Re: First Internet message
Another only partially related issue was copyright moving from the code itself to the "look and feel" of the finished product. Am I correct that it used to be possible to write a Puck-boy game that was hard to tell from it, IF the code was original. Hence lots of "clean-room/double-blind reverse engineering", to produce identically functioning products without using, or even seeing, the source code. I doubt that it was the ONLY case, but that was the issue for Adam Osborne's Paperback Software, which made a Lotus clone. Since then, it has to look different also. Lotus did not like that the menu choices in Paperback's products were the same ones. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com On Thu, 2 Jan 2020, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:44 AM W2HX via cctalk wrote: software is currently non-patentable. Not sure the order of when it was/wasnt but currently is not. I don't know anything about patents in other countries, but in the USA, software is _definitely_ patentable, and has been since the 1970s. It was ruled in 1853 that an abstract idea apart from its implementation is not patentable (O'Reilly v. Morse). However, it has later been considered that software is (or at least can be) more than just an abstract idea (Diamond v. Diehr 1981). What changed recently is that SCOTUS ruled in Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) that taking some existing process or business practice and doing exactly the same thing with a computer or software involved is NOT a new patentable invention.
Re: First Internet message
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:44 AM W2HX via cctalk wrote: > software is currently non-patentable. Not sure the order of when it > was/wasnt but currently is not. > I don't know anything about patents in other countries, but in the USA, software is _definitely_ patentable, and has been since the 1970s. It was ruled in 1853 that an abstract idea apart from its implementation is not patentable (O'Reilly v. Morse). However, it has later been considered that software is (or at least can be) more than just an abstract idea (Diamond v. Diehr 1981). What changed recently is that SCOTUS ruled in Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) that taking some existing process or business practice and doing exactly the same thing with a computer or software involved is NOT a new patentable invention.
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 07:51, Nemo via cctalk wrote: > > Would you have the citations handy? I would be interested to read that. I thought the same thing! -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: First Internet message
software is currently non-patentable. Not sure the order of when it was/wasnt but currently is not. From: cctalk on behalf of Paul Koning via cctalk Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 5:09 PM To: Fred Cisin; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: First Internet message > On Dec 26, 2019, at 12:23 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk > wrote: > > And, a Happy Humbug to you, too! > Fleas Navy Dad and Yo new huevo!spellling? > > >> I^@^Ym not familiar with U.S. law but didn^@^Yt Xerox ^@^Xown^@^Y the >> patent(s) t$ technology? Again to my knowledge Microsoft and Apple both >> ^@^Xappropriated^@^Y and/or ^@^Xmisapproriated^@^Y, depending on your >> point-of-view, this exact technology! > > Xerox took the position that ideas like that were not patentable, and could > not be hoarded for financial gain. It is not clear to me whether that was a > truly altruistic position, or a tacit acknowledgement that it was resistance > is futile. The rules have changed over time. Whether that's by bureaucratic fiat or by changes to the law I'm not sure. For example, at one point software wasn't considered patentable, which meant Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman had to twist themselves into some contortions to patent the RSA algorithm. It was done by describing it as a device, I think. Not long afterwards, software patents became possible. The Xerox work may have been in the earlier period. Some companies weren't as serious about patents as others; I worked for a startup around 1997 that didn't care to patent anything, which was really rather stupid of them. But large companies like Xerox do tend to understand their options here. paul
Re: First Internet message
tor 2019-12-26 klockan 17:09 -0500 skrev Paul Koning via cctalk: > > On Dec 26, 2019, at 12:23 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk < > > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > And, a Happy Humbug to you, too! > > Fleas Navy Dad and Yo new huevo!spellling? > > > > > > > I^@^Ym not familiar with U.S. law but didn^@^Yt Xerox ^@^Xown^@^Y > > > the patent(s) t$ technology? Again to my knowledge Microsoft and > > > Apple both ^@^Xappropriated^@^Y and/or ^@^Xmisapproriated^@^Y, > > > depending on your point-of-view, this exact technology! > > > > Xerox took the position that ideas like that were not patentable, > > and could not be hoarded for financial gain. It is not clear to me > > whether that was a truly altruistic position, or a tacit > > acknowledgement that it was resistance is futile. > > The rules have changed over time. Whether that's by bureaucratic > fiat or by changes to the law I'm not sure. > > For example, at one point software wasn't considered patentable, > which meant Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman had to twist themselves into > some contortions to patent the RSA algorithm. It was done by > describing it as a device, I think. Not long afterwards, software > patents became possible. The Xerox work may have been in the earlier > period. > > Some companies weren't as serious about patents as others; I worked > for a startup around 1997 that didn't care to patent anything, which > was really rather stupid of them. But large companies like Xerox do > tend to understand their options here. > > paul Patent's is an invention in itself, including the idea that you can hit someone on their head (or threaten them with shutting them out of of trading with you or your allies) until they agrees to accept your idea of what a patent is and what is patented. It is political idea which is necessary in an industrialised world while it is a a not so liberal idea. Remember the navigation laws and how they could be used against someone ? The british government used navigation laws against indian cotton and weaving industry in the 1700 and 1800s so that Manchester woven cotton and wool became cheaper on the world market than indian products even in india. American controlled media today decides what is viewable on the world markets cinemas - producers of american controlled film productions pays cinema owners to get their films showed (and preventing the competitiors.)
Re: First Internet message
> On Dec 26, 2019, at 12:23 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk > wrote: > > And, a Happy Humbug to you, too! > Fleas Navy Dad and Yo new huevo!spellling? > > >> I^@^Ym not familiar with U.S. law but didn^@^Yt Xerox ^@^Xown^@^Y the >> patent(s) t$ technology? Again to my knowledge Microsoft and Apple both >> ^@^Xappropriated^@^Y and/or ^@^Xmisapproriated^@^Y, depending on your >> point-of-view, this exact technology! > > Xerox took the position that ideas like that were not patentable, and could > not be hoarded for financial gain. It is not clear to me whether that was a > truly altruistic position, or a tacit acknowledgement that it was resistance > is futile. The rules have changed over time. Whether that's by bureaucratic fiat or by changes to the law I'm not sure. For example, at one point software wasn't considered patentable, which meant Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman had to twist themselves into some contortions to patent the RSA algorithm. It was done by describing it as a device, I think. Not long afterwards, software patents became possible. The Xerox work may have been in the earlier period. Some companies weren't as serious about patents as others; I worked for a startup around 1997 that didn't care to patent anything, which was really rather stupid of them. But large companies like Xerox do tend to understand their options here. paul
Re: First Internet message
And, a Happy Humbug to you, too!
Fleas Navy Dad and Yo new huevo!spellling?
I^@^Ym not familiar with U.S. law but didn^@^Yt Xerox ^@^Xown^@^Y the
patent(s) t$ technology? Again to my knowledge Microsoft and Apple both
^@^Xappropriated^@^Y and/or ^@^Xmisapproriated^@^Y, depending on your
point-of-view, this exact technology!
Xerox took the position that ideas like that were not patentable, and
could not be hoarded for financial gain. It is not clear to me whether
that was a truly altruistic position, or a tacit acknowledgement that it
was resistance is futile.
__
| |
|_/\/\/\/\/\/\_|__
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!
Does commercial-use, read profit, subsume legal rights
eventually in the U.S. and I suppose elsewhere in the capitalist world?
Not OFFICIALLY.
However, those with more money have more and better lawyers.
"Justice is not for sale". But it can be bought.
Given what has happened in the past 45 yrs. or so, and the almost equal
value of Microsoft and Apple(determined by the stock exchange), has the
marketplace prevailed? Have we the consumer benefited the most or more
accurately the 2 richest high-tech, transnational corporations?
Wouldn't it be nice if we, the consumer, would benefit?
Apple, having copied the technology brought legal actions against
Microsoft and Digital Research (GEM). Apple and Microsoft made some
unpublicized deal(s).
Maybe I'm cynical, ("MAYBE??!?")
but I interpret it as "We stole it FIRST" (much like the battles between
the european interests over America).
Xerox did not assert ownership of the ideas.
Analogously, a story from the usual unreliable source:
In 1946, "It's A Wonderful Life" seemed to be a failure at
the box office. In 28 years (the duration of USA copyright in those
days), 1974, it hadn't even broken even, so they didn't bother to renew
the copyright, although they said that that was due to "a paperwork
snafu".
BTW, Disney et al lobbied for extremely extended copyright duration; the
motto of the intellectual property lawyers is "Don't mess with the
mouse!".
When "It's A Wonderful Life" became public domain, independent TV stations
and small networks had a grand opportunity to have something that they
could play without royalties. So, they played it. A LOT. It saturated
the playlists.
The public got used to it, and it became "a Christmas Tradition".
It became the most popular home video of all time (even more than porn)
In 1993, Republic Pictures cited Steward V Abend (SCROTUS 1990), and
re-acquired the sound rights, and re-asserted ownership of the picture!
So, now that the movie was an enormous success, the TV stations HAD to
continue the holiday tradition, but now had to pay royalties!
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
I???m not familiar with U.S. law but didn???t Xerox ???own??? the patent(s) to
GUI
technology? Again to my knowledge Microsoft and Apple both ???appropriated???
and/or ???misapproriated???, depending on your point-of-view, this exact
technology! Does commercial-use, read profit, subsume legal rights
eventually in the U.S. and I suppose elsewhere in the capitalist world?
Given what has happened in the past 45 yrs. or so, and the almost equal
value of Microsoft and Apple(determined by the stock exchange), has the
marketplace prevailed? Have we the consumer benefited the most or more
accurately the 2 richest high-tech, transnational corporations?
Happy computing - and best wishes for a prosperous New Year for all.
Murray ???
Re: First Internet message
I’m not familiar with U.S. law but didn’t Xerox ‘own’ the patent(s) to GUI technology? Again to my knowledge Microsoft and Apple both ‘appropriated’ and/or ‘misapproriated’, depending on your point-of-view, this exact technology! Does commercial-use, read profit, subsume legal rights eventually in the U.S. and I suppose elsewhere in the capitalist world? Given what has happened in the past 45 yrs. or so, and the almost equal value of Microsoft and Apple(determined by the stock exchange), has the marketplace prevailed? Have we the consumer benefited the most or more accurately the 2 richest high-tech, transnational corporations? Happy computing - and best wishes for a prosperous New Year for all. Murray ☺
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 23/12/2019, Jeffrey S. Worley via cctalk wrote: > On Mon, 2019-12-23 at 12:00 -0600, cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org wrote: >> Re: First Internet message and ... > > I read the caselaw in the GUI war cases of the 80's. Microsoft and > apple were battling over features and everyone else was being weighed. > There are nice comparative tables, TOS/GEM vs OS/2, vs Amiga, vs, > Windows. Vs. Smalltalk. Would you have the citations handy? I would be interested to read that. N. > > The Xerox btw, comes out ahead of everyone. > > Jeff
Re: First Internet message and ...
> Niklaus Wirth is still around and your hero, Bucky Beaver(*) spent a year at PARC while Mesa was under development and went to Stanford so it didn't spring fully formed from him * i will leave it as an excercise for the reader why he has that nickname and where "Bucky Bits" come from
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 12/23/2019 11:11 AM, Jeffrey S. Worley via cctalk wrote: On Mon, 2019-12-23 at 12:00 -0600, cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org wrote: Re: First Internet message and ... I read the caselaw in the GUI war cases of the 80's. Microsoft and apple were battling over features and everyone else was being weighed. There are nice comparative tables, TOS/GEM vs OS/2, vs Amiga, vs, Windows. Vs. Smalltalk. The Xerox btw, comes out ahead of everyone. Niklaus Wirth is still around, so his Better Software* is still around. https://inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/index.html Jeff Ben. *He has better hardware too.
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Mon, 2019-12-23 at 12:00 -0600, cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org wrote: > Re: First Internet message and ... I read the caselaw in the GUI war cases of the 80's. Microsoft and apple were battling over features and everyone else was being weighed. There are nice comparative tables, TOS/GEM vs OS/2, vs Amiga, vs, Windows. Vs. Smalltalk. The Xerox btw, comes out ahead of everyone. Jeff
Re: First Internet message and ...
tis 2019-11-26 klockan 19:16 -0800 skrev Fred Cisin via cctalk: > Good point. > > Some companies that COULD HAVE been the leaders made great > inventions > and/or engineering, and then fumbled the marketing. > > I'm thinking that Xerox Parc could be said to have "invented" the > next > generation of personal computers, but did they ever cash in on that? > I can visualize a Apple/Microsoft argument, "But we stole it FIRST!" > (like English/French/Spanish in America) > Regarding XEROX, i think that the project was to large for them to do while having a proprietary mindset (we want to design the whole stack, except some applications but we want to design the main one TOO.) This included seeing Ethernet as a proprietary technology which could be used to lock out the competition, Which turned out to be a tall order.
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/27/2019 11:30 AM, Richard Pope via cctalk wrote: Hello all, Commodore had the marketing part down pact. That is one of the reasons that at the time Commodore sold more C-64s than all of the other computers combined. I think it was more the case of who had the better games C/64 or COCO II. I always liked the look of the Commodore PET, better than TV game box. As for surplus computers from the 1970's they were more type of " 'Mom and Pop DATA CENTER' still uses a Brain-o-vac 36000 vacum tube computer" or School of computing and fish farming now has second relay computer with a film punch/reader found say Kilobaud Microcomputing Magazine. Ben. As a side note a few relay computers are still running in places other than America like the Japanese FACOM128B, far more interesting to me than who sent the first internet message. I favor the Morse Code version Indians seen SEN :)
Re: First Internet message and ...
Hello all, Commodore had the marketing part down pact. That is one of the reasons that at the time Commodore sold more C-64s than all of the other computers combined. GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/27/2019 10:39 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: On 11/26/2019 08:59 PM, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote: It wasn't just having the technology, it was having it and knowing how to market it. You need both to make a good product and DEC really was all about protecting their current market share (which is insane as they came to be by exploiting a niche in the computer industry). Yup. We were a big VAX user, and were accustomed to our salesman and a technical guy coming out for a sales call to iron out exactly what features and options we wanted on a machine. When the MicroVAX came out, for a purchase price less than EITHER the software or hardware maintenance contract on a VAX 11/780, I know this couldn't go on. When they went to the 3100/3500 Pizza box machines, I know it REALLY was unsustainable. Jon
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 18:29, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > > On 11/27/19 7:13 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > > Okay, you're right and I'm wrong. Everyone should play games on their > 8 bit computers because they'll grow up to be real computer scientists. Play, no. Write, yes. Or at least be offered the chance to learn to do it, if they want. And I reckon quite a few of them will go on to do it for a living. As I did, indirectly. As Terry Pratchett said: "It’s indoor work with no heavy lifting." -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/27/19 1:00 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > > >> On Nov 27, 2019, at 10:54 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> On 11/26/19 10:17 PM, Richard Pope via cctalk wrote: >>> Chuck, >>> I don't know anything about this system. I don't consider Minis and >>> MainFrames to be Personal Computers. It must fit in a small room, run on >>> a 120VAC 5Amp service, and not require 3 tons of AC to keep it cool to >>> fit in to the Personal Computer definition. >> >> Well, let's see, what have I had that fit that description? >> >> Several VAX >> Several PDP-11's >> A couple of Prime 50-series >> >> bill > > I think you can go back a bit further. > > Electrologica X-1 (from 1958). And how about the LGP-30? > I was only talking about ones I have personally had that met the description. bill
Re: First Internet message and ...
> On Nov 27, 2019, at 10:54 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk > wrote: > > On 11/26/19 10:17 PM, Richard Pope via cctalk wrote: >> Chuck, >> I don't know anything about this system. I don't consider Minis and >> MainFrames to be Personal Computers. It must fit in a small room, run on >> a 120VAC 5Amp service, and not require 3 tons of AC to keep it cool to >> fit in to the Personal Computer definition. > > Well, let's see, what have I had that fit that description? > > Several VAX > Several PDP-11's > A couple of Prime 50-series > > bill I think you can go back a bit further. Electrologica X-1 (from 1958). And how about the LGP-30? paul
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/27/19 7:13 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: Okay, you're right and I'm wrong. Everyone should play games on their 8 bit computers because they'll grow up to be real computer scientists. --Chuck
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/27/19 8:47 AM, Jon Elson wrote: > CDC may have had many more custom/one-of-a-kind machines, while IBM had > tons of identical units in the field. The "scorched earth" policy came right from the top- After it was discovered that some "customer' had assembled a working system from scavenged parts and then signed up for CE service, Bill Norris reportedly hit the ceiling. I saw one-of-a-kind systems utterly demolished. If a functional subassembly was removed, the order was to damage it with prejudice. I have a heatsink from a STAR-1B computer--that was the only bit in the dumpster that remained recognizable. The stations and SBUs were repurposed as spares for the STAR-100. CDC Sunnyvale had the only two 1Bs at the time. The STAR-65 was shipped down from Canada and similarly demolished. The same fate befell countless peripherals and older systems like the 160A that managed to find their way into the facility. I've got a few oddball cordwood modules and a head from an 808 disk drive. That's about it. I used to have a platter from one, but it was left behind in a move. --Chuck
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/26/2019 09:26 PM, Randy Dawson via cctalk wrote: No, this was the first personal computer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tektronix_4050#/media/File:Tektronix_4051_ad_April_1976.jpg Oh, another one is the LINC, designed from the ground up for personal interaction with one user. Circa 1964. Jon
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/26/2019 09:26 PM, Randy Dawson via cctalk wrote: No, this was the first personal computer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tektronix_4050#/media/File:Tektronix_4051_ad_April_1976.jpg Yes, and they were pretty cool, but try the Bendix G-15, more than a decade earlier. Jon
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/26/2019 09:16 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Good point. Some companies that COULD HAVE been the leaders made great inventions and/or engineering, and then fumbled the marketing. Konrad Zuse was another one, for sure. Bendix created the first personal computer, the G-15. Packard-Bell? Univac supposedly sold the FIRST commercial computers, as opposed to one-of-a-kind machines at research institutes. Honeywell and GE? Jon
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/26/2019 09:02 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: CDC had a scorched-earth policy when it came to leased mainframes. I suspect that IBM did also. I witnessed CEs taking sledgehammers and bolt cutters to several interesting mainframes. The official directive was that nothing was to leave the facility that could be re-sold. Were these leased machines or customer-owned machines? I don't know about CDC, but IBM would very gently disassemble and prepare for shipping any mainframe so the customer could sell it on to another outfit. They would often do this EVEN IF it had been made clear the machine was going to the scrapyard. There was a HUGE second market in IBM mainframe gear at one time (late 60's to mid 70's at least.) CDC may have had many more custom/one-of-a-kind machines, while IBM had tons of identical units in the field. Maybe that makes a difference. And, IBM moved leased machines around like they were dominoes. But, yes, if they had a leased machine that they KNEW would never be used again, they would not dump it at the customer's back dock, it would be trucked off to SOMEWHERE. As for the 360's, they HAD to keep them for spare parts, as they were maintaining (generally owned, not leased) 360 machines WAY after the SLT factory was shut down. This came to a head when they were directed to keep the National Airspace System running WELL PAST its "sell by" date, and they reclaimed all machines extant, including owned machines, to scavenge them for parts. Jon
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/26/2019 08:59 PM, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote: It wasn't just having the technology, it was having it and knowing how to market it. You need both to make a good product and DEC really was all about protecting their current market share (which is insane as they came to be by exploiting a niche in the computer industry). Yup. We were a big VAX user, and were accustomed to our salesman and a technical guy coming out for a sales call to iron out exactly what features and options we wanted on a machine. When the MicroVAX came out, for a purchase price less than EITHER the software or hardware maintenance contract on a VAX 11/780, I know this couldn't go on. When they went to the 3100/3500 Pizza box machines, I know it REALLY was unsustainable. Jon
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Richard Pope wrote: I don't know anything about this system. I don't consider Minis and MainFrames to be Personal Computers. It must fit in a small room, run on a 120VAC 5Amp service, and not require 3 tons of AC to keep it cool to fit in to the Personal Computer definition. Therefore I (and others BTW) consider the LGP-30 to be the first Personal Computer. You know, the definition of a PC is that you can directly access and operate the computer and it is only doing what you want. Christian
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/26/19 10:17 PM, Richard Pope via cctalk wrote: > Chuck, > I don't know anything about this system. I don't consider Minis and > MainFrames to be Personal Computers. It must fit in a small room, run on > a 120VAC 5Amp service, and not require 3 tons of AC to keep it cool to > fit in to the Personal Computer definition. Well, let's see, what have I had that fit that description? Several VAX Several PDP-11's A couple of Prime 50-series bill
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 15:47, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > > No, I meant "commercially viable" computers. [1] You didn't say that, though. [2] If it sells enough units for someone to make a living off it, that is the _definition_ of "commercially viable". As such, my first link qualifies. See: https://rc2014.co.uk/history/ « By May 2016 things were getting busy enough that I had to quit my full time network infrastructure engineer job to dedicate my time to RC2014… » > Hobbyist stuff is > interesting My last link, the CB2, it based on an ATmega644. The AVR series had sold 500 million units by 2003, and vendor Atmel was sold to Microchip Technology for US$3.6 billion, 3 years ago. Microchip make the PIC32 used in the MaxiMite which I also linked to. These devices sell, today, in the *billions* of units. Many have 8-bit architectures. Is that "commercially viable" enough for you? E.g. is outselling all Intel x86 products annually significant enough? Zilog still sells derivatives of the Z80 such as the Z180 and eZ80, today. Modern Z80s run at up to 50MHz. This is *not* a hobbyist business. It is a very large, profitable, commercial, mainstream market. The fact that hobbyists built little educational standalone computers around them is really neither here nor there. It's a rounding error. To think that because people build such stuff with them, or because the Z80 once powered the Micro-Professor MPF-I, is to say that DEC was a vendor of home and hobbyist toy computers because most of the machines running today are maintained by hobbyists. > I have zero interest in computer games. Well, I have _slightly_ more than that -- in fact I actually bought a new video game this year, for the first time in about 18 years -- but really very little. But you don't get kids interested in programming by telling them that they can implement VisiCalc. Most of us got interested in this stuff as kids, I suspect. I certainly did. If we don't get more kids interested, then the field will die. So I suggest that you are trying (and, incidentally, failing) to be too selective and judgemental and are failing to notice the forest we're all standing in because you've found a beetle on the bark of the nearest tree. -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: First Internet message and ...
> On Nov 26, 2019, at 9:09 PM, TeoZ via cctalk wrote: > > Patents are generally used to document who invented what first. Commercial > success building on old research and patents tends to be what is remembered. "who invented what first" -- sort of. More precisely, who filed a patent application first, and then depending on whether the patent office noticed the prior art. One of my favorite examples is the patent issued to Abraham Lincoln for an invention that actually has prior art going back about two centuries. > So what if some guy in 1761 heated up a wire until it glowed releasing light, > it took many people over a long time to come up with a usable cheap light > bulb design and the inventions that brought electricity into cities and > peoples houses to power those bulbs that people will remember. > ... > The people who invented something epic tend to not have commercial success > because pretty much most ground breaking patents tend to expire before they > truly become useful and because of the need for other inventions to make them > commercially usable. There are lots of examples like this. Columbus is a good one: not the first European to set foot in America, but the first whose visit led to a large and lasting historic impact. Or the one I have been investigating recently: FM radio wasn't first done by Edwin Armstrong, but his work led to the current use of FM while the earlier work of Idzerda did not. Incidentally, that demonstrates the limitations of patents as a source of historical evidence: Idzerda has a US Patent, but Armstrong's patents, filed some years later, do not cite that prior art or make any mention of it. paul
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/27/19 3:52 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 04:02, Chuck Guzis via cctalk > wrote: >> >> Other than in very low-level MCUs, I don't see 8 bit micros making a >> comeback. And 32/64 bits seems to be the rule for MCUs today. > > You might be surprised. No, I meant "commercially viable" computers. Hobbyist stuff is interesting, but to be honest, one could sell a steam-powered 1-bit computer to the hard-bitten hobbyists. I have zero interest in computer games. --Chuck
Re: First Internet message and ...
Rich wrote: Chuck, I don't know anything about this system. I don't consider Minis and MainFrames to be Personal Computers. It must fit in a small room, run on a 120VAC 5Amp service, and not require 3 tons of AC to keep it cool to fit in to the Personal Computer definition. GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! Well, I don't regard it as a Personal Computer if I have to lug around a 2:1ish voltage stepdown transformer along with it in order to power it. Regards, Peter Coghlan.
Re: First Internet message and ...
At 09:05 PM 11/26/2019, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: >Video Toaster, while a niche product, really showed the advantages of Amiga. >Up until a few years ago, when the Cable TV system crashed, it would display a >"Guru Meditation Number"! >"But there HAS to be a Macintosh version!" >"OK, OK." It's a bigger box, and if you look inside there's an Amiga >motherboard. (or so I'm told) At some COMDEX, NewTek won a "Best in Show" crystal trophy for the PS/2 version of the Toaster, which was a GUI I wrote in Visual BASIC that sent ARexx commands over the serial port to a real (Amiga) Toaster hidden under the table, but who's counting. - John
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 04:02, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > > Other than in very low-level MCUs, I don't see 8 bit micros making a > comeback. And 32/64 bits seems to be the rule for MCUs today. You might be surprised. E.g. https://rc2014.co.uk/ (selling strongly, I believe) https://www.specnext.com/ (selling umpteen thousands, 2nd kickstarter round sold out long ago) https://www.worldofsam.org/products/zx-uno (less well marketed, but also doing very well) I'm not really into the American machines (Commodore, MSX, etc.) but they too have modern clones that are selling well. I do have one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C64_Direct-to-TV This isn't _really_ an 8-bit but it acts like one. I have a PCB and hope to build one up. https://basicengine.org/ Comparable machines: http://geoffg.net/maximite.html http://cb2.qrp.gr/ So, actually, considering how obsolete the tech is, the 8-bit world is in pretty good shape! -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
RE: First Internet message and ...
I believe that Edison invented the filament bulb with a Tungsten Filament, but Joseph Swan's carbon filament bulb pre-dated this. However Edison was doing so well in his court case, than rather than wait for the result, he simply bought out Swan thus ending the debate Dave G4UGM ps. what didn't they use to light the fire on the first public railway (Stockton and Darlington Railway, 1825) pps. For a bonus point where did the above railway start and end... > -Original Message- > From: cctalk On Behalf Of TeoZ via cctalk > Sent: 27 November 2019 02:10 > To: Chuck Guzis ; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off- > Topic Posts > Subject: Re: First Internet message and ... > > Patents are generally used to document who invented what first. Commercial > success building on old research and patents tends to be what is remembered. > > So what if some guy in 1761 heated up a wire until it glowed releasing light, > it > took many people over a long time to come up with a usable cheap light bulb > design and the inventions that brought electricity into cities and peoples > houses > to power those bulbs that people will remember. > > The only reason Apple sold so many Apple II's was because some software > designer came out with Visicalc. So many machines were sold that they ended > up cheap enough and useful enough to end up in schools and homes where > before they were only sold to corporations. IBM's release of the PC with open > architecture and all the people who cloned it and made software and hardware > for it that IBM never envisioned is the reason X86/X64 is so dominant not > that is > was the first or the best. > > The people who invented something epic tend to not have commercial success > because pretty much most ground breaking patents tend to expire before they > truly become useful and because of the need for other inventions to make them > commercially usable. > > -Original Message- > From: Chuck Guzis via cctalk > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:18 PM > To: Bill Gunshannon via cctalk > Subject: Re: First Internet message and ... > > On 11/26/19 12:48 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > On 11/26/19 1:32 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > >> I figure the record will finally be set straight after all of the > >> people involved at time cited are dead. > >> > >> Such is history. > >> > > > > You mean like how history says Columbus discovered America... > > And Edison invented the incandescent lamp. > > --Chuck
Re: First Internet message and ...
> I wouldn't consider this a Personal Computer. THIS THREAD NEEDS TO DIE
Re: First Internet message and ...
Chuck, I wouldn't consider this a Personal Computer. It has some severe limitations. There are no graphics, only one line of display, no sound, no expandability. It is more of a front end to talk to another system. This computer is just too limited. GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/26/2019 10:07 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 11/26/19 7:17 PM, Richard Pope wrote: Chuck, I don't know anything about this system. I don't consider Minis and MainFrames to be Personal Computers. It must fit in a small room, run on a 120VAC 5Amp service, and not require 3 tons of AC to keep it cool to fit in to the Personal Computer definition. It's better than that; it fits nicely on a desktop, has its own tape storage, display and printer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCM/70 Of course, it's usually ignored because it's Canadian. --Chuck
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/26/19 7:17 PM, Richard Pope wrote: > Chuck, > I don't know anything about this system. I don't consider Minis and > MainFrames to be Personal Computers. It must fit in a small room, run on > a 120VAC 5Amp service, and not require 3 tons of AC to keep it cool to > fit in to the Personal Computer definition. It's better than that; it fits nicely on a desktop, has its own tape storage, display and printer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCM/70 Of course, it's usually ignored because it's Canadian. --Chuck
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Randy Dawson via cctalk wrote: No, this was the first personal computer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tektronix_4050#/media/File:Tektronix_4051_ad_April_1976.jpg No, the first personal computer was any machine, including IBM 360, if you could get access to it after midnight! No one else around? Then it's now my personal machine! That night school course run by United States Department Of Agriculture! in 1970 on "IBM 360 operator training" got me a little extra access in a few facilities. (along with bringing a snack for the operator and showing off a few trivial tricks, like changing the box of paper without stopping the printer) I was not a competent operator, but it meant that the operator wouldn't shoo me out when he took a break.
Re: First Internet message and ...
Randy,
I will argue that that is an engineering computer and not a
personal computer. No color and probably no sound except for beeps.
GOD Bless and Thanks,
rich!
On 11/26/2019 9:26 PM, Randy Dawson via cctalk wrote:
No, this was the first personal computer...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tektronix_4050#/media/File:Tektronix_4051_ad_April_1976.jpg
From: cctalk on behalf of Mike Stein via cctalk
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 7:15 PM
To: Fred Cisin ; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: First Internet message and ...
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Cisin via cctalk"
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: First Internet message and ...
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, TeoZ via cctalk wrote:
The only reason Apple sold so many Apple II's was because some software
designer came out with Visicalc.
Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston ("Software Arts")
They sold it through "Personal Software", who became "VisiCorp"
http://www.bricklin.com/history/sai.htm
Frankly, I think that word processing was more responsible than
spreadsheet for microcomputer sales.
But, Apple had a headstart by having both.
A far from complete and only partially chronological list:
Electric Pencil (Michael Shrayer)
Electric Pencil for CP/M (with a program to transfer files from Electric
Pencil disks to and from CP/M disks)
Wordstar for CP/M (MicroPro (later WordStar, Inc))
Easy Writer (Apple II, by John Draper)
Scripsit (TRS80)
Electric Pencil for TRS80
Easy Writer for IBm PC
Wordstar for PC
Electric Pencil for PC (Harv Pennington)
Microsoft Word (PC and Apple)
WordPervert
PC-Write (Bob Wallace)
WordPro, Paper Clip (written by local boys) and PaperMate for the Commodore PET
(and later for the C64)
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Richard Pope via cctalk wrote:
Word Perfect and the Vista series was also available for the Amiga!
GOD Bless and Thanks,
Manx ("Aztec C Compiler") and WordPervert made efforts to expand
into ALL platorms.
A couple of times, MY booth at Comdex was next to WordPervert.
They were not good neighbors, and didn't comply with noise/sound-volume
limits. But, their booth was more than a dozen times the size of ours, so
enforcement was minimal.
Re: First Internet message and ...
No, this was the first personal computer...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tektronix_4050#/media/File:Tektronix_4051_ad_April_1976.jpg
From: cctalk on behalf of Mike Stein via cctalk
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 7:15 PM
To: Fred Cisin ; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic
Posts
Subject: Re: First Internet message and ...
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Cisin via cctalk"
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: First Internet message and ...
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, TeoZ via cctalk wrote:
>> The only reason Apple sold so many Apple II's was because some software
>> designer came out with Visicalc.
>
> Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston ("Software Arts")
> They sold it through "Personal Software", who became "VisiCorp"
> http://www.bricklin.com/history/sai.htm
>
> Frankly, I think that word processing was more responsible than
> spreadsheet for microcomputer sales.
> But, Apple had a headstart by having both.
>
> A far from complete and only partially chronological list:
> Electric Pencil (Michael Shrayer)
> Electric Pencil for CP/M (with a program to transfer files from Electric
> Pencil disks to and from CP/M disks)
> Wordstar for CP/M (MicroPro (later WordStar, Inc))
> Easy Writer (Apple II, by John Draper)
> Scripsit (TRS80)
> Electric Pencil for TRS80
> Easy Writer for IBm PC
> Wordstar for PC
> Electric Pencil for PC (Harv Pennington)
> Microsoft Word (PC and Apple)
> WordPervert
> PC-Write (Bob Wallace)
>
WordPro, Paper Clip (written by local boys) and PaperMate for the Commodore PET
(and later for the C64)
Re: First Internet message and ...
Mike,
Word Perfect and the Vista series was also available for the Amiga!
GOD Bless and Thanks,
rich!
On 11/26/2019 9:15 PM, Mike Stein via cctalk wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Cisin via cctalk"
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: First Internet message and ...
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, TeoZ via cctalk wrote:
The only reason Apple sold so many Apple II's was because some software
designer came out with Visicalc.
Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston ("Software Arts")
They sold it through "Personal Software", who became "VisiCorp"
http://www.bricklin.com/history/sai.htm
Frankly, I think that word processing was more responsible than
spreadsheet for microcomputer sales.
But, Apple had a headstart by having both.
A far from complete and only partially chronological list:
Electric Pencil (Michael Shrayer)
Electric Pencil for CP/M (with a program to transfer files from Electric
Pencil disks to and from CP/M disks)
Wordstar for CP/M (MicroPro (later WordStar, Inc))
Easy Writer (Apple II, by John Draper)
Scripsit (TRS80)
Electric Pencil for TRS80
Easy Writer for IBm PC
Wordstar for PC
Electric Pencil for PC (Harv Pennington)
Microsoft Word (PC and Apple)
WordPervert
PC-Write (Bob Wallace)
WordPro, Paper Clip (written by local boys) and PaperMate for the Commodore PET
(and later for the C64)
Re: First Internet message and ...
Fred, Agreed! GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/26/2019 9:16 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Good point. Some companies that COULD HAVE been the leaders made great inventions and/or engineering, and then fumbled the marketing. I'm thinking that Xerox Parc could be said to have "invented" the next generation of personal computers, but did they ever cash in on that? I can visualize a Apple/Microsoft argument, "But we stole it FIRST!" (like English/French/Spanish in America) On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote: I would make a strong argument that DEC invented the PC: Twice actually. The PDT11/150 is a pretty amazing system: 64k of memory, serial port, printer port, RT11 operating system and if I recall correctly someone wrote a version of Visicalc and a nice word processor on it as a demonstration. Unfortunately Dec saw that such a system would cannibalize their sales of pdp11 computers and sold the damn thing as a communication controller. Sad beyond belief. They did it again with the Pro/350: A system that had integrated graphics, 512k of memory, dual floppies and a hard disk, easy to install card options (Ethernet, TMS, etc) and of course a real time multi-program operating system and (with Synergy) a fairly neat GUI. Unfortunately Dec saw that such a system would cannibalize their sales of pdp and vax computers and crippled the living daylights out of it. Ultimately selling it as a front-end processor. Sad beyond belief. It wasn't just having the technology, it was having it and knowing how to market it. You need both to make a good product and DEC really was all about protecting their current market share (which is insane as they came to be by exploiting a niche in the computer industry). Oh well. CZ
Re: First Internet message and ...
Chuck, I don't know anything about this system. I don't consider Minis and MainFrames to be Personal Computers. It must fit in a small room, run on a 120VAC 5Amp service, and not require 3 tons of AC to keep it cool to fit in to the Personal Computer definition. GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/26/2019 9:03 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 11/26/19 6:49 PM, Richard Pope via cctalk wrote: Fred, You are correct in your assessment. Which was first? The Altair and IMSAI had been available for years but you almost had to be an engineer to build them and use them. So were they first? So how do you class the 1973 MCM/70? No assembly needed. --Chuck
Re: First Internet message and ...
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Cisin via cctalk"
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: First Internet message and ...
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, TeoZ via cctalk wrote:
>> The only reason Apple sold so many Apple II's was because some software
>> designer came out with Visicalc.
>
> Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston ("Software Arts")
> They sold it through "Personal Software", who became "VisiCorp"
> http://www.bricklin.com/history/sai.htm
>
> Frankly, I think that word processing was more responsible than
> spreadsheet for microcomputer sales.
> But, Apple had a headstart by having both.
>
> A far from complete and only partially chronological list:
> Electric Pencil (Michael Shrayer)
> Electric Pencil for CP/M (with a program to transfer files from Electric
> Pencil disks to and from CP/M disks)
> Wordstar for CP/M (MicroPro (later WordStar, Inc))
> Easy Writer (Apple II, by John Draper)
> Scripsit (TRS80)
> Electric Pencil for TRS80
> Easy Writer for IBm PC
> Wordstar for PC
> Electric Pencil for PC (Harv Pennington)
> Microsoft Word (PC and Apple)
> WordPervert
> PC-Write (Bob Wallace)
>
WordPro, Paper Clip (written by local boys) and PaperMate for the Commodore PET
(and later for the C64)
Re: First Internet message and ...
Good point. Some companies that COULD HAVE been the leaders made great inventions and/or engineering, and then fumbled the marketing. I'm thinking that Xerox Parc could be said to have "invented" the next generation of personal computers, but did they ever cash in on that? I can visualize a Apple/Microsoft argument, "But we stole it FIRST!" (like English/French/Spanish in America) On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote: I would make a strong argument that DEC invented the PC: Twice actually. The PDT11/150 is a pretty amazing system: 64k of memory, serial port, printer port, RT11 operating system and if I recall correctly someone wrote a version of Visicalc and a nice word processor on it as a demonstration. Unfortunately Dec saw that such a system would cannibalize their sales of pdp11 computers and sold the damn thing as a communication controller. Sad beyond belief. They did it again with the Pro/350: A system that had integrated graphics, 512k of memory, dual floppies and a hard disk, easy to install card options (Ethernet, TMS, etc) and of course a real time multi-program operating system and (with Synergy) a fairly neat GUI. Unfortunately Dec saw that such a system would cannibalize their sales of pdp and vax computers and crippled the living daylights out of it. Ultimately selling it as a front-end processor. Sad beyond belief. It wasn't just having the technology, it was having it and knowing how to market it. You need both to make a good product and DEC really was all about protecting their current market share (which is insane as they came to be by exploiting a niche in the computer industry). Oh well. CZ
Re: First Internet message and ...
Fred,
I started with the VIC. I then got a C-64. From there I bought a
C-128 and then the A-1000. I migrated to a A-2000 that I then upgraded
many times. I finally got an A-4000T 040/25MHz system which I upgraded
to 50MHz and 128MB of ram. It also had 4MB of chip ram and 8MB of Fast
ram. It took over 20 years to finally get an Intel machine that is as
fast as my 4000 was and it is running dual 6 core Xeons running at
1.6GHz and with 32GB of ram. It still won't handle more than one floppy
at a time where the Amiga could handle four floppies at one time.
GOD Bless and Thanks,
rich!
On 11/26/2019 9:05 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Richard Pope wrote:
You are correct in your assessment. Which was first? The Altair
and IMSAI had been available for years but you almost had to be an
engineer to build them and use them. So were they first? I don't
believe so because the average idiot couldn't get them to work. They
were too much trouble, work, and they cost too much.
"FIRST", but rejected for various reasons. in this case too hard for
us beginners?
I consider the VIC-20 to be the first Home Computer or Personal
Computer. It was inexpensive, had good color graphics, good sound,
was easy to program, use, and was easy to expand. So I consider
Commodore to be the inventor of the PC. Just my opinion. Again which
was truly first?
Again, an exact tie between three manufacturers.
What about the Amiga. The first multitasking multiprocessing computer
with outstanding graphics, sound, and expandability for a reasonable
price. It was also truly plug and play.
I LOVED the Amiga! Traded 10 copies of XenoCopy for one of the early
model 1000.
But, it wasn't until about 1986?, when even early Windoze was out.
Although far from as PRACTICAL for multitasking multiprocessing, I
would place the Radio Shack Color Computer running the OPTIONAL OS-9
as earlier.
Yes, I would use the Amiga, NOT the Coco.
And, when the Amiga PC emulation came out, most of XenoCopy would run
on it! ("the acid test of compatability" - PCWorld)
But, people griped that it "isn't FAST enough". They got an elephant
to FLY, and people complain about airspeed and payload??!?
Video Toaster, while a niche product, really showed the advantages of
Amiga. Up until a few years ago, when the Cable TV system crashed, it
would display a "Guru Meditation Number"!
"But there HAS to be a Macintosh version!"
"OK, OK." It's a bigger box, and if you look inside there's an Amiga
motherboard. (or so I'm told)
Atari 520/1040 were pretty good, but they didn't appeal to me like the
Amiga.
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Richard Pope wrote:
You are correct in your assessment. Which was first? The Altair and IMSAI
had been available for years but you almost had to be an engineer to build
them and use them. So were they first? I don't believe so because the average
idiot couldn't get them to work. They were too much trouble, work, and they
cost too much.
"FIRST", but rejected for various reasons. in this case too hard for us
beginners?
I consider the VIC-20 to be the first Home Computer or Personal Computer.
It was inexpensive, had good color graphics, good sound, was easy to program,
use, and was easy to expand. So I consider Commodore to be the inventor of
the PC. Just my opinion. Again which was truly first?
Again, an exact tie between three manufacturers.
What about the Amiga.
The first multitasking multiprocessing computer with outstanding graphics,
sound, and expandability for a reasonable price. It was also truly plug and
play.
I LOVED the Amiga! Traded 10 copies of XenoCopy for one of the early
model 1000.
But, it wasn't until about 1986?, when even early Windoze was out.
Although far from as PRACTICAL for multitasking multiprocessing, I would
place the Radio Shack Color Computer running the OPTIONAL OS-9 as earlier.
Yes, I would use the Amiga, NOT the Coco.
And, when the Amiga PC emulation came out, most of XenoCopy would run on
it! ("the acid test of compatability" - PCWorld)
But, people griped that it "isn't FAST enough". They got an elephant to
FLY, and people complain about airspeed and payload??!?
Video Toaster, while a niche product, really showed the advantages of
Amiga. Up until a few years ago, when the Cable TV system crashed, it
would display a "Guru Meditation Number"!
"But there HAS to be a Macintosh version!"
"OK, OK." It's a bigger box, and if you look inside there's an Amiga
motherboard. (or so I'm told)
Atari 520/1040 were pretty good, but they didn't appeal to me like the
Amiga.
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/26/19 6:49 PM, Richard Pope via cctalk wrote: > Fred, > You are correct in your assessment. Which was first? The Altair and > IMSAI had been available for years but you almost had to be an engineer > to build them and use them. So were they first? So how do you class the 1973 MCM/70? No assembly needed. --Chuck
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/26/19 6:43 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > But the stange thing now, all the 8 bitters are making a come back > like the z80 with CP/M (USA) and the 6502 with BBC Micro (UK). > What ever happened to all the wierd early transitor computers that were > like 48+ bits and 4K of core memory hit the surplus market in the mid > 1970's? Other than in very low-level MCUs, I don't see 8 bit micros making a comeback. And 32/64 bits seems to be the rule for MCUs today. But surplus 2nd generation machines were common in the 1970s? CDC had a scorched-earth policy when it came to leased mainframes. I suspect that IBM did also. I witnessed CEs taking sledgehammers and bolt cutters to several interesting mainframes. The official directive was that nothing was to leave the facility that could be re-sold. --Chuck
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, TeoZ via cctalk wrote:
The only reason Apple sold so many Apple II's was because some software
designer came out with Visicalc.
Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston ("Software Arts")
They sold it through "Personal Software", who became "VisiCorp"
http://www.bricklin.com/history/sai.htm
Frankly, I think that word processing was more responsible than
spreadsheet for microcomputer sales.
But, Apple had a headstart by having both.
A far from complete and only partially chronological list:
Electric Pencil (Michael Shrayer)
Electric Pencil for CP/M (with a program to transfer files from Electric
Pencil disks to and from CP/M disks)
Wordstar for CP/M (MicroPro (later WordStar, Inc))
Easy Writer (Apple II, by John Draper)
Scripsit (TRS80)
Electric Pencil for TRS80
Easy Writer for IBm PC
Wordstar for PC
Electric Pencil for PC (Harv Pennington)
Microsoft Word (PC and Apple)
WordPervert
PC-Write (Bob Wallace)
Re: First Internet message and ...
Fred, You are correct in your assessment. Which was first? The Altair and IMSAI had been available for years but you almost had to be an engineer to build them and use them. So were they first? I don't believe so because the average idiot couldn't get them to work. They were too much trouble, work, and they cost too much. I consider the VIC-20 to be the first Home Computer or Personal Computer. It was inexpensive, had good color graphics, good sound, was easy to program, use, and was easy to expand. So I consider Commodore to be the inventor of the PC. Just my opinion. Again which was truly first? What about the Amiga. The first multitasking multiprocessing computer with outstanding graphics, sound, and expandability for a reasonable price. It was also truly plug and play. GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/26/2019 8:37 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Richard Pope wrote: Fred, I'm not stating that IBM invented the PC. I am stating that IBM says it invented the PC. Yeah right. I actually believe that it was Commodore that invented the Personal Computer for they were the first company to come out with an affordable home computer system that was very flexible. Of course this is my opinion. GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! Well, it has all the makings of a great holy war, although not as fascinating as vi V emacs. After most of the Cat people were killed in the holy war over RED V BLUE hats, Cloister The Stupid (Lister) revealed that he had intended the hats to be GREEN. I consider Commodore PET, TRS80, and Apple to be an exact TIE! (along with a whole bunch of tiny guys who nobody remembers). Did it really matter whether Alexander Graham Bell or Elisha Gray filed the patent earliest in that day? (There were a few other issues, such as Bell's people manipulating patent examiner) When we look at which computer was first, are we looking at First successful prototype First instance of a finished machine First announced First advertised First demo'd First shown at a significant trade show First manufactured First one sold or available for sale First one that did not require pre-order First one shipped First one that could be bought off the shelf None of the three were first on ALL of those, so it becomes which are most important, or chosen to be the DEFINITION of "FIRST" For me, TRS80 was the first one that I was able to purchase and carry home, but the other two were not significantly behind, if I were to have been less impatient and research my choice. Both of the other two were "on the market", but I couldn't get my hands on either for at least another month. I preferred the Apple hardware expandability, but I couldn't get one until later, and for more money. At the time, I could have purchased an S100 computer, or a few others, (PET/TRS80/Apple were far from being the first!) but I could buy the TRS80 for $400 plus tax ($600 with monitor and casette, but I used my own). I had a few B composite input monitors from Sony CV and AV videotape, and just had to make a cable from 5 pin DIN to UHF connector. Nothing else was available that had a high level language for less than $1000. BASIC was close enough to FORTRAN to satisfy my original "requirement". So, those three were the first in MY price range. Even when the IBM PC (5150 - "a danger to itself and others") was released (August 12, 1981), there was a waiting list of months to be able to get one. (about $1230? plus Floppy controller, Video board, and RS232, plus my own RAM, drives and monitor. The oft-quoted $1565 included an over-priced monitor - "well, you certainly can't USE one without a monitor!") Fortunately, I was able to get the "Technical Reference Manual" (with schematics and source for the BIOS!) well before the machine itself.
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/26/2019 7:09 PM, TeoZ via cctalk wrote: The only reason Apple sold so many Apple II's was because some software designer came out with Visicalc. So many machines were sold that they ended up cheap enough and useful enough to end up in schools and homes where before they were only sold to corporations. IBM's release of the PC with open architecture and all the people who cloned it and made software and hardware for it that IBM never envisioned is the reason X86/X64 is so dominant not that is was the first or the best. But the stange thing now, all the 8 bitters are making a come back like the z80 with CP/M (USA) and the 6502 with BBC Micro (UK). What ever happened to all the wierd early transitor computers that were like 48+ bits and 4K of core memory hit the surplus market in the mid 1970's?
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Richard Pope wrote: Fred, I'm not stating that IBM invented the PC. I am stating that IBM says it invented the PC. Yeah right. I actually believe that it was Commodore that invented the Personal Computer for they were the first company to come out with an affordable home computer system that was very flexible. Of course this is my opinion. GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! Well, it has all the makings of a great holy war, although not as fascinating as vi V emacs. After most of the Cat people were killed in the holy war over RED V BLUE hats, Cloister The Stupid (Lister) revealed that he had intended the hats to be GREEN. I consider Commodore PET, TRS80, and Apple to be an exact TIE! (along with a whole bunch of tiny guys who nobody remembers). Did it really matter whether Alexander Graham Bell or Elisha Gray filed the patent earliest in that day? (There were a few other issues, such as Bell's people manipulating patent examiner) When we look at which computer was first, are we looking at First successful prototype First instance of a finished machine First announced First advertised First demo'd First shown at a significant trade show First manufactured First one sold or available for sale First one that did not require pre-order First one shipped First one that could be bought off the shelf None of the three were first on ALL of those, so it becomes which are most important, or chosen to be the DEFINITION of "FIRST" For me, TRS80 was the first one that I was able to purchase and carry home, but the other two were not significantly behind, if I were to have been less impatient and research my choice. Both of the other two were "on the market", but I couldn't get my hands on either for at least another month. I preferred the Apple hardware expandability, but I couldn't get one until later, and for more money. At the time, I could have purchased an S100 computer, or a few others, (PET/TRS80/Apple were far from being the first!) but I could buy the TRS80 for $400 plus tax ($600 with monitor and casette, but I used my own). I had a few B composite input monitors from Sony CV and AV videotape, and just had to make a cable from 5 pin DIN to UHF connector. Nothing else was available that had a high level language for less than $1000. BASIC was close enough to FORTRAN to satisfy my original "requirement". So, those three were the first in MY price range. Even when the IBM PC (5150 - "a danger to itself and others") was released (August 12, 1981), there was a waiting list of months to be able to get one. (about $1230? plus Floppy controller, Video board, and RS232, plus my own RAM, drives and monitor. The oft-quoted $1565 included an over-priced monitor - "well, you certainly can't USE one without a monitor!") Fortunately, I was able to get the "Technical Reference Manual" (with schematics and source for the BIOS!) well before the machine itself.
Re: First Internet message and ...
And IBM invented the Personal Computer. No. We already established that Steve Jobs did that. Please pay attention. Where do you suppose he picked up such heretical revisionist ideas?
Re: First Internet message and ...
> And IBM invented the Personal Computer. No. We already established that Steve Jobs did that. Please pay attention. -- Will
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: I figure the record will finally be set straight after all of the people involved at time cited are dead. And Edison invented the incandescent lamp. Light bulbs, automobiles, personal computers were all ideas that were OBVIOUS and inevitable. Often present in science fiction. So, people see an "important" person (that THEY have heard of) who was good at marketing, or engineering to make it marketable, and declare that one to have "invented" it. And schoolteachers pass on their misconceptions. Sometimes the record is finally "set straight" to an authoritaative form that is nowhere near correct.
Re: First Internet message and ...
Will, And IBM invented the Personal Computer. GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/26/2019 7:25 PM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote: You mean like how history says Columbus discovered America... And Edison invented the incandescent lamp. And Digital invented the minicomputer. ...we are just as guilty... -- Will
Re: First Internet message and ...
> > You mean like how history says Columbus discovered America... > > And Edison invented the incandescent lamp. And Digital invented the minicomputer. ...we are just as guilty... -- Will
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/26/19 12:48 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > On 11/26/19 1:32 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >> I figure the record will finally be set straight after all of the people >> involved at time cited are dead. >> >> Such is history. >> > > You mean like how history says Columbus discovered America... And Edison invented the incandescent lamp. --Chuck
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/26/19 1:32 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > I figure the record will finally be set straight after all of the people > involved at time cited are dead. > > Such is history. > You mean like how history says Columbus discovered America and Marconi invented radio. :-) bill
Re: First Internet message and ...
I figure the record will finally be set straight after all of the people involved at time cited are dead. Such is history. --Chuck
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
Ooops, editing error: > Although one could build a system which has aggregatable addresses, used > for path selection, but hid them from the hosts, and used an 'invisible' > mapping system to translate from them to the aggregatable 'true' addresses. Should have been "to translate from the 'addresses' used by the hosts to the". > the changing nature of 'the Internet', but alas the list archives are > broken at the moment, so no URL Here are Jack's thoughts on how 'the Internet' is no longer a true internet: Circa 1984, I remember giving lots of presentations where one theme was that we had spent the first 10 years of the Internet (taking the 1974 TCP paper as the start) making it possible for every computer to talk with every other computer.BB We would spend the next 10 years making it not possible to do such things, so that only communications that were permitted would be possible. Sadly, I'm not sure that ever happened. The commercial world started adopting TCP big time. The government decided to focus on using COTS - Commercial Off-The-Shelf hardware and software. The Research world focused on things like faster and bigger networks. At BBN, the focus shifted to X.25, SNA, and such stuff that promised a big marketplace. TCP had gone through 5 releases from TCP2 through TCP4 in just a few years, so remaining items on the To-Do list, like address space, were expected to be addressed shortly. I'm not sure if anyone ever conveyed this architecture to the IETF or all the vendors that were popping up with products to build Internet(s). I think changes like NAT came about to solve pragmatic problems. But that of course broke the "end-to-end" architecture, which would view NAT actions as those of an intruder or equipment failure. So TCP became no longer end-to-end. The Internet is typically viewed as a way to interconnect networks. But I think it's evolved operationally to become the way to interconnect across administrative boundaries, where Autonomous Systems have become associated with different ISPs, other mechanisms are used by vendors to create their own walled gardens of services (e.g., "clouds" or "messaging"), and NAT is used at the edges to connect to users' internets. The end-to-end nature is gone. But that's just based on my observations from the outside. I don't have a clue as to what today's actual Internet Architecture is, other than a collection of RFCs and product manuals that may or may not reflect reality, or if there is anyone actually able to manage the architecture. From my user's perspective, it's a Wild West out there. And the definition of The Internet is still elusive. I agree that the users' definition is the best working one -- The Internet is the thing I'm connected to to do what I do when I get "on the Net." Noel
Re: First Internet message and ...
"Since 2016, the AP stylebook now recommends lowercasing internet and web. Whenever you refer to the Internet as a proper noun (i.e. you are referring to the World Wide Web), then Internet should be capitalized. If you are referring to a general network of computers, then you can use the lowercase internet." - John
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: A sad commentary in this age of what my ???facts??? and your ???facts??? are, are not the same but we historians should do our best to state ???firsts??? and ???facts??? are indeed that to the best of our knowledge. A typical instance of "The Blind Men And The Elephant". Even if we go to original sources. I've heard some interesting arguments between people who were in the military, industry and academia at the time, about the relative importance of those players in the creation of the internet. None (well,FEW) are "wrong", but perceptions vary, because at the time it is impossible to see all of it at once. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/25/19 8:33 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > I don't know what I'll do now. I can't do the amount of stuff that I > did decades ago. What I've found with age is that nobody begrudges you for taking long naps... Zz, --Chuck
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: Things we historians talk about are ‘firsts’ and ‘facts’. If we go to original source(s) maybe then we will get things right. I guess the best that can be said is we agree to disagree. A sad commentary in this age of what my ‘facts’ and your ‘facts’ are, are not the same but we historians should do our best to state ‘firsts’ and ‘facts’ are indeed that to the best of our knowledge. The 60 yrs. as noted was a math error and here I spent years as a BASIC, C and C++ programmer as isn’t mathematics the basis for all programming languages? Let's indeed toast to all micro-computing progenitors for making our hobby possible. If we didn't make arithmetic errors, we couldn't prove that we are human (a variation/enhancement of a Turing test?) "Facts" need to be checked for prior corruption of the stories, but are often traceable. "Firsts" bother me, as they always seem to glorify a famous early guy, and ignore all those who came before, even if they had already done the supposed "first" activity. Hence we get the "Jobs invented computers; Gates invented operating systems" nonsense. So, I prefer "important" events, rather than "FIRST". I’ve been a hobbyist and experimenter since the 1970s though I worked on mini-computers(PDP-8/11) in the 1960s. I got to work on them in high school; I know we were rather privileged. For microcomputers it began in April 1978 when I built the Heathkit H8($2500 Cdn.) a computer based on the PDP-11 with 4K(B) of an 8K(B) card; now $2500 will buy a truly powerful home computer with 16/32GB of memory. My second, the Coleco ADAM, computer was Aug. 1984. A bit more powerful and more useful to be sure. Finally in 1989 I moved into the IBM PC world – the Compaq Deskpro 386 which ran DOS, Lotus 1-2-3 and Windows 2 that could run Word and Excel. Wow! Notebooks followed. And now(well Aug. 2019 to be precise) I built my own custom Mini-ITX PC from parts sourced here and there for $750 Cdn. This makes me nostalgic for the old days of computing we talk about on cctalk. Rather similar backgrounds. My father had taught me adding machines, keypunching, sorting machine, etc., and always had low-paying work for me to do. On May 24, 1965, he called me from out of town and told me, "LEARN FORTRAN." He had just had a bad experience with "professional" data processing by IBM (CBS "National Drivers Test"), and was going to IMMEDIATELY switch over to doing his own computer work. So, we learned some FORTRAN. I did keypunching and EAM work while in college, and was a data technician at Goddard Space Flight Center 1970-1972 (APL, FORTRAN, plotting subroutines) Aerospace was collapsing, and I got out, but we were hearing about the coming "micro processor", so I declared that I would get back into computers "in about five years, when tabletop computers programmable in FORTRAN come out and get cheap enough for me." (it turned out to be BASIC instead, and "tabletop" was not the name) I built and ran an auto repair shop, until TRS80/PET/Apple caame out. Even wrote a book on Honda car repair. I got the first TRS80 available, and sold my auto shop to two of my employees. They're still doing it, almost 40 years later. I built and ran a small microcomputer business (small peripherals such as memory and disk drives, commercial software, and my software) and began community college teaching. When IBM announced the PC, I said, "Whether it is good or bad, it is going to DOMINATE the market, and in only a few years, all microcomputers will be Imitations-of-IBM-PC, and 'all others'." So, I got the first one that I could (end of 1981). I ran my business, and taught full-time for over 30 years. And put in enough work at UCBerkeley to get an MLIS and PhD/ABD Seven years ago, I was completely overwhelmed having to take care of my mother 24 hours a day, along with serious health problems of my own. So, no more business; no more teaching, for 4 years. I started to write a textbook on Information Science. I don't know what I'll do now. I can't do the amount of stuff that I did decades ago. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
Re: First Internet message and ...
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com *Wrote:* *“More worrisome is that Murray is NOT A "NEWCOMER" who will be "scared off" * *by corrections of his facts! This is not the first time that he has * *needed to be admonished to be VERY specific about what was "FIRST" about * *something. He wrote about the exact same event three weeks ago, on the * *correct date, with much more accurate details, other than calling it "the * *first inter-computer communication". Not sure where he got the November * *21 date, nor the "SIXTY years ago" (probably a simple misteak)* *He is quite capable of some fairly good writing. I don't remember any * *prior time that he had to be reminded to "PICK A TOPIC!" rather than * *string together eight unrelated concepts into four sentences.* *On the other hand, if his confusion was recreational, that's OK, too.* *Let's have a toast with him to the people who got the idea to work, * *disunirregardless of who was "first".”* ** * Things we historians talk about are ‘firsts’ and ‘facts’. If we go to original source(s) maybe then we will get things right. I guess the best that can be said is we agree to disagree. A sad commentary in this age of what my ‘facts’ and your ‘facts’ are, are not the same but we historians should do our best to state ‘firsts’ and ‘facts’ are indeed that to the best of our knowledge. The 60 yrs. as noted was a math error and here I spent years as a BASIC, C and C++ programmer as isn’t mathematics the basis for all programming languages? Let's indeed toast to all micro-computing progenitors for making our hobby possible. I’ve been a hobbyist and experimenter since the 1970s though I worked on mini-computers(PDP-8/11) in the 1960s. I got to work on them in high school; I know we were rather privileged. For microcomputers it began in April 1978 when I built the Heathkit H8($2500 Cdn.) a computer based on the PDP-11 with 4K(B) of an 8K(B) card; now $2500 will buy a truly powerful home computer with 16/32GB of memory. My second, the Coleco ADAM, computer was Aug. 1984. A bit more powerful and more useful to be sure. Finally in 1989 I moved into the IBM PC world – the Compaq Deskpro 386 which ran DOS, Lotus 1-2-3 and Windows 2 that could run Word and Excel. Wow! Notebooks followed. And now(well Aug. 2019 to be precise) I built my own custom Mini-ITX PC from parts sourced here and there for $750 Cdn. This makes me nostalgic for the old days of computing we talk about on cctalk. Happy computing. Murray ☺
Re: Correction for First Internet Message
We actually do appreciate the integrity of making corrections. Most ofus should follow that example. I hope that we have not been unduly harsh and insensitive in correcting your misteaks. Unfortunately, besides the year, the event to which you referred is commonly accepted as being October 29, 1969. I consider it to have been an extremely important "proof of concept" of what could eventually be done. While there had been various inter-computer communications back to 1959, and probably before, it was important when they finally got that aspect of DARPANET to work! I especially like: https://thisdayintechhistory.com/10/29/first-message-on-the-internet/ because it has a picture of the hand-written log entry for it. and, Happy Computing to you, too! -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com On Mon, 25 Nov 2019, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: I apologize for the wrong date. Should have said Nov. 21, 1969. Makes more sense timewise... Happy computing Murray ???
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
This is starting to sound like a usenet discussion years ago about the correct plural of 'VAX' :-) Vaxen, Vaces, or just multiple VAX installations anybody? cheers, Nigel On 25/11/2019 21:19, steve shumaker via cctalk wrote: On 11/25/19 2:14 PM, Richard Pope via cctalk wrote: Will, Good one. LOL! :) GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/25/2019 4:10 PM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote: Oh goody; when the "intranet" vs. "an internet" vs. "The Internet" discussion finally gets boring we can argue over the meaning and function of "switches" vs. "routers" vs. "hubs". If we are lucky, maybe we can start a new holy war along the lines of vi vs. emacs. -- Will this list is better than a free movie ticket z... -- Nigel Johnson MSc., MIEEE VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept! You can reach me by voice on Skype: TILBURY2591 If time travel ever will be possible, it already is. Ask me again yesterday This e-mail is not and cannot, by its nature, be confidential. En route from me to you, it will pass across the public Internet, easily readable by any number of system administrators along the way. Nigel Johnson Please consider the environment when deciding if you really need to print this message
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
On 11/25/19 2:14 PM, Richard Pope via cctalk wrote: Will, Good one. LOL! :) GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/25/2019 4:10 PM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote: Oh goody; when the "intranet" vs. "an internet" vs. "The Internet" discussion finally gets boring we can argue over the meaning and function of "switches" vs. "routers" vs. "hubs". If we are lucky, maybe we can start a new holy war along the lines of vi vs. emacs. -- Will this list is better than a free movie ticket z...
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
On 11/25/2019 5:29 PM, Nigel Johnson via cctalk wrote: Do you mean they have finally perfected the WOM??? Yes in 1972 , but no free samples of the Signetics 25120, orders only of 999,999 units @ $ 1.95 each. (limited time offer) http://www.ganssle.com/misc/wom1.jpg http://www.ganssle.com/misc/wom2.jpg
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
Do you mean they have finally perfected the WOM??? On 11/25/2019 6:21 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: Remember we now are moving in the cloud era, a write only device. -- Nigel Johnson MSc., MIEEE VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept! You can reach me by voice on Skype: TILBURY2591 If time travel ever will be possible, it already is. Ask me again yesterday This e-mail is not and cannot, by its nature, be confidential. En route from me to you, it will pass across the public Internet, easily readable by any number of system administrators along the way. Nigel Johnson Please consider the environment when deciding if you really need to print this message
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
On 11/25/2019 5:01 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: As a whole, my internet at home could be considered an intranet, as distinct from The Internet. Remember we now are moving in the cloud era, a write only device. I am just waiting for a INTERNET of pi's all emulating TSS 8. The web for the last 20 years is what marketing wants to sell. Ben.
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:53 AM Nigel Johnson via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > No, your home has an intranet! > My home has multiple distinct IP networks, which are joined by routers, and by definition they constitute an internet. As a whole, my internet at home could be considered an intranet, as distinct from The Internet.
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
Will, Good one. LOL! :) GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/25/2019 4:10 PM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote: Oh goody; when the "intranet" vs. "an internet" vs. "The Internet" discussion finally gets boring we can argue over the meaning and function of "switches" vs. "routers" vs. "hubs". If we are lucky, maybe we can start a new holy war along the lines of vi vs. emacs. -- Will
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
Mike, That is easy. I am running a router/firewall as my gateway and I have a gigabit switch. I also have some 100mbit hubs and switches but I'm not using them. We can also get in to the fact the proper place to reply is at the top of the post and not at the bottom. Top posting has been the proper way since private BBS' were in existence. GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/25/2019 4:03 PM, Mike Stein via cctalk wrote: - Original Message - From: "Noel Chiappa via cctalk" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 3:45 PM Subject: Re: "First Internet message" and ... ... Can you please provide a crisp, definitive, technical definition of what an 'intranet' is (similar to the one I just provided for 'internet' - "disparate networks tied together with packet switches which examine the internet-layer headers")? ... Noel --- Oh goody; when the "intranet" vs. "an internet" vs. "The Internet" discussion finally gets boring we can argue over the meaning and function of "switches" vs. "routers" vs. "hubs". m
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
> Oh goody; when the "intranet" vs. "an internet" vs. "The Internet" discussion > finally gets boring we can argue over the meaning and function of "switches" > vs. "routers" vs. "hubs". If we are lucky, maybe we can start a new holy war along the lines of vi vs. emacs. -- Will
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
- Original Message - From: "Noel Chiappa via cctalk" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 3:45 PM Subject: Re: "First Internet message" and ... >... Can you please provide a crisp, definitive, technical definition of what an > 'intranet' is (similar to the one I just provided for 'internet' - "disparate > networks tied together with packet switches which examine the internet-layer > headers")? > ... > Noel --- Oh goody; when the "intranet" vs. "an internet" vs. "The Internet" discussion finally gets boring we can argue over the meaning and function of "switches" vs. "routers" vs. "hubs". m
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
Hello all, So I had an internet when I had my Amigas networked to my Windoze machines with Arcnet and the Windoze machines where connected to the Internet through a router/firewall. Correct?? GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/25/2019 2:45 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > From: Nigel Johnson > No, your home has an intranet! Can you please provide a crisp, definitive, technical definition of what an 'intranet' is (similar to the one I just provided for 'internet' - "disparate networks tied together with packet switches which examine the internet-layer headers")? If not, it's just marketing-speak, and should go where "Hitchhiker's Guide" said marketing should go. (Having said that, only half-jokingly, I should add that I am fully aware that _really good_ marketing people are worth their own weight in gold-pressed latinum; the prime example being Steve Jobs, who invented several products that people didn't know they needed/wanted until he produced them.) > From: Paul Koning > No, "internet" has (had?) a very different meaning. Loosely, a network > of computers belonging to different organizations, or using different > technologies. That's not the definition used by the originators of the term: see the Cerf/Kahn paper. (I basically regurgitated it, above.) > "Internet" .. the term picked to replace "ARPAnet" when it became > desirable to call that network by a name that doesn't designate it as a > US government research agency creation. I can guarantee you that that is not correct (sorry). In 1982, which is approximately when the term was created, you _had_ to have a USG connection to get connected to the Internet. And the ARPANET was always called the ARPANET until its last remnants were turned off in 1990 (although use of NCP was discarded in January 1983, considerably earlier, so it was only used as a component of the Internet after that). In fact, I recollect the conversion with Vint Cerf (at an INENG/IETF meeting, IIRC) where the term 'Internet' was suggested/adopted; in fact I may have been the person who suggested it, although the memory is now too dim. The adoption was _solely_ to do with the need for a name for the large internet we were all connecting to, and _nothing_ to do with organizational stuff. Noel
Correction for First Internet Message
I apologize for the wrong date. Should have said Nov. 21, 1969. Makes more sense timewise... Happy computing Murray ☺
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
seen recently: "Ah, but was it porn, spam, or pop-up ads that really fueled the development of the interwebs?"
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
On 2019-Nov-25, at 11:01 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: >> On Nov 25, 2019, at 1:45 PM, Richard Pope via cctalk >> wrote: >> On 11/25/2019 12:06 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: From: Fred Cisin Is that message about 1) history of internet? (THANK YOU for specifying "internet", otherwise "computer to computer" involves much older history. ... those messages were sent on PRECURSORS to the internet, NOT on the internet. >>> >>> Did you mean "internet" or 'Internet'? >>> >>> The poorly educated cretins at the AP nothwithstanding, those are two >>> different words, with _different meanings_. >>> ... >> >> Noel, >> Isn't the proper term for my network of computers here at home: internet >> and the term : Internet the proper term for the worldwide collection of >> networked computers? >> >> rich > No, "internet" has (had?) a very different meaning. Loosely, a network of > computers belonging to different organizations, or using different > technologies. I think at the time, "network" was used to designate a > collection of computers in a single building, or under single management, > talking to each other. If you connect such "networks" together, the result > is an "internet". > > I'd say that term is at this point rather obsolete. I don't think I've seen > it in use as a technical term for decades. > > "Internet", with a capital letter, is something different entirely: it is (or > feels like) the term picked to replace "ARPAnet" when it became desirable to > call that network by a name that doesn't designate it as a US government > research agency creation. > paul (From my recollection from back in the early 80s), "internet" was about interworking between different *types* of networks. Different types of networks and network technologies presented different capabilities and restrictions to the user - packet/frame sizes, flow control, routing/addressing specification, etc. The point of 'internetting' was to provide a uniform interface for the user to 'the network' while your data could flow through instances of all sorts of different types of networks (not necessarily just different types of physical links) to get to the other end. Roughly, IP took care of a common addressing scheme and a common packet presentation, TCP took care of end-to-end flow control. (It wasn't (only) about bridging geographically-separated but otherwise-similar networks.) It seems this is so all-encompassing nowadays that the original meaning is being lost. As so much nowadays is about throwing ethernet frames around on different types of links and network formats (not what ethernet was originally designed for), some of the earlier diversity that made 'interneting' necessary may no longer be there. It might be arguable whether we have an 'internet' any longer or just a great big 'network' with different types of links.
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
> From: Nigel Johnson > No, your home has an intranet! Can you please provide a crisp, definitive, technical definition of what an 'intranet' is (similar to the one I just provided for 'internet' - "disparate networks tied together with packet switches which examine the internet-layer headers")? If not, it's just marketing-speak, and should go where "Hitchhiker's Guide" said marketing should go. (Having said that, only half-jokingly, I should add that I am fully aware that _really good_ marketing people are worth their own weight in gold-pressed latinum; the prime example being Steve Jobs, who invented several products that people didn't know they needed/wanted until he produced them.) > From: Paul Koning > No, "internet" has (had?) a very different meaning. Loosely, a network > of computers belonging to different organizations, or using different > technologies. That's not the definition used by the originators of the term: see the Cerf/Kahn paper. (I basically regurgitated it, above.) > "Internet" .. the term picked to replace "ARPAnet" when it became > desirable to call that network by a name that doesn't designate it as a > US government research agency creation. I can guarantee you that that is not correct (sorry). In 1982, which is approximately when the term was created, you _had_ to have a USG connection to get connected to the Internet. And the ARPANET was always called the ARPANET until its last remnants were turned off in 1990 (although use of NCP was discarded in January 1983, considerably earlier, so it was only used as a component of the Internet after that). In fact, I recollect the conversion with Vint Cerf (at an INENG/IETF meeting, IIRC) where the term 'Internet' was suggested/adopted; in fact I may have been the person who suggested it, although the memory is now too dim. The adoption was _solely_ to do with the need for a name for the large internet we were all connecting to, and _nothing_ to do with organizational stuff. Noel
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/25/19 2:56 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 11/25/19 11:38 AM, William Donzelli wrote: >>> Does nobody remember AUTODIN? >> >> Basically, no. > > Yeah. That's what I thought--or even WWMCCS. > Well, just to keep a lot people from going to bed tonite in tears. :-) Having been military communicator starting in the late 60's I remember both AUTODIN and WWMCCS. bill
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
> From: Richard Pope
> Isn't the proper term for my network of computers here at home:
> internet
It depends on what's inside it.
An 'internet' is a collection of disparate networks tied together with packet
switches which examine the internet-layer headers of the packets passing
through them (such boxes are now known as 'routers'). The "internet layer"
doesn't appear in the ISO 7-layer model, since the concept didn't appear
until after that was done; but you can imagine it as layer '3A', crammed in
between 3 ('Network') and 4 ('Transport').
Note that there are a number of networking protocol families that include the
internet concept; CHAOS, PUP, XNS and DECnet among them (although there are
several versions of DECnet and I no longer remember the details of most of
them, so take that one with the proverbial grain, but several had internets).
Does does the network in your house use router(s) to tie it together? If so,
it's an internet; if not, no. If you have a wireless hub, connected to a CATV
modem, you probably have a small piece of 'the Internet' in your house. (See
below.)
Note that there are still internets (and networks) which are not connected to
the Internet - Google for "air gap".
> and the term : Internet the proper term for the worldwide collection of
> networked computers?
Originally 'the Internet' was the large TCP/IP internet centered around the
ARPANET, and later the NSFNET.
These days, the concept is more diffuse - there was some discussion recently
on the internet-history list:
http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/
about it, but I'm too lazy to track down the exact messages.
Noel
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/25/19 11:38 AM, William Donzelli wrote: >> Does nobody remember AUTODIN? > > Basically, no. Yeah. That's what I thought--or even WWMCCS. --Chuck
Re: First Internet message and ...
> Does nobody remember AUTODIN? Basically, no. -- Will
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/25/19 11:15 AM, alan--- via cctalk wrote: > > Taking the risk of opening another can of worms... > > ARPANET wasn't the first large scale data network. I believe SITA HLN > was world-wide by 1969. However it was a mix of switching technologies > from fully automated to manual depending on what part of the world you > were in. Frankfurt was the first SITA node to transition to fully > automatic data routing in 1966. > > And ARPANET wasn't the largest data network when TCP/IP was formalized > in the early 80s. We only recognize it as the 'Internet' because of > it's lineage. Does nobody remember AUTODIN? --Chuck
Re: First Internet message and ...
> ARPANET wasn't the first large scale data network. I believe SITA HLN > was world-wide by 1969. However it was a mix of switching technologies > from fully automated to manual depending on what part of the world you > were in. Frankfurt was the first SITA node to transition to fully > automatic data routing in 1966. AUTODIN was also worldwide by the late 1960s. While it did not allow interactivity between computers - well, back then that really was not much of a thing - It did allow email and generic file transfer (stack of cards - what a file was back then) between varying computer systems. And then there was a Western Electric system that I forget the name of. I have one of the tape drive racks in my garage (videos of this and my AUTODIN junk eventually).. -- Will
Re: First Internet message and ...
Taking the risk of opening another can of worms... ARPANET wasn't the first large scale data network. I believe SITA HLN was world-wide by 1969. However it was a mix of switching technologies from fully automated to manual depending on what part of the world you were in. Frankfurt was the first SITA node to transition to fully automatic data routing in 1966. And ARPANET wasn't the largest data network when TCP/IP was formalized in the early 80s. We only recognize it as the 'Internet' because of it's lineage. -Alan On 2019-11-24 17:07, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: The first Internet message was sent 60 yrs. ago on Nov. 21 between SRI and UCLA. It was one-to-many, or more accurate one-to-one, but the world today is many-to-many though cctalk runs through a moderator. The Internet democratizes and gives a certain freedom to us all but it can lead to mis-information from "one" or mis-interpretation by the "many". Computerization of society as seen through cctalk tells this story well mainly through the hardware side. Happy computing. Murray ☺
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
No, "internet" has (had?) a very different meaning. Loosely, a network of computers belonging to different organizations, or using different technologies. I think at the time, "network" was used to designate a collection of computers in a single building, or under single management, talking to each other. If you connect such "networks" together, the result is an "internet". I'd say that term is at this point rather obsolete. I don't think I've seen it in use as a technical term for decades. "Internet", with a capital letter, is something different entirely: it is (or feels like) the term picked to replace "ARPAnet" when it became desirable to call that network by a name that doesn't designate it as a US government research agency creation. paul > On Nov 25, 2019, at 1:45 PM, Richard Pope via cctalk > wrote: > > Noel, >Isn't the proper term for my network of computers here at home: internet > and the term : Internet the proper term for the worldwide collection of > networked computers? > GOD Bless and Thanks, > rich! > > On 11/25/2019 12:06 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: >> > From: Fred Cisin >> >> > Is that message about 1) history of internet? (THANK YOU for specifying >> > "internet", otherwise "computer to computer" involves much older >> history. >> > ... >> > those messages were sent on PRECURSORS to the internet, NOT on the >> > internet. >> >> Did you mean "internet" or 'Internet'? >> >> The poorly educated cretins at the AP nothwithstanding, those are two >> different words, with _different meanings_. >> ...
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
Nigel, You are correct. Sorry! A Senior moment. LOL! :) What about internet vs Internet? GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/25/2019 12:53 PM, Nigel Johnson via cctalk wrote: No, your home has an intranet! cheers, Nigel On 25/11/2019 13:45, Richard Pope via cctalk wrote: Noel, Isn't the proper term for my network of computers here at home: internet and the term : Internet the proper term for the worldwide collection of networked computers? GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/25/2019 12:06 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > From: Fred Cisin > Is that message about 1) history of internet? (THANK YOU for specifying > "internet", otherwise "computer to computer" involves much older history. > ... > those messages were sent on PRECURSORS to the internet, NOT on the > internet. Did you mean "internet" or 'Internet'? The poorly educated cretins at the AP nothwithstanding, those are two different words, with _different meanings_. > Definition and history of the WORD "internet" is also critical > ... > do you know of any actual use of the word/name "internet" prior to the > December 1974 RFC about TCP? I believe the word 'internet' was coined for: V. Cerf and R. Kahn, "A Protocol For Packet Network Intercommunication," IEEE Transactions on Communication, vol. C- 2O, No. 5. May 1974, pp. 637-648. There was earlier work in the general area of connecting computer data networks together, performed in the International Packet Network Working Group (INWG), which had an alternative term 'catenet' which had much the same meaning as 'internet'. (Although little-known, the INWG - not to be confused with the later DARPA-centric group of the same acronym - is documented in two papers, a draft one by Ronda Hauben, and a later one by Alex McKenzie.) I don't know if the term 'internet' was used there before its appearance in the Cerf/Kakhn paper. Interestingly, "Internetworking" is mentioned in RFC604, December 1973, so the word was in circulation in the technical community before the Cerf/Kahn paper came out. "Internet" came along later, when we needed a name for the internet centered around the ARPANET. The need was discussed on the then-central email list for the TCP/IP community (which may have been called 'inwg' - my memory is, alas, fading), and we decided on 'Internet'. I'd previously looked for the first use of 'Internet' in that sense in the RFC's, and found it, but I don't remember what it was! Looking again, there's a lot of 'Internet Protocol' and similar things to sort out; I see an 'Internet' in RFC780, May 1981, but it's marginal (it says "ARPA Internet"); the first 'true' use of 'Internet' on its own in the current meaning which I found was in RFC821, August 1982. Noel
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
No, your home has an intranet! cheers, Nigel On 25/11/2019 13:45, Richard Pope via cctalk wrote: Noel, Isn't the proper term for my network of computers here at home: internet and the term : Internet the proper term for the worldwide collection of networked computers? GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/25/2019 12:06 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > From: Fred Cisin > Is that message about 1) history of internet? (THANK YOU for specifying > "internet", otherwise "computer to computer" involves much older history. > ... > those messages were sent on PRECURSORS to the internet, NOT on the > internet. Did you mean "internet" or 'Internet'? The poorly educated cretins at the AP nothwithstanding, those are two different words, with _different meanings_. > Definition and history of the WORD "internet" is also critical > ... > do you know of any actual use of the word/name "internet" prior to the > December 1974 RFC about TCP? I believe the word 'internet' was coined for: V. Cerf and R. Kahn, "A Protocol For Packet Network Intercommunication," IEEE Transactions on Communication, vol. C- 2O, No. 5. May 1974, pp. 637-648. There was earlier work in the general area of connecting computer data networks together, performed in the International Packet Network Working Group (INWG), which had an alternative term 'catenet' which had much the same meaning as 'internet'. (Although little-known, the INWG - not to be confused with the later DARPA-centric group of the same acronym - is documented in two papers, a draft one by Ronda Hauben, and a later one by Alex McKenzie.) I don't know if the term 'internet' was used there before its appearance in the Cerf/Kakhn paper. Interestingly, "Internetworking" is mentioned in RFC604, December 1973, so the word was in circulation in the technical community before the Cerf/Kahn paper came out. "Internet" came along later, when we needed a name for the internet centered around the ARPANET. The need was discussed on the then-central email list for the TCP/IP community (which may have been called 'inwg' - my memory is, alas, fading), and we decided on 'Internet'. I'd previously looked for the first use of 'Internet' in that sense in the RFC's, and found it, but I don't remember what it was! Looking again, there's a lot of 'Internet Protocol' and similar things to sort out; I see an 'Internet' in RFC780, May 1981, but it's marginal (it says "ARPA Internet"); the first 'true' use of 'Internet' on its own in the current meaning which I found was in RFC821, August 1982. Noel -- Nigel Johnson MSc., MIEEE VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept! You can reach me by voice on Skype: TILBURY2591 If time travel ever will be possible, it already is. Ask me again yesterday This e-mail is not and cannot, by its nature, be confidential. En route from me to you, it will pass across the public Internet, easily readable by any number of system administrators along the way. Nigel Johnson Please consider the environment when deciding if you really need to print this message
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
Noel, Isn't the proper term for my network of computers here at home: internet and the term : Internet the proper term for the worldwide collection of networked computers? GOD Bless and Thanks, rich! On 11/25/2019 12:06 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > From: Fred Cisin > Is that message about 1) history of internet? (THANK YOU for specifying > "internet", otherwise "computer to computer" involves much older history. > ... > those messages were sent on PRECURSORS to the internet, NOT on the > internet. Did you mean "internet" or 'Internet'? The poorly educated cretins at the AP nothwithstanding, those are two different words, with _different meanings_. > Definition and history of the WORD "internet" is also critical > ... > do you know of any actual use of the word/name "internet" prior to the > December 1974 RFC about TCP? I believe the word 'internet' was coined for: V. Cerf and R. Kahn, "A Protocol For Packet Network Intercommunication," IEEE Transactions on Communication, vol. C- 2O, No. 5. May 1974, pp. 637-648. There was earlier work in the general area of connecting computer data networks together, performed in the International Packet Network Working Group (INWG), which had an alternative term 'catenet' which had much the same meaning as 'internet'. (Although little-known, the INWG - not to be confused with the later DARPA-centric group of the same acronym - is documented in two papers, a draft one by Ronda Hauben, and a later one by Alex McKenzie.) I don't know if the term 'internet' was used there before its appearance in the Cerf/Kakhn paper. Interestingly, "Internetworking" is mentioned in RFC604, December 1973, so the word was in circulation in the technical community before the Cerf/Kahn paper came out. "Internet" came along later, when we needed a name for the internet centered around the ARPANET. The need was discussed on the then-central email list for the TCP/IP community (which may have been called 'inwg' - my memory is, alas, fading), and we decided on 'Internet'. I'd previously looked for the first use of 'Internet' in that sense in the RFC's, and found it, but I don't remember what it was! Looking again, there's a lot of 'Internet Protocol' and similar things to sort out; I see an 'Internet' in RFC780, May 1981, but it's marginal (it says "ARPA Internet"); the first 'true' use of 'Internet' on its own in the current meaning which I found was in RFC821, August 1982. Noel
Re: "First Internet message" and ...
> From: Fred Cisin > Is that message about 1) history of internet? (THANK YOU for specifying > "internet", otherwise "computer to computer" involves much older history. > ... > those messages were sent on PRECURSORS to the internet, NOT on the > internet. Did you mean "internet" or 'Internet'? The poorly educated cretins at the AP nothwithstanding, those are two different words, with _different meanings_. > Definition and history of the WORD "internet" is also critical > ... > do you know of any actual use of the word/name "internet" prior to the > December 1974 RFC about TCP? I believe the word 'internet' was coined for: V. Cerf and R. Kahn, "A Protocol For Packet Network Intercommunication," IEEE Transactions on Communication, vol. C- 2O, No. 5. May 1974, pp. 637-648. There was earlier work in the general area of connecting computer data networks together, performed in the International Packet Network Working Group (INWG), which had an alternative term 'catenet' which had much the same meaning as 'internet'. (Although little-known, the INWG - not to be confused with the later DARPA-centric group of the same acronym - is documented in two papers, a draft one by Ronda Hauben, and a later one by Alex McKenzie.) I don't know if the term 'internet' was used there before its appearance in the Cerf/Kakhn paper. Interestingly, "Internetworking" is mentioned in RFC604, December 1973, so the word was in circulation in the technical community before the Cerf/Kahn paper came out. "Internet" came along later, when we needed a name for the internet centered around the ARPANET. The need was discussed on the then-central email list for the TCP/IP community (which may have been called 'inwg' - my memory is, alas, fading), and we decided on 'Internet'. I'd previously looked for the first use of 'Internet' in that sense in the RFC's, and found it, but I don't remember what it was! Looking again, there's a lot of 'Internet Protocol' and similar things to sort out; I see an 'Internet' in RFC780, May 1981, but it's marginal (it says "ARPA Internet"); the first 'true' use of 'Internet' on its own in the current meaning which I found was in RFC821, August 1982. Noel
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/25/19 8:55 AM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote: > Like most things, the colors of computer networking history get > extremely blurred and runny, like using watercolors on toilet paper. A lot on the subject has been written. Sometimes they even go back to primary sources. Most times, they just regurgitate what others have written. Maybe things will get better as access to the primary sources that still exist gets requires less work.
Re: First Internet message and ...
> 2019 - 60 = 1959. Yes, there were a few computers then, and > serial communication over phone lines was possible. > But, "Internet"?? Did they actually use TCP/IP? No, not > invented yet. Like most things, the colors of computer networking history get extremely blurred and runny, like using watercolors on toilet paper. -- Will
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/24/2019 04:07 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: The first Internet message was sent 60 yrs. ago on Nov. 21 between SRI and UCLA. 2019 - 60 = 1959. Yes, there were a few computers then, and serial communication over phone lines was possible. But, "Internet"?? Did they actually use TCP/IP? No, not invented yet. Jon
Re: First Internet message and ...
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 05:38, Jim Manley via cctalk wrote: > > One of my special tours at the CHM is "Mistakes That Kept Getting Repeated" That is something I would _really_ like to hear. Sadly I am on the wrong continent for it and that's not likely to change in the foreseeable future. Between new baby, Eastern European salary, US government and its dim view of journalists, greenhouse-gas footprint of gratuitous intercontinental travel and so on, I may never visit North America again. -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
