81–90 of 99 posts
The Apple II series (except for the later //c) all had quality switching power supplies built-in. That was already something Apple was doing to set it apart from Commodore, Atari and Tandy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was an interesting design, well-suited to the target audience and presents quite well in person (a co-worker bought two, one donated, the other for his personal use when hiking).
By those qualifications we could very well nominate a Franklin machine for exhibit.
To turn things back to where we started, can you find one article which criticizes MOMA for including an Apple Macintosh along with its Picasso?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IBM System 23 Not to discount the awesomeness of the others, but that's a real prize. Talk about a strange artifact of its time and place! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/23_Datamaster
8 inch floppies! wow.
I don’t understand why this post is so negative on Franklin. They seemed great.
I worked at Franklin and was one an early hire. Using the Apple ROM code was an explicit choice. There was no real defined API so a lot of apps called random routines in ROM or referenced arbitrary ROM data and if it wasn’t there the app broke. Franklin’s argument was that the ROM was the API and if you wanted to be compatible it had to be identical. Court didn’t agree, probably rightfully so. But Franklin was a fun…
http://pnylab.com/products/bible/main.html
Very interesting read and a neat product from a technical perspective. I'd like to know the specifics of the data structure used to compress and index the text.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By those qualifications we could very well nominate a Franklin machine for exhibit.
The OLPC had innovative features developed by the designers --- what innovative features which were not copied did the Franklin have? To turn things back to where we started, can you find one article which criticizes MOMA for including an Apple Macintosh along with its Picasso?
I stand by my original statement that anything can make it's way into MOMA regardless of whether or not it's art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The OLPC had innovative features developed by the designers --- what innovative features which were not copied did the Franklin have? To turn things back to where we started, can you find one article which criticizes MOMA for including an Apple Macintosh along with its Picasso?
For what it's worth, I consider none of the aforementioned three devices to contain any artistic value whatsoever. The Apple II is an excellent computer, but entirely unjustifiable as an art exhibit. I stand by my original statement that anything can make it's way into MOMA regardless of whether or not it's art.
>I mean, if you put a Mac or MacOS in a museum next to Picasso, that would make many people cry.
Yet, MOMA has both a Mac and a Picasso, and you have not provided evidence of anyone feeling negatively about it other than yourself.
I don’t understand why this post is so negative on Franklin. They seemed great.
> Apparently, when Steve Wozniak first got his hands on an ACE 1000-series machine, “he felt that Franklin had even copied the circuit-board layout, right down to how the chips were arranged.” Reviewers were even able to pull cards out of an Apple ][ motherboard, plug them into an ACE machine, and they’d work without any other modifications. And while I couldn’t verify this claim anywhere else, one retro hardware for…
Both are fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can remember the 16-page _Newsweek_ ad quite vividly --- the Mac was something special, and even its spiritual successor, the NeXT Cube did not reach the level of artistic flair which the Mac hit as a quick perusal of: https://www.folklore.org would argue. Moreover, it made the cut at at least one museum: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/3742?artist_id=10295 (and there are 24 other items by Apple in that colle…
Anything can make the cut at MOMA. The gigantic disaster of OLPC is enshrined as "art" there too: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/155757
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything can make the cut at MOMA. The gigantic disaster of OLPC is enshrined as "art" there too: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/155757
If you think that a Mac or an OLPC is not art, you have a very narrow definition of art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked at Franklin and was one an early hire. Using the Apple ROM code was an explicit choice. There was no real defined API so a lot of apps called random routines in ROM or referenced arbitrary ROM data and if it wasn’t there the app broke. Franklin’s argument was that the ROM was the API and if you wanted to be compatible it had to be identical. Court didn’t agree, probably rightfully so. But Franklin was a fun…
Honestly their argument works for me. It truly cannot be "100% compatible" without sharing the same memory layout/contents in this case. Unfortunately for Franklin, that also meant that full compatibility comes hand and hand with trademark & copyright violations. I find it more "sad" than "upsetting" as the original author implies in this piece. Personally, I love cloned hardware and software. I seek out clones when…
Even then, you don't get to just say "we need this for compatibility", you have to actually find software that breaks if you do it any other way. The act of reimplementation is both reverse engineering technique as well as legal technique - you are building up a series of excuses for specific acts of copying. What Franklin did the first time around was go straight for the conclusion they wanted, which courts really, really don't like. Courts want to see your struggle.
[0] In fact, Oracle's argument against Android in Google v. Oracle hinged on their ability to make reimplementation of Java functions sound like plagiarizing Harry Potter.
[1] The words "clean room reimplementation" get thrown around all the time, but it's not strictly necessary to be clean-room. The precedent for compatible reimplementations includes Sony v. Connectix, where the latter was very much copyright-tainted and won anyway.