"Chris Hornbeck" wrote ...
Xerox PARC was the home of GUI's and mousing, etc.
Kind of apocryphal in the Apple canon. And later stolen by
everybody else.

Somewhere around here I have a very old copy of a Scientific
American magazine with an article on the Xerox Palo Alto
Research Center (PARC). It showed all the things we now
take for granted, overlapping, resizable windows, use of a
mouse and cursor, etc. etc. In the back of the same magazine
is a small 1-column ad with a picture of the "Apple-1" PC
board likely taken in Steve Jobs' garage. Apple and MS
both derived the idea of windows from Xerox. That is why
Apple's suit against MS for "stealing windows" was a big
steaming crock, and the courts agreed.

Richard Crowley wrote:

Somewhere around here I have a very old copy of a Scientific
American magazine with an article on the Xerox Palo Alto
Research Center (PARC). It showed all the things we now
take for granted, overlapping, resizable windows, use of a
mouse and cursor, etc. etc. In the back of the same magazine
is a small 1-column ad with a picture of the "Apple-1" PC
board likely taken in Steve Jobs' garage. Apple and MS
both derived the idea of windows from Xerox. That is why
Apple's suit against MS for "stealing windows" was a big
steaming crock, and the courts agreed.

Yes, but Apple paid licensing to Xerox for the use of the concept, and
Microsoft did not.

That said, my department had a Xerox Star in college, and I thought the
whole GUI notion was a lousy one. Much more cumbersome than a command
line. But then, I still think so.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Richard Crowley wrote:

Somewhere around here I have a very old copy of a Scientific
American magazine with an article on the Xerox Palo Alto
Research Center (PARC). It showed all the things we now
take for granted, overlapping, resizable windows, use of a
mouse and cursor, etc. etc. In the back of the same magazine
is a small 1-column ad with a picture of the "Apple-1" PC
board likely taken in Steve Jobs' garage. Apple and MS
both derived the idea of windows from Xerox. That is why
Apple's suit against MS for "stealing windows" was a big
steaming crock, and the courts agreed.

Yes, but Apple paid licensing to Xerox for the use of the concept, and
Microsoft did not.

That said, my department had a Xerox Star in college, and I thought the
whole GUI notion was a lousy one. Much more cumbersome than a command
line. But then, I still think so.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I hate the concept of stadiums changing their name just to get it heard on
TV for advertisement purposes. Just like I hate Nascar drivers spouting off
sponsers when they should be happy about a win and talking about that
instead.

What is next? Players changing their names to 'Post It Smith' or 'Dave
Honda' or 'Neuman Shure'. Ok, I'll stop now.

But get the point? F-in sick. Watch, it will happen.


--

-Hev
find me he
www.michaelspringer.com

I hate the concept of stadiums changing their name just to get it heard on
TV for advertisement purposes. Just like I hate Nascar drivers spouting off
sponsers when they should be happy about a win and talking about that
instead.

What is next? Players changing their names to 'Post It Smith' or 'Dave
Honda' or 'Neuman Shure'. Ok, I'll stop now.

But get the point? F-in sick. Watch, it will happen.


--

-Hev
find me he
www.michaelspringer.com

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Richard Crowley wrote:
....Apple and MS
both derived the idea of windows from Xerox. That is why
Apple's suit against MS for "stealing windows" was a big
steaming crock, and the courts agreed.

Yes, but Apple paid licensing to Xerox for the use of the
concept, and Microsoft did not.

In which case Apple had no legal standing. It should have
been Xerox vs. MS. OTOH, their "acquisition" of DOS
from Digital Research was no less questionable.

Bringing the topic around, some companies are much more
marketing organizations than technical ones. Monster and
Microsoft come to mind, but at least Microsoft does more
of their own work these days.

Does Monster have *any* real technological innovations to
its name? "Bigger wire is better" doesn't really seem like a
huge technology accomplishment. But then where I work we
put several hundred million transistors on a chip the size of
your thumbnail, so I may have a jaded perspective?

And Monster and Apple seem to share the marketing concept
that "expensive is better". Apparently there is a loyal (although
dwindling) segment of customers that go along with that scheme.

That said, my department had a Xerox Star in college, and I
thought the whole GUI notion was a lousy one. Much more
cumbersome than a command line. But then, I still think so.

Indeed. I am just adding the "after-the-fact" features that the
customers (VPs) want on my web-based project (approaching
10,000 lines of code). But there are some things for which
GUIs are either awkward or just not capable of doing.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Richard Crowley wrote:
....Apple and MS
both derived the idea of windows from Xerox. That is why
Apple's suit against MS for "stealing windows" was a big
steaming crock, and the courts agreed.

