On 2021-10-18 1:56 a.m., Rod Speed wrote:
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>> The original post had Apple apologist state the Mac wa first
>>>>>>>>> product out with GUI.
>>>>>>> > > nobody said that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. One of your apologist ilk showed all the firsts for Apple, and
>>>>>>> mentioned Mac being first GUI. Which is what triggered my
>>>>>>> response that
>>>>>>> Lisa was first. With expected automatic denials by your ilk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nope. what was said was the mac was yet another thing that apple did
>>>>>> which did *not* follow the rest of the industry.
>>>>>> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>>>>>> the xerox star did exist, but in very small numbers, mainly
>>>>>> because it
>>>>>> was very slow and very expensive.
>>>>>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire
>>>>>> computing
>>>>>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, realised that a GUI was a good idea, just like Jobs did.
>>>>
>>>> And copied code wholesale from the Mac OS...
>>>
>>> Nope, lots of the detail is very different.
>
>> I'm sorry,
>
> Obvious lie.
>
>> but there was a time when you could actually read the source code
>
> Like hell you could with both Mac OS and the first Win.
>
>> and see that some functions in Windows had precisely the same names as
>> the same functions in Mac OS.
>
> Hardly surprising that the same NAME was used.
>
> Doesn’t mean that the CODE was stolen.
>
> It cant have been when the detail of the GUI was so different.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

On 18/10/2021 04.27, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-10-17 4:19 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire computing
>>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>>
>> In my humble opinion, Apple did a few things which revolutionized their
>> respective industries, but the Mac wasn't all that much more of an
>> influence
>> than the IBM AT was, IMHO.
>
> The IBM PC was in direct response to the grown success of the Apple II

No success at all. Nobody used it here. Everybody was waiting for the
PC, and when it appeared, it was an explosion.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2021-10-18 5:39 a.m., Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 18/10/2021 04.27, Alan wrote:
>> On 2021-10-17 4:19 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>>>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire computing
>>>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>>>
>>> In my humble opinion, Apple did a few things which revolutionized their
>>> respective industries, but the Mac wasn't all that much more of an
>>> influence
>>> than the IBM AT was, IMHO.
>>
>> The IBM PC was in direct response to the grown success of the Apple II
>
> No success at all. Nobody used it here. Everybody was waiting for the
> PC, and when it appeared, it was an explosion.
>
>

You get that Spain isn't the entire world, and that what happens in
Spain doesn't determine what companies decide to do, right?

Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The original post had Apple apologist state the Mac wa first
>>>>>>>>>> product out with GUI.
>>>>>>>> > > nobody said that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. One of your apologist ilk showed all the firsts for Apple, and
>>>>>>>> mentioned Mac being first GUI. Which is what triggered my response
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> Lisa was first. With expected automatic denials by your ilk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nope. what was said was the mac was yet another thing that apple did
>>>>>>> which did *not* follow the rest of the industry.
>>>>>>> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>>>>>>> the xerox star did exist, but in very small numbers, mainly because
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> was very slow and very expensive.
>>>>>>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire
>>>>>>> computing
>>>>>>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, realised that a GUI was a good idea, just like Jobs did.
>>>>>
>>>>> And copied code wholesale from the Mac OS...
>>>>
>>>> Nope, lots of the detail is very different.
>>
>>> I'm sorry,
>>
>> Obvious lie.
>>
>>> but there was a time when you could actually read the source code
>>
>> Like hell you could with both Mac OS and the first Win.
>>
>>> and see that some functions in Windows had precisely the same names as
>>> the same functions in Mac OS.
>>
>> Hardly surprising that the same NAME was used.
>>
>> Doesn’t mean that the CODE was stolen.
>>
>> It cant have been when the detail of the GUI was so different.
>
> I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.

Have fun explaining how you can steal the code
when the detail of the GUI is so different.

And why Apple didn’t shaft IBM for stealing the code.

On 2021-10-18 11:23 a.m., Rod Speed wrote:
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The original post had Apple apologist state the Mac wa first
>>>>>>>>>>> product out with GUI.
>>>>>>>>> > > nobody said that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes. One of your apologist ilk showed all the firsts for Apple,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> mentioned Mac being first GUI. Which is what triggered my
>>>>>>>>> response that
>>>>>>>>> Lisa was first. With expected automatic denials by your ilk.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> nope. what was said was the mac was yet another thing that apple
>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>> which did *not* follow the rest of the industry.
>>>>>>>> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>>>>>>>> the xerox star did exist, but in very small numbers, mainly
>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>> was very slow and very expensive.
>>>>>>>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire
>>>>>>>> computing
>>>>>>>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, realised that a GUI was a good idea, just like Jobs did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And copied code wholesale from the Mac OS...
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, lots of the detail is very different.
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry,
>>>
>>> Obvious lie.
>>>
>>>> but there was a time when you could actually read the source code
>>>
>>> Like hell you could with both Mac OS and the first Win.
>>>
>>>> and see that some functions in Windows had precisely the same names
>>>> as the same functions in Mac OS.
>>>
>>> Hardly surprising that the same NAME was used.
>>>
>>> Doesn’t mean that the CODE was stolen.
>>>
>>> It cant have been when the detail of the GUI was so different.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
>
> Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
>
> Have fun explaining how you can steal the code
> when the detail of the GUI is so different.
>
> And why Apple didn’t shaft IBM for stealing the code.

Wow.

Wota stunning example of you not understanding the history.

Or else, why would you have suggested that /IBM/ was in any way involved?

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> Alan wrote
>> Robin Goodfellow wrote
>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote

>>>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire computing
>>>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>>>
>>> In my humble opinion, Apple did a few things which revolutionized their
>>> respective industries, but the Mac wasn't all that much more of an
>>> influence
>>> than the IBM AT was, IMHO.
>>
>> The IBM PC was in direct response to the grown success of the Apple II
>
> No success at all. Nobody used it here.

That’s bullshit and your dinosaur of a country is irrelevant anyway.

> Everybody was waiting for the PC,

They had no idea it was coming so couldn’t have waited for it.

> and when it appeared, it was an explosion.

That happened everywhere, essentially because it meant that
the PC wasn’t just something from a previously unknown
garage operation which may or may not work out to be viable.

What are you personally going to do now that prostitution
is going to be stamped out in your country ?

Guess you can just go across the border when you need to.

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> asked
> The IBM PC continued the command line approach of CPM, commdore PET and
> others. It is because of the Mac that IBM/Microsoft worked on an
> application called Windows to emulate graphics on a PC.

Since you're not an apologist, a normal adult conversation, with nuance, is
possible with you, where I'll incorporate what you claim with what I
remember below.

For _me_, the Apple PC (I don't remember which one it was I was using at a
school environment) was just a toy for making graphics in the early days
(when most computer printers were dot matrix and yet the Apple PCs had a
laser printer - which was horribly slow - but the printout was very nice).

For _me_, the "personal computer" didn't take off until the IBM AT days, and
even then, I remember we had to separately install Windows 2.1 (or something
like that) and then Windows 3.x (as I recall anyway), which just wasn't
worth the hassle.

It was only until a true Windows came out that the IBM PC, for me, killed
the Apple PC (although my first PC came without a hard drive so I had to
spend something like $400 to buy a 10MB HDD (as I recall anyway).

For me, the true Windows PC left the Apple PCs in the dust, and there was
only one chance for the Apple PC to catch up which was when I was using the
predecessor of PowerPoint on it in a commercial environment but at some
point the Windows PowerPoint took over, and then at some other point
Microsoft Office (which was the mainstay of my tool suite) ran miserably
slowly on the Apple PCs (this was in the days where I was also connecting
Apple, Windows, and SunOS machines using CAP, CIFs, and Samba, and where I
was sadly introduced to the infamous resource & data forks on Apple PCs).

It was greatly to my delight that this commercial environment of
professional Windows PCs were vastly quicker than anything Apple offered at
the time with respect to Microsoft Windows (later on, they caught up - but
it was too late by then - they missed the boat).

It was the same with Solaris, when Linux kicked their ass and left Sun in
the dust, never to return.

In summary, you may be correct that Windows _copied_ the Apple GUI (which
Apple copied also but others covered that already), but my recollection is
that the IBM PC killed the Apple PC once Microsoft Office took hold in the
commercial environment (PowerPoint, Excel, and Word mostly).

Of course, the opposite likely happened in the graphics arena.

> The LIsa and Mac had mouse driver and window server integrated into the
> operating system whereas the IBM PC, it was all layered as an
> application caled "Windows" (no mouse when in DOS mode). And all that
> came much later than the Mac.

While I agree the driver situation was miserable on the early Microsoft
operating systems, today it's pretty decent (except perhaps for printers,
where even Linux beats out Microsoft in terms of supporting legacy
printers).

Nowadays, the drivers aren't a problem on _any_ personal computer, are they?
>> Of course, the first iPhone revolutionalized the smartphone, but perhaps not
>> much more than the blackberry did before it
>
> Many phones had email clients and WAP browsers before Blackberry.

I had a kyocera which was my first 'smart' phone. It stunk. But it had a
stylus (as I recall). It was the reason I left Verizon as Verizon upped my
two year contract (the company was paying for everything in those days) when
mine broke and it had to be replaced on the insurance plan which the company
was paying for. I didn't like that so I moved to AT&T instead when that
renewed Verizon two year contract ran out. Like the Apple PC, I never looked
back. You miss the boat with most consumers who found something better.

> Blackberry had a keyboard instead of just the numeric keypad. And it had
> different business model where all data flowed through Blackberry/RIM
> servers before going to the Internet (since RIM handled encryption).
> But my old Siemens or Ericsson 790 had same apps/functions as a
> Blackberry, just more ackward to use because smaller.

The company paid for our Blackberrys which I had after the Kyocera, which I
had on AT&T (see above why I left Verizon for AT&T). Eventually I retired
and kept my blackberry on AT&T until the clit broke and AT&T insisted on
forcing me to pay for data even as AT&T would put a data block on the line
so that I wouldn't be charged for data.

I considered AT&T's position ridiculous, and even googled for how to change
the IMEI as in those days, a "smartphone" was on a small list of specific
phones, but eventually I just dropped AT&T for T-Mobile who didn't care that
I didn't want data (in those early days, data cost a lot more than just
voice).

Again, I dropped AT&T the instant the contract ran out and never looked
back, much as I did with the iPods when Sharepod ceased to work.

Sharepod was great because it TAUGHT me what Apple's marketing strategy was.

