Opinion: Apple -- Here to Stay

MacCentral ^ | March 08, 2005 | Don Tennant

[r5boston]

Nearly a decade ago, just a few months after Microsoft shipped Windows 95, I asked Bill Gates if it was a conscious decision in the development of that product to give Windows more of a Mac look and feel. Of course I knew he'd say it wasn't, but I couldn't resist asking. "There was no goal even to compete with Macintosh," Gates proclaimed. "We don't even think of Macintosh as a competitor."

That was a crock, so I pressed the issue a little. I asked him how he accounted for the widespread perception that Windows 95 looked a lot like Mac 88, and whether the similarity was just a coincidence. I didn't expect a sobbing confession of mimicry, but I thought it would be cool to see how he'd respond. Surprisingly enough, Gates shifted gears and became more forthcoming.

[Last Visible Dog]

Obviously, you don't believe that Buckhead was the first to expose Dan Rather as a liar, you aren't aware that Karl Rove uses Macs, and you're ignorant of FreeRepublic's role in exposing Clinton scandals.

I am aware WHO exposed the fake documents (HINT: Buckhead started the process but it was the process that exposed the fakes) and one thing I know for sure - it was not a Mac computer.

[Swordmaker]

Funny... one keyboard shortcut makes all the difference and balances out the fact that what may take two mouse clicks on a Mac can take three of four on a Windows PC.

For you, the lack of one keyboard shortcut on early Mac OSs made all the difference... you liked Windows because it had that.

OK

[Last Visible Dog]

You're wrong again. No matter how many times you type "PERIOD," you're still wrong.

You don't have to be a computer illiterate to use a Mac, but it helps.

Nice of you not to print all the definitions

Hint: don't use the American Heritage Dictionary to find a definition of a technical term - use a dictionary focused on the technology:

-------------------------------------------

firmware

Software stored in read-only memory (ROM) or programmable ROM
(PROM). Easier to change than hardware but harder than
software stored on disk. Firmware is often responsible for
the behaviour of a system when it is first switched on. A
typical example would be a "monitor" program in a
microcomputer which loads the full operating system from disk
or from a network and then passes control to it.

Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2004 Denis Howe

firmware

/ferm'weir/ n. Embedded software contained in EPROM
or flash memory. It isn't quite hardware, but at least doesn't have
to be loaded from a disk like regular software. Hacker usage differs
from straight techspeak in that hackers don't normally apply it to
stuff that you can't possibly get at, such as the program that runs
a pocket calculator. Instead, it implies that the firmware could be
changed, even if doing so would mean opening a box and plugging in a
new chip. A computer's BIOS is the classic example, although
nowadays there is firmware in disk controllers, modems, video cards
and even CD-ROM drives.

Source: Jargon File 4.2.0

-------------------------------------------

Firmware

Software (programs or data) that has been written onto read-only memory (ROM). Firmware is a combination of software and hardware. ROMs, PROMs and EPROMs that have data or programs recorded on them are firmware.

The only online dictionary and search engine you need for computer and Internet technology definitions.

-------------------------------------------

firmware

Software stored in ROM or PROM; essential programs that remain even when the system is turned off.Firmware is easier to change than hardware but more permanent than software stored on disk.

-------------------------------------------

Firmware

Software stored in read-only memory (ROM) or programmable ROM (PROM). Easier to change than hardware but harder than software stored on disk. Firmware is often responsible for the behaviour of a system when it is first switched on. A typical example would be a "monitor" program in a microcomputer which loads the full operating system from disk or from a network and then passes control to it.

-------------------------------------------

firmware

A category of memory chips that hold their content without electrical power and include ROM, PROM, EPROM and EEPROM technologies. Firmware becomes "hard software" when holding program code.

-------------------------------------------

firmware

System software written onto read-only memory (ROM), it is a combination of software and hardware. ROMs, PROMs, and EPROMs are considered firmware if they have data or programs recorded on them.

-------------------------------------------

(now this one might leave a mark)

Open Firmware

The software firmware implemented on current Macintosh computers follows the standard defined by the Open Firmware IEEE 1274-1994 specification.

Open Firmware documentation

-------------------------------------------

BTW: I don't think you even understand what software is:

The definition of firmware you posted: Computer programming instructions

The definition of software: Computer instructions or data.

Like I said: You don't have to be a computer illiterate to use a Mac, but it helps.

[js1138]

Not to quibble, but CPUs also have embedded software. I'm not sure what the minimun instruction set is for a full featured computer, but it's probably less than half a dozen instructions. Intel computers have a very complex instruction set embedded in microcode.

[js1138]

...and one thing I know for sure - it was not a Mac computer.

Macs and PCs both use TrueType. How are you certain?

[Last Visible Dog]

The judge disagreed with you. He dismissed all of their claims except for one that wanted the court to recognize that Xerox owned the rights to the Star techology

Swordmaker, you do have problems with reading comprehension. I said Xerox was pissed at Apple and so they sued Apple - you attempt to discredit my statement by posting evidence my statement was factually correct. Try reading the statement before you reply. I believe you claimed Apple licensed the GUI from Xerox - clearly you were wrong and that was my point. Thank you for providing supporting evidence for my point.

