Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker

 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2011
On Oct 18, 8:11*pm, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 9:12 pm, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> otter wrote:
> >>> On Oct 15, 7:57 pm, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>> The underpinning of our computer world rides on this fellow's and
> >>>> his colleague's efforts, not Apple adult toys.

>
> >>>>http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/tech/i...hie-obit-bell-
> >>>> labs/index.html

>
> >>> As much as I respect Dennis Ritchie and invention of the C
> >>> programming language, it was really just one thing, and not without
> >>> warts.

>
> >>> Steve Jobs and Woz brought us the first useful personal computer,
> >>> the Apple II. And then they stole some ideas and gave us the Mac,
> >>> which

>
> >> I don't think the Woz had much (if anything) to do with the Mac,
> >> though apparently the Apple II was almost entirely his creation.

>
> >> The Mac, as I recall, was originally intended to be just an economy
> >> version of the $10,000 Lisa -- which was a flop.

>
> >>> led to Windows, and the windowing guis in the unix/linux world. Then

>
> >> I think the first version of Windows appeared at about the same time
> >> as the Mac,

>
> > About a year after the first mac.

>
> > *though that Windows was unworkable for practical purposes and pretty
> >> much remained so for a few years, until 3.0.

>
> > Yep.

>
> >> But at least Windows had color from the beginning, unlike the early
> >> Macs with their funky little blue monochrome screens.

> > #
> > I was usiong colour on my BBC micro in 1982. *4 years before windows.

>
> I don't know what a BBC micro is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Microcomputer

>
> > Those macs had monochrone screens not blue.

>
> Monochrome and blue. Black writing on a pale blue screen. That's what it was
> on every early Mac I ever saw.


Then you're colour blind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K
The built-in display was a one-bit black-and-white, 9 in (23 cm) CRT
with a resolution of 512×342 pixels, establishing the desktop
publishing standard of 72 PPI



>
> > I could print in colour fromm a Macplus.
> > The first PCs we had were green and black or orange and black displays
> > no real colour.

>
> IBM quickly brought out the CGA card for the PC to compete with Apple's
> color. The CGA card provided "eight colors," but normally only four at any
> one time, same as the Apple II. And those eight colors included two blacks
> and two whites, again the same as Apples. For example, on the Apple II you
> had a choice of red, blue, black and white -- or the other palette: green,
> purple, black and white. And for both makes, only at horrible resolution -- *
> 320 x 200 for the PC, and less than that for the Apple.


I really don;t remmeber PCs being able to print graphics at that time,
the first laser printer
we hadt was an AppleLaserwriter , anyone that wanted anything other
than text at
standard res. came to me., I used to do all the notices as PCsd could
print much beyond 18pt
I could get 144pt quite easily then emlarge that on teh print dialogue
if need be.
I could print 1 character per A4 sheet.


>
> A PC with the new EGA card was the most amazing thing I'd ever seen. Sixteen
> colors on the screen all at the same time, and in 640 x 350 resolution. Wow!
> That was in 1985.


With my BBC I had what was called 16 colours abefore the end of 1982
after upgrading from 16K to 32k
you had an extra 8 flashing colours (8 stanbdard 16k) which meant for
games you could make things appear and disapear
much faster by changing their logical colour rather than redrawing the
image.
I could also play the 'close encounter of the 3rd kind' beeps through
ther internal speaker, all PCs could do at the time was beep.
It had 4 programmable sound channels, outp[uts for RS423 adn a
modulator so you could connect it to a TV.





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Benveniste
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2011
On 10/20/2011 1:39 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:

>> I really don;t remmeber PCs being able to print graphics at that time,

>
> I don't remember them having that ability either.


The ability to print graphics was sort of introduced in MS- and PC-DOS
2.0. You had to load a terminate-and-stay-resident utility named
GRAPHICS.COM, and then you could print in various modes at least with
the "IBM Graphic Printer" (a rebadged Epson MX-80).

Until Windows, however, each program had to provide its own printer
drivers, so whether a particular application could print graphics
on any given printer was strictly hit or miss.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ulrich G. Kliegis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2011
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:22:33 -0400, Mike Benveniste
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in rec.photo.digital:

>
>Until Windows, however, each program had to provide its own printer
>drivers, so whether a particular application could print graphics
>on any given printer was strictly hit or miss.


Autocad cultivated that yet through several versions of their program
- and of Windows.

Time will show if Apple's customers will tolerate the forced alignment
to the one-make-no-choice policy with the leader character missing.

Cheers,
U.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2011
On Oct 20, 8:32*pm, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 06:00:18 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Oct 18, 8:11*pm, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> Whisky-dave wrote:
> >> > On Oct 17, 9:12 pm, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >> otter wrote:
> >> >>> On Oct 15, 7:57 pm, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >>>> The underpinning of our computer world rides on this fellow's and
> >> >>>> his colleague's efforts, not Apple adult toys.

>
> >> >>>>http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/tech/i...hie-obit-bell-
> >> >>>> labs/index.html

>
> * *--- snip ---
>
> >I really don;t remmeber PCs being able to print graphics at that time,
> >the first laser printer

>
> I've seen an early Apple Imagewriter used for outputting CAD from an
> Apple computer.


We did a similar thing but used an HP7550 pen plotter that was
primmally designed for VLSI circuit design.
I was using macdraw and macdraft, I had to make a 80ft lead to connct
them as they were in differnt rooms.
I also used the mac as a terminal to 3 metheus computers (£80k each)
that did the designs for VLSI.(very large scale intergration).
they had massive 80-Mb hard discs specially formated using voice coil
technology something to do with the platters getting hot so
the drive need specail compensations software.


> >we hadt was an AppleLaserwriter , anyone that wanted anything other
> >than text at
> >standard res. came to me., I used to do all the notices as PCsd could
> >print much beyond 18pt
> >I could get 144pt quite easily then emlarge that on teh print dialogue
> >if need be.
> >I could print 1 character per A4 sheet.

>
> >> A PC with the new EGA card was the most amazing thing I'd ever seen. Sixteen
> >> colors on the screen all at the same time, and in 640 x 350 resolution.. Wow!
> >> That was in 1985.

>
> Well before then was the 1976 Cromemco 'Dazzler' color system which
> was used to generate many of the US weather reports on TV.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromemco_Dazzler
>
> >With my BBC I had what was called 16 colours abefore the end of 1982
> >after upgrading from 16K to 32k
> >you had an extra 8 flashing colours (8 stanbdard 16k) which meant for
> >games you could make things appear and disapear
> >much faster by changing their logical colour rather than redrawing the
> >image.
> >I could also play the 'close encounter of the 3rd kind' beeps through
> >ther internal speaker, all PCs could do at the time was beep.
> >It had 4 programmable sound channels, outp[uts for RS423 adn a
> >modulator so you could connect it to a TV.

>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens


 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mike Benveniste
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> I really don;t remmeber PCs being able to print graphics at that time,

> >
> > I don't remember them having that ability either.

>
> The ability to print graphics was sort of introduced in MS- and PC-DOS
> 2.0. You had to load a terminate-and-stay-resident utility named
> GRAPHICS.COM, and then you could print in various modes at least with
> the "IBM Graphic Printer" (a rebadged Epson MX-80).
>
> Until Windows, however, each program had to provide its own printer
> drivers, so whether a particular application could print graphics
> on any given printer was strictly hit or miss.


on a mac, the printer was basically another window. anything you could
draw on screen you could 'draw' to the printer. adding print support to
an app was trivial.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Neil
Harrington <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>> Those macs had monochrone screens not blue.
> >>
> >> Monochrome and blue. Black writing on a pale blue screen. That's
> >> what it was on every early Mac I ever saw.

> >
> > Then you're colour blind
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K
> > The built-in display was a one-bit black-and-white, 9 in (23 cm) CRT

>
> Yes, one-bit black and white, but the "white" was pale blue.


it was a standard monochrome b/w display. there was no blue. do you see
blue on a b/w tv set (if you can find one)?

> Look at that 128K Mac photo again. That screen doesn't look pale blue to
> you? I'll agree the higher intensity parts look closer to white.


look at an *actual* mac 128k, not a photo.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Benveniste
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2011
On 10/21/2011 2:14 PM, nospam wrote:

> on a mac, the printer was basically another window. anything you could
> draw on screen you could 'draw' to the printer. adding print support to
> an app was trivial.


It is true that to write to the printer, you opened it as a window
and made the same API calls that you would to display on the screen.
Unfortunately, the Imagewriter driver made some "interesting"
optimizations, such as writing in a square aspect ratio in landscape
mode but a non-square aspect ratio in portrait mode. If one needed
to change that behavior, it made for "interesting" times.

But there was nothing trivial about writing an early Mac application.
The API was documented in three loose leaf notebooks, and contained
stuff that worked, stuff that didn't work, and some components, such as
CoreEdit, that either were vaporware or that Apple decided to keep for
itself.

The Mac's original native language was Pascal, with the expected weird
I/O extensions. But there wasn't a Pascal compiler which ran on the
Mac at release. Instead, you had to compile and link your programs on
a Lisa, write the result on to a floppy and then run it on one of
your Macs. I say one of your Mac's, because you needed a second Mac
to run an assembly level debugger.

--
Mike Benveniste -- http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Clarification Required)
You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing
stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mike Benveniste
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > on a mac, the printer was basically another window. anything you could
> > draw on screen you could 'draw' to the printer. adding print support to
> > an app was trivial.

