Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners - DEC

This is a discussion on Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners - DEC ; Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > That being said, the HP 150, back in 1983, had a touch screen, so my > statement that nothing much changed since the original Mac (introduced > in 1984) stands. Interesting. BUT... While the Mac ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

  1. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
    > That being said, the HP 150, back in 1983, had a touch screen, so my
    > statement that nothing much changed since the original Mac (introduced
    > in 1984) stands.


    Interesting.

    BUT...

    While the Mac was launched in January 1984, The Apple Lisa was available in
    1982 if I remember properly. The Lisa was the first Apple product with a
    MAC's like GUI.


  2. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    In article , dfevans@bcr10.uwaterloo.ca (David Evans) writes:
    >
    > I see your uV 2000s and raise you a Pro 350 running 2.9BSD. Now *that*
    > was painful; you didn't make many mistakes, given how long it took to load
    > vi.
    >


    Pro 350 running P/OS:

    Load game, get cup of coffee.
    Enter move, boot VMScluster.
    Enter second move, reconfigure VMScluster.
    Enter third move, read 4 usenet groups on VMScluster.
    Enter forth move, read remaining groups.
    Enter fifth move, get a beer.
    ...

    Its not fast, but then it was meant for word processing, not gaming.
    For word processing it has no problem keeping up with my keystrokes.


  3. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    JF Mezei writes:

    > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:


    >> That being said, the HP 150, back in 1983, had a touch screen, so my
    >> statement that nothing much changed since the original Mac (introduced
    >> in 1984) stands.


    > Interesting.


    > BUT...


    > While the Mac was launched in January 1984, The Apple Lisa was available in
    > 1982 if I remember properly. The Lisa was the first Apple product with a
    > MAC's like GUI.


    January 1983. I saw one pre-announcement under an NDA. I seriously lusted
    after the thing, but $9995.00 was a bit steep--nearly half a year's salary.

    --
    Rich Alderson | /"\ ASCII ribbon |
    news@alderson.users.panix.com | \ / campaign against |
    "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime." | x HTML mail and |
    --Death, of the Endless | / \ postings |

  4. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:35:26 -0500
    JF Mezei wrote:

    > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
    > > That being said, the HP 150, back in 1983, had a touch screen, so my
    > > statement that nothing much changed since the original Mac
    > > (introduced in 1984) stands.

    >
    > Interesting.
    >
    > BUT...
    >
    > While the Mac was launched in January 1984, The Apple Lisa was
    > available in 1982 if I remember properly. The Lisa was the first
    > Apple product with a MAC's like GUI.


    The Mac was an affordable Lisa (which cost something like $9000 when
    it was introduced, if memory serves). I was living in Hackenscack, NJ
    and I had just bought a Z-80 based Cromemco C-10 with CP/M at that time.
    It cost about $1500, which was all I could afford.

    At that time I wished I had waited and bought a Mac instead - until I
    found out that 1 128K Mac was all but useless.


    --
    Stefaan A Eeckels
    --
    Governments are like babies: digestive tracts with a big appetite at
    one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. The better run
    ones from time to time get clean diapers...

  5. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
    > On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:35:26 -0500
    > JF Mezei wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
    >>
    >>>That being said, the HP 150, back in 1983, had a touch screen, so my
    >>>statement that nothing much changed since the original Mac
    >>>(introduced in 1984) stands.

    >>
    >>Interesting.
    >>
    >>BUT...
    >>
    >>While the Mac was launched in January 1984, The Apple Lisa was
    >>available in 1982 if I remember properly. The Lisa was the first
    >>Apple product with a MAC's like GUI.

    >
    >
    > The Mac was an affordable Lisa (which cost something like $9000 when
    > it was introduced, if memory serves). I was living in Hackenscack, NJ
    > and I had just bought a Z-80 based Cromemco C-10 with CP/M at that time.
    > It cost about $1500, which was all I could afford.
    >
    > At that time I wished I had waited and bought a Mac instead - until I
    > found out that 1 128K Mac was all but useless.
    >


    Apple really shot themselves in the foot with the Mac. The original Mac
    came with only 64KB of memory (shortage of the right kind of chip or
    something). The only way to develop software for the Mac was to buy a
    Lisa. Then there was the closed architecture; no slots where you could
    plug in a hard disk controller, etc, etc, etc.

