The Steve Balmer video is proof that he has always been insane.
He must have been copying the "Crazy Eddy" commercial at the time.
Amazing...
Crazy Eddie is right but I don't think most people ever saw those commercials. The crazy thing is how Ballmer looked just as old in '86 than he does now. Great article, I've learned a few new things today.
Crazy Eddie is right but I don't think most people ever saw those commercials. The crazy thing is how Ballmer looked just as old in '86 than he does now. Great article, I've learned a few new things today.
Compared to Ballmer, Crazy Eddie is the very definition of sedate!
Crazy Eddie is right but I don't think most people ever saw those commercials. The crazy thing is how Ballmer looked just as old in '86 than he does now. Great article, I've learned a few new things today.
I used to live 20 minutes from a Crazy Eddie location back in the 80s and their commercials used to run ad nauseum.
Well the article is very informative but it won't change the popular myths that Apple "stole" the GUI from Xerox and that Microsoft "saved" Apple from bankruptcy. It's sort of like the conspiracy theories about the Twin Towers being brought down by controlled demolition or the moon landing hoax theories. The people that promote these idiocies have a vested interest in them and no amount of logical refutation will convince them. Let any of the AI local trolls read this article and they will promptly dismiss it as lies and propaganda. Heck, they won't even read the whole thing. The first paragraphs will be enough for them before total dismissal.
But the video of Ballmer hawking Windows 1.0 is priceless. Once a used car salesman, always a used car salesman, complete with polyester suit coat. That video is better than all the other stupid Ballmer videos combined. Dance monkey boy, dance!
1. Having an idea isn't as important as being able to produce a salable product from it. Xerox PARC (and many others) had great ideas but couldn't produce anything of value from them. Hollywood has tons of visionary ideas (especially Star Trek) but claiming them as prior art negates all the real effort that goes into producing them. I don't care how many ideas Xerox PARC came up with, I only care about the products Xerox and other companies actually were able to produce from those ideas. These are the real inventors and the ones who should have the patents. The other guys are like everyone else in the world who have ideas but can't figure out how to apply them.
2. I know there's always two sides to every story but Jobs, Gates and Ballmer were young when all of this started so it doesn't surprise me that Jobs was the philanthropic one helping out his friends. What bothers me is that Gates and Ballmer (and the rest of Microsoft) turned against their friend and tried to put him out of business. I've always known how rustless Microsoft has been and they're finally reaping the seeds they've sown as Apple no longer has an open door policy for them. Jobs tried to be friends with Eric Schmidt by putting him on Apple's board only to see Eric steal Apple technology for Google. I know Steve Jobs wasn't perfect but history will show he did more to advance computer technology for the masses than any of his former friends. The problem is, as Daniel has said, this will never show up in anyone else's stories because all the other technology writers hate Apple. This is obvious with everything happening in today's patent wars. Apple is always the bad guy.
We do, however, all rewrite history. Apple did enter a "late 80s partnership with Olivetti (the Italian owner of British PC maker Acorn) that culminated in plans to jointly develop a new mobile processor architecture capable of powering Sculley's pet project: the Newton Message Pad". The alliance didn't create the ARM architecture though, that already existed within Acorn and was used in the Archimedes desktop computer. Indeed, ARM - Advanced RISC Machine - was the new meaning of the acronym originally created as Acorn RISC Machine.
Amusingly, when Apple first advertised PowerPC Macs in UK as the most powerful RISC desktops, Acorn was urged to appeal to the UK's Advertising Standards body because of their own supposedly more powerful ARM powered desktop. ARM's management proved visionary though, perhaps through Apple's help, leading to today's dominant low power, high performance chips in almost all smart phones and much else. Acorn, meanwhile, lost its way despite its excellent technology in an echo of 1990s Apple. However, without a visionary leader to return to rescue it, it withered and died. Only ARM now remains :-)
Well the article is very informative but it won't change the popular myths that Apple "stole" the GUI from Xerox and that Microsoft "saved" Apple from bankruptcy. It's sort of like the conspiracy theories about the Twin Towers being brought down by controlled demolition or the moon landing hoax theories. The people that promote these idiocies have a vested interest in them and no amount of logical refutation will convince them. Let any of the AI local trolls read this article and they will promptly dismiss it as lies and propaganda. Heck, they won't even read the whole thing. The first paragraphs will be enough for them before total dismissal.
