IBM PC or SMAC ??????
Dog Hair
In article <MPG.e35b685d...@news.zocalo.com>,
nob...@chromatic.com (Paul Hsieh) wrote:
> On 15 Jul 1997, Dog Hair (dog...@erols.com) said:
> > webnik, at, globaldialog, dot, com wrote:
> > > Buy the computer platform that:
> > >
> > > 1. Has more commercial business software written for it than any other.
> >
> > 1) Macintosh has more graphic editing programs writian for it.
>
> I highly doubt that. For the PC I can rattle off: PC PaintBrush, VGA
> Paint, MS-PaintBrush, Corel Draw, 3D Studio, NeoPaint, Paint Shop Pro,
> Deluxe Paint, Dabbler, Fractal Designer, Caligair True Space, Light Wave.
> And that's just off the top of my head.
Well maybe however the macintosh and its many clones own the industry for
desktop publishing.
> > > 2. Has vast quantities of great games written for it, more than other
> > > platform.
> >
> > 2) It doesn't matter, with virtual Pc a mac user can run ANY program for
> > ANY platform
>
> Not so. Virtual PC emulates an S3 Virge, without achieving its
> performance/frame rate. This means that "can run it" is a seriously
> qualified statement. Games that require high frame rates or Direct Draw
> are SOL.
Fine then buy a dos card
> > > 2. Has more shareware and freeware written for it than any other
> > > platform.
> >
> > 3) <by the way this should be number 3> See number 2
>
> See my response.
>
Well see my responce then also
> > > 4. Has bargain priced, high quality, new, state-of-the-art, hardware for
> > > sale everywhere.
> >
> > 4) Most hardware is universal
>
> Not so. Example, MPACT media processor, is incompatible with the Mac.
> Sorry, you lose. I'd also like to see you stick a sound blaster in a
> Mac.
THe GOOD hardware is. Like for example I have a umax scanner, USR 33.6,
JazDrive, CDR, and HP PRinter that are all PC compatible. Also I had
thought you where pretty smart up till now but then I read this comment.
Hey genius you don't need soundblaster in a macintosh. So if you shove one
in you must be pretty stupid because you probably can't find the port. So
sorry YOU lose.
> > > 5. Has a vast market of used, upgradable, equipment at dirt cheap
> > > prices.
> >
> > 5) Havn't we already seen this one???
>
> Well, we PC folk see this all the time.
I just rememberd something, since hardeware and technolagy is always
upgrading then what is the purpose of buying used stuff???
> > > 6. Has the most Mac Mavens pissed off because it's so popular.
>
> > 6) First of all ???? Mavens ????? Second no we don't were pissed about all
> > of the bad rap apple has got.
>
> A well deserved bad rap. I ain't never met a Mac I liked.
I am wondering something, what mac have you ever used??? Because it is
Mac's bad mangment that has sent is hurtiling down the tubes, not bad
computer.
> > > Wintel...it's everywhere, does everthing, it's cheap, it's fast, it's
> > > high quality, it's universal, it's in your face! ;-)
> >
> > YOUR POINT???
>
> His point is, buying a PC just makes more sense than buying a Mac.
Still don't understand why, you can do the same things
> > GOT A MAC? GET A MAC
>
> Got a lot of money in your pocket, no need for a future or software?
> Then the Mac is a possibility, otherwise, just get a PC like everyone
> else.
In the long run you save money not having to buy all the diffrent dummy
books for everything because it is so much eaiser than a PC.
Got A Mac? Get A Mac
--
*********************************************************************
"There is nothing quite like a Dog Hair Sandwich in the morning"
*********************************************************************
Matt Morgan
I don't know about you, but I'd get a Mac just because I can't be
bothered to mess around installing and maintaining a PC. Have you ever
tried to install... ahem... 'less-well-known brand' extension cards on a
PC? Pure Hell. Sure, Macs are more expensive, but their also less of a
pain in the ass, which makes me more productive. I'm afraid I don't
believe that true 'plug-and-play' PC's exist anymore.
My $0.02
Matt Morgan
Joker
Dog Hair wrote:
>
> I am wondering something, what mac have you ever used??? Because it is
> Mac's bad mangment that has sent is hurtiling down the tubes, not bad
> computer.
>
> > > > Wintel...it's everywhere, does everthing, it's cheap, it's fast,
> it's
> > > > high quality, it's universal, it's in your face! ;-)
> > >
> > > YOUR POINT???
> >
> > His point is, buying a PC just makes more sense than buying a Mac.
>
> Still don't understand why, you can do the same things
>
>
> > > GOT A MAC? GET A MAC
> >
> > Got a lot of money in your pocket, no need for a future or software?
> > Then the Mac is a possibility, otherwise, just get a PC like
> everyone
> > else.
>
> In the long run you save money not having to buy all the diffrent
> dummy
> books for everything because it is so much eaiser than a PC.
>
>
> Got A Mac? Get A Mac
Who the fuck cares? It's not the machine you use, it's how you use it!
-- Need A Laugh? Send an email to get...@answerme.com !
David Field
dog...@erols.com (Dog Hair) wrote:
>In article <MPG.e35b685d...@news.zocalo.com>,
>nob...@chromatic.com (Paul Hsieh) wrote:
>> On 15 Jul 1997, Dog Hair (dog...@erols.com) said:
>> > webnik, at, globaldialog, dot, com wrote:
>> > > Buy the computer platform that:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Has more commercial business software written for it than any other.
>> >
>> > 1) Macintosh has more graphic editing programs writian for it.
>>
>> I highly doubt that. For the PC I can rattle off: PC PaintBrush, VGA
>> Paint, MS-PaintBrush, Corel Draw, 3D Studio, NeoPaint, Paint Shop Pro,
>> Deluxe Paint, Dabbler, Fractal Designer, Caligair True Space, Light Wave.
>> And that's just off the top of my head.
>Well maybe however the macintosh and its many clones own the industry for
>desktop publishing.
Nope. Not unless you just count the top ten or twenty percent. Some
years ago, Apple admitted that it had eighteen percent of the
entry-level DTP market.
Adobe's last quarter was the first in which it sold more PC software
than Mac software. Adobe said that their Pc market was expanding at
the rate of 78 percent year over year whereas the mac market for their
products was *contracting* at the rate of 13 percent annually.
And the best-selling piece of desktop publishing software is Microsoft
Publisher - yet another of those products that hasn't made it to the
Mac.
David.
John L. Rose
> > Sorry, you lose. I'd also like to see you stick a sound blaster in a
> > Mac.
>
> thought you where pretty smart up till now but then I read this comment.
> Hey genius you don't need soundblaster in a macintosh. So if you shove one
> in you must be pretty stupid because you probably can't find the port. So
> sorry YOU lose.
We had the unfortunate fate of trying to install a Soundblaster in a
Gateway
pc at work. The damned thing is still collecting dust on a shelf
somewhere.
I kept warning them about the Evil Empire, but noooo....
With all the wasted hours x union wages, they coulda gotten a couple of
Macs.
- The J and the R -
Ryan Esty
Put windows nt on it and then get two processors. It is only a little
more expensive but it will probably speed up your prossesing time to
about 35 - 80 percent faster. You can't do that with a mac that is for
sure. We run a power pc enhanced by kodak for a digital enhancement
station and I absololutely hate the mac os. There is no true
multitasking like in windows nt. I can run serval things at a time like
copying a file from floppy and browsing the internet. The mac os thinks
multitasking is being able to see the mouse move while downloading.
Also at my college Clarkson University an engineering college the head
computer engineering professor doesn't have a mac. She won't even say
the word mac she will only say it's chip name. A whole college could be
wrong now could it?
Ron Drake
> If you are looking for a good fast computer that can run adobe us a pc.
> Put windows nt on it and then get two processors. It is only a little
> more expensive but it will probably speed up your prossesing time to
> about 35 - 80 percent faster. You can't do that with a mac that is for
> sure. We run a power pc enhanced by kodak for a digital enhancement
> station and I absololutely hate the mac os. There is no true
> multitasking like in windows nt. I can run serval things at a time like
> copying a file from floppy and browsing the internet. The mac os thinks
> multitasking is being able to see the mouse move while downloading.
> Also at my college Clarkson University an engineering college the head
> computer engineering professor doesn't have a mac. She won't even say
> the word mac she will only say it's chip name. A whole college could be
> wrong now could it?
You're not an English major, are you?
--
+++
Don't forget to remove the "dot" from r.dr...@ix.netcom.com
or you won't reach me!
Wayne
>If you are looking for a good fast computer that can run adobe us a pc.
>Put windows nt on it and then get two processors. It is only a little
>more expensive but it will probably speed up your prossesing time to
>about 35 - 80 percent faster. You can't do that with a mac that is for
>sure.
Unless, of course, you get a twin processor Mac. Or, alternatively, a quad
250mHz 604e Daystar Mac Clone. Rough equivalent in power to 8 200mHz
Pentium MMX processors. :)
---------------------------------------------------
This message was created and sent using the Cyberdog Mail System
---------------------------------------------------
Loonytoons
>Alesisq writes: Hey, I used to own a mac, why did I get rid of it, heres the answers
1: Memory, twice as expensive as PC
2: Program availability, 20 times more for PC
3: Customer support, most companys better for PC than Apple
4: Online, goto any web site for freebees, or shareware, guaranteed
support is almost 100 to 1 in PC's favor
5: In 5 years from now, I was afraid, I might be holding on to a
computer that has, no new software, no new technoligy and no parent
company that could help me with updates or the like.
>
>Maybe Apple will still be around in 50 years, who knows, but I didn't want to take that chance.
>
PS... I applaud all Apple owners who stick by their choice, Don't let
anyone tell you what to do, figure it out for yourself then decide
Alesisq
>
Dog Hair wrote:
>
> In article <MPG.e35b685d...@news.zocalo.com>,
> nob...@chromatic.com (Paul Hsieh) wrote:
>
> > On 15 Jul 1997, Dog Hair (dog...@erols.com) said:
> > > webnik, at, globaldialog, dot, com wrote:
> > > > Buy the computer platform that:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Has more commercial business software written for it than any other.
> > >
> > > 1) Macintosh has more graphic editing programs writian for it.
> >
> > I highly doubt that. For the PC I can rattle off: PC PaintBrush, VGA
> > Paint, MS-PaintBrush, Corel Draw, 3D Studio, NeoPaint, Paint Shop Pro,
> > Deluxe Paint, Dabbler, Fractal Designer, Caligair True Space, Light Wave.
> > And that's just off the top of my head.
>
> Well maybe however the macintosh and its many clones own the industry for
> desktop publishing.
>
>
> > > > 2. Has vast quantities of great games written for it, more than other
> > > > platform.
> > >
> > > 2) It doesn't matter, with virtual Pc a mac user can run ANY program for
> > > ANY platform
> >
> > Not so. Virtual PC emulates an S3 Virge, without achieving its
> > performance/frame rate. This means that "can run it" is a seriously
> > qualified statement. Games that require high frame rates or Direct Draw
> > are SOL.
>
> Fine then buy a dos card
>
> > > > 2. Has more shareware and freeware written for it than any other
> > > > platform.
> > >
> > > 3) <by the way this should be number 3> See number 2
> >
> > See my response.
> >
>
> Well see my responce then also
>
> > > > 4. Has bargain priced, high quality, new, state-of-the-art, hardware for
> > > > sale everywhere.
> > >
> > > 4) Most hardware is universal
> >
> > Not so. Example, MPACT media processor, is incompatible with the Mac.
> > Sorry, you lose. I'd also like to see you stick a sound blaster in a
> > Mac.
>
> THe GOOD hardware is. Like for example I have a umax scanner, USR 33.6,
> JazDrive, CDR, and HP PRinter that are all PC compatible. Also I had
> thought you where pretty smart up till now but then I read this comment.
> Hey genius you don't need soundblaster in a macintosh. So if you shove one
> in you must be pretty stupid because you probably can't find the port. So
> sorry YOU lose.
>
>
> > > > 5. Has a vast market of used, upgradable, equipment at dirt cheap
> > > > prices.
> > >
> > > 5) Havn't we already seen this one???
> >
> > Well, we PC folk see this all the time.
>
> I just rememberd something, since hardeware and technolagy is always
> upgrading then what is the purpose of buying used stuff???
>
> > > > 6. Has the most Mac Mavens pissed off because it's so popular.
> >
> > > 6) First of all ???? Mavens ????? Second no we don't were pissed about all
> > > of the bad rap apple has got.
> >
> > A well deserved bad rap. I ain't never met a Mac I liked.
>
> I am wondering something, what mac have you ever used??? Because it is
> Mac's bad mangment that has sent is hurtiling down the tubes, not bad
> computer.
>
> > > > Wintel...it's everywhere, does everthing, it's cheap, it's fast, it's
> > > > high quality, it's universal, it's in your face! ;-)
> > >
> > > YOUR POINT???
> >
> > His point is, buying a PC just makes more sense than buying a Mac.
>
> Still don't understand why, you can do the same things
>
>
> > > GOT A MAC? GET A MAC
> >
> > Got a lot of money in your pocket, no need for a future or software?
> > Then the Mac is a possibility, otherwise, just get a PC like everyone
> > else.
>
> In the long run you save money not having to buy all the diffrent dummy
> books for everything because it is so much eaiser than a PC.
>
>
> Got A Mac? Get A Mac
>
Joe Ragosta
> If you are looking for a good fast computer that can run adobe us a pc.
> Put windows nt on it and then get two processors. It is only a little
You left out the 3 weeks of setup time and 8 weeks of training.
> more expensive but it will probably speed up your prossesing time to
> about 35 - 80 percent faster. You can't do that with a mac that is for
Wrong. Macs support multiprocessing. That, of course, is better than any of
your mainstream Windows OSs--only NT (which sells much less than even Mac
OS) supports multiprocessing. So 98% of Windows users don't have it.
