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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server
On 2018-11-08 9:49 a.m., nospam wrote:
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. Had I not upgraded to Windows 10 Mobile, chances are that I wouldn't have had that in-call mic problem and would therefore have remained on the platform to this day. I really liked it a lot despite being starved for decent third-party apps and only begrudgingly returned to Android. -- SilverSlimer Minds: @silverslimer |
Ads |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server
On 11/8/18 2:30 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Snit wrote: You can see am emulator for Classic Mac OS he http://jamesfriend.com.au/pce-js/pce-js-apps/ Now this is System 7, which is more advanced than the original 1984 version but also shares a LOT in common with it (biggest difference likely being the ability to switch between running programs). switching among multiple apps existed well before system 7. Unless you mean desk accessories I think that was System 6, but I was comparing it to "the original 1984 version". If you got the average high school student from today to use that they would quickly figure it out -- the current systems borrow a LOT from it. There would surely be issues such why the menus do not stay available if you release the mouse that was an intentional ui decision, one which was later changed. Yes... and a good thing they did. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2998915_Of_mice_and_menus_Designing_the_user-friendly_interface and perhaps questions on even how to find apps, there's a reason why finder was called finder. but overall it would be a very familiar experience, even if showing a very dated look. pretty much. I have had my kids play with it... they figured it out very quickly. Well, at least the basics. -- 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 |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server
On 2018-11-08 9:49 a.m., nospam wrote:
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. That's how most people saw it as well and I have to admit that I had no reason to think otherwise but Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy made a decent case for why it _wasn't_ just a shell. However, 9x in general was more capable than MacOS at the time and even Apple knew it. nonsense. Nope. 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. Regardless of when the development started, there was no doubt that Copland was going to end up being a response to Windows 9x since 9x remedied many of the drawbacks of MacOS. 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. I have no reason to doubt the historians especially since they are not zealots in any way. 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. Quite possible, I won't challenge that. 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... You make a good case and I'd be a fool to challenge you. I surrender to your wealth of knowledge, good sir. -- SilverSlimer Minds: @silverslimer |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server
On 11/8/18 1:23 PM, chrisv wrote:
Wolf K wrote: About 5 years ago I argued that a handy size for a (smart) phone would about that of a paperback. I was ridiculed. But the Samsung S9 is about as tall as a paperback, but narrower (and of course thinner). The latest iPhone is in the same size-range. So I wan't far off. There is no such thing as a "wrong" size. Every size possible (within reason) would be right, for someone. He clearly meant the size that would work best for most. And, yes, there are wrong sizes. Of course there are wrong sizes. And of course size matters... if it did not design teams would not need to consider it! The more sizes, the more choice, that is offered, the more people will find something close to what is optimal for them. Maybe. Maybe not. -- 'That everyday anxiety over making the wrong choice is why having a vast selection of choices tends to make people less happy in general. After all, once you make the decision and get locked in, you never stop thinking "What if."' - some thing, pulling snit out his ass. You seem to be referencing this: https://www.biopsychiatry.com/happiness/choice.html Would be great if you could understand it! -- 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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server
On 2018-11-08 1:23 p.m., nospam wrote:
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. And as a teacher, I have to admit that I made the choice to move to Chromebooks myself in the school I worked at a few years ago. They tend to last longer than any PC and since they reset with each reboot, you don't have to worry about security as much as you would a PC in general. Whatever PCs the schools do reset as well since they load the operating system from scratch every time, but the boot process ends up being insanely slow in contract to a generic Chromebook. -- SilverSlimer Minds: @silverslimer |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server
On 2018-11-08 2:12 p.m., Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-11-08 09:45, Snit wrote: 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. Interesting point. I think it was adumbrated when GEOS was created for the Commodore 64. Later ported to the PC as Geoworks, it had all the elements of current ubiquitous GUI: icons with labels (and een file-size data), click to launch, etc.. The low rez monitors of the time made it look like crap, but it was a powerful GUI. I was somewhat fond of GeOS. When I bought a 386 laptop around 2000 for the heck of it, it came with Windows 3.1 that I quickly replaced with GeOS. I ended up getting a tiny bit of use out of it but the battery was dead and you had to play with the power port in the back to get a consistent source of electricity so I eventually gave it on it. Great little operating system though. -- SilverSlimer Minds: @silverslimer |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server
On 2018-11-08 3:00 p.m., Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-11-08 13:06, Alan Baker wrote: On 2018-11-07 11:23 AM, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-11-07 12:11, nospam wrote: [...] microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on windows. [...] https://www.reference.com/technology...34eb9f5980d955 The first version of Word for the Mac was released in 1985. The first version for Windows didn't arrive until 1989, and very nearly the end of 1989 at that (November). From the cuted souirce: "Microsoft Word, first released in 1983 as "Multi-Tool Word," is a word processor available as a standalone product and as a component in the Microsoft Office suite. The first version of Microsoft Word was based on the framework of Bravo, the world's first word processor with a graphical user interface. Following the renaming of Multi-Tool Word to Microsoft Word, Microsoft released its first version of Word in October 1983 for the IBM PC. " Seems like some people want to insist that the first Word, a non-WYSIWYG program, was not Word. Well, if you want to quibble, the quibbling contest is over that-away. Found this: http://toastytech.com/guis/word115.html -- SilverSlimer Minds: @silverslimer |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server
On 2018-11-08 5:58 p.m., Dave Yeo wrote:
SilverSlimer wrote: I never had the chance to use OS/2 for any significant length of time since my hardware - when OS/2 was still competing - wasn't good enough to run it and because the system itself seemed fairly counterintuitive to me. Add the fact that software was scarce and there truly was little reason to use it, IMO. My experience with IBM itself, at the time, was also fairly negative so I'm not convinced that the PC platform would have been better off had it won the race over Windows either. I used it with substandard hardware (386 with 4MBs) by stripping it down. No WPS was the big thing. Originally I used it as a DOS replacement and it worked very well. Wanted to download stuff from a BBS while doing other stuff, OS/2 just worked. Wanted to run 2+ Win3.1 programs without one crashing and taking the other down, OS/2 allowed that, while downloading from a BBS. Generally OS/2 was a better DOS and Windows. Used a better file system with better caching, making it faster much of the time. Want to run and multi-task multiple Win (and/or DOS) programs, OS/2 did it well. Eventually I got more ram and a faster processor (33Mhz 486 DLC that plugged into my 386 board) and started using the WPS and native programs and never looked back. Typing this on OS/2 running on real hardware. If I remember correctly, I only really used it on a 386DX-33 with 4MB of RAM and I was underwhelmed but I definitely didn't strip it down to make it more usable. I was also in my mid-teens at the time and I wasn't concerned with the computer being useful as much as I was with it doing nifty things. It's too bad it didn't become more popular than it did but IBM can only really blame itself. However, OS/2 is still technically being developed as far as I know. Dunno if eComstation is still the only company providing OS/2 support though. Apparently, someone else is producing an OS/2-based system. -- SilverSlimer Minds: @silverslimer |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server
On 2018-11-08 5:58 p.m., Dave Yeo wrote:
SilverSlimer wrote: I never had the chance to use OS/2 for any significant length of time since my hardware - when OS/2 was still competing - wasn't good enough to run it and because the system itself seemed fairly counterintuitive to me. Add the fact that software was scarce and there truly was little reason to use it, IMO. My experience with IBM itself, at the time, was also fairly negative so I'm not convinced that the PC platform would have been better off had it won the race over Windows either. I used it with substandard hardware (386 with 4MBs) by stripping it down. No WPS was the big thing. Originally I used it as a DOS replacement and it worked very well. Wanted to download stuff from a BBS while doing other stuff, OS/2 just worked. Wanted to run 2+ Win3.1 programs without one crashing and taking the other down, OS/2 allowed that, while downloading from a BBS. Generally OS/2 was a better DOS and Windows. Used a better file system with better caching, making it faster much of the time. Want to run and multi-task multiple Win (and/or DOS) programs, OS/2 did it well. Eventually I got more ram and a faster processor (33Mhz 486 DLC that plugged into my 386 board) and started using the WPS and native programs and never looked back. Typing this on OS/2 running on real hardware. I was right: https://www.arcanoae.com/arcaos/ -- SilverSlimer Minds: @silverslimer |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server
In article , Wolf K
wrote: Following the renaming of Multi-Tool Word to Microsoft Word, Microsoft released its first version of Word in October 1983 for the IBM PC. " Seems like some people want to insist that the first Word, a non-WYSIWYG program, was not Word. Well, if you want to quibble, the quibbling contest is over that-away. Are you incapable of READING? "microsoft word and excel were on a mac long before they were on WINDOWS." Do you see the WORD you're consistently MISSING? Yes, and I think it's not especially relevant. Windows was just DOS with a pretty face at the time. But that's a quibble. :-) it's very relevant. I'll grant you that the WYSIWIG version was made for mac-os before it was ported to DOS/Windows. that's what i originally said, except for it being ported, which it was very clearly not (especially *to* dos), nor did i mention dos. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server
In article , Wolf K
wrote: 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. With Staples and the Source, it usually is. They don't restock stuff that takes too long to sell. That is relegated to their online store, and quite often isn't restocked there either. Retail is brutal. you have no idea what their stock level is or how many units they move per day/week/month. True, but I do have an idea about what's on display, and what's on sale. That tells you a lot about what they're trying to move. trying to move != actually moving. 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. Yup, it's a recognition that more and more people want tablets to be full-fledged computers. tablets *are* full fledged computers, and in many cases, can do things a desktop or laptop cannot, often in a more pleasant or more productive way. To imitate you style: "That depends on the tablet." not really. even a low end tablet can do things that a desktop/laptop can't. it depends on the specific task. pick the best tool for the job. IOW, that the Surface has shown us the future of personal computing. See also the "convertible" laptops. no it definitely hasn't. convertible laptops try to combine desktop and touch, two very different paradigms, and don't do either one all that well. The desktop is already a niche market, the laptop is trending that way too. you're confusing mature with niche. Nope. A market can be mature without being niche, eg SUVs. The desktop happens to be both. It matured before it became a niche, which AFAICT is the usual sequence. desktop/laptops are anything but niche. suvs can be considered a niche. most people don't need them. usually there's only one person inside (the driver), perhaps two. A year or three from now, people will be whinging about how tablets aren't real computers, they have been doing that since tablets first appeared, mostly from people who don't know what a tablet can actually do. True, but just watch what happens when laptops become a niche. They're well on the way. no they aren't. mobile will become more common, but there will still be a need for laptops and even desktops. just like they whinged that laptops weren't real computers. yep, they did that too, and soon realized their mistake. True, which is why the the latest Get_Your_Stuff_For_Christmas flyers here doesn't show a single desktop. All laptops and tablets. laptops have outsold desktops for more than a decade. many people said anything with a gui wasn't real computer, something dumbed down for the masses. they were wrong about that too. True. They said such devices were toys. and they were wrong. FWIW, this big box is getting to be a PITA. It's big and bulky, and offers no real advantage over a laptop or high-end tablet. I need the space for other purposes, and will dispose of this machine within the next 6 months or less. I doubt I'll find a buyer, and may not even be able to give it away. there's very little demand for used pcs, although you might be able to flip it at a swap meet. No such event here, unfortunately. that sucks. it's a great way to buy and sell cheap hardware without the hassles and expense of shipping, especially for hard to find items or large & heavy items. there are also ****loads of vertical market apps for tablets, particularly health care, but also education, restaurants and much more. Yes, but these aren't for most people. They are business/profession specific. it shows that tablets can do a *lot* more than just surf the web, email and play videos. Sure, but most people don't care about that. sez you. Which was my point: it';s not abouit what the device could do, but what people want it to do. and they want it to do more than just surf, email and watch videos. the number of tablet optimized apps (at least on the ipad) is clear proof of that. Our devices are overpowered as it is. Sending a email with a any current deviec is like sending a single post card with a 747. for some things they are overpowered, but for other things they are not. computational photography, for example, especially when done in real time, is pushing the limits of today's technology. augmented reality and gaming are also areas which push the limits. 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. A recent flyer from our local pusher highlighted the phone feature. that means nothing. Oh yes it does. It indicates that the marketers have decided that it's a feature that quite a lot of people either already want, or will want as soon as they realise they can have it. If marketing sees a possible increase in margin, that's significant. Of course, it may turn out they've over-interpreted their data, but it's too soon to tell. all it indicates is that they want to sell a particular product, often because it isn't selling that well and they need to move inventory to make room for new stuff that's coming. successful products don't need a push. what matters is whether people buy it for that purpose and actually use it that way. Fact is, a lot of stuff is sold on features that people will never use. It's the reason so many people buy pickup trucks. some stuff might be, but that doesn't last. people aren't fooled for very long. I've noticed that people often hold the phone face up like a mini-tablet and talk at it, not into it. i've noticed that too. it's very weird. Yeah, but now that I have to waer hearing aids, I fully underrtsnad it. most people i see doing that are under 30. older people use a phone like they always have, held up to their ear... So a tablet with phone is an obvious next step I think. it isn't. who wants to carry a tablet-sized phone everywhere?? You have a point, but then, who wants to carry two devices if one will do the job? that's why phablets have become popular. it displays more content than a smaller phone but without the inconvenience of a larger tablet. however, one device doing the job of two will always be a compromise. some might choose a smaller phone for every day use and bring a tablet or laptop only when necessary, while others will accept the compromises of one device. People will buy all kinds of stuff because they think it's practical. Practical is a variety of cool, and cool is powerful. Data point: My dad bought a Klepperboot, a bundle of canvas and sticks that could be unfolded into something resembling a boat. He used it once. that decision was not based on practicality. It could turn out that the current large smartphones are too big for handy phoning, but too small for handy computing. We'll see. A recent resurgence in flip-phones suggests that a lot of people still aren't surer exactly what they want a phone to be. what resurgence? flipphone sales are lost in the noise. they could double and nobody would notice, nor care. I've seen flip phones featured as a fashion accessory. Pay attention to that. When a device become a fashion accessory, all reasonable speculations about its future are off. flippers aren't selling anywhere near as much as smartphones and they're not fashion accessories either. smartphone cases are the fashion accessories, ranging from amusing to impractical: https://www.boredpanda.com/coolest-iphone-cases/ https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51i8XbyOl-L.jpg https://www.youngisthan.in/userfiles...ush-iphone-cas e.jpg otherwise, most phones are very boring looking. About 5 years ago I argued that a handy size for a (smart) phone would about that of a paperback. I was ridiculed. But the Samsung S9 is about as tall as a paperback, but narrower (and of course thinner). The latest iPhone is in the same size-range. So I wasn't far off. the dell streak was the first 5" phone and people thought it was stupid. it failed (and not just due to size). a year or two later, samsung came out with the note, mostly so it could have a larger battery that could last longer than a few hours (early lte chipsets were *very* power-hungry). it sold well, much to everyone's surprise. Not to those who paid attention to fashion. In an over-producing economy like ours, fashion drives at least 50% of the market. Ignore it at your peril. not so much in tech. If you see any hints that the iPhone is no longer cool, sell your Apple stock. (The biz pages recently reported that Apple has lost a few mil in capitalisation because iPhone sales have slipped in the last quarter or two: a straw in the wind, or just a hiccup? We'll see.) iphone sales have not slipped. the reason for the recent drop in the stock price was that apple will no longer report unit sales for each product and wall street is freaked out about it, yet for some reason, they don't seem to mind that very few other companies report unit sales. amazon says the kindle sells well, but how many exactly? nobody outside of amazon knows. there is also a lot of market manipulation going on (it happens every quarter). fabricate a story, the stock price drops, forming a wonderful buy-op, and then cash in on the rebound. apple stock is already up 5% from last week's low. and it's not just apple. bloomberg news, as a matter of corporate policy, is to write stories that manipulate the market. witness their bull**** story about hacked servers. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
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. Some of the GUI in Mac OS was inspired by Xerox's GUI... ...but large swaths of what we take for granted were added by Apple. nearly all of it, actually. there was only a casual similarity between the xerox star and classic mac os. Here is the Star: https://youtu.be/Cn4vC80Pv6Q You can see where the Mac was inspired from it, but Apple made a LOT of changes. yes i know. i used to use a xerox star and am *very* familiar with it. one of the more amusing bits was there was a xerox font, which had only 4 letters: e o r x. its sole reason for existence was so that one could type 'xerox' and have it match the logo. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server
In article , Snit
wrote: You can see am emulator for Classic Mac OS he http://jamesfriend.com.au/pce-js/pce-js-apps/ Now this is System 7, which is more advanced than the original 1984 version but also shares a LOT in common with it (biggest difference likely being the ability to switch between running programs). switching among multiple apps existed well before system 7. Unless you mean desk accessories I think that was System 6, but I was comparing it to "the original 1984 version". desk accessories do count since they could be used alongside standard apps, and were even preemptively scheduled. some of them were really full fledged apps in disguise. however, i was thinking of switcher, which was introduced with system 5 in 1987, a little more than 3 years after the mac came out and about 4 years before system 7, in 1991. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server
In article , SilverSlimer
wrote: however, chromebooks are very strong in education. And as a teacher, I have to admit that I made the choice to move to Chromebooks myself in the school I worked at a few years ago. They tend to last longer than any PC and since they reset with each reboot, you don't have to worry about security as much as you would a PC in general. Whatever PCs the schools do reset as well since they load the operating system from scratch every time, but the boot process ends up being insanely slow in contract to a generic Chromebook. yep, and if a chromebook is damaged, simply replace it, the kid logs in and all of his work is as it was before. they're also cheap enough that it doesn't matter that much. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
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. That's how most people saw it as well and I have to admit that I had no reason to think otherwise because that's what it is. but Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy made a decent case for why it _wasn't_ just a shell. much of what he says is wrong, especially about macs. However, 9x in general was more capable than MacOS at the time and even Apple knew it. nonsense. Nope. not nope. win95 was catching up to where mac os was a decade earlier, but still wasn't quite there. apple's problem was that they mostly sat on their butt all that time, with a lot of internal infighting and canceled projects, plus microsoft abused their monopoly position. 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. Regardless of when the development started, there was no doubt that Copland was going to end up being a response to Windows 9x since 9x remedied many of the drawbacks of MacOS. nope. copland began well before win95 and was very definitely *not* a response to win95. 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. Quite possible, I won't challenge that. not only possible, but that's exactly what happened. 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... You make a good case and I'd be a fool to challenge you. I surrender to your wealth of knowledge, good sir. thanks. sometimes i'm surprised at how much i remember from back then. btw, i dug up inside mac, and not only did it give the pinouts for the various ports, but it even gave partial schematics, in addition to how to write drivers. https://i.imgur.com/P369DRz.jpg https://i.imgur.com/kAACU57.jpg anyone who wanted to design hardware or software for the mac could easily do so, something which many companies did. those who claim apple blocked anything were simply looking for an excuse to blame someone else. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|