On 10/19/2021 5:16 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

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

“Why look for conspiracy when stupidity can explain so much.” — Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe

In article <skmrr1$289$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Why do people persist in arguing with these trolls who just make stuff
> up as they go along?

projection.

almost everything of what you say about apple is wrong. once in a while
you get something correct, mostly due to luck.

you are the perfect example of making things up as you go along.
examples include face id requiring room lights to work (which is
hilarious how wrong it is), passcodes being limited to 6 numbers,
in-screen fingerprint sensors being secure and much more. it's hard to
keep track of how much you get wrong. anyone who used an iphone for a
few minutes knows you're full of shit.

On 2021-10-19, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 10/19/2021 5:16 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Your usual dodging, diverting and moving goalposts duly noted. (Who
>> the heck do you think you're fooling with these utterly transparent,
>> lame tactics?)
>
> “Why look for conspiracy when stupidity can explain so much.” — Johann
> Wolfgang von Goethe

"Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?" — Kevin Malone,
Dunder Mifflin

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> 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.

FWIW, for quite some time, I no longer argue with them, because
they're dishonest compulsive arguers.

But - like you and others - I might talk *about* them, i.e. about what
they said/did, which was the case in this subthread.

If they respond to my posts, I either ignore them or give a single
slap, as - as you saw/noted - happened today.

Further responses are indeed useless, because they will - and in this
subthread did - continue their dishonest dodging, diverting, moving
goalposts and slew of other logical fallacies, in order to continue
their compulsive arguing.

> "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and
> beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

In article <sknbfd.7h8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>
> But - like you and others - I might talk *about* them, i.e. about what
> they said/did, which was the case in this subthread.

that's because you know you're in over your head and unable to back up
any of your claims, which is why you resort to insults.

> Further responses are indeed useless, because they will - and in this
> subthread did - continue their dishonest dodging, diverting, moving
> goalposts and slew of other logical fallacies, in order to continue
> their compulsive arguing.

major projection.

claiming that a vax is a personal computer is about as dishonest and
desperate as it gets.

In article <news:191020211652251036%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> that's because you know you're in over your head and unable to back up
> any of your claims,

Cat.

> is about as dishonest and desperate as it gets.

Kettle.

> which is why you resort to insults.

Black.

In article <news:191020211301138697%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> once in a while you get something correct, mostly due to luck.

Cat.

> you are the perfect example of making things up as you go along.

Kettle.

> it's hard to keep track of how much you get wrong.

Black.

In article <news:191020211038304976%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> it's an ad hominem attack because they have zero facts to
> refute anything.

Cat.

> 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.

Kettle.

> this is largely due to your deep unfamiliarity with apple and its
> products.

Black.

In article <news:181020211724305747%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> the usual haters and trolls are the ones who are rewriting apple
> history

Cat.

> because they don't know what apple history actually is, which
> is why they resort to insults.

Kettle.

> comparing the two is bizarre.

Black.

On 2021-10-19 10:38, nospam wrote:

> as i said before, the mac was *entirely* graphical. its gui was not an
> add-on to an existing command line os.

Yes, but that does not allow one to state that the Mac was the first
GUI. The Lisa would have been first computer with a GUI integrated in
the OS. And there were planty of GUI before that, but each app generated
the GUI, not the OS, So you started the app at command line and then the
app converted screen to graphics mode.

These apps tended to be highly technical/engineering types, and would
have used a pen on CRT as pointing device instead of mouse. (though mice
did exist prior to Mac).

Heck, Digital even had graphics terminals the VT240 series and later
which provided GUI capabilities over a serial line. Slow but graphics.
(you could do vector and/or bitmap (called "sixels" by Digital).

On 2021-10-19 10:16 p.m., JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-10-19 10:38, nospam wrote:
>
>> as i said before, the mac was *entirely* graphical. its gui was not an
>> add-on to an existing command line os.
>
>
> Yes, but that does not allow one to state that the Mac was the first
> GUI.

Which is a straw man...

....because no one said that.

> The Lisa would have been first computer with a GUI integrated in
> the OS. And there were planty of GUI before that, but each app generated
> the GUI, not the OS, So you started the app at command line and then the
> app converted screen to graphics mode.
>
> These apps tended to be highly technical/engineering types, and would
> have used a pen on CRT as pointing device instead of mouse. (though mice
> did exist prior to Mac).
>
> Heck, Digital even had graphics terminals the VT240 series and later
> which provided GUI capabilities over a serial line. Slow but graphics.
> (you could do vector and/or bitmap (called "sixels" by Digital).

You have no clue.

On 10/19/2021 10:16 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> Heck, Digital even had graphics terminals the VT240 series and later
> which provided GUI capabilities over a serial line. Slow but graphics.
> (you could do vector and/or bitmap (called "sixels" by Digital).

When I worked for Xerox we had a method of using daisy wheel printers to
print vector graphics. It was called HyPlot.

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2021-10-19 10:38, nospam wrote:
>
> > as i said before, the mac was *entirely* graphical. its gui was not an
> > add-on to an existing command line os.
>
> Yes, but that does not allow one to state that the Mac was the first
> GUI. The Lisa would have been first computer with a GUI integrated in
> the OS. And there were planty of GUI before that, but each app generated
> the GUI, not the OS, So you started the app at command line and then the
> app converted screen to graphics mode.
>
> These apps tended to be highly technical/engineering types, and would
> have used a pen on CRT as pointing device instead of mouse. (though mice
> did exist prior to Mac).
>
> Heck, Digital even had graphics terminals the VT240 series and later
> which provided GUI capabilities over a serial line. Slow but graphics.
> (you could do vector and/or bitmap (called "sixels" by Digital).

Yeah, like the HP 2648A Graphics Terminal, introduced in July of 1977,
i.e. nearly 7 years earlier (than the Apple GUI).

HP 264X series terminals
<http://www.hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=240>

However, I would call that 'graphics', but not 'GUI', at least not by
today's standards.

That brings up the question of what does the 'first' GUI need to have,
to be considered as such? Do they need to have all the WIMP elements
(Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointer) or a subset, and if a subset, which
subset(s)?

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sknbfd.7h8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > But - like you and others - I might talk *about* them, i.e. about what
> > they said/did, which was the case in this subthread.
>
> that's because you know you're in over your head and unable to back up
> any of your claims, which is why you resort to insults.

<SLAP>

Dear confused,

I didn't make any "claims", I just quoted information from reputable
sources of information (mainly Wikipedia).

And any insults are a figment of your imagination. "Apple fanbois/
seeds/zealots/loons" is not an insult, it's a statement of fact. Don't
like it, don't be/act_like one.

> > Further responses are indeed useless, because they will - and in this
> > subthread did - continue their dishonest dodging, diverting, moving
> > goalposts and slew of other logical fallacies, in order to continue
> > their compulsive arguing.
>
> major projection.
>
> claiming that a vax is a personal computer is about as dishonest and
> desperate as it gets.

Then it's a good thing that I didn't actually made any such claim.
It's just your misrepresentation of what I *actually* said, which makes
it ... dishonest.

If you think I made such a claim, you surely can quote it, can't you!?

</SLAP>

EOD.

On 2021-10-20 6:41 a.m., Frank Slootweg wrote:
> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 2021-10-19 10:38, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> as i said before, the mac was *entirely* graphical. its gui was not an
>>> add-on to an existing command line os.
>>
>> Yes, but that does not allow one to state that the Mac was the first
>> GUI. The Lisa would have been first computer with a GUI integrated in
>> the OS. And there were planty of GUI before that, but each app generated
>> the GUI, not the OS, So you started the app at command line and then the
>> app converted screen to graphics mode.
>>
>> These apps tended to be highly technical/engineering types, and would
>> have used a pen on CRT as pointing device instead of mouse. (though mice
>> did exist prior to Mac).
>>
>> Heck, Digital even had graphics terminals the VT240 series and later
>> which provided GUI capabilities over a serial line. Slow but graphics.
>> (you could do vector and/or bitmap (called "sixels" by Digital).
>
> Yeah, like the HP 2648A Graphics Terminal, introduced in July of 1977,
> i.e. nearly 7 years earlier (than the Apple GUI).
>
> HP 264X series terminals
> <http://www.hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=240>
>
> However, I would call that 'graphics', but not 'GUI', at least not by
> today's standards.
>
> That brings up the question of what does the 'first' GUI need to have,
> to be considered as such? Do they need to have all the WIMP elements
> (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointer) or a subset, and if a subset, which
> subset(s)?
>

It's an interesting topic...

....but since it's completely off topic for CMA, I expect Java Joke to
come swooping in and declare you guilty.

:-)

(I do think the first true GUI—for some value of "true"—probably came
from Xerox PARC).

On 18/10/2021 19.04, Alan wrote:
> 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?

You get it that the USA is not the entire world?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 18/10/2021 20.29, Rod Speed wrote:
> 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 ?

you must be out of reasonable reasons when you resort to personal insults.

You lost.

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

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2021-10-21 2:00 p.m., Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 18/10/2021 19.04, Alan wrote:
>> 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?
>
> You get it that the USA is not the entire world?

Yup. It's especially easy as I don't live there.

:-)

But the point is that you cannot say that something isn't happening or
didn't happen...

....only because it didn't happen WHERE YOU HAPPEN TO BE.

And the fact is that IBM discovered that people in their core market
(large companies with IBM mainframes) were buying Apple II computers to
get real things done faster than their data processing departments could
get them done for them.

The Apple II and Visicalc came together to create something that IBM had
to act quickly to prevent. And it was that need for speed that resulted
in a machine that others could clone. IBM would certainly have produced
a personal computer in due course...

....but without the pressure of the Apple II, it would have been
completely locked down and proprietary.

That was IBM's MO.

In article <90194i-2cg.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>
> >>> 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?
>
> You get it that the USA is not the entire world?

you get that apple sells computers worldwide, even back then?

In article <sksll1$qd8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:

> >> You get that Spain isn't the entire world, and that what happens in
> >> Spain doesn't determine what companies decide to do, right?
> >
> > You get it that the USA is not the entire world?
>
> Yup. It's especially easy as I don't live there.
>
> :-)
>
> But the point is that you cannot say that something isn't happening or
> didn't happen...
>
> ...only because it didn't happen WHERE YOU HAPPEN TO BE.
>
> And the fact is that IBM discovered that people in their core market
> (large companies with IBM mainframes) were buying Apple II computers to
> get real things done faster than their data processing departments could
> get them done for them.
>
> The Apple II and Visicalc came together to create something that IBM had
> to act quickly to prevent. And it was that need for speed that resulted
> in a machine that others could clone. IBM would certainly have produced
> a personal computer in due course...
>
> ...but without the pressure of the Apple II, it would have been
> completely locked down and proprietary.

> That was IBM's MO.

and it was. the bios had to be reverse engineered for the clones.

meanwhile, the apple ii was completely open, including schematics in
the user manual. lots of people designed all sorts of stuff for it.

the mac had schematics for its various ports, and people designed all
sorts of stuff for it too.

On 2021-10-21 2:39 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <sksll1$qd8$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>> You get that Spain isn't the entire world, and that what happens in
>>>> Spain doesn't determine what companies decide to do, right?
>>>
>>> You get it that the USA is not the entire world?
>>
>> Yup. It's especially easy as I don't live there.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> But the point is that you cannot say that something isn't happening or
>> didn't happen...
>>
>> ...only because it didn't happen WHERE YOU HAPPEN TO BE.
>>
>> And the fact is that IBM discovered that people in their core market
>> (large companies with IBM mainframes) were buying Apple II computers to
>> get real things done faster than their data processing departments could
>> get them done for them.
>>
>> The Apple II and Visicalc came together to create something that IBM had
>> to act quickly to prevent. And it was that need for speed that resulted
>> in a machine that others could clone. IBM would certainly have produced
>> a personal computer in due course...
>>
>> ...but without the pressure of the Apple II, it would have been
>> completely locked down and proprietary.
>
>> That was IBM's MO.
>
> and it was. the bios had to be reverse engineered for the clones.

The problem was that was the only impediment, and the necessity of
publishing the API for the BIOS made the job tedious, but far from
impossible.

>
> meanwhile, the apple ii was completely open, including schematics in
> the user manual. lots of people designed all sorts of stuff for it.
>
> the mac had schematics for its various ports, and people designed all
> sorts of stuff for it too.

But it also had a tremendous amount of copyrighted code in ROM such that
reverse engineering it all wouldn't be feasible.

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

> >> And the fact is that IBM discovered that people in their core market
> >> (large companies with IBM mainframes) were buying Apple II computers to
> >> get real things done faster than their data processing departments could
> >> get them done for them.
> >>
> >> The Apple II and Visicalc came together to create something that IBM had
> >> to act quickly to prevent. And it was that need for speed that resulted
> >> in a machine that others could clone. IBM would certainly have produced
> >> a personal computer in due course...
> >>
> >> ...but without the pressure of the Apple II, it would have been
> >> completely locked down and proprietary.
> >
> >> That was IBM's MO.
> >
> > and it was. the bios had to be reverse engineered for the clones.
>
> The problem was that was the only impediment, and the necessity of
> publishing the API for the BIOS made the job tedious, but far from
> impossible.
>
> >
> > meanwhile, the apple ii was completely open, including schematics in
> > the user manual. lots of people designed all sorts of stuff for it.
> >
> > the mac had schematics for its various ports, and people designed all
> > sorts of stuff for it too.
>
> But it also had a tremendous amount of copyrighted code in ROM such that
> reverse engineering it all wouldn't be feasible.

that only prevented making mac clones.

as i said, apple published schematics of the ports, timing diagrams and
even sample code to talk directly to the hardware.

numerous third party developers designed hardware devices for the mac
without needing to reverse engineer anything.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> 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 ?

> you must be out of reasonable reasons when you resort to personal insults.

It isn't an insult.

> You lost.

Just another of your silly little fantasys.

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

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote

>> >> You get that Spain isn't the entire world, and that what happens in
>> >> Spain doesn't determine what companies decide to do, right?
>> >
>> > You get it that the USA is not the entire world?
>>
>> Yup. It's especially easy as I don't live there.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> But the point is that you cannot say that something isn't happening or
>> didn't happen...
>>
>> ...only because it didn't happen WHERE YOU HAPPEN TO BE.
>>
>> And the fact is that IBM discovered that people in their core market
>> (large companies with IBM mainframes) were buying Apple II computers to
>> get real things done faster than their data processing departments could
>> get them done for them.
>>
>> The Apple II and Visicalc came together to create something that IBM had
>> to act quickly to prevent. And it was that need for speed that resulted
>> in a machine that others could clone. IBM would certainly have produced
>> a personal computer in due course...
>>
>> ...but without the pressure of the Apple II, it would have been
>> completely locked down and proprietary.
>
>> That was IBM's MO.
>
> and it was. the bios had to be reverse engineered for the clones.

Nope, the code was in the original IBM PC manual.

> meanwhile, the apple ii was completely open,
> including schematics in the user manual.

Same with the original IBM PC.

> lots of people designed all sorts of stuff for it.

Same with the original IBM PC.

Plenty just copied the schematics and made their own cards and motherboard
too.

> the mac had schematics for its various ports,
> and people designed all sorts of stuff for it too.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote

>> >> And the fact is that IBM discovered that people in their core market
>> >> (large companies with IBM mainframes) were buying Apple II computers
>> >> to
>> >> get real things done faster than their data processing departments
>> >> could
>> >> get them done for them.
>> >>
>> >> The Apple II and Visicalc came together to create something that IBM
>> >> had
>> >> to act quickly to prevent. And it was that need for speed that
>> >> resulted
>> >> in a machine that others could clone. IBM would certainly have
>> >> produced
>> >> a personal computer in due course...
>> >>
>> >> ...but without the pressure of the Apple II, it would have been
>> >> completely locked down and proprietary.
>> >
>> >> That was IBM's MO.
>> >
>> > and it was. the bios had to be reverse engineered for the clones.
>>
>> The problem was that was the only impediment, and the necessity of
>> publishing the API for the BIOS made the job tedious, but far from
>> impossible.
>>
>> >
>> > meanwhile, the apple ii was completely open, including schematics in
>> > the user manual. lots of people designed all sorts of stuff for it.
>> >
>> > the mac had schematics for its various ports, and people designed all
>> > sorts of stuff for it too.
>>
>> But it also had a tremendous amount of copyrighted code in ROM such that
>> reverse engineering it all wouldn't be feasible.
>
> that only prevented making mac clones.
>
> as i said, apple published schematics of the ports, timing diagrams and
> even sample code to talk directly to the hardware.
>
> numerous third party developers designed hardware devices for the mac
> without needing to reverse engineer anything.

Same with the original IBM PC.