[HN Gopher] Remembering Apple's Newton, 30 years on
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Remembering Apple's Newton, 30 years on
        
       Author : kergonath
       Score  : 230 points
       Date   : 2022-05-30 11:53 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
        
       | mistrial9 wrote:
       | my friend went to a Newton startup.. there was nothing wrong with
       | the product and they did a lot of things right. There were some
       | shenanigans among management but not huge.. the company went
       | bankrupt and the engineers were paid relatively low wages
        
       | SeanLuke wrote:
       | I built a lot of fun stuff for the Newton. I built a Sherlock
       | clone for the Newton (which 15 years later landed me in the
       | middle of the Apple vs. Samsung patent lawsuit). I also wrote the
       | Java virtual machine available for the Newton. It was a lot of
       | fun for a bored PhD student. My Newtons have recently all died
       | and it's a little sad.
        
         | tiffanyh wrote:
         | > I built a Sherlock clone
         | 
         | Was "Sherlocked" a term coined yet when you did this? Had Apple
         | started getting inspiration from 3rd party developers yet?
        
         | cmrdporcupine wrote:
         | I have a couple here that I could sell you, assuming the
         | shipping isn't awful (I'm in Canada). I tried to put them on
         | eBay some years ago but got low-balled and jerked around.
         | Haven't tried them lately, not sure of their condition.
         | 
         | One is an original MessagePad in box, the other a late model, I
         | forget, I'd have to go look.
        
           | cmrdporcupine wrote:
           | UPDATE: I'll spend some time in the basement today going
           | through my crap and I'll find the two Newtons, and do some
           | research on what they might be worth based on condition and
           | what others have gone for.
           | 
           | It's time for me to purge anyways. Prefer these go to a
           | nerd's home who will have fun with them, esp if said person
           | has a history with the Newton.
        
           | yobananaboy wrote:
           | Out of curiosity what was your list price? I've been starting
           | to collect (got a Mac IIsi with a portrait monitor a few
           | months back) and would be interested in getting a MessagePad
           | in working condition
        
           | lostgame wrote:
           | I'm legit interested - I'm in Canada, as well - I've always
           | wanted one.
        
           | Brajeshwar wrote:
           | Cool. May I know a ballpark on the price. My co-founder is in
           | Toronto. I can pick it up some day from him. My Profile has
           | all my contact details.
        
         | WoodenChair wrote:
         | > I built a Sherlock clone for the Newton (which 15 years later
         | landed me in the middle of the Apple vs. Samsung patent
         | lawsuit).
         | 
         | Please, tell us more.
        
           | SeanLuke wrote:
           | Around 1998 I built an open source application on the Newton
           | called Hemlock which loaded, parsed, and used Sherlock search
           | templates to grab data from internet sites just like Sherlock
           | did. Sherlock can either search from the internet or can
           | search from files. The Newton didn't have a filesystem: it
           | had a searchable database system. One of the things I was
           | working on, and proposed on Usenet, was to search both the
           | internet and the Newton database system in one shot, though I
           | eventually didn't do it as the Newton already had a great
           | search tool for the database system built in.
           | 
           | About 15 years later I walked into my lab and got served with
           | a subpoena by Samsung's legal team for deposition.
           | Everybody's lawyers suddenly wanted to talk to me. They dug
           | through my postings, my software, old files on my laptop,
           | even the old Newtons in my office. Between Apple, Samsung,
           | and the very helpful SFLC legal team, the whole thing was
           | like being dropped into a tank of very nice sharks.
           | 
           | One of the patents Apple was going after Samsung for was
           | 8,086,604, the "604" patent. Hemlock, and my proposals on the
           | Usenet for improving it, predated this patent by quite a bit
           | and easily covered most of its claims. Eventually Samsung
           | decided to argue that they didn't violate the patent, rather
           | than argue that it was invalid. That turned out to be the
           | right decision (they won). But had they gone the invalidation
           | route, I'd likely have found myself on the stand in SF. That
           | patent is still live, and my prior art is still ready to
           | invalidate it.
        
             | alfiedotwtf wrote:
             | > SeanLuke
             | 
             | That name rang a bell so I had to look you up. I just have
             | to say, I love your book!
        
               | SeanLuke wrote:
               | Thank you. Wait, which one?
        
               | alfiedotwtf wrote:
               | Essentials of Metaheuristics. That was one of my first
               | intros to optimisation and opened up my eyes to the
               | field!
        
               | stardek wrote:
               | After the other user mentioned your name I thought it
               | sounded familiar too so I looked you up. I used MASON
               | quite a bit in the past, thanks for all your work on
               | that!
        
             | matheusmoreira wrote:
             | > That patent is still live, and my prior art is still
             | ready to invalidate it.
             | 
             | I wonder how many other invalid patents are out there. It
             | boggles my mind that the patent office will grant anyone a
             | patent without even checking for prior art.
        
               | pkaye wrote:
               | That is why I think every patent submittal should come
               | with a bounty to be paid to anyone who identifies prior
               | art to invalidate it. The bounty is setup using a bond or
               | something similar. If no prior art is identified within a
               | reasonable time (say 2 years), the bond is reverted back
               | to the submitter.
        
               | skavi wrote:
               | It took a team of very expensive lawyers to find that
               | prior art on some old forum. I don't think the patent
               | office has those kinds of resources for each application.
        
         | JKCalhoun wrote:
         | Did a casino game for the Newton.
         | 
         | Maybe the most interesting/memorable part of my brief foray
         | into the Newton was being invited to the Apple Campus and
         | meeting other engineers (I was still so young then). We were
         | each paired with a weird development Newton that was some kind
         | of PCB bento.
         | 
         | It was cool to see how the sausage is made (or at least what
         | dev prototypes can look like).
         | 
         | I remember too the one engineer I chatted with in the evening
         | that told me, "You could work here." That really surprised me
         | -- I thought you had to have a PhD or something to work for
         | Apple.
         | 
         | (Not too many years later, I would in fact get a job at Apple.)
        
       | irrational wrote:
       | Hmm, this reminds me that I have a Newton... somewhere. The last
       | time I booted it up it still worked.
        
       | Vitaly_C wrote:
       | I've got two MessagePad 130's for sale with some pretty
       | interesting accessory peripherals if anyone's interested... One
       | has the original box. 3Com and Motorola wireless modem
       | accessories, original manuals, leather case, screen protectors,
       | serial cables, 3.5" disks etc.
        
       | perardi wrote:
       | _"Handwriting recognition was a key part of the plan."_
       | 
       | I was pretty young during this era of computing...but it felt
       | that handwriting input was going to be The Thing in terms of
       | next-generation computer interaction. Mind you, all I had access
       | to was MacWorld and whatever PC mags were at the bookstore, but
       | handwriting was seemingly going to be the text input method of
       | the future. I swear you could even buy what amounted to a teeeeny
       | little Wacom tablet to plug into your computer for handwriting
       | recognition.
       | 
       | All of which seems funny to me by 2022 standards. Computers were
       | supposed to adapt to our "natural" input method of
       | handwriting...but instead everything is a keyboard, be it a soft
       | or hard keyboard, and then voice recognition for short on-the-go
       | messages or for individuals with accessibility constraints. I
       | mean, I literally _cannot write_ any more. If you put me back in
       | 4th grade, I'd flunk a cursive test so hard they'd hold me back a
       | year.
        
         | twoodfin wrote:
         | Bill Gates (and thus contemporary Microsoft) was _obsessed_
         | with "pen computing", so your perception was completely
         | accurate.
        
         | adastra22 wrote:
         | They don't teach cursive anymore.
        
           | reaperducer wrote:
           | _They don't teach cursive anymore._
           | 
           | Depends on the school.
           | 
           | Low-end public school? Probably not. But private schools, and
           | my nephew's Catholic school do.
           | 
           | I've never understood the internet's hate for cursive. Are
           | people who don't learn cursive not able to read the first
           | line of a California license plate, or locate a Walgreen's
           | pharmacy?
        
             | troutwine wrote:
             | > I've never understood the internet's hate for cursive.
             | Are people who don't learn cursive not able to read the
             | first line of a California license plate, or locate a
             | Walgreen's pharmacy?
             | 
             | It's sort of an outdated mode of writing that survived due
             | to inertia. Cursive is super, super useful when your
             | writing tool can't withstand repeat impacts against the
             | writing medium -- like a quill -- or if lifting will cause
             | your writing tool to leak against the medium. Theoretically
             | it's also faster to write than block characters, but the
             | speed differences appear to be minimal for short-duration
             | writing with the benefit of uniformity of block characters
             | _outside_ of cultures that stress uniformity of cursive
             | lettering. Worth pointing out that the examples you give
             | here are not especially stylized letters and that
             | Walgreens, outside of its red cursive letter logo,
             | generally prefers a sans-serif block lettering. That said,
             | I'm sure for someone not familiar with cursive lettering
             | the 'r' and 's' look especially inscrutable, but most
             | humans tolerate unreadable characters pretty well when
             | scanning words we already know.
             | 
             | The slow death of cursive is indicative of the change in
             | medium: most people write to one another by computer, or on
             | mechanically printed paper. It's a similar process by which
             | we started adding vowels, spaces and punctuation: the
             | constraints of the medium or its tools improved with time.
        
               | reaperducer wrote:
               | _Cursive is super, super useful when your writing tool
               | can 't withstand repeat impacts against the writing
               | medium -- like a quill -- or if lifting will cause your
               | writing tool to leak against the medium._
               | 
               | Cursive is unrelated to quills and ink. Quills and ink
               | existed for a thousand years before cursive was invented.
               | 
               | Cursive exists to relive the strain of writing a lot.
               | Printing is much harder on the hands that cursive. If
               | cursive hurts when you write, you're doing it wrong.
               | You're supposed to hold the implement very loosely and
               | gently, not like you're holding on for dear life.
               | 
               |  _the 'r' and 's' look especially inscrutable_
               | 
               | The cursive "r" is an "r" with a bit on the right linking
               | to the next letter.
               | 
               | The cursive "s" is an "s" with a bit on the left linking
               | it to the previous letter.
               | 
               | The forms have evolved over the centuries, but they're
               | still there. Even the weird capital F makes sense if you
               | write it enough times. It's an "F" made without lifting
               | the pen.
               | 
               | I went to public school early in life, and so didn't
               | learn cursive. When I joined a private school, everyone
               | was already writing cursive, and I had to catch up. It
               | took me maybe three weeks. I remember getting g and q was
               | hard for me. But people are able to learn new things
               | every day.
        
               | BeFlatXIII wrote:
               | I don't think cursive's ergonomic claims hold for
               | lefties, as we have to push the pen instead of smoothly
               | pulling it along. Perhaps if I were writing Arabic, my
               | opinion would be different.
        
               | diablerouge wrote:
               | I'm a lefty and have found cursive very comfortable (and
               | I'm also both an underwriter and an overwriter.) Perhaps
               | if you're a sidewriter you get the worse experience of
               | pushing a pen.
               | 
               | I definitely find writing a nicer experience with a
               | pencil, a fountain pen, or a felt-tipped pen - ballpoints
               | require too much pressure to be comfortable.
        
               | anon2020dot00 wrote:
               | As a lefty side-writer, I find no challenge with using
               | cursive. Writing in print is also pushing most of the
               | time so I don't understand the claim that lefties has to
               | push more.
        
               | troutwine wrote:
               | > But people are able to learn new things every day.
               | 
               | I don't think anyone suggested otherwise?
               | 
               | I think the conversation might be slightly hung up on the
               | specific example of a quill (reed stylus, sharpened bird
               | bone, charcoal stick, brush all encourage a flowing
               | character), nor is the only reason to prefer cursive
               | writing to relieve hand strain, although that's true for
               | informal long-form and for some hands and for some
               | alphabets. My general point here is that the medium of
               | writing tends to dictate the common forms of writing and
               | with the common medium now being mechanical -- computer,
               | printer etc -- we're seeing a shift in how people form
               | their characters, if they even form them by hand at all.
        
               | spc476 wrote:
               | Modern pens are horrible to write with, you have to press
               | down on the paper to get the ink out, and doing so causes
               | the fingers (or at least, my fingers) to cramp up. I
               | switched to a fountain pen over a year ago, and the
               | difference is night to day. No longer do I have to press
               | down on the paper---the ink just flows out of the pen
               | with no pressure required, and it's now a pleasure to
               | write cursive. I also think my handwriting improved just
               | using a fountain pen.
        
               | felipemnoa wrote:
               | >>Cursive is super, super useful when your writing tool
               | can't withstand repeat impacts against the writing medium
               | 
               | In my experience it is much more comfortable to write
               | cursive. You do not have to lift the pen for every single
               | letter. It is quite annoying to have to do that, quite
               | honestly. My hand feels much more happier to be able to
               | just follow a flow.
               | 
               | I also do not understand the hate, it is much more
               | comfortable. It is like hating touch typing. Sure, you
               | can type with two fingers but not very efficiently.
               | 
               | To each their own I guess.
        
               | troutwine wrote:
               | Oh yeah, for sure. The hand is certainly part of 'the
               | tool' and variation there will make different approaches
               | to forming characters comfortable for different people.
               | My own hand is a small block with occasional tails
               | between letters which I find comfortable to write in but
               | is very idiosyncratic. I was taught to primarily write in
               | cursive as a child and then re-taught to write in
               | architectural block as a young adult, which I'm sure has
               | something to do with it.
        
               | kalleboo wrote:
               | > _I also do not understand the hate, it is much more
               | comfortable_
               | 
               | The hate stems from when we were taught it (poorly) in
               | elementary school, where it was slower, physically
               | painful and the result was illegible.
               | 
               | Now I go weeks between writing anything physically at all
               | (and even most of that is Kanji now as I moved to Japan)
               | so learning a new way of writing seems pointless
        
               | BeFlatXIII wrote:
               | Those claims are not true at all as a southpaw. I was
               | pushing the pencil instead of smoothly pulling it. As
               | soon as my teachers stopped requiring cursive and only
               | cared that we wrote with whatever handwriting was most
               | legible, I dropped it.
        
             | Gigachad wrote:
             | Was at a private catholic school in Australia and they
             | dropped cursive in around 2012.
        
             | nsonha wrote:
             | > I've never understood the internet's hate for cursive
             | 
             | Isn't the whole point to handwrite faster, which people
             | don't even do anymore? I for one didn't write fast in
             | cursive so even that's not true.
             | 
             | On the other hand it's harder to read, harder to OCR.
             | 
             | Given text is read way more than it is written, the choice
             | is clear.
        
               | Ancapistani wrote:
               | I've actually found my cursive to be _much_ more reliable
               | to OCR. I think it's because I explicitly learned cursive
               | when I picked up fountain pens as an adult, as a result
               | my letter forms are consistent. Maybe not "correct", but
               | consistent.
               | 
               | I even went through a period where I used the "long s" in
               | my script, and I was able to get that to OCR just fine
               | after some training.
        
               | nsonha wrote:
               | may have something to do with cursive letters having more
               | "features". I only assume it's harder to OCR but that
               | needs proof. I think it's safe to say that reading
               | cursive is slower for humans.
        
           | ineedasername wrote:
           | My kids all learned cursive in school. But maybe it varies by
           | country and region of the country. I'm in the US, east coast.
           | Public school in a mix of blue & white collar-- more blue
           | collar though-- in a small city that's a suburb to a large
           | city.
        
           | dsr_ wrote:
           | It took about an hour of practice to learn Graffiti, the
           | PalmOS modified handwriting system. Humans are a lot better
           | at adapting to computers than the other way around.
           | 
           | I was taught cursive in 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade... and it
           | hurts my hand, and looks terrible, so I don't do that. My
           | usual writing is a modified drafter's font.
        
             | zinckiwi wrote:
             | I used Palm Pilots in college and got very proficient with
             | Graffiti, to the extent that it became a pseudo-shorthand
             | for me when taking pen-and-paper notes in class.
             | 
             | Of course, I also had a Newton MP2000 (later upgraded to
             | 2100) that I used in labs to input data to the native
             | spreadsheet program, imported the resulting graphs into the
             | native word processor for the writeup, and stopped by on
             | the way back to the dorm to print it out wirelessly, all
             | before anyone else sat down at their computers. That felt
             | like _magic_.
        
             | valley_guy_12 wrote:
             | Some engineer (I forget if it was an Apple engineer or a
             | Handspring engineer) once remarked that Graffiti was a much
             | smarter way to do handwriting recognition than Newton,
             | because: "If the Palm Pilot made a mistake, people blamed
             | themselves for not writing Graffiti correctly. If Newton
             | made a mistake, people blamed Apple."
        
               | hnfong wrote:
               | "autocorrect fails" :D
        
             | wmf wrote:
             | I was a Newton fanboy and Graffiti hater... and then I
             | actually tried Graffiti and realized it's so much better.
             | It's a powerful lesson about how technical superiority
             | isn't everything.
        
       | musicale wrote:
       | Turns out PDAs are pretty great once you have ubiquitous wireless
       | internet.
       | 
       | Merging them with cell phones, cameras, and music players also
       | turned out well.
       | 
       | And that ARM CPU turned out to be a good investment, in more ways
       | than one.
        
         | jcranmer wrote:
         | Personally, the one feature from PDAs that I miss from modern
         | smartphones is the Graffiti system of text input.
        
         | __d wrote:
         | Newtons, at least the 2000/2100, and possibly the 130 IIRC,
         | supported PCMCIA Ethernet cards, including both WaveLAN IEEE
         | (first gen 802.11 DSSS) and Proxim RangeLAN (first gen 802.11
         | FHSS) wireless LAN cards.
         | 
         | But the NewtonOS user experience was very much based around an
         | occasionally-connected model, with syncing between the PDA and
         | a "master" device or beaming between PDAs, and built-in support
         | for inbox and outbox stores that would accumulate items to be
         | dealt with once connectivity was lost or regained.
         | 
         | So although there ended up being a bunch of TCP/IP-based
         | Internet stuff for Newtons, it was very much "bolted on the
         | side", even more so than MacOS and Win95 around the same time,
         | because the interaction model was hard-wired against constant
         | connectivity.
         | 
         | Newtons also supported an infra-red version of AppleTalk, using
         | an adapter connected to the built-in AppleTalk connector. This
         | supported the usual AppleTalk network services -- wireless
         | printing was the most useful.
         | 
         | Unfortunately, I think Apple lost a lot of the institutional
         | knowledge from the Newton project before the iPhone was
         | developed, or perhaps it was never that widespread even inside
         | Apple. But perhaps most crucially, Jobs hated the stylus, and
         | thus we got multi-touch gestural input, which is perhaps the
         | major differentiating feature that the iPhone popularized.
        
           | musicale wrote:
           | Imagine if Netscape Navigator had arrived first on the
           | Newton, along with a WAN card.
           | 
           | > Unfortunately, I think Apple lost a lot of the
           | institutional knowledge from the Newton project before the
           | iPhone was developed, or perhaps it was never that widespread
           | even inside Apple
           | 
           | :(
        
             | scarface74 wrote:
             | It would have been a crash prone buggy piece of shit like
             | it was on every other platform?
        
               | musicale wrote:
               | I see not much has changed in terms of the web, web
               | browsers, and web apps.
        
               | scarface74 wrote:
               | No, modern browsers aren't crash prone. They are just
               | memory hogging, battery killing monstrosities - except
               | for Safari.
        
               | musicale wrote:
               | Web browsers have definitely progressed:
               | 
               | In the bad old days you'd have to restart your web
               | browser because it crashed.
               | 
               | Now you have to restart your web browser because it has
               | consumed all system resources, spun up the fans to
               | maximum, and slowed performance to a crawl.
               | 
               | And those weekly severe security vulnerabilities don't
               | crash your browser anymore - they just enable it to be
               | taken over by criminals.
        
               | KerrAvon wrote:
               | You really need to consider Safari instead if that's how
               | bad it is with Chrome etc.
        
               | scarface74 wrote:
               | Netscape would crash the entire Mac pre OS X back in the
               | day. I didn't have any such issues with Adobe, Aldus, or
               | Microsoft software.
               | 
               | While MS did do some crazy stuff to kill Netscape, IE was
               | just a better browser.
               | 
               | IE 3.0 for the Mac was native code and the most standards
               | compliant browser in existence for awhile.
        
               | Bluecobra wrote:
               | In the bad old days, you would have to restart your
               | computer as well. I remember Netscape frequently crashing
               | back in the day and that bomb icon from Mac OS System 7.
        
           | xenadu02 wrote:
           | > Unfortunately, I think Apple lost a lot of the
           | institutional knowledge from the Newton project before the
           | iPhone was developed, or perhaps it was never that widespread
           | even inside Apple.
           | 
           | What makes you believe that?
           | 
           | > But perhaps most crucially, Jobs hated the stylus, and thus
           | we got multi-touch gestural input, which is perhaps the major
           | differentiating feature that the iPhone popularized.
           | 
           | If the iPhone had supported stylus input from day 1 touch
           | wouldn't have evolved nearly as well. Developers would say
           | "just use the stylus" and been done with it. Modern mobile
           | had to go through an evolutionary phase where touch was the
           | only input method to get where it is today.
        
       | ridiculous_fish wrote:
       | I own a "dummy" Newton which was used in store displays. A fun
       | artifact from that time.
       | https://twitter.com/ridiculous_fish/status/15204899835549818...
        
         | kabdib wrote:
         | I spent one memorable Christmas-to-New-Years holiday tracking
         | down a bad bug in the Newton kernel that (for a while) only
         | happened up on those kiosk devices. I spent nearly two weeks
         | tracking down a timing window where an interrupt between two
         | ARM instructions would cause the scheduler to stop scheduling
         | threads. Very Heisenbuggy.
         | 
         | The fix was to swap those two ARM instructions. It's
         | simultaneously the hardest and the most trivial bug I have ever
         | fixed.
        
       | leephillips wrote:
       | Surely an underrated device. They were essential when, for
       | example, you were under siege and needed to send a fax from a
       | train.
        
       | zerop wrote:
       | Going through this article I realise that apple had tonnes of
       | innovators and a culture for them. No wonder it became what it
       | became after Steve jobs took cover but I feel that the modern
       | giant tech companies (except Tesla probably IMO) do not have this
       | culture now
        
         | scarface74 wrote:
         | It's just the opposite. Apple became successful after Jobs came
         | back because he killed all of the "innovations" and started
         | focusing on products that the market cared about.
         | 
         | Sure QuickDraw GX, OpenDoc, PowerTalk, etc. might have been
         | "innovative". But they weren't what consumers wanted.
         | 
         | The iMac on the other hand especially running pre-OS X was
         | technically crap at the time. But it saved Apple.
         | 
         | I think this clip when Jobs killed OpenDoc explains it all.
         | 
         | https://donhopkins.medium.com/focusing-is-about-saying-no-st...
        
           | goto11 wrote:
           | OpenDoc is kind of an engineers dream. I remember being
           | fascinated by it at the time (having only read about it). But
           | yeah, it was a distraction. Microsoft also made large
           | investment in OLE (object linking and embedding) at the time
           | which was a similar technology. In retrospect these were
           | solutions in search of a problem. Great that you could embed
           | an Execl sheet in a Word document, but it wasn't what made
           | consumers excited at the dawn of the web.
        
             | astrange wrote:
             | > OpenDoc is kind of an engineers dream.
             | 
             | One would hope it isn't - the problem with component
             | systems is they're a Conway's Law violation, which is the
             | reason the app model works so much better. (in terms of
             | actually shipping, not technical correctness)
        
               | pjmlp wrote:
               | Components are everywhere on Windows, Android IPC, XPC on
               | macOS/iDevices, DBUS, gRPC, and plenty of other RPC
               | reboots
        
             | NaOH wrote:
             | Relatedly, there's Steve Jobs's thoughtful yet off-the-cuff
             | response when questioned at the 1997 Worldwide Developer
             | Conference about Apple killing OpenDoc.
             | 
             | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeqPrUmVz-o
        
           | xenadu02 wrote:
           | Innovating too early usually fails. Wait too long and it's
           | not innovation. There's an art to innovating enough that
           | people want to buy what you're selling given the limitations
           | of hardware/networks/ecosystems at the time you bring the
           | product to market.
        
       | nsonha wrote:
       | what was the OCR algorithm in this?
        
         | lproven wrote:
         | It didn't have OCR.
         | 
         | It had stroke recognition: it literally learned your
         | handwriting. The code was bought in from a Russian company
         | called Paragraph.
         | 
         | I had a play with a friend's Remarkable last month. It is
         | tragic. It's a lobotomised Newton with all the clever stuff
         | removed.
         | 
         | It is absolutely heartbreaking to see how profoundly _dumb_
         | 21st century kit is.
        
           | nsonha wrote:
           | if the stroke recognition was as superior as you say it is,
           | why isn't it in Apple products these days? Sounds like it can
           | only process from direct input and not pictures from other
           | sources
        
             | lproven wrote:
             | What a very strange question.
             | 
             | There are multiple reasons why not. Have you read the rest
             | of the discussion? Did you not wonder why people are
             | commenting "egg freckles" and "eat up Martha"?
             | 
             | [1] Little to none of the Newton's design was continued in
             | later Apple products, because it was a product from the
             | period when John Sculley ran the company. When Steve Jobs
             | came back, he cancelled all the Sculley products, notably
             | the Newton, which he described as "that scribble thing".
             | 
             | [2] The tech was not used further because it didn't work
             | very well.
             | 
             | [3] It didn't sell because it was impossible to try before
             | you buy, and impossible to borrow a friend's.
             | 
             | The Newton needed weeks to learn that single user's
             | handwriting. If you let a friend use it, it tried to learn
             | _their_ handwriting, making it worse at its owner 's.
             | 
             | So you couldn't try it in a shop, because it didn't know
             | you or your writing.
             | 
             | Newton OS 1.x only understood cursive ("longhand" as we
             | non-Americans call it). As the many comments here show, a
             | lot of people don't really know how to write in cursive any
             | more.
             | 
             | So Newton OS 2.x added support for block printing, but it
             | was too late, the damage was done. That's why the device
             | was parodied in "Doonesbury" (which is the source of the
             | 'egg freckles' line) and the Simpsons ("Eat up Martha") and
             | so on.
             | 
             | [4] The tech was not adopted because it failed and because
             | it wasn't a Jobs product. It wasn't good at synching with a
             | parent device (the Palm Pilot did that) and it wasn't good
             | at standalone (because ubiquitous wireless Internet didn't
             | exist yet) and it competed with the Mac rather than being a
             | partner to it.
             | 
             | But the critical point to grasp here is that the mere fact
             | that it didn't succeed _does not mean that it was not
             | good_. It was very very good. I own 2 of the devices. The
             | tech is amazingly good at what it does; the problem is that
             | what it does wasn 't essential and wasn't very useful.
             | 
             | The iPad was too big and too radical when it was devised.
             | Which is why Apple miniaturised it and launched the 2nd
             | generation product first: the iPhone. The iPad came before
             | the iPhone.
             | 
             | The iDevices are technologically conservative. They are
             | existing tech, simplified and miniaturised. They are very
             | small pocket-sized UNIX machines.
             | 
             | This is well-known tech so the result was polished and
             | worked well and was a hit.
             | 
             | The original Newton design was a pocket-sized battery-
             | powered Lisp Machine, and was amazing radical tech... but
             | arguably tried too soon.
             | 
             | So the result was flawed and inconsistent and didn't work
             | all that well, and so it flopped.
             | 
             | Which is why 21st century computing is flooded with
             | iterative refinements of existing successful products,
             | resulting in vast complexity and hard-to-understand failure
             | modes, rather than bold innovative experimental new tech.
        
               | fredoralive wrote:
               | The Newton handwriting recognition did turn up in Mac OS
               | for a quite a while as Inkwell, although only of interest
               | to owners of 3rd party graphics tablets as Apple don't
               | offer pen input on Macs. Don't think it got updated much
               | (barring removing a Newton holdover easter egg). Got
               | dropped during the great 32 bit purge a few releases ago.
        
               | [deleted]
        
             | AlanYx wrote:
             | A derivative of it (co-written by Larry Yaeger, who worked
             | on the Newton) actually was incorporated into OS X, called
             | Inkwell. You could make it appear as an input area by
             | plugging in a graphics tablet. It was removed in OS X
             | 10.15. The current macOS/iOS handwriting recognition tech
             | is unrelated.
        
       | 0898 wrote:
       | In September 2004, I went to the World Wide Newton Conference in
       | Paris.
       | 
       | A chap called Adam Tow gave a talk where he showed us an email he
       | got from Steve Jobs about the future of the Newton.
       | 
       | Basically, one day in 1997 or 1998 Adam was walking past Homma's
       | Brown Rice Sushi in Palo Alto, and saw Steve Jobs getting some
       | takeout. Adam wanted to ask him about the fate of the Newton, but
       | managed to hold his tongue.
       | 
       | Instead, he went home and emailed jobs using the subject line
       | "Homma's Brown Rice Sushi", because he figured that since he was
       | just there he'd open the email.
       | 
       | It worked!
       | 
       | Steve replied, and they got into a discussion on the future of
       | the Newton. You can see the exchange here on slide 61:
       | http://wwnc.newtontalk.net/2004/program/adamtow/slides-adamt...
        
       | ineedasername wrote:
       | I have horrible handwriting, and remember that it's handwriting
       | recognition-- for the time- was extremely good.
        
       | 8bitsrule wrote:
       | Not feeling old yet?? ... next year is the 40th anniversary of
       | PBS science TV show _Newton 's Apple_, with Ira Flatow. (The one
       | with the theme music 'borrowed' from Kraftwerk.)
        
         | reaperducer wrote:
         | _Not feeling old yet??_
         | 
         | It's time for the Millennials to start scheduling their
         | colonoscopies.
         | 
         | Welcome to old age!
        
       | whartung wrote:
       | I had a 130 and a 2000 (or 2100). I always thought they were very
       | interesting devices, I'm just not organized or busy enough to
       | need a PDA (even today). I love the idea of soups and
       | NewtonScript.
       | 
       | My newton turned in to my first e-reader. Having "books at my
       | fingertips" I really enjoyed, although it was all fiction.
       | 
       | I later ended up buying a Palm VII, I think, off eBay. It was all
       | fancy with some wireless connectivity that was obsolete when I
       | bought it, but it had a backlight and cost $20. That was a really
       | nice little e-reader.
        
       | paulpauper wrote:
       | The newton sucked. No offence but it was the size of a large
       | book, washed out green and grey screen, etc.
        
         | __d wrote:
         | On the one hand, you're right. There were numerous flaws, in
         | hardware, in software, in pricing, marketing, etc.
         | 
         | On the other hand, it was awesome. It could do things that
         | nothing had done before, and weren't done by anything else for
         | years (even to today) after.
         | 
         | You can argue that Apple made the wrong compromises, and the
         | success of the Palm Pilot suggests that a lot of people agree
         | with you. But then the Palm had a crappy screen too, so maybe
         | that wasn't as much of an issue as you think.
         | 
         | And it was smaller than an iPad Mini. The Newton group had
         | plans for smaller and larger models that were never brought to
         | market. It was hard to get the battery life and CPU power into
         | a smaller device back then. Still, the Palm, iPaq and various
         | PocketPCs clearly hit a sweet spot of size.
        
           | paulpauper wrote:
           | the palm was a lot smaller and cheaper
        
             | jandrese wrote:
             | Palm Pilots were a good example of "worse is better". Apple
             | pushed the boundaries of the possible a bit too hard and
             | ended up with a device that mostly worked but was expensive
             | and had too many issues for the price point. Palm was less
             | ambitious but their product was cheaper and more reliable.
        
             | __d wrote:
             | And simpler. It used Graffiti rather than a full neural
             | net-based HWR. It used compiled 68k C applications, not
             | NewtonScript. It was a fairly ruthlessly simple device.
             | 
             | Consequently, it was much cheaper to make, and could fit in
             | a smaller package.
        
       | linsomniac wrote:
       | Never forget that Apple big-footed an individual to take away
       | newton.com from him. IIRC, "Mark Newton" (edit: ?, from memory)
       | had the domain and Apple took it. Can't find a reference to the
       | story now.
        
         | BitwiseFool wrote:
         | I'm torn on this one, because at some point "first-come, first-
         | served" is not a great thing in the realm of non-fungible
         | domain names. I can't find much information on this subject,
         | but what did Apple do?
         | 
         | Was it similar to the Nissan case?
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_v._Nissan_Comput...
        
           | linsomniac wrote:
           | This is really strange: I thought maybe I could use the
           | wayback machine to look at the old site, but it only goes
           | back to Nov 1998, where it has Apple content on it. Doing
           | various searches I can't find a trace of the story. I
           | searched the history on slashdot, which is probably where I
           | heard about it, but no reference. Maybe it was Usenet...
           | 
           | But I can't find any references to it anywhere.
           | 
           | Much of the outrage at the time was: Hey, Apple, you already
           | have Apple.com, why aren't you using apple.com/newton ? The
           | owner of newton.com seemed to have as much right as Apple did
           | to use the domain (it seemed to be his legal last name), and
           | IIRC he had it for years before Apple released the Newton.
           | 
           | A bulk of the remaining animosity at the time was HOW Apple
           | went after it. They didn't offer to buy it or negotiate with
           | the guy that had it. Instead they went with: "This is ours
           | now." through ICANN or whatever it was at the time.
           | 
           | Very similar to the nissan.com situation, except, you know,
           | the individual still has nissan.com.
           | 
           | This was probably around the time that an article came out
           | about domain squatting, which ended with: Does this mean that
           | I could just go out and register mcdonalds.com ? E-mail me
           | with your thoughts at: ronald@mcdonalds.com :-)
        
         | noizejoy wrote:
         | Good (and sobering) to also remember the dark side that seems
         | to go along with much (or is it all?) of human achievement.
         | 
         | The sad/interesting part is, that some of those dark moments
         | seem so unnecessary - at least in hindsight. But I suspect that
         | the underlying psychology of ruthlessness may be a requirement
         | for much (all?) larger achievements.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | rbanffy wrote:
       | Some aspects of the Newton, such as the database-centric file
       | system, were so much ahead of their time they'd still be ahead of
       | ours.
        
         | gumby wrote:
         | AFAIK this was the inspiration for Microsoft's database
         | filesystem attempt that almost killed a Windows release and
         | ended up never seeing the light of day. I can't even remember
         | its code name.
        
           | hammycheesy wrote:
           | I believe you are thinking of WinFS
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS
        
             | rbanffy wrote:
             | They tried to deliver that idea since the early 90's.
        
               | pjmlp wrote:
               | And they partially did with ReFS, only available in the
               | server SKUs though.
        
               | rbanffy wrote:
               | It was kind of underwhelming.
        
           | jdminhbg wrote:
           | Longhorn: https://www.theregister.com/2003/05/13/microsoft_si
           | delines_l...
        
         | anthk wrote:
         | Palm used that too.
        
         | gumby wrote:
         | By the way it was similar to the memory design of Multics back
         | in the early 1960s, (though Multics' final implementation was
         | slightly different)
        
         | kergonath wrote:
         | It's interesting that some engineers went on to work with Be,
         | and then a bunch of engineers from Be went (back, for some of
         | them) to Apple early in the MacOS X era. There are things you
         | can trace back to the Newton across companies like that.
         | 
         | Another thing was text selectors, where you could do things
         | with random text, depending on what it was supposed to
         | represent (open the web browser when taping a link, open the
         | phone app when tapping a phone number, track parcels, show a
         | place in Maps, things like that). Nowadays, it is everywhere,
         | but it was a nice feature on the Newton.
        
           | KerrAvon wrote:
           | It was a nice feature in 1997 in Mac OS 8.0 too.
           | 
           | http://preserve.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.14/14.01/Ja.
           | ..
        
           | sgerenser wrote:
           | IIRC the "data detectors" patent[0] from the Newton era was
           | still valid when the iPhone came out, and was one of the few
           | patents specifically wielded by Apple in court against
           | Android and Samsung.
           | 
           | [0] https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
           | Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=...
        
       | jjkaczor wrote:
       | Heh - I miss those days of offbeat, new products.
       | 
       | Myself, I grabbed a 130 shortly after release. Combined with a
       | PCMCIA modem, and serial cable connector to my Motorola Flip, I
       | was one of those obnoxious nerds in coffee shops checking my
       | email, before WiFi and smart-phones.
       | 
       | NewtonScript was amazing, such a great language - and the promise
       | of an operating system with built-in database-like/searchable
       | storage was amazing. Which was also one of the reasons I fell in
       | love with BeOS a little later.
        
       | SulphurSmell wrote:
       | I still have my MP2000, and it powers up just fine. Although, it
       | could handle year 2000...it seemed to hit the wall from a date
       | range perspective soon after. Anyhow, I was soooo stoked at the
       | time to get one. Back then, there was not a small, useful,
       | handheld device. People that carried them were weirdos. I
       | doubled-down and carried a giant Moto flip-phone too. As fun as
       | the Newton was, it never became my killer device. Why? No one
       | else had one. I could not easily share all that clever stuff I
       | had in my Notes or my Calendar. I firmly believe that if more
       | people had them...you would have seen more adoption. Casio made a
       | few very colourful WinCe devices, too...same fate. And they were
       | huge... may as well carry a real computer...a laptop. As soon as
       | cell phones got "apps"... calendar especially, then I knew PDA's
       | were dead. When iPhone was launched...well, I knew that it was
       | the smaller, smarter, more connected Newton that was imagined way
       | back then.
        
         | __d wrote:
         | There's a patch for the date issue:
         | http://40hz.org/Pages/newton/hacking/newton-year-2010-proble...
        
           | SulphurSmell wrote:
           | Well isn't that great! Have to look at this. Thanks!!
        
       | EricE wrote:
       | Newton was amazing. Once you did a bit of training, it could read
       | your handwriting with easy. The assisted drawing was the coolest
       | thing and something that only recently Apple has brought back. I
       | only had a Message Pad 110 - I really regret not saving a bit
       | more for the 120 - it was a marked difference between the two.
        
         | layer8 wrote:
         | > something that only recently Apple has brought back
         | 
         | In what form? Just curious.
        
       | jordanmorgan10 wrote:
       | I mean, this product epitomized "ahead of its time", no?
        
       | Swannie wrote:
       | I badly wanted a Newton. Or a Psion3. Big time nostalgia.
        
       | alwillis wrote:
       | I was so jazzed about the Newton that I co-founded the Boston
       | Computer Society Newton Users Group [1] a year before it
       | launched. As far as I know, it was the first users group for the
       | Newton.
       | 
       | Those were amazing days. We even managed to have a couple of
       | members of the Newton team give us a sneak preview of the Newton
       | (NDAs required) a couple of months before it launched.
       | 
       | Our group helped with the rollout at MacWorld Boston--we were
       | upgrading OMPs early that morning with the latest firmware that
       | had just come out.
       | 
       | Of all of the user groups and tech communities I've participated
       | in, the community around the Newton was second to none, in terms
       | of their vision, foresight and camaraderie.
       | 
       | The Newton Hall of Fame [2] is worth checking out for anyone who
       | was part of the community back then, with many names that will
       | bring back memories, including yours truly.
       | 
       | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Computer_Society
       | 
       | [2]: http://cf.psl.msu.edu/hallofame.htm
        
       | mark_l_watson wrote:
       | I bought a new Newton after having lunch with Larry Tesler. He
       | was both enthusiastic about the Newton as well as trying to talk
       | me into rewriting my first Springer Verlag Common Lisp book to
       | use the Dylan language. John Koza also had lunch with us, and it
       | was great fun.
       | 
       | Years later, I was cleaning up the closet in my home office and
       | ended up throwing away all Newton materials - my general rule
       | that if I haven't used something in a few years, I like to get
       | rid of it.
        
         | SeanLuke wrote:
         | Fun fact. In addition to being the chief proponent behind
         | genetic programming, John had the patent on lottery scratch-off
         | tickets.
        
           | mark_l_watson wrote:
           | Indeed he did!
           | 
           | I told him about my experiment of using GA to train small
           | recurrent networks (using what I called variable weight size,
           | that would increase during training). He said that it was a
           | very cool idea but it wouldn't scale. A few weeks later I
           | agreed with his almost instant analysis. I did use the code
           | as an example in my C++ Power Paradigms book.
        
             | joefourier wrote:
             | Why wouldn't training small recurrent networks with GA
             | scale? Genetics algorithms are embarrassingly parallel,
             | even more so than training neural networks by gradient
             | descent. It's not efficient sure but it's trivially
             | scalable.
        
       | johndoe0815 wrote:
       | Egg freckles! :)
        
         | fzzzy wrote:
         | Eat up martha
        
         | __d wrote:
         | Tried the easter egg in the Einstein emulator?
         | 
         | https://eeggs.com/items/538.html
        
       | giantrobot wrote:
       | I have a full collection of Newton's from the OMP to the 2100
       | (including an eMate). They're neat devices and it's interesting
       | to wonder what could have been.
       | 
       | At the same time it's really easy to see their limitations and
       | why they failed to take off. The Newton was aimed squarely at the
       | _concept_ of a late 80s early 90s jetsetting executive. A small
       | device that replaced a briefcase and purchased on the company
       | AmEx.
       | 
       | Unfortunately for the Newton that's a pretty rarified market.
       | Even within that market a contemporary laptop was vastly more
       | capable for only 2-3x the price. Because the Newton seemingly
       | aimed at such a narrow market it just couldn't support itself let
       | alone a third party ecosystem.
       | 
       | I was in love with the _idea_ of a Newton, they were the PADD
       | from Star Trek! The price put them out of reach until I bought a
       | 2000 second hand. I 'm glad I _started_ with that one because the
       | 2000 and 2100 were the most capable Newton 's released and had
       | the best expansion options. I was able to get some use out of it
       | for years. Between NUGs and the NewtonTalk mailing list die hards
       | were able to keep Newtons useful for a while.
       | 
       | My love for them aside I can understand why Steve Jobs axed them.
       | Like the $4500 PowerBooks (the base 3400c cost that much in 1997
       | dollars!), the Newtons were just way more expensive than their
       | utility could justify. The Palm Pilot market was an order of
       | magnitude larger than the Newton and it was selling for half the
       | price. There wasn't much reason to fight two entrenched platforms
       | in two different markets (Windows/PC and Palm/PDAs).
        
         | indymike wrote:
         | I think Newton didn't make it because early 90s jet setters
         | liked Palm Pilots that would fit in your pocket and played well
         | with non-Apple computers. It was pretty rare to go to a meeting
         | and see a Newton, but everyone would pull out the Palm Pilot.
         | Price and form factor were probably the drivers.
        
       | docfort wrote:
       | A little more color on ARM and its financial contribution ($800M)
       | to keeping the lights on at Apple:
       | https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/john-sculley-how-arm-saved-ap....
       | 
       | In 1996, money to keep things going was important:
       | https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/28/business/apple-expects-it....
       | 
       | Finally, foreshadowing arguments about why it was important to
       | use 64-bit computing in a handheld device, Mike Culbert explains
       | 32-bit advantages in Newton over the incumbent 16-bit of the
       | time: https://beepdf.com/wp-content/uploads/newton/COMPCON-
       | HW.pdf.
        
         | billti wrote:
         | Wow. I knew Apple was an investor in ARM, but the specifics are
         | crazy. For those that won't read the linked story, this I found
         | to be fascinating:
         | 
         | > Newton was not successful, but Newton actually made $800
         | million dollars because Apple eventually sold the 43 percent it
         | owned in ARM, which, by the way, kept the doors open at Apple,
         | just before Steve Jobs came back. It was one of the really
         | important decisions that Gil Amelio [the last CEO before Steve
         | Jobs returned] made, and it gave them the cash to buy NeXT.
        
           | musicale wrote:
           | This is extraordinary. Picking ARM for Newton basically
           | enabled all of Apple's modern success: keeping the lights on,
           | getting Steve Jobs back, NeXTSTEP evolving into Mac OS X and
           | {i/iPad/TV/mac}OS, and of course ARM-based systems from the
           | original iPod to the Mac Studio/M1 Ultra.
        
             | jandrese wrote:
             | One wonders what the world would look like if AT&T could
             | design a processor worth a damn.
        
           | KerrAvon wrote:
           | You know, it occurs to me in retrospect that Apple overpaid
           | for NeXT, which is something people said at the time, but I
           | kind of ignored. No one else would have bought them at
           | anywhere near that price. The black hardware had failed.
           | OpenStep was cool but the OS didn't run super well on PC
           | hardware. NeXT should have been $150M tops. Apple eventually
           | had to rewrite all of the software anyway to make use of it.
           | 
           | Sure, Jobs himself was priceless. But, yeah, Apple did
           | overpay for NeXT at the time.
        
             | astrange wrote:
             | Most of the stuff below the UI layer was the same.
             | 
             | One thing that changed was IOKit, rewritten in C++, but
             | there actually wasn't a good reason for that and I think
             | everyone agrees sticking to ObjC would've been better...
        
             | lproven wrote:
             | ISTM that everyone misses a vitally important key part of
             | NeXT.
             | 
             | Yes, there was the OS, but there were other OSes, notably
             | BeOS, and NeXTstep/OpenStep ran on other OSes, notably
             | Solaris.
             | 
             | Yes, there was Steve Jobs.
             | 
             | But NeXT had a core thing that nobody else did: the state-
             | of-the-art development tools.
             | 
             | Apple _needed_ to get Mac developers on-board with the new
             | OS. Sun had a great OS. Be had a great OS. Apple itself had
             | A /UX. OSes abounded; there was lots of choice. Jobs'
             | vision was very important.
             | 
             | But without the NeXT developer tools, notably Interface
             | Builder and Objective-C, the deal would not have saved
             | Apple.
        
               | pjmlp wrote:
               | Yet they weren't sure the Mac community was that keen
               | into Objective-C, hence the Java Cocoa bridge as plan B.
        
             | msh wrote:
             | If a deal makes you the most valuable company in the world,
             | how can that deal be overpriced?
        
             | jdkee wrote:
             | "Sure, Jobs himself was priceless. But, yeah, Apple did
             | overpay for NeXT at the time."
             | 
             | Not if you view the transaction as a package deal.
        
             | xenadu02 wrote:
             | You know how YC investors pick teams, not products? Apple
             | at the time bought a team, not the technology. They also
             | bought credibility by bringing a founder back on-board.
             | 
             | Apple's biggest problem at the time was bad management,
             | followed by credibility.
             | 
             | They solved both problems and got some technology (ObjC,
             | what would become Darwin, etc) as a free bonus.
             | 
             | The complete NeXT takeover of management made it more like
             | a reverse acquisition in any case and the results speak for
             | themselves.
        
       | wrs wrote:
       | If you have (or want) a Newton and need to bring it up to the
       | modern era (as much as possible), here are some resources:
       | http://newtonfaq.com/
       | 
       | Includes help enabling nice things like WiFi, modern Flash
       | memory, dates after 2010...
        
       | gumby wrote:
       | > ...the size of a folded A4 sheet of paper...
       | 
       | In other words, the size of an A5 sheet of paper. C'mon Ars!
        
         | JeremyReimer wrote:
         | There was enough confusion in the comments over whether a
         | folded A4 was an A5 or A6, that I figured I made the right
         | call. :)
        
           | gumby wrote:
           | I suppose if they'd made it the size of an A4 folded along
           | its major axis it would have been easier to hold, though
           | reading text would have been annoying.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | spinaltap wrote:
       | Is this the "OpenDoc" thing that Steve Jobs trashed about in the
       | famous video?
        
         | protomyth wrote:
         | No, that was a framework on the Mac.
        
         | JeremyReimer wrote:
         | I don't think so. OpenDoc was a document sharing service in
         | classic Mac OS, similar in some ways to Microsoft's OLE (Object
         | Linking and Embedding) but somewhat more advanced. Back then,
         | some folks thought that applications were going to become more
         | like components that interacted with each other to make a kind
         | of "super-application", but the use case ended up being just
         | dropping an Excel spreadsheet in Word.
         | 
         | Newton had lots of ways to share information between
         | applications running on NewtonOS, but designed to fit the much
         | smaller memory footprint of the device.
         | 
         | I believe the only things the Newton and OpenDoc had in common
         | were that Steve Jobs killed both of them as cost-cutting
         | measures.
        
           | larkost wrote:
           | Fleshing this out a bit more: The idea was that there would
           | be one "Document" type, and that you could have multiple
           | parts in that document, each supported by a separate
           | application.
           | 
           | Users getting a document could always see it (there were
           | essentially graphical previews built in to the format), and
           | you only had to have the Application to modify content in
           | that section of the document.
           | 
           | As an example: a single document that had one area that was a
           | spreadsheet, another area that was a chart derived from the
           | data in that spreadsheet area, and then other areas that were
           | images or text areas.
           | 
           | For those that have used Adobe's InDesign with embedded
           | images from Photoshop or Illustrator, this is much the same
           | idea (except using plugins rather than the original app to do
           | the rendering).
           | 
           | It was a neat idea, but needed a lot of different places to
           | buy into it, and it would have needed to have a killer
           | InDesign replacement as part of the OS, and it never had
           | that. Plus all of the apps like Word and Excel would have had
           | to buy into having that as their hub, and I am not sure that
           | Microsoft (or others) would have ever given up that much
           | control.
        
       | newman314 wrote:
       | I was just thinking about my MessagePad over the weekend.
       | 
       | Does anyone have good links for modernizing a MP in 2022? Up to
       | date/usable networking etc.
        
         | wrs wrote:
         | http://newtonfaq.com/ will get you going.
        
           | __d wrote:
           | Nice to see you here, wrs
        
       | protomyth wrote:
       | I miss soups and NewtonScript. Honestly, it was such a nice
       | little machine that was so close to getting it right. I still
       | think some of the big ideas of that machine would serve us well
       | today. A replicating soup would be fun.
        
       | Ishmaeli wrote:
       | I recently attended a sales meeting for group health insurance
       | reps at Blue Cross Blue Shield of TX.
       | 
       | They are going all-in on HMO plans. Of course everyone remembers
       | how unpopular HMOs were in the 90s, deservedly so or not.
       | 
       | The Apple Newton figured prominently in their presentation. Like
       | the Newton, they argued, the HMO was premature to the market, and
       | suffered from lack of supporting infrastructure, despite being
       | ahead of its time in many ways. Today's HMO could be the iPhone.
       | 
       | I wasn't convinced, but it was cool to see the Newton again, out
       | in the wild.
        
       | sircastor wrote:
       | I had a 2100 (I think it was actually a 2000 with the memory
       | upgrade) in the early 2000s. It was a fun toy, but I remember
       | most the challenges of getting to be play like a first-class
       | citizen with my Mac+. I found it to be a cool device in the
       | tinker-y way that I like messing around with Linux and Raspberry
       | Pis, but at the end of the day it required more attention than
       | was worth it.
       | 
       | +Excepting the iPhone, this has been the case for virtually every
       | device I've owned. Palms (after the discontinuation of Palm
       | Desktop), Smartphones prior to 2007, Android phones. 3rd Party
       | vendors make a genuine strong attempt to make everything work,
       | but first-class support really makes using a device normal,
       | instead of a chore.
        
       | agiacalone wrote:
       | I remember the debut of the Newton. My father took me to a
       | showcasing event that Apple had at the time (I was probably early
       | high-school at the time).
       | 
       | This was years before Steve Jobs' (in)famous big unveiling
       | events.
       | 
       | After that, I wanted a Newton so badly...never did end up getting
       | one. Alas.
        
         | pvg wrote:
         | A small pedantipoint, the big unveilings started years before
         | that
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-XwPjn9YY
        
           | quadcore wrote:
           | With a Vangelis tune s'il vous plait.
        
       | pgib wrote:
       | I still have a working eMate 300. Every now and then I start it
       | up and play around a bit. It's neat to see how someone of it
       | still lives on in iPad OS with the Apple Pencil.
        
         | mattkevan wrote:
         | I bought an eMate on a whim about 20 years ago and absolutely
         | love it. I do a similar thing and have a play once in a while.
         | Occasionally I'll use it as a distraction-free writing device,
         | but the batteries need replacing for it to be truly useful.
         | Will get round to it one of these days.
         | 
         | I can't help but think it would make a really good Raspberry Pi
         | casemod, but it feels like sacrilege to gut a working device.
         | 
         | Incidentally, if anyone has any broken eMates I'd be
         | interested...
        
         | musicale wrote:
         | Say what you will about Jony Ive but the eMate 300 is a
         | beautiful design that also looks pretty functional.
         | 
         | It also seems to have a high-contrast reflective screen that
         | you could use in broad daylight, something that challenges even
         | my rather bright MacBook Pro.
         | 
         | As you note the iPad is something of a successor to the Newton
         | both in hardware (e.g. ARM CPU, Apple Pencil) and interface
         | (e.g. shape recognition/drawing, long press.)
         | 
         | Apple apparently prototyped larger Newton tablets (VideoPad) as
         | well as pen-based Mac OS devices (PenLite) but never brought
         | them to market. Though macOS does work as a pen based system if
         | you plug in a Cintiq, or an iPad with Sidecar.
        
           | CharlesW wrote:
           | > _Say what you will about Jony Ive but the eMate 300 is a
           | beautiful design that also looks pretty functional._
           | 
           | Thomas Meyerhoffer designed the eMate 300. Jony designed the
           | second-generation Newton MessagePad, the Newton MessagePad
           | 110.
        
             | musicale wrote:
             | Good to know - this is why HN is so great. Did Jony Ive
             | head up Apple's design group at the time or did that come
             | later after the iMac, etc.?
             | 
             | (If HN didn't have its stupid edit locks I could edit it to
             | read "say what you will about 1990s Apple.")
             | 
             | In any case, the eMate looks like an amazing design and now
             | I want to see more Meyerhoffer designs!
        
               | mrpippy wrote:
               | Jony was ID director by WWDC 97
               | 
               | https://bslabs.net/2018/05/28/wwdc-1997-videos/#500
        
               | musicale wrote:
               | Ah, so that would place the eMate 300 during the Jony Ive
               | era, making my edit unnecessary.
               | 
               | I'd still like to hear more about Thomas Meyerhoffer
               | though.
        
       | wanderingstan wrote:
       | Related, the documentary "General Magic" is quite good, and
       | mentions how Apple's Newton sort of undercut the proto-smartphone
       | being developed by apple veterans at General Magic. So many
       | people saw the future but the tech wasn't quite there.
        
         | rileyphone wrote:
         | Yeah, wondering what Larry Tesler's thought process was here,
         | the people from GM seemed pretty hurt by it in the doc (worth
         | watching but not very critical overall).
        
       | sswaner wrote:
       | I still have my Newton. It won me a copy of Adobe After Effects
       | from John Knoll at MacWorld. In the presentation showing how to
       | do special effects, Knoll offered a copy of the software to
       | anyone who could draw a picture of Bill Gates -- on a Newton. I
       | raised my hand and scribbled a smiley face as I ran to the front
       | of the room. Forgot I was in handwriting recognition mode. It
       | changed my drawing to "OK" right as I showed him. Got a good
       | laugh and the software.
        
       | JeremyReimer wrote:
       | Author here! I'm really happy to see people getting into the
       | nostalgia about these weird and wonderful devices. Researching
       | the story was absolutely fascinating, and I loved getting to talk
       | to Steve Capps, who was still excited to talk about the work he
       | did all those years ago.
        
         | wrs wrote:
         | Great article Jeremy! I have some minor quibbles about details
         | but you got all the important stuff right. :) Thanks for such a
         | nice commemoration.
        
