graphics > workstation. Opposite. They were the mainframe, and the workstations wwere used to control/access it. The power of those Pixar computers was huge 200 VUPs (VAX units of performance, aka 200 times the speed of a VAX 750 was was a big horsepower for those days). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar_Image_Computer The output went direct from the Pixar computer to the imaging hardware (which created printed images or created video frames to videotape) Read the wikipedia, it si quite interesting. It was "way off" what we knew of the computers of the day. But very specialized for image processing. >> Important: The folks at Lucasfilm/Pixar developped the concep]t of Alpha >> channel for images). > > Wrong. So very wrong. > The alpha channel was invented in the late 1970s and was fully developed > by 1984. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar Catmull and Smoth invented the alpha channel while at Computer Graphics Lab of new York Instutute of Technology. They imploemented it when they moved to Lucasfilm and designed the first Pixar computer. Read the history, quite fascinating on where people came from and whyat they did before the Pixar company that is part of more recent history. The youtube video I posted also showed much of the actual business work they did before focusing on movies The fanous shorts they did was promotional stuff. >> Pixar had proprioetary CPU, NeXT used a 68k CPU fom motorola. BTW, NeXT >> also migrated from 68k to PowerPC. > > Wrong. Sorry, meant NeXT that did that. Pixar sold the hardware in 1990 to Vicom and didn't do OS, just did imaging apps after that. Luxo Jr (1986) was rendered on the Pixar Computer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 17:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rgvc4q$q57$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #133960 |
On 2020-08-11 12:07 a.m., JF Mezei wrote: > On 2020-08-10 11:20, Alan Baker wrote: > >> Pixar never made a computer; not in the sense we understand one anyway. > > If you followed the links, you would have seen actual hi=rez pictures of > the computers after which the company was named after Lucasfilm spun it > off. (The Pxiar. There were 2, the Pixer and Pixar 2. Wrong. They were appliances you attached to an actual personal computer/workstation. > >> Pixar made what was essentially a special add-on Sun or Silicon Graphics >> workstation. > > Opposite. They were the mainframe, and the workstations wwere used to > control/access it. The power of those Pixar computers was huge 200 VUPs > (VAX units of performance, aka 200 times the speed of a VAX 750 was was > a big horsepower for those days). Nope. They are not more a computer than certain image processing boards you could install inside a Mac Pro. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar_Image_Computer > > The output went direct from the Pixar computer to the imaging hardware > (which created printed images or created video frames to videotape) So? The output from a printer goes "direct" to paper. And despite the fact that it has a CPU and does processing, it, too, is not a computer in the ordinary sense of the word. > > Read the wikipedia, it si quite interesting. It was "way off" what we > knew of the computers of the day. But very specialized for image processing. > > > >>> Important: The folks at Lucasfilm/Pixar developped the concep]t of Alpha >>> channel for images). >> >> Wrong. So very wrong. > >> The alpha channel was invented in the late 1970s and was fully developed >> by 1984. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar > > Catmull and Smoth invented the alpha channel while > at Computer Graphics Lab of new York Instutute of Technology. They > imploemented it when they moved to Lucasfilm and designed the first > Pixar computer. You need to read a little deeper: 'Alpha and the History of Digital Compositing Technical Memo 7 Alvy Ray Smith August 15, 1995 To store matte information, the concept of an alpha channel was introduced by Alvy Ray Smith in the late 1970s and fully developed in a 1984 paper by Thomas Porter and Tom Duff.[1] ' <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_compositing> And straight from the inventor's "mouth": 'Ed Catmull and I invented the notion of the integral alpha in the 1970s at New York Tech. This is the notion that opacity (or, equivalently, transparency) of an image is as fundamental as its color and should therefore be included as part of the image, not as a secondary accompaniment. To be very clear, we did not invent digital mattes or digital compositing. These were obvious digital adaptations of known analog techniques. We invented the notion of the alpha channel as a fundamental component of an image. We coined the term “alpha” for the new channel. We called the resulting full-color pixel an “RGBA” pixel. Thus RGB images (Red, Green, Blue) became RGBA images (Red, Green, Blue, Alpha) in all work done by the Catmull/Smith team from that point forward, including Lucasfilm and Pixar.' <https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spring12/cos426/papers/Smith95c.pdf> You cannot "develop the CONCEPT" of a concept that existed about 15 years before Pixar was founded.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 00:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bHKYG.163008$7vd.159129@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #133981 |
