Why prolong the agony? Just get Windows 95...you'll be glad (you don't have a choice)

84 views
Skip to first unread message

Stephen C. Benes

unread,
Oct 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/30/96
to

>>>Why prolong the agony?
>>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.

I prefer not to be a lemming.


Stephen
[Team OS/2]
Stephen C. Benes
[Team OS/2]

Thibor FireCry

unread,
Oct 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/30/96
to

Ouch.. Team OS/2? You want the 30 copies I have in my store? 50%
off. heh heh...

Lemming or no, you WILL bow to MS... you WILL submit. Gates IS the
anti-christ and he shall have ALL of our souls!!!!! muhahahaHAHAHA!!!


[sorry, it is late]

FireCry


Ray Chason

unread,
Oct 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/30/96
to

In article <55724f$4...@news.hic.net>, roo...@hic.net says...

AAAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH! It's BACK! The Windoze Troll That Will Not Die (tm)!

Hey guys....

Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi
Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi
Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi
Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi
Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi
Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi
Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi
Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi
Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi!

There. This thread is DEAD.


Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed et. al.

unread,
Oct 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/30/96
to

Get a life!

!!! SUN RULES !!!

- ism...@gcsnet.com

dang...@sound.net

unread,
Oct 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/30/96
to

ke...@chrysalis.org (kenai) wrote:

>In article <556dtc$j...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, scb...@ix.netcom.com
>says...


>>
>>>>>Why prolong the agony?
>>>>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.
>>
>>I prefer not to be a lemming.
>>
>>
>> Stephen
>> [Team OS/2]
>> Stephen C. Benes
>> [Team OS/2]

>i think the hype over win95 is just that, hype. it is NOT any easier
>than win3.1, just fatter. i have tried both and i have returned to
>win3.1. i have better stability and can troubleshoot config conflicts a
>lot faster than i could with win95. if you really want a better product
>go to winNT. if you have the money that is.....

>besides, i dont like 'automatic' anything, i like to be able to choose
>how a program or periph is going to work on MY system.

>K

I don't think it is total hype. I built a new system this summer and
was amazed that I could install a modem, mouse, sound card, printer,
scanner, joystick and video card without needing the manuals or
setting a single switch, IRQ or DMA. Much easier than putting
together a 3.1 system. I also like win 95 applications and games,
they seem to install and work with fewer problems. The 3d support is
fun too, if it weren't for it I would consider using 3.1 on the new
system.

The problem is it boots so slow. I use it on my pentium 166 but it
boots much slower than my 486 with win 3.1. I updated my video
driver and direct x 2.0 and I had the familiar problem of the driver
getting overwritten, it seemed like I spent half the night just
watching the stupid machine reboot. I wish I had seen the posts
describing what was going on the process only takes about 3 minutes if
you know to tell the direct x not to touch the video driver. I'm
digressing, overall I'm happy with win 95 but I still have the second
machine running 3.1 and that one will not be upgraded.


Robert Dohrenburg

unread,
Oct 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/31/96
to

In message <55724f$4...@news.hic.net> - roo...@hic.net (Thibor FireCry)Wed, 30
Oct 1996 10:00:56 GMT writes:
:>
:>scb...@ix.netcom.com (Stephen C. Benes) wrote:
:>
:>>>>>Why prolong the agony?

:>>>>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.
:>
:>>I prefer not to be a lemming.
:>
:>
:>> Stephen
:>> [Team OS/2]
:>> Stephen C. Benes
:>> [Team OS/2]
:>Ouch.. Team OS/2? You want the 30 copies I have in my store? 50%

:>off. heh heh...
:>
:>Lemming or no, you WILL bow to MS... you WILL submit. Gates IS the
:>anti-christ and he shall have ALL of our souls!!!!! muhahahaHAHAHA!!!
:>
:>
:>[sorry, it is late]
:>
:>FireCry
:>


Do you really think so? With this week's announcements I'm begining to doubt
it. I used to think that way but now I'm not sure.

Let's recapitulate last and this week events:

Sun introduced the not so anticipated java based netpc's. Corporate America is
very exited about this. Why? because of plain and simple economics. It takes
$8000-$14000 a year to maintain a PC. It will take one tenth of that to
maintain a java based netpc.

Intel and Microsoft to support the netpc. Sun's CEO calls Intel/Microsoft's
netpc a 'fat PC in a corset, with a bright red face'

I dont' know if Bill Gates is the anti-christ or not but I'm pretty shure he's
very worried about the latest events. Just imagine a java application
developed in UNIX being able to run under Win95 or Merlin or NT.


Robert Dohrenburg


timo...@cyberramp.net

unread,
Oct 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/31/96
to

je...@nando.net (Jeffrey S. Schwartz) wrote:

>You are going to die anyway.

>In message <556dtc$j...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> - scb...@ix.netcom.com


>(Stephen C. Benes)Wed, 30 Oct 1996 03:17:12 GMT writes:
>:>
>:>>>>Why prolong the agony?
>:>>>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.
>:>
>:>I prefer not to be a lemming.
>:>
>:>
>:> Stephen
>:> [Team OS/2]
>:> Stephen C. Benes
>:> [Team OS/2]

No, let him live. SOMEBODY has to buy that CRAP turned out by
MicroSUCKS, just as long as it AIN'T me.


Chris Anderson

unread,
Oct 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/31/96
to

Robert Dohrenburg wrote:
>
> In message <55724f$4...@news.hic.net> - roo...@hic.net (Thibor FireCry)Wed, 30
> Oct 1996 10:00:56 GMT writes:
> :>
> :>scb...@ix.netcom.com (Stephen C. Benes) wrote:
> :>
> :>>>>>Why prolong the agony?
> :>>>>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.
> :>
> :>>I prefer not to be a lemming.
> :>
> :>
> :>> Stephen
> :>> [Team OS/2]
> :>> Stephen C. Benes
> :>> [Team OS/2]
> :>Ouch.. Team OS/2? You want the 30 copies I have in my store? 50%
> :>off. heh heh...
> :>
> :>Lemming or no, you WILL bow to MS... you WILL submit. Gates IS the
> :>anti-christ and he shall have ALL of our souls!!!!! muhahahaHAHAHA!!!
> :>
> :>
> :>[sorry, it is late]
> :>
> :>FireCry
> :>
>
> Do you really think so? With this week's announcements I'm begining to doubt
> it. I used to think that way but now I'm not sure.
>
> Let's recapitulate last and this week events:
>
> Sun introduced the not so anticipated java based netpc's. Corporate America is
> very exited about this. Why? because of plain and simple economics. It takes
> $8000-$14000 a year to maintain a PC. It will take one tenth of that to
> maintain a java based netpc.
>
> Intel and Microsoft to support the netpc. Sun's CEO calls Intel/Microsoft's
> netpc a 'fat PC in a corset, with a bright red face'
>
> I dont' know if Bill Gates is the anti-christ or not but I'm pretty shure he's
> very worried about the latest events. Just imagine a java application
> developed in UNIX being able to run under Win95 or Merlin or NT.
>
> Robert Dohrenburg

I'm not sure what you are saying, but I would like to know where you got
your $8K -> $14K figure to anually maintain a PC. I build and sell
them. And I will be MORE that glad to sell you one for $8K. Especially
when the Pentium Pro 200 is under $3000. Way under ($2300 if I am
correct) for a complete system. With a profit margin like that I would
only have to sell 4 or 5 a month.


Where can I sell them at that price? I *WANT* a piece of that pie.
--

The views expressed herein are not necessarily that of IBMs
but are of my own.


''~``
(\o-o/)
+------------------------.oooO--(_)--Oooo.---------------------------+
| |
| Chris Anderson AIX Product Test |
| internet : c...@austin.ibm.com IST Test Lab |
| VM : CDA at AUSVM6 RISC System/6000 Division |
| 512-828-0227 / T/L 678-0227 Austin, Texas |
| |
| .ooO |
| ( ) Oooo. |
+---------------------------\ (----( )-----------------------------+
\_) ) /
(_/

Kevin P. Neal

unread,
Oct 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/31/96
to

Chris Anderson <c...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:

>Robert Dohrenburg wrote:
>> Sun introduced the not so anticipated java based netpc's. Corporate America is
>> very exited about this. Why? because of plain and simple economics. It takes
>> $8000-$14000 a year to maintain a PC. It will take one tenth of that to
>> maintain a java based netpc.
>>
>> Intel and Microsoft to support the netpc. Sun's CEO calls Intel/Microsoft's
>> netpc a 'fat PC in a corset, with a bright red face'
>>
>> I dont' know if Bill Gates is the anti-christ or not but I'm pretty shure he's
>> very worried about the latest events. Just imagine a java application
>> developed in UNIX being able to run under Win95 or Merlin or NT.
>>
>> Robert Dohrenburg

>I'm not sure what you are saying, but I would like to know where you got
>your $8K -> $14K figure to anually maintain a PC. I build and sell
>them. And I will be MORE that glad to sell you one for $8K. Especially
>when the Pentium Pro 200 is under $3000. Way under ($2300 if I am
>correct) for a complete system. With a profit margin like that I would
>only have to sell 4 or 5 a month.


>Where can I sell them at that price? I *WANT* a piece of that pie.

He said "maintain", not "purchase".

He's figuring in the costs of support for the machine and it's user.

It's considerably cheaper if the user boxes are just carbon copies of
each other, and they can't be tampered with easily to cause the user
grief(on the client end).


--
XCOMM Kevin P. Neal, Sophomore, Comp. Sci. \ kpn...@pobox.com
XCOMM "Corrected!" -- Old Amiga tips file \ kpn...@eos.ncsu.edu
XCOMM Visit the House of Retrocomputing: / Perm. Email:
XCOMM http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/ / kevi...@bix.com


Gregory Junker

unread,
Oct 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/31/96
to Stephen C. Benes

Stephen C. Benes wrote:
>
> >>>Why prolong the agony?
> >>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.
>
> I prefer not to be a lemming.
>
> Stephen
> [Team OS/2]
> Stephen C. Benes
> [Team OS/2]

Jesus, is this thread still going on?
--
Gregory Junker - Systems Development
Federated Department Stores

ev515o

unread,
Oct 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/31/96
to

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed et. al. wrote:
>
> Get a life!
>
> !!! SUN RULES !!!
>
> - ism...@gcsnet.comYou're right they do! If I had the $30,000 they cost I'd buy one!Ismaeel
Abdur-Rasheed et. al. wrote:
>
> Get a life!
>
> !!! SUN RULES !!!
>
> - ism...@gcsnet.comIsmaeel Abdur-Rasheed et. al. wrote:
>
> Get a life!
>
> !!! SUN RULES !!!
>
> - ism...@gcsnet.comYou're right, they do. If I had the $30,000 they cost, I'd buy one!
--
"Great men are they who see that spiritual is stronger
than any material force, that thoughts rule the world."

Ralph Waldo Emmerson, "Progress And Culture" 1876

Randy Marcy

unread,
Oct 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/31/96
to

In article <3278AB...@austin.ibm.com>, Chris Anderson
<c...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure what you are saying, but I would like to know where you got
> your $8K -> $14K figure to anually maintain a PC. I build and sell
> them. And I will be MORE that glad to sell you one for $8K. Especially
> when the Pentium Pro 200 is under $3000. Way under ($2300 if I am
> correct) for a complete system. With a profit margin like that I would
> only have to sell 4 or 5 a month.
>
>
> Where can I sell them at that price? I *WANT* a piece of that pie.

> --
>

This came from Intel themselves who said it costs them $8000 per PC per year
to maintain. They assumed that other companies had simular costs.

John Covington

unread,
Oct 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/31/96
to

Kevin P. Neal wrote:
>
> He said "maintain", not "purchase".
>
> He's figuring in the costs of support for the machine and it's user.

If corporate America is really spending these ridiculous sums to
maintain its computers, that makes them just about the biggest bunch of
suckers to walk the earth, IMHO...:) We may have found the secret behind
economic inflation, after all.

No wonder people are talking "NCs" up! If I'd been getting robbed like
that I'd be interested in them, too!...:)

I hereby offer my services to any fortune 500 companies who want to
learn how to lower your PC costs to at least $800-$1400 a year, or
one-tenth of the amount previously stated!

Mark Lehrer

unread,
Oct 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/31/96
to

Chris Anderson <c...@austin.ibm.com> writes:

> I'm not sure what you are saying, but I would like to know where you got
> your $8K -> $14K figure to anually maintain a PC. I build and sell
> them. And I will be MORE that glad to sell you one for $8K. Especially
> when the Pentium Pro 200 is under $3000. Way under ($2300 if I am
> correct) for a complete system. With a profit margin like that I would
> only have to sell 4 or 5 a month.
>
>
> Where can I sell them at that price? I *WANT* a piece of that pie.

this is a very common figure - it is not the purchase price but the time
factor involved in keeping the things running... Windows in particular is
very difficult because there are so many things that can happen to screw
things up; and windows is designed to be a stand-alone system.

John E. Kuslich

unread,
Oct 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/31/96
to

Stephen C. Benes wrote:
>
> >>>Why prolong the agony?
> >>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.
>
> I prefer not to be a lemming.
>
> Stephen
> [Team OS/2]
> Stephen C. Benes
> [Team OS/2]

It is a sad fact that Microsoft competently squashes its competition
time after time. They are about to do it again on the Net with their
Active-X technology.

Remember, you heard it here first...

JK


--
John E. Kuslich WPcrak for Wordperfect
jo...@crak.com WDcrak for MS Word
Password Recovery EXcrak for MS Excel
602 863 9274 voice QPcrak for Quattro Pro
602 548 1993 fax LOcrak for Lotus 123
Password Removal QWcrak for Quicken
Our WEB Site http://www.crak.com/

Jeffrey S. Schwartz

unread,
Oct 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/31/96
to

You are going to die anyway.

In message <556dtc$j...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> - scb...@ix.netcom.com
(Stephen C. Benes)Wed, 30 Oct 1996 03:17:12 GMT writes:
:>

:>>>>Why prolong the agony?


:>>>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.
:>
:>I prefer not to be a lemming.
:>
:>
:> Stephen
:> [Team OS/2]
:> Stephen C. Benes
:> [Team OS/2]

je...@nando.net

I'm not paranoid, I know they are following me.
I'not schizo, and nether am I.

John Covington

unread,
Oct 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/31/96
to

Robert Dohrenburg wrote:

>
> Sun introduced the not so anticipated java based netpc's. Corporate America is
> very exited about this. Why? because of plain and simple economics. It takes
> $8000-$14000 a year to maintain a PC. It will take one tenth of that to
> maintain a java based netpc.

Where on earth did you get these ridiculous figures...:)?? I get it.
You're an NC/Java salesman, right?...:)

Perry S. Anderson

unread,
Oct 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/31/96
to

Thibor FireCry wrote:
>
> scb...@ix.netcom.com (Stephen C. Benes) wrote:
>
> >>>>Why prolong the agony?
> >>>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.
>
> >I prefer not to be a lemming.
>
> > Stephen
> > [Team OS/2]
> > Stephen C. Benes
> > [Team OS/2]
> Ouch.. Team OS/2? You want the 30 copies I have in my store? 50%
> off. heh heh...
>
> Lemming or no, you WILL bow to MS... you WILL submit. Gates IS the
> anti-christ and he shall have ALL of our souls!!!!! muhahahaHAHAHA!!!
>
> [sorry, it is late]
>
> FireCry

Nah, it's not over til the fat lady sings.

(Or in this case has a kidney)

Perry

kenai

unread,
Oct 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/31/96
to
>>>>Why prolong the agony?
>>>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.
>
>I prefer not to be a lemming.
>
>
> Stephen
> [Team OS/2]
> Stephen C. Benes
> [Team OS/2]

John Covington

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

Robert Dohrenburg wrote:

>
> But just think for a moment, If I have an employee which I pay $40,000 a year
> to keep my network up and running and I have 10 workstations including the
> server, then I'll be spending $4000 a year per computer for maintenance, OK?
> That's only for maintenance, software/hardware upgrades, well that's another
> story.

First, I might pay the guy 40K to maintain 40-60 workstations, OK. But
10? No way...:) I'd do it myself, instead, for just a measley 10
machines.

Software upgrades? Not really an issue. If the machines are configured
to do a specific series of tasks (which one would assume) there isn't a
lot of rationale to change *anything*, is there, if the job is getting
done in a desirable fashion?

>
> Same here, it's like trying to con a con-artist <g> but that's not the point
> the point is *MAINTENANCE* When I sell a computer I also sell *SERVICE* When
> some of my clients get divine inspiration and start fooling around with the
> operating system who are they going to call? Packard-Bell? NO! IBM? NO!
> BestBuy? NO WAY JOSE!


Being in this business myself, what are those customers going to *pay*
you for answering those questions?
If you're getting *$8,000* a year per customer for support per machine,
TELL ME WHERE YOU LIVE 'cause I'm moving out there next week to set up
shop!

Keith Wood

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

In article <327955...@crak.com>, "John E. Kuslich" <jo...@crak.com> wrote:

[It is a sad fact that Microsoft competently squashes its competition
[time after time.

It would be more accurate to say that they INcompetently smash the
competition. if you can't beat 'em, BUY 'em!


Chris A. Triebel

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

I have a choice untl MS owns the net, my PC, and my life. So I will not
go easily through the cursed Gates!

arkane

Jack Miller

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

In article <3279F7...@ix.netcom.com>, co...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Robert Dohrenburg wrote:
>
> Being in this business myself, what are those customers going to *pay*
> you for answering those questions?
> If you're getting *$8,000* a year per customer for support per machine,
> TELL ME WHERE YOU LIVE 'cause I'm moving out there next week to set up
> shop!

Sigh... All this comes from the following quote:

"Intel spends an average of $8,000 a year per for each PC to keep its
internal PC network running, and that figure is probably close to what
other corporations spend, Intel spokesman Tom Waldrop said."

Perhaps Tom Waldrop is wrong. From personal experience, though, I can say
that sysadmin efforts at our company easily lean 80% to the 50% PCs and 20%
to the 50% Macs. I would have to guess that anyone who claims that PCs are
as simple to keep running as Macs simply has not been paying attention.

In response to the claims that Apple has announced a new OS to run on Intel
chips by 1998, that too is misleading but based on true info. Gilbert
Amelio of Apple talked to shareholders in a general way about the future of
operating systems and suddenly CNN is reporting that Apple is ditching the
Mac. Sheesh.

Apple posted a clarification at
http://product.info.apple.com/pr/press.releases/1997/q1/961031.pr.rel.macos.
html if you want to see their official word on the subject. What's REALLY
going on is, Apple's taking the NuKernel microkernel from their MacOS 8
development and merging it with features from the BeOS. No, this info is
not from Apple, but it has been heavily hinted at for months and the
current info can be found at
http://www.macweek.com/top_stories/news_beos.html. As always, take MacWeek
stories with a grain of salt.

The new OS is going to be hardware independent (unlike the current MacOS,
some of which sits in hardware) and therefore could be ported to run an
many architectures, including Intel chips, but Apple formally stated
yesterday that they are currently only looking at PowerPC chips for their
own machines.

Randy Marcy

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

Don Whybrow

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to why...@wrkhpx6.wrk.dupont.com

Jack Miller wrote:
> [snip]

>
> Perhaps Tom Waldrop is wrong. From personal experience, though, I can say
> that sysadmin efforts at our company easily lean 80% to the 50% PCs and 20%
> to the 50% Macs. I would have to guess that anyone who claims that PCs are
> as simple to keep running as Macs simply has not been paying attention.
> [snip]

Oh goody, another Mac vs PC war :-)

--
Don Whybrow,
When mailing a reply, remove asterisks from address.
Any opinions expressed are all my own work unless otherwise stated.

Tim ODonnell

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

Now here's a scary thought. There is nothing to keep Microsoft from
putting togethter its own LINUX distribution and marketing it like any
other Linux distributor.

The MS lovers would probably jump on it and Microsoft would announce the
operating system of operating systems. They would probably sell it for
150.00 or so. Sheesh! that is scary. Everybody would be using linux
(good) and paying tribute to the Almighty Micro$oft (puke).


--
Tim O'Donnell
t...@invader.tamu.edu

Rafael R. Ruiz

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

> > Sun introduced the not so anticipated java based netpc's. Corporate America is
> > very exited about this. Why? because of plain and simple economics. It takes
> > $8000-$14000 a year to maintain a PC. It will take one tenth of that to
> > maintain a java based netpc.
> > Robert Dohrenburg

>
> I'm not sure what you are saying, but I would like to know where you got
> your $8K -> $14K figure to anually maintain a PC. I build and sell
> them. And I will be MORE that glad to sell you one for $8K. Especially
> when the Pentium Pro 200 is under $3000. Way under ($2300 if I am
> correct) for a complete system. With a profit margin like that I would
> only have to sell 4 or 5 a month.
>
> Where can I sell them at that price? I *WANT* a piece of that pie.

He said "maintain". This includes installing new software, tracking
down
problems with drivers or peripherals, etc. The figures quoted here have
been reported in several studies.

Ralph

Mark

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

Stephen C. Benes wrote:
>
> >>>Why prolong the agony?
> >>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.
>
> I prefer not to be a lemming.
>
> Stephen
> [Team OS/2]
> Stephen C. Benes
> [Team OS/2]

I haven't seen worse then Win95 interface. I'm pretty happy with my Win
NT 3.51 and won't trade it for Win NT 4.0 not mention Win95.
Win 3.0 have been used widely all over the world for a years and now all
over sudden Win95 is the best OS or widely used. BULL****!!
You may not agree with me. It's just my opinion.
Mark.

David

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

In article <55b9gn$6...@guitar.sound.net>, dang...@sound.net says...

> ke...@chrysalis.org (kenai) wrote:
>
> >In article <556dtc$j...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, scb...@ix.netcom.com
> >says...
> >>
> >>>>>Why prolong the agony?
> >>>>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.
> >>
> >>I prefer not to be a lemming.
> >>
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >> [Team OS/2]
> >> Stephen C. Benes
> >> [Team OS/2]
> >i think the hype over win95 is just that, hype. it is NOT any easier
> >than win3.1, just fatter. i have tried both and i have returned to
> >win3.1. i have better stability and can troubleshoot config conflicts a
> >lot faster than i could with win95. if you really want a better product
> >go to winNT. if you have the money that is.....
>
> >besides, i dont like 'automatic' anything, i like to be able to choose
> >how a program or periph is going to work on MY system.
>
> >K
>
> I don't think it is total hype. I built a new system this summer and
> was amazed that I could install a modem, mouse, sound card, printer,
> scanner, joystick and video card without needing the manuals or
> setting a single switch, IRQ or DMA. Much easier than putting
> together a 3.1 system. I also like win 95 applications and games,
> they seem to install and work with fewer problems. The 3d support is
> fun too, if it weren't for it I would consider using 3.1 on the new
> system.
>
> The problem is it boots so slow. I use it on my pentium 166 but it
> boots much slower than my 486 with win 3.1. I updated my video
> driver and direct x 2.0 and I had the familiar problem of the driver
> getting overwritten, it seemed like I spent half the night just
> watching the stupid machine reboot. I wish I had seen the posts
> describing what was going on the process only takes about 3 minutes if
> you know to tell the direct x not to touch the video driver. I'm
> digressing, overall I'm happy with win 95 but I still have the second
> machine running 3.1 and that one will not be upgraded.
>
>
I agree with you.
Just the beginning of this year I was using a Mac. I have had years of
experience with running a dos system but no Windows until 95. I am quite
happy with many aspects of 95 also though there are some instability
issues. Normally all my crashes are easily just closed and most are
because I'm using slightly buggy programs like Netscape and my
newsreader, Gravity. However, multitasking with dos comm programs, dos
games, Win 3.1 prog and Win95 programs is almost never a problem. I have
plugged so much stuff in this pc and it all worked fine except for a need
to manually reconfigure a modem with jumpers so that Win95 knew what to
do. The key thing on the hardware side for people to know is you will do
best with PNP if you have everything modern and made for Win95--bios
should be PNP as well. My system is contains the following:
Supermicro P55CMS board with latest AMI bios
WD hard drive
SB 16 with Roland daughterboard
Two NEC 4x4 changer CD-ROM drives, one playing four music cd's randomly
even while other plays a dos CD game within Win95
Two modems--on two phone lines of course, one internal w/speakerphone,
other external
Tapestor 800 backup drive
Hauppauge Wincast DBX tv card
Soundblaster 16 with Roland SCD-15 daughterboard
I can run my tv with audio cd playing and MIDI sound file with Media
Player and some win95 progs. and dos game like Quake under win 95 without
a crash and all sounds just add on top of each other with no degradation
of any of them and meanwhile I can be downloading something from the
internet with Netscape. If I drop the dos game from the equation, I can
do all the above and access my brokerage for quotes with their dos comm
program at the same time. Whether I can play a dos game or use some
other dos prog. while a less picky dos comm program is working I haven't
tried yet--maybe someone can answer that.
How many other computers and os's will allow what I'm doing? I must
admit that I don't have enough knowledge to answer this question
perfectly, but I'm VERY impressed with win95 though I know that better
management at Apple would have us past win95's capabilities by now.
My win3.1 Quicklink Message Center will not respond right after all
this and there's an occasional problem, but that's about it.
I don't have the problem of reboot that you have for the most part.
That is because I don't turn off my computer and have no need to reboot.
The only time my computer reboots is when it automatically uses a
shortcut to dos to run a game, then leaves the game and automatically
launches win95. Nobody needs to make a choice whether to boot into dos
or win95 at bootup if they know how to use this feature, by the way.

Regards --David

Robert McDermid

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

In message <559cq4$a...@castle.nando.net> - je...@nando.net (Jeffrey S.

Schwartz)31 Oct 1996 05:17:56 GMT writes:
>
>You are going to die anyway.
>

If this thread goes on much longer, I'm going to kill _somebody_.

-- Rob


==============================================================
Rob McDermid Hummingbird Communications Ltd.
mcde...@hcl.com All opinions expressed are my own.
==============================================================


Thunderbolt

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

<Deleted>

HEllo?!?!?1 This dosen't belong in half of these newsgroups!!!!

Who gives a rats ass about why you MUST use Win95 cause gates is god?

I DON'T!!! Learn to trim your headers to at the VERY LEAST computer OS
groups...

And for any group that I posted to not involved in this mindless BS, I'm
sorry for wasting bandwidth, You never know where this crap comes from.

Matt Beazer

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

Chris Anderson <c...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:

>I'm not sure what you are saying, but I would like to know where you got
>your $8K -> $14K figure to anually maintain a PC. I build and sell
>them. And I will be MORE that glad to sell you one for $8K. Especially
>when the Pentium Pro 200 is under $3000. Way under ($2300 if I am
>correct) for a complete system. With a profit margin like that I would
>only have to sell 4 or 5 a month.

I think he's talking about the cost of maintaining and supporting a PC
over the life of the PC, which at least in business, ends up being
MORE than the price of the PC. Maybe not every year, but every 2-3
years, in the average life cycle of a PC.
I'm not sure about the costs on home-use PCs, although I know I just
spent $700 upgrading in early September. <sigh>
"When I was little, I was afraid of thunder storms. But I've grown up some since then, and seen,
experienced; things I would rather forget, but can't. I'm not afriad of thunder storms anymore."
-Amanda Baker
Matt Beazer -- Team OS/2 -- tese...@hotmail.com


Matt Beazer

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

rdo...@ibm.net (Robert Dohrenburg) wrote:

>Let's recapitulate last and this week events:

>Sun introduced the not so anticipated java based netpc's. Corporate America is


>very exited about this. Why? because of plain and simple economics. It takes
>$8000-$14000 a year to maintain a PC. It will take one tenth of that to
>maintain a java based netpc.

>Intel and Microsoft to support the netpc. Sun's CEO calls Intel/Microsoft's


>netpc a 'fat PC in a corset, with a bright red face'

>I dont' know if Bill Gates is the anti-christ or not but I'm pretty shure he's
>very worried about the latest events. Just imagine a java application
>developed in UNIX being able to run under Win95 or Merlin or NT.

Yeah, I'm sure he's worrying. ActiveX isn't taking off as much as he
hoped (it's a bloated, outdated pig anyway) and NT, well, what can I
say. 4.0 isn't nearly as stable at 3.5 or 3.51 was. I wasn't using
NT when 3.0 comes out, so I don't know if this is another case of
'Don't buy a X.0 product from Microsoft". I can't keep two P6-200 NT
Server machines running for more than two months without a major crash
requireing a re-install. (It happened once while trying to start a
3rd party FTP Service. Yeah, that's stability.) But M$ has convinced
everyone that NT is going to take over the world. Their marketing
never stops to amaze me. With Gates yacking about NT being a *NIX
competitor, sheesh. *NIX competitor it's not. I've almost talked my
jaws loose, trying to get my "boss" (I volunteer my services at one of
the local vocational schools) to forget running a web server on NT,
and go to a Unix (Probably Linux) based, or even OS/2 based web
server. But a M$ rep got to him. <sigh> Made me look bad, when NT
crashed (AGAIN), so I finally told him he could get the M$ rep he's
always yacking about to do it. So far, with me looking on in
amusement, he's managed to screw up the entire ethernet side of the
network (8 P5-120 machines running 95) and thankfully, hasn't messed
with the token ring based Novell 3.11 network. Before the 95 machines
would at least LOG IN to the NT server (one P6-200 is the domain
controller/file/print server, the other is supposed to become a web
server) but no NONE of them log in. The M$ rep/consultant spent 3
days fiddling with the NT server machines, and only managed to
re-install NT Server on both machines, and get everything to stop
working. They couldn't figure it out. But I wouldn't touch them
(hey, I'm not taking the rap for what the M$ rep does) so they decided
to put NT Workstation on all the P5-120 machines, which to say the
least, is painful since the machines only have 16 megs of RAM. Still
doesn't work, and one of the machines locks up when it hits the login
screen. The finniest part is that the same machine's keyboard, when
it locks up, starts blinking. Blink, blink, blink goes the caps,
scroll, and num lock keys. It's become a standard joke among the
students.
Student: "Damnit, it locked up again, and I haven't saved my work!"
Other Student: "Blink Blink blink!"
They find it funny. It gets irritating after a while.
So the rep hasn't come in in three days, and we have 8 P5-120 machines
and 20 students who are stuck with using the old 486Dx/33 machines.
At the moment I'm just waiting for my "boss" to break and let me fix
'em. ;-)
So, I'd have to say I'd rather use OS/2 4.0 than Windows NT any day.
I installed OS/2 4.0 once on my home machine, thank you very much.
Now if I could just figure out why whenever I run chkdsk on my C:
drive (540 meg HPFS partition) is says that it corrected a minor file
system error. <sigh> I really wish they has spend more time fixing
the input queue and maybe put in 32 bit file system drivers. I'm
getting really tired of explaining to people about the 16 bit code
when talking about OS/2 on a P6.

Knut Reuther

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

hi,

ich habe da 2 probleme:

1.) wie lösche ich wieder "energie" wenn ich es installiert habe aber
nicht mher in meinem Setup-Fenster haben möchte. Früher gab es den trick
es auf eine Diskette zu verschieben und dann diese zu formatieren, aber
unter Warp 4 ist das nicht möglich.

2.) wie bringe ich OS/2 Warp 4 auf einem rechner mit ´ner ARI Mach 64
(PCI) Karte zum laufen? Wenn ich den aktuellen (V2.2) OS/2 Treiber nehme,
bleibt der Rechner beim Boote einfach stehen...

Help!

Leonardo Serni

unread,
Nov 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/1/96
to

rma...@netdirect.net (Randy Marcy) wrote:

>In article <3278AB...@austin.ibm.com>, Chris Anderson
><c...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:

>> I'm not sure what you are saying, but I would like to know where you got
>> your $8K -> $14K figure to anually maintain a PC. I build and sell
>> them. And I will be MORE that glad to sell you one for $8K. Especially
>> when the Pentium Pro 200 is under $3000. Way under ($2300 if I am
>> correct) for a complete system. With a profit margin like that I would
>> only have to sell 4 or 5 a month.
>>

>> Where can I sell them at that price? I *WANT* a piece of that pie.

>This came from Intel themselves who said it costs them $8000 per PC per year
>to maintain.

No, that's the cost they computed. With a Pentium.

Leonardo "how many others came to the same conclusion?"


".signature": bad command or file name


Edmund Good

unread,
Nov 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/2/96
to

In message <3278AB...@austin.ibm.com> - Chris Anderson
<c...@austin.ibm.com>Thu, 31 Oct 1996 07:37:57 -0600 writes:
:>
:>Robert Dohrenburg wrote:
:>>
:>> In message <55724f$4...@news.hic.net> - roo...@hic.net (Thibor FireCry)Wed, 30
:>> Oct 1996 10:00:56 GMT writes:
:>> :>
:>> :>scb...@ix.netcom.com (Stephen C. Benes) wrote:
:>> :>
:>> :>>>>>Why prolong the agony?

:>> :>>>>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.
:>> :>
:>> :>>I prefer not to be a lemming.
:>> :>
:>> :>
:>> :>> Stephen
:>> :>> [Team OS/2]
:>> :>> Stephen C. Benes
:>> :>> [Team OS/2]
:>> :>Ouch.. Team OS/2? You want the 30 copies I have in my store? 50%

:>> :>off. heh heh...
:>> :>
:>> :>Lemming or no, you WILL bow to MS... you WILL submit. Gates IS the
:>> :>anti-christ and he shall have ALL of our souls!!!!! muhahahaHAHAHA!!!
:>> :>
:>> :>
:>> :>[sorry, it is late]
:>> :>
:>> :>FireCry
:>> :>
:>>
:>> Do you really think so? With this week's announcements I'm begining to doubt
:>> it. I used to think that way but now I'm not sure.
:>>
:>> Let's recapitulate last and this week events:

:>>
:>> Sun introduced the not so anticipated java based netpc's. Corporate America is
:>> very exited about this. Why? because of plain and simple economics. It takes
:>> $8000-$14000 a year to maintain a PC. It will take one tenth of that to
:>> maintain a java based netpc.
:>>
:>> Intel and Microsoft to support the netpc. Sun's CEO calls Intel/Microsoft's
:>> netpc a 'fat PC in a corset, with a bright red face'
:>>
:>> I dont' know if Bill Gates is the anti-christ or not but I'm pretty shure he's
:>> very worried about the latest events. Just imagine a java application
:>> developed in UNIX being able to run under Win95 or Merlin or NT.
:>>
:>> Robert Dohrenburg
:>
:>I'm not sure what you are saying, but I would like to know where you got

:>your $8K -> $14K figure to anually maintain a PC. I build and sell
:>them. And I will be MORE that glad to sell you one for $8K. Especially
:>when the Pentium Pro 200 is under $3000. Way under ($2300 if I am
:>correct) for a complete system. With a profit margin like that I would
:>only have to sell 4 or 5 a month.
:>
:>
:>Where can I sell them at that price? I *WANT* a piece of that pie.
:>--
:>
:>
:>
:> The views expressed herein are not necessarily that of IBMs
:> but are of my own.
:>
:>
:> ''~``
:> (\o-o/)
:> +------------------------.oooO--(_)--Oooo.---------------------------+
:> | |
:> | Chris Anderson AIX Product Test |
:> | internet : c...@austin.ibm.com IST Test Lab |
:> | VM : CDA at AUSVM6 RISC System/6000 Division |
:> | 512-828-0227 / T/L 678-0227 Austin, Texas |
:> | |
:> | .ooO |
:> | ( ) Oooo. |
:> +---------------------------\ (----( )-----------------------------+
:> \_) ) /
:> (_/

He's talking about the "corporate cost of ownership". There appears to be
great deal of debate about the "cost" of corporate ownership of a computer.
Gartner Group has done a study(ies) examining the cost of a corporate owning a
PC for five years. The purchase price of the PC is only 15-20% of the total
cost, which includes many factors not considered by PC owners as being
relevant (ie not assigned as a PC operating cost), admin, support etc. For
corporates this is a very inmportant issue (can save big bucks here!!!).

Edmund Good,
Christchurch,
New Zealand.
ejr...@ibm.net


Edmund Good

unread,
Nov 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/2/96
to

In message <w7aft2u...@mud.imperium.net> - Mark Lehrer
<ed...@mud.imperium.net>31 Oct 1996 15:49:46 -0500 writes:
:>

:>Chris Anderson <c...@austin.ibm.com> writes:
:>
:>> I'm not sure what you are saying, but I would like to know where you got
:>> your $8K -> $14K figure to anually maintain a PC. I build and sell
:>> them. And I will be MORE that glad to sell you one for $8K. Especially
:>> when the Pentium Pro 200 is under $3000. Way under ($2300 if I am
:>> correct) for a complete system. With a profit margin like that I would
:>> only have to sell 4 or 5 a month.
:>>
:>>
:>> Where can I sell them at that price? I *WANT* a piece of that pie.
:>
:>this is a very common figure - it is not the purchase price but the time

:>factor involved in keeping the things running... Windows in particular is
:>very difficult because there are so many things that can happen to screw
:>things up; and windows is designed to be a stand-alone system.

I think PC's full stop were designed to be stand alone. PC's appear to have
had "bits" bolted on here and there (such as network cards, sound cards etc)
that perhaps were never considered when the PC was first developed. This I
think is one cause of a large number of PC problems, lack of a long term
design plan for the PC.

Andrew Lundgren

unread,
Nov 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/2/96
to

In message <32792F...@ix.netcom.com> - John Covington


I bet they would take you up on it. So what you are saying is that you
ALONE will support around 500 machines. (Giving you only $40,000/year)
Meaning you don't get benifits and you pay your own Social Security as
a self employed person. How long is it going to take you to roll out
Win95 on all 500 of those machines that range from old 386s with 20meg of
ram to Pentiums with 64meg. A few people are going to want to have their
custom sound cards configured, they bought them real cheap from a company
that said they are Sound Blaster compatables... (The 8 bit version that
is...) The name brand is unknown and the manuals to configure them are
long since lost....

You may not have any idea what a nightmare it is to maintain 300+ PCs that
are configured differently by any old shmoe computer shop. Further if you are
using a OS that doesn't have security to protect it from the users built in it
justs gets worse!

It is not all just hardware... "My Word won't do this...." "Can you help
me install this program?"

PCs are a nightmare to maintain. I have done it for around 300 with help.
It is not as easy as it seems. And it does cost more then $800/year.

The NCs are a great idea. Just let it run the apps from the central server
or suck them down as needed. Nothing in the system for the bonehead user
to break...

Andrew Lundgren
lund...@henge.com
http://www.henge.com/~lundgren


Colin L. Hildinger

unread,
Nov 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/2/96
to

In message <32792F...@ix.netcom.com> - John Covington
<co...@ix.netcom.com>Thu, 31 Oct 1996 18:02:07 -0500 writes:
:>
:>Kevin P. Neal wrote:
:>>
:>> He said "maintain", not "purchase".
:>>
:>> He's figuring in the costs of support for the machine and it's user.
:>
:>If corporate America is really spending these ridiculous sums to
:>maintain its computers, that makes them just about the biggest bunch of
:>suckers to walk the earth, IMHO...:) We may have found the secret behind
:>economic inflation, after all.
:>
:>No wonder people are talking "NCs" up! If I'd been getting robbed like
:>that I'd be interested in them, too!...:)
:>
:>I hereby offer my services to any fortune 500 companies who want to
:>learn how to lower your PC costs to at least $800-$1400 a year, or
:>one-tenth of the amount previously stated!

So how much are they gonna pay you to do that??? ;-)

Colin L. Hildinger

The "New" Ultimate OS/2 Gaming Page
http://www.ionet.net/~colin/games.html

The Official Unofficial AWE32 and OS/2 Warp Page
http://www.ionet.net/~colin/awe32.html


Colin Dooley

unread,
Nov 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/2/96
to

Colin L. Hildinger wrote:
>
> In message <32792F...@ix.netcom.com> - John Covington
> <co...@ix.netcom.com>Thu, 31 Oct 1996 18:02:07 -0500 writes:
> :>
> :>Kevin P. Neal wrote:
> :>>
> :>> He said "maintain", not "purchase".
> :>>
> :>> He's figuring in the costs of support for the machine and it's user.
> :>

That's right, and a large part of this cost is due to the time wasted by
the
users installing screensavers/extra fonts/cover disk games/other free
garbage,
trying to find extra space on the hard disk, and tweaking their systems
to
get them "just right".

...all of which are tasks which Windows 95 excels at...


Now, give these same people a network computer, and all of these "tasks"
just disappear, and leave them to get on with some useful work.

Gazzoli M Paul

unread,
Nov 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/2/96
to

In <55ake4$s...@camel2.mindspring.com> kpn...@pobox.com (Kevin P. Neal)
writes:
>
>Chris Anderson <c...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:

>
>>Robert Dohrenburg wrote:
>>> Sun introduced the not so anticipated java based netpc's. Corporate
America is
>>> very exited about this. Why? because of plain and simple economics.
It takes
>>> $8000-$14000 a year to maintain a PC. It will take one tenth of
that to
>>> maintain a java based netpc.
>>>
>>> Intel and Microsoft to support the netpc. Sun's CEO calls
Intel/Microsoft's
>>> netpc a 'fat PC in a corset, with a bright red face'
>>>
>>> I dont' know if Bill Gates is the anti-christ or not but I'm pretty
shure he's
>>> very worried about the latest events. Just imagine a java
application
>>> developed in UNIX being able to run under Win95 or Merlin or NT.
>>>
>>> Robert Dohrenburg
>
>>I'm not sure what you are saying, but I would like to know where you
got
>>your $8K -> $14K figure to anually maintain a PC. I build and sell
>>them. And I will be MORE that glad to sell you one for $8K.
Especially
>>when the Pentium Pro 200 is under $3000. Way under ($2300 if I am
>>correct) for a complete system. With a profit margin like that I
would
>>only have to sell 4 or 5 a month.
>
>
>>Where can I sell them at that price? I *WANT* a piece of that pie.
>
>He said "maintain", not "purchase".
>
>He's figuring in the costs of support for the machine and it's user.
>
>It's considerably cheaper if the user boxes are just carbon copies of
>each other, and they can't be tampered with easily to cause the user
>grief(on the client end).
>
>
>--
>XCOMM Kevin P. Neal, Sophomore, Comp. Sci. \ kpn...@pobox.com
>XCOMM "Corrected!" -- Old Amiga tips file \ kpn...@eos.ncsu.edu
>XCOMM Visit the House of Retrocomputing: / Perm. Email:
>XCOMM http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/ / kevi...@bix.com
>
Groooooaaaaannnnnnnn............it's back....the thread that won't
die...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Tenie Remmel

unread,
Nov 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/3/96
to

"Rafael R. Ruiz" <r...@taligent.com> wrote:
>> > Sun introduced the not so anticipated java based netpc's. Corporate America is
>> > very exited about this. Why? because of plain and simple economics. It takes
>> > $8000-$14000 a year to maintain a PC. It will take one tenth of that to
>> > maintain a java based netpc.
>> > Robert Dohrenburg
>>
>> I'm not sure what you are saying, but I would like to know where you got
>> your $8K -> $14K figure to anually maintain a PC. I build and sell
>> them. And I will be MORE that glad to sell you one for $8K. Especially
>> when the Pentium Pro 200 is under $3000. Way under ($2300 if I am
>> correct) for a complete system. With a profit margin like that I would
>> only have to sell 4 or 5 a month.
>>
>> Where can I sell them at that price? I *WANT* a piece of that pie.
>
>He said "maintain". This includes installing new software, tracking down
>problems with drivers or peripherals, etc. The figures quoted here have
>been reported in several studies.

Yikes. I have 11 PC's and spend about $2000 a year maintaining them.
Not that I keep them up to date, six of them are obsolete, but you see
what I mean...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenie Remmel, Author of FREELIB E-mail: tj...@mail.nwlink.com
FREELIB: ftp://ftp.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/asmutl/freeli22.zip
Snippets: ftp://ftp.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/asmutl/asnip11.zip
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steven Gavette

unread,
Nov 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/3/96
to

In article <55ek8l$4...@henge2.henge.com>, on 2 Nov 1996 04:55:49 GMT, Andrew
Lundgren regaled us with...

>
>In message <32792F...@ix.netcom.com> - John Covington
><co...@ix.netcom.com>Thu, 31 Oct 1996 18:02:07 -0500 writes:
>>
>>Kevin P. Neal wrote:
>>>
>>> He said "maintain", not "purchase".
>>>
>>> He's figuring in the costs of support for the machine and it's user.
>>
>>If corporate America is really spending these ridiculous sums to
>>maintain its computers, that makes them just about the biggest bunch of
>>suckers to walk the earth, IMHO...:) We may have found the secret behind
>>economic inflation, after all.
>>
>>No wonder people are talking "NCs" up! If I'd been getting robbed like
>>that I'd be interested in them, too!...:)
>>
>>I hereby offer my services to any fortune 500 companies who want to
>>learn how to lower your PC costs to at least $800-$1400 a year, or
>>one-tenth of the amount previously stated!
>
>
>I bet they would take you up on it. So what you are saying is that you
>ALONE will support around 500 machines. (Giving you only $40,000/year)

I think your math is a bit off. It's $400,000 at the low end.

>Meaning you don't get benifits and you pay your own Social Security as
>a self employed person. How long is it going to take you to roll out
>Win95 on all 500 of those machines that range from old 386s with 20meg of
>ram to Pentiums with 64meg. A few people are going to want to have their
>custom sound cards configured, they bought them real cheap from a company
>that said they are Sound Blaster compatables... (The 8 bit version that
>is...) The name brand is unknown and the manuals to configure them are
>long since lost....
>
> You may not have any idea what a nightmare it is to maintain 300+ PCs that
>are configured differently by any old shmoe computer shop. Further if you
are
>using a OS that doesn't have security to protect it from the users built in
it
>justs gets worse!

Large corporations that allow users to purchase their own peripherals, and buy
their systems from "schmoe" computer shops are not the norm. If this is where
these numbers come from, then they are highly skewed.

>
>It is not all just hardware... "My Word won't do this...." "Can you help
>me install this program?"
>
>PCs are a nightmare to maintain. I have done it for around 300 with help.
>It is not as easy as it seems. And it does cost more then $800/year.
>
>The NCs are a great idea. Just let it run the apps from the central server
>or suck them down as needed. Nothing in the system for the bonehead user
>to break...

NCs have their place. That place is not replacing the full-function PC if that
is what is required by the user. Users who access one or two databases all day
and retrieve/enter data (helpdesk, security, order entry, shipping/receiving,
etc.) are prime candidates for such units. But these are typically the
users that cost the least to support to begin with, so the savings will be
limited. The only time I've even had to work with the above mentioned groups
of users was for a harware upgrade last summer. The users consuming the
largest portion of the support dollar are the ones that would not be well
suited to using the NC. The people who need occasional access to scanners,
CD-ROMs, portable data devices (a lot of our users), etc. These users would in
fact be far less productive if forced to use an NC. Many could not do their
jobs. There's also the factor of custom applications. Many of our departments
have databases or other apps that are peculiar to their own group of users.
The cost of migrating these apps could far outweigh any savings of going to an
NC.

Steve


Peter Cowan

unread,
Nov 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/3/96
to

THIS IS FOR REAL NO GIMMICKS
------IT IS NOT ILLEGAL----TOTALLY LEGITAMATE-------

I'M NOT JOKING THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY BUT, DON'T TAKE MY WORD
FOR IT JUST TRY IT. IT ONLY TAKES A FEW MINUTES.
YOU CAN MAKE $50,000 WTHIN A MONTH FOR AN INVESTMENT OF ONLY $5


I kept seeing this ad on the internet newsgroups. I have been thinking
this to be nothing but a scam, But if everyone follows the rules I can
not find any reason for this not to work. If I can't find any reason
for it not to work, then I must think it will, or have a very high
percentage of working. If it does not work what does it cost you $5
thats it, thats all you can lose. If it does work you stand to make
THOUSANDS.

I have not done this yet so I do not know how big the return will be
on my investment. But others have reported as much as ---$50,000---
return in as little as a month, and at the least around ---$2,000---
in a month!

I can't guarantee that you will make money, but the chances that you
won't are very small.

Below is what I downloaded from the internet, this person has done
a good job in explaining the steps to hopefully thousands of dollers.

If you follow the three steps below, there is no reason why this would
not work. This is a legitimate investment opportunity. You invest $5
and you receive a return on your investment. So does the next
investor. NOT ILLEGAL, NOT A CHAIN LETTER-PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE.

If you are not interested, then don't participate, but please
print this article and pass it on to someone who may be interested, so
they can take advantage.

The procedure is simple:

1) Write your name and address, an e-mail address, and the name of
the newsgroup where you learned of this on 5 sheets of paper.
Below that, write the words, "Please add me to your list."
Fold $1 note or bank draft or money order inside each piece of
paper and send them to the following 5 addresses.:


1. Daniel DeKonty
Lee College #88
1120 N. Ocoee Street
Cleveland, TN 37320 USA

2. Don Noel
222 NE Dogwood St #C103
Issaquah, WA 98027 USA

3.Scott Woodard
3915 Idlebrook Lane
Burlington, KY 41005 USA

4.Dale Clarke
517 Sutherland Ave.
Selkirk, MB
Canada
R1A 0M8

5.Peter Cowan
1595 Mileva Lane
Victoria, B.C.
Canada
V8N 2V6


2) Now remove the top name from the list, and move the other four names
up. In other words, #5 becomes #4 and so on. Put your name as the
fifth one on the list. Use a simple text editor such as Notepad, in
your "accessories" window (If you have MS-Windows), or DOS editor.
In fact, any editor will do.

3) Post the article to at least 200 newsgroups. There are 17,000, so
it shouldn't be hard to find that many. Try posting to as many
newsgroups as you can, and the bigger the newsgroup is, the more people
are going to see your message!

You are now in the order services business, and should start seeing
returns within a week or two. Of course, the more newsgroups you post
to, the greater your return is. If you wish to remain anonymous, you
may use a pseudonym, call yourself "The Manager", "The Boss", whatever
but make sure your address is correct.

Now, here is why the system works:

-Each person who sent you $1 now also makes 200 additional postings
with your name at #4. ie. 1000 postings. On average therefore, 50
people will send you $1 with your name at #4. $50.

-Your 50 new agents make 200 postings each with your name at #3 or
10,000 postings. Average return 500 people = $500. They make 200
postings each with your name at #2=100,000 postings=5000 return at $1
each=$5000.

-Finally, 5,000 people make 200 postings with your name at #1 and you
get a return of $50,000 before your name drops off the list. AND THAT
IS IF EVERYONE DOWN THE LINE MAKES 200 POSTINGS!
Total income in one cycle=$55,000.

From time to time, when you see your name no longer on the list, you
take the latest posting that appears in the newsgroups, and send out
another $5, and put your name at #5, and start posting again. Remember,
200 postings is only a guideline. the more you post, the greater the
return.

Lets review why you should do this. THE ONLY COST IS $5. Anyone can
afford $5 for such an effortless investment with such SPECTACULAR
RETURNS.

Some people have said to me, "what happens if the scheme is played out
and no one sends me any money? "Big Deal, so you lose $5-but what are
the chances of that happening ?? Do you Realize that NOBODY cares for
the LEGAL chance of winning such a BIG money as 50,000.00 $$$$ ????
and all for a microscopic investment of five separate dollars? just
think of all of the new Internet users that join the net every day!!!

There are millions of internet users, and millions of new net surfers
every month !!! This is the great plus of the Internet, people all over
the world can hear you and listen carefully if you talk reasonably.
Everyone will take that chance ! I agree, If it wasn't the Internet,
and was a small circle of people, the chance wouldn't have been so
small. The amount of money had to be 200 times bigger, and the chances
were zero. It wouldn't succeed.

But here, on the Internet, it is a giant village, where new thousands
of members join in every day ! you CAN'T lose !!!!

Remember- read the instructions carefully, and play fairly. That's the
only way this will work. Get a printout so you can refer back to this
article easily.

Try to keep a list of everyone that sends you money and always keep an
eye on the postings to make sure everyone is playing fairly. You know
where your name should be.

REMEMBER-HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY. YOU DO NOT NEED TO CHEAT THIS
IDEA TO MAKE MONEY!! BESIDES, NOT PLAYING THE GAME FAIRLY IS ILLEGAL.
SO LET'S BE REASONABLE AND PLAY FAIRLY, SO WE CAN ALL ENJOY THE
INTERNET GOLD MINE.

GOOD LUCK FOR YOU ALL, And remember, play fair

Peter Cowan

unread,
Nov 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/3/96
to

Well, looks like I left my terminal at school logged on.
Sorry about the $$ posting that was sent with my name on it.
Thanks for all the emails and It looks like I'm tracking down
some of the groups it was posted to.

SO: Ignore my last post!
Moral: Logoff when finished.
Pete

Tim ODonnell

unread,
Nov 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/3/96
to

Tenie Remmel wrote:

> Yikes. I have 11 PC's and spend about $2000 a year maintaining them.
> Not that I keep them up to date, six of them are obsolete, but you see
> what I mean...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tenie Remmel, Author of FREELIB E-mail: tj...@mail.nwlink.com
> FREELIB: ftp://ftp.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/asmutl/freeli22.zip
> Snippets: ftp://ftp.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/asmutl/asnip11.zip
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe that's why six of them are obsolete <Grin>? I run a network of
about 100 computers. We try to keep them up to date but it's expensive.
I still have a couple of 386's out there. With upgrades, New computers,
Software and licensing, repair parts, Technician wages , and my wages
the cost gets pretty high per unit. Technology isn't a one time
purchase, once you buy into it you have to keep it going. If we didn't
we would still have people using Word Star (SIGH).

I can imagine the the price of support really jumps when the netework is
in the thousands of units and you have 5 or six locations across the
country or world. So you 11 and my 100 are just mere drops in the bucket
as far as support costs go. We then add routers, hub, cabling,
firewalls, and whatever. Think about it, Take a look at the big picture.

Tenie Remmel

unread,
Nov 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/3/96
to

tese...@hotmail.com (Matt Beazer) wrote:

>Chris Anderson <c...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure what you are saying, but I would like to know where you got
>>your $8K -> $14K figure to anually maintain a PC. I build and sell
>>them. And I will be MORE that glad to sell you one for $8K. Especially
>>when the Pentium Pro 200 is under $3000. Way under ($2300 if I am
>>correct) for a complete system. With a profit margin like that I would
>>only have to sell 4 or 5 a month.
>
>I think he's talking about the cost of maintaining and supporting a PC
>over the life of the PC, which at least in business, ends up being
>MORE than the price of the PC. Maybe not every year, but every 2-3
>years, in the average life cycle of a PC.
>I'm not sure about the costs on home-use PCs, although I know I just
>spent $700 upgrading in early September. <sigh>

What about home business PC's? I have 11 PC's and spend about $2000
per year maintaining them. No, I don't keep them all up to date, as
six of them are 386 or older, but hey...

Dex Devile

unread,
Nov 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/3/96
to

In article <327955...@crak.com>, jo...@crak.com wrote:

>Stephen C. Benes wrote:
>>
>> >>>Why prolong the agony?
>> >>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.
>>
>> I prefer not to be a lemming.
>>
>> Stephen
>> [Team OS/2]
>> Stephen C. Benes
>> [Team OS/2]
>

>It is a sad fact that Microsoft competently squashes its competition
>time after time. They are about to do it again on the Net with their
>Active-X technology.
>
>Remember, you heard it here first...
>
>JK
>
>
>--
>John E. Kuslich WPcrak for Wordperfect
>jo...@crak.com WDcrak for MS Word
>Password Recovery EXcrak for MS Excel
>602 863 9274 voice QPcrak for Quattro Pro
>602 548 1993 fax LOcrak for Lotus 123
>Password Removal QWcrak for Quicken
>Our WEB Site http://www.crak.com/
___________________________

Proof again that uninformed Americonsumers
will line up like lambs for the slaughter in the
face of an all-out mega$$ media blitz( they've just
GOT to be part of THE BIG EVENT!!! ) rather than
do a little research, and actually -gasp- trust their
OWN judgement...that "safety in numbers" thing,
I guess. They deserve Windoze. Anyone who's run
'em both knows the truth behind the hype. Period.

p.s. If you think w95 Crash-o-Matic "squashes"the MacOS
in the"day-after-day reliability" department...
then I'd venture to say you're probably on "crak"

...It's OK to be a shill; but let us not lose what little is
left of our already "tenuous" grasp of reality, yes?

Michael Will

unread,
Nov 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/3/96
to

In article <327C1C...@smartt.com>, David Fearn wrote:

>Mark wrote:
>
>> I haven't seen worse then Win95 interface. I'm pretty happy with my Win
>> NT 3.51 and won't trade it for Win NT 4.0 not mention Win95.
>> Win 3.0 have been used widely all over the world for a years and now all
>> over sudden Win95 is the best OS or widely used. BULL****!!
>> You may not agree with me. It's just my opinion.
but still we might get the facts right.

A GUI is not an OS.

Speaking of OS:
Of course NT is a better OS than Win95 will ever be
because it is not burdened as much by 16bit design. Benchmarks show Win95
performs really poor on most applications compared to Win-NT on the same
machine.

Speaking of GUI:
You dont believe win3.11 has something close to a good-to-use-gui. I only
mention the ridiculous file-select-box which does open a minimal window
on my 1280x1024 screen which is nonresizable and does display only 4 of the
ten files available, I have to fucking use the scrollbar every time it
pops up - argl! sends me screaming. And other ugly nonsense more.

Speaking of a decent GUI as I would expect it on a workstation (not a server
of course), the new win95 or nt-4 approach does look better, but the best
ones I have seen are NextStep or OpenStep. I do not know what OS2 does
with Merlin, but I heard they have a nice and consistent GUI by now as well.

Whatever, this is only a flame-bait anyway ;-)

Cheers, Michael Will
PS: f'up to alt.flame

Ashwin Gokhale

unread,
Nov 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/3/96
to

Like I always say to these damn threads: why do you care? I like the
Mac, so I'm going to use it. Soem poele like Windows, so let 'em use it.
I don't give a damn, and I don't see why anyone would. Too much spare
time, I guess.

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed, et. al.

unread,
Nov 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/4/96
to

Could we change the subject of this conversation to "cost of client
machines and their maintenance"?

It's more than a little distasteful seeing this plug for Windows 95 on
the unix newsgroups!

Just stop replying (let me be the last, and reply to the new thread).

Thanks.

- ism...@gcsnet.com

Gordon McMillan

unread,
Nov 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/4/96
to

In article <55heib$8...@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>, m...@physics.berkeley.edu
says...
>
>In article <55ek8l$4...@henge2.henge.com>,

> lund...@henge.com (Andrew Lundgren) wrote:
><>I hereby offer my services to any fortune 500 companies who want to
><>learn how to lower your PC costs to at least $800-$1400 a year, or
><>one-tenth of the amount previously stated!
><
><
><I bet they would take you up on it. So what you are saying is that
>you
><ALONE will support around 500 machines. (Giving you only
>$40,000/year)
>
>I guess Fortune 500 would do the best by buying calculators for their
>defenders first.
>
>Yury

Ah, but then they'd have to train the users and support them.

Someone at the corporation (who knows how to use a -gasp- spreadsheet,
so they -must- know whereof they speak!) will then claim it costs $1,000
annually to provide calculator support.

So take away their calculators, and give the CEO a $4,000,000 bonus for
reducing operational costs...

--
----
Gordon McMillan
McMillan Enterprises, Inc.


Mark Klebanoff

unread,
Nov 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/4/96
to

In message <Pine.SUN.3.91.961101...@sun4.iol.unh.edu> -
"Chris A. Triebel" <c...@sun4.iol.unh.edu>Fri, 1 Nov 1996 09:48:17 -0500
writes:
:>
:>I have a choice untl MS owns the net, my PC, and my life. So I will not
:>go easily through the cursed Gates!
:>
:>arkane


I will give up OS/2 when they pry the mouse out of my cold and lifeless
hand!!!

Hans Paaimans

unread,
Nov 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/4/96
to

In article scb...@ix.netcom.com (Stephen C. Benes) writes:

...

>>Just get Windows 95, you'll be glad in the long run.
>
>I prefer not to be a lemming.


Which reminds me... If you want to play lemmings under Linux and the X
Windowing system, just install 'the executor' (a mac-emulator). A
working demo of Lemmings is included and it runs without a hitch,
including the music.

Paai

--
KUB-University Tilburg, the Netherlands (+31) (0)13-4662693
Home: Elzenstraat 1, 5581 VS Waalre, the Netherlands (+31) (0)40-2230680
http://pi0959.kub.nl:2080/paai.html http://purl.oclc.org/NET/PAAI/


Cary Wood

unread,
Nov 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/4/96
to

Shouldn't that be $400,000 (800X500=?)???

Andrew Lundgren <lund...@henge.com> wrote in article
<55ek8l$4...@henge2.henge.com>...


In message <32792F...@ix.netcom.com> - John Covington
<co...@ix.netcom.com>Thu, 31 Oct 1996 18:02:07 -0500 writes:
>
>Kevin P. Neal wrote:
>>
>> He said "maintain", not "purchase".
>>
>> He's figuring in the costs of support for the machine and it's user.
>
>If corporate America is really spending these ridiculous sums to
>maintain its computers, that makes them just about the biggest bunch of
>suckers to walk the earth, IMHO...:) We may have found the secret behind
>economic inflation, after all.
>
>No wonder people are talking "NCs" up! If I'd been getting robbed like
>that I'd be interested in them, too!...:)
>

>I hereby offer my services to any fortune 500 companies who want to
>learn how to lower your PC costs to at least $800-$1400 a year, or
>one-tenth of the amount previously stated!


I bet they would take you up on it. So what you are saying is that you
ALONE will support around 500 machines. (Giving you only $40,000/year)

Meaning you don't get benifits and you pay your own Social Security as
a self employed person. How long is it going to take you to roll out
Win95 on all 500 of those machines that range from old 386s with 20meg of
ram to Pentiums with 64meg. A few people are going to want to have their
custom sound cards configured, they bought them real cheap from a company
that said they are Sound Blaster compatables... (The 8 bit version that
is...) The name brand is unknown and the manuals to configure them are
long since lost....

You may not have any idea what a nightmare it is to maintain 300+ PCs
that
are configured differently by any old shmoe computer shop. Further if you
are
using a OS that doesn't have security to protect it from the users built in
it
justs gets worse!

It is not all just hardware... "My Word won't do this...." "Can you help
me install this program?"

PCs are a nightmare to maintain. I have done it for around 300 with help.
It is not as easy as it seems. And it does cost more then $800/year.

The NCs are a great idea. Just let it run the apps from the central server
or suck them down as needed. Nothing in the system for the bonehead user
to break...

Andrew Lundgren
lund...@henge.com
http://www.henge.com/~lundgren


----------


Jeff Jasper

unread,
Nov 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/4/96
to

> Proof again that uninformed Americonsumers
> will line up like lambs for the slaughter in the
> face of an all-out mega$$ media blitz( they've just
> GOT to be part of THE BIG EVENT!!! ) rather than
> do a little research, and actually -gasp- trust their
> OWN judgement...that "safety in numbers" thing,
> I guess. They deserve Windoze. Anyone who's run
> 'em both knows the truth behind the hype. Period.
>
> p.s. If you think w95 Crash-o-Matic "squashes"the MacOS
> in the"day-after-day reliability" department...
> then I'd venture to say you're probably on "crak"
>
> ...It's OK to be a shill; but let us not lose what little is
> left of our already "tenuous" grasp of reality, yes?

As part od a NT and Mac media development lab I can say that Macs are
FAR from stable machines. They need a LOT of love and care to keep them
from being crushed under the pressure of intensive multimedia work. One
Mac that we do have that is super stable is our Media 100 system. A
beautiful machine, but the whole system is for the Media 100 and it is
not attached to our network. Our NTs are super stable as 3D animation
workstations and authoring stations. Even the normally stable SGIs for
our 3D reasearch can act goofy sometimes if not given the proper
attention. But as far as stability goes a Mac isn't anywhere near NT or
a good UNIX system.

Jeff

Bill Leonard

unread,
Nov 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/5/96
to

In article <327E85...@osu.edu>, jasp...@osu.edu wrote:

God, I hate jumping into these things, but here goes:

>As part od a NT and Mac media development lab I can say that Macs are
>FAR from stable machines. They need a LOT of love and care to keep them
>from being crushed under the pressure of intensive multimedia work.

You can replace the term "love and care" with "RAM" in the above
sentence. The Mac's memory management isn't the best, but if there's
plenty of RAM for it to use, you wont see a crash ever.

> But as far as stability goes a Mac isn't anywhere near NT or
>a good UNIX system.

And would you agree that the Mac OS isn't the same type of operating
system as those two? Of course they're more stable.. they just crash
individual processes, not the whole machine.

I'm sick of everyone comparing the Mac OS to NT!!! It should be compared
to Windows 95, which is where in kicks its butt at every level!!

Sheesh!


>
>Jeff

=================================================================
Bill Leonard bi...@cyberlabgfx.com
Technical Director www.cyberlabgfx.com
cyber.lab g.f.x. 407.849.1903
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive World Wide Web Design and Consulting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Making Art Out Of Science.
=================================================================

Stephen Walter

unread,
Nov 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/5/96
to

DOES THIS (yes, I'm yelling on purpose) THREAD HAVE TO GET CROSS-POSTED
TO SO MANY GROUPS!!. TO SOMEONE WHO PAYS HARD DOLLARS FOR CONNECT TIME,
THIS IS A REAL PISSER. WHY CAN'T IT STAY IN, SAY,
COMP.SYS.IBM.PC.something AND BE DONE WITH IT.
--

Stephen Walter

BeLFrY

unread,
Nov 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/5/96
to

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, John Covington wrote:

[...]


> I hereby offer my services to any fortune 500 companies who want to
> learn how to lower your PC costs to at least $800-$1400 a year, or
> one-tenth of the amount previously stated!

Ok... sure... "maintain" includes things like ISDN lines, T1 lines,
phone lines (for dial-ins, etc), et al... Not to mention upgrades to
software and hardware as various needs arise, also remember that as a
company grows, so does its networks, likewise with machine numbers. Not
to mention that with so many machines, there a large number of
components... the more components you have the more likely the event of
something breaking down or going wrong somewhere. So naturally,
technicians are needed.

Not to mention DBAs and other admistrata specifically for the different
varieties of CBSs one company may have. I could go on, about research,
development and the rest of it.

Before jumping to (what seems to you to be obvious) conclusions, ask
someone who knows... Theres a lot more than meets the eye. Also, as a
general rule, companies really don't like throwing away money, or pouring
it into something they don't think is worthwile... so don't you think
they have considered the alternatives.

Ciao...! =)

Michael Kraus.

BeLFrY

unread,
Nov 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/5/96
to

On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Tim ODonnell wrote:

[...]
> Now here's a scary thought. There is nothing to keep Microsoft from
> putting togethter its own LINUX distribution and marketing it like any
> other Linux distributor.
>
> The MS lovers would probably jump on it and Microsoft would announce the
> operating system of operating systems. They would probably sell it for
> 150.00 or so. Sheesh! that is scary. Everybody would be using linux
> (good) and paying tribute to the Almighty Micro$oft (puke).

True... however, the vendors would love it... Legally they could simply
copy it and put it on all their PCs... They would only need 1 copy from
anywhere...!

Ciao...

Michael Kraus.

Redmond Rose~

unread,
Nov 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/5/96