> sure. We run a power pc enhanced by kodak for a digital enhancement
> station and I absololutely hate the mac os. There is no true
> multitasking like in windows nt. I can run serval things at a time like
> copying a file from floppy and browsing the internet. The mac os thinks
I can do that, too. Too bad you aren't interested in sticking to the facts.
> multitasking is being able to see the mouse move while downloading.
Well, if you're willing to settle for such a feeble definition, Macs have
been doing that for > 10 years.
> Also at my college Clarkson University an engineering college the head
> computer engineering professor doesn't have a mac. She won't even say
> the word mac she will only say it's chip name. A whole college could be
> wrong now could it?
Hmmmm. Even if your statement were true, how does the fact that a single
professor doesn't use a Mac relate to Macs being somehow bad?
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
joe.r...@dol.net
Visit the Complete Macintosh Web Site
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Joe Ragosta
In article <33D2C9...@daffy.duck>, Loonytoons <bugs...@daffy.duck> wrote:
> >Alesisq writes: Hey, I used to own a mac, why did I get rid of it, heres
the answers
> 1: Memory, twice as expensive as PC
Wrong. It's exactly the same memory.
> 2: Program availability, 20 times more for PC
Wrong. The _highest_ number I've ever seen puts it at 2:1. That's not much
of an argument though. If you can get good choices for what you do, who
cares about the 10,000 apps you'll never use.
> 3: Customer support, most companys better for PC than Apple
Not according to PC Magazine or J.D. Powers.
> 4: Online, goto any web site for freebees, or shareware, guaranteed
> support is almost 100 to 1 in PC's favor
Baloney. PCs _need_ more online support, but there's plenty of help for
Macs, too.
For example, there's a web site staffed by volunteers that guarantees 24
hour free support. If you have a problem, send them an e-mail and they'll
work with you to solve it. Mac only.
> 5: In 5 years from now, I was afraid, I might be holding on to a
> computer that has, no new software, no new technoligy and no parent
> company that could help me with updates or the like.
If you live your life basing all your actions on mindless fears, you'd
probably be happier digging a hole in the ground and living in it.
The Lizard King
In article <5qovnc$b...@news-central.tiac.net>, dfi...@tiac.net (David
Field) wrote:
> dog...@erols.com (Dog Hair) wrote:
>
>
> >In article <MPG.e35b685d...@news.zocalo.com>,
> >nob...@chromatic.com (Paul Hsieh) wrote:
>
> >> On 15 Jul 1997, Dog Hair (dog...@erols.com) said:
> >> > webnik, at, globaldialog, dot, com wrote:
> >> > > Buy the computer platform that:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. Has more commercial business software written for it than any other.
> >> >
> >> > 1) Macintosh has more graphic editing programs writian for it.
> >>
> >> I highly doubt that. For the PC I can rattle off: PC PaintBrush, VGA
> >> Paint, MS-PaintBrush, Corel Draw, 3D Studio, NeoPaint, Paint Shop Pro,
> >> Deluxe Paint, Dabbler, Fractal Designer, Caligair True Space, Light Wave.
> >> And that's just off the top of my head.
>
>
>
> >Well maybe however the macintosh and its many clones own the industry for
> >desktop publishing.
>
> Nope. Not unless you just count the top ten or twenty percent. Some
> years ago, Apple admitted that it had eighteen percent of the
> entry-level DTP market.
>
> Adobe's last quarter was the first in which it sold more PC software
> than Mac software. Adobe said that their Pc market was expanding at
> the rate of 78 percent year over year whereas the mac market for their
> products was *contracting* at the rate of 13 percent annually.
>
> And the best-selling piece of desktop publishing software is Microsoft
> Publisher - yet another of those products that hasn't made it to the
> Mac.
>
> David.
Anyone who thinks PCs are good for desktop publishing obviously isn't a
professional. Yes, you can do layout on PCs, but it's for beginners.
About 90% of the pro shops are strictly Mac and won't change any time soon.
Trust me. I've been in this industry for 10 years.
The Mac rules DTP because of the third party extensions and plug-ins
that simply don't exist in the Windows world and because Harvard business
studies show Macs are 51% more productive. DTP is too deadline intense to
mess with Windows boxes. We've got work to do. We use Macs.
The Lizard King
www.thelizardking.com
Bryan E Holland-Minkley
Excerpts from netnews.alt.humor: 20-Jul-97 Re: IBM PC or SMAC ??????
by Ryan Es...@pop.mv.com
Unless you want the most performance you can get out of a desktop
computer. After all, Macs have faster processors.
> Put windows nt on it and then get two processors.
Yes, Windows NT is nice, but nothing to get too excited about.
> It is only a little
> more expensive but it will probably speed up your prossesing time to
> about 35 - 80 percent faster. You can't do that with a mac that is for
> sure.
Actually, there are plenty of Macs with two processors.
> We run a power pc enhanced by kodak for a digital enhancement
> station and I absololutely hate the mac os. There is no true
> multitasking like in windows nt. I can run serval things at a time like
> copying a file from floppy and browsing the internet.
Er, I can do that too on a Mac.
> The mac os thinks
> multitasking is being able to see the mouse move while downloading.
I've never actually caught hte MacOS "thinking" something. You
know, it's never just blurted out, "Hey, Paully Shore is really stupid."
Man, it doesn't even do really obvious "thinking". Of course, neither
does any operating system.
> Also at my college Clarkson University an engineering college the head
> computer engineering professor doesn't have a mac.
Here at Carnegie Mellon University there are plenty of CS and ECE
professors who love Macs. I'm not sure I'm willing to base my entire
image of Macintoshes upon one person's opinion.
> She won't even say
> the word mac she will only say it's chip name.
This sounds like someone who has something personal against Macs.
I'm not sure that's really the person I'd listen to.
> A whole college could be
> wrong now could it?
Yes, as you said, it could. And besides, CMU supports Macs, and
they can't BOTH be right, can they?
-Bryan Holland-Minkley
be...@andrew.cmu.edu
Wayne
>> 5: In 5 years from now, I was afraid, I might be holding on to a
>> computer that has, no new software, no new technoligy and no parent
>> company that could help me with updates or the like.
If you get a Wintel machine, that's EXACTLY what you'll have, unless you
change motherboards, in which case it's not the same 'puter anymore. Wana
run Office 97 on a 5 year old PC..?
Darryn Lowe
But Windoze is slow, has pathetic multitasking and was written by
Microsnot. MS in its self is slow, and pathetic in doing more than on
task at a time.
And NO I don't own a Mac. I own an Amiga, the ultimate in speed,
power, multitasking, and user friendliness.
--
Dazza
darry...@clear.net.nz
--
Internet Exploder... What machine do you want to destroy today?
Tom Cass
> Unless, of course, you get a twin processor Mac.
The MAC OS doesn't do multiprocessing as efficiently as NT. I read this in
the MAC User web site in an article written about the Be OS a few months
ago.
TOM
David Field
Remarkable. I can't equal your time in the industry (only nine years,
I'm afraid) so I have to bow to my friend Kevin who's been doing this
for approaching twenty years and sets 200 books a year on Ventura on
Dells.
>The Mac rules DTP because of the third party extensions and plug-ins
>that simply don't exist in the Windows world and because Harvard business
>studies show Macs are 51% more productive. DTP is too deadline intense to
>mess with Windows boxes. We've got work to do. We use Macs.
I'd love to know what these "third-party extensions and plug-ins" that
don't exist in the Windows world. I mean, if you want to tell me of
some little-used or over-priced Quark Xtensions or Photoshop plug-ins,
you probably could, but they don't exactly negate the ability of
Windows to be a desktop publishing tool.
Perhaps youy could explain why there's a Windows version of
Pre-flight. This is a relatively expensive program for checking that
your job will RIP; why would the company go to such lengths to produce
such a program for Windows if the only folks using the platform are
"beginners."
And as to that Harvard study; I presume you mean Harvard Business
School. Kevin is typesetting all their case studies; if he comes
across this, I'll be sure to let you know.
David.
Joe Ragosta
In article <01bc97d4$7d4a1800$b113...@tbcass.dreamscape.com>, "Tom Cass"
<tbc...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
There was a lot of hype about BeOS. In the comparisons I've seen, a quad
processor Mac clone runs about 3 times as fast as a single processor
machine (everything else being equal). That's pretty close to NT's
scaleability.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Site
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Olivier
David Field wrote:
> >If you get a Wintel machine, that's EXACTLY what you'll have, unless you
> >change motherboards, in which case it's not the same 'puter anymore. Wana
> >run Office 97 on a 5 year old PC..?
> I have it running on my five year old 486-66. Should there be a
> problem?
no.., unless you don't want to spend hours for typing a simple text..
come on people, Linux is the real OS, take a look at sunsite, 2 gigabyte
freeware linux software (and all with quality!!), and each (if there are
wich is rare) is patched within a week. Real multitasking, real
multiuser, real fast, real stable, what do you want more?
get a real OS, get Linux
olivier
David Field
"Wayne" <wfellows*NO_SPAM*@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> 5: In 5 years from now, I was afraid, I might be holding on to a
>>> computer that has, no new software, no new technoligy and no parent
>>> company that could help me with updates or the like.
>If you get a Wintel machine, that's EXACTLY what you'll have, unless you
>change motherboards, in which case it's not the same 'puter anymore. Wana
>run Office 97 on a 5 year old PC..?
I have it running on my five year old 486-66. Should there be a
problem?
David.
KLINT
>
> If you get a Wintel machine, that's EXACTLY what you'll have, unless you
> change motherboards, in which case it's not the same 'puter anymore. Wana
> run Office 97 on a 5 year old PC..?
Excuse me, but I don't want to run Office 97 at all! I prefer to use a
REAL word processer. :-)
Sang K. Choe
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:07:04 -0400, joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta)
wrote:
: In article <01bc97d4$7d4a1800$b113...@tbcass.dreamscape.com>, "Tom Cass"
: <tbc...@dreamscape.com> wrote:
:
: > > Unless, of course, you get a twin processor Mac.
: >
: > The MAC OS doesn't do multiprocessing as efficiently as NT. I read this in
: > the MAC User web site in an article written about the Be OS a few months
: > ago.
:
: There was a lot of hype about BeOS. In the comparisons I've seen, a quad
: processor Mac clone runs about 3 times as fast as a single processor
: machine (everything else being equal).
Misleading Joe.
The quad Mac clone ran 3 times as fast as a single processor on a
specific application doing a single or a very small set of very
specific task/tasks.
Even Apple when they released the MP PowerMac 9500 claimed no more
than 30% scaling for applications written to take advantage of the
multiprocessing extensions. That was for a two CPU machine.
Scalability typically does not get better with more CPU, it typically
dimished with more CPUs.
: That's pretty close to NT's scaleability.
Again, misleading.
Upto about 8 CPUs, NT scales nearly linearly (assuming the hardware
and the application doesn't throw in a bottleneck somewhere). It's
scalability begins to degrade beyond 8 and becomes poor at past 16
CPUs.
-- Sang.
Alan Baker
In article <33D844...@prodigy.net>,
KLINT <kl...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Just a quick observation:
Why is that many PC users will badmouth every piece of software Microsoft
makes...
...EXCEPT THE G'DAMNED OS'S?!???
All I seem to here is: "Don't use X. All Microsoft makes is crap bloatware"
And at the very same time: "Don't use MacOS (or linux or anything else for
that matter). The only REAL OS is Win95/NT.
How come folks?
Alan Baker
Byte Computers
Mad Hatter
Olivier wrote:
>
> David Field wrote:
>
> > >If you get a Wintel machine, that's EXACTLY what you'll have, unless you
> > >change motherboards, in which case it's not the same 'puter anymore. Wana
> > >run Office 97 on a 5 year old PC..?
>
> > problem?
>
>
> come on people, Linux is the real OS, take a look at sunsite, 2 gigabyte
> freeware linux software (and all with quality!!), and each (if there are
> wich is rare) is patched within a week. Real multitasking, real
> multiuser, real fast, real stable, what do you want more?
>
--
My New Year's Resolution is:
1024 x 768
iball
In article <33DAEE86...@cryptont.REMOVETHIS.com>, Mad Hatter
<st...@cryptont.REMOVETHIS.com> writes
if i had it my way everything would be run form dos it would stop brain
dead people getting on the net. ( aka AOL )
--
iball
Chip & Page
>if i had it my way everything would be run form dos it would stop brain
>dead people getting on the net. ( aka AOL )
Sorry to hear you are such a technological bigot. Grow up.
Speaking of brain dead. . .Is alt.cereal such a smart place to be posting
this thread?
--
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
- Ralph Wiggum
Vic
Mad Hatter wrote:
> A user friendly and idiot-proof environment?
Look, I'm not an idiot and I don't need that "user friendly and
idiot-proof environment"...but yes, it *would* be nicer if LINUX was a
little friendlier...
But, hey, if you wanna user friendly and idiot-proof environment get a
Mac...nothing is more user friendly and idiot-proof than that.
--
--> http://www.cam.org/~tudor <--
prick your finger it is done
the moon has now eclipsed the sun
the angel has spread it's wings
the time has come for bitter things
Jester
Please cut the humor NG's out of your responses. Thanks.
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 11:48:54 GMT, nospam <nos...@localhost.de> wrote:
>In alt.destroy.microsoft Olivier <oliv...@dds.nl> wrote:
>
>: come on people, Linux is the real OS, take a look at sunsite, 2 gigabyte
>: freeware linux software (and all with quality!!), and each (if there are
>: wich is rare) is patched within a week. Real multitasking, real
>: multiuser, real fast, real stable, what do you want more?
>
>Or take a look at the scientific linux library at
>http://ftp.llp.fu-berlin.de/lsoft
>
>Carries over 1200 sophisticated apps for science,engineering and
>office solutions.
>
Fight Spam. Find out how at www.cauce.org
<<*Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail*>>
___________________________________________________________
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
~Eleanor Roosevelt
Prejudice is the reason of fools.
~Voltaire
____________________________________________________________
Ryan Tokarek
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Sang K. Choe wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:07:04 -0400, joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta)
> wrote:
>
<snip>
> : That's pretty close to NT's scaleability.
>
> Again, misleading.
> Upto about 8 CPUs, NT scales nearly linearly (assuming the hardware
> and the application doesn't throw in a bottleneck somewhere). It's
> scalability begins to degrade beyond 8 and becomes poor at past 16
> CPUs.
I just wanted to point out that recent articles on www.macosrumors.com
mentioned a 'super computer' checking about 4 million keys/sec on the RC5
encryption challenge. It was later revealed (to MacOS Rumors) that this
was one of Apple's dual 200MHz 604e based AIX servers. A dual 200MHz
604e based 9600 only got 1 million keys/sec. Single processor Macs at
the same speed were getting about half that.
I don't know what all is going on here, but judging by that I'm not sure I'd
call MacOS MP very efficient. Wait for Rhapsody to change this.
Ryan Tokarek
<tok...@students.uiuc.edu>
iball
In article <B000183F9...@nw136.byteshop.com>, Alan Baker
<Alanunder...@nobytespamshop.com> writes
>In article <33D844...@prodigy.net>,
>KLINT <kl...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> If you get a Wintel machine, that's EXACTLY what you'll have, unless you
>>> change motherboards, in which case it's not the same 'puter anymore. Wana
>>> run Office 97 on a 5 year old PC..?
>>
>>REAL word processer. :-)
>
>Just a quick observation:
>
>Why is that many PC users will badmouth every piece of software Microsoft
>makes...
>
>...EXCEPT THE G'DAMNED OS'S?!???
>
since when have we not slagged of windows 95 its a pile of shit the
layout is brilliant pitty the internal workings are shit.
--
iball
David Field
"Wayne" <wfellows*NO_SPAM*@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> 5: In 5 years from now, I was afraid, I might be holding on to a
>>> computer that has, no new software, no new technoligy and no parent
>>> company that could help me with updates or the like.
>If you get a Wintel machine, that's EXACTLY what you'll have, unless you
>change motherboards, in which case it's not the same 'puter anymore. Wana
>run Office 97 on a 5 year old PC..?
I teach people at a company that is an outpost of of what I believe is
a Fortune 500 company. There, 486/66s are the norm; they have a few
Pentiums.
The IS manager said, "We're getting a little behind. I'm putting in an
order next year for us to replace a third of our computers with
something newer."
So contrary to rumor, entire profitable companies are run on
five-year-old PCs.
David.
Jason
iball wrote:
>
> In article <33DAEE86...@cryptont.REMOVETHIS.com>, Mad Hatter
> <st...@cryptont.REMOVETHIS.com> writes
>
> dead people getting on the net. ( aka AOL )
>
> iball
I completly agree with you, thiers to many brain dead people with
computers these days
Wendigo~X
KLINT
iball wrote:
>
> In article <B000183F9...@nw136.byteshop.com>, Alan Baker
> <Alanunder...@nobytespamshop.com> writes
> >In article <33D844...@prodigy.net>,
> >KLINT <kl...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> change motherboards, in which case it's not the same 'puter anymore. Wana
> >>> run Office 97 on a 5 year old PC..?
> >>
> >>REAL word processer. :-)
> >
> >Just a quick observation:
> >
> >Why is that many PC users will badmouth every piece of software Microsoft
> >makes...
> >
> >...EXCEPT THE G'DAMNED OS'S?!???
> >
>
> since when have we not slagged of windows 95 its a pile of shit the
> layout is brilliant pitty the internal workings are shit.
Actually, I wasn't commenting on anything but MS Word 95. The software
is miserable. I was just stating I preferred a real word processor.
James Wulf
Loonytoons wrote:
>
> >Alesisq writes: Hey, I used to own a mac, why did I get rid of it, heres the answers
> 1: Memory, twice as expensive as PC
The same memory is used for both platforms.
> 2: Program availability, 20 times more for PC
It's not quantity, but quality.
> 3: Customer support, most companys better for PC than Apple
Totally unsubstantited statement.
> 4: Online, goto any web site for freebees, or shareware, guaranteed
> support is almost 100 to 1 in PC's favor
Not at the sites I'm going to, but then again, I'm going to sites that
produce Mac software. Gee, that makes sense, now doesn't it?
> 5: In 5 years from now, I was afraid, I might be holding on to a
> computer that has, no new software, no new technoligy and no parent
> company that could help me with updates or the like.
A company as large as Apple is not going to simply collapse. They have
5 BILLION dollars in cash assets, are currently producing chips that are
twice as fast as the fastest PC chip (even the acclaimed P2 and MMX;
this has been tested and proven by NUMEROUS magazines), and still have a
majority of users in the niche markets (DTP, graphics, education) that
have always been the main source of their sales. Apple will never have
a majority, or even close to a majority, in the business world, but they
don't need to.
> >
> >Maybe Apple will still be around in 50 years, who knows, but I didn't want to take that chance.
I don't know about you, but in 50 years I'll either be dead or living on
a beach in the Caribbean off of money I made by using my Mac! ; )
> >
> PS... I applaud all Apple owners who stick by their choice, Don't let
> anyone tell you what to do, figure it out for yourself then decide
Gee, thanks!
Phil Brewster
In article <5rjlp0$g...@news-central.tiac.net>, dfi...@tiac.net (David
Field) wrote:
> "Wayne" <wfellows*NO_SPAM*@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>> 5: In 5 years from now, I was afraid, I might be holding on to a
> >>> computer that has, no new software, no new technoligy and no parent
> >>> company that could help me with updates or the like.
>
> >If you get a Wintel machine, that's EXACTLY what you'll have, unless you
> >change motherboards, in which case it's not the same 'puter anymore. Wana
> >run Office 97 on a 5 year old PC..?
>
> I teach people at a company that is an outpost of of what I believe is
> a Fortune 500 company. There, 486/66s are the norm; they have a few
> Pentiums.
>
> The IS manager said, "We're getting a little behind. I'm putting in an
> order next year for us to replace a third of our computers with
> something newer."
>
> So contrary to rumor, entire profitable companies are run on
> five-year-old PCs.
>
> David.
True. -- But are they running the latest version of Windows or of MS
Office as well?
My guess is that many of the 486's (and 386's) still in use at businesses
are also still using the Win3.x 16-bit apps they were bought with.
It's more than a guess, actually, since I have worked at one in the time
since August 1995.... The company will be buying new desktops and
upgrading to Win95 in October, I believe (oh, joy.... <g>).
If some companies are using 486's with Win95, then odds are they had to
upgrade the RAM on all those desktops first, vs. RAM requirements of 5
years ago, etc. -- which in turn is why most companies using that vintage
of PC hardware are staying with Win3.x and the older apps, no doubt.
(Slackers! They aren't contributing to Microsoft's revenue growth on
schedule the way MS expects them to!.... <g>)
Cheers,
--
Phil Brewster <pjbrew at ix dot netcom dot com>
"One often contradicts an opinion when what is uncongenial is really the tone in which it was conveyed."
-- Nietzsche
Darryn Lowe
> I completly agree with you, thiers to many brain dead people with
> computers these days
Yeah and they ALL have PCs.
Long live the Amiga who can kick major ass.
David Bridges
In article <pjbrew-3007...@slc-ut3-06.ix.netcom.com>, Phil
Brewster <pjb...@nospam-ix.netcom.com> writes
>(Slackers! They aren't contributing to Microsoft's revenue growth on
>schedule the way MS expects them to!.... <g>)
>
first trillionaire. Another first for the US of A!
--
David Bridges
Jester
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 00:00:31 -0600, pjb...@nospam-ix.netcom.com (Phil
Brewster) wrote:
>In article <5rjlp0$g...@news-central.tiac.net>, dfi...@tiac.net (David
>Field) wrote:
>> "Wayne" <wfellows*NO_SPAM*@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>> 5: In 5 years from now, I was afraid, I might be holding on to a
>> >>> computer that has, no new software, no new technoligy and no parent
>> >>> company that could help me with updates or the like.
>> I teach people at a company that is an outpost of of what I believe is
>> a Fortune 500 company. There, 486/66s are the norm; they have a few
>> five-year-old PCs.
> True. -- But are they running the latest version of Windows or of MS
>Office as well?
So what if they're not? As long as the equipment and apps they have
are sufficient to meet the needs of their business, why should they
spend untold thousands of dollars to upgrade to the latest technology?
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Peace and Success,
Jester ;-}
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fight Spam. Find out how at www.cauce.org
<<*Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail*>>
"Have you seen these children?"
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
You can help. Visit the NCMEC at www.missingkids.org
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Field
pjb...@nospam-ix.netcom.com (Phil Brewster) wrote:
>In article <5rjlp0$g...@news-central.tiac.net>, dfi...@tiac.net (David
>Field) wrote:
>> "Wayne" <wfellows*NO_SPAM*@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> 5: In 5 years from now, I was afraid, I might be holding on to a
>> >>> computer that has, no new software, no new technoligy and no parent
>> >>> company that could help me with updates or the like.
>>
>> >If you get a Wintel machine, that's EXACTLY what you'll have, unless you
>> >change motherboards, in which case it's not the same 'puter anymore. Wana
>> >run Office 97 on a 5 year old PC..?
>>
>> I teach people at a company that is an outpost of of what I believe is
>> a Fortune 500 company. There, 486/66s are the norm; they have a few
>> Pentiums.
>>
>> The IS manager said, "We're getting a little behind. I'm putting in an
>> order next year for us to replace a third of our computers with
>> something newer."
>>
>> So contrary to rumor, entire profitable companies are run on
>> five-year-old PCs.
>>
>> David.
>True. -- But are they running the latest version of Windows or of MS
>Office as well?
>My guess is that many of the 486's (and 386's) still in use at businesses
>are also still using the Win3.x 16-bit apps they were bought with.
>It's more than a guess, actually, since I have worked at one in the time
>since August 1995.... The company will be buying new desktops and
>upgrading to Win95 in October, I believe (oh, joy.... <g>).
>If some companies are using 486's with Win95, then odds are they had to
>upgrade the RAM on all those desktops first, vs. RAM requirements of 5
>years ago, etc. -- which in turn is why most companies using that vintage
>of PC hardware are staying with Win3.x and the older apps, no doubt.
>(Slackers! They aren't contributing to Microsoft's revenue growth on
>schedule the way MS expects them to!.... <g>)
Actually, it's weird. It's a mix of Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and NT
3.51, with a few W95 machines. The software is all MS Office 4.3.
The company is in fact Fortune 200.
David.
Wayne
>> True. -- But are they running the latest version of Windows or of MS
>>Office as well?
>So what if they're not? As long as the equipment and apps they have
>are sufficient to meet the needs of their business, why should they
>spend untold thousands of dollars to upgrade to the latest technology?
>"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
>Peace and Success,
>Jester ;-}
God help us if we didn't have MS Office! What WOULD we do..? (Hey, I've
been running on ClarisWorks for years now, glad someone pointed out that I
needed Office 97, I'd have never known!)
---------------------------------------------------
This message was created and sent using the Cyberdog Mail System
---------------------------------------------------
Manuel João Silva
David Bridges <c...@craigwell.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<PjDnbPAj...@craigwell.demon.co.uk>...
> Don't they realise it's their patriotic duty to help create the world's
> first trillionaire. Another first for the US of A!
Great! You keep the first and I get the money...
J.S.
David Field
James Wulf <wu...@erols.com> wrote:
>Loonytoons wrote:
>>
>> >Alesisq writes: Hey, I used to own a mac, why did I get rid of it, heres the answers
>> 1: Memory, twice as expensive as PC
>The same memory is used for both platforms.
Not really. Macs use DIMMs far more than PCs, and DIMMs are more
expensive. But not by much, and as more PCs use DIMMs the price will
reach parity.
>> 2: Program availability, 20 times more for PC
>It's not quantity, but quality.
Yeah, but when too many of the quality apps aren't available, then
quantity *is* quality.
>> 3: Customer support, most companys better for PC than Apple
>Totally unsubstantited statement.
I'd say from the reports I've seen that Apple is in line with the
better PC companies, but it's not the best.
>> 4: Online, goto any web site for freebees, or shareware, guaranteed
>> support is almost 100 to 1 in PC's favor
>Not at the sites I'm going to, but then again, I'm going to sites that
>produce Mac software. Gee, that makes sense, now doesn't it?
But you're limiting yourself. If I only went to PC sites, I'd never
know that there could be a cool app for the Mac that I couldn't use.
>> 5: In 5 years from now, I was afraid, I might be holding on to a
>> computer that has, no new software, no new technoligy and no parent
>> company that could help me with updates or the like.
>A company as large as Apple is not going to simply collapse. They have
>5 BILLION dollars in cash assets,
$1.2 billion in the last financials, with $975 million long-term debt.
>are currently producing chips that are
>twice as fast as the fastest PC chip (even the acclaimed P2 and MMX;
>this has been tested and proven by NUMEROUS magazines), and still have a
>majority of users in the niche markets (DTP,
Depends how you define that. Adobe and Macromedia sell slightly more
Windows than Mac software.
>graphics,
See above.
>education)
Apple has 5.6 percent of sales to Higher Education sites.
Joe Ragosta
In article <33e182b5...@news.alterdial.uu.net>, an42...@anon.penet.fi
(GuessWho) wrote:
> Face it, Macs for the majority of users are not the platform of
> choice.
Face it, Corvettes aren't the platform of choice for most people, either,
but a lot of people advocate them.
Did it ever occur to you that advocacy groups are for people who want to
advocate which platform they think is _best_? It's not a popularity
contest.
GuessWho
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:21:08 +0000, James Wulf <wu...@erols.com>
wrote:
<snip>
reasons why individual chose PC over Mac
Asinine Responses
<end snip>
Mac's are the choice for graphic programs.
Pc's are for the rest.
Your mindless support for the Mac in the face of all reason reminds me
of the Amiga, trash 80's, Commodore, etc....supporters.
Face it, Macs for the majority of users are not the platform of
choice. Give it up, move on with you life.
Waldo
Quantum Leaper
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> In article <33e182b5...@news.alterdial.uu.net>, an42...@anon.penet.fi
> (GuessWho) wrote:
>
> > choice.
>
> advocate which platform they think is _best_? It's not a popularity
> contest.
>
David Field
Quantum Leaper <lea...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
I knew *someone* would come up with a smart-ass reply like that; the
trouble was, there are so many people who would want to. ;)
David.
Douglas E Forbush
: > come on people, Linux is the real OS, take a look at sunsite, 2 gigabyte
: > freeware linux software (and all with quality!!), and each (if there are
: > wich is rare) is patched within a week. Real multitasking, real
: > multiuser, real fast, real stable, what do you want more?
: >
: A user friendly and idiot-proof environment?
I'd rather have raw power and speed instead of using the whole processor
to run a dumb GUI.. Idiot-proof environment? I suppose those are for, well,
nevermind..
Grahame
Waldo wrote...
> Face it, Macs for the majority of users are not the platform of
I've never wanted to be in the *majority* but seeing as you mention
it...
The majority of magazines, even those reporting on PC's are put together
using Macs.
The majority of Web sites, some 64% of the total, are put together on
Macs too.
This reply was put out on a Mac because, some years ago, I moved on with
my life and bought one.
I don't know about Apple's long-term future but the OS platform has a
big enough minority using it to make its long term future pretty safe.
And, lest we forget, the demise of Apple would give Microsoft a few
monopoly problems - and I don't mean the board game!
So Waldo, stick with your platform if you are happy with it. If Windows
ever catches up with the OS platform it will be worth looking at but
it's not caught up yet.I am a member of a minority but can I help it if
I'd rather have the Rolls Royce of platforms rather than the Ford?
Anonymous
Pssst. Here's $1. Go buy a clue on me.
--
, ,
/( )`
\ \___ / |
/- _ `-/ '
(/\/ \ \ /\
/ / | ` \
O O ) / |
`-^--'`< '
(_.) _ ) /
`.___/` /
`-----' /
<----. __ / __ \
<----|====O)))==) \) /====
<----' `--' `.__,' \
| |
\ / /\
______( (_ / \______/
,' ,-----' |
`--{__________)
-------------==== Posted via Sexzilla News ====------------------
http://www.sexzilla.com Search, Read, Post to Usenet
-------------==== With A Whole Lot More ====------------------
Ken W
In alt.cereal Grahame <gra...@witzend.u-net.com> wrote:
G> So Waldo, stick with your platform if you are happy with it. If Windows
G> ever catches up with the OS platform it will be worth looking at but
G> it's not caught up yet.I am a member of a minority but can I help it if
G> I'd rather have the Rolls Royce of platforms rather than the Ford?
Enjoy your big bulky Rolls of an OS, then. I have the Porsche:
Linux. :)
-Ken
Bill Millard
Douglas E Forbush wrote:
I think that says it all. Idiot replies not welcome.
David Field
Grahame <gra...@witzend.u-net.com> wrote:
>Waldo wrote...
>> Face it, Macs for the majority of users are not the platform of
>> choice. Give it up, move on with you life.
>I've never wanted to be in the *majority* but seeing as you mention
>it...
>
>The majority of magazines, even those reporting on PC's are put together
>using Macs.
>The majority of Web sites, some 64% of the total, are put together on
>Macs too.
Please . . . don't believe everything Apple tells you. They surveyed
under 100 professional web design firms and found that 64 percent of
them use Macs.
All I can say is if under 100 web design firms are doing every web
site ever, their Macs must be fried by now.
>This reply was put out on a Mac because, some years ago, I moved on with
>my life and bought one.
>I don't know about Apple's long-term future but the OS platform has a
>big enough minority using it to make its long term future pretty safe.
>And, lest we forget, the demise of Apple would give Microsoft a few
>monopoly problems - and I don't mean the board game!
>So Waldo, stick with your platform if you are happy with it. If Windows
>ever catches up with the OS platform it will be worth looking at but
>it's not caught up yet.I am a member of a minority but can I help it if
>I'd rather have the Rolls Royce of platforms rather than the Ford?
Plenty of people (including me) own Fords because they get you from A
to B.
Of course, if you want to spend ten times as much to do the same
thing, you can get a Rolls Royce.
David.
Breakaway
Grahame wrote:
> The majority of magazines, even those reporting on PC's are put together
> using Macs.
The majority of magazines are laid out by graphic artists who don't
take the time to learn how to actually *use* a computer. I work for my
college newspaper, which is put together on a Mac with Quark Xpress, and
keep up the web site. If I stuck a PC in front of these reporters, they
would die because PC's are hard to use. (Not true, I know, but it's an
often-heard reason to buy an overpriced Mac.)
I have to use a Mac to build this web site, and I have to say that it
is easy to use. My PC at home is easy to use, too. And I really don't
like to touch my computer after I come home from work until I take a
shower. I feel so dirty after work. ;)
> I don't know about Apple's long-term future but the OS platform has a
> big enough minority using it to make its long term future pretty safe.
> And, lest we forget, the demise of Apple would give Microsoft a few
> monopoly problems - and I don't mean the board game!
Seems Apple's going to be around for a little while longer...now that
Microsoft owns...what, 7% of the company?
--
Sean "Breakaway" Dickerson
se...@applink.net
"Wherever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
"Incoming fire has the right of way." - Breakaway
Bryan E Holland-Minkley
Excerpts from netnews.alt.humor: 8-Aug-97 Re: IBM PC or SMAC ?????? by
Brea...@applink.net
> Grahame wrote:
> > The majority of magazines, even those reporting on PC's are put together
> > using Macs.
>
> The majority of magazines are laid out by graphic artists who don't
> take the time to learn how to actually *use* a computer.
Isn't it nice to know then that you don't NEED to "know" how to use
a computer in order to use a Mac. Isn't that what user friendliness is
all about?
> I work for my
> college newspaper, which is put together on a Mac with Quark Xpress, and
> keep up the web site. If I stuck a PC in front of these reporters, they
> would die because PC's are hard to use. (Not true, I know, but it's an
> often-heard reason to buy an overpriced Mac.)
And some vague feeling of 'manliness' or 'power' is an often-heard
reason to by an overpriced PC.
> I have to use a Mac to build this web site, and I have to say that it
> is easy to use. My PC at home is easy to use, too. And I really don't
> like to touch my computer after I come home from work until I take a
> shower. I feel so dirty after work. ;)
I understand you were joking, but those comments don't really help
your case.
> > I don't know about Apple's long-term future but the OS platform has a
> > big enough minority using it to make its long term future pretty safe.
> > And, lest we forget, the demise of Apple would give Microsoft a few
> > monopoly problems - and I don't mean the board game!
>
> Seems Apple's going to be around for a little while longer...now that
> Microsoft owns...what, 7% of the company?
No, it's going to be around alot longer because:
1) Microsoft seems to have decided that having Macintosh computeres
around will be useful
2) This will give Apple enough time to get itself together concerning
G3, G4, and Rhapsody.
-Bryan Holland-Minkley
be...@andrew.cmu.edu
Breakaway
I apologize for cross-posting my previous message. I hit the send
button before I remembered to narrow the sendto. Sorry.http://www.applink.net/seand
Quantum Leaper
Breakaway wrote:
>
> Grahame wrote:
> > The majority of magazines, even those reporting on PC's are put together
> > using Macs.
>
> The majority of magazines are laid out by graphic artists who don't
> college newspaper, which is put together on a Mac with Quark Xpress, and
> keep up the web site. If I stuck a PC in front of these reporters, they
> would die because PC's are hard to use. (Not true, I know, but it's an
> often-heard reason to buy an overpriced Mac.)
> is easy to use. My PC at home is easy to use, too. And I really don't
> like to touch my computer after I come home from work until I take a
> shower. I feel so dirty after work. ;)
>
students in the class, one had a Mac and 23 had PCs. Quite a fun and
EASY class.....
Bobby Tendinitis
Last I heard, Ken W was saying:
>
>In alt.cereal Grahame <gra...@witzend.u-net.com> wrote:
>G> So Waldo, stick with your platform if you are happy with it. If Windows
>G> ever catches up with the OS platform it will be worth looking at but
>G> it's not caught up yet.I am a member of a minority but can I help it if
>G> I'd rather have the Rolls Royce of platforms rather than the Ford?
>
>Enjoy your big bulky Rolls of an OS, then. I have the Porsche:
>Linux. :)
If Linux is a Porsche, it's a used 944 with 80,000 miles on it. Good
luck finding someone who can do a good job fixing it if it breaks.
--
Bobby Tendinitis
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9309
--
"Mutilation, actual or verbal, is usually taken as an earnest of
sincere interest in another person." -- Donald Barthleme
--
"I should never have been charged with anything more serious
than operating a cemetery without a license." -- John Wayne Gacy
--
Bobby Tendinitis
Last I heard, Benjamin Micah Goldner was saying:
>
>
>
>Darryn Lowe wrote in article
<33DF8014.MD-0....@clear.net.nz>...
>>Long live the Amiga who can kick major ass.
>>--
>>Dazza
>>darry...@clear.net.nz
>>--
>>Internet Exploder... What machine do you want to destroy today?
>rights
>to it. Are they doing anything with it? I loved that computer.
The problem was, it didn't stay crunchy in milk.
(ie this is what you get for x-posting to alt.cereal).
surfer dude
Yeah, they are so popular they could go out of business and not be
noticed!
You are just lucky as HELL that Bill Gates decided to help Apple or it
would have been long gone - without a doubt!!!
Looks like Bill is helping out again! Where is Steve Jobs?
Go ahead and whine all you want. Will it get you anywhere? NO!!!
dfi...@tiac.net (David Field) wrote:
>Grahame <gra...@witzend.u-net.com> wrote:
>>Waldo wrote...
>>> Face it, Macs for the majority of users are not the platform of
>>> choice. Give it up, move on with you life.
>>I've never wanted to be in the *majority* but seeing as you mention
>>it...
>>
>>The majority of magazines, even those reporting on PC's are put together
>>using Macs.
>>The majority of Web sites, some 64% of the total, are put together on
>>Macs too.
>Please . . . don't believe everything Apple tells you. They surveyed
>under 100 professional web design firms and found that 64 percent of
>them use Macs.
>All I can say is if under 100 web design firms are doing every web
>site ever, their Macs must be fried by now.
>>This reply was put out on a Mac because, some years ago, I moved on with
>>my life and bought one.
>>I don't know about Apple's long-term future but the OS platform has a
>>big enough minority using it to make its long term future pretty safe.
>>And, lest we forget, the demise of Apple would give Microsoft a few
>>monopoly problems - and I don't mean the board game!
>>So Waldo, stick with your platform if you are happy with it. If Windows
>>ever catches up with the OS platform it will be worth looking at but
>>it's not caught up yet.I am a member of a minority but can I help it if
>>I'd rather have the Rolls Royce of platforms rather than the Ford?
>Plenty of people (including me) own Fords because they get you from A
Bryan E Holland-Minkley
Excerpts from netnews.alt.humor: 10-Aug-97 Re: IBM PC or SMAC ??????
by surfer du...@hangten.net
> noticed!
I think the approximately 50 million people who use Macintosh
computers would notice. By the way, that's as many people as use
Windows 95. Would you notice if that product were to suddenly disappear?
> You are just lucky as HELL that Bill Gates decided to help Apple or it
> would have been long gone - without a doubt!!!
It is much more likely that Bill Gates is helping himself. That's
certainly been the standard of his previous behavior. It is standard
business knowledge that it is good for business to have one competitor.
Undoubtedly, Bill knows this. He is probably also worrying about the
monopoly charges that he has been attempting to avoid for years.
> Looks like Bill is helping out again! Where is Steve Jobs?
What are the great Bill's previous acts of charity towards Apple?
Stealing their innovations? And Steve Jobs is exactly where he should
be, trying to save Apple, with only intelligence and planning tp help
him, not a large pocketbook.
> Go ahead and whine all you want. Will it get you anywhere? NO!!!
Go ahead and disparage all you want, will it get you anywhere, no!
-Bryan Holland-Minkley
be...@andrew.cmu.edu
Juhana Siren
bed...@SPAMBLOCK.geocities.com (Bobby Tendinitis) writes:
> If Linux is a Porsche, it's a used 944 with 80,000 miles on it. Good
> luck finding someone who can do a good job fixing it if it breaks.
You can always buy it from a vendor that provides support, like Caldera or
RedHat.
And PLEASE no more of this in the humor groups. A) the whole OS war is a
f*ing waste of time, and B) it's not even funny.
Followups trimmed accordingly.
--
Juhana Siren (Mr.) - Juhana...@oulu.fi - http://rieska.oulu.fi/~jsiren/
==========================================================================
Tied@%*%l¯¬Lªþ¯ªP0 % ø ¿<¼4°±²³ ´$µ(¶,·0¾8'½p%-n_XPG-n ϼ4*%Kÿÿ®+<$
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Dolores Jones
Is a Linux a Porsche? Why not start with a premise that is applicable
before you go off on a mindless tangent to defend the biggest pirate on
earth?