For Your Inspection: Source Code For Photoshop 1.0

What's this weird hidden splash file in MacPaint? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 01:50 · Score: 5, Funny

I'll just compile and run it to see.

Well, it doesn't seem to show anythALL HAIL STEVE JOBS! STEVE JOBS IS MY MASTER!

Still Down by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 01:57 · Score: 1

Their site has been toast since yesterday and now you turn the /. hose at it? Poor IT guys gonna have a bad day.

Re:Still Down by AmIAnAi · 2013-02-14 02:38 · Score: 5, Informative

Some kind soul put up this mirror on GitHub.

--
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
Re:Still Down by larry+bagina · 2013-02-14 03:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Seems to be a few mirrors on pirate bay, too.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

I found one 0day ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 02:00 · Score: 1

... in this code.

No server available by Dan+East · 2013-02-14 02:02 · Score: 5, Funny

503 Service Unavailable
No server is available to handle this request.

At least they still have servers available to tell us that they don't have servers available.

--
Better known as 318230.

Re:No server available by hcs_$reboot · 2013-02-14 02:06 · Score: 4, Funny

For the sake of consistency, they use the same servers they originally had to deliver photoshop 1.0.1

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Re:No server available by del_ctrl_alt · 2013-02-14 02:20 · Score: 1

what FedEx and UPS ? - serving you 5 1/4 inch bits of plastic or if you were lucky 3 1/2
Re:No server available by n1ywb · 2013-02-14 02:30 · Score: 2

No, a Telegard BBS.

--
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
Re:No server available by del_ctrl_alt · 2013-02-14 02:31 · Score: 1

Edit: not of the 5 1/4 variety
Re:No server available by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 02:32 · Score: 0

There were BBSes in those days.
2400 baud over long distance.
Sometimes it'd be cheaper to just pay the shipping.
Re:No server available by jm007 · 2013-02-14 02:44 · Score: 1

And faster.
Re:No server available by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 06:14 · Score: 0

Macs *never* had 5 1/4 drives - so no, always 3 1/2.

Actually it's just one text file by Trailer+Trash · 2013-02-14 02:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Here, I'll post it here to save you time:

503 Service Unavailable

No server is available to handle this request.

Not sure what language that's in.

--
Do you have ESP?

Re:Actually it's just one text file by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 02:13 · Score: 3, Funny

Not sure what language that's in.
My vote would be 'English'...
Re:Actually it's just one text file by telchine · 2013-02-14 02:13 · Score: 1

Here, I'll post it here to save you time:
503 Service Unavailable
No server is available to handle this request.
Not sure what language that's in.
Have you checked for Whitespace
Re:Actually it's just one text file by advid.net · 2013-02-14 02:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

Your answer remind me the 404 not found painted on shop signs in Asia.
They weren't an intented joke, were they?
Re:Actually it's just one text file by hcs_$reboot · 2013-02-14 02:47 · Score: 2

They cut the download service when they realized they were actually giving away too much of the latest code

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Re:Actually it's just one text file by advid.net · 2013-02-14 03:47 · Score: 2

erratum
Those signs actualy read Translate server error.
Anyway, this is off topic, but still so funny...

Cool story bro. by gandhi_2 · 2013-02-14 02:07 · Score: 0

This the kind of story I aspire to write

--
THL phish sticks

Re:Cool story bro. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 02:32 · Score: 0

And this is the kind of comment I aspire to make. Well done!
Re:Cool story bro. by Threni · 2013-02-14 02:37 · Score: 0

Heh - I was wondering "who are you, and why would I care what could you aspire to write - what code you actually write, even?".

Pascal ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 02:07 · Score: 0

Was this a college CS assignment? I wonder who made the choice to use Pascal.

Re:Pascal ? by biodata · 2013-02-14 02:11 · Score: 4, Informative

Turbo Pascal was pretty much the first decent IDE for Windows AFAIR.

--
Korma: Good
Re:Pascal ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 02:19 · Score: 1

PS 1 is from 1990 and was only available for Mac OS.
Re:Pascal ? by ImdatS · 2013-02-14 02:20 · Score: 5, Informative

Photoshop 1 was only available on a Mac. I remember receiving the first "public beta" (Photoshop 0.9) some time in 1990 or so and it was awesome - jawdroppping awesome...
In any case, you would use MPW (Macintosh Programmer's Workshop) those days, which I think is still one of the best team-development tools. And the language-of-choice (well, in fact, nearly the only choice) for developing on a Mac at those days was Pascal + Assembler.
So, it makes sense that this code is Pascal.
Re:Pascal ? by owlman17 · 2013-02-14 02:32 · Score: 2

Shouldn't be too much of a stretch since this was written using Free Pascal.
Re:Pascal ? by EvilSS · 2013-02-14 02:40 · Score: 1

Turbo Pascal was also available for the Mac, although it was... rough might be the right word. I remember using it in high school. Many errors (divide by zero was one I remember well) would bomb the system. You learned to save before running your code pretty fast. I can't imagine writing something this complex in it without throwing a few machines across the room along the way.

--
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Re:Pascal ? by larry+bagina · 2013-02-14 02:46 · Score: 2

Apple made the choice. Pascal was the standard development language for Lisa and MacOS.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Pascal ? by Megane · 2013-02-14 03:23 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually it's pretty close (UCSD dialect) until you get to the OBJECT keyword. Apple made full use of their Memory Manager for Object Pascal, which had a linear address space and supported relocatable objects, while Borland had a horrible memory allocator and was stuck with the 80x86 real-mode memory model and 640k limit. So they implemented "Object Pascal" as some kind of horrible C++ish hack. It was really and truly awful compared to the Object Pascal that Apple had already produced, though I hear they filed down some of the worst warts by the time of Delphi.
Oddly, this code didn't make use of the Pascal UNIT system for its own code, instead using multiple levels of include files, with the main code for a unit in "foo.inc1.p". This was probably done to make it work well with makefiles. Back in the day it took long enough to compile that you really didn't want to re-compile anything you didn't have to, and if you did things the "proper" way, code and headers would be in the same file, causing a lot of unnecessary recompilation.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:Pascal ? by vilms · 2013-02-14 04:28 · Score: 1

Yup, remember also having that 'Barneyscan' version around the same time that Letraset introduced ColorStudio. Photoshop 'felt' quicker, so allowed more intuitive working (so, the way these things go, who remembers ColorStudio now?).
Re:Pascal ? by gl4ss · 2013-02-14 04:29 · Score: 1

Was this a college CS assignment? I wonder who made the choice to use Pascal.
plenty of stuff from around that time was written in pascal + asm.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Pascal ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 04:54 · Score: 0

I have ColorStudio running on Windows 7 via Sheepshaver. I also run Macpaint 1, Illustrator 1, and Quark 1 via Mini vMac. Life is good!
ColorStudio was much more complex than Photoshop (Barneyscan) at the time. People wanted easy I think.
Re:Pascal ? by larry+bagina · 2013-02-14 05:13 · Score: 1

The macintosh memory manager was based on NewPtr(size) (ie, malloc) and NewHandle(size). Handles were pointets to pointers -- if not locked, the actual pointer could be compacted/relocated to another area of memory (or even purged, depending on the flags). NewHandle was Apple's recommendation since there was no virtual memory/virtual address space so memory fragmentation was a real problem.
Mac Pascal dialects implemented Objects not as pointers but as handles. But they tried to pretend they were still pointers which ended up causing other problems.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Pascal ? by Em+Adespoton · 2013-02-14 06:24 · Score: 1

The main reason for this is that the early versions of the Macintosh System was written in Pascal -- hence why you had to deal with tStrings and tChars when writing in *any* language on the Mac. IIRC, there was a slow migration from Pascal to C between 1992 and 1995. Then you had the headache of dealing with both tStrings and cStrings.
I still remember the awesome hack that let you run MPW as a server with remote login... once my SliP connection was established over 1200 baud dialup, I could remotely log in to my Mac and use an MPW terminal from anywhere on the Internet*
*"anywhere on the Internet" being pretty much limited to academic institutions in those days.
Re:Pascal ? by xpax666 · 2013-02-14 08:45 · Score: 2

A smart programmer. It's a shame that language-wise things have gone so far downhill since then.
Re:Pascal ? by xpax666 · 2013-02-14 08:48 · Score: 2

Actually, that was Delphi. Turbo Pascal was one of the first IDEs for DOS.
Re:Pascal ? by tgrigsby · 2013-02-14 08:50 · Score: 2

Turbo Pascal rocked. Ignoring all the "it's pascal so it must suck" idiocy being posted, Turbo Pascal changed PC programming. The only compilers besides MASM were too expensive for a college student to touch and slower than Christmas to compile, but TP was $99 and screaming fast. I got a copy and that started a 25 year career in programming, almost exclusively using Borland products and building just about everything you can imagine with them. I get it that Photoshop was first written to run on Apple, but TP was more than just a hobby compiler, and really the best choice at the time for doing any serious work on a PC.

