[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The IBM PC's slavish devotion to the Apple II





Matthew Russotto wrote:
In article <3EEDD37A.9010409@somwehere.com>,
Rich  <someone@somwehere.com> wrote:


I'm not sure what to make of this. Microsoft (actually,
Bill Gates himeself) wrote Apple BASIC, which was on ROM
in each and every Apple ][. Other than that, what did
Microsoft do?


Microsoft wrote AppleSOFT BASIC.

Then why do BOTH companies have copyrights on the BASIC. And why isn't it exactly the same as MS BASIC? (Which would have made it much more like the later GW-BASIC)

Roy

Which was on ROM in each and every
Apple ][+.  Woz wrote Apple Basic, later renamed Integer Basic, which
was in ROM on the Apple ][ (no plus).

Microsoft later successfully killed Macintosh Basic by holding the
Applesoft Basic license (expiring after 6 years, 6 months, and 6 days)
hostage.


Are you thinking of the PowerPC? Maybe so, maybe not. The
68K was not a bad chip, and there is no reason why it
could not have been developed further.


Well, there was a reason, and it's the same reason the G4 is falling
furtherbehind.  Motorola.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----