>
> It is true that to write to the printer, you opened it as a window
> and made the same API calls that you would to display on the screen.
> Unfortunately, the Imagewriter driver made some "interesting"
> optimizations, such as writing in a square aspect ratio in landscape
> mode but a non-square aspect ratio in portrait mode. If one needed
> to change that behavior, it made for "interesting" times.


i don't recall that being an issue. there was a small issue with
printing to the laserwriter because it converted everything to
postscript and it wasn't always a perfect conversion.

> But there was nothing trivial about writing an early Mac application.
> The API was documented in three loose leaf notebooks, and contained
> stuff that worked, stuff that didn't work, and some components, such as
> CoreEdit, that either were vaporware or that Apple decided to keep for
> itself.


it was significantly easier than writing for other platforms at the
time. the looseleaf documentation was *very* early. the phonebook
version of inside macintosh came out shortly after the mac did as
everything was finalized and the hardcover version not long after that.

inside macintosh was one of the best developer documentation i've ever
seen. apple's current developer documentation is nowhere near as good,
nor is any other platform i've seen.

> The Mac's original native language was Pascal, with the expected weird
> I/O extensions. But there wasn't a Pascal compiler which ran on the
> Mac at release. Instead, you had to compile and link your programs on
> a Lisa, write the result on to a floppy and then run it on one of
> your Macs. I say one of your Mac's, because you needed a second Mac
> to run an assembly level debugger.


that changed very quickly. microsoft released basic for the mac shortly
after the mac came out and after forcing apple to kill a substantially
better basic. not long after that, a number of companies came out with
mac native pascal, c, assembly, forth and more.

development could be done *entirely* on a mac with no lisa required
using development environments that blew everything else away.
macintosh pascal which later became lightspeed pascal was amazing.
lightspeed c was also very good too.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Benveniste
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2011
On 10/22/2011 12:34 AM, nospam wrote:

> it was significantly easier than writing for other platforms at the
> time. the looseleaf documentation was *very* early. the phonebook
> version of inside macintosh came out shortly after the mac did as
> everything was finalized and the hardcover version not long after that.


For values of of "not long" which approach two years, I suppose that's
true. The 1st printing of the hardcover edition was in November of
1985, and with shipping delays most copies didn't hit the streets
until early 1986. (Yes, I still have my copy.)

With the exception of Microsoft Basic, which could only use a fraction
of the Mac's abilities, the same "not long" caveat applies to the other
development environments.

This is certainly the wrong forum to expound at length about the
reality of early Mac development. I opined "upstream" that the
Macintosh was a culturally changing product, and I hold to that. But
as with many cultural icons, "golden age syndrome" tends to downplay
the less exciting and less admirable parts of history.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (E-Mail Removed) (Clarification Required)
You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing
stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mike Benveniste
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > it was significantly easier than writing for other platforms at the
> > time. the looseleaf documentation was *very* early. the phonebook
> > version of inside macintosh came out shortly after the mac did as
> > everything was finalized and the hardcover version not long after that.

>
> For values of of "not long" which approach two years, I suppose that's
> true. The 1st printing of the hardcover edition was in November of
> 1985, and with shipping delays most copies didn't hit the streets
> until early 1986. (Yes, I still have my copy.)


i remember getting it in early 1985. the company i was at bought a
bunch of macs in late 1984 and development started shortly thereafter.
they had the looseleaf stuff, but there was a real inside macintosh
(not the phone book).

> With the exception of Microsoft Basic, which could only use a fraction
> of the Mac's abilities, the same "not long" caveat applies to the other
> development environments.


like i said, microsoft forced apple to cancel a *far* better basic. ms
basic came out in spring 1984 or so (maybe summer), and by fall 1984
the first of the native mac dev tools started to appear. by early 1985
the floodgates had opened.

> This is certainly the wrong forum to expound at length about the
> reality of early Mac development. I opined "upstream" that the
> Macintosh was a culturally changing product, and I hold to that. But
> as with many cultural icons, "golden age syndrome" tends to downplay
> the less exciting and less admirable parts of history.


yes it is the wrong group to discuss it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker Whisky-dave Digital Photography 23 12-22-2011 04:18 PM
Re: This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker RichA Digital Photography 7 12-22-2011 08:35 AM
pgp trash troll delete Guy Macon guymacon Guy Macon guymacon Guy Macon rlm@interlog.com.ca Perl Misc 1 08-06-2007 04:59 PM
JOBs............JOBs............JOBs hardikh2000 Python 0 08-16-2005 03:55 AM
GUY MACON HAS NO COLLEGE DEGREE (Guy Macon, pseudo-engineer Guy Macon) Guy Macon (Guy Macon) Digital Photography 0 02-04-2005 05:52 AM



Advertisments