Rest in peace Steve.....Thanks for inspiring us all!!

Apple II plus circa 1979 Ty Steve

Not to speak ill of the dead, but Jobs greatest contribution was mass marketing ideas dreamed up at Xerox PARC.

So long... And thanks for all the G4 Macs!

Many people loved him and many people hated him, but no one can deny that he had a strong sense of what people wanted and gave it to them in a unique package. There is no comparison between him and Bill Gates. Jobs truly had great vision and the will to make things happen.

Gates on the other hand had more talent preventing competition from happening than really creating anything on his own.

Jim,

That is not true and not fair to say after the man's death IMHO. Steve was the head of Apple when the Apple II when on sale in 1977. I was a Commodore user and fan through and through, but the Apple II was better offering than the Commodore Pet. The Apple II lasted a long time, the Pet not so much.

I'm more of a Jay Miner person myself, was a militant Commodore user for years and dislike a lot of moves Apple made in recent times. That said Steve Jobs was undeniably pioneer and innovator over decades.

Point out to me who is left from the early pioneers who are active and relevant now that Steve Jobs is dead? Gary Kildall is long dead as is Jay Miner, Jack Tramiel is retired. Who is left?

@Red

Bill McEwen

hooligan,
Quote:
Him and Barry S. Altman

Red,
The Apple II is Woz's design. Steve had a significant influence on the Apple III (including the decision to use the cast aluminum case that encouraged socketed ICs to work loose (a really dreadful design).
Of all the 68K computers, I would have picked a Mac (Steve's real legacy) dead last.

[ Edited by Jim 08.10.2011 - 17:11 ]

Jim,

trying to degrade Job's accomplishments over the last several decades only makes you look like an Apple (or Job's) hater. Saying that the Apple II was all Wozniak's design is probably also very inaccurate. No one person can take all the credit or blame for any Apple products.

The fact that Apple survived at all and actually grew under the supervision and direction of Job's, within the monopoly of MS Windows and Intel/AMD systems long enough to even make the switch to Intel hardware is a small miracle that speaks volumes about Job's ability and vision.

Quote:

I wonder where Commodore got the idea of putting a windowing system on the Amiga?

Steve jobs was very good at taking often esoteric ideas from labs and turning them into products people buy. Often very good products which are easy to use and work well.

Smartphones, MP3 players and tablets all existed before Apple did them, but Steve jobs turned them into things normal people can actually use.

Dave,
I actually do hate Apple. Overpriced hardware that co-opts standards and ideas created by others, and (well marketed) presents them to the public in closed platforms.
I have no use for current Apple products and would rather use an X86 PC.
The only reason I use a Powermac is the availability of an alternate OS.

Whether this discredits me in any of your eyes or not is not an important point to me.
Steve Jobs creative contribution to the computing world is vastly over stated.

Origingal Mac borrowed heavily from ideas created at PARC (and licensing fees were paid) as does the the Ipad.
OSX at its core is Unix and Apple did not invent that.
I don't own an Ipod and never will. The MP3 standard was not created by Apple and buying all my media from the manufacturers of my MP3 player seems assnine.

Many of you may fall for this cultish vendor and Steve Jobs cult of personality.
I do not.

I would prefer any alternative.

BTW - I really like this conclusion.
"Steve jobs was very good at taking often esoteric ideas from labs and turning them into products people buy. Often very good products which are easy to use and work well.

Created sleek design elements, developed great marketing, and had an eye for great ideas.
Steve Jobs.

[ Edited by Jim 08.10.2011 - 17:24 ]

Quote:

If you look closely at the specs you'll find they're not very overpriced, they're certainly not the only company that charges high prices.

Quote:

So does *every* other company in the industry.
What would you rather have - Microsoft?

Quote:

My Mac isn't closed.
Apple are actually known for giving back to the community - Where do you think OpenCL came from? or Darwin, or WebKit?

Do you use OWB? It's based on WebKit.

The iPhone and iPad are quite closed devices (in some cases in really annoying ways).
But this has some advantages - I have yet to hear of any malware for the iPhone or iPad.

BTW the iPod is not closed, it will play MP3s from anywhere, you have to sync them with iTunes but you don't have to buy them from Apple.

Quote:

Read about NeXT Computer.

They had multitasking, a friendly desktop, full memory protection, a UNIX based OS, an optical drive, custom chips, DSP audio and more - in 1988. To put it into perspective the competition was PCs running DOS and the A2000. NeXT was probably the single biggest advance in desktop technology *ever*. Guess who the CEO of the company was?

Steve Jobs did a lot more than put things in expensive pretty boxes.



[ Edited by minator 09.10.2011 - 14:48 ]

Adored by a few hundred more http://tweentribune.com/teen

> Saying that the Apple II was all Wozniak's design is probably
> also very inaccurate.

Well, at least Wikipedia says:

"Wozniak single handedly designed the Apple II"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak#Origins_of_Apple

On the topic of Steve Wozniak, Petro Tyschtschenko claimed in a recent interview (German) that Wozniak was working for Commodore before he co-founded Apple. AFAIK, he was working for HP, not for Commodore. While it's known that Wozniak offered the Apple II to Commodore who declined because they already had their PET 2001 (with the same MOS Technology 6502 CPU as the Apple II) in the pipeline, this doesn't mean he was working for them.
Does anyone have an idea what Petro was about here?

On the matter of MOS Technology (aka Commodore Semiconductor Group), Petro claims in the same interview that they manufactured their own CPUs for the Commodore x86 PCs. Even after the interviewer asks once more if they really didn't use CPUs from Intel, Petro reinforces his statement.
According to the Commodore Info Page, the Commodore x86 PCs used CPUs from Intel, AMD, Faraday and Harris. On that page, not one single Commodore x86 PC is listed as using a CPU manufactured by MOS/CSG.
Does anyone have an idea what Petro was about here?

It's only revealing that capitalism is not only an economic system anymore but a culture.... turning a salesman into a hero while engineers stay in the shadow... Sorry i didn't and still don't care about Jobs.

Addendum:

> On the matter of MOS Technology (aka Commodore Semiconductor Group), Petro
> claims in the same interview that they manufactured their own CPUs for the Commodore
> x86 PCs. Even after the interviewer asks once more if they really didn't use CPUs from
> Intel, Petro reinforces his statement. According to the Commodore Info Page, the
> Commodore x86 PCs used CPUs from Intel, AMD, Faraday and Harris. On that page,
> not one single Commodore x86 PC is listed as using a CPU manufactured by MOS/CSG.

Now reinforced in writing:

"MOS also produced the 286 and 386 processors"
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.petros-memoiren-1982-bis-2001.de/Leseprobe.html

Edit:
In the meanwhile, this has been changed to:

"[...] the semiconductor MOS Technology Company, which manufactured the chips"

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 06.08.2013 - 09:50 ]

SoundSquare,
Quote:
Steve Jobs was not a salesman. He was an entreprenuer. There is actually a difference.

[ Edited by Kesa 09.02.2013 - 10:40 ]

Well the bottom line is, no-one likes jobs, not even Steve.

I can't believe you guys dug this one up again.
I'd really find it hard to believe that MOS ever had a license for X86 manufacturing.
AMD only got theirs because Intel was contractually obligated to have a second source for CPUs.

> I'd really find it hard to believe that MOS ever had a license for
> X86 manufacturing.

Exactly.

> AMD only got theirs because Intel was contractually obligated to have
> a second source for CPUs.

Actually, it was IBM who wanted to have a second source for x86 CPUs, that's why Intel granted the license to AMD. Else IBM wouldn't have gone with Intel.