"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:


Everybody lost share to IBM. But Apple did not lose as much as their
competitors. What other computer hardware company that was in business
the
day the IBM PC shipped is still in business? The only ones that come to
mind are Rat Shack and Cray.

We were only talking about Apple.


There was always hardware and software available for an Apple not produced
by Apple. Remember Visicalc? Remember the coprocessor boards that let
Apples run CP/M? I can't remember now what all was available, but
accessorizing the Apple was an industry in itself.

I don't think so. At least it was not authorized by Apple.

Jobs wanted everything under Apples control and there was basically no
choice.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:35:03 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

This debate is about sawstop, not smoking. Should we debate the smoking
issue as well?

A cigarette sucked into you dust collector can cause an explosion,
can't it?



Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:13:39 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Jobs wanted everything under Apples control and there was basically no
choice.

Actually I don't think that philosophy started until the Macintosh.
During the Apple II days *everybody* made stuff for the Apple.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Tim Douglass" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:13:39 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Jobs wanted everything under Apples control and there was basically no
choice.

Actually I don't think that philosophy started until the Macintosh.
During the Apple II days *everybody* made stuff for the Apple.


The may be true. All I recall is that this was the situation at one time.

Leon wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:


Everybody lost share to IBM. But Apple did not lose as much as their
competitors. What other computer hardware company that was in business
the
day the IBM PC shipped is still in business? The only ones that come to
mind are Rat Shack and Cray.

We were only talking about Apple.

And your point is? My point, since you clearly weren't able to grasp it, is
that very few computer companies survived the PC onslaught. Apple was one
of the very few.


There was always hardware and software available for an Apple not
produced
by Apple. Remember Visicalc? Remember the coprocessor boards that let
Apples run CP/M? I can't remember now what all was available, but
accessorizing the Apple was an industry in itself.

I don't think so. At least it was not authorized by Apple.

You don't think what?

If you will study the early history of Apple a bit, you will find that
Visicalc was the "killer App" that made Apple as a company. As for it
being "authorized", this business of being "authorized" is relatively new.
When the Apples first came out Jobs was just happy that somebody was
writing software for it--he didn't have the resources to roll his own--he
and Woz had all they could handle getting production up and orders coming
in.

I'm getting the impression that you are not aware that there was Apple
before there was Macintosh. Apple's first billion dollar year occurred
when they were selling 8-bit 6502 machines that didn't even have a video
board unless you bought one.

Jobs wanted everything under Apples control and there was basically no
choice.

In some other universe perhaps. In this one he kept control of the OS and
the hardware and provided some application software but most of the Mac
software base was _not_ provided by Apple. Ever hear of something called
"Pagemaker"? How about "Microsoft Excel"? "Quark Express"? "Photoshop"?
Those were Mac apps long before they were ported to the PC. Further, for a
while Apple was licensing the OS to third parties--that proved to be a
compatibility disaster though. As for controlling the hardware, you might
ask yourself why the high end contemporary Macs have expansion slots.

Really, your view of the history of Apple is horribly distorted.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Leon wrote:


"Tim Douglass" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:13:39 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Jobs wanted everything under Apples control and there was basically no
choice.

Actually I don't think that philosophy started until the Macintosh.
During the Apple II days *everybody* made stuff for the Apple.


The may be true. All I recall is that this was the situation at one time.

To some extent when the Mac was introduced, but not to the extent that you
claim. There was always third-party software. Further, given the
popularity of the Mac when it first came out, Apple clearly was doing
_something_ right.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

SNIP

Really, your view of the history of Apple is horribly distorted.

Perhaps. But I am not going to loose any sleep over it...



--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In news:Tim Douglass typed:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:35:03 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

This debate is about sawstop, not smoking. Should we debate the smoking
issue as well?

A cigarette sucked into you dust collector can cause an explosion,
can't it?

No. Never been a documented case of an explosion in a dust collector
system. It will however cause a fire.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

ted harris wrote:

....
No. Never been a documented case of an explosion in a dust collector
system. ...

Are you sure of that? (I don't have one, but "never" is a long, long
time...)

I'll have to look up the article in Fine Woodworking a year or two ago
and refresh my recollections...an Oneida air systems guy wrote in after
the published article w/ some additional info/insight as well. I don't
recall the exact data/facts, however, I do remember that it does take
large duct systems (relative to home shops) for there to be an
explosion hazard, however. I don't recall whether there were documented
cases listed there other than lab data, however. (Of course grain dust
explosions are well known).

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:04:33 -0800, ted harris wrote:
In newsave Hinz typed:
Yes, but now that I've noticed them for this reason, I'm not inclined
to look favorably on them. Even their "waah, we're not shipping yet
because our supplier has several out-of-control processes" letter would
have been enough to turn me off from them, but trying to force me to buy
something that doesn't work, well, I don't like that.

Who says sawstop does not work? You?

OK Ted, your turn. If Sawstop +works+, why aren't you shipping them?

I thought they were outsourcing it to a low-cost country.

As do Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, and many others? In fact, is there a
single saw made in the US?

Not the point. In the part you snipped the context was about quality.
I'm making a counterpoint.

And yet, the people who make a living making saws don't like it either.
Hm.

Of course not, because it is a better product. And by the looks of the
machinery they are making, it will be a better product as well.

Right, because their whine letter about, what, rust, wiring problems,
and schedule slips must strike terror into the competition. yawn.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:03:47 -0800, ted harris wrote:

I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE FACT
that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you drunk!

Holy ****, Ted said something logical.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:21:30 -0800, ted harris wrote:
In newsave Hinz typed:
WHAT technology, Ted? It doesn't ****ing work. They can't ship units.
They want to force people to use something that they can't even
manufacture.

Man I can't believe this crap...
Shipping units and having a product that works is two different things.

Why do you imagine they're not shipping, Ted?

First of all, it looks to me like sawstops strategy has changed from the
initial concept. Now they have to build, market, and deliver a new, better
product against the will of corporate America. Is that supposed to be a
hanger? I don't think so...

WTF is that supposed to mean? Hanger?

If they can't get a workable product in 7 years, they either don't know
what they're doing, or they're trying to do something impossible.

If corporate America has it;s way, it is impossible.

Riiiiiight, the man is hodin' me down, is that it? Whe doesn't da man
hode down all the _other_ new tools then? Could it be that those,
oh, I don't know, _work_?

To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not a
"shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and good,
but where's the beef?

I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?

Sure. Escrow, of course? What terms?

Apple even created the position of "Evangelist" and sent their evangelist
out to recruit 3rd party software people. If not for Adobe the mac would
have died. You may be right about HW and OS, but this is definitely not true
about SW.

-j



"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:


"Tim Douglass" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:13:39 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Jobs wanted everything under Apples control and there was basically no
choice.

Actually I don't think that philosophy started until the Macintosh.
During the Apple II days *everybody* made stuff for the Apple.


The may be true. All I recall is that this was the situation at one
time.

To some extent when the Mac was introduced, but not to the extent that you
claim. There was always third-party software. Further, given the
popularity of the Mac when it first came out, Apple clearly was doing
_something_ right.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:22:14 -0800, "J" wrote:

Apple even created the position of "Evangelist" and sent their evangelist
out to recruit 3rd party software people. If not for Adobe the mac would
have died. You may be right about HW and OS, but this is definitely not true
about SW.

You are correct as far as application software is concerned. The
reason there wasn't a lot of Mac software out for a long time was that
it was beastly hard to program for. It used the first object-oriented
OS, but there weren't any OO tools for development. The SDK for the
Mac cost thousands ($5K-10K) and was incredibly poorly written. One of
my co-workers was in charge of creating a Mac version of our product
when it first came out. The cost and effort almost sunk the company.
It was easily 10 times the work to write Mac software as DOS stuff -
even if you were doing Window 3.1 (the competition in the early Mac
days). Apple was very bad at helping developers and I think it really
hurt them. Add to that the fact that they didn't support color until
long after everyone else on earth was into hi-res and you pretty much
have their recipe for failure.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

ted harris wrote:

....
Please let me know of your findings.

(regarding wood dust explosions/article in FW...)

I've not had time to look for the article yet but my recollection was
that the literature cited therein supported no explosive mixture was
likely in small duct systems such as are prevelant in the average shop
or mill but that it is of some potential concern in very large systems.
I'll try to find it, if I can...

Hey Ted:

I ended up hitting your web site while watching some of the discourse here
and seeing your sig. Looks like you're going to be in my neck of the woods
this spring at the Turning Stone. Drop and email and let's chat about your
schedule and maybe we'll be able to hook up while you're in Vernon.

--

-Mike-

In newsuane Bozarth typed:
ted harris wrote:

...
No. Never been a documented case of an explosion in a dust collector
system. ...

Are you sure of that? (I don't have one, but "never" is a long, long
time...)

Yes...fires have occured, but not explosions. However, I would agree that
nothing is "impossible."


I'll have to look up the article in Fine Woodworking a year or two ago
and refresh my recollections...an Oneida air systems guy wrote in after
the published article w/ some additional info/insight as well. I don't
recall the exact data/facts, however, I do remember that it does take
large duct systems (relative to home shops) for there to be an
explosion hazard, however. I don't recall whether there were documented
cases listed there other than lab data, however. (Of course grain dust
explosions are well known).


Please let me know of your findings.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In newsave Hinz typed:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:21:30 -0800, ted harris
wrote:
In newsave Hinz typed:
WHAT technology, Ted? It doesn't ****ing work. They can't ship units.
They want to force people to use something that they can't even
manufacture.

Man I can't believe this crap...
Shipping units and having a product that works is two different things.

Why do you imagine they're not shipping, Ted?

First of all, it looks to me like sawstops strategy has changed from the
initial concept. Now they have to build, market, and deliver a new,
better product against the will of corporate America. Is that supposed
to be a hanger? I don't think so...

WTF is that supposed to mean? Hanger?

Hanger=duck, as in shooting a "duck" on the pool table...as in hanging on
the edge and all you have to do is will it and it falls...as in do you think
bringing sawstop to market is easy?


If they can't get a workable product in 7 years, they either don't know
what they're doing, or they're trying to do something impossible.

If corporate America has it;s way, it is impossible.

Riiiiiight, the man is hodin' me down, is that it? Whe doesn't da man
hode down all the _other_ new tools then? Could it be that those,
oh, I don't know, _work_?

To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not a
"shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and good,
but where's the beef?

I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?

Sure. Escrow, of course? What terms?

I don't know, but I am sure we can work something out. What would you like
the terms to be?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:28:32 -0800, ted harris wrote:
In newsave Hinz typed:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:21:30 -0800, ted harris

First of all, it looks to me like sawstops strategy has changed from the
initial concept. Now they have to build, market, and deliver a new,
better product against the will of corporate America. Is that supposed
to be a hanger? I don't think so...

WTF is that supposed to mean? Hanger?

Hanger=duck, as in shooting a "duck" on the pool table...as in hanging on
the edge and all you have to do is will it and it falls...as in do you think
bringing sawstop to market is easy?

Apparently it isn't. I'm not sure that that speaks well for Sawstop,
either the technology or the manufacturability.

To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not a
"shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and good,
but where's the beef?

I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?

Sure. Escrow, of course? What terms?

I don't know, but I am sure we can work something out. What would you like
the terms to be?

We'll have to define a number of things, such as what "available", "shipping",
and "works" mean first, I suppose. how about a nice TS blade?

In newsave Hinz typed:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:28:32 -0800, ted harris
wrote:
In newsave Hinz typed:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:21:30 -0800, ted harris

First of all, it looks to me like sawstops strategy has changed from
the initial concept. Now they have to build, market, and deliver a
new, better product against the will of corporate America. Is that
supposed to be a hanger? I don't think so...

WTF is that supposed to mean? Hanger?

Hanger=duck, as in shooting a "duck" on the pool table...as in hanging on
the edge and all you have to do is will it and it falls...as in do you
think bringing sawstop to market is easy?

Apparently it isn't. I'm not sure that that speaks well for Sawstop,
either the technology or the manufacturability.

To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not a
"shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and
good, but where's the beef?

I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?

Sure. Escrow, of course? What terms?

I don't know, but I am sure we can work something out. What would you
like the terms to be?

We'll have to define a number of things, such as what "available",
"shipping",
and "works" mean first, I suppose. how about a nice TS blade?

Oops! Guess we are too late! LOLOLOL... Too bad, cause I coulda' used a
nice new saw blade.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

My contractor saw has been on order for a year now. The latest extimate is
March 2005.

David Wilhite

"Mike S" wrote in message
ups.com...
I saw a Sawstop demo in person 2 yrs ago. From what I remember the rep
saying.... the blade is stopped within 2 or 3 teeth on a blade.
Stopping the blade so fast takes a lot of energy and dropping the blade
helps absorb some of the energy.

I got an e-mail from sawstop saying my cabinet saw is ready to be
shipped to me. I put my name on the mailing list 2 yrs ago at IWF. So
it looks as though there are actually starting production.

Mike