tedi@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Edward M. Ives) (04/16/88)
Ok, at the request of a beleaguered netter, I'm leaping into the fray:
The one thing I CAN'T stand is people saying that Standardization will be
hindered if Apple wins, and therefore THAT is why Apple should lose.
Although the jury is obviously still out, Apple either has a valid claim or
does not.
For the purpose of argument, let's ASSUME it DOES have a valid claim (giving
Apple the benefit of the doubt). (Note : I have no idea if Apple does have
a case - that's for the courts to decide.
Proceeding from this assumption, then:
Taking the view that, "Well it's better for corporations that are
hot to start buying PS/2's if Apple loses, therefore Apple should lose" would be
eqvivalent to saying that the government (or society) can engage in an
unauthorized taking without just compensation (if Apple's technology is indeed
their "property"). This is kind of against the tenets of the Constitution, and
if Apple DOES have a valid claim, this would be akin to saying, "Well, if
everyone in the world had a PC they'd be better off, so the government should
force Apple to give Macintoshes away for free :-)
Mac users took a lot of heat from the corporate IBM PC user types when the Mac
first came out, but now that it has become successful, the PC types are
basically whining "hey, that's a pretty good idea, can we play too?".
But IF the courts decide it is indeed Apple's ball and Apple doesn't want to
let you play, you can't just beat it up and take the ball away - this
is America...
- Ted Ives
ted.ives@dartmouth.edu
P.S. Ever notice any similarities? :
Apple II - 8-bit machine, open architecture, slots, keyboard, video, drive, 1979
IBM PC - 8-bit machine, open architecture, slots, keyboard, video, drive, 1982
Macintosh - 32-bit, Mouse, Graphical User Interface, 3 1/2 inch disks,circa 1984
IBM PS/2's
with OS/2 - 32-bit, Mouse, Graphical User Interface, 3 1/2 inch disks,circa 1988
Does it seem entirely fair that each time Apple pioneers new ground, it has to
go through hell marketing the stuff, and then IBM just waltzes in and reaps
the profits?................
- ted
"No one ever got fired for buying IBM...but no one who ever bought a Macintosh
lived a life of quiet desparation, either...."ralphw@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralph Hyre) (04/19/88)
In article <8685@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU> tedi@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Edward M. Ives) writes: > The one thing I CAN'T stand is people saying that Standardization will be >hindered if Apple wins, and therefore THAT is why Apple should lose. Good point(s) >P.S. Ever notice any similarities? : > >Apple II - 8-bit machine, open architecture, slots, keyboard, video, drive, 1979 >IBM PC - 8-bit machine, open architecture, slots, keyboard, video, drive, 1982 >Macintosh - 32-bit, Mouse, Graphical User Interface, 3 1/2 inch disks,circa 1984 >IBM PS/2's >with OS/2 - 32-bit, Mouse, Graphical User Interface, 3 1/2 inch disks,circa 1988 BTW, Apple II was 1977, and I believe PC was late '81 (like, November) I hope that Apple stays AT LEAST 4 years ahead of IBM as far as nifty technology. -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK} Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA
hull@dinl.uucp (Jeff Hull) (04/20/88)
In article <8685@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU> tedi@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Edward M. Ives) writes: > The one thing I CAN'T stand is people saying that Standardization will be >hindered if Apple wins, and therefore THAT is why Apple should lose. While I'm sure there is at least one person somewhere who is saying this ("No one ever lost money underestimating the taste of the American public."), some of us oppose Apple's suit onstronger grounds: (1) Apple is trying to copyright an idea (which is contrary to current law) NOT an expression of an idea (which can be protected); and (2) Apple is trying to copyright someone else's idea (XEROX PARC). BTW, Ted, there is also a legal concept called "restraint of trade" which is illegal. There seems to be some possibility the court will decide that is an accurate description of what Apple is doing. DEFINITION: Setting up a strawman: creating your own, non-standard, definition of something (which is easily rebutted) for the purpose of rebutting it & thereby making other people who had previously been associated with the term look bad. -- Jeff Hull ...!hao!dinl!hull 1544 S. Vaughn Circle 303-750-3538 It was great when it all begaaaaan, Aurora, CO 80012 I was a regular <USENET> faaaan, ....
soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (04/23/88)
In article <406@dinl.mmc.UUCP>, hull@dinl.uucp (Jeff Hull) writes: > (2) Apple is trying to copyright someone else's idea > (XEROX PARC). I thought that too. However it seems that the scientist who did most of the work on the GUI is now a fellow at apple and they say therefore they are now entitled to the continuted fruits of his ideas. Just how legal that contention is ?? Well thats up to the courts now. -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: utzoo!lsuc!ncrcan!---\ VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 {mnetor,utgpu}!ontmoh!ontenv!norm ENVOY: N.SOLEY "Mein Hund hat keine Nasse"
rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) (04/27/88)
> P.S. Ever notice any similarities? : > Apple II - 8-bit machine, open architecture, slots, keyboard, video, > drive, 1979 > IBM PC - 8-bit machine, open architecture, slots, keyboard, video, > drive, 1982 8-bit machine? News to me. If you're going to call the Mac a 32-bit machine, you durn well ought to call the PC a 16-bit one. > Macintosh - 32-bit, Mouse, Graphical User Interface, 3 1/2 inch disks, > circa 1984 You forgot: Closed architecture, only 128K RAM, slowest floppy disk drives in creation, no hard disk from Apple for YEARS, no multitasking until 1988 (and then only with some applications). > IBM PS/2's with OS/2 - 32-bit, Mouse, Graphical User Interface, > 3 1/2 inch disks,circa 1988 You forgot: Full 32-bit bus, open architecture, multitasking OS, runs existing software base. Sounds like IBM might have made some strides after all. <rogue>
vita@sunbarney.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) (04/27/88)
In article <5823@well.UUCP> rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) writes: >> P.S. Ever notice any similarities? : > >> Apple II - 8-bit machine, open architecture, slots, keyboard, video, >> drive, 1979 >> IBM PC - 8-bit machine, open architecture, slots, keyboard, video, >> drive, 1982 > >8-bit machine? News to me. If you're going to call the Mac a 32-bit machine, >you durn well ought to call the PC a 16-bit one. Fair enough. >> Macintosh - 32-bit, Mouse, Graphical User Interface, 3 1/2 inch disks, >> circa 1984 > >You forgot: Closed architecture, True, but as a former 128K Mac owner, I think that this was less of a disadvantage than you might think. Note that most of so-called "expansion slots" in a PC are not used for "expansion" at all, but rather for basic necessities such as a video controller, disk drive controllers, clock chips, serial/parallel ports, etc. -- all of which were *built in* to even the 128K Macintosh (along with the AppleTalk networking capability). I found that the only really important thing that the lack of a bus made difficult was memory expansion. (Although note that on later, busless Macs such as the Mac Plus, memory expansion was made much easier by the use of SIMM technology. Opening a Mac Plus and dropping in a couple of SIMMs is about as easy as opening a PC and dropping in a memory card.) > only 128K RAM, This situation existed only for a short time. As of 1986, the standard Mac came with 1 megabyte of memory. Right now, I can stick up to 4 meg into my Mac, and have all of it fully addressable by the operating system. Whereas the typical PC is still saddled with the 640K limit (and don't even talk to me about this LIM expanded memory bank-switching bogosity.) >slowest floppy disk drives in creation, This is a common misconception. If you look at the benchmarks, you will find that the original Mac drives are as fast as typical PC 5-1/4 drives. >no hard disk from Apple for YEARS, Yes, but hard disks were available. Personally, it doesn't make much difference to me whether my drive is from Apple or not. Even now that Apple sells hard disks, I wouldn't consider buying one -- they're just too bloody expensive. For the same reason, if I owned a PC, I would probably not buy a hard disk from IBM. >no multitasking until 1988, Which is a lot sooner than multitasking will be available from IBM... >(and then only with some applications). Actually, ANY Mac application which is written to Apple's guidelines should run fine under MultiFinder. Of course, to take full advantage of the multitasking, most programs need to be modified. However, I feel that this is a small price to pay in order to get the benefit of multitasking, *now*. Clearly, MultiFinder is a short-term solution, but it gets the job done. >> IBM PS/2's with OS/2 - 32-bit, Mouse, Graphical User Interface, >> 3 1/2 inch disks,circa 1988 > >You forgot: Full 32-bit bus, You mean, like in the Mac II? >open architecture, Ah yes, as in the Mac II. >multitasking OS, Uh huh, Real Soon Now. (By the way, MultiFinder is here *now*, it works, and it IS multitasking.) > runs existing software base. This is a joke, right? >Sounds like IBM might have made some strides after all. Yep, they sure have. They're striding right along in Apple's footsteps. :-) Let's just make up a little score card: Things Apple did before IBM --------------------------- Graphical user interface Mouse 32-bit architecture 3-1/2 disk drives Built-in video, disk drive controllers, clock chip, etc. OS capable of addressing large amounts of memory Multitasking Things IBM did before Apple: ---------------------------- Open architecture (not even this if you count the Apple II...) > ><rogue> Note: Since this discussion is not really relevant to comp.windows.misc, and has all the makings of a "PC x vs. PC y" holy war, I have redirected followups to some more appropriate newsgroups. ---- Mark Vita ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA General Electric Company UUCP: vita@desdemona.steinmetz.UUCP Corporate R & D vita@desdemona.steinmetz.ge.com Schenectady, NY desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (05/04/88)
In article <5823@well.UUCP>, rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) writes: > [Macintosh:] Closed architecture, only 128K RAM, slowest floppy disk drives in > creation... The Commodore-64 has the slowest floppy disk drives in creation (effectively about 1200 bps transfer rate), with the Atari 800 coming in second (about 9600 bps). Get your facts straight :->. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (05/04/88)
In article <5823@well.UUCP>, rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) writes: > > P.S. Ever notice any similarities? : Slightly edited: > > Apple II - 8-bit machine, open architecture, slots, keyboard, video, > > drive, 1979 > > IBM PC - 8/16-bit machine, open architecture, slots, keyboard, video, > > drive, 1982 > > Macintosh - 16/32-bit, Mouse, Graphical User Interface, 3 1/2 inch disks, > > circa 1984 (add here: unclonable via legal protection) Commodore Amiga - 16/32-bit, Mouse, GUI, 3.5" disks, real-time multitasking operating system with exceptional performance, circa 1986. Tough to clone, unfortunatly, because of all the high-performance graphics chips. > > IBM PS/2's with OS/2 - 32-bit, Mouse, Graphical User Interface, > > 3 1/2 inch disks,circa 1988 (add here: unclonable via legal protection) > You forgot: Full 32-bit bus, open architecture, multitasking OS, runs existing > software base. You really think Presentation Manager is gonna make it by the end of the year? -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
tvillan@hpccc.HP.COM (Tim Villanueva) (05/07/88)
> >You really think Presentation Manager is gonna make it by the end of the year? >-- >-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter Depends you you define "make it".