steve wozniak on MWSF - could it be a hint to new HW?

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 55
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong></strong><hr></blockquote>

    Noooooooo!!! Somebody shrunk Woz!!! Nooooooooooooooo!!!
  • Reply 42 of 55
    I definately think There will be a new device unvelied by the Woz. Everyone knows he's been working on communication device....PDA/cell phone, and i wontb e surprised if it will be an apple-woz partnership here.



    As far as OSs go, i definately see his comments on OSs getting more complicated v ery valid. Personally i miss the 'warm-fuzzy' feeling of OS 7.5-9.2, But i love OSX as well...i do have a few complaints about it, and im sure they will get ironed out eventually....One of them being the Dock.... waste of space in my opinion. i agree it's a nice organizational widget, but it takes up so much space on screen and is more on an inconvenience to windows.....i think that with OSX, they can actually do away with this widget and maybe employ a better one...thats what i like about OSX...it's like a burger....u can use whatever topping u want...
  • Reply 43 of 55
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    [quote]Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:

    <strong>I definately think There will be a new device unvelied by the Woz. Everyone knows he's been working on communication device....PDA/cell phone, and i wontb e surprised if it will be an apple-woz partnership here.



    As far as OSs go, i definately see his comments on OSs getting more complicated v ery valid. Personally i miss the 'warm-fuzzy' feeling of OS 7.5-9.2, But i love OSX as well...i do have a few complaints about it, and im sure they will get ironed out eventually....One of them being the Dock.... waste of space in my opinion. i agree it's a nice organizational widget, but it takes up so much space on screen and is more on an inconvenience to windows.....i think that with OSX, they can actually do away with this widget and maybe employ a better one...thats what i like about OSX...it's like a burger....u can use whatever topping u want...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    About the dock I think it's a great improvement over what we had before and the third party apps like it are over kill. About the screen space being used up you can make it very small and then there's a little thing called auto hide............



    [ 11-22-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
  • Reply 44 of 55
    cliveclive Posts: 720member
    [quote]Originally posted by curiousuburb:

    <strong>



    yes, but you're zero years old for your first year until you complete a solar cycle.



    it will be the "twenty sixth year of life", but the Mac will be 25 (and change) during '03</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's complete bollocks. Firstly anyone born in 1977 will be 25 in 2002. Secondly the "Mac" was "born" in 1984, Apple was formed in 1977.
  • Reply 45 of 55
    December 2002 will be the 10th anniversary of the death of the Woz edition IIgs. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 46 of 55
    before we further sidetrack both this and that <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002690"; target="_blank">thread</a> into hair-splitting about what date deserves anniversary status and which model might bear such moniker, we might just add "hello moto". TAM shipped "late" by some calendars, and many a member here is aware of (or has whinged about) "delays" in product availability vs. when it "should" have shipped.

    i guess i'm concurring that calling it TAM when more accurately it should have been TAA means that 2004 deserves the title Twentieth Anniversary Mac.



    but since the Mac was Jobs project, while Woz was still closer to the Apple II product, some friction was reported. so my theory continues that the likelihood of mutually ego-rewarding collaboration between the two Steves (whether just on stage -nice-, or "one more insanely great engineering/innovation for old times sake" - yes please- ) seems less plausible for a Silver Mac than for a Silver Apple



    &lt;*jake to elwood&gt;

    getting the band back together is the only way

    &lt;/jake to elwood&gt;



    maybe it's wistful to dwell on roads untaken, certainly we could discuss roadmaps untaken and the parallel universe consequences if moto... blah blah... or if gates had slipped, or sculley stayed at pepsi, or infinite tangents



    creative r & d and 'thinking different' being totems of Steve-ness for both Woz and Jobs, it seems impossible that there wasn't an anniversary project mule or six shipped out or secreted away.



    maybe the mini-Woz (bobblehead?)is bluetooth-enabled and it's the debut of a new line of Action Figures from the computing hall of fame!



    every kid will want to torture their mini-Gates after its blue screen mojo spreads to their PC; the mini-Von Neumann doll will try to keep self-replicating and be accused of associating too closely with the mini-Turing; the mini-Cerf will continually assign domains to everthing; the mini-Bushnell will pong back and forth and allow the next great thing to slip past as quickly as the mini-Engelbart; so far, the only female doll planned for production is the mini-Byron complete with jacquard loom program and full ADA compiler; and most coveted of all (with the mini-Woz) will be the mini-Jobs with irresistible Kung Fu RDF Grip



    but i'd still love to experience the results of a steve reunion
  • Reply 47 of 55
    If everyone wants to see what Apple is about to announce, I believe that it will resemble something close to what I Patented. Keep in mind that my Patent was originally posted under the provisional act back in 2000. It was formally entered as of April 9 2001 and wen to published utility on April 9 2002. It was finally placed in the records of the UPSTO.GOV under the filed application Number #20020149677



    What is it?



    A digital camera that communicated via wireless connection (CDMA) (GPRS)(GSM) to transmit a block of data ie (Plurality) of digital images to a specific IP address.



    We call this technology (QuickSend) and commercially the .MAC digital imaging system.



    Anyone care to respond? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 48 of 55
    specs?

    linkage?



    prior art on packetized data i would expect or wonder at the derivative nature of,

    which bits are you claiming patent for?



    sounds cool.



    [ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: curiousuburb ]</p>
  • Reply 49 of 55
    didn't someone mention, that Woz is working on GPS?



    would be a nice toy: you flip up your ibook, it recognizes automatically, where you are (not in closed rooms, for sure?) and with sherlook you find your next chinese take-away



    ok, not a killer-app.-

    --------------



    i think, it's just a reunion of old friends.
  • Reply 50 of 55
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by difusi:

    <strong>If everyone wants to see what Apple is about to announce, I believe that it will resemble something close to what I Patented. Keep in mind that my Patent was originally posted under the provisional act back in 2000. It was formally entered as of April 9 2001 and wen to published utility on April 9 2002. It was finally placed in the records of the UPSTO.GOV under the filed application Number #20020149677 </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Did Apple licence it from you (but then you wouldn't be allowed to talk about it, NDA) or are you planning on sueing them?
  • Reply 51 of 55
    othelloothello Posts: 1,053member
  • Reply 52 of 55
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    Woz appearing at MSWF is almost as exciting as a Very Brady Reunion.
  • Reply 53 of 55
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    [quote]Originally posted by JLL:

    <strong>



    Wrong!! It will be th 27th year of life and the 26th anniversary:



    Jan 1977 - 0

    Jan 1978 - 1

    Jan 1979 - 2

    Jan 1980 - 3

    Jan 1981 - 4

    Jan 1982 - 5

    Jan 1983 - 6

    Jan 1984 - 7

    Jan 1985 - 8

    Jan 1986 - 9

    Jan 1987 - 10

    Jan 1988 - 11

    Jan 1989 - 12

    Jan 1990 - 13

    Jan 1991 - 14

    Jan 1992 - 15

    Jan 1993 - 16

    Jan 1994 - 17

    Jan 1995 - 18

    Jan 1996 - 19

    Jan 1997 - 20 - 20th Anniversary Mac released in July

    Jan 1998 - 21

    Jan 1999 - 22

    Jan 2000 - 23

    Jan 2001 - 24

    Jan 2002 - 25

    Jan 2003 - 26</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I have to admire your determination. 26th anniversary be it then.

    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 54 of 55
    [quote]Originally posted by JLL:

    <strong>



    Wrong!! It will be th 27th year of life and the 26th anniversary:



    Jan 1977 - 0

    Jan 1978 - 1

    Jan 1979 - 2

    Jan 1980 - 3

    Jan 1981 - 4

    Jan 1982 - 5

    Jan 1983 - 6

    Jan 1984 - 7

    Jan 1985 - 8

    Jan 1986 - 9

    Jan 1987 - 10

    Jan 1988 - 11

    Jan 1989 - 12

    Jan 1990 - 13

    Jan 1991 - 14

    Jan 1992 - 15

    Jan 1993 - 16

    Jan 1994 - 17

    Jan 1995 - 18

    Jan 1996 - 19

    Jan 1997 - 20 - 20th Anniversary Mac released in July

    Jan 1998 - 21

    Jan 1999 - 22

    Jan 2000 - 23

    Jan 2001 - 24

    Jan 2002 - 25

    Jan 2003 - 26</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I agree but this confuses me. According to apple-history.com "...the 20th Anniversary Mac was released close to a year after the fact, in late Spring, 1997."



    [ 11-28-2002: Message edited by: fahlman ]



    [ 11-28-2002: Message edited by: fahlman ]</p>
  • Reply 55 of 55
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by fahlman:

    <strong>I agree but this confuses me. According to apple-history.com "...the 20th Anniversary Mac was released close to a year after the fact, in late Spring, 1997."</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Close to a year after is still 20. More than a year after would be 21.



    So there. Where's humankind, there's hope!
Sign In or Register to comment.