Posted on 03/08/2005 12:06:04 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at macworld.com ...
I never got to take Computer Science 101. It wasn't available when and where I went to college. I had graduated before I ever saw a computer. I have done programming for many years, including a touch of assembly language.
I am curious at what level in a CPU we distinguish between computer and instruction. Or do we?
You clearly do not understand computer technology. The first part of the definition is the definition of software - that was my point. The rest of the definition refers to how the software is stored. You clearly do not understand computer technology so this flies way over your head. You posted one definition from a nontechnical source. I posted 8 definitions from technical sources and all of them define firmware as software (in most definitions software is the first word in the definition).
Later you actually claimed none of the technical definitions say firmware=software which is an absolutely ludicrous statement (because it is 100% wrong) - I guess you were just striking out in desperation.
Like I said - it is pretty clear you don't understand much about computer technology and you are arguing to be argumentative.
Your experience seems still to be related to a 16 year old computer... and your postings on the iPod are also incorrect and based on outdated information... so I stand by my statement.
You do not have a leg to stand on... your Mac that you are familiar with is a 1989 modelm which is just as outdated as a 1984 model. I has about as much relevance as discussing Windows XP in light of someone's experience with Windows 2.1... and you don't know what you are talking about in reference to iPod battery replacement.
If you say firmware=software than that also means software=firmware....obviously not true. Or do you think all software is firmware?
So explain to me why Xerox sued Apple, Mr Bigpicture.
Yes, Xerox let Apple engineers learn from their work.
They also let Microsoft learn from their work.
Yes, Xerox let Apple engineers learn from their work. Yes, Bill just looked at what he saw publicly and tried to copy.
Wrong again. Bill Gates was invited to PARC, just like Apple. He saw what they were doing the same way as Apple.
Now answer the question Mr. Bigpicture, why did Xerox sue Apple?
Start over with some basic, undisputable facts (carefully worded for LVD):
Now as to the definition of hardware and software, don't try to get into semantics since it just wastes everybody's time.
Don't be a bozo. All we have here is semantics. This is a text-based forum. All we can do on Freerepublic is to try and understand the meaning of the language that is posted (that is the definition of semantics).
No one could produce a PC without IBM's permission.
Now you are changing your story. This is what you said earlier: no one could produce PC-compatible hardware
As I stated earlier, that is a factually incorrect statement. Now that you have changed your story, you are correct. Nobody could copy the entire computer systems without the bios. The term hardware is not limited to the entire computer system. Like I said, I think your confusion comes from not fully understanding the word hardware.
I think you need to play semantics more often because you can not make up your own meanings for words and expect it to make sense.
Compaq reverse-engineered the software not the hardware.
And, surprise, yet again you harp on semantics
Now you are just plain silly. Differentiating between Hardware and Software is just semantics - whatever - guess you can just call it Shardware. Without semantics, communication is impossible (and you seem hellbent on proving this)
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.
First you argue it is wrong to be held to the real meanings of words and then you do a victory dance. pathetic.
I guess you want a world where words have not fixed meaning and no statement can be factually incorrect because that would mean words have meaning and when words have meaning...well...that's just a semantic war.
I can sum your arguement up this way: It all depends on the meaning of the word 'is'
Actually the FACTS as I understand them is Xerox sued Apple when Apple claimed they had a copyright on the GUI they borrowed from Xerox. Apple tried to use this bogus copyright claim to sue Microsoft but they failed.
Unless you want to keep arguing semantics, I can pull us out of this.
One set of Compaq engineers analyzed the published source code and specifications for IBM's BIOS, writing notes to describe only what it did -- no code allowed. Another set of engineers who had never seen the IBM BIOS documentation took those notes and wrote a BIOS to mimic that behavior.
But if you want to take this off on another semantic rant, is source code software? Your definition of software is instructions that make hardware do stuff, yet source code does nothing but tell a compiler or assembler how to make something that tells hardware to do stuff.
So if you want to get really freaky semantic, Compaq reverse engineered neither hardware nor software, but source code.
Good, then try to understand, rather than nit-picking at terminology, sending the discussion off on an irrelevant tangent.
I guess you want a world where words have not fixed meaning
This is English, you know, made worse since we're talking about an ever-changing subject such as computers.
Thanks, you just supported my post.
You are correct. For me it's not a legal problem at all (you know I don't believe in copyrighting or patenting concepts), but one about innovation. Apple took the Xerox idea and improved it dramatically. Microsoft took Xerox's and Apple's ideas and produced something dramatically inferior, not coming even close to Apple for at least 10 years, all the time claiming "innovation." That is what annoys me.
DUmmies always say George Bush is stupid, so...
Geeze, I thought I was old.
I am curious at what level in a CPU we distinguish between computer and instruction. Or do we?
The computer part executes the instructions? Chip technology and design in my mind is very close to voodoo.
You really can't read or refuse to.
1. I personally own a Mac (circa. 1989). I stated this in response to someone saying people that are not Mac fans usually have never owned one.
2. I work in the computer industry and I have tried to purchase a Mac just for variety but I never could justify it because the Mac has pretty much zero presences in the financial business community.
3. Nothing I said about the Ipod is incorrect. Apple states the battery is not to be replaced by the user (thus hard-wired). The Ipod is very much over-priced.
You do not have a leg to stand on... your Mac that you are familiar with is a 1989 modelm which is just as outdated as a 1984 model.
And you can't read - I made no judgment based on my 1989 Mac - I only brought it up to point out I have and do own a Mac. My opinion is based on real-world business realities in the current financial business environment. I know the Mac's 2% market share really pisses Mac fans off so I understand why you are trying to change the subject with your nonsensical statements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.