Google Группы больше не поддерживают новые публикации и подписки в сети Usenet. Опубликованный ранее контент останется доступен.

Gistics study (again)

0 просмотров
Перейти к первому непрочитанному сообщению

Steve Nospam

не прочитано,
22 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0022.05.1999
Since there has been a huge debate over the Gistics study (for the
umpteenth time), I thought I would repost some of the issues I have
with the study.

The filename for the Gistics study is: ROI-TechBrief-48-AT.pdf

I seem to have deleted it from my files, so I would appreciate it if
someone could provide a URL where this file may be downloaded so that
everyone that is interested can read if for themselves.

IIRC correctly, the study covered the time period of 1993 to 1996 and
was published in 1997, with a statement that it was only valid until
1998.

Following is a slightly modified copy of what I posted to CSMA on Oct.
15, 1998 in the thread "Re: Cost of Mac vs Wintel"

Here are a few direct quotes that I find issue with:

(1) "...sluggish network file services associated with Windows NT..."

I don't understand this at all; the fact that this statement is in the
study makes me believe that Windows NT must have been running on very
slow hardware (another reason why I believe hardware must be included
in a study like this). One of the major upgrades in Mac OS 8.5 is to
increase file transfer speeds so they are comparable to that in
Windows NT. See:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,3441,2133657,00.html
for a statement from Mr. Jobs himself acknowledging the network speed
advantage for NT vs. OS 8.1.

(2) "Quicktime technology, Applescript ... built-in ethernet and
TCP/IP network interfacing - foundation technologies of the Macintosh
-- contribute most to this advantage."

This quote shows how outdated this study is. Quicktime is currently
available for the PC. There are numerous scripting tools for PCs,
including Perl and Wsh. Built-in ethernet (hardware) is commonly
available for PCs. Built-in ethernet and TCP/IP support is a
foundation of Win9x and Win NT. This is another example suggesting
heavy reliance on Win3.x for this study.

(3) "The highly touted plug-and-ply of Windows 95 fails approximately
50 percent of the time, especially for SCSI port devices, video
displays requiring their own interface cards, and networks."

Another example of outdated data. Windows 9x PnP is not as good as
the Mac's, however, it does work on new systems most of the time.
There were many problems trying to use PnP on old systems, which this
study reflects. Again, this is relevant to the study, but not to
someone trying to make use of the study to make current decisions on
what to purchase.

SCSI port devices work beautifully in Win9x and Win NT.

The mention of requiring video display cards is another example of
outdated information. The new B&W G3 Macs use video cards.
Furthermore, Macs are missing an entire category here, which is
high-end OpenGL cards.

(3) "It remains easier [on Macs] to check memory and move between
applications, and far easier to cut and paste graphics between
applications."

Outdated and absolute rubbish. On a Mac you have to check memory; on
PCs there is no need to manage memory at all (not to mention that
checking memory is as easy as clicking the performance tab in system
properties in Win9x or opening the task manager in NT4). Moving
between applications is as easy is clicking on a taskbar icon or using
Alt+tab. Cut and Paste is Cut and Paste.

(4) "Research indicates that Windows lacks a comprehensive framework
for managing the productive use of computers..."

Outdated. This is where things like DMI and Unicenter TNG come in to
play.

(5) "...[only] 400 device drivers for NT"

Horribly outdated.

(6) "Lack of several essential applications (for NT] that run only on
Macs or Windows 95."

Horribly outdated. In fact the shoe is now squarely on the other
foot. There are a number of high-end applications that run only on
NT.

(7) "Lack of native, NT-optomized applications."

Horribly outdated.

(8) "Arcane, difficult file manager, more like Unix or DEC VMS."

Outdated. This makes it clear that they are not referring to Windows
NT 4, or else they would also make the same comment about Windows 95.

(9) "...[NT] requires lengthy reinstallation process for system
registry, reformatting hard disk, etc. -- average 2.6 days per system"

This is a joke, it would be a stretch to claim 4 hours.

------

These are just a few of the issues I have with the Gistics study,
extracted from a very quick scan of the paper. My overall criticism
is that the study does not address the needs of decision makers who
are choosing new systems to deploy now and in the future. It uses old
and outdated information, and it does not adequately address hardware
issues. The text of the paper makes it clear that NT4 wasn't even
used in the study, WinNT was at the very early stages of deployment,
Win95 had minimal influence on the study, Win95 was in the early
stages of deployment, and that Win3.x was the primary OS in the study.

I do believe that it is a reasonably fair analysis of the businesses
that they studied at the time that they studied them. However, any
business making decisions on what systems to purchase now and in the
future, would be foolhardy to use this study IMO, because the relevant
information they need is so poorly documented and outdated.


-Steve

*The only thing certain about the future is that it hasn't happened yet.*

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
22 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0022.05.1999
In article <3746c236...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
nospam@nospam!.kom (Steve Nospam) wrote:

> Since there has been a huge debate over the Gistics study (for the
> umpteenth time), I thought I would repost some of the issues I have
> with the study.
>
> The filename for the Gistics study is: ROI-TechBrief-48-AT.pdf
>
> I seem to have deleted it from my files, so I would appreciate it if
> someone could provide a URL where this file may be downloaded so that
> everyone that is interested can read if for themselves.
>
> IIRC correctly, the study covered the time period of 1993 to 1996 and
> was published in 1997, with a statement that it was only valid until
> 1998.
>
> Following is a slightly modified copy of what I posted to CSMA on Oct.
> 15, 1998 in the thread "Re: Cost of Mac vs Wintel"
>
> Here are a few direct quotes that I find issue with:
>
> (1) "...sluggish network file services associated with Windows NT..."
>
> I don't understand this at all; the fact that this statement is in the
> study makes me believe that Windows NT must have been running on very
> slow hardware (another reason why I believe hardware must be included
> in a study like this). One of the major upgrades in Mac OS 8.5 is to
> increase file transfer speeds so they are comparable to that in
> Windows NT. See:
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,3441,2133657,00.html
> for a statement from Mr. Jobs himself acknowledging the network speed
> advantage for NT vs. OS 8.1.

=======
Appleshare 6 has equal or higher throughtput in file transfer than NT.
Where the Mac Is slower is at being a print server. But meny places use a
network printer and don't really need print serving unless huge numbers of
docuements are being printed....
========

> (2) "Quicktime technology, Applescript ... built-in ethernet and
> TCP/IP network interfacing - foundation technologies of the Macintosh
> -- contribute most to this advantage."
>
> This quote shows how outdated this study is. Quicktime is currently
> available for the PC. There are numerous scripting tools for PCs,
> including Perl and Wsh. Built-in ethernet (hardware) is commonly
> available for PCs. Built-in ethernet and TCP/IP support is a
> foundation of Win9x and Win NT. This is another example suggesting
> heavy reliance on Win3.x for this study.

======
Perl and Wsh are far more complicated than Applescript, which even has a
"recorder" function whereby mr beginner can "record" an action, save and
compile as a script...and has had that functionality even at the time of
the study...Etherent was not generally a built-in option at the time of
the Gistics study...it was an add-on wheras Macs have had built-in
ethernet since early-mid 90's...
======

> (3) "The highly touted plug-and-ply of Windows 95 fails approximately
> 50 percent of the time, especially for SCSI port devices, video
> displays requiring their own interface cards, and networks."
>
> Another example of outdated data. Windows 9x PnP is not as good as
> the Mac's, however, it does work on new systems most of the time.
> There were many problems trying to use PnP on old systems, which this
> study reflects. Again, this is relevant to the study, but not to
> someone trying to make use of the study to make current decisions on
> what to purchase.

--------
The problem is that Win 9X PnP fails all too often. And when it does it is
a nightmare. The folks at Sports illustrated/Chicago in their Ad
department have worked for weeks/months with Win 95, trying to get it to
see a Zip drive...and that was some time ago. I don't know if its even
working yet....
=======

> SCSI port devices work beautifully in Win9x and Win NT.

-------
...and how long did it take for that to happen? .....and how about
configuring that SCSI card for many users.....back to PnP thing./..
======

> The mention of requiring video display cards is another example of
> outdated information. The new B&W G3 Macs use video cards.
> Furthermore, Macs are missing an entire category here, which is
> high-end OpenGL cards.

--------------
Considering that only at Macworld was it announced that Apple would go to
Open GL....give it a break...had nothing to do with gistics study...
=========


> (3) "It remains easier [on Macs] to check memory and move between
> applications, and far easier to cut and paste graphics between
> applications."
>
> Outdated and absolute rubbish. On a Mac you have to check memory; on
> PCs there is no need to manage memory at all (not to mention that
> checking memory is as easy as clicking the performance tab in system
> properties in Win9x or opening the task manager in NT4). Moving
> between applications is as easy is clicking on a taskbar icon or using
> Alt+tab. Cut and Paste is Cut and Paste.

--------------
Hmpft....set the memory in an app and basically forget it.
moving between apps is hard? cmd+tab, or use the App switcher....floating
palatte...and while cut & paste might only be that in your parlance, don't
forget how much better the Mac has implimented drag and drop....
=======

> (4) "Research indicates that Windows lacks a comprehensive framework
> for managing the productive use of computers..."
>
> Outdated. This is where things like DMI and Unicenter TNG come in to
> play.
>
> (5) "...[only] 400 device drivers for NT"
>
> Horribly outdated.
>
> (6) "Lack of several essential applications (for NT] that run only on
> Macs or Windows 95."
>
> Horribly outdated. In fact the shoe is now squarely on the other
> foot. There are a number of high-end applications that run only on
> NT.

=======
Like what in the "publishing world"...that is, the market the Gistics
study was focused on?
=====

> (7) "Lack of native, NT-optomized applications."
>
> Horribly outdated.

======
Perhaps, but still enough stuff that doesn't run on nt well...
======


> (8) "Arcane, difficult file manager, more like Unix or DEC VMS."
>
> Outdated. This makes it clear that they are not referring to Windows
> NT 4, or else they would also make the same comment about Windows 95.

> (9) "...[NT] requires lengthy reinstallation process for system
> registry, reformatting hard disk, etc. -- average 2.6 days per system"
>
> This is a joke, it would be a stretch to claim 4 hours.

========
It's such a joke that the folks who use Macs and are now perhaps forced to
use NT, won't...simply because they say if NT goes down, its a day or more
to fix. If a Mac goes down, they're up and running in a few hours.

....and I've never seen it take 4 hours to install a Mac OS...


> ------
>
> These are just a few of the issues I have with the Gistics study,
> extracted from a very quick scan of the paper. My overall criticism
> is that the study does not address the needs of decision makers who
> are choosing new systems to deploy now and in the future. It uses old
> and outdated information, and it does not adequately address hardware
> issues. The text of the paper makes it clear that NT4 wasn't even
> used in the study, WinNT was at the very early stages of deployment,
> Win95 had minimal influence on the study, Win95 was in the early
> stages of deployment, and that Win3.x was the primary OS in the study.
>
> I do believe that it is a reasonably fair analysis of the businesses
> that they studied at the time that they studied them. However, any
> business making decisions on what systems to purchase now and in the
> future, would be foolhardy to use this study IMO, because the relevant
> information they need is so poorly documented and outdated.

=====
Most of NT and Win 95/98 are the same since the study.

Why should any time since then have an impact on the study, unless you're
trying to claim the Mac OS has become worse in every regard relative to
the study, which it hasn't and has even imporved in its performance and
ease of use...

...but keep trying though...

Alan Baker

не прочитано,
22 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0022.05.1999
In article <3746c236...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
nospam@nospam!.kom (Steve Nospam) wrote:

>Since there has been a huge debate over the Gistics study (for the
>umpteenth time), I thought I would repost some of the issues I have
>with the study.
>
>The filename for the Gistics study is: ROI-TechBrief-48-AT.pdf
>
>I seem to have deleted it from my files, so I would appreciate it if
>someone could provide a URL where this file may be downloaded so that
>everyone that is interested can read if for themselves.

>1998.

Well, I too have followed the return of the Gistics argument. So I went
and found the report. You can get it at:

<http://www.apple.com/publishing/collateral/pdf/ROITechBrief.pdf>


>IIRC correctly, the study covered the time period of 1993 to 1996 and
>was published in 1997, with a statement that it was only valid until

The only thing I would add is that most of the data (73%) was collected in 1995.

--
Alan Baker, bakerMEDIA, Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to
that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in
the bottom of that cupboard" -Flanders & Swan

Phil Brewster

не прочитано,
22 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0022.05.1999
FWIW, Steven Braitman of Gistics posted a FAQ on the Mac vs. Windows ROI
Techbrief in August 1997 with their response to some of these criticisms
(raised at the time by none other than John Hammett, a.k.a. the immortal
John De Hoog, on c.s.m.a... See thread on Deja.com, for a distinct sense
of, ehm, Deja vu...

<g>)

http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=263995561&search=thread&CONTEXT=927428473.1280442545&hitnum=0

The .pdf Techbrief Abstract (4 pp.) may or may not still be available for
free from rese...@gistics.com; not sure, but that's where I would try to
locate a copy, if still interested...

The complete version of the study (40 pp.) still costs $129, in any
event...

http://gistics.serversmiths.com/publications.nclk

-- But wait, there's more!....

For $295 each, you can get their latest, up-to-date (1999) results on the
advantages of using AppleScript, ColorSync, and/or QuickTime (see URL).

Heh. -- Maybe Mac and PC advocates should start up a c.s.m.a. kitty to
support each other's flames and counter-flames wrt the evidence in these
matters, and incorporate all 200 pp. of these 4 Gistics studies into the
group FAQ, verbatim... <g> Given the amount of disagreement over the 4-page
abstract in the past 2 years alone, it would ensure the group's existence
well into the next millennium....

;-P"

On Sat, May 22, 1999 9:02 AM, Steve Nospam <mailto:nospam@nospam!.kom>
wrote:

Phil Brewster

не прочитано,
22 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0022.05.1999

Phil Brewster

не прочитано,
22 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0022.05.1999
Well, at this rate, I may be in the running for the Jeremy Reimer Award for
Most Prolific Posting in this thread, and the second ('repeat') version of
my previous post was supposed to include a pointer to this URL too, but
anyway...

http://www.apple.com/publishing/collateral/

also has downloadable .pdf abstracts of the 1999 ColorSync and AppleScript
'payback assessment' studies that I mentioned from the Gistics site, as
well as some .pdf files based on the recent Pfeiffer Consulting studies of
G3s, productivity, and etc., which have been referred to, debated, and
discussed here as well.

-- So, maybe a pointer in the FAQ would be of some help after all?...

:-)

On Sat, May 22, 1999 8:56 PM, Alan Baker
<mailto:Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <3746c236...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,

>nospam@nospam!.kom (Steve Nospam) wrote:
>
>>Since there has been a huge debate over the Gistics study (for the
>>umpteenth time), I thought I would repost some of the issues I have
>>with the study.
>>
>>The filename for the Gistics study is: ROI-TechBrief-48-AT.pdf
>>
>>I seem to have deleted it from my files, so I would appreciate it if
>>someone could provide a URL where this file may be downloaded so that
>>everyone that is interested can read if for themselves.

>>1998.
>
>Well, I too have followed the return of the Gistics argument. So I went
>and found the report. You can get it at:
>
><http://www.apple.com/publishing/collateral/pdf/ROITechBrief.pdf>
>
>

>>IIRC correctly, the study covered the time period of 1993 to 1996 and
>>was published in 1997, with a statement that it was only valid until
>

Steve Nospam

не прочитано,
23 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0023.05.1999
On Sat, 22 May 1999 15:39:06 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
wrote:

>In article <3746c236...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
>nospam@nospam!.kom (Steve Nospam) wrote:
>

<snip>

>=======
>Appleshare 6 has equal or higher throughtput in file transfer than NT.
>Where the Mac Is slower is at being a print server. But meny places use a
>network printer and don't really need print serving unless huge numbers of
>docuements are being printed....

No sir, *file* transfer is the issue and OS 8.5 finally brought the
Mac to parity or better (depending on file size) with NT. Prior to OS
8.5 (i.e when the study was conducted) network file transfers over
TCP/IP were significantly slower. Mac OS 8.5 "provides up to 300
percent faster file copying over a network" compared OS 8.1
(http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2163723,00.html).
However, I do agree that printing over the network is also slower.

>========
>> (2) "Quicktime technology, Applescript ... built-in ethernet and
>> TCP/IP network interfacing - foundation technologies of the Macintosh
>> -- contribute most to this advantage."
>>
>> This quote shows how outdated this study is. Quicktime is currently
>> available for the PC. There are numerous scripting tools for PCs,
>> including Perl and Wsh. Built-in ethernet (hardware) is commonly
>> available for PCs. Built-in ethernet and TCP/IP support is a
>> foundation of Win9x and Win NT. This is another example suggesting
>> heavy reliance on Win3.x for this study.
>======
>Perl and Wsh are far more complicated than Applescript, which even has a
>"recorder" function whereby mr beginner can "record" an action, save and
>compile as a script...and has had that functionality even at the time of
>the study...

And Perl and Wsh are also more powerful IMO.

>Etherent was not generally a built-in option at the time of
>the Gistics study...it was an add-on wheras Macs have had built-in
>ethernet since early-mid 90's...

That's exactly my point. The Gistics study was relevant in 1995. It
is not relevant in 1999.

<snip>

>The problem is that Win 9X PnP fails all too often. And when it does it is
>a nightmare. The folks at Sports illustrated/Chicago in their Ad
>department have worked for weeks/months with Win 95, trying to get it to
>see a Zip drive...and that was some time ago. I don't know if its even
>working yet....

Your anecdotal evidence is interesting, but proves nothing. I plugged
my Syquest drives into the IDE or SCSI ports on a number of PCs with
never a problem, which is my anecdotal evidence that also cannot prove
any general point.

>=======
>> SCSI port devices work beautifully in Win9x and Win NT.
>-------
>...and how long did it take for that to happen? .....and how about
>configuring that SCSI card for many users.....back to PnP thing./..

Again, the fact that it was not true when the study was conducted is
exactly the point I am trying to make. Your response only validates
my assertion that the Gistics study is no longer relevant. My
anecdotal evidence for *1999* is that I have never seen anybody have
any trouble "configuring" a SCSI card on a PC as compared to the
trouble doing the same on Macs. I have always just plugged the card
into a PCI slot and loaded the drivers (have you read any of the
problems with SCSI cards and the B&W G3s on MacInTouch?).

>======
>> The mention of requiring video display cards is another example of
>> outdated information. The new B&W G3 Macs use video cards.
>> Furthermore, Macs are missing an entire category here, which is
>> high-end OpenGL cards.
>--------------
>Considering that only at Macworld was it announced that Apple would go to
>Open GL....give it a break...had nothing to do with gistics study...

Why should I give it a break? Should MS be given a break because they
just got around to adding built-in multiple monitor support to Win98
and its not available on shipping NT yet?

>=========
>> (3) "It remains easier [on Macs] to check memory and move between
>> applications, and far easier to cut and paste graphics between
>> applications."
>>
>> Outdated and absolute rubbish. On a Mac you have to check memory; on
>> PCs there is no need to manage memory at all (not to mention that
>> checking memory is as easy as clicking the performance tab in system
>> properties in Win9x or opening the task manager in NT4). Moving
>> between applications is as easy is clicking on a taskbar icon or using
>> Alt+tab. Cut and Paste is Cut and Paste.
>--------------
>Hmpft....set the memory in an app and basically forget it.

Really? Suppose you use files in Photoshop that are around 10 MB in
size half of the time and around 50 MB the other half. Are you
telling me that you wouldn't change the memory settings, or if you
didn't change them, that memory would be optomized well when you also
had other apps open at the same time?

>moving between apps is hard? cmd+tab, or use the App switcher....floating
>palatte...and while cut & paste might only be that in your parlance, don't
>forget how much better the Mac has implimented drag and drop....

The Gistics study specifically mentioned that problems with PCs that
influenced ROI were difficulty switching among apps and cut and paste.
I am not trying to argue (here) that Windows is superior to the Mac
OS. I am trying to argue that the Gistics study is not relevant in
1999 because things they pointed out as specific problems in the study
are no longer problems with Win9x/NT4.

<snip>

>> Horribly outdated. In fact the shoe is now squarely on the other
>> foot. There are a number of high-end applications that run only on
>> NT.
>=======
>Like what in the "publishing world"...that is, the market the Gistics
>study was focused on?

That was an ancillary comment. Examples of apps that run only on NT
are 3D studio max and ESRI Arc/Info 7.x.x.

>=====
>> (7) "Lack of native, NT-optomized applications."
>>
>> Horribly outdated.
>======
>Perhaps, but still enough stuff that doesn't run on nt well...

Name a commonly-used DTP application that doesn't run under WinNT4
and/or has no Win32 replacement.

<snip>

>> This is a joke, it would be a stretch to claim 4 hours.
>========
>It's such a joke that the folks who use Macs and are now perhaps forced to
>use NT, won't...simply because they say if NT goes down, its a day or more
>to fix. If a Mac goes down, they're up and running in a few hours.

Uh huh, I see no difference in the amount of time it takes to solve PC
and Mac problems. Your anecdotal evidence is no more valid than mine
(and both are unsuitable for making generalizations).

>....and I've never seen it take 4 hours to install a Mac OS...

I have. It involved trying to get a B&W G3 Mac to install OS8.5 to
and boot from a SCSI hard drive.

<snip>

>Most of NT and Win 95/98 are the same since the study.

Have you even read the study? It's absolutely clear that the study
focused on Win3.x with only token use of Win95 and no use at all of
WinNT4. Win9x and NT4 are hugely different from the primary focus of
the study.

>Why should any time since then have an impact on the study, unless you're
>trying to claim the Mac OS has become worse in every regard relative to
>the study, which it hasn't and has even imporved in its performance and
>ease of use...

Because the study focused on Win3.x with only token mentions of Win95
and NT3.x. NT4 and Win98 weren't even available at the time of the
study. I'm simply stating that the study is completely outdated and
based on information that is no longer current. Thus, the study is
meaningless in 1999 except for historical interest.

>...but keep trying though...

LOL! I've proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the study is
completely outdated and bases its conclusions primarily on Win3.x.
Thus, it is outdated and not useful in 1999. The conclusions of the
study were relevant in 1995 (of course it hadn't been published then),
but not in 1999.

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
23 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0023.05.1999
In article <37479518...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
nospam@nospam!.kom (Steve Nospam) wrote:

------------------------
Perhaps...but one just about needs to be a programmer to learn them
effectively. Not so with Applescript.
=========


> >Etherent was not generally a built-in option at the time of
> >the Gistics study...it was an add-on wheras Macs have had built-in
> >ethernet since early-mid 90's...
>
> That's exactly my point. The Gistics study was relevant in 1995. It
> is not relevant in 1999.

-----------------
oh, etherent eas not onboard on Macs in 1995 and was for PC's as standard
item? Ethernet sure was and far easier to configure wheras one had to
usually buy a NIC, get it to work and such on PC's. That even put it
further behind in cost/productivity. Then if Windows blew up....
==========


> <snip>
>
> >The problem is that Win 9X PnP fails all too often. And when it does it is
> >a nightmare. The folks at Sports illustrated/Chicago in their Ad
> >department have worked for weeks/months with Win 95, trying to get it to
> >see a Zip drive...and that was some time ago. I don't know if its even
> >working yet....
>
> Your anecdotal evidence is interesting, but proves nothing. I plugged
> my Syquest drives into the IDE or SCSI ports on a number of PCs with
> never a problem, which is my anecdotal evidence that also cannot prove
> any general point.

---------------
Anectodal evidence? Try the media. All you ahve to do is read the stores
in PC Week and the like....not to mention the computer talk shows. So very
many folks have trouble. For YOU, it might be easy. You're a
pocket-protector. Most users are not. And that makes a difference.

> >=======
> >> SCSI port devices work beautifully in Win9x and Win NT.
> >-------
> >...and how long did it take for that to happen? .....and how about
> >configuring that SCSI card for many users.....back to PnP thing./..
>
> Again, the fact that it was not true when the study was conducted is
> exactly the point I am trying to make. Your response only validates
> my assertion that the Gistics study is no longer relevant. My
> anecdotal evidence for *1999* is that I have never seen anybody have
> any trouble "configuring" a SCSI card on a PC as compared to the
> trouble doing the same on Macs. I have always just plugged the card
> into a PCI slot and loaded the drivers (have you read any of the
> problems with SCSI cards and the B&W G3s on MacInTouch?).

-------------
Please don't try and say PnP on Pc's is currently the equal of Macs. Just
ain't so steve. You might want it to be so from YOUR experience, but again
, look to the media and go to a compter flea market and talk to few
folks....or listen (web) to Don Crabb's show on Computers....it aint[
working as well as you'd like.


> >======
> >> The mention of requiring video display cards is another example of
> >> outdated information. The new B&W G3 Macs use video cards.
> >> Furthermore, Macs are missing an entire category here, which is
> >> high-end OpenGL cards.
> >--------------
> >Considering that only at Macworld was it announced that Apple would go to
> >Open GL....give it a break...had nothing to do with gistics study...
>
> Why should I give it a break? Should MS be given a break because they
> just got around to adding built-in multiple monitor support to Win98
> and its not available on shipping NT yet?

--------------
You're bringing into the mix something that even yet is not well enough
implimented to be an issue.


> >=========
> >> (3) "It remains easier [on Macs] to check memory and move between
> >> applications, and far easier to cut and paste graphics between
> >> applications."
> >>
> >> Outdated and absolute rubbish. On a Mac you have to check memory; on
> >> PCs there is no need to manage memory at all (not to mention that
> >> checking memory is as easy as clicking the performance tab in system
> >> properties in Win9x or opening the task manager in NT4). Moving
> >> between applications is as easy is clicking on a taskbar icon or using
> >> Alt+tab. Cut and Paste is Cut and Paste.
> >--------------
> >Hmpft....set the memory in an app and basically forget it.
>
> Really? Suppose you use files in Photoshop that are around 10 MB in
> size half of the time and around 50 MB the other half. Are you
> telling me that you wouldn't change the memory settings, or if you
> didn't change them, that memory would be optomized well when you also
> had other apps open at the same time?

=======
Right I'wouldn't change them. I use 40-45 meg files here and there and
most of my files are in the 10-20 meg range. I set Photoshop for the 40's
and forget it. And remember with photoshop there is no substitute for REAL
ram. 3 x the size of the largest file you work on and keep photoshop out
of VM space as much as possible. I don't go changing setting for different
images....and I do this all the time....I'm the AD of a magazine and small
Ad Agency and do the design/prepress. I often run Pagemaker 6.5.2 at the
same time and have no problems...and once in a while I have Freehand or
Illustrator up to boot.

=========


> >moving between apps is hard? cmd+tab, or use the App switcher....floating
> >palatte...and while cut & paste might only be that in your parlance, don't
> >forget how much better the Mac has implimented drag and drop....
>
> The Gistics study specifically mentioned that problems with PCs that
> influenced ROI were difficulty switching among apps and cut and paste.
> I am not trying to argue (here) that Windows is superior to the Mac
> OS. I am trying to argue that the Gistics study is not relevant in
> 1999 because things they pointed out as specific problems in the study
> are no longer problems with Win9x/NT4.

=======
It is still largely relevant only because not much of significance has
changed. Nothing that would dramatically alter the result(s). If the Mac
were at Mac OS X consumer or You have NT 5. oops, 2000 in release version,
it would be different. It's not.
=======

> <snip>
>
> >> Horribly outdated. In fact the shoe is now squarely on the other
> >> foot. There are a number of high-end applications that run only on
> >> NT.
> >=======
> >Like what in the "publishing world"...that is, the market the Gistics
> >study was focused on?
>
> That was an ancillary comment. Examples of apps that run only on NT
> are 3D studio max and ESRI Arc/Info 7.x.x.

------------
The segments in which one uses 3D Studio Max and ESRI are not the focus of
Gistics study. I hope you don't think 3d, renedering, animation are the
same as publishing? Prepress etc.,? There is some overlap with the web,
but one is often extended from the other.


> >=====
> >> (7) "Lack of native, NT-optomized applications."
> >>
> >> Horribly outdated.
> >======
> >Perhaps, but still enough stuff that doesn't run on nt well...
>
> Name a commonly-used DTP application that doesn't run under WinNT4
> and/or has no Win32 replacement.

-------------
Considering color management, fonts, monitor calibration...pretty much all
are harder to use. But Since the MAc has owned publishing, I can get a
greater number of apps that work together than on PC in that marketplace.
How about Linocolor 5?
========


>
> >> This is a joke, it would be a stretch to claim 4 hours.
> >========
> >It's such a joke that the folks who use Macs and are now perhaps forced to
> >use NT, won't...simply because they say if NT goes down, its a day or more
> >to fix. If a Mac goes down, they're up and running in a few hours.
>
> Uh huh, I see no difference in the amount of time it takes to solve PC
> and Mac problems. Your anecdotal evidence is no more valid than mine
> (and both are unsuitable for making generalizations).
>
> >....and I've never seen it take 4 hours to install a Mac OS...
>
> I have. It involved trying to get a B&W G3 Mac to install OS8.5 to
> and boot from a SCSI hard drive.

---------
...and since they were so new, wasn't there a problem with the Adaptec
SCSI cards that caused this? The G3 b&W's are not the majority of systems,
so this is hardly a big issue and is resolved as well. But as we move away
from SCSI to Firewire, it is even less a problem. And firewire is a better
solution.
=====


> <snip>
>
> >Most of NT and Win 95/98 are the same since the study.
>
> Have you even read the study? It's absolutely clear that the study
> focused on Win3.x with only token use of Win95 and no use at all of
> WinNT4. Win9x and NT4 are hugely different from the primary focus of
> the study.
>
> >Why should any time since then have an impact on the study, unless you're
> >trying to claim the Mac OS has become worse in every regard relative to
> >the study, which it hasn't and has even imporved in its performance and
> >ease of use...
>
> Because the study focused on Win3.x with only token mentions of Win95
> and NT3.x. NT4 and Win98 weren't even available at the time of the
> study. I'm simply stating that the study is completely outdated and
> based on information that is no longer current. Thus, the study is
> meaningless in 1999 except for historical interest.
>
> >...but keep trying though...
>
> LOL! I've proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the study is
> completely outdated and bases its conclusions primarily on Win3.x.
> Thus, it is outdated and not useful in 1999. The conclusions of the
> study were relevant in 1995 (of course it hadn't been published then),
> but not in 1999.

=======
Proof = your experiences and personal evidence.

Do you work in the prepress world? Or design graphics market?

Phil Brewster

не прочитано,
23 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0023.05.1999
On Sun, May 23, 1999 8:47 PM, Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer
<mailto:jrei...@home.com> wrote:
>In article <Alan_Baker-
>22059919...@a3a31538.sympatico.bconnected.net>,
>Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca says...

>
>> Well, I too have followed the return of the Gistics argument. So I went
>> and found the report. You can get it at:
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/publishing/collateral/pdf/ROITechBrief.pdf>
>>
>>
>> >IIRC correctly, the study covered the time period of 1993 to 1996 and
>> >was published in 1997, with a statement that it was only valid until
>>
>> The only thing I would add is that most of the data (73%) was collected
in
>1995.
>
>I would also add that apparently Apple has taken the Gistics ROI study
>off their web page, or at least the link to it is no longer there. If
>you go to www.apple.com/publishing/collateral you can download the
>Applescript and Colorsync ROI papers, but there is no link to the file
>ROITechBrief.pdf. Because of the stupid way that Acrobat 3 links itself
>into IE, I could view the file but not download it in IE5. However,
>Opera allowed me to download it, so I now have *my* copy. :)
>
>It's very amusing that Joe Ragosta still feels that this study is worth
>quoting even if Apple no longer does.
>
>--
>---
>
>Jeremy "Getu" Reimer
>jrei...@home.com
>http://members.home.net/jreimeris
>

Huh? -- You might want to take another look, then -- about half way down
the page is the complete (40pp.) 'ROI Techbrief' from 1997 to download
(click on the Adobe Acrobat icon to the left... Holding the cursor over
this icon in Cyberdog tells me that this is indeed the reference Alan
gave...). Or, go directly to the FTP reference that Alan gave, which also
seems to work fine, though it won't take you to the page and will start the
download (671K) immediately instead, so you ought to be sure that's what
you want to do first...

FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly that advocates on both sides of this debate
should be basing themselves on the 1999 Gistics publications (re: ColorSync
and AppleScript..), rather than on the 1997 study, if they are going to be
arguing these points at all; but the 1997 study is still there if anyone
wants to read it, at:

http://www.apple.com/publishing/collateral/

<blurb>

ROI TechBrief. This study analyzes the effects of digital technology on
productivity and profits in the "media-producing" industries. The report
finds that the Macintosh remains the dominant platform in this sector and
that Apple technology continues to deliver dramatically larger returns on
investment (ROI) than Wintel equipment.

</blurb>

-- Just out of curiosity, Jeremy, but this 'Getu religion' of yours
wouldn't involve the frequent use of 'incense', now, would it?...

;-)

Cheers,

Steve Nospam

не прочитано,
24 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0024.05.1999
On Sun, 23 May 1999 17:22:41 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
wrote:

>In article <37479518...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
>nospam@nospam!.kom (Steve Nospam) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 May 1999 15:39:06 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
>> wrote:
>>

<snip>

>> >Etherent was not generally a built-in option at the time of
>> >the Gistics study...it was an add-on wheras Macs have had built-in
>> >ethernet since early-mid 90's...
>>
>> That's exactly my point. The Gistics study was relevant in 1995. It
>> is not relevant in 1999.
>-----------------
>oh, etherent eas not onboard on Macs in 1995 and was for PC's as standard
>item? Ethernet sure was and far easier to configure wheras one had to
>usually buy a NIC, get it to work and such on PC's. That even put it
>further behind in cost/productivity. Then if Windows blew up....
>==========

??? I don't understand what you are getting at. I am saying that in
1995, the Gistics study was relevant (although not yet published ;-).
I am also saying that it is now 1999, and it is not relevant now.

<snip>

>---------------
>Anectodal evidence? Try the media. All you ahve to do is read the stores
>in PC Week and the like....not to mention the computer talk shows. So very
>many folks have trouble. For YOU, it might be easy. You're a
>pocket-protector. Most users are not. And that makes a difference.
>> >=======

I have said many times (I'm not sure if on this thread) that the Mac
has a slight advantage here, particullarly for home users. However,
the fact that there are approx. 10 PCs sold for every Mac and that the
Mac is generally considered to be a niche market dictates that the
vast number of stories, both good and bad, will be about PCs rather
than Macs.

<snip>

>-------------
>Please don't try and say PnP on Pc's is currently the equal of Macs. Just
>ain't so steve. You might want it to be so from YOUR experience, but again
>, look to the media and go to a compter flea market and talk to few
>folks....or listen (web) to Don Crabb's show on Computers....it aint[
>working as well as you'd like.

It doesn't work perfectly on Macs either. The most notable and
long-running problems recently have been getting SCSI cards to work
correctly in the new G3s.

<snip>

>--------------
>You're bringing into the mix something that even yet is not well enough
>implimented to be an issue.

LOL! It's an issue precisely because it is not well supported on the
Mac and there is no high-end OpenGL hardware available. For someone
that needs high-end OpenGL, the fact that it is not yet well
implemented on the Mac is a huge issue and promises for the future do
nothing to help resolve the issue today.

<snip>

>> >Hmpft....set the memory in an app and basically forget it.
>>
>> Really? Suppose you use files in Photoshop that are around 10 MB in
>> size half of the time and around 50 MB the other half. Are you
>> telling me that you wouldn't change the memory settings, or if you
>> didn't change them, that memory would be optomized well when you also
>> had other apps open at the same time?
>=======
>Right I'wouldn't change them. I use 40-45 meg files here and there and
>most of my files are in the 10-20 meg range. I set Photoshop for the 40's
>and forget it. And remember with photoshop there is no substitute for REAL
>ram. 3 x the size of the largest file you work on and keep photoshop out
>of VM space as much as possible. I don't go changing setting for different
>images....and I do this all the time....I'm the AD of a magazine and small
>Ad Agency and do the design/prepress. I often run Pagemaker 6.5.2 at the
>same time and have no problems...and once in a while I have Freehand or
>Illustrator up to boot.

Wow, a whole 4 applications simultaneously. This is an example of
precisely one of the issues that I have been arguing for some time on
CSMA. That issue is that people learn to work around problems on
their respective platforms, and soon it becomes second nature. My NT
workstation has 128 MB of RAM and I have no problems with 10+
applications (i..e. Word, Excel, Access, Powerpoint, Photoshop,
Arc/Info, ArcView, Imagine, Freehand, Netscape, and Eudora open
simultaneously. There is a slight delay in task switching among apps
as memory is paged, but less of a delay than opening the app. Of
course there is no substitute for real RAM, but it is not cost
effective if you only need more RAM 5% of the time, and using the page
file only slows things down slightly.

<snip>

>=======
>It is still largely relevant only because not much of significance has
>changed. Nothing that would dramatically alter the result(s). If the Mac
>were at Mac OS X consumer or You have NT 5. oops, 2000 in release version,
>it would be different. It's not.
>=======

False. Much of significance has changed. One of the major complaints
was that network file transfers were slow; this not an issue today.
One of the major issues was that Win3.x did not have native
networking; this is not an issue today. One of the major issues was
lack of native Win32 applications; this is not an issue today. One of
the major issues was the clunky Win3.x/WinNT3.x GUI; this is not an
issue today. Etc. If you really want to pursue this further, I can go
through the text of the article again (I posted this on CSMA sometime
in the past) and show how most of the issues that they mention as
being significant problems for Windows are no longer issues with Win9x
and WinNT4.

<snip>

>------------
>The segments in which one uses 3D Studio Max and ESRI are not the focus of
>Gistics study. I hope you don't think 3d, renedering, animation are the
>same as publishing? Prepress etc.,? There is some overlap with the web,
>but one is often extended from the other.

Why don't you read the study? 3D Studio Max, Maya, etc. are included
in the field of digital media covered by the study. On page 2, there
are a number of subsectors listed that use such software:

"Advertising"
"Computer Media, consisting of production related to video games,
CD-ROMs, and Web sites."
"TV/Cable/Video"
"Film/Music/Radio"

<snip>

>Considering color management, fonts, monitor calibration...pretty much all
>are harder to use. But Since the MAc has owned publishing, I can get a
>greater number of apps that work together than on PC in that marketplace.
>How about Linocolor 5?

No you are changing the subject. The issue here is NT4 vs. Win9x.
Are you saying that Linocoler 5 works under Win95 and not NT4? I am
prepared to admit that the Mac has an advantage in DTP with things
like color matching and font management. It's not an absolute
advantage because products are available for PCs, but the Mac products
are the standards and generally work better. However, DTP is only one
part of digital media, and in other subsectors such as computer media,
PCs have the advantage in 1999 IMO.

<snip>

>>
>> I have. It involved trying to get a B&W G3 Mac to install OS8.5 to
>> and boot from a SCSI hard drive.
>---------
>...and since they were so new, wasn't there a problem with the Adaptec
>SCSI cards that caused this?

It was a problem with most SCSI cards, not just Adaptec. But this is
precisely one of the problems that the Gistics study complained about
with Windows NT; and that is poor hardware support for a new product.

>The G3 b&W's are not the majority of systems,
>so this is hardly a big issue and is resolved as well. But as we move away
>from SCSI to Firewire, it is even less a problem. And firewire is a better
>solution.

Firewire will probably become a better solution, but there are not
enough products to make it a better solution today. Again, the
purpose of a study like the Gistics study is to help make better
purchasing decisions. The new G3s are extremely relevant to someone
deciding what systemIs) to purchase today.

<snip>

>=======
>Proof = your experiences and personal evidence.
>
>Do you work in the prepress world? Or design graphics market?

No. However, read the study and then come back and ask your
questions. I am saying that the majority of things they complained
about as being negatives for the PCs are no longer true. Furthermore,
those two subsectors are not the only ones in the entire field of
digital media.

Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer

не прочитано,
24 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0024.05.1999

> Well, I too have followed the return of the Gistics argument. So I went
> and found the report. You can get it at:
>
> <http://www.apple.com/publishing/collateral/pdf/ROITechBrief.pdf>
>
>

> >IIRC correctly, the study covered the time period of 1993 to 1996 and
> >was published in 1997, with a statement that it was only valid until
>

Joe Ragosta

не прочитано,
24 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0024.05.1999
In article <MPG.11b25d668aaa13979897cc@news>, jrei...@home.com (Jeremy
'Getu' Reimer) wrote:

> In article <Alan_Baker-
> 22059919...@a3a31538.sympatico.bconnected.net>,
> Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca says...
>
> > Well, I too have followed the return of the Gistics argument. So I went
> > and found the report. You can get it at:
> >
> > <http://www.apple.com/publishing/collateral/pdf/ROITechBrief.pdf>
> >
> >

> > >IIRC correctly, the study covered the time period of 1993 to 1996 and
> > >was published in 1997, with a statement that it was only valid until
> >

> > The only thing I would add is that most of the data (73%) was
collected in 1995.
>
> I would also add that apparently Apple has taken the Gistics ROI study
> off their web page, or at least the link to it is no longer there. If
> you go to www.apple.com/publishing/collateral you can download the
> Applescript and Colorsync ROI papers, but there is no link to the file
> ROITechBrief.pdf. Because of the stupid way that Acrobat 3 links itself
> into IE, I could view the file but not download it in IE5. However,
> Opera allowed me to download it, so I now have *my* copy. :)
>
> It's very amusing that Joe Ragosta still feels that this study is worth
> quoting even if Apple no longer does.

It's very amusing that you apparently don't feel bound by standards of honesty.

When was the last time I quoted that study?

Sure, it's on my web page, but I announced over a year ago that I wasn't
updating that page.

But I see you still refuse to consider any of the more recent studies
which come to the same conclusion.

AND you still refuse to provide even one shred of evidence that any
version of Windows has a lower TCO than Macs.

--
Regards,

Joe Ragosta
joe.r...@dol.net

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
25 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0025.05.1999
In article <37488fe4...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
nospam@nospam!.kom (Steve Nospam) wrote:

> On Sun, 23 May 1999 17:22:41 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <37479518...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
> >nospam@nospam!.kom (Steve Nospam) wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 22 May 1999 15:39:06 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> <snip>
>
> >> >Etherent was not generally a built-in option at the time of
> >> >the Gistics study...it was an add-on wheras Macs have had built-in
> >> >ethernet since early-mid 90's...
> >>
> >> That's exactly my point. The Gistics study was relevant in 1995. It
> >> is not relevant in 1999.
> >-----------------
> >oh, etherent eas not onboard on Macs in 1995 and was for PC's as standard
> >item? Ethernet sure was and far easier to configure wheras one had to
> >usually buy a NIC, get it to work and such on PC's. That even put it
> >further behind in cost/productivity. Then if Windows blew up....
> >==========
>
> ??? I don't understand what you are getting at. I am saying that in
> 1995, the Gistics study was relevant (although not yet published ;-).
> I am also saying that it is now 1999, and it is not relevant now.

=========
Since NT has largely been service packs for security reasons and 98 is
nearly a bug fix for 95, unless one counts active desktop, not much haas
changed, unless you allow that the Mac OS has become ever better, but more
so under the hood.

IOW, the results are just as relevant today as 1996-7

> >---------------
> >Anectodal evidence? Try the media. All you ahve to do is read the stores
> >in PC Week and the like....not to mention the computer talk shows. So very
> >many folks have trouble. For YOU, it might be easy. You're a
> >pocket-protector. Most users are not. And that makes a difference.
> >> >=======
>
> I have said many times (I'm not sure if on this thread) that the Mac
> has a slight advantage here, particullarly for home users. However,
> the fact that there are approx. 10 PCs sold for every Mac and that the
> Mac is generally considered to be a niche market dictates that the
> vast number of stories, both good and bad, will be about PCs rather
> than Macs.

=========
But look at the content of the stories...look at the KIND of problems PC
users have and it isn't pretty...

> >-------------
> >Please don't try and say PnP on Pc's is currently the equal of Macs. Just
> >ain't so steve. You might want it to be so from YOUR experience, but again
> >, look to the media and go to a compter flea market and talk to few
> >folks....or listen (web) to Don Crabb's show on Computers....it aint[
> >working as well as you'd like.
>
> It doesn't work perfectly on Macs either. The most notable and
> long-running problems recently have been getting SCSI cards to work
> correctly in the new G3s.

=======
I never said perfect, I have said, BETTER. As for the new G3, the issues
are mainly with booting from the external SCSI devices...

======
Oh, I'm supposed to go and open 4 more apps than I need just to satisfy
your notions...if I needed more, I would open more. I don't. I don't go
crusing the net while photoshop is doing something as it never takes that
long...so lets see, you work in "Word, Excel, Access, Powerpoint,
Photoshop,Arc/Info, ArcView, Imagine, Freehand, Netscape, and Eudora
open." at the same time...you jump between all these apps, boogieing along
your day.

Right...


>
> >=======
> >It is still largely relevant only because not much of significance has
> >changed. Nothing that would dramatically alter the result(s). If the Mac
> >were at Mac OS X consumer or You have NT 5. oops, 2000 in release version,
> >it would be different. It's not.
> >=======
>
> False. Much of significance has changed. One of the major complaints
> was that network file transfers were slow; this not an issue today.
> One of the major issues was that Win3.x did not have native
> networking; this is not an issue today. One of the major issues was
> lack of native Win32 applications; this is not an issue today. One of
> the major issues was the clunky Win3.x/WinNT3.x GUI; this is not an
> issue today. Etc. If you really want to pursue this further, I can go
> through the text of the article again (I posted this on CSMA sometime
> in the past) and show how most of the issues that they mention as
> being significant problems for Windows are no longer issues with Win9x
> and WinNT4.

======
Go ahead, go throught the article. We'd like to hear it.

Steve Nospam

не прочитано,
25 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0025.05.1999
On Tue, 25 May 1999 10:37:36 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
wrote:

>In article <37488fe4...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
>nospam@nospam!.kom (Steve Nospam) wrote:
>
<snip>

>> ??? I don't understand what you are getting at. I am saying that in
>> 1995, the Gistics study was relevant (although not yet published ;-).
>> I am also saying that it is now 1999, and it is not relevant now.
>=========
>Since NT has largely been service packs for security reasons and 98 is
>nearly a bug fix for 95, unless one counts active desktop, not much haas
>changed, unless you allow that the Mac OS has become ever better, but more
>so under the hood.
>
>IOW, the results are just as relevant today as 1996-7

Have you read the text of the Gistics study? In the text they explain
what are the things that inluence ROI in the study. Most of the
negative things that they mention as influencing ROI apply only to
Win3.x. Since most of these issues have been corrected in Win9x and
WinNT4, the results are no longer relevant. If this study had been
based on Win95, you would have more of a point. However, it was
almost entirely based on Win3.x with only token mentions of Win95 and
WinNT3.x.

<snip>

>=========
>But look at the content of the stories...look at the KIND of problems PC
>users have and it isn't pretty...

Look at the stories on MacInTouch, and they aren't pretty either. The
PC would be expected to have at least 10 times more negative stories
than the Mac based simply on market share.

<snip>

>======
>Oh, I'm supposed to go and open 4 more apps than I need just to satisfy
>your notions...if I needed more, I would open more. I don't. I don't go
>crusing the net while photoshop is doing something as it never takes that
>long...so lets see, you work in "Word, Excel, Access, Powerpoint,
>Photoshop,Arc/Info, ArcView, Imagine, Freehand, Netscape, and Eudora
>open." at the same time...you jump between all these apps, boogieing along
>your day.
>
>Right...

Yes, it goes something like this:

(1) Open up all the apps.
(2) Start a background operation running in Arc/Info (often takes
several hours to do something like converting a large (100s of MB)
raster file to a vector file).
(3) Do some image classification in Imagine.
(4) Use ArcView to view and manipulate GIS output.
(5) Paste ArcView output into Freehand and/or Photoshop (or more
likely Paint Shop Pro) and make it look nice.
(6) Take the output of the graphics application and paste into Word
for documents and into Powerpoint for presentations.
(7) Go to Netscape to find and download GIS files (i.e. USGS DEMs).
(8) Open some of the metadata in Word, Excel or Access (depending on
what I need to do) to view and/or manipulate.
(9) In Eudora, email colleagues about research issues.
(10 Waste vast amounts of time on CSMA (actually I do this mostly when
I am working at home, which at the current time, is most of the time).
;-)

And so on throughout the day.

None of this would be impossible if I were limited to just a couple of
open apps at a time. It just makes it easier in that I don't have to
constantly open and close applications all day long (saving time and
aggravation).

<snip>

>======
>Go ahead, go throught the article. We'd like to hear it.

For right now, I'll just repost from my previous (Oct. 15, 1998) post.
After discussing that, if you feel that is inadequate and I have the
time I'll dig a little deeper. Some of the things I post may be
slightly redundant given that I'm not posting the entire context of
the posts.

The study mixes the terms Windows, Windows 95, and Windows NT
throughout the paper. It never defines system hardware nor which
version(s) of Windows NT it was talking about, nor what it means when
it uses the generic term "Windows'.

[The Gistics study ignores system speed.] The speed of systems has a
direct bearing on productivity and thus, ROI. Ignoring it means that
managers cannot make informed decisions based on this study.

[The hardware side is poorl documented.] How is a manager supposed to
use this study to make decisions based on incomplete data? If old ISA
cards are responsible for the problems mentioned in the study, the
manager could choose to purchase Macs and their hardware, or he/she
could choose to purchase PCs and hardware guaranteed to be Plug and
Play and use PCI cards instead of ISA.

[Nothing like DMI and Wake-on-LAN available at the time of the study.]
My estimate (this is just my personal observation; I have no actual
data to back it up) is that IT spends about 10% of its time just
walking around to solve problems.

One of the points that the Gistics study makes is the time it takes to
install Windows and applications. With Ghost (or similar software),
the OS and all applications can be installed from image files in a
couple of minutes without requiring any user input. This is an
absolutely huge time saver; thus saving money and influencing ROI.

I ... found it curious that they made a point of distinguishing
between 680xx Macs and PPC Macs at several places in the paper, but
never distinguished between 386/486s and Pentiums.


1) "...sluggish network file services associated with Windows NT..."

I don't understand this at all; the fact that this statement is in the
study makes me believe that Windows NT must have been running on very
slow hardware (another reason why I believe hardware must be included
in a study like this). One of the major upgrades in Mac OS 8.5 is to
increase file transfer speeds so they are comparable to that in
Windows NT. See:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,3441,2133657,00.html

[note that I believe this URL is now broken]

for a statement from Mr. Jobs himself acknowledging the network speed
advantage for NT vs. OS 8.1.

(2) "Quicktime technology, Applescript ... built-in ethernet and
TCP/IP network interfacing - foundation technologies of the Macintosh
-- contribute most to this advantage."

This quote shows how outdated this study is. Quicktime is currently
available for the PC. There are numerous scripting tools for PCs,
including Perl and Wsh. Built-in ethernet (hardware) is commonly
available for PCs. Built-in ethernet and TCP/IP support is a
foundation of Win9x and Win NT. This is another example suggesting
heavy reliance on Win3.x for this study.

(3) "The highly touted plug-and-play of Windows 95 fails approximately


50 percent of the time, especially for SCSI port devices, video
displays requiring their own interface cards, and networks."

Another example of outdated data. Windows 9x PnP is not as good as
the Mac's, however, it does work on new systems most of the time.
There were many problems trying to use PnP on old systems, which this
study reflects. Again, this is relevant to the study, but not to
someone trying to make use of the study to make current decisions on
what to purchase.

SCSI port devices work beautifully in Win9x and Win NT.

The mention of requiring video display cards is another example of

outdated information. In my experience, a very high proportion of Mac
graphics professionals also use video cards because they have much
higher quality output (especially at high screen resolutions).

Furthermore, Macs are missing an entire category here, which is

high-end OpenGL cards. [And of course new G3 Macs use video cards as
well].



(3) "It remains easier [on Macs] to check memory and move between
applications, and far easier to cut and paste graphics between
applications."

Outdated and absolute rubbish. On a Mac you have to check memory; on
PCs there is no need to manage memory at all (not to mention that
checking memory is as easy as clicking the performance tab in system

properties). Moving between applications is as easy is clicking on a


taskbar icon or using Alt+tab. Cut and Paste is Cut and Paste.

(4) "Research indicates that Windows lacks a comprehensive framework
for managing the productive use of computers..."

Outdated. This is where DMI comes in to play.



(5) "...[only] 400 device drivers for NT"

Outdated.



(6) "Lack of several essential applications (for NT] that run only on
Macs or Windows 95."

Outdated. In fact the shoe is now squarely on the other foot. There


are a number of high-end applications that run only on NT.

(7) "Lack of native, NT-optomized applications."

Outdated.



(8) "Arcane, difficult file manager, more like Unix or DEC VMS."

Outdated. This makes it clear that they are not referring to Windows
NT 4, or else they would also make the same comment about Windows 95.

(9) "...[NT] requires lengthy reinstallation process for system
registry, reformatting hard disk, etc. -- average 2.6 days per system"


This is not relevent for deciding on the purchase of a new system.
Reformatting the hard drive is not necessary (unless you are running
FAT32, and that was unavailable when the study was conducted) The 2.6
day quote is ridiculous. I've reinstalled a complete NT workstation
from tape in 1 hour, and use of Ghost over the network or from CD or
hardrive allows it in 10 minutes.

***
The fact that all of these have changed significantly since Win3.x and
the study. These are all issues that Gistics study pointed out as
especially relevant to ROI. The fact that they are no longer issues,
or at the very least have been significantly improved means that the
Gistics study is no longer current nor relevant in 1999.

<snip>

jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov

не прочитано,
25 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0025.05.1999
On Sat, 22 May 1999 15:39:06 -0500, Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
>=======
>Appleshare 6 has equal or higher throughtput in file transfer than NT.
>Where the Mac Is slower is at being a print server. But meny places use a
>network printer and don't really need print serving unless huge numbers of
>docuements are being printed....
>========

Does Appleshare come standard with the MacOS?

Answer: No.

>======


>Etherent was not generally a built-in option at the time of
>the Gistics study...it was an add-on wheras Macs have had built-in
>ethernet since early-mid 90's...
>======

Which was, in fact, the posters point, yes? That the study is out
of date (obsolete) which even the people who did the study acknowledge.

>--------


>The folks at Sports illustrated/Chicago in their Ad
>department have worked for weeks/months with Win 95, trying to get it to
>see a Zip drive...

That's hard to believe...but even if so, it is one example, not a valid
statistical base.

I can give you horror stories about the Mac, too, but one horror story
does not invalidate the whole platform for every other user in
existence.

>> SCSI port devices work beautifully in Win9x and Win NT.
>-------
>...and how long did it take for that to happen?

Does that matter now? It works now.

>.....and how about
>configuring that SCSI card for many users.....

????

What the heck are you talking about?

>> Outdated and absolute rubbish. On a Mac you have to check memory; on
>> PCs there is no need to manage memory at all (not to mention that
>> checking memory is as easy as clicking the performance tab in system
>> properties in Win9x or opening the task manager in NT4). Moving
>> between applications is as easy is clicking on a taskbar icon or using
>> Alt+tab. Cut and Paste is Cut and Paste.
>--------------
>Hmpft....set the memory in an app and basically forget it.

You kinda gloss over the fact that "setting memory" is a VERY user
unfriendly operation. . . on a machine that was designed to be as
user friendly as possible.

Try explaining to a person new to computers why this has to be done,
and how to calculate what the numbers should be. Explain why (in some cases)
his/her choice crashed the machine. And better yet, try to explain to
that user why they run out of memory in Excel when loading a really large
data file, even though the OS still says that they have plenty of free
memory.

>moving between apps is hard? cmd+tab, or use the App switcher....floating
>palatte...

The poster wasn't saying that moving between apps on the Mac was hard...
the post was pointing out that the Gistics implication that moving between
apps was hard on Windows, is no longer true (if it ever was).

>and while cut & paste might only be that in your parlance, don't
>forget how much better the Mac has implimented drag and drop....

A matter of opinion.

>> (9) "...[NT] requires lengthy reinstallation process for system
>> registry, reformatting hard disk, etc. -- average 2.6 days per system"
>>
>> This is a joke, it would be a stretch to claim 4 hours.
>========
>It's such a joke that the folks who use Macs and are now perhaps forced to
>use NT, won't...simply because they say if NT goes down, its a day or more
>to fix. If a Mac goes down, they're up and running in a few hours.
>
>....and I've never seen it take 4 hours to install a Mac OS...

I've seen it take longer. But so what?

The issue is more one of competent, trained support staff that has access
to a solid support structure, than it is an OS one.

>Most of NT and Win 95/98 are the same since the study.

This is grossly untrue.

John S.

jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov

не прочитано,
25 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0025.05.1999
On Sun, 23 May 1999 06:28:34 GMT, Steve Nospam <nospam@nospam!.kom> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 May 1999 15:39:06 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
>wrote:
>
>No sir, *file* transfer is the issue and OS 8.5 finally brought the
>Mac to parity or better (depending on file size) with NT. Prior to OS
>8.5 (i.e when the study was conducted) network file transfers over
>TCP/IP were significantly slower. Mac OS 8.5 "provides up to 300
>percent faster file copying over a network" compared OS 8.1
>(http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2163723,00.html).
>However, I do agree that printing over the network is also slower.

Yeah, but . . . how does the Mac compare when copying files from an
SMB server?

;->

>LOL! I've proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the study is
>completely outdated and bases its conclusions primarily on Win3.x.

Well, yeah. . . but even the people who produced the study admit
that. . . right?

John S.

Anthony D. Tribelli

не прочитано,
25 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0025.05.1999
Jim Polaski (jpol...@wwa.com) wrote:
: nospam@nospam!.kom (Steve Nospam) wrote:

: > ??? I don't understand what you are getting at. I am saying that in


: > 1995, the Gistics study was relevant (although not yet published ;-).
: > I am also saying that it is now 1999, and it is not relevant now.
: =========
: Since NT has largely been service packs for security reasons and 98 is
: nearly a bug fix for 95, unless one counts active desktop, not much haas
: changed, unless you allow that the Mac OS has become ever better, but more
: so under the hood.
:
: IOW, the results are just as relevant today as 1996-7

Seriously misinformed. The Gistics study specifically excluded WinNT 4 and
'critical' graphics application were not ported to Win95 but they were
ported once WinNT 4 arrived. The Gistics study does not study an
environment that resembles today's environments, this makes it obsolete,
not the calendar itself.

Tony
--
------------------
Tony Tribelli
adtri...@acm.org

The WebDragon

не прочитано,
25 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0025.05.1999
In article <slrn7klkqs....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:

| Does Appleshare come standard with the MacOS?
|
| Answer: No.

False: AppleShare comes standard with the Mac OS, since forever. Since
Pre-System 7.

I think what you are referring to is AppleShare IP, which indeed is a
separate package.

--
send mail to webmaster (at) webdragon (dot) org instead of the above address.
this is to prevent spamming. e-mail reply-to's have been altered
to prevent scan software from extracting my address for the purpose
of spamming me, which I hate with a passion bordering on obsession.

tinman

не прочитано,
25 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0025.05.1999

> On Sat, 22 May 1999 15:39:06 -0500, Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
> >=======
> >Appleshare 6 has equal or higher throughtput in file transfer than NT.
> >Where the Mac Is slower is at being a print server. But meny places use a
> >network printer and don't really need print serving unless huge numbers of
> >docuements are being printed....
> >========
>

> Does Appleshare come standard with the MacOS?
>
> Answer: No.

I'm not defending the Gistics report, but Appleshare over Appletalk is
part of MacOs (at 10 concurrent user level I believe). I believe you're
confusing Appleshare with AppleshareIP.

DC

не прочитано,
26 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0026.05.1999
On 25 May 1999 16:48:32 GMT, jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov ()
wrote:

>>No sir, *file* transfer is the issue and OS 8.5 finally brought the
>>Mac to parity or better (depending on file size) with NT. Prior to OS
>>8.5 (i.e when the study was conducted) network file transfers over
>>TCP/IP were significantly slower. Mac OS 8.5 "provides up to 300
>>percent faster file copying over a network" compared OS 8.1
>>(http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2163723,00.html).

Great. Now, put that superbig, superfast Mac network file transfer
into the background, and then watch as speed _NOSEDIVES_ to 80286 ISA
card levels.


win...@my-dejanews.com

не прочитано,
26 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0026.05.1999
In article <joe.ragosta-24...@wil101.dol.net>,
joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta) wrote:

> AND you still refuse to provide even one shred of evidence that any
> version of Windows has a lower TCO than Macs.
>

Just curios, but does this mean you are saying that the most recent
version of Win98 and NT have a lower TCO than Macs? Care to back that up
with one shred of evidence? I would like to see it.

Regards,

WinGuy

> --
> Regards,
>
> Joe Ragosta
> joe.r...@dol.net
>


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
26 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0026.05.1999

> On Sat, 22 May 1999 15:39:06 -0500, Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:

> >=======
> >Appleshare 6 has equal or higher throughtput in file transfer than NT.
> >Where the Mac Is slower is at being a print server. But meny places use a
> >network printer and don't really need print serving unless huge numbers of
> >docuements are being printed....
> >========
>

> Does Appleshare come standard with the MacOS?
>
> Answer: No.

----------------
The REAL answer is YES. Appleshare is standard on the Mac OS and has been
since pre-7. What you are thinking is Applehshare IP( 5,6, etc., the
SERVER ).
> >======


> >Etherent was not generally a built-in option at the time of
> >the Gistics study...it was an add-on wheras Macs have had built-in
> >ethernet since early-mid 90's...
> >======
>

> Which was, in fact, the posters point, yes? That the study is out
> of date (obsolete) which even the people who did the study acknowledge.

---------------
You missed the point. At the time of the Gistics Study, Ethernet was and
had been standard on Macs. Not so on PC's.

==========


> >The folks at Sports illustrated/Chicago in their Ad
> >department have worked for weeks/months with Win 95, trying to get it to

> >see a Zip drive...
>
> That's hard to believe...but even if so, it is one example, not a valid
> statistical base.

----------
Fact...period. They have this kind of problem their EVERY DAY. Something
goes screwy due to Windows. The IS guy is literally running up and down
the halls fixing stuff. It is taking sometimes days to get a response from
the IS guy hs has so much to fix that continually goes nuts with Windows.
Read real high TCO here...
=======


> I can give you horror stories about the Mac, too, but one horror story
> does not invalidate the whole platform for every other user in
> existence.

----------
Everything has "horror" stories. So...
======


> >> SCSI port devices work beautifully in Win9x and Win NT.
> >-------
> >...and how long did it take for that to happen?
>

> Does that matter now? It works now.

========
Right...and we hear of folks who put in s SCSI card and something else
goes screwy...
========
> >.....and how about


> >configuring that SCSI card for many users.....
>
> ????
>
> What the heck are you talking about?

---------
That wasn't my comment...I don't know what it is about.
=========


> >> Outdated and absolute rubbish. On a Mac you have to check memory; on
> >> PCs there is no need to manage memory at all (not to mention that
> >> checking memory is as easy as clicking the performance tab in system
> >> properties in Win9x or opening the task manager in NT4). Moving
> >> between applications is as easy is clicking on a taskbar icon or using
> >> Alt+tab. Cut and Paste is Cut and Paste.
> >--------------
> >Hmpft....set the memory in an app and basically forget it.
>

> You kinda gloss over the fact that "setting memory" is a VERY user
> unfriendly operation. . . on a machine that was designed to be as
> user friendly as possible.

------------
Lets see, I select the app, "get info"-->Memory and then set the amount.

What's hard about that?

OTOH, Windows users rely on VM since it is touted as panacea. All it does
is create disk access as a fack substitute for REAL RAM and slow stuff
down. There is no substitute on either platform.
==========


> Try explaining to a person new to computers why this has to be done,
> and how to calculate what the numbers should be. Explain why (in some cases)
> his/her choice crashed the machine. And better yet, try to explain to
> that user why they run out of memory in Excel when loading a really large
> data file, even though the OS still says that they have plenty of free
> memory.

=========
The only user who will probably bump into this is the Photoshop user...but
its not hard to explain at all. Since I set up systems, I do it all the
time. Whgat New user is going to jump in and go manilulate large excel
files?

Users are bit brighter than you think...
=======================

> >moving between apps is hard? cmd+tab, or use the App switcher....floating

> >palatte...
>
> The poster wasn't saying that moving between apps on the Mac was hard...
> the post was pointing out that the Gistics implication that moving between
> apps was hard on Windows, is no longer true (if it ever was).
>

> >and while cut & paste might only be that in your parlance, don't
> >forget how much better the Mac has implimented drag and drop....
>

> A matter of opinion.
-------
Perhaps you think PC's ahve better drag and drop? dream on...
=============


> >> (9) "...[NT] requires lengthy reinstallation process for system
> >> registry, reformatting hard disk, etc. -- average 2.6 days per system"
> >>
> >> This is a joke, it would be a stretch to claim 4 hours.
> >========
> >It's such a joke that the folks who use Macs and are now perhaps forced to
> >use NT, won't...simply because they say if NT goes down, its a day or more
> >to fix. If a Mac goes down, they're up and running in a few hours.
> >
> >....and I've never seen it take 4 hours to install a Mac OS...
>

> I've seen it take longer. But so what?
>
> The issue is more one of competent, trained support staff that has access
> to a solid support structure, than it is an OS one.
>

> >Most of NT and Win 95/98 are the same since the study.
>

> This is grossly untrue.
>
> John S.

======
And Windows( any flavor) has higher support costs. Time and time again,
NASA is a good example, where a switch to Wintel brought vastly higher
support staff...

jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov

не прочитано,
26 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0026.05.1999
On 25 May 1999 19:52:50 GMT, The WebDragon <nos...@devnull.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn7klkqs....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
>jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
>
> | Does Appleshare come standard with the MacOS?
> |
> | Answer: No.
>
>False: AppleShare comes standard with the Mac OS, since forever. Since
>Pre-System 7.
>
>I think what you are referring to is AppleShare IP, which indeed is a
>separate package.

Yup. That was what I was refering to.

In the tests I've seen, (may Apple be pureed for making such a hash of
the names!) the AppleShare package sold separately is as fast, or
faster at doing AppleShare file serving, as NT is at doing SMB file
serving.

But it is a separate, more costly package, not a standard feature.

John S.

jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov

не прочитано,
26 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0026.05.1999
On Wed, 26 May 1999 10:10:07 -0500, Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn7klkqs....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
>jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 May 1999 15:39:06 -0500, Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
>> >=======
>> >Appleshare 6 has equal or higher throughtput in file transfer than NT.
>> >Where the Mac Is slower is at being a print server. But meny places use a
>> >network printer and don't really need print serving unless huge numbers of
>> >docuements are being printed....
>> >========
>>
>> Does Appleshare come standard with the MacOS?
>>
>> Answer: No.
>----------------
>The REAL answer is YES. Appleshare is standard on the Mac OS and has been
>since pre-7. What you are thinking is Applehshare IP( 5,6, etc., the
>SERVER ).

Yup. May Apple be pureed for making such a hash of the names!

The file server package does not come standard with the MacOS. It
has to be purchased as a separate product.

>> Which was, in fact, the posters point, yes? That the study is out
>> of date (obsolete) which even the people who did the study acknowledge.
>---------------
>You missed the point.

No, I didn't. You did. The point was: the Gistics study is obsolete.

>At the time of the Gistics Study, Ethernet was and
>had been standard on Macs. Not so on PC's.

True. But irrelevant as, once again, the Gistics study is obsolete. That
is, indeed, the whole point.

>> >The folks at Sports illustrated/Chicago in their Ad
>> >department have worked for weeks/months with Win 95, trying to get it to
>> >see a Zip drive...
>>
>> That's hard to believe...but even if so, it is one example, not a valid
>> statistical base.
>----------
>Fact...period. They have this kind of problem their EVERY DAY.

Once again, I find this hard to believe. Nobody has this kind of problem
every day. They get it fixed.

Me thinks I smell a gross exageration.

If not, tell them to send me some email, and I will quote them a bargain
basement price for fixing their problem.

>=======
>> I can give you horror stories about the Mac, too, but one horror story
>> does not invalidate the whole platform for every other user in
>> existence.
>----------
>Everything has "horror" stories. So...

My point exactly. Your horror stories do not prove anything about Windows.

>Right...and we hear of folks who put in s SCSI card and something else
>goes screwy...

Same is true for Macs. . . they put something in, and the box goes screwy.

It's called: personal computing.

>> You kinda gloss over the fact that "setting memory" is a VERY user
>> unfriendly operation. . . on a machine that was designed to be as
>> user friendly as possible.
>------------
>Lets see, I select the app, "get info"-->Memory and then set the amount.

Set it to how much?

Why that amount?

What does "K" mean?

What does "M" mean?

Why can't I set it to 100 MBytes? That's what I need! (this, on a 48 MByte
machine)

Why do I have to do this?

What's memory?

The above was a short list of just some of the comments I've gotten from
Mac users I've supported.

>What's hard about that?

See above. You gloss over it 'cause you've forgotten what it is like to
be a new user.

>OTOH, Windows users rely on VM since it is touted as panacea. All it does
>is create disk access as a fack substitute for REAL RAM and slow stuff
>down.

Wrong.

VM does not slow stuff down. It makes it possible to run *AT* *ALL* when
your memory load exceeds your actual RAM.

The rest of the time, it doesn't have any real negative impact.

>There is no substitute on either platform.

You say that 'cause you've never used a decent VM implementation.

>The only user who will probably bump into this is the Photoshop user...

Wrong.

Excel users bump into this.

Netscape users bump into this.

Word users bump into this.

Etc.

>but
>its not hard to explain at all. Since I set up systems, I do it all the
>time. Whgat New user is going to jump in and go manilulate large excel
>files?
>
>Users are bit brighter than you think...

Hrmmph. I do support work. Don't tell me how bright users are, 'cause it
isn't a matter of brightness, it's a matter of knowledge. Just
look up the page a bit to see some of the questions I've been asked,
then tell me that this is a non-issue.

>> A matter of opinion.
>-------
>Perhaps you think PC's ahve better drag and drop? dream on...

As I said. . . a matter of opinion. The fact that you fail to give
a response simply proves it.

>And Windows( any flavor) has higher support costs.

Not true.

>Time and time again,
>NASA is a good example, where a switch to Wintel brought vastly higher
>support staff...

Try to be at least a little bit reasonable. A switch from an OS to any
other OS will always increase costs and support staff until the transitional
period is past.

This is true of the MacOS, too. Been there, seen it.

Once again, you are quoting from obsolete information.

John S.

Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer

не прочитано,
27 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0027.05.1999
In article <joe.ragosta-24...@wil101.dol.net>,
joe.r...@dol.net says...

> > It's very amusing that Joe Ragosta still feels that this study is worth
> > quoting even if Apple no longer does.
>
> It's very amusing that you apparently don't feel bound by standards of honesty.

Saying that you feel that a study is worth quoting is not dishonest.



> When was the last time I quoted that study?

It was a few months back I believe, in a thread about ROI.

> Sure, it's on my web page, but I announced over a year ago that I wasn't
> updating that page.

I believe that announcement was somewhat more recent than a year ago,
iirc.

> But I see you still refuse to consider any of the more recent studies
> which come to the same conclusion.

I would consider them if you could tell me what they are and where I
could actually read them. You have yet to do so.

> AND you still refuse to provide even one shred of evidence that any
> version of Windows has a lower TCO than Macs.

There is no evidence because nobody has ever bothered to do such a study.
Nobody ever will. There is no point. Nobody CARES anymore! Not even
Apple!

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
28 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0028.05.1999
In article <slrn7koapk....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:

> On 25 May 1999 19:52:50 GMT, The WebDragon <nos...@devnull.com> wrote:
> >In article <slrn7klkqs....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
> >jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
> >
> > | Does Appleshare come standard with the MacOS?
> > |
> > | Answer: No.
> >

> >False: AppleShare comes standard with the Mac OS, since forever. Since
> >Pre-System 7.
> >
> >I think what you are referring to is AppleShare IP, which indeed is a
> >separate package.
>
> Yup. That was what I was refering to.
>
> In the tests I've seen, (may Apple be pureed for making such a hash of
> the names!) the AppleShare package sold separately is as fast, or
> faster at doing AppleShare file serving, as NT is at doing SMB file
> serving.
>
> But it is a separate, more costly package, not a standard feature.

=======
However, NT is not a *standard* feature either. And there is no mistake
that NT is vastly more expensive than AppleShare IP. Other than Print
Serving for the average environemnt, Applehsare IP 6 holds its own quite
well. And don't forget when all the wintrolls extoll the virtues of NT and
the size of networks,e tc. there was a report of while ago where the
average...AVERAGE workgroup served by an NT server was 16 workstations.

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
28 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0028.05.1999
If MAcs are so unnecessary and well poor choices jeremy, try this:

TrendWatch just released this 1999 Creative Atlas Guide ("a

comprehensive market and product development resource used to

identify market and revenue opportunities in the U.S. creative

markets"), which includes their nationwide survey of creative firms.
The
results show that Apple will outsell both Windows and Windows
NT to
these markets by an astounding margin of over three to one.

According to TrendWatch, 17,000 creative firms plan to purchase

Macintosh computers in 1999, while only 3,400 plan to purchase

Windows-based machines, and only a mere 1,600 plan to purchase

Windows-NT machines. As TrendWatch's report says, "Apple

continues to dominate the Creative markets." The next time some PC
Weenies
tell you how everybody's moving to Windows NT, give 'em a
shot of
the TrendWatch report.

Now start spiinning....

jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov

не прочитано,
28 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0028.05.1999
On Fri, 28 May 1999 09:40:19 -0500, Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn7koapk....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
>jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
>
>> Yup. That was what I was refering to.
>>
>> In the tests I've seen, (may Apple be pureed for making such a hash of
>> the names!) the AppleShare package sold separately is as fast, or
>> faster at doing AppleShare file serving, as NT is at doing SMB file
>> serving.
>>
>> But it is a separate, more costly package, not a standard feature.
>=======
>However, NT is not a *standard* feature either.

What does this mean? AppleShareIP is a separately purchased package from
the OS. File sharing and security is a built in part of NT server.

>And there is no mistake
>that NT is vastly more expensive than AppleShare IP.

How do you figure that?

>Other than Print
>Serving for the average environemnt, Applehsare IP 6 holds its own quite
>well. And don't forget when all the wintrolls extoll the virtues of NT and
>the size of networks,e tc. there was a report of while ago where the
>average...AVERAGE workgroup served by an NT server was 16 workstations.

However, according to an independent review, AppleShareIP 6 does not properly
support the current Windows file sharing security system (domains, etc.). Nor
can it act as a Primary Domain Controller.

On the other hand, NT Server does not support AppleShare, so . . . in a mixed
environment, AppleShare IP may be a better choice than trying to get your
Mac's to speak SMB/CIFS.

As always, your mileage may vary, and as I do not have personal and direct
access to an AppleShare IP system, I have to go by reviews and third party
commentary.

John S.

Josiah Fizer

не прочитано,
28 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0028.05.1999
jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 1999 09:40:19 -0500, Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
> >In article <slrn7koapk....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
> >jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
> >
> >> Yup. That was what I was refering to.
> >>
> >> In the tests I've seen, (may Apple be pureed for making such a hash of
> >> the names!) the AppleShare package sold separately is as fast, or
> >> faster at doing AppleShare file serving, as NT is at doing SMB file
> >> serving.
> >>
> >> But it is a separate, more costly package, not a standard feature.
> >=======
> >However, NT is not a *standard* feature either.
>
> What does this mean? AppleShareIP is a separately purchased package from
> the OS. File sharing and security is a built in part of NT server.
>
> >And there is no mistake
> >that NT is vastly more expensive than AppleShare IP.
>
> How do you figure that?
>

Unlimited client version of Apple Share IP 6.2 is 1400$ NT costs alot more than
that.


>
> >Other than Print
> >Serving for the average environemnt, Applehsare IP 6 holds its own quite
> >well. And don't forget when all the wintrolls extoll the virtues of NT and
> >the size of networks,e tc. there was a report of while ago where the
> >average...AVERAGE workgroup served by an NT server was 16 workstations.
>
> However, according to an independent review, AppleShareIP 6 does not properly
> support the current Windows file sharing security system (domains, etc.). Nor
> can it act as a Primary Domain Controller.
>
> On the other hand, NT Server does not support AppleShare, so . . . in a mixed
> environment, AppleShare IP may be a better choice than trying to get your
> Mac's to speak SMB/CIFS.
>
> As always, your mileage may vary, and as I do not have personal and direct
> access to an AppleShare IP system, I have to go by reviews and third party
> commentary.
>
> John S.

NT supports AppleShare just fine, dont know what version you've been using.


steve sullivan

не прочитано,
28 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0028.05.1999
In article
<jpolaski-280...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net>,
jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski) wrote:

> > But it is a separate, more costly package, not a standard feature.
> =======

> However, NT is not a *standard* feature either. And there is no mistake
> that NT is vastly more expensive than AppleShare IP. Other than Print


> Serving for the average environemnt, Applehsare IP 6 holds its own quite
> well. And don't forget when all the wintrolls extoll the virtues of NT and
> the size of networks,e tc. there was a report of while ago where the
> average...AVERAGE workgroup served by an NT server was 16 workstations.

NT costs, from what the pc people say, about $200 for the server version.
Apple share ip costs $500 (or is it $600)?

*NOW*, instead of giving a haha, you fibbed, can you please explain the
user licenses involved, the costs, and practically speaking what
situations the user licenses would cover? Is that with macos 8.6, or with
macos x server? Be sure to include the price of the os as well ($100 for
macos 8.5/6


DC

не прочитано,
28 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0028.05.1999
On 28 May 1999 17:50:04 GMT, jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov ()
wrote:

>On the other hand, NT Server does not support AppleShare, so . . . in a mixed

I don't know about _your_ NT Server, but mine does - out of the box,
too. It takes about 30 seconds and a reboot to install, and then it's
as easy to share things to Macs as to SMB.

DC

DC

не прочитано,
28 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0028.05.1999
On Fri, 28 May 1999 11:14:59 -0700, Josiah Fizer
<jfi...@shamancorp.com> wrote:

>> How do you figure that?
>>
>
>Unlimited client version of Apple Share IP 6.2 is 1400$ NT costs alot more than
>that.

Does the client license apply to Macs?

What if I want to only share to 5 people? 15 people? 50 people?

DC

Anthony D. Tribelli

не прочитано,
28 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0028.05.1999
Jim Polaski (jpol...@wwa.com) wrote:

: ... The results show that Apple will outsell both Windows and Windows
: NT to these markets by an astounding margin of over three to one ...
:
: Now start spiinning ...

No 'spin' is necessary. Companies and people tend to stick with what they
are already using. This works for Apple in the 'creative' markets, and
works against Apple in the 'business' markets. Whoever gets a market first
has a big advantage. Also note that PCs have only become competitive in
the 'creative' markets in very recent history as key apps got ported to
WinNT 4.

Also the 3:1 ratio is not entirely meaningful unless you show the
historical trend. Is that ratio stable, is it shrinking, is the WinNT
share growing?

nate

не прочитано,
29 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0029.05.1999
On Fri, 28 May 1999 09:40:19 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
wrote:


>However, NT is not a *standard* feature either. And there is no mistake
>that NT is vastly more expensive than AppleShare IP. Other than Print
>Serving for the average environemnt, Applehsare IP 6 holds its own quite
>well. And don't forget when all the wintrolls extoll the virtues of NT and
>the size of networks,e tc. there was a report of while ago where the
>average...AVERAGE workgroup served by an NT server was 16 workstations.

Probably because anyone running a small network knows which OS makes
the best server.

--
Nathan A. Hughes
The University Theatre, KU
www.scenedesign.com

Joe Ragosta

не прочитано,
29 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0029.05.1999

If you only have 5 people, you don't need AppleShare IP. The file sharing
built into the Mac is more than sufficient.

If you have 50 people who rarely share files, the same is true.

If you have 50 people who constantly share large files, you want a
dedicated server with AppleShare IP.

--
Regards,

Joe Ragosta

tinman

не прочитано,
29 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0029.05.1999
but not appleshareIP.....

______
tinman

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
29 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0029.05.1999
In article
<23AAF0836B264ED6.A1DEA8FA...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 1999 09:40:19 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
> wrote:
>
>
> >However, NT is not a *standard* feature either. And there is no mistake
> >that NT is vastly more expensive than AppleShare IP. Other than Print
> >Serving for the average environemnt, Applehsare IP 6 holds its own quite
> >well. And don't forget when all the wintrolls extoll the virtues of NT and
> >the size of networks,e tc. there was a report of while ago where the
> >average...AVERAGE workgroup served by an NT server was 16 workstations.
>
> Probably because anyone running a small network knows which OS makes
> the best server.

==========
Or because the IS guy knows what makes the things possible that keeps him
in a job...

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
29 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0029.05.1999
In article <slrn7ktlqp....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 1999 09:40:19 -0500, Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
> >In article <slrn7koapk....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
> >jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
> >
> >> Yup. That was what I was refering to.
> >>
> >> In the tests I've seen, (may Apple be pureed for making such a hash of
> >> the names!) the AppleShare package sold separately is as fast, or
> >> faster at doing AppleShare file serving, as NT is at doing SMB file
> >> serving.
> >>

> >> But it is a separate, more costly package, not a standard feature.
> >=======

> >However, NT is not a *standard* feature either.
>

> What does this mean? AppleShareIP is a separately purchased package from
> the OS. File sharing and security is a built in part of NT server.

=====
Buy a PC and NT is not standard, just like a Mac. If you want to create a
server, you buy the OS and put it on your box, assuming you have
configured the hardware to be appropriate to being a server rather than a
regular workstation.
=======


> >And there is no mistake
> >that NT is vastly more expensive than AppleShare IP.
>

> How do you figure that?

=======
The cost of NT server, plus the client licenses is far greater than buying
Appleshare IP 6, for which I don't have to buy any client licenses. The
Appleshare client is on every Mac.

Then, there is the cost of installationkl set-up, configuation, etc., all
of which are cheaper on Macs. And we haven't even visited administration
and daily things....
=========


> >Other than Print
> >Serving for the average environemnt, Applehsare IP 6 holds its own quite
> >well. And don't forget when all the wintrolls extoll the virtues of NT and
> >the size of networks,e tc. there was a report of while ago where the
> >average...AVERAGE workgroup served by an NT server was 16 workstations.
>

> However, according to an independent review, AppleShareIP 6 does not properly
> support the current Windows file sharing security system (domains, etc.). Nor
> can it act as a Primary Domain Controller.
>

> On the other hand, NT Server does not support AppleShare, so . . . in a mixed

> environment, AppleShare IP may be a better choice than trying to get your
> Mac's to speak SMB/CIFS.
>
> As always, your mileage may vary, and as I do not have personal and direct
> access to an AppleShare IP system, I have to go by reviews and third party
> commentary.
>
> John S.

=========
And how accurate is third-=party commentary...

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
29 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0029.05.1999
In article <3776fcd8...@news.pdq.net>, dc...@pdq.net (DC) wrote:

> On 28 May 1999 17:50:04 GMT, jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov ()
> wrote:
>

> >On the other hand, NT Server does not support AppleShare, so . . . in a mixed
>

> I don't know about _your_ NT Server, but mine does - out of the box,
> too. It takes about 30 seconds and a reboot to install, and then it's
> as easy to share things to Macs as to SMB.
>
> DC

====
Sure it does, but "Services for Macintosh" are, well, S_L_O_W....Dave
would be a better choice.

nate

не прочитано,
29 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0029.05.1999
On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:43:21 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
wrote:

>In article


><23AAF0836B264ED6.A1DEA8FA...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 May 1999 09:40:19 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
>> wrote:
>>
>>

>> >However, NT is not a *standard* feature either. And there is no mistake
>> >that NT is vastly more expensive than AppleShare IP. Other than Print


>> >Serving for the average environemnt, Applehsare IP 6 holds its own quite
>> >well. And don't forget when all the wintrolls extoll the virtues of NT and
>> >the size of networks,e tc. there was a report of while ago where the
>> >average...AVERAGE workgroup served by an NT server was 16 workstations.
>>

>> Probably because anyone running a small network knows which OS makes
>> the best server.
>==========
>Or because the IS guy knows what makes the things possible that keeps him
>in a job...


IOW, he knows how to keep from being fired. Tell me something, if you
were the CEO of a company and your computers were having constant
problems, what would you do? Would you give the IS boss a raise?
Would you give him a bonus? I'd give him a warning or two then a pink
slip.

Perhaps in the world of macs, people are rewarded for failing.
Unfortunately, it isn't like that anywhere else.

nate

не прочитано,
29 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0029.05.1999
On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:48:26 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
wrote:

>In article <slrn7ktlqp....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,


>jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 May 1999 09:40:19 -0500, Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
>> >In article <slrn7koapk....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
>> >jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yup. That was what I was refering to.
>> >>
>> >> In the tests I've seen, (may Apple be pureed for making such a hash of
>> >> the names!) the AppleShare package sold separately is as fast, or
>> >> faster at doing AppleShare file serving, as NT is at doing SMB file
>> >> serving.
>> >>
>> >> But it is a separate, more costly package, not a standard feature.
>> >=======

>> >However, NT is not a *standard* feature either.
>>

>> What does this mean? AppleShareIP is a separately purchased package from
>> the OS. File sharing and security is a built in part of NT server.
>=====
>Buy a PC and NT is not standard, just like a Mac. If you want to create a

You can buy PCs from almost anyone with NT. That makes it standard.


>server, you buy the OS and put it on your box, assuming you have
>configured the hardware to be appropriate to being a server rather than a
>regular workstation.
>=======

Or you buy a PC with NT server installed.

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
29 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0029.05.1999
In article
<2952936A2B5B084B.64FFA171...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote:

> On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:43:21 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
> wrote:
>
> >In article
>


><23AAF0836B264ED6.A1DEA8FA...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
> >nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 28 May 1999 09:40:19 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >However, NT is not a *standard* feature either. And there is no mistake
> >> >that NT is vastly more expensive than AppleShare IP. Other than Print
> >> >Serving for the average environemnt, Applehsare IP 6 holds its own quite
> >> >well. And don't forget when all the wintrolls extoll the virtues of NT and
> >> >the size of networks,e tc. there was a report of while ago where the
> >> >average...AVERAGE workgroup served by an NT server was 16 workstations.
> >>
> >> Probably because anyone running a small network knows which OS makes
> >> the best server.
> >==========
> >Or because the IS guy knows what makes the things possible that keeps him
> >in a job...
>
>
> IOW, he knows how to keep from being fired. Tell me something, if you
> were the CEO of a company and your computers were having constant
> problems, what would you do? Would you give the IS boss a raise?
> Would you give him a bonus? I'd give him a warning or two then a pink
> slip.

---------
If they keep failing, its time to look at possibly more than just the IS
boss. Perhaps the problem is more basic than management of this kind.
=======


> Perhaps in the world of macs, people are rewarded for failing.
> Unfortunately, it isn't like that anywhere else.

=====
So macs automatically fail? Where do you get off nate....it is the Wintel
world where time and time again we seel PC implimented and all that
happens is Support goes up dramatically, like at NASA...but you invalidate
that to justifyu your needs

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
29 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0029.05.1999
In article
<F582914E53281921.5DD21E40...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote:

> On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:48:26 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <slrn7ktlqp....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
> >jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 28 May 1999 09:40:19 -0500, Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
> >> >In article <slrn7koapk....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
> >> >jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Yup. That was what I was refering to.
> >> >>
> >> >> In the tests I've seen, (may Apple be pureed for making such a hash of
> >> >> the names!) the AppleShare package sold separately is as fast, or
> >> >> faster at doing AppleShare file serving, as NT is at doing SMB file
> >> >> serving.
> >> >>
> >> >> But it is a separate, more costly package, not a standard feature.
> >> >=======

> >> >However, NT is not a *standard* feature either.
> >>

> >> What does this mean? AppleShareIP is a separately purchased package from
> >> the OS. File sharing and security is a built in part of NT server.
> >=====
> >Buy a PC and NT is not standard, just like a Mac. If you want to create a
>
> You can buy PCs from almost anyone with NT. That makes it standard.

======
Standard é Better
=======


>
> >server, you buy the OS and put it on your box, assuming you have
> >configured the hardware to be appropriate to being a server rather than a
> >regular workstation.
> >=======
>
> Or you buy a PC with NT server installed.

=======
Yeah, I can go to Dell, Compaq or any one of a bunch of vendors and
decent NT server is around $7500 if you want Raid, 256 Meg Ram, Backup to
tape, Dual ethernet, etc...following good practice....

Chris Pott

не прочитано,
29 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0029.05.1999
In article
<jpolaski-290...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net>, Jim
Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:

> Standard ≠ Better

Just curious -- does the "not equals" sign above appear as such on
Windows newsreaders?

--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com

nate

не прочитано,
30 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0030.05.1999
On Sat, 29 May 1999 18:08:42 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
wrote:

>In article
><2952936A2B5B084B.64FFA171...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:43:21 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>>


>><23AAF0836B264ED6.A1DEA8FA...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>> >nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 28 May 1999 09:40:19 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >However, NT is not a *standard* feature either. And there is no mistake
>> >> >that NT is vastly more expensive than AppleShare IP. Other than Print
>> >> >Serving for the average environemnt, Applehsare IP 6 holds its own quite
>> >> >well. And don't forget when all the wintrolls extoll the virtues of NT and
>> >> >the size of networks,e tc. there was a report of while ago where the
>> >> >average...AVERAGE workgroup served by an NT server was 16 workstations.
>> >>
>> >> Probably because anyone running a small network knows which OS makes
>> >> the best server.
>> >==========
>> >Or because the IS guy knows what makes the things possible that keeps him
>> >in a job...
>>
>>
>> IOW, he knows how to keep from being fired. Tell me something, if you
>> were the CEO of a company and your computers were having constant
>> problems, what would you do? Would you give the IS boss a raise?
>> Would you give him a bonus? I'd give him a warning or two then a pink
>> slip.
>---------
>If they keep failing, its time to look at possibly more than just the IS
>boss. Perhaps the problem is more basic than management of this kind.
>=======

If they keep failing, you replace the IS boss or the IS. Either way,
that isn't happening with Admins specifying NT nor with NT. Something
is afoot.

>> Perhaps in the world of macs, people are rewarded for failing.
>> Unfortunately, it isn't like that anywhere else.
>
>=====
>So macs automatically fail? Where do you get off nate....it is the Wintel

You implied that IS managers choose NT because it provides job
security by being prone to failure. You were wrong. If NT was prone
to failure, it would fail and in my world the IT manager would be
finding a new job. Were I an IT manager, I'd be implementing the tool
which not only made my job easiest, but was also most efficient. Why
wouldn't other IT managers do the same?

Perhaps in the mac world, failure is regarded as a good thing and
rewarded. It isn't anywhere else.

>world where time and time again we seel PC implimented and all that
>happens is Support goes up dramatically, like at NASA...but you invalidate
>that to justifyu your needs

Lets see some recent numbers to back up your claim. Any time you
shift a large organization from one platform to another there will
inevitably be a period of increased need for support, mainly because
you are ramping up new systems, but also because it takes time for
users to become proficient with those systems.

Please post some new info on the support costs at NASA, not the stale
crap from a dozen whiners written 2 years ago.

While you are at it, post some numbers from motorola. I'm sure they
must be having fits after switching completely to NT. Prove your
theory.


My theory is simple. Most IT managers know about computers and what
best suits their company's needs. From that I extrapolate that most
company's needs are best served by NT.

Of course, you may believe conspiracy theories instead if you wish.
Hell, it may be true that you really do know better than 95% of all IT
managers what their company needs, and you just plainly aren't getting
the recognition you deserve. If that is the case, then you need to
advertise more or something.

nate

не прочитано,
30 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0030.05.1999
On Sat, 29 May 1999 18:10:59 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
wrote:

>In article
><F582914E53281921.5DD21E40...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote:


>
>> On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:48:26 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <slrn7ktlqp....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
>> >jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 28 May 1999 09:40:19 -0500, Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
>> >> >In article <slrn7koapk....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
>> >> >jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Yup. That was what I was refering to.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In the tests I've seen, (may Apple be pureed for making such a hash of
>> >> >> the names!) the AppleShare package sold separately is as fast, or
>> >> >> faster at doing AppleShare file serving, as NT is at doing SMB file
>> >> >> serving.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But it is a separate, more costly package, not a standard feature.
>> >> >=======

>> >> >However, NT is not a *standard* feature either.
>> >>

>> >> What does this mean? AppleShareIP is a separately purchased package from
>> >> the OS. File sharing and security is a built in part of NT server.
>> >=====
>> >Buy a PC and NT is not standard, just like a Mac. If you want to create a
>>
>> You can buy PCs from almost anyone with NT. That makes it standard.
>======
>Standard é Better
>=======
>>
>> >server, you buy the OS and put it on your box, assuming you have
>> >configured the hardware to be appropriate to being a server rather than a
>> >regular workstation.
>> >=======
>>
>> Or you buy a PC with NT server installed.
>=======
>Yeah, I can go to Dell, Compaq or any one of a bunch of vendors and
>decent NT server is around $7500 if you want Raid, 256 Meg Ram, Backup to
>tape, Dual ethernet, etc...following good practice....


Which mac is configured like that? URL?

Christopher Smith

не прочитано,
30 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0030.05.1999

Chris Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:290519991633428653%cp...@excite.com...

> In article
> <jpolaski-290...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net>, Jim
> Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
> > Standard ­ Better
>
> Just curious -- does the "not equals" sign above appear as such on
> Windows newsreaders?

Yes, in OE5. Although it didn't in Jim's original post - should it have
?

Chris Pott

не прочитано,
30 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0030.05.1999
In article <7iqcif$tg3$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, Christopher Smith
<drsm...@usa.net> wrote:

Dunno. Interestingly, it now seems to have become a dash.
Transliteration frenzy.

--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com

tinman

не прочитано,
30 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0030.05.1999


> However, according to an independent review, AppleShareIP 6 does not properly
> support the current Windows file sharing security system (domains, etc.). Nor
> can it act as a Primary Domain Controller.
>

> On the other hand, NT Server does not support AppleShare, so . . . in a mixed

> environment, AppleShare IP may be a better choice than trying to get your
> Mac's to speak SMB/CIFS.

Or you might want SAMBA and NetAtalk on a Linux box.....

______
tinman

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
30 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0030.05.1999
In article
<68976A49659697F4.AF69394A...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote:

> On Sat, 29 May 1999 18:08:42 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
> wrote:
>
> >In article
>
><2952936A2B5B084B.64FFA171...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
> >nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:43:21 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article
> >>
>

======
As far as administration and silliness, nothing has changed with
NT/Windows. It makes those numbers largely still relevant and would not
have chenged them an order of magnitude which is what would be needed to
shift the numbers.
=======


> While you are at it, post some numbers from motorola. I'm sure they
> must be having fits after switching completely to NT. Prove your
> theory.
>
> My theory is simple. Most IT managers know about computers and what
> best suits their company's needs. From that I extrapolate that most
> company's needs are best served by NT.

======
And who ever got fired for choosing M$...even though it costs more....
=========


> Of course, you may believe conspiracy theories instead if you wish.
> Hell, it may be true that you really do know better than 95% of all IT
> managers what their company needs, and you just plainly aren't getting
> the recognition you deserve. If that is the case, then you need to
> advertise more or something.

=====
Not a conspiracy at all. More misguided thinking based on FEAR.

Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer

не прочитано,
30 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0030.05.1999
In article <290519991633428653%cp...@excite.com>, cp...@excite.com
says...

> In article
> <jpolaski-290...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net>, Jim
> Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
> > Standard ­ Better
>
> Just curious -- does the "not equals" sign above appear as such on
> Windows newsreaders?

I got a square block. *shrug* I think that if we flame people for using
HTML in news, we ought to flame people for using stupid non-ASCII
characters, but that's just me. Flame 'em all!! Mwahahaaaaaa!! etc.

When you quoted it, it showed up as a minus sign. Interesting.

--
---

Jeremy "Getu" Reimer
jrei...@home.com
http://members.home.net/jreimeris

Chris Pott

не прочитано,
30 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0030.05.1999
In article <MPG.11bb2d9c1c17679898989c@news>, Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer
<jrei...@home.com> wrote:

> In article <290519991633428653%cp...@excite.com>, cp...@excite.com
> says...
> > In article
> > <jpolaski-290...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net>, Jim
> > Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Standard – Better
> >
> > Just curious -- does the "not equals" sign above appear as such on
> > Windows newsreaders?
>
> I got a square block. *shrug* I think that if we flame people for using
> HTML in news, we ought to flame people for using stupid non-ASCII
> characters, but that's just me. Flame 'em all!! Mwahahaaaaaa!! etc.
>
> When you quoted it, it showed up as a minus sign. Interesting.

Indeed... I must confess ignorance on this issue... is there any
standard for extended ASCII? Seems like something that should have
been taken care of years ago.

--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com

Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer

не прочитано,
30 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0030.05.1999
In article <300519991220358652%cp...@excite.com>, cp...@excite.com
says...

> > I got a square block. *shrug* I think that if we flame people for using
> > HTML in news, we ought to flame people for using stupid non-ASCII
> > characters, but that's just me. Flame 'em all!! Mwahahaaaaaa!! etc.
> >
> > When you quoted it, it showed up as a minus sign. Interesting.
>
> Indeed... I must confess ignorance on this issue... is there any
> standard for extended ASCII? Seems like something that should have
> been taken care of years ago.

I think that in the actual RFCs for Usenet news, they specify no extended
ASCII (ie, 7-bits of information only, 127 max chars, with the 8th bit
ignored, and actually only characters from ASCII 32 to 126 are valid.
This is done for compatibility with weird systems more than anything
else. I'm not sure how the EBCDIC people cope, however.

It does mean, however, that sometimes funny foreign people with funny
foreign characters show up with weird names. Usually I see them rendered
with the appropriate and correct weird letter, and very rarely I get a
weird "ISO388683blahblah" message instead. It's just weird, and I wish
these people would get proper names without slashes through every second
letter. :)

Timothy E. Adams

не прочитано,
30 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0030.05.1999
On 5/29/99 at 4:41 PM, nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote:

> On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:43:21 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
> wrote:
>
> >In article

> ><23AAF0836B264ED6.A1DEA8FA36D5DE01.F05196E93D7C72CF@library-proxy.a


> rnews.net>, >nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 28 May 1999 09:40:19 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >However, NT is not a *standard* feature either. And there is no mistake
> >> >that NT is vastly more expensive than AppleShare IP. Other than Print
> >> >Serving for the average environemnt, Applehsare IP 6 holds its own
quite
> >> >well. And don't forget when all the wintrolls extoll the virtues of NT
and
> >> >the size of networks,e tc. there was a report of while ago where the
> >> >average...AVERAGE workgroup served by an NT server was 16 workstations.
> >>
> >> Probably because anyone running a small network knows which OS makes
> >> the best server.
> >==========
> >Or because the IS guy knows what makes the things possible that keeps him
> >in a job...
>
>
> IOW, he knows how to keep from being fired. Tell me something, if you
> were the CEO of a company and your computers were having constant
> problems, what would you do? Would you give the IS boss a raise?
> Would you give him a bonus? I'd give him a warning or two then a pink
> slip.

Which explains why the company I work for is now looking to replace NT with
Linux, or return to Novel. They appear to work and be more reliable when
compared to the stuff Microsoft has been shipping.
Hell, one of the IS people has even talked about looking at Mac OS X Server.


>
> Perhaps in the world of macs, people are rewarded for failing.
> Unfortunately, it isn't like that anywhere else.

... There is no bad beer: some kinds are better than others.
**********************************************
Sent via Apple Power a FirstClass(R) BBS (603 880-7025)
A service for the membership of
Southern New Hampshire Apple Core
Manchester User Group
**********************************************

Jason S.

не прочитано,
30 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0030.05.1999
Chris Pott posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

>Indeed... I must confess ignorance on this issue... is there any
>standard for extended ASCII? Seems like something that should have
>been taken care of years ago.

ISO_8859_1(7) Linux Programmer's Manual ISO_8859_1(7)


NAME
iso_8859_1 - the ISO 8859-1 character set encoded in
octal, decimal, and hexadecimal

DESCRIPTION
The ISO 8859 standard includes several 8-bit extensions to
the ASCII character set (also known as ISO 646-IRV).
Especially important is ISO 8859-1, the "Latin Alphabet
No. 1", which has become widely implemented and may
already be seen as the de-facto standard ASCII
replacement.

ISO 8859-1 supports the following languages: Afrikaans,
Basque, Catalan, Danish, Dutch, English, Faeroese,
Finnish, French, Galician, German, Icelandic, Irish,
Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Scottish, Spanish, and
Swedish.

Note that the ISO 8859-1 characters are also the first 256
characters of ISO 10646 (Unicode).


--
Check out the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ
http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/csmafaq/

muahahahahahahaha!!!snap!snap!!snap!!photoshop!!
-- Ho You Kong

Chris Pott

не прочитано,
30 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0030.05.1999
In article <MPG.11bb4313f7c66ccb9898b0@news>, Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer
<jrei...@home.com> wrote:

> In article <300519991220358652%cp...@excite.com>, cp...@excite.com
> says...
>
> > > I got a square block. *shrug* I think that if we flame people for using
> > > HTML in news, we ought to flame people for using stupid non-ASCII
> > > characters, but that's just me. Flame 'em all!! Mwahahaaaaaa!! etc.
> > >
> > > When you quoted it, it showed up as a minus sign. Interesting.
> >

> > Indeed... I must confess ignorance on this issue... is there any
> > standard for extended ASCII? Seems like something that should have
> > been taken care of years ago.
>

> I think that in the actual RFCs for Usenet news, they specify no extended
> ASCII (ie, 7-bits of information only, 127 max chars, with the 8th bit
> ignored, and actually only characters from ASCII 32 to 126 are valid.
> This is done for compatibility with weird systems more than anything
> else. I'm not sure how the EBCDIC people cope, however.
>
> It does mean, however, that sometimes funny foreign people with funny
> foreign characters show up with weird names. Usually I see them rendered
> with the appropriate and correct weird letter, and very rarely I get a
> weird "ISO388683blahblah" message instead. It's just weird, and I wish
> these people would get proper names without slashes through every second
> letter. :)

<SARCASM> // tag for the "subtle-vision" impaired

Yes. If they're going to accept English being forced on them as the
universal language of the internet, doesn't seem like such a big deal
to have them just change their names, too. They can include the
appropriate legal paperwork in ISP Account Registration Forms.

</SARCASM>

--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com

Chris Pott

не прочитано,
30 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0030.05.1999
In article <slrn7l386d....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx>, Jason S.
<jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM> wrote:

> Chris Pott posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>

> >Indeed... I must confess ignorance on this issue... is there any
> >standard for extended ASCII? Seems like something that should have
> >been taken care of years ago.
>

> ISO_8859_1(7) Linux Programmer's Manual ISO_8859_1(7)
>
>
> NAME
> iso_8859_1 - the ISO 8859-1 character set encoded in
> octal, decimal, and hexadecimal
>
> DESCRIPTION
> The ISO 8859 standard includes several 8-bit extensions to
> the ASCII character set (also known as ISO 646-IRV).
> Especially important is ISO 8859-1, the "Latin Alphabet
> No. 1", which has become widely implemented and may
> already be seen as the de-facto standard ASCII
> replacement.

But it's not actually been standardized? ("de-facto") Odd.

[snip]

>
> Note that the ISO 8859-1 characters are also the first 256
> characters of ISO 10646 (Unicode).

So once everyone's OS and newsreaders are unicode compliant, "=20 =20"s
and "#154"s will go away?

I have no clue -- what's the Unicode support situation for the major
OSs?

--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com

Jason S.

не прочитано,
30 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0030.05.1999
Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

>> > DESCRIPTION
>> > The ISO 8859 standard includes several 8-bit extensions to
>> > the ASCII character set (also known as ISO 646-IRV).
>> > Especially important is ISO 8859-1, the "Latin Alphabet
>> > No. 1", which has become widely implemented and may
>> > already be seen as the de-facto standard ASCII
>> > replacement.

>> But it's not actually been standardized? ("de-facto") Odd.

>It's not only not standardized, it's nowhere near acceptable on Usenet.

Well, it's an international standard (ISO), unlike the proprietary stuff
that Microsoft and Apple use (and, of course, Microsoft has different
character sets for DOS and for Windows).

See http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/chars.html for some information.

Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999
In article <300519991814312004%cp...@excite.com>, cp...@excite.com
says...

> <SARCASM> // tag for the "subtle-vision" impaired
>
> Yes. If they're going to accept English being forced on them as the
> universal language of the internet, doesn't seem like such a big deal
> to have them just change their names, too. They can include the
> appropriate legal paperwork in ISP Account Registration Forms.
>
> </SARCASM>

Yes. I See A Great Need.

Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999
In article <300519991818386826%cp...@excite.com>, cp...@excite.com
says...

> > DESCRIPTION
> > The ISO 8859 standard includes several 8-bit extensions to
> > the ASCII character set (also known as ISO 646-IRV).
> > Especially important is ISO 8859-1, the "Latin Alphabet
> > No. 1", which has become widely implemented and may
> > already be seen as the de-facto standard ASCII
> > replacement.
>
> But it's not actually been standardized? ("de-facto") Odd.

It's not only not standardized, it's nowhere near acceptable on Usenet.

<BLACKADDER>
But then almost nothing is.
</BLACKADDER>



> [snip]
>
> >
> > Note that the ISO 8859-1 characters are also the first 256
> > characters of ISO 10646 (Unicode).
>
> So once everyone's OS and newsreaders are unicode compliant, "=20 =20"s
> and "#154"s will go away?
>
> I have no clue -- what's the Unicode support situation for the major
> OSs?

DOS-- what, you want support?
Windows 3.1-- thhbth. go stick your head in a pig.
Windows 9x-- nah.
Windows NT-- sure.
MacOS-- ???
Unix-- compile it yourself, you lazy bastard!

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999
In article
<D1772E3E9768B52A.CC459EB0...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote:

> On Sat, 29 May 1999 18:10:59 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
> wrote:
>
> >In article
>
><F582914E53281921.5DD21E40...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
> >nhu...@scenedesign.com wrote:


> >
> >> On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:48:26 -0500, jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <slrn7ktlqp....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
> >> >jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 28 May 1999 09:40:19 -0500, Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com>
wrote:
> >> >> >In article <slrn7koapk....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
> >> >> >jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Yup. That was what I was refering to.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In the tests I've seen, (may Apple be pureed for making such a
hash of
> >> >> >> the names!) the AppleShare package sold separately is as fast, or
> >> >> >> faster at doing AppleShare file serving, as NT is at doing SMB file
> >> >> >> serving.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But it is a separate, more costly package, not a standard feature.
> >> >> >=======

> >> >> >However, NT is not a *standard* feature either.
> >> >>

> >> >> What does this mean? AppleShareIP is a separately purchased
package from
> >> >> the OS. File sharing and security is a built in part of NT server.
> >> >=====
> >> >Buy a PC and NT is not standard, just like a Mac. If you want to create a
> >>
> >> You can buy PCs from almost anyone with NT. That makes it standard.
> >======
> >Standard é Better
> >=======
> >>
> >> >server, you buy the OS and put it on your box, assuming you have
> >> >configured the hardware to be appropriate to being a server rather than a
> >> >regular workstation.
> >> >=======
> >>
> >> Or you buy a PC with NT server installed.
> >=======
> >Yeah, I can go to Dell, Compaq or any one of a bunch of vendors and
> >decent NT server is around $7500 if you want Raid, 256 Meg Ram, Backup to
> >tape, Dual ethernet, etc...following good practice....
>
>
> Which mac is configured like that? URL?

======
A Mac server....and even running Mac OS X is $4999.

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999
In article <300519990229325528%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott
<cp...@excite.com> wrote:

> In article <7iqcif$tg3$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, Christopher Smith
> <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > Chris Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > news:290519991633428653%cp...@excite.com...

> > > In article
> > > <jpolaski-290...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net>, Jim
> > > Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
> > >

> > > > Standard Ğ Better


> > >
> > > Just curious -- does the "not equals" sign above appear as such on
> > > Windows newsreaders?
> >

> > Yes, in OE5. Although it didn't in Jim's original post - should it have
> > ?
>
> Dunno. Interestingly, it now seems to have become a dash.
> Transliteration frenzy.

======
Well, it was a "Not equals" sign...the "equals" with a slash through it...

IOW---> STANDARD does not equal BETTER!

Christopher Smith

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999

Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote in message
news:jpolaski-310...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net...

Hmm, now it's become a D with a short horizontal line through it (sorry
I don't know the technical name).

Could we have discovered a new form of life ? Is this evolution in
action ?


Chris Pott

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999
In article <7itcra$n0s$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, Christopher Smith
<drsm...@usa.net> wrote:

> Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote in message
> news:jpolaski-310...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net...
> > In article <300519990229325528%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott
> > <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <7iqcif$tg3$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, Christopher Smith
> > > <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chris Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:290519991633428653%cp...@excite.com...
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <jpolaski-290...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net>,
> Jim
> > > > > Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
> > > > >

> > > > > > Standard ‹ Better


> > > > >
> > > > > Just curious -- does the "not equals" sign above appear as such
> on
> > > > > Windows newsreaders?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, in OE5. Although it didn't in Jim's original post - should
> it have
> > > > ?
> > >
> > > Dunno. Interestingly, it now seems to have become a dash.
> > > Transliteration frenzy.
> >
> > ======
> > Well, it was a "Not equals" sign...the "equals" with a slash through
> it...
> >
> > IOW---> STANDARD does not equal BETTER!
>
> Hmm, now it's become a D with a short horizontal line through it (sorry
> I don't know the technical name).
>
> Could we have discovered a new form of life ? Is this evolution in
> action ?

It must be... now it's a "less than" sign.

When does it climb out of the primordial transliteration table?

--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com

Daniel Johnson

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999
Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer <jrei...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.11bb9b09c19855df9898d4@news...[snip]

> > I have no clue -- what's the Unicode support situation for the major
> > OSs?
>
> DOS-- what, you want support?
> Windows 3.1-- thhbth. go stick your head in a pig.
> Windows 9x-- nah.

To be fair, Windows 95 and 98 have very limited Unicode support- they
provide APIs to covert from Unicode to their own internal MBCS
("Multibyte Character Set") format.

MBCS is a nightmare; converting to Unicode and back *is* better, though
painful compared with NT's "Unicode Everywhere" approach.

Win3, I *think*, had MBCS, but no Unicode conversion APIs, so you get
your nightmare unadulterated.

> Windows NT-- sure.
> MacOS-- ???
> Unix-- compile it yourself, you lazy bastard!

That would be harder than you'd think.

The C langauge *looks* like it could handle this with a Mere Recompile-
change the 'char' type to 16 bits, recompile everything, and you are off!

But you aren't. You *still* need an 8 bit type, and the only one C has is
'char'. ANSI actually defines "char" as "8 bits and up, but we aren't
telling
you if it's signed or not, nyah nyah", which is typical for the ANSI C
standard. Pretty much all real compilers make it exactly 8 bits, because
lots of code depends on that.

If you want a 16 bit 'char', you can defined some peculiar nonstandard
extenison ("short char"?) or just do what ANSI does and make up a
new type for 16 bti characters ("wchar_t").

If you use a new type, you need to write new versions of all the APIs that
use
it. This is what Unix hasn't done yet, AFAIK.

This later thing ("wchar_t" and new APIs) is what NT does.


Pascal Haakmat

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999
In article <MPG.11bb9b09c19855df9898d4@news>, Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer wrote:

>> I have no clue -- what's the Unicode support situation for the major
>> OSs?
>
>DOS-- what, you want support?
>Windows 3.1-- thhbth. go stick your head in a pig.
>Windows 9x-- nah.

>Windows NT-- sure.
>MacOS-- ???

The Mac OS provides support for text conversion to and from various encoding
schemes such as Latin-1 and Unicode through the Text Encoding Conversion
Manager.

http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/mac/TextEncodingCMgr/TECRefBook-2.html

>Unix-- compile it yourself, you lazy bastard!

--
The CSMA posting style test
http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest/

Pascal Haakmat

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999
In article <310519990025532439%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott wrote:

>In article <7itcra$n0s$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, Christopher Smith
><drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote in message
>> news:jpolaski-310...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net...
>> > In article <300519990229325528%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott
>> > <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <7iqcif$tg3$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, Christopher Smith
>> > > <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Chris Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> > > > news:290519991633428653%cp...@excite.com...
>> > > > > In article
>> > > > > <jpolaski-290...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net>,
>> Jim
>> > > > > Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
>> > > > >

>> > > > > > Standard Ü Better


>> > > > >
>> > > > > Just curious -- does the "not equals" sign above appear as such
>> on
>> > > > > Windows newsreaders?
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, in OE5. Although it didn't in Jim's original post - should
>> it have
>> > > > ?
>> > >
>> > > Dunno. Interestingly, it now seems to have become a dash.
>> > > Transliteration frenzy.
>> >
>> > ======
>> > Well, it was a "Not equals" sign...the "equals" with a slash through
>> it...
>> >
>> > IOW---> STANDARD does not equal BETTER!
>>
>> Hmm, now it's become a D with a short horizontal line through it (sorry
>> I don't know the technical name).
>>
>> Could we have discovered a new form of life ? Is this evolution in
>> action ?
>
>It must be... now it's a "less than" sign.

Actually it's a u-umlaut now: a U with two dots on top.


>
>When does it climb out of the primordial transliteration table?

Fascinating.

Chris Pott

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999
In article <MPG.11bcd0a894834eef9898ef@news>, Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer
<jrei...@home.com> wrote:

> In article <310519990025532439%cp...@excite.com>, cp...@excite.com
> says...


>
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <jpolaski-290...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net>,
> > > Jim
> > > > > > > Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Standard Ü Better
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just curious -- does the "not equals" sign above appear as such
> > > on
> > > > > > > Windows newsreaders?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, in OE5. Although it didn't in Jim's original post - should
> > > it have
> > > > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dunno. Interestingly, it now seems to have become a dash.
> > > > > Transliteration frenzy.
> > > >
> > > > ======
> > > > Well, it was a "Not equals" sign...the "equals" with a slash through
> > > it...
> > > >
> > > > IOW---> STANDARD does not equal BETTER!
> > >
> > > Hmm, now it's become a D with a short horizontal line through it (sorry
> > > I don't know the technical name).
> > >
> > > Could we have discovered a new form of life ? Is this evolution in
> > > action ?
> >
> > It must be... now it's a "less than" sign.
> >

> > When does it climb out of the primordial transliteration table?
>

> For me, it's now turned into a U with two dots on top, after having been
> a square box, a dash, a D with a line through it, and now a U with two
> dots, in successive quotations of the original message.
>
> Matt "harnessing tab damage for humanity" McIrvin should have a look at
> this. Check it out, Matt, it's the character between "Standard" and
> "Better" near the top of the post.

Still a capital U with an umlaut (Ü) - maybe it's saving up energy for
some kind of evolutionary quantum jump?

--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com

Jason S.

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999
Pascal Haakmat posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

>>> > > > > > > > Standard † Better

>While reading the message, it looked like a question mark. When I replied to
>it, the editor turned it into ^F. No more transliteration after that I guess.

It's a "?" in slrn and a "~F" in vi now.

Chris Pott

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999
In article <slrn7l6k...@awacs.dhs.org>, Pascal Haakmat
<p...@awacs.dhs.org> wrote:

> In article <310519992013295887%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott wrote:
>
> >In article <MPG.11bcd0a894834eef9898ef@news>, Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer
> ><jrei...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <310519990025532439%cp...@excite.com>, cp...@excite.com
> >> says...
> >>
> >> > > > > > > In article
> >> > > > > > >
> <jpolaski-290...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net>,
> >> > > Jim
> >> > > > > > > Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >

> >> > > > > > > > Standard ∫ Better


> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Just curious -- does the "not equals" sign above appear as such
> >> > > on
> >> > > > > > > Windows newsreaders?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Yes, in OE5. Although it didn't in Jim's original post - should
> >> > > it have
> >> > > > > > ?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Dunno. Interestingly, it now seems to have become a dash.
> >> > > > > Transliteration frenzy.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ======
> >> > > > Well, it was a "Not equals" sign...the "equals" with a slash through
> >> > > it...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > IOW---> STANDARD does not equal BETTER!
> >> > >
> >> > > Hmm, now it's become a D with a short horizontal line through it (sorry
> >> > > I don't know the technical name).
> >> > >
> >> > > Could we have discovered a new form of life ? Is this evolution in
> >> > > action ?
> >> >
> >> > It must be... now it's a "less than" sign.
> >> >
> >> > When does it climb out of the primordial transliteration table?
> >>
> >> For me, it's now turned into a U with two dots on top, after having been
> >> a square box, a dash, a D with a line through it, and now a U with two
> >> dots, in successive quotations of the original message.
> >>
> >> Matt "harnessing tab damage for humanity" McIrvin should have a look at
> >> this. Check it out, Matt, it's the character between "Standard" and
> >> "Better" near the top of the post.
> >

> >Still a capital U with an umlaut (∫) - maybe it's saving up energy for


> >some kind of evolutionary quantum jump?
>

> While reading the message, it looked like a question mark. When I replied to
> it, the editor turned it into ^F. No more transliteration after that I guess.

Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...

--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com

Chris Pott

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999
In article <slrn7l6q...@awacs.dhs.org>, Pascal Haakmat
<p...@awacs.dhs.org> wrote:

> In article <310519992200331270%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > > > > > Standard º Better


>
> >Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
> >option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...
>

> It's a small 'underlined' circle right now.. Forget what the symbol name is.
> Fascinating indeed.

Sweet! To me, it's a plain-jane "degrees" sign now... I wonder when/if
it will cycle back to it's original, or evolve into a full phrase?
"puck blood" is my guess. :)

So, the sequence of characters so far has been: (humorously realizing
the futility of reproducing them here, but interested to see what
happens to a whole chain of them):

≠ - ‹ ∂ Ü ƒ † °

I kind of like that for a sig... hmmm...

--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com

≠ - ‹ ∂ Ü ƒ † °

Chris Pott

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999
In article <slrn7l6uv3....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx>, Jason S.
<jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM> wrote:

> Chris Pott posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:


>
> >> In article <310519992200331270%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott wrote:
>

> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Standard π Better


>
> >> >Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
> >> >option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...
>
> >> It's a small 'underlined' circle right now.. Forget what the symbol name
> >> is.
> >> Fascinating indeed.
>
> >Sweet! To me, it's a plain-jane "degrees" sign now... I wonder when/if
> >it will cycle back to it's original, or evolve into a full phrase?
> >"puck blood" is my guess. :)
>

> Oh wow!!! It just became the 1/4 sign -- cool!
>
> 274 188 BC VULGAR FRACTION ONE QUARTER
>
> seems to fit the bill.

Even better... for me, it's now pi. Woo-Hoo! Jackpot!

--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com

Chris Pott

не прочитано,
31 мая 1999 г., 03:00:0031.05.1999
In article <slrn7l6vrl....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx>, Jason S.
<jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM> wrote:

> Chris Pott posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>

> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Standard ’ Better


>
> >> >> >Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
> >> >> >option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...
>
> >> >> It's a small 'underlined' circle right now.. Forget what the symbol name
> >> >> is.
> >> >> Fascinating indeed.
>
> >> >Sweet! To me, it's a plain-jane "degrees" sign now... I wonder when/if
> >> >it will cycle back to it's original, or evolve into a full phrase?
> >> >"puck blood" is my guess. :)
>
> >> Oh wow!!! It just became the 1/4 sign -- cool!
>
> >> 274 188 BC VULGAR FRACTION ONE QUARTER
>
> >> seems to fit the bill.
>
> >Even better... for me, it's now pi. Woo-Hoo! Jackpot!
>

> Now it's superscript 1 for me! Sweet!

And now a right-curly-single-quote. The wonders never cease!

--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com

Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999

> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <jpolaski-290...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net>,
> > Jim
> > > > > > Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Standard Ü Better


> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just curious -- does the "not equals" sign above appear as such
> > on
> > > > > > Windows newsreaders?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, in OE5. Although it didn't in Jim's original post - should
> > it have
> > > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > Dunno. Interestingly, it now seems to have become a dash.
> > > > Transliteration frenzy.
> > >
> > > ======
> > > Well, it was a "Not equals" sign...the "equals" with a slash through
> > it...
> > >
> > > IOW---> STANDARD does not equal BETTER!
> >
> > Hmm, now it's become a D with a short horizontal line through it (sorry
> > I don't know the technical name).
> >
> > Could we have discovered a new form of life ? Is this evolution in
> > action ?
>
> It must be... now it's a "less than" sign.
>
> When does it climb out of the primordial transliteration table?

For me, it's now turned into a U with two dots on top, after having been
a square box, a dash, a D with a line through it, and now a U with two
dots, in successive quotations of the original message.

Matt "harnessing tab damage for humanity" McIrvin should have a look at
this. Check it out, Matt, it's the character between "Standard" and
"Better" near the top of the post.

--

China Blue

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
[|>> > Hmm, now it's become a D with a short horizontal line through it (sorry

[|>> > I don't know the technical name).

Eth. Or Edh.


Edh Norton's big brother went on to write PC utilities for the care and
maintenance of the tr command.

--
The world will someday have peace. That's not the question.
Will there be any humans to enjoy it? That is the question.
CACS: http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.smjames/index.html
text: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/5079/index.html

Pascal Haakmat

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
In article <310519992013295887%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott wrote:

>In article <MPG.11bcd0a894834eef9898ef@news>, Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer
><jrei...@home.com> wrote:
>

>> In article <310519990025532439%cp...@excite.com>, cp...@excite.com
>> says...
>>
>> > > > > > > In article
>> > > > > > > <jpolaski-290...@el03-24-131-173-233.ce.mediaone.net>,
>> > > Jim
>> > > > > > > Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Standard Ü Better
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Just curious -- does the "not equals" sign above appear as such
>> > > on
>> > > > > > > Windows newsreaders?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Yes, in OE5. Although it didn't in Jim's original post - should
>> > > it have
>> > > > > > ?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Dunno. Interestingly, it now seems to have become a dash.
>> > > > > Transliteration frenzy.
>> > > >
>> > > > ======
>> > > > Well, it was a "Not equals" sign...the "equals" with a slash through
>> > > it...
>> > > >
>> > > > IOW---> STANDARD does not equal BETTER!
>> > >

>> > > Hmm, now it's become a D with a short horizontal line through it (sorry
>> > > I don't know the technical name).
>> > >

>> > > Could we have discovered a new form of life ? Is this evolution in
>> > > action ?
>> >
>> > It must be... now it's a "less than" sign.
>> >
>> > When does it climb out of the primordial transliteration table?
>>
>> For me, it's now turned into a U with two dots on top, after having been
>> a square box, a dash, a D with a line through it, and now a U with two
>> dots, in successive quotations of the original message.
>>
>> Matt "harnessing tab damage for humanity" McIrvin should have a look at
>> this. Check it out, Matt, it's the character between "Standard" and
>> "Better" near the top of the post.
>

>Still a capital U with an umlaut (Ü) - maybe it's saving up energy for


>some kind of evolutionary quantum jump?

While reading the message, it looked like a question mark. When I replied to
it, the editor turned it into ^F. No more transliteration after that I guess.

Pascal Haakmat

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
In article <310519992200331270%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott wrote:

>> >> > > > > > > > Standard º Better

>Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
>option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...

It's a small 'underlined' circle right now.. Forget what the symbol name is.
Fascinating indeed.

--

Jason S.

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
Pascal Haakmat posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

>>> >> > > > > > > > Standard º Better

>>Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
>>option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...

>It's a small 'underlined' circle right now.. Forget what the symbol name is.
>Fascinating indeed.

Yes - in both SLRN and VIM now!

Jason S.

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
Chris Pott posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

>> In article <310519992200331270%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott wrote:

>> >> >> > > > > > > > Standard ź Better

>> >Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
>> >option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...

>> It's a small 'underlined' circle right now.. Forget what the symbol name is.
>> Fascinating indeed.

>Sweet! To me, it's a plain-jane "degrees" sign now... I wonder when/if


>it will cycle back to it's original, or evolve into a full phrase?
>"puck blood" is my guess. :)

Oh wow!!! It just became the 1/4 sign -- cool!

274 188 BC VULGAR FRACTION ONE QUARTER

seems to fit the bill.

--

David DeLaney

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
jrei...@home.com (Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer) writes:
>> > > > > > > Standard Ü Better

>
>For me, it's now turned into a U with two dots on top, after having been
>a square box, a dash, a D with a line through it, and now a U with two
>dots, in successive quotations of the original message.

For me it's blank, in both viewing and editing this file in vi.

>Matt "harnessing tab damage for humanity" McIrvin should have a look at
>this. Check it out, Matt, it's the character between "Standard" and
>"Better" near the top of the post.

We've noted this oddity before - apparently some editors and some newsreaders
do Way Cool Things to 8-bit characters that travelled over some bangpaths...

But in ARK there's _always_ time for callbacks!

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

The Lord Of Lemmings

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <310519992013295887%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott <cp...@excite.com>
wrote:

>> For me, it's now turned into a U with two dots on top, after having been
>> a square box, a dash, a D with a line through it, and now a U with two
>> dots, in successive quotations of the original message.
>>

>> Matt "harnessing tab damage for humanity" McIrvin should have a look at
>> this. Check it out, Matt, it's the character between "Standard" and
>> "Better" near the top of the post.
>

>Still a capital U with an umlaut (Ü) - maybe it's saving up energy for
>some kind of evolutionary quantum jump?

Now an integral symbol, as is your quote of it above. Methinks this is result of
multiple cross-platform reposts, since every platform handles such special
characters differently, unicode nonwithstanding.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBN1N87Zl0NmA2lacHEQI9kQCgrUU6iiVuNCktea/Op9/Pfw8CJeYAoNbx
FHz0girBhVe5D/+6vqryVO4S
=2jhs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
| Scientia Claus, Lord Of Lemmings <am...@cornell.edu> |
| http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3474/ |
| "The Library is a sphere whose exact center is any one of its |
| hexagons and whose circumference is inaccessible." |
| -- Jorge Luis Borges |

Jason S.

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
Chris Pott posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

>> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Standard น Better

>> >> >Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
>> >> >option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...

>> >> It's a small 'underlined' circle right now.. Forget what the symbol name
>> >> is.
>> >> Fascinating indeed.

>> >Sweet! To me, it's a plain-jane "degrees" sign now... I wonder when/if
>> >it will cycle back to it's original, or evolve into a full phrase?
>> >"puck blood" is my guess. :)

>> Oh wow!!! It just became the 1/4 sign -- cool!

>> 274 188 BC VULGAR FRACTION ONE QUARTER

>> seems to fit the bill.

>Even better... for me, it's now pi. Woo-Hoo! Jackpot!

Now it's superscript 1 for me! Sweet!

--

Jason S.

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
Chris Pott posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Standard Õ Better

>> >> >> >Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
>> >> >> >option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...

>> >> >> It's a small 'underlined' circle right now.. Forget what the symbol name
>> >> >> is.
>> >> >> Fascinating indeed.

>> >> >Sweet! To me, it's a plain-jane "degrees" sign now... I wonder when/if
>> >> >it will cycle back to it's original, or evolve into a full phrase?
>> >> >"puck blood" is my guess. :)

>> >> Oh wow!!! It just became the 1/4 sign -- cool!

>> >> 274 188 BC VULGAR FRACTION ONE QUARTER

>> >> seems to fit the bill.

>> >Even better... for me, it's now pi. Woo-Hoo! Jackpot!

>> Now it's superscript 1 for me! Sweet!

>And now a right-curly-single-quote. The wonders never cease!

Positively psychedelic! It is now a ... one of these:

325 213 D5 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER O WITH TILDE
326 214 D6 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER O WITH DIAERESIS

(I think that it is a tilde...)

Jim Polaski

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
In article <slrn7l6k...@awacs.dhs.org>, ahaa...@cable.a2000.nl wrote:

> While reading the message, it looked like a question mark. When I replied to
> it, the editor turned it into ^F. No more transliteration after that I guess.

======
...and I go and read the message and in Newswatcher it looks as I
originally typed, the Equals sign with a slash through it.... a common
maht symbol....

Joe Ragosta

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
In article <slrn7l6uv3....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx>,
jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM wrote:

> Chris Pott posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>

> >> In article <310519992200331270%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott wrote:
>

> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Standard ź Better


>
> >> >Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
> >> >option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...
>
> >> It's a small 'underlined' circle right now.. Forget what the symbol
name is.
> >> Fascinating indeed.
>
> >Sweet! To me, it's a plain-jane "degrees" sign now... I wonder when/if
> >it will cycle back to it's original, or evolve into a full phrase?
> >"puck blood" is my guess. :)
>
> Oh wow!!! It just became the 1/4 sign -- cool!
>
> 274 188 BC VULGAR FRACTION ONE QUARTER
>
> seems to fit the bill.

I've got a new one--it's a "pi" symbol on my system.

--
Regards,

Joe Ragosta

Joe Ragosta

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
In article <310519992013295887%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott
<cp...@excite.com> wrote:


LOL. Now it's the integral symbol.

--
Regards,

Joe Ragosta

Joe Ragosta

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
In article <slrn7l6vrl....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx>,
jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM wrote:

> Chris Pott posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>

> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Standard น Better


>
> >> >> >Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
> >> >> >option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...
>
> >> >> It's a small 'underlined' circle right now.. Forget what the symbol name
> >> >> is.
> >> >> Fascinating indeed.
>
> >> >Sweet! To me, it's a plain-jane "degrees" sign now... I wonder when/if
> >> >it will cycle back to it's original, or evolve into a full phrase?
> >> >"puck blood" is my guess. :)
>
> >> Oh wow!!! It just became the 1/4 sign -- cool!
>
> >> 274 188 BC VULGAR FRACTION ONE QUARTER
>
> >> seems to fit the bill.
>

> >Even better... for me, it's now pi. Woo-Hoo! Jackpot!
>
> Now it's superscript 1 for me! Sweet!

Oops. Just turned into an apostrophe.

--
Regards,

Joe Ragosta

Alan Baker

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
In article <310519992306510518%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott
<cp...@excite.com> wrote:

>So, the sequence of characters so far has been: (humorously realizing
>the futility of reproducing them here, but interested to see what
>happens to a whole chain of them):

And on my machine I saw:

>
>­ - Ü ¶ † Ä   ¡
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1: appears to be a standard dash

2: longer dash

3: capital U with umlaut (two dots)

4: end of paragraph mark

5: long thin "s" shape/italic "f" without a crossbar

6: capital A with umlaut

7: no visible character

8: "i" or maybe "j" without serifs (just a straight vertical line with a
dot over it.

>
>I kind of like that for a sig... hmmm...

--
Alan Baker, bakerMEDIA, Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to
that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in
the bottom of that cupboard" -Flanders & Swan

jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
On Fri, 28 May 1999 20:31:11 GMT, DC <dc...@pdq.net> wrote:
>On 28 May 1999 17:50:04 GMT, jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov ()
>wrote:
>
>>On the other hand, NT Server does not support AppleShare, so . . . in a mixed
>
>I don't know about _your_ NT Server, but mine does - out of the box,
>too.

Out of the box.

>It takes about 30 seconds and a reboot to install, and then it's
>as easy to share things to Macs as to SMB.

But you have to install it and reboot. . . ;->

Ok, all kidding aside, it makes our Macs crash. That isn't what I would
call "supports".

If it works for you, would you please post NT version number, which
service packs you have installed, and what kind of Macs and their current
MacOS version number you have installed there is?

Maybe we can get it to work here, if we throw enough money at it. . .

John S.

jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:48:26 -0500, Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn7ktlqp....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
>jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
>> What does this mean? AppleShareIP is a separately purchased package from
>> the OS. File sharing and security is a built in part of NT server.
>=====
>Buy a PC and NT is not standard, just like a Mac.

That isn't true . . . I can buy a PC with NT installed on it.

>If you want to create a
>server, you buy the OS and put it on your box, assuming you have
>configured the hardware to be appropriate to being a server rather than a
>regular workstation.

Nope. I can buy a pre-installed NT box.

>> How do you figure that?
>=======
>The cost of NT server, plus the client licenses is far greater than buying
>Appleshare IP 6, for which I don't have to buy any client licenses. The
>Appleshare client is on every Mac.

Ok. The numbers add up, so this makes sense.

>Then, there is the cost of installationkl set-up, configuation, etc., all
>of which are cheaper on Macs. And we haven't even visited administration
>and daily things....

Now you're down in the mud, again . . . none of the above has been compared
in any study, survey or test that I've seen.

Got one? Please post a URL or reference. . .

>=========
>And how accurate is third-=party commentary...

About as accurate as the marketing hype that Apple and MS put out. . .

Depends on the source and of course, the journal or magazine.

John S.

jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
On Sun, 30 May 1999 07:22:11 -0400, tinman <tin...@unc.edu> wrote:
>In article <slrn7ktlqp....@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
>jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov () wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, NT Server does not support AppleShare, so . . . in a mixed
>> environment, AppleShare IP may be a better choice than trying to get your
>> Mac's to speak SMB/CIFS.
>
>Or you might want SAMBA and NetAtalk on a Linux box.....

Well, yeah, but this *IS* CSMA, not linux.advocacy. . . ;->

John S.

Josiah Fizer

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 1999 20:31:11 GMT, DC <dc...@pdq.net> wrote:

> >On 28 May 1999 17:50:04 GMT, jste...@samoyed.itc.nrcs.usda.gov ()


> >wrote:
> >
> >>On the other hand, NT Server does not support AppleShare, so . . . in a mixed
> >

> >I don't know about _your_ NT Server, but mine does - out of the box,
> >too.
>
> Out of the box.
>
> >It takes about 30 seconds and a reboot to install, and then it's
> >as easy to share things to Macs as to SMB.
>
> But you have to install it and reboot. . . ;->
>
> Ok, all kidding aside, it makes our Macs crash. That isn't what I would
> call "supports".
>
> If it works for you, would you please post NT version number, which
> service packs you have installed, and what kind of Macs and their current
> MacOS version number you have installed there is?
>
> Maybe we can get it to work here, if we throw enough money at it. . .
>
> John S.

It mkes your Macs crash to connect to an Apple Share volume? What did ya do to the
Macs? I've been using Apple Share on Windows NT since version 3.5, never had any
problems with it on any network I setup. However I use Apple Share IP when I can as
it supports Unix printing services, granted you then have to install an LPD driver
on to the Windows clients but thats not too big an ordeal.


Chris Pott

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
In article <375425D2...@shamancorp.com>, Josiah Fizer
<jfi...@shamancorp.com> wrote:


Only problems I have seen with NT/AppleShare services was that annoying
dancing icon bug, and Find File locking up the server for all macs
connected. I think those have both been resolved, however.

ASIP emulation would be nice here, and netatalk/Linux does this well...
is this scheduled for Windows 2000? (or is it Windows 00, as in
"uh-oh"?)

--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com

Joe Ragosta

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
In article <310519992359219938%cp...@excite.com>, Chris Pott
<cp...@excite.com> wrote:

> In article <slrn7l6vrl....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx>, Jason S.

> <jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
> > Chris Pott posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
> >

> > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Standard Õ Better


> >
> > >> >> >Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f
thing...
> > >> >> >option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...
> >
> > >> >> It's a small 'underlined' circle right now.. Forget what the
symbol name
> > >> >> is.
> > >> >> Fascinating indeed.
> >
> > >> >Sweet! To me, it's a plain-jane "degrees" sign now... I wonder when/if
> > >> >it will cycle back to it's original, or evolve into a full phrase?
> > >> >"puck blood" is my guess. :)
> >
> > >> Oh wow!!! It just became the 1/4 sign -- cool!
> >
> > >> 274 188 BC VULGAR FRACTION ONE QUARTER
> >
> > >> seems to fit the bill.
> >
> > >Even better... for me, it's now pi. Woo-Hoo! Jackpot!
> >
> > Now it's superscript 1 for me! Sweet!
>

> And now a right-curly-single-quote. The wonders never cease!

And now an O with a squiggly thing over it.

--
Regards,

Joe Ragosta

Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
In article <slrn7l6l5k....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx>,
jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM says...
> Pascal Haakmat posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>
> >>> > > > > > > > Standard † Better

>
> >While reading the message, it looked like a question mark. When I replied to
> >it, the editor turned it into ^F. No more transliteration after that I guess.
>
> It's a "?" in slrn and a "~F" in vi now.

Now it's turned back into a box, but when I quoted it it turned into a
symbol that looks like a little cross!

This is *weird*!

Jason S.

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

>> > >> > > > > > > > Standard º Better

>> > While reading the message, it looked like a question mark. When I replied to
>> > it, the editor turned it into ^F. No more transliteration after that I guess.

>> Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...


>> option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...

>In your reply, it looked like a superscript o with a line under it. I
>quoted it and now it looks like a superscript o *without* the line under
>it.

I can still see the line.

Chris Pott

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
In article <slrn7l8vdd....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx>, Jason S.
<jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM> wrote:

> Jeremy 'Getu' Reimer posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>
> >> > >> > > > > > > > Standard º Better
>
> >> > While reading the message, it looked like a question mark. When I
> >> > replied to
> >> > it, the editor turned it into ^F. No more transliteration after that I
> >> > guess.
>
> >> Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
> >> option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...
>
> >In your reply, it looked like a superscript o with a line under it. I
> >quoted it and now it looks like a superscript o *without* the line under
> >it.
>
> I can still see the line.

It's just a superscript o to me... the "degrees" symbol -- opt-shift-8
on Mac OS. Has it settled down? We need someone with a funky
newsreader to reply to get it's evolution rolling again...

--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com

Jason S.

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
Chris Pott posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

>> >> > >> > > > > > > > Standard ź Better

>> >> > While reading the message, it looked like a question mark. When I
>> >> > replied to
>> >> > it, the editor turned it into ^F. No more transliteration after that I
>> >> > guess.

>> >> Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
>> >> option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...

>> >In your reply, it looked like a superscript o with a line under it. I
>> >quoted it and now it looks like a superscript o *without* the line under
>> >it.

>> I can still see the line.

>It's just a superscript o to me... the "degrees" symbol -- opt-shift-8
>on Mac OS. Has it settled down? We need someone with a funky
>newsreader to reply to get it's evolution rolling again...

Back to 1/4 sign now.

Chris Pott

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
In article <slrn7l92sn....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx>, Jason S.
<jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM> wrote:

> Chris Pott posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>

> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > Standard π Better


>
> >> >> > While reading the message, it looked like a question mark. When I
> >> >> > replied to
> >> >> > it, the editor turned it into ^F. No more transliteration after that I
> >> >> > guess.
>
> >> >> Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
> >> >> option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...
>
> >> >In your reply, it looked like a superscript o with a line under it. I
> >> >quoted it and now it looks like a superscript o *without* the line under
> >> >it.
>
> >> I can still see the line.
>
> >It's just a superscript o to me... the "degrees" symbol -- opt-shift-8
> >on Mac OS. Has it settled down? We need someone with a funky
> >newsreader to reply to get it's evolution rolling again...
>
> Back to 1/4 sign now.

And back to pi here -- we've hit for the cycle.

--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com

Jason S.

не прочитано,
1 июн. 1999 г., 03:00:0001.06.1999
Chris Pott posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:

>> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > Standard น Better

>> >> >> > While reading the message, it looked like a question mark. When I
>> >> >> > replied to
>> >> >> > it, the editor turned it into ^F. No more transliteration after that I
>> >> >> > guess.

>> >> >> Yes, it seemed to make both capital U with umaluts into the f thing...
>> >> >> option-F on Mac OS. Hmmm... round and round she goes...

>> >> >In your reply, it looked like a superscript o with a line under it. I
>> >> >quoted it and now it looks like a superscript o *without* the line under
>> >> >it.

>> >> I can still see the line.

>> >It's just a superscript o to me... the "degrees" symbol -- opt-shift-8
>> >on Mac OS. Has it settled down? We need someone with a funky
>> >newsreader to reply to get it's evolution rolling again...

>> Back to 1/4 sign now.

>And back to pi here -- we've hit for the cycle.

Superscript 1.

Загружаются другие сообщения.
0 новых сообщений