Slashdot Mirror


Woz OK's Apple I Resurrection

A reader wrote to us with a story from Wired about a gentleman who's hand-crafting Apple Is for ordering. He's been unable to get a response from Apple, but Woz has graciously responded.

275 comments

  1. Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...a beowulf cluster of these...

    1. Re:Imagine... by troc · · Score: 1

      I am trying but it's taking a long time. I guess we could simulate a beowulf cluster of them?

      Troc

      --
      Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
    2. Re:Imagine... by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1

      ...But does it run Linux?

    3. Re:Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, Natalie Portman is imagined by a cluster of hot grits.
      (don't even waste mod-down points on this...I'm trying to be funny on this rainy Monday morning)

    4. Re:Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, like every obscure piece of fossilized hardware, it runs NetBSD....

  2. A New Movement by OpenSourcerer · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...Besides, Woz continued, he freely distributed the Apple I's schematics and ROM code at the Homebrew Computer Club in 1975..

    Do we call this OpenHard movement? Is there a GNA (Gna is Not Apple) or Free Hardware Foundation behind this?

    1. Re:A New Movement by legoburner · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think that you want OpenCores.

    2. Re:A New Movement by ajs318 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Lest anyone forget, this was the same Homebrew Computer Club where a certain Bill Gates got a little upset by the way some people were sharing software. RMS was just 23 years old then and hadn't had his Vision by then. That would take another nine years .....

      I wonder what would have happened if the others at the HCC had decided to beat the whining nerd senseless with suitably-sized pieces of constructional timber instead of capitulating to his ridiculous assertions of ownership?

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    3. Re:A New Movement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember that most HCC hackers were hardware guys. Most of them wern't all that interested in software nor the concept of open software. The whole thing was really due to slow development and bad marketing. Gates & Allen were taking an ungodly time to finish the BASIC. When it was finished, MITS decided to bundle BASIC with their crappy, non-working memory boards. You could by the BASIC without the boards, but it cost a heck of a lot more. So you either paid too much, or paid too much and got a non-working peice of hardware with it.

      The vast majority of the HCC hackers would have been fine with the concept of buying Bills BASIC for their Altairs, if it had been sensibly priced. All they wanted was a BASIC. If the price was sensible and it was available in time, they most likely would have paid for it quite happily.

    4. Re:A New Movement by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, if nothing else you have to give him an A for being consistent over the long haul. He's still a whining nerd.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:A New Movement by cuyler · · Score: 1

      Nothing would please me more than being able
      to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.


      Hmmm.....I guess this means they never paid up -- I'm still waiting on the good software for us hobbyists.

    6. Re:A New Movement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to his credit, RMS has always been.. yeah you're right, a whining nerd.

    7. Re:A New Movement by Zathras11 · · Score: 1

      I'm in favor of FREE stuff, if it is given up
      willingly by the creator/owner. The quote at
      the end of your post ("Progress has value only
      if it is shared by all -- slogan of SNCF [French
      Railways]") sounds like socialism to me...

      If someone creates something, ANYTHING, and
      wants to be paid for it, that is their right.
      If someone creates something, ANYTHING, and
      wants to give it away for FREE, great! What we
      don't need is a bunch of people forcing others
      to do something, just because they believe in it.

      And for the record, I don't like Mr. Gates any
      more than you do. :^) I went to buy a new
      notebook computer last week, and found one I
      REALLY liked (Toshiba P25-S607, SWEEEET), but
      I passed, not because of the price ($2500),
      but because it had an Intel processer and ran
      on Windows XP Media Center. I just can't
      bring myself to back either company (Micro$oft
      for obvious reasons, and Intel for their
      underhanded use of serial numbers dating
      back to the introduction of the Pentium 3).

      As for the Apple I, I'd love to own one. I
      still own my first computer (Apple II+) as
      well as an Apple IIe, IIc and IIgs.

    8. Re:A New Movement by ajs318 · · Score: 1
      What we don't need is a bunch of people forcing others to do something, just because they believe in it.
      Riiiiiight ..... so murder laws are unjust because, hey, some people enjoy getting killed and if people like doing that, they have a right to? Racism and sexism laws are unjust because, hey some people enjoy being treated as inferiors and if people like doing that, they have a right to? Environmental protection laws are unjust because hey, some people enjoy living on a polluted planet and if people like doing that, they have a right to? Rape laws are unjust because hey, some people enjoy having sex without being asked and if people like doing that, they have a right to? Get with the plot. Some things are just plain wrong. Hindering the development of the human race for your own benefit is one of them, and I just happen to believe that holding people to ransom over computer software hinders our collective development.

      BTW, The actual quote used in my sig was translated freehand by me from "Le progres ne vaut que s'il est partage par tous", which I saw printed on SNCF timetable leaflets in 1994. Nobody has corrected me over it, so I'm assuming I got it right :-) I think it's a damn good slogan, actually. So what if it "sounds like socialism"? It sounds to me like you have a phobia.
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    9. Re:A New Movement by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting on the good software.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:A New Movement by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No, no no. You both have it wrong:

      Progress has value only if I don't have to share it with anyone. --- Bill Gates

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  3. Why replicate down to last detail? by cioxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be great if it was built on the inside with modern hardware to run OSX?

    I plan on converting my Apple //e into a full blown box that runs OSX, when some of the iBooks at work are written off.

    After some time, the whole "cuteness" of aged hardware wears off and you cease to be amazed with how far technology has come. It's only novelty for few days.

    1. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      dude, the thing the guy has made is just a circuit board with interfaces for keyboard and monitor.

      how would you fit modern stuff inside a circuit board?-)

      it's just a nice electronics project..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by cioxx · · Score: 1, Interesting
      how would you fit modern stuff inside a circuit board?-)

      The iBook logic board isn't that big and would easily fit //e with some drilling. The biggest challenge is the keyboard since the decades old keys are prone to breaking. Putting an alternate keyboard there would just ruin the feel of it. And there is also making the keyboard work with the actual board. What the guy in the topic is doing is trying to make it work like the original, and that's infinately harder. Slapping bunch of hardware inside an empty case isn't complicated at all.
    3. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by rufo · · Score: 2, Informative

      What he's talking about is that the Apple I was (and will be) sold as just a circuit board; you had to make or buy your own case, power supply, keyboard, etc. Sure, slapping an iBook motherboard inside a IIe is easy (although I worry a bit about cooling), but there's no case of an Apple I to put a mobo into. :)

      --
      My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
    4. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by bhima · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because it's a different fetish.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    5. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After some time, the whole "cuteness" of aged hardware wears off and you cease to be amazed with how far technology has come. It's only novelty for few days.

      For some people its not a matter of "cuteness", but of interest and appreciation. Some people enjoy the challenge of seeing what they can squeeze out of a limited platform, which can really be quite amazing. (How many K above 48k does your C compiler need to run?) Some people find the relative efficiency of earlier platforms agreeable. Some people enjoy the simplicity of earlier platforms. Some people just want to have what they couldn't afford at the time, to explore the things they missed. Some people want older platforms to run a program that they really liked (More(TM) on the Mac anyone?) that isn't availalbe anywhere else. Some people want to experiment and find the older hardware and software more approachable. There are lots of reasons besides "cuteness" for someone to want something like this. Bigger, better, faster isn't always better or faster or even as interesting.

      I've typed on everything from a 2Mhz Z80 system to a 2.8Ghz system. Can you guess how different my typing speed was? Can you guess which one booted faster?

    6. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by cioxx · · Score: 1

      My bad. I thought he was ultimately trying to build a wooden case to emulate the first Apple I Woz built in his garage. Personally, I would have used an emulator. There is one for Apple //. Not sure about 1.

      In any event, this guy is a geek.

    7. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by Bohnanza · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be great if it was built on the inside with modern hardware to run OSX?


      But then it would just be a Mac in an old-fashioned box, wouldn't it?


      After some time, the whole "cuteness" of aged hardware wears off and you cease to be amazed with how far technology has come. It's only novelty for few days.


      Right - which is exactly how long it would be fun to have a Mac in an old-fashioned box.

      --

      -----

      Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

    8. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Hey, thanks dude. I was planning to replicate a Sopwith Tripe down to the last detail, but now realize that the "cuteness" of that would wear off.

      Now I plan to stick a Lycoming gas turbine in the puppy. Man that's going to be fun.

      KFG

    9. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is /. Nobody understands what the hell you are talking about because it doesnt involve computers or beer, and it appears to reference some sort of thing that requires you be outside to operate.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    10. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by pmz · · Score: 1

      Can you guess which one booted faster?

      In 2025, we will have to wait a full five minutes (still!) for the AI to load into the neural network so it can write our term papers for us.

      One thing I find very interesting is that my Commodore 64 with GEOS had comparable word processing and printing capabilities to PCs of several years later (for what I did, anyway). My color Okidata thermal printer was pretty snazzy for its day! Oh, and my C64, strangely, was more reliable than the Windows PCs I've owned...well, until I switched those PCs to Solaris, OpenBSD, and Linux.

    11. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by rutledjw · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Let me say it another way (I agree BTW). There was function and utility in these devices. They are attractive because they did something really well and it was cool. Apple (the old symbol) is still cool and when I wear my Atari shirt "older" people (25+) as well as teenagers like it. Although one kid recently said "Yeah dude! the Atari's ROCK!" - *sigh* but I digress.

      The point is that with the growing use of OSS-style licenses (BSD, GPL, LGPL, etc) we may see a comeback of the older techs that had great function and use, but were out-marketed by a nameless evil. While the Apple I may be a hobby, it may not. It had great games where the game had to be innovative, not just the way-intense, super-defined 3D!

      What about amiga? What about (and I'll have to duck here) BeOS? (running say Open Office) WHAT?!? You want to just do e-mail, use a browser , a word processor and a spreadsheet?!? What about all those usefull MS Office features like the stupid fscking Clippy?!?! How can one function?

      The initial implementations of this stuff may be for fun and novelty only, granted. But we may see something else out there eventually

      --

      Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
    12. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
      How long would it be fun to have a Mac, in general? You can only play Photoshop for so long.

      Thank you, I'll be here all week.

    13. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by los+furtive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was still thumping out essays using GEOS and a 9pin dot matrix until the mid 90s. Like the old Commodore 128 ad says, "Thanks for the memory".

      --

      I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    14. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by weileong · · Score: 1

      I was planning to replicate a Sopwith Tripe down to the last detail, but now realize that the "cuteness" of that would wear off.

      yeah, you ought to, like, replicate something like an F-16... or, maybe, if your backyard is large enough, how about replicating the USS Nimitz? :-)

    15. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by red+floyd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's practically impossible to design a hobbyist add-in card for the current PC architecture. PCI is fairly complicated.

      With the Apple bus and the original PC (and AT) bus, you could build one out of discrete logic on a breadboard.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    16. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by EricHsu · · Score: 1
      I've typed on everything from a 2Mhz Z80 system to a 2.8Ghz system. Can you guess how different my typing speed was? Can you guess which one booted faster?

      Hee hee! Actually, I'd guess it was about a tie on the boot-up race. Booting an Apple ][ with vanilla DOS 3.3 off a floppy took a while. On the other hand, you could hear every track seek, so you had audio progress feedback...

      Now once ProDOS came out and I installed it on a gargantuan 80MB SCSI HD, man startup flew!