Notice this in Sharepod of those days (which I still have and still use!).
a. It was free
b. It did EXACTLY what you wanted it to to
c. Which was it had an Excel-like GUI that populated your iPod

You could populate any iPod with anything you wanted to (mostly MP3s).
Yes. Any iPod. Any file.
Anything you wanted to do.
Just like God intended your own devices to be able to do.

No crappy Apple bullshit rules about what you could or couldn't do.
No crappy complex Apple iTunes bullshit interface that didn't do what you
wanted it to do (and which tended to deleted EVERYTHING on the iPod if you
weren't super careful because of its idiotic "library" definition rules).
No crappy Apple bullshit with installing quicktime and other bullshit
unnecessary bloatware (that I'm sure the apologists just loved to install).

That iTunes was an utter abomination of restrictions.
You had _more functionality_ without iTunes on Windows than with iTunes.
The _only_ thing you needed iTunes for was the initial initialization of the
iPod (and even that "could" be done with other tools - but that wasn't worth
the effort).

So what you'd do was buy the iPod at Costco (it may have still been "Price
Club" at that time). Then install the iTunes abomination on Windows.
Initialize the iPod. Then spend more time removing all the freaking shitware
that Apple installed with iTunes (bonjour, quicktime, and other crap).

Then copy the SharePod executable onto the iPod and that's it.
You could now do what you wanted with that iPod.

a. You could plug it into ANY Windows computer on the planet.
b. As long as iTunes was NOT on that Windows PC, you were fine.
c. You could do EXACTLY what you'd want to do
Which is copy any song you want to/from that iPod & Windows.
You could rename the tags as you saw fit in SharePod but it was easier to
use an MP3 batch tagger for that (given you'd have ten thousand songs
amassed by that time on your various computers, iPods, and hard drives).

Anyway, the smartphone killed the iPod but what killed the iPod for me was
the instant I bought an iPod (the bigger one, as I recall) from Costco that
wouldn't run Sharepod anymore (due to the operating system on it).

I returned that iPod in a flash to Costco and that was, as with all the
rest, the last time I bought an Apple iPod.

Meanwhile, the smart phone killed all my Garmin streetpilot & nuvi's! :)

But notice a key point which is I learned that the free tools worked far
better at being easy to use, installing no bloatware whatsoever (Sharepod
didn't TOUCH the PC!), and not being artificially restricted by Apple.

I got a very good lesson in the prison garden for sure with those iPods.
(cue nospam's childish remarks about pirating putting people in prison
when the fact is NOBODY has ever been convicted who fought the charges in
torrenting any movie in the entire history of the United States on this.)
--
In the beginning, without data, I used the offline nav apps, but nowadays
with unlimited free 5G data on T-mobile, there's no need for offline save
for in emergencies (so the skills learned are still worthwhile).

On 2021-10-18 12:39 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> asked
>> The IBM PC continued the command line approach of CPM, commdore PET and
>> others. It is because of the Mac that IBM/Microsoft worked on an
>> application called Windows to emulate graphics on a PC.
>
> Since you're not an apologist, a normal adult conversation, with nuance, is
> possible with you, where I'll incorporate what you claim with what I
> remember below.
>
> For _me_, the Apple PC (I don't remember which one it was I was using at a
> school environment) was just a toy for making graphics in the early days
> (when most computer printers were dot matrix and yet the Apple PCs had a
> laser printer - which was horribly slow - but the printout was very nice).

So a Mac

>
> For _me_, the "personal computer" didn't take off until the IBM AT days, and
> even then, I remember we had to separately install Windows 2.1 (or something
> like that) and then Windows 3.x (as I recall anyway), which just wasn't
> worth the hassle.

The IBM PC was rushed into existence because of the Apple II

>
> It was only until a true Windows came out that the IBM PC, for me, killed
> the Apple PC (although my first PC came without a hard drive so I had to
> spend something like $400 to buy a 10MB HDD (as I recall anyway).
>
> For me, the true Windows PC left the Apple PCs in the dust, and there was
> only one chance for the Apple PC to catch up which was when I was using the
> predecessor of PowerPoint on it in a commercial environment but at some
> point the Windows PowerPoint took over, and then at some other point
> Microsoft Office (which was the mainstay of my tool suite) ran miserably
> slowly on the Apple PCs (this was in the days where I was also connecting
> Apple, Windows, and SunOS machines using CAP, CIFs, and Samba, and where I
> was sadly introduced to the infamous resource & data forks on Apple PCs).

Yes: that was when Microsoft's development efforts for the Mac were
TERRIBLE.

>
> It was greatly to my delight that this commercial environment of
> professional Windows PCs were vastly quicker than anything Apple offered at
> the time with respect to Microsoft Windows (later on, they caught up - but
> it was too late by then - they missed the boat).
>
> It was the same with Solaris, when Linux kicked their ass and left Sun in
> the dust, never to return.
>
> In summary, you may be correct that Windows _copied_ the Apple GUI (which
> Apple copied also but others covered that already), but my recollection is
> that the IBM PC killed the Apple PC once Microsoft Office took hold in the
> commercial environment (PowerPoint, Excel, and Word mostly).

We can't have "covered" that Apple copied the GUI, because that isn't
what happened.

>
> Of course, the opposite likely happened in the graphics arena.
>
>> The LIsa and Mac had mouse driver and window server integrated into the
>> operating system whereas the IBM PC, it was all layered as an
>> application caled "Windows" (no mouse when in DOS mode). And all that
>> came much later than the Mac.
>
> While I agree the driver situation was miserable on the early Microsoft
> operating systems, today it's pretty decent (except perhaps for printers,
> where even Linux beats out Microsoft in terms of supporting legacy
> printers).
>
> Nowadays, the drivers aren't a problem on _any_ personal computer, are they?
>
>>> Of course, the first iPhone revolutionalized the smartphone, but perhaps not
>>> much more than the blackberry did before it
>>
>> Many phones had email clients and WAP browsers before Blackberry.
>
> I had a kyocera which was my first 'smart' phone. It stunk. But it had a
> stylus (as I recall). It was the reason I left Verizon as Verizon upped my
> two year contract (the company was paying for everything in those days) when
> mine broke and it had to be replaced on the insurance plan which the company
> was paying for. I didn't like that so I moved to AT&T instead when that
> renewed Verizon two year contract ran out. Like the Apple PC, I never looked
> back. You miss the boat with most consumers who found something better.
>
>> Blackberry had a keyboard instead of just the numeric keypad. And it had
>> different business model where all data flowed through Blackberry/RIM
>> servers before going to the Internet (since RIM handled encryption).
>> But my old Siemens or Ericsson 790 had same apps/functions as a
>> Blackberry, just more ackward to use because smaller.
>
> The company paid for our Blackberrys which I had after the Kyocera, which I
> had on AT&T (see above why I left Verizon for AT&T). Eventually I retired
> and kept my blackberry on AT&T until the clit broke and AT&T insisted on
> forcing me to pay for data even as AT&T would put a data block on the line
> so that I wouldn't be charged for data.
>
> I considered AT&T's position ridiculous, and even googled for how to change
> the IMEI as in those days, a "smartphone" was on a small list of specific
> phones, but eventually I just dropped AT&T for T-Mobile who didn't care that
> I didn't want data (in those early days, data cost a lot more than just
> voice).
>
> Again, I dropped AT&T the instant the contract ran out and never looked
> back, much as I did with the iPods when Sharepod ceased to work.
>
> Sharepod was great because it TAUGHT me what Apple's marketing strategy was.

No... ...it didn't.

>
> Notice this in Sharepod of those days (which I still have and still use!).
> a. It was free
> b. It did EXACTLY what you wanted it to to
> c. Which was it had an Excel-like GUI that populated your iPod

Great. Good for it.

>
> You could populate any iPod with anything you wanted to (mostly MP3s).
> Yes. Any iPod. Any file.
> Anything you wanted to do.
> Just like God intended your own devices to be able to do.

"God"?

>
> No crappy Apple bullshit rules about what you could or couldn't do.

Apple's rules built an ecosystem that lots of people who found computers
far too intimidating could trust.

> No crappy complex Apple iTunes bullshit interface that didn't do what you
> wanted it to do (and which tended to deleted EVERYTHING on the iPod if you
> weren't super careful because of its idiotic "library" definition rules).

No. It never did that.

> No crappy Apple bullshit with installing quicktime and other bullshit
> unnecessary bloatware (that I'm sure the apologists just loved to install).

Which you could delete if you want and which, even today takes up only
(checking) 15.2MB

>
> That iTunes was an utter abomination of restrictions.
> You had _more functionality_ without iTunes on Windows than with iTunes.
> The _only_ thing you needed iTunes for was the initial initialization of the
> iPod (and even that "could" be done with other tools - but that wasn't worth
> the effort).
>
> So what you'd do was buy the iPod at Costco (it may have still been "Price
> Club" at that time). Then install the iTunes abomination on Windows.
> Initialize the iPod. Then spend more time removing all the freaking shitware
> that Apple installed with iTunes (bonjour, quicktime, and other crap).

Bonjour brought zero-conf networking to Windows.

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2021-10-17 18:58, nospam wrote:
>
> > in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.

As before, the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are re-writing
history.

The Mac and VMS Workstation Software (VWS) were *both* introduced in
1984.

The Mac was a bit earlier - January 22 - versus October for the VAXVMS
Workstation Software (VWS). So the Mac was ~10 months earlier. Big
fscking deal!

> Read about X-Windows. And there wwere many graphical systems attached
> much earlier on computers such as PDP-11s.
>
> Where Xerox/Apple made big change is the document based apprioach
> (clicking on document opens relevant app which automatically opens that
> clicked document). The existint systems were all app based when you
> chose an app from a menu and from the app, you would open the document
> in file selection menu.
>
> You forget that outside of personal computers, there were other computers.

Next he whined about those other computers not being 'personal
computers'.

That's - yet another - bogus argument, because at the time, the term
'personal computer' only meant that it was used by one person at the
time. Most 'personal computer's were owned by businesses, organizations,
etc., not by private individuals for private use. So 'personal' !=
'privately owned/used'.

So the 'personal computer' classification is a meaningless one.

For example, in 1985 I used HP 9000 computers with HP's proprietary
windowing system, but those computers were called 'workstation's. But
they *were* 'personal computer's in the sense that they were used by one
person at the time.

Next he will whine about the number of computers sold and of course he
will limit the type of computers or/and timeframes, so that Apple indeed
comes out in front (in GUI-based 'personal computers'). Bit of a bummer,
that for that 'argument' to work, he will have to keep stuck in the
past, because his beloved Macs are largely outnumbered since the last
three decades+!

