Slashdot Mirror


VisiCalc Turns 25, Creators Interviewed

Xaroth writes "It's hard to believe that it's already been 25 years since the release of one of the world's first 'killer apps.' 1979 saw the creation of VisiCalc, the first microcomputer-based spreadsheet and the single application that launched widespread computer use among businesses. To remember this event, PC World has published portions of interviews with the three co-creators of the modern spreadsheet: Dan Bricklin, Bob Frankston, and Dan Fylstra. Alternately, check out the Software History website for more information on this and other historical bits."

149 comments

  1. Test it out! by JThundley · · Score: 5, Informative

    Run it yourself!

    I bet there's a Linux one floating around out there, I guess I'll try to WINE this one.

    1. Re:Test it out! by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "I guess I'll try to WINE this one."

      You're gonna try to not an emulator it?

    2. Re:Test it out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? During my first year I mentioned "antiquitized" in one of my papers. I declared the word as a fabrication in the footnotes. Is English ever antagonistic in regard to your English?

  2. Software History website basically a placeholder by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't bother with that Software History website linked to in the article. There's very little content, and it seems to be mostly a placeholder and a place for people to give them donations.

    As far as I can tell, it has absolutely zero content about Visicalc, and I have no idea why it was linked to in the first place.

  3. Would they... by Jailbrekr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Would they have ever written it, knowing that, in the end, a paper clip would be used to teach people how to use a spreadsheet.....

    --
    Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
    1. Re:Would they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Um, ye$.

      The question is, would they have patented it?

    2. Re:Would they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would they have written knowing that Apple was going to go out of business? 'cause they are, you know...

    3. Re:Would they... by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure they'd patent it. They considered doing it 25 years ago, but an unimaginative lawyer told them that software wasn't patentable. More here.

    4. Re:Would they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unimaginative? I would say that this is a rare example of an insightful lawyer at work. Sure, he was wrong, but he helped society in the process.

      I have little respect for Bricklin and his mate. All they did was transfer an old blackboard oriented accounting tool and put it on a computer -- no invention at all. The program they wrote was very good but that was protected by copyright, why should they be allowed to patent it as well?

  4. Download, anyone? by MarkJensen · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Many Slashdot readers may know this, but there will be a good number who don't... It's not mentioned in the linked articles, but you can go to http://www.bricklin.com/history/vcexecutable.htm and download Visicalc.

  5. They needed databases, too... by wizbit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't forget DB Master for the Apple II. Sold several million copies - a modernized version of it is still used in public works offices around the world, even 20 years later.

    The original author still does DB work for this company.

    1. Re:They needed databases, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since there were only slightly more than two million Apple II's ever made, it's pretty unlikely then "several million copies" of any software title were ever sold for it. Don't just make stuff up.

    2. Re:They needed databases, too... by wizbit · · Score: 4, Informative

      Total sales, including the PC port, were about 2.5 million. This was a pretty common tale, too, many programs (including visicalc) had some history on the apple 2 series before being ported for the PC.

    3. Re:They needed databases, too... by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If that's the number of genuine Apple IIs, then multiply it by a large factor for all the clones. (And where did you get that two million figure from?)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:They needed databases, too... by wsxyz · · Score: 3, Informative

      He got it out of his butt.

      Well over 10 million Apple IIs were manufactured and sold. Remember that "Apple II" as a general term includes Apple II, Apple II plus, Apple IIe, Apple IIc, Apple IIc+, and Apple IIgs machines. On top of that there were millions of clones produced all over the world.

    5. Re:They needed databases, too... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Total sales, including the PC port, were about 2.5 million.

      "Several" means 5 to 8. This has been measured by broad surveys of English speakers, and is used in the implementation of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Translation software. (Of course, the speakers surveyed expressed some variation in what they believed fuzzy number ranges to mean, but no one said "several" could mean less than 3)

    6. Re:They needed databases, too... by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      The site just gives me some eye, a sword, and something saying "Darkest: The World Beyond". Now, where's the Enter link? Oh, wait, there ISN'T ONE!

      I even tried Web Archive, which got me either blank pages or redirects to that SWF mentioned above...

  6. Small fact... by networkGhettoWhore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I dont think the article mentioned this, but VisiCalc was also the first (known) enterprise app to be ported from the Apple OS to a *Nix based system.

    --
    Natural Selection: self-destruction of the poor and lazy
  7. jEdit beats the pants off it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well, not necessarily Visicalc specifically (Sheesh, it's an ancient program!), but spreadsheets in general.

    jEdit, through its pluggable Java architecture allows the addition of user-created plug ins. One of these is the double bookkeeping plug in.

    Every accountant to whom I introduced this to (it's free as in gratis and libre) has told me how much more productive they are using this set up than using plain old spreadsheets.

    Basically, the goal of computing is to mimic and make easier real-life processes. The spreadsheet has no real-life corollary, whereas Java and specifically the Object Oriented paradigm model the real world to a T.

    So if we want to congratulate Visicalc for anything, let's give them a big thanks for setting computers down a dead end road for 25 years.

    1. Re:jEdit beats the pants off it by King+of+the+Trolls · · Score: 2, Funny

      and it only takes 2Gb RAM to run it in sluggish mode.

    2. Re:jEdit beats the pants off it by RidiculousPie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the difference between what you describe and the idea of Lotus Improv?
      Improv was a truly innovative system, which I think represents a logical method of fast data handling.
      Also, could jEdit have been developed if VisiCalc and Improv had not come before it?

      --
      ah, mod points ... now where is my crack?
    3. Re:jEdit beats the pants off it by JoeShmoe950 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to be a flaimbait or anything, but I think that your completely wrong about Visicalc. Computers aren't designed to mimic things from the real world. Many good programs don't. The spreadsheet is productive, very. In fact, it doesn't mimic paper+calc+pencil for doing banking, it superceeds it.

    4. Re:jEdit beats the pants off it by nelsonal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree with you, but we're both probably spreadsheet experts. Have you ever seen a user with only basic training, and a limited understanding of math? They know certain things are possible (because they saw us do them) but to them the spreadsheet is not intuitive. To us they are. Once you grasp relative v absolute references (and cell naming) you are usually on your way to being unstoppable.
      One thing that would be nice would be a sheet that had a different display for user input data and calc'd data (I have my own shorthand but wouldn't it be nice if the sheet just formatted them automatically?
      My employer spend millions of dollars redesigning their database input and report forms so they would be the same as the old mainframe systems. Dumb to us, but most users were rendered helpless by something different, even if it was more efficient. Something that looks like what a user is comfortable with is sometimes more useful than a powerful, flexible, but different tool.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    5. Re:jEdit beats the pants off it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the spreadsheet must mimic something in the real world, because it contains information about the real world. I've just read Godel, Escher, Bach, so you can see this coming. There's an isomorphism between certain information in the real world and the data in a spreadsheet.

    6. Re:jEdit beats the pants off it by benzapp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only that, but the original designer of VisiCalc describes this very issue in the article, and how the uniqueness of the spreadsheet made it very difficult to describe to the public at large. Only through immersion in the technology can you really understand and appreciate it.

      so, you forgot to preface your post with RTFA.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    7. Re:jEdit beats the pants off it by OscarGunther · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The spreadsheet is productive, very. In fact, it doesn't mimic paper+calc+pencil for doing banking, it superceeds it.

      And yet VisiCalc was designed to mimic a real-world operation. IIRC, industrial planners used to have large blackboards divided into grids and each square in the grid could hold a number or an equation. When a number was changed in one square, all the dependent squares had to be recalculated. Of course, the concern was that something had been missed. I believe Bricklin heard one of his professors describe this process and chose it as his model for what eventually became VisiCalc.

      I think I read this in Cringely's Accidental Empires.

    8. Re:jEdit beats the pants off it by saddino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The spreadsheet has no real-life corollary

      Technically, it was real-life that gave Bricklin his idea in the first place. To quote:

      Bricklin has spoken of watching his university professor create a table of calculation results on a blackboard. When the professor found an error, he had to tediously erase and rewrite a number of sequential entries in the table, triggering Bricklin to think that he could replicate the process on a computer....

    9. Re:jEdit beats the pants off it by zoydoid · · Score: 1

      The computerised spreadsheet (with all the features we assume) was already common at the time VisiCalc came out. VisiCalc was just the first interactive one.

    10. Re:jEdit beats the pants off it by zoydoid · · Score: 1

      The computerised (or electronic) spreadsheet or general ledger, with all the features we assume (cols A-Z, rows 1 - 9999, formulas, auto recalc etc.), was already common at the time VisiCalc came out in 1979. VisiCalc was just the first interactive one. How do I know? Because I was doing application support programming on them in 1978 (and the comments said the program was created in 1976... it was in Cobol).

    11. Re:jEdit beats the pants off it by TheAncientHacker · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Improv wasn't innovative in any sense of the word. Lotus Improv was nothing but a GUI port of Javelin. Now Javelin was innovative, basically an OLAP spreadsheet that was like nothing else on the market when it came out. Lotus cloning it (and then killing their clone) shouldn't get anybody's praise.

    12. Re:jEdit beats the pants off it by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      ...The spreadsheet is productive, very...

      I can only partially agree with you. Spreadsheets are great tools, but what I see are people using them for everything; i.e., for jobs they were never intended to do.

      Example: recently I had a user ask me to split a large file up into smaller files of ~60K records each. Why? So that they would fit in his spreadsheet. Instead, I offered to show him how to use the systems query product to get the information he was looking for. It opened up a whole new world for him. He used to download screeds of data to his PC, then manipulate it within a spreadsheet. Now he can do the same things in a fraction of the time with the query manager. In this case, the spreadsheet was a hindrance to productivity.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    13. Re:jEdit beats the pants off it by dillon_rinker · · Score: 1

      In this case, the spreadsheet was a hindrance to productivity.

      I would disagree. The spreadsheet was a HUGE help to his productivity. Without a spreadsheet, he'd have been doing the work in a word processor, or worse, on paper.

      But I grant your point that using a tool when a BETTER tool is available can carry a huge opportunity cost.

    14. Re:jEdit beats the pants off it by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but I must still disagree.

      If he had not had a spreadsheet, he probably would have come to me first and asked for a report (like back in the good old days when nobody had a PC on their desk). At which point I would have showed him how to use the query manager (a 20+ year-old product) and, voila!

      Using your logic, if he were building something, one would say he was more productive for using a crescent wrench to bang in a nail, instead of walking over to his neighbor to borrow a hammer.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
  8. Happy Anniversary -- Remember the Visicalc song! by Hobart · · Score: 4, Funny

    Visicalc
    Mail-from: : SU-NET host SU-LOTS-A rcvd at 3-Jan-83 0246-PST
    Date: : 3 Jan 1983 0246-PST
    From: : K.Kanef at SU-LOTS-A (Bob Kanefsky)
    Subject: : Visicalc
    To: : Songs at SU-LOTS-A
    Parody-of: : Physical (Olivia Newton John)

    Visicalc
    Parody written by Bob Kanefsky
    Idea suggested by Judy Anderson

    Been working out the figures day and night,
    Making good column'ation.
    I gotta add them up just right --
    And know what they mean.

    I pencil in the fields I \guess/ you want,
    Adding and subtracting duly,
    Movin' my eraser up and down and
    Horizontally.

    Let's get Visicalc,
    Visicalc.
    I wanna get Visicalc.
    Lemme get your budget done,
    Your budget done.
    Lemme get your budget done,

    (chorus)

    I been patient, I been good.
    Tryin' to make a hand-drawn table.
    My interest in your figures wanes --
    You know what I mean.

    I'm sure you'll understand my point of view;
    We know each other fiscally:
    You gotta know you're gettin' up
    My semi-annual fee.

    (chorus)

    (chorus)

    Let's get annual,
    Annual.
    I wanna get annual.
    Let's get into annual.
    Lemme get your budget done,
    Your budget done.
    Lemme get your budget done,

    (I know there was another version of this in an old Atari magazine that said something about "lemme see your diode's rock", but Google hasn't seen it. ;)

    --
    o/~ Join us now and share the software ...
  9. Ah ... by Sonic+McTails · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hmm, a program from 1975 is still better then Execl 2004

    --
    This signature was left intentionally blank.
    1. Re:Ah ... by Wavicle · · Score: 4, Informative

      You haven't got the slightest idea what you are talking about.

      Good thing you posted as anonymous coward so that the world will not know just how clueless you really are.

      Even difficult problems like the travelling salesman or Towers of Hanoi have been solved and added to the calculation engine. This kind of feature adding essentially reduces the calculation time of these problems to a O(1) table lookup.

      WHAT? Start making sense. Towers of Hanoi is a 2^n problem, but it doesn't actually "solve" anything. A look-up table would make absolutely no sense. Do you need a look up table to figure out what a stack of rings looks like on peg 2 as opposed to peg 1? You could make a LUT for "move X", but the problem grows so fast, you can quickly see that just 40 discs would create a LUT that would fill most raid arrays.

      The traveling salesman is NP-complete. Transforming it to a problem in P has never been done. The notion of a LUT for this problem is silly. You can only precompute the LUT for one instance of the problem. If you can convert all possible such problems to an O(1) lookup table though, you will have solved the P=NP problem and can claim the US$1million prize.

      Because you are probably a sysadmin with a degree from DeVry and don't understand that notation, I'll explain it simply: O(1) means "really fast".

      You've never taken computing theory yourself, have you? The next paragraph you write emphasizes that either you didn't, or you slept through the class:

      If we consider that a signed 16 bit integer can only handle values between -16k through 16k,

      2^15 ~= 32K

      it becomes obvious that Visicalc simply couldn't handle the types of calculations that we are performing today

      Even back in 1979, computers had the same computational power as a turing machine. They could perform the same calculations as computers today, their only limiting factor is available memory and available time.

      (32 bits allows us values of +-2 trillion).

      2^31 ~= 2 billion (or if you're one of those UK types, 2 thousand million)

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    2. Re:Ah ... by bhmit1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because you are probably a sysadmin with a degree from DeVry and don't understand that notation, I'll explain it simply: O(1) means "really fast".

      <CS101>
      If we are being educational, lets do it right. O(1) does not mean really fast. A calculation that takes 6 years could still be O(1). O(1) simply means the calculation is constant, regardless of what is input. O(n) basically means the more data (n) you give it, the longer it takes. And you can take it from there (double it, square it, take a log, whatever floats your boat). One thing to keep in mind is that the more complex you get to speed things up and get closer to an O(1), the more likely you are to take longer for the simple calculations than a basic O(n) formula. Or to put it another way, all of us that want to do a quick sum of columns of a small table would prefer not to wait 10 minutes while the kitchen sink and travelling salesman algorithms load.
      </CS101>

    3. Re:Ah ... by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

      Math 101

      O(1) does not mean that the calculations are constant, or that they take constant time. It means that there exists an upper limit(in time) as to how long the operation will take no matter the input size.

    4. Re:Ah ... by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heard an interesting story about the Lotus development of macros. They were a debugging tool that was in a close to final release for testing before someone realized these might be a useful feature in the final product.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    5. Re:Ah ... by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

      >Even difficult problems like the travelling >salesman or Towers of Hanoi

      Since when have towers of hanoi been a diffucult problem? It's such a simple problem that it can be implemented for an Apple II in basic.

      And for the travelling salesman problem: Well it is easy to solve in the way that we know how to solve it. Try all combinations and select the shortest. The problem with this "solution" is that for any large dataset(Say 10000 cities) no amount of computer power* can solve this problem before Earth hit the sun.

      If you know a faster way to solve travelling salesman I think you should describe it, publish it and earn that million dollers.

      *(No amount of computer power means that there is not enough matter in the known universe to build a computer that can solve the problem fast enough)

      ps: Sorry about feeting the trolls but I got nothing better to do.

    6. Re:Ah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genius, you are correct, 2^15 = 32K, however the original post said SIGNED, thus you lose one bit to the sign, the max value you can now hold is 2^14.

      This is computer science 1 stuff,

      think before you speak

    7. Re:Ah ... by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      Bwahaha, you idiots make me laugh! 16-1=15. 2^15 = 32K. I bet your local community college offers Comp. Sci. 1. You should sign up. You might learn something.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    8. Re:Ah ... by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      No amount of computer power means that there is not enough matter in the known universe to build a computer that can solve the problem fast enough

      This is absolute bullshit. Computers are becoming faster, sometimes without using more matter. They are just becoming smaller.

      You should say "No amount of computer power means that there is not enough matter in the known universe to build a computer (With the current technologies) that can solve the problem fast enough"

  10. Some Special on TV by aliens · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember watching something about the early days of PC's and there was an interview with one of Visicalc's creators and he discussed the first time he showed it to an accountant.

    The accountant supposedly started visibly shaking and proclaimed "Do you realize just how much time this will save me??"

    I just found that bit interesting for all the people who hold onto "the good old days" and question if computers have really helped or hindered us.

    In my mind I try to imagine just where we would be if we still only had large main frames. The power of the PC is truely amazing.

    (sorry just got back from a workout and am high on endorphines (or whatever they are))

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
    1. Re:Some Special on TV by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's interesting is that it doesn't actually save any time, it just means that they do more, and different kinds, or financial reports.

    2. Re:Some Special on TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (sorry just got back from a workout and am high on endorphines (or whatever they are))

      We don't serve your kind here!

    3. Re:Some Special on TV by gkuz · · Score: 1, Interesting
      In my mind I try to imagine just where we would be if we still only had large main frames. The power of the PC is truely amazing

      Isn't revisionist history wonderful? You're obviously unaware that computerized spreadsheets were running on mainframes nearly 15 years before VisiCalc. Look here, for instance. Supercomp-Twenty was a strong mainframe-based spreadsheet at about the same time as VisiCalc. To suggest progress would not have been made without the PC is specious at best.

    4. Re:Some Special on TV by PacoTaco · · Score: 1
      The accountant supposedly started visibly shaking and proclaimed "Do you realize just how much time this will save me??"

      Wow, I've never seen an accountant visibly shake!

    5. Re:Some Special on TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Some Special on TV by aliens · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well I don't think that everyone would have a Mainframe to connect to, to run spreadsheets. Now every business large and small can easily keep records that would have been done by hand.

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    7. Re:Some Special on TV by aliens · · Score: 0

      lol, I'd mod you up. To tell the truth I was more half dead than high.

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    8. Re:Some Special on TV by kfg · · Score: 1

      There are 24 hours to the day. We fill them up. All of our "labor saving" devices do more work, but I don't think I've ever seen any save much in the way of labor. Some of 'em even add to it.

      We've still got 60 hour work weeks, not 6.

      KFG

    9. Re:Some Special on TV by deacon · · Score: 1
      In my mind I try to imagine just where we would be if we still only had large main frames. The power of the PC is truely amazing.

      Hold on there for a minute. DEC VAXs had DECCALC , email, chat, clusters, paint programs, EDT (like emacs) fortran, etc. etc. in 1979

      Unfortunately, all the hardware is probably dead now, and it was very expensive when new. On the other hand, the uptime was better than PCs, and there were no problems with users installing viruses, games, and other crapware at work. Users interfaced with the mainframe with VT100 or better terminals, and these terminals did support graphics so you could see your graph plotted, and it was possible to scan in pictures and display them on a terminal, sort of a pre-gif gif file.

      Just because most people don't know the archaology of VAXes does't mean they didn't exist.

    10. Re:Some Special on TV by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      Wow, I've never seen an accountant visibly shake!

      Try turning in an expense report, complete with the itemized receipts, from a trip to Japan back at a US office. I suspect it was more a mental seg fault than quivering in delight, however...

    11. Re:Some Special on TV by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      The accountant should have said "Do you realize how many fewer accountants my company will need??
      Then he'd really have a reason to shake.

    12. Re:Some Special on TV by waynelorentz · · Score: 1

      I've found a way around this. Occasionally when staff members are sent to unpleasant, unstable, or otherwise unruly countries, they have to pay a bribe or two to get across borders, pay off customs officials to get their work equipment through the airport, grease the local police to get their passports back, or whatever. My boss just has it written up in the expense reports as an "airport tax." That's a nice phrase that's specific enough to pass the accountants, but doesn't really let on what happened, because officially we really shouldn't be paying bribes to anyone.

      Still haven't found a way to write off Asian hookers, though. Maybe "entertainment tax?"

    13. Re:Some Special on TV by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And THAT is why we have the standard of living that we enjoy.

    14. Re:Some Special on TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the real question is how to write off the expense of the AIDS drugs you're going to need after a night or two over there.

      But why can't you just say there were a couple more Airport Taxes?

    15. Re:Some Special on TV by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      VMS will run on an Alpha, and HPaq still makes AlphaServers...

  11. what about the NEXT killer app? by Whitecloud · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Excellent quote from Dan Bricklin:

    I think that community is coming back. With the Web, blogs, e-mail, and cell phones, we're seeing a resurgence in community. Technology is now something for bringing people together.

    Visiclac kicked off ebusiness, email gave us instant global communications, mobile phones let us do that on the move, whats next?

    --

    Do you need a website upgrade?

    1. Re:what about the NEXT killer app? by awful · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Visiclac kicked off ebusiness, email gave us instant global communications, mobile phones let us do that on the move, whats next?"

      Rocketpacks with streaming audio obviously...

  12. Dosemu works by cheezycrust · · Score: 5, Informative

    It seems to work under Dosemu and Freedos (Dos emulation for Linux). WINE is overkill, since it doesn't use any Windows stuff.

    --
    Teenagers these days don't have as much sex as they want each other to think they do.
    1. Re:Dosemu works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dosemu blows. Use Dosbox instead.

  13. You mean.. by dj245 · · Score: 2, Funny

    You mean to tell me that solitare was not the first killer app?

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:You mean.. by PCM2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The second killer app was clearly the hotkey you could press in games that would instantly switch over to a simulated VisiCalc spreadsheet when the boss walked by your workstation.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  14. Re:Happy Anniversary -- Remember the Visicalc song by merlyn · · Score: 1

    Heh... that must've been a common rewrite... I too did a "let's get visicalc", and even got it published in a computer magazine after being pushed onto Usenet somewhere. There's a reference to it in dejagoogle though.

  15. Wine ? But its a dos program by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why would you expect it to work when its a DOS program? I thought WINE only re-implemented win32 calls..

    Even if it did, there are plenty of dos emulation tools out there... that are FULLY functional.

    ( not slamming the WINE people, they just arent finished yet.. )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Wine ? But its a dos program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's is a contraction for it is. its is a possessive form of it

    2. Re:Wine ? But its a dos program by bob_herrick · · Score: 1

      I recall it as running under CP/M originally.

    3. Re:Wine ? But its a dos program by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, there were two versions (I haven't read the second article in years, so I could be wrong):

      Apple II (the platform it was released on)
      IBM PC

      Other than that, I don't think it ran on anything else.

    4. Re:Wine ? But its a dos program by bob_herrick · · Score: 1

      This was 1980 -1981. The IBM PC had not been launched yet as I recall. I used an HP machine - 88? 85? that loaded visicalc from a tape drive. The HP-?? definitely ran CP/M

  16. too bad they didn't GPL it by argoff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Boy, if they would have, it would have stopped alot of the anticompetitive business practices that's happened in the 25 years since, they could have locked out execl before it even happened.

    1. Re:too bad they didn't GPL it by black+mariah · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, just like how vi and Emacs are more widely used than that evil piece of software, Notepad.

      Oh, wait... nevermind.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    2. Re:too bad they didn't GPL it by rk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, everybody knows that execlp is where it's at. No manual path searching for me, no sir! Oh wait...

    3. Re:too bad they didn't GPL it by pauljlucas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The GPL does nothing to prevent anybody from writing their own version not using any GPL'd code. The GPL wouldn't have stopped anything in this case.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    4. Re:too bad they didn't GPL it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not true,
      Open source sendmail kept exchange from taking over the marketplace, and forced MS email to play friendly with the rest of us. Open source Apache kept MS IIS from taking over the web srever space. When they open sourced netscape, IE pretty much stopped develoment of new features since then.
      Samba pretty much thwarted them from taking over the fileserver space. MS products were never "better", they were just more distructive toward competitors - without the ability to kill one, they would have never gotten a toehold.

  17. Other Small Fact... by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I dont think the article mentioned this, but VisiCalc was also the first (known) enterprise app to be ported from the Apple OS to a *Nix based system.

    Some time ago there was the question raised concerning ownership and transfer of patents, etc. of the spreadsheet, which everyone and his kid brother eventually made their own version of. IIRC the creators didn't feel they actually sold all rights or something to that effect (sound similar to the SCO/Linux debacle?) Anyone know what has been determined in that regard? Seems if it was still unresolved it would make SCO/Linux look like a tempest in a teapot by comparison.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Other Small Fact... by JuggleGeek · · Score: 2, Informative
      Some time ago there was the question raised concerning ownership and transfer of patents, etc. of the spreadsheet

      Visicalc came out in 1979. At that time, software patents were rarely granted. (Our legal system has corrupted patents since that time.) Dan Bricklin has some information about Visicalc and panents on his website.

      http://www.bricklin.com/patenting.htm

  18. Software like this would still be useful by hattig · · Score: 2

    Most spreadsheets are overkill for most tasks.

    I wouldn't mind some cut down spreadsheet software, a number-processing equivalent of a plain text editor compared to a full blown word processor.

    Shouldn't be too hard to create something like this, I'm sure. EasySheet. KSheet. GSheet. OhSheet!

    Too much software has been enticed by the lure of features and complexity, at the expense of simplicity and doing what most people need it to do.

    1. Re:Software like this would still be useful by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You know, that was another great screw up from Microsoft. They had a less powerfull verion of there Office products, but they wre a pain to get them to work under Office!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  19. Neglecting key points there... by Impeesa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The spreadsheet only has no real-life corollary because Visicalc made doing it by hand completely and utterly obsolete. Writing a letter isn't really sped up a whole lot by using a computer (as compared to writing it by hand, or on a typewriter). Spreadsheets are a whole different story. They were done by hand at one point, but changing some numbers and carrying forward all the calculations used to be a full time job for some people. Now it's 10 seconds with Excel. Think on that for a bit. :)

  20. history evolving / revealing over time by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1
    This is fascinating -- I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a scholar of software history, but I did witness the whole visicalc revolution and this is the first time I've ever heard that Dan Bricklin had co-authors! I'd always heard that he hacked the whole thing together himself and the only help he had was figuring out how to package and sell the thing.

    I wonder what other software myths will fade or be debunked in the next twenty years.

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
  21. First Programming gig... by bokmann · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I didn't even realize it until I saw tihs article, but my first programming gig was with Visicalc...

    It was 1982, I was 13, and a guy paid me $50 to create a spreadsheet for him that would let him calculate his cost per share of some stock he was buying over multiple purchases (dollar cost averaging).

    1. Re:First Programming gig... by name773 · · Score: 1

      how was programming different back then?
      (if you don't mind answering)

    2. Re:First Programming gig... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, if you'll recall, that was back in the era of the Cold War. So, obviously, the sheet spread you.

    3. Re:First Programming gig... by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Ditto. First paid consulting gig. Some guy wanted me to write a VisiCalc spreadsheet to help him run his biz. On an Apple III, running the Apple ][ emulator under SOS.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  22. VisiCalc vs. Microsoft Multiplan by SIGALRM · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bricklin and Frankston did some innovating work in (the quite stable) VisiCalc... not to be outdone, in 1982 Microsoft released Multiplan 1.0 which was a pioneer in some, shall we say, more infamous terms. It was a revenue bomb, and it's miscalculations cost customers umpteen $$. I remember hearing somewhere that the legal threats due to Multiplan almost shut down Microsoft's early operations.

    Apparently, rumor was that SCO was hired to port Multiplan (to various *nix's I would guess).

    Anyway, it's interesting that one of Microsoft's first attempt to unseat a software application was targeted at Visicalc. Did they succeed?

    --
    Sigs cause cancer.
    1. Re:VisiCalc vs. Microsoft Multiplan by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Anyway, it's interesting that one of Microsoft's first attempt to unseat a software application was targeted at Visicalc. Did they succeed?

      Nope. In fact, Microsoft kept failing at spreadsheets until long after Lotus 123 became popular. It wasn't until Microsoft was able to leverage Windows that they finally gained a foothold. Of course, that's a story in itself.

      Interestingly enough, the whole Windows story has a lot to do with VisiCalc. You see, VisiCalc took all their hard earned money and put it into creating a piece of software known as VisiOn. VisiOn was the first PC GUI for DOS. Given that Graphical User Interfaces had been the domain of expensive Unix machines, this worried Microsoft a great deal. So they announced Microsoft Windows.

      In typical Microsoft fashion, they really didn't have anything. But they managed to spam the media and make everyone put off purchasing VisiOn in hopes that this mystical "Windows" would be a far better investment.

      The early betas of MS Windows were actually nothing more than a way of multitasking different DOS apps. By pressing certain keys, you could switch from one "Full Screen Window" to another. About that time, Apple introduced the world to a true WIMP interface. This caused Microsoft to change directions. When the first version of MS Windows was delivered, it allowed for multiple programs to run in tiled windows. One window could be maximized at any time, thus obscuring the other windows. To be blunt, this sucked.

      Windows 2.0 was only slightly better, but it sucked too. Windows 3.0 finally hit the mark by delivering a full WIMP interface and a program manager. Why Microsoft thought the program manager was a good idea when the Macintosh showed otherwise, is a mystery that will forever remain unsolved.

    2. Re:VisiCalc vs. Microsoft Multiplan by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Howmany people know what VisiCalc was? How many people know what excel is? I'd say they succeeded.

      Like a lot of great computer scivement, VisiCalc lacked good marketing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:VisiCalc vs. Microsoft Multiplan by spitzak · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing TopView, which was an IBM product, with early versions of Windows.

      TopView was a disaster but it probably killed any of the competitors, including multidos and VisiOn. It was actually IBM pulling the Microsoft stunt of advance annoucement to kill your competitors.

      Windows was always run in graphical mode, and was a good deal later than VisiOn. You are describing accurately the pre-3.0 tiled versions of Windows, however. I worked with those as well. The fonts were so bad that it did look like it was running in text mode, but it really was graphics.

    4. Re:VisiCalc vs. Microsoft Multiplan by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you are confusing TopView, which was an IBM product, with early versions of Windows.

      No, I'm talking about the pre-release stuff that Microsoft sent to the computer mags of the time. They described how a slight change to your DOS code would make it "Windows Compatible", which basically meant that it could be suspended and replaced on the screen at any time.

      As for preannouncing, my source is the book "Barbarians Led by Bill Gates", an insider's description of what happened inside Microsoft. It's really a great read. My favorite part was how the author inadvertantly insulted Bill Gates for his lousy BASIC code. :-)

    5. Re:VisiCalc vs. Microsoft Multiplan by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      In typical Microsoft fashion, they really didn't have anything.

      That was the invention of what came to be called vaporware.

      Why Microsoft thought the program manager was a good idea when the Macintosh showed otherwise, is a mystery that will forever remain unsolved.

      A rumor says that it was Bill Gate's pride. Although in many ways Microsoft was willing to copy, they also had a "not invented here" attitude and included their own creations not on objective merit, but from emotional attachment. (They'd seen "clicking icons creates windows" on Mac, and thought progman.exe came close enough...)

      Or it could've been an early form of "Macs are dumbed-down" bias... "If it isn't hard to use, it must not be powerful enough!"

    6. Re:VisiCalc vs. Microsoft Multiplan by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 1

      On Multiplan. I saw it first on TRS-80 Model II Xenix systems. Then, on Apple ][. Then, finally on TRS-80 Model I/III systems. It wasn't a graphical program.

      Interestingly, Excel was first released on Apple MacIntosh; before the windows 2.0 version. I had a boss that, in '86, built a business around Excel capabilities. It was truly his "killer app" for the Mac outpacing MacWrite, MacPaint an other tools he had for the machine.

      It wasn't until Windows 3.0 that we saw a version of Excel that was usable on the PC. Everyone (including me) simply used Lotus 123.

      --

      To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

    7. Re:VisiCalc vs. Microsoft Multiplan by tcr · · Score: 1

      Howmany people know what VisiCalc was? How many people know what excel is? I'd say they succeeded.

      Like a lot of great computer scivement, VisiCalc lacked good marketing.


      It was flying off the shelves in its heydey.

      Excel is ubiquitous (at least partially) because it is part of the de facto office suite, and preinstalled on so many machines.

      --


      Information wants to be beer.
    8. Re:VisiCalc vs. Microsoft Multiplan by fermion · · Score: 1
      This is an interesting point. On the Intel platform (not yet wintel) MS never shipped a product that was a significant improvement over what was already readily available. The exception to this was the later versions of Windows, as competitive GUIs were virtually non-existent, probably due to the anticompetitive behavior of MS. However, compared to the computer industry in general, the MS GUI was average at best.

      The one exception to this, as has been mentioned before, was Excel. Excel was The Killer App on the original Macintosh. It justified the $3000 price tag for the machine. I always took the success of Excel to the a prime driver for the rapid and ill planned development of Windows.

      On the Intel side there were very good spreadsheets. MS had nothing. However, by using the experience developing apps for the Macintosh, and by shipping a cheap barely passable OS for cheap commodity hardware, they were able to start the trend that now gives them a monopoly.

      To relate personal experience, I was very familiar with visicalc and Lotus. In my case, I had been using it since about 1983 on an apple ][ and ///. I also used Lotus 123 on the PC. When I first got a Macintosh, joined by many others, I quickly moved to Excel. I never moved back to the PC. Those that did move to the PC, many of whom the Mac was their first computer, took their experience and Excel data files to Windows. Therefore, Visicalc was really just another victim of the move to the graphical GUI. At that time MS was not the really the powerhouse that destroyed companies. That was a couple years down the road.

      In this sense Visicalc's mistake was to not develop a strong port to the macintosh, which could have then been ported to Windows. If that would have happened, perhaps I would still be using Visicalc and MacWrite instead of MS Office, or now, OpenOffic.org.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    9. Re:VisiCalc vs. Microsoft Multiplan by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      2.x was just fugly. Other than that, MS-DOS Executive being the shell, and no text below icons, the UI was much like that of 3.x.

      http://toastytech.com/guis/win203question.gif is a screenshot of 2.03, and it's remarkably like http://toastytech.com/guis/win30help.gif (a screen of 3.00a)

  23. Implementing Visicalc by Gatton · · Score: 4, Informative
    Feel free to mod redundant if it's already been posted but I didn't see it.

    Read this website several months ago and it's quite detailed. Maybe more than you wanted to know but it's very detailed and is a good read.

    Implementing Visicalc

  24. Microsoft patent application by lothar97 · · Score: 1, Funny

    In other news, Microsoft announced today that they have filed a patent application for a "spread-sheet," as evidenced by Excel 2003. They claim that the earlier art is irrelevant, as the test is whether people associate "spread-sheet" with Microsoft's current intellectual property. This stems from Microsoft's original "0s and 1s" patent, ripped off here from a story from The Onion.

    --

    1. Re:Microsoft patent application by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ..who ripped off the old IBM "1's" and "0's" patent joke.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  25. Re:Didn't save any time by rewt66 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, the amount of time spent doing financial reports has pretty much stayed the same. But the ability to create scenarios, to play "what if" games, has led to much better financial information being available to corporate planners.

    It's like many other situations: You'll pay for as much information as you can get, rather than just get the same information more cheaply.

  26. Mod Parent +1 Slapdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NT

  27. Re:To ni prav by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahaha, I thought the same. Go figure!

  28. VisiOn by hemp · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall Control Data Corp (CDC) buying it from Bricklin, et all for several million and then CDC proceding to screw it up and had the advantage back to Microsoft.

    So I think they probably got out at the best time.

    I also seem to remember GEM (better product IMHO) coming out around the same time, so the marketplace had plenty of competitors at that time.

    --
    Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
    1. Re:VisiOn by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1


      I also seem to remember GEM (better product IMHO) coming out around the same time, so the marketplace had plenty of competitors at that time.


      Didn't GEM go on to become popular on various early handheld devices? In fact, I seem to remember that it was GEM handhelds that first introduced the "Graffiti" handwriting recognition that was later used in US Robotics Palm Pilots.

    2. Re:VisiOn by Creepy · · Score: 1

      While I've never actually heard of VisiOn, I do know CDC (one of my former employers) and my guess is if it didn't turn a quick profit, they laid off most of the workers and put the remainder in maintenance mode. I came on after this era, when they were in the "sell profitable divisions to appease shareholders," which kept them in a happy place with stockholders until there were no profitable divisions left and they died a quick and painless death.

      GEM, on the other hand, I do know - my Jr. High School Electronics teacher had it (and DR-DOS) installed on the PC in the electronics lab. We also had Windows 2.0 in the computer lab, but I always booted it to DOS, which was not the case with GEM. I admit, I liked Win 3.1 better than GEM, but by the time even Win 3.0 came out, GEM was being driven into the ground by MS exclusive bundling contracts and other anticompetitive practices.

    3. Re:VisiOn by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      GEOS, my friend, GEOS. Started out on the Commodedoor 64, got ported to the Apple II, then got ported to the PC, and various handhelds (even Nokia 90xx/91xx Communicators - the 92xx units run Symbian). GEM was Digital Research's GUI meant to complement CP/M, and got slammed by lawsuits from Apple.

  29. Sheet! by acariquara · · Score: 1
    OhSheet!

    Users of Microsoft Excel are pretty accostumed to this one...

    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  30. Misread story... by ignavus · · Score: 1

    I thought it said ..."It's hard to believe that it's already been 25 years since the release of one of the world's first 'killer apes.'

    I thought it was about King Kong!

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
  31. Lotus Improv by jenglish · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Lotus Improv certainly sounds like something truly nifty (Google for it, there are a handful of articles about it on the web besides the one cited above). Which reminds me of Lotus Agenda, another reportedly supercool application that you can only read about today.

    I wonder how many other revolutionary applications Lotus developed and later buried?

    1. Re:Lotus Improv by I_M_Noman · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Lotus Agenda, another reportedly supercool application that you can only read about today. I wonder how many other revolutionary applications Lotus developed and later buried?
      You're correct -- Agenda was beyond cool. It remains my favorite piece of software ever. Damn, that thing ran my life for about three years. Then Lotus bought Organizer from Threadz and killed off development of an Agenda for Windows.

      As to your other question, let's see...Agenda was best-of-breed, as was was Magellan. I always liked LotusWorks better than MS Works on a DOS platform. Improv absolutely killed on the NExT, but was slow as shit on Windows. Oh, let's not forget Notes, which, when I saw it for the first time in '91, caused me to say "Well, that's the future right there."

      Ami Pro, while a terrific program, wasn't developed by Lotus. They bought it from Samna around the time that 1-2-3 r2.4 and r3.5 came out. Then they bundled it with those products (and a runtime version of Windows). I was convinced that Ami Pro was the coolest word processor I'd ever seen. I think I still am.
  32. why don't one of you PERL gurus show us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...one of your "fully-funtional spreadsheet in 2 lines of PERL" tricks?

    Surely you can duplicate VisiCalc with 1 or 2 lines, right? ;)

  33. Am I the only one... by trudyscousin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...who reads the name "Software Arts" and thinks of the innocence it implies?

    There once was a time when software really was art. Now, it's a steely business. Back in 1979, Bill Gates was only some weenie whining because people were pirating paper tapes of his BASIC.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
    1. Re:Am I the only one... by andalay · · Score: 1

      There once was a time when software really was art. Now, it's a steely business. Back in 1979, Bill Gates was only some weenie whining because people were pirating paper tapes of his BASIC.

      And now he's only some weenie whining because people are giving away operating systems and compilers for little or no cost.

  34. Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in a non-captialist society, we could work less. But since we are all wage slaves, we'll keep working all week.

    1. Re:Capitalism by IncohereD · · Score: 2

      in a non-captialist society, we could work less. But since we are all wage slaves, we'll keep working all week.

      Nah...because there'd always be someone working harder than you in some other society, and eventually they'd come take your cake. Sad but true.

    2. Re:Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like cold-war era propoganda to me. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

    3. Re:Capitalism by IncohereD · · Score: 1

      That sounds like cold-war era propoganda to me. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

      Just common sense. The world economy works on trade, because no one place has all the elements they need (well, need is subjective) to live at their current level.

      If one country decides to work less, they produce less, their trade deficit goes up, and eventually they run out of money because they're ignoring progress. Essentially they devalue themselves.

      This would only work if:

      a) everyone changed
      b) you found an area where a certain number of people could become completely self supporting and isolated.

  35. And still going strong! (probably) by Sabu+mark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'll bet you a million dollars that there's at least one company, or even more likely a government agency, that still uses VisiCalc because they never had the motivation to update all their data.

    --

    What Would Jesus Do
    (for a Klondike bar)?
  36. AmiPro by IncohereD · · Score: 1

    AmiPro was consistently the best reviewed word processor, then Lotus bought it, destroyed the code base, and started over with WordPro. Which bit large.

    AFAIK they didn't develop it, but they definitely buried it.

  37. OOP is not a panacea by IncohereD · · Score: 1

    Basically, the goal of computing is to mimic and make easier real-life processes. The spreadsheet has no real-life corollary, whereas Java and specifically the Object Oriented paradigm model the real world to a T.

    Not to flame...but you sound like a very, very recent OOP convert.

    The goal of computing is NOT necessarily to mimic and make easier real-life processes. Look at Tetris. Does that have any real-life equivalent, blinkenlights notwithstanding?

    And OOP is really bad (or at least awkward and inefficient) for modelling certain classes of problem.

  38. Smallest spreadsheet ever... (with RPN features) by MavEtJu · · Score: 1

    From: http://www.arkko.com/ioccc.html
    Size of source code: 1,536 bytes
    Source: http://www.formation.jussieu.fr/ars/2000-2001/C/co urs/COMPLEMENTS/DOC/www.ioccc.org/2000/jarijyrki.c
    Makefile: http://www.formation.jussieu.fr/ars/2000-2001/C/co urs/COMPLEMENTS/DOC/www.ioccc.org/2000/Makefile
    E xternal files: http://www.formation.jussieu.fr/ars/2000-2001/C/co urs/COMPLEMENTS/DOC/www.ioccc.org/2000/sheet1.info

    Usage: make jarijyrki; ./jarijyrki sheet1.info

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
  39. Intellectual property theft by bani · · Score: 1

    This is ridiculous. Everyone knows SCO invented the spreadsheet, these guys just ripped it off. It's impossible for mere individuals to make spreadsheet software -- it's far too complex an undertaking. You need hundreds of millions of dollars of R&D and that can only be provided by a reputable company like SCO.

    Ken Brown of the ADTI will be releasing a ground breaking book soon, which will prove it!

  40. Hex by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    How come Excel doesn't handle hexadecimal? Sheesh, I have to use calc.exe instead. Is there a decent free spreadsheet that is not so geek-challenged?

    1. Re:Hex by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 1

      Actually, it does. Use the Analysis Toolpak (may be the VBA one, don't remember). Look for Hex2Dec, Dec2Hex, and my favorite, Hex2Bin. I use them all (and PERL for extraction) for analyzing / decoding fibre channel traces.

      Hex calculators are important too. Just not with 100MB fibre traces :-)

      --

      To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

    2. Re:Hex by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
      Thanks! Still then now I have to ask the IT department to track down the mythical installation disk... (and only God knows where the installation disk is for a PC you buy in a shop).

      I was hoping for it to be just a cell format, like Percentage and Number, rather than a set of functions though, but I guess functions are OK if you sacrifice another column.

  41. pristine original pkg by da55id · · Score: 1

    From the fawning respect dept: This is bar none the most important software ever created. I have kept a complete and pristine copy of a very early Apple version...it's the only software I felt was worth keeping along with my unopened bottle of Royal Wedding (chuck&di) preserve 25 year old Glen Grant single malt scotch. I'll probably open them both for my daugher's wedding :-)

  42. It is also... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    "Its" is also a contraction for 'it is', for those of us that rarely proofread, and make typos often.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  43. Before I go RTFA by SlashDread · · Score: 1

    are there any nice MS disses? Like "fsck Excel, we invented this crap"?

    "/Dread"

  44. GEM / OpenGEM by Jim+Hall · · Score: 1

    BTW, a version of GEM still exists ... OpenGEM and GEMini. -jh

  45. Re:Software History website basically a placeholde by Xaroth · · Score: 2, Informative

    Quoth the article:

    In May, the Software History Center in Boston reunited veterans of the PC's first decade to reminisce and exchange war stories. The luminaries included the three principals behind VisiCalc: Dan Bricklin, who conceived the idea; Bob Frankston, who programmed VisiCalc; and Dan Fylstra, whose VisiCorp brought the product to a surprised world. Here are edited versions of interviews with all three.

    Given that it was the original source of the interviews, it seemed appropriate to mention it in the synopsis.

  46. Heh! by bplipschitz · · Score: 1

    I read this as, "VisiCalc Turns 25, creators interned."

    Serves 'em right, I thought.

  47. programmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    back in 1979, they knew how to use resources.
    name 5 current (in the last year) massmailing viruses that are smaller then VisiCalc. are these viruses doing anything notably more complex then a simple speadsheet to justify the extra space? (i know its apples to pcs, er some other fruit, but even the OS VisiCalc ran on is smaller then some current viruses)

  48. VisiCalc sucks by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    SuperCalc rules!

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  49. Re:Software History website very informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent post " Don't bother with that Software History website linked to in the article. There's very little content," is obvious a troll:

    From the site http://www.bricklin.com/history/saiearly.htm

    "VisiCalc was coded in assembler, first for the MOS Technology 6502 microprocessor used in the Apple ][. The assembler Bob started with ran on the MIT Multics typesharing system. It was much less expensive to use it late at night than during the prime-time of day, so Bob slept during the day, waking up when I came over after classes in the later afternoon. He dialed in using a modem and a DEC LA-120 printing terminal like this one:"

  50. YACJ (Yet Another Clippy Joke) by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    * Someone in almost every article tries to make a completely off-topic reference to Clippy in order to get upmods.

    * Clippy hasn't been in default installs in some four years now. I haven't seen him in almost six years.

    * Clippy goes away when you right-click and go to "Hide." He never comes back.

    Clippy, along with BSOD, is one of those jokes that will never die on Slashdot, because newbie Linux geeks like to think it's funny and relevant and still happens in this day and age. It's like people are stuck in 1998 and absolutely will not let go, because it's all they've got as they use their OpenOffice apps and that annoying, irritating light bulb pops up every 10 seconds whenever you type a few words...

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
    1. Re:YACJ (Yet Another Clippy Joke) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a clue, Mr. Guy: Not everyone runs Windows XP/2000, so clippy/bsod is relevant. And why do you even care about clippy jokes?

      Seems to me that the person that needs to "get a life" around here is you.