    The graphic arts people loved them, and still do. There was nothing
    there that anybody else needed or wanted and the Mac became a "niche"
    machine.


  6. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    Richard B. gilbert wrote:
    > Then there was the closed architecture; no slots where you could
    > plug in a hard disk controller, etc, etc, etc.


    MAC had SCSI right from the get go.

    I still remember booting a MAC+ with diskette and running PageMaker from
    diskette as well. Eventually bought a 20meg SCSI hard drive an just
    plugged it in and it worked.

    And while it is true that the cabinet was "closed", one could easily obtain
    the long torx tool to unscrew the hidden screws and open the box. BTW, the
    plastic inside had signatures (molded in) of many of the Apple employees
    who worked on it. Additional memory could be added faily easily once you
    had that tool (from 3rd parties).

    While some may have bitched about this, in the end, the hardware remained
    "standard" and made it a hell of a lot easier for Apple to produce an OS
    that didn't crash every 10 minutes.



  7. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    "Richard B. gilbert" writes:

    > Apple really shot themselves in the foot with the Mac. The original Mac
    > came with only 64KB of memory (shortage of the right kind of chip or
    > something).


    128K. The foot shooting was not in having only 128K, but in lying to customers
    about the pricing of the 512K upgrade (and declaring that 128K was really
    enough when the 512K upgrade was announced).

    > The only way to develop software for the Mac was to buy a Lisa.


    Yes, but it was a great development environment.

    > Then there was the closed architecture; no slots where you could plug in a
    > hard disk controller, etc, etc, etc.


    On the other hand, the closed architecture meant that when they provided a new
    feature they didn't have to compensate for people ****ing with the machine in
    unanticipated ways.

    > The graphic arts people loved them, and still do. There was nothing there
    > that anybody else needed or wanted and the Mac became a "niche" machine.


    Quite a niche. From 1984 till at least 1994 (after which I no longer knew
    anyone there), cisco Systems provided every non-engineer with a fully loaded
    Mac on their desktop. When I left in late 1993, cisco was already a $2*10^9
    company. Reason for putting Macs on people's desks? Reliability, ease of
    maintenance, and fewest ****wit toy applications installed by clueless users.

    --
    Rich Alderson | /"\ ASCII ribbon |
    news@alderson.users.panix.com | \ / campaign against |
    "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime." | x HTML mail and |
    --Death, of the Endless | / \ postings |

  8. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    JF Mezei writes:

    > Richard B. gilbert wrote:


    >> Then there was the closed architecture; no slots where you could
    >> plug in a hard disk controller, etc, etc, etc.


    > MAC had SCSI right from the get go.


    JF, would you kindly point out the SCSI connector on my 128K Mac? On my 512K?
    Early hard disks (and large form factor removables like the Iomega Bernoulli)
    used the external floppy port.

    > I still remember booting a MAC+ with diskette and running PageMaker from
    > diskette as well. Eventually bought a 20meg SCSI hard drive an just
    > plugged it in and it worked.


    That's on the Mac Plus, as you note. 1MB machine, introduced in 1986.

    > And while it is true that the cabinet was "closed", one could easily obtain
    > the long torx tool to unscrew the hidden screws and open the box. BTW, the
    > plastic inside had signatures (molded in) of many of the Apple employees
    > who worked on it. Additional memory could be added faily easily once you
    > had that tool (from 3rd parties).


    With only a single jumper change, the 128 could be a 512, though you had to
    solder in a different socket.

    > While some may have bitched about this, in the end, the hardware remained
    > "standard" and made it a hell of a lot easier for Apple to produce an OS
    > that didn't crash every 10 minutes.


    Amen.

    And the OS remained backwards compatible for a long time. My 128 and 512 could
    run OS6; OS7 began to assume 68020 instead of 68000, and so you needed a later
    machine, but that was nearly 10 years later. Shades of Tops-20 or Tops-10 or
    VMS!