    17. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by GreenHell · · Score: 1

      Didn't use GEOS for the papers, but I was typing all my school papers and essays on an old Commodore until well into the mid 90s. I believe I was using Paperclip III to do it.

      I can't say I ever used GEOS for much at all. Played around with the paint program a bit. May have used the word processing software, but most of the time I couldn't be bothered to boot that just to load the word processor.

      --
      "I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
    18. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Some people want older platforms to run a program that they really liked (More(TM) on the Mac anyone?) that isn't availalbe anywhere else."

      "I've typed on everything from a 2Mhz Z80 system to a 2.8Ghz system. Can you guess how different my typing speed was? Can you guess which one booted faster?"

      ...no, but I can guess which one has a spell-check.

    19. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's not impossible. In fact, it has been done several times (an example is here).

      While building it on a breadboard is looking more difficult, discrete logic is still quite usable (with, for example, wire wrapping). In fact, in recent years, advanced families of TTL (or hybrid CMOS) (like ABT, etc) have boosted speed to a point where discrete logic can easily manage these clock rates (33MHz isn't that bad anyway).

      That said, ISA and the standard 8-bit microprocessor busses were both much easier to interface to.

    20. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Huh? Vanilla Dos 3.3 was very fast, as was the Disk ][ controller on a 5 1/4 - it certainly beats the hard disk startups of today (and sometimes even hard disks of that era, depending on spinup time). I could have games up and running in a minute or less (~15 seconds in some cases), where my Commodore owning friends would wait 5 minutes or more for their tape drives to load anything, and even the ones who had disk drives waited 2-3. Booting the Dos 3.3 startup disk usually took a while, I think because it loaded integer basic, which was a dog.

      Pressing Cont-C a couple of seconds after the prompt usually would work in getting enough of 3.3 to be useful, but if you didn't time it right, you'd need to enter a few lines of assembly code (gad - a friend of mine at the time actually memorized the bootup code of generic 3.3 and could type it in by hand in about 5 minutes... knowledge that was useful for about one purpose - cracking boot sequence protection)

      The 3.5 drives added later boosted capacity, but did seem to boot slow (maybe because of ProDOS?).

      Ah, nostalgia for the days of hand parked hard disk heads and the pirates that erased their drives by shaking them with the head unparked as the FBI stormed in...

    21. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by EricHsu · · Score: 1
      I could have games up and running in a minute or less (~15 seconds in some cases), where my Commodore owning friends would wait 5 minutes or more for their tape drives to load anything, and even the ones who had disk drives waited 2-3.

      Very true. But it's not fair comparing to a C64 and their 1200 baud storage systems.

      Booting the Dos 3.3 startup disk usually took a while, I think because it loaded integer basic, which was a dog.

      Also, DOS 3.3 was inefficient with its buffering; remember all those fast DOSes that came out, like DiversiDOS, etc. Now those really flew.

      ah yes, thinking back to the days when you were proud to save a few cycles or bytes... [old man]back in our day, we had to stick big phone handsets into 300 baud modem... and we were grateful!! rassafrissen...[/old man]

    22. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by Chad+Page · · Score: 1

      Another option would be to build something on a USB bus - there are controller chips which make working with that feasable as a hobby. Not that I've done it, but it'd be fun...

    23. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by connorbd · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, I used GEOS quite a bit, and did a fair amount of graphics stuff. But school papers were done in regular C64 mode (on a C128) in SpeedScript because GeoWrite wasn't worth the trouble.

    24. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
      There is one for Apple //. Not sure about 1.

      There really isn't a reason for one, since the Apple // was functionally identical in software to the Apple I.
      Hmmm, I wonder if my II+ still works.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    25. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
      Booting an Apple ][ with vanilla DOS 3.3 off a floppy took a while.

      Not true. A DOS 3.3 master disk took less than 3 seconds to boot. A ProDOS disk took slightly longer.

      The reason that many newbies thought it took so long was because the default "Hello" program on the DOS 3.3 disk would check which version of basic was in ROM, and load the alternative one. This took up to 30 seconds, but occurred after the OS was loaded. Most people disabled this by creating their own "Hello" program or removing it entirely.

      And yes, I could always tell exactly what DOS was doing just from the sound of the drive.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    26. Re:Why replicate down to last detail? by NateTech · · Score: 1

      If you're just looking to work with a small microprocessor/computer to get that nostalgic feel, just take a modern microcontroller and start breadboarding.

      Microcontroller products from Microchip and Atmel fit the bill nicely.

      For support and help with Microchip PIC microcontroller development, you can hardly go wrong with the MIT-PICList, and for Atmel AVR micros AVRFreaks is the place to go.

      Then you'll probably find yourself over at DigiKey buying parts for your projects after you have gained some insight into just how cool it is to have a 40 MHz processor with 2K or more of FLASH RAM on-board in a 18-pin device right at your fingertips that only needs a PC and some imagination to program to act like just about any logic device.

      Have fun twiddling those bits, boys and girls.

      --
      +++OK ATH
  4. Irons at the ready by Scorchio · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm glad to see the machine is being supplied in kit form as well as pre-assembled, for that true 70's home computing experience :)

    1. Re:Irons at the ready by chiph · · Score: 1

      Man, I used to sit and read the Heathkit catalog for *hours*, planning the ultimate computer system that I would build myself. I ended up getting a summer job at a supermarket and buying a 48k Apple ][+. I eventually added an 80-column card so I could run UCSD Pascal and a memory card to bring it up to 64k. I remember that you had to pull one of the RAM chips and transfer it to the board, plugging a ribbon cable in to where the chip used to be. The memory card was available in kit form, so I soldered it up myself (which taught me a lot about the consequences of solder bridges!)

      Chip H.

    2. Re:Irons at the ready by Scorchio · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I missed all the fun the first time around, as manufacturers came around to the idea that kits weren't necessarily the best way forward. I'm reminded of the Acorn story, where a "malfunctioning" kit was returned, only to find it had been glued together, not soldered.

      Anyway, I was inspired during a university course where we wired together (networked and singing!) Z80 based computers, and one of these days I'll get around to making my own at home just for the heck of it. I've been saying that many, many years now, but hey - one of these days...

    3. Re:Irons at the ready by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
      I remember that you had to pull one of the RAM chips and transfer it to the board

      Except for the one made by Applied Engineering.
      You could just plug it into the language card slot (slot 0), and go! No icky chip transfer necessary.
      Man, those guys were the BEST!

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  5. What kind of demand... by fiftyvolts · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What kind of demand is there for Apple I's? The people who I know who have bought one is for nostalgic purposes; will an replica Apple have the same effect? I'm not sure. The fact that he took the time to "unimplement" features to make the computer more realistic is neat though.

    That aside, I bet the guy making them is having a really good time. Woz knows that home brewing computers is a lot of fun. It's good to see someone do something like this despite the patent situations that usually arise.

    1. Re:What kind of demand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "What kind of demand is there for Apple I's"

      None? Although, I guess it's about choice. When I was a kid, I always wanted one of those orange Donkey Kong Game and Watches. When I started earning, it was one of the first things I bought. It took a while to find one, but I got it and that's what mattered.

      It's the same with Apple I's. Personally, it doesn't do anything for me, but there are probably a small crowd of people out there who 'need one to complete their collection of Apple machines' or just point blank 'have to have one'. I'm not sure whether you could say you were 'owning part of computing history' though.

      I hope that Apple seee sense and don't come down hard on him. In fact, some kind of endorsement would be great. This kind of thing will appeal to users who have followed Apple from day one. For Apple to nip this project in the bud would surely generate some bad feelings throughout the Apple community...

    2. Re:What kind of demand... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Woz created the machine, Woz has copyrights to it and Woz gave the OK. Basically, this guy needs look no further. If apple came down on this guy I'm fairly sure Woz would give jobs a call and put a stop to it since his old buddy jobs IS the CEO of apple last I checked.

    3. Re:What kind of demand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really think it comes down to Apple's trademark. This guy might be ok to sell them but not as Apple I's.

  6. Re:Just what the world needs... by m3djack · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, it's not a mac. The Apple I predated the Macintosh by almost a decade. It's also a very important contributing factor to why you're even able to post a comment to slashdot like that today.

    So show some respect, dammit :)

  7. I start to understand.. by haggar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..why Woz is so respected and admired by some people. Heck, this guy has what one could call, a following of fans. The more I learn about him, the more I feel he'd be my perfect role model - a talented hardware (actually systems) engineer that is also noble.

    --
    Sigged!
    1. Re:I start to understand.. by Felinoid · · Score: 1

      Where as my role models are Jack Tramel of Commodore and Noel of Atari.
      It should be no supprise Woz gathers the greatest cult folowing and in the Commodore circle Jim Butterfield is more populare than Jack.

      Just to get everyone up to speed on who I'm talking about:
      Jack Tramel founder of Commodore
      Noel founder of Atari (and vareous other companys)
      Jim Butterfield famed Commodore guru.
      Woz needs no introduction...

      Jack Tramel has done more about solving business problems and develuping cool business moddles than he has been about designing computers.

      Noel is both a great inventer and a great business man.
      Woz is pure techie having Jobs handle the business end.

      Of the C64, Atari 800 and Apple II....
      C64 was still in production when Commodore folded with referbished units selling for years afterwords as if the company was still alive.

      The Apple II, II+ and IIe could be expanded to have the processing power of the 16 bit 6502 clones just by dropping in a card.
      This included support for the 16meg of memory that CPU line supported and exsisting software would take advantage of this.
      The Apple II gs was the last of the line having that 16 bit cpu as part of the system. Later on a web browser would be made for this platform making it the lowest end legacy system to run a graphical web browser.

      Atari was known as the name in video games untill the video game dark ages by such time Noel had already sold Atari and was responsable for Chuck E Cheases.

      Commodore stopped being Tramels Commodore when he got sued by the primary backer for the company over control of the company during hard times.
      It is my opinion this lawsute was the pivitol point that would lead to Commodores death.

      Atari stopped being Noels Atari when he sold it and moved on to bigger and better things. Smart man.

      Apple stopped being WOZes Apple when Jobs was no longer in charge. Yet WOZ would be responsable for the entire Apple II line ending in the IIgz.
      Some might argue however that Apple never really ceased to be Wozes Apple it just dosen't have it's cheff tech anymore.

      --
      I don't actually exist.
    2. Re:I start to understand.. by haggar · · Score: 1

      I know of Jack Tramiel. I admire this guy a lot.
      As for Commodore's demise, I believe it happened because of the choice to market the Amiga as a toy, rather than the professional personal computer it was. Think about it: the Amiga had GUI based applications while the PC was still wallowing in ugly ASCII-graphic stuff (Lotus 123 etc.). Yet, it failed to pick up in the offices because
      - it could be connected to a TV
      - keyboard integrated with CPU unit
      - not expandible

      By the time AMiga 2000 came out, it was too late. Amiga was synonimous for good gaming and music authoring.

      --
      Sigged!
    3. Re:I start to understand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How old are you that you need a role model? And some people admire Bill Gates and I am sure he has fans too. That doesn't mean he should be a role model. I think maybe you need to start looking inwardly for a role model. Not to sound Zen or anything like that but role models will often let you down at some point.

    4. Re:I start to understand.. by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      Where as my role models are Jack Tramel of Commodore and Noel of Atari.

      Do you mean Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari?
    5. Re:I start to understand.. by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Woz is a class act all the way. A true engineer that really enjoys tinkering with hardware. Oddly enough, the combination of Jobs and Woz was the only thing that got Apple off the ground, the business sense of Jobs (along with the overwhelming ego), and the hardware savvy of Woz.

      I wrote Woz an email a couple years ago thanking him for creating the Apple and starting the whole ball rolling. It was the first computer I ever owned and it got me programming and using the machine at a young age. Love at first sight...

      Woz replied to me! I still have his reply saved.

      Like I said, a real class act!

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    6. Re:I start to understand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As much as I hate the Slashdot spell checkers, I can't ignore this.

      develuping cool business moddles

      developing cool business models.

    7. Re:I start to understand.. by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > my role models are Jack Tramel of Commodore and Noel of Atari.

      If you're referring to Nolan Bushnell, I think he'd kick your ass for that comment. Check up on your Atari history.

      What Tramiel did at Commodore - marketing the C-64 - was great. But what he did to Atari, in particular the coin-op division, was IMO unforgivable.

    8. Re:I start to understand.. by Zathras11 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention a brilliant programmer! And a
      real nice guy too!

    9. Re:I start to understand.. by drunkenbatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ..why Woz is so respected and admired by some people. Heck, this guy has what one could call, a following of fans. The more I learn about him, the more I feel he'd be my perfect role model - a talented hardware (actually systems) engineer that is also noble.

      He'd be the perfect role model for just about anyone due to one simple fact- he's just good people.

      Here's a guy who has a ton of stuff on his plate, but feels its a duty (probably a privilege) to reply to all the 3rd graders and such wanting to interview him for their school paper. We're not talking about basking in the attention (although I'm sure he has fun with it), as this guy has a LOT on his plate. We're talking about giving up evening hours here to make some kids day.

      Here's a guy who still sees value in the world. Value in individuals, other's accomplishments, good music, even hot dogs. Not pie-in-the-sky optimism, ie he isn't unaware of the world. But he seems to look for the best in others and seems to get that if you treat others with respect & courtesy, it often sort of rubs off.

      Empathy. This was probably the biggest thing I could boil it all down to. What made the first Apple's so cool? You could almost see him sitting there going "You know, I'd LOVE a computer that could do x & y. I bet others would too. Why don't I do that?" instead of "Acme computer is going to be releasing X which is Y amount better than ours. We should improve Y by Z so marketing can..."

      Empathy was probably the quality that came across most as the key to what makes this guy have fans. User empathy (in what he's built) and personal empathy (in how he interacts & lives his life). If you asked him, I don't think he'd consider himself noble at all.

      Screw all the massive technical accomplishments & great engineering mind... to myself those are of a lower priority to emulate than the fact that he's a guy that just about anyone would enjoy having a beer with.

    10. Re:I start to understand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jack Tramel was a moron. The only thing ever did was copy other people's designs and sell them with a low price.

      Look at the Commodore 64. It came out 4 years after the Atari 800 and 6 years after the Apple II and had terrible build quality and all sorts of crappy design kludges. The only thing good about it was that you could pick it up at KMart for $150.

    11. Re:I start to understand.. by haggar · · Score: 1

      Heh, yes. Well, that's what a systems engineer should be - a hardware designer AND a system programmer, in one. And the "real nice guy" part I implied it in "noble".

      --
      Sigged!
    12. Re:I start to understand.. by haggar · · Score: 1

      I agree with all you said. I can't help but to think this would be a better world if all wee like Woz.

      --
      Sigged!
    13. Re:I start to understand.. by zonker · · Score: 0

      well said. the tramiels destroyed atari. a damn shame. now they are but a name and a patent portfolio...

    14. Re:I start to understand.. by Felinoid · · Score: 1

      So basicly your saying just becouse the C64 is newer?

      I shall now behin ripping this to shreads.

      Firstly the Commodore 64 was a rebuilt Vic 20. At the time the video game market came to expect better graphics and sound than was currently available in computers or game consoles.
      While this had no impact on the Apple II line (for reasons I'll get into later) it rendered the Atari 800 and Vic 20 obsolete or at least that is what people thought at the time.

      The Atari 800 was made years prior at a time when the market was moving from game consoles to game computers. It was still for the most part a game console but it was made to be useful as a computer.

      The Vic20 was made at a time when home computers were way to expensive and while most people were intrested in getting a computer they "didn't know what I'd do with one" and "just wanted to play video games" that they could do on a cheap game console.
      The Vic20 was marketted and sold as a computer that played video games for a little more than a video game console.
      The Vic20 (not the Commodore 64) was sold for $100 at Kmart (The Commodore 64 would cost $400 when it first came out).

      The Apple II was built at a time when video games were toys and computers were for business. Hence the Apple II was marketted for the small business owner and the hacker market.

      Surviving the ages.

      Becouse the Apple II was expandable when the video game a market expected better graphics and sound the Apple II answered the call with expantion cards. You could spend thousands of dollars on sound alone if you wanted.
      However being aimmed at the business market the Apple II userbase had little need for this so it was mostly left to profesionals who needed the best the market had to offer and for those profesionals they could get cards that were priced many times more than the computer itself.

      Being a business computer the Apple II was not effected by the video game dark ages.

      Apple gracefully discontinued the Apple II line at the end of the age of the 8 bits and focused on the Macintosh.
      This could be likend to the end of Chears.. The Apple II line ended while it was still populare.

      Atari negelcted the computer market focusing on the game console market as users demanded better graphics. Some think this was Ataris biggest mistake as the video game dark ages was soon to folow. The Atari 800 would not out live it's day and age.
      The Atari XL line would bring Atari back into the computer market.

      Commodore had always felt being a business tool was what made the Vic20 and C64 a computer.
      The Vic20 survived the demand for graphics by being a cheap computer.
      The simple games, many hacks, robotics and a small selection of business software was enough to satisfy a supprisingly large number of users.

      The Commodore 64 had more going for it. While never on the same level as the Apple II it was a business computer.
      The 80 col hack for the 64 was an eye strain. The added memory was useless. It couldn't do better than 2400 baud over the sereal port.
      It would survive as a cheap computer and a cheap toy.

      The Vic20 would eventually die as all 8bits became obsolete.
      The Commodore 128 (The replacement for the C64) would die for being released just before becomming obsolete thus it was still being sold it it's "Cutting edge brand new high tech" price as it became obsolete.

      Commodore would redesign the C64 and it's disk drive the 1541 to reduce production costs only then would commodore produce the 64c and 1541 II for $150. At this point however the Atari 800 and Apple II were long gone.
      The only thing keeping the 64 alive at this point was it's price tag and very long list of games.

      Then... Commodore would fold.

      The Commodore 64 would continue to be sold years later by a referbishing company that would buy used dead Commodores fix them or use them for parts.

      The one place your right about was the C64's history of defects.
      The C64 was rushed out the doo

      --
      I don't actually exist.
  8. Disabling backspace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    For example, when typing onscreen, the replica can perform a backspace, which the original cannot. Briel said it took him weeks to figure out how to disable it.

    All he needed to do was install X

    1. Re:Disabling backspace by sean23007 · · Score: 5, Funny

      But he probably wanted to figure it out within a few weeks...

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
  9. I digress... by stephenry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry if I digress from the topic, but, with all the talk about Linux posing a threat to Microsoft's hegemony -I feel that *this* poses a greater one.

    Here we have a company, Apple, whose following is so devoted that they would actually resurrect one of their old products out of sheer love for it. I don't see any followers of Microsoft doing the same; in fact, anybody who uses Microsoft's products are looking for a way out. And that, in the end, shall prove to be Microsoft's undoing.

    1. Re:I digress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You asshat troll. Apple isn't resurrecting this. Apple didn't even REPLY. Apple is just as corporate and cynical as Microsoft or any of the rest.

      Wozniak != Apple

    2. Re:I digress... by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      I installed Dos6 and Windows 3.11 on an athlon just for shits and giggles the other day. It's not just apple fanbois that do it.

    3. Re:I digress... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      And was it blistering fast? Did you feed it a stack of Office 4.3 floppies, as well? ;)

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    4. Re:I digress... by patman600 · · Score: 1

      True, the fact that people have no loyalty to microsoft very well may be its undoing. But the reason that Linux is considered the threat to microsoft is that Linux is the alternative that people will jump to, since most people dont want to spend the money on OS X and related hardware

    5. Re:I digress... by IM6100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know a lot of people who collect old Microsoft products the same way.

      I personally have a copy of PC-DOS 1.0 on my bookshelf and have been considering selling it to a collector. I also have Microsoft/IBM's Basic Compiler 1.0 which will produce binaries for DOS 1.0 and above. I also have Windows 1.03, Wordstar 2.2 for DOS, and CP/M-86 (all complete original product with box, manuals, registration cards, etc. etc.) All cool old stuff.

      You're wrong. Collecting vintage software really has nothing to do with Microsoft or the 'Linux battle with Microsoft' that some people get all riled up about. What Microsoft is doing now has little or nothing to do with the fun of fiddling around with the older stuff.

      Chill.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    6. Re:I digress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AAAAh. This has to be the most obvious example of moderation abuse yet. This is the last straw. I am going to meta-mod everybody unfair from now on just to see if I can start to shake lose some of the crappy moderators.

    7. Re:I digress... by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      I have Office 4.3 on CD-ROM. It was pretty commonly available that way. I know people who had the floppies and called Microsoft and ordered it on CD for a 'media charge' of about $10.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    8. Re:I digress... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      1. Apple is not doing this. Woz, no longer with Apple, gave permission to a 3rd party to build the machines.

      2. This is hardware; Microsoft makes software. Software is much easier to preserve than hardware, simply due to space requirements. Much of Microsoft's software is still around. Some, like MS-DOS, have been replaced with similar products such as FreeDOS.

  10. Wozniak - A true inventor and 'techie' by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These days a lot of people class themselves as inventors or techies, but they're just interested in money, or the whole patent game.

    This story reaffirms Woz as my favorite techie of the last fifty years. His inventions, while not quite on the level of the wheel or the television, have revolutionized numerous areas of technology.

    But what sets him apart from the majority is his openness and friendliness. He doesn't appear to get riled at people asking him questions about his inventions or theories, and he doesn't put himself on a pedestal talking in techie-mumbo-jumbo. How many techies are like that these days? He almost seems to have no ego.

    We need more people like this in tech. I will even admit that I have an ego, and a tendancy to 'talk down' to non-technical people sometimes. Woz is inspirational in that you don't need to do this to be respected in the tech community.

    His Web site is a reminder of what an open minded, friendly, and unjaded character he is. I am sure he would cringe at reading this post, but I hereby dedicate it to the 'nicest techie of modern times', even if he's not the most famous.

    1. Re:Wozniak - A true inventor and 'techie' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His inventions, while not quite on the level of the wheel or the television

      I would say its impact might be greater than television. The Apple series computer has all the elements of a todays desktop computer: cpu, memory, a bus for cards, floppy drive(came later), on board video, expandablity. We wouldn't have access to slashdot without a computer.

      WhatMeWorry

    2. Re:Wozniak - A true inventor and 'techie' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just slightly Apple fanatical aren't we?

      Processors - Nowhere without Intel.
      Memory, Floppy Drive - developed at IBM.
      Expansion Cards - Think that was Altair (not positive on that one).