           | sanj wrote:
           | Walter, thanks for NewtonScript! It is still one of my
           | favourite languages.
           | 
           | Dual inheritance for the win... _proto/_parent
        
         | hajile wrote:
         | I think the following is a bit inaccurate.
         | 
         | > And NewtonScript influenced the creation of JavaScript, with
         | its prototype-based object model, dynamic variable typing,
         | garbage-collected memory, and fast interpreted design. Today,
         | JavaScript is the most popular programming language in the
         | world.
         | 
         | The reasons are understandable though (sorry if there are any
         | slight mistakes as I'm writing from memory here).
         | 
         | Brendan Eich was hired to create a Scheme in the browser.
         | Later, the requirements were changed to "make it look like that
         | new Java language". He has said on record that he was familiar
         | with the Self language. JS is often called "Lisp in C's
         | clothing" because under the surface, it is quite similar to
         | Scheme with a prototype object system (Scheme has no object
         | system by default).
         | 
         | Apple created a language in the 1990s called Dylan that was
         | also used on the Newton. It started out as something very close
         | to Scheme + CLOS (Common Lisp Object System though it's more
         | properly MOP -- MetaObject Protocol). Lots of programmers hate
         | the lisp lack of syntax for whatever reason, so they changed
         | Dylan to an infix-style language. OpenNewton is still a thing
         | if you're interested.
         | 
         | NewtonScript kept much of the Dylan-style syntax, but changed
         | out the complex MOP for the more easy to understand prototypal
         | inheritance. I've never encountered even the hint that
         | Newtonscript was on Eich's radar when he started work on
         | Javascript.
         | 
         | There are definitely similarities that become apparent when you
         | look at both language designer's inspirations:
         | 
         | Scheme + Self + C/Java = JavaScript
         | 
         | Scheme + Self + Dylan = NewtonScript
         | 
         | The result is two languages with the same core language ideas
         | from Scheme, the same object system from self, and very
         | different syntax inspirations from C and Dylan.
         | 
         | EDIT: Eich says in an interview he never saw NewtonScript
         | before designing JS
         | 
         | https://wm-help.net/lib/b/book/2520193410/6
        
           | mepian wrote:
           | >OpenNewton is still a thing if you're interested.
           | 
           | Did you mean Open Dylan?
        
             | hajile wrote:
             | Yes. I wonder how I missed that, but then again, I see the
             | stuff that's made it into a PR of mine on occasion and I
             | guess I shouldn't wonder....
        
           | dreamcompiler wrote:
           | Early Dylan owed more to Common Lisp than to Scheme,
           | especially in its object system. It removed some of the more
           | complicated CLOS mechanisms (e.g. :before, :after, and
           | :around methods) but it still "felt" a lot like Common Lisp
           | before its syntax was de-parenthesized.
           | 
           | The first Dylan compiler was written at Apple Cambridge
           | [Massachusetts] Laboratories in Macintosh Common Lisp (MCL)
           | which was itself an Apple Product. Later, Apple decided they
           | didn't really want Dylan after all so they sold the Cambridge
           | lab, later renamed Digitool. The MCL product lives on today
           | as Clozure Common Lisp (CCL).
           | 
           | The transition from MCL to CCL is a dramatic story unto
           | itself. I should probably write down what I remember about it
           | someday.
        
             | hajile wrote:
             | I played around with Dylan around a decade ago. Maybe my
             | Scheme comparison comes more from it having just one
             | namespace (lisp-1) rather than the more functional aspects
             | of Scheme. MOP is definitely from CL though.
        
             | __d wrote:
             | I'd love to hear the MCL to CCL story, if you do get around
             | to it.
        
           | wrs wrote:
           | For the record, NewtonScript wasn't inspired by Dylan. I did
           | work on Dylan, but only in the early stages when it had
           | normal Lisp syntax. The syntax inspiration for NewtonScript
           | was Pascal.
        
         | markus_zhang wrote:
         | Thanks man. I never owned a Newton but the device looks
         | interesting. I figured Apple learned a lot from it to reach the
         | pads.
        
       | Brajeshwar wrote:
       | I missed the era of Newton because, well, Computers were new, a
       | tad young for the technology of that time, and perhaps my
       | geographic upbringing. Nonetheless, I will forever remember
       | anything resembling a Pocket PC-ish design devices and systems. I
       | did look around and asked people in the know to get my hands on
       | any non-working Newton for my keep-sake, but so far, no luck.
       | 
       | Pocket PC Devices, especially the iPAQ 2000[1], changed my career
       | and sling-shot me from a Magazine Cover designer to building
       | HIPPA Compliant Programs for these devices. If you see doctors,
       | in the USA, ticking off stuff holding one of them during the
       | early 2000s (perhaps till the 10s), they might be using one of
       | the programs I wrote.
       | 
       | [2000-2002] I used to always carry an iPAQ and I was kinda
       | showing off. Fellow commuters on the BEST buses and the Domestic
       | Western Railway in Mumbai thought I was a Japanese, surveying
       | things with cool gadgets to be introduced in India soon.
       | 
       | 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPAQ
        
       | gumby wrote:
       | Sadly I almost never saw one in the wild, even in the Valley, but
       | TBH, hardware and software hadn't yet reached the point of
       | viability.
       | 
       | I'm glad the author mentioned the knowledge navigator concept
       | video/s (were there two or just one? I can't remember any more).
       | The iphone handily picked up that baton, but wisely didn't try to
       | do so right away. But the NN vision was almost 20 years too soon.
        
       | dang wrote:
       | Related: (others?)
       | 
       |  _The Newton Application Architecture (1994) [pdf]_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22398899 - Feb 2020 (37
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Newton Storage History (2007)_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13805096 - March 2017 (11
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Why Steve Jobs Killed the Newton_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11486183 - April 2016 (1
       | comment)
       | 
       |  _Soup (Apple) - the Newton storage system_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11079874 - Feb 2016 (1
       | comment)
       | 
       |  _Why I Carry a Newton_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10877256 - Jan 2016 (138
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Dash Board for Newton OS: a Comic Tragedy in Nine Acts_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10083181 - Aug 2015 (6
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _A Guide to the Apple Newton_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10079507 - Aug 2015 (20
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _The "personal organizer" we had before the Newton_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9635168 - May 2015 (11
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Patching the Newton_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8125296 - Aug 2014 (17
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Talking with Mikel Evins about the Lisp-based Newton OS from
       | Apple_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7781265 - May 2014
       | (19 comments)
       | 
       |  _Steve Wozniak on Newton, Tesla, and the original Macintosh_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5955583 - June 2013 (2
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Ask HN: Is there a FOSS implementation of Apple 's Newton OS?_
       | - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5643063 - May 2013 (1
       | comment)
       | 
       |  _Newton OS running on an iPad_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1703130 - Sept 2010 (6
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Apple Gives Tribute to Newton with New 'What is iPad?' Ad_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1343523 - May 2010 (4
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _The iPad, the Newton, & the "Of Course" Model of Innovation
       | Diffusion_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1290914 - April
       | 2010 (31 comments)
       | 
       |  _A bit of vaporware (or "Microsoft's Secret Newton Killer")_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838496 - Sept 2009 (1
       | comment)
       | 
       |  _Mikel Evins about the Lisp-based Newton OS._ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=320646 - Oct 2008 (5
       | comments)
        
       | davidferguson wrote:
       | I have a Newton MessagePad 110, got it off eBay some years ago
       | for a cheap price.
       | 
       | It still works, and I'm going to take it to EMF Camp this weekend
       | and send a fax using it!
        
       | stakkur wrote:
       | I owned two Newtons. The jokes about the handwriting recognition
       | are a bit overstated, especially as later apps made it a joy to
       | use. Also, Newton was _way_ ahead of its time, and though it
       | looks quaint today, it was really something back in the day.
        
         | donarb wrote:
         | I had a Newton back then. Most of those who joked about the
         | handwriting recognition were tech reporters who played with it
         | for all of five minutes. Once you used the device on a regular
         | basis, the recognition got better, similar to today's iPhone
         | keyboard.
        
         | EB-Barrington wrote:
         | "Eat Up Martha"
        
         | cmiller1 wrote:
         | The handwriting recognition was running on the CPU so it got
         | much better when they jumped from the 20 mhz ARM on the MP 1x0
         | to the 162 mhz StrongARM on the later models.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-06-01 23:03 UTC)