Yes, but Apple paid licensing to Xerox for the use of the
concept, and Microsoft did not.

In which case Apple had no legal standing. It should have
been Xerox vs. MS. OTOH, their "acquisition" of DOS
from Digital Research was no less questionable.

Bringing the topic around, some companies are much more
marketing organizations than technical ones. Monster and
Microsoft come to mind, but at least Microsoft does more
of their own work these days.

Does Monster have *any* real technological innovations to
its name? "Bigger wire is better" doesn't really seem like a
huge technology accomplishment. But then where I work we
put several hundred million transistors on a chip the size of
your thumbnail, so I may have a jaded perspective?

And Monster and Apple seem to share the marketing concept
that "expensive is better". Apparently there is a loyal (although
dwindling) segment of customers that go along with that scheme.

That said, my department had a Xerox Star in college, and I
thought the whole GUI notion was a lousy one. Much more
cumbersome than a command line. But then, I still think so.

Indeed. I am just adding the "after-the-fact" features that the
customers (VPs) want on my web-based project (approaching
10,000 lines of code). But there are some things for which
GUIs are either awkward or just not capable of doing.

Hev wrote:

What is next? Players changing their names to 'Post It Smith' or 'Dave
Honda' or 'Neuman Shure'. Ok, I'll stop now.

But get the point? F-in sick. Watch, it will happen.

It's already happened; dig that Suzuki guy. g

--
ha

Hev wrote:

What is next? Players changing their names to 'Post It Smith' or 'Dave
Honda' or 'Neuman Shure'. Ok, I'll stop now.

But get the point? F-in sick. Watch, it will happen.

It's already happened; dig that Suzuki guy. g

--
ha

Richard Crowley wrote:


In which case Apple had no legal standing. It should have
been Xerox vs. MS. OTOH, their "acquisition" of DOS
from Digital Research was no less questionable.


Seattle Computer developed QDOS, which is what Moft acquired. Gary
Kildall (DR) was just asleep at the switch.

As for the PARC GUI, Apple really took it and ran with it, after which
Moft just tried to copy it. Maybe the RIAA should have been a witness.

Richard Crowley wrote:


In which case Apple had no legal standing. It should have
been Xerox vs. MS. OTOH, their "acquisition" of DOS
from Digital Research was no less questionable.


Seattle Computer developed QDOS, which is what Moft acquired. Gary
Kildall (DR) was just asleep at the switch.

As for the PARC GUI, Apple really took it and ran with it, after which
Moft just tried to copy it. Maybe the RIAA should have been a witness.

"hank alrich" wrote in message
. ..
Hev wrote:

What is next? Players changing their names to 'Post It Smith' or 'Dave
Honda' or 'Neuman Shure'. Ok, I'll stop now.

But get the point? F-in sick. Watch, it will happen.

It's already happened; dig that Suzuki guy. g

--




g

--

-Hev
find me he
www.michaelspringer.com

"hank alrich" wrote in message
. ..
Hev wrote:

What is next? Players changing their names to 'Post It Smith' or 'Dave
Honda' or 'Neuman Shure'. Ok, I'll stop now.

But get the point? F-in sick. Watch, it will happen.

It's already happened; dig that Suzuki guy. g

--




g

--

-Hev
find me he
www.michaelspringer.com

"S O'Neill" wrote ...
Seattle Computer developed QDOS, which is what Moft acquired. Gary
Kildall (DR) was just asleep at the switch.

Seattle Computer was a DR dealer. I've seen the identical
object code from DRDOS to MSDOS. Agreed that Kildall
was no match for Gates in the business acumen arena.

"S O'Neill" wrote ...
Seattle Computer developed QDOS, which is what Moft acquired. Gary
Kildall (DR) was just asleep at the switch.

Seattle Computer was a DR dealer. I've seen the identical
object code from DRDOS to MSDOS. Agreed that Kildall
was no match for Gates in the business acumen arena.

Hev wrote:

I hate the concept of stadiums changing their name just to get it heard on
TV for advertisement purposes. Just like I hate Nascar drivers spouting off
sponsers when they should be happy about a win and talking about that
instead.

What is next? Players changing their names to 'Post It Smith' or 'Dave
Honda' or 'Neuman Shure'. Ok, I'll stop now.

But get the point? F-in sick. Watch, it will happen.


Too late, my names have been for sale for years. $1 million each, or $3
million for both.

So far no one has bought one, so you could be the first.

Hev wrote:

I hate the concept of stadiums changing their name just to get it heard on
TV for advertisement purposes. Just like I hate Nascar drivers spouting off
sponsers when they should be happy about a win and talking about that
instead.

What is next? Players changing their names to 'Post It Smith' or 'Dave
Honda' or 'Neuman Shure'. Ok, I'll stop now.

But get the point? F-in sick. Watch, it will happen.


Too late, my names have been for sale for years. $1 million each, or $3
million for both.

So far no one has bought one, so you could be the first.

Richard Crowley wrote:

"S O'Neill" wrote ...

Seattle Computer developed QDOS, which is what Moft acquired. Gary
Kildall (DR) was just asleep at the switch.


Seattle Computer was a DR dealer. I've seen the identical
object code from DRDOS to MSDOS. Agreed that Kildall
was no match for Gates in the business acumen arena.


Of course, DR was CP/M, the OS of the day, so everyone was a DR dealer.
And QDOS sure was a lot like CPM (as was MS-DOS); it was basically the
same thing ported to Intel's new terminal controller chip (8088 in
"maximum mode").

Richard Crowley wrote:

"S O'Neill" wrote ...

Seattle Computer developed QDOS, which is what Moft acquired. Gary
Kildall (DR) was just asleep at the switch.


Seattle Computer was a DR dealer. I've seen the identical
object code from DRDOS to MSDOS. Agreed that Kildall
was no match for Gates in the business acumen arena.


Of course, DR was CP/M, the OS of the day, so everyone was a DR dealer.
And QDOS sure was a lot like CPM (as was MS-DOS); it was basically the
same thing ported to Intel's new terminal controller chip (8088 in
"maximum mode").

Richard Crowley wrote:
"S O'Neill" wrote ...
Seattle Computer developed QDOS, which is what Moft acquired. Gary
Kildall (DR) was just asleep at the switch.

Seattle Computer was a DR dealer. I've seen the identical
object code from DRDOS to MSDOS. Agreed that Kildall
was no match for Gates in the business acumen arena.

DRDOS came _after_ MS-DOS.

Q-DOS was in fact a poor imitation of DR's CP/M, done by someone who did
not really understand why CP/M 2.2 did some of the things that it did.

But for that matter, most of the CP/M user interface was cribbed from
DEC's RT-11, including even things like the PIP command and the SYSGEN
procedure.

When the IBM PC came out, you could get MS-DOS for a minimal cost, or CP/M-86
for a substantial amount. MS-DOS took over the market, although it took
a few years to do so. (You could also opt to use neither one and run only
BASIC in ROM with the cassette port, something people don't seem to remember
much about the original IBM PC these days).

Only after there was a sizeable installed base for MS-DOS and the revenues
for CP/M were tanking did DR come out with DR DOS.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Richard Crowley wrote:
"S O'Neill" wrote ...
Seattle Computer developed QDOS, which is what Moft acquired. Gary
Kildall (DR) was just asleep at the switch.

Seattle Computer was a DR dealer. I've seen the identical
object code from DRDOS to MSDOS. Agreed that Kildall
was no match for Gates in the business acumen arena.

DRDOS came _after_ MS-DOS.

Q-DOS was in fact a poor imitation of DR's CP/M, done by someone who did
not really understand why CP/M 2.2 did some of the things that it did.

But for that matter, most of the CP/M user interface was cribbed from
DEC's RT-11, including even things like the PIP command and the SYSGEN
procedure.

When the IBM PC came out, you could get MS-DOS for a minimal cost, or CP/M-86
for a substantial amount. MS-DOS took over the market, although it took
a few years to do so. (You could also opt to use neither one and run only
BASIC in ROM with the cassette port, something people don't seem to remember
much about the original IBM PC these days).

Only after there was a sizeable installed base for MS-DOS and the revenues
for CP/M were tanking did DR come out with DR DOS.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Richard Crowley wrote:

And Monster and Apple seem to share the marketing concept
that "expensive is better".

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html

--
ha

Richard Crowley wrote:

And Monster and Apple seem to share the marketing concept
that "expensive is better".

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html

--
ha

"hank alrich" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:

And Monster and Apple seem to share the marketing concept
that "expensive is better".

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html

Flawed logic. Incomplete data. The feedback at the bottom of their
page doesn't agree with the editorial any more than I do.

They don't even discuss the concept of DIY PCs where you can pick
and choose components, and upgrade only the ones you need instead
of buying a complete new computer. IMHO that is the great difference
between the Mac concept and open-standard PC. I would think that an
article in a Linux forum (of all places!) would comprehend open
standards better than that? Apple has used all means possible to ensure
that they have no competition to either their hardware or software
products. That is not an admirable business concept IMHO. YMMV.

"hank alrich" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:

And Monster and Apple seem to share the marketing concept
that "expensive is better".

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html

Flawed logic. Incomplete data. The feedback at the bottom of their
page doesn't agree with the editorial any more than I do.

They don't even discuss the concept of DIY PCs where you can pick
and choose components, and upgrade only the ones you need instead
of buying a complete new computer. IMHO that is the great difference
between the Mac concept and open-standard PC. I would think that an
article in a Linux forum (of all places!) would comprehend open
standards better than that? Apple has used all means possible to ensure
that they have no competition to either their hardware or software
products. That is not an admirable business concept IMHO. YMMV.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"S O'Neill" wrote ...
Seattle Computer developed QDOS, which is what Moft acquired. Gary
Kildall (DR) was just asleep at the switch.

Seattle Computer was a DR dealer. I've seen the identical
object code from DRDOS to MSDOS. Agreed that Kildall
was no match for Gates in the business acumen arena.

DRDOS came _after_ MS-DOS.

Bzzzzt! Yes, of course, I meant CP/M. I was elected VP of the
CP/M Users Group Northwest 20 years ago and my poor memory
is troubling. :-(

Q-DOS was in fact a poor imitation of DR's CP/M, done by
someone who did not really understand why CP/M 2.2 did
some of the things that it did.

But for that matter, most of the CP/M user interface was
cribbed from DEC's RT-11, including even things like the
PIP command and the SYSGEN procedure.

And the story is that after my employer paid Gary Killdal for
one of the first high-level languages for our microprocessors
(PL/M), they rejected the concept of an "operating system" and
Gary went on to create and sell CP/M. Oh well. We're better
at making chips than software.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"S O'Neill" wrote ...
Seattle Computer developed QDOS, which is what Moft acquired. Gary
Kildall (DR) was just asleep at the switch.

Seattle Computer was a DR dealer. I've seen the identical
object code from DRDOS to MSDOS. Agreed that Kildall
was no match for Gates in the business acumen arena.

DRDOS came _after_ MS-DOS.

Bzzzzt! Yes, of course, I meant CP/M. I was elected VP of the
CP/M Users Group Northwest 20 years ago and my poor memory
is troubling. :-(

Q-DOS was in fact a poor imitation of DR's CP/M, done by
someone who did not really understand why CP/M 2.2 did
some of the things that it did.

But for that matter, most of the CP/M user interface was
cribbed from DEC's RT-11, including even things like the
PIP command and the SYSGEN procedure.

And the story is that after my employer paid Gary Killdal for
one of the first high-level languages for our microprocessors
(PL/M), they rejected the concept of an "operating system" and
Gary went on to create and sell CP/M. Oh well. We're better
at making chips than software.

Richard Crowley wrote:


And Monster and Apple seem to share the marketing concept
that "expensive is better".


I can confirm that "better is more expensive". I disagree that Apples
are merely more expensive. Monster is a different ball park.


l any more than I do.

They don't even discuss the concept of DIY PCs where you can pick
and choose components, and upgrade only the ones you need instead
of buying a complete new computer. IMHO that is the great difference
between the Mac concept and open-standard PC. I would think that an
article in a Linux forum (of all places!) would comprehend open
standards better than that? Apple has used all means possible to ensure
that they have no competition to either their hardware or software
products. That is not an admirable business concept IMHO. YMMV.


I think they tried that once and the result was flakey hardware. One
can certainly argue with varying success that that is one of the IBM
architecture's shortcomings.

Richard Crowley wrote:


And Monster and Apple seem to share the marketing concept
that "expensive is better".


I can confirm that "better is more expensive". I disagree that Apples
are merely more expensive. Monster is a different ball park.


l any more than I do.

They don't even discuss the concept of DIY PCs where you can pick
and choose components, and upgrade only the ones you need instead
of buying a complete new computer. IMHO that is the great difference
between the Mac concept and open-standard PC. I would think that an
article in a Linux forum (of all places!) would comprehend open
standards better than that? Apple has used all means possible to ensure
that they have no competition to either their hardware or software
products. That is not an admirable business concept IMHO. YMMV.


I think they tried that once and the result was flakey hardware. One
can certainly argue with varying success that that is one of the IBM
architecture's shortcomings.

"S O'Neill" wrote in message
...
Richard Crowley wrote:


And Monster and Apple seem to share the marketing concept
that "expensive is better".


I can confirm that "better is more expensive". I disagree that Apples are
merely more expensive. Monster is a different ball park.


l any more than I do.

