On 14/07/2012 10:26, polygonum wrote:
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.


Yes - I had that problem when I put an SSD into a 2009 iMac. ISTR that I
shorted the sensor, and that forced the fan to run at idle? Not a device
of my own thinking, I hasten to add - followed a guide somewhere.

Rob

In article om,
Rob reply@ng wrote:

Yes - I had that problem when I put an SSD into a 2009 iMac.

Ah, how easy was that? Is removing the glass as simple as it sounds?

I a little scared of cracking it!

Darren

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
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.

In 1985 no other system at any price offered WYSIWYG Postscript output
if only a bitmap display until the arrival of ATM, which could even
be networked to a Linotronic. Very few people had the luxury of waiting
around for two years for the possible arrival of Quark Express.

Hindsight is all very well, but that's not how it was.


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.



That may be your own opinion. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to be
supported by any published source anywhere and it doesn't accord with
my own experience either. Even if my own memory is failing, that
doesn't account for the fact that every available source
cites the birth of DTP via Pagemaker/Postcript/ Laserwriter
as being the killer app for the 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.


So why did you refer to them as existing in 1985 ?

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.

....

It's not just my thesis. It's one that it appears is universally shared.

Furthermore basically once people saw laser output of postcript fonts,
"proper" typefaces" never mind off a Linotronic, that was it. They were sold on
it. No messing around with magnifiers to check DPI or waiting around for
Quark. That was it.

Thats what gave the Mac such a window

It's difficult to see how anyone could have been around at the time
and not been aware of this.

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".

Er, what has any of that got to do with the fact that my clear memory of that
period, as supported by all published sources claims that the DTP
via Pagemaker/Postscript/Laserwriter was the killer app for the MAC
in 1985 ?

You can write as many paragraphs as you like, but nothing that you can
possibly write, about anything, ever, is going to change history.
Or the fact that you are so very clearly wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.


michael adams

....

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

"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.

So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.

Why not?

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

michael adams wrote:

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

So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.

Why not?

Oh FFS, you're one of those idiots that uses a term without
understanding it. You should have said.

michael adams wrote:

[snip narcissistic, repetitious, incorrect, crap]

You can write as many paragraphs as you like, but nothing that you can
possibly write, about anything, ever, is going to change history.
Or the fact that you are so very clearly wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

yawn Unlike you I lived through and I was an adult at the time. You,
it appears aren't even an adult today.

You are fluffing stupid schoolboy howlers about graphics, in-house repro
and in particular the early history of the Mac. You're also apparently
too stupid to realise it.

Still I'll let you have that last word you so clearly desire.

Rod Speed wrote:

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.

Apple didn't license any "designs" as such Wodney, you're now wriggling.
There was no clone by any maker that was a copy of the Apple
case/monitor or keyboard. Given that at the time Macs were all anonymous
beige boxes that looked like PCs there was no "design" to copy. The
iMacs didn't appear until Steve Jobs returned to the company and
listened to Jonathan Ive.

What Apple did specifically was to licensed other companies to use the
ROMs. This enably companies to make copies of those ROMs legally and
easily. It permitted the makers to make a number of different designs,
not one design.


You stated that there weren't a number of designs around. There were, as
previously listed lots of designs.

You are talking crap, as ever, about something you don't understand.


And as predicted you launched into the "purile(sic)" rant that you are
infamous for. You only do that when your back is to the wall and you've
been made to look an idiot, again. Sort of comes natural to you. Is that
why you Australians are known as "Ozzie Cobblers", because you talk a
load of **** like some off-his-face on drugs brain-dead rocker? I
suppose the clue is in the name isn't it, out of your mind on booze and
speed?

michael adams wrote:

he's simply parading his ignorance.


Wrong again Lardbrain

Oh by no means, you're displaying that you don't have a clue in
admirable style.

On 14/07/2012 12:53, michael adams wrote:
"Bob 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.

Whoosh.

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

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

"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.

So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.

Why not?

Because a quantum of energy is the *smallest* possible amount that can exist
(I've prolly got my terms wrong but its nearly 50 years since I did my physics
degree).


Indeed but the whole point about quanta is that despite the fact that they're
the smallest amount that can exist, they cause electrons to jump from
one orbit to another . Despite their size they have a profound effect
on the behaviou of electrons. There's no halfway house.
Either an electron is in one orbit or if its charge increases by a
quantum and it jumps to another orbit,

Similarly In terms of pre and post DTP people did't go from using letraset etc
to a combination of letraset keyboards screens and mice, and then just to
keyboards
mice etc.

They jumped immediatey from letraset etc to keyboards etc

The two approaches were completely different, As with the orbits of elsectrons
again there was no halfway house.


The term "quantum leap" - to mean something big - has made its way into
popular parlance courtesy of the ever-ignorant journos.

I'm not sure it's usually used to mean "big" by the ever-ignorant journos or
anyone else.

It's usually used to indicate a sudden change - electrons changing orbit as a
result
of their energy level increasing by a quantum - rather than a gradual change.
A quantum leap is a profound change of state in anything, with no
intermediate position.


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

On 14/07/2012 13:21, D.M.Chapman wrote:
In article om,
Rob reply@ng wrote:

Yes - I had that problem when I put an SSD into a 2009 iMac.

Ah, how easy was that? Is removing the glass as simple as it sounds?

I a little scared of cracking it!


Fiddly, and rather than dismantle it and 'break it in two' I just opened
the top section, using the bottom as a hinge. Quite a few ribbon cables.
Getting the glass off is easy - held on by magnets, you need some
suction pads. Just keep the glass vertical, and use some compressed air
before reassembly.

Have to say I wouldn't call it fun, but if you're methodical and follow
an online guide, easy enough. And the rewards were plenty - lovely
machine with an SSD :-) I did it for the noise, but the performance is
nice to have.

Rob

dennis@home wrote:
"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.

No, you are always wrong.

It must be the cheap white wine you consume.

BTW When are you going to invite me and geoff around to your house for a cup
tea?

--
Adam



--
Adam

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .


michael adams wrote:


You can write as many paragraphs as you like, but nothing that you can
possibly write, about anything, ever, is going to change history.
Or the fact that you are so very clearly wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.


Still I'll let you have that last word you so clearly desire.



michael adams

....

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

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

So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.

Why not?

Oh FFS, you're one of those idiots that uses a term without
understanding it. You should have said.


How sad.

Utterly humiliated on the DTP sub-thread which you've been forced
to snip in its entirety, you're now attempting to muscle in on
someone else's sub-thread

If only it wasn't for the fact that you probably know even
less about physics than you do about DTP, DIY, motors,
motorbikes, or just about any other of your favoured topics,
such an approach might have had some chance of success.

Except that you don't, and it doesn't.


michael adams

....

En el artículo , dennis@home
escribió:

Does your PC do augmented reality
overlays?

Doesn't every computer (with the right software)?
My phone does (with the right software).

That's a *whoosh* and then some...

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

michael adams wrote:

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

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

So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.

Why not?

Oh FFS, you're one of those idiots that uses a term without
understanding it. You should have said.


How sad.

Utterly humiliated on the DTP sub-thread

You have been, it is true.

which you've been forced
to snip in its entirety,

No, I've stopped responding on that topic to the idiot with the straw in
his hair.

you're now attempting to muscle in on someone else's sub-thread

You will find, you moron, that no one owns any part of a thread on
usenet. Anyone is free to comment, as you have.

Sadly for you, you've been whooshed and not for the first time in this
thread.

[snip more ********]

michael adams wrote:

Indeed but the whole point about quanta is that despite the fact that they're
the smallest amount that can exist, they cause electrons to jump from
one orbit to another

Oh FFS, just give it up you ignorant twerp. A quantum does not "cause
electrons to jump from one orbit to another".

ARWadsworth wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote:

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.

No, you are always wrong.
It must be the cheap white wine you consume

Marginally better that than all the tinnys Rod consumes

BTW When are you going to invite me and geoff around to your house for a cup
tea?

Find a timeslot when you'll be using harry's valuable electricity to
power the kettle ...

Andy Burns wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote:

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.

No, you are always wrong.
It must be the cheap white wine you consume

Marginally better that than all the tinnys Rod consumes

BTW When are you going to invite me and geoff around to your house
for a cup tea?

Find a timeslot when you'll be using harry's valuable electricity to
power the kettle ...

iced tea:-)
--
Adam

dennis@home wrote:

"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.

yawn Except that I'm not wrong dennis old fruity. I am correct in
stating that there was not one design licensed by Apple. There were many
designs and Apple did not licence the design, they licenced the ROMs.
Still, nice to see that you have found an intellectual equal to pass the
time of day with.

Will you and Wodney be having children now? And what *will* they look
like?

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:21:07 +0100, D.M.Chapman dmc@puffin. wrote:

In article om,
Rob reply@ng wrote:

Yes - I had that problem when I put an SSD into a 2009 iMac.

Ah, how easy was that? Is removing the glass as simple as it sounds?

I a little scared of cracking it!

Darren


I was very trepidatious - but the reality is the glass was easy enough.
Both taking off and putting back. Bought myself a simple
double-rubber-sucker thing for a few quid.

Far more worrying were the ribbon cables which seem to have no ends that
somehow get stuck into almost invisible sockets. They will concern me next
time as well whereas the glass won't.

--
Rod

En el artículo ,
Tim Streater escribió:

The term "quantum leap" - to mean something big - has made its way into
popular parlance courtesy of the ever-ignorant journos.

A similar term is spendthrift - used to refer to someone who is careful
with their money, when it really means the exact opposite.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

En el artículo , ARWadsworth adamwadsw
escribió:

BTW When are you going to invite me and geoff around to your house for a cup
tea?

If denboi ever invites you and Geoff over for tea, it'll be laced with
arsenic.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , ARWadsworth
adamwadsw escribió:

BTW When are you going to invite me and geoff around to your house
for a cup tea?

If denboi ever invites you and Geoff over for tea, it'll be laced with
arsenic.

We know. Thats why we would swap cups with den and his OH.
--
Adam

On 14/07/2012 09:53, 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 ?

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.

That is often the case when you take the accepted definition of the
killer app is the one that drives the acceptance of the whole platform -
i.e. its desirable enough that people want to run it, and hence are
prepared to buy into whatever platform or technology is needed.

There can be times where the app is available elsewhere, but a platform
comes along that can do it at a significantly reduced cost. An example
here would be say desktop video (especially Video Toaster) on the Amiga,
or midi on the ST. DTV could be done elsewhere, but at or or even two
orders of magnitude jumps in pricing. Midi on the ST brought the entry
price down to a quarter of its previous level.

Visicalc was the killer app that drove acceptance of micros for business
use - the platform at the time was Apple II, but that was almost
irrelevant since they also supported a range of platforms shortly after.

Email was the killer app that kept the internet going until the www
drove the expansion we have now.

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.

Indeed. MS Office is perhaps a gateway app - it will reassure a business
that it can deploy a niche platform in other areas - but its not going
to stop them buying into the platform if it does something unique for
them at a cost that was previously prohibitive.





--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 14/07/2012 17:16, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"michael adams" wrote:

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

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

"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.

So it wasn't a quantum leap then, was it.

Why not?

Because a quantum of energy is the *smallest* possible amount that
can exist (I've prolly got my terms wrong but its nearly 50 years since
I did my physics degree).


Indeed but the whole point about quanta is that despite the fact that
they're
the smallest amount that can exist, they cause electrons to jump from
one orbit to another . Despite their size they have a profound effect
on the behaviou of electrons. There's no halfway house.
Either an electron is in one orbit or if its charge increases by a
quantum and it jumps to another orbit,

Similarly In terms of pre and post DTP people did't go from using
letraset etc to a combination of letraset keyboards screens and mice,
and then just
to keyboards mice etc.

They jumped immediatey from letraset etc to keyboards etc

The two approaches were completely different, As with the orbits of
elsectrons again there was no halfway house.


The term "quantum leap" - to mean something big - has made its way
into popular parlance courtesy of the ever-ignorant journos.

I'm not sure it's usually used to mean "big" by the ever-ignorant
journos or anyone else.

It's usually used to indicate a sudden change - electrons changing
orbit as a result of their energy level increasing by a quantum -
rather than a gradual
change. A quantum leap is a profound change of state in anything, with no
intermediate position.

Nice shimmy but as shown above:

You: ... it was a quantum leap over what it replaced.

Bob: So, a tiny change then.

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


IOW you were using it as in common parlance, implying a big change.
Bob's comment was ironic.

Oh get a grip people... We knew what he meant, either interpretation is
arguable, and the actual point he was making was the significant part,
not the terminology in this case.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:22:03 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:



Email was the killer app that kept the internet going until the www
drove the expansion we have now.

What? Not Usenet??? :-)

--
Rod

On 14/07/2012 10:49, polygonum wrote:
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.

(also not touched much of this for a decade and a half - so what follows
might be a bit fuzzy!)

Expanded ram was typically ram that existed outside of the normal
address space of the processor, and was mapped into its address space
pages at a time. So in the early days you had things like the Intel
"above board", that could have a few meg of ram on it. You would make
calls to the expanded memory manager to page lumps of this in an out of
a expanded memory page frame located somewhere in the upper memory block
of the machine (i.e. between 640K and 1MB).

Once '286 and above processors that no longer had a 1MB physical
addressing limitation became common, you could in theory add more RAM
directly and use this. However DOS was initially run on these platforms
in "Real Mode" (i.e. a mode that looked almost identical from a software
point of view to an 8086) and that meant it could not see the extra RAM
from that mode[1]. So there became a need to switch into protected mode
where the full capabilities of the processor are available, do the
paging operation there, and then flip back to real mode[2].

Extended Memory Managers (XMS) came along a bit later and only really
once '386 and better chips were common, and protected mode was being
used far more often. They took care of managing the memory beyond 1MB
accessible only from protected mode.

The 16MB limit to which you allude was the physical address limit on the
'286. So in a sense that would be the limit of your XMS without
visualization and disk based paging on those platforms. EMS spec
originally supported 4MB, and by its last version had risen to something
like 32MB IIRC.


[1] Apart from the first 64k - 16 bytes above 1MB - but that is opening
the whole A20 gate can of worms...

[2] A very messy operation on a '286 because it powered up in real mode,
but was never designed to go go back there once the jump to protected
mode was made. Hence you had to reset the processor to achieve this
return. Since the only real custom hardware on the PC-AT was the
keyboard controller (everything else was lifted off manufacturers data
sheets), this is where they put the hardware features needed. Hence you
had to have a chat with the keyboard controller to do the reset for you!
A very slow process on some platforms.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 14/07/2012 12:43, dennis@home wrote:


"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.

While true, its also true that people form attachments to OSes and their
traditions and styles. If their preferred platform also happens to be a
niche one, then that also tends to engender a shared experience of
"swimming against the tide" for the users of it. Hence the religious
wars and zealotry so frequently displayed.

The reality today is that one can carry out a very broad range of tasks
completely satisfactorily on Windows, OSX or any other *nix inspired
variant.

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.

Indeed - the cost of ram drove complete system designs in all sorts of
non intuitive directions.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"D.M.Chapman" dmc@puffin. wrote in message
...
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?)

Its not a competitor, its more than 2 years old.
Its a convertible tablet from HP, TX2 series.
Its not fair to compare it to an ipad as its far better in terms of what it
can do.
It has nice features like multi touch and a pressure sensitive digitizer
pen.


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?

Not a clue.

Can you run Aperture on your windows machine?

No, but you can run OSX on PCs like my TX2 with a bit of hacking, after all
a mac is just a PC with apple software to stop you doing some things and a
PC is a mac without the apple bits available by default.

etc.

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

That's because you lack the digitizer and other stuff.


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?

I have run it on machines well below the M$ spec.
I have windows 2000 running on an old Pentium 120 in 72Mbytes of RAM, sure
it boots slow (about 90 seconds) but it runs the scanner OK.

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.

That's why you have to hack them to put siri on then, not much use having
two years support if you can't get anything new on them. Siri appears to run
fine on older hardware BTW, not really a surprise as all the processing is
done on apples servers not on the phone. i guess there aren't any technical
reasons why apple haven't put it on older hardware.


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

thats OK as long as the apple and linux users stop bleating about windows as
it used to be when it ran on Jacquard looms.

"D.M.Chapman" dmc@puffin. wrote in message
...
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?

When most users can't see the dots on a 15" 1920x1080 panel why bother?
Sure 2880 x 1800 on a 27" but put it on a 15" panel and apple have to
"emulate" a 1440x900 panel so you can see stuff.


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

Custom in that they have made a funny shaped board that is, so you can get
one from elsewhere.


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

Darren

On 14/07/2012 16:08, ARWadsworth wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"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.

No, you are always wrong.

Its a good question for the philosophers though... if den is arguing
with wodney can they both be wrong?

(although to be fair to den he does makes sense more often than wodney)

It must be the cheap white wine you consume.

BTW When are you going to invite me and geoff around to your house for a cup
tea?



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 14/07/2012 17:48, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , ARWadsworth adamwadsw
escribió:

BTW When are you going to invite me and geoff around to your house for a cup
tea?

If denboi ever invites you and Geoff over for tea, it'll be laced with
arsenic.

To paraphrase the Lady Ester / Churchill exchange about "if you were my
husband, I would put poison in your tea", and his retort that "I you
were my wife, I would drink it".


--
Cheers,

John.

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

John Rumm wrote:
On 14/07/2012 17:48, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , ARWadsworth
adamwadsw escribió:

BTW When are you going to invite me and geoff around to your
house for a cup tea?

If denboi ever invites you and Geoff over for tea, it'll be laced
with arsenic.

To paraphrase the Lady Ester / Churchill exchange about "if you were
my husband, I would put poison in your tea", and his retort that "I
you were my wife, I would drink it".

I hear that the tea at the end of the cul de sac is quite good.


--
Adam

John Rumm wrote:
On 14/07/2012 17:48, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , ARWadsworth
adamwadsw escribió:

BTW When are you going to invite me and geoff around to your
house for a cup tea?

If denboi ever invites you and Geoff over for tea, it'll be laced
with arsenic.

To paraphrase the Lady Ester / Churchill exchange about "if you were
my husband, I would put poison in your tea", and his retort that "I
you were my wife, I would drink it".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of-AB...eature=related

--
Adam

On 14/07/12 13:43, Tim Streater wrote:


No, I'm saying that it's Apple who innovates. MS is unable to because
they don't control the hardware.

Worse, MS is a break on innovation: for too many people they do control
the software, hence if the hardware innovation is not supported by
Windows adoption is difficult.


--
djc

polygonum wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:22:03 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:



Email was the killer app that kept the internet going until the www
drove the expansion we have now.

What? Not Usenet??? :-)

no
did that over UUCP.

And actually email wasn't the real thing - probably FTP and telnet were
the original killer apps.. but the TCP/IP boom was led by the fact that
it was an interoperability standard. PCs could talk to Unix systems and
Vaxes etc etc.

In short it meant that LAN apps could operate WANwards.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

dennis@home 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macinto...cintosh_clones

He's always wrong,

Nope, he does sometimes get it right. He didn’t that time tho.

it must be the cheap olive oil he consumes.

So what's your excuse ?

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

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

No, I'm saying that it's Apple who innovates. MS is unable to because they
don't control the hardware.

Apple doesn't do half the innovations, they are outsourced.
Intel design the hardware, the Chinese company that makes them designs the
cases, etc.
The software is mainly a collection of good ideas from elsewhere.
I had memeo backup for ages before timemachine came out, guess what memeo
backup does on the PC?

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

"D.M.Chapman" dmc@puffin. wrote in message

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

When most users can't see the dots on a 15" 1920x1080 panel why bother?

That doesn't answer my question...

Sure 2880 x 1800 on a 27" but put it on a 15" panel and apple have to
"emulate" a 1440x900 panel so you can see stuff.

Why stick the hires screen in the iphone? Why the ipad3?

Have you actually used one of the retina display machines? It's not the
resolution that is so important, as how crisp it looks.

Is it essential? No. It's very nice to have though. If you don't want to
pay for it, then don't. If you want it, it's an option.

Personally I'd love one but can't justify the cost. Plenty of people are
buying them though.

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

Custom in that they have made a funny shaped board that is, so you can get
one from elsewhere.

I assume you mean "can't" there.

Anyway, why they do it is irrelevant (I don't believe the "so you can't
get one elsewhere" argument personally). It is custom kit - just like you
claimed they didn't use. If apple want a $thing 1mm smaller than the
standard then they will make a custom $thing. Cost isn't a major issue,
people will pay a premium for it.

Anyway, i think we've grasped the fact that some poeple like Macs, and some
don't. Meanwhile back in the woods...

Darren