![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ![]() |
|||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
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
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
: My point is that the MAJORITY OF GUIs on this planet are a near direct
: There's a strange reality in the world: very little is completely original .
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 ;)
|
|
Replies: |
Big News!! - DirectX for Macintosh! | Miguel Chavez | 4/17/02 11:19 a.m. |
Yeah... Kinda | Mr. 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 LONGGGGGG | protexts | 4/18/02 4:46 a.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 10:11 a.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is off | protexts | 4/18/02 2:11 p.m. |
Make a 1AC! | 123456789 | 4/19/02 11:47 a.m. |
Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | kiro69 | 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 midget | protexts | 4/18/02 2:30 p.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | PCDestroyer | 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 down | PCDestroyer | 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 midget | protexts | 4/19/02 5:38 a.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | PCDestroyer | 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 Stealing | protexts | 4/22/02 3:24 a.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | Aida-kun | 4/22/02 5:15 a.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | PCDestroyer | 4/22/02 9:56 a.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | protexts | 4/22/02 2:45 p.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | PCDestroyer | 4/22/02 9:49 a.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | protexts | 4/22/02 3:05 p.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | PCDestroyer | 4/22/02 8:34 p.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | kiro69 | 4/23/02 10:35 a.m. |
I agree | 123456789 | 4/17/02 3:19 p.m. |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |