RE: Pair of Twiggys

From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Paul Koning via cctalk [cctalk@classiccmp.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 10:09 AM To: Liam Proven; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Pair of Twiggys > On Mar

Re: Pair of Twiggys

> On Mar 22, 2017, at 10:04 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk > wrote: > ... > I'm not aware of any significant amount of GPL code in either. Linux > has a regrettable history of nicking BSD-licensed code and slapping > the GPL on it, but not the other way round, AFAIK. I think

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 21 March 2017 at 18:32, Ray Arachelian via cctalk wrote: > (And meanwhile AAPL is busy, or was, getting rid of all GPL stuff in its > OS.) Darwin is mostly BSD-licensed and includes significant quantities of code from FreeBSD, which is why Apple hired Jordan Hubbard.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/16/2017 11:28 AM, geneb via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: > >> I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to make it >> >> 202x All the world's an ARM running Android >> > on Linux. :) Actually goog's trying to get rid of the linux and replacing it with

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 15 March 2017 at 20:15, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: > Android runs a hacked BSD libc on top of a linux kernel. More than a bit of an oversimplification. Android has its own libc. It contains some portions from the BSD one, but is not a modified version.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 15 March 2017 at 20:05, geneb via cctalk wrote: > Why? The old nonsense still works! I gotta bring it out now and again to > keep the rust off and the joints moving freely. :) :-D > ITYM, "more buttons confuse those with cognitive delay". :) This isn't a great

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 15 March 2017 at 18:50, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: > Steve Capps was the only person on the original Mac team who worked at PARC. Larry Tesler Tom Molloy Bruce Horn Op cit -- http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc/3 I may be

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 15 March 2017 at 18:40, Josh Dersch wrote: > The Star introduced the concept of icons representing files (and other > things) in 1981. Smalltalk invented scrollbars (they were clumsier than > Apple's though) in the mid 70s. > > Also, don't forget that the Mac was designed

CDC 1700 Fortran [Was: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys]

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:16:20AM -0400, John Forecast via cctalk wrote: > > I just released a new version of the CDC 1700 simulator for SIMH. This > is a one’s complement, 16-bit machine and the Fortran compiler is now > functional in 16KW of available space (a smaller version (12KW) was >

Re: Portability of Fortran - was Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/19/2017 02:14 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: > "The Fortran codes implementing the most effective methods are > provided in the included diskette. The codes are portable on virtually > any computer, extensively commented and---hopefully---easy to use." Take a look at early ACM CALGO

Portability of Fortran - was Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 2017-03-17 2:56 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 03/17/2017 11:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote: Not quite true. ALGOL was the first choice for a couple of architectures: Electrologica X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes. And I supposed you could claim that status for Bliss in the case of

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 2017-03-17 3:19 PM, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote: From: Chuck Guzis Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:27 AM On 03/17/2017 11:09 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: and, although we don't know when YOU were playing it, the march had been around half a century, so was probably playing on the

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

> On Mar 19, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk > wrote: > > ... > Still, vendors kept extending their FORTRAN IVs. I think I remarked on > a CDC syntactic extension that resulted in the ability to write an > ambiguous statement, with no clear way to resolve the

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/19/2017 08:04 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > FORTRAN. FORTRAN D (DOS/360), F and G (OS/360), which were FORTRAN > IV compilers (retronamed "Fortran 66"). VAX/VMS Fortran 77, except > most VAXen of the day you seem to be talking about ran BSD Unix and > Fortran was handled by f2c.

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

> On 19 Mar 2017, at 16:14 , Paul Koning via cctalk > wrote: > > >> On Mar 19, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk >> wrote: >> ... >> That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals, the Fortran people drank from >> the OO KoolAid. >

RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

> FORTRAN was, and still is, widespread, even if it doesn't look > anything like itself these days. On Sun, 19 Mar 2017, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals, the Fortran people drank from the OO KoolAid. Yes, there does exist an Object Oriented

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

> On Mar 19, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk > wrote: > ... > That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals, the Fortran people drank from > the OO KoolAid. Speaking of OO and COBOL, a colleage of mine has a button with the text "ADD 1 TO COBOL".

RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Rich Alderson via cctalk [cctalk@classiccmp.org] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 3:07 PM To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts' Subject: RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair

RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

From: ben Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:28 PM > On 3/16/2017 5:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: >> From: Chuck Guzis >> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM >>> And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the closest >>> thing to a "portable" language... >> Not

RE: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

From: Chuck Guzis Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:27 AM > On 03/17/2017 11:09 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: >> and, although we don't know when YOU were playing it, the march had >> been around half a century, so was probably playing on the radio to >> inspire Backus. Does that mean that

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/17/2017 11:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > Not quite true. ALGOL was the first choice for a couple of > architectures: Electrologica X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes. > And I supposed you could claim that status for Bliss in the case of > VAXen, though in a different sense there was a

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/17/2017 11:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > Not quite true. ALGOL was the first choice for a couple of > architectures: Electrologica X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes. > And I supposed you could claim that status for Bliss in the case of > VAXen, though in a different sense there was a

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

> On Mar 17, 2017, at 2:26 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk > wrote: > > ... > It wasn't until the microcomputer era with BASIC, I think that FORTRAN > wasn't the first HLL to be contemplated for a new architecture. Not quite true. ALGOL was the first choice for a couple of

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/17/2017 11:09 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > and, although we don't know when YOU were playing it, the march had > been around half a century, so was probably playing on the radio to > inspire Backus. Does that mean that Dan. might be right about it > being the predecessor to FORTRAN?

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

In response to a question of who provided the Lisa FORTRAN, guy who insisted that Valtrep was the predecessor of FORTRAN 'course he also had OS/2 for the PDP-11, and a PROGRAM that could duplicate alignment disks, . . . Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen? It's Valdres

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/17/2017 10:06 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > Oh, I know--I was making a joke. It's a fine march and I've > performed it in convert bands many times. Er, make that "concert bands" --Chuck

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/17/2017 06:46 AM, Torfinn Ingolfsen via cctalk wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk > wrote: >> On 03/16/2017 08:19 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: >> >> >> Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen? > > It's Valdres

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

> On Mar 17, 2017, at 9:05 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk > wrote: > > >> On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:28 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: >> >> But was FORTRAN that portable? >> Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer >> that had ample I/O and

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 03/16/2017 08:19 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > > Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen? It's Valdres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdres and Valdres march. -- Regards, Torfinn

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

> On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:28 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > > But was FORTRAN that portable? > Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer > that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the > other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O. > I

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/16/2017 08:19 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > In response to a question of who provided the Lisa FORTRAN, guy who > insisted that Valtrep was the predecessor of FORTRAN 'course he also > had OS/2 for the PDP-11, and a PROGRAM that could duplicate alignment > disks, . . . Oh jeez, not

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/16/2017 06:28 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > But was FORTRAN that portable? Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think > of a small computer that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile > FORTRAN. All the other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O. I > suspect 90% of all university computers

RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of ben via cctalk [cctalk@classiccmp.org] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 9:28 PM To: computer talk Subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys On 3/16/2017 5:16 PM, Bill

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

Who was it who said, "FORTRAN is more portable than syphilis" I found it! I thought Djikstra, but it turned out to be Stan Kelly-Bootle: "The definition of FORTRAN from the "Devil's DP Dictionary", by Stan Kelly-Bootle: "FORTRAN n. [Acronym for FORmula TRANslating system.] One of the earliest

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, ben via cctalk wrote: But was FORTRAN that portable? Who was it who said, "FORTRAN is more portable than syphilis" Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the other 16 bitters seem to more

Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

Subject: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys On 03/16/2017 02:54 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote: On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find latent bugs. T

RE: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Chuck Guzis via cctalk [cctalk@classiccmp.org] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/16/2017 02:54 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk > wrote: >>> Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find >>> latent bugs. >> >> Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk wrote: >> Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find latent bugs. > > Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating systems*, > let alone architectures. I'm one of the folks

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

> > I politely suggested they should go back and read up on what > > "undefined" means and then go fix their code... > > Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find latent bugs. Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating systems*, let alone

Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 2017-03-16 5:09 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote: Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of "portable code" seems to have morphed into "can be built on two or

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: > On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote: >> Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of "portable code" seems to have >> morphed into "can be built on two or three different flavours of Linux"? >

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:28 AM, geneb via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: > >> I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to make it >> >> 202x All the world's an ARM running Android >> > on Linux. :) Kinda... It's a forked Linux kernel

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to make it 202x All the world's an ARM running Android on Linux. :) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Mar 15, 2017 3:28 PM, "Fred Cisin via cctalk" wrote: > I was surprised that Jobs didn't make the Lisa floppy 5.0 or 5.5 inches, I assume that Apple wanted to get at least a small benefit of economy of scale from media manufacturers not having to retool for a different

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 2017-03-15 7:02 PM, Warner Losh wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote: The whole idea of an "operating system" seems to have morphed into the notion of a user interface. To my

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 3/15/2017 5:02 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote: The whole idea of an "operating system" seems to have morphed into the notion of a user interface.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: > On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote: >>> >>> >>> The whole idea of an "operating system" seems to have morphed into the >>> notion of a user interface. >>> >>> To my way of thinking,t he

Re: Pair of Twiggys

to be junk even new, which is why they changed the model to use the Sony 3.5" drives. -Original Message- From: Chuck Guzis via cctalk Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 4:40 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Pair of Twiggys I always wondered

Re: Pair of Twiggys

> Smalltalk invented scrollbars (they were clumsier than > Apple's though) in the mid 70s. Right. The typical desktop scroll bar as thought of today, however, like typical desktop windows and menus, are largely an Apple refinement if not invention. Those where already available

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: The whole idea of an "operating system" seems to have morphed into the notion of a user interface. To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user interface build on a single operating system. I recall that back in the

Re: Pair of Twiggys

> > The whole idea of an "operating system" seems to have morphed into the > notion of a user interface. > > To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user > interface build on a single operating system. > Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of "portable code" seems

Re: Pair of Twiggys

Icons for files, the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, scroll bars, all kinds of utterly basic stuff were invented at Apple. Well, other than that it wasn't.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Mar 15, 2017, at 10:40 AM, Josh Dersch via cctalk wrote: > The Star introduced the concept of icons representing files (and other > things) in 1981. According to “Inventing the Lisa User Interface,” Apple put emphasis on icons in the Lisa interface in its Marketing

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:13 PM, geneb via cctalk wrote: On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux? I'm pretty sure Android runs on top of Linux. Android

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/15/2017 12:10 PM, Todd Goodman via cctalk wrote: > * Fred Cisin via cctalk [170315 14:48]: > [..SNIP..] >> >> Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux? > > [..SNIP..] > > I'd argue that the OS used by Android *is* Linux (with some small >

Re: Pair of Twiggys

This one is quantifiable and measurable. More buttons means more cognitive delay. On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, js--- via cctalk wrote: Maybe cognitive delay is a good thing. Separates the wheat from the chaff. hmmm. Eg. "God forbid" there be automobiles with only one button (start). They are

Re: Pair of Twiggys

Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux? On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:13 PM, geneb via cctalk wrote: I'm pretty sure Android runs on top of Linux. On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: Android runs a hacked BSD libc on top of a linux

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:13 PM, geneb via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > >> Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux? >> > I'm pretty sure Android runs on top of Linux. Android runs a hacked BSD libc on top of a linux

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux? I'm pretty sure Android runs on top of Linux. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated

Re: Pair of Twiggys

* Fred Cisin via cctalk [170315 14:48]: [..SNIP..] > > Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux? [..SNIP..] I'd argue that the OS used by Android *is* Linux (with some small modifications.) Of course the user interface and lots of other functions is a

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Liam Proven wrote: Yeah, god forbid you confuse the poor user with more than one button. Jeez, Gene, can't you find some _new_ nonsense? Why? The old nonsense still works! I gotta bring it out now and again to keep the rust off and the joints moving freely. :) This

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: It's also, I think, a big part of the causality for another Apple characteristic: their push for closed systems. The thing is that Steve wanted to make the user experience as good as possible (another hallmark of Apple stuff) - and when the

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 3/15/17 11:08 AM, Josh Dersch wrote: > Wasn't Bruce Horn at PARC (at least as a student?). yes, he worked in the Smalltalk group. I also forgot about Bob Beleville.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > On 3/15/17 10:40 AM, Josh Dersch via cctalk wrote: > > the Mac was designed by a number of ex-PARC > > researchers. > > Steve Capps was the only person on the original Mac team who worked at > PARC. >

Re: Pair of Twiggys

> On 15 Mar 2017, at 16:37 , Noel Chiappa via cctalk > wrote: > >> From: Raymond Wiker > >> Steve Jobs ... was also a stickler for perfection and largely unwilling >> to make compromises. > > Absolutely; and that's a large part of the reason for the success of Apple. >

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 3/15/17 10:40 AM, Josh Dersch via cctalk wrote: > the Mac was designed by a number of ex-PARC > researchers. Steve Capps was the only person on the original Mac team who worked at PARC. They were influenced strongly by the UI and graphics work of Lisa. There were several ex-Xerox (PARC and

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On 15 March 2017 at 14:17, geneb via cctalk wrote: > > Well hooray for Xerox. Apple still obtained the concepts from Xerox, > > regardless of the mechanism. > > Only some and only

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 15 March 2017 at 18:19, js--- via cctalk wrote: > Maybe cognitive delay is a good thing. Separates the wheat from the chaff. > > Eg. "God forbid" there be automobiles with only one button (start). Heh! Good point. -- Liam Proven • Profile:

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 3/15/2017 11:35 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: On 15 March 2017 at 14:17, geneb via cctalk wrote: Well hooray for Xerox. Apple still obtained the concepts from Xerox, regardless of the mechanism. Only some and only very basic ones. Icons for files, the "OK"

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 15 March 2017 at 14:17, geneb via cctalk wrote: > Well hooray for Xerox. Apple still obtained the concepts from Xerox, > regardless of the mechanism. Only some and only very basic ones. Icons for files, the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, scroll bars, all kinds of utterly

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 15 March 2017 at 02:23, Chris Hanson via cctalk wrote: > A lot of research and development went into the Lisa and Macintosh > interfaces. They weren’t just “copied from Xerox.” If you sit someone who > knows how to use a Mac in front of a circa-1979 Xerox Alto, they’ll

Re: Pair of Twiggys

> From: Raymond Wiker > Steve Jobs ... was also a stickler for perfection and largely unwilling > to make compromises. Absolutely; and that's a large part of the reason for the success of Apple. His products were just really well done. It's also, I think, a big part of the causality

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Raymond Wiker wrote: On 14 Mar 2017, at 23:49 , TeoZ via cctalk wrote: Jobs had to get fired for Apple to recall the expansion capabilities of the Apple II days and start making the Mac II series. Jobs left Apple in 1985 and returned in 1997. The

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Chris Hanson wrote: On Mar 14, 2017, at 1:46 PM, geneb via cctalk wrote: Although I suppose you might have been talking about the software. I mean, without that whole display/windows/menu/mouse thing he copied from Xerox, to allow ordinary people

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Zane Healy wrote: I’m reminded of the current, and ludicrous, Mac Pro. :-( I wish the reply-to pointed at cctalk@classiccmp.org! I just took a peek at the Mac Pro. People actually buy that thing? I just got a Dell Dimension 7910 workstation at work. It cost around

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: When people decided Steve Jobs had become a god? Right about the time that whole "computer for the rest of us" started... an unreliable source, who was working in Apple at the time, said that it was being touted "for the unwashed masses, or

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/14/2017 10:02 PM, Sam O'nella via cctalk wrote: > This statement is hurting my brain. I was never an Apple (company) > user or fan but personally felt the Apple product line was hacker > friendly before the Apple II c threatened to void your warranty if > opened, then the Mac seemed to

Re: Pair of Twiggys

> On 14 Mar 2017, at 23:49 , TeoZ via cctalk wrote: > > Jobs had to get fired for Apple to recall the expansion capabilities of the > Apple II days and start making the Mac II series. Jobs left Apple in 1985 and returned in 1997. The Macintosh II was introduced in 1987;

Re: Pair of Twiggys

org> Date: 3/14/17 5:49 PM (GMT-06:00) To: geneb <ge...@deltasoft.com>, "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk@classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: Pair of Twiggys Jobs had to get fired for Apple to recall the expansion capabilities of the Apple II days

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 3/14/2017 9:52 PM, Sam O'nella via cctalk wrote: And the answer is $32,100.52 (plus $20.95 >shipping) Ugh.. they always get ya on the shipping. Mr. 595 must be pissed off. guess he thought 32000 was a ridiculous enough high number he'd win.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

Original message From: Glen Slick via cctalk wrote: >> >> www.ebay.com/itm/122383386508 >> >> still a few hours to go, hovering at $20K > > >And the answer is $32,100.52 (plus $20.95 >shipping) Ugh.. they always get ya on the shipping.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: > > www.ebay.com/itm/122383386508 > > still a few hours to go, hovering at $20K > And the answer is $32,100.52 (plus $20.95 shipping)

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 3/14/17 6:23 PM, Chris Hanson via cctalk wrote: > a large portion is documented in “Inventing the Lisa Human Interface,” a > retrospective paper written by a couple of the Lisa folks for ACM’s > Interactions journal about 20 years ago. >

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Mar 14, 2017, at 1:46 PM, geneb via cctalk wrote: > >> Although I suppose you might have been talking about the software. I mean, >> without that whole display/windows/menu/mouse thing he copied from Xerox, to >> allow ordinary people to use a computer, where would we

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 2017-03-14 9:13 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: On 3/14/17 5:45 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Judging by the eBay response, it looks like a replica (or counterfeit?) would be far more valuable than a usable substitute. I keep waiting to see how much a Macintosh version of the Twiggy

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 3/14/17 5:45 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > Judging by the eBay response, it looks like a replica (or counterfeit?) would > be far more valuable than a usable > substitute. I keep waiting to see how much a Macintosh version of the Twiggy would sell for. The interface is completely

RE: Pair of Twiggys

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Brad H wrote: I'm assuming anything can be interfaced to old tech. But if I had Twiggys I do have a Lisa they could go into. Or I'd just sell them and buy something a lot more useful. :) What'd be cool if replicas could be made somehow. I don't know what all goes into a

RE: Pair of Twiggys

in the realm of possibility at least. -Original Message- From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Fred Cisin via cctalk Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 3:45 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk@classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: Pair of T

Re: Photography, was Re: Pair of Twiggys

> On Mar 14, 2017, at 3:37 PM, Kyle Owen via cctalk > wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2017 5:24 PM, "Fred Cisin via cctalk" > wrote: > > > Ah, out of touch on that, as well! > "But, you can do ANYTHING with Photoshop!" Yeah. right. > > Want a

Photography, was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Mar 14, 2017 5:24 PM, "Fred Cisin via cctalk" wrote: Ah, out of touch on that, as well! "But, you can do ANYTHING with Photoshop!" Yeah. right. Want a stabilization processor? Most of a ragged Beseler 45, plus a dichroic head that I never got around to rebuilding

Re: Pair of Twiggys

> > > > I know the Knight TV system at the AI Lab was a very early bit-mapped > display, but I don't know where the idea first appeared. (There were of > course influential earlier display systems, such as the one on SAGE, > althoug > those were of course all stroke-based systems, given the

Re: Pair of Twiggys

Good grief! When did Lisa stuff get so expensive? I just did a search for Apple Lisa on eBay. Am I this out of touch with the hobby? Yes, we are. On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Zane Healy wrote: LOL, thanks Fred! I’ll freely admit that I’m out of touch, as these days my focus is my photography.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

When people decided Steve Jobs had become a god? Right about the time that whole "computer for the rest of us" started... an unreliable source, who was working in Apple at the time, said that it was being touted "for the unwashed masses, or at least ignorant rich folk". Somebody was smart

Re: Pair of Twiggys

> On Mar 14, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk > wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: >> Good grief! When did Lisa stuff get so expensive? I just did a search for >> Apple Lisa on eBay. Am I this out of touch with the hobby? > > Yes, we

Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: Good grief! When did Lisa stuff get so expensive? I just did a search for Apple Lisa on eBay. Am I this out of touch with the hobby? Yes, we are.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

> From: geneb > I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic. :) With a steam-shovel... :-) >> that whole display/windows/menu/mouse thing he copied from Xerox > Fixed that for ya. :) Well, technically, as you probably know, the mouse came from Engelbart (well, his group; I'm

Re: Pair of Twiggys

> From: geneb > I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic. :) With a steam-shovel... :-) >> that whole display/windows/menu/mouse thing he copied from Xerox > Fixed that for ya. :) Well, technically, as you probably know, the mouse came from Engelbart (well, his group; I'm

Re: Pair of Twiggys

When most twiggy media stopped being produced and twiggy drives got thrown into the trash as people upgraded their Lisa 1 to a Lisa 2. corey cohen uǝɥoɔ ʎǝɹoɔ > On Mar 14, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Zane Healy via cctalk > wrote: > > Good grief! When did Lisa stuff get so

Re: Pair of Twiggys

> On 14 Mar 2017, at 21:31 , Noel Chiappa via cctalk > wrote: > > (Every time I hear someone saying marketing people are useless - first up > against the wall, etc - I reply 'No, only bad ones - which is a lot of them. > The very best ones, like Steve Jobs, are worth

  1   2   >