On 2020-08-11 20:12, Alan Baker wrote: > You cannot "develop the CONCEPT" of a concept that existed about 15 > years before Pixar was founded. Catmull and Smith were hired by Lucasfilm to implement their NYIT reasearch. I was intending to give pointers to "prehistoric" computing activities to show that Pixar had existed as a company well before it was knows to make movies. I will give the link again to the Pixar computer museum page: http://www.ricomputermuseum.org/Home/equipment/pixar-image-computer I had a link to a PDF that described teh CHAP architecture, but won't bother pulling it up. You can google it. This is not attachment to a workstation. The workstations were consoles used to access the Pixar mainframe. I guess one cannot discuss the beginnings of a company would would eventually become closely associated with Steve Jobs. I found that history surprising and fascinating. There were many computer companies in late 1970s and early 1980s. There was the BUNCH (Burroughs, UNIVAC, NCR, Control Data Corporation (CDC), and Honeywell) Digital, HP, Amdhal and others (including Cray, RCA, GE and at one point Data General), most with their own proprietary architectures (Amdhal did make IBM 370 clones). But to find out that Pixar had developped its own total architecture bit at the CPU and computyer system (buses etc) was a surprise. Had always seen then as a graphical applications software company. Never knew they started off so low in the computing tree.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 22:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rgvuda$5pf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #133982 |
On 2020-08-11 9:59 p.m., JF Mezei wrote: > On 2020-08-11 20:12, Alan Baker wrote: > >> You cannot "develop the CONCEPT" of a concept that existed about 15 >> years before Pixar was founded. > > > Catmull and Smith were hired by Lucasfilm to implement their NYIT > reasearch. That does not change the fact that the CONCEPT originated long before there was a Pixar. > > I was intending to give pointers to "prehistoric" computing activities > to show that Pixar had existed as a company well before it was knows to > make movies. Which all of us who actually understand this stuff already knew. > > > I will give the link again to the Pixar computer museum page: > > http://www.ricomputermuseum.org/Home/equipment/pixar-image-computer > > I had a link to a PDF that described teh CHAP architecture, but won't > bother pulling it up. You can google it. This is not attachment to a > workstation. > > The workstations were consoles used to access the Pixar mainframe. 1. It wasn't a mainframe, it was a specialized piece of equipment to process images. 2. If it were a computer as the term is commonly used, then you wouldn't have needed a workstation to be a console. The fact is that the computer was the workstation. That is where the modeling was done. If you're going to define computer as anything that has a CPU, then there is hardly an electronic device in your house that doesn't meet that definition. > > I guess one cannot discuss the beginnings of a company would would > eventually become closely associated with Steve Jobs. I found that > history surprising and fascinating. > > > There were many computer companies in late 1970s and early 1980s. > There was the BUNCH (Burroughs, UNIVAC, NCR, Control Data Corporation > (CDC), and Honeywell) Digital, HP, Amdhal and others (including Cray, > RCA, GE and at one point Data General), most with their own proprietary > architectures (Amdhal did make IBM 370 clones). > > But to find out that Pixar had developped its own total architecture bit > at the CPU and computyer system (buses etc) was a surprise. Had always > seen then as a graphical applications software company. Never knew they > started off so low in the computing tree. Read and for once... ...learn: 'The PIC did not have a direct user interface, meaning that it cannot be used on its own. For this, it requires a Unix-based workstation acting as a host machine to operate it (at least to provide a keyboard and mouse), from brands such as Sun Microsystems or Silicon Graphics. The system interfaces to the host machine via the SYSBUS. It is used as a special-purpose graphics system for a variety of host machines, from personal computers to supercomputers.' <https://pixar.fandom.com/wiki/Pixar_Image_Computer> Did you read that last sentence: 'It is used as a special-purpose graphics system for a variety of host machines, from personal computers to supercomputers.' Except for the fact that it was external, the Pixar Image Computer is no different than the many high-end special purpose boards made for doing work using Adobe After Effects, Adobe Premiere, and Apple's Final Cut. It's not a computer in the general sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 19:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5W_YG.157848$HY4.69647@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #133983 |
On 2020-08-12 01:23, Alan Baker wrote: > 2. If it were a computer as the term is commonly used, then you wouldn't > have needed a workstation to be a console. The fact is that the computer > was the workstation. That is where the modeling was done. By your definition, the Cray super computers weren't computers either because they too required workstations to control it. > If you're going to define computer as anything that has a CPU, then > there is hardly an electronic device in your house that doesn't meet > that definition. It had an OS, ran applications, it had multiple CPUs (CHAP), and a couple of differente buses, it has its own RAM and own peripherals. Programs were written and compiled to run on it and once started on the Pixar computer, the programs ran without needing the workstation. So I guess based on your definitiosn, the Cray supercomputers have to be downgraded because they too offered no user iinterface and had to be accessed from a workstation. Your definitions is at odds with reality. I guess you have to always find ways to disagree with me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 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