×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

203 comments

Your mother. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35701872)

I came in her ass.

Re:Your mother. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35701900)

And it was GUI!

Re:Your mother. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702314)

I always thought that acronym was pronounced G-U-I until I saw that infamous CSI clip. It just feels stupid saying it as 'gooey'.

Re:Your mother. (0)

espiesp (1251084) | about 3 years ago | (#35702528)

I still say Gee-You-Eye. And I still say Ess-Cee-Ess-Eye instead of Scuzzy.

I'm an ultra-geek I guess.

Re:Your mother. (0)

Thing 1 (178996) | about 3 years ago | (#35702592)

I still say Gee-You-Eye. And I still say Ess-Cee-Ess-Eye instead of Scuzzy.

I'm an ultra-geek I guess.

Or a slow (verbal) communicator.

Re:Your mother. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702930)

I still say Gee-You-Eye. And I still say Ess-Cee-Ess-Eye instead of Scuzzy. I'm an ultra-geek I guess.

You know, I was going to make a snide comment about it taking more than simply saying the individual letters of an acronym to make one an "ultra-geek" until I saw your UID and read your posting history. Then I thought "Let him keep his delusions, they're about all the poor schmuck has going for him."

BTW, real nerds/geeks don't have to call themselves that - only the wannabes that feel insecure do.

1984 (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 years ago | (#35701898)

Brought us TOS/GEM in a totally usable package, so this is not *that* special.

Re:1984 (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 years ago | (#35702142)

Nah, that first TOS was useless, and the multitasking wasn't until TOS 4 in 1992

Re:1984 (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 years ago | (#35702260)

It wasn't useless and did multitask. True it was via special applications referred to as 'accessories'. However, if you used a wedge you could stick any application in as an accessory and as long as it didn't need to write to the screen to keep running while back grounded, it worked rather well..

Re:1984 (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 years ago | (#35702626)

So it wasn't multitasking?

Re:1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702988)

Nope, accessories basically work like a TSR. They get called on a regular interval and they must rapidly exit to keep the system running. That's something pretty much any single-tasking OS provides.

Re:1984 (1)

KingMotley (944240) | about 3 years ago | (#35703046)

It has cooperative multitasking, not preemptive. Since most TOS/GEM applications had a window where it would check for window messages, this worked well for most applications.

Amiga did *real* multitasking with the same CPU (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702628)

[The Atari ST's TOS/GEM] wasn't useless and did multitask. True it was via special applications referred to as 'accessories'. However, if you used a wedge you could stick any application in as an accessory and as long as it didn't need to write to the screen to keep running while back grounded, it worked rather well..

Let's put this in context. That somewhat stretched, certainly limited and somewhat kludgey version of "multitasking" might sound passable compared to MS-DOS-based PCs of the same era. Not that big a feat given that mid-80s PCs were running MS-DOS, an early-1980s ripoff, er.... *port* of the 1970s 8-bit-microcomputer-era OS CP/M.

However, the ST's main rival, the Commodore Amiga (which hit the streets at almost exactly the same time as the ST- mid-1985, and not 1984 as you state) featured full pre-emptive multitasking as a standard part of the operating system. No silly restrictions or workarounds for what was basically a single-tasking OS required, because multitasking was an integral part of the OS. You simply ran two or more programs at once and they worked- period.

And this was "proper" pre-emptive multitasking, not the more primitive co-operative multitasking (which relied on well-written programs yielding control themselves) that even Windows 3.x was still using in the early 1990s.

Thing is that although the Amiga was generally a more advanced computer than the ST, it had the same basic CPU- the 68000- running at similar (actually, slightly slower) speed- and to the best of my knowledge its multitasking (and other aspects of the OS) weren't reliant on the Amiga's custom hardware. So I'm pretty sure the 68000-based STs *could* have run a more advanced multitasking OS in theory, even a port of the one that the Amiga had(?!)

But the fact was that they didn't, at least not back then, and the "multitasking" you describe was at best a restricted hack that clearly *wasn't* the best that could be done at the time.

Re:Amiga did *real* multitasking with the same CPU (1)

Angeret (1134311) | about 3 years ago | (#35702924)

Multitasking on the ST/STe was a bit of a dead duck, didn't really come in until the TT was brought out and then it came with MinT instead (a recursive acronym, "MinT is not TOS"). Apparently it was fairly good but by then I had a PC, Atari was going to the dogs and I didn't really care anymore.

Re:Amiga did *real* multitasking with the same CPU (1, Flamebait)

abigor (540274) | about 3 years ago | (#35703040)

The Amiga lacked memory protection, so one rogue program could still bring the whole thing down. Multitasking without memory protection is a risky endeavour indeed.

Re:Amiga did *real* multitasking with the same CPU (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35703426)

The Amiga lacked memory protection, so one rogue program could still bring the whole thing down. Multitasking without memory protection is a risky endeavour indeed.

Well, I never claimed that the Amiga was perfect by modern standards- we're talking 25 years ago after all!- only that it was miles ahead of the ST and DOS.

Yes, there were badly-written programs out there that could crash the system, no getting around that. However, if it was an issue, you would stick to well-known apps you could trust, and make sure you saved regularly- something you should still be doing nowadays anyway. Frankly, it wasn't that big a problem if you weren't using esoteric crap, and back then there *wasn't* as much random crap in the background.

And in all honesty, I don't see that the PC's limitations caused by the godawful 70s-hangover MS-DOS, or the Atari ST's simplistic TOS were designed that way to do any favours to the user. I'd have taken multitasking over that any day.

multitasking before 1982 (2)

omkhar (167195) | about 3 years ago | (#35701920)

Contrary to TFA, multitasking existed before 1982

Re:multitasking before 1982 (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702000)

Multi-tasking certainly existed on the server, but you had a hard time seeing multiple things on your terminal screen. The BLIT allowed you to have multiple active windows open that and see stuff going on in all of them. It was such a nice interface that many of us wondered why people got even a little excited about Windows on a PC.

Re:multitasking before 1982 (3, Interesting)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 years ago | (#35702308)

the blit seems lame after watching the 1974 Xerox Alto video, though http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYlYSzMqGR8&feature=related [youtube.com]

Re:multitasking before 1982 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35703066)

For extra points, see if you can spot the "Start" button at the top left of the screen...

Re:multitasking before 1982 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35703566)

For extra points, see if you can spot the "Start" button at the top left of the screen...

In "Neptune" the disk to disk file transfer program

http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857

But I'm sure you KNEW that, and what the "Start" button does in that program.

Or were you peeing your pants because Windows has a "Start" button now too?

This video is NOT from 1974 (1, Informative)

Al Kossow (460144) | about 3 years ago | (#35703438)

The guy that posted Bill English's Alto video is on crack if he thinks this is from 1974. The mouse is a Hawley "Mouse House" mouse from the 80's.
Real Alto mice are more rounded and don't have rectangular buttons. Bill also looks about 20 years older than he should if this were from 1974.

Re:multitasking before 1982 (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 years ago | (#35702650)

I'm just surprised how little the paradigm of OS GUI's has changed since the very start.

Re:multitasking before 1982 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35703448)

Having been lucky enough to use a couple of early GUIs (though not this one in particular), to me the surprise isn't in seeing just windows with text and graphics operated by a mouse - the conceptual differences in actual use of those systems, at least (in contrast to how it looks) are wide in comparison to what we have today.

That's not to say you're wrong - What's come a long way since the early 1980s is more refinements than revolutions. For a true surprise on how little things have changed, if you haven't already then try to spend a half hour with the first Mac. The paradigm most of us are used to with the use of a GUI started when it brought a few key concepts together. Arbitrarily and easily re-stackable windows, arbitrarily movable icons, drag & drop, GUI applications (not just windows as data dumps), context sensitive gestures (click drag an icon vs click drag text vs click drag to select) and a bunch of others.

Or put another way, I think an average person who'd never used a computer before and only touched a 1984 Mac would find today's computers fit their expectations of using a computer than even the Star, released only a few years before the Mac.

That's kind of sad - while I think Apple were ahead of their time with the Mac, I don't think they were 27 years ahead; we've stagnated some when it comes to truly radical and effective UI development.

Yeah, but... (4, Funny)

supersocialist (884820) | about 3 years ago | (#35701938)

Does it run linux?

Re:Yeah, but... (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about 3 years ago | (#35701970)

Other way around. At a vintage computer festival a couple months ago, I saw one of these (possibly a model from a couple years later) driven by a Nexus running android.

Re:Yeah, but... (0)

migla (1099771) | about 3 years ago | (#35702112)

I feel I must go off topic here and comment on your user name, even if I'm not sure I want to do that.

I wouldn't comment on such things otherwise, but I clicked on the name and noticed that you seem to post a comment every few years, so in case I would later feel like commenting on the use rname, I probably wouldn't get the chance, so here goes:

Nice name! :)

Re:Yeah, but... (0)

supersocialist (884820) | about 3 years ago | (#35702132)

Haha, thanks. I've been fairly absent lately, but when I spotted that magical moment where I could post "does it run linux?" before anybody else, I knew I had to sign back in.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 years ago | (#35702208)

nope, the original ones had motorola 68000, so forget *BSD or Linux. The WE-32000 used in some of the later models had demand paging and were basis for some Unix systems. But then even later models of the Blit terminal went back to the 68000.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 years ago | (#35702818)

It certainly could, if you could get a hold of the protocol details and wrote a Linux application that used it.

It was a terminal, not a full user oriented operating system or workstation. Very similar to X Windows but predating it. It was quite usable over a normal serial link or even a modem, since it used a lot less bandwidth than X. Your applications ran on the server, as this was the before the days when everyone got their own Unix machine on their desk.

Re:Yeah, but... (3, Informative)

UnderCoverPenguin (1001627) | about 3 years ago | (#35703512)

It ran a protocol called Layers. About 10 years, ago, I came across a later version of the BLIT, an AT&T 610, in a back corner of a testing lab in the office I was working at the time. Being curious, I did some searching and found C source for a user-space Layers driver. Basically, it worked like the screen utility works, except that the "driver" simply multiplexed the normal tty IO over a serial link, which could be a com port, TCP or other, to the terminal, which then de-multiplexed the streams to separate windows on its display. It also had some small capability to draw shapes from commands sent to it. I never got that feature working, just the equivalent of multiple xterm windows.

While I suppose a simple protocol like that could be useful for people who use remote shell access, I think it's easier to just run SSH in a bunch of xterm windows, leaving the multiplexing to TCP.

cool (4, Interesting)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | about 3 years ago | (#35701966)

I don't care so much if it were the first or not. It was still cool for it's time. In my mind, this one being among the first was still quite an achievement.. because if you think about it, not much has changed since then. It really hasn't. Sure the boxes are faster today, and the applications more sophisticated... but the basics of multitasking are more or less the same today.... we stand on the shoulders of giants.

On another note, I like the look of the portrait oriented monitor. It looks to be so much better suited to documents, and probably coding, than the mostly landscape orientations that came later.

Re:cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702024)

It makes you wonder, how the software industry would look right now if that project would have been competition or replacement for windows. Just asking, exactly how much did we lose because of the MS monopoly?

Re:cool (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 3 years ago | (#35702222)

I'll tell you how it would look: You don't own a computer, you rent it from AT&T. Actually, just imagine the cell phone experience (before the iPhone/Android) on your desktop.

Thin clients (1)

Al Kossow (460144) | about 3 years ago | (#35703488)

It makes you wonder, how the software industry would look right now if that project would have been competition or replacement for windows. Just asking, exactly how much did we lose because of the MS monopoly?

It did survive. NCD, Tektronix, and others sold graphics terminals which supported X
It was reinvented in the Windows world as thin clients.
We didn't LOSE anything, the market decided the difference in price between a PC and an X terminal wasn't worth the bother.

Re:cool (2)

Yaos (804128) | about 3 years ago | (#35702052)

If you think about it, a GUI is just clicking on buttons instead of typing in the command, there's really no difference.

Re:cool (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702138)

If you think about it, a GUI is just clicking on buttons instead of typing in the command, there's really no difference.

Even if you don't think about it.

Re:cool (1, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | about 3 years ago | (#35702274)

A lot of people I work with use their secondary monitor in portrait mode. It is ideal for browsing the web since it gives you so much more vertical height.

Re:cool (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 years ago | (#35702780)

I have a large 4:3 that can pivot 90 degrees; great for actual productive work but directX doesn't support it and the driver is so crap that it crashes the OS about 1 in every 4 rotation switches.
These days monitors are just wide, which is useless for anything besides movies and games.
I would love a square monitor as a "best of both worlds". Sadly these don't exist.

Re:cool (3, Interesting)

larien (5608) | about 3 years ago | (#35702438)

On another note, I like the look of the portrait oriented monitor. It looks to be so much better suited to documents, and probably coding, than the mostly landscape orientations that came later.