On 2021-10-18 12:54 p.m., Frank Slootweg wrote:
> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 2021-10-17 18:58, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>
> As before, the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are re-writing
> history.
>
> The Mac and VMS Workstation Software (VWS) were *both* introduced in
> 1984.
>
> The Mac was a bit earlier - January 22 - versus October for the VAXVMS
> Workstation Software (VWS). So the Mac was ~10 months earlier. Big
> fscking deal!

It seemed to be a big deal to all the people who bought the Mac...

....and didn't buy VWS.

:-)

>
>> Read about X-Windows. And there wwere many graphical systems attached
>> much earlier on computers such as PDP-11s.
>>
>> Where Xerox/Apple made big change is the document based apprioach
>> (clicking on document opens relevant app which automatically opens that
>> clicked document). The existint systems were all app based when you
>> chose an app from a menu and from the app, you would open the document
>> in file selection menu.
>>
>> You forget that outside of personal computers, there were other computers.
>
> Next he whined about those other computers not being 'personal
> computers'.
>
> That's - yet another - bogus argument, because at the time, the term
> 'personal computer' only meant that it was used by one person at the
> time. Most 'personal computer's were owned by businesses, organizations,
> etc., not by private individuals for private use. So 'personal' !=
> 'privately owned/used'.
>
> So the 'personal computer' classification is a meaningless one.
>
> For example, in 1985 I used HP 9000 computers with HP's proprietary
> windowing system, but those computers were called 'workstation's. But
> they *were* 'personal computer's in the sense that they were used by one
> person at the time.
>
> Next he will whine about the number of computers sold and of course he
> will limit the type of computers or/and timeframes, so that Apple indeed
> comes out in front (in GUI-based 'personal computers'). Bit of a bummer,
> that for that 'argument' to work, he will have to keep stuck in the
> past, because his beloved Macs are largely outnumbered since the last
> three decades+!

LOL!

Apple is taking over the world.

Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The original post had Apple apologist state the Mac wa first
>>>>>>>>>>>> product out with GUI.
>>>>>>>>>> > > nobody said that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes. One of your apologist ilk showed all the firsts for Apple,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> mentioned Mac being first GUI. Which is what triggered my
>>>>>>>>>> response that
>>>>>>>>>> Lisa was first. With expected automatic denials by your ilk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> nope. what was said was the mac was yet another thing that apple
>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>> which did *not* follow the rest of the industry.
>>>>>>>>> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>>>>>>>>> the xerox star did exist, but in very small numbers, mainly
>>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>> was very slow and very expensive.
>>>>>>>>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire
>>>>>>>>> computing
>>>>>>>>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, realised that a GUI was a good idea, just like Jobs did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And copied code wholesale from the Mac OS...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, lots of the detail is very different.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry,
>>>>
>>>> Obvious lie.
>>>>
>>>>> but there was a time when you could actually read the source code
>>>>
>>>> Like hell you could with both Mac OS and the first Win.
>>>>
>>>>> and see that some functions in Windows had precisely the same names as
>>>>> the same functions in Mac OS.
>>>>
>>>> Hardly surprising that the same NAME was used.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn’t mean that the CODE was stolen.
>>>>
>>>> It cant have been when the detail of the GUI was so different.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
>>
>> Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
>>
>> Have fun explaining how you can steal the code
>> when the detail of the GUI is so different.
>>
>> And why Apple didn’t shaft IBM for stealing the code.
>
> Wow.
>
> Wota stunning example of you not understanding the history.

We'll see...

> Or else, why would you have suggested that /IBM/ was in any way involved?

Sorry, typo. In fact Gates LICENSED part of the GUI from Apple, didn’t steal
it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history#Windows_1.0

On 10/18/2021 12:54 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 2021-10-17 18:58, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>
> As before, the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are re-writing
> history.
>
> The Mac and VMS Workstation Software (VWS) were *both* introduced in
> 1984.
>
> The Mac was a bit earlier - January 22 - versus October for the VAXVMS
> Workstation Software (VWS). So the Mac was ~10 months earlier. Big
> fscking deal!
>
>> Read about X-Windows. And there wwere many graphical systems attached
>> much earlier on computers such as PDP-11s.
>>
>> Where Xerox/Apple made big change is the document based apprioach
>> (clicking on document opens relevant app which automatically opens that
>> clicked document). The existint systems were all app based when you
>> chose an app from a menu and from the app, you would open the document
>> in file selection menu.
>>
>> You forget that outside of personal computers, there were other computers.
>
> Next he whined about those other computers not being 'personal
> computers'.
>
> That's - yet another - bogus argument, because at the time, the term
> 'personal computer' only meant that it was used by one person at the
> time. Most 'personal computer's were owned by businesses, organizations,
> etc., not by private individuals for private use. So 'personal' !=
> 'privately owned/used'.
>
> So the 'personal computer' classification is a meaningless one.
>
> For example, in 1985 I used HP 9000 computers with HP's proprietary
> windowing system, but those computers were called 'workstation's. But
> they *were* 'personal computer's in the sense that they were used by one
> person at the time.
>
> Next he will whine about the number of computers sold and of course he
> will limit the type of computers or/and timeframes, so that Apple indeed
> comes out in front (in GUI-based 'personal computers'). Bit of a bummer,
> that for that 'argument' to work, he will have to keep stuck in the
> past, because his beloved Macs are largely outnumbered since the last
> three decades+!

Not sure who you're talking about whining, but if whoever it is just
said "home computers" instead of "personal computers" it would be a
different story.

On 2021-10-18 2:08 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The original post had Apple apologist state the Mac wa
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first product out with GUI.
>>>>>>>>>>> > > nobody said that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. One of your apologist ilk showed all the firsts for
>>>>>>>>>>> Apple, and
>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned Mac being first GUI. Which is what triggered my
>>>>>>>>>>> response that
>>>>>>>>>>> Lisa was first. With expected automatic denials by your ilk.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> nope. what was said was the mac was yet another thing that
>>>>>>>>>> apple did
>>>>>>>>>> which did *not* follow the rest of the industry.
>>>>>>>>>> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>>>>>>>>>> the xerox star did exist, but in very small numbers, mainly
>>>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>>> was very slow and very expensive.
>>>>>>>>>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire
>>>>>>>>>> computing
>>>>>>>>>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, realised that a GUI was a good idea, just like Jobs did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And copied code wholesale from the Mac OS...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, lots of the detail is very different.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry,
>>>>>
>>>>> Obvious lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but there was a time when you could actually read the source code
>>>>>
>>>>> Like hell you could with both Mac OS and the first Win.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and see that some functions in Windows had precisely the same
>>>>>> names as the same functions in Mac OS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hardly surprising that the same NAME was used.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn’t mean that the CODE was stolen.
>>>>>
>>>>> It cant have been when the detail of the GUI was so different.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
>>>
>>> Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
>>>
>>> Have fun explaining how you can steal the code
>>> when the detail of the GUI is so different.
>>>
>>> And why Apple didn’t shaft IBM for stealing the code.
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>> Wota stunning example of you not understanding the history.
>
> We'll see...
>
>> Or else, why would you have suggested that /IBM/ was in any way involved?
>
> Sorry, typo. In fact Gates LICENSED part of the GUI from Apple, didn’t
> steal it.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history#Windows_1.0

Licensing PART of the GUI is not the same as stealing code wholesale.

In article <skkqe3.7cc.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>
> As before, the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are re-writing
> history.

nope. the usual haters and trolls are the ones who are rewriting apple
history because they don't know what apple history actually is, which
is why they resort to insults.

> The Mac and VMS Workstation Software (VWS) were *both* introduced in
> 1984.

yes, they were, to wildly different market segments, for wildly
different use cases.

comparing the two is bizarre.

the key is that one of them changed the industry and the other did not.

> The Mac was a bit earlier - January 22 - versus October for the VAXVMS
> Workstation Software (VWS). So the Mac was ~10 months earlier. Big
> fscking deal!

speaking of rewriting history, macintosh was introduced on jan 24,
1984, and yes, it was a big deal. as noted above, it changed the entire
industry. vax did not.

unlike the vax, mac was *only* a gui. there was no command line, at
all. its entire hardware and software architecture was very different
than anything that preceded it, making it substantially easier to write
apps.

> That's - yet another - bogus argument, because at the time, the term
> 'personal computer' only meant that it was used by one person at the
> time. Most 'personal computer's were owned by businesses, organizations,
> etc., not by private individuals for private use. So 'personal' !=
> 'privately owned/used'.

it's not a bogus argument.

personal computer means not a mini or mainframe, sometimes called a
microcomputer.

a personal computer was also affordable for non-businesses, thus its
name. many people bought them for their own use and/or their kids.

a vax is a minicomputer, not a personal computer. nobody bought a vax
for their kids to do homework, play games or connect to bbses.

using your bogus definition, univac and dec pdp-7 personal computers
because only one person could use it at a time. they even came with a
desk for their single user:

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Museum_of_Sci
ence%2C_Boston%2C_MA_-_IMG_3163.JPG/800px-Museum_of_Science%2C_Boston%2C
_MA_-_IMG_3163.JPG>

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Pdp7-oslo-200
5.jpeg/800px-Pdp7-oslo-2005.jpeg>

nobody (other than you) would consider univac, pdp-7 or vax to be
personal computers.

Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The original post had Apple apologist state the Mac wa first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product out with GUI.
>>>>>>>>>>>> > > nobody said that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. One of your apologist ilk showed all the firsts for Apple,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned Mac being first GUI. Which is what triggered my
>>>>>>>>>>>> response that
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lisa was first. With expected automatic denials by your ilk.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> nope. what was said was the mac was yet another thing that apple
>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>> which did *not* follow the rest of the industry.
>>>>>>>>>>> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>>>>>>>>>>> the xerox star did exist, but in very small numbers, mainly
>>>>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>>>> was very slow and very expensive.
>>>>>>>>>>> the mac was well ahead of its time, which changed the entire
>>>>>>>>>>> computing
>>>>>>>>>>> industry. microsoft immediately started copying it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, realised that a GUI was a good idea, just like Jobs did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And copied code wholesale from the Mac OS...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, lots of the detail is very different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sorry,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obvious lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but there was a time when you could actually read the source code
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like hell you could with both Mac OS and the first Win.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and see that some functions in Windows had precisely the same names
>>>>>>> as the same functions in Mac OS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hardly surprising that the same NAME was used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn’t mean that the CODE was stolen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It cant have been when the detail of the GUI was so different.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
>>>>
>>>> Have fun explaining how you can steal the code
>>>> when the detail of the GUI is so different.
>>>>
>>>> And why Apple didn’t shaft IBM for stealing the code.
>>>
>>> Wow.
>>>
>>> Wota stunning example of you not understanding the history.
>>
>> We'll see...
>>
>>> Or else, why would you have suggested that /IBM/ was in any way
>>> involved?
>>
>> Sorry, typo. In fact Gates LICENSED part of the GUI from Apple, didn’t
>> steal it.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history#Windows_1.0
>
> Licensing PART of the GUI is not the same as stealing code wholesale.

