glyphstrip FAQ button
Halo.bungie.org
glyphstrip
Frequently Asked Forum Questions
 Search the HBO News Archives

Any All Exact 
Search the Halo Updates DBs

Halo Halo2 
Search Older Posts on This Forum:
Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts


Re: Then again, theoretically...
Posted By: vector40 <vector40@aol.com>Date: 4/20/02 1:12 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Then again, theoretically... (Lophan)

: ...if you put a monkey in a room with a typewriter, EVENTUALLY , you would
: end up with a Latin-verse version of Homer's The Iliad .

But he'd write the code for Windows first :)

: Here's one to cook your noodle Vec... do you really think that, left on their
: own, the Apple team would have developed the Mac OS more or less the way
: it is now (or was back with Lisa, OS 6,7,8,9,etc...)

: My point is that the MAJORITY OF GUIs on this planet are a near direct
: implementation of the Xerox PARC group (you may find it coincidental that
: yesterday [4/19] was the anniversary of the creation of the PARC project, and that today was the day that they all celebrated and got high).

: There's a strange reality in the world: very little is completely original .
: The majority of succesful ideas are a result of someone else's failed
: original idea.

Well, I don't deny that Xerox certainly provided the impetus and the core for... well, for the entire concept of a graphics-based OS in the scheme now common (I often wonder what OTHER methods people might have thought of, left to their own ends... maybe something better? But I digress).

The real point is just that, while the idea definitely came originally from Xerox... that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft lifted it lock, stock, and barrel from Apple. Two wrongs don't make a right, remember? :) At least Apple didn't use more than the basic theme — and they expanded on it, improved it, and made it practical.

Microsoft, on the other hand, came about a hair away from reverse-engineering everything that Apple had just done...

I mean, you can call it smart business (which, considering the consequences, it certainly was), but that doesn't change the fact that it sure pissed a lot of folks off ;)

Message Index



Replies:

Big News!! - DirectX for Macintosh!Miguel Chavez 4/17/02 11:19 a.m.
     Yeah... KindaMr. Zarquon 4/17/02 11:56 a.m.
           Geez... why the negative spin?ferrex 4/17/02 1:03 p.m.
                 Because, I am.Mr. Zarquon 4/17/02 1:10 p.m.
                 Re: Geez... why the negative spin?Kanen Faud'r 4/17/02 1:26 p.m.
                 Re: Geez... why the negative spin?PCDestroyer 4/17/02 2:32 p.m.
                       Re: Geez... why the negative spin?Mark Levin 4/17/02 3:07 p.m.
                             Carmack...Miguel Chavez 4/17/02 3:22 p.m.
                                   Re: Carmack...ferrex 4/17/02 7:08 p.m.
                                         Re: Carmack...Mr. Zarquon 4/17/02 9:31 p.m.
                             Re: Geez... why the negative spin?PCDestroyer 4/17/02 3:45 p.m.
                       Re: Geez... why the negative spin?ferrex 4/17/02 7:02 p.m.
                             Re: Geez... why the negative spin?PCDestroyer 4/18/02 9:57 a.m.
                       Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGGprotexts 4/18/02 4:46 a.m.
                             Re: Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGGPCDestroyer 4/18/02 10:11 a.m.
                                   Re: Why PCDestroyer is offprotexts 4/18/02 2:11 p.m.
                                         Make a 1AC!123456789 4/19/02 11:47 a.m.
                             Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midgetkiro69 4/18/02 11:19 a.m.
                                   Re: Speak for yourself there, parnter...Lophan 4/18/02 12:09 p.m.
                                   Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midgetprotexts 4/18/02 2:30 p.m.
                                         Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midgetPCDestroyer 4/18/02 4:37 p.m.
                                               The place where your whole argument falls down...Louis Wu 4/18/02 4:54 p.m.
                                                     Re: The place where your whole argument falls downPCDestroyer 4/18/02 5:04 p.m.
                                                           Ack.Louis Wu 4/18/02 5:16 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Ack.PCDestroyer 4/18/02 5:45 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Ack.protexts 4/18/02 9:34 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Ack.kiro69 4/19/02 10:36 a.m.
                                                                       Re: Ack.Louis Wu 4/19/02 10:54 a.m.
                                                                       Re: Ack.protexts 4/19/02 10:01 p.m.
                                                           As I said before, I agree.123456789 4/19/02 5:36 p.m.
                                               Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midgetprotexts 4/19/02 5:38 a.m.
                                   Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midgetPCDestroyer 4/18/02 4:26 p.m.
                       awesome reply, pcd *NM*kiro69 4/18/02 10:43 a.m.
                       Re: Quick note...Lophan 4/18/02 12:38 p.m.
                             Re: Quick note...PCDestroyer 4/18/02 4:40 p.m.
                                   Re: Quick note...Warbow 4/18/02 4:42 p.m.
                                         Re: Quick note...PCDestroyer 4/18/02 4:57 p.m.
                                               Re: Let's look at this a little closer...Lophan 4/19/02 12:24 a.m.
                                                     Re: Let's look at this a little closer...PCDestroyer 4/19/02 10:24 a.m.
                                                           Re: Let's look at this a little closer...vector40 4/19/02 9:03 p.m.
                                                                 Re: Then again, theoretically...Lophan 4/20/02 12:13 a.m.
                                                                       Re: Then again, theoretically...vector40 4/20/02 1:12 a.m.
                                                                             Re: Then again, theoretically...PCDestroyer 4/21/02 6:27 p.m.
                                                                       Re: Then again, theoretically...protexts 4/20/02 5:15 a.m.
                                                                             Re: Then again, theoretically...vector40 4/20/02 4:09 p.m.
                                                                       Re: Then again, theoretically...PCDestroyer 4/21/02 6:24 p.m.
                                                                             Implementation and Stealingprotexts 4/22/02 3:24 a.m.
                                                                                   Re: Implementation and StealingAida-kun 4/22/02 5:15 a.m.
                                                                                         Re: Implementation and StealingPCDestroyer 4/22/02 9:56 a.m.
                                                                                         Re: Implementation and Stealingprotexts 4/22/02 2:45 p.m.
                                                                                   Re: Implementation and StealingPCDestroyer 4/22/02 9:49 a.m.
                                                                                         Re: Implementation and Stealingprotexts 4/22/02 3:05 p.m.
                                                                                               Re: Implementation and StealingPCDestroyer 4/22/02 8:34 p.m.
                                                                                   Re: Implementation and Stealingkiro69 4/23/02 10:35 a.m.
           I agree123456789 4/17/02 3:19 p.m.



contact us

The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33.