..... is so f'n inovative, how come they couldn't think up an original name
?!!!

But we've been there before...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3105444.stm

Geoff Wood wrote:

.... is so f'n inovative, how come they couldn't think up an original name
?!!!

But we've been there before...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3105444.stm


Ridiculous. I'm a huge Beatles fan, but please.

I bought some apples at the grocery store today. So sue me!


Don

Don Cooper wrote:

Ridiculous. I'm a huge Beatles fan, but please.

Really. Like this will impede sales of Beatles' music. And when is their
next gig? Wouldn't want to get confused and wind up at Mac Expo instead.

I bought some apples at the grocery store today. So sue me!

Just don't go trying to sell Ampple Music Sauce.

--
ha

It's all about good will driven by a brand. Align yourself to a icon in the
world as big as the Beatles and your sales will go up because of it. WTF
do you think Wacko was getting top dollar selling off Beatles tunes to Car
companies and the like?


LeBaron & Alrich wrote:

Don Cooper wrote:

Ridiculous. I'm a huge Beatles fan, but please.

Really. Like this will impede sales of Beatles' music. And when is their
next gig? Wouldn't want to get confused and wind up at Mac Expo instead.

I bought some apples at the grocery store today. So sue me!

Just don't go trying to sell Ampple Music Sauce.

--
ha

--
Cheers,
Nate West
"Assiduus usus uni rei deditus et ingenium et artem saepe vincit."

"Don Cooper" wrote in message
...

Ridiculous. I'm a huge Beatles fan, but please.

Not ridiculous. Shouldn't have signed an agreement not to use the name
Apple to sell music if they wanted to use the name Apple to sell music. I
believe they teach that one in Common Sense 101.

ryanm

david wrote:

In article , NW wrote:

It's all about good will driven by a brand. Align yourself to a icon in the
world as big as the Beatles and your sales will go up because of it.

I'd bet most people under 35 have no idea that Apple was the name of
the Beatles record company for their last couple albums.

This whole thang is about $. Looks like the computer company will be
shelling out to the Beatles again.

Which begs the question: why didn't Jobs do something preemptively
rather than let it come to this? I mean, if he's such a smart guy wtf
happened here?


Steve Jobs shows a history of being a hubris-seeking human.

There was never any doubt the Beatles were gonna return to the till an
collect again. The interesting question is how much? Last time it was
$50 million.


All you need is cash.

Maybe the answer is Apple's got $4.5 Billion, has to be in the
ipod/itunes music store market, so who cares about flipping the Beatles
$100 million. Besides stockholder of course.

I wonder if Ringo gets any. ;


Hope so.

David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com


--
Les Cargill

"david" wrote in message news:140920030409125582%
shelling out to the Beatles again.

Which begs the question: why didn't Jobs do something preemptively
rather than let it come to this? I mean, if he's such a smart guy wtf
happened here?

Maybe the computer company should change their name to Orange !


geoff

PS Yes , I know, already taken.

Richard Kuschel wrote:

A separate company should handle the process


Yeah, like Pixar or something.


Don

In article , Brothermark
wrote:

I'd bet most people under 35 have no idea that Apple was the name of
the Beatles record company for their last couple albums.

I'd bet you're wrong...... well certainly amongst the average 35 year old
who is also a music fan, and lets face it, we're talking about music fans
here.


No. It wasn't about music fans. The original quote was about aligning
yourself with a brand.

You ever watch Jay Leno when he goes out on the street and asks people
things like 'Who is the Vice President of the US?'



David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

In article , NW wrote:

Last time it was $50 million.

Last time it was closer to $38 million. Either way, think how much a modern
add
campaign cost...certainly less than that.



According to yesterday's SF Chronicle:

"In a 1991 out-of-court settlement, Apple Computer paid $26.4 million
to Apple Corps and agreed to keep out of the music business to avoid
confusing the public about the two firms."

"... The Beatles, meanwhile, have not licensed any of their songs for
sale on iTunes or any for-pay online music service"


Of course it's only a matter of time before they do it with someone.
Perhaps Jobs could turn this lemon into lemonade ...





David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

david wrote:

You ever watch Jay Leno when he goes out on the street and asks people
things like 'Who is the Vice President of the US?'

And somebody answers, "Mr. Halliburton"...