You haven't established that code was stolen wholesale.

Just because function names are the same doesn’t mean that code is stolen
wholesale
because many well chosen names will be the same for a particular GUI
function.

On 2021-10-18 5:40 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Or else, why would you have suggested that /IBM/ was in any way
>>>> involved?
>>>
>>> Sorry, typo. In fact Gates LICENSED part of the GUI from Apple,
>>> didn’t steal it.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history#Windows_1.0
>>>
>>
>> Licensing PART of the GUI is not the same as stealing code wholesale.
>
> You haven't established that code was stolen wholesale.
>
> Just because function names are the same doesn’t mean that code is
> stolen wholesale
> because many well chosen names will be the same for a particular GUI
> function.

It's been a very long time, but I read it and it was conclusive.

Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> Or else, why would you have suggested that /IBM/ was in any way
>>>>> involved?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, typo. In fact Gates LICENSED part of the GUI from Apple, didn’t
>>>> steal it.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history#Windows_1.0
>>>
>>> Licensing PART of the GUI is not the same as stealing code wholesale.
>>
>> You haven't established that code was stolen wholesale.
>>
>> Just because function names are the same doesn’t mean that code is stolen
>> wholesale
>> because many well chosen names will be the same for a particular GUI
>> function.
>
> It's been a very long time, but I read it and it was conclusive.

You read what ?

Why didn't Apple sue ? Don’t believe it given the detail of the GUI is so
different.

On 2021-10-18 7:16 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>>> Or else, why would you have suggested that /IBM/ was in any way
>>>>>> involved?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, typo. In fact Gates LICENSED part of the GUI from Apple,
>>>>> didn’t steal it.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history#Windows_1.0
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Licensing PART of the GUI is not the same as stealing code wholesale.
>>>
>>> You haven't established that code was stolen wholesale.
>>>
>>> Just because function names are the same doesn’t mean that code is
>>> stolen wholesale
>>> because many well chosen names will be the same for a particular GUI
>>> function.
>>
>> It's been a very long time, but I read it and it was conclusive.
>
> You read what ?
>
> Why didn't Apple sue ?  Don’t believe it given the detail of the GUI is
> so different.

They did sue. And then there was a large settlement with Microsoft.

In article <skl9te$bu0$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:

> >
> > Why didn't Apple sue ?  Don¹t believe it given the detail of the GUI is
> > so different.
>
> They did sue. And then there was a large settlement with Microsoft.

due to a legal technicality, not the merits.

On 2021-10-18 7:24 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <skl9te$bu0$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Why didn't Apple sue ?  Don¹t believe it given the detail of the GUI is
>>> so different.
>>
>> They did sue. And then there was a large settlement with Microsoft.
>
> due to a legal technicality, not the merits.
>

And due to Apple's desire to use the lawsuit settlement as leverage.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/2021 12:54 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >> On 2021-10-17 18:58, nospam wrote:
> >>
> >>> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
> >
> > As before, the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are re-writing
> > history.
> >
> > The Mac and VMS Workstation Software (VWS) were *both* introduced in
> > 1984.
> >
> > The Mac was a bit earlier - January 22 - versus October for the VAXVMS
> > Workstation Software (VWS). So the Mac was ~10 months earlier. Big
> > fscking deal!
> >
> >> Read about X-Windows. And there wwere many graphical systems attached
> >> much earlier on computers such as PDP-11s.
> >>
> >> Where Xerox/Apple made big change is the document based apprioach
> >> (clicking on document opens relevant app which automatically opens that
> >> clicked document). The existint systems were all app based when you
> >> chose an app from a menu and from the app, you would open the document
> >> in file selection menu.
> >>
> >> You forget that outside of personal computers, there were other computers.
> >
> > Next he whined about those other computers not being 'personal
> > computers'.
> >
> > That's - yet another - bogus argument, because at the time, the term
> > 'personal computer' only meant that it was used by one person at the
> > time. Most 'personal computer's were owned by businesses, organizations,
> > etc., not by private individuals for private use. So 'personal' !=
> > 'privately owned/used'.
> >
> > So the 'personal computer' classification is a meaningless one.
> >
> > For example, in 1985 I used HP 9000 computers with HP's proprietary
> > windowing system, but those computers were called 'workstation's. But
> > they *were* 'personal computer's in the sense that they were used by one
> > person at the time.
> >
> > Next he will whine about the number of computers sold and of course he
> > will limit the type of computers or/and timeframes, so that Apple indeed
> > comes out in front (in GUI-based 'personal computers'). Bit of a bummer,
> > that for that 'argument' to work, he will have to keep stuck in the
> > past, because his beloved Macs are largely outnumbered since the last
> > three decades+!
>
> Not sure who you're talking about whining, but if whoever it is just
> said "home computers" instead of "personal computers" it would be a
> different story.

"he" is nospam, to whom JF Mezei was responding. The other one, who
was also re-writing (GUI) history, was Alan Baker, now nym-shifted to
'Alan'.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <skkqe3.7cc.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
> >
> > As before, the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are re-writing
> > history.
>
> nope. the usual haters and trolls are the ones who are rewriting apple
> history because they don't know what apple history actually is, which
> is why they resort to insults.

Nope. Those who are not Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are not
'haters' or 'trolls', they just call the first group on their bogus
arguments, by refering to trusted sources instead of the biased
'memories' of the first group.

> > The Mac and VMS Workstation Software (VWS) were *both* introduced in
> > 1984.
>
> yes, they were, to wildly different market segments, for wildly
> different use cases.

Your usual dodging, diverting and moving goalposts duly noted. (Who
the heck do you think you're fooling with these utterly transparent,
lame tactics?)

Your claim was not about market or use, but about command line versus
GUI.

Fact is, *both* Mac and VWS were GUI and *both* were introduced in
1984.

QED.

HTH. HAND. EOD.

In article <skmjvo.7ds.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > > in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
> > >
> > > As before, the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are re-writing
> > > history.
> >
> > nope. the usual haters and trolls are the ones who are rewriting apple
> > history because they don't know what apple history actually is, which
> > is why they resort to insults.
>
> Nope. Those who are not Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are not
> 'haters' or 'trolls', they just call the first group on their bogus
> arguments, by refering to trusted sources instead of the biased
> 'memories' of the first group.

those who call others fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are haters and
trolls. it's an ad hominem attack because they have zero facts to
refute anything.

worse, the fact that you consider those who actually lived it to not be
a trusted source, even calling it 'biased memories', puts you even
deeper into the hater/troll category.

the reality is that you know very little about apple, its products and
its history and it's quite obvious that you're pretending that you do.

> Your claim was not about market or use, but about command line versus
> GUI.

correct.

> Fact is, *both* Mac and VWS were GUI and *both* were introduced in
> 1984.

that was never in dispute. lots of things were introduced in 1984.

the fact is that the mac changed the entire industry. vax/vms did not.

nor did xerox parc, nor did other gui attempts, such as visi-on, gem,
workbench, x-windows etc. all of those were very primitive compared to
the mac.

your problem is that you consider all guis to be equivalent. they are
not. this is largely due to your deep unfamiliarity with apple and its
products.

as i said before, the mac was *entirely* graphical. its gui was not an
add-on to an existing command line os. this was a first in the
industry, among many other firsts about the mac and mac os that were
later copied by others.

On 2021-10-19 4:58 a.m., Frank Slootweg wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/18/2021 12:54 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-17 18:58, nospam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.
>>>
>>> As before, the Apple fanbois/seeds/zealots/loons are re-writing
>>> history.
>>>
>>> The Mac and VMS Workstation Software (VWS) were *both* introduced in
>>> 1984.
>>>
>>> The Mac was a bit earlier - January 22 - versus October for the VAXVMS
>>> Workstation Software (VWS). So the Mac was ~10 months earlier. Big
>>> fscking deal!
>>>
>>>> Read about X-Windows. And there wwere many graphical systems attached
>>>> much earlier on computers such as PDP-11s.
>>>>
>>>> Where Xerox/Apple made big change is the document based apprioach
>>>> (clicking on document opens relevant app which automatically opens that
>>>> clicked document). The existint systems were all app based when you
>>>> chose an app from a menu and from the app, you would open the document
>>>> in file selection menu.
>>>>
>>>> You forget that outside of personal computers, there were other computers.
>>>
>>> Next he whined about those other computers not being 'personal
>>> computers'.
>>>
>>> That's - yet another - bogus argument, because at the time, the term
>>> 'personal computer' only meant that it was used by one person at the
>>> time. Most 'personal computer's were owned by businesses, organizations,
>>> etc., not by private individuals for private use. So 'personal' !=
>>> 'privately owned/used'.
>>>
>>> So the 'personal computer' classification is a meaningless one.
>>>
>>> For example, in 1985 I used HP 9000 computers with HP's proprietary
>>> windowing system, but those computers were called 'workstation's. But
>>> they *were* 'personal computer's in the sense that they were used by one
>>> person at the time.
>>>
>>> Next he will whine about the number of computers sold and of course he
>>> will limit the type of computers or/and timeframes, so that Apple indeed
>>> comes out in front (in GUI-based 'personal computers'). Bit of a bummer,
>>> that for that 'argument' to work, he will have to keep stuck in the
>>> past, because his beloved Macs are largely outnumbered since the last
>>> three decades+!
>>
>> Not sure who you're talking about whining, but if whoever it is just
>> said "home computers" instead of "personal computers" it would be a
>> different story.
>
> "he" is nospam, to whom JF Mezei was responding. The other one, who
> was also re-writing (GUI) history, was Alan Baker, now nym-shifted to
> 'Alan'.
>

Nope. I haven't nym-shifted. That's a lie.

:-)

On 10/19/2021 4:58 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> Not sure who you're talking about whining, but if whoever it is just
>> said "home computers" instead of "personal computers" it would be a
>> different story.
>
> "he" is nospam, to whom JF Mezei was responding. The other one, who
> was also re-writing (GUI) history, was Alan Baker, now nym-shifted to
> 'Alan'.

I see.

Why do people persist in arguing with these trolls who just make stuff
up as they go along? Just filter them out and be done with it.

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and
beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain