«

On 10/22/2011 8:30 PM, nospam wrote:

> 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).

Then you remember incorrectly. Here's a scan of the copyright page
from my copy of _Inside Macintosh_:

http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/IMCopyrightPage.jpg

> 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.

Your memory is off on this by a year as well. The Lightspeed products
you mention were both released in 1986, after the Macintosh Plus allowed
users to add an acceptably fast hard disk without voiding their Apple
warranty.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing
stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz

In article <>, Mike Benveniste
<> wrote:

> On 10/22/2011 8:30 PM, nospam wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> Then you remember incorrectly. Here's a scan of the copyright page
> from my copy of _Inside Macintosh_:
>
> http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/IMCopyrightPage.jpg

i distinctly remember using the book inside macintosh in early 1985
(not the phone book). there was only 1 copy for the department. we also
had the older loose leaf documentation but i didn't use that.

andy hertzfeld, one of the key developers for the mac itself, agrees
with me:
<http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Inside_Macintosh.txt>

I'm not sure whose idea it was, but a compromise was finally reached.
Apple would publish a free, soft-bound "promotional" edition of
Inside Macintosh on low quality paper as soon as possible, and send a
copy for free to every developer. It was about as thick and flimsy as
the Yellow Pages, so it became known as the "phone book" edition.
Most developers still bought the high quality, beautiful hardback
edition when it came out a few months later, anyway.

> > 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.
>
> Your memory is off on this by a year as well. The Lightspeed products
> you mention were both released in 1986, after the Macintosh Plus allowed
> users to add an acceptably fast hard disk without voiding their Apple
> warranty.

where did i say lightspeed came out in 1985?

macintosh pascal came out in 1985 and worked very well on a mac 512k
with two floppies. i know, because that's exactly what i used.

lightspeed pascal grew out of mac pascal and lightspeed c was a
separate product. those came later, as you said, but i wasn't talking
about those with regards to the floodgates of native mac development
systems.

prior to the lightspeed products, there was aztec c, consulair c,
megamax c, an assembler whose name i forget, tml pascal and many
others. we had them all.

as i said, the company i was at bought macs in late 1984 and started
mac development in early 1985, without a lisa.

otter <> wrote:
>On Oct 15, 7:57*pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> 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.

Pretty much all PCs today use versions of the C programming language.
And that includes most smartphones as well.

--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

In article <vcqdnfTyt->, Neil
Harrington <> wrote:

> >> 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)?
>
> No, those old TV sets really were black and white. They never looked
> otherwise as far as I can recall.

early macs used the same monochrome crt as old tv sets.

> Early computer monitors were initially with green phosphors, later amber. So
> they had either green text on black or amber text on black.
>
> I never saw a monitor that was blue until the Macintosh came out.

it was no more blue than any other standard monochrome crt, because it
*was* a standard monochrome crt.

why would they make a special blue version?

In article <MeWdneXuMOFgKDnTnZ2dnUVZ_t->, Neil
Harrington <> wrote:

> >>>> 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)?
> >>
> >> No, those old TV sets really were black and white. They never looked
> >> otherwise as far as I can recall.
> >
> > early macs used the same monochrome crt as old tv sets.
>
> I hardly think so. Was it 640 x 480? Obviously not. Was it interlaced?

that's a function of the analog electronics behind it.

> It was completely different from B&W TVs.

it was an ordinary b/w tube.

> > why would they make a special blue version?
>
> I have no idea. Why did they name it "Macintosh," spelling it wrong? Because
> that's the way Jobs wanted to do it, I suppose. Ours not to reason why.

wrong.

it was jef raskin who spelled it that way.

In article <2011102318061513512-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > I have no idea. Why did they name it "Macintosh," spelling it wrong? Because
> > that's the way Jobs wanted to do it, I suppose. Ours not to reason why.
>
> Jobs wanted a name to relate to an apple (the fruit) type, Fuji, Gala,
> & Granny Smithy didn't seem like a good fit. Then he was up against the
> legal issues of using the same spelling as McIntosh Audio, who denied
> Jobs & Apple a release to use the name. They still had to buy the right
> to use a phonetic version. Hence the odd spelling of "Macintosh".

nope. jef raskin spelled it macintosh. it was after the its release
that mcintosh audio had an issue with trademark infringement. apple
licensed the name from them, even though nobody would confuse vacuum
tube amps with a computer.

In article <2011102318130629267-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Correct it was Raskin who chose the name. However he wanted "McIntosh"
> as in the apple, leaving Apple and Jobs to fight the legal issues with
> McIntosh Audio who refused to release the name. Apple, Jobes and Raskin
> had to settle with buying the rights to a phonetic spelling of
> "Macintosh".

no, he wanted macintosh and apple licensed it after the mac came out.
early versions of apple manuals, documentation etc. didn't mention the
licensing, later versions did.

In article <2011102318314277633-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > no, he wanted macintosh and apple licensed it after the mac came out.
> > early versions of apple manuals, documentation etc. didn't mention the
> > licensing, later versions did.
>
> Here, let Jef clear things up;
> < http://mxmora.best.vwh.net/JefRaskin.html >

that doesn't contradict anything i said. jef picked the name, licensing
it came later, *after* the mac shipped.

On Oct 23, 9:16*pm, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
> > In article <RrGdnV-5qM4mwT3TnZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@giganews.com>, Neil
> > Harrington <n...@home.net> 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)?
>
> No, those old TV sets really were black and white. They never looked
> otherwise as far as I can recall.
>
> Early computer monitors were initially with green phosphors, later amber.So
> they had either green text on black or amber text on black.
>
> I never saw a monitor that was blue until the Macintosh came out.
>
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> The photo only *confirms what I remember. I was in my Apple dealer's when
> they got the first 128K Macs in; I was very interested in it and spent some
> time playing with it. That was the very earliest model, no hard drive, just
> a 3.5" diskette drive. Later my local library got some of them in. Same
> thing. Black text and graphics on a pale blue screen.

Yopu could be sufferign from teh same problem thsat people do when
remmebering the early 1900s
where everything was in B/W and moved very jerkily .

On Oct 24, 1:49*am, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
> > In article <vcqdnfTyt-aF6znTnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...@giganews.com>, Neil
> > Harrington <n...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> 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)?
>
> >> No, those old TV sets really were black and white. They never looked
> >> otherwise as far as I can recall.
>
> > early macs used the same monochrome crt as old tv sets.
>
> I hardly think so. Was it 640 x 480? Obviously not. Was it interlaced?
>
> It was completely different from B&W TVs.

http://apple-history.com/

Video

Monitor: 9" built-in

VRAM: 1 bit 512x342

Released with much fanfare in January of 1984, the Macintosh was the
first affordable computer to include a Graphical User Interface. It
was built around the new Motorola 68000 chip, which was significantly
faster than previous processors, running at 8 MHz. The Mac came in a
small beige case with a black and white monitor built in.


I think they only made it in biege, the MacPlus was availibe in biege
or champagne

>
>
>
> >> Early computer monitors were initially with green phosphors, later
> >> amber. So they had either green text on black or amber text on black.
>
> >> I never saw a monitor that was blue until the Macintosh came out.
>
> > it was no more blue than any other standard monochrome crt, because it
> > *was* a standard monochrome crt.
>
> > why would they make a special blue version?
>
> I have no idea. Why did they name it "Macintosh," spelling it wrong? Because
> that's the way Jobs wanted to do it, I suppose. Ours not to reason why.