--
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
Re:Pascal ? by dfghjk · 2013-02-14 14:22 · Score: 1

As long as that serious work fit into tiny memory model. Turbo Pascal didn't support anything else. Turbo Pascal was a toy for people learning to program, serious work was done in Lattice C, and later in MSC (which originally was Lattice C).
Of course, by 1990 PCs were flooded with affordable compilers and Turbo Pascal was gone.
Re:Pascal ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 21:31 · Score: 0

It's pre c popularity, and pascal was the programming environment on Mac. In fact it was an object pascal.
Re:Pascal ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-15 00:37 · Score: 0

Of course, by 1990 PCs were flooded with affordable compilers and Turbo Pascal was gone.
It wasn't "gone" you fucking douche, but I agree that affordable compilers did change the landscape of PC programming. Turbo C comes to mind as an intro to the 'serious' world, and anybody who was anybody after that for a time was using Watcom on Intel machines.

Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 02:10 · Score: 0, Insightful

I managed to get it, and WOW. It seems programmers in the olden days had a bit higher quality standards than the current league of script kiddies.

There's not a single superfluous abstraction. Every performance trick is applied. And yet, everything is totally readable.

Amazing.

Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 05:26 · Score: 0

Wathchoo talking about? It's bog standard pascal and assembly. And "every trick" apparently doesn't include using good data structures and algorithms. You can optimize your linked list all you want, it's still O(N) for a lookup.
Re:Wow by memco · 2013-02-14 06:09 · Score: 1

It is pretty good, but does have bits like lines 81-87 of photoshop.r:
#ifdef Debugging 2048 * 1024, 1024 * 1024 #else 2048 * 1024, 1024 * 1024 #endif

--
Get me a meat pie floater!

What Functionality? by johnnyb · 2013-02-14 02:11 · Score: 1

This is a cool piece of history, though I wonder how much real functionality was in the original 1.0 version. Were they doing CMYK back then? Anyway, I want to check it out, but I don't anticipate seeing many technical marvels.

--
Engineering and the Ultimate

Re:What Functionality? by egr · 2013-02-14 02:25 · Score: 3, Informative

According to this version table CMYK arrived at 2.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_version_history
Re:What Functionality? by tehcyder · 2013-02-14 04:01 · Score: 1

Were they doing CMYK back then?
If so, maybe the GIMP team could, um, borrow the code?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:What Functionality? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 04:59 · Score: 0

Huh? GIMP does CMYK colors, it's just not default.
Re:What Functionality? by otuz · 2013-02-14 09:48 · Score: 1

I used it back in the day. Even though 2.0 and 2.5 and 3.0 were great improvements, 1.0 was still a lot like the Photoshop as we know it today.

when software was fast... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 02:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

...and good. I miss those times.

I miss stuff which opened instantly and worked quickly. Where a faster PC actually meant things getting done quicker, rather than an opportunity to shim in another layer of crapware designed by a 3rd party half way across the world to find its way into your ever-less-steady stack of shit.

Windows 95 on a PC from 2000 runs way faster than XP on a 2010 PC, and both are faster than Windows Vista/7/8 on a modern PC. Why don't people make that effort any more? It's not as if using shitty pre-built components saves development time: learning all their quirks and bugs is often more time-consuming than just rewriting from scratch. Is it just that Twenty-First Century Capitalism thing where every useless leech has to take a cut, so it would be Unholy to properly develop in-house and on-shore?

Re:when software was fast... by SpooForBrains · 2013-02-14 02:47 · Score: 1

Speak for yourself. I'm using Windows 8 on a core 2 duo Dell (so not exactly cutting edge). I've upped the RAM to 8GB and put in a half decent SSD. Everything opens and runs nice and fast.
(no, not a shill, check my comment history)

--
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
Re:when software was fast... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 02:58 · Score: 0

In my life I've used (owned or had as a workstation) mid-range machines in a pleasingly broad range of configurations. Excluding low-end boxes I could count the Windows '98 machine from '00, and the XP machines from 2005 and 2007, the Vista/7/8 machines from 2007 and 2012. You could not get me to go back to the Windows 98 machines if you paid me. If apps ran quickly it was because they had to squeeze everything into RAM and I operated one application at a time, two if you count Notepad or Yahoo Messager. The minute anything tried to page the system would grind to a hault.
Re:when software was fast... by WillAdams · 2013-02-14 03:08 · Score: 2

Yeah, I had occasion to use machines w/ fairly similar hardware specs (internal-clock multiplied 25MHz bus CPUs) running Windows 95, Mac OS 7 and NeXTstep 3.1 --- only the NeXT Cube would be considered usable by today's standards (and if it were still running, I'd still be using WriteNow to draft written correspondence and poste.app to print envelopes).
I really wish Apple had preserved more of NeXTstep in Mac OS X, or that there were easily accessible options to strip down the features to a parity w/ OPENSTEP 4.2 --- the performance of which on 200MHz+ machines was unbelievable.
William

--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Re:when software was fast... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 03:17 · Score: 0

The SSD was responsible for basically all of that.
Moore's Law might well have resulted in peoples' CPUs getting faster but hard disk access times never followed the same curve, at least, until SSDs showed up.
Re:when software was fast... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 03:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

You miss the point. You shouldn't need 8GB of ram and an SSD just so a typical application can seem snappy. It is great that that such technology is available and affordable today, but that may not always be the case.
Having programed on computers with as little as 4k of ram, 8GB just seems insane. Nobody should need that unless they are running something like an enterprise database, doing atomic modeling of a nuclear explosion, or running an FPS that is more realistic than going outside and shooting people.
Re:when software was fast... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 03:31 · Score: 1

There are a number of factors:
* Programmers are lazy. They don't give a damn about quality; they just push for tools to make _their_ jobs easier. Bloat? Not their problem.
* Corporations are lazy. If their software sucks, just throw more hardware at it. Somebody else's problem.
* Users are lazy. Long gone are the days that programmers and users greatly overlapped. And current users continue to be deluded that as their computers get older, they run slower. No, they don't. If they _appear_ to be running slower, it's because of all the crud that the users have allowed to accumulate in the software and operating systems. (And occasionally, the cooling fans.) But they go off and buy a newer, faster computer anyway.
Early versions of Photoshop were amazing. This was the era before digital cameras; photos had to be scanned, for any quality, at a Service Bureau. $$$ There actually was quite a lot of really good software written back then. Writenow and Hypercard were excellent examples. Even Excel 2.2 was a joy to use. (This was all Mac stuff.) Word 5 was acceptable, 5.1 was much better. Word 6 was absolute crap, and it never has gotten any better.
Now it's all bloat, and this quarter's profits, and jumping ship, on the corporate side, and spend, spend, spend on the user side.
Maybe this is no accident.
I'm currently using a Macbook Air. It is a total jewel. Current uptime is 196 days, and it runs just as if new. There are problems of course, like running Flash will always end up killing whatever browser that I'm using, but this is a well known and long unaddressed problem. Anther problem is that a lot of my favorite old software just won't run on it. Oh, well. Most of the old UNIX games are hidden in emacs now. And Stickies are wonderful. I do practically all my writing in Stickies, and cut and paste when necessary.
Remember when Flash was really cool? It ran just fine on my 132 MHz mac with 16 MB of RAM. Why did Adobe let it get so incredibly crappy? Oh, MacFortran ran in 16k of memory! It's memory management was superb, easily handling thirty year old code that took an hour to run on an IBM 1410, in just a couple of seconds.
Maybe you're onto something about that Twenty-First Capitalism thing.
BTW, you're allowed to stay on my lawn.
Re:when software was fast... by Mike+Frett · 2013-02-14 03:50 · Score: 1, Interesting

He's not, I've personally tried, I tried with 98 because that's what I have retail. The 98 machine boots almost instantly and opening windows are instant, try it yourself, otherwise stay ignorant and in disbelief.
What else? Modern malware doesn't work on 9x systems, they are virtually malware and virus free. Yes nobody uses 9x systems anymore, but it's still the truth. Technically, you are safer running Windows 98, than Windows XP in todays world.
I don't personally use Windows anymore, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Re:when software was fast... by proslack · 2013-02-14 04:11 · Score: 1

Loading "Pirate Adventure" onto an Atari 800 from a cassette drive in 1980 was neither quick nor instantaneous. Plugging in the Star Raiders ROM, on the other hand, was.

--

Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
Re:when software was fast... by Hatta · 2013-02-14 04:20 · Score: 1

Anything will run fast if you throw gobs of hardware at it.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:when software was fast... by tehcyder · 2013-02-14 04:25 · Score: 1

Having programed on computers with as little as 4k of ram, 8GB just seems insane. Nobody should need that unless they are running something like an enterprise database, doing atomic modeling of a nuclear explosion, or running an FPS that is more realistic than going outside and shooting people.
Well ignoring the fact that people do run database and do modelling of all sorts of things on PCS, just the last mentioned justifies the high hardware specifications on today's PCs.
Any games on a machine with 4k of RAM are going to be pretty much text only.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:when software was fast... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 04:38 · Score: 0

No-one's doubting that there are resource-intensive applications which need powerful hardware.
It's just that most day-to-day usage should require nothing of the sort. On a modern PC, most things should be instant.
Re:when software was fast... by tehcyder · 2013-02-14 04:44 · Score: 1

The 98 machine boots almost instantly and opening windows are instant
If you run it on a 2012 machine, you're probably right. It didn't on the hardware around at the time.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:when software was fast... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 04:51 · Score: 0

And that's the point. Opening a window today is no more complex a task than opening a window 15 years ago. In fact, thanks to off-loading onto the GPU and the potential for 15 years of algorithm optimisation, it ought to be a quicker task, even assuming no clock speed-ups.
So why don't e.g. Explorer and Word do all but the most complex of operations instantly? Why doesn't Windows boot completely in under 10 seconds? What exactly is the shit which soooo needs doing?
Re:when software was fast... by jones_supa · 2013-02-14 06:04 · Score: 1

I miss stuff which opened instantly and worked quickly. Where a faster PC actually meant things getting done quicker, rather than an opportunity to shim in another layer of crapware designed by a 3rd party half way across the world to find its way into your ever-less-steady stack of shit.
There are some positive trends found of today too. For example Win7 is more or less as smooth as XP. Win8 runs even a nudge faster. Web browsers are fighting for the crown of fastest JavaScript and rendering engine. Boot up times in all OSes have improved tremendously. For all the awesome things we get to do, the tradeoffs aren't that bad IMO. Also, the fact that we are pushing the boundaries of single CPU core performance, motivates to pay attention to performance issues.
Re:when software was fast... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 06:19 · Score: 0

Oh yeah? well well.. my computer has 32GB of ram and a ramdisk. so *you* miss the point! ha!
Re:when software was fast... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 06:56 · Score: 0

Twenty-First Century Capitalism... Yes :(
Does not matter what the better product is. It just matters what sells faster. :(
Re:when software was fast... by 0123456 · 2013-02-14 07:11 · Score: 1

And that's the point. Opening a window today is no more complex a task than opening a window 15 years ago.
Fifteen years ago your app didn't pull in three hundred multi-megabyte DLLs, and require managed code to be compiled to host code before it could display a window. The faster hardware becomes, the less people bother optimising.
Re:when software was fast... by JDG1980 · 2013-02-14 07:22 · Score: 3

Any games on a machine with 4k of RAM are going to be pretty much text only.
Nonsense. The original NES only had 4K of RAM (2K of general purpose memory and 2K of video memory). The code itself, of course, was on cartridge ROMs (as was the tile data).
You can easily get a decent game to run with 4K of RAM if you have a tile-based raster graphics chip and are coding efficiently in 8-bit assembly language. Back in the 1980s it was done all the time.
Re:when software was fast... by pclminion · 2013-02-14 07:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

It's easy for dipshits to sit around bitching about what a computer "ought to be able to do." Oddly enough, none of them seem to be out there actually developing software which lives up to these expectations. I wonder why that is.
Re:when software was fast... by JDG1980 · 2013-02-14 07:26 · Score: 1

Windows 95 on a PC from 2000 runs way faster than XP on a 2010 PC, and both are faster than Windows Vista/7/8 on a modern PC.
Windows 7 is actually faster than XP on most systems. The trend towards ever-increasing bloat peaked around the time of Vista, and ever since then, the increased concern with power efficiency and the rise of mobile devices has led to a rollback.
As for Windows 95, of course it runs faster; it's right on the bare metal and is written mostly in assembly. Remember, Windows 9x has no security. Anyone on the system can do whatever they want. Implementing a proper Unix-style security system inevitably means that the Windows NT line (i.e. all modern versions of Windows) will be slower than Windows 9x. That's not because of bloat, it's because 9x was a quick and dirty hack that was needed due to the limitations of consumer hardware at the time.
Re:when software was fast... by Em+Adespoton · 2013-02-14 08:16 · Score: 1

I really wish Apple had preserved more of NeXTstep in Mac OS X, or that there were easily accessible options to strip down the features to a parity w/ OPENSTEP 4.2 --- the performance of which on 200MHz+ machines was unbelievable.
William
You can still install OpenStep on a Mac: http://www.gnustep.org/information/openstep.html
I believe most of your old apps should live quite nicely on there. Beyond that, you can also run GNUStep on top of Darwin, if you want to be able to run non-aqua OS X software.
I'd guess that you could probably replace aqua with the GNUStep equivalent too, but that would take a LOT of fiddling, and not really be easily accessible.
Personally, I think that OS X has come a long way since OpenStep 4.2 -- not all changes have been good (stripping NIB files, for example), but the overall architecture is much more solid (which explains the performance hit).
Try GNUStep in VirtualBox and see how it handles your old software; if it does what you want, dual-boot :)
Re:when software was fast... by Em+Adespoton · 2013-02-14 08:38 · Score: 1

There are problems of course, like running Flash will always end up killing whatever browser that I'm using, but this is a well known and long unaddressed problem. Anther problem is that a lot of my favorite old software just won't run on it. Oh, well. Most of the old UNIX games are hidden in emacs now. And Stickies are wonderful. I do practically all my writing in Stickies, and cut and paste when necessary.
Remember when Flash was really cool? It ran just fine on my 132 MHz mac with 16 MB of RAM. Why did Adobe let it get so incredibly crappy? Oh, MacFortran ran in 16k of memory! It's memory management was superb, easily handling thirty year old code that took an hour to run on an IBM 1410, in just a couple of seconds.
Maybe you're onto something about that Twenty-First Capitalism thing.
BTW, you're allowed to stay on my lawn.
I'll stay on my own lawn, thank you :)
However, I highly recommend trying a Flash-fast; less security headaches, more speed and stability, and usually no productivity loss.
As for running old software: that's what you have the following for:
MiniVmac running System 6.0.8 (Mac Plus ROM) (you can custom build this using the Mac II ROM and get color working too)
Basilisk II running System 7.5.5 (IIx ROM) (optional -- the previous and next cover almost everything)
Basilisk II running MacOS 8.1 (Quadra 650 ROM)
SheepShaver running MacOS 9.0.4 with Finder 9.2 (New World ROM)
PearPC (inside WineSkin) running OS X 10.4.11 PPC
With those five configs and 10.8.2, you can run almost* any MacOS software ever written. This does, of course, assume that you kept the OS and ROM from your old computers. These emulators even have networking capabilities and some method of copying files between your hard disk and their virtual hard disk.
* Except for stuff that requires specific third party hardware, stuff written for OS X Classic environment (post 9.0.4) and stuff taking advantage of specific features** in 10.0-10.3 that have been deprecated.
** anything taking advantage of these features 1) should have an update available and/or 2) was really buggy and isn't worth the pain of getting running. If you REALLY want to, you can always run the specific OS required inside an emulator or VM.
Re:when software was fast... by dcollins117 · 2013-02-14 12:57 · Score: 1

There are a couple of reasons. The first is that programmers value code correctness, maintainability, and ease of development over performance. They are taught not to optimize for speed unless a bottleneck has been determined by actual measurements.
It's the end users who value performance, not the developers. Programmers code to please their bosses, and concerns of the end user rarely make it back to the actual developers. Therefore performance issues often don't have any impact on the resulting code.
Re:when software was fast... by dbIII · 2013-02-14 12:58 · Score: 1

It's an interesting experience to take a crappy old 32 bit server full of IDE drives and stick *BSD on it with none of the whistles and bells. It makes you think that the old machine isn't so slow after all. Start up times can be very quick when machines are not doing much when they start up, and it appears that *BSD is set to do not very much by default while most linux distros do a lot by default just in case you need something later.
Re:when software was fast... by dfghjk · 2013-02-14 14:43 · Score: 1

Windows 95 was a quick and dirty hack? It has no security? It was needed due to limitations in hardware? You're an idiot.
Windows 95 was a monumental effort at the time. It included Plug and Play for the very first time, a feature which took literally years for the industry to develop. It had a substantially new UI, a completely new OS integral to Windows, it ran DOS apps in a virtual 86 environment, it was preemptive and had protected memory (although that was not new to Windows). Windows was the OPPOSITE of a quick and dirty hack, it was a colossal effort and a massive step forward for the PC. In the history of the PC there has been NO OS that took more time and effort to bring to market than Windows 95.
Windows 95 did not have multiprocessor support. It would not be faster at many things, if any at all, than a 2010 PC with Windows 7.
It's sad what /. has become.
Re:when software was fast... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 17:38 · Score: 0

End users most certainly will value correctness and maintainability when they have to put up with a lack of it leading to severe and/or long lasting bugs. Or they will just complain and not understand why some software sucks a lot more than others despite similar manpower behind it.
And while performance might be a lower priority than getting the code to work properly, that doesn't mean developers don't value it at all...
Re:when software was fast... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-15 14:55 · Score: 0

Too many bosses throwing too many wrong solutions at a problem, for one. If I were working in IT, I couldn't work for the CEO at my current workplace. The guy is a cunt who did a course on management, and now thinks he's a genius.

slashdotted ! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 02:22 · Score: 1

by geeks around the world who think $700+ is a bit much for the latest version when they can hack on 1.0's source code for free.

Licensing issues? by polyp2000 · 2013-02-14 02:22 · Score: 1

Does this put the source code into the public domain - and thus now might it be possible to port it to other architectures?

--
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp

Re:Licensing issues? by newsdee · 2013-02-14 02:37 · Score: 1

I googled around and could not find any ports of MacPaint (the earlier source code release).
Has anybody attempted it?

--
The ENIAC Demo Competition
Re:Licensing issues? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-02-14 02:47 · Score: 1

Of course it doesn't. Adobe has not relinquished their rights to it.
Re:Licensing issues? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-02-14 02:51 · Score: 1

To add. Here is the copyright statement in the source files:

{Photoshop version 1.0.1, file: About.r
Computer History Museum, www.computerhistory.org
This material is (C)Copyright 1990 Adobe Systems Inc.
It may not be distributed to third parties.
It is licensed for non-commercial use according to
www.computerhistory.org/softwarelicense/photoshop/ }
And from the linked license:

1. Grant of License. Conditioned upon your compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Museum grants you a non-exclusive and non-transferable license for a single user, solely for your individual, personal and non-commercial purposes, (a) to load and install the Software; (b) to compile, modify and create modifications or enhancements of the Software or any of its components (“Derivative Works”); and (c) to run the Software or Derivative Works on simulators or hardware. The Museum and its licensors reserve all rights in the Software not expressly granted to you in this Agreement.
2. Restrictions. Except as expressly specified in this Agreement, you may not: (a) transfer, sublicense, lease, lend, rent or otherwise distribute the Software or Derivative Works to any third party; or (b) make the functionality of the Software or Derivative Works available to multiple users through any means, including, but not limited to, by uploading the Software to a network or file-sharing service or through any hosting, application services provider, service bureau, software-as-a-service (SaaS) or any other type of services. You acknowledge and agree that portions of the Software, including, but not limited to, the source code and the specific design and structure of individual modules or programs, constitute or contain trade secrets of Museum and its licensors.
3. Ownership. The copy of the Software is licensed, not sold. The Museum and its licensors retain ownership of the copy of the Software itself, including all intellectual property rights therein. The Software is protected by United States copyright law and international treaties. You will not delete or in any manner alter the copyright, trademark, confidentiality and other proprietary rights notices or markings or limited or restricted rights legends appearing on the Software as delivered to you.
The only thing you're allowed to do is view and modify it for your own personal use. You cannot distribute the software or derivative works based on it.
Re:Licensing issues? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-02-14 03:00 · Score: 1

Doubtful, unless they wanted to get sued for copyright infringement for violating the source code license. Since its license also is:

Source code in the Museum Collection
Note: This material is Copyright ©1984 Apple Inc. and is made available only for non-commercial use.
Neither of the source code is under a license that allows distributing it or a derivative.
Re:Licensing issues? by dbIII · 2013-02-14 13:00 · Score: 1

What about distributing patches XV style?

Re:What's this weird hidden splash file in MacPain by godunc · 2013-02-14 02:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Interestingly this code is supposedly in there. (According to the comments on the page). Somebody should check the Adobe code...

Gimp by Stele · 2013-02-14 02:38 · Score: 4, Funny

Hopefully the Gimp folks can make some use of this.

Re:Gimp by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 02:43 · Score: 0, Funny

Yeah, now this might finally help GIMP become functionally equivalent to Photoshop 1.0.
Re:Gimp by ssam · 2013-02-14 02:50 · Score: 4, Funny

unless there is a clear licence allowing them to use the code, they would probably be wise not to look at it at all.
Re:Gimp by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-02-14 02:53 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure they were making a joke.
Re:Gimp by serviscope_minor · 2013-02-14 03:05 · Score: 3, Informative

Hopefully the Gimp folks can make some use of this.
Certainly, because GIMP won't be a success until it natively supports CMYK like photoshop.
[ for the impaired, GIMP does and this version of photoshop does not, and noone outside the print industry gives a damn ]

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Gimp by wonkey_monkey · 2013-02-14 03:29 · Score: 1

[ for the impaired, GIMP does and this version of photoshop does not, and noone outside the print industry gives a damn ]
From the GIMP FAQ:

When can we see native CMYK support?
It is clear from the product vision that GIMP eventually needs to support CMYK, but it is impossible to say when someone finds the free time and motivation to add it. In the meantime it is possible to work with CMYK to some extent using plug-ins, such as the Separate+ plug-in.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Gimp by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 03:43 · Score: 0

It's the development versions that support CMYK. The GEGL backend which enables it isn't in released GIMP yet.
Re:Gimp by inamorty · 2013-02-14 03:51 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm pretty sure they were making a joke.
After using the Gimp, it's difficult to dispute this.
Re:Gimp by virgnarus · 2013-02-14 04:00 · Score: 1

[ for the impaired, GIMP does and this version of photoshop does not, and noone outside the print industry gives a damn ]
You're partially right. I'm part of a genetic research group, and I've had to work with people that need to make CMYK materials to send to publishers because apparently the print industry they work with requests it so the publisher demands it from us. So there is a trickle down effect in some cases. The print industry itself may not be large enough to give CMYK attention, but when you consider all the clients they have...
Re:Gimp by tehcyder · 2013-02-14 04:52 · Score: 1

noone outside the print industry gives a damn
Another way of putting it is that "no one outside professionals who want to actually publish their work gives a damn."
You can pretend that everything is just published on the internet and printing is just something old people do all you like, it is simply not the case yet.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Gimp by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-02-14 04:57 · Score: 2

The print industry itself may not be large enough to give CMYK attention, but when you consider all the clients they have...
And yet nobody has cared enough in the past decade to hire a few developers to add CMYK support. When the motion picture industry wanted more out of GIMP they hired the programmers to get it done (and they forked as well, but that was a matter of governance).