      If you want to look historically there are many, many other companies that deserve more credit than Apple - even Microsoft. As evil as they might have become they were very important in the beginning (including the first programming language for PC's - BASIC). Bell Labs, Xerox, Intel - these are the guys you should be thanking for what we have today (and of course Babbage and Turing).

    3. Re:Wozniak - A true inventor and 'techie' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How many people design a ground-breaking computer, start a world changing company, become a millionaire and a legend...and then teach grade school kids?"

      I don't know? How many paedophiles are there?

      I'm being serious! Kids like apples, nice and juicy, so I'm thinking Apple was called Apple for baiting purposes.

      Thanks for your post. You're going into my friends list because you recognise that Wozniak and his fellow nonces are disgusting and dangerous.

      (Remember: if you mod this down you'll be meta-moderated as a pervert).

  11. What... no backspace? by tinrobot · · Score: 2, Funny

    From the article:

    For example, when typing onscreen, the replica can perform a backspace, which the original cannot. Briel said it took him weeks to figure out how to disable it.

    I guess if you're such a retro computer freak that you're going to buy an Apple I in the first place, not having a backspace key is important... or something.

    Kind of like those retro car freaks who disable the brakes.

    1. Re:What... no backspace? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Imagine the modern equivalent of disabling the backspace key: you might remove the second and third mouse buttons - oh, wait...

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    2. Re:What... no backspace? by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1

      We Mac users never make mistakes, therefore, we don't need a backspace key.

    3. Re:What... no backspace? by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 1

      Since you can't save anything you create anyways, who cares if you can correct mistakes? ;-)

    4. Re:What... no backspace? by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      What does 'mac users' have to do with backspace keys on the Apple 1?

      The spirit of 'open hardware and hacking' at Apple that Woz championed was long, long, gone by the time the Mac came out. Along with Woz himself, sadly.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
  12. A new target by MCS · · Score: 3, Funny

    Props to Woz for doing what is probably the ultimately right thing to do--- but how long will it be till SCO gets involved?

    Yeah it's early and this is the only witty thing I can think off.

    1. Re:A new target by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      Next time do us a favor and drink your coffee first.

  13. Good call Woz! by farrellj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's nice to see that people will be able to experience and remember what once made the computer field great; a sense of wonder, and good engineering!

    No one today does anything innovative, except occasionally Apple...no one takes chances, and when they do, they do it so half-assed that they already seem to think that they are going to fail, and thus become a self-fufilling prophecy.

    But people like Woz were willing to take that leap, because their knew their engineering was good and innovative, and because of that we have the systems we have today. Without the Apple computer, we would still be using terminals on smaller, but more powerful mainframes and minis.

    So thanks again Woz, for the Apple 1.

    ttyl
    Farrelll

    --
    CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
    1. Re:Good call Woz! by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      No one today does anything innovative, except occasionally Apple

      *snort*

      (when Apple paid Malda cold cash for the apple.slashdot.org section, did they also get a complimentary three-digit Slashdot UID account for Apple marketing to troll with?)

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    2. Re:Good call Woz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without the Apple computer, we would still be using terminals on smaller, but more powerful mainframes and minis.

      Are you on the pipe? I seem to remember the IBM-PC existing before Apple. Apple may have taken Xerox's GUI and made it a reality but if they hadn't somebody else would have. If you really think that a graphical interface on a personal computer wouldn't exist without Apple then I suggest you take your head out of Job's ass.

      Use your computer, enjoy you computer, maybe even love your computer but don't worship it and the company that made it. That is just plain unhealthy.

    3. Re:Good call Woz! by Uart · · Score: 1

      No, but I did! ;-)

      I'm still waiting for my royalty checks...

      --

      Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
  14. Re:Responded ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you've got him mixed up with the /other/ Steve.

  15. Anyone up for porting linux onto this thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be cool to boot linux onto this thing, of course the vanilla linux would be too big, but something like an optimized u\c/linux with a driver for its framebuffer would be really cool.

    1. Re:Anyone up for porting linux onto this thing? by coolfrood · · Score: 1

      Porting Linux to an 8-bit system is no easy task. It is easier to port Linux to an embedded 32-bit system, by stripping down functionality and removing things like virtual memory, but to get it working on an 8-bit system would be very hard. Anyone done it before though?

    2. Re:Anyone up for porting linux onto this thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ELKS
      I have it running on an 8088 laptop

    3. Re:Anyone up for porting linux onto this thing? by NoMaster · · Score: 0

      "Q : What would you call a multi-tasking, multi-user operating system designed to run on 8-bit processors?
      A : Eunuchs!"

      (It's an old, old joke, predating even LSL3. Or was it LSL2?)

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    4. Re:Anyone up for porting linux onto this thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you're halfway there then. An 8088 is a 16-bit processor with an 8-bit interface to the outside world. Unfortunately, 8088/8086 code is based on 8080 code {the 8080 instruction set also ended up in the Z-80} whereas the Apple-I used a 6502 processor, which was a little more RISC-like. It did still use the "units first" representation for large numbers, though.

      Ting! Next, please.

    5. Re:Anyone up for porting linux onto this thing? by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lunix Next Generation - it seems there's an Apple // port in the works... I wouldn't run it on anything with less than 64K RAM, though. The Apple 1 has 8K RAM max.

    6. Re:Anyone up for porting linux onto this thing? by ebh · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, the first thing you do is devise a 32-bit pseudo machine and cobble up an assembler for it. You could call it "Sweet-32" or something...

    7. Re:Anyone up for porting linux onto this thing? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I think it would be cool to boot MS-DOS on this thing ... of course the vanilla 6.22 would be too big, but something like an optimized IBMBIO.SYS and COMMAND.COM with a driver for its framebuffer would be really cool.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:Anyone up for porting linux onto this thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it had an x86 cpu, sure.. but the Apple I had a Zilog-80 CPU and, well, not enough RAM either ;-)

      Would be cool to own this hardware if one wants to construct his own version, though.. I mean, does it get any simpler than this?

    9. Re:Anyone up for porting linux onto this thing? by Restil · · Score: 2, Funny

      LSL2, and only runs on 8086 processors. And it really scares me that I remember this.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    10. Re:Anyone up for porting linux onto this thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Apple I had a MOS technology 6502, and could alternatively use a Motorola 6800. No Z80.

    11. Re:Anyone up for porting linux onto this thing? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Using a MOS 6501/Motorola 6800 was EXTREMELY hard, as they weren't pin-compatible with the 6502, or in the case of the 6800, code compatible (might have also been the 6501). The Z80 reference was probably from someone who used a Z80 card on their Apple II. They DID exist, after all. (How else would CP/M have run on the good ol' A2?)

  16. Want to emulate the Apple I for yourself? by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 4, Informative

    Having the machine would be really cool, but you can emulate the Apple I right now if you like.

    Java Apple I emulator.

    Other Apple I emulators for Windows and Macintosh.

    I'm just about to give them a try. Can't find anything for Linux or UNIX though :-(

    1. Re:Want to emulate the Apple I for yourself? by arunarunarun · · Score: 1

      Java Apple I emulator. ...
      I'm just about to give them a try. Can't find anything for Linux or UNIX though :-(


      From the program(Pom1) website -
      Pom1 still works very well on lastest technology (Tested on Mandrake Linux 9.1 with the j2sdk1.4.2 from Sun).

      ...and James Gosling's rests happy again.
    2. Re:Want to emulate the Apple I for yourself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Java Apple I emulator . . . Can't find anything for Linux or UNIX though"

      You don't understand the point of Java, do you?

    3. Re:Want to emulate the Apple I for yourself? by klokan · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Java emulator works just fine on Linux

    4. Re:Want to emulate the Apple I for yourself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he doesn't, and that final comment was an apparent attempt at trying to pass as savvy, and geeky in this place. I bet he just saw lots of other posts ending on a similar note, and thought that'd somehow help him looking like a linux geek.

    5. Re:Want to emulate the Apple I for yourself? by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Technically, you're correct and Java should run everywhere, but because it works on one machine really doesn't guarantee it will work on another, unfortunately.

      We have a motto for the Java code at my company (which is fairly common on the net, as well, so I'm not sure we invented it):

      "Write Once, Test Everywhere"

      I've submitted a couple of hundred java related bugs in the past six years, and many were platform/vendor specific, so if it didn't work correctly on one platform, I wouldn't be surprised.

    6. Re:Want to emulate the Apple I for yourself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This from the Java "Apple I emulator" page,

      "This is an Apple I emulator. It emulates the Apple I system made by MacIntosh."

      I really do have to wonder about somebody who thinks Apples were made by Macintosh.

  17. how longwill it be by unclefungus · · Score: 2, Funny

    before people want to "resurect" an old PII or K-5? maybe we should start small with an 8088 :)

    1. Re:how longwill it be by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      Resurrect? I have a 90MHz Pentium and several Pentium II's up and running just fine. I have an 80286 in storage which should boot up just fine, although even I'm having a hard time imagining a good reason to try it.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    2. Re:how longwill it be by jbottero · · Score: 1

      I've got an old Sinclair Z80 I've been thinking about using as a web server...

    3. Re:how longwill it be by Krunch · · Score: 0

      WTF ? I'm currently running a two Pentium (90 and 133 MHz) and a Pentium II. Who needs to upgrade ? Windows users ? :p

      --
      No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
    4. Re:how longwill it be by PeteABastard · · Score: 1

      You insensitive clod my fastest home machine is a K6 450. A few are just P1 233 MMX's.
      I have a bit of a collection going. I'm a proggrammer by day and haven't bought a new computer since 1995 because I realised they lose thier cutting edge status too fast. I allow my employer to waste the money. I prefer to pick up old hardware cheaply and distribute my tasks. Eventually I hope to speed my compiles accross a cluster of some sort. Unless of course laziness strikes and I decide its time to buy a new box. Peter

  18. Linux geeks could worship him too! by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article: Besides, Woz continued, he freely distributed the Apple I's schematics and ROM code at the Homebrew Computer Club in 1975, long before he and Steve Jobs went into partnership and began selling the machines from Jobs' parents' garage.

    "The best anyone could say was that it was mine and that I made it public," Woz said to Briel.


    Could this be the first implementation of open source? Or at least open design? There wasn't a GPL at the time, but it was open.

    So linux geeks can love him too, just like astronomers love Gallileo!

    --
    Everything seemed to be going so nice
    'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
    1. Re:Linux geeks could worship him too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Could this be the first implementation of open source?

      You must be kidding. "Open Source" is very old. It is the concept of hiding the source that is quite recent.

      (Think about it: at one point, the software was hand-assembled. This means that there was no distinction between the source and the executable)

    2. Re:Linux geeks could worship him too! by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know, in the beginning software usually was open and free, then it became closed and proprietry - exactly the thing that got Stallman into a rage and ultimately produced the FSF, the GPL and tons of GNU software etc.

      Still, it was a nice thing of him to do - but I bet you dollars to doughnuts he didn't give it away because he had some ideals about freedom - I'm pretty sure, he like every other hacker in the 70's and 80's just wanted to show the others the cool stuff he had made. I know that is how I would have thought back then, almost noone cared about any licenses or anything then - it was all showing off, and lots of stuff went into public domain.

      If it had been an idealistic thing already then, you would have seen a whole nother company later, I'm sure.

    3. Re:Linux geeks could worship him too! by xoboots · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "You know, in the beginning software usually was open and free, then it became closed and proprietry - exactly the thing that got Stallman into a rage and ultimately produced the FSF, the GPL and tons of GNU software etc."

      Actually, IIR, it all came to an end when Bill Gates sent out the first "you are all damn thieves" letter to members of the homebrew who were "sharing" his copyrighted basic interpreter. circa 1977?

      I believe that RMS started the GPL after Gosling refused to share his patches to emacs.

    4. Re:Linux geeks could worship him too! by Valar · · Score: 1

      There is no open without GPL! duh! long live gnu/linux! rarr!

    5. Re:Linux geeks could worship him too! by mkldev · · Score: 1
      Sure there was. I can disassemble---maybe even decompile---a piece of software today, too. Does that mean I can get the source code? No. I have a source code, and a hard-to-read one at that. If you haven't ever tried to follow the code paths in an uncommented piece of assembly code, you should try it some time....

      And since this story seems to be largely about Woz, it's worth noting that in the early ROM designs, he reportedly wrote code that interleaved data and instructions in such a way that when you called it at a different offset, you'd get an entirely different subroutine, treating what was previously data as code and vice-versa to save space.

      Trying to understand that sort of code without SERIOUS code comments would be like trying to navigate through a minefield blindfolded, with your hands tied behind your back and a small child incessantly shouting "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" in your ear.

      So no, even with hand-tuned assembly, there can be a big difference between the source and the executable.... :-)

      --
      120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
    6. Re:Linux geeks could worship him too! by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      "Thank God for Microsoft" --Linus Torvalds

      Nice try. You took that one out of context. FWIW, he was referring to a presentation of his done in PowerPoint. AFAIK, there weren't many other presentation packages on the market, and Linux didn't have a GUI. Besides, he didn't like Macs, so that left Microsoft platforms.

    7. Re:Linux geeks could worship him too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never heard that about any of Woz's code, though it's certainly possible. That sounds a bit like The Story of Mel though.


      Woz did reportedly write the original Integer BASIC for the ][ in his head, and designed the Disk ][ controller (the first personal computer magnetic disk system) over lunch one day - due to his own procrastination and a show deadline more than anything else. ;)

    8. Re:Linux geeks could worship him too! by archen · · Score: 1

      Still, it was a nice thing of him to do - but I bet you dollars to doughnuts he didn't give it away because he had some ideals about freedom

      Actually that is why he did it. I don't think Woz quite thought of it as "freedom" though. If you read about how Woz used to take things apart study how they worked and such, it's easy to understand his mentality. It's how he learned, and became the computer genius that helped launch Apple. To him it wasn't a matter of openness, it was something that logically made sense - allowing people to learn how it worked. They did buy the machine after all. They did OWN it.

      But on the other hand Woz didn't have the vision of the personal computer. To him, he saw people hacking away at BASIC code getting their machines to do their bidding. It was the OTHER Steve who wanted to make machines anyone could use.

    9. Re:Linux geeks could worship him too! by Valar · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the point. Well, ok, kind of. It's not out of context, it's deprived of context. I wasn't using to it say "oh, look, Linus really uses windows behind our back." It's more like, gee, I wonder who'll get angry at this.

    10. Re:Linux geeks could worship him too! by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Could this be the first implementation of open source? Or at least open design? There wasn't a GPL at the time, but it was open.

      I think you're forgetting prior "open" projects such as the wheel, creating fire, arrowheads, etc. Except for one's enemies, all primitive ideas were shared amongst a community for the benefit of that community.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    11. Re:Linux geeks could worship him too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I know that is how I would have thought back then, almost noone cared about any licenses or anything then - it was all showing off, and lots of stuff went into public domain.

      That is the way business should be. People should do things because they enjoy them and enjoy the things they already have. Honestly, how can people enjoy making money and being a consumer if they can't appreciate the beauty in things. This world has become so deplorably disconnected from really living. All these greedy ants marching are going to die someday. Even the bible says that lovers of money have stabbed themselves all over with many pains.
  19. C= monitor in background? by csirac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it just me or does the bezel on the NTSC video monitor have the Commodore logo on it (with the rainbow bit to the right)

    1. Re:C= monitor in background? by whaley · · Score: 0

      Yes looks like a Commodore 1702 to me

    2. Re:C= monitor in background? by csirac · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ahh yes, http://home.comcast.net/~vbriel/r1_4.jpg shows a better view. Perhaps the Apple 1 had a good start, but damn... the VIC20/C64 has to be my favourite 8bit micro ;-)

    3. Re:C= monitor in background? by Graemee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, It's a Commodore 1702. Many Apple & Atari users bought this model as a monitor in the 8-bit era. Best video for the time and not expensive either. I still use mine with a Norcent DVD player and the kids N64. You can use the Lum/Chrom ports in the back to connect to S-video out on the DVD. It's 20 years old and still displays rock solid with sharp video.

    4. Re:C= monitor in background? by tmasssey · · Score: 1
      All Hail the VIC-20!

      It's the computer that got me started. When I was 8 I was given an old VIC-20 mostly as a video game system (it had a bunch of cartridge games). However, it has the thick spiral-bound manual with a little cartoon computer on it that guided you through BASIC. I fell in love with that thing.

      I can remember having to leave the computer on for *weeks* while I was working on a program because my tape drive had burned out... Ah, those were the days.

    5. Re:C= monitor in background? by cfoster611 · · Score: 1

      While my Commodore is long gone, my 1702 Monitor worked great last year as my TV for the longest time. I bought a cable tuner for it from RadioShack. There's nothing more retro-coool then watching AdultSwim on the 1702.
      My Dad bought the monitor so I could use it with my Apple IIc, instead of the litttle crummy one that Apple had. It was great.
      Right now its sitting in storage; the phono connection has losened up so I gotta open it up and sodder it down. Still works pretty good after all these years. I'd like to see my new Wega last this long.

      --
      --- Kicking the Cheat since late 2002
    6. Re:C= monitor in background? by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd bet you a doughnut that it was the 9VAC lines from the power supply (or fuse in the box) that "burned" out. The 1520 datasette is nearly indestructible; C= power supplies are not, and the VIC (unlike the '64) only used those 9VAC lines for one thing...

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  20. Re:Just what the world needs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's not a Mac, it's an Apple.

    How long until Steve Jobs sues this guys pants off anyway? Woz was a great techie, but Jobs is a fucking leech and the only thing differentiating him from Bill Gates is that he is a less talented business man.

  21. Re:Just what the world needs... by BobWeiner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Jobs did bring Apple Computer Inc. back from the brink in '98 -- no small feat, considering the fact that many people predicted the company's demise around that time. Bill Gates is a ruthless businessman -- but talented? I think that's an overstatement.

    --
    The PC Weenies: 11 Years of Online Tech 'Too
  22. No tape?!?!! by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There's also no interface of any kind for a storage device. The original stored programs on tape cassette, but Briel hasn't recreated the cassette interface.

    Ah, the joys of cassettes as a computer storage medium... I remember the time when listening to the programs was key to getting them to work at all. Too bad that joy is lost for the buyers of this baby! Well, the buyers will probably already know those joys from using their original piece!

    I say: good luck to you, and don't^W keep on doing things that make me feel old(er)!

    --
    You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
    1. Re:No tape?!?!! by TClevenger · · Score: 1
      I love that sound too--it's the last thing you can't get from an emulator.

      On the other hand, waiting 6 minutes for Frogger or Canyon Climber to load got old really fast. Especially when the disk version of Frogger had music.

    2. Re:No tape?!?!! by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there something for the Atari 2600 that let you play tapes into it? I remember seeing some software that used it, except with a .wav file instead. Actually, that's an idea - use an emu with .wav files for "tapes".

  23. Most source was open back then by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 5, Informative

    Other than in highly commercialized areas, most source was 'open' in as much that you could easily see a lot of it, even if you couldn't legally copy it or change it.

    Of course, it sounds like Woz was inviting people to take it and change it, although that is not made clear.. making something public back then was not the same as giving everyone a right to change it for commercial purposes (unlike today's GPL world).

    Back then, of course, even on mainframes the code for business applications was often interpreted. On the microcomputers that appeared in the late 70's and early 80's, a lot of source was also open to view. Everyone remembers typing in sources from books and computer magazines. And I'm sure a lot of us 'escaped' programs and typed 'LIST' (on those platforms which used BASIC anyway!) and watched the source code fly up the screen.

    The code was not 'open' in the GPL/Open Source way, but open as in.. not protected.. somewhat in the same way that nearly all Perl scripts you can buy now are readable source-wise (even if they're obfuscated).

    Today everything's only 'protected' because of the commercialization of the IT sector, and a cynicism and 'protectionist' attitude of coders. But back in the fun 'early' days, source was a lot more in your face, even if you couldn't change it and sell it on.

    1. Re:Most source was open back then by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Everyone remembers typing in sources from books and computer magazines. And I'm sure a lot of us 'escaped' programs and typed 'LIST' (on those platforms which used BASIC anyway!) and watched the source code fly up the screen.

      Yes, and you could cheaply buy listings of the source for for the Atari OS and Atari DOS, for example. Who published the former? Atari! Who published the latter? The author of Atari DOS.

      But let's not get overzealous. With only a handful of exceptions, you could not get the source code to commercial applications for home computers. Even early Apple II programs written in BASIC often disabled the "list" command so you couldn't see it, and you certainly couldn't get the source to those written in assembly language. (One exception was that Chris Crawford sold the code to his game "Eastern Front: 1941." At the time it was considered a cutting edge game.)

    2. Re:Most source was open back then by turgid · · Score: 2, Interesting
      A lot of commercial stuff was in hand-written machine code because it was the only way to get it small and fast enough to run on the hardware. While you couldn't just "LIST" the program, you could examine the content of memory, and with a disassembler or opcode table you could read the program. (If your machine was a 6502 you probably didn't even need the opcode table...)

      I wonder how many people today realise that MS-DOS (and the DOS-based Windows 9x series) came with a machine code monitor/assembler/disassembler as standard? It was pretty feeble but it was always there and it taught me a lot. debug it was called. Those were the days...

    3. Re:Most source was open back then by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Also, the commented BIOS source code, in Assembler, for the IBM PC, PC-XT, and PC-AT were published in the Technical Reference Manuals. This is also the case for the Compaq Deskpro 386 and the AT&T 6300. I have most of those manuals.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    4. Re:Most source was open back then by Foddrick · · Score: 1

      FWIW: Disabling the list command was a hack at best. The apple // oses could be called from basic by printing the command prepended by ^D. The programs that disabled list would just embed a ^D in a comment on the first line and an os command to clear the basic program from memory. Under dos 3.3 this command was usually FP. It's been too long, and my wife is bewildered when I play pathetic looking games in my apple 2 emulator :)

    5. Re:Most source was open back then by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      you certainly couldn't get the source to those written in assembly language.

      Maybe not, but you were running those programs on hardware that had a built-in disassembler. Can you imagine the ire of every software publishing company if someone started designing that in again?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    6. Re:Most source was open back then by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 1

      Maybe not, but you were running those programs on hardware that had a built-in disassembler. Can you imagine the ire of every software publishing company if someone started designing that in again?