--
ha

I'll bet Apple Corp can get something this time, because Apple Computer is
moving into music, which is specifically the area for which Apple Corp was
created. Hadn't thought about that and I'll bet it wasn't covered in the
1991 agreement.

And can anyone forget the "news story" where people were running out of
Apple Corp with typewriters and chairs and telephones. Monty Python, right?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
.... is so f'n inovative, how come they couldn't think up an original name
?!!!

But we've been there before...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3105444.stm

didn't Apple get the GUI from Xerox?

Roger W. Norman wrote:

Did you look through any Windows? Perhaps write something on your Desktop?
Or use the Trash? I've made Apple Pie. Did I immediately offend Apple
Computer, Apple Corp AND Humble Pie?

And Apple Computer always keeps the coffers filled with cash. They are one
of the most cash rich companies I know of, even with their purchases of
other companies.

But least we forget, Apple Computer has always been more than pleased to
litigate almost anything they could at the drop of a hat, like suing HP for
Look & Feel when in fact they'd stolen that look and feel from Xerox.

I think Apple Corp actually has a legitimate concern because Apple's defense
is that they weren't in the music business. Well, now they are. But I'm
sure that Jobs had already taken this into consideration and figured it was
worth the payout, but I think, if the courts do it right, that Apple Corp
will be an unexpected guest at the iTunes party.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
david wrote:

In article , NW wrote:

It's all about good will driven by a brand. Align yourself to a icon
in the
world as big as the Beatles and your sales will go up because of it.

I'd bet most people under 35 have no idea that Apple was the name of
the Beatles record company for their last couple albums.

This whole thang is about $. Looks like the computer company will be
shelling out to the Beatles again.

Which begs the question: why didn't Jobs do something preemptively
rather than let it come to this? I mean, if he's such a smart guy wtf
happened here?


Steve Jobs shows a history of being a hubris-seeking human.

There was never any doubt the Beatles were gonna return to the till an
collect again. The interesting question is how much? Last time it was
$50 million.


All you need is cash.

Maybe the answer is Apple's got $4.5 Billion, has to be in the
ipod/itunes music store market, so who cares about flipping the Beatles
$100 million. Besides stockholder of course.

I wonder if Ringo gets any. ;


Hope so.

David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com


--
Les Cargill

I even saw a PoliSci major who couldn't identify Clinton's picture. Of
course, you realize that they are all students in California.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"david" wrote in message
...
In article , Brothermark
wrote:

I'd bet most people under 35 have no idea that Apple was the name of
the Beatles record company for their last couple albums.

I'd bet you're wrong...... well certainly amongst the average 35 year
old
who is also a music fan, and lets face it, we're talking about music
fans
here.


No. It wasn't about music fans. The original quote was about aligning
yourself with a brand.

You ever watch Jay Leno when he goes out on the street and asks people
things like 'Who is the Vice President of the US?'



David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:

And Apple Computer always keeps the coffers filled with cash. They are one
of the most cash rich companies I know of, even with their purchases of
other companies.


And that's pretty darned unstupid. I've read that Apple had as high as
10x productivity per employee over industry averages, too.

But least we forget, Apple Computer has always been more than pleased to
litigate almost anything they could at the drop of a hat, like suing HP for
Look & Feel when in fact they'd stolen that look and feel from Xerox.


I don't think anybody who's a player in tech these days can do
without litigation. And they stole it fair and square.

Again, people say these things, but the Mac took two or
so years beyond the Lisa rollout to make into a real product.
Possibly well beyond that, if you consider the Mac Classic
to have ultimately been the world's most expensive
Etch A Sketch.

Point? They did some building in that space of the market, up
to and including the 1984 Super Bowl ad. There's a huge difference
bewteen Xerox's starving the GUI concept to death ( because they
were a copier company, after all, and margins on copiers were
incredible ) and taking it to the streets.

Jobs had an actual vision, not some iterative checker-game strategy.
But when techies were putting machines to work, replacing
real systems in real companies with micro-based computers, we
used PeeCees 'cuz there were third party peripherals.

*This* was the front lines, replacing $0.5 million worth
of EyeBeeEmm with $25k worth of putty colored wonders, mixed in
with $50k in R&D. All for multiple million $ contracts. It was
a gold mine, for a while there. Wish I'd been the boss
instead of a worker...

I think Apple Corp actually has a legitimate concern because Apple's defense
is that they weren't in the music business. Well, now they are.