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Gimp by serviscope_minor · 2013-02-14 05:44 · Score: 1, Informative

You can pretend that everything is just published on the internet and printing is just something old people do all you like, it is simply not the case yet.
No, I actually stand by my claim.
Only the people at the high end of the print and design industry actually care about things like colour matching and quality.
There are huge swaths of businesses who print stuff who apparently just do not care one bit. Just look around at all the random signage and posters printed for anything that's not a huge advertising campaign and/or by a very large company. The sort of things produced by the large number of smaller regional and local businesses.
The quality is terrible. The typesetting is terrible. The design is terrible.
Just near where I work, there's a barber with a shop sign out the front in the street. It has a picture of a man getting a shave on it. I CAN SEE THE FUCKING PIXELS. I'm not joking, it's eyebleedingly bad. The pixels are huge, the colours are saturated and the kerning on the sign is bad.
Yet the shop seems to do good business.
There are whole bunch of professional people engaged in nothing bud business responsible for comissioning and producing that sign. Given that they didn't care enough to find a picture with adequate pixel density, I think it is fair to claim that they don't care about CMYK.
Almost all stuff is on the low end like that. That's why shops like VistaPrint are popular and very profitable. Most people, even people who need signs and things for professional purposes just do not care.
Yeah, there are some pro photographers and high end design companies, but most of the world is not like that. Most is cheap and cheerful, and most people wouldn't notice pixellation or bad colour matching even if a blue pixellated dog bit them on the leg.
So yeah, most people just don't care and the web has nothing to do with it.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Gimp by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 07:04 · Score: 0

I think I've just heard a double wooosh
Re:Gimp by PhunkySchtuff · 2013-02-14 08:45 · Score: 3, Informative

Professionals in print production and publishing aren't using CMYK these days. Modern print-production workflows use RGB images (as they have a wider gamut thant CMYK) and use ICC profiles to convert to CMYK at the time it's printed. This way, when the colours are separated, they're done with the intent of the device that will actually be printing the output, not with some generic RGB to CMYK conversion in Photoshop.
If you are working with CMYK images on your computer, you have made decisions about UCR and GCR and ink density that are at best educated guesses as you often have no idea what equipment will be printing your output. Once you've separated it to CMYK, if you need to print it on a different device that has different characteristics, you're in trouble.
Now, whether or not GIMP is a suitable substitute for Photoshop is another argument altogether, but these days it doesn't hinge on CMYK support.

--
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
Re:Gimp by Em+Adespoton · 2013-02-14 09:05 · Score: 1

That's why shops like VistaPrint are popular and very profitable. Most people, even people who need signs and things for professional purposes just do not care.
Just thought I'd add to this that the reason I use VistaPrint is precisely BECAUSE they honor my CMYK profiles, crop marks and bleeds. There are very few prosumer printshops out there that do this (even among those who claim to). VistaPrint has got it right for me every time.
The only other places I've found that get this stuff right want runs of 1,000 at the minimum -- not too useful for 1-offs.
Re:Gimp by AvitarX · 2013-02-14 10:13 · Score: 1

As an employee of one of those places that doesn't care all the way (we're not actually that bad, all of our equipment honors color profiles, and we keep it relatively well calibrated). You are absolutely correct.
We will lay something out, and a customer will insist that their low res image is good enough though, it's not always the production/designers fault, people just do not care. They care less today than they used to too, because EVERYTHING (statistically though not literally) they see is terrible. You only need to see the rise of "Business Color" production equipment as proof.
I will say, that if I were provided with, and insisted upon using (perhaps for money or time constraints) a low res image, I would at least upscale it in Photoshop, so it was blury, but without pixels.
Also, a lot of the equipment does better with RGB files.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Gimp by dotgain · 2013-02-14 10:14 · Score: 1

^^ This. As an ex printer, a thousand times this.
You have no business sending me CMYK images. I decide on the CMYK formula to use based on my press specs (which I sent you but you never read) and your ICC profile + RGB image.
I might need to print your image on two different presses with two different dotgains (o hai there username), which would necessitate two different CMYK files from you in this case.
Re:Gimp by PhunkySchtuff · 2013-02-14 10:37 · Score: 1

It's amazing how many people don't get this. How many people convert to CMYK as they think that's the professional thing to do, and they just use the canned profiles (or no profile at all as they don't trust all that ICC wizardry) in Photoshop. Fail. Then they wonder why the output looks crap...

--
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
Re:Gimp by BitwizeGHC · 2013-02-14 12:01 · Score: 1

That's because they all just bought Photoshop and got their work done.

--
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Re:Gimp by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 12:23 · Score: 0

Sorry, ssam your post wasn't a joke.
Re:Gimp by LSDelirious · 2013-02-14 15:27 · Score: 1

Our "Marketing" manager is the same way. The visual atrocities she calls datasheets hurt to look at they are so bad - cheesy drop shadows with hard noisy edges, thumbnail gifs blown up 10x and vastly distorted out of proportion, because you know you HAVE to fill the entire placeholder frame. One time she was going to have a 8' x 18' tradeshow booth wall printed from a powerpoint slide of some godawful 90's clipart and giant Times New Roman text. This was for a 2011 show mind you.

--
Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property; A Corporation is the legal fiction that property is a person.
Re:Gimp by um...+Lucas · 2013-02-15 08:28 · Score: 1

Considering that for the first one or two decades of Photoshops existance, the print industry was the main purchaser of photoshop (or the design industry, which would then send finished files to the print industry), it's been a pretty important feature. OK, it wasn't there in version 1.0, but soon thereafter. Yes, now more and more design work is done for online audiences, but many companies do in fact blend their online and offline marketing pieces.
CMYK is an incredibly important feature; maybe slashdotters overlook it, but releasing an image editor without CMYK was like introducing a database without the ability to sort the data. Pantone important too, but not nearly as much as CMYK.
As for GIMP. I've tried it again and again over the years, and even for free, i can't imagine replacing Photoshop with it. It might just be that I've used Photoshop so long that it's completely ingrained in me, but i've always failed to see why people are all excited about GIMP. It seems like a great free program to get you feet wet with, but once you start pushing forward, Photoshop has been the place to be.
Albeit, I haven't touched GIMP in a couple of years, but I can't imagine that they re-envisioned the program since the last time I looked.
Re:Gimp by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-15 15:03 · Score: 0

The motion picture industry hired programmers and forked GIMP, because they all just bought Photoshop? Are you drunk?

Re:Aspirations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 02:43 · Score: 0

No, sir, you are the idiot if you believe that people are using the 68k in new designs as anything other than a cheap microcontroller. The code in Photoshop 1.0 is pc code, so if you aspire to write code like it, you are not writing for an embedded microcontroller.

Re:Aspirations by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-02-14 02:46 · Score: 1

If its either, de-install Visual Studio please.

Non sequitur much?

How much of this is still in use? by hackertourist · 2013-02-14 02:53 · Score: 1

Would Photoshop CS 6 (or wherever they are these days) still contain code from the 1.0 days?

Re:How much of this is still in use? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2013-02-14 02:56 · Score: 4, Informative

No. Photoshop was long ago rewritten into C++. That's not to say that some of the current code might not have some basis on the original code, but it's doubtful it's that much.
Re:How much of this is still in use? by ledow · 2013-02-14 03:13 · Score: 3, Informative

Highly unlikely. Photoshop 1.0 was 1990 and it was an application. That's like expecting Windows 3.0 to be using the same code as Windows 8 - sure there might be some similarity but most of Windows 3.0 and its features don't even exist in Windows any more (and haven't for many, many years).
With an application, it's also much easier to just rewrite every version - the only "compatibility" you have to worry about is that you can read the old files generated by the program (writing new file formats is common practice, but you need to be able to read the previous ones back in even if just for a one-time conversion). Think the very first Word for Windows versus Word 2013 / 365. The program itself doesn't even open files that old any more (compatibility only goes back to Word 97/2000 at best nowadays), so the likelihood of any code being more than vaguely similar is almost zero.
Plus, given that the original is in Pascal and 68k assembler, the chance is basically zero. At the point that it had to be rewritten for newer languages / platforms (even if they ran 68k code, it's unlikely to be perfectly compatible), the old code would be ditched and used - at best - as a reference to how the program used to work.
Code evolves or dies. This code-drop is pretty ancient in computing terms and won't be of any practical use any more - like when they released the original Prince of Persia source in assembler. At best, you could use it as a reference to make a pixel-for-pixel identical version by rewriting it in a sensible language and making sure it is equivalent to the old code, but that's about the only use of it.
Have a look here:
http://creativebits.org/the_first_version_of_photoshop
You could just about put some text into it. It's like looking at the source code to Word for DOS 5 and saying "Is this any good to anyone?" No. Not really. Maybe 20 years ago, but now it's so obsolete we don't even use the program itself, let alone the code that makes it, and haven't for 15 years.
Re:How much of this is still in use? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 03:16 · Score: 1

With an application, it's also much easier to just rewrite every version
You're joking right? Rewriting something as complex as Photoshop with every single version? Photoshop that has 10s of millions of lines of code. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I nominate this for the "Most Idiotic Post of the Week".
Re:How much of this is still in use? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 04:18 · Score: 1

Photoshop was long ago rewritten into C++.
I believe the original Mac version was translated (more or less automatically) to C++ for the first Windows release. At the time, I'd written an Object Pascal --> C++ translator for another company and Adobe was one of the first licensees.
Re:How much of this is still in use? by tehcyder · 2013-02-14 04:55 · Score: 2

You could just about put some text into it. It's like looking at the source code to Word for DOS 5 and saying "Is this any good to anyone?" No. Not really. Maybe 20 years ago, but now it's so obsolete we don't even use the program itself, let alone the code that makes it, and haven't for 15 years.
But wouldn't it be educational for someone who was going to write a word processor to see what you could achieve with 640K RAM and 720K floppy disk storage limits?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:How much of this is still in use? by wideBlueSkies · 2013-02-14 06:12 · Score: 1

Besides the fact that every consumer windows starting with XP is based upon the NT kernel, with the consumery stuff rewritten and layered on top.
The win 1 -> 3.11 -> 95 -> 98 -> ME line was retired, thankfully, after ME.

--
Huh?
Re:How much of this is still in use? by Algae_94 · 2013-02-14 09:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, it is ridiculous to think they would scrap all the code for every version. He does have a point though. Unlike an OS, an application only needs to open the file formats, so certain functionality can be totally rewritten if needed. There is no inertia from inter-operability with other applications slowing the rate of change of the codebase.

The code is not going to be rewritten every version, but it certainly can change faster than OS code.
Re:How much of this is still in use? by ledow · 2013-02-14 09:02 · Score: 1

And this one has 128,000 lines code, as titled in the article summary.
I have that in an incomplete game that's basically just an pretty isometric sprite blitter at the moment. Given 128,000 lines of PASCAL and assembler, I think my first task WOULD be to rewrite them in something decent and more suited to the task. The time you save would overcome any conversion time.
And the fact is that by version 3, they HAD rewritten the application entirely - in a completely different language.
Re:How much of this is still in use? by Em+Adespoton · 2013-02-14 09:27 · Score: 1

I believe Adobe announced when they were hyping CS5 that all the original code was pretty much gone with that version; they wanted to start fresh with clean modular code instead of continuing to pile things on top of the mess that was the conversion from Mac Pascal to Win C++ (no insult meant). Adobe went for years just tweaking the codebase and adding things on, migrating the entire codebase from one architecture to another. With CS4, things had got to the point where continuing down that path would be even more prohibitive than starting over with only modern code -- so legacy code was tossed, a new framework built, and everything written back in to tie it together. CS6 then used the new framework to drop out a few of the other "less legacy" components for something "more modern" now that the underlying architecture was cleaned up and had endured a major revision of fixes and tweaks.
That said, I'm still using the headache that is CS4, as feature-wise, there's not really anything that's been added since that would be worth the upgrade cost. I'm guessing it'll stop working on 10.9, at which point I'll have to make a decision as to whether to migrate or just run it under a VM. I'm not willing to pay that much $$ to support Adobe's forced upgrade cycle though (security fixes only get applied against the latest versions?!?!?)
Re:How much of this is still in use? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 11:56 · Score: 0

So that means they rewrote after 3 versions. You said "it's also much easier to just rewrite every version". Moron.
Re:How much of this is still in use? by jampola · 2013-02-14 16:00 · Score: 1

So in another words, they wanted to avoid working like Microsoft then...
Re:How much of this is still in use? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-15 06:55 · Score: 0

And yet, much of Photoshop has actually been rewritten a few times, at least on the Mac side. It was necessary during Apple's transitions from 68K to PowerPC, from PowerPC to Intel, from 32-bit to 64-bit, and most recently from Carbon to Cocoa.

Re:What's this weird hidden splash file in MacPain by Megane · 2013-02-14 03:01 · Score: 1

I don't see anything about Mac Paint (or Adobe or Photoshop) anywhere on that page. And someone modded you up for that?

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }

Run in emulator by jbeaupre · 2013-02-14 03:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Has anybody run it in a 68k Mac emulator? It would be interesting to see a performance comparison between modern PhotoShop running natively and version 1 running on an emulator.

--
The world is made by those who show up for the job.

Re:Run in emulator by sgraesser · 2013-02-14 05:25 · Score: 3, Informative

The Photoshop code can not be compiled/linked without also having a copy of Apple's MacApp framework. Since the code is written in Object Pascal, you would probably need version 2.0 or earlier of the MacApp framework in order to compile the code using MPW.
Re:Run in emulator by wideBlueSkies · 2013-02-14 06:13 · Score: 1

I suspect it won't be too long before someone figures out how to build it, and posts instructions.

--
Huh?
Re:Run in emulator by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 07:03 · Score: 2, Informative

By the way, the included makefile has unresolved dependencies and you would need to write a new makefile for it.
Re:Run in emulator by Em+Adespoton · 2013-02-14 09:30 · Score: 2

You can still get the MacApp framework with MPW from Apple. I've also still got a copy somewhere on my DVD archive of old ADC floppies.

Homepage Paging URL? by halcyon1234 · 2013-02-14 03:30 · Score: 1

Okay, while we wait for the slag that was the hosts servers to cool and solidify-- why the heck did the paging on the home page change? It used to be going back a "day" would put use unique URL based on the date. So if I reloaded the page a day later, it would still show the same group of articles.

Now it has changed to ?page=1, where 1 means "1 page back from the most recent set of articles". So if I go back a page, then come back later and refresh-- I get a completely different set of articles-- somewhere between where I stopped reading last, and the new ones.

Isn't this a step backwards (no pun intended)?

--
UTF-8: There and Back Again

Re:Homepage Paging URL? by nateb · 2013-02-14 04:06 · Score: 1

Not to mention that initial site load time has significantly increased lately.

--
-- Nate
Re:Homepage Paging URL? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 04:10 · Score: 0

Really, thats hardly a pun..

Re:Aspirations by DJCouchyCouch · 2013-02-14 03:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

I love tapioca!

Build it? by 0racle · 2013-02-14 03:41 · Score: 1

What would be required to actually build it? I already have a 68k Mac, so the hardware is covered.

--
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."

Re:Build it? by armanox · 2013-02-14 04:31 · Score: 1

I have one too, and was wondering the same thing (just dusted off my Powerbook 540c last night. Now I need to find the powerbrick.)

--
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Re:Build it? by larry+bagina · 2013-02-14 05:38 · Score: 1

Do you have MPW (that's Macintosh Programmers' Workshop)? Install that and start compiling.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

Re:Aspirations by Applekid · 2013-02-14 04:20 · Score: 3, Funny

Yeah, C++, C#, VB.NET and F# are ALL dying languages. Fucking moron.

F# ? I agree it's not dying, but only because it never lived.

--
More Twoson than Cupertino

now to download by HybridST · 2013-02-14 04:40 · Score: 1

503 Service Unavailable No server is available to handle this request..

Server=slag heap

--
Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?

I remember that... by tekrat · 2013-02-14 04:49 · Score: 1

Ran that sucker on a MacII with 8bit color at SVA's computer lab when it was on the East side 21st street...
Bruce Wands and Burt Monroy were both very excited about this product as it was much more powerful than "Digital Darkroom".

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

Photoshop history lesson by mveloso · 2013-02-14 04:52 · Score: 2

Note that Photoshop 1.0 was a one-man app...and Knoll still works on Lightroom.

People today don't realize how mind-blowing Photoshop was back in the day. Nobody in real life did image editing - it was all airbrushing, paste-up, etc.

Anyway, good reading:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/13/3959868/photoshop-is-a-city-for-everyone-how-adobe-endlessly-rebuilds-its

YouTube by jones_supa · 2013-02-14 06:08 · Score: 1

The Computer History museum has a quite interesting YouTube channel too.

Re:What's this weird hidden splash file in MacPain by godunc · 2013-02-14 06:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Supposedly it's in macpaint...according to the comments section of the story.

Re:What's this weird hidden splash file in MacPain by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 06:48 · Score: 0

"The Computer History Museum has earlier made available the source code to MacPaint."" from TFS.

Did that get added in after you read TFS the first time maybe?

Don't let Michael Hardy get it by Nyder · 2013-02-14 06:57 · Score: 1

Source code on the internet? Not safe from Michael Hardy.

http://youfailit.net/?p=49

http://better-explorer.com/blog/a-word-about-michael-hardy-copycat/

This person likes to take peoples source code, recompile it with minimal changes (usually just taking the author out and putting in his name) and then sell it.

Recently hit the Apple II scene trying to pass off Byte Magazines Solitare Game as his own, asking how to make copyright materials then wanting the person who wrong Lemmings for the Apple IIGS to unprotect it for him. lol.

Anyways, great reading about a loser who profits via others work. But a source code thief and will find Michael Hardy's Photoshopped Photoshop 1.0 coming out soon!

--
Be seeing you...

Re:Don't let Michael Hardy get it by Nyder · 2013-02-14 06:59 · Score: 1

Source code on the internet? Not safe from Michael Hardy.
http://youfailit.net/?p=49
http://better-explorer.com/blog/a-word-about-michael-hardy-copycat/
This person likes to take peoples source code, recompile it with minimal changes (usually just taking the author out and putting in his name) and then sell it.
Recently hit the Apple II scene trying to pass off Byte Magazines Solitare Game as his own, asking how to make copyright materials then wanting the person who wrong Lemmings for the Apple IIGS to unprotect it for him. lol.
Anyways, great reading about a loser who profits via others work. But a source code thief and will find Michael Hardy's Photoshopped Photoshop 1.0 coming out soon!
fuck, I can't type to save my life.
he ask how to make copyright symbol, not materials. doh!

--
Be seeing you...
Re:Don't let Michael Hardy get it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-15 09:01 · Score: 0

lol, what a retard.

The MacApp makefile has unresolved dependencies by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 06:58 · Score: 0

UPhotoshop.LOAD and Photoshop.BuildFlags
These files are not in the source archive...
EVEITF.o
This object file is missing in a standard MPW 3.0/3.1 installation..
By the way some environmental variables used in the makefile is not defined in a default MacApp 2.0 installation, for example "SrcMacApp", "ObjMacApp" and "RezMacApp".

Agreed, 110% with concrete proof by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 14:18 · Score: 0

"Ignoring all the "it's pascal so it must suck" idiocy being posted, Turbo Pascal changed PC programming" - by tgrigsby (164308) on Thursday February 14, @03:50PM (#42900799) Homepage

1st, lets face some facts: Most of the dolts saying that probably haven't even USED any form of Pascal, hands-on, for comparison...

Secondly, per my subject-line above? From a reliable & reputable source (a competing trade rag no less)... it's what "stole me away" from being a primarily Visual Studio man in fact: Read on!

---

Back circa 1997, I was a BIG fan of coding with Visual Studio... especially MSVC++ &/or VB.

I run into a review in VBPJ, of all places (Visual Basic Programmer's Journal) Sept./Oct. 1997 issue "Inside the VB Compiler", a competing trade rag no less & one that was QUITE respected!

Then?

There, I saw Borland Delphi LITERALLY "knock-the-chocolate" outta MS' offerings, overall, in performance...

How much so? Ok (& this IS what I took to mgt.):

In the 6 tests given, Delphi won the majority (overwhelmingly in fact, in what ALL PROGRAMS DO, math & strings work)...

Specifics below (the most important, overall? Again - imo @ least - What they ALL do - math & strings!):

---

STRING SUITE:

Delphi = .275ms
MSVC++ = .500ms
MSVB = 4.091ms

---

MATH SUITE:

Delphi = 1.523ms
MSVC++ = 2.890ms
MSVB = 7.071ms

* AGAIN - note what I said above? Even while I was a HUGE fan of MS' Visual Studio?? I couldn't "argue with the numbers" here, & gravitated towards a BETTER coding environs in Delphi, by far, for performance alone!

---

API GRAPHICS METHODS SUITE:

Delphi = .269ms
MSVC++ = .293ms
MSVB = 292

---

TEXTBOX FORM LOADING SUITE:

MSVC++ = .012ms
Delphi = .069ms
MSVB = .072ms

---

ACTIVE X FORM LOADS:

MSVB = .114ms
Delphi = .495ms
MSVC++ = .778ms

---

NATIVE TO LANGUAGE GRAPHICS METHODS SUITE:

MSVC++ = .293ms
MSVB = .455ms
Delphi = .503ms

---

There you are... however: KNOW WHAT I WAS TOLD, that I absolutely HAD TO LISTEN TO & UNDERSTAND (which, I did):

---

"Microsoft has BILLIONS of dollars & absolute stability. We want to have SOMEONE to take responsibility for errors in their stuff, and to have support in the future. Microsoft odds are WILL BE THERE STILL... Will Borland?"

---

THAT IS BUSINESS' POV in a nutshell... & Borland was getting "brain-drained" (especially for the designers of Delphi) by MS regularly... ever heard of Mr. Anders Heijelsberg &/or Chuck Andrzewski? They built Delphi... & MS got 'em!

---

Getting back to replying to your points, point-by-quoted point:

"The only compilers besides MASM were too expensive for a college student to touch and slower than Christmas to compile" - by tgrigsby (164308) on Thursday February 14, @03:50PM (#42900799) Homepage

Absolutely - I have MASM 5.0 still here sitting right in front of me in fact, lol, believe-it-or-not... it wasn't that bad, because code was tiny (but, I recall having hit the memory limit on procs, lol, because they had size limits & asking my prof.: What did I do wrong here? Was 16-bit, & that was it... syntactically it was correct, I had to bust it up into separate subprocs!).

Now, by comparison? Even Borland C++ took way, Way, WAY longer & so did Microsoft C even (only ones I used for DOS in those days)... iirc, it has SOMETHING to do with how C++ compilers optimize, unrolling loops & such, but Pascal's KNOWN for massively FAST compilation times vs. other comp

Re:Agreed, 110% with concrete proof by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 17:24 · Score: 0

Absolutely - I have MASM 5.0 still here sitting right in front of me in fact, lol, believe-it-or-not... it wasn't that bad, because code was tiny (but, I recall having hit the memory limit on procs, lol, because they had size limits & asking my prof.: What did I do wrong here? Was 16-bit, & that was it... syntactically it was correct, I had to bust it up into separate subprocs!).
Somehow, I find it entirely believable that you hit the memory limits on procs!! Especially if u code the way u comment!
Maybe Linux should rewrite his kernel in Turbo Pascal! Using "C" makes it 2 slow and buggy.
Re:Agreed, 110% with concrete proof by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 19:57 · Score: 0

There, I saw Borland Delphi LITERALLY "knock-the-chocolate" outta MS' offerings, overall, in performance...
Literally??
Wow, I guess I was buying the wrong compilers if Microsoft was offering free chocolate with theirs!
Re:Agreed, 110% with concrete proof by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-15 09:02 · Score: 0

"Chocolate" he spoke of comes from the ass. Yours? Your mouth.
Re:Agreed, 110% with concrete proof by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-15 09:35 · Score: 0

At least I know what "literal" means, asshat.
Re:Agreed, 110% with concrete proof by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-15 22:40 · Score: 0

You don't know a saying and You toss names and are off topic troll. You fail.
Re:Agreed, 110% with concrete proof by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-16 00:04 · Score: 0

Literal is the opposite of figurative. Calling shit "chocolate" or "fudge" is an excellent example of figurative speech. Sorry, the fail is all yours!
Re:Agreed, 110% with concrete proof by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-16 01:03 · Score: 0

You're LITERALLY off topic troll, no questions asked. How's that?
Re:Agreed, 110% with concrete proof by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-16 10:09 · Score: 0

Yep. I can live with being OT or being a troll (though I'm not).
I hope you can live with being stupid.
Re:Agreed, 110% with concrete proof by RocketRabbit · 2013-02-18 12:23 · Score: 1

Using the word literally in an ironic manner to provide emphasis is something that has been done for well over a century now. I am aware that the good gatekeepers at the OED are reluctant to include the ironical definition of "literally" into their holy tome, but you can't change the trend of language by the power mere pedantry alone. Even the Oxford folks can not, and have not, stopped the ironic use of the word despite their attempts to ignore it.
Re:Agreed, 110% with concrete proof by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-19 01:28 · Score: 0

An old mistake is still a mistake. :)
Re:Agreed, 110% with concrete proof by RocketRabbit · 2013-02-19 08:52 · Score: 1

It's not a mistake, though. It's an ironic use of a word, and one that has an agreed-upon definition in the ironic sense. People are not using the word "literally" in place of "figuratively" in error, they are doing it intentionally.
Re:Agreed, 110% with concrete proof by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-19 21:44 · Score: 0

People are not using the word "literally" in place of "figuratively" in error, they are doing it intentionally.
I disagree. Every single person who has made this mistake and I've pointed this out to, had no clue about what they were actually saying. They were NOT intentionally being ironic, they were just parroting an expression they had heard other people use and thought they understood from context what it meant.

Single window GIMP by jampola · 2013-02-14 15:59 · Score: 1

They didn't need the source code to Photoshop 1 to figure out how to do a single window mode, so I guess that counts for something.

Re:Still Down: don't mirror this code by LenShustek · 2013-02-15 00:05 · Score: 1

I'm afraid that by reposting this code you are violating the terms of the license that you agreed to when you downloaded it. You are essentially sublicensing the code to third parties, which you don't have the right to do.

I've asked the gibhub poster to please take it down. Please tell the others who created mirrors to do likewise.

The Computer History Museum has negotiated for permission to release all kinds of historic source code, including Apple's MacPaint, IBM's APL programming language, and now Adobe's Photoshop. Others are in progress. Each such negotiation is tricky and time-consuming. If we, as a community, demonstrate that we are unwilling to play by the copyright owners' rules, it will kill the prospects of getting other historic source code released.

Let's keep the pipeline flowing.

Thanks,
Len Shustek, Chairman, Computer History Museum

Troll - time to make YOU look stupid... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-16 11:06 · Score: 0

You admit being off-topic & that = troll. As to being stupid, on my part? LMAO: See subject-line, & this challenge to you then:

The day you can show me that you've done MORE, BETTER, & EARLIER than I have in the art & science of computing from this only PARTIAL list of only SOME of my "favorites" over time:

---

"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...

Being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3

It's also been myself helping out the folks at the UltraDefrag64 project (a 64-bit defragger for Windows), in showing them code for how to do Process Priority Control @ the GUI usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 level in their program (good one too), & being credited for it by their lead dev & his team... see here -> http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/handbook/Credits.html or here http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2993462&group_id=199532&atid=969873

AND lastly: http://g-off.net/software/a-python-repeatable-threadingtimer-class where I got other programmer's work WORKING RIGHT (in PyThon no less, which I just started learning only 2 week ago no less) by showing them how to use a "Dummy Proxy Function" as I call it, to make a RepeatTimer class (Thread sub-class really) to take PARAMETERIZED FUNCTIONS, ala:

def apkthreadlaunch():
getnortonsafeweb(sAPKFileName = "APK_1_NortonSafeWeb360Extracted.txt".rstrip())

a = RepeatTimer(900, apkthreadlaunch) # 900 is 15 minutes... apk

Where it was NOT working for many folks there, before (submitted to the maker of the RepeatTimer class no less, & yes, it WORKS!)

----

What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):

"But by the

Re:Troll - time to make YOU look stupid... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-16 12:43 · Score: 0

Oh shit, it's apk!! RUN!!!
(This thread is officially declared dead, nothing can save it now...)

Read the bold inside especially... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-16 15:13 · Score: 0

Face facts: You wish you were me!

* :)

Bit of a timeframe here on the topic 32 to 64 bit (& even 16 bit Pascal before that):

That was then (1996) -> http://imagenes.es.sftcdn.net/es/scrn/5000/5384/apk-3dfx-tuning-engine-10.jpg & this -> http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&Itemid=74 is now (2012) - the future, is now!

(LMAO - & you had the nerve to call me stupid, you the off-topic troll here the ENTIRE time, & yet I can show you're an ac "ne'er-do-well" troll, that hasn't done squat on your part by way of comparison to myself & in the programming languages discussed which ARE the topic & base of PhotoShop? Please...)

Thank-You for proving my point & it truly has been a pleasure showing everyone just what YOU are (by letting YOU DO IT TO YOURSELF, lol!) after you called me stupid... lol!

"We see you..."

APK

P.S.=> Duke Nukem & I are in an "exclusive club", I'm an entire chapter in his "Why I'm so Great" book, lol (compared to you), with his directly quoting me verbatim. because you just KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, as-is-per-my-usual, in my own "inimitable style":

THIS? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'"...

Why? Well - I'll let these people say so, again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwgnNa0PLWg "We Rock the Party" (we rock the body) - you, clearly don't, troll... See 1st bold statement above, & "Rinse, Lather, & Repeat"!

... apk

Re:What's this weird hidden splash file in MacPain by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-17 03:38 · Score: 0

Is this why the original Mac crashed if it tried to store something from the clipboard at an odd (or was it even?) numbered address?

Re:Still Down: don't mirror this code by Kremmy · 2013-02-17 07:39 · Score: 1

I'm afraid that the community cares more about preservation of these historical items than the copyright owners' rules. The idea that archival copies of historical works is tantamount to unapproved sub-licensing is a completely ridiculous notion and the companies involved will have to eventually come to terms with that for any project on the scale of the Computer History Museum to truly succeed. Historical records cannot be owned and restricted in that manner and still be considered a historical record. Indeed, I feel that the very mission of the Museum includes bringing this level of understanding to those who would otherwise be turned off by it. This is history, not commerce. While it might make some unwilling to release, that is a problem with the angle they're coming at it from, and that needs to be well understood.

Re:Still Down: don't mirror this code by RocketRabbit · 2013-02-18 12:04 · Score: 1

Len, the nature of the Internet is that it is a global network. In many parts of the world, people are not bound by the sorts of contracts that they are bound by in the United States. Even in the USA, it is not entirely clear if clickthrough EULAs are legally valid or enforceable. While I understand that you have a dedication to computer history, and that your livelihood is partially at stake as well here, you have to realize that once something's on the internet, it will remain out there despite the wishes of the copyright holder or their agents or licensees.

While this fact may bother you, it doesn't likely bother many other people - certainly not the people who copy and share these materials.

You're LITERALLY off-topic, troll... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-19 23:03 · Score: 0

I'll stick by using literally since Delphi's results I posted "knock the chocolate" out of BOTH Microsoft's Visual C++ &/or Visual Basic in 6 discrete tests' results, here -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3461171&cid=42905159 (Especially importantly in BOTH Math & String work, which EVERY PROGRAM DOES & BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (nearly 50% in each if not more (see the #'s yourself, I am not 'exacting' now without seeing them...).

Now, IF Visual Studio could crap it's pants? It would & did, lol... hence, the "knocking the chocolate" out of it (via Borland's Object Pascal doing the job it did on it).

AND

When Microsoft's people saw it, you can BET someone there 'shit their pants', & what gave THAT away's the fact that "King Billy" (Mr. Gates, who I actually call THAT outta pure respect for not only his wealth, but what he managed with the 'empire of microsoft') BOUGHT UP the designers of Delphi (and Turbo Pascal in the former) in Mr. Anders Hejlsberg + Chuck Andrzewski (my fellow pole)...

* AND, "there ya go"...

Lastly/In Closing/Bottom-line: Iinstead of posting DAYS later, thinking I'm not seeing it + trying to "get in the last word" here, completely off-topic on your trolling part?

Hey - Guess again: I know you trolls better than you know yourselves & knew you'd *try* that...

So, do yourself, + the rest of us a HUGE FAVOR, & go away - since I have "knocked the chocolate" outta you!

(ROTFLMAO!)

APK

P.S.=> There's little question my subject-line "holds true" in YOUR case here vs. the topic @ hand though troll - you LITERALLY are way, Way, WAY off-topic...

&

Again - I'd almost BET when MS' personnel saw that link's test results from a trade-rag/mag that SHOULD be favoring THEIR STUFF, that SOMEONE SHIT THEIR PANTS in a HUGE panic!

(In fact - Ms' reaction showed it well enough buying those 2 gents away from Borland, doing what MS did for years on end, "brain-draining" them)...

... apk

Note that I put quotes around by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-23 04:10 · Score: 0

"knocked the chocolate of of"? It's intended to convey sarcasm & exaggeration in my original post.

(However: Good ole' "grammar-nazi" troll doesn't have a leg to stand on being off-topic as he is, so he "runs with it" & tries his usual b.s. once more as usual!)

* That's all...

APK

P.S.=> Onwards & UPWARDS...

... apk

Slashdot Mirror

For Your Inspection: Source Code For Photoshop 1.0

176 comments