But the video of Ballmer hawking Windows 1.0 is priceless. Once a used car salesman, always a used car salesman, complete with polyester suit coat. That video is better than all the other stupid Ballmer videos combined. Dance monkey boy, dance!
I partially agree. There are those that want to perpetuate the myths for their own belief system's sake. There are those that just want to believe them and they probably believe in alien invasions too.
However, there are lots of normal, rational folks out there that upon reading such an article may be open to realizing they were believing false information and change their views. I have found and educated quite a few such folks. They are especially amenable to conversion to the truth once they get an Apple product and love it. Many long time, die hard PC users, now with iPads and iPhones are next looking at MacBooks or iMacs and they seem to love to learn they were fed a load of bull by the PC Illuminati. It frees them up mentally to enjoy their Apple goodies even more.
So funny how Balmer looks essentially identical way back in that Windows advert as he does today. That suit could almost fit into his current wardrobe.
Well the article is very informative but it won't change the popular myths that Apple "stole" the GUI from Xerox and that Microsoft "saved" Apple from bankruptcy. It's sort of like the conspiracy theories about the Twin Towers being brought down by controlled demolition or the moon landing hoax theories. The people that promote these idiocies have a vested interest in them and no amount of logical refutation will convince them. ...
I agree, but just to be picky, conspiracy theories aren't popular because of the wackos that "promote" them, those guys are essentially interchangeable and irrelevant. Conspiracy theories exist and propagate because the story they tell is a "better story," or closer to what people want to believe than the truth is.
The reality is that most people (close to all people actually), believe what seems best or right first, and then kind of "prove it to themselves" or justify that belief, later. The number of adult humans that actually use reason and logic to figure out for themselves what is true or not is a startlingly small number, even among intellectuals and educated folks. We are all animals first after all. Cool, smart, ingenious, "top of the heap" animals, but still animals.
Because it was such a long time ago, and because it was followed up by essentially nothing at all, a lot of folks (especially those who weren't alive at the time) find it easier to believe that we never landed on the moon. The moon landing is the singular proof of the realities of outer space and the fact that we are all living on a tiny ball, so to deny it, means that we can go on believing in God and our uniqueness here in the same way as we always have before. Similarly, because a lot of Americans find it hard to believe that they were so weak as to allow the 911 attacks to happen (which goes against the American myth of ultimate strength), it's easier to believe it was an inside job. That way the US wasn't defeated by a stronger enemy, the stronger enemy was the US.
So funny how Balmer looks essentially identical way back in that Windows advert as he does today. That suit could almost fit into his current wardrobe. :)
That man was born old (in both mind and body).
Can you even imagine having to work for that sweat bag?
Great summary, I can only hope that some of the anti Apple posters round here take some of the history on board.
I suspect not though because its not convenient and uncomfortable for them to acknowledge it.
Far easier to snipe at Apple and regurgitate their version.
Somehow I don't think anti-Apple posters are going to be persuaded by a brief, unsourced piece that a case presided over by numerous judges, attorneys, etc., for a period of years was wrongly decided.
I think the real villain of the piece is Sculley, whose memoir suggests that he didn't defend Apple's interests competently. If Apple didn't put on the right case, it's not the courts' fault the company lost.
Very well done and accurate. I had an Apple Test Drive Mac 128k I purchased in 1984. As an engineer, I followed closely the engineering and design behind it. IEEE Spectrum had a great article on the development of the Macintosh as well as the evolution that got Apple there in 1984 or 1985.
I always thought it was a shame that Apple did not patent and/or enforce their patents in the 1980's, it they had, it would be a totally different environment today.
Sorry, my claim was hyperbole. But the citations here wouldn't even meet Wikipedia's standards, much less the legal community's. The case generated tens of thousands of pages of documents, written and reviewed by dozens of judges and attorneys on all sides. Those documents have hundreds if not thousands of citations of every pertinent fact. The case also turned on points of law and precedent that are not analyzed at all here. An objective reader (haha!) would probably be inclined to favor the judges' decision to this post; it's only people who are already persuaded that Apple got screwed who are likely to think that this post proves anything.
Of course, I'm probably being silly for criticizing a blog post for not being a proper legal brief. But criticizing Sculley was my main focus!
Good article. Maybe the Fandroids and Microsoftees can learn some history. But in actuality, they just stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and scream "nah nah nah"
Comments
Crazy Eddie is right but I don't think most people ever saw those commercials. The crazy thing is how Ballmer looked just as old in '86 than he does now. Great article, I've learned a few new things today.
[VIDEO]
Compared to Ballmer, Crazy Eddie is the very definition of sedate!
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4ffa5_pub-tv-de-windows-1-0-par-steve-bal_news
I think Ballmer missed his true calling. He would've been great in a John Hughes movie.
I used to live 20 minutes from a Crazy Eddie location back in the 80s and their commercials used to run ad nauseum.
Well the article is very informative but it won't change the popular myths that Apple "stole" the GUI from Xerox and that Microsoft "saved" Apple from bankruptcy. It's sort of like the conspiracy theories about the Twin Towers being brought down by controlled demolition or the moon landing hoax theories. The people that promote these idiocies have a vested interest in them and no amount of logical refutation will convince them. Let any of the AI local trolls read this article and they will promptly dismiss it as lies and propaganda. Heck, they won't even read the whole thing. The first paragraphs will be enough for them before total dismissal.
But the video of Ballmer hawking Windows 1.0 is priceless. Once a used car salesman, always a used car salesman, complete with polyester suit coat. That video is better than all the other stupid Ballmer videos combined. Dance monkey boy, dance!
Good read, many of the details I have not read anywhere else, nice work!
Couple things---
1. Having an idea isn't as important as being able to produce a salable product from it. Xerox PARC (and many others) had great ideas but couldn't produce anything of value from them. Hollywood has tons of visionary ideas (especially Star Trek) but claiming them as prior art negates all the real effort that goes into producing them. I don't care how many ideas Xerox PARC came up with, I only care about the products Xerox and other companies actually were able to produce from those ideas. These are the real inventors and the ones who should have the patents. The other guys are like everyone else in the world who have ideas but can't figure out how to apply them.
2. I know there's always two sides to every story but Jobs, Gates and Ballmer were young when all of this started so it doesn't surprise me that Jobs was the philanthropic one helping out his friends. What bothers me is that Gates and Ballmer (and the rest of Microsoft) turned against their friend and tried to put him out of business. I've always known how rustless Microsoft has been and they're finally reaping the seeds they've sown as Apple no longer has an open door policy for them. Jobs tried to be friends with Eric Schmidt by putting him on Apple's board only to see Eric steal Apple technology for Google. I know Steve Jobs wasn't perfect but history will show he did more to advance computer technology for the masses than any of his former friends. The problem is, as Daniel has said, this will never show up in anyone else's stories because all the other technology writers hate Apple. This is obvious with everything happening in today's patent wars. Apple is always the bad guy.
Good article, I enjoyed it.
We do, however, all rewrite history. Apple did enter a "late 80s partnership with Olivetti (the Italian owner of British PC maker Acorn) that culminated in plans to jointly develop a new mobile processor architecture capable of powering Sculley's pet project: the Newton Message Pad". The alliance didn't create the ARM architecture though, that already existed within Acorn and was used in the Archimedes desktop computer. Indeed, ARM - Advanced RISC Machine - was the new meaning of the acronym originally created as Acorn RISC Machine.
Amusingly, when Apple first advertised PowerPC Macs in UK as the most powerful RISC desktops, Acorn was urged to appeal to the UK's Advertising Standards body because of their own supposedly more powerful ARM powered desktop. ARM's management proved visionary though, perhaps through Apple's help, leading to today's dominant low power, high performance chips in almost all smart phones and much else. Acorn, meanwhile, lost its way despite its excellent technology in an echo of 1990s Apple. However, without a visionary leader to return to rescue it, it withered and died. Only ARM now remains :-)
I partially agree. There are those that want to perpetuate the myths for their own belief system's sake. There are those that just want to believe them and they probably believe in alien invasions too.
However, there are lots of normal, rational folks out there that upon reading such an article may be open to realizing they were believing false information and change their views. I have found and educated quite a few such folks. They are especially amenable to conversion to the truth once they get an Apple product and love it. Many long time, die hard PC users, now with iPads and iPhones are next looking at MacBooks or iMacs and they seem to love to learn they were fed a load of bull by the PC Illuminati. It frees them up mentally to enjoy their Apple goodies even more.
So funny how Balmer looks essentially identical way back in that Windows advert as he does today. That suit could almost fit into his current wardrobe.
That man was born old (in both mind and body).
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Well the article is very informative but it won't change the popular myths that Apple "stole" the GUI from Xerox and that Microsoft "saved" Apple from bankruptcy. It's sort of like the conspiracy theories about the Twin Towers being brought down by controlled demolition or the moon landing hoax theories. The people that promote these idiocies have a vested interest in them and no amount of logical refutation will convince them. ...
I agree, but just to be picky, conspiracy theories aren't popular because of the wackos that "promote" them, those guys are essentially interchangeable and irrelevant. Conspiracy theories exist and propagate because the story they tell is a "better story," or closer to what people want to believe than the truth is.
The reality is that most people (close to all people actually), believe what seems best or right first, and then kind of "prove it to themselves" or justify that belief, later. The number of adult humans that actually use reason and logic to figure out for themselves what is true or not is a startlingly small number, even among intellectuals and educated folks. We are all animals first after all. Cool, smart, ingenious, "top of the heap" animals, but still animals.
Because it was such a long time ago, and because it was followed up by essentially nothing at all, a lot of folks (especially those who weren't alive at the time) find it easier to believe that we never landed on the moon. The moon landing is the singular proof of the realities of outer space and the fact that we are all living on a tiny ball, so to deny it, means that we can go on believing in God and our uniqueness here in the same way as we always have before. Similarly, because a lot of Americans find it hard to believe that they were so weak as to allow the 911 attacks to happen (which goes against the American myth of ultimate strength), it's easier to believe it was an inside job. That way the US wasn't defeated by a stronger enemy, the stronger enemy was the US.
Can you even imagine having to work for that sweat bag?
Nice trip down memory lane.
Where can I get the pigs-n-rainbows wallpaper from the Xerox PARC prototype?
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Great article. So nice to see the anti-Apple myths shown for what they are. I am so sick of the trolls repeating them ad nauseam.
I don't think that will ever change.
People believe what they want to believe, and they're not going to hear otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
Great summary, I can only hope that some of the anti Apple posters round here take some of the history on board.
I suspect not though because its not convenient and uncomfortable for them to acknowledge it.
Far easier to snipe at Apple and regurgitate their version.
Somehow I don't think anti-Apple posters are going to be persuaded by a brief, unsourced piece that a case presided over by numerous judges, attorneys, etc., for a period of years was wrongly decided.
I think the real villain of the piece is Sculley, whose memoir suggests that he didn't defend Apple's interests competently. If Apple didn't put on the right case, it's not the courts' fault the company lost.
Originally Posted by Arlor
…unsourced…
Are you black/blue colorblind?
I always thought it was a shame that Apple did not patent and/or enforce their patents in the 1980's, it they had, it would be a totally different environment today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Are you black/blue colorblind?
Sorry, my claim was hyperbole. But the citations here wouldn't even meet Wikipedia's standards, much less the legal community's. The case generated tens of thousands of pages of documents, written and reviewed by dozens of judges and attorneys on all sides. Those documents have hundreds if not thousands of citations of every pertinent fact. The case also turned on points of law and precedent that are not analyzed at all here. An objective reader (haha!) would probably be inclined to favor the judges' decision to this post; it's only people who are already persuaded that Apple got screwed who are likely to think that this post proves anything.
Of course, I'm probably being silly for criticizing a blog post for not being a proper legal brief. But criticizing Sculley was my main focus!