On 13 September 2016 at 20:58, Chuck Guzis <ccl...@sydex.com> wrote: > On 09/13/2016 11:12 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > >> OK, but are we talking MacOS or Mac OS X here? > > As I said, Mac OS 9.2. I'm not interested for my G3 to talk to other > Macs--the only other one here is a Performa 6100 running OS 7.mumble.
Ah, I guess I missed that earlier. Sorry. > But isn't that typical of the Apple Way? What I was getting at is that it was typical of _everyone's_ way back in the '80s. Everyone who did a full-stack OS had their own network stack and their own protocol, and it was supported far better than anything else. > Right from the start, there > were tools and hardware for the 5150 to talk to the rest of the world. But it had a whole choice of OSes and most of them didn't include networking at all in the early days, AFAIK. IBM's big iron networking wouldn't have fitted into the RAM of the original PC. Did CP/M-86 have networking? I remember it being an expensive, fiddly add-on for CDOS years later, and not very flexible then. I don't think the UCSD p-System networked at all, and DOS didn't for a long time. Only after the advent of WfWg did MS offer a free network stack for DOS as standard, and even to this day it's not wildly enthusiastic about TCP/IP, although it will do it. If you used Novell Netware Lite or P2P Netware, you got IPX; Pathworks, DECnet; Farallon, AppleTalk; etc. All, as I said, intended to talk to some other proprietary system. Openness? No, we haven't even heard of it. > Apple just kept to their own little community--or did I miss the > announcement of SDLC/SNA support for Mac? As others have said -- yes, it existed, albeit from 3rd party tools. -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)
