Get what? I pointed out - to someone else, not you, that contrary to their claim that it was not possible to make such a graphic on a "computer" in 1984, that it was, in fact, done a year earlier, in 1983.
Then YOU replied, "No, they did not. It was easily reproducible on an original Mac. I've done it myself, using MacPaint. . . not the Hello, but my own signature and other graphics. Quit making stuff up. MacPaint was demonstrated ON STAGE! "
You're wrong, Sword. Period. What I said is true, that's when the "hello" was made, and that's what I said. That it was ALSO "easily reproducible" in 1984, as you said, is actually what is irrelevant, because I was replying to the original statement that it was not possble to produce at the time. It was possible, and it was done a year earlier at that. That's where the "hello" came from. That's how it was made, during the MacPaint development, on a Lisa.
WTF is your problem?
"theres no way that screen image of the graphics program that spelled out hello was able to do that in 1984. Way too smooth and no pixels. It was photoshopped even though Adobes Photoshop didnt arrive until 1990."That's because it was done pixel-by-pixel in 1983 on a Lisa, and then ported to the Mac as a graphic image for the photo shoot to be ready for the product intro in 1984.
To which I replied:
"No, they did not. It was easily reproducible on an original Mac. I've done it myself, using MacPaint. . . not the "Hello", but my own signature and other graphics. Quit making stuff up. MacPaint was demonstrated ON STAGE! "
Because I saw them draw line art with MacPaint on stage with equivalent steadiness and fineness and have done it myself. It does not require being done "pixel-by-pixel" as you claimed when the computer can easily do it with the freehand tool.
The point still remains that it could be done freehand to that degree in 1984.