--- Mayuresh A Kathe mayuresh@vsnl.com wrote:
on 29/7/2001 11:50 AM, S. Krishnan at sri_krishnan@yahoo.com wrote:
Apple I, The first PC was launched in 1976 by
Apple,
it was in a Semi Assembled form. Apple II, The first really usable PC was launched
in
1978 again by Apple,
I meant the IBM PC, since the Apple was never
commonly
referred to by the handle "PC".
That�s where you are wrong, the term PC was coined for the Apple II, because it was really a Personal Computer compared to rest of them sold in kit form, or even compared to the Apple I.
Good heavens! You mean you didn't know that it was IBM who introduced the term "PC" to the world? Till then, the Apple and its ilk were referred to either as "microcomputers" or "home computers". For your information, I've read enough old copies of Byte, Dr. Dobbs, Popular Electronics,et al (yes, I'm old enough to remember reading the launch ad of the IBM PC, featuring Charlie Chaplin), and never have I heard Apple refer to their product as a "PC". IBM introduced their product as the IBM PC. That is why even today it is called the _PC_ and the Macintosh is called a Mac but *never* a PC.
For your edification, I reproduce the following extract from an online encyclopaedia. It ought to gladden your heart since it speaks unfavourably of the PC in comparison to the Mac.
<Quote> (PC) A general-purpose single-user microcomputer designed to be operated by one person at a time.
This term and the concept has been successfully hijacked by IBM due to the huge market share of the IBM PC, despite its many obvious weaknesses when compared to other equally valid claimants to the term, e.g. the Acorn Archimedes, Amiga, Atari, Macintosh. <Unquote>
ROM BIOS details weren't released by IBM, you had
to
purchase them from IBM.
You're wrong here. IBM published complete ROM
BIOS
listings for all their PC products in the
"Technical
Reference" manuals for each product. I have
myself
referred to the PC-AT Technical Reference
extensively
to understand the character generator code so that
I
could write a similar character generator routine
for
a Xenix video device driver that I was writing at
the
time. All it took to obtain this stuff was the
$15 or
so that IBM charged at that time for the Tech Ref. They stopped this practice with the release of
Micro
Channel, IBM's subsequent failed attempt at
locking
the box up and throwing the keys away.
You go round the circle and come back to the same point, I said, IBM didn't publish it straight away, you had to buy it from them. You said, it took $15 to obtain the PC-AT technical Reference.
Whats the difference??
If you can't understand this, I suggest that you refer to a dictionary. You had written that <Quote> ROM BIOS details weren't released by IBM, you had to purchase them from IBM. <Unquote>. It certainly looks like you did not understand what you wrote! Your sentence implied that IBM *did not* release the ROM BIOS details except under some special circumstances. Thus, your statement of having to purchase the ROM BIOS "details" from IBM, in the context of your earlier declaration that IBM did not release the BIOS, meant that IBM restricted the distribution and sale of the BIOS to certain eligible buyers, when actually it was available to anyone - including the (then) KGB - as a part of the freely distributed Technical Reference Manual. The fact that IBM had released the ROM BIOS listing as part of a freely available book certainly gives the lie to your statement that "IBM did not release the ROM BIOS details".
It took the sheer genius of the guys at a
fledgling
company called "Compaq" to reverse engineer that and then open it up, in fact, I would say Compaq really pioneered Open Source.
No way. The BIOS copy boys (Compaq, AMI, Award
and
the rest) did what are called "clean-room" implementations of the IBM PC BIOS. This means
that
they employed programmers who had "never" seen the
IBM
listings, so that IBM could not come back and
point
fingers at them for lifting code, and gave them
the
API that they had to implement, along with the
full
programming details of the X86 processor family, through Intel's very detailed manuals. Thus the non-IBM ROM BIOS implementations, while an
excellent
example of reverse engineering and pretty sophisticated coding, were not rocket science.
What is the difference between clean room implementations and reverse engineering? Do reverse engineering people get to see a piece of code?
Again, you don't seem to understand what I had written. You are quoting out of context, and wasting your aggression on non-issues. Read on....
You are taking conflicting stands. In the earlier part of your para you say, "No way, it wasn't reverse engineering", and in the later part you say "non-IBM ROM BIOS implementations, while an excellent example of reverse engineering..."
You seem to have a basic comprehension problem. My "no way" was against your tall claims of "sheer genius". You have yourself acknowledged that I had stated that the work was an excellent example of reverse engineering. I stand by that. Please read the post again carefully, and maybe you'll understand what I meant. Please do not flame for nonexistent reasons and/ or causes.
Infact, "Clean-Room" implementations done by virgin programmers _should_ be considered Rocket Science because they did have to start from scratch and also be compatible with IBM.
Maybe if you were a programmer, you'd understand that while it was an excellent coding effort, it certainly wasn't rocket science.
This factor, coupled with the CP/M compatible
API of
PC-DOS (yes, the very same MS-DOS of today),
rendered the
PC a very attractive backward-compatible
development
in the microcomputer world as opposed to the closed-box nature of the Apple Macintosh.
The Macintosh was never supposed to be a standard computing device, it was more targeted to be a consumer computing device created for the masses.
Never knew anybody opening up their Washing
machines
or Televisions...
Well, I do. Just take a walk down Lamington Road
and
see the number of domestic appliance service
manuals
on sale!
You do?? I never knew you were in the business of manufacturing Washing machines and television sets...
May I recommend a course in basic English language and comprehension for you? You had written that <Quote>
Never knew anybody opening up their Washing
machines
or Televisions... <Unquote>
to which I replied that I do. Please understand that opening a washing machine or television set for whatever purpose (I open them to fix them if they break) is not tantamount to manufacturing washing machines, television sets or whatever. If opening a domestic appliance and manufacturing it are the same thing in your lexicon, then I regret to inform you that your English knowledge and comprehension are pitiable, to say the least.
And incidentally, if you say that you "never knew anybody opening up their Washing machines or Televisions", it makes one wonder what world you're living in. There are a lot of electronic hobbyists out there who love to play around with their TVs and assorted appliances - in fact, one of the inspirations for the early home computer builders was a book called the TV Typewriter Cookbook by Don Lancaster, published in the seventies (I own a copy), which showed how to create a terminal out of a TV set, among other things. But then, we couldn't expect you to know that, could we, since you seem to have elevated your Apple (and maybe sundry other appliances, who knows) to the level of gifts from the gods - look, worship but do not ever, ever, fiddle with - it's not a standard computing device (whatever that means to you) but a divine interpreter of heavenly messages. A latter day Erich von Daniken, perhaps?
I'm not going to reply to the rest of your flame, since it is illogical, ill-considered and without anything in the way of merit, meaning or substance. I have replied to certain of your outbursts because I wanted to set the historical record straight, after your wilful distortions of fact and flights of fancy. You seem to have taken my criticism of Apple and its products as a personal slur, and have attempted - clumsily - to retaliate, in the manner of Don Quixote, who tilted at windmills in the absence of ogres. And in doing so you've ended up with your foot in your mouth.
Please remember that violence, including misdirected barrages of words, is ever the last refuge of incompetents - don't go out of your way to prove that you are one. Get a life! Steve Jobs really doesn't care about your furious (albeit clumsy) defence of his company and products - he has better things to do.
Please don't bother to reply to this post, since I have no desire to bandy words with you and waste the bandwidth of the list.
Best regards,
Krishnan
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/