If you've read the book "The Second Coming of Steve Jobs", in one chapter, it states that Steve doesn't use Apple computers.

It says he uses a Toshiba notebook, and 2 NeXT machines.

Is this still true, the book was refering to when he came back to Apple in 1997 (or 1996 "I forgot").

Wouldn't it be ironic for Steven Paul Jobs, co-founder of Apple, to not use Apple computers?

THAT would be ironic!

LOL

quote:

---

Originally posted by dragonman97:
Well, I read on /. that Bill Gates had been using a *nix at Microsoft for many years, where he was rumored to use vi, so anything's possible. I would really love to hear that Bill (or Steve) is using Linux secretly (or at least BSD [and I don't mean Darwin], I know Bill accepts the BSD license, but shreiks at the GPL).

---

IIRC, Microsoft did their coding and compiling on their own Unix distribution, XENIX.

quote:

---

XENIX

---

I may be missing a few details, but that is generally the story.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darth Gates:
I belive the original name for MS-DOS before Microstuff bought it was Q-DOS for Quick and Dirty Operating System. I might be wrong...

---

I'm not entirely sure why, but I recall the early OS's for microcomputers were referred to as disk operating systems. For example, the first OS I used was H-DOS (Heathkit Disk Operating System), though we later switched to CP/M, for the Heathkit H-89 computer (the kit version of the Zenith Z-89). The only thing I can think of is that it was to emphasize the OS was loaded off a disk. Any geeks with a greater gray:nongray hair ratio than I recall better?

Tangent: I wonder of the "Q" in "QDOS" led to the "Q" in "QBASIC"?

------------------
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?

M ale
S tripers
|
D o
O ral
s tuff

The BSD license, unlike the GPL, doesn't require the redistribution of source code. which means that one can include parts of the software, as long as it's acknowledged. for example, MS used an older BSD implementation of the tcp/ip stack as the basis for windows tcp/ip.

quote:

---

Originally posted by +Andrew:
IIRC, Microsoft did their coding and compiling on their own Unix distribution, XENIX.

-Andrew

---

wow, i should hit e-bay and see if i can find an old 6502, for nostalgia's sake...

quote:

---

Originally posted by EngrBohn:
[b]Micro-Soft Disk Operating System.

I'm not entirely sure why, but I recall the early OS's for microcomputers were referred to as disk operating systems. For example, the first OS I used was H-DOS (Heathkit Disk Operating System), though we later switched to CP/M, for the Heathkit H-89 computer (the kit version of the Zenith Z-89). The only thing I can think of is that it was to emphasize the OS was loaded off a disk. Any geeks with a greater gray:nongray hair ratio than I recall better?

Tangent: I wonder of the "Q" in "QDOS" led to the "Q" in "QBASIC"?

[/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by omega996:
yeah, xenix is a SysVr3-based unix that microsoft had out in the marketplace in the early 80's to provide a 'low-cost' unix on intel hardware (competing with SCO).

---

That's fundamentally incorrect. First of all, Xenix is not based on SysV at all, let alone SVR3. Check the Unix timeline -- note that Xenix predates System III, let alone System V.

Second of all, there was no SCO at that time, and Microsoft certainly did not compete with them. When Microsoft got tired of trying to play the Unix game, they sold Xenix... to SCO. SCO then marketed this product as "SCO Xenix". Later, they merged parts of Unix System V into it, and called it "SCO Unix".

Worst case, no disks, etc, you type in a BASIC program and you're good to go.

Assembly Language is "easy", even on the IIgs with its 65816 CPU (24-bit addressing) and "bank" (64K sized page) swapping to reference date with 16 bits. (I used to code Apple II "machine code" by hand.)

Even if you don't have reference manuals, Apple II's have a Dis-Assembler (so you can figure out the Op-codes). Unfortunately, this won't give you the I/O Load/Store Addresses that you need for Sound and Graphics. There are 20 or 30 subroutines in ROM that are useful, but you'll need some kind of Ancient reference to put them to use.

(somewhere ... I still have all these things ...... Apple IIgs, 2.8 MHz CPU)

i double-checked the copyright on a machine running AT&T Xenix - c1983 by microsoft, with software from AT&T Bell Labs (though it doesn't state which version, so system III is no doubt the correct one). don't know where i pulled the sys V from *shrugs*...

xenix seems a lot like a System V system without a lot of the bells and whistles. it's not too bad, if you like simple. the installation is on 5 3.5" floppies, so there's just not a lot to it.

the only SCO i ever worked with was in the early 1990s - it was all System V, if i'm not mistaken (again)

quote:

---

Originally posted by greycat:
That's fundamentally incorrect. First of all, Xenix is not based on SysV at all, let alone SVR3. Check the Unix timeline -- note that Xenix predates System III, let alone System V.

Second of all, there was no SCO at that time, and Microsoft certainly did not compete with them. When Microsoft got tired of trying to play the Unix game, they sold Xenix... to SCO. SCO then marketed this product as "SCO Xenix". Later, they merged parts of Unix System V into it, and called it "SCO Unix".

I've never had to use Xenix before. But I've used SCO Unix. SCO Unix is the worst flavor of Unix I've ever seen, bar none. It sucks, profoundly. About the best thing you can say for it is "at least it's not DOS".

---