Arguably. They're an edge node on the music business, a retailer. WalMart sells
a lot of CDs, but they are not in the music business, per se. Electronic
content is a natural move for any computer company, these days.

If there'd been no prior agreement, it'd be dead on its face.

But I'm
sure that Jobs had already taken this into consideration and figured it was
worth the payout, but I think, if the courts do it right, that Apple Corp
will be an unexpected guest at the iTunes party.


Could be. I always figured the resonance between Apple Computer and Apple Corp
was purely intentional - all those stories about Apple founders in hot tubs
with Wavy Gravy and such. Then there's the present VW Beetle ad with the iPod
featured.

--

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
david wrote:

In article , NW wrote:

It's all about good will driven by a brand. Align yourself to a icon
in the
world as big as the Beatles and your sales will go up because of it.

I'd bet most people under 35 have no idea that Apple was the name of
the Beatles record company for their last couple albums.

This whole thang is about $. Looks like the computer company will be
shelling out to the Beatles again.

Which begs the question: why didn't Jobs do something preemptively
rather than let it come to this? I mean, if he's such a smart guy wtf
happened here?


Steve Jobs shows a history of being a hubris-seeking human.

There was never any doubt the Beatles were gonna return to the till an
collect again. The interesting question is how much? Last time it was
$50 million.


All you need is cash.

Maybe the answer is Apple's got $4.5 Billion, has to be in the
ipod/itunes music store market, so who cares about flipping the Beatles
$100 million. Besides stockholder of course.

I wonder if Ringo gets any. ;


Hope so.

David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com


--
Les Cargill


--
Les Cargill

Roger W. Norman wrote:

But least we forget, Apple Computer has always been more than pleased to
litigate almost anything they could at the drop of a hat, like suing HP for
Look & Feel when in fact they'd stolen that look and feel from Xerox.

This myth keeps going, eh? They _licensed_ that from Xerox, for a
pittance, because Xerox was glad to get a little money for something
they couldn't really figure out what to do with.

And it was M$ they sued, not HP.

--
ha

david wrote:

You ever watch Jay Leno when he goes out on the street and asks people
things like 'Who is the Vice President of the US?'

Roger W. Norman wrote:

I even saw a PoliSci major who couldn't identify Clinton's picture. Of
course, you realize that they are all students in California.


Let's please don't form our worldviews based on a piece of comedy on
the Tonight Show. In the first place, we don't know how many thousands
of people get interviewed before they find six stupid people. In the
second place, the show is popular and they've been doing those segments
for long enough that when Jay Leno comes up to you on the street with a
cameraman and asks you to name the Vice President, you know that a
straight, correct answer isn't going to get you on TV.

Make the obvious observations about people who don't mind looking like
a total moron just to get on TV, but that doesn't mean people in
general are really that stupid. I'm not saying we aren't, but this is
not the proof.


ulysses

Les Cargill wrote:

Then there's the present VW Beetle ad with the iPod
featured.


Which leads to a question. Is that Yes or Jon Anderson music in that
commercial? If so, what song?


Don

Richard Kuschel wrote:

I had two lpeople in the studio the other day.

One was a college grad who wanted to gecord the very nice Taylor that his
relatives had bought him for graduation, the other was still a sophomore.

Neither knew who Ulysses S. Grant or Robert E. Lee was.


Reminds me of a joke I heard in Virginia:

A very prim and proper Southern lady was driving across a bridge in
Richmond one day. As she neared the middle of the bridge, she noticed a
young man standing near the edge of
the bridge getting ready to jump.

She stopped her car, rolled down her window and said "Please don't jump,
think of your Mom and Dad."
He replied, "My Mom and Dad are both dead, I'm gonna jump."
She said, "Well think of your wife and kids."
He replied, "I'm not married and don't have any kids."
She said, "Well, think of Robert E. Lee."
He replied, "Who is Robert E. Lee?"
She then responded, "Well, just go ahead and jump then, you damn yankee!"


Don

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
I'll bet Apple Corp can get something this time, because Apple Computer is
moving into music, which is specifically the area for which Apple Corp was
created. Hadn't thought about that and I'll bet it wasn't covered in the
1991 agreement.

And can anyone forget the "news story" where people were running out of
Apple Corp with typewriters and chairs and telephones. Monty Python,
right?

Yep, it was in "The Rutles" and the "reporter" doing the interview was
George Harrison in a really nasty looking wig.

dave


--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
.... is so f'n inovative, how come they couldn't think up an original
name
?!!!

But we've been there before...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3105444.stm

Make the obvious observations about people who don't mind looking like
a total moron just to get on TV, but that doesn't mean people in
general are really that stupid. I'm not saying we aren't, but this is
not the proof.

Two out of three Americans (including those who identify themselves as
Democrats) can not name even one of the nine Democrats running for president.
Not one. This is the proof.



Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

Roger W. Norman wrote:

And can anyone forget the "news story" where people were running out of
Apple Corp with typewriters and chairs and telephones. Monty Python, right?

Actually happened, I remember it from the news at the time. I believe
Apple Corps decided they were 'going out of busines' and invited the
world to come and help themselves to whatever was in the office
(because, again at the time, they weren't 'breadheads' or 'capitalist
pigs' man).

Well, I remembered some things! g

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
I'll bet Apple Corp can get something this time, because Apple Computer
is
moving into music, which is specifically the area for which Apple Corp
was
created. Hadn't thought about that and I'll bet it wasn't covered in
the
1991 agreement.

And can anyone forget the "news story" where people were running out of
Apple Corp with typewriters and chairs and telephones. Monty Python,
right?

Yep, it was in "The Rutles" and the "reporter" doing the interview was
George Harrison in a really nasty looking wig.

dave


--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
.... is so f'n inovative, how come they couldn't think up an original
name
?!!!

But we've been there before...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3105444.stm

Well, no. Jobs got a preview of it, hired Allen McKay (?) and basically
just used the concept. Xerox wasn't particularly worried because they
weren't in the computer business and it was just a research project to
design a child's interface. But Jobs could be considered to have stolen it,
yep.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Andrew M." wrote in message
...
didn't Apple get the GUI from Xerox?

Roger W. Norman wrote:

Did you look through any Windows? Perhaps write something on your
Desktop?
Or use the Trash? I've made Apple Pie. Did I immediately offend Apple
Computer, Apple Corp AND Humble Pie?

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Well, no. Jobs got a preview of it, hired Allen McKay (?) and basically
just used the concept. Xerox wasn't particularly worried because they
weren't in the computer business and it was just a research project to
design a child's interface. But Jobs could be considered to have stolen
it,
yep.


No, he couldn't. Apple licensed it, and paid Xerox. Thats a fact. In
addition to that,
they did significant work on developing the ideas. The UI for the Lisa was
far
advanced over the Star.


--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Andrew M." wrote in message
...
didn't Apple get the GUI from Xerox?

Roger W. Norman wrote:

Did you look through any Windows? Perhaps write something on your
Desktop?
Or use the Trash? I've made Apple Pie. Did I immediately offend
Apple
Computer, Apple Corp AND Humble Pie?

No, Hank, they didn't license it from Xerox. In fact, the reason that they
couldn't successfully sue HP was that they hadn't paid anything for their
concept from Xerox, who filed an amicus curiae in the case, and Xerox
subsequently sued Apple in a different case due to broken promises. And I'd
mentioned the wrong name, which correctly is Allan Kay, who developed the
GUI for the STAR computer AND Smalltalk, (bio is at
http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/GASCH.KAY.HTML). Truly a class act and smarter
in his little finger than I ever could have hoped to be, but he never let on
the times that I talked to him. His work in agent based computing was the
direction taken by Mr. Pepsico himself, John Scully, who's well scripted
concept of a computer that interacted with the user as a personal secretary
is legend in computer circles. It's also the foundation of OOP and D-COM,
which are application level interfi for interoperability of applications and
disparate computer systems. In other words, Mr. Kay's work at Xerox had far
more of an impact that anything Jobs ever did on his own in terms of
developing computer technology (remember, Woz was the force behind the
Apple ][), and Mr. Kay was a main force in creating the look and feel of the
Mac by proxy.

He also had quite an impact with Atari's development of TOS, which later
migrated over to the Amiga and the first real multitasking computer system.
Far ahead of it's time, but that's another story for another day. One,
presumably, where both of my remaining brain cells are talking to each
other.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"LeBaron & Alrich" wrote in message
. ..
Roger W. Norman wrote:

But least we forget, Apple Computer has always been more than pleased to
litigate almost anything they could at the drop of a hat, like suing HP
for
Look & Feel when in fact they'd stolen that look and feel from Xerox.

