Re: [vox] the windows XP talk at UCD
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [vox] the windows XP talk at UCD
begin: William Kendrick <email@example.com> quote
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 01:10:22PM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> > uhhh...
> > the apple II was the true hacker's computer.
> > the atari 2600 and gameboy are game machines.
> > the ibm pc was good enough to launch the x86 architecture on a world tour
> > that has lasted 2 decades.
> > whatever you've been smoking, bill, it's some powerful stuff. you need to go
> > easier on it.
> It seems you missed the point here...
i guess i did. are you saying that the apple II, atari 2600, game boy and ibm
pc are examples of how marketing wins over technology? i'm still not sure.
> Apple II - Very primitive compared to, eg: Atari 8-bit, Commodore 64.
> Only advantage was hardware extensibility (nice, open case
> with card-slots)
primitive? like, as in, didn't really have a good video driver and sound?
dude, i reverse engineered parts of the disk operating system on that
machine. i burned my own version of the proms. i created my own NMI
if playing asteroids is your measuring stick of primitive, then yeah. you're
right. it was primitive. but out of all my friends, the people who hacked
their apples went on to be cool hackers in real life. the people who played
asteroids on their atari and commodore turned out to be ... well, not
hackers. guess i'm glad to have used the primitve apple.
everyone i knew with an apple got one because we liked to hack, and it was
the perfect platform for hardware and software hackers.
just like the atari was the perfect platform for space invaders.
but what does this have to do with marketing? i recall lots of ads for
macs, but i really don't recall much for the apple II at all. the success of
the apple II came from word of mouth. people who wanted to learn about
hardware and software. as opposed to playing galaxian.
but that shows you're talking out your ass. there were LOTS of really cool
and neat things about the apple II. the fact that all you can give is the
open hardware just tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about.
> IBM PC - The base architecture is horrid, especially for modern
that's a wierd thing to say. the base architecture was good for its day.
in year 2001, we're seeing limitations of using an architecture over 20
years old. you're thinking like someone who wasn't really into computers
back in the 1980's. we have a different perspective on things.
just because the enigma cryptosystem has been broken doesn't mean it used to
be a good encryption system. to say otherwise would be ... well, stupid.
> If it weren't for Linux, I'd probably have a Sun box or a Mac. :)
that makes no sense. if you hate x86 so much, why not get yourself a sparc
and install linux on it. or get yourself a mac and install linux on it.
> For more details on all this, just read some Usenet groups (for the
> occasional classic computing system flamewars), some books on the history
> of video games ("The First Quarter", "Zap: The Rise and Fall of Atari",
> "Phoenix: The Fall and Rise of Video Games", etc.), or talk to Henry House
> (he hates Intel, too ;) )
btw, intel is not the x86 architecture. they aren't the same thing. and no,
they aren't practically the same thing either.
most people would agree that x86 outlived its usefulness. but that's not a
reason to say it always sucked.
if you're going to say that apple II sucked, you're going to have to defend
the statement, mr. asteroids.
"You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages
Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services ..."
-- Clause from license for FrontPage 2002