They don't even discuss the concept of DIY PCs where you can pick
and choose components, and upgrade only the ones you need instead
of buying a complete new computer. IMHO that is the great difference
between the Mac concept and open-standard PC. I would think that an
article in a Linux forum (of all places!) would comprehend open
standards better than that? Apple has used all means possible to ensure
that they have no competition to either their hardware or software
products. That is not an admirable business concept IMHO. YMMV.


I think they tried that once and the result was flakey hardware. One can
certainly argue with varying success that that is one of the IBM
architecture's shortcomings.

"S O'Neill" wrote in message
...
Richard Crowley wrote:


And Monster and Apple seem to share the marketing concept
that "expensive is better".


I can confirm that "better is more expensive". I disagree that Apples are
merely more expensive. Monster is a different ball park.


l any more than I do.

They don't even discuss the concept of DIY PCs where you can pick
and choose components, and upgrade only the ones you need instead
of buying a complete new computer. IMHO that is the great difference
between the Mac concept and open-standard PC. I would think that an
article in a Linux forum (of all places!) would comprehend open
standards better than that? Apple has used all means possible to ensure
that they have no competition to either their hardware or software
products. That is not an admirable business concept IMHO. YMMV.


I think they tried that once and the result was flakey hardware. One can
certainly argue with varying success that that is one of the IBM
architecture's shortcomings.

"S O'Neill" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:


And Monster and Apple seem to share the marketing concept
that "expensive is better".

I can confirm that "better is more expensive". I disagree that Apples are
merely more expensive. Monster is a different ball park.

Was that an intentional pun? :-))

[competitive, Mac-compatible hardware]

I think they tried that once and the result was flakey hardware.

It was a very startup industry and Apple came down hard on them
before they ever got to the 2nd generation of products. They were
basing designs on extrapolations of what the (unpublished) Apple
specs might have been.

One can certainly argue with varying success that that is one of the IBM
architecture's shortcomings.

Perhaps. But I don't know anyone who denies that hardware
(and software/OS, mostly) open-standards and the resulting
open-market competition are likely the single most significant
factor in the PC's continued, overwhelming market share.

Not denying that closed/proprietary was reputedly IBM/Boca's
original intent, but for whatever reason, they let it slip out of their
control and look where we are now (for better or for worse :-)

"S O'Neill" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:


And Monster and Apple seem to share the marketing concept
that "expensive is better".

I can confirm that "better is more expensive". I disagree that Apples are
merely more expensive. Monster is a different ball park.

Was that an intentional pun? :-))

[competitive, Mac-compatible hardware]

I think they tried that once and the result was flakey hardware.

It was a very startup industry and Apple came down hard on them
before they ever got to the 2nd generation of products. They were
basing designs on extrapolations of what the (unpublished) Apple
specs might have been.

One can certainly argue with varying success that that is one of the IBM
architecture's shortcomings.

Perhaps. But I don't know anyone who denies that hardware
(and software/OS, mostly) open-standards and the resulting
open-market competition are likely the single most significant
factor in the PC's continued, overwhelming market share.

Not denying that closed/proprietary was reputedly IBM/Boca's
original intent, but for whatever reason, they let it slip out of their
control and look where we are now (for better or for worse :-)

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:59:41 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

But I don't know anyone who denies that hardware
(and software/OS, mostly) open-standards and the resulting
open-market competition are likely the single most significant
factor in the PC's continued, overwhelming market share.

Not denying that closed/proprietary was reputedly IBM/Boca's
original intent, but for whatever reason, they let it slip out of their
control and look where we are now (for better or for worse :-)


other well-focused comments snipped for bandwidth

It's a unique situation in Consumerland. Has there *ever* been
another dominant non-proprietary consumer standard post-war?

And secondarily, my memory of the times was that lots hinged
on the legal breaking of the IBM BIOS. The lesson of hardware
vs. software still haunts us. Down where it counts, in the
pants pocket.

Chris Hornbeck

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:59:41 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

But I don't know anyone who denies that hardware
(and software/OS, mostly) open-standards and the resulting
open-market competition are likely the single most significant
factor in the PC's continued, overwhelming market share.

Not denying that closed/proprietary was reputedly IBM/Boca's
original intent, but for whatever reason, they let it slip out of their
control and look where we are now (for better or for worse :-)


other well-focused comments snipped for bandwidth

It's a unique situation in Consumerland. Has there *ever* been
another dominant non-proprietary consumer standard post-war?

And secondarily, my memory of the times was that lots hinged
on the legal breaking of the IBM BIOS. The lesson of hardware
vs. software still haunts us. Down where it counts, in the
pants pocket.

Chris Hornbeck