On 2021-10-21 8:37 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
> 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.

No. You are incorrect.

Even if the code was there, the team that reverse-engineered the BIOS
wasn't allowed to look at it.

Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2021-10-21 8:37 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No. You are incorrect.

He is correct! There was a source code listing of the BIOS in at
least a technical manual, I'm not sure if it was shipped with every PC
but I am sure I have seen it in a manual we had with a PC at that time.

> Even if the code was there, the team that reverse-engineered the BIOS
> wasn't allowed to look at it.

That was because it was copyrighted.
The clone makers gave a spec of the BIOS interface (INT numbers and
parameters and what they accomplished) to programmers who did not
see that source listing and asked them to re-implement it independently.
That way they could make BIOS proms without having to get a license
from IBM for the original one.

And while Spain was apparently very behind in all this, the above
depicts correctly how it went here in the Netherlands. Apple and
other microcomputers were all over the place before IBM entered the
scene.

On 18/10/2021 21.39, 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).
>
> 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).

It happened much earlier, with plain MsDOS, depending on what field you
were.

For graphical work, Apple products were said to be the thing. Superb.

But not in industry or office, there the IBM PC or clone was king since
the start. I saw it, it is just a fact. Sure, some people found it hard
to use, before Windows, but they learned.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 22/10/2021 05.37, Rod Speed wrote:
> 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.

It was, parts of it at least, but it had to be reverse engineered by
people in a closed room who had never even touched the manual, for legal
reasons.

One team read the book and looked at the code, then wrote the specs, and
then gave those specs to the isolated people writing the code. Probably
the people handling over the specs were separate laymen so that the
second group could not ask questions.

>
>> 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.

True.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Two days ago, I wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
[...]

> > 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!?

Deafening silence followed.

QED, yet another one of your dishonest misrepresentations.

(Not that it had anything to do with the actual issue being disputed.
But that's what you get when you dodge and divert all the time. In no
time you've no idea what your original claim was.)

On 10/22/2021 4:05 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 18/10/2021 21.39, 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).
>>
>> 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).
>
> It happened much earlier, with plain MsDOS, depending on what field you
> were.

Yes. My first PC was an IBM XT clone, in 1987. It had an 8088 CPU and a
20MB HD. The whole PC, with the drive, a monitor, and a dot-matrix
printer cost me $1300. It ran DOS 3.0

> For graphical work, Apple products were said to be the thing. Superb.

Not the first Apple products. The Apple reputation for graphics started
with the Macintosh.

> But not in industry or office, there the IBM PC or clone was king since
> the start.

For most industry or office, yes. But not all. There were always people
who preferred the Macintosh.

--
Ken

In article <skupv3.71g.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>
> > > 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!?
>
> Deafening silence followed.

nope. they were in the queue until i had time to deal with your
bullshit.

> QED, yet another one of your dishonest misrepresentations.

that would be you.

> (Not that it had anything to do with the actual issue being disputed.
> But that's what you get when you dodge and divert all the time. In no
> time you've no idea what your original claim was.)

another ad hominem attack, because you know next to nothing about apple
history, which you even admit.

In article <skpdsv.aec.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,

another insult.

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

wikipedia is not always correct. even wikipedia warns about that:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_sou
rce>
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on
Wikipedia. Because it can be edited by anyone at any time, any
information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a
work in progress, or just plain wrong.

your problem is you are trying to tell people who actually lived apple
history that their history was wrong, instead substituting what you
found on the internet somewhere.

that is quite fucked up.

> 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.

they absolutely are insults and used any time anyone says anything
positive about apple.

> > > 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!?

in a discussion about vax/vms, you claimed that a personal computer was
something that was used by one person, which is absurd.

it looks like it's *you* who is 'dodging, diverting and moving the
goalposts'.

In article <dDNbJ.6$GN.1@fx21.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> 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.

nobody said that.

> The Lisa would have been first computer with a GUI integrated in
> the OS.

wrong on that too. the xerox alto and star predated the lisa, however,
both were slow, expensive and a colossal market failure.

> 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.

true, but those were not part of the os and therefore not relevant.

they also were slow, clunky and wildly non-standard.

> 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).

also not relevant.

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

> > 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.

it wasn't a gui then either.

it was nothing more than a way to draw primitive graphics.

> 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)?

you're missing the point that it's not who was first, but who changed
the industry, which is without question, the macintosh, along with the
iphone and various other apple products.

apple haters can't accept that.

In article <sksc73$7nt$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:

> > 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).

xerox parc did predate the mac, but as has been noted in this and other
threads, it was slow, expensive and a market failure.

it also had no effect on the industry, other than to give apple a few
more ideas in designing their own gui, which has only a very casual
resemblance to xerox and anything else that came before it.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <skpdsv.aec.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,
>
> another insult.

Nope, another statement of fact, because you apparently *are*
confused.

> > I didn't make any "claims", I just quoted information from reputable
> > sources of information (mainly Wikipedia).
>
> your problem is you are trying to tell people who actually lived apple
> history that their history was wrong, instead substituting what you
> found on the internet somewhere.
> that is quite fucked up.

But I never did that.

It started with you saying:

<you>
> in 1984, everything was command line. the mac was not.

Which I proved as incorrect, because:

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

The rest is all noise.

> > 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.
>
> they absolutely are insults and used any time anyone says anything
> positive about apple.

Nope. It's used for people who defend/praise Apple and Apple products
in all situations, never mind facts, logic, truth, common sense, etc..
In short, what you do.

Liking Apple or/and Apple products is of course fine, i.e. being a
'fan', a 'proponent' or whatever, but a 'fanboi' is already over the top
and the others are even worse. Note that - as has been said many times
before - the are no Microsoft, Windows, Google, Android, ChromeOS
fanbois/seeds/zealots. Think about it. (And yes, there *are* Linux
fanbois/seeds/zealots.)

> > > > 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!?
>
> in a discussion about vax/vms, you claimed that a personal computer was
> something that was used by one person, which is absurd.

I asked for a quote but you didn't give one. Why?

You didn't give a quote, because I did not say *that*. Again you
misrepresent your correspondent's position. In this case by lying by
omission.

Again, you won't find a cite which supports your (mis)representation.

> it looks like it's *you* who is 'dodging, diverting and moving the
> goalposts'.

Only in your mind, not in reality in actual characters in actual
postings.

So until you get your act together and come up with the - requested,
but now demanded - goods, it's

EOD.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <skupv3.71g.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> > > > 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!?
> >
> > Deafening silence followed.
>
> nope. they were in the queue until i had time to deal with my
> bullshit.

FTFY.

> > (Not that it had anything to do with the actual issue being disputed.
> > But that's what you get when you dodge and divert all the time. In no
> > time you've no idea what your original claim was.)
>
> another ad hominem attack,

One of these days, you *really* should try to figure out what an ad
hominem attack is and is not. The above is describing your *actions*.

> because you know next to nothing about apple
> history, which you even admit.

It's a bit of a bummer for you that me knowing or not knowing Apple
history is totally irrelevant, because what I mentioned - i.e. the date
the Mac was introduced - is documented information.

On 2021-10-22 2:49 a.m., Rob wrote:
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2021-10-21 8:37 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> No. You are incorrect.
>
> He is correct! There was a source code listing of the BIOS in at
> least a technical manual, I'm not sure if it was shipped with every PC
> but I am sure I have seen it in a manual we had with a PC at that time.

Nope. Read what was said:

"the bios had to be reverse engineered for the clones."

He answered "Nope". But the bios DID have to be reverse-engineered from
a functional spec.

>
>> Even if the code was there, the team that reverse-engineered the BIOS
>> wasn't allowed to look at it.
>
> That was because it was copyrighted.
> The clone makers gave a spec of the BIOS interface (INT numbers and
> parameters and what they accomplished) to programmers who did not
> see that source listing and asked them to re-implement it independently.
> That way they could make BIOS proms without having to get a license
> from IBM for the original one.

Which is what the previous poster denied had happened. Right.

>
> And while Spain was apparently very behind in all this, the above
> depicts correctly how it went here in the Netherlands. Apple and
> other microcomputers were all over the place before IBM entered the
> scene.
>

On 2021-10-21 2:52 p.m., nospam wrote:
> 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.
>

I understand all of that.

On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 4:08:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-10-21 2:52 p.m., nospam wrote:
> > In article <sksmvq$1dim$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan <no...@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.
> >
>
> I understand all of that.

I still persist in being uncertain that these nonstop posts are killing
this group, no matter how hard Nospam tries. Snit Glasser Michael's computer
has more hard drives than Nospam's. Snit Glasser Michael wins. Nospam
loses. All that Nospam cares about is that Nospam gets to impart his
robocall and then hang up and giggle about it. The fact that Snit Glasser
Michael is a real person on the other end of the phone is his motivation.

--
Live on Kickstarter!
https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22FUNCTIONAL%20ILLITERATE%20FRAUD%22
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=steve+carroll+narcissistic+bigot
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-glasser-b7075a23
Steve Carroll the Narcissistic Bigot

Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> 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.
>
> No. You are incorrect.

Nope, I have the manual with the code in it.

> Even if the code was there, the team that reverse-engineered the BIOS
> wasn't allowed to look at it.

Wrong, as always.

And while in theory they weren't allowed to make a pub
that used the printed schematic, that happened anyway.

Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>> On 2021-10-21 8:37 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> No. You are incorrect.
>
> He is correct! There was a source code listing of the BIOS in at
> least a technical manual, I'm not sure if it was shipped with every PC
> but I am sure I have seen it in a manual we had with a PC at that time.

Yeah, I had to buy mine. I never did buy an IBM PC.

>> Even if the code was there, the team that reverse-engineered
>> the BIOS wasn't allowed to look at it.

> That was because it was copyrighted.
> The clone makers gave a spec of the BIOS interface (INT numbers and
> parameters and what they accomplished) to programmers who did not
> see that source listing and asked them to re-implement it independently.
> That way they could make BIOS proms without having to get a license
> from IBM for the original one.

> And while Spain was apparently very behind in all this, the above
> depicts correctly how it went here in the Netherlands. Apple and
> other microcomputers were all over the place before IBM entered the
> scene.

The Apple II was very widely used. The main reason the IBM PC was
much more widely adopted was because plenty decided that it had
a real future if IBM produced it rather than a small garage operation.

Didn’t work out that way with the PCJr tho, Apple did vastly better
with the Mac.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> 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).
>>
>> 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).
>
> It happened much earlier, with plain MsDOS, depending on what field you
> were.
>
> For graphical work, Apple products were said to be the thing. Superb.
>
> But not in industry

That’s wrong with some industry, particularly publishing.

> or office, there the IBM PC or clone was king since the start. I saw it,
> it is just a fact. Sure, some people found it hard to use, before Windows,
> but they learned.

Just as true of the Apple II.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Apple II was very widely used. The main reason the IBM PC was
> much more widely adopted was because plenty decided that it had
> a real future if IBM produced it rather than a small garage operation.

There certainly was the "nobody was ever fired for choosing IBM" aspect
but that happened mainly in the larger corporations like banks, insurance
etc. Because to choose IBM, you had to have a lot of money.

On 2021-10-22 8:57 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> 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.
>>
>> No. You are incorrect.
>
> Nope, I have the manual with the code in it.

I know that, but your original "Nope" was to the statement, "the bios
had to be reverse engineered for the clones"...

....which it most certainly did.

>
>> Even if the code was there, the team that reverse-engineered the BIOS
>> wasn't allowed to look at it.
>
> Wrong, as always.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

There was one team that read the code, and then wrote a specification
from that.

That specification went via the legal team to a different team that had
no contact with the first team to create a new BIOS from just that
specification.

On 2021-10-23 2:14 a.m., Rob wrote:
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Apple II was very widely used. The main reason the IBM PC was
>> much more widely adopted was because plenty decided that it had
>> a real future if IBM produced it rather than a small garage operation.
>
> There certainly was the "nobody was ever fired for choosing IBM" aspect
> but that happened mainly in the larger corporations like banks, insurance
> etc. Because to choose IBM, you had to have a lot of money.
>

My parents were both IBM mainframe programmers for a lot of their
careers and at one point, the IBM sales representative for one of my
step-dad's jobs tried to suggest that he (my step-dad) had a serious
drinking problem in an attempt to dissuade Maclean-Hunter from
purchasing IBM-compatible devices (disk drives, I think).