Rare Apple I computer sells for $216,000 in London

Some gutless f****it desperately cowering behind SG1 wrote just the puerile s*it thats all it can ever manage.

re:

gone 404 ... but lives on the wayback machine

kildall using cp67/cms at npg school (wiki mentions he fulfilled draft obligation by teaching at npg)

melinda's virtual machine history going back to science center, cp40 & cp67.

Some gutless f****it desperately cowering behind SG1 wrote just the puerile s*it thats all it can ever manage.

Well, the topic was Apple I, which implies consumer=grade systems.

Burroughs (PPoE) had the capability to share files between multiple systems (a al NFS/AppleTalk/NetWare) in the 1960's with up to 8 hosts accessing a single spindle using FPM (file protect memory) and later SSP (Shared Systems Processor) for block-level lockout.

scott

Yet IE is still trying to catch up to Firefox.

No truer words were ever spoken.

Some gutless f****it desperately cowering behind SG1 wrote just the puerile s*it thats all it can ever manage.

Scott Lurndal wrote

Nope, that bit wasnt.

Networking doesnt, particularly between separate machines.

Irrelevant to whether Win networking was anything like what Novell did, particularly for stupid users.

Scott Lurndal wrote

Irrelevant to whether there has been any INNOVATION with IE.

The iPhone is Irrelevant, just like Roddles

Some gutless f****it desperately cowering behind SG1 wrote just the puerile s*it thats all it can ever manage.

DOS 1.0 was *very* much like CP/M, enough so that Kildall used the similarity as leverage to get IBM to agree to sell CP/M for the PC as well. DOS 2.0 was a total rewrite. -- Joe

Sure it was. It allowed programs to run (actually executing operations) in the background. Until Win95, Windows didn't support anything better than MultiFinder's capabilities. -- Joe

Joe Thompson wrote

they could if they ever decided to.

MS.

Nothing like a COPY of CP/M.

Thats not how that happened. If it really was a COPY of CP/M, he would have sued and won.

It was never a COPY of CP/M or even close either.

If it had been, there would have been no need for different versions of the apps.

they could if they ever decided to.

The most it did was share an api structure etc and had significant changes in the detail with how CP/M operated, most obviously with the automatic flushing to disk etc.

Nothing like a COPY of CP/M, it just used a similar API so it was easy to port apps to it etc.

sued and won.

apps.

Joe Thompson wrote

anyway.

Nope, it was an addon, not multitasking as part of the OS.

Irrelevant to the FACT that multitasking on Win was there well before MultiFinder.

It replaced the single-tasking Finder with a multitasking one. I'd call that "part of the OS", akin to installing an extra module in a Linux kernel. -- Joe

Joe Thompson wrote

anyway.

More fool you. That the shell, not the OS.

Nothing like it, actually.

And regardless, multitasking showed up with Win well before MultiFinder anyway.

anyway.

And

MultiFinder was the name of an extension software for the Apple Macintosh, introduced on August 11, 1987 and included with System Software 5. ... With the release of System 7, the MultiFinder extension was integrated with the operating system,

anyway.