Michael Black wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> 
>> Michael Black wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Michael J. Mahon wrote:
>>>
>>>> nem wrote:
>>>>> mcpublic  wrote in news:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to get Apple II VisiCalc running in emulation.
>>>>>> Right now this isn't possible because of the copy
protection.
>>>>>> (BTW the PC DOS version is available on the web,
and doesn't have 
>>>>>> copy
>>>>>> protection).
>>>>>
>>>>> It did originally. All versions of Visicalc except for
the TRS-80 
>>>>> Model I release were copy-protected.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have three versions of the Apple II software.  I
know one of them
>>>>>> still boots (1983?)
>>>>>> and have some confidence that the other two
versions (1979 and 1981)
>>>>>> work also.
>>>>>
>>>>> IIRC, Dan Bricklin said they took the copy-protection
out of the 
>>>>> later releases (as well as cassette support).
>>>>
>>>> On his website a few years ago, he presented the original Apple II
>>>> screenshot and the quick reference card, but said that he did not
>>>> offer the original Apple II version because the disk was copy-
>>>> protected--so he offered the PC version.
>>>>
>>>> I sent him a normalized version with no "crack
screen" or other
>>>> "embellishments" hoping that he would add it to
his site, but
>>>> never got any response.
>>>>
>>>> It would be easy to have a web Apple II emulator so that any
>>>> browser user could click on a link and run the original VisiCalc,
>>>> which IMHO would be a much more authentic experience.
>>>>
>>>> I don't even remember any cassette support...I thought VisiCalc
>>>> required a DISK ][.
>>>>
>>> Maybe it's more a case of those who needed VisiCalc were the ones
>>> who'd have a floppy drive, so nobody talked about cassettes.
>>>
>>> I have no idea, but they say that many people rushed out
>>> and bought Apple II's to run Visicalc, the expense being nothing
>>> compared to what they could do with the program.
>>>
>>> Thus I can imagine many of the people buying VisiCalc having floppy
>>> drive(s).
>>>
>>> The average person wasn't going to buy VisiCalc unless they had
>>> a good reason for it.
>>
>> I don't know what "average" is, but I used it for many things,
>> including my income taxes for about 7 years!
>>
>> I find a spreadsheet about as useful as a word processor!
>>
> I've never used one, in 30 years of having computers.
> 
> But did you rush out and get VisiCalc when it first came out?  And
> did you need convincing at the time?

I needed to see a demo--since what it could do was so far in
advance of anything available up until then, it was hard to
imagine that it could be done, and done so quickly!

Since then, I use a spreadsheet for almost any "list" or table function,
since it is so easy to manipulate the rows and columns by inserting,
deleting, sorting, and (yes!) computing.

When Lotus 1-2-3 added graph plotting, it pushed the utility even
higher for me, since I often try out ideas using a spreadsheet,
graphing the results for both verification and insight.

Probability chains, cellular automata, circuit simulation, and
even income taxes (from estimates to final results) are easily handled
by a spreadsheet, and an "experiment" can be completely re-done
just by changing a number or formula and recalculating (and re-
graphing ;-).

If I could only have one computer "tool" it would be a spreadsheet,
since it can do word processing, databases, calculation, graphing,
and report writing.  I consider the spreadsheet to be the most
versatile application yet devised!  And it has the advantage of
having achieved a stable set of features, so that it is both
compact and efficient.

Of course, a programming language is the universal tool, but it
has a substantially higher "barrier to entry" to make usable
applications.  Spreadsheets are also programming languages, but
relatively high-level, with inherent support for parallelism!

> I'm just trying to give a scenario where VisiCalc could deal with
> cassettes, but so few people used that feature that decades later
> people are questioning that it did have the ability to use cassettes.
> 
> An analog might be the "IBM PC" that came with a cassette interface,
> but I'm not sure how many are aware of that.  You think floppy drive
> when you think of that computer.  I remember people talking about
> using it without a floppy drive when it came out, but that's so long
> in the past that the "feature" is long forgotten.

I suspect that both VisiCalc and the IBM BASIC used cassette in the
same way--to save and load data and programs, that is, simple sequential
(and infrequent) usage.

The problem I'm having is twofold:  1) I don't remember any cassette
support mentioned in the documentation (and it's packed away so that
it's hard to check ;-), and 2) I don't see the utility of supporting
cassette I/O in a program that required a Disk ][ to run.

> Or, decades later, people have forgotten or even never knew that there
> were home computers before the "IBM PC".  Again, it's
because the previous
> computers are dwarfed by the arrival of that computer, fused with many
> people having arrived after that point.  It doesn't mean there weren't
> small computers before IBM came along, just that few remember.

And before Apple, and before...  I may indeed have forgotten VisiCalc
cassette support, but I remember plenty both before and after!  ;-)

-michael

******** Note new website URL ********

NadaNet and AppleCrate II for Apple II parallel computing!
Home page:  http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32