Jobs SLAMS 3G - Wipes out its future!

Oxford wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Not by a long shot.
>>
>> The Altair was out in January 1975, followed in August 1975 by the IMSAI
>> 8080.
>
> didn't have a keyboard or a screen or a floppy drive, or any drive.
> until much, much later. the apple ][ was the first PC, you need to
> accept history, not try and be a revisionist.
>
>> The PDP-8 (introduced in 1965) was a personal computer, especially the
>> PDP-8/e/f/m and PDP-8/a.
>
> riiiiiight, it was about as personal as an aircraft carrier. can't
> believe you even tried to include mini-computers as PCs. funny!

What's funny is I know someone that is running one in his basement.

>
>> Xerox had the Alto in 1973. The Alto was so great that Apple copied it a
>> decade later to create Lisa (later Macintosh). It had a GUI text editor
>> complete with fonts, and even its own version of Space Invaders and Maze
>> Wars. Alto was also the client platform for which Ethernet was invented.
>
> the Alto was never sold, nor was it "personal".
>
>> I forget when the IMLAC PDS-1 came out, but that too was a personal
>> computer and it preceeded the Alto.
>
> not a personal computer however.
>
>> The Datapoint 2200 (anyone remember those?) was arguably a personal
>> computer, and came out in 1970.
>
> it was just a terminal.
>

fyi

http://www.americanheritage.com/arti...994_2_64.shtml

I have one in storage....somewheres.

---

› See More: Jobs SLAMS 3G - Wipes out its future!

§ <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> The PDP-8 (introduced in 1965) was a personal computer, especially the
> >> PDP-8/e/f/m and PDP-8/a.
> >
> > riiiiiight, it was about as personal as an aircraft carrier. can't
> > believe you even tried to include mini-computers as PCs. funny!
>
> What's funny is I know someone that is running one in his basement.

yeah, they show up on ebay once in awhile. such a fun relic.

> >
>
> fyi
>
> http://www.americanheritage.com/arti...994_2_64.shtml
>
> I have one in storage....somewheres.

yes, too bad it never sold, thus isn't considered the first personal
computer. that title is well reserved for Woz and his breakthrough Apple
| and ][.

he's the guy that was able to reduce the chip count to such extreme
levels to make all PCs finally possible.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_what_...ed_and_by_whom

engineers still study and marvel at Woz's designs, he one of the true
geniuses of our age. he did what nobody else could do before... make the
first PC for the masses.

-

"IMHO IIRC" <[email protected]> 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!

-

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-10-26, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

> yes, 1977 with the Apple ][ is the primary root upon all other PCs were
> built.

Uhhh,

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 ][.



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

SoCal Fire news @the L.A. Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/breakingnews/
Local wildfire coverage, KFMB-TV San Diego: http://cbs8.com/

Oxford wrote:

> § <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>>The PDP-8 (introduced in 1965) was a personal computer, especially the
>>>>PDP-8/e/f/m and PDP-8/a.
>>>
>>>riiiiiight, it was about as personal as an aircraft carrier. can't
>>>believe you even tried to include mini-computers as PCs. funny!
>>
>>What's funny is I know someone that is running one in his basement.
>
>
> yeah, they show up on ebay once in awhile. such a fun relic.
>
>
>>fyi
>>
>>http://www.americanheritage.com/arti...994_2_64.shtml
>>
>>I have one in storage....somewheres.
>
>
> yes, too bad it never sold, thus isn't considered the first personal
> computer. that title is well reserved for Woz and his breakthrough Apple
> | and ][.

Doing the sock-puppet shuffle eh Oxretard?
It did sell, otherwise it would never have been mentioned.

<snip>

Oxford wrote:

> "IMHO IIRC" <[email protected]> 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.

Oxford wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> <apple.@re.****e.com> wrote:
>
>> > More Apple bollox, like the Apple Crap, sorry Mac Buy a decent phone
>> > like an
>> > N95. Face it, iPhone owners, you've been screwed by Jobs again.
>
> The Nokia N95 got HORRIBLE reviews compared to the iPhone.
>
> It wasn't even a contest, the iPhone easily won:
>
> http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/inde...sid=11025&pn=4
>
>
> Nokia is in serious trouble. Even the Nokia CEO Olli Pekka Kallasvuo
> said he is ³paranoid² about Apple¹s entry into the cell phone market.
>
> They don't stand a chance... we all know that now!


What I got out of the review is that the iPhone is for the technically
challenged, the N95 is for the true techies. Last time I checked the market
share of devices which was a few days ago, Apple wasn't even on the map.
There have only been a million or so iPhone's sold which is not very much
compared to the billions of other manufactured devices. I have to admit
that I have never seen a piece of carcinogen producing plastic create such
a frenzy. At the end of the day, they are all still consumer grade personal
multimedia devices that can actually make phone calls and are marketed to
the masses like fast food.


Dave

"Stephen R. Conrad" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]...

> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:22:57 -0700, Oxford <[email protected]>
> 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:[email protected],
> Oxford <[email protected]> typed:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Mark Crispin <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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�€ ⟠<[email protected]> 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