Re: Some Apple II History

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

DanielEran wrote:

> http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q3.07/C0EF7E47-676D-421F-AC12-04445A2324E9.html
> SCO, Linux, and Microsoft in the History of OS: 1980s
> While Microsoft ripped off the 70s technology in Digital Research's CP/
> M to resell in the 80s as MS-DOS, Apple used its hardware profits of
> the 70s to finance the development of a new generation of much more
> powerful software in order to sell new hardware in the 80s.

This main portion of this article deserves some comment:

>Xerox PARC and Apple New Macintosh: 1980 - 1984.
>While Microsoft ripped off the 70s technology in Digital Research�s 
>CP/M to resell in the 80s as MS-DOS, Apple used its hardware profits 
of >the 70s to finance the development of a new generation of much more 
>powerful software in order to sell new hardware in the 80s.

This certainly reflects a very highly editorialized version of the
facts.  Microsoft bought QDOS from Tim Paterson, and he has always
stated that he wrote QDOS as a CP/M clone for the 8086.  Whether or
not a "rip-off" occurred, Tim would be the person to talk to, not
Microsoft.

And, of course, the "hardware profits" that Apple used to develop
the Mac weren't from the 1970s, but from the early 1980s, namely
from the Apple II, et al.

>Building on ideas originally developed at Xerox PARC, Apple developed 
a >new generation of desktop computers with graphical interfaces: the 
Lisa >and Macintosh. Apple paid Xerox for its technology inspiration 
using a >stock deal. Apple's products weren't based on a copy of Xerox 
code, nor >did Apple have any code access.

No, they just hired several of the chief designers of the system!
This was much more effective than buying the code, since the designers
had learned many ways to improve the system and, in any case, it had to
be done in assembler for a new processor, the 68000.

>The software Apple designed went well beyond what Xerox researchers 
had >envisioned. For example, while Xerox originated the idea of the 
mouse >and a bit-mapped display with windowed regions, Apple 
independently >developed the ideas of direct interaction of movable 
windows, as well >as the automatic redrawing of the background required 
as a window moved >around on the screen.

It went beyond what the PARC designer had already done, because it was
the same designers continuing to develop what they had started.  There
was lots of input and imagination from people already at Apple, but
the design directions are clearly PARC directions, modified for use
on a lower-end platform than an Alto.

Moving windows across a (non-destroyed) background is really quite
obvious, and was "invented" several times.  There are only so many
ways to skin a cat.

>Apple also built its computers with an entirely different system 
>architecture which enabled it to drive the entry package price down 
>from the $100,000 dollar investment Xerox required for its $16,000 
>workstations sold in a package with file and print servers, to 
>standalone Mac systems that only cost $2500.

Such is the power of the microprocessor, combined with the need to
compete in a low-end market.  You neglected to note that Apple got
is seriously wrong first, with the $10,000 Lisa, before an internal
rebellion created the Mac.

Boy, does history take a beating...

-michael

NadaPong: Network game demo for Apple II computers!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."