A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46  
Old November 8th 18, 05:33 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server

In article , SilverSlimer
wrote:


I've done enough research about the Amiga to know that your statement
was complete garbage.


research != experience. i used mac, pc, amiga and atari back then and
ended up writing software for the first two. the latter two were toys.


That is _your_ experience, not everyone's.


yes, it is my experience, and is similar to most software developers at
the time.

The Amiga was first released as a production tool despite the fact that
it was first envisioned and became somewhat of a console. Look at the
Amiga 1000 and you'll know that it looked like and was very much a
production computer. That the Amiga 500 was eventually released and
marketed in the same fashion as the Commodore 500 (and available on
store shelves _everywhere_ despite what you claim) does not change that
it was produced to be a workstation and simply became a console because
that's what Commodore knew how to sell.

complete nonsense.

major software developers ignored the amiga. businesses definitely
ignored it. very, very few computer stores sold it. even the mac had
far more traction than the amiga ever did. it was a toy.

Software developers did not ignore it and the plethora of games shows
that it was very popular for a long time.


games = toy. thanks for the confirmation.


Your statement was that developers ignored it (it's still quoted). The
presence of games for the platform means that it was in fact NOT ignored.


semantics, and i didn't say *everyone* ignored it. i said major sw devs
ignored it, as did businesses, who weren't buying computers to play
games.

The issue with it, just like
the Atari ST, is that piracy was unbelievably high and THAT discouraged
developers from _continuing_ to produce software for it.


piracy existed on all platforms and was no more a deterrent on amiga &
atari than anything else.

in fact, there was *more* piracy in raw numbers on mac and pc because
there were far more users to pirate stuff.

businesses was where the money was, and very, very few businesses
pirated software. they had too much to risk by doing so.


Piracy was what publishers blamed for the lack of software available for
the Atari ST.


people like to blame everything other than themselves.

Apparently, despite the fact that more software was
available for the PC and the Mac, piracy was so easy on the Atari ST and
the number of users participating in the practise so high that it
discouraged anyone from developing for the ST.


piracy was very easy on mac and pc too.

copy protection schemes were easily broken, with patch files available
on various bbses or at user group meetings, where people swapped
floppies, or did it there if someone brought a computer.

However, they did write
software for it and EVENTUALLY stopped. The reason developers didn't
stop writing software for the PC and the Mac is that even though people
pirated software, the number of users in general and the ratio of people
_not_ pirating was high enough for development to be profitable.


very profitable.

microsoft windows was mostly a copy of classic mac os, not amiga os,
and even that took a decade for windows to be even somewhat useful,
with windows '95.

Considering how many of us wrote essays, produced spreadsheets and first
browsed the web through Windows 3.1, I wouldn't say that the operating
system was useless before 95 emerged.


people did that with dos.

the point is that win3.1 was only marginally more capable than dos.


It could go onto the Internet (which wasn't possible with DOS at the
time), allowed you to use more than one program at a time and made the
mouse peripheral useful for the first time. I'll accept the "marginally
more capable" assessment though I don't believe it to be entirely accurate.


macs could do that in 1985, before there was a windows 1.0, let alone
windows 3.x.

hobbyists liked the amiga because it was cheap and had some games.
otherwise, it was nothing special. the amusement of the bouncing ball
demo wore off very, very quickly, as in minutes.

They liked the Amiga because it did more than the PC at a lower price
and had better specifications throughout.


except that it didn't. had that been true, businesses would have bought
amiga in droves and saved money in the process.

the reality is that they didn't, because the amiga *didn't* do more
than the pc.

it did less, much less, largely due to a lack of quality software, and
what it did do was not particularly good.


Everyone who looked back at that period as well as the Amiga has
conceded that a lack of PC compatibility is what doomed the Amiga, not a
lack of capability. While you _could_ use PC documents on the Amiga, the
software was different and the PC format too strong for people to
consider Amiga-based workarounds when they could just as easily buy a
similar machine for the home as what they used at work. The PC wasn't
better than the Amiga or the Atari ST; it was merely more familiar to
anyone who used a computer at work.


the mac was very different than the pc, so much so that it changed the
entire industry.

the amiga didn't.

It wasn't perfect and much of
that was Commodore's fault but some people managed to keep using their
Amiga well into the late 90s because it COULD do everything that they
wanted to do including Internet-related tasks.


so could macs and pcs, with significant software and hardware support
the amiga did not have.


Well, after 1994, it's clear that the Amiga couldn't compete since
Commodore went bankrupt. What I'm saying is that the original 1985 Amiga
1000 or 1987 Amiga 500 could do on those original machines what Macs and
PCs of _later_ years could accomplish.


simply wrong.

Of course a PC or Mac from 1994
could go on the net, but could one from 1985 or 1987 do so?


very much so, although the 'net then wasn't anything like what it is
now.


Also, here's an Amiga running Mac software.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jph0gxzL3UI In this case, it's an
upgraded machine but those kinds of upgrades existed even at the time.
Clearly, it would have been slower than what the video shows in 1993 or
1987, but even THEN, it ran the software faster than a stock Mac with
full compatibility.


it was not faster. i know the fanbois liked to claim that it was, using
contrived demos, but that was an alternate reality in which they lived.
very few apps worked properly with the compatibility card.

In other words, you're full of crap.


nope.


Since I can't test it myself, I'm not going to challenge your assessment
further. However, they have a video to prove their point whereas you
only have words so you can imagine which, to me, is more credible.


they have a video showing very specific apps.

they are not showing what doesn't work.

a *lot* of software did not work correctly, or at all, which made the
compatibility card not a very good investment, not to mention that it
needed pirated roms.





It failed because Commodore didn't know what to do with it since
Tramiel, the real genius, left the company. They also dragged their feet
in improving the product which is why the Amiga 600, 500+ and 1200 were
barely any better than the original product despite being released some
8 years later.

it failed because it was a toy.

It failed because people didn't understand what it was (a game console
or a computer) and neither did Commodore. Your falsification of history
is unwelcome.


nope. it failed because it was nowhere as good as macs and pcs, it had
very little software and hardware support, with too few customers to
keep it viable. software and hardware developers mostly ignored it, and
without key titles and expansion cards, businesses also ignored it.
simple as that.


If you say so.


i do.
Ads
  #47  
Old November 8th 18, 02:48 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
SilverSlimer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 120
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server

On 2018-11-07 11:33 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

microsoft windows was mostly a copy of classic mac os,

IOW, mac os was really DOS? There's something wrong with your memory of
those far off days. Or else your confusing the user interface with the
OS. mac OS

i didn't say macos was dos. i said microsoft copied macos to create
windows.


Nah, they both copied Xerox. And it was the GUI they copied, not the OS.


not quite. apple and xerox had a financial agreement allowing for apple
to use xerox's ideas and build upon them.

apple added significant ideas from what xerox had. classic mac os was
*not* a direct copy, and the difference between them is significant.


I agree here. If anything, the Lisa operating system was closer to what
Xerox had and the first Mac OS had already significantly built upon that.

snip

That was his innovation. [1] Technologically, Apple
innovated hardly at all.


that part is absolutely false.

Ever since, Apple's competitors tried to catch up, and have succeeded in
doing so.


it took a decade for microsoft to catch up with windows 95.

currently, apple's competitors are again trying to catch up, microsoft
in particular. windows phone was a complete failure and surface is
trying to copy the ipad and not doing very well at it.


I agree that on the tablet scene, Windows is a complete joke. However,
Windows Phone was quite good and I miss it terribly every day.
Unfortunately, an update to Windows 10 Mobile caused the in-call mic to
stop working and since it wasn't clear whether it was a hardware issue
or a software issue (I'm banking on the latter even though a number of
people said it was a hardware problem), I was forced to move away from
the platform. Third-party applications were lacking and therefore caused
it to be ignored but on its own, it was pretty damned good.

snip

--
SilverSlimer
Minds: @silverslimer
  #48  
Old November 8th 18, 02:58 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
SilverSlimer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 120
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server

On 2018-11-07 11:33 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article , SilverSlimer
wrote:

Windows was DOS with a pre-built menu system plus a few simple to use
settings (such as customising the menus for different users). It was
essentially useless until 3.x.

win 3.x was only slightly better than earlier versions. as i said,
windows '95 was when it was actually usable.

Not true, essentially since many companies at the time used Windows 3.11
for their businesses and some still use it to this day.

win 3.x was only slightly better than dos. it wasn't until win '95 when
windows took off because only then was it functionally better than what
existed before.

put another way, win '95 caught up to where mac os was a decade earlier.

microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on windows.


True about the first part, but Windows 95 was actually a much better
operating system than the Mac OS of the time


no, it definitely wasn't.

so they didn't catch up as
much as they improved upon Apple's archaic design.


mac os wasn't archaic in the least and was well ahead of what existed
at the time.

win95 & win98 still had dos under the hood.


It had DOS as much as it needed to since people, by using Windows 95,
were migrating from a massive platform onto a new one and still needed
some sort of assurance that their software would continue to operate.
Much of it could within Windows 9x, but some couldn't and being able to
load DOS to run it became necessary. However, 9x in general was more
capable than MacOS at the time and even Apple knew it. That's why they
started to develop Copland in response to it and eventually felt the
obligation to attempt to purchase BeOS. It didn't happen and they moved
onto NeXT.

There's more. FWIW, I preferred DOS over Windows, and OS/2 over both.
I liked Mac OS, but didn't like Apple's unwillingness to permit device
customisation beyond what they decided was acceptable. A DOS machine,
and hence Windows, was almost infinitely customisable.

complete nonsense.

apple did not stop *anyone* from customizing anything, and in fact, mac
os was designed to be tweaked and modified in all sorts of ways, with
full documentation as to how to do it.

because of that, a whole category of mac software and hardware existed,
doing things not possible on dos or windows.

That must be why Steve Jobs specifically stated that he wanted the Mac
to have proprietary ports, no internal expansion slots and an operating
system which looked the same no matter whose machine you were using. In
other words, that must be why Jobs did the exact opposite of what
Wozniak did with the Apple ][ whereupon he insisted on forcing people to
upgrade a whole computer to get one or two additional functions.

he didn't say that, the ports weren't proprietary, and nobody had to
upgrade a whole computer to get additional functions.


The original Mac line was very much proprietary.


it was not.


You clearly see the Mac's history with rose-coloured glasses and have a
skewed definition of proprietary.

Read the line about the
Macintosh 128k at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K#Peripherals

Absolutely none of what the Macintosh included as ports was standard and
that's one of the many reasons you couldn't just buy any printer and had
to rely on whatever Apply would ship.


nonsense. the original mac used two industry standard rs422 serial
ports, a superset of rs232. wikipedia is wrong when it calls rs422
nonstandard.

as for printers, that required little more than writing a printer
driver, or putting postscript in the printer.

there were non-apple printers, although not that many early on since
writing a printer driver was fairly involved and printer companies were
still deciding whether supporting the mac was worth it from a business
perspective. apple did not prevent anything.


Yet, had Apple used the same ports as what the PC and other platforms
were using, chances are that the number of available printers would have
been multiplied. They purposely chose a different standard and limited a
customer's options.

in fact, the pinouts of the ports were documented in inside macintosh,
a book available in any bookstore, along with full documentation of mac
os. *anyone* could buy it, not just developers. the information was not
secret.

mac os was *very* customizable. anyone who claims otherwise doesn't
know what they're talking about, regurgitating the old myths.


You have a very bizarre idea of what proprietary means. It's not closed,
it's proprietary meaning that it belongs to Apple and is not shared by
other companies. Proprietary comes from the French word "propriété"
meaning that it has an owner which, in this case, is Apple. In the same
way that the Macintosh had proprietary connectors, so did the PCjr and
the PS/2 in the MCA internal expansion port.


apple did design quite a bit and the ip did belong to them, however,
the details were available for anyone to write apps or design hardware.

many companies did exactly that.

as i said, inside mac was sold in normal bookstores alongside other
computer books. *anyone* could buy a copy and start writing apps,
without apple even knowing about it, let alone approve it.


We're still at an impasse in regards to your definition of proprietary.
Proprietary does not prevent anyone from developing for a platform.
Windows is proprietary yet people develop for it all the time. However,
on the PC side, only the operating system is proprietary if you use
Windows and the hardware is very much standardized across the board,
unlike the original Mac and much of Apple's hardware going into the late
90s.

snip

--
SilverSlimer
Minds: @silverslimer
  #49  
Old November 8th 18, 03:45 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Snit[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,027
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server

On 11/7/18 9:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on windows.

[...]

https://www.reference.com/technology...34eb9f5980d955


that refers to the dos version of word. read what i wrote. i did not
mention dos.

the dos version of word was very primitive in comparison to word on the
mac and later windows, greatly limited by dos. it did not do wysiwyg
and was at its core, a dos app with a mouse to perform dos commands.

http://toastytech.com/guis/word115load.png

the mac version of microsoft word was a complete rewrite from scratch,
using mac toolbox apis and with full wysiwyg, as were all apps on a
mac.


In the early '90s I used to teach computer classes to high school
students. I taught on even-then outdated one-piece Macs, using MS Word.
The other teachers taught on Word Perfect 5.1 on DOS. They kept asking
why I was teaching on such "toys" -- but even at the time I realized the
future was something LIKE what I was teaching with. I did not know MS
Word would remain the big name, or that Apple would even survive, but I
knew the future of computing was the GUI-driven, mouse based, experience.

excel never was on dos. multiplan was, but it was not as capable.

it was several years later when microsoft office appeared on windows.



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
  #50  
Old November 8th 18, 03:47 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Snit[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,027
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server

On 11/7/18 9:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Snit
wrote:

microsoft windows was mostly a copy of classic mac os,

IOW, mac os was really DOS? There's something wrong with your memory of
those far off days. Or else your confusing the user interface with the
OS. mac OS

i didn't say macos was dos. i said microsoft copied macos to create
windows.

Nah, they both copied Xerox. And it was the GUI they copied, not the OS.


Nope. Apple did copy Xerox some but they PAID to do so. And they then
made a LOT of modifications to the GUI. Here are just some:

* Double clicking
* Trash can (or the like)
* Graying out inactive items
* Full file system in GUI (as icons)
* GUI based hierarchical folder structure
* Drag and drop
* meta-data associations with icons
* self-redrawing windows (and double buffering)
* Checkmarks next to menu items
* Keyboard shortcuts
* X to close a window (NeXT, really)


that's a good list, however, there was no 'x' to close a window in
macos. that came later with nextstep, which microsoft also copied.


Sure... and on the list I note that came from NeXT. But the point is
many of these things we take for granted on pretty much any desktop GUI
are things that Apple introduced.

one key difference not listed was arbitrary regions, allowing for
overlapping windows. xerox thought it was too difficult to do. bill
atkinson thought xerox actually had done it, so he went off and did it,
not realizing it hadn't been done. xerox was stunned when they saw mac
os with regions. he tells the story better than i do.


I have read it... and I allude to it briefly with the "self-redrawing
windows (and double buffering)" item... but I admit that could be more
clear.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
  #51  
Old November 8th 18, 03:49 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server

In article , SilverSlimer
wrote:

Ever since, Apple's competitors tried to catch up, and have succeeded in
doing so.


it took a decade for microsoft to catch up with windows 95.

currently, apple's competitors are again trying to catch up, microsoft
in particular. windows phone was a complete failure and surface is
trying to copy the ipad and not doing very well at it.


I agree that on the tablet scene, Windows is a complete joke. However,
Windows Phone was quite good and I miss it terribly every day.


it was, but it was too little, too late.

it also didn't help that microsoft orphaned existing windows mobile
users with windows phone 7, only to orphan them again with windows
phone 8.
  #52  
Old November 8th 18, 03:49 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server

In article , Snit
wrote:

Nah, they both copied Xerox. And it was the GUI they copied, not the OS.

Nope. Apple did copy Xerox some but they PAID to do so. And they then
made a LOT of modifications to the GUI. Here are just some:

* Double clicking
* Trash can (or the like)
* Graying out inactive items
* Full file system in GUI (as icons)
* GUI based hierarchical folder structure
* Drag and drop
* meta-data associations with icons
* self-redrawing windows (and double buffering)
* Checkmarks next to menu items
* Keyboard shortcuts
* X to close a window (NeXT, really)


that's a good list, however, there was no 'x' to close a window in
macos. that came later with nextstep, which microsoft also copied.


Sure... and on the list I note that came from NeXT. But the point is
many of these things we take for granted on pretty much any desktop GUI
are things that Apple introduced.


yep

one key difference not listed was arbitrary regions, allowing for
overlapping windows. xerox thought it was too difficult to do. bill
atkinson thought xerox actually had done it, so he went off and did it,
not realizing it hadn't been done. xerox was stunned when they saw mac
os with regions. he tells the story better than i do.


I have read it... and I allude to it briefly with the "self-redrawing
windows (and double buffering)" item... but I admit that could be more
clear.


i have heard it firsthand, and what you're calling self-redrawing
windows is not the same as arbitrary regions.
  #53  
Old November 8th 18, 03:49 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

I agree that on the tablet scene, Windows is a complete joke.


Um have you browsed Staples, etc lately? Even low-end tablets are
selling well, at the one I visit most, there are more tablets than
laptops displayed.


what's on display in a store is not an indication of how well they're
actually selling.

They do what most people want: surf the web, email,
photo, and video, plus connect to anything wi-fi or Bluetooth. Most
people do _not_ want to add all kinds of programs to their devices, or
tweak them with 3rd party hardware and software.


not true.

a major example is adobe's recent announcement that the full photoshop
is coming to ipad. that's a major undertaking, something they would not
have done had there been no demand for it.

there are also ****loads of vertical market apps for tablets,
particularly health care, but also education, restaurants and much
more.

Some tablets are being
offered with 4G, ie, you can use them as a phone if you want. Some
people want.


4g on tablets is for data, not voice, so that one can be connected when
wifi is not available, and since it's data-only, the fees are less.

very, very few tablets can function as a normal cellphone. there's not
much point, especially with the larger 'phablet' phones.
  #54  
Old November 8th 18, 03:49 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on windows.
[...]

https://www.reference.com/technology...34eb9f5980d955


that refers to the dos version of word. read what i wrote. i did not
mention dos.


Then write with more precise scope. Your claim as written is false,


nope. it's *exactly* true as written.

since Word/Excel were first written for DOS, and then were ported to
Mac-OS.


wrong.

excel was never on dos, making it completely impossible to port.

ms word for mac was written from scratch, using mac apis. it was not
ported from dos, nor could it have been. the platforms were *far* too
different.
  #55  
Old November 8th 18, 03:49 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server

In article , SilverSlimer
wrote:


It had DOS as much as it needed to since people, by using Windows 95,
were migrating from a massive platform onto a new one and still needed
some sort of assurance that their software would continue to operate.
Much of it could within Windows 9x, but some couldn't and being able to
load DOS to run it became necessary.


win 95 was a shell on top of dos, which greatly limited what it could
do.

However, 9x in general was more
capable than MacOS at the time and even Apple knew it.


nonsense.

That's why they
started to develop Copland in response to it and eventually felt the
obligation to attempt to purchase BeOS. It didn't happen and they moved
onto NeXT.


no, that's not why they started to develop copland.

copland actually began in the late 1980s, long before there was a
windows 95 or even win 3.x, but by 1995, it was a mismanaged mess, in a
mismanaged company.


The original Mac line was very much proprietary.


it was not.


You clearly see the Mac's history with rose-coloured glasses and have a
skewed definition of proprietary.


more accurately, you have a clear *lack* of knowledge about many things
apple, believing many of the myths.



Read the line about the
Macintosh 128k at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K#Peripherals

Absolutely none of what the Macintosh included as ports was standard and
that's one of the many reasons you couldn't just buy any printer and had
to rely on whatever Apply would ship.


nonsense. the original mac used two industry standard rs422 serial
ports, a superset of rs232. wikipedia is wrong when it calls rs422
nonstandard.

as for printers, that required little more than writing a printer
driver, or putting postscript in the printer.

there were non-apple printers, although not that many early on since
writing a printer driver was fairly involved and printer companies were
still deciding whether supporting the mac was worth it from a business
perspective. apple did not prevent anything.


Yet, had Apple used the same ports as what the PC and other platforms
were using, chances are that the number of available printers would have
been multiplied. They purposely chose a different standard and limited a
customer's options.


completely wrong. apple did not limit anything.

the imagewriter was actually a c.itoh printer which used a standard
rs232 connection, and in fact, worked with dos computers.

the issue was writing drivers for graphic output instead of using it as
a generic dot matrix printer that spits out whatever ascii text it
receives in a single font.

in mac os, a printer was just another window, just one that was
rendered on paper rather than screen, which was how all apps could be
wysiwyg without any additional effort by the developer.

writing mac printer drivers was a fair amount of work, and a lot of
printer makers chose not to do it, at least until the mac gained some
traction and became worth their effort.

apple not only didn't limit what printers could be used, but they had
documentation on how to write printer drivers and also offered tech
support to anyone who wanted to do it.

not only that, but there was at least one mac software company that
wrote printer drivers for printer manufacturers.

macs also supported postscript, another industry standard, however,
that was better suited for laser printers and high end typesetting
equipment than cheap dot matrix printers.





We're still at an impasse in regards to your definition of proprietary.
Proprietary does not prevent anyone from developing for a platform.
Windows is proprietary yet people develop for it all the time. However,
on the PC side, only the operating system is proprietary if you use
Windows and the hardware is very much standardized across the board,
unlike the original Mac and much of Apple's hardware going into the late
90s.


apple uses industry standards wherever possible.

the problem is that many of those are not that good, so apple either
chose something more capable or they designed something better.

the original mac had rs422 serial ports, which were a superset of
rs232. existing rs232 devices worked perfectly fine without *any*
issue, however, they could never be as fast as rs422 devices.

the mac ii's slots were nubus, which was designed by texas instruments.
later, apple switched to pci slots, also not their design.

as mentioned above, macs supported postscript, another industry
standard.

the list goes on...
  #56  
Old November 8th 18, 04:57 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server

In article , Snit
wrote:

one key difference not listed was arbitrary regions, allowing for
overlapping windows. xerox thought it was too difficult to do. bill
atkinson thought xerox actually had done it, so he went off and did it,
not realizing it hadn't been done. xerox was stunned when they saw mac
os with regions. he tells the story better than i do.

I have read it... and I allude to it briefly with the "self-redrawing
windows (and double buffering)" item... but I admit that could be more
clear.


i have heard it firsthand, and what you're calling self-redrawing
windows is not the same as arbitrary regions.

Fair enough. I may have things worded poorly, too. Here is where I got
that info:

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/05/gui.ars
-----
One critical advance from the Lisa team came from an Apple
engineer who was not a former PARC employee, but had seen the
demonstration of Smalltalk. He thought he had witnessed the
Alto's ability to redraw portions of obscured windows when a
topmost window was moved: this was called "regions". In fact,
the Alto did not have this ability, but merely redrew the
entire window when the user selected it.
-----
Aqua introduced the idea of a GUI where every window was
double-buffered in memory, so that any redraws happen
off-screen and aren't visible
-----

Actual quotes shown there are on page 4 and 7.


aqua is os x, long after quickdraw in classic mac os, and very
different in all sorts of ways.

classic mac os actually didn't have double-buffered windows initially,
although some games implemented it on their own and offscreen drawing
was added later.
  #57  
Old November 8th 18, 05:15 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Snit[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,027
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server

On 11/8/18 7:49 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Snit
wrote:

Nah, they both copied Xerox. And it was the GUI they copied, not the OS.

Nope. Apple did copy Xerox some but they PAID to do so. And they then
made a LOT of modifications to the GUI. Here are just some:

* Double clicking
* Trash can (or the like)
* Graying out inactive items
* Full file system in GUI (as icons)
* GUI based hierarchical folder structure
* Drag and drop
* meta-data associations with icons
* self-redrawing windows (and double buffering)
* Checkmarks next to menu items
* Keyboard shortcuts
* X to close a window (NeXT, really)

that's a good list, however, there was no 'x' to close a window in
macos. that came later with nextstep, which microsoft also copied.


Sure... and on the list I note that came from NeXT. But the point is
many of these things we take for granted on pretty much any desktop GUI
are things that Apple introduced.


yep

one key difference not listed was arbitrary regions, allowing for
overlapping windows. xerox thought it was too difficult to do. bill
atkinson thought xerox actually had done it, so he went off and did it,
not realizing it hadn't been done. xerox was stunned when they saw mac
os with regions. he tells the story better than i do.


I have read it... and I allude to it briefly with the "self-redrawing
windows (and double buffering)" item... but I admit that could be more
clear.


i have heard it firsthand, and what you're calling self-redrawing
windows is not the same as arbitrary regions.

Fair enough. I may have things worded poorly, too. Here is where I got
that info:

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/05/gui.ars
-----
One critical advance from the Lisa team came from an Apple
engineer who was not a former PARC employee, but had seen the
demonstration of Smalltalk. He thought he had witnessed the
Alto's ability to redraw portions of obscured windows when a
topmost window was moved: this was called "regions". In fact,
the Alto did not have this ability, but merely redrew the
entire window when the user selected it.
-----
Aqua introduced the idea of a GUI where every window was
double-buffered in memory, so that any redraws happen
off-screen and aren't visible
-----

Actual quotes shown there are on page 4 and 7.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
  #58  
Old November 8th 18, 06:56 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
chrisv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 649
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server

nospam wrote:

there are also ****loads of vertical market apps for tablets,
particularly health care, but also education, restaurants and much
more.


I'm wondering about the market shares, Android vs iOS, in those
"industrial" tablet markets.

--
"012345789ABCDEF
1-16"
- Dumfsck
  #59  
Old November 8th 18, 07:09 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Snit[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,027
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server

On 11/8/18 8:57 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Snit
wrote:

one key difference not listed was arbitrary regions, allowing for
overlapping windows. xerox thought it was too difficult to do. bill
atkinson thought xerox actually had done it, so he went off and did it,
not realizing it hadn't been done. xerox was stunned when they saw mac
os with regions. he tells the story better than i do.

I have read it... and I allude to it briefly with the "self-redrawing
windows (and double buffering)" item... but I admit that could be more
clear.

i have heard it firsthand, and what you're calling self-redrawing
windows is not the same as arbitrary regions.

Fair enough. I may have things worded poorly, too. Here is where I got
that info:

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/05/gui.ars
-----
One critical advance from the Lisa team came from an Apple
engineer who was not a former PARC employee, but had seen the
demonstration of Smalltalk. He thought he had witnessed the
Alto's ability to redraw portions of obscured windows when a
topmost window was moved: this was called "regions". In fact,
the Alto did not have this ability, but merely redrew the
entire window when the user selected it.
-----
Aqua introduced the idea of a GUI where every window was
double-buffered in memory, so that any redraws happen
off-screen and aren't visible
-----

Actual quotes shown there are on page 4 and 7.


aqua is os x, long after quickdraw in classic mac os, and very
different in all sorts of ways.


Right... the Aqua comment is about double-buffering to speed the process
and leads to less tearing and the like.

classic mac os actually didn't have double-buffered windows initially,
although some games implemented it on their own and offscreen drawing
was added later.




--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
  #60  
Old November 8th 18, 07:23 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server

In article , chrisv
wrote:


there are also ****loads of vertical market apps for tablets,
particularly health care, but also education, restaurants and much
more.


I'm wondering about the market shares, Android vs iOS, in those
"industrial" tablet markets.


there's very little vertical market tablet software on android, making
it not a very compelling choice.

however, chromebooks are very strong in education.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.