      MacsBug, Apple's freely available debugger for MacOS (not X), let you break into running code and disassemble it. When people write reams of C++ code, this is of little value. (And in any case you have to very dedicated to want to disassemble something that doesn't contain any symbolic information :)

    7. Re:Most source was open back then by wkitchen · · Score: 1
      I wonder how many people today realise that MS-DOS (and the DOS-based Windows 9x series) came with a machine code monitor/assembler/disassembler as standard? It was pretty feeble but it was always there and it taught me a lot. debug it was called. Those were the days...
      It was also handy for capturing a copy of the BIOS to a file. Which was useful for backup purposes, or if you wanted to make a customized version of it.

      I suppose that reverse engineering and modifying your BIOS is probably illegal now, even when strictly for personal use. May have been illegal then, but I don't really know. Sad. It would be like making it illegal to tinker with your own car. And with all the embedded computers and programming in modern cars, some kinds of car tinkering probably are illegal now.

      I really think that exploring your world and figuring out how things work should not only be legally permitted, but should be a constitutionally protected right. Superceding and invalidating any license or contract language to the contrary.
    8. Re:Most source was open back then by drunkenbatman · · Score: 1

      Of course, it sounds like Woz was inviting people to take it and change it, although that is not made clear.. making something public back then was not the same as giving everyone a right to change it for commercial purposes (unlike today's GPL world).

      These were the days when there was actually very little commercial personal computer software, IE, when bill gates was writing letters to Byte (i think?) complaining about people pirating MS's implimentation of Basic or something along those lines. IE, most of the personal computer users were hobbyists who would get together to show off what they had done, their newest 'hack'.

      Chances are Woz was just showing off his latest hack for geek cred with his homies, and would have loved the idea of others building other hacking his work. This is from what i remember of the book's I've read from that time.

    9. Re:Most source was open back then by thornist · · Score: 1

      The code was not 'open' in the GPL/Open Source way, but open as in.. not protected.. somewhat in the same way that nearly all Perl scripts you can buy now are readable source-wise (even if they're obfuscated).

      Aw, c'mon - don't go bringing those lame-ass write-only flames of Perl into the matter...

      [fx: groan]

  24. Re:Better than Mac in some ways by Little+Brother · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, it loads its OS faster than the PIII loads Windows. (Of course a Pentium I probably loads Windows XP faster than a G5 loads jaguar, so Apple probably doesn't want to use OS loading speed as a benchmark.)

    --

    Little Brother, watching the watchers

  25. We never had the Apple-1 here.. by adeyadey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We never really had the Apple-1 here, but you can re-live the heady days of the British equivalent, CLive Sinclair's MK14.. (Precursor to ZX-80/81/Spectrum etc)

    http://users.aol.com/mk14emu/emulator.htm

    --
    "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
  26. Crappiest whoring so far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, what can I say? No facts straight, no valid comparisons, no coherence - just the usual standard formula A-1 MS bashing to try and get some cheap karma.

    Are you new here or something? Most of us despise content-free trolls like yourself.

    Feel free to bash MS, but do it on solid grounds.

    And don't try to saintify Apple, which didn't even bother to reply to the guy - even Woz said that Apple would not allow him to do this, contrary to what he wants.

  27. Woz to speak in Rochester, NY (Shameless Plug) by rufo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just thought I would mention that Woz is appearing for our local Mac user group on Wednesday. I realize I'll probably get modded down for this, but we really need to sell a few more tickets, so if you mods can find it in your heart to at least leave it at karma 1... :)

    --
    My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
    1. Re:Woz to speak in Rochester, NY (Shameless Plug) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not live near Rochester, but would recommend this to anyone in the area. I've seen Woz speak once before in Cincinnati, & he is well worth the time and money. You will not regret it!

  28. Steve Wozniak-and the hotz translater? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm
    can someone confirm the quote on www.jimmyhotz.com ,its under inventions

    Could someone also confirm the Hotz encryption technology refenced on the first page.. its amazing if true.. but err. unlikely to be true

    The quote

    Hotz Translator Technology Overview

    Electronics, synthesizers, computers and digital recording have all made an enormous impact on music composition, performance and recording. Despite these advances, the process of becoming an accomplished musician - especially one trained in the theory and complex language of music - has remained essentially the same for centuries. This consists of many years of constant practice of physical patterns in conjunction with the study of diverse approaches to music theory. Most people with the innate potential to express themselves musically are prevented from doing so when faced with such a difficult path. Hotz technology addresses this problem in an elegant and empowering way that enables anyone, regardless of musical experience, to play music on a level that is fundamentally not possible without Translator technology.

    "I have seen three things in my life that I instantly knew would have a profound effect on the future; the personal computer, the mouse and the Hotz Translator."
    Steve Wozniak--co-founder of Apple Computers

  29. Re:Wozniak's e-mail used without permission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Woz wrote the email giving him permission he more or less also gave permission for him to reproduce/show it to other. Otherwise how would Briel be able to prove that he has permission?

    "Sure, I got permission from Woz, I have an email here with it. But I can't show it to you"

    That's just silly.

  30. Commodore Monitor by doppleganger871 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't it great that he's using a Commodore 1701 or 1702 monitor (Can't tell from that pic, they're identical aside from the label.) on his Apple computer? Those 170x monitors were actually very durable, they were made by JVC, I believe.

    1. Re:Commodore Monitor by Schnapple · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've still got one of those 1702 monitors - they're great. Monitors (little televisions, essentially). Still holds up better than most televisions I've ever owned. In the front you could hook up standard A/V RCA cables and use it as a television. The back had two separate ports for video since the C64 split up the signal (luma/chroma, I think).

    2. Re:Commodore Monitor by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Heh, I was just going to comment on that too. Here's the picture, for those too lazy to read the story.

    3. Re:Commodore Monitor by Trinn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, luma/chroma, IIRC they are the same as the two separate signals for S-Video, so if you have a 170(1/2), you may want to drag it out of the garage.

    4. Re:Commodore Monitor by bedouin · · Score: 1

      I was still using mine until a year ago as a display for my Playstation. The picture rolls uncontrollable and the v-hold doesn't fix it anymore. Anyone know what's wrong with it?

    5. Re:Commodore Monitor by dododge · · Score: 1
      Those 170x monitors were actually very durable, they were made by JVC, I believe.

      Yup, I've got a 1702 myself and it still works like a champ whenever I need an NTSC-compatible display. Just recently I had it attached to a PS2 for about a year (using S-Video and a breakout adapter to connect to the Y/C ports on the back), and used it several hours a week.

  31. Is Woz Saying Apple I Is Open Source??? by ausoleil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The best anyone could say was that it was mine and that I made it public," Woz said to Briel.

    Seems like the Woz is saying that he originally published the specifications of the Apple I, including the ROM code into open source.

    One wonders if he could be convinced to put it into the GNU license. Yes, it is ancient-ancient code that would be good for only esoteric or educational purposes, but it would also make a statement about obsoleted programs that have little or no commercial value being used to teach by example. Something Microsoft and other huge commercial code vendors should take a lesson from.

    1. Re:Is Woz Saying Apple I Is Open Source??? by dodell · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that he is stating that he gave it out to people, not that he released it under any type of license. This is sensible, because if this guy wants to make some Apple Is, Woz'll be able to make a couple bucks (like he needs it) from licensing fees. But I don't think he'll open-source it so-to-speak.

      However, a BSD license or a release into public domain would be better for this kind of thing than GPL. If you GPL the ROM code, it seems that everything that ended up running on the box would need to be GPL. Which would suck, IMO.

    2. Re:Is Woz Saying Apple I Is Open Source??? by M-2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, back in the beginning, in addition to making the Apple I, he also gave away the schematics for it, as well as a lot of the OS code.

      I still have my Apple ][+ manual, and it has the completely schematics for the computer in the manual, and the code for the Apple OS. The Disk ][ manual also came with schematics and code.

      They wanted people to love their computers inside and out. I think they succeeded. I still have my ][+ and pull it out every so often to play some of the games on it. After a horrible smackdown in NeverWinter Nights, nothing is as much fun as pulling out Wizardry (the very original) and taking down the Wizard in grand style.

    3. Re:Is Woz Saying Apple I Is Open Source??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      One wonders if he could be convinced to put it into the GNU license.

      It's better than GNU, it's public domain apparently. Why encumber it with the restrictive GPL (if you even could for hardware). Public domain or at the very least a BSD license so you can use it unrestricted for text books. The GPL wouldn't allow that.

    4. Re:Is Woz Saying Apple I Is Open Source??? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Use the Linux license. It is the GPL, plus a clause stating that stuff running on it doesn't have to be GPL.

    5. Re:Is Woz Saying Apple I Is Open Source??? by tuffy · · Score: 2, Informative
      However, a BSD license or a release into public domain would be better for this kind of thing than GPL. If you GPL the ROM code, it seems that everything that ended up running on the box would need to be GPL. Which would suck, IMO.

      No, no, no. If your ROM code is released under the GPL license, anyone making a derivative work from that code (an upgraded ROM) would have to release their ROM code under the GPL. But simply using that code to run non-derived software doesn't require that software to be GPLed any more than the GPL requires software I write in emacs to be GPLed.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    6. Re:Is Woz Saying Apple I Is Open Source??? by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why encumber it with the restrictive GPL
      The GPL is no more restrictive than the thirteenth amendment. When are people going to realise that the prohibitions it imposes are there for a reason?
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    7. Re:Is Woz Saying Apple I Is Open Source??? by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      The full schematics for the motherboard, and all issued expansion cards, plus the source code for the BIOS, was also made available for the IBM PC, XT, and AT. And the Compaq clones, and the AT&T clones, and even the Commodore 64. This kind of 'documentation' was commonly made available for computers in the 80's.

      It's not something 'special' where Apple wanted people to 'love their computers inside and out.' They had to provide documentation so their product could compete, and programmers could figure out how to write code for it.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    8. Re:Is Woz Saying Apple I Is Open Source??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same with copyright!

      What kind of argument was that?

      If there is NO REASON to further encumber something with restrictions, then why do it?

      If the OWNER of the code wantes to PD it, who the hell are you or /. to say that he should not have?!?!?

      The amount of "ownership" that you people place on OTHER people's works it absafucking amazing. Even when someone is doing something nice, you gotta fark with it.

    9. Re:Is Woz Saying Apple I Is Open Source??? by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      At the moment, the Public Domain is not legally protected. This means that anyone can "mine" the public domain for something they like, then start restricting access to it, by making a small change and claiming copyright on the derivative work. Some even have the gall to claim that the "PD" original infringes their newly-bought copyright! That can't be at all right. People put things deliberately in the public domain for a reason, i.e. to stop all the "intellectual property" nonsense and to prevent other people making money out of their blood, sweat and tears. Unfortunately, such abuse makes a mockery of that. You spend hours of your time working on a project that you want everyone to have gratis, but then someone takes it and starts selling it, then they go after you for giving it away!

      If works that had entered the public domain were subject to the same legal privilege as copyright works {with the obvious difference that, since there is no copyright holder, no-one can arbitrarily restrict their availability} then the GPL would not be necessary.

      I see the GPL as a kind of jiu-jitsu - using the copyright system's strength and weight against itself, ultimately to defeat it. A Privileged Public Domain would be an alternative solution, but I don't think this is going to become the norm for some time yet. Until the time is ready, and the law of the land states that all the benefits of all human endeavour belong to all of humanity, then the GPL will just have to do.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  32. Re:Wozniak's e-mail used without permission? by waynelorentz · · Score: 1, Troll

    I think the problem is that you're confusing Wired with actual journalism. Wired has about as much to do with real journalism as the Sharper Image catalog or your local smut rag -- they're all printed on glossy paper with lots of pretty pictures, but rarely do any of them actually partake in journalism.

  33. Colleco ADAM by SWroclawski · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now where's my ADAM replica?

    And will it have the same features as the original, including:

    * Power supply for computer located inside printer
    * Being able to boot off tapes, BUT if you boot up
    with tapes inside, the magnetic field will
    erase them
    * Chip degredation temperature lower than unit
    operating temperature
    * Being unable to save word processor documents

    1. Re:Colleco ADAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. But Buck Rogers really made it all worth it.

  34. Re:Better than Mac in some ways by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    OS loading speed as a benchmark? You must be kidding. How often must an OS load?

  35. Re:Which begs the question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Begging the question means avoiding the question.
    No it doesn't. It begs the question => it begs [for me to ask] the question.

    Just because you've seen something used in irony doesn't mean it always means the opposite of what it says, you know!
  36. d00d FreeDOS! by nutznboltz · · Score: 1
    Apple, whose following is so devoted that they would actually resurrect one of their old products out of sheer love for it. I don't see any followers of Microsoft doing the same
    If I close my eyes I don't see anything like that either.
    1. Re:d00d FreeDOS! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      except that FreeDOS was born as a way to run old DOS apps without paying for DOS. And for those who hated windows so much they wanted to stick with DOS... not by those with affection for MS

    2. Re:d00d FreeDOS! by nutznboltz · · Score: 1

      I guess you are right. They must have really hated MS-DOS. They had to force themselves to write every line of code. There was absolutely no choice. They could not have gone on living without those old DOS programs.

    3. Re:d00d FreeDOS! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      no, they just hated windows that much... were you actually around when that project became popular? That was basically the number 1 sentiment of it all, they all hated win95.

  37. Re:Which begs the question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop misusing technical terms. Begging the question is the logical fallacy of using circular reasoning and that is all.

  38. and ReactOS too by nutznboltz · · Score: 1

    http://www.reactos.com/

    And WINE and this list goes on...

  39. Re:Wozniak's e-mail used without permission? by idamaybrown · · Score: 1

    Does Wired need permission from Wozniak? Is it OK to reproduce email as long as either the sender or recipient gives permission?

  40. If you're going to remove the Backspace... by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ...to match the original Apple I, then you should also add a cassette interface, since the Apple I had that too.

    Part of hobbying around with stuff like this is spending hours keying in your own code, watching it do its thing. But if you can't save the product of your efforts, well, that sucks.

    I have an old Sinclair ZX-81 which I found still works, mostly, but I can't get it to load a program from tape anymore, or save it. So other than being a nostalgic piece of technology, its pretty much useless.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    1. Re:If you're going to remove the Backspace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you didn't RTFA, specifically the part about it having non-volatile RAM.

    2. Re:If you're going to remove the Backspace... by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
      I'm guessing you didn't RTFA

      Umm, then how did I know about the lack of a cassette interface? Or the the laughable lack of a Backspace key? (Yes, I did RTFA.) And I didn't notice any mention of non-volatile RAM. ROM, yes. RAM, no.

      Besides, even with non-volatile RAM, how much could that possibly be? On an authentic Apple I replica? Certainly not enough to store all your laboriously typed-in machine code, etc. And when you run out of space, delete it, only to type it in again later? About as fun as slamming your thumb in the car door...

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    3. Re:If you're going to remove the Backspace... by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's some EEPROM space from D000 to FEFF. BASIC goes in E000 to EFFF, but that still gives you D000 to DFFF and F000 to FEFF.

    4. Re:If you're going to remove the Backspace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I have an old Sinclair ZX-81 which I found still works, mostly, but I can't get it to load a program from tape anymore, or save it. So other than being a nostalgic piece of technology, its pretty much useless."

      I've found that the ZX81 is just the right size to fit into the mouths of those annoyingly vocal Windows users you sometimes find trolling on Slashdot.

  41. YOU FAIL IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Seeing as you have been unable to get a response from the slashdot administration about your FAILED attempt at first post, here is mine:

    YOU FAIL IT!

  42. Retro Case Mod. by banzai75 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The case looks a little big. I'm wondering how much shipping the whole desk is gonna cost ;)

  43. Re:Better than Mac in some ways by tuffy · · Score: 1
    OS loading speed as a benchmark? You must be kidding. How often must an OS load?
    That depends on how often the computer needs to be rebooted.
    --

    Ita erat quando hic adveni.

  44. Re:Just what the world needs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In today's economy, being ruthless is part of business. So, yes he is a talented businessman.


    You can also just look at his business. You can't argue with success.

  45. what i'd like to see is a new apple][ by 68k+geek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    something like a modern version of the IIgs - try to see how modern you can make a computer that's still shares the apple][ spirit (can run the same code natively, have a 6502-like CPU, etc.). and then mass produce it an sell it in an affordable price. :-)~

    1. Re:what i'd like to see is a new apple][ by b1t+r0t · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with getting the real thing? They're not all that hard to find. The only stuff that really needs to be modernized is cards that go into it, to take advantage of SIMM memory, IDE, and 10Base-T, for instance. Stuff that I'm pretty sure already exists and can easily be found with a Google search.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    2. Re:what i'd like to see is a new apple][ by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Cards? Why? What's out works fine right now.
      SIMMs? Nope...
      IDE? There are several, made by //SSH Systeme, and some guy (forget his name) that makes a CF AND IDE adapter.
      10Base-T? Apple ALMOST made this, but //SSH Systeme is known for their LANceGS card.

      Personally, I think a modern system should be built on an enhanced version of the 65832 design (google it). I'd try for an ATX mobo here. That way, we could use ALL cases.

    3. Re:what i'd like to see is a new apple][ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the C-One?? That's allegedy capable of *being* just about any of those 80's computers, but aimed at being a souped up C-64 (think C-64 plus CMD Super CPU plus Amiga-like graphics, or a C-65). See http://c64upgra.de/c-one/

  46. Same reason that paintings are in demand... by WebCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..because the Apple I is considered a work of art. Some people consider Woz to be the engineering equivalent of a renaissance master. Some people hang framed prints of the schematics originally included with Apple I kits on the wall because the design was not only extremely elegant, efficient and clever--the drawing was also very well laid out and visually appealing.

    So...it's the same reason non-geek "artsy" types buy classic paintings (or prints of them) even though we have photographic equipent (both film-based and digital) to make exact represtations of real life.

  47. Speaking of Retro... by bluethundr · · Score: 3, Informative



    If you love this stuff like I do, and want a very nice replica of an "Altair Style" retrobox, the Imsai has been made available again(albeit at a slightly exorbitant price)....

    I for one will definitely pony up the $2bux this guy is asking for his Apple replica long before I can afford one of those old Imsais. Much as I want one, I ain't exactly rolling in dough sadly. Just pricked my finger, noticed my blood ain't blue enough. :(

    --
    Quod scripsi, scripsi.
  48. Apple can't/won't make an issue of trademark... by WebCowboy · · Score: 1

    ...because first of all it would be a colossally stupid move from a PR standpoint.

    Secondly I believe Woz is still technically an employee of Apple (and will be for the rest of his life in an honorary capacity) as well as a shareholder (although I think he only holds 1 share for posterity). Because of that and the vital role he played in the formation of the company I *think* he still has enough pull to keep the IP lawyer dogs in Apple's employ on their leashes in this case.

  49. Now that is silly by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "I've typed on everything from a 2Mhz Z80 system to a 2.8Ghz system. Can you guess how different my typing speed was?"

    I can respond:

    "I've mixed and edited audio on everything from a 25Mhz 486 system to a 3.2Ghz system. Can you guess how different the production speed was?"

    or

    "I've rendered 3d on everything from a 16Mhz 386 system to a super computer. Can you guess how different my rendering speed was?"

    There are LOTS of applications that need more power than old systems can provide. Audio mixing is one of my favourite. On an Apple I, it is just downright impossible. The system lacks the memory to be able to even handle the GUI needed, much less anything else. On a 486 it was doable, but slow. Everything had to be done in non-realtime. You'd spend hours rendering an effect, more time rendering a mixdown, and then listen to see if it was what you wanted. That or spend tens of thousands of dollars on dedicated audio processing hardware. Today I do it at home with ease on my 1.6Ghz. I can do things in software that used to be impossible even in hardware, and I do them in realtime.

    Or speaking of music things, how about MP3s? Back when I had a 486, I had to drop to DOS and run only a decoder program if I wanted to decode a 128k MP3 in stereo. Otherwise I had to do it in mono, and even so my system was sluggish. Now I do it in the background, with only seconds of CPU time spent in hours of play. What used to be a special thing is now something I do in the background while I work or play. On the flip side ripping and encoding, which used to be a 4 hour task, I now do while I'm in the kitchen getting food.

    Along the lines of things not using lots of CPU power, how about GUIs? I happen to LIKE GUIs and work more efficiently for them. I still can and do use command line for appropriate things, but the GUI is much better. Well, it's not free. Back in the day there was a non-trivial penalty for running Windows or X. Apps would drag if those were active because they ate up too much system time. Now it just doesn't matter. Window's GUI uses well under 0.1% of system resources on a modern system.

    There IS reason for progress in computers. Yes, if all you do is scroll text, then abything works fine. However most of us have larger tastes, and it requires more power to fill them. Also, interestingly enough, it makes things cheaper for all of us, text scrollers included. I remember how amazingly expensive my friend's 286 IBM was which, all said and done, didn't do much better on the text scrolling than my Apple II, however even the Apple II was pricey. Now you can get an all said and done comptuer form a major manufacturer (Dell) for about $430. It'll do more than just scroll text.

    Progress: It's a Good Thing(tm).

    1. Re:Now that is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one tempted to cry foul when I hear the words "MP3" and "486" used together in the same sentence? I've been with personal computers since the beginning (Apple II) and followed them closely and have NO recollection of .MP3 files even existing until within the last 3-5 years. The 486 era was in the late 80s/early 90s right?

    2. Re:Now that is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, NO! I distinctly remember downloading mp3 files from fsp(flash in the pan protocol desinged to replace ftp) sites in 96, at that point I was playing them on a pentium 100, but 486s were definetly still going strong.

    3. Re:Now that is silly by Dunkelzahn · · Score: 1

      Some of us were too broke to upgrade to them shiny new Pentium 133's that were state of the art at the time MP3 started to become popular in the 'warez' and irc circles.

      My experience was that my 486DX4-100 had similar problems with mp3's. I didn't go mono with mine, i just set them to downsample to 22Khz, and that worked fine.

      --
      .
    4. Re:Now that is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The MP3 standard was released in 1993. I probably saw my first pirate files in 94-95.

      Meanwhile, Pentium computers were becoming mainstream in about 1995. 486s were still sold as low-end models, and there was a large installed base.

      So, people did come up with specially hacked programs that allowed one to play MP3s on 486s and Mac Quadra computers.

    5. Re:Now that is silly by GebsBeard · · Score: 1

      Well there I go. I stand corrected.

    6. Re:Now that is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that I saw you flinch when you read the parent post. That thing that you might have noticed rushing past your shoulder in a blur was "the point." Unfortunately it missed you. Completely. Go back and reread it.

      Nothing in there suggests that render farms should be made of Apple Is, Beowulf clusters of Z80s, or MP3 ripping systems of 286s. It doesn't say that faster computers are pointless, or that progress is bad. It doesn't say that it is desirable to use antiquated technology to perform important tasks for which it is clearly unsuitable in preference to current technology.

      What it does say is that some people are interested in old computers. It says that old computers can still serve a valuable, even unique function. It says that you can still learn things from old technology. It says that technological change isn't always an absolute improvement in all measures. It says that different people have different interests.

      It's wonderful that you enjoy fast computers, MP3s, GUIs, and all the technological advancements that the computer industry can bring. It isn't wonderful if you think that everyone should think the way you think, be limited to your interests, or should only find value in what you find value.

      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet"

    7. Re:Now that is silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you should have downmixed and used half or quarter quality with winamp. Or Dosamp (with an sb card)

  50. Re:insert obligatory high-speed computing joke her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which just goes to show that the fine line between (+5 Funny) and (-1 Redundant) is a matter of seconds.

  51. Seems you think Java is actually usable.. by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 1

    You need a good wack with the cluestick, troll.

    I could have easily posted a link JUST to the Java one, and told everyone.. hey, it's Java, so you don't NEED anything OS specific. However, most Java stuff works like ASS and looks like shit. I do not use any Java apps under Linux (hell, or even under Windows) for this reason alone (well, other than speed issues).

    When I said I could find no version for Linux, I was not lying.

  52. contributions by Iowaguy · · Score: 1

    Always remember, one of Bill Gate's great contributions to the world was to take something that was given for free and sell. A sucker is indeed born every minute, but he then goes on to clone himself exponentially.

    --
    "He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
  53. Re:Wozniak's e-mail used without permission? by Politburo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Simply put, yes. An e-mail reciever can publicly post their e-mail just as you could publicly post your phone bill or a letter from grandma. This assumes there are no prior agreements (such as NDAs) between the sender and reciever.

  54. "IBM-PC existing before Apple" by RabidOverYou · · Score: 1

    You got one part right: you seem to remember.

    1. Re:"IBM-PC existing before Apple" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read my post below for support asshat. Apple is as much responsible for PC's as Al Gore is responsible for the internet. Do some research before posting.

  55. I'm so disappointed! by BiOFH · · Score: 2, Funny

    None of you has started in on the typo in his BASIC program! Come ON, people!
    http://www.wired.com/news/images/0,2334,6 0329-8757 ,00.html ;)

    --
    - I am made of meat.
    1. Re:I'm so disappointed! by ShortSpecialBus · · Score: 1

      I hav looked the picture over and I havn't noticed any typos.

      Hav i missed something?

      --
      //FIXME: Bad .sig
    2. Re:I'm so disappointed! by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      The CODE isn't messed up, but his second print statement printed "HELLO ";A$;" HAV A NICE DAY!" (where A$ is your name) Improper grammar (HELLO BHTOOEFR HAV A NICE DAY - commas, anyone?) and improper spelling (HAV A NICE DAY).

    3. Re:I'm so disappointed! by ShortSpecialBus · · Score: 1

      Thanks for spelling that out, Captain Obvious.....

      I hadn't noticed as you hav for sure seen........

      --
      //FIXME: Bad .sig
  56. Mod the parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's inflation in beowulf cluster jokes....

  57. eh? by fetus · · Score: 1

    Woz the big deal?

  58. Re:Just what the world needs... by qwertyatwork · · Score: 1

    Lets not foget that the 8-bit Ataris were infinantly better than those crapples, commie-dores and HAHAHA pc jr. No, this is not a flame if you didnt live back then then you dont understand. Ok, even if you didnt live back then you still have to admit the pc jr. was a funny joke, shows IBM has a sense of humour.

  59. My Wish List by Exousia · · Score: 1

    I wonder if he would make me a TRS-80 and a pair of high-top sneakers. That would be great. Thanks. Sarcasm mode OFF

    --

    --Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
  60. He's using a Commodore monitor on his Apple I ! by dstone · · Score: 2, Informative

    He would have been lynched for such an action back in the days of the Apple-Commodore-Atari religious wars! The photo on his home page clearly shows the Apple I prototype hooked up to a Commodore 1701 monitor on the builder's workbench.

    (BTW, was that model # 1701 -really- Commodore's reference to the USS Enterprise as we all seemed to think at the time? Or did we just not get out enough?)

  61. "Props"????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Props"????? No FUCKING wonder this world is going to HELL in a hand basket. "PROPS"??? Do you ware your pants down with your boxers showing too? Got that baseball cap spun around backwards? "PROPS"???? What kind of FUCKING language is that for an "intelligent" life form? Carry a "40" around in your baggy jeans, do you? Know the lates hand signals, do you? "WHAT UP, DOOOOOOOOOOD!" Get a FUCKING life, little boy.

  62. Slashdot by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 1

    We wouldn't have access to slashdot without a computer.

    Hardly the pinnacle of civilization is it though? Actually.. seeing as we're as advanced as a race as we've ever been.. yeah, perhaps accessing Slashdot IS the pinnacle of civilization.

    Ohhh the depression.

  63. Not being able to store the programs you enter... by Zathras11 · · Score: 1

    is going to suck. I remember typing in LONG
    programs, and sometimes losing data because
    I forgot to save to diskette sometimes. With
    this you don't even have that option. I give
    this guy (a local to me) an A for effort, but
    without even a cassette interface (and those
    stunk), you are S.O.L.

  64. Wrongo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The Apple I was sold in the mid 1970's, way before IBM brought out the first model called a "PC".

    Maybe you should read the article before posting.

    1. Re:Wrongo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're about the computer actually called the PC but they were selling PC's long before that. 1969 to be exact. IBM, Intel, Bell Labs, Xerox, and yes even Microsoft all were ahead of Apple when it came to technology. Jobs and Wozniak were just bright enough to put it all together in a viable way. To say that it wouldn't have happened without them is just plain stupid.

    2. Re:Wrongo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your example from 1969 is so not a PC. That thing could be considered less of a PC than a modern VCR would be. At least a VCR can be programmed to do something useful, and costs a lot less than $10,000 - an amount that would have bought four brand new cars in 1969, clearly placing the "kitchen computer" outside of the realm of "personal" computing. A $10,000 recipe storage box is not a personal computer, sorry, but no.

      The Apple I was the first popular true personal computer, partly because it was cheap enough to buy/build, and because it was an open system - easy to understand and easy to tinker with - it even came with a full schematic diagram and source code for the ROMs.

  65. Re:Better than Mac in some ways by Krunch · · Score: 0

    That depend the OS you run...

    --
    No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
  66. I have a replica of an original Apple by Dunwich · · Score: 1

    It's in my lunchbox...

    1. Re:I have a replica of an original Apple by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's a good idea. How big is this guy's board (I didn't look - I thought $200 was too much, but I DID RTFA)? We could throw that, an AT PSU, an Apple ][ (or ][+) KB, and an LCD in, and we'd be ready to roll.

  67. Crystal radio kits by lrucker · · Score: 1
    As things get more complex, the entry to learning about them gets higher.

    Feynman got his start by taking apart TVs and radios to see how they worked. By the time I was a kid, that wasn't possible, but I did build a crystal radio from a kit.

    My first computer was an Apple ][, and I knew how it all fit together, both hardware and software. Today's kids have little chance of doing that with their own computers. This could be the next generation's equivalent of a crystal radio kit.

  68. Re:Just what the world needs... by Roberto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course you can, silly!

    Let's consider a few examples:

    a) Tom Clancy. He is a talentless hack. He is very successful. Mind you, he is a pretty good talentless hack.

    b) Michael Bay.

    The director that possesses the most incoherent cinematographic language in history. Armaggeddon: 36M opening weekend.

    c) Michael Bolton.

    Need I say anything? Other than he has sold like 8 million records or something insane like that?

  69. Re:Not being able to store the programs you enter. by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

    RTFLS (linked site - http://www.vintagecomputer.tk) - he's working on a cassette interface.

  70. here's a project to recreate classic consoles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check this out... RetroConsole

  71. For Sale: Apple IIe by Timothy+Chu · · Score: 1, Funny

    For a limited time only, I have an Apple IIe for sale. Comes with all original hardware. Advertised as the best thing since the Apple I. The Apple I sells for $200, as raved about in this recent Slashdot article so I think a fair asking price is $400. Will include external floppy drive and box of 5 1/4 floppies.

    Will clean out cookie crumbs from keyboard on request (or can leave them in for that "nostalgic" feel.

    Serious bidders only.

    1. Re:For Sale: Apple IIe by Timothy+Chu · · Score: 1

      This was a joke, not an actual For Sale ad. Gosh darnit.

  72. IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sinclair is one the *very* few guys who could stand up and greet Woz at the same height.

    (BTW, this is not a joke, ok... this time it's not)

    Kinda makes me proud of the human race...

  73. He should stop asking Apple by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    I suspect the only response that would pass Apple Legal is 'no', merits notwithstanding.

    It's entirely possible that someone at Apple is being cool about this by not responding.

    That said, now we have a response when the PC weenies complain that there are no Apple clones available to purchase.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  74. Re:Just what the world needs... by jrnchimera · · Score: 1

    The C64 was a fine machine! Most of the machines during that era ended up being about the same in terms of power.

  75. Re:insert obligatory high-speed computing joke her by slickwillie · · Score: 1

    All the Apple I's ever built put together wouldn't match the power of a single Apple ][e.

  76. Re:Colleco ADAM - secure machine? by belmolis · · Score: 1

    * Power supply for computer located inside printer * Being able to boot off tapes, BUT if you boot up with tapes inside, the magnetic field will erase them * Chip degredation temperature lower than unit operating temperature * Being unable to save word processor documents. Sounds like a nice, secure system suitable for Mission Impossible. It even self-destructs like the tape recorder.

  77. Are you kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The computers available from companies like IBM, Xerox, etc may have looked like a PC but with price tags starting around $5000 these were intended for research or business, not personal use.

    A $10600 cutting board? What are you smoking?!?!?!

  78. YHBT. YHL. HAND. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0




  79. Re:Just what the world needs... by qwertyatwork · · Score: 1

    Agreed. But your still required to flame anyone who bought a different machine than you. Oh yeah, ATARI RULEZ!!!!! :)

  80. On the topic of Apple computers by Kazuko · · Score: 1

    There was a tech expo here at UCF yesterday and of course, Apple had a few of those nifty G5 computers out in a booth. Guess what was about 30 feet to the left? A G5 running a custom LFS installation, courtesy of a Comp Sci enthusiast club. The Apple people weren't angry in the least. They actually liked the idea, and probably enjoyed the acknowledgement that people knew, at long last, that you didn't have to run the Mac OS on their (relatively recent) computers, thanks to a few geeks here at UCF. I don't know what the MS booth folks thought of it... they weren't getting much attention with them pushing OfficeXP/XP Home with their booth and all.... don't they know we all have Pro Corp? On a side note, if anyone can direct me to some resources on a guess as to how powerful the top-end G5 (8 GB DDR400, dual 2GHz CPU/1GHz FSB and all...) is in terms of a gaming application, I would be grateful. I could imagine it would just be a matter of Wine through Linux, but I honestly don't know. Again, that would be helpful.