If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-10-20 11:18:51 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said: Savageduck wrote: On 2011-10-20 10:21:13 -0700, Savageduck said: On 2011-10-20 09:17:36 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said: Savageduck wrote: On 2011-10-19 19:47:49 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said: Somewhere (but where?) I have a rather massive four-volume set of "The World War," published one volume at a time through the war years. I think the author's name was Simmons, or Simmonds. I bought it many years ago in an antiques store that had a lot of old books, for some ridiculously low price, just a few dollars. It has loads of contemporary information on the continuing war, the campaigns, etc., with maps. Also much coverage of the war at sea. Lots of photographs. Now I not only cannot find the books, I cannot even find any mention of the series online. I cannot understand this. It was in its day well regarded, and I recall seeing it mentioned elsewhere. "The World War," four volumes, the last volume published probably in 1918 or '19. This exasperates me. I've really got to do something about my apartment I found, "Through the Wheat, The US Marines in World War I" by Brig. Gen. Edwin Simmons USMD (Ret.) The only WWI multivolume history of the "Great War" I know of was Hew Strachan's "The First World War - The complete Series". However he is one of our contemporaries. He was commissioned to write that history by Oxford University Press to replace C.R.M.F Cruttwell's "A History of the Great War, 1914-1918. Cruttwell was himself a WWI veteran who was severely wounded in 1916. He went on to write of his own war experience and various historic tomes. He never fully recovered from his war injuries and suffered a mental breakdown and died in 1941. Oxford wanted a definititve WWI history without the taint of Cruttwell's war related mental issues. I just now found it, finally -- or at least three of the volumes. I had the title slightly wrong. It's "History of the World War" by Frank H. Simonds. Looking at the frontispiece of the last one I see it's Volume FIVE. Hmpf. So either I don't have the complete set, or I was wrong about the number. This is definitely the final volume, (c) 1920. The other two I've found so far are Volumes Two and Three. I'm glad of this discussion -- I hadn't seen or even thought about the Simonds books for decades. Now I'll see if I can find the remaining volume(s). Interesting; Here is volume #1; http://www.questia.com/library/book/...-h-simonds.jsp Thanks a lot. I'd never heard of Questia before. A search on Amazon for "Frank H. Simonds" finds various individual volumes, no complete sets, and some other interesting related books he had authored. ...and here is another of his books, "They Shall Not Pass" from Gutenberg Press; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28171...-h/28171-h.htm Thanks. Gutenberg is always a great source, and a good thing about books published during and shortly after WWI is of course that they will be pre-1923, and therefore almost certainly no longer protected by copyright, at least in this country. Looking through Vol. 2 of Simonds' "History" I found it has articles by several other contributors, including one on British minesweeping by Rudyard Kipling ( ! ) . . . being a lifelong Kipling fan I read that one right away. Somewhat disappointing compared to his more familiar works, but then I don't think he ever had been a war correspondent or anything in that line. Actually Kipling had been a war correspondent before, most notably during the Boer War 1898-1902, that was pretty much as a favor to his friend Rhodes. Interesting. He was personally effected by WWI when his son was killed in 1915, and was a changed man from then until his death in 1936. I remember reading somewhere something to that effect. That may have been part of the reason for what seems to me the indifferent quality of his writing in this article, though I'm not sure when it was written. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
On 10/20/2011 1:39 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
I really don;t remmeber PCs being able to print graphics at that time, I don't remember them having that ability either. The ability to print graphics was sort of introduced in MS- and PC-DOS 2.0. You had to load a terminate-and-stay-resident utility named GRAPHICS.COM, and then you could print in various modes at least with the "IBM Graphic Printer" (a rebadged Epson MX-80). Until Windows, however, each program had to provide its own printer drivers, so whether a particular application could print graphics on any given printer was strictly hit or miss. -- Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required) Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:22:33 -0400, Mike Benveniste
wrote in rec.photo.digital: Until Windows, however, each program had to provide its own printer drivers, so whether a particular application could print graphics on any given printer was strictly hit or miss. Autocad cultivated that yet through several versions of their program - and of Windows. Time will show if Apple's customers will tolerate the forced alignment to the one-make-no-choice policy with the leader character missing. Cheers, U. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
In article , Mike Benveniste
wrote: I really don;t remmeber PCs being able to print graphics at that time, I don't remember them having that ability either. The ability to print graphics was sort of introduced in MS- and PC-DOS 2.0. You had to load a terminate-and-stay-resident utility named GRAPHICS.COM, and then you could print in various modes at least with the "IBM Graphic Printer" (a rebadged Epson MX-80). Until Windows, however, each program had to provide its own printer drivers, so whether a particular application could print graphics on any given printer was strictly hit or miss. on a mac, the printer was basically another window. anything you could draw on screen you could 'draw' to the printer. adding print support to an app was trivial. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
In article , Neil
Harrington wrote: Those macs had monochrone screens not blue. Monochrome and blue. Black writing on a pale blue screen. That's what it was on every early Mac I ever saw. Then you're colour blind ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K The built-in display was a one-bit black-and-white, 9 in (23 cm) CRT Yes, one-bit black and white, but the "white" was pale blue. it was a standard monochrome b/w display. there was no blue. do you see blue on a b/w tv set (if you can find one)? Look at that 128K Mac photo again. That screen doesn't look pale blue to you? I'll agree the higher intensity parts look closer to white. look at an *actual* mac 128k, not a photo. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
On 10/21/2011 2:14 PM, nospam wrote:
on a mac, the printer was basically another window. anything you could draw on screen you could 'draw' to the printer. adding print support to an app was trivial. It is true that to write to the printer, you opened it as a window and made the same API calls that you would to display on the screen. Unfortunately, the Imagewriter driver made some "interesting" optimizations, such as writing in a square aspect ratio in landscape mode but a non-square aspect ratio in portrait mode. If one needed to change that behavior, it made for "interesting" times. But there was nothing trivial about writing an early Mac application. The API was documented in three loose leaf notebooks, and contained stuff that worked, stuff that didn't work, and some components, such as CoreEdit, that either were vaporware or that Apple decided to keep for itself. The Mac's original native language was Pascal, with the expected weird I/O extensions. But there wasn't a Pascal compiler which ran on the Mac at release. Instead, you had to compile and link your programs on a Lisa, write the result on to a floppy and then run it on one of your Macs. I say one of your Mac's, because you needed a second Mac to run an assembly level debugger. -- Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required) You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
In article , Mike Benveniste
wrote: on a mac, the printer was basically another window. anything you could draw on screen you could 'draw' to the printer. adding print support to an app was trivial. It is true that to write to the printer, you opened it as a window and made the same API calls that you would to display on the screen. Unfortunately, the Imagewriter driver made some "interesting" optimizations, such as writing in a square aspect ratio in landscape mode but a non-square aspect ratio in portrait mode. If one needed to change that behavior, it made for "interesting" times. i don't recall that being an issue. there was a small issue with printing to the laserwriter because it converted everything to postscript and it wasn't always a perfect conversion. But there was nothing trivial about writing an early Mac application. The API was documented in three loose leaf notebooks, and contained stuff that worked, stuff that didn't work, and some components, such as CoreEdit, that either were vaporware or that Apple decided to keep for itself. it was significantly easier than writing for other platforms at the time. the looseleaf documentation was *very* early. the phonebook version of inside macintosh came out shortly after the mac did as everything was finalized and the hardcover version not long after that. inside macintosh was one of the best developer documentation i've ever seen. apple's current developer documentation is nowhere near as good, nor is any other platform i've seen. The Mac's original native language was Pascal, with the expected weird I/O extensions. But there wasn't a Pascal compiler which ran on the Mac at release. Instead, you had to compile and link your programs on a Lisa, write the result on to a floppy and then run it on one of your Macs. I say one of your Mac's, because you needed a second Mac to run an assembly level debugger. that changed very quickly. microsoft released basic for the mac shortly after the mac came out and after forcing apple to kill a substantially better basic. not long after that, a number of companies came out with mac native pascal, c, assembly, forth and more. development could be done *entirely* on a mac with no lisa required using development environments that blew everything else away. macintosh pascal which later became lightspeed pascal was amazing. lightspeed c was also very good too. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
On 10/22/2011 12:34 AM, nospam wrote:
it was significantly easier than writing for other platforms at the time. the looseleaf documentation was *very* early. the phonebook version of inside macintosh came out shortly after the mac did as everything was finalized and the hardcover version not long after that. For values of of "not long" which approach two years, I suppose that's true. The 1st printing of the hardcover edition was in November of 1985, and with shipping delays most copies didn't hit the streets until early 1986. (Yes, I still have my copy.) With the exception of Microsoft Basic, which could only use a fraction of the Mac's abilities, the same "not long" caveat applies to the other development environments. This is certainly the wrong forum to expound at length about the reality of early Mac development. I opined "upstream" that the Macintosh was a culturally changing product, and I hold to that. But as with many cultural icons, "golden age syndrome" tends to downplay the less exciting and less admirable parts of history. -- Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required) You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
In article , Mike Benveniste
wrote: it was significantly easier than writing for other platforms at the time. the looseleaf documentation was *very* early. the phonebook version of inside macintosh came out shortly after the mac did as everything was finalized and the hardcover version not long after that. For values of of "not long" which approach two years, I suppose that's true. The 1st printing of the hardcover edition was in November of 1985, and with shipping delays most copies didn't hit the streets until early 1986. (Yes, I still have my copy.) i remember getting it in early 1985. the company i was at bought a bunch of macs in late 1984 and development started shortly thereafter. they had the looseleaf stuff, but there was a real inside macintosh (not the phone book). With the exception of Microsoft Basic, which could only use a fraction of the Mac's abilities, the same "not long" caveat applies to the other development environments. like i said, microsoft forced apple to cancel a *far* better basic. ms basic came out in spring 1984 or so (maybe summer), and by fall 1984 the first of the native mac dev tools started to appear. by early 1985 the floodgates had opened. This is certainly the wrong forum to expound at length about the reality of early Mac development. I opined "upstream" that the Macintosh was a culturally changing product, and I hold to that. But as with many cultural icons, "golden age syndrome" tends to downplay the less exciting and less admirable parts of history. yes it is the wrong group to discuss it. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
On 10/22/2011 8:30 PM, nospam wrote:
i remember getting it in early 1985. the company i was at bought a bunch of macs in late 1984 and development started shortly thereafter. they had the looseleaf stuff, but there was a real inside macintosh (not the phone book). Then you remember incorrectly. Here's a scan of the copyright page from my copy of _Inside Macintosh_: http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/IMCopyrightPage.jpg like i said, microsoft forced apple to cancel a *far* better basic. ms basic came out in spring 1984 or so (maybe summer), and by fall 1984 the first of the native mac dev tools started to appear. by early 1985 the floodgates had opened. Your memory is off on this by a year as well. The Lightspeed products you mention were both released in 1986, after the Macintosh Plus allowed users to add an acceptably fast hard disk without voiding their Apple warranty. -- Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required) You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker | Rich[_6_] | Digital Photography | 156 | December 22nd 11 05:18 PM |
jobs | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | April 5th 08 12:31 PM |
Online Jobs.Earn $500 or more per month.Part time Data Entry Jobs.No | nario | Digital Photography | 1 | March 14th 08 02:54 AM |
New Jobs Available For 2008 | n3hl7oyf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | December 18th 07 04:05 PM |
GET YOUR DESIRE JOBS | sudi | Digital Photography | 4 | June 19th 07 10:14 AM |