A judge also tossed out Apple's lawsuit against Microsoft

My point was Xerox believed Apple stole their technology - you claimed Apple licensed the Xerox GUI which was merely more make-it-up-as-you-go-alone MacMythology.

[Petronski]

The definition of firmware you posted: Computer programming instructions

That's a lie, and you apparently do not know how to use a dictionary. Here is the definition I posted:

Computer programming instructions that are stored in a read-only memory unit rather than being implemented through software.

You can't read a definition, pick out the word you want and eliminate the rest. None of those sources you cited say that firmware=software, unless (as you're doing) one ignores all the other words in the dictionary.

The funniest part of all this is that you think your post proves your point. LOL

Also, I'm not an apple user.

[1L]

Don't take what I said out of context simply because you can't respond to it. I never said one shortcut made all the difference.

[Last Visible Dog]

Nice try yourself... David K. Every has published articles in MacWorld, ZDnet, CNN, UnixReview, Macobserver, privacy digest, and a host of other tech sites and journals.

You do have problems with reading comprehension. Mr. Every is a MacEvangelist, not an objective reporter.

As to the article, it summarizes what I knew from observing the events as a non-Mac user at the time... and he cites sources who WERE THERE... both at PARC and later at Apple.

The piece is pure propaganda because it implies Xerox was happy with Apple taking the GUI and was even complaisant - which is complete and total MacMythology. Every the MacEvangelist failed to even mention Xerox sued Apple over what Xerox believed was Apple stealing their GUI. It really does not matter how the judge ruled - the point is how Xerox felt about Apple activities related to their GUI.

HINT: Xerox sued Apple - they did not sue Microsoft.

[Last Visible Dog]

That's a lie, and you apparently do not know how to use a dictionary. Here is the definition I posted:

You too have some reading problem. Look closely - what I posted is the first three words of the definition you posted and reposted in this message. Clearly you do not understand much about computer technology. The first three words of your definition is the definition of SOFTWARE the remainder of the definition refers to how software is stored - which is what the term firmware means.

You can't read a definition, pick out the word you want and eliminate the rest. None of those sources you cited say that firmware=software, unless (as you're doing) one ignores all the other words in the dictionary.

If you don't understand the subject you are trying to debate - you're better off remaining silent rather than pretending you understand something you do not.

Every single definition I posted says Firmware is software.

The funniest part of all this is that you think your post proves your point. LOL

Now you are just making a fool out of yourself - every technical definition I posted clearly states that first and foremost firmware is software - laughing is not going to change that

Also, I'm not an apple user.

But you do seem to be computer illiterate.

[Petronski]

I posted is the first three words of the definition you posted and reposted in this message.

The first three words of the definition is not the definition. All of the words of the definition is the definition. You cannot comprehend basic facts.

If you don't understand the subject you are trying to debate - you're better off remaining silent rather than pretending you understand something you do not.

Physician, heal thyself.

[antiRepublicrat]

Try reading the statement before you reply. I believe you claimed Apple licensed the GUI from Xerox - clearly you were wrong and that was my point.

Again you are factually correct, but again you miss the larger picture. Apple gave Xerox tons of stock (IOW, paid them) to let its engineers look at and learn from the Xerox technology. You don't take money and let engineers learn from your technology without an implicit understanding that such technology may be used by those engineers in another project -- unless the guy who allowed the visit was a total idiot (something scarce at PARC)

So, no, there was no license. Yes, Xerox let Apple engineers learn from their work. Yes, Bill just looked at what he saw publicly and tried to copy.

[antiRepublicrat]

HINT: Xerox sued Apple - they did not sue Microsoft.

And they did it only after Apple came up with the idea of suing over a GUI. I doubt the suit would have happened were it not for Apple's suit.

[Last Visible Dog]

More insults. I can read quite well... perhaps your writing is unclear? You said:

No insult, just a clear observation. Cowboyway claimed:

I hear that a lot. Then I ask, "Have you ever owned one[a Mac] or even used one?" Most of the time the answer is No. End of discussion.

My comment was directed at that statement.

You jump in with your make-it-up-as-you-go-along MacMythology that I based my opinion of the Mac on a 21 year old computer. Did I say I bought the first Mac ever made? No - you made that up. My Mac has a hard drive and is from about 1989. If you actually read what I said you would have known how I base my opinion of the Mac. This is the rest of my statement:

During the 1990's I tried to justify purchasing a Mac (just for the fun of having another platform) but the Mac was inviable in the business community so there was no way to justify it. When my company first launched its web product I tried to get a Mac so we could be certain our product worked correctly on that platform but I could not justify it because in our market - the financial community (Brokers, FA's, investors) the Mac was statistically nonexistent (less than 1% of users).

Now how do I base my opinion of the Mac? I base it on the Mac's complete inviability in the financial community.

You state own an "old Mac" but Apple lost you in 1984 (or are you making a poor reference to George Orwell?)

I meant what I said. I was a big Apple fan until the Mac (which came out in 1984).

and then you stated that "During the 1990's I tried to justify purchasing a Mac", which implies your "old Mac" was older than 1990.

Yes (it was from 1989) but those statements were completely unrelated. Personally I own a Mac - in my business I tried to justify acquiring a Mac - totally unrelated statements (what was that I said about your reading comprehension?). Clearly I had no interest in using my personal 1989 Mac to test our web product in 1999.

Did I infer something you did not intend to imply?

No, your comment made no sense - it seemed clear you did not even read my statement or comprehend it - thus the "you can't read" comment. I did not justify my opinion of the Mac based on a 21 your old machine.

If so, you are still basing your opinions on outdated information and experience.

No, guess you can't read either.

[Last Visible Dog]

Did you lose your sense of humor somewhere???

Who says I am not trying to be funny. "MacBS" is not actually a serious term. This is standard computer-banter - I am not taking it too seriously - are you?

[Last Visible Dog]

IBM owned the PC business just as Apple owns the Mac business.

IBM never "owned" the PC business. Apples always owned the "Mac" business - that is a big part of the problem. I am working on a machine that is a descendant of an IBM clone - still waiting for those Mac clones.

The reason is that no one could produce PC-compatible hardware without the BIOS to tie it all together.

That statement is false. From the beginning IBM allowed third parties to create hardware for the IBM PC (monitors, printers, video cards, memory, hard drives, various bus cards, pretty much every piece of hardware in the IBM PC). (this was not true of the Mac in its first 10 years or more)

The only thing IBM would not allow to be produced was the software in the bios.

I think your confusion comes from a misunderstanding of what hardware is - you seem to think hardware only refers to the complete computer in totality.

The reason is that no one could produce PC-compatible hardware without the BIOS to tie it all together.

Another completely false statement. Tons of PC-compatible hardware was produced and that is what IBM wanted. Printers, monitors, bus cards, memory, hard drives - all hardware and all legally produced from the beginning of the IBM PC. The only thing that could not be produced is a copy of the software bios and because of this nobody could copy the entire computer system (until the software bios was conquered)

You're trying to make an argument out of semantics when I wasn't trying to be too careful about my actual wording.

Compaq reverse-engineered the software not the hardware. Compaq was free to make PC-compatible hardware until the cows came home - what they could not do was copy the software bios and created a complete copy of the computer system until they reverse-engineered the software bios.

Yes, they didn't reverse-engineer hardware, but software/firmware. But this is what freed the hardware.

Not true. It freed them to make copies of the complete computer system - the hardware was freed from the state (unlike the Mac). Like I said - your confusion comes from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word hardware.

If Golden Eagle were consistently angry at clones and knock-offs as he's always ranting against Linux about, he'd be trashing every PC except for those that were actually made by IBM.

That was true maybe 15 years ago

Modern PC's pretty much have no connection to IBM. Nothing IBM came up with still exists - the bus is different, chip architecture is different, file formats are different. IBM is part of the linage but in computer terms it is like a great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather (very little modern relevance)

[Last Visible Dog]

Talk about being totally and absolutely wrong! BTW, most Macs you see in movies are paid product placement, not due to the loyalty of anyone in the industry.

Funny I never used the term "loyalty"

The Mac is the Hollywood computer because based on what comes out of Hollywood, all computers come from Apple (tell me the last time you saw a non-Apple computer in TV or the movies). In the real world, Mac represents 2% of the computers but in Hollywood it is 100% of the computers. PC's are more grass-roots and of the people.

[antiRepublicrat]

IBM never "owned" the PC business.

There you go again, harping on semantics. They were the only ones who could produce a PC; therefore, they owned the PC business.

That statement is false.

Semantics again. No one could produce a PC without IBM's permission. Sometimes when we say hardware, we're referring to a component in a system, and sometimes we're referring to what's in the box before you load the operating system (and that includes the BIOS). It's obvious from context.

Another completely false statement.

Semantics yet again.

Compaq reverse-engineered the software not the hardware.

And, surprise, yet again you harp on semantics.

Not true.

The semantic war is getting old. It's a clear sign that you're losing and want to avoid the main point when all you can do is argue the semantics around the subject.

That was true maybe 15 years ago

And Linux has zero code from the UNIX it's descended from, or SCO could have produced it by now and saved themselves a lot of grief with the judge. IBM PC clones (remember, that's what we used to call them) also have little actual-under-the hood relation to their ancestors, but they're still copies.

[Last Visible Dog]

Not to quibble, but CPUs also have embedded software. I'm not sure what the minimun instruction set is for a full featured computer, but it's probably less than half a dozen instructions. Intel computers have a very complex instruction set embedded in microcode.

Computer instructions are software no matter where or how they are stored. The term software refers to its purpose, not the method in which it is stored. The term software was spun off the term hardware. Software are instructions that control hardware (no matter how they are stored). This is basic Computer Science 101 stuff.

[Last Visible Dog]

Macs and PCs both use TrueType. How are you certain?

Give me a break.

A human being created the fake documents, not a Mac

A human being uncovered the fake documents, not a Mac.

Credit the human brain, not the computer somebody used to sent an email or post a message.

I will buy into this line of reasoning when you can prove a Mac did something all by itself