Re: iPhone bricks - more info

Oxford wrote:

> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
>>>but didn't ship until September of 1977, thus the 2nd personal computer.
>>>
>>>nice try IMHO IIRC! but you need to learn the history of computing
>>>before you make further mistakes.
>>>
>>
>>So the answer to your original question is: there was NO full fledged
>>personal computer that had an actual case, screen output, keyboard &
>>cassette input sold before June 1977. lol
>
>
> none that can be traced back to something resembling the Apple ][, which
> became the de-facto standard still in use today.
>
> yes, 1977 with the Apple ][ is the primary root upon all other PCs were
> built.
>
> now you know!
>

Yeah, now everyone knows that you are retarded.

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
news:slrnfi4qb4.26v.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net:

> Again, I'm not an Apple basher - during my teenage years, my
family owned
> a Franklin 1000 (IIe clone) and a II GS and I loved both - but
I need to
> point out that the original IBM PC had very little in common
with the ][.
>
>

I go back a little farther than that, probably because I'm older.

I was an Ohio Scientific microcomputer dealer running OS-65/U
under the units 6502 processor. It would also run CP/M on its
Z80 and other OSes on its 6800. Firmware selected which of the 3
processors it booted to or from the bootloader.

OS was the FIRST microcomputer to have a REAL hard drive, a 74MB
fixed platter, 8" hard drive out of the minicomputer business.
Its floppy was either an 8" soft sectored or 5 1/4" soft sectored
floppy. The case for the big computer with hard drive was a 19"
rack to mount the big hard drive beast and provide enough DC
power to feed it. Being a machine pointed to business-of-the-
time, it used dumb terminals, like minicomputers, on a serial
port. We bought Regent 25s direct from the factory in Columbia,
SC, which worked great, as far as a serial terminal would go with
no graphics.

OSI had a 2-drive 6502 color computer, too, and we sold quite a
few. Of course, IBM/Micro$oft tore the company apart in the
PC/XT/AT revolution.

It had a nice extended BASIC interpreter for running apps. We
wrote apps for 8 businesses to sell it. There were apps for
bookkeeping, etc., standard apps, from OSI available. My best
work was a set of apps for the jukebox/coin op/cigarette machine
business for a large local customer. I interfaced it with the
bookkeeping apps' databases so it kept machine gross/net profits
for each machine and printed nice reports to let management know
which machines weren't paying their way in which places. I sold
380 copies of the software before the company went belly up.

Apple was later....][^;

Larry
--
Nantucket System's "Clipper" Dbase III compiler license #4800!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper...mming_language
REAL programs run MACHINE LANGUAGE....1985, DOS 3.3, PCXT 4.77
Mhz, twin 33mb Tulin drives ($2400 EACH!), NEC self-threading 9-
track tape drive with PCXT interface to send Navy mainframe METER
data and transactions for 38,800 pieces of Charleston Naval
Shipyard mechanical and electronic test equipment.....

PCXT and ONE GS-3 clerk typist doing the SAME job as a DEC VAX, 4
keypunch operators, a systems analyst, a computer operator at
Pearl Harbor that had 9800 LESS pieces and COULDN'T print a METER
card, the technician's document ON DEMAND like ours could!

I coded it in Dbase III and compiled it with Clipper to be fast.
Quite something for 1985!
The mainframe operators couldn't believe I could feed their beast
the data format for the big beast....(c;

When you walked away from the PCXT, letters started falling off
the screen and piling up on the bottom randomly. I used to
collect those crazy screen savers for the PCXT...lots fun. If
you missed the password to activate it, it displayed a waving US
flag on its GREEN screen and the little PC speaker played the
National Anthem, which it wasn't supposed to be able to do...with
just a beeper.

The Navy Security Group swooped down and wanted to know how we
kept people out of it on weekends. "We shut the damned thing off
and lock the door on the way out.", my MSEE boss told them...(c;
They tried to break into its system and we must have heard the
National Anthem for over 4 hours before my boss ran 'em out of
the building...(c; "Listen,", he retorted, "We got work to do in
the lab, if you don't mind."

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message news:slrnfi79cf.lma.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net.. .
> On 2007-10-27, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> OS was the FIRST microcomputer to have a REAL hard drive, a 74MB
>> fixed platter, 8" hard drive out of the minicomputer business.
>
> 74MB?
>
> My father, back in the early-to-mid-80s, ran his business on a Sperry Univac
> BC/7 with humongous, heavy 10MB disc packs.
>
> Now I'm jealous.
> --
> Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
>

Kids, these days!
I dealt with an IBM 650 that was the envy of many in our area,
because it had 64 words (that's right, 36-bit WORDS!) of that new,
high-speed scratchpad, magnetic-core memory.

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:57:52 -0400, John R. Copeland wrote:

>> My father, back in the early-to-mid-80s, ran his business on a Sperry Univac
>> BC/7 with humongous, heavy 10MB disc packs.
>>
>> Now I'm jealous.
>> --
>> Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
>>
>
> Kids, these days!
> I dealt with an IBM 650 that was the envy of many in our area,
> because it had 64 words (that's right, 36-bit WORDS!) of that new,
> high-speed scratchpad, magnetic-core memory.

Kids, like you!
I dealt tie a set of transistors, copper wire and three truckloads of
keypunch cards!
--
I spent $70,000.00 of Kyra's inheritance to create my own, er, our own
trolless Led Zep place with NO WILBURN!
For what? All I hear is how she hates me for not letting her **** him.
<sigh> Daughter like Mother.

Joe Hecht wrote:
> I dealt tie a set of transistors, copper wire and three truckloads of
> keypunch cards!

I wall papered my room with punchcards.

"Joe Hecht" <zeppinpenishood@circumcised.com> wrote in message news:rl1tfohrcxh9$.1f803xgat9spg.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:57:52 -0400, John R. Copeland wrote:
>
>>
>> Kids, these days!
>> I dealt with an IBM 650 that was the envy of many in our area,
>> because it had 64 words (that's right, 36-bit WORDS!) of that new,
>> high-speed scratchpad, magnetic-core memory.
>
> Kids, like you!
> I dealt tie a set of transistors, copper wire and three truckloads of
> keypunch cards!
> --
>

I think I might still remember how to make a program card for an IBM 026 keypunch!
We "kids" should hang together. :-)

"Stephen R. Conrad" <sconradpt@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > ever use the world wide web? you have steve jobs to thank for that?
>
> And all along I thought it was Al Gore.

no, you have the terms confused. Al Gore was responsible for creating
the initiative to make the Internet widely accessible by the public.

He sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which
established a national computing plan and helped link universities and
libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information
Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to
commercial traffic).

Jobs on the other hand built the machine that allowed HTTP and WWW to be
first implemented by Tim Berners Lee. Then later on the inventor of the
Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work
possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance
Computing Act.

so yes, both Gore and Jobs had much to do with the current day
"internet" and "www" since both of their projects turned into massive
successes.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:colalovesmacs-F0B201.22225704112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...

> Apple has killed off bigger companies than Nokia so we'll have to
> see what happens... but it doesn't look good for them since they can't
> build products at the level of the iPhone for at least 17 years.

You've really got a nice sense of humour!!! With these funny comments you
could become a legend in the usenet.

Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:22:57 -0700, Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com>
> wrote:
>
> >well, Apple has killed off bigger companies than Nokia so we'll have to
> >see what happens... but it doesn't look good for them since they can't
> >build products at the level of the iPhone for at least 17 years.
>
> Such as? Honestly, this I'd love to see.

IBM had to exit the PC market because Apple was just too powerful, and
is now smaller than Apple. Xerox, it was a giant, now an also ran. Yes
DEC, Sperry, all the rest of the seven dwarfs died off because of
Apple's influence in their markets. Then you have all the once great
media empires now falling because of the iPod and invention of the world
wide web on steve's NeXTSTEP box, (now called OSX Leopard).

http://www.apple.com/macosx/

> You'd be hard pressed to make
> a direct correleation to ANY one company's successes and another one's
> failure. For example, you could say that HP killed off Compaq, but
> really it was Eckhard Pfeiffer's incompetence and an expensive
> takeover of DEC that was most responsible.

But that action came about because of the invention of the Apple ][ and
the spreadsheet first developed on the same machine. It set off a series
falling dominos since computational power went to the desktop and left
the mini/mainframe segment floundering. DEC was one of them.

> Really, I'd love to see what you come up with here. Also, not sure
> where you get the 17-year statement either. You have some points, but
> then go so far, far overboard that it's ridiculous. What were you
> saying when all the tech observers, Wall Street analysts, etc., were
> saying that Apple was all but dead during the 1990s?

yes, Apple did go through a very rough patch in the mid 90's but they
were never in danger of going out of business. They were still an 8-10
billion firm, so while they risked "becoming much smaller", (and they
did for about 3 years) they still had huge businesses in publishing and
education, plus a cool $1.1 billion in pure cash making them "even on
the worst day" one of the richest firms in the world. Now they have 15.4
billion in pure cash and the public sees them as more valuable than
nokia, and still one of the richest firms in the world. Somethings just
don't change.

> They had absolute
> numbers and all kinds of other things to back them up,which you don't
> really provide here. All of your conjecture is just opinion and the
> roads of technology are LITTERED with opinion-based conjecture that
> didn't pan out.

No, I only use facts, it helps that way. Try it sometime.

-

IMHO IIRC wrote:
> In news:colalovesmacs-C2C275.09214726102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net,
> Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
>> In article <alpine.OSX.0.9999.0710251727240.4480@pangtzu.pand a.com>,
>> Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>>> SNIP <<<
>>> The Datapoint 2200 (anyone remember those?) was arguably a personal
>>> computer, and came out in 1970.
>> it was just a terminal.
>>
>
> Yes it had that function just like PCs and Macs do today.
>
> But it would run also stand alone applications.
>
> http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=596

But it wasn't something that was sold to home users, though it was
intended for use by a single person, so in that sense it was personal.

I think the Apple II was the first non-kit computer that was intended
for home users, that actually did something useful. It predated the PET
by a few months.

Thre was the fully assembled KIM 1 in 1975, which really was the first
"personal" non-kit computer (could be bought assembled or in kit form),
but you couldn't do much with it. It had a 23 key keypad that you
entered programs with, and some hex displays. You could attach a monitor
to it via the serial port, but the only storage was on paper tape or
magnetic tape (cassette). The PET was essentially a KIM 1 with a display
chip.

The wonderful thing about the Apple II was that it was open
architecture, thanks to Wozniak. One of the reasons that orginal Mac
wasn't all that successful (compared to the IBM PC) was that it was a
closed architecture. That lost Apple tens of millions of customers, as
businesses flocked to the PC architecture with all of the expansion
capability to make it usable in many different applications.

I remember doing network cards (ArcNet) for the Apple II and the PET.
Unfortunately the early Mac couldn't be networked except on Appletalk,
which was too slow for most businesses. If only Apple had copied not
only the mouse from Xerox, but also XNS. Apple had a lot of chances to
become the predominant platform, but they seemed to always take the
wrong direction, toward proprietary solutions which were unsuitable to a
lot of users. It seems to have changed a bit lately, with the adoption
of the x86 platform. But now with all the Leopard issues with security,
they are actually making Microsoft look good in terms of security!

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> > IBM had to exit the PC market because Apple was just too powerful
>
> Sorry Apply Fanboy, your "facts" don't stand up to scrutiny.
>
> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible
>
> The declining influence of IBM
> Since 1981, IBM PC compatibles have grown to dominate both the home and
> business markets of commodity computers, with the only notable
> alternative architecture being the Apple Macintosh computers (which
> comprise around 4% of shipping PCs). However, IBM itself lost the
> leadership role in the market for IBM PC compatibles by 1990.
>
> - it was the IBM clones that killed off the IBM PC, NOT Apple.

ah, but you don't understand your history. the Macintosh User Interface
is what eventually wiped out IBM. IBM of 1981 was DOS/CPM based, the Mac
came on very strong in 1984, now everyone in the world uses it. Thus IBM
had to exit the market because Apple's influence was too strong.

> From:http://blog.wired.com/wiredphotos6/2...5150_pers.html
>
> The 10 Gadgets That Changed the World
> Apple often gets credit for starting the personal computer revolution,
> but the Macintosh, which debuted in 1984, was not the original
> mass-market PC. On Aug. 12, 1981, IBM launched the 5150 and changed home
> and office life forever.

False, Apple was already far head of IBM in 1981, already shipping more
MHZ horsepower than IBM during any given year. IBM had no choice but to
try and fight. They later gave up in 2004(ish) since Apple's dreams were
just too powerful for it.

> From: http://www.wowdailynews.com/pegasus/total_share.html
>
> Personal Computer Market Share: 1975-2004
>
> - Look at the numbers and charts. Apple doesn't seem to make much of a
> splash.

Ah, but Apple is the one that "controls" and sets the direction of the
market. You are just looking at the generic "clones" of Apple's ideas.
Apple doesn't care as long as they control the market. So far, during
the last 32ish years Apple has set the direction for the entire PC
market, just like they do with the iPod and now the iPhone in the Cell
Industry.

Please learn your history DTC.

-

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>>
>> - it was the IBM clones that killed off the IBM PC, NOT Apple.
>
> ah, but you don't understand your history. the Macintosh User Interface
> is what eventually wiped out IBM. IBM of 1981 was DOS/CPM based, the Mac
> came on very strong in 1984, now everyone in the world uses it. Thus IBM
> had to exit the market because Apple's influence was too strong.
>
>

I love Apple and always will, but here your full of ****. Then again,
most trolls are.

SMS éz”Žï�€ ⟠<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> >>> The Datapoint 2200 (anyone remember those?) was arguably a personal
> >>> computer, and came out in 1970.
> >> it was just a terminal.
> >>
> >
> > Yes it had that function just like PCs and Macs do today.
> >
> > But it would run also stand alone applications.
> >
> > http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=596
>
> But it wasn't something that was sold to home users, though it was
> intended for use by a single person, so in that sense it was personal.
>
> I think the Apple II was the first non-kit computer that was intended
> for home users, that actually did something useful. It predated the PET
> by a few months.

good, finally an intelligent person on this historic topic.

> Thre was the fully assembled KIM 1 in 1975, which really was the first
> "personal" non-kit computer (could be bought assembled or in kit form),
> but you couldn't do much with it. It had a 23 key keypad that you
> entered programs with, and some hex displays. You could attach a monitor
> to it via the serial port, but the only storage was on paper tape or
> magnetic tape (cassette). The PET was essentially a KIM 1 with a display
> chip.
>
> The wonderful thing about the Apple II was that it was open
> architecture, thanks to Wozniak. One of the reasons that orginal Mac
> wasn't all that successful (compared to the IBM PC) was that it was a
> closed architecture. That lost Apple tens of millions of customers, as
> businesses flocked to the PC architecture with all of the expansion
> capability to make it usable in many different applications.

yes, the Apple // was quite open, the first 2 models of Macs weren't,
but now they are more open than 90% PCs as a general rule since you know
if you buy a standard part, it's going to work in a Mac. You don't get
confidence this with a Wintel or Winamd machine.

> I remember doing network cards (ArcNet) for the Apple II and the PET.
> Unfortunately the early Mac couldn't be networked except on Appletalk,
> which was too slow for most businesses. If only Apple had copied not
> only the mouse from Xerox, but also XNS. Apple had a lot of chances to
> become the predominant platform, but they seemed to always take the
> wrong direction, toward proprietary solutions which were unsuitable to a
> lot of users. It seems to have changed a bit lately, with the adoption
> of the x86 platform. But now with all the Leopard issues with security,
> they are actually making Microsoft look good in terms of security!

Oh yes, I remember. Starting in 1986 you could plug in a standard
Ethernet Card to any Mac, but I think you forget ethernet cards at the
time were $700 on up. AppleTalk/LocalTalk was $50 or less and provide
quite a bit of speed for the money.

Apple has always taken the correct road, not the least common
denominator. That's why it has survived long after other PC firms gave
up. Now Macs are fully open, the most open UNIX certified platform
available for the lowest price.

http://www.apple.com/mac/

Good to hear from someone knowledgeable about products for a change.

-

> yes, the Apple // was quite open, the first 2 models of Macs weren't,
> but now they are more open than 90% PCs as a general rule since you know
> if you buy a standard part, it's going to work in a Mac. You don't get
> confidence this with a Wintel or Winamd machine.

You're right, PCI/PCIExpress/AGP aren't standards, and if I buy a card that
uses one of those interfaces, I might get screwed. Riiiight.

Oh, and doesn't Mac use PCI these days?





--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com

"§" <tdstr@foadspammer.com> wrote in message
news:13j1io517d2ia4d@corp.supernews.com...
> Oxford wrote:
>> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> - it was the IBM clones that killed off the IBM PC, NOT Apple.
>>
>> ah, but you don't understand your history. the Macintosh User Interface
>> is what eventually wiped out IBM. IBM of 1981 was DOS/CPM based, the Mac
>> came on very strong in 1984, now everyone in the world uses it. Thus IBM
>> had to exit the market because Apple's influence was too strong.
>>
>
> I love Apple and always will, but here your full of ****. Then again,
> most trolls are.

Hey Oxford..... take note.
Even a fellow Apple person is calling it as it really is.

Oxford (and whatever sock puppet) = TROLL
Oxford (and whatever sock puppet) = "full of ****"

Face it bucko - you have an audience of ONE - (you) who believe your crap.
ALL the rest think you are a complete and total loon.

Get a clue you moron. You spew total bull**** and now have LESS than zero
credibility. You could now actually post something factual, but the fact
that YOU
(or one of your sock puppets) posted it - automatically makes it highly
suspect.
If it's not written off as more fanatic fanboy stupidity - from a PROVEN
idiot.