This myth keeps going, eh? They _licensed_ that from Xerox, for a
pittance, because Xerox was glad to get a little money for something
they couldn't really figure out what to do with.

And it was M$ they sued, not HP.

--
ha

Roger Christie wrote:
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Well, no. Jobs got a preview of it, hired Allen McKay (?) and basically
just used the concept. Xerox wasn't particularly worried because they
weren't in the computer business and it was just a research project to
design a child's interface. But Jobs could be considered to have stolen
it,

No, he couldn't. Apple licensed it, and paid Xerox. Thats a fact. In
addition to that,
they did significant work on developing the ideas. The UI for the Lisa was
far
advanced over the Star.

Apple licensed the original GUI patents, but they extended them considerably
and also used some other concepts developed for the STAR operating system
that weren't under those licenses. Xerox didn't much mind at first since
they didn't really see the STAR as that viable a commercial product (this
was the Xerox that had shut down XDS and the Sigma machine series not too
long before). A few years later they did take Apple to court over some of
it although it was a bit late by then.
--scott
(using a nice reliable command line interface on NetBSD today)
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Thanks for the references. I simply had my bad memory to go on, but I was
there during those early days. Had I known I was going to live this long
I'd have taken better care of myself (statement is STOLEN from someone else
but I don't remember the reference)! g

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 7:44:00 -0700, LeBaron & Alrich wrote
(in message ):

This myth keeps going, eh? They _licensed_ that from Xerox, for a
pittance, because Xerox was glad to get a little money for something
they couldn't really figure out what to do with.
-----------------------------snip----------------------------

That's not quite the whole story. Jobs did manage to license some of the
intellectual property and patents from Xerox' PARC project, but Xerox
later
did actually sue them, claiming that the Macintosh user interface "went
beyond the intent and scope of the original agreement." They settled out
of
court at the end of the 1980s.

However: when Microsoft went to work creating their first incarnation of
Windows, they paid neither Apple nor Xerox for the icons, the menus, or
any
other aspects of the GUI. I think they wound up paying a bigger
settlement
to Xerox, and later made an investment in Apple as part of a compromise
agreement.

You can read more about this in these books:

APPLE CONFIDENTIAL
by Owen W. Linzmayer

and

APPLE: THE INSIDE STORY OF INTRIGUE, EGOMANIA, AND BUSINESS BLUNDERS
by Jim Carlton


Also, the real story about the settlement with Apple Corps Ltd. (aka Apple
Records) vs. Apple Computer is in this book:

THEY FOUGHT THE LAW: ROCK MUSIC GOES TO COURT
by Stan Soocher

This has the most amazing background details on what really went on with
The
Beatles (and the money they've made and lost over the years), your head
will
spin. Among other things, I was stunned to learn that The Beatles made
(total) less than about $50 million between 1962 and 1990... but then they
made about a billion dollars in the 1990s. Quite an amazing tale, and the
author has all the legal documents and inside scoops to prove it.

--MFW

We had a STAR inhouse, and unless you'd worked on one, I don't know how you
could make a distinction in the concept. The look was different on a
Lisa/Big Mac/Mac, but the there's absolutely no doubt where the idea came of
menuing and popup menus came from, and NO, Apple DID NOT license the
technology from Xerox until it became apparent that they couldn't pull legal
suits without paying attention to their own requirements for shoring up
their legal challenges. Are you forgetting of whom you are speaking? Steve
Jobs did NOT accept that there was anything sacred in computer technology
except his own products (and I use HIS OWN in such terms because that's what
he thought, as did his main adversary, Bill Gates).

You see, what you guys are forgetting is the time frame in which this
occurred. But if you guys don't want to accept my offerings, then I guess
I'm just plain wrong. However, as I recall it, Jobs didn't license anything
until he started taking others to court and then Xerox came back on him,
initially in the form of an Amicus Cureae (friend of the court) brief, thus
forcing the licensing of some aspects of the GUI, but not the underlying
code, which had been brought over largely in the knowledge of Allan Kay.

So I guess I did misspeak myself in that I didn't specify that Apple did not
WILLINGLY license any technology from Xerox. They applied it first,
somewhat paid for it later. A typical Jobs ploy, and there's plenty of
history there to show that being the case.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Roger Christie" wrote in message
...

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Well, no. Jobs got a preview of it, hired Allen McKay (?) and basically
just used the concept. Xerox wasn't particularly worried because they
weren't in the computer business and it was just a research project to
design a child's interface. But Jobs could be considered to have stolen
it,
yep.


No, he couldn't. Apple licensed it, and paid Xerox. Thats a fact. In
addition to that,
they did significant work on developing the ideas. The UI for the Lisa was
far
advanced over the Star.


--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Andrew M." wrote in message
...
didn't Apple get the GUI from Xerox?

Roger W. Norman wrote:

Did you look through any Windows? Perhaps write something on your
Desktop?
Or use the Trash? I've made Apple Pie. Did I immediately offend
Apple
Computer, Apple Corp AND Humble Pie?

Ow, Justin, crank on me. Unless one wants 15 minutes of fame for being an
idiot, then Jaywalking is somewhat a better indicator of the average
KNOWLEDGE of our youth today than you want to admit. And perhaps it's
because admitting it would almost put anyone into an unrecoverable
depression. One only has to look at the polls which have some 70%+ of
Americans still believing that Saddam had something directly to do with
9/11.

I'm sorry, but the two differing elements of indicators say that America
isn't real smart right now.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
...
david wrote:

You ever watch Jay Leno when he goes out on the street and asks people
things like 'Who is the Vice President of the US?'

Roger W. Norman wrote:

I even saw a PoliSci major who couldn't identify Clinton's picture. Of
course, you realize that they are all students in California.


Let's please don't form our worldviews based on a piece of comedy on
the Tonight Show. In the first place, we don't know how many thousands
of people get interviewed before they find six stupid people. In the
second place, the show is popular and they've been doing those segments
for long enough that when Jay Leno comes up to you on the street with a
cameraman and asks you to name the Vice President, you know that a
straight, correct answer isn't going to get you on TV.

Make the obvious observations about people who don't mind looking like
a total moron just to get on TV, but that doesn't mean people in
general are really that stupid. I'm not saying we aren't, but this is
not the proof.


ulysses

Let's see, there's Dopey, Sneezy, Doc, and...

What was the question?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"EganMedia" wrote in message
...
Make the obvious observations about people who don't mind looking like
a total moron just to get on TV, but that doesn't mean people in
general are really that stupid. I'm not saying we aren't, but this is
not the proof.

Two out of three Americans (including those who identify themselves as
Democrats) can not name even one of the nine Democrats running for
president.
Not one. This is the proof.



Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
We had a STAR inhouse, and unless you'd worked on one, I don't know how
you
could make a distinction in the concept. The look was different on a
Lisa/Big Mac/Mac, but the there's absolutely no doubt where the idea came
of
menuing and popup menus came from, and NO, Apple DID NOT license the
technology from Xerox until it became apparent that they couldn't pull
legal
suits without paying attention to their own requirements for shoring up
their legal challenges. Are you forgetting of whom you are speaking?
Steve
Jobs did NOT accept that there was anything sacred in computer technology
except his own products (and I use HIS OWN in such terms because that's
what
he thought, as did his main adversary, Bill Gates).


This is revisionist history. It just plain isn't so.

You see, what you guys are forgetting is the time frame in which this
occurred. But if you guys don't want to accept my offerings, then I guess
I'm just plain wrong. However, as I recall it, Jobs didn't license
anything
until he started taking others to court and then Xerox came back on him,
initially in the form of an Amicus Cureae (friend of the court) brief,
thus
forcing the licensing of some aspects of the GUI, but not the underlying
code, which had been brought over largely in the knowledge of Allan Kay.

Again, this is contrary to fact.


So I guess I did misspeak myself in that I didn't specify that Apple did
not
WILLINGLY license any technology from Xerox. They applied it first,
somewhat paid for it later. A typical Jobs ploy, and there's plenty of
history there to show that being the case.


Not true.


--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Roger Christie" wrote in message
...

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Well, no. Jobs got a preview of it, hired Allen McKay (?) and
basically
just used the concept. Xerox wasn't particularly worried because they
weren't in the computer business and it was just a research project to
design a child's interface. But Jobs could be considered to have
stolen
it,
yep.


No, he couldn't. Apple licensed it, and paid Xerox. Thats a fact. In
addition to that,
they did significant work on developing the ideas. The UI for the Lisa
was
far
advanced over the Star.


--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Andrew M." wrote in message
...
didn't Apple get the GUI from Xerox?

Roger W. Norman wrote:

Did you look through any Windows? Perhaps write something on your
Desktop?
Or use the Trash? I've made Apple Pie. Did I immediately offend
Apple
Computer, Apple Corp AND Humble Pie?

Well, gee, I don't know what to say. I suppose that I just simply have to
take your word for my memories being inadequate to the task, so I assume
that, without references, you're statements indeed have a weighted value as
much as mine. I'd call it a push, but I'd rather see information to the
statements, although mine are strictly from memory and likely not to have
any immediately available references as I call them from memories at the
time. I should probably be held to the higher need of references, but
truthfully, I simply gave up on this stuff about 15 years ago, other than my
work in the field of paperless office and digital signature. I don't see,
however, where Scott Dorsey has major problems with my presentation, and
consequently I hold that the few memories I have intact are still somewhat
pertinent.

Would you be so kind as to refresh my memory? I would most certainly
appreciate it.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Roger Christie" wrote in message
...

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
We had a STAR inhouse, and unless you'd worked on one, I don't know how
you
could make a distinction in the concept. The look was different on a
Lisa/Big Mac/Mac, but the there's absolutely no doubt where the idea
came
of
menuing and popup menus came from, and NO, Apple DID NOT license the
technology from Xerox until it became apparent that they couldn't pull
legal
suits without paying attention to their own requirements for shoring up
their legal challenges. Are you forgetting of whom you are speaking?
Steve
Jobs did NOT accept that there was anything sacred in computer
technology
except his own products (and I use HIS OWN in such terms because that's
what
he thought, as did his main adversary, Bill Gates).


This is revisionist history. It just plain isn't so.

You see, what you guys are forgetting is the time frame in which this
occurred. But if you guys don't want to accept my offerings, then I
guess
I'm just plain wrong. However, as I recall it, Jobs didn't license
anything
until he started taking others to court and then Xerox came back on him,
initially in the form of an Amicus Cureae (friend of the court) brief,
thus
forcing the licensing of some aspects of the GUI, but not the underlying
code, which had been brought over largely in the knowledge of Allan Kay.

Again, this is contrary to fact.


So I guess I did misspeak myself in that I didn't specify that Apple did
not
WILLINGLY license any technology from Xerox. They applied it first,
somewhat paid for it later. A typical Jobs ploy, and there's plenty of
history there to show that being the case.


Not true.


--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Roger Christie" wrote in message
...

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Well, no. Jobs got a preview of it, hired Allen McKay (?) and
basically
just used the concept. Xerox wasn't particularly worried because
they
weren't in the computer business and it was just a research project
to
design a child's interface. But Jobs could be considered to have
stolen
it,
yep.


No, he couldn't. Apple licensed it, and paid Xerox. Thats a fact. In
addition to that,
they did significant work on developing the ideas. The UI for the Lisa
was
far
advanced over the Star.


--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Andrew M." wrote in message
...
didn't Apple get the GUI from Xerox?

Roger W. Norman wrote:

Did you look through any Windows? Perhaps write something on
your
Desktop?
Or use the Trash? I've made Apple Pie. Did I immediately
offend
Apple
Computer, Apple Corp AND Humble Pie?

Gidney and Cloyd wrote:
"Roger W. Norman" wrote:

... Atari's development of TOS, which later
migrated over to the Amiga and the first real multitasking computer system.

Multics was an imaginary multitasking computer system,
so it doesn't matter how much earlier it was. Batch
jobs, lessee, how did that JCL go? //somethingorother
Earliest interactive computer recollection of other
remaining braincell pair: Illiac II circa 1966

Multics was imaginary? Strange, it ran on over a hundred GE and Honeywell
machines. The last Multics site was just shut down last year in Canada
and until then, Multics support was going strong.

And yes, JCL is still alive and well.... lots of IBM machines still running
OS/360 derivatives today.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:
Amiga ... the first real multitasking ...
Gidney and Cloyd wrote:
Multics was an imaginary multitasking...

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Multics was imaginary? Strange, it ran on over
a hundred GE and Honeywell machines. ...

Yea, I was trying for big irony there.
The "first real" seemed to come with the
tacit assumption that real refered to
computers that an individual could own.

... how did that JCL go? //somethingorother
And yes, JCL is still alive and well.... lots of
IBM machines still running OS/360 derivatives today.

Yea, but I bet most of them are modern "PC"/mini
technology boxes emulating old hardware to keep the
unmaintainable software load alive.

Spent a few years supporting a Unix emulation of a
McDondald-Douglas box running some Pick OS to keep
accounting software monsters alive.

Hi,

In message , Gidney and
Cloyd writes
"Roger W. Norman" wrote:
Amiga ... the first real multitasking ...
Gidney and Cloyd wrote:
Multics was an imaginary multitasking...

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Multics was imaginary? Strange, it ran on over
a hundred GE and Honeywell machines. ...

Yea, I was trying for big irony there.
The "first real" seemed to come with the
tacit assumption that real refered to
computers that an individual could own.

... how did that JCL go? //somethingorother
And yes, JCL is still alive and well.... lots of
IBM machines still running OS/360 derivatives today.

Yea, but I bet most of them are modern "PC"/mini
technology boxes emulating old hardware to keep the
unmaintainable software load alive.

Spent a few years supporting a Unix emulation of a
McDondald-Douglas box running some Pick OS to keep
accounting software monsters alive.

Talking of McDonnell Douglas... there's an effort underway at the moment
to try to port the software used in Air Traffic Control in some parts of
the UK. I was shocked to find out recently that they still keep jumbo
jets on course using PDP-11s. This isn't just anecdotal - I saw them.

Apparently until recently it's been easier to just keep fixing them than
to rewrite the software to run on some more modern platform. Scary
(until you consider that the alternative might involve Windows).

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

In message , Gidney and
Cloyd writes
Spent a few years supporting a Unix emulation of a
McDondald-Douglas box running some Pick OS to keep
accounting software monsters alive.

Glenn Booth wrote:

Talking of McDonnell Douglas... there's an effort underway at the moment
to try to port the software used in Air Traffic Control in some parts of
the UK. I was shocked to find out recently that they still keep jumbo
jets on course using PDP-11s. This isn't just anecdotal - I saw them.

Yea, in the US the ATC systems were (are!) ancient IBM systems,
and the software/hardware engineers to keep 'em running are
dying out. I think IBM sold off the division that did ATC.

Apparently until recently it's been easier to just keep fixing them than
to rewrite the software to run on some more modern platform.

My point was that it was easier to emulate the entire
obsolete machine at the instruction set level and run
the old software load on the emulated machine, which
in turn runs on a modern machine. Debugging/reverse
engineering the old code becomes a lot easier when you
can have as many old machines as you need running on
your workstation.

Scary (until you consider that the alternative might involve Windows).

More to the point is that you'd have to rely on a software industry
that's envolved in a climate where Windows has become accepted.

I think you want your ATC software from Raytheon; I don't think
they've been Micro$oftened yet.

Are we far enough off topic yet?
Can the Beatles affect air traffic control?

Glenn Booth wrote:
Talking of McDonnell Douglas... there's an effort underway at the moment
to try to port the software used in Air Traffic Control in some parts of
the UK. I was shocked to find out recently that they still keep jumbo
jets on course using PDP-11s. This isn't just anecdotal - I saw them.

Hey, as late as '92 or so, DEC was still making the 11/73. The older 11
machines are maintainable and reliable and there is still operating system
support for RT-11 that sure beats out the support Microsoft provides.
(There is no longer much support for some of the older operating systems,
though).

Apparently until recently it's been easier to just keep fixing them than
to rewrite the software to run on some more modern platform. Scary
(until you consider that the alternative might involve Windows).

The 11 platforms are all different, but most of them are fairly easy to
fix and most of the pre-11/03 machines CAN be maintained at a component
level. Which is much better than newer machines that have to be discarded
when they fail because they are two years old and that FPGA isn't available
any longer.

There are still PDP-8e machines in regular use doing data acquisition
around here. They keep chugging along. They don't break.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Roger W. Norman wrote:
Gentlemen, look at the entire statement, which left no doubt we were talking
about reasonable machines for people to have in their homes. I left out
anything that might might have indicated an minis, mainframes (spec'd for
response time from terminals, not multitasking) or even the MicroVax.
Obviously the Amiga isn't in the same company.

I have a microvax in my home.

When I was in the college dorms, I had a PDP-11 in my room. The RA kept
trying to convince me it was effectively a refrigerator and therefore had
to go, because the rules allowed only one refrigerator per room. Actually
it was a heating appliance.

Even OS/9 on the Radio Shack Color Computer did real pre-emptive multitasking
even if the memory management was totally absent.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."