Click to visit our sponsors!

homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

  The Geek Culture Forums
  Ask a Geek!
  Steve's Computer

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Steve's Computer
iMat
Geek

Posts: 63
From: Canada
Registered: Mar 2002

posted April 19, 2002 23:34     Click Here to See the Profile for iMat   Click Here to Email iMat     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey nice people.. er.. I mean geeks!

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?

--iMat

IP: Logged

tafkact
Highlie

Posts: 641
From: nowhere, man
Registered: Jan 2000

posted April 20, 2002 10:26     Click Here to See the Profile for tafkact     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
i'll bet he runs window98se on that toshiba!

THAT would be ironic!

LOL

IP: Logged

Lex
Super Geek

Posts: 209
From: University of Florida
Registered: Jul 2001

posted April 21, 2002 15:13     Click Here to See the Profile for Lex   Click Here to Email Lex     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh, he probably uses Macs now. He might still have the toshiba around, and probably still has the NeXT boxen. After all, when he left Apple he founded NeXT... he was probably not very happy with Apple after they fired him, so he would of course use his own NeXT computers. The toshiba was probably running NeXTStep or OpenStep, depending on the time...

IP: Logged

MacPrince
Newbie Larva

Posts: 2
From: Crystal Lake, IL USA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted April 21, 2002 21:39     Click Here to See the Profile for MacPrince   Click Here to Email MacPrince     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I heard somewhere (don't remember where) that Steve uses Power Mac G4 Cubes with Cinema Displays both at home and at work. (That is, supposedly, why the G4 Cubes were merely "suspended", and not totally killed...Steve still needs them!) And they run only X...*no* classic Mac OS. I know for a while when he first returned to Apple, he used an IBM ThinkPad running OpenStep.

IP: Logged

dragonman97
Alpha Geek

Posts: 277
From: Westchester County, New York
Registered: May 2001

posted April 22, 2002 08:19     Click Here to See the Profile for dragonman97   Click Here to Email dragonman97     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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).

IP: Logged

Ti
Super Geek

Posts: 179
From: Fort Collins
Registered: Oct 2001

posted April 22, 2002 12:55     Click Here to See the Profile for Ti     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I hear he refuses to use computers at all, and instead sticks with his trustworthy "Franklin 7", but that could be a rumor :-)

IP: Logged

+Andrew
Super Geek

Posts: 233
From: Boston, MA, USA
Registered: Aug 2001

posted April 22, 2002 13:19     Click Here to See the Profile for +Andrew   Click Here to Email +Andrew     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.

-Andrew

IP: Logged

ehwood
Neat Newbie

Posts: 10
From:
Registered: Apr 2002

posted April 22, 2002 21:08     Click Here to See the Profile for ehwood     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
XENIX
Xenos + UNIX = strange/outlandish UNIX. That sounds like Microshaft's style.

------------------
Hi.

IP: Logged

GameMaster
Alpha Geek

Posts: 281
From: State of insanity
Registered: Mar 2002

posted April 22, 2002 23:24     Click Here to See the Profile for GameMaster   Click Here to Email GameMaster     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Who was the original writer of DOS... I know that DOS was sold to 2 companies, one of them Micro soft, and I can't rember where or when I heard this... Anyway, the other comapny I believe is dead now.

In anycase, it wouldn't supprise me a bit if Gates was a Lindows insider and beta tester. ~~~~

IP: Logged

MightyJoeSakic
Super Geek

Posts: 106
From: The Pacific Rock/NAVCOMTELSTA GUAM GU
Registered: Apr 2002

posted April 23, 2002 04:25     Click Here to See the Profile for MightyJoeSakic   Click Here to Email MightyJoeSakic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
DOS for the pc came to life in 1980. Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer Products wrote the program for the 8086 chip architecture... He took that program and showed it to Microsoft. Microsoft decided hey we could make a good deal of money off of this program so they buy exclusive rights, add MS to the name(MS-DOS) and sell if off to IBM.

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

------------------
I just came in to use the bathroom.....

IP: Logged

quantumfluff
Highlie

Posts: 746
From: behind your browser window
Registered: Jun 2000

posted April 23, 2002 08:13     Click Here to See the Profile for quantumfluff   Click Here to Email quantumfluff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, Joe is correct. MS-DOS was originally a product of Seattle Computers (but under a different name, which I forget now). The more popular OS was CPM-86 from Digital Research. When IBM approached Microsoft about getting Basic during the original PC development, Microsoft said to get CPM-86 for the OS. For some reason (there are a lot of stories about why) IBM and DR could not strike a deal, so Billy boy, sensing an opportunity, bought Tim and his OS from Seattle Computers so he could provide the whole suite of software.

And yes, Gates was a unix fan for a long time. He got introduced to Unix at Harvard and there was a lot of Xenix development going on there in the early 80's. As of 1982, they were using unix and/or xenix boxes for company mail internal systems. They were also doing a lot of cross development, using unix for editing and compilation but producing MSDOS and CPM binaries.

IP: Logged

Darth Gates
Neat Newbie

Posts: 12
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Registered: May 2002

posted May 17, 2002 15:37     Click Here to See the Profile for Darth Gates   Click Here to Email Darth Gates     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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...

------------------
Force quit this!!!

IP: Logged

quantumfluff
Highlie

Posts: 746
From: behind your browser window
Registered: Jun 2000

posted May 17, 2002 15:45     Click Here to See the Profile for quantumfluff   Click Here to Email quantumfluff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Q-DOS, that rings a bell. I do believe you are correct.

IP: Logged

magebard
Geek-in-Training

Posts: 31
From: vancouver, bc, canada
Registered: Apr 2002

posted May 17, 2002 18:12     Click Here to See the Profile for magebard   Click Here to Email magebard     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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...


 
So then, what would MS-DOS stand for?

IP: Logged

EngrBohn
Highlie

Posts: 777
From: United States
Registered: Jul 2000

posted May 18, 2002 04:13     Click Here to See the Profile for EngrBohn   Click Here to Email EngrBohn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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"?

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

IP: Logged

Darth Gates
Neat Newbie

Posts: 12
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Registered: May 2002

posted May 18, 2002 12:35     Click Here to See the Profile for Darth Gates   Click Here to Email Darth Gates     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Disk Operating System was to point out the fact it could use disk drives. But Mr. Gates may of had other plans.

M ale
S tripers
|
D o
O ral
s tuff

------------------
Force quit this!!!

IP: Logged

aloysius
Neat Newbie

Posts: 10
From: Oz
Registered: Mar 2002

posted May 20, 2002 02:17     Click Here to See the Profile for aloysius     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The original OS that MessyDOS was based on was CP/M, Control System for Microprocessors, distributed by Digital Research.
DR were so confident in their patents & copyright that they weren't terribly concerned when someone disassembled the entire code & published it somewhere. I'm being vague here, I know.
Someone else sat down & typed it in, modified it, reversed the syntax & assembled it, then sold it to MS for $50K when they were desperate for an OS for the first IBM PCs.
IBM were silly enough to pay a licence fee per machine for 3rd hand pirated software.

IP: Logged

omega996
Geek Apprentice

Posts: 44
From: brea, ca
Registered: Mar 2002

posted May 20, 2002 07:04     Click Here to See the Profile for omega996   Click Here to Email omega996     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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).

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


IP: Logged

omega996
Geek Apprentice

Posts: 44
From: brea, ca
Registered: Mar 2002

posted May 20, 2002 07:30     Click Here to See the Profile for omega996   Click Here to Email omega996     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
older personal computers weren't generally equipped with a disk drive of any sort, it was a separate purchase you'd have to make. since disks were optional, the computers generally didn't come with a way of working with that type of media. an execption would be the commodore 64, which had basic disk access commands built in to the kernel (along with the computer's BASIC interpreter). these commands were pretty primitive, though. i think there was at least one company that offered a more full-featured disk OS for the c64, but i'm not sure (i was an atari user back then). most any computer at the time would generally use a "tape drive", which was really just an audio cassette player that would encode data on audio tapes in a fashion similar to the way a modem encodes data over the phone. since i generally bought cheap tapes ( i was an early teen, after all), i had a fair amount of trouble with tapes, but i suppose they were OK if you used good media. it was either that or enter a program every time you turned the computer on. floppy drives for smaller home computers were pretty expensive, if i recall (they cost as much as the computer did), but of course the price went down as technology improved.

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]


IP: Logged

greycat
Alpha Geek

Posts: 264
From:
Registered: Oct 2001

posted May 20, 2002 08:24     Click Here to See the Profile for greycat     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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".

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".

IP: Logged

ASM65816
Geek

Posts: 99
From:
Registered: Mar 2001

posted May 20, 2002 08:37     Click Here to See the Profile for ASM65816   Click Here to Email ASM65816     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If you want to work with the 6502 series CPU, the Apple's are the only sensible choice.

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)

------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

IP: Logged

Darth Gates
Neat Newbie

Posts: 12
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Registered: May 2002

posted May 20, 2002 14:18     Click Here to See the Profile for Darth Gates   Click Here to Email Darth Gates     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I still program Apple //'s. If your going to do programming use BASIC. You can do amazing things with those machines.

IP: Logged

omega996
Geek Apprentice

Posts: 44
From: brea, ca
Registered: Mar 2002

posted May 21, 2002 07:35     Click Here to See the Profile for omega996   Click Here to Email omega996     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
wow, way to set the record straight *claps*

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".


IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2002 Geek Culture® All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47e

homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam