dennis@home wrote:

Change the battery on a S2 phone.. pop the back off, pop the battery out,
pop the back on, how did you do it on an iphone?

Undo the locking screws (2), slide the back up, pop the batter out, pop
the new battery in, pop the back on. BTW, yur phone above has now been
re-assembled without a battery which sets your "skills" in context.

Replace the RAM in a typical notebook.. unscrew the cover marked RAM, pop
the DIMM out, pop the new one in, screw the cover back on,

Replace the RAM in a typical Mac Notebook, move the catch, open the
cover, take out the SO-DIMM, insert a new one or use any of the spare
SO-DIMM slots up to a maximum of 16GB on the low end and I think it's
32GB on the Retina. BTW, you just tried to hammer DIMMS into a SO-DIMM
slot so your notebook is now ****ed. Another illustration of what an
ignorant pillock you are.

and with a MBA?

Oh dennis, how carefully you try to plough your field to make a silly
point. As you well know the MBA is an ultra-notebook, not a notebook
and as with all such devices you spec the machine at purchase. If you
buy the nearest competitor the Asus Zenbook UX21 not only are you unable
to upgrade the RAM after purchase but you can't specify more RAM at the
time of purchase - compare that with the MBA, for which you can upspec
the processor, RAM and SSD at the time of purchase.

Change the battery in a typical notebook.. press the button and remove the
battery..

Change the battery in a typical MacBook, press the button remove the
battery, then replace the battery. You just have a notebook with no
battery in it.

Change the disk drive in a typical notebook.. unscrew the two screws marked
disk, pull out..

Change the disk drive in a typical MacBook pro, press the tab on the
hard drive cover. Remove the drive, replace it. And guess what your
notebook now has no disk drive.

Now, how do you upgrade an Asus Zenbook UX21 dennis?

The list is endless just for the hardware.

The list of your stupidity is endless.

Now how do you write code and install it on an iPad compared to downloading
the free development tools for linux and/or windows and/or android you would
use for anything not apple?

Either - get the installation CD that came with your device, scroll down
the window. Select XCode, install it.

Or - go to the Apple website, select the XCode development tools and all
the other free development tools you want, download them. Then sit back
and be amazed at how bloody good the package is and the fact that (for
example) even a monkey like you could write a screensaver and have it
packaged as an app in about five minutes from clicking on the IDE.

If you want to use someone elses code you simply use MacPorts to
download that source code and off you go.

Almost exactly like in Linux but with the added advantage of useful
documentation and very slick graphical development tools.

All free.

Any more stupid knobheadery from you dennis, or are you done for the
week?

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 18:26:50 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:



Replace the RAM in a typical Mac Notebook, move the catch, open the
cover, take out the SO-DIMM, insert a new one or use any of the spare
SO-DIMM slots up to a maximum of 16GB on the low end and I think it's
32GB on the Retina. BTW, you just tried to hammer DIMMS into a SO-DIMM
slot so your notebook is now ****ed. Another illustration of what an
ignorant pillock you are.


What you say about the ease of upgrade was certainly true of both the
white MacBook and the iMac (and others, but I have actually done it on
these two) - but with the MacBook Pro Retina - 8 GB or 16 GB - it is
soldered in place. No upgrade potential. From Apple's website:


Memory

Every MacBook Pro with Retina display comes with 8GB of 1600MHz
memory. Please note that the memory is built into the computer, so if you
think you may need more memory in the future, it is important to upgrade
at the time of purchase.
Learn more (Memory)

8GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
16GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM [+ £160.00]

http://store.apple.com/uk/configure/MC976B/A

--
Rod

John Rumm wrote:


DTP was certainly the first "killer application" for the mac (although
to some extent that depended on Postscript and desktop laser printers to
form the whole picture), Quark came later.

Again, I don't really agree.

The first killer apps for the Mac were Excel and Word. It was much later
that MS created the Windows versions, and even then they had problems
because Excel on a Mac could work with 8MB (huge) of RAM and on the PC
Windows struggled with slow bus speeds and silly add on cards for
extended and expanded memory.

dennis@home wrote:

"Rob" reply@ng wrote in message
b.com...

What's your point here? Is it that non-Mac's are more serviceable because
they need to be?

Apple use the same components as everyone else. Why would you expect them to
be any different?

Gosh, well not strictly true as ever from you is it dhenbhoi? Would you
care to list all of the PCs that have a Thunderbolt port? No? Perhaps
you would care to list all the PC laptops with a 288dpi display? No?

Perhaps you'd care to admit that once more you blow it out of your arse?

Your last point about software is most telling. Apple has, I gather, a
thriving network of developers, professional and otherwise. But most
computer users want nothing to do with code and command lines. In much the
same way they don't want to change hard disks or upgrade RAM, or configure
firewalls or download virus definitions. Macs do, by and large, just work
without meddling. And they're well screwed together and designed, and to
some, look good and are a pleasure to use.

Most users don't know what any of those things are, apple rely on this to
sell their "it always works" stuff.

Cobblers. Most users can tell when something is well made. They can tell
when the screen is sharp and they can tell that they don't want to use a
command line and if they do they don't want to use the vile DOS-like
command line that features on broken MS operating systems. Real
programmers like UNIX and UNIX-alike operating systems with proper
shells, not some kripple kiddy stuff for people who can't work out how
to write a regexp. And most users certainly know if they want to change
RAM, HDD or "stuff". They're not all as thick as you, Mr "I took a phone
to bits and forgot to put the battery back".


However it doesn't always work and it does need anti virus and fire walls.
And there is no flash so a lot of web sites just don't work.

Hmm interesting collection of lies there dennis old fruity. Did you sit
up late working on them? The main purpose of AV on any UNIX os is to
stop the viruses getting passed on to Windows machines. Yes, there are
viruses for MacOS. Most of them have to ask the user to install them
with root privileges because otherwise they can't do anything. That's
not much of a virus compared to those rampaging through Windows, is it
dhenbhoi? As ever with PC bull****ting tits like you, you seem to have
developed a blind eye for the difference of scale between viruses
available for MacOS and those freely distributed for PC users. Probably
a ratio of millions to one.

Is this the software that you like to run that is not available for the
Mac?

Flash works fine on the Mac, I'm sure you realise that it was first
written on/for the Mac, don't you? I've not found any web****es that
refuse to work with a Mac, though I have found several that won't work
with Firefox or some versions of IE.

I don't find them a pleasure to use either, they don't run the software I
want to run, no pleasure there.

Ah yes, that ever mysterious software that isn't available for the Mac.
I haven't found any of value yet or for which there isn't a *much*
better equivalent. Still I'm sure you can tell everyone which mission
critical applications you can't run on a Mac.

Apple will soon find out that "most" people will be happy with a cheap
tablet that runs a web browser and a few games and that's all they really
want.

Where "most" people are those who live on the Indian subcontinent and
who can't afford more than a few quid and hence are willing to put up
with stuff that is ****. No doubt you think we should all be driving two
stroke three-wheelers and cars which are falling apart since that is
what that demographic does.


You're just going to have to get over the fact that if people have enough
money and they're not too self-conscious, a Mac is often a better choice.

If you worry about fashion then yes.
However if you actually want choice macs are a waste of time.

yawn Back to the standard fanbhoi stuff. It used to be "Macs are just
games machines" now that games are k3wL it's "Macs aren't games
machines" and "Macs are just fashion icons". Then the same folk go out
and buy Jackintoshes and aPads and sPhones because deep down they really
want a Mac but can't afford one.

I also don't like their forced upgrade policy,

They don't have one.

you must have noticed they quietly drop older models from their OS support
each time they release a new version.


Yes, I mean it's absolutely true that Windows 7 will run quite happily
on a 2MHz AT with 640k of RAM.

It's not because they wont run the new version, its because they want
people to upgrade so they put checks in the OS and just prevent the new OS
from installing.

Cobblers. Devices fall out of OS upgrade support when the hardware no
longer supports the OS. Exactly as with Windows, except you're likely to
find people using MacOS machines long after the Windows box has died.

For example, I'm still using from time to time a Mac SE/30 and a Mac
PowerPC. The latter was purchased at the same time as a (brand new)
486sx around 1992. The Mac still works. The PC died years ago and ended
up as landfill.


So, once more with feeling, any chance that you're going to stop talking
crap any time soon?

Reentrant wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Reentrant wrote
Man at B&Q wrote
(Steve Firth) wrote
John Rumm wrote
Steve Firth wrote
John Rumm wrote

Your apparent try to portray IBM/Lenovo as champions of choice is
making me choke a little. That's IBM that would never, ever publish to
its
consumers any worthwhile technical documentation for its systems and

That's odd as the first IBM PC I camne across (circa 1982 or '83) came
with complete schematics and documentation.

The Technical Reference Manual didn't actually come with the PC - you
had to buy it separately. It included all the adapter dimensions, bus
pinouts, bus timings, and full BIOS documentation.

Yes.

I'm pretty sure it even had the BIOS source code.

Yes.

My job in the early days of the IBM PC Co was to help and encourage
third parties to develop adapters and add-ons which IBM didn't have
(eg network cards, 3270 emulators, high-end graphics). All the
necessary technical information was published.

Later on, PS/2 Micro Channel Architecture was also fully documented
and licenced to OEMs.

But it never was for the AT.

It was the competition - Compaq and the like - who claimed the PC and
PS/2 were proprietary.

Nope, IBM did with the PS/2. That's why it had to be licensed.

Not true, though a lot of the technology needed to make it work, such as
DMA, was patented and royalty payments due.

That's not right with DMA.

IBM has lots of PC-related DMA patents -
eg http://www.google.com/patents?id=gmobAAAAEBAJ

Yes, but that does NOT mean that royalty payments were due.

ie not for the concept of DMA itself, or later Bus Mastering, but for
specific ways of implementing them.

So almost no one bothered to pay IBM any royaltys for that.

I didn't think "proprietary" and "licenced" were the same.

Didn't say they were. But you can't require a licence for stuff that isn't.

Doesn't the former mean the interface is not documented

Nope, it means that it is done differently to one of the formal
standards in that area. Whether its documented or not is an
entirely separate question.

and competitors can't use it - even for a fee?

Nope, the PS/2 was a proprietary system and competitors could use it for a
fee.

For that matter, the original IBM PC was a proprietary
fully documented system and anyone was free to do
their own with no fee required and hordes did just that.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:31:56 PM UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 12/07/2012 08:31, Steve Firth wrote:
> John Rumm > wrote:

> I've repaired MacBooks in the past - it's no worse than
working on, say
> Dell or Sony laptops. I think you exaggerate the potential for
problems
> as a consequence of the design of the MacBook.
>
> BTW, no comment on the Mac Pro? It's the easiest computer to
work on

No comment since I don't think I have ever met one in the flesh...

> that I have ever seen, also the iMac and the Mac Mini are a joy to
> upgrade. User serviceable parts slide out on trays, generic parts
can be
> used without problems. Trying to build a thesis that Apple is some
evil,
> tentacular organisation dedicated to suppression of the poor
consumer is
> more than slightly misplaced, IMO.

Quite the reverse in fact. I understand that Apple is very much focused
on fully controlling the consumer experience and ensuring it is of a
high quality.

Which is why they stopped flash working on mobiles.

They charge a premium for their products and many are
prepared to pay that in exchange for the level of service.

yes that seems to be the case, I don't mind paying a little extra for
something that will work properly.


> Your apparent try to portray IBM/Lenovo as champions of choice is
making
> me choke a little. That's IBM that would never, ever publish to
its

Not sure how you arrive at that impression. This started as you having a
pop at nospam for suggesting a X series laptop. You claimed "The
Lenovo
(no IBM about it) is badly designed, ugly, heavy and mostly shonky. I
had to lug one around for three years and I couldn't wait to "

That caused me to agree with you on the ugly front, but to highlight
that in my experience they were well designed from a serviceability
point of view, and had decent keyboards.

Beyond that I have very little to say either for or against these
particular machines - I have never owned one, I have never supplied one.
I have used a few and repaired a few and based on that they are ok as
far as laptops go.

Trouble is laptops and tablets aren't the same devices lots of things you
can do on both rasonaly well it's when you want to do somethijng 'special'
then it becomes clear which is the best for that job.
More peole now buy laptops than desktops because the power of laptops is
far better than it was 10 years ago, and the price has fallen quite a bit
too.


> consumers any worthwhile technical documentation for its systems and
> that made access to compilers and other tools as difficult as
possible
> for non-industrial/academic users. And you are comparing them

I am?

> with the
> company that published, openly and for a reasonable price,
"Inside
> Macintosh" that gave full details of every aspect of publishing
and
> repairing Macs, an that made, and continues to make not just basic
> compilers but a suite of programming tools available for free to
anyone.
> Also note Apples significant contributions to Open Source. Do you
have
> Linux, can you print from Linux? Say thanks to Apple then for the
work
> they did on CUPS.
>
>> However it goes deeper than just parts and hardware, much the
same
>> applies to the way they control software and what can be
distributed on
>> itunes. Now maintaining that level of control has pros and cons
from a
>> users point of view - still you pays your money and take your
choice.
>
> Again, you are guilty of exaggeration of the degree of control. I
write

depends on which product line you look at...

> software for Macs and I use software for Macs. It has about the same
> level of control exerted over that software as when I write software
for
> Linux (i.e. none). Much of what I run on my Mac is freeware,
shareware
> or custom code. No one has ever stopped me from running it.

On macs I am sure that is a fair assessment. My main gripe with macs as
such is the price they charge for what is ultimately very pretty x86
hardware. Personally I have no need for my computers to be pretty.

It's a bit more thaqn that, in my frontroom I have two macs rnning
sometimes 24/7 and peole can sleep in that room while they are both
running,

If froend bring their PC over I can hardly heare myself think, slight
exageration perhaps ;-).

Mine is so quiet that you can't even tell if its running without
checking the lights, and I don't bother to put the covers on either.

And I quite like the idea of a stylish computer in the
frontroom rather than some old black box making noises.

I don't give a damn about what it looks like and it doesn't make any noise
at all.

There is an issue with upgradability - which varies from easy enough
with off the shelf components, to trying to push your through Apple as a
source of (sometimes expensive) options. (and I am talking about
desktops here rather than laptops)

I find less reason to ugrade and I work with PCs
too, they seem to NEED to be upgraded more often.

No they don't, most obviously with laptops.

The only thing I upgraded on mine was a double capacity
battery because I use it to watch recorded TV when I am
bottling the beer and needed to be able to have it run
all day doing that at the peak of the beer brewing season
when I am doing 4 batches simultaneously and I don't
want to have to fart around having it on mains power.

You should also check secondhand prices and you'll understand
why secondhand macs also cost more than the 'equavlalent' PCs .

That's just because they cost so much more new.

In fact a friend that has an old 17" macbook pro
that is six years old now is very happy with it,
her boyfriend brought himself a new samsung
laptop last year and it's been in the draw pretty
much ever since, it doesn;t do anythingn better
than the Apple but the clock speed is faster, so
maybe that means something.

Nope.

The software availability front is more of an issue
from my point of view, but I fully accept that
depending on your needs that may be a non issue.

I'm still not convinced by that argument in fact you
can run MS on any mac that's less than 4 years old
or so, so there's NO problem with software availibility
and many people say windows runs betrer on macs

Only the mac devotees. Its just not true of Win7
system running on one of the high end i7s.

even MS knew that as they used a macbook pro to demostrate
their software a few years ago it wass that rathe rstrange avert
whre a young kid shows her dad how to make music ona computer,
looking carefully you can see it's a macbook pro they are using.
On investigation it turned out they use the macbook pro because
their software kept crashing on the PC laptop they set it up on.

Just a dud PC laptop.

or you can use vmware or parellesl
to run PCs apps if you really want to.

Only a subset of PC apps.

The control issues kick in more with phones and tablets,
and particularly with software distribution via itunes.

There's plenty of software from 3rd party that doesn't
use itunes but perhaps yuo mean the app store,. but
thats like saying you can olny buy bread from one shop.

Apps aren't the same as bread.

> Similarly with iTunes. My experience is that (a) I'm free to use
it or
> indeed any other on-line music supplier. (b) My choice of music is
> increased, not decreased by iTunes availability and (c) the ones
dicking
> around over iTunes are the music publishers who are trying
deliberately
> to wreck iTunes (and BTW all similar music publishing) because they
see
> it as a threat to the stranglehold they have on the market.

That I can accept... however for me, itunes is of no use whatsoever
since they don't sell lossless audio encoded material,

That doesn;t really bother me, there's few tracks I
can tell teh differnce between lossless and 256k ACC.

and its DRM
encumbered (this is also the same reason I don't use many of the
other
digital music services).

Some aren;t some are, even those that are, I've not had a problem
with, if I buy a physiocal CD legally I;m not allowed to copyb it
onto tape a portable device or eve copy it for use in the car.

That varys with the jurisdiction.

My Aple purches I can legally make 7 physical copies off
and have i tinstalled on as my of my mobile devices as I want.
In fact tonight I'm goin g to my parent to install a few apps on
teh iPad I borough for my dad, although these apps only cost
a few pound each they won;t cost me or him anything as I can
install them on as many ipads and ipods as I want no limit.

Not legally you can't.

I also find it a bit annoying that one needs to
install it on windows just to service a iPhone -

Most products require software of some sort.

Nope, not in that situation. Most just appear as a USB stick etc.

especially given the number of times their dodgy filter layer
drivers manage to bork access to the optical drives on a system.

That's the PC for you.

Nope, that's their drivers. Doesn't happen with USB sticks.

I also find it ironic that from a company that goes out of its way
to try and enforce strict adherence to its style guidelines by its
developers, that itunes on windows looks just like a mac application!

That's because it is a Mac application.
One of teh reasons I prefer W7 over
other PC OSs is that it is more Mac OS like.

Its more that the industry is moving the same direction.

Its hilarious how close so many linux distros are to Win now UI wise.

Do you really want to go back to DOS ?

>>> If you want to criticise the MBA, criticise it for its known
problems,
>>
>> To be honest I was not focused on MBAs in particular... I
offered it as
>> a suggestion to clarify I was talking about computers and not
combined
>> harvesters.
>
> <shrug> In which case IMO it was a poor example to pick. The
battery can
> be replaced. Either by a reasonably competent user or by Apple,
while
> you wait, for £99. Given that the Lenovo price for a battery with a
run
> time of 1.5 hours (Part number: 43R1966) is £114 perhaps you would
like
> to set the economics of those "easy to replace" batteries
in context?

I replaced a dell laptop battery the other day. Official dell price £90.
Price I paid £25. Time to change 10 seconds. While I waited...

How many times to you need to replace a typical laptop battery ?

Not that often, but plenty do with mobile phones.

With most Macs it seems to be between 3-5 years,
by that time most usully upgrade,

Yes, but I prefer to be able to just buy a double capacity
battery and just replace it in seconds when I want one.

but the 6 year-old 17" macbook pro still has the same battery
it only last about 2.5 hours, but another friend new laptop battery
for his 12" samsung note book only last 3.5 hours when new.

That's just different design choices.

John Williamson wrote
Man at B&Q wrote
(Steve Firth) wrote
Man at wrote

That's odd as the first IBM PC I camne across (circa 1982 or '83) came
with complete schematics and documentation.

ITYM that your employer provided the schematics and documentation. IBM
were less than forthcoming.

That's not right.

Take it any way you like. The fact remains the technical info was
available from IBM.

For SOME of the machines, not the AT.

Which, according to my memory, is why the Intel based PC is now the
standard, and the Mac is a niche product. IBM published almost all the
details that were needed to copy and expand the product.

Yes, that's correct.

They only kept the BIOS software proprietary,

There was in fact complete source code for that in that documentation.

so other motherboard makers had to reverse engineer it,

That came later after it became clear that it wasn't legal to copy it.

though most of the BIOS calls *were* documented.

And full source code was available in that documentation.

I could also mention here IBM long term support, in that I have a Thinkpad
760 from 1993, and can still get all the DOS/ Window 3.1 drivers and
service manuals on the Lanovo website. The unit even works...

Apple refused to licence their designs, so people couldn't make copies
legally or easily.

They did in fact license one of them, and then changed their mind on that.

That's why the Apple Mac was an expensive niche product for so long.

That was also because of the way Apple chose to price it.

Neither of them took off until the killer application came along though.

That's overstated.

For the Mac, it was, IIRC, Quark Express, for the PC it was, again IIRC,
Excel.

There was a lot more than just Excel involved with the PC.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:03:52 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

Neither of them took off until the killer application came along though.
For the Mac, it was, IIRC, Quark Express, for the PC it was, again IIRC,
Excel.

For the PC, it was VisiCalc/Lotus 1-2-3!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

twice the wieght and half the display resolution a bargin ;-)

Like the new retina display mac book then?..
"emulates" a 1440x900 display using OS scaling.
Real bargin, pay for a 2880x1800 high def display, get a low def one.

I wonder what its like when it stretches a 1920x1080 picture to fit the
screen, which bits does it double to fill in the missing lines?
I bet it would look terrible if you created a 1 pixel white, 1 pixel black
grid and stretched it to fit.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...

Apple refused to licence their designs, so people couldn't make copies
legally or easily. That's why the Apple Mac was an expensive niche product
for so long.

That's not actually true, they did license at least one company to make
clones, however they withdrew that license when the clone maker was doing
better than apple.


Neither of them took off until the killer application came along though.
For the Mac, it was, IIRC, Quark Express, for the PC it was, again IIRC,
Excel.

It was a spread sheet but not excel IIRC.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

However it doesn't always work and it does need anti virus and fire
walls.
And there is no flash so a lot of web sites just don't work.

Stop telling lies, Menace. (1) You don't need anti-virus and (2) I have
flash installed right here on my Mac (although I'm considering removing
it).

Got it on an ipad?


I don't find them a pleasure to use either, they don't run the software I
want to run, no pleasure there.

What software's that then?

Well anything that runs on my tablet that comes with windows drivers to
start with.
Do any apple tablets run gimp, ASCOM for example?


Apple will soon find out that "most" people will be happy with a cheap
tablet that runs a web browser and a few games and that's all they really
want.

People who you think want a cheap tablet probably don't want any tablet.
Like me. Neither do I have, or want, a ****ing smart phone. My mobile is
(a) a PAYG that I put £10/year on, tops, and (b) turned off.

You're just going to have to get over the fact that if people have
enough money and they're not too self-conscious, a Mac is often a
better choice.

If you worry about fashion then yes.

You may worry about fashion, I just want an effective and reliable system.
No viruses, no registry, no "how do I defrag the disk" - the list goes on
and on.

Well that's a shame because there are live viruses out there on macs.


I also don't like their forced upgrade policy, you must have noticed they
quietly drop older models from their OS support each time they release a
new version. It's not because they wont run the new version, its because
they want people to upgrade so they put checks in the OS and just prevent
the new OS from installing.

If it were that simple, it would be commonly circumvented.

It is, on macs and on iphones, etc..

It's usually because the newer models have certain hardware or firmware
not present in older models.

No it isn't.
there are plenty of tutorials to tell you how to circumvent it and install
newer apple software on older machines, JFGI.

Apple innovates, you see, and it's Microsoft's inability to force
innovation that is now screwing them in the OS market. Why buy a new
version of Windows when what you've got does the job just fine?

Well yes windows does do the job fine, while, apparently, OSx needs more
work.

"Rob" reply@ng wrote in message
eb.com...
On 13/07/2012 08:05, dennis@home wrote:


"Rob" reply@ng wrote in message
b.com...

What's your point here? Is it that non-Mac's are more serviceable
because they need to be?

Apple use the same components as everyone else. Why would you expect
them to be any different?


Not sure if you've ever opened up a Mac, but to my eye they use carefully
selected components that work well together, and fit them in properly
designed cases. I'm not saying this is rocket science - but it does make
Apple different.

They don't look any different to most PCs to me.
In what way are they better selected?


I'd expect them to be different because they're a niche producer. The fact
that you're not in the niche is obvious (and fair enough, of course).

The what's different refers to the need for servicing not what they look
like.

On 13/07/12 18:03, John Williamson wrote:
On 13/07/2012 16:49, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jul 12, 7:24 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Man at wrote:

That's odd as the first IBM PC I camne across (circa 1982 or '83) came
with complete schematics and documentation.

ITYM that your employer provided the schematics and documentation. IBM
were less than forthcoming.

Take it any way you like. The fact remains the technical info was
available from IBM.

Which, according to my memory, is why the Intel based PC is now the
standard, and the Mac is a niche product. IBM published almost all the
details that were needed to copy and expand the product. They only kept
the BIOS software proprietary, so other motherboard makers had to
reverse engineer it, though most of the BIOS calls *were* documented.

Perhaps as important was that the original IBM PC was based on standard
OEM components. Anyone could source the same and put together a PC very
like an IBM, except for the BIOS. And reverse engineering the BIOS was
worthwhile in order to be compatible with what at that time was the
leading computer manufacturer.




I could also mention here IBM long term support, in that I have a
Thinkpad 760 from 1993, and can still get all the DOS/ Window 3.1
drivers and service manuals on the Lanovo website. The unit even works...

Apple refused to licence their designs, so people couldn't make copies
legally or easily. That's why the Apple Mac was an expensive niche
product for so long.

Neither of them took off until the killer application came along though.
For the Mac, it was, IIRC, Quark Express, for the PC it was, again IIRC,
Excel.

Mac: postcript and Pagemaker. PC (DOS): lotus 123 and wordperfect.
Excell was the killer app for Windows, Lotus lost it because they
couldn't move from DOS to Windows fast enough. (Also laserprinters (HP
Laserjet) had come along and getting spreadsheets to print on them with
a program designed with 66 lines at 6lpi continuous paper in mind was a
real pain.



--
djc

On 13/07/2012 18:59, Steve Firth wrote:
John Rumm wrote:


DTP was certainly the first "killer application" for the mac (although
to some extent that depended on Postscript and desktop laser printers to
form the whole picture), Quark came later.

Again, I don't really agree.

The first killer apps for the Mac were Excel and Word. It was much later

MS were at least two years late to the mac with word after using
FUD/vapourware tactics to quash the competition.

that MS created the Windows versions, and even then they had problems
because Excel on a Mac could work with 8MB (huge) of RAM and on the PC
Windows struggled with slow bus speeds and silly add on cards for
extended and expanded memory.

Word ran fine under win3.1 on significantly less memory than that.
However the early windows versions were very poor in comparison to the
DOS versions. The main thing the windows version managed to do was
displace word perfect as the leading package of the time. (from a sales
point of view anyway)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve Firth) wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

DTP was certainly the first "killer application" for the mac (although
to some extent that depended on Postscript and desktop laser printers to
form the whole picture), Quark came later.

Again, I don't really agree.

The first killer apps for the Mac were Excel and Word.

Rubbish. The first killer app for the Mac arrived a year after launch in 1985
DTP using Adobe Postscript font technology in via Aldus Pagemaker
writing to an Apple Laserwriter.

This was the fist time "typeset" quality output had ever been produced by a
computer

Look it up.

The Laserwriter was a HP laser with a Postrscript board designed by Adobe
and additional RAM

Look it up.

It was much later
that MS created the Windows versions,
and even then they had problems
because Excel on a Mac could work with 8MB (huge) of RAM

Runbbish

The launch Mac came with 128k of Ram and was impossible to expand. Look it up.
It was only a year later in 85 that Jobs could be persuaded to increase the
memory to
512k after botched attempts by 3rd parties to produce upgrades themselves.

Look it up.

The first Mac to offer just 1 meg of RAM and which was expandable was the MAC 11
llaunced in 1986 2 years after the Macs first introduction.

Look it up.


and on the PC
Windows struggled with slow bus speeds and silly add on cards for
extended and expanded memory.

See above


michael adams



Due to the PC using the ropey 16-bit 8088 instead of a 32-bit job like the
68000.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 23:30:09 +0100, michael adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve Firth) wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

DTP was certainly the first "killer application" for the mac
(although to some extent that depended on Postscript and desktop
laser printers to form the whole picture), Quark came later.

Again, I don't really agree.

The first killer apps for the Mac were Excel and Word.

Rubbish. The first killer app for the Mac arrived a year after launch in
1985
DTP using Adobe Postscript font technology in via Aldus Pagemaker
writing to an Apple Laserwriter.

This was the fist time "typeset" quality output had ever been produced
by a computer

Not quite. UNIX systems were driving typesetting back in the 1970s...!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

John Rumm wrote:

The first killer apps for the Mac were Excel and Word. It was much later

MS were at least two years late to the mac with word after using
FUD/vapourware tactics to quash the competition.

And? They still brought it out first on that platform, unless you're
going to count the hideous DOS version that WordPerfect users laughed
at.

that MS created the Windows versions, and even then they had problems
because Excel on a Mac could work with 8MB (huge) of RAM and on the PC
Windows struggled with slow bus speeds and silly add on cards for
extended and expanded memory.

Word ran fine under win3.1 on significantly less memory than that.

sigh, again It would run on the Mac with 128K of RAM (that was the
smallest amount of RAM fitted to a Mac of the era). That 's not the
point. The point is that it would run on a Mac and use 8MB of RAM,
neither Excel nor Lotus could do that on the PC of the day.

However the early windows versions were very poor in comparison to the
DOS versions. The main thing the windows version managed to do was
displace word perfect as the leading package of the time. (from a sales
point of view anyway)

That was really down to WfW 2, which IIRC was launched for Windows 2.

Rod Speed wrote:

Apple refused to licence their designs, so people couldn't make copies
legally or easily.

They did in fact license one of them, and then changed their mind on that.

No, they livensed a number of designs, not "one of them".

michael adams wrote:

Look it up.

I don't have to sonny. I was using a Mac at the time. Pagemaker 1 was
not the "killer app" and it was actually quite crummy at launch. When
Excel, Word and shudder PowerPoint arrived that sold the Mac into
corporates that hadn't considered buying them.

The corporate I worked for bought "quite a few" Macs because it was
possible to run large spreadsheets that could not be created in Lotus
123. DTP remained the preserve of the graphics department.

Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Apple refused to licence their designs, so
people couldn't make copies legally or easily.

They did in fact license one of them, and then changed their mind on
that.

No, they livensed a number of designs, not "one of them".

You're wrong, there weren't 'a number of designs' around at that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macinto...cintosh_clones

On 14/07/2012 01:29, Steve Firth wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

The first killer apps for the Mac were Excel and Word. It was much later

MS were at least two years late to the mac with word after using
FUD/vapourware tactics to quash the competition.

And? They still brought it out first on that platform, unless you're
going to count the hideous DOS version that WordPerfect users laughed
at.

that MS created the Windows versions, and even then they had problems
because Excel on a Mac could work with 8MB (huge) of RAM and on the PC
Windows struggled with slow bus speeds and silly add on cards for
extended and expanded memory.

Word ran fine under win3.1 on significantly less memory than that.

sigh, again It would run on the Mac with 128K of RAM (that was the
smallest amount of RAM fitted to a Mac of the era). That 's not the
point. The point is that it would run on a Mac and use 8MB of RAM,
neither Excel nor Lotus could do that on the PC of the day.

Sorry I misread your original comment - I thought you meant Word needed
8 meg to run on windows! Yes, macs of the day were in an inherently
better starting place to address more ram, having been designed for a
flat memory model in the first place. (as were Amiagas and later STs for
the same reason)

Getting access to extra RAM (beyond 1MB) on PCs in DOS and 16 bit
windows did not really hit its stride until the the LIM XMS (Lotus,
Intel, & MS) agreement (mid to late 80s IIRC) on a standard for how
extended memory could be accessed by real mode programs[1]. Once that
was in place on '286 and better hardware, it made EMS available from and
XMS pool without needing complex add in cards with EMS DMA hardware etc.

(the price of RAM at the time was the real limiting factor though)

However the early windows versions were very poor in comparison to the
DOS versions. The main thing the windows version managed to do was
displace word perfect as the leading package of the time. (from a sales
point of view anyway)

That was really down to WfW 2, which IIRC was launched for Windows 2.

As with most things MS, it usually takes to V3 to get somewhere close to
a worthwhile product.


[1] although in a feat still akin to painting the hall through the
letterbox!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

Stop telling lies, Menace. (1) You don't need anti-virus and (2) I have
flash installed right here on my Mac (although I'm considering removing
it).

Got it on an ipad?

Nope. Can't say I miss it tbh.

My iPad also reliably uses activesync to control calendar, contacts and email.
What other tablet does that (note the word reliably - that rules out android).

Or do you mean windows tablets? While this is a market about to change, I'm
interested in what windows tablet available now you'd class as a serious
competitor to the ipad.

Or was it WebOS you mean? That worked well, and looked promising (well, on
the touchpad for a fortnight). Didn't really fly though did it.

Well anything that runs on my tablet that comes with windows drivers to
start with.

What tablet is this out of interest? I genuinely interested to know of
a true ipad competitor that runs windows. Would simplify management of
it (I assume it can be domain joined etc?)

Do any apple tablets run gimp, ASCOM for example?

Nope. Still, that's a game we can all play. Do android tablets have
photoshop available? Can you run Aperture on your windows machine? etc.

If you need gimp, don't have a ipad. I'm not convinced how useful it'd be
on a tablet anyway tbh.

It's usually because the newer models have certain hardware or firmware
not present in older models.

No it isn't.
there are plenty of tutorials to tell you how to circumvent it and install
newer apple software on older machines, JFGI.

Yep, there are. Have you ever tried any of them? It's a pretty poor user
experience. Apple usually limit the compatability level to ensure a near
consistent performance across supported platforms. Sure, you can often get
it running on older kit - it's not nice though.

Have you tried running Windows on the bare minimum spec the MS recommend?
Painful. If you take the recommended spec for windows releases than you'll
find it's a pretty close match for Apple minimum spec. Difference being
that Apple have tight control of the hardware, so don't have to spell out
the actual CPU gfx etc required.

Again, if you are talking iOS devices, then backward support for older
iOS devices is better than pretty much every platform. At least two
years support for the iPhone for example - more than most smartphone
platforms.

Apple innovates, you see, and it's Microsoft's inability to force
innovation that is now screwing them in the OS market. Why buy a new
version of Windows when what you've got does the job just fine?

Well yes windows does do the job fine, while, apparently, OSx needs more
work.


Windows does the job for you - fine. Windows would do the job for me as well
but I like MacOS and I appreciate the quality of the Apple hardware. Sure,
I pay a premium for that, but that's fine, I'm happy to do that. If you
aren't, then that's fine as well.

Each to their own

Darren

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

Not sure if you've ever opened up a Mac, but to my eye they use carefully
selected components that work well together, and fit them in properly
designed cases. I'm not saying this is rocket science - but it does make
Apple different.

They don't look any different to most PCs to me.
In what way are they better selected?

A lot of the kit is standard, yes. It's to the higher end though.

Compare iMac screens with the same panels from elsewhere and they don't
seem so expensive. Look at the Dell top end screens (same panels). They
aren't cheap.

Custom stuff is used at times. The retina LCD panels for example - who
else is using those at the moment?

The SSD in the macbook air is custom (for now, I'm sure it'll spread).

If we are talking iOS devices, it gets very custom.

Darren

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
michael adams wrote:

Look it up.

I don't have to sonny. I was using a Mac at the time.

Really ?

So was this the 128k MAC or the "8MB Mac."


Pagemaker 1 was
not the "killer app"


A killer app is something which is not available on any
other machine.


and it was actually quite crummy at launch.


There was nothing to compare it with and it was a quantum
leap over what it replaced. Farming work out to typestters
and printers


When
Excel, Word and shudder PowerPoint arrived that sold the Mac into
corporates that hadn't considered buying them.

Baloney.

Nobody bought an unexpandable 128k MAC in order to run spreadsheets
and WP's when they were already running them under DOS on ATs expandable
to 16MB

At the time users were quite happy using DOS as nobody had ever
seen or used a GUI.


The corporate I worked for bought "quite a few" Macs because it was
possible to run large spreadsheets that could not be created in Lotus
123.

These having 128k memory and no hard disc capability

DTP remained the preserve of the graphics department.


More retrospective baloney on your part

In by far the majority of firms graphics departments didn't even exist
before the advent of DTP.

All such work was farmed out by the publicity dept if such existed
to commercial artists and printers

It's this which made DTP the killer app for the Macintosh.

And why Apple was able to establish a niche user base charging
premium/rip-off prices


michael adams

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:07 +0100, michael adams wrote:

There was nothing to compare it with and it was a quantum leap over what
it replaced.

So, a tiny change then.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 14/07/2012 08:28, D.M.Chapman wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

Not sure if you've ever opened up a Mac, but to my eye they use carefully
selected components that work well together, and fit them in properly
designed cases. I'm not saying this is rocket science - but it does make
Apple different.

They don't look any different to most PCs to me.
In what way are they better selected?

A lot of the kit is standard, yes. It's to the higher end though.

Compare iMac screens with the same panels from elsewhere and they don't
seem so expensive. Look at the Dell top end screens (same panels). They
aren't cheap.

Custom stuff is used at times. The retina LCD panels for example - who
else is using those at the moment?

The SSD in the macbook air is custom (for now, I'm sure it'll spread).

If we are talking iOS devices, it gets very custom.


Yes - although things like disks and graphics cards are, I'd guess,
confined to firmware tweaks. I've put non-Mac HDs in Macs - but you can
lose features on the SSDs I think.

The components tend to be selected to suit the application - so you'll
see 'green' drives and graphics cards and processors selected according
to energy consumption and/or performance. Fans on recent desktop imacs.
are virtually silent (my iMac has three) - as are the PSUs. The cases
are custom and very well made - seen a Mac Pro at all?

I don't think Deniis has actually opened up a Mac? Try an iMac - or
google it. Then tell me you can't see a difference. You're going to have
to do some work to win the argument I'm afraid!

Rob

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:18:53 +0100, Rob reply@ng wrote:



Yes - although things like disks and graphics cards are, I'd guess,
confined to firmware tweaks. I've put non-Mac HDs in Macs - but you can
lose features on the SSDs I think.

The components tend to be selected to suit the application - so you'll
see 'green' drives and graphics cards and processors selected according
to energy consumption and/or performance. Fans on recent desktop imacs.
are virtually silent (my iMac has three) - as are the PSUs. The cases
are custom and very well made - seen a Mac Pro at all?

I don't think Deniis has actually opened up a Mac? Try an iMac - or
google it. Then tell me you can't see a difference. You're going to have
to do some work to win the argument I'm afraid!

Rob

I too have put a non-Mac HD into a Mac. To be specific, an iMac. It was
impossible to get an Apple HD (only available internally and to authorised
menders). And when fitted the machine insisted that the fan run at high
speed. Seems the Apple-specific tweak involved drive temperature
measurement. Had to buy a software fan control program to fix that. But
other than that specific issue, the drive itself appeared to be in every
other way a like-for-like swap - with an almost-but-not-quite identical
model number.

My other experience was upgrading a white MacBook. And, having found one
apparently compatible drive simply did not work, another make/model
(Samsung, IIRC) was a simple replacement without any difficulty whatsoever.

--
Rod

michael adams wrote
Steve Firth wrote
michael adams wrote

Pagemaker 1 was not the "killer app"

A killer app is something which is not available on any other machine.

Nope, the app that saw that personal computer really take off.

When Excel, Word and shudder PowerPoint arrived that sold the Mac into
corporates that hadn't considered buying them.

Baloney.

Nobody bought an unexpandable 128k MAC in order to run spreadsheets and
WP's when they were already running them under DOS on ATs expandable to
16MB

Pity that DOS couldn’t use anything like that much at that time.

At the time users were quite happy using DOS as nobody had ever seen or
used a GUI.

Plenty who had previously decided that DOS was too
hard, changed their mind when the Mac showed up.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:07 +0100, michael adams
wrote:



Nobody bought an unexpandable 128k MAC in order to run spreadsheets
and WP's when they were already running them under DOS on ATs expandable
to 16MB




michael adams

Was that expanded or extended? Can't say I remember all the ins and outs
of memory management but I do remember there being distinctions - and am
not sure that both allowed 16 MB.

--
Rod

Huge wrote:

This was the fist time "typeset" quality output had ever been produced by a
computer

You need to add "mass market" or similar in there, somewhere, since computers
had been producing typeset quality output for some years before Saint Steve
had his Xerox PARC epiphany.

he won't, he's simply parading his ignorance.

Rod Speed wrote:

Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Apple refused to licence their designs, so
people couldn't make copies legally or easily.

They did in fact license one of them, and then changed their mind on
that.

No, they livensed a number of designs, not "one of them".

You're wrong, there weren't 'a number of designs' around at that time.

No I'm not I'm 100% correct. There was a 'a number of designs' and that
number was greater than one. (PS: you may want to get some help with
your grammar Wodney)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macinto...cintosh_clones


Did you bother weading it Wodney?

"From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based
clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing. Other
licensees were Motorola, Radius, APS Technologies, DayStar Digital,
UMAX, MaxxBoxx, and Tatung."

They omitted Sonnet from that list.

So there were nine different manufacturers and a number of different
clone designs (at least one per manufacturer). Power Computing alone
made six different designs, the PowerComputing CodeStation, the Power
100, the PowerWave, the PowerCurve, the PowerTower, the PowerTower Pro.
They also had a further two designs in the pipeline.

This is usually where you go off on one, run away, then post a ream of
guff about "purile(sic)" from one of your troll accounts.

michael adams wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
michael adams wrote:

Look it up.

I don't have to sonny. I was using a Mac at the time.

Really ?

Yes really. If you have a weak argument, as you have, such silly
interjections do not make your argument stronger - they have the
opposite effect.

So was this the 128k MAC or the "8MB Mac."

This was a series of Macs over that time. Initially a 128K Mac, a 512K
Mac when I reached the limitations of the original, skipped the Mac
Plus, got a Mac II and later aded an SE/30 8/80 with a rasterOps
ColorBoard 264, then a IIcx with a 27" 24bit colour display, then a IIfx
and then a PowerPC. Then I got bored with Macs and spent a lot of time
on UNIX systems and then went on to buy A MacPro and a MacBook Pro when
the Intel machines appeared. I'm still using them - and a raft of other
Macs today.

The "8MB Mac" that you appear to be so sceptical of was the SE/30. It
was particularly useful for my work because unlike any PC of the era it
was possible to run a colour display side by side with the internal 9"
monitor and overlap windows between the two with QuickDraw appropriately
rendering on both screens. When programming I could run the debugger on
the 9" screen and program output on the big screen,


Pagemaker 1 was not the "killer app"

A killer app is something which is not available on any
other machine.

No. You are wrong. A killer app is one that makes it imperative to buy a
particular machine. Pagemaker didn't do that. At the time it was
launched and for a long time after (indeed up to the present day)
graphics professionals did not by and large choose Pagemaker. Other
systems, costing a lot more, did a better job. Pagemaker was used to
knock out short, often quite appaling, newsletters, in house notices
etc. that all tended to look the same (Titles as a black bar with white
text, two columns of some dreadful font and a few clip art graphics).

The killer app in publishing that made people buy a Mac over and above
anything else was Quark Xpress in 1987. It was five years before it was
available on the PC and in those five years anyone in publishing had to
have it and therefore had to have a Mac.



and it was actually quite crummy at launch.


There was nothing to compare it with and it was a quantum
leap over what it replaced. Farming work out to typestters
and printers

Actually that's ********, again. Pagemaker was used for "stupid work" at
the time. I can recall using it to produce cheap product insert
booklets, tech sheets etc. In-house graphics did the glossy stuff using
traditional processes involving rubber adhesive scalpels and cameras.

When
Excel, Word and shudder PowerPoint arrived that sold the Mac into
corporates that hadn't considered buying them.

Baloney.

Nobody bought an unexpandable 128k MAC in order to run spreadsheets

No one said they did.

and WP's when they were already running them under DOS on ATs expandable
to 16MB

That's ********, again. There were no ATs running Lotus 123 in 16MB of
extended memory - it could not handle it.

At the time users were quite happy using DOS as nobody had ever
seen or used a GUI.

Users used what they were told to use. But Word and Excel saw a flip to
the Mac for many corporates because Word, Excel, the Mac II with Token
Ring cards all arrived at the same time. As I said, I know because I was
there.

The corporate I worked for bought "quite a few" Macs because it was
possible to run large spreadsheets that could not be created in Lotus
123.

These having 128k memory and no hard disc capability

yawn Who stated that, other than you?

DTP remained the preserve of the graphics department.


More retrospective baloney on your part

It's called "the truth" you wouldn't know what that was if it hit you in
the face.

In by far the majority of firms graphics departments didn't even exist
before the advent of DTP.

Graphics departments still don't exist in the majority of firms. If
you're going to make specious points, at least try to make them
credible.

Most corporates had a graphics department to churn out presentations,
posters, newsletter and basic guff.

All such work was farmed out by the publicity dept if such existed
to commercial artists and printers

Completely untrue there's no "all" about it. It depended upon the size
and to an extent the history of the company.

It's this which made DTP the killer app for the Macintosh.

That's your thesis and it's incorrect.

And why Apple was able to establish a niche user base charging
premium/rip-off prices

Apple established a user base among graphics professionals because there
was a suite a grahics tools available. Pagemaker was not the be-all and
end-all. Wihout the other apps, from a diversity of suppliers, Pagemaker
was largely useless. It needed Illustrator, Photoshop, Freehand and
Persuasion alongside Pagemaker to make a compelling case for the Mac
über alles. But this, as you acknowledge, was niche.

I suspect that as with many dweebs you have a UK centric view. The Mac
was much more ignored in the UK than globally because homes users locked
onto the BBC B and corporates thought that DOS was for serious use.
Globally the multi language support on the Mac made it far more
interesting and in the USA it was always better regarded than the in the
UK with the exception of Harvard that seemed to run an anti-Mac
campaign, presumably to push the sales of the crapware that floated out
of Harvard.

And rip off? You show what your prejudices are. In the 80s the Mac was
cheaper than an a similarly specced PC and unlike the PC you could
actually do with the Mac what was claimed. The only time I saw high
resolution colour on a PC was in the IBM demo programs which they
omitted to tell the buyer gave output that a user could never reproduce,
being saddled with CGA/EGA vs the Mac's 24bit colour. There was rip off
for you. And today the prices are still in line with other makers and
when another maker sells something cheaper (say the Asus Zenbook vs the
MacBook Air) you discover that the competition is more locked down and
hence more of a rip off - try speccing a Zenbook with more than 128GB of
storage or more than 4GB of RAM.

As ever with dweebs you compare some nasty Korean Klone with Apple kit
and shout "rip off".

"polygonum" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:07 +0100, michael adams
wrote:



Nobody bought an unexpandable 128k MAC in order to run spreadsheets
and WP's when they were already running them under DOS on ATs expandable
to 16MB

Was that expanded or extended?

Both.

Can't say I remember all the ins and outs of memory management

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_memory

but I do remember there being distinctions

Yes.

- and am not sure that both allowed 16 MB.

They did.

Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Apple refused to licence their designs, so
people couldn't make copies legally or easily.

They did in fact license one of them,
and then changed their mind on that.

No, they livensed a number of designs, not "one of them".

You're wrong, there weren't 'a number of designs' around at that time.

No I'm not I'm 100% correct.

Nope.

There was a 'a number of designs'

Not designs they chose to licence there weren't.

and that number was greater than one.

Not designs they chose to licence there weren't.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
where it belongs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macinto...cintosh_clones

Did you bother weading it Wodney?

Yep.

"From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy
PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably
from Power Computing. Other licensees were Motorola, Radius,
APS Technologies, DayStar Digital, UMAX, MaxxBoxx, and Tatung."

They omitted Sonnet from that list.

That’s licensees, not designs that Apple chose to licence, stupid.

So there were nine different manufacturers

That’s manufacturers, not designs that Apple chose to licence, stupid.

and a number of different clone designs (at least one per manufacturer).

That’s not what APPLE chose to LICENCE, stupid.

Power Computing alone made six different designs, the PowerComputing
CodeStation, the Power 100, the PowerWave, the PowerCurve, the PowerTower,
the PowerTower Pro. They also had a further two designs in the pipeline.

That’s not what APPLE chose to LICENCE, stupid.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
where it belongs

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

This was the fist time "typeset" quality output had ever been produced by a
computer

You need to add "mass market" or similar in there, somewhere, since computers
had been producing typeset quality output for some years before Saint Steve
had his Xerox PARC epiphany.

To be picky

At the time DTP was introduced it wasn't "Mass market" it was niche.

Tne reason I put "typeset" in quotes is because the output of a laserwriter
could never be compared to that of a Linotronic, although Postscript files
could be produced on a Mac to be output as film on a Linotronic etc

Although Tex had already been a around for a few years it didn't display
as WISIWYG as did the Mac even if only as bitmap rather than vector
to start with.

It was this that enabled print shops to set up on every high street
on far less capital outlay offering punters who'd never seen laser
output before, "typeset" quality output.


he won't,

But "he" just did.

Wrong again, Dumbo.

Making predictions which can so easily be refuted is
the sort of mistake most people learn to avoid in their very
first year of posting on Usenet.

he's simply parading his ignorance.


Wrong again Lardbrain

You never know, if you keep posting for another 25 years
the penny might finally drop.

But I doubt it somehow.


michael adams

....

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"michael adams" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve Firth) wrote:


Oy, d'ye think you could do a better job of snipping the attributions next
time so it doesn't seem like I've said things that actually someone else did.

Sorry about that.

If I'd realised I was replying to Firth I wouldnt have bothered.


michael adams

....


--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...


Well that's a shame because there are live viruses out there on macs.

No there aren't. There's been one "exploit" in recent times to do with
some Adobe or was it java stuff, I forget now.

Do grow up, one is enough if you are insecure (there has been more than one
BTW).

This compares with the figure of 145,000 viruses for Windows, a figure I
saw some 4 years ago so assume it's higher now.

So what?
Just because some other OS may be insecure doesn't mean yours is!


I also don't like their forced upgrade policy, you must have noticed
they quietly drop older models from their OS support each time they
release a new version. It's not because they wont run the new version,
its because they want people to upgrade so they put checks in the OS
and just prevent the new OS from installing.

If it were that simple, it would be commonly circumvented.

It is, on macs and on iphones, etc..

It's usually because the newer models have certain hardware or firmware
not present in older models.

No it isn't.
there are plenty of tutorials to tell you how to circumvent it and
install newer apple software on older machines, JFGI.

That which is presented without evidence may be rejected without evidence.
You want to convince me, provide some links.

JFGI.


Apple innovates, you see, and it's Microsoft's inability to force
innovation that is now screwing them in the OS market. Why buy a new
version of Windows when what you've got does the job just fine?

Well yes windows does do the job fine, while, apparently, OSx needs more
work.

Feel free to stick with 3.5" floppies if you really want to den, the rest
of us will move on.

so you are basing everything you say on your experience with windows 20
years ago, now I understand.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 13/07/2012 18:59, Steve Firth wrote:
John Rumm wrote:


DTP was certainly the first "killer application" for the mac (although
to some extent that depended on Postscript and desktop laser printers to
form the whole picture), Quark came later.

Again, I don't really agree.

The first killer apps for the Mac were Excel and Word. It was much later

MS were at least two years late to the mac with word after using
FUD/vapourware tactics to quash the competition.

Where as now its mac and linux users using FUD in a desperate attempt to
prop up their choice of machine.
Why I have no idea, no machine is perfect for all users and you should chose
the application first, then the OS and finally the hardware. You don't run
OSes, you run applications.


that MS created the Windows versions, and even then they had problems
because Excel on a Mac could work with 8MB (huge) of RAM and on the PC
Windows struggled with slow bus speeds and silly add on cards for
extended and expanded memory.

Word ran fine under win3.1 on significantly less memory than that. However
the early windows versions were very poor in comparison to the DOS
versions. The main thing the windows version managed to do was displace
word perfect as the leading package of the time. (from a sales point of
view anyway)

While Macs could use a lot of ram most people couldn't a££ord it and Macs
didn't do virtual memory until much later than windows did.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Steve Firth wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Apple refused to licence their designs, so
people couldn't make copies legally or easily.

They did in fact license one of them, and then changed their mind on
that.

No, they livensed a number of designs, not "one of them".

You're wrong, there weren't 'a number of designs' around at that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macinto...cintosh_clones

He's always wrong, it must be the cheap olive oil he consumes.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:53:07 +0100, michael adams wrote:

There was nothing to compare it with and it was a quantum leap over what
it replaced.

So, a tiny change then.

Er no. It was a leap into an entirely new orbit.

In the old orbit there were sheets of letraset and tins of Cow gum etc whizzing
around

In the new orbit just screens and mice and graphic tablets


michael adams

....



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor