MACINTOSH IS SHIT<APPLE/MAC BANKRUPT!!!!!
Uf da!
In article <ekleberr-270...@cmh-p004.infinet.com>, ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
>In article <313229...@kingdom.com>, InTerFerenCe
><The_m...@kingdom.com> wrote:
>
>> yeah...even if your computer is slow as hell, appearance is important
>> right? jerk.
>
>Your right! PC are slow AND look awful.
They let you out of your straight jacket long enough to type that?
If macs got any slower, they'd be going backwards (like the poor
sod's that buy them...).
OBJoke:
What is the difference between Divine Brown and Johnny Cochran?
Johnny's biggest client got off...
CYBERC0M
> If macs got any slower, they'd be going backwards (like the poor
> sod's that buy them...).
Slow? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA....... Apparently in your Ignorant stupor you
forgot about a little chip called the 604. Ever heard of it? Its every bit
as fast as a pentium PRO and costs about a third as much. And speaking of
slow, Win95 is perhaps the slowest OS I have EVER used. If macs suck why
does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
suck, why then is the costomer satisfaction up around 95%? Mac's are every
bit a "real" computer as anything else out there; just because it doesnt
have mant problems than Windows or DOS dosn't mean that its inferior. The
simple fact that it is less problematic suggests that it is MORE advanced
and not simply a toy. I choose Mac because it is the FUTURE and any one
that disagrees, email me, I'll be more than happy to send you Indepented
tests, polls, interviews or any thing else supporting my claim. And I love
to debate........
mrkite
> slow, Win95 is perhaps the slowest OS I have EVER used. If macs suck why
> does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
Please, stop comparing Windoze and Dos to macs... this is a hardware
discussion, not an os discussion... if you want to talk about Os's
compare bsd, os2 and linux to your lame little macOs. all three of
those run on a PC, and all three have true 32bit multitasking.
-mrk
Pixelated!
cybe...@eworld.com (CYBERC0M) wrote:
>does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
Why don't you make this claim to the folks at PARC. And then duck the
clubs they throw at you.
Pioneered, my foot. Shamelessly copied, you mean, and then *claimed*
they'd thought it up.
pi...@shore.net pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu pi...@basenji.com
An it harm none, do as thou wilt.
Will hack Symix for food.
DanielT722
the clubs they throw at you.
Pioneered, my foot. Shamelessly copied, you mean, and then *claimed*
they'd thought it up."
No, Apple *bought* the technology they saw at PARC. In exchange for Apple
stock (and not a small amount), Xerox gave Jobs and crew a tour of PARC
with the understanding that they would take ideas with them. Ideas weren't
as closely guarded in those days.
Further, the Mac team improved the original concepts considerably. Pick up
some texts which cover the Xerox Star, the creation of the Mac, and that
time in PC history for detailed info.
Daniel
Judas Iscariot
>> They let you out of your straight jacket long enough to type that?
>> If macs got any slower, they'd be going backwards (like the poor
>> sod's that buy them...).
>Slow? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA....... Apparently in your Ignorant stupor you
>forgot about a little chip called the 604. Ever heard of it? Its every bit
>as fast as a pentium PRO and costs about a third as much. And speaking of
>slow, Win95 is perhaps the slowest OS I have EVER used. If macs suck why
>does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
>suck, why then is the costomer satisfaction up around 95%? Mac's are every
>bit a "real" computer as anything else out there; just because it doesnt
>have mant problems than Windows or DOS dosn't mean that its inferior. The
>simple fact that it is less problematic suggests that it is MORE advanced
>and not simply a toy. I choose Mac because it is the FUTURE and any one
>that disagrees, email me, I'll be more than happy to send you Indepented
>tests, polls, interviews or any thing else supporting my claim. And I love
>to debate........
Here it is folks, we are looking at the insane ravings of a genuine,
certified graduate of Mac Brainwashing 101. I am really shocked that
he didn't comment on how the Macintrash is sooo pretty to look at too.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>While prying the lemmings from hir ankles 28 Feb 1996 14:55:50 -0800,
>cybe...@eworld.com (CYBERC0M) wrote:
>
>>does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
>
>Why don't you make this claim to the folks at PARC. And then duck the
>clubs they throw at you.
Hey, has anybody else noticed -- "PARC" is "CRAP" spelt backwards...?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
(gutierrez) wrote:
>Is NT the future? Don't know. Is it as safe a choice as all the
>different unices? Yes. I read that all the big unix companies (including
>IBM) recently met to target guess who---Windows NT. I laugh when
>I read self-proclaimed experts and magazine contributors post in this
>newsgroup about how poor sales are for NT and Windows 95. It's obvious
>that the management of companies who have to sell unix (including IBM)
>and other operating systems know the real facts about NT.
If NT is selling fit to beat UNIX, is that really saying much?
DanielT722
-mrk"
Yeah, too bad Microsuck can't seem to write a decent 32-bit OS for the
masses. How long are they going to tease people with Win95 before they
give users a real, NT-based personal OS?
Daniel
S. Carver Anderson
machines. I started out on the Apple IIe, and it was great at the time.
I will also keep a place in my heart for the company (not the machine)
that pioneered many aspects of personal compuing. But you speak of the
future? Get with it dude. Your oracle has expired.
John Goerzen
: > They let you out of your straight jacket long enough to type that?
: > If macs got any slower, they'd be going backwards (like the poor
: > sod's that buy them...).
: Slow? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA....... Apparently in your Ignorant stupor you
: forgot about a little chip called the 604. Ever heard of it? Its every bit
: as fast as a pentium PRO and costs about a third as much. And speaking of
: slow, Win95 is perhaps the slowest OS I have EVER used. If macs suck why
: does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
You have just proved for yourself that Macs suck. You say Win95 is slow (I
agree) and you say Win95 copies everything from Apple, thus they must have
copied their slowness from Apple (MacOS is even slower).
: suck, why then is the costomer satisfaction up around 95%? Mac's are every
: bit a "real" computer as anything else out there; just because it doesnt
: have mant problems than Windows or DOS dosn't mean that its inferior. The
A Mac comes nowhere NEAR my FreeBSD machine.
: simple fact that it is less problematic suggests that it is MORE advanced
: and not simply a toy. I choose Mac because it is the FUTURE and any one
: that disagrees, email me, I'll be more than happy to send you Indepented
: tests, polls, interviews or any thing else supporting my claim. And I love
: to debate........
Tell me something that a Mac can do that my FreeBSD machine can't.
--
John Goerzen, programmer and owner | Freedom..liberty..justice..democracy|
Communications Centre, Goessel, KS | ..limits on free spech on the Net...|
Main e-mail: jgoe...@complete.org | Which one doesn't belong? |
ALE
<mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
> CYBERC0M wrote:
> > slow, Win95 is perhaps the slowest OS I have EVER used. If macs suck why
> > does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
>
> Please, stop comparing Windoze and Dos to macs... this is a hardware
> discussion, not an os discussion... if you want to talk about Os's
> compare bsd, os2 and linux to your lame little macOs. all three of
> those run on a PC, and all three have true 32bit multitasking.
> -mrk
Yeah and two of those run on Mac and both have true 32-bit multi-tasking.
Live and learn. Macs still don't run OS/2.
ALE
> >forgot about a little chip called the 604. Ever heard of it? Its every bit
> >as fast as a pentium PRO and costs about a third as much. And speaking of
> >does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
> >bit a "real" computer as anything else out there; just because it doesnt
> >have mant problems than Windows or DOS dosn't mean that its inferior. The
> >and not simply a toy. I choose Mac because it is the FUTURE and any one
> >that disagrees, email me, I'll be more than happy to send you Indepented
> >tests, polls, interviews or any thing else supporting my claim. And I love
> >to debate........
>
> certified graduate of Mac Brainwashing 101. I am really shocked that
> he didn't comment on how the Macintrash is sooo pretty to look at too.
HEY! Just because PCs are ugly, doesn't mean thats the reason why we think
Macs are better! :-)
And by the way, just because you don't want to hear them, doesn't mean
facts are Brainwash!!!
ALE
ALE
<mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
> David Lewis wrote:
> >
> > How does this make him a insane and raving? These are facts. Also, the mac
> > has been 32 bit for years. It currently only does cooperative
> > multitasking, but that will change with Copland.
>
> the ibm has been 32bit for years as well.
THE OS AND SOFTWARE?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Nice try! Thanks for playing! Come again lat... ever.... hmmm... at all?
ALE
mrkite
> > the ibm has been 32bit for years as well.
>
> THE OS AND SOFTWARE?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
> Nice try! Thanks for playing! Come again lat... ever.... hmmm... at all?
>
> ALE
No moron. If people NEEDED to have 32bit software back in 1985, it would
have been easy to program. The 386 (1985) had multitasking and
protected mode. The fact is, the people didn't need to utilize this
feature until years later. This doesn't mean that it's any less
powerful, in fact it means it was more powerful. YEARS later, the same
machine still serves nicely for some people. I know many 386 owners...
and it's over a decade old now... how many people are still using those
mac classics?
-mrk
DanielT722
people are still using those mac classics?"
You don't hang out at very many colleges, do you?
Pluses/SE's/Classics are loaned out and used frequently, even today,
though this is changing. What I want to know is - how many 8086 machines
are still in use?
Daniel
DanielT722
#1: no textmode. (this may be subjective, but the macintosh doesn't even
give you the OPTION of having a textmode...)"
AppleScript can let you do everything a CLI can and more. And there are
text shells for Mac OS (though heaven knows why anyone would use them).
re: "#2: No option to write directly to periferals. (this is a coding
complaint)"
As if we don't have enough problems trying to write solid software today,
now you want to be able to muck around with the external hardware and just
screw the OS? Thanks but no thanks, give me a clean API any day and leave
the internals to the engineers who know about them. I don't want to have
to know about their work any more than they want to have to know about
mine.
Perhaps this attitude difference is part of the reason why Win upgrades
are such hell as compared to Mac OS upgrades.
re: "You only asked for 2... so there are my two...
now how about 2 reasons pc's are worse than macs?"
1) Ancient CISC architecture.
2) Loose and aging hardware standards defy attempts at PnP and
auto-configuration.
3) The "you add it later" design makes it difficult to tightly integrate
various features (audio/video I/O; high-speed universal peripheral I/O;
multimedia components; etc).
Does this mean that PC's suck? No. Each platform has its strengths and
weaknesses.
Daniel
Kevin Phillips
>
> re: "Please, stop comparing Windoze and Dos to macs... this is a hardware
> discussion, not an os discussion... if you want to talk about Os's
> compare bsd, os2 and linux to your lame little macOs. all three of
> those run on a PC, and all three have true 32bit multitasking."
>
> operating systems.
>
But its currently the best yardstick available to judge the power and
usefulness of a PC.
> Drag-n-drop OS extensions with no configuration hassles what-so-ever rank
> pretty high as well, especially with computer users more interested in
> their work than in the intimate details of the machine.
>
Or, that is, computer users unwilling to learn a little about what's under the
hood of their machine. You ignorant MAC users are to computers as the blonde
bimbo is to automobiles; Changing a spare tire or checking the oil? Not on your
life. Care about the speed and acceleration? Nah. Just as long as the thing
gets you where you want to go, doesn't matter if its slow and inefficient.
> The ability to update the OS, install software, and get rid of software
> with simple mouse movements and no configuration problems or startup
> difficulties also ranks pretty high.
>
Gee, sounds like you're describing my Pent 100 running Windows 95.. hmmm..
> A slick interface with powerful help features certainly isn't necessary
> for the "real man" computer user, but many others actually like the smooth
> operation and assistance. You see, they don't have time for CS 101.
>
Well, to be truly productive with a computer, you need to know a few basis
things. But could your above reasoning explain why the typical MAC has no eject
button for the floppy? (IE.. too complicated to use for those who do not have
time for CS 101, etc etc)
> Perhaps some enjoy playing with all of the various components needed to
> run multimedia titles. Then again, others would prefer they just ran.
>
I've installed internet connectivity software on ALOT of machines in my day..
MACs, AMIGAs, all sorts of PC's (even 386's), and the MAC, by far, has to be
the most inept and slowest machine I have ever seen. Sure, the application runs
--FINALLY-- after waiting and waititng and waiting.
What gets me is watching the dog-slow machine redraw the windows line by line
while a large program is running.. even on a machine with lots of memory. Don't
make the mistake of using the mouse to enlarge a window. The computer will
appear 'locked up' while it does -- SOMETHING --, and will buffer up anything
else you input for the next few seconds. Then, quite suddenly, it will return
to normal and execute everything you might have done.. pathetic.
> And while mastering every intimate detail of a large corporate network is
> truly the lifeblood of some in our world, others could get along just fine
> if the machine would network itself.
>
You are arguing for the uninformed idiot who refuses to learn. Instead, people
should just 'settle' for a simpler, slower machine: A Commodore 64-running GEOS
in a fancy box. This is truly sad.
> Every OS has its strengths and weaknesses. Surely multitasking is not Mac
> OS 7.5's greatest strength. It is, after all, cooperative multitasking.
>
???????
Euphamism for "single tasking computer in a multitasking world". This is why
MAC is destined to FOLD. Its already coming into sight! I can't wait.
Multitasking is not, to the rest of us, simply a 'feature' of our machines
that can be compared to your list of advantages.. (ie ability to
install/uninstall with a single click, powerful help features, etc) It is an
underlying tool that makes the OS much, much more efficient. The multitasking
nature is totally transparent, and it shows itself best when you DON'T NOTICE
IT.
There's just something about being able to play a hardware intense game like
DOOM II or Hexen while my website runs in the 'background', along with Netscape
2.0 and whatever else. But, then again, the ability to easily expand the memory
of my machine to 192 megs is nice.. but 32 works just fine right now.
> But be careful the reasons you choose for calling an OS "lame". When it
> comes to taking care of itself, Mac OS makes the even the mightiest OSes
> look like newborn infants.
>
Huh?? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA! Taking careof itself? Infants? Man, you >>ARE<<
twisted. The Commodore 64 'took care of itself' in exactly the same manner you
are talking about. And it is still on the same comparative level to that 8 bit
monstrosity.
The MAC is the enbodiment of the ignorant 'consumer' mentality that manifests
itself in the computer world. It is not suprising at all to me that you also
use AOL. Typical. Another example of "consumer level" ignorance. I pity you.
Kevin
DanielT722
work, not would it be wanted... we actually compile what we want and
don't want in the os. (meaning it's an internal features that we can
change)"
That's all very nice, but it's still something that it cannot do. Drag n
drop OS extension is easy for even the novice. Compiling in features is
powerful, but requires more knowledge, time and effort. Both have
strengths and weaknesses.
re: "2: plug and play has downpoints: for example, there's ALWAYS more
than one way to use hardware, if someone writes a driver which works
fasterthan another, we have the option of using it. (plus its slow because
the system has to be scanning all the ports for ALL devices that could
possibly be inserted)"
You make a false assumption, that Mac users are stuck with "built-in"
drivers. Not true, you can drag n drop whatever you want to use. There are
several different commercial drivers for CD-ROMs, for instance, that offer
more features than the plain old Mac OS driver.
As for scanning, I certainly don't mind that a few of those MIPS are used
at startup to check for new devices. That's not the reason why Mac OS
starts up slow.
re: "3: voice recognition hasn't taken off because we don't want to talk
to
our computers... This isn't a movie. (yes, there IS software that has
good voice recognition... there's also software that lets you DRAW your
commands using a graphics tablet (or your mouse) and these aren't
popular because the keyboard works just as fast)"
I want to talk to my computer for some commands. Properly used, voice
recognition can speed up your work. And I beg to differ regarding "drawing
commands". The fastest programming languages, for most tasks, I've
seen/used are graphical languages. Off topic, I know....
re: "4: My system says "welcome to linux" everytime i log in. It also
reads
local news, and scans for new email everytime I boot up... "
Welcome to linux is good enough...there's no MS logo ;-) You can make just
about any computer do what you want a startup, however.
Daniel
DanielT722
still
in use..."
Uh, no. The SE uses a 68000 CPU, first generation. A 386 is a 3rd
generation x86 chip, comparable to the 68030. Again, how many 8086
machines are still in use?
re: "btw, read my return address. I AM at college. We have mac, pc, and
sun labs... the mac lab is full of Scheme programmers for csc127, the pc
labs and the sun labs are the most crowded, with us C programmers for
csc227 and higher."
I'm not sure if you intended to imply anything with that, but I won't
assume....
And I'll bet if you search the dorms you would find a few Pluses and SE's
and Classics still in service. And a "shitload" of '030 based or higher
systems. Though I could be wrong, I don't know what you define as a
"shitload" ;-)
Daniel
Lex Friedman
<mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
*#1: no textmode. (this may be subjective, but the macintosh doesn't even
*give you the OPTION of having a textmode...)
Wrong. The highly-vauled, often discussed Programmer's (Interrupt) Switch
offers just that. It is available through one key or a key combo on any
Mac or Mac compatible. In fact, in "DOS Easy", PC guru John Fern says
"Although powerful, DOS can't hold an unlit candle to the power and
abilities of the Macintosh Programmer's Switch." (page 34)
*#2: No option to write directly to periferals. (this is a coding
*complaint)
There are several INITs that allow just that.
*
*You only asked for 2... so there are my two...
How about two real reasons?
*now how about 2 reasons pc's are worse than macs?
More expensive
Much less compatible with other platforms
Lex Friedman ,,, On IRC: Quam
---------...@epix.net---------------ooO(o o)Ooo------------
"Dead puppies aren't much fun." (_)
A.C. Online: Making the Internet - and you - a little cooler.
Rush to http://www.epix.net/~lexf/ac.html
Weird Al For President in 1996: http://www.epix.net/~lexf/al.html
www.apple.com - how Microsoft finds where they want to go today
John Goerzen
: Everything is said is 100% accurate.
: -The 604 is easisly as fast as the Pentium Pro
: -Apple Customer satisfaction is around 95%
: -WIN95 is painfully slow (ok, this is subjective, I have tried it though
: and that apple menu, opps, I mean start menu, is ****painfully**** slow to
: draw on a Pentium 100. Painful!)
How come it appeared instantly on my 486?
: How does this make him a insane and raving? These are facts. Also, the mac
: has been 32 bit for years. It currently only does cooperative
: multitasking, but that will change with Copland.
Anyway, FreeBSD clearly beats MacOS in everything that counts.
DanielT722
the
P7 is still fully compatible with software written over a decade before
it!"
Oh, but wait! The software written a decade ago runs s-l-o-w on the P7. Oh
no, the 604 is catching up because of this! Wait, the 604 is out of the
race. What's AIM doing? OH NO!!! It's the 630! And a 700 MHz BiCMOS
604e!!!! The P7 is dying!!!!!!
;-)
Daniel
John Goerzen
: re: "You have just proved for yourself that Macs suck. You say Win95 is
: slow (I agree) and you say Win95 copies everything from Apple, thus they
: must have copied their slowness from Apple (MacOS is even slower)."
: No, they invented sluggishness all on their own.
I tend to think that both OSs are sluggish.
: re: "A Mac comes nowhere NEAR my FreeBSD machine."
: That depends on what you define as "near". A mile? A hundred miles? I'm
: sure there are probably Macs within a hundred miles of you. If we are to
: take a Cyberspace view, then they touch your machine probably every time
: your surf the Web ;-)
I meant in terms of features, etc....but you make an interesting point :-)
: re: "Tell me something that a Mac can do that my FreeBSD machine can't."
: I don't know for sure, as I have not had the opportunity to play with
: FreeBSD, which I hear is an excellent OS. So I'm honestly asking:
: 1) Drag and drop OS extensions to add/remove them?
I am not quite certain what you mean by OS extensions.....
The FreeBSD equivolent to this is to uncomment or comment a line in the
kernel configuration file. Or, there are many libraries that can be loaded
at runtime. A single command can add a module to the kernel and most can be
unloaded later. For instance, the FreeBSD Linux emulator is a Loadable
Kernel Module (LKM) that is loaded with a single command.
: 2) Plug and play _all_ hardware?
No platform supports plug and play on all hardware. On a PC, this is a
hardware issue more than a software one. However, FreeBSD's Generic kernel
does an excellent job of this.
FreeBSD admittedly does not recognize all hardware w/o configuration. This
is only due to the incredible diversity on the PC platform and the vast
configuration options.
: 3) Recognize your voice commands?
AFAIK, there is not yet a program to do that under FreeBSD. But would you
like to say:
"l y n x space h t t p colon slash slash w w w period p g p period n e t
slash p g p n e t / tilde capitol f capitol t capitol p zero one period h t
mm l semicolon e x i t"
The FreeBSD interface simply is so different from MacOS interface that it
does not lend itself to this.
: 4) Smile at you at startup and paint "Welcome to Macintosh" across the
: screen? ;-)
I believe it prints "Welcome to FreeBSD!" on the screen during bootup, but
it flashes by quickly :-)
I'll have to make a kernel hack to add the smile <g>
: Just a few suggestions, although I'm sure you could come up with a few
: FreeBSD advantages to ;-)
The voice command is something that FreeBSD does not currently do AFAIK.
(There may be such software for X under Unix, in which case it would also
run under FreeBSD).
Some of my favorite FreeBSD/Unix features:
- In two minutes, I can add a dialup line
- I can call up my computer from anywhere in the world and run commands on
it
- I can do timesharing and graphical timesharing over a serial connection
- Multiple users can be logged in concurrently
- Security measures prevent users from messing with others' data
- Lots and lots of totally free software
- Free C and C++ compilers
- Free, powerful scripting languages like Perl, Tcl, and TK
- Native TCP/IP support (Internet)
- Automatic printer conversion
(converts, for example, PostScript output to LaserJet output if you are
printing on a different printer. No need to select drivers!)
- sendmail
- wu-ftpd
- Pine and Elm
- Tin
- Very powerful and fast command line
- Ability to read and write data in huge numbers of formats (Mac, DOS, Win,
OS/2, Amiga, Unix, etc) and archiving formats (tar, zip, lha, zoo,
uuencode, binhex, MacBinary) and document formats (PostScript, *roff, HTML,
TeX, LaTeX, etc)
- Full online documentation (all the printed manuals are online instead)
Of course, commercial Unices will give you even more.
Andrew Yalowitz
>re: "I know many 386 owners...and it's over a decade old now... how many
>people are still using those mac classics?"
>You don't hang out at very many colleges, do you?
>Pluses/SE's/Classics are loaned out and used frequently, even today,
>though this is changing. What I want to know is - how many 8086 machines
>are still in use?
What fucking college do you go to?? Here at Virginia Tech all of the CS, CPE, and EE's are either
running Dec Alpha's with NT or Pentium's... Apple][+ ? Ha! I'm a major IBM fan, but I'm not blind to
the impact Mac's are having across my campus. The music department loves them... Mac's are just
plain ass better at some things than others. For those of us who do real work, like designing
computer and operating systems, we something with pure power. Dec Alpha's and Pentium Pros! Do you
really think that Apple designed Mac on an Apple][2? I doubt it!
The whole damn point is, there just isn't anything you can do on a Apple][ outside of word
processing. Likewise, there isn't much one can do on a 286. I happen to be using a 386 to run Linux,
an I have it etherneted to the campus servers to do a majority of my work on. My 486 I use for Web
browsing, and my Pentium90 I use for design.
Anony-mouse
John Goerzen
: re: "Gee, the Unix software written a decade ago compiles 32-bit in
: FreeBSD and thus runs very quickly on P7."
: That's an amazing feat of FreeBSD considering that THE P7 DOESN'T EVEN
: EXIST YET!!!!!
: People, READ the post before responding! That was P *7*, not P6!
Oops <sheepish grin>
Typo...
Christopher C. Wood
|> DanielT722 (danie...@aol.com) wrote:
|> : Uh, no. The SE uses a 68000 CPU, first generation. A 386 is a 3rd
|> : generation x86 chip, comparable to the 68030. Again, how many 8086
|> : machines are still in use?
|> But the 8086 was released far before the Mac. The 386 was from the same
|> time period as that chip.
As which chip? The words you wrote say that the 386 was from the same
time period as the 8086, which is clearly ludicrous.
Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com Chris...@eworld.com
David Lewis
>>'PCs are better at graphics (You would have to be stupid to argue this one)
You would have to be stupid to *agree* with this one. Macintosh is the
undisputed standard in graphics and pre-press applications. If it was not
for the Mac, we would not have Photoshop.
p.s. don't forget to cut your crossposts when contibuting to this thread.
mrkite
> Just one thing(I realy don't know that much about BSD) with FreeBSD can
> you plop a 2 1/2 year old on it and let him run the system?(let alone beat
> lemmings?) or FIND his Education programs?? And run 5 of them at one
> time?? (nothing about BSD multitasking i'm sure it has very good
> multitasking BUT The macs program, system meshing is the easiest i've
> seen)
>
> This may not seem important But the 2 1/2 year old knows more about
> computers than some new users I have seen.
>
> Allthough I don't know if this is a good thing.........I think I need
> LaunchPad..
No he couldn't. I think that he should go play on his Sony Playstation,
and leave the computer to those who know what they're doing. The PC is
a "big-boy's" toy.
Could you put a 2 1/2 year old in a car and let him drive?
Plus, what you don't know can hurt you. Mac users don't want to know
how their computer works (same w/ windoze users) and they'll get burned
for it later.
-mrk
ALE
> David Lewis (lew...@tuns.ca) wrote:
>
> : Everything is said is 100% accurate.
>
> : -The 604 is easisly as fast as the Pentium Pro
> : -Apple Customer satisfaction is around 95%
> : -WIN95 is painfully slow (ok, this is subjective, I have tried it though
> : and that apple menu, opps, I mean start menu, is ****painfully**** slow to
> : draw on a Pentium 100. Painful!)
>
> How come it appeared instantly on my 486?
Because you paid an exstra $1000 to buy a P-133.
> Anyway, FreeBSD clearly beats MacOS in everything that counts.
We have that. Big deal.
ALE
Paul Carpenter
everyone that for each one of the people in this thread slamming the
others, there are tens of thousands of users of _both_ platforms who are
very happy with their systems, and don't worry about the others. The
computer is just another tool. If it works, does what you want, and helps
you do something, then why not leave it at that?
For the record, I have used the Macintosh for about 7 years and am very
happy with it. I'll admit that the current MacOS is far from perfect, but
it's what I prefer.
Good luck to you no matter what platform you use.
--
Paul Carpenter
carpen...@osu.edu
O-
pi...@shore.net
-0800, mrkite <mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
>The textmode is the fastest video mode. For those of us who deal with
>textfiles (programming, newsgroups, irc) the textmode is the best,
>because more time is spent on content than trying to display it pretty.
Yah, tell me about it. Compare emacs versus, say, Microsoft Developer
Studio for respective code-editing speed. Note I say speed, *not*
ease. MSVC++ is certainly *easier* to use, but I'd rather pump out
raw code the fastet way possible, and I can usually out-type most
programmer's editors.
pi...@shore.net pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu pi...@basenji.com
An it harm none, do as thou wilt.
Will hack Symix for food.
pi...@shore.net
-0800, mrkite <mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
>Elmer G. Croan Jr. wrote:
>Linux is NOT available for suns... and the dec has only BETA versions
>out. Suns run SunOS...
Yes, but you can *get* the Alpha version, can't you?
>For linux I went to /usr/src/linux and typed "make config" i kept
>hitting enter until I got to the part about CDroms, then I said "n" for
>panasonic cdrom (my old one) and "y" for atapi cdrom. I then typed
>"make zImage" to compile the new kernel, and copied the file to /vmlinuz
>then ran "lilo" and reboot... worked great.
Next time, do a "make zlilo" after the "make zImage" :)
>Now you're thinking, hey that was a lot to do... maybe it was, maybe it
>wasn't. All I know is that it is 2nd nature to me, and there were no
>problems because I knew what I was doing.
You could've skipped the make config by editing /usr/src/linux/CONFIG
or whatever directly, but why bother? It takes a whopping two minutes
to run the script, and if you can't handle *that*, you're probably not
even up to doing the bubble tests they use in school.
>they cost more? On the pc both Linux and FreeBSD are free. You can get
>linux from ftp.cdrom.com /pub/linux/slackware3.0 and there are hundreds
>of other ftp sites which carry linux. I dont' know any sites off hand
>for freeBSD because I prefer linux.
Well, cdrom.com has it as well, or you could try freebsd.com, I think.
>Now if you want to buy a Sun, I understand the cost... but us Software
>professionals will be perfectly happy on a PC or Unisys system.
Well, if I had a client who had mission-critical work, I'd suggest a
Sun over Linux, but only because business drones tend to be overly
conservative and would freak out at the idea of a free OS ("who can I
call for tech support?" springs irresistably to mind, (answer: Cygnus)
but that's not the point. :) ) No offense intended to business
drones. :)
>> > Well here you go again comparing FreeBSD to the MACOS it just seems that you don't get it.
>> Hell LINUX 1.1.59 ( not current version by a long shot ) can run Games such as DOOM much
>> faster than a PC running 4DOS ( yep PC's don't even run MSDOS for the really good games
^^^^
Good man.
>extender does is give doom and descent flat memory. You don't even need
Well, more than that, or you wouldn't bother using them--it's not
*that* hard to get protected mode and/or flat mode.
>But that's true... Linux 1.1.59 runs doom much faster than dos. Plus
>it's multitasking... I can change windows or consoles while I'm playing
Yeah. Try having two FTP sessions, two telnets, and a kernel compile
going on the Mac simultaneously. Well, barring the fact you couldn't
do a kernel compile...
>(not good while out in the open, you'll get your ass kicked just
>standing there ;)
Hahahahahahahaha. :)
pi...@shore.net
danie...@aol.com (DanielT722) wrote:
>Bull. Mac's come with more ports than PC's dream of in the factory. If it
Nope. Think of things like the Cyclades MUX. Ever hear of a
sixteen-port serial board? Know any macs *you* would feel comfortable
using along with twenty or thirty others *at the same time* under a
timesharing system? Linux/FreeBSDers do it all the time on PCs.
>Whether or not there are more brands available has nothing to do with it.
>The max number of attachable devices is still the same.
Yes, but it's higher than you seem to think it is.
>re: "Voice recognition still is buggy and has many problems on any
>platform."
>Dictation maybe, but command recognition works just fine on a Power Mac
>with enough spare RAM.
But why would you even want to do so? "Start Word. Open So-and-so
document" Aiiieeee. Get it away!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Voice recognition is ultimately useless *except* for dictation. Well,
except for handicapped users. Your life isn't measured by the number
of ergs your muscles expend, so it's not as if you *need* to save your
hands for more important tasks. Oh, ok, I suppose you could think of
some examples where voice recognition might be useful, but as a
generalized everyday activity? Sure, I can just see the crowded
office now, with everyone telling the computer what to do. Talk about
noise pollution. Wait till the bean counters find out how much it
costs to soundproof all those cubbys. Watch the voice recognition
software be removed.
mrkite
>
> re: "But the 8086 was released far before the Mac. The 386 was from the
> same time period as that chip."
>
> SE's and Pluses. The '386 may have been out, but so was the '030, and
> since they are comparable they should be compared to each other.
>
> Daniel
When did the mac come out? I thought it made it's debut in 83 or 84...
and the 386 came out early 84... the 286 came out in 82...
-mrk
mrkite
>
> Uhhh, really?
> The P7 hasn't even seen beta silicon yet,
> and word has it that it WON'T be backward compatable(infoworld).
>
Infoworld is wrong... just because it is RISC doesn't mean it can't
handle programs written for CISC... if so, what good are RISC chips?!
-mrk
torro
THIS IS A BINARY GROUP NOT A FUCKING WAR ZONE.
IF YOU WANT A WAR ZONE START A NEW NEWS GROUP ALT.MAC.SUCKS OR ALT.IBM.SUCKS
JUST STOP THIS CHILDISH AND WASTEFULL STRING
IN CASE YOU DIDN'T REALIZE THIS IS ALT...WAREZ...
GROW UP
YOUR WORSE THAN LOSE LOSERS IN THE us GOVERNMENT
THOSE BLOOD CRAZED MINDLESS IDIOTS WHO WOULD RATHER SPEND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON WAR
MACHINES AND SPLATTER THE BRAINS OF INOCENT PEOPLE IN SOME OF WORLD COUNTRY AND GET
INVOLVED WHERE THEY DON'T BELONG WHILE PEOPLE ARE STARVING AND JOBLESS IN usA.
gO FIGURE THOSE MINDLESS FUCKHEADS OF HELL GONE BAD. AND THE KENEDYIES WHO WERE IN OFFICE
FOR SO LONG MADE THERE GREAT FORTUNE SELLING ILLEAGLE DRUGS AT THE TIME.
THE MENTALLITY OF usA SUCKS.
BLOOD THIRSTY FUCK HEADS.
On Sun, 03 Mar 1996 10:35:36 -0800, "Elmer G. Croan Jr." <egc...@iamerica.net> wrote:
>|John Goerzen wrote:
>|>
>|> Tygyr (z...@zz.zz.zz.zz) wrote:
>|>
>|> : ******************************************************************************
>|> : * MY CHALLENGE *
>|> : ******************************************************************************
>|>
>|> : My challenge to PC users is:
>|>
>|> : How exactly is the Macintosh 'worse' than a PC? In what ways? Provide
>|> : at least two answers.
>|>
>|> First, reliability. I am running FreeBSD on my PC and it is much more
>|> reliable than MacOS. I have never yet experienced a single crash on my
>|> FreeBSD machine. Ever. And I'm a programmer and since I'm human, I do make
>|> my share of errors. They've never crashed the OS, though.
>|>
>|
>|I say I don't believe you actually addressed his question since the MAC can also run a
>|form of unix ( ie Linux ) I don't believe we are talking exactly fairly.
>|I mena everything you are bragging about is because of FreeBSD and not MS-DOS !!
>|>
>|> : 'PCs are cheaper than Macs'
>|>
>|> That is true. Macs force you to get all sorts of things you may not need.
>|> Why do you need a sound card or color to type memos? You can get a PC with
>|> a B&W VGA monitor and no sound card for much less than a Mac. Macs force
>|> you to get unnecessary hardware.
>|>
>|> : 'PCs are more powerful than Macs' (HA!)
>|> Here again you answered with FreeBSD and not MS-DOS it must be you know he is right the
>|MAC_OS is better than MightySorry DOS so you again wanting to win the arguement are
>|replying with something not purely a PC operating system. I amgain repeat LINUX is avail
>|for the MAC and soon the POWERPC ...Hell LINUX is available for SUN SPARCS and DEC ALPHA
>|class machines and talk about bury you a ALPHA is 2-3 times fater than even the fastest or
>|soon to be released fastet P6's chips ...
>|
>|> Your Mac CANNOT read Unix formats. That is a flat-out lie. Just to make
>|> sure, I formatted a FreeBSD floppy and took it over to a Mac. The Mac did
>|> not read it.
>|
>|Hell your PC in MS-DOS can't read all the formats of the world, see your below comments
>|here agin you are preaching about FreeBSD, clearly not MS-DOS.
>|
>|> : 'PCs can use multimedia' (Adding a CD ROm drive doesn't mean multimedia, friend.
>|> : And Macs have a lot more than this)
>|
>|Have you ever added a CD-ROM from scratch on a PC or better yet changed to a different one
>|as compared to a MAC ?? I have and let me tell you even thou it is better than DOS 5.0 and
>|Windows 3.0 baby it aint much better and it doesn't even comapre to the memory model of
>|MACOS ...yep this was our biggest problem with the ($@#$# ing PC was getting in there and
>|finding out why when we opened a second application in Windows we could no longer read the
>|CD or drive D: ....Wow was this fun to try and fix since MIS only supported the MS memory
>|manager...well in the back door came a Quarterdeck product and we did a few XXXX or
>|exclude memroy staement s and it finally worked ..One week later and without the help of
>|MIS..... Oh the MAC product ( we were doing an evaluation ) worked right out of the box
>|since the MACOS does linear memory since the MC68000 family of processors can handle this
>|easily since they don't have banked memory system that is tied hopelessly into a Z80 at
>|64K banks this also makes compilers have to do extra work .... ( nuff said another
>|conversation entirely )
>|>
>|
>|> So you're to embarassed by the results you will get to have them on a public
>|> newsgroup? Well, surprise! I'm posting this to a newsgroup too!
>|> Yeah I am embarassed you are making such a fool out of yourself, you must agree with him
>|about MS-DOS being sorry all you keep saying is how great FreeBSD is. I don't htink you
>|will get any arguments from anybody here that UNIX is the operating syetem of choice when
>|it comes to pweople who want to be in control of their paltforms. I use all three
>|paltforms and must say I feel that for the enduser who doesn't want to be digging around
>|in the innards of the OS trying to make something work out of the box it is the MACOS that
>|is the winner here! I still prefere the UNIX workstations but they cost more and are for
>|Engineers and Software professional who can't do the same job on MS-DOS not matter what..
>|>
>|
>|> How come my FreeBSD on a clone 486DX2/80 (clone processor even) is faster
>|> than a PowerMac then?
>|> Well here you go again comparing FreeBSD to the MACOS it just seems that you don't get it.
>|Hell LINUX 1.1.59 ( not current version by a long shot ) can run Games such as DOOM much
>|faster than a PC running 4DOS ( yep PC's don't even run MSDOS for the really good games
>|that require reliable memory management and speed ... DOOM DESCENT all run another DOS
>|watch the bootup messages if you don't believe me )
>|>
>|
>|>
>|> : There is no material more inappropriate for a PC case than solid steel.
>|> : It transmits shocks easily, is prone to reverberation, expands and
>|> : contracts to a massive degree, is not flexible, the paint is not
>|> : durable and is heavy. Plastic is a greater shock absorber and basically
>|> : does not have any of these problems.
>|>
>|
>|Actually the Metal box does serve as a way to get a very cheap piece os harware from
>|causing too much RF interference ... I mean remember years ago when the FCC showed up at
>|COMDEX and wrote all the fines to people who were selling PC Clone box that had not
>|received the necessary FCC Class B ( HOME !! ) sticker in fact many were only capable of
>|the Class A ( industrial ) sticker which is three times as much allowable radiation...
>|Hmmmm seems to me those little metal can may help some, however if Apple could achieve
>|these stickers ( remember they started out home machines ) from the beginning well my hat
>|is off to them. Oh yeah BTW ATARI and AMIGA'a machines have always been Class B since they
>|were home machines from the beginning.
>|> --
>|
>|Well I surrender the soapbox over to someone else now .....
>|
>|BC
Kevin Davis
>re: "Please, stop comparing Windoze and Dos to macs... this is a hardware
>discussion, not an os discussion... if you want to talk about Os's
>compare bsd, os2 and linux to your lame little macOs. all three of
>those run on a PC, and all three have true 32bit multitasking."
>"True" 32-bit multitasking is not the be all and end all of computer
>operating systems.
True, but it is a very nice feature to have. BTW, what in your mind
is the end all be all of computer OS's?
>Drag-n-drop OS extensions with no configuration hassles what-so-ever rank
>pretty high as well, especially with computer users more interested in
>their work than in the intimate details of the machine.
What do you consider to be configuration hassles?
>The ability to update the OS, install software, and get rid of software
>with simple mouse movements and no configuration problems or startup
>difficulties also ranks pretty high.
This largely depends on the software itself, not the OS. (except in
the case of OS updates)
>A slick interface with powerful help features certainly isn't necessary
>for the "real man" computer user, but many others actually like the smooth
>operation and assistance. You see, they don't have time for CS 101.
Hmmm, I would've thought those with no time for CS101 would benefit
from a slick interface with powerful help features.
>Perhaps some enjoy playing with all of the various components needed to
>run multimedia titles. Then again, others would prefer they just ran.
What OS has difficulty "just running" multimedia?
>And while mastering every intimate detail of a large corporate network is
>truly the lifeblood of some in our world, others could get along just fine
>if the machine would network itself.
True.
>But be careful the reasons you choose for calling an OS "lame".
I would agree with you on this one. Different needs and preferences
result in different choices. The last thing we would want is to have
any one single company have a total monopoly with an OS.
mrkite
> Bull. Mac's come with more ports than PC's dream of in the factory. If it
> Mac standard on ports) it's only because the architecture is aging and
> patched in places.
>
> Whether or not there are more brands available has nothing to do with it.
> The max number of attachable devices is still the same.
My Scsi card (for PC) can control 12 scsi devices... I think that's MORE
than necessary. I also have 5 PCI ports and 3 ISA ports. What's inside
right now? Videocard(pci), soundcard(isa), modem(pci),
diskdrives(scsi), 10baseT ethernet(pci). That leaves 2 PCI ports open,
2 ISA ports, and 8 SCSI ports. Now I see the limitation of parallel
ports ans serial ports... my printer and scanner share the parallel
port(a y connection handles it, but i can't print and scan at the same
time :) and my mouse takes up the serial port...
then again, i can't think of anything else to hook up to my computer...
aside from the graphics tablet under my bed...
-mrk
mrkite
> > than your Mac. Name one thing your Mac can do that FreeBSD had no
> > equivolent for. I can name many things FreeBSD can do that your MacOS
> > can't.
>
> Like?
>
FreeBSD is telnetable. Nuff said.
Linux supports the following net protocols:
tcp/ip
ipx
netBeui
SMB
NFS
AppleTalk
Amature Radio
and others.
>
> Macs have BETTER graphics programs and BETTER graphic cards.
>
Oh suure they do. 3d studio is 2nd only to an SGI machine in the
computer art industry...
Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
-mrk
Aimee Devereaux
> In article <ender-02039...@199.212.152.46>, en...@interlog.comV
says...
> >Having no familiarity with FreeBSD, but here goes anyway. Can your FreeBSD
> >run Marathon?
>
> I saw Marathon this weekend (Marathon 2 to be exact), and did you ever notice
> that it has striking similarities between it and the DOOM engine? I
didn't see
> any sloping floors, sectors on sectors or anything that corrects the flaws in
> DOOM...
> --
> +====Tod Weitzel====+
> |t...@wile.thetech.org|
> +===================+
If you want to argue M2 vs Doom2 you should go to alt.games.marathon.
They would make threads 90+ posts long, arguing M2 VS D2 or M2 vs Dn3d
They used to have a whole lot of this sort of crap until they realized, 1
they had to much time on there hands or 2 they had there prioritys messed
up...Maybe we should learn this here..(comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
_Adam D.
mrkite
> > Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
> > card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
>
> So what? Saying what you have without knowing what others have means nothing.
>
> ALE
But I do know what other's have... I know that 1280x1024 is one of the
highest video modes... i KNOW that 16 million colors is the most # of
colors available, and I know that 128 bits is the highest out right now.
-mrk
Joe Ragosta
<mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
> Tygyr wrote:
> > My challenge to PC users is:
> >
> > How exactly is the Macintosh 'worse' than a PC? In what ways? Provide
> > at least two answers.
> >
>
> Ok:
> #1: no textmode. (this may be subjective, but the macintosh doesn't even
> give you the OPTION of having a textmode...)
Others have mentioned this, but it is possible to use a CLI. BTW, to argue
that this makes PCs better, you'd have to claim it as an advantage. Since
most of the computing world is going away from CLI, it's not much of an
advantage.
>
> #2: No option to write directly to periferals. (this is a coding
> complaint)
Why is it better to be able to write directly to the peripherals? It
causes all sorts of compatibility problems and gets marginally better
performance. I'd rather have the ease of use of knowing that the OS is
handling all this stuff. AFAIK, most programmers (once they become
comfortable with it) would rather not write directly to hardware, either.
>
> You only asked for 2... so there are my two...
> now how about 2 reasons pc's are worse than macs?
Let's see:
Inconsistent interface
High learning curve
Lower productivity
Configuration difficulty because there are no standards
Lousy quality hardware is common (note--not universal, but very common)
You can get about 50 more from Apple's web site.
Care to try again?
--
Regards, Joe Ragosta
Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1996. Non-exclusive, royalty free license to distribute this post granted to any service provider except Microsoft. By posting this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per posting.
Eugene Regis
> On 3 Mar 1996, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > FreeBSD is a PC-only operating system.
> >
> > PCs have no "standard" OS. Many PCs don't even come with any OS
> > preinstalled.
>
> yah, right. People used to call macs a monopoly, now, if you don't have
> a pentium and win95, you're out-of-date, and can't get shit to work for
> you. Now microsoft in the monopoly.
>
> As for any UN*X OS's, they're for power, and networking, and as I
> understand it, the Mac still beats the pentium, and mac's even have their
> own networking servers.
>
> True, I'm about to install FreeBSD on my 386, but hey, just because I
> don't feel like leaving my mac on 24 hours a day to run our LAN, who
> cares? I'm a cross-platform guy, it just depends upon the task I'm
> trying to do (usually done more easily on a Mac).
>
> > In certain areas, MacOS is better than DOS. FreeBSD is not available for
> > the Mac.
>
> for the 6100DOS, you can install it. But the mac also has UNIX-type OS's
>
> > I never claimed Win3.0 is better than MacOS.
>
> "PC's are better than mac's" is kind of a blanket statement....
>
> > Linux is PC. DOS is PC. You are arguing the virtues of one PC OS over
> > another, not PC vs. Mac.
>
> There is a Linux version for Mac.
>
> -otherguy
>
>
what the hell is this shit doing in
alt.tasteles.jokes
--
Eugene Regis
World Wide Web: http://www.york.ac.uk/~ear104
___________________________________________________
"You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment."
pi...@shore.net
-0800, mrkite <mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
>My Scsi card (for PC) can control 12 scsi devices... I think that's MORE
Nahh. My Adaptec 2940 PCI can do 15 devices, not counting itself.
>than necessary. I also have 5 PCI ports and 3 ISA ports. What's inside
four and four, on my development machine at work.
>right now? Videocard(pci), soundcard(isa), modem(pci),
>diskdrives(scsi), 10baseT ethernet(pci). That leaves 2 PCI ports open,
On-board serial/parallel. PCI video card and PCI SCSI host adapter.
ISA network card. 2 PCI slots, 3 ISA slots. I wanted a PS/2 style
mouse adapter for an extra com port but they ordered the wrong
machine.
>2 ISA ports, and 8 SCSI ports. Now I see the limitation of parallel
>ports ans serial ports... my printer and scanner share the parallel
>port(a y connection handles it, but i can't print and scan at the same
>time :) and my mouse takes up the serial port...
You can buy an expandable card that will give you three parallel
ports. There's an analogous version for 4 serial ports, if you have
enough IRQs free.
John Goerzen
otherguy <othe...@dash.com> writes:
>On 4 Mar 1996, DanielT722 wrote:
>
>> re: "I am not quite certain what you mean by OS extensions.....
>>
>> The FreeBSD equivolent to this is to uncomment or comment a line in the
>> kernel configuration file. Or, there are many libraries that can be
>> loaded
>> at runtime. A single command can add a module to the kernel and most can
>> be unloaded later. For instance, the FreeBSD Linux emulator is a Loadable
>> Kernel Module (LKM) that is loaded with a single command."
>>
>> architecture is better than the UNIX design in everything (it's not), but
>> dragging an icon over a folder is a lot easier than any configuration file
>> I've ever seen, especially to the insecure novice.
>>
>> re: "No platform supports plug and play on all hardware."
>>
>> Ahem, I beg to differ ;-)
>
>I must totally agree with the differing here. If a peice of hardware is
>made for the mac, then you can plug it in and play, if it isn't, then why
>the hell are you buying it if you don't have a mac? I lost the software
Then let me ask you this. Why...if you get a Mac modem, must you still
configure it?
>that came with my video card, (note I had to use the monitor to install
>the software), and it is currently not installed, yippity, all the
>features are still availble to me, even without the software because it
>is built into the OS.
>
>-otherguy
John Goerzen
ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
>In article <4ha095$8...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) wrote:
>
>> David Lewis (lew...@tuns.ca) wrote:
>>
>> : Everything is said is 100% accurate.
>>
>> : -The 604 is easisly as fast as the Pentium Pro
>> : -Apple Customer satisfaction is around 95%
>> : -WIN95 is painfully slow (ok, this is subjective, I have tried it though
>> : and that apple menu, opps, I mean start menu, is ****painfully**** slow to
>> : draw on a Pentium 100. Painful!)
>>
>> How come it appeared instantly on my 486?
>
>Because you paid an exstra $1000 to buy a P-133.
READ MY TYPING....I said "486". Not "Pentium"!
>> Anyway, FreeBSD clearly beats MacOS in everything that counts.
>
>We have that. Big deal.
OK, since you are sooooo convinced you have FreeBSD, go check out FreeBSD's
home page at http://www.freebsd.org and tell us all where it says that it's
available for the Mac. FreeBSD, of course, is not available for the Mac.
ALE
> diskdrives(scsi), 10baseT ethernet(pci). That leaves 2 PCI ports open,
> ports ans serial ports... my printer and scanner share the parallel
> port(a y connection handles it, but i can't print and scan at the same
> time :) and my mouse takes up the serial port...
Well... The same thing is availble for Macs.
ALE
ALE
>
> > > than your Mac. Name one thing your Mac can do that FreeBSD had no
> > > equivolent for. I can name many things FreeBSD can do that your MacOS
> > > can't.
> >
> > Like?
>
> FreeBSD is telnetable. Nuff said.
> Linux supports the following net protocols:
> tcp/ip
> ipx
> netBeui
> SMB
> NFS
> AppleTalk
> Amature Radio
May I ask, so what? All of those above that I've ever had to deal with,
my Mac supports. As for the rest, why should I care about those if the
one my Mac doesn't support, I never will need to use anyway.
> > Macs have BETTER graphics programs and BETTER graphic cards.
>
> Oh suure they do. 3d studio is 2nd only to an SGI machine in the
> computer art industry...
Joe Ragosta
> What fucking college do you go to?? Here at Virginia Tech all of the CS,
CPE, and EE's are either
> running Dec Alpha's with NT or Pentium's... Apple][+ ? Ha! I'm a major
IBM fan, but I'm not blind to
> the impact Mac's are having across my campus. The music department loves
them... Mac's are just
> plain ass better at some things than others. For those of us who do real
work, like designing
> computer and operating systems, we something with pure power. Dec
Alpha's and Pentium Pros! Do you
> really think that Apple designed Mac on an Apple][2? I doubt it!
Of course, if you wanted _real_ power, you'd be using a PowerMac 9500 or
PowerWave 150. These beat the Pentium Pro (but not the Alpha) in raw
horsepower. In terms of what you can get done, the PowerMac beats either
hands down.
Lex Friedman
ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) wrote:
*In article <4hiu5f$4...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen)
*wrote:
*> Can you also read ufs and ffs disks? Have multiple OSs on a
single
drive?
*> Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
*Unsure (I don't think so), Yes, Yes, Yes.
That first one is also a yes, my friends. My Mac, which is used with many
other computers in a crowded layout office for a national magazine, is
able to read all the following disks:
ufs, ffs, Mac, ProDOS, DOS, Windows, Apple II, Apple I, Sun, Com 64
(really!), Amiga, Firestar, 2232, and more.
Lex Friedman ,,, On IRC: Quam
---------...@epix.net---------------ooO(o o)Ooo------------
"Dead puppies aren't much fun." (_)
A.C. Online: Making the Internet - and you - a little cooler.
Rush to http://www.epix.net/~lexf/ac.html
Weird Al For President in 1996: http://www.epix.net/~lexf/al.html
www.apple.com - how Microsoft finds where they want to go today
Lex Friedman
*> Then let me ask you this. Why...if you get a Mac modem, must you still
*> configure it?
*
*I didn't, did someone else?
No. With a MAC modem, no configuration is necessary. Note these
instructions of the Romodi external hard drive installation for Mac:
Install the driver software (La Cie Silverlining) from the disks included
after putting the device anywhere on your SCSI chain (Chapter 2). Use
terminator if it's the last device. Silverlining will load the SCSI
device if you run it.
Now, the SAME products Windows/Windows 95 instructions:
Insert the disk marked 'One.' Using File Manager, type A:\install.exe
where A:\ is your floppy drive, or the floppy drive in question. If
installation does not commence, try restarting your computer and launching
from DOS. If this does not work, call our tech support number (see inside
cover). If the installation through the six disk process
(MY INTERRUPTION: REMEMBER THE MAC HAD ONE DISK!)
continues without a hitch but the software is not on your computer, try
installing it again in Windows. Or, try restarting and installing from
DOS. If nothing works, call the tech support number.
Ah - Windows plug and play really is!
How so? Everytime someone tries it, Apple's REAL plug-and-play gets
another PLUG!
pi...@shore.net
jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960304202642.15604C-100000@dean1>,
^^^^^^^^
I've always thought this was cute.
Newsgroups line trimmed.
Kazimir Kylheku
>CYBERC0M (cybe...@eworld.com) wrote:
>: > Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
>: > card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
>
>: Its, its a 128 bit video card for the mac!! Oh and by the way,
>: 1280x1024x16mill is no big deal mine is in that res right now but wait,
>: there's more!! Mine does it with 2 megs of vram!!!
>
>What's the point? The human eye can only see 24 Bit.
Umm, sorry to break this to you, but the 128 bit doesn't refer to the width of
a pixel. The "16mill" above clearly refers to 16.7 million colors, which is 24
bit (8 bit RGB triplets).
The 128 bits refers to the width of the internal datapath between the card's
coprocessor and video memory. A wide datapath greatly speeds up operations such
as copying a rectangular window from one region to another and the rendering of
raster primitives. The fast copies are important to display systems like X,
many of whose window managers support opaque window dragging (as opposed to
repositioning a window by dragging a thin outline).
>--
>Regards,
>Anthony e-mail: to...@warp.co.uk
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Hellshok
>
> CYBERC0M (cybe...@eworld.com) wrote:
> : > Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
> : > card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
>
> : Gee, isn't that great... a 128 bit video card, but wait, whats that?!!
> : Its, its a 128 bit video card for the mac!! Oh and by the way,
> : 1280x1024x16mill is no big deal mine is in that res right now but wait,
> : there's more!! Mine does it with 2 megs of vram!!!
>
> What's the point? The human eye can only see 24 Bit.
>
> Regards,
> Anthony e-mail: to...@warp.co.uk
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cards on PC) 64 bit and 128 bit is the flow of data between the bus and the
cpu if I am not mistaken.
The human eye at birth can see little more than a 17-40 year old person.
You all have the wrong info here the Mac Number9 graphics card can have
up to 8MB of VRAM which gives 16.7 million+ colors @1600x1280
resolution on a Mac monitor which would be even higher on a PC Because
the resolution is set up differently.
PCs will never have the same clarity for publishing or color reference
just ask a professional if they want to see it perfectly they look to a Mac!!
How often do you ever see a Radius PressVeiw system hooked up to a PC?
That would be ridiculous!
+++Hellshok+++
Robert A. Decker
>
>Perhaps because you are too brainwashed to notice?
talk about brainwashed. This is coming from the guy that thinks he's
running BSD! Boy is he fooled.
>
>Dialin is not a programmer-only feature. COMPLETE online documentation is
>not a progammer-only feature. Timesharing is not a programmer-only
feature.
>Superior GUIs is not a programmer-only feature.
yes they are. prove otherwise with citations. you are a liar.
>Yes, plenty of people. Why would somebody that works with word processing
>or spreadsheets all day need the ability to play little boings?? There is
>NO reason! There are people around here that still use old PC XTs (and
even
>some people that have original PCs) that still function fine in today's
>business world. They do not need sound to type memos or work in
>spreadsheets!
you are wrong. There aren't even such things as word processors or
spreadsheets on PC's!
and it has been proven again and again that boings are needed for a good
computer to function properly. If you can't get your computer to boing then
you don't have a computer.
>Gee, I thought it was fast and easy to replace hardware on the Mac.
>(According to you Mac advocates). If that's so, why can't they just yank
>out the sound card on the Macs that don't have it? On a PC, that would
take
>oh, say, 3 seconds...
No it wouldn't. prove it. You can't remove the sound on a PC.
>
>Wow....I had never known that... <sarcasm>
don't lie.
>No. There are plenty of people that are even annoyed by that. Especially
>in open office environments (lots of computers in the same room with
little
>or no partitions).
again, if it doesn't boing then it isn't a computer! Are you that dense?
I bet your OS can't boing! If it can I bet it can't boing and eep at the
same time. It's doubly worthless then!
rob
---------------------------------------------------
This message was created and sent using the Cyberdog Mail System
---------------------------------------------------
InTerFerenCe
for one, If you are posting to this thread you obviously own some sort of
computer(point being, you have already made your decision)...and chances are that
some other guy telling you his is better is not going to get you to go out and buy
the other kind...I personally prefer PCs, so if you think Im an idiot or that your
Mac is better, then fine. I will deal with it.
In the meantime, please shut up and go away.
cheers....
Candide
{DELETED]
>Or you could go the Apple route and fuck the users every time a new
>machine or OS revision comes out by making it incompatible with all
>the existing softare and hardware.
{DELETED]
>pi...@shore.net pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu pi...@basenji.com
>An it harm none, do as thou wilt.
>Will hack Symix for food.
You have NEVER seen a Mac, have you?...
Where do you come up with crap like: "...every time a new machine or OS
revision comes out by making it incompatible with all the existing softare
(!) and hardware."?
Why do you lie/make up such idiotic fantesies? What do you hope to gain
from making an ass of yourself?
Candide
--
"Madness is rare in individuals; but in groups, parties, nations and ages, it is the rule."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Ryan Krueger
> Anthony Barlow wrote:
> >
> > CYBERC0M (cybe...@eworld.com) wrote:
> > : > Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
> > : > card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
> >
> > : Gee, isn't that great... a 128 bit video card, but wait, whats that?!!
> > : Its, its a 128 bit video card for the mac!! Oh and by the way,
> > : 1280x1024x16mill is no big deal mine is in that res right now but wait,
> > : there's more!! Mine does it with 2 megs of vram!!!
res. Do the math. It takes 3 bytes for each pixel.
1280x1024=1,310,720
1,310,720x3=3,932,160 4megs
> > What's the point? The human eye can only see 24 Bit.
2^24=16mill
> Let me inform you on some important facts about graphics cards(i.e. video
> cards on PC) 64 bit and 128 bit is the flow of data between the bus and the
> cpu if I am not mistaken.
The 64 or 128 bits does not refer to the data path between your cpu and
the card. That is determined by the bus architecture: NuBus, PCI, ISA,
EISA, LocolBus, PDS, MicroChannel... It also doesn't refer to the card to
monitor interface, that is way different. It does refer to the internal
data bus. Internal to the card. It's mostly marketing... Man, is
everyone her stupid?
> The human eye at birth can see little more than a 17-40 year old person.
> You all have the wrong info here the Mac Number9 graphics card can have
> up to 8MB of VRAM which gives 16.7 million+ colors @1600x1280
> resolution on a Mac monitor which would be even higher on a PC Because
> the resolution is set up differently.
>
> PCs will never have the same clarity for publishing or color reference
> just ask a professional if they want to see it perfectly they look to a Mac!!
> How often do you ever see a Radius PressVeiw system hooked up to a PC?
> That would be ridiculous!
Get this straight: Macs are the definitive machine in graphics and
publishing. The cards available beat the pants off anything PC's have.
The #9 card with 128 bits is also available on the Mac. But thats not the
best there is. Believe it or not, non-128 bit cards are better still.
BUT: Macs now have the upper hand, but to say "PCs will never have the
same clarity..." is dumb. There's always the future. It's not likely,
but possible.
-Ryan Krueger
-RSKr...@TaylorCorp.com
Anthony Barlow
: > Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
: > card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
: Gee, isn't that great... a 128 bit video card, but wait, whats that?!!
: Its, its a 128 bit video card for the mac!! Oh and by the way,
: 1280x1024x16mill is no big deal mine is in that res right now but wait,
: there's more!! Mine does it with 2 megs of vram!!!
What's the point? The human eye can only see 24 Bit.
--
John Goerzen
Le...@epix.net (Lex Friedman) writes:
>In article <313b99e3...@news.shore.net>, pi...@shore.net wrote:
>
>
>*Yeah. Try having two FTP sessions, two telnets, and a kernel compile
>*going on the Mac simultaneously. Well, barring the fact you couldn't
>*do a kernel compile...
>
>Two things: Using Kern+, available on vy FTP, you in fact can do a kernel
>compile on a Mac. Furthermore, it is with extreme simplicity, speed, and
A kernel compile would require the source code to MacOS. Do you have the
source code? Has Apple made it available? No. Thus you are NOT doing a
kernel compile.
>ease that one can have 2 FTPs, two telnets, and a Kernel compile going on
>a Mac simultaneously. I do similar activity all the time.
How about posting some statistics on the speed of those FTPs?
>
>-Lex
>
>Lex Friedman ,,, On IRC: Quam
>---------...@epix.net---------------ooO(o o)Ooo------------
> "Dead puppies aren't much fun." (_)
>A.C. Online: Making the Internet - and you - a little cooler.
> Rush to http://www.epix.net/~lexf/ac.html
>Weird Al For President in 1996: http://www.epix.net/~lexf/al.html
> www.apple.com - how Microsoft finds where they want to go today
--
John Goerzen
cybe...@eworld.com (CYBERC0M) writes:
>> Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
>> card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
>
>Gee, isn't that great... a 128 bit video card, but wait, whats that?!!
>Its, its a 128 bit video card for the mac!! Oh and by the way,
>1280x1024x16mill is no big deal mine is in that res right now but wait,
>there's more!! Mine does it with 2 megs of vram!!!
Please stop spreading these useless lies. It is very obvious that you are
not doing that with 2 megs of VRAM....
1280 * 1024 * 3 = 3932160 bytes = 3.75 Megs
John Goerzen
ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
>> ALE wrote:
>>
>> > > than your Mac. Name one thing your Mac can do that FreeBSD had no
>> > > equivolent for. I can name many things FreeBSD can do that your MacOS
>> > > can't.
>> >
>> > Like?
>>
>> FreeBSD is telnetable. Nuff said.
>> Linux supports the following net protocols:
>> tcp/ip
>> ipx
>> netBeui
>> SMB
>> NFS
>> AppleTalk
>> Amature Radio
>
>May I ask, so what? All of those above that I've ever had to deal with,
>my Mac supports. As for the rest, why should I care about those if the
>one my Mac doesn't support, I never will need to use anyway.
Oh, so you're saying that just because ONE PERSON doesn't need the program,
Apple shouldn't put it in their OS?
>
>> > Macs have BETTER graphics programs and BETTER graphic cards.
>>
>> Oh suure they do. 3d studio is 2nd only to an SGI machine in the
>> computer art industry...
>> Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
>> card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
>
>So what? Saying what you have without knowing what others have means nothing.
>
>ALE
--
pi...@shore.net
jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) wrote:
removed asce.
pi...@shore.net
-0500, Le...@epix.net (Lex Friedman) wrote:
>In article <313b99e3...@news.shore.net>, pi...@shore.net wrote:
>Two things: Using Kern+, available on vy FTP, you in fact can do a kernel
>compile on a Mac. Furthermore, it is with extreme simplicity, speed, and
>ease that one can have 2 FTPs, two telnets, and a Kernel compile going on
>a Mac simultaneously. I do similar activity all the time.
And how many other people are logged in? My lowly 386 could handle
half-a-dozen interactive logins?
This whole thread is silly. It doesn't even belong in
alt.startrek.creative.erotica. I've removed it from the newsgroups
list. Please don't put it back. If you feel you have something you
feel I *must* see, mail it to me instead. But stop cluttering up my
group.
pi...@shore.net
jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) wrote:
alt.startrek.creative.erotica summarily removed from the Newsgroups
line.
pi...@shore.net
cybe...@eworld.com (CYBERC0M) wrote:
alt.startrek.creative.erotica summarily removed from Newsgroups: line.
pi...@shore.net
-0800, mrkite <mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
alt.startrek.creative.erotica removed.
pi...@shore.net
ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) wrote:
>In article <4hiu5f$4...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen)
>wrote:
>
>> In article <ekleberr-040...@cmh-p001.infinet.com>,
>> ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
>>
>> [deletion]
>>
>> >> First, reliability. I am running FreeBSD on my PC and it is much more
>> >> reliable than MacOS. I have never yet experienced a single crash on my
>> >> FreeBSD machine. Ever. And I'm a programmer and since I'm human, I
>do make
>> >> my share of errors. They've never crashed the OS, though.
>> >>
>> >We have that, big deal.
>>
>> No you don't! I locked up MacOS in about 1.5 hours (I was installing Doom).
>
>WOW! Really? You must have been trying really hard! I installed Doom, no
>problem here! This is really interesting! How is it you PC users always
>seem to crash MacOS when I have such a hard time crashing it?
>
>> >> Second, value. MacOS doesn't even come with a C compiler. FreeBSD
>not only
>> >> comes with C compiler, but it also has full C library reference, C++
>> >> compiler, C++ class reference, TCL and TK and references for both, Perl and
>> >> references for it. MacOS cannot act as a dialin machine. On my FreeBSD
>> >> machine, I change a single character in a configuration file, reboot, plug
>> >> in a modem, and I can dialin remotely and run programs and access files. I
>> >> can also do graphical timesharing as well as text-mode timesharing.
>> >> Something totally unheard of on your Mac. And, FreeBSD is completely FREE.
>> >
>> >Now we have a real brain here. So FREEBSD is Free? Really? That cool.
>>
>> You have failed to respond to the rest of my message that pointed out many
>> serious lackings in MacOS. Does that mean that you acknowledge that MacOS
>> doesn't have things that a free OS does?
>
>Most people are not programers (beleive it or not). I speaking from their
>stand point. Mr. Sales Rep. from GM, isn't going to spend all day
>programing whatever computer he has. Now FOR YOU, yes, freeBSD may in
>FACT be better. But for me, who couldn't care less about what compiler it
>has, no, its not better. Theres no such thing as an EVERYONE computer
>OS.
>
>> >> That is true. Macs force you to get all sorts of things you may not need.
>> >> Why do you need a sound card or color to type memos? You can get a PC with
>> >> a B&W VGA monitor and no sound card for much less than a Mac. Macs force
>> >> you to get unnecessary hardware.
>> >>
>> >You can get B&W on Mac as well. I have yet to see anyone that didn't want
>> >sound. Besides, its not like it costs more. And the Idea the PC are
>>
>> Good-quality sound card does add more to the price. So you're saying that
>> Macs come with low-quality sound?
>
>Buy a low-quality mac, yes. Buy a high quality Mac, no. Consider for a
>moment that there isn't anyone that wants a computer without sound. I
>mean, have you seen anyone the didn't want sound?
>
>> And even that does have an impact on the price of the computer. If Apple
>> really cared about minimizing prices, they would not force sound on users.
>> I think that this is just a small example of what Apple does.
>
>No one would buy a Mac that didn't have sound. With that in mind, how
>would Apple stay in buisness? They would have to raise their prices just
>to replace all the money they lost try to sell the no sound Mac. How is
>that minimizing prices?
>
>> >cheaper is true is if its stript down, which sucks.
>>
>> Why the heck does somebody that only does word processing need a CD-ROM or
>> sound?
>
>You can get Macs without CD roms.
>
>Don't get me wrong, you argument IS logical. But that JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN!!
>People WANT sound. I have yet to meet a Mac user of ANY kind, that didn't
>want sound. Now there may be PC users who don't want sound. And the Mac
>isn't for them. But most people want sound.
>
>> http://www.freebsd.org
>>
>> >> FreeBSD can read DOS, Windows, DriveSpaced, Unix, ISO-9660, and Mac
>> >> formatted disks, among others.
>> >
>> >Same on Mac.
>>
>> Can you also read ufs and ffs disks? Have multiple OSs on a single drive?
>> Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
>
>Unsure (I don't think so), Yes, Yes, Yes.
>
>ALE
pi...@shore.net
-0800, Clay Flocco <cfl...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
Newsgroups line trimmed.
Spaceman Spiff!
>
>
>******************************************************************************
>* MY CHALLENGE *
>******************************************************************************
>
>My challenge to PC users is:
>
>
>How exactly is the Macintosh 'worse' than a PC? In what ways? Provide
>at least two answers.
Economics:
2 things that contributed to the success of the PC and the x86
family of computers are;
a) the efforts in keeping all incarnations of the main OS
(MSDOS/Windows) compatible with all previous incarnations in order to maintain
the installed user base and;
b) the licensing of the development of x86 computers by third party
companies to further expand this user base. Additionally, new integral
hardware (like MBs) provide compatibility with older expansion architectures
for the same reason the software does.
This results in the 'IBM PC' family of computers having the largest
installed user base for home/office/education use than any other computer
architecture. A feat accomplished not by the direct action of any particular
corporation but by sheer market driven forces. (Not unlike capitalism and
the free-market economy)
Apple, OTOH, took the 'welfare state' approach in which it strove to
control not only hardware production but by enforcing strict guidelines to
its software developers, on software as well. This, although in theory
idealistic in a Marxist kind of way, causes the same stifling effect the
communism has on the economy.
As a result, although the PC software/hardware market then becomes
flooded with a dearth of crappy software/hardware, it also comes up with the
a lot of the best too since most developers would want to release their
product to the widest market first in order to capture a larger audience.
For example, WC4, with a 12 million dollar budget is being released to the PC
market first before any other platform because that is where the money is.
To reiterate, given similar development costs for any two markets, it makes
economic sense to address the larger of the two than the smaller.
Situations like this occur altogeter too often in history, VHS v
Betamax, MCA v VLBus, (CD+CC) v (MD+DCC+DAT) and hell, why not compare it to
Communism v Capitalism. Technological superiority is often an irrelevance
in matters such as this. Sure, the PPC and ARM chips may have some 'nice
bits' but Macs and Acorn RISCPCs will never be 'mainstream' computers in the
same way PCs are and may sadly go the way of Betamax and the like.
And I suppose the success of any 'creation' would be its ability to
survive and dominate (and this, the PC has undiniably done, hands down...).
Hence, the PC is a better animal than the Mac in this respect.
Adaptability & Modularity:
A slightly less esoteric argument would be that PCs are the best
'Jack of all Trades' in the market. Because of it's modular form. You can
get a bare bones system and adapt it to almost anything you want - _without_
paying for extras that you wouldn't use...
For example, if I wanted to use the PC mainly as a MIDI sequencing
and editing machine, I could just shove in a top of the range Turtle Beach
soundcard and a mid range processor w/o having to get all the uncessary
options like network cards and w/o paying for something that I wouldn't use
like a built in sound board. If I wanted a network/internet server, an ISDN
modem with several large UWSCSI/RAID hard drives and a mid range processor
would do me fine. Graphics? A system with a 128bit 4-8 MB fast accelerated
graphics card+fast processor would do just fine.
This modularity again brings about the economic argument in that
third party hardware developers abound in the PC world. The result, the
consumer is able to get the best value/performance from their peripherals
due to the competition and spreading of costs.
Again, here, Macs lose out because of the smaller marker share...
sure Apple is trying to rectify the situation, but the expression 'too
little too late comes to mind'....
ObMacKnock1:
Why do they put the power button of the the PowerMac in my college
where the 'eject' button of the floppy should be?
ObMacKnock2:
Why does it screw up the PowerMac when you use the 'Eject' option on
the menu rather than dragging the floppy to the Trash Icon?
Spiff!
--
Thariq U Ahmad : GM -d+ p+ c++(++) l+ u+ e+ m++@ s/+ n+@ h+ f? g+ w- t+ r y?(*)
Peakie, Trekker, X-Phile, Linuxer, StarGazer, Golfer, Gourmet, FilmFan, Trader.
Isn't he the guy from Star Wars?....
pi...@shore.net
+0000, Hellshok <an52...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
>> What's the point? The human eye can only see 24 Bit.
Well, no, it can't do even that, I think only around 3 million shades
or so.
>The human eye at birth can see little more than a 17-40 year old person.
But not enough to distinguish 16,777,216 colors, so any more are a
waste, anyway.
>You all have the wrong info here the Mac Number9 graphics card can have
>up to 8MB of VRAM which gives 16.7 million+ colors @1600x1280
>resolution on a Mac monitor which would be even higher on a PC Because
>the resolution is set up differently.
What? Guess what, the several varieties of Number 9 cards for the PC
can do that too.
>PCs will never have the same clarity for publishing or color reference
>just ask a professional if they want to see it perfectly they look to a Mac!!
Oh, yeah, sure. What a crock. I suppose next you'll claim Jurassic
Park or Toy Story were done with Macs?
Duh. *True* professionals use *real* graphics computers. Silicon
Graphics workstations.
pi...@shore.net
RSKr...@TaylorCorp.com (Ryan Krueger) wrote:
>data bus. Internal to the card. It's mostly marketing... Man, is
>everyone her stupid?
No.
>Get this straight: Macs are the definitive machine in graphics and
Buzzzzzzzz! Thank you for playing. Silicon Graphics workstations are
the definitive graphics machines.
What, you think the Mac has been even dreamed of that can come close
to the performance of an Indigo Extreme?
>publishing. The cards available beat the pants off anything PC's have.
Wrong again, many of the same cards are available for the PC and Mac.
Or didn't you know there are 8MB Vram PC cards? Never heard of the #9
Imagination, or whatever it's called?
>BUT: Macs now have the upper hand, but to say "PCs will never have the
Macs have the upper hand, probably, over PCs. Compared to *real*
computers, they're not even in the same league.
John Goerzen
ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
>In article <4hiu5f$4...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen)
>wrote:
>
>> In article <ekleberr-040...@cmh-p001.infinet.com>,
>> ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
>>
>> [deletion]
>>
>> >> First, reliability. I am running FreeBSD on my PC and it is much more
>> >> reliable than MacOS. I have never yet experienced a single crash on my
>> >> FreeBSD machine. Ever. And I'm a programmer and since I'm human, I
>do make
>> >> my share of errors. They've never crashed the OS, though.
>> >>
>> >We have that, big deal.
>>
>> No you don't! I locked up MacOS in about 1.5 hours (I was installing Doom).
>
>WOW! Really? You must have been trying really hard! I installed Doom, no
>problem here! This is really interesting! How is it you PC users always
>seem to crash MacOS when I have such a hard time crashing it?
Perhaps because you are too brainwashed to notice?
>
>> >> Second, value. MacOS doesn't even come with a C compiler. FreeBSD
>not only
>> >> comes with C compiler, but it also has full C library reference, C++
>> >> compiler, C++ class reference, TCL and TK and references for both, Perl and
>> >> references for it. MacOS cannot act as a dialin machine. On my FreeBSD
>> >> machine, I change a single character in a configuration file, reboot, plug
>> >> in a modem, and I can dialin remotely and run programs and access files. I
>> >> can also do graphical timesharing as well as text-mode timesharing.
>> >> Something totally unheard of on your Mac. And, FreeBSD is completely FREE.
>> >
>> >Now we have a real brain here. So FREEBSD is Free? Really? That cool.
>>
>> You have failed to respond to the rest of my message that pointed out many
>> serious lackings in MacOS. Does that mean that you acknowledge that MacOS
>> doesn't have things that a free OS does?
>
>Most people are not programers (beleive it or not). I speaking from their
>stand point. Mr. Sales Rep. from GM, isn't going to spend all day
>programing whatever computer he has. Now FOR YOU, yes, freeBSD may in
>FACT be better. But for me, who couldn't care less about what compiler it
>has, no, its not better. Theres no such thing as an EVERYONE computer
>OS.
Dialin is not a programmer-only feature. COMPLETE online documentation is
not a progammer-only feature. Timesharing is not a programmer-only feature.
Superior GUIs is not a programmer-only feature.
>e
>> >> That is true. Macs force you to get all sorts of things you may not need.
>> >> Why do you need a sound card or color to type memos? You can get a PC with
>> >> a B&W VGA monitor and no sound card for much less than a Mac. Macs force
>> >> you to get unnecessary hardware.
>> >>
>> >You can get B&W on Mac as well. I have yet to see anyone that didn't want
>> >sound. Besides, its not like it costs more. And the Idea the PC are
>>
>> Good-quality sound card does add more to the price. So you're saying that
>> Macs come with low-quality sound?
>
>Buy a low-quality mac, yes. Buy a high quality Mac, no. Consider for a
>moment that there isn't anyone that wants a computer without sound. I
>mean, have you seen anyone the didn't want sound?
Yes, plenty of people. Why would somebody that works with word processing
or spreadsheets all day need the ability to play little boings?? There is
NO reason! There are people around here that still use old PC XTs (and even
some people that have original PCs) that still function fine in today's
business world. They do not need sound to type memos or work in
spreadsheets!
>> And even that does have an impact on the price of the computer. If Apple
>> really cared about minimizing prices, they would not force sound on users.
>> I think that this is just a small example of what Apple does.
>
>No one would buy a Mac that didn't have sound. With that in mind, how
>would Apple stay in buisness? They would have to raise their prices just
>to replace all the money they lost try to sell the no sound Mac. How is
>that minimizing prices?
Gee, I thought it was fast and easy to replace hardware on the Mac.
(According to you Mac advocates). If that's so, why can't they just yank
out the sound card on the Macs that don't have it? On a PC, that would take
oh, say, 3 seconds...
>
>> >cheaper is true is if its stript down, which sucks.
>>
>> Why the heck does somebody that only does word processing need a CD-ROM or
>> sound?
>
>You can get Macs without CD roms.
Wow....I had never known that... <sarcasm>
>Don't get me wrong, you argument IS logical. But that JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN!!
>People WANT sound. I have yet to meet a Mac user of ANY kind, that didn't
No. There are plenty of people that are even annoyed by that. Especially
in open office environments (lots of computers in the same room with little
or no partitions).
>want sound. Now there may be PC users who don't want sound. And the Mac
>isn't for them. But most people want sound.
>
>> http://www.freebsd.org
>>
>> >> FreeBSD can read DOS, Windows, DriveSpaced, Unix, ISO-9660, and Mac
>> >> formatted disks, among others.
>> >
>> >Same on Mac.
>>
>> Can you also read ufs and ffs disks? Have multiple OSs on a single drive?
>> Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
>
>Unsure (I don't think so), Yes, Yes, Yes.
Please explain how to do the last three things so that we all know.
John Goerzen
>> > certified graduate of Mac Brainwashing 101. I am really shocked that
>> > he didn't comment on how the Macintrash is sooo pretty to look at too.
>>
>> The only reason Macs have such a high consumer approval rating is because
>> they are dummy proof. They limit you as to what you can do with their
>> software, so of course you can't screw up. Besides, I've learned more
>> from my screw ups on a PC than I did in a mac class. I would rather
>> screw up on a machine I can do a lot with than be in a fake comfort zone
>> with a machine that limits my options
>>
>> The Black Knight
>
>Well... feel free to screw yourself up all ya want. As for me, I think
>I'll get back to work.
You failed to make even one specific response to his points. Does this mean
you agree that they are correct?
InTerFerenCe
128 bit video card to its capacity...nosiree...64 bit is it..(for now).
Its like using a PCI card in a 32 bit motherboard.
George Lopez
wrote:
>In article <31384DD6...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu>, mrkite
><mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>*#1: no textmode. (this may be subjective, but the macintosh doesn't even
>*give you the OPTION of having a textmode...)
>
>Wrong. The highly-vauled, often discussed Programmer's (Interrupt) Switch
>offers just that. It is available through one key or a key combo on any
>Mac or Mac compatible. In fact, in "DOS Easy", PC guru John Fern says
>"Although powerful, DOS can't hold an unlit candle to the power and
>abilities of the Macintosh Programmer's Switch." (page 34)
>
>*#2: No option to write directly to periferals. (this is a coding
>*complaint)
>
>There are several INITs that allow just that.
>
>*
>*You only asked for 2... so there are my two...
>
>How about two real reasons?
>
>*now how about 2 reasons pc's are worse than macs?
>
>More expensive
>Much less compatible with other platforms
>
>Lex Friedman ,,, On IRC: Quam
>---------...@epix.net---------------ooO(o o)Ooo------------
> "Dead puppies aren't much fun." (_)
>A.C. Online: Making the Internet - and you - a little cooler.
> Rush to http://www.epix.net/~lexf/ac.html
>Weird Al For President in 1996: http://www.epix.net/~lexf/al.html
> www.apple.com - how Microsoft finds where they want to go today
Mac's are still the shits!
Paul Smith
(CYBERC0M) wrote:
<... much sad misinformed inane ramblings deleted ...>
I thought this was some kind of a warez group.... why the fuck are there
shit loads of sad losers intent on debating the shit out of different
machines' pros + cons... get a life
Christopher C. Wood
|> With an as yet undetermined appendage, Tygyr <z...@zz.zz.zz.zz> wrote:
|> >My challenge to PC users is:
|> >How exactly is the Macintosh 'worse' than a PC? In what ways? Provide
|> >at least two answers.
|> Economics:
|> 2 things that contributed to the success of the PC and the x86
|> family of computers are;
|> a) the efforts in keeping all incarnations of the main OS
|> (MSDOS/Windows) compatible with all previous incarnations in order
|> to maintain the installed user base and;
This wasn't a factor until there was an installed base.
The two big factors that contributed to the success of the PC:
(1) The name "IBM", together with the general impression that you
won't get fired for buying IBM. This created the initial market
for PCs, and established a de facto standard.
(2) The wresting away of that standard from IBM, started by Compaq,
and fueled by additional clone vendors. Microsoft DOS was
available to anyone who wanted to pay for it; once the legal BIOS
clones were in circulation, hardware vendors had to compete, which
drove down prices.
|> b) the licensing of the development of x86 computers by third party
|> companies to further expand this user base.
It is a common misperception that IBM licensed the specs to clone
vendors; this just isn't true. IBM fought the cloners to the best of
their ability, and LOST.
|> Additionally, new integral hardware (like MBs) provide
|> compatibility with older expansion architectures for the same
|> reason the software does.
This happened much later, and ought to be viewed as a shaking out of
the motherboard business.
[ Capitalist vs. Marxist screed deleted ]
|> To reiterate, given similar development costs for any two markets,
|> it makes economic sense to address the larger of the two than the
|> smaller.
This is another fallacy. If the larger market also has higher
development, marketing, and support costs, then a business is being
smart when it decides to develop for the smaller market.
In fact, when one looks at revenues to be gained from a fixed initial
investment, one gets more revenues developing for the Macintosh than
for the PC.
[ trimmed ]
[ Developing for the larger market ]
|> Situations like this occur altogeter too often in
|> history, VHS v Betamax, MCA v VLBus, (CD+CC) v (MD+DCC+DAT)
Of the three comparisons you list, only VHS vs. Beta were comperable
in time and features, so I don't see the point you're trying to make.
MCA preceeded VLBus by years, and the market compared MCA vs. EISA.
CDs challenged LPs, and overthrew the larger market. So this is a
counter-example to your claim. For recording technology, it has been
a four-way battle: CC vs. MD vs. DCC vs. DAT; none of the new
technologies is really challenging the old-fashioned compact cassette.
|> and hell, why not compare it to Communism v Capitalism.
Because this comparison would be a fallacious appeal to emotionalism.
|> Adaptability & Modularity:
|> A slightly less esoteric argument would be that PCs are the best
|> 'Jack of all Trades' in the market. Because of it's modular
|> form. You can get a bare bones system and adapt it to almost
|> anything you want - _without_ paying for extras that you wouldn't
|> use...
Except that you pay up front for all that modularity. So it becomes a
trade-off. It is wrong to assume that you can always save money by
including needless slots in a design. Given the amount of circuitry
required for a I/O ports, it makes solid engineering sense to include
the circuirty for two or more such ports on the motherboard as a
feature of a VVVLSI chip-set, where it would increase cost by pennies,
rather than include a connector, a separate circuit board with a
single VLSI chip that implements only the I/O ports, which also adds
an assembly step. The modular system is more expensive, and less
reliable. Who wants that?
|> ObMacKnock1:
|> Why do they put the power button of the the PowerMac in my college
|> where the 'eject' button of the floppy should be?
Where should the power button be? That, as it turns out, is a
difficult question.
|> ObMacKnock2:
|> Why does it screw up the PowerMac when you use the 'Eject' option on
|> the menu rather than dragging the floppy to the Trash Icon?
The eject option _is_ on a menu. Also, the _Put_Away_ option. Your
point?
Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com Chris...@eworld.com
Kazimir Kylheku
What are you talking about? The 128 bits refers to an internal datapath between
the processor on the video adapter and the frame buffer. Get a clue.
The processor on the adapter sure as heck _can_ use the datapath. The
performance difference shows when you move windows opaquely, for instance, in
the form of accelerated rectangle copies. Of course, a 128-bit card won't
necessarily do these things faster than 64. There are even some pretty
impressive 32-bit pixel pushers out there.
--
andrew mccormick
: Oh, yeah, sure. What a crock. I suppose next you'll claim Jurassic
: Park or Toy Story were done with Macs?
Yes. The 'easy' parts of Toy Story (texture mappings, I think) were done
on Macs.
: Duh. *True* professionals use *real* graphics computers. Silicon
: Graphics workstations.
SGI's are expensive. Macintoshes are cheap.
[irrelevant newsgroups trimmed]
andrew mccormick
mcco...@cs.oberlin.edu
--
god is empty...just like me
Hellshok
>
> While prying the lemmings from hir ankles Thu, 07 Mar 1996 09:34:03
> +0000, Hellshok <an52...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
> >> What's the point? The human eye can only see 24 Bit.
>
> Well, no, it can't do even that, I think only around 3 million shades
> or so.
You are kind of wrong here to. It can only see about 3 million shades in a
picture but all 16.7 million are distinguishable by most people seperately.
Talk to an Optomologist.
>
> >The human eye at birth can see little more than a 17-40 year old person.
>
> But not enough to distinguish 16,777,216 colors, so any more are a
> waste, anyway.
I didn't say there were many, if any more colors, but your scanner or some
scanners can find them.
>
> >You all have the wrong info here the Mac Number9 graphics card can have
> >up to 8MB of VRAM which gives 16.7 million+ colors @1600x1280
> >resolution on a Mac monitor which would be even higher on a PC Because
> >the resolution is set up differently.
>
> What? Guess what, the several varieties of Number 9 cards for the PC
> can do that too.
I also did not say this was the best graphics card. That has to go to Radius
ThunderColor30/1600 definately top of the line, never seen one for a PC
though.
> Oh, yeah, sure. What a crock. I suppose next you'll claim Jurassic
> Park or Toy Story were done with Macs?
No, but most of all graphics for publishing are all done on Macs.
>
> Duh. *True* professionals use *real* graphics computers. Silicon
> Graphics workstations.
You are also wrong here I'm not totaly sure about Jurassic Park but I know
for a fact that Toy Story was created on Sun Microsystems workstations,
you need to dig for more facts. Neither were done on any form of PC let me
tell you. And as a matter of fact JurassicPark special effects were done by
Industrial Light & Magic they do use a lot of Macs I've seen the production
facility. Making movies doesn't make anybody more "professional" than
3/4 of all paper and web published media, a publisher is just as
professional!
+++Hellshok+++
Candide
wrote:
[The heresy of an nonbeliever in John's omniscience, has been DELETED]
>>> Can you also read ufs and ffs disks? Have multiple OSs on a single drive?
>>> Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
>>
>>Unsure (I don't think so), Yes, Yes, Yes.
>
>Please explain how to do the last three things so that we all know.
>
>>
>>ALE
>
>--
>John Goerzen, programmer and owner | Freedom..liberty..justice..democracy|
>Communications Centre, Goessel, KS | ..limits on free spech on the Net...|
>Main e-mail: jgoe...@complete.org | Which one doesn't belong? |
Master, you have made me lose face in front of these, these...Mac users!..
If you keep this up, you will only encourage their blasphemy and growing
doubt regarding your Universal knowledge. Now, you would not want that,
would you?...
Here, I'll whisper the answers to you. I'm sure that you already know what
they are, but you wanted only to test this, this Mac user!... Just to see
if he is worth talking to, right?...
1. Multiple OSs on a single Mac HD:
a) The Software Route. Choice of MacOS, MachTen & A/UX (Unix), SoftWindoze
(PC Micro$lut) and Linux (Unix) (available soon). Installed on a single HD
with one or more partitions. No hardware whatsoever.
b) The Software/Hardware Route. DOS compatibility card(s). I believe that
the latest Wintel chip for such a card is a 486DX2 but I could be
mistaken. I'm not omniscient, after all... Combine that with the software
from above and you achieve multiple OSs on a single Mac HD. Apple made a
6100 PPC with a built in DOS card too...
2. Start Up Menu
Hmmm...Don't know if I can help you there, master. I do however believe
that a Mac with a DOS card (perhaps even without one, depending on the
options of the other OS installed) is able to start in either MacOS mode
OR in DOS/Windoze mode. Moreover, you can have BOTH (SIMULTANEOUSLY)up &
running and be able to switch between one and the other with a simple
click of the mouse. The ONLY CLI command needed would probably be C:/win
when in the Windoze/DOS environment...
3. Boot-Up of a secondary HD
No problem there either, master. In the MacOS (I know that you have
never actually SEEN this MacOS heresy, but try to imagine it, will you?)
there is a control panel called "Start Up Disk". I know, I
know...confusing but it is there nevertheless.
ANY and ALL volumes/partions/drives (internal, external or
removable)/optical disk drives/Syquest or Iomega Zip drives/ internal or
external CD ROM drives/etc. WILL show up as options. This is true of all
SCSI Macs, which, with a couple of exceptions, are ALL of the Macs. You
may designate ANY of the items which show up in this confusing control
panel, as the Start Up Disk/Drive...Crazy, I know, but it is done millions
of times every day, nonetheless. You can even start up from a puny Iomega
Zip disk, if you so choose. There is only one requirement. There MUST be a
System folder on whatever device you designate as the start up volume.
That's all!
Icing on the cake? You can even start up from a System folder on another
drive, in another building, in another country and on another continent if
your Mac is properly networked! What will those devils at Apple, think of
next!...
Hope that this helped, master. Don't let their puny arguments deter you
from spreading the Wisdom...
A humbled,
Sangria
>But its currently the best yardstick available to judge the power and
>usefulness of a PC.
Power? Maybe.
Usefulness? How?
If you argue usefulness by the number of bits the OS uses for address
space, explain to me why ISPF on MVS is so darn useless (at least as
far as I can deal with it...)?
>The MAC is the enbodiment of the ignorant 'consumer' mentality that manifests
>itself in the computer world. It is not suprising at all to me that you also
>use AOL. Typical. Another example of "consumer level" ignorance. I pity you.
Hmmmm....
"Mr. Kettle, thou art most surely black"
-- Mr. Pot.
:-)
-- Sang.
*************************************************************
* Sang K. Choe san...@inlink.com *
* http://www.inlink.com/~sangria/index.html *
* Or http://sangria.inlink.com/index.html *
* finger: sa...@sangria.inlink.com *
*************************************************************
Chad Irby
> pi...@shore.net wrote:
> : Oh, yeah, sure. What a crock. I suppose next you'll claim Jurassic
> : Park or Toy Story were done with Macs?
>
> Yes. The 'easy' parts of Toy Story (texture mappings, I think) were done
> on Macs.
Not to mention a lot of the texture mapping in Jurassic Park. Dinosaur
skin and such...
--
ci...@magicnet.net
I gave up on the fantasy and am looking
for a really good reality...
ZAVEN
<<ZAVEN>>
************ZAVEN************
Blaine Jones
> >Oh, but wait! The software written a decade ago runs s-l-o-w on the P7. Oh
> >no, the 604 is catching up because of this! Wait, the 604 is out of the
> >race. What's AIM doing? OH NO!!! It's the 630! And a 700 MHz BiCMOS
> >604e!!!! The P7 is dying!!!!!!
> >Daniel
> nice to know all you folk have a heartfelt concern for the important
> issues in life. enjoy your little battle of the egos.
> Maybe one day you will all grow up and let this string die.
Ain't it the truth! I remember these pissy little fights when I was
15 years old and got my first modem (300 baud). At that time, it was
Atari vs. Apple II, though. These losers need to get a life.
John Davis
and PC's running Linux and DOS/Win3.1. I haven't got any real bias, Mac
versus Unix based but I am really tired of DOS.
>Dialin is not a programmer-only feature. COMPLETE online documentation >is
>not a progammer-only feature. Timesharing is not a programmer-only >feature.
>Superior GUIs is not a programmer-only feature.
These points are all pointless, two are fallacies, the other one makes no
sense.
Dialin- Get RemoteAccess.
Timesharing- Macs are designed as a single user system, BSD, all
versions, regardless of platform, is written as a multiple user system.
Superior GUI- If you are calling X a superior GUI I have no idea what you
are thinking, Macs are graphics based to the core.
>>> Can you also read ufs and ffs disks? Have multiple OSs on a single drive?
>>> Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
>>
>>Unsure (I don't think so), Yes, Yes, Yes.
>
>Please explain how to do the last three things so that we all know.
I can answer two of them, Multiple OSes- ever heard of A/UX? You can run
A/UX and the MacOS on one partitioned drive very easily. Boot off of the
second hard drive, and the CD-ROM, and the floppy drive, and your tape
drive, and your Iomega, and any other volume by selecting it for boot.
I also have to assume that there are startup menus to support the use of
A/UX.
This is a pointless argument, Macs are cool, FreeBSD is cool, Linux is
cool, OS/2 is cool. The reason that all of these systems and more are
cool is because they are technically superior, they are well designed,
they are well engineered, and they are elegant, each in their own way.
These systems are all better than Win95. They are cool because they rely
on users that love them and will continue to support them and use them
because they like them. They are cool because the people that use them
use them because they are good, not because it is what the market and the
media tell them to use. These OSes are cool because the subvert the
dominant paradigm in favor of a better set of rules.
-John Davis
Sangria
>re: "No platform supports plug and play on all hardware."
>
>Ahem, I beg to differ ;-)
Welll, actually no. Not even Macs do this for all hardware.
I recall having to install a Asante NIC for a LCII (I think that's
the model--it's the flat pizza box looking one) and it required a
driver that came on a floppy before it would work with the NIC.
So, not quite PnP in this case--damn close, but not quite.
Candide
>While prying the lemmings from hir ankles 6 Mar 1996 15:13:04 GMT,
>ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) wrote:
>
>>In article <4hiu5f$4...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ekleberr-040...@cmh-p001.infinet.com>,
>>> ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
[DELETED]
>>> Can you also read ufs and ffs disks? Have multiple OSs on a single drive?
>>> Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
>>
>>Unsure (I don't think so), Yes, Yes, Yes.
>>
>>ALE
>
>pi...@shore.net pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu pi...@basenji.com
>An it harm none, do as thou wilt.
>Will hack Symix for food.
And here is YET ANOTHER reposting of the famous 1996 John Goerzen vs
Ale debate, brought to you by the blank mind (tabula rasa) of Pixel.
Partner and co-owner of Pixel & Jonathan J Hall Reposting/Spamming
Services Inc. The company which stated with a simple logo:
"I'm trying to think, but nothing happens!"
Now we will return to our feature movie, already in progress...
Sangria
> Can a PC or a Unix box retain its usability WITHOUT an Unix OS
>(regardless of flavor) OR Micro$lut's excuse for software/OS? [OS/2
>excluded, as well]
To someone like you, obvious not.
To the millions who are working with them, obviously yes.
BTW, you are aware that OS/2 was originally a joint venture between
MS and IBM? Are you also aware that NT's very (and I mean *VERY*) early
roots are from OS/2? It wasn't until MS broke off ties with IBM that
Cutler & Crew rewrote NT from groun up.
Are you also aware that the original HPFS is actually an MS file
system?
> Can a PC/Unix box CURRENTLY run KPT Bryce? (graphics software) [with the
>possible exception of SGI types], WITHOUT resorting to a MacOS emulator,
>if available?
The same Kia Power Tools that is being advertised for Windows?
I believe so.
Tell me, can Macs run Delphi?
It's a very clear and concise language. It brings elements of C++
along with elements of VB into a nice package.
> Can a PC claim RISC processors/technology (the 600 series) while still
>lacking preemptive multitasking?
What exactly are you babbling about here?
"Pre-emptive multitasking"? I wouldn't bring that up if I were you...
> Can an Intel P series chip MATCH the performance of an EQUALLY rated
>(for speed, MHz.) Motorola 600 series chip? [e.g. 100MHz vs 100MHz, if you
>please]
Again, what are you babbling about?
How the hell do you "equally" rate two CPUs from completely different
architecture and family based solely on clock speeds?
> Can PCs achieve the same degree of customer satisfaction,
>percentagewise? Have they ever? When(source, please) and/or why not?
Yes.
HP - J.D. Powers & Associates.
HP ranked *above* Apple in several of their serveys.
> Can a PC user really be free of Gates' curse, without resorting to some
>Unix alternative [or OS/2, of course]?
OS/2 is also part of the "Gate's curse".
Quite frankly, who cares? The system works, it does what I want it to
do and it doesn't choke and die every few days.
> Please show us some of that Macvocacy "foaming"/lost glory when
>replying. I may yet see/read about a TRUE exception to the saying "Once
>you go Mac, you never look back.", in you...;)
That's because that's total bunk.
I went Mac, and now I go where I get the better tools.
Macs are not the better tools. Macs are for all intent and purpose
useless for what I do.
>P.S. Traitor...:)
Oh I'm hurt. :-)
-- Sang.
********************************************************
* Sang K. Choe san...@inlink.com *
* http://sangria.inlink.com/index.html *
Kevin B. Hayes
: While prying the lemmings from hir ankles Fri, 08 Mar 1996 08:18:54
: +0000, Hellshok <an52...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
: >1- With a DOS compatability card or Soft Windows we can partition our
: >drives with a few different OSes it'll even ask you to do it.
: So, you need a second OS to have multiple OSes? Something seems fishy
: here, but I just may not be thinking straight at the moment.
: >2- Our startup menu is used before we shut down it's a control panel if
: >this is what youare talking about. Then again you could be talking about the
: >"start" button, we just configure the Apple menu for that, real easy.
: Hmmm...I think he meant more like Win95's Safe mode/Logged
: boot/regular Win95/previous version of DOS, or the ability (with LILO)
: to (and this combines multiple OSes and booting off multiple drives
: *and* startup menus into one item, come to think of it) boot Win,
: Win95, DOS, Linux, OS/2, NT, etc.
: >the right one it loads. It could be any of my twelve drives attached right
: >now.
: Why twelve drives? Ditch all those silly little 80 meggers and get a 1
: gig drive. You'll be happier. :)
: pi...@shore.net pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu pi...@basenji.com
Mortuus
> While prying the lemmings from hir ankles Thu, 07 Mar 1996 09:34:03
> +0000, Hellshok <an52...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
> >> What's the point? The human eye can only see 24 Bit.
>
> Well, no, it can't do even that, I think only around 3 million shades
> or so.
>
> >The human eye at birth can see little more than a 17-40 year old person.
>
> But not enough to distinguish 16,777,216 colors, so any more are a
> waste, anyway.
>
> >You all have the wrong info here the Mac Number9 graphics card can have
> >up to 8MB of VRAM which gives 16.7 million+ colors @1600x1280
> >resolution on a Mac monitor which would be even higher on a PC Because
> >the resolution is set up differently.
>
> What? Guess what, the several varieties of Number 9 cards for the PC
> can do that too.
>
> >PCs will never have the same clarity for publishing or color reference
> >just ask a professional if they want to see it perfectly they look to a
Mac!!
>
> Oh, yeah, sure. What a crock. I suppose next you'll claim Jurassic
> Park or Toy Story were done with Macs?
>
> Duh. *True* professionals use *real* graphics computers. Silicon
> Graphics workstations.
>
>
> pi...@shore.net pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu pi...@basenji.com
> An it harm none, do as thou wilt.
> Will hack Symix for food.
Actually Toy Story was done on Sun Sparc Stations and the graphic work
done by Pixar that is owned by Steve Jobs (who I'm sure you don't know),
is one of the origional founders of Apple. As for SGIs being true graphics
machines, how much was your computer ? $20,000 and up? I realize that for
that you probably got 128mb of ram and so on and so forth but you could
equip a Mac to be the same as your SGI for roughly the same money. I'm a
Mac fan and have seen SGIs do their stuff but nobody even mentions the
Amiga anymore. Check out Babylon 5 next time its on and look at the
graphics. Done with a network of Amigas and Macs.
As for bashing other platforms, are you all that unhappy with your own
computers that you have to put down other computers to feel that you
haven't made an error in judgement with your purchase? Grow up ! If your
computer meets your needs then good for you. Another computer may not but
it doesnt mean its inferior.
Sangria
>Well, all the platforms have C/C++ : does that mean that there is no
>advantage in having software available rather than building it when
>necessary ?
Depends.
It would work in either way.
There *are* many places which write their own software for
internal use. Don't assume everyone runs out to CompUSA for
their software needs.
sri...@swip.net
wrote:
>On 9 Mar 1996, John Goerzen wrote:
>
>> In article <malamDn...@netcom.com>,
>> ma...@netcom.com (Mayeen Alam) writes:
>> >
>> >In article <4hiu5f$4...@complete.org>,
>> >John Goerzen <jgoe...@complete.org> wrote:
>> >>In article <ekleberr-040...@cmh-p001.infinet.com>,
>> >> ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
>> >>
>> >>>> : 'PCs are cheaper than Macs'
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That is true. Macs force you to get all sorts of things you may not need.
>> >>>> Why do you need a sound card or color to type memos? You can get a PC with
>> >>>> a B&W VGA monitor and no sound card for much less than a Mac. Macs force
>> >>>> you to get unnecessary hardware.
>> >>>>
>> >>>You can get B&W on Mac as well. I have yet to see anyone that didn't want
>> >>>sound. Besides, its not like it costs more. And the Idea the PC are
>> >>
>> >>Good-quality sound card does add more to the price. So you're saying that
>> >>Macs come with low-quality sound?
>> >>
>> >>And even that does have an impact on the price of the computer. If Apple
>> >>really cared about minimizing prices, they would not force sound on users.
>> >>I think that this is just a small example of what Apple does.
>> >>
>> >>>cheaper is true is if its stript down, which sucks.
>> >>
>> >>Why the heck does somebody that only does word processing need a CD-ROM or
>> >>sound?
>> >
>> > That's like saying: "Why would anyone who just uses their car for
>> >a 5 minute commute to work need a 4X4 with a sunroof?"
>> > The point is, people might not use a feature all the time, but
>> >they want it around in the case they ever need it in the future. It's
>> >called flexibility. It's why some people have ears even though their jobs
>>
>> No, that is not a correct analogy. Why force users to have sound,
>> networking, etc. if they do not need it? The point is, on PCs at least, you
>> can add that later. That way, you can buy the cheapest computer possible
>> and if you later need more out of it, you can spend the money then.
>>
>> >don't neccessarily require it (there are plenty of disabled people who
>> >get along just fine without it).
>> > When that commuter suddenly wants to take a road trip through the
>> >Rockies during the winter, he'll be glad he didn't buy a Yugo.
>> > people don't buy computers for one or two specialized tasks only
>> >like INS depts do. They buy with the idea that they are getting a
>> >complete system that doesn't leave them short as their interests and
>> >needs change. Besides, if they only want word processing, they can buy an
>> >old mac cheap and run some of the newer, more functional WP programs out
>> >there today (not Word... too slow on any Mac platform, and you can get
>> >filters that allow you to open Word files and probably save as Word
>> >files).
>> > Or... They can get a dedicated word processor for that matter.
>> >Why the heck bother with a computer?
>>
>> There are people I know that are still using WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS with HP
>> LasterJet 4 printers. These printers are shared in the office. It is a
>> good solution for fast and high-quality output on cheap and inexpensive
>> computers.
>>
>> >
>> >>>> I downloaded a Mac program off the Internet and put it on a DOS disk. Put
>> >>>> that disk in a Mac and the Mac refused to execute it -- the Mac just wanted
>> >>>> to load it up into a text editor.
>> >>>
>> >>>You saved it as a DOS file, which is basic text.
>> >>
>> >>DOS have one file format: binary. When I save a file to a DOS disk from DOS
>> >>or FreeBSD, it is saved in binary format. I saved it correctly!
>> >
>> > Errrm... no. That proves how clueless you are. There are several
>> >ways you could have screwed this up. First of all, you could have
>> >inadvertently flattened the data. Macs use two forks. When you save a
>> >file in DOS, the program loses that and you get a screwed up program.
>> >When you bring it over to the Mac, it looks at the flattened roadkill and
>> >thinks that since it's not two forked, it must be some kind of text file
>> >or binary document.
>>
>> That is the problem with Macs! You have to take all sorts of special steps
>> just to transfer a file!
>>
>> >Actually, usually, if it's binary, it should just say something to the
>> >effect: " Document could not be opened Application that Created it could
>> >not be found"
>> > The fact that it is trying to open it with Teach Text, means that
>> >you screwed it up even further at some point. Next time, download it in
>> >..hqx or some such format and decompress it in the Mac. DOS doesn't have
>> >any way I know of to get around this.
>>
>> But how do I get the BinHex program onto the Mac in the first place??? I
>> can't BinHex it!
>
>ok, we're getting stupid now. On the mac there is such a thing as
>binary. Not to mention, that you can get stuffit expander, and drop
>stuff and don't even need Binhex. You get both Binhex and stuffit
>expander from all archives as binary applications. No need to worry
>about decoding or unstuffing it.
>
>>
>> > Now if you are downloading something like a sound file or
>> >postscript file or a .gif, they will be recognized just fine by their
>> >corresponding programs on the Mac.
>>
>> I was referring to executables.
>>
>> >
>> >>>> I can download a program from a BBS or something on a Mac and put it on a
>> >>>> disk and execute it from FreeBSD.
>> >>>
>> >>>Because a Mac knows the diffrence in file formats and saves it as a Mac
>> >>>file even though its on a PC disk.
>> >>
>> >>No. If it formats it as a Mac file it would corrupt the data!
>> >
>> > I think he should have said that the Mac saves it in the PC
>> >format after it has been recognized to be such. Mac files are saved in
>> >Mac formats.
>> > You are absolutely clueless in this matter it would seem. The
>> >idea is that you insert a disk that is formatted for the PC with PC files
>> >on it. You then work in some application in the Mac and save your file to
>> >the same disc. Next you go over to a PC and use the PC files and save
>> >them to the disc when you are done. Then you go over to the Mac and use
>> >your Mac files (and PC files if you have the corresponding programs with
>> >corresponding filters). This is done with the same disc over and over.
>>
>> I didn't argue with that. I was referring to *executables*.
>>
>> > This is useful to a person who wants all their important or
>> >relavant files to be stored on one disc no matter if it is in Mac format
>> >or a PC format. Basically, the Mac saves it in Mac format (sort of) on
>> >the PC disc. BTW if you knew that saving something in PC format corrupts
>> >Mac data, why didn't you save it in .hqx when you downloaded the file?
>>
>> Because I could get a BinHex program onto the Mac!
>>
>> >
>> >>Can you also read ufs and ffs disks? Have multiple OSs on a single drive?
>> >>Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
>> >
>> > Dunno what that first one is... The rest are easily answered by a
>> >"yes"
>> >
>> >>>> : 'PCs are better at graphics' (You would have to be stupid to argue this one)
>> >>>> There are more graphics programs for PCs and more accelerated and high-end
>> >>>> graphics cards for the PCs.
>> >>>
>> >>>Macs have BETTER graphics programs and BETTER graphic cards.
>> >>
>> >>Proove it.
>> >
>> > Over the internet, in a newsgroup, to a person who keeps bringing
>> >up so and so things something can't do simply because *he* has never
>> >seen it done... Errr... Yeah.... I'm not that stupid.
>>
>> You Mac users constantly ask me to proove things about Unix (although not
>> necessarily as bluntly as I've put it to you.) Why do you have a double
>> standard? I ask you to proove something and you refuse. Therefore, I can
>> only assume that you are unable to proove it.
>
>Okay, mail me, I'll prove it, of course, only if you can spell prove
>correctly when you mail me.
>
>>
>> > Actually, I don't quite agree with the idea of better cards... At
>> >the high end there might be more graphic cards for the Mac. As a matter
>> >of avarage quality Macs would probably be better. But what's available at
>> >the highest end is probably the same. I dunno.
>> >
>> >>>> : 'PCs can use multimedia' (Adding a CD ROm drive doesn't mean
>> >>>multimedia, friend.
>> >>>> : And Macs have a lot more than this)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So what constitutes multimedia in your opinion? And what do Macs offer in
>> >>>> this area that PCs don't?
>> >>>
>> >>>Easyer to setup, fast useage and performance.
>> >>
>> >>Fast performance? Ha ha ha ha!
>> >>
>> >>Have you never used X???
>> >
>> > Errrm, fast performance has nothing to do with multimedia (unless
>> >fast ... err.. no it all has to do with platform, not multimedia
>>
>> "performance has nothing to do with multimedia" That is stupid.
>>
>> >implementations). Okay, what would constitute a multimedia: Ability to
>> >interact with your computer using vocal and well as written and visual
>> >(mouse driven) interaction (note I'm not saying every method should be
>> >able to do everything the other methods can do... No computer is that
>> >advanced yet). It should be able to take video and sound from most any
>> >source and display/manupulate it (in some cases even interact with it--
>> >like playing dueling banjos with another computer... never seen it
>> >actually done, but it can be).
>>
>> Gee, X can do all that already. Using only Free software. Using AUIS, you
>> can with a single editor, edit HTML, RTF, ez, animation, photo, etc. files.
>>
>> >
>> > You should be able to easily hook it up to a VCR and record a
>> >spiffy presentation that you put together by capturing images or
>> >movies from a video camera and using pictures you drew, sounds you made
>> >or recorded, etc. And you should be able to do all this easier than using
>> >a high end video mixing/editing board (although you won't get the same
>> >capabilities in some cases like SMTP coding) on your home computer. Macs
>> >have this ability (not every single Mac mind you, but a majority of
>> >them).
>>
>> So you're saying that a product such as Encarta is not multimedia because
>> you cannot record images using it? There are plenty of computers that do
>> not have video in capabilities that are still multimedia computers!
>
>Mutimedia is a stupid buzz-word. All computers that have any sort of
>display beyond text is multi-media. Even ones without it, as long as
>they have sound: Text + graphics = multimedia. Text + sound =
>multimedia. Graphics + sound = mulitmedia. A TV is multi-media:
>graphics/animation/movies + sound. Come on people, you can look up the
>definition of you'd like
>
>>
>> > That takes more than a soundcard and CD-ROM. It takes...
>> >lessee... audio in/out(16bit on all Macs)... S-video input/output...
>
>The pre-PPC performas didn't have 16-bit sterio in. The 9500 doesn't
>have S-vid in or not. Peformas cannot run speech recognition. Note,
>though, that the Mac Plus had a higher-bandwidth internal speaker, than,
>not only PC's of it's time, but all PC internal speakers (if they even
>have one now) of this time, while, all of my computers don't need a sound
>card or speaker to play CD's well. They're all macs.
>
>> >microphone...speech recognition standard on all machines... ability to
>> >put soundclips/ movies/ pictures in most any word processing document
>> >(word processors aren't just that anymore it seems)... a video camera...
>> >and a GUI... etc.
>>
>> Why does multimedia require a GUI?
>
>no one said it did
>
>>
>> > Okay, except for the video camera and "etc." :) most macs come
>> >equiped with all of the above.
>>
>> I've seen few if any Macs that have support for full-screen full-motion
>> video in and out.
>
>you can put a card in any of the II series. LC 5xx series. Performa xxxx
>series. Powermac x1xx series. 7200, x5xx series. and Performa 5xx, 6xx
>series. For TV tuners (supports vid-in/out full screen motion picture).
>Not to mention that any mac with the correct monitor can switch
>resolutions AND the such. And mine, can display millions of colors in
>1024x768 (I beleive), on a 16 inch monitor.
>
>>
>> > As for faster. I might concede that MacOS is slow with a lot of
>> >(appreciated in my case) overhead, but even with that it beats most
>> >wintel machines. I won't count Unix because
>> >A.) It is not relevant to what I want a home system for.
>>
>> Once again, why are YOU the only person that counts? Unix can do everything
>> your Mac can! No Mac user has yet to state something that Unix cannot do.
>
>Okay, state something unix can do that a mac can't. Can _do_ not
>hardware-wise has. We all know un*x workstations have faster speeds than
>macs do.
>
>As for something a unix machine cannot do, is if you were to take the
>same picture on a 9500/132, and the same speed unix machine, and apply a
>filter using photoshop (winx would have to be used for unix), the mac
>would be about twice as fast doing it.
>
>I would take a unix machine for raw-text processing, batch jobs, and
>servers any day. I'm trying to get one in my house for a LAN.
>
>>
>> >B.) I can't live in the GUI without ever needing to interact with a CLI on
>> >*any* Unix flavor. I don't want to have to deal with *any* CLI in a home
>> >system if possible. (Yes that is a *HUGEHUGEHUGE* plus if you can't get
>> >that through your head). I know how to use Unix. I know some of how to use
>>
>> WHY must you only use a GUI?
>
>ask him.
>
>>
>> >DOS (more than the avarage user at least, but I'm not a super guru). My
>> >brother knows around 6 programming languages. I know only two. We both
>> >agree, we would be screaming and climbing the walls if we had to use the
>> >CLI consistently in a home computer.
>>
>> I agree DOS is not the best interface. But have you used Unix?
>
>DOS is a complete rip off of unix (removing most of the overhead, and
>functionability), like it does the same to MacOS.
>
>>
>> >C.) The user base is not as much and there are not that many stuff that a
>> >home user who wants his/her children to learn about the alphabet or
>> >dinosaurs can use.
>>
>> He he he :-) You say the user base is not as much. That is quite false.
>>
>> >D.) It's too archane for a first time user or a computer phobe (don't
>> >tell me they shouldn't be using a computer in the first place, if you
>> >really think that, you ought to take a year long vacation from your
>> >computer and go out and interact with people--- Of course I'm not saying
>> >that that's what you are saying... I've just seen that arguement brought
>> >up too many times).
>>
>> This may be news to you, but you CAN indeed work in X the whole time.
>>
>> > My take on Unix (in it's different flavors) it's superior in the
>> >ways it implements tasks of a computer and the software running on it.
>> >It's fast. It has very little penalties. It just isn't the most efficient
>> >in the other end of the interface (the inefficient visual and vocal symbol
>> >oriented humans that use it). Sure, the programming of the humans can be
>>
>> :-) I find Unix much more efficient that any other interface. And I've
>> used lots -- Win3, Win95, OS/2, Mac, DOS, etc.
>
>depends upon what you're doing.
>
>>
>> >modified to improve the interface, but that's a lot of extra coding, and
>> >often that shell sits on top of the visual/sound symbol oriented shell,
>> >slowing it down a tad (even when becoming optimized by habituation).
>> > BTW I've seen people who are blazingly fast at using a GUI (faster
>> >at moving across a screen and selecting several functions than a person
>> >doing the same in CLI). I've never seen anybody outracing a person doing
>> >general tasks on a CLI. People around here have other fundemental
>> >questions running through their heads to run CLI vs. GUI races. Even if
>> >it's faster, CLI is vastly overrated as to it's ability to insure speed
>> >gains for any task.
>>
>> He he he again :-)
>>
>> Consider this...I can type this in 3 seconds:
>>
>> cat /dev/audio | gzip > file
>>
>> This will read audio from the sound card, compress it in real time, and
>> write it to file.au.
>>
>> To play it back, I just type:
>>
>> cat file | gunzip > /dev/audio
>>
>> Or the shortcut:
>>
>> gunzip -c file > /dev/audio
>>
>> There are even ways to automatically convert it to a different format in
>> real time.
>
>okay, considering I'm recording a sound, this is what I must do:
>
>apple menu:controlpanels:sound
>
>one click, a couple of drags
>
>record new sound
>
>one click
>
>another click to start recording.
>
>record
>
>another click to stop
>
>I can go back and click on play to hear it, or start over again, just by
>clicking on record again.
>
>click save, type in the name
>
>it is now in my sound control panel. (inside the system suitcase). I
>can play it with one two click in all.
>
>or, if I want I can move it out of the suitcase, and if it's on the
>desktop or I have the window open, two click to play it.
>
>>
>> > Macs should become more efficient at the other(hardware) end, but
>> >it's fairly efficient (at least more so than Unix) at this (user) end.
>>
>> Here's my take on it. Macs are easier and faster to learn. I do not argue
>> that point. However, I do maintain that Unix is easier and faster to use.
>> Once you have learned it, it is faster to use.
>>
>> > Okay, so you like FreeBSD. It does have some things that are
>> >better, but most of your comments about the Mac are totally ignorent.
>> >Some of the things you like your OS for are irrelevant to many of the
>> >discussions. Quite often, you jump into a thread and bring it over to
>> >some archane stuff that BSD can do which has no relevance to the
>> >origional thread. Just an observation.
>>
>> I run FreeBSD on my home machine. All the things I've mentioned are
>> important for me on my home computer. I have never once mentioned something
>> that isn't important to me on a home computer.
>>
>-otherguy
>othe...@dash.com
>"it wasn't me, it was the otherguy" -Me
>"'I'm not crazy'
>'it's always the crazy ones who say that'" -David Ives
>"THIS PROGRAM EMITS A HIGH-PITCHED ALARM WHENEVER A KEYBOARD IS UNPLUGGED,
>IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO LOUD, HIGH-PITCHED NOISES IN YOUR COMPUTER ROOM, DO
>NOT INSTALL THIS PROGRAM" -Some computer readme
>
The attached summaries it all.
begin 644 mac.wav
<uuencoded_portion_removed>
#:6<`
`
end
Andy Bates
> ObMacKnock1:
> Why do they put the power button of the the PowerMac in my college
> where the 'eject' button of the floppy should be?
Since Macs do not have an eject button for the floppy, there is no such
thing as a place where the eject button "should be" on a Mac. If you were
mistaken as to the usage of the button, that's the fault of the PC, not
the Mac. PCs have convinced you that an eject button is necessary. It
isn't.
> ObMacKnock2:
> Why does it screw up the PowerMac when you use the 'Eject' option on
> the menu rather than dragging the floppy to the Trash Icon?
The Eject button is a holdover from the days when many people had
single-floppy, no-hard-drive systems. It allows you to work with multiple
disks simultaneously (i.e. copying from one to another) without two drives
or a hard drive or a ram disk. The "Please insert..." dialog can be
stopped by hitting Command-. (which is standard on the Mac). Alternately,
you can use the Put Away option in the menu, which will unmount and eject
the disk. This is the same thing as dragging the floppy to the trash icon.
Andy Bates.
Andy Bates
<mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
> Elmer G. Croan Jr. wrote:
>
> > Have you ever added a CD-ROM from scratch on a PC or better yet
changed to a different one
>
> yes i have, many times.
> For dos it was a matter of swaping the hardware (3 connections. easy)
> and changing the drivers. Since every cdrom driver is MSCDEX
> compatible, there are no problems. For win95 I found that my new cdrom
> didn't have a win95 driver, and win95 didn't support it natively... no
> problem, I told win95 to use the Dos driver, and it worked great.
>
> For linux I went to /usr/src/linux and typed "make config" i kept
> hitting enter until I got to the part about CDroms, then I said "n" for
> panasonic cdrom (my old one) and "y" for atapi cdrom. I then typed
> "make zImage" to compile the new kernel, and copied the file to /vmlinuz
> then ran "lilo" and reboot... worked great.
Gee, all I did was drag the CD-ROM driver onto my system folder, plug in
the drive, and reboot. No problem.
> Now you're thinking, hey that was a lot to do... maybe it was, maybe it
> wasn't. All I know is that it is 2nd nature to me, and there were no
> problems because I knew what I was doing.
I wouldn't argue that you didn't know what you were doing. I would argue
that most people would not be able to get this on the first try, and some
might extend the argument to say that all of that configuration,
recompilation and copying shouldn't be necessary.
Andy Bates.
TOMMY K. HWANG
>
> In article <4hcl9a$u...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) wrote:
>
> > : Much less compatible with other platforms
> >
> > Huh? On my PC, I can run Linux, FreeBSD, SCO, DOS, Win16, Win32, and Mac
> > binaries. On any of the above platforms, I can download a FreeBSD
> > executable and copy it to a disk and execute it directly off a disk. I
> > cannot, for example, download a Mac executable under DOS, put it on a disk,
> > and run it on a Mac!
>
> Guess what? I can download a DOS executable under MacOS, put it on a disk,
> and run it on a PC! It sounds like your platform is the one with the
> limitations, not the Mac.
I thought PCs can do that too... So long as it is HD Mac formatted disk.
If you are complaining about built-in Mac format support, try NeXTStep for Intel.
It can read Mac Disks directly, same with FAT and NeXT.
Andy Bates
wrote:
> Learn the concept of word wrap, please.
If you had a real machine, your newsreader would take care of word wrap
for you when you read the message. My Mac does it; why doesn't your PC?
Andy Bates.
Candide
>While prying the lemmings from hir ankles Fri, 08 Mar 1996 08:18:54
>+0000, Hellshok <an52...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
>
>>1- With a DOS compatability card or Soft Windows we can partition our
>>drives with a few different OSes it'll even ask you to do it.
>
>So, you need a second OS to have multiple OSes? Something seems fishy
>here, but I just may not be thinking straight at the moment.
Go with that thought...You may be RIGHT/thinking "straight at the
moment", when you state that you may be WRONG/"not thinking straight"
period...
[DELETED]
>>the right one it loads. It could be any of my twelve drives attached right
>>now.
>
>Why twelve drives? Ditch all those silly little 80 meggers and get a 1
>gig drive. You'll be happier. :)
[DELETED]
What makes you ASSUme that the 12 HDs in question, are NOT 1 gig. EACH?...
Would you admit that you were presumptious (once again), if the 12 HDs
HAPPEN to be, let's say, 2 gig. in size, EACH?(24 gigs) Sure you would...
>
>pi...@shore.net pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu pi...@basenji.com
>An it harm none, do as thou wilt.
>Will hack Symix for food.
You seem thin...Have you been eating right, lately? :)