I suspect you can blame the early cinema pioneers for that... they decided on a "landscape" format for movies which then became the standard for Television sets. In the 80s, most home computers (Sinclair Spectrum, Commodore 64, Amstrad 64 and even the Atari ST & Amiga) used the TV as a monitor so a generation of kids grew up assuming monitors must be in portrait layout.

Re:cool (2)

turgid (580780) | about 3 years ago | (#35702608)

Our natural field of view is landscape. With big high-resolution monitors nowadays it is very easy to display two portrait pages or documents side-by-side on the landscape display.

I also find it useful to have a portrait document open and several smaller windows open beside it.

I also find it amazing the number of people who have all of their windows maximised and don't know how to switch between them, and don't know that you can do copy-and-paste...

Re:cool (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 years ago | (#35702950)

I've used one of these, and it was kind of nice. The drawback compared to X Windows was that it was not very standardized or common. You could use X on many different Unix machines, whereas the Blit only ran stuff programmed for AT&T servers.

There has been a fundamental change since those days though. Back then it was considered somewhat silly to have a full workstation on every desk. Those workstations that did exist were very expensive and usually intended for specific engineering tasks (such as CAD/CAM). The typical use was a dumb terminal on your desk and a large departmental or company server that ran all the programs. The Blit was just a smart display terminal but still all the real work was done on the server. PCs at the time were a joke, mostly home hobbyist computers or something to run a spreadsheet. Today though all the computing is done locally, GUI and application (with maybe a vague "cloud" for remote storage), and it's considered normal to have a supercomputer on everyone's desk (or what would have been considered a supercomputer in 1982).

Re:cool (1)

swalve (1980968) | about 3 years ago | (#35703082)

Of course, it wasn't called a server. It was just called a computer. Server is a shortened version of "file server" which didn't really exist until PCs were on the desktop.

Sounds like a good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35701996)

Sounds like a good idea. It might catch on.

Re:Sounds like a good idea (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | about 3 years ago | (#35702046)

Before 1982, one can only do one thing at a time on any computer. But then Rob Pike and Bart Locanthi in 1982 invented and developed the Blit Terminal.

Today the technology is advanced, now computers allow us to do multiple works at a same time. We can do our office work while listening music and chatting with friends

I am able to time the response lag time when I request a page, realize that I did not want that page, click back, wait for the page to load, and then the browser finally navigates to the previous page. MSN.com to any MSN article, for example.

only a few years after, it came to home PCs (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702020)

In 1985 the Amiga brought "real" multitasking to the home computer using masses, many years before it was available in Windows or Mac environments.

Of course multitasking was around long before that, but I think the Amiga 1000 is what made it available to Joe Sixpack, who wasn't going to be using heavy duty Unix workstations or what ever.

Re:only a few years after, it came to home PCs (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | about 3 years ago | (#35702102)

That does appear to be the Amiga pointer in the vid in TFA, you insensitive clod.

Re:only a few years after, it came to home PCs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702244)

Hmm, I don't see anything there looking like an Amiga, and the Amiga didn't appear on the scene until 1985.

Re:only a few years after, it came to home PCs (1)

equex (747231) | about 3 years ago | (#35702120)

I'd say the Amiga 500 was the breakthrough. A lot more people have an A500 lying around in the basement, than the A1000.

Re:only a few years after, it came to home PCs (3, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 years ago | (#35702148)

Atari did it first and better. So take that!

( Ah the good old days of Amiga/Atari wars, hot on the heels of the 8-bit battles.. but in the end, we all lost )

rekindling the wars (2)

Master Moose (1243274) | about 3 years ago | (#35702324)

My A500 shits on your ST

Re:rekindling the wars (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 years ago | (#35702804)

...And the A500 would do it while rendering a 3D scene of an ST being shat upon and playing a topical tune.
The ST, on the other hand, would have returned the favour if it weren't busy "multitasking" something else.

Re:rekindling the wars (1)

Master Moose (1243274) | about 3 years ago | (#35703322)

The trouble is that it remained "busy" with something else - or so we thought. In reality, it was another systems crash.

Re:only a few years after, it came to home PCs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702360)

Really, what was Atari's multitasking OS from before 1985?

Re:only a few years after, it came to home PCs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702752)

Atari did it first and better. So take that!

Honestly? I know your comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but as I mentioned in reply to your other post here [slashdot.org], the very limited hack for the ST's (basically single-tasking) OS that you claim constitutes "multitasking" is so far behind the Amiga OS's integral, years-ahead-of-its-time, true pre-emptive multitasking that it's not even funny.

It's not even like the ST was "first" by any reasonable measure- they both hit the streets at almost exactly the same time!

Re:only a few years after, it came to home PCs (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 years ago | (#35702978)

The real downfall of Atari ST was Jack Tramiel, who was so obsessive about trashing Commodore at every turn that it just left a bad taste in the mouth and scared people away.

Re:only a few years after, it came to home PCs (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | about 3 years ago | (#35703264)

Though the ST was great for what it was, the original TOS didn't multitask. (Of course that was a long time ago....) I could be wrong, but the A1000 was the multitasker in that battle...

Atari did not do it first. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35703374)

I loved my STs, but let's be realistic here. TOS was a singletasking operating system. The first real multitasking OS on the ST was probably MiNT, which was for a long time really an "experts only" option. Multitasking on the ST line that was usable by the masses didn't really exist until MultiTOS, which was, what, 1992?

I was definitely an ST fanboy back in the day, but you've got to admit, the Amiga was simply a better system.

Re:only a few years after, it came to home PCs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702842)

Microware OS-9 provided true multitasking, without memory protection, for the Tandy Color Computer in 1980...

Re:only a few years after, it came to home PCs (2)

LodCrappo (705968) | about 3 years ago | (#35703188)

OS-9 provided true multitasking for microcomputers in 1979. It was a standard option for the Tandy Color Computer starting in '80 or '81.
These Radio Shack computers were available and affordable for "Joe Sixpack".. though most instances of Joe didn't seem very interested at the time.
Amiga's ability to provide multitasking 5 years later may have more to do with marketing and the public's receptiveness to computers in general than
any technical feat.

programmer art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702070)

Maybe not the first graphical system, maybe not the first multitasking system... But I wonder if this is the earliest recorded example of crappy programmer art? :p

sounds like a BBN Bitgraph terminal... (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | about 3 years ago | (#35702072)

A blit sounds nearly as capable as a BBN Bitgraph, which in 1982 had a 68000, a bunch of RAM, a mouse, a portrait display (I don't remember the resolution), bitmapped graphics and a windowing system. Nostalgia runs so deep for the BitGraph that it's still supported by gnuplot, dvi drivers, ghostview...

Not that many people ever got a chance to use a blit, but bitgraphs were workhorses of their day. It was hard to get some people to trade them in for Sun 3's.

Plus, Rob Pike didn't have anything to do with it.

Re:sounds like a BBN Bitgraph terminal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35703134)

The BBN Bitgraph had 768x1024 native resolution.

It also had a Tectronix 4010 emulation, VT100, and VT52 emulations for escape sequences.

You could also download programs into it for execution - which included the ability to provide multiple window capabilities when combined with the AT&T SysV jobs capability. This was more extensive than just putting processes in the background as it also put control terminal handling around. If I remember right, it could handle up to 16 jobs on a single terminal.

Fond Memories of Having One of These (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702096)

Had one of these (DMD-5620) in my cube in the late 80s at Western Electric at the Allentown, PA location. It was my first exposure to having multiple windows available - absolutely loved the idea of having multiple tasks running in multiple windows. We were the WECo waferfab - loved the idea that the CPU was a Mac32 (aka WE32000) which we fabbed in Allentown. Brings back good memories although the WECo and the fab are gone - the fabs were torn down and replaced by a baseball field! Real jobs where people actually produced something replaced by a field of dreams...

Re:Fond Memories of Having One of These (1)

captbob2002 (411323) | about 3 years ago | (#35702284)

I remember having a 5620 DMD at work, I still have a 730 MTG in service as a console for several Sun systems. Wish I had held onto the 5620 and more of the 730 terminals.

Software Patents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702128)

And more importantly, how many granted software patents could potentially be threatened by such a simple display of prior art?

Or, how many earlier patents would have threatened its own existence?

Re:Software Patents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702158)

I hope a few people grab copies of the vids just in case they disappear.

They may need to be needed down the track just for the reason you mention.

Re:Software Patents? (1)

Lord Crowface (1315695) | about 3 years ago | (#35702238)

Chances are, none. The well-known Alto (from 1973) and Star (from 1981) systems both did GUI stuff even earlier than the Blit. In fact, the Blit is actually the source of the notorious software patent #4555775 (on backing stores) which almost destroyed X11 in the early 90s...

Had one of these (2)

michael_cain (66650) | about 3 years ago | (#35702166)

I had one of these on my desk while it was being tested in the Labs before the commercial product was released. When you got up after an afternoon staring at all that monochrome green, the rest of the world looked slightly pink :^) Test users had to provide regular feedback. One consequence was that every few weeks they came around and replaced the keyboard with an improved version. The last one was easily the best programmer's keyboard I ever used: all keys in the right place, wonderful touch.

native party; teepeeleaks etchings, skeletons? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702174)

is it history campaigning to be known accurately? is it time for us to come out of the funnel vision 'closet' of darkness & shame for our uncommitted original sins, inflicted on many of us during real sex religious 'trainings', followed by massacres?

many of the natives refuse to acknowledge english as a language, & still have no words in their vocabulary to describe what happened to them after they were 'discovered'. they still believe that we'll somehow overcome our .5billion remaining population mandate, by 'doing something' with our fake math, fake rulers (bad blood, they call it) fake weather etc.... they do intend to (& know how from previous holycosts) survive us, again.

looks like a precursor to graphics workstation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702196)

products beginning in the early '80s, starting with Apollo Computer, and soon including Sun Microsystems, DEC Micro Vax, and dozens of others. It doesn't really remind me of Lisa or Mac that much.

Accent (0)

6350' (936630) | about 3 years ago | (#35702198)

A total tangent, but is narrator's accent Philly or NJ? Or something else? To me, he sounds like a guy burn in the NE, moved to Philly as a kid, then went to school in the west coast.

Mother of all demos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702220)

I always love links to computer history. What about Engelbart's Mother of all Demos in 1968?

Lisa 1 (1)

russotto (537200) | about 3 years ago | (#35702242)

So it's a contemporary of the Lisa (introduced January 1983, so finished development in 1982 also), which didn't require a Unix host.

Re:Lisa 1 (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 years ago | (#35702992)

Didn't require a unix host, which meant that it wasn't as powerful as something that used a unix host :-)

OMG. How very little has changed in 28 years. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702282)

OMG. How very little has changed in 28 years.

graphics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702478)

Used one of the original blit terminals when I worked for AT&T. The later 5620 was much faster and a nice little terminal back in the day.

GEBACA! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702610)

I had one (5620)! Was very cool... ...and who could forget the game, GEBACA! (GEt BAck At Corporate America -- a shoot 'em up came where the targets are corporate logos)?

OS9 (2)

Elbereth (58257) | about 3 years ago | (#35702646)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS9 [wikipedia.org]

OS-9 is a family of real-time, process-based, multitasking, multi-user, Unix-like operating systems, developed in the 1980s, originally by Microware Systems Corporation for the Motorola 6809 microprocessor. It is currently owned by RadiSys Corporation.

OS9 was a wickedly cool operating system, which could multitask surprisingly well on the Motorola 6809. While never quite what you might call "mainstream", it was popular with some hobbyists. A friend of mine showed off his TRS-80 running OS9 once, and I was suitably impressed, even though I had an Amiga and an 80386 PC running OS/2, both of which were obviously more advanced. It was a very powerful, sleek system that probably should have caught on more than it did.

Of course, there was also GEOS, the Amiga OS, the Atari ST, and OS/2, but those came a bit later than OS9 (which dates back to 1979!). I still have fond memories of my Amiga, the massive flamewars of Amiga vs Atari, and the poor Apple fanboys with their black and white OS that barely even multitasked.

Re:OS9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702884)

One of the cool things about OS9 is that it could multitask through time-slicing. On Windows applications had to yield control to the operating system explicitly, and we had to wait for NT/95 before something was done about that.

"Circa" means "approximately" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35702826)

Dear editor or editors,

The word "circa" that is sometimes used when talking about a point in time, means "about" or "approximately". So "circa 1982" would be "about 1982". Maybe you knew already, but I though it was worthwile to point it out as the use in this headline felt a bit off and you have proven incompetent in the past.

Re:"Circa" means "approximately" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35703094)

go eat shit

BLIT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35703396)

Isn't that this thing with the parrot you die from looking at?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...