    --
    Rich Alderson | /"\ ASCII ribbon |
    news@alderson.users.panix.com | \ / campaign against |
    "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime." | x HTML mail and |
    --Death, of the Endless | / \ postings |

  9. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > Richard B. gilbert wrote:
    >
    >> Then there was the closed architecture; no slots where you could plug
    >> in a hard disk controller, etc, etc, etc.


    > While some may have bitched about this, in the end, the hardware
    > remained "standard" and made it a hell of a lot easier for Apple to
    > produce an OS that didn't crash every 10 minutes.
    >


    I don't think Windoze' problems have much to do with the hardware. I
    think it has more to do with writing 30 million or so lines of code in C
    and assembler, not checking for valid input, not checking the lengths of
    reads and moves, etc. It has gotten a lot better over the last few
    years; W2K was a huge step in the right direction and WXP was another
    one. It's still not perfect and may never be but at least it's not W95
    or W98 any longer!





  10. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    Richard B. gilbert wrote:

    > Apple really shot themselves in the foot with the Mac.


    It was the only product that worked and selled at that time. And it
    worked quite well till the mid-90s.

    > The original Mac
    > came with only 64KB of memory (shortage of the right kind of chip or
    > something).


    128 KB. And a somewhat experienced hobbyist could solder in additional
    RAM stacking onto the existing one's for a full 512 KB.

    > The only way to develop software for the Mac was to buy a
    > Lisa.


    Right. Not very unusual for a new product. PowerMac G5 were used for
    some XBox development. So what?

    > Then there was the closed architecture; no slots where you could
    > plug in a hard disk controller, etc, etc, etc.


    Missing SCSI was a mistake, right.

    > The graphic arts people loved them, and still do. There was nothing
    > there that anybody else needed or wanted


    A Mac simply works. You didn't have to learn DOS. You could work on an
    68000/8 in a productive way you couldn't with a 286/16.

    > and the Mac became a "niche" machine.


    Which says nothing about the quality of the product. I don't know many
    markets where the best selling product is the best.

    BTW: Still looking for DECShare, AlisaShare, AlisaTalk for VMS.

    Regards
    Götz
    --
    http://www.knubbelmac.de/

  11. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    JF Mezei wrote:

    > MAC had SCSI right from the get go.


    Starting in 1986 with the Mac plus, right. Macintosh ("Macintosh 128K"),
    Macintosh 512k, Macintosh 512ke didn't have SCSI.

    > And while it is true that the cabinet was "closed", one could easily obtain
    > the long torx tool to unscrew the hidden screws and open the box. BTW, the
    > plastic inside had signatures (molded in) of many of the Apple employees
    > who worked on it. Additional memory could be added faily easily once you
    > had that tool (from 3rd parties).


    Starting with the Mac plus, again. Before that it needed soldering.

    Regards
    Götz
    --
    http://www.knubbelmac.de/

  12. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    In article <1hujxz8.wdjujs1j4gr4zN%usenet@hoffart.de>,
    usenet@hoffart.de (Goetz Hoffart) writes:
    > Richard B. gilbert wrote:
    >
    >> Apple really shot themselves in the foot with the Mac.

    >
    > It was the only product that worked and selled at that time. And it
    > worked quite well till the mid-90s.


    There were (are?) a lot of CPM users who might disagree with the
    idea that the Mac was the only product that worked!!

    >
    >> The original Mac
    >> came with only 64KB of memory (shortage of the right kind of chip or
    >> something).

    >
    > 128 KB. And a somewhat experienced hobbyist could solder in additional
    > RAM stacking onto the existing one's for a full 512 KB.


    I remember the ads for "the fat Mac" which was the first one I
    saw with 512K. If you were the kind of computer user who felt
    comfortable taking a soldering iron to your home computer there
    were a lot of system available. :-)

    >
    >> The only way to develop software for the Mac was to buy a
    >> Lisa.

    >
    > Right. Not very unusual for a new product. PowerMac G5 were used for
    > some XBox development. So what?


    So what? How long would the PC have lasted if writing softwafre
    for it required that you buy a scond computer that cost 5 time
    as much as the PC? And, having used the Lisa, I was not impressed.
    And, while I have a number of different models of M68K Macs still
    in my computer room I still see them as little more than toys. I
    had other M68K based systems running UNix that ran circles around
    the Mac from the very beginning (not all of them Suns, either!)

    >
    >> Then there was the closed architecture; no slots where you could
    >> plug in a hard disk controller, etc, etc, etc.

    >
    > Missing SCSI was a mistake, right.
    >
    >> The graphic arts people loved them, and still do. There was nothing
    >> there that anybody else needed or wanted

    >
    > A Mac simply works. You didn't have to learn DOS. You could work on an
    > 68000/8 in a productive way you couldn't with a 286/16.


    Even then, Intel was not the only other alternative.

    >
    >> and the Mac became a "niche" machine.

    >
    > Which says nothing about the quality of the product. I don't know many
    > markets where the best selling product is the best.


    I can only go by personal experience (which is, for the individual,
    the only benchmark that really matters) but I was never impressed
    with the Mac and I certainly am not now being as it is nothing but
    another (inferior) Unix system with a strange Window Manager.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  13. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:28:24 -0500, Bob Willard
    wrote:

    >sean@obanion.us wrote:
    >> On Mar 2, 3:04 am, "vaxorcist" wrote:
    >>
    >>>Who else has got (and eventually runs) the worlds slowest VAX ever ???
    >>>
    >>>I'm going to build one from parts and will probably need some help.
    >>>All OSes welcome!
    >>>
    >>>Regards
    >>>
    >>>Ulli

    >>
    >>
    >> Wan't the VAX-11/730 slower? I think it was about .3 VUP...
    >>
    >> When I installed bsd 4.1 (circa 1985, it was new!), the installation
    >> notes said the the 730 was not fast enough to be usefull.
    >>
    >>
    >> Sean
    >>

    >
    >IIRC, the uVAX-I was ~1/3 VUP, the 730 (and the 725?) was ~1/2 VUP, the
    >750 (and the obscure 751) ~ 2/3 VUP.


    IR that the 730 was .2 VUPs, and the 750 was .6 VUPs.

    I wrote some of the 750 decimal string microcode, and reworked some of
    the character string microcode. I remember the first tag line for the
    750 (maybe the only tag line?) was, "60% of a -780 for 40% of the
    price."

    John

  14. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:

    > > It was the only product that worked and selled at that time. And it
    > > worked quite well till the mid-90s.

    >
    > There were (are?) a lot of CPM users who might disagree with the
    > idea that the Mac was the only product that worked!!


    Err. misunderstanding, sorry. I didn't express myself precisely enough.
    I meant "It was the only product __of Apple__ that worked and selled at
    that time."

    This has to be seen in contrast to:

    | Apple really shot themselves in the foot with the Mac.

    I think the Mac was the rescue for Apple. The Apple III wasn't well
    designed, the Lisa didn't advance and there was not enough software for
    it. And 8bitter didn't have a long future then.

    > > 128 KB. And a somewhat experienced hobbyist could solder in additional
    > > RAM stacking onto the existing one's for a full 512 KB.

    >
    > I remember the ads for "the fat Mac" which was the first one I
    > saw with 512K. If you were the kind of computer user who felt
    > comfortable taking a soldering iron to your home computer there
    > were a lot of system available. :-)


    Right. But I know quite a few people who soldered their Macs, either to
    512k or with SCSI boards.

    > So what? How long would the PC have lasted if writing softwafre
    > for it required that you buy a scond computer that cost 5 time
    > as much as the PC?


    As the PC was nothing new, this wasn't a problem, right.

    > And, having used the Lisa, I was not impressed.
    > And, while I have a number of different models of M68K Macs still
    > in my computer room I still see them as little more than toys. I
    > had other M68K based systems running UNix that ran circles around
    > the Mac from the very beginning (not all of them Suns, either!)


    Which ones? I own some Apollos, Suns and VME-boards. Sure, most of them
    are faster than a Compact Mac due to faster CPUs but they were much more
    expensive. And they had a different target group. Not everyone wanted to
    use troff for writing nice text.

    > > A Mac simply works. You didn't have to learn DOS. You could work on an
    > > 68000/8 in a productive way you couldn't with a 286/16.

    >
    > Even then, Intel was not the only other alternative.


    But the only one that survived outside a niche. Of course there were
    lots of interesting systems then (I started using an Atari ST with GEM)
    but they're all dead due to failed decisions in engineering or bad
    marketing (Amiga, Atari).

    The others have a market share of nearly 0% today.

    > > Which says nothing about the quality of the product. I don't know many
    > > markets where the best selling product is the best.

    >
    > I can only go by personal experience (which is, for the individual,
    > the only benchmark that really matters) but I was never impressed
    > with the Mac and I certainly am not now being as it is nothing but
    > another (inferior) Unix system with a strange Window Manager.


    Pluralism is a fine thing.

    I do like 68k-Macs for their clea, crisp and stringent user interface
    and well hand-crafted applications (no Rapid Development Tools!) like
    WriteNow, Aldus Framemaker, Aldus Freehand, Deneba Canvas, Deneba
    Ultrapaint and others.

    And the networking technology (AppleTalk) was very advanced for these
    days: service propagation, auto addressing without a DHCP or similar
    server and so on.

    But I do also like Unix or VMS boxes from these days - but certainly not
    for producing human-readable content.

    Erm, we're quite off-topic in comp.sys.dec and comp.os.vms and
    de.alt.folklore.computer is a German language newsgroup so I suggest
    answering to me by mail. f'up set.

    Regards
    Götz
    --
    http://www.knubbelmac.de/

  15. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > So what? How long would the PC have lasted if writing softwafre
    > for it required that you buy a scond computer that cost 5 time
    > as much as the PC?


    The mac was designed as an appliance with much of the software included
    with it. MAcPaint, MacWrite etc etc.



    > And, having used the Lisa, I was not impressed.
    > And, while I have a number of different models of M68K Macs still
    > in my computer room I still see them as little more than toys. I
    > had other M68K based systems running UNix that ran circles around
    > the Mac from the very beginning (not all of them Suns, either!)


    Your unix systems did not have a GUI. I saw a Lisa at university (one
    professor had gotten a demo), but my first mac was a Mac+.

    the MAC's user interface was way ahead of what was generally available for
    home computers back then. And while it appears that precursors to the mac+
    were really crippled (as some have said, no SCSI, memory not upgradable),
    it appears to me that they were "betas" not quite ready for prime time. But
    the MAc+ was a good machine.

    Its achile's heel was b/w small screen which became a marketing an issue
    once DOS gained primitive colour capabilities. But for desktop publishing
    at the time, colour wasn't an issue. And cosnider that the MAC (at least
    with the +) had full postscript support and proper font support. It took
    ages before microsoft's products got to that point.


    And when you look at others, the overall user interface was copied from the
    MAC , but in a much less graceful manner. It took Microsoft perhaps 10
    years to even start to approach what the mac had in 1986.


    When you look at Motif, it really lagged behind in terms of widgets (for
    instance vertical resizable frames within a window).

  16. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    In article <51deb$45ed9bb9$cef8887a$17098@teksavvy.com>,
    JF Mezei writes:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> So what? How long would the PC have lasted if writing softwafre
    >> for it required that you buy a scond computer that cost 5 time
    >> as much as the PC?

    >
    > The mac was designed as an appliance with much of the software included
    > with it. MAcPaint, MacWrite etc etc.
    >
    >
    >
    >> And, having used the Lisa, I was not impressed.
    >> And, while I have a number of different models of M68K Macs still
    >> in my computer room I still see them as little more than toys. I
    >> had other M68K based systems running UNix that ran circles around
    >> the Mac from the very beginning (not all of them Suns, either!)

    >
    > Your unix systems did not have a GUI.


    Actually, some did. But that is really irrelevant as this was still
    BW (Before Windows) and the majority of computers (and computing) did
    not use a GUI.

    > I saw a Lisa at university (one
    > professor had gotten a demo), but my first mac was a Mac+.


    Saw the Mac first. I wasn't impressed. It ran simple programs slower
    than any other 68K I worked on. Sadly, the people at Apple never seemed
    to be overly concerned about things like efficiency and in those days,
    it was important.

    >
    > the MAC's user interface was way ahead of what was generally available for
    > home computers back then.


    Only when compared to the way we do things today. Everybody didn't
    have GUI's back then and most didn't really need or want one. And
    there were others. I had an OS9 system on a 6809 that had a GUI (of
    sorts) that it could run. But it usually just slowed down production
    rather than speeding it up. I actually experimented with my daughter
    (who was pre-school at the time) and it became obvious real fast that
    the mouse was not intuitively obvious. It required a good deal practice
    before it impreoved productivity. And all the time the GUI just ate up
    resources better spent on getting the job done.

    > And while it appears that precursors to the mac+
    > were really crippled (as some have said, no SCSI, memory not upgradable),
    > it appears to me that they were "betas" not quite ready for prime time. But
    > the MAc+ was a good machine.


    Matter of opinion.


    >
    > Its achile's heel was b/w small screen which became a marketing an issue
    > once DOS gained primitive colour capabilities. But for desktop publishing
    > at the time, colour wasn't an issue. And cosnider that the MAC (at least
    > with the +) had full postscript support and proper font support. It took
    > ages before microsoft's products got to that point.


    And yet, the most popular word processors grew on the PC without havng
    this wondrous PostScript capability. Go figure.

    >
    >
    > And when you look at others, the overall user interface was copied from the
    > MAC , but in a much less graceful manner. It took Microsoft perhaps 10
    > years to even start to approach what the mac had in 1986.


    Which wasn't even close to what MIT had been doing for a few years already.
    (Hint: What ran on Ultrix ont he VAX with QVSS in 1985?) And even to get
    that far Apple had to steal their GUI code from Xerox.

    >
    >
    > When you look at Motif, it really lagged behind in terms of widgets (for
    > instance vertical resizable frames within a window).


    Motif was hardly the only thing available (and is probably the worst
    example, especially when you get into the poitics involved, but that
    a tory for another discussion.) And, as long as we are comparing
    capabilities, when did the Mac get the ability to display graphics
    on remote displays?

    You and VaxMan can stick with your Macs. I'll choose productivity over
    cute every time.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  17. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:

    > Which wasn't even close to what MIT had been doing for a few years already.
    > (Hint: What ran on Ultrix ont he VAX with QVSS in 1985?) And even to get
    > that far Apple had to steal their GUI code from Xerox.


    Oh, horse****, Gunshannon. You'd be dangerous if you knew what you were
    talking about.

    Yes, the Mac user interface was inspired by the work done at Xerox PARC, but
    it would be pretty hard to steal code written in Mesa for the Alto processor
    (not related to anything else you may have ever worked on) and run it on a
    stock 68000. It would be hard even to port it, since it relied on the bit-
    mapped graphics capabilities and other characteristics of the Alto.

    We all know you don't like the Mac. There's no need to make **** up to
    justify your opinion.

    Note followup.

    --
    Rich Alderson | /"\ ASCII ribbon |
    news@alderson.users.panix.com | \ / campaign against |
    "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime." | x HTML mail and |
    --Death, of the Endless | / \ postings |

  18. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    Rich Alderson writes:
    > With only a single jumper change, the 128 could be a 512, though you had to
    > solder in a different socket.


    And add a multiplexer chip for address line A8.

  19. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:

    > And even to get that far Apple had to steal their GUI code from Xerox.


    They didn't and you should know it.


    <http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py...ory=A_Rich_Nei
    ghbor_Named_Xerox.txt&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium&search=xe
    rox>

    Apple got the basic idea at Xerox but they invented lots of GUI features
    Xerox never had: clipboard (and redundant typed data for the
    clipboard!), drag-and-drop file manipulation, pull down menus, trashcan,
    overlapping windows (added by Xerox in 1985!
    ) and so on.

    Regards
    Götz
    --
    http://www.knubbelmac.de/

  20. Re: Wanted: MicroVAX I / VAXstation I owners

    usenet@hoffart.de (Goetz Hoffart) writes:
    > Apple got the basic idea at Xerox but they invented lots of GUI features
    > Xerox never had: clipboard (and redundant typed data for the
    > clipboard!), drag-and-drop file manipulation, pull down menus, trashcan,
    > overlapping windows (added by Xerox in 1985!
    > ) and so on.


    Xerox had overlapping windows before 1980. Not in a commercial product,
    though.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast