Rounded corners

[Commander Kinsey]

Why do iphone screens and now apps have rounded corners? This horrid kid's toy design has leaked out onto Windows 11 aswell. First thing I did was undo that crap. Rounded corners belong on 70s TV sets.

[Joel]

"Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:

>Why do iphone screens and now apps have rounded corners? This horrid kid's toy design has leaked out onto Windows 11 aswell. First thing I did was undo that crap. Rounded corners belong on 70s TV sets.

They did it just to annoy you.

--
Joel Crump

[Rene Lamontagne]

And it worked.

Rene

[Commander Kinsey]

And make things generally irritating.

[Commander Kinsey]

I can take delight in the morons paying 5 times as much for the missing corners.

[Big Al]

On 2/16/22 21:47, this is what Commander Kinsey wrote:
> Why do iphone screens and now apps have rounded corners?  This horrid kid's toy design has leaked out onto Windows 11 aswell.  First thing I
> did was undo that crap.  Rounded corners belong on 70s TV sets.

I run Linux Mint and now even they are going that way. The new 20.3 version introduced them.
I don't like them myself so I have my own theme I wrote and it's square.

[Snit]

On Feb 16, 2022 at 7:47:09 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
<op.1hprc...@ryzen.lan>:

> Why do iphone screens and now apps have rounded corners? This horrid kid's toy
> design has leaked out onto Windows 11 aswell. First thing I did was undo that
> crap. Rounded corners belong on 70s TV sets.

Not sure I see what it harms.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

[Joel]

Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 16, 2022 at 7:47:09 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
><op.1hprc...@ryzen.lan>:
>
>> Why do iphone screens and now apps have rounded corners? This horrid kid's toy
>> design has leaked out onto Windows 11 aswell. First thing I did was undo that
>> crap. Rounded corners belong on 70s TV sets.
>
>Not sure I see what it harms.

Right, it's just the fear of change. If the Commander is really that
obsessed over the details, he should just go back to Win10. I, for
one, am sticking with 11, especially with the new cumulative update
preview.

--
Joel Crump

[Snit]

On Feb 17, 2022 at 9:37:51 AM MST, "Joel" wrote
<hcus0ht6bs8vd6ns5...@4ax.com>:

At some point I likely will get a new Mac and a new PC to run Windows 11. I am
getting behind the times on Windows.

[Mark Lloyd]

Rounded corners can make sense on PAPER folders, as it can help prevent
paper cuts. There's no real benefit for something on the screen. I never
liked attempts to make computers look like obsolete technology.

BTW, I've seen much worse than rounded corners, like fancy video players
made to look like some fancy physical device, with all the curved parts
and ribbed places to hold on to (useless on a flat computer screen).
Some option settings are made to look like slide switches, when a
checkbox would be easier to use and waste less space.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer." - -
anonymous

[Big Al]

On 2/17/22 14:11, this is what Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 2/17/22 08:52, Big Al wrote:
>> On 2/16/22 21:47, this is what Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> Why do iphone screens and now apps have rounded corners?  This horrid kid's toy design has leaked out onto Windows 11 aswell.  First
>>> thing I did was undo that crap.  Rounded corners belong on 70s TV sets.
>>
>> I run Linux Mint and now even they are going that way.  The new 20.3 version introduced them.
>> I don't like them myself so I have my own theme I wrote and it's square.
>
> Rounded corners can make sense on PAPER folders, as it can help prevent paper cuts. There's no real benefit for something on the screen. I
> never liked attempts to make computers look like obsolete technology.
>
> BTW, I've seen much worse than rounded corners, like fancy video players made to look like some fancy physical device, with all the curved
> parts and ribbed places to hold on to (useless on a flat computer screen). Some option settings are made to look like slide switches, when a
> checkbox would be easier to use and waste less space.
>

Yes, Some of the music players are horrible.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 16:35:07 -0000, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 16, 2022 at 7:47:09 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
> <op.1hprc...@ryzen.lan>:
>
>> Why do iphone screens and now apps have rounded corners? This horrid kid's toy
>> design has leaked out onto Windows 11 aswell. First thing I did was undo that
>> crap. Rounded corners belong on 70s TV sets.
>
> Not sure I see what it harms.

See TVs in the 70s/80s with round corners because that's the only way tubes could be made? See when Sony came out with flatter squarer tubes? See how we progressed to LCD perfectly flat and rectangular screens? Why go backwards?

[Commander Kinsey]

I used freeware to revert things, amazing how many people are moaning about the same things as me and using freeware to correct Microsoft's stupid design for the sake of it things. They couldn't think of anything useful to put in Windows 11, so they just made it look a bit different, then added a pointless "requirement" to have TPM, presumably after having been bribed by hardware manufacturers hoping everyone would buy a new computer.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 16:58:25 -0000, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 17, 2022 at 9:37:51 AM MST, "Joel" wrote
> <hcus0ht6bs8vd6ns5...@4ax.com>:
>
>> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 16, 2022 at 7:47:09 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
>>> <op.1hprc...@ryzen.lan>:
>>>
>>>> Why do iphone screens and now apps have rounded corners? This horrid kid's toy
>>>> design has leaked out onto Windows 11 aswell. First thing I did was undo that
>>>> crap. Rounded corners belong on 70s TV sets.
>>>
>>> Not sure I see what it harms.
>>
>>
>> Right, it's just the fear of change. If the Commander is really that
>> obsessed over the details, he should just go back to Win10. I, for
>> one, am sticking with 11, especially with the new cumulative update
>> preview.
>
> At some point I likely will get a new Mac and a new PC to run Windows 11. I am
> getting behind the times on Windows.

Always best to buy the parts individually. Gives you fun/experience building it, and you get to choose exactly what's under the hood. And you can get cheaper or better parts, first or second hand, depending on which parts are important to you.

[Commander Kinsey]

I like VLC for video and music. A nice square window with menus and buttons along the top and bottom. No slider control shit.

[Andrew Matheson]

Windows 7 had rounded corners on windows.
Windows XP had rounded corners at the top of windows (not the bottom).

One could say that 10 was an aberration between 7 and 11.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 09:31:43 -0000, Andrew Matheson <a...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Windows 7 had rounded corners on windows.
> Windows XP had rounded corners at the top of windows (not the bottom).
>
> One could say that 10 was an aberration between 7 and 11.

A good aberration.

And the roundedness on Windows 11 is far more noticeable than the others, I never even noticed the other ones.

Do you realise your newsreader has sent this multiple times, once to each group?

[David Brooks]

FTR was building computers before you were born!

Well, almost! :-)

[Commander Kinsey]

So you will be building one and not buying it then?

When did you build a computer first?

[Snit]

On Feb 18, 2022 at 12:20:19 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
<op.1hryn...@ryzen.lan>:

I like it... though it does not work as well as YouTube for playing videos at
1.5 or 2x speeds.

[Snit]

On Feb 18, 2022 at 12:15:27 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
<op.1hryf...@ryzen.lan>:

I have no issue with folks making them themselves... but I will likely just
buy one off the shelf. Not going to do much with the PC.

[Snit]

On Feb 18, 2022 at 12:12:56 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
<op.1hryb...@ryzen.lan>:

Why assume design styles have to be linear?

[Mark Lloyd]

On 2/18/22 01:15, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

> Always best to buy the parts individually.  Gives you fun/experience
> building it, and you get to choose exactly what's under the hood.  And
> you can get cheaper or better parts, first or second hand, depending on
> which parts are important to you.

Then you also know more about the computer, and can fix problems easier.

One time I found my computer not working, and there was a smell of burnt
almonds. I replaced the power supply and everything was working OK.
ITtwas a lot less work than buying a new PC (after waiting a few hours
until the store was open and getting an inferior one because that's what
they had) then spending several hours getting all the software and
hardware set up again.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

A fools prayer:

Dear Lord, Please help us not to be blasphemers.In Jesus
name we pray....

[Bill Huston]

[Mark Lloyd]

On 2/18/22 01:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

> I like VLC for video and music.  A nice square window with menus and
> buttons along the top and bottom.  No slider control shit.

I use VLC too.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

[David Brooks]

No. I couldn't build an Apple iMac.

> When did you build a computer first?

Around 1984 - once I'd set up the family with an expensive BBC 'B'
computer for everyone to learn on.

[Commander Kinsey]

Really? I've used that to fast forward TV.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 18:11:48 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not....@all.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/18/22 01:15, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Always best to buy the parts individually. Gives you fun/experience
>> building it, and you get to choose exactly what's under the hood. And
>> you can get cheaper or better parts, first or second hand, depending on
>> which parts are important to you.
>
> Then you also know more about the computer, and can fix problems easier.
>
> One time I found my computer not working, and there was a smell of burnt
> almonds. I replaced the power supply and everything was working OK.
> ITtwas a lot less work than buying a new PC (after waiting a few hours
> until the store was open and getting an inferior one because that's what
> they had) then spending several hours getting all the software and
> hardware set up again.

I'm the other way round. I know what a burnt PSU smells like, but not almonds.

[Commander Kinsey]

An advantage of the modular PC.

>> When did you build a computer first?
>
> Around 1984 - once I'd set up the family with an expensive BBC 'B'
> computer for everyone to learn on.

Were there buildable PCs back then? The first PC I saw was in 1990.

[Snit]

On Feb 19, 2022 at 11:49:15 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
<op.1huo8...@ryzen.lan>:

Download some YouTube videos. Watch them at 1.5x on YouTube then try VLC. The
sound on YouTube is much better, and even the video tends to be better.

[David Brooks]

I cannot argue with that.

>>> When did you build a computer first?
>>
>> Around 1984 - once I'd set up the family with an expensive BBC 'B'
>> computer for everyone to learn on.
>
> Were there buildable PCs back then?  The first PC I saw was in 1990.

I think it was the Sinclair ZX81 kit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX81

We had all manner of hardware, Atari and Commodore come to mind but
recollection now is hazy.

[rabidR04CH]

Speaking of the aforementioned manufacturers, I am still baffled, years
later, that the IBM PC and its clones ended up winning the war. The
prices were strongly in Atari and Commodore's favour, as was mentioned
by the 8-bit Guy in his latest video <https://youtu.be/kjapiUQOi2s?t=1441>

Atari ST: $999
Macintosh: $2,495
IBM PC/AT: $6,000
Commodore Amiga: $1,285

Of the above, Atari and especially the Amiga were clearly superior yet
cost less. I have to wonder whether the IBM platform would still have
won had they not been reverse engineered and infinitely upgradeable as a
result of it.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

[Joel]

rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch> wrote:

>Speaking of the aforementioned manufacturers, I am still baffled, years
>later, that the IBM PC and its clones ended up winning the war. The
>prices were strongly in Atari and Commodore's favour, as was mentioned
>by the 8-bit Guy in his latest video <https://youtu.be/kjapiUQOi2s?t=1441>
>
>Atari ST: $999
>Macintosh: $2,495
>IBM PC/AT: $6,000
>Commodore Amiga: $1,285
>
>Of the above, Atari and especially the Amiga were clearly superior yet
>cost less. I have to wonder whether the IBM platform would still have
>won had they not been reverse engineered and infinitely upgradeable as a
>result of it.

It was Windows that achieved that, not anything IBM or even the clone
makers did. Software sells hardware.

--
Joel Crump

[rabidR04CH]

I disagree since Windows didn't become popular until 3.0 in 1990. It was
the fact that the IBM PC 1) was reverse engineered, 2) had compatibles
which cost less and performed better, 3) could not convince people to
adopt MCA over ISA. Eventually, PC compatibles could be built from parts
and allowed users to have machines customized for their needs. However,
until 1989-1990, Atari and Amiga were still better machines at a lower
price but they didn't improve as fast as the PC compatibles did
(especially with the emergence of VGA which was superior to what both
Atari and Amiga offered and the eventual release of CD-ROM).

Trust me, I've read a ton of sources on this and Windows played a
minuscule part UNTIL the PC platform won.

[Joel]

rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch> wrote:

>>> I have to wonder whether the IBM platform would still have
>>> won had they not been reverse engineered and infinitely upgradeable as a
>>> result of it.
>>
>> It was Windows that achieved that, not anything IBM or even the clone
>> makers did. Software sells hardware.
>
>I disagree since Windows didn't become popular until 3.0 in 1990. It was
>the fact that the IBM PC 1) was reverse engineered, 2) had compatibles
>which cost less and performed better, 3) could not convince people to
>adopt MCA over ISA. Eventually, PC compatibles could be built from parts
>and allowed users to have machines customized for their needs. However,
>until 1989-1990, Atari and Amiga were still better machines at a lower
>price but they didn't improve as fast as the PC compatibles did
>(especially with the emergence of VGA which was superior to what both
>Atari and Amiga offered and the eventual release of CD-ROM).
>
>Trust me, I've read a ton of sources on this and Windows played a
>minuscule part UNTIL the PC platform won.

Yeah, but the numbers got *huge* after Windows 3.x arrived. It's true
that the smaller market was dominated by DOS before that, but it paled
in comparison to what came after the release of Windows 3.0.

--
Joel Crump

[Commander Kinsey]

This might be useful in slow motion, but at high speed I don't think you need high quality.

Perhaps it's better on Youtube because they're pre-made? They pre-render different resolutions, maybe they do the same with speeds?

[Commander Kinsey]

I just had a ZX Spectrum. It was opened twice, once to install an extra 32K of RAM (that involved a soldering iron to introduce another page of RAM!), and once to replace the keyboard membrane.

[Paul]

The selling feature of the ZX81, was the purchase price.

Early PCs seemed to go for $5000 a pop, and arrived
on your doorstep with nothing.

Whereas the ZX81 had BASIC in it, and you had a tape recorder
interface for saves from one session to another.

What was kooky about the BASIC, was the amount of block moves
it would do in memory. It's an absolute pig, when
the memory is full. I wrote a x86 disassembler for fun on it,
and it just about killed me. The fuller the memory got, the
slower it got. And that's without my program running. Just
entering lines of BASIC code, make it run slower and slower.

And no, it didn't have "rounded corners". What it could do,
is draw a good likeness of chess pieces, when the chess program
was loaded from tape. That was the best-looking software I had.

Paul

[rabidR04CH]

Windows 3 was popular but didn't get used that much unless people wanted
a real GUI for Microsoft Word or whatever. Windows 3.1 was much more
popular and became common software installed with most machines but was
still mostly ignored until the Internet came along and required 3.1 for
connectivity. Windows 95 is where things really took off, particularly
because it offered pre-emptive multi-tasking which better than what
MacOS was offering as well.

[Joel]

rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch> wrote:

>> Yeah, but the numbers got *huge* after Windows 3.x arrived. It's true
>> that the smaller market was dominated by DOS before that, but it paled
>> in comparison to what came after the release of Windows 3.0.
>
>Windows 3 was popular but didn't get used that much unless people wanted
>a real GUI for Microsoft Word or whatever. Windows 3.1 was much more
>popular and became common software installed with most machines but was
>still mostly ignored until the Internet came along and required 3.1 for
>connectivity. Windows 95 is where things really took off, particularly
>because it offered pre-emptive multi-tasking which better than what
>MacOS was offering as well.

I know, but Win95 was the immediate successor to Win3.x. The success
of 3.x directly led to the success of 95. That set up the Windows
monopoly for decades to come.

--
Joel Crump

[Snit]

On Feb 19, 2022 at 5:02:08 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
<op.1hu3p...@ryzen.lan>:

It is easier to understand the voice. I often watch YouTube videos at 1.5 or
2x.

> Perhaps it's better on Youtube because they're pre-made? They pre-render
> different resolutions, maybe they do the same with speeds?

That could very well be.

[rabidR04CH]

Well, the hype for Windows 95 was enormous and I think that it would
have succeeded regardless of whether people used Windows 3.1/3.11 or
not. By then, people were fans of building their own machines or
customizing them to their liking and this was the first intuitive
operating system to offer pre-emptive multitasking. OS/2 was the first,
but it was not intuitive and definitely not geared toward the home user.
Additionally, the marketing behind it was so awful that most people
didn't even know what it was.

[Joel]

rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch> wrote:

>>> Windows 3 was popular but didn't get used that much unless people wanted
>>> a real GUI for Microsoft Word or whatever. Windows 3.1 was much more
>>> popular and became common software installed with most machines but was
>>> still mostly ignored until the Internet came along and required 3.1 for
>>> connectivity. Windows 95 is where things really took off, particularly
>>> because it offered pre-emptive multi-tasking which better than what
>>> MacOS was offering as well.
>>
>> I know, but Win95 was the immediate successor to Win3.x. The success
>> of 3.x directly led to the success of 95. That set up the Windows
>> monopoly for decades to come.
>
>Well, the hype for Windows 95 was enormous and I think that it would
>have succeeded regardless of whether people used Windows 3.1/3.11 or
>not. By then, people were fans of building their own machines or
>customizing them to their liking and this was the first intuitive
>operating system to offer pre-emptive multitasking. OS/2 was the first,
>but it was not intuitive and definitely not geared toward the home user.
>Additionally, the marketing behind it was so awful that most people
>didn't even know what it was.

That's the thing, the apps were for Windows, and 95 gave developers a
clear path to moving to 32-bit with their existing apps. OS/2, for
all its good features, didn't have that library of software.

--
Joel Crump

[nospam]

In article <1jdQJ.64200$%uX7....@fx38.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
wrote:

> Speaking of the aforementioned manufacturers, I am still baffled, years
> later, that the IBM PC and its clones ended up winning the war. The
> prices were strongly in Atari and Commodore's favour, as was mentioned
> by the 8-bit Guy in his latest video <https://youtu.be/kjapiUQOi2s?t=1441>
>
> Atari ST: $999
> Macintosh: $2,495
> IBM PC/AT: $6,000
> Commodore Amiga: $1,285
>
> Of the above, Atari and especially the Amiga were clearly superior yet
> cost less.

atari and amiga were very definitely *not* superior. not even remotely
true. they were slow, flaky and had negligible support. hobbyists might
not mind tinkering but businesses and software developers had little to
no interest in them.

> I have to wonder whether the IBM platform would still have
> won had they not been reverse engineered and infinitely upgradeable as a
> result of it.

probably. as the old saying goes 'nobody ever got fired for buying ibm'.

what would have been different is the industry.

[rabidR04CH]

_Technically_, OS/2 had the largest library of software at release since
it allowed people to run their DOS and Windows 3.1 apps within the
system. Therein lies the problem though: if OS/2 ran Windows 3.1
applications, there was no reason to make OS/2 applications. By making
your releases exclusively for Windows 3.1, you technically tapped into
3.1, OS/2 and Windows 95 in one shot. Eventually, when the advantages of
95 became clear and the system's popularity became well known, those
developers started making 95 applications and stopped making software
for 3.1. They didn't even bother making a version for OS/2 because
practically no one was using it.

Technical users would tell you, at the time and even today, that OS/2
was clearly a superior OS and the developers were wrong not to make
anything for the environment. However, anyone who tried to use both
systems back then would tell you that Windows 95, as far as user
experience goes, was head-over-heels better than OS/2 was.

[Joel]

rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch> wrote:

>>> Well, the hype for Windows 95 was enormous and I think that it would
>>> have succeeded regardless of whether people used Windows 3.1/3.11 or
>>> not. By then, people were fans of building their own machines or
>>> customizing them to their liking and this was the first intuitive
>>> operating system to offer pre-emptive multitasking. OS/2 was the first,
>>> but it was not intuitive and definitely not geared toward the home user.
>>> Additionally, the marketing behind it was so awful that most people
>>> didn't even know what it was.
>>
>> That's the thing, the apps were for Windows, and 95 gave developers a
>> clear path to moving to 32-bit with their existing apps. OS/2, for
>> all its good features, didn't have that library of software.
>
>_Technically_, OS/2 had the largest library of software at release since
>it allowed people to run their DOS and Windows 3.1 apps within the
>system. Therein lies the problem though: if OS/2 ran Windows 3.1
>applications, there was no reason to make OS/2 applications. By making
>your releases exclusively for Windows 3.1, you technically tapped into
>3.1, OS/2 and Windows 95 in one shot. Eventually, when the advantages of
>95 became clear and the system's popularity became well known, those
>developers started making 95 applications and stopped making software
>for 3.1. They didn't even bother making a version for OS/2 because
>practically no one was using it.

Right, Win95, for all its faults, was the path to 32-bit apps with
little modification. OS/2 became an orphan product, basically.

>Technical users would tell you, at the time and even today, that OS/2
>was clearly a superior OS and the developers were wrong not to make
>anything for the environment. However, anyone who tried to use both
>systems back then would tell you that Windows 95, as far as user
>experience goes, was head-over-heels better than OS/2 was.

It's correct to say that OS/2 was a real 32-bit OS, unlike Win95, but
Microsoft played their hand very well. I see it as an example of
American greatness - IBM just wasn't the hot company, so they didn't
get the market. Microsoft succeeded in controlling it.

--
Joel Crump

[Steve Carroll]

On 2022-02-20, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1jdQJ.64200$%uX7....@fx38.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Speaking of the aforementioned manufacturers, I am still baffled, years
>> later, that the IBM PC and its clones ended up winning the war. The
>> prices were strongly in Atari and Commodore's favour, as was mentioned
>> by the 8-bit Guy in his latest video <https://youtu.be/kjapiUQOi2s?t=1441>
>>
>> Atari ST: $999
>> Macintosh: $2,495
>> IBM PC/AT: $6,000
>> Commodore Amiga: $1,285
>>
>> Of the above, Atari and especially the Amiga were clearly superior yet
>> cost less.
>
> atari and amiga were very definitely *not* superior. not even remotely
> true. they were slow, flaky and had negligible support. hobbyists might
> not mind tinkering but businesses and software developers had little to
> no interest in them.

So Newtek's Video Toaster (and the cottage industry that grew around it)
what just a dream I had? ;)

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-20 9:15 a.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <1jdQJ.64200$%uX7....@fx38.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Speaking of the aforementioned manufacturers, I am still baffled, years
>> later, that the IBM PC and its clones ended up winning the war. The
>> prices were strongly in Atari and Commodore's favour, as was mentioned
>> by the 8-bit Guy in his latest video <https://youtu.be/kjapiUQOi2s?t=1441>
>>
>> Atari ST: $999
>> Macintosh: $2,495
>> IBM PC/AT: $6,000
>> Commodore Amiga: $1,285
>>
>> Of the above, Atari and especially the Amiga were clearly superior yet
>> cost less.
>
> atari and amiga were very definitely *not* superior. not even remotely
> true. they were slow, flaky and had negligible support. hobbyists might
> not mind tinkering but businesses and software developers had little to
> no interest in them.

Yes, the monochrome Mac with 2-bit colour was clearly superior to the
Amiga with its palette of 4,096 colours with 32 on-screen
simultaneously. The Mac's beeps and bops for sounds were also _clearly_
superior to Amiga's four PCM-sample-based sound channels. What was I
thinking?

The Macintosh's 8MHz 68000 was also much faster than the Commodore
Amiga's 68000 running at 7.09MHz.

Amiga users also _hated_ the fact that AmigaOS provided them with
pre-emptive multitasking. They would much have preferred not to have
multitasking at all.

You can't possibly be this dense of an Apple zealot.

>> I have to wonder whether the IBM platform would still have
>> won had they not been reverse engineered and infinitely upgradeable as a
>> result of it.
>
> probably. as the old saying goes 'nobody ever got fired for buying ibm'.
>
> what would have been different is the industry.

That, I can agree with.

[rabidR04CH]

If they had sold their OS at the $40 it was originally found for, IBM
could have found an audience. However, they insisted that it should cost
more than Windows and provide a user with less.

>> Technical users would tell you, at the time and even today, that OS/2
>> was clearly a superior OS and the developers were wrong not to make
>> anything for the environment. However, anyone who tried to use both
>> systems back then would tell you that Windows 95, as far as user
>> experience goes, was head-over-heels better than OS/2 was.
>
> It's correct to say that OS/2 was a real 32-bit OS, unlike Win95, but
> Microsoft played their hand very well. I see it as an example of
> American greatness - IBM just wasn't the hot company, so they didn't
> get the market. Microsoft succeeded in controlling it.

IBM basically _never_ got the market.

The IBM PC was an expensive joke compared even to the much more capable
Commodore 64 as far as the home user goes.

The IBM PCJr basically ignored _all_ of what home users wanted yet was
sold to the home user. It didn't even provide full compatibility to the
IBM PC. Before it had failed miserably, Tandy was developing a clone of
it which, once the PCJr failed, became the de facto gaming device for PC
users and provided excellent PC compatibility.

The IBM PS/1 provided the home user with no expansion capabilities
whatsoever at a time when the compatibles were destroying IBM
specifically because of their expandability.

IBM OS/2 provided users with an experience that programmers and
engineers loved at a time when regular people who knew nothing of
computers, programming and engineers were looking to purchase one for
the first time.

I'm surprised the company still exists at all considering their
incredible incompetence.

[rabidR04CH]

I see no difference between nospam's defense of Apple and that of a
Muslim defending Islam and its inaccuracies and contradictions.

If the original Macintosh were so much better than both the Amiga and
Atari ST (both of which also offered the ability to run Mac applications
within their environment at a charge), then how does he explain Apple
eventually releasing the Apple IIgs specifically to counter the Atari ST
and Amiga? If Apple is so virtuous and geared toward the end-user, how
would he explain Apple's insistence on crippling that same computer's
processor to prevent it from competing with the Apple Macintosh?

[Carl J]

On 2/19/22 12:53, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snkp]

>> Around 1984 - once I'd set up the family with an expensive BBC 'B'
>> computer for everyone to learn on.
>
> Were there buildable PCs back then?  The first PC I saw was in 1990.

I remember seeing this in kit form in 1982:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX81

[Mark Lloyd]

On 2/19/22 14:37, David Brooks wrote:

[snip]

>> Were there buildable PCs back then?  The first PC I saw was in 1990.
>
> I think it was the Sinclair ZX81 kit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX81
>
> We had all manner of hardware, Atari and Commodore come to mind but
> recollection now is hazy.

I remember looking at an ad for the ZX81 in 1982 when I decided to buy a
computer. I didn't like the idea of not having a real keyboard, so I got
the Commodore VIC-20 ("The worlds first color computer for under $300",
which was $299.95) which came with 5K RAM.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

[Char Jackson]

Did anyone else just flash back to Kiki Stockhammer saying, "Welcome to
NewTek!"? She was the hot thing back then, err, I mean the Video Toaster
was the hot thing.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 2/19/22 18:30, Paul wrote:

[snip]

> The selling feature of the ZX81, was the purchase price.
>
> Early PCs seemed to go for $5000 a pop, and arrived
> on your doorstep with nothing.
>
> Whereas the ZX81 had BASIC in it, and you had a tape recorder
> interface for saves from one session to another.
>
> What was kooky about the BASIC, was the amount of block moves
> it would do in memory. It's an absolute pig, when
> the memory is full.

Garbage collection for strings? I remember my first computer doing that.

> I wrote a x86 disassembler for fun on it,
> and it just about killed me. The fuller the memory got, the
> slower it got. And that's without my program running. Just
> entering lines of BASIC code, make it run slower and slower.
>
> And no, it didn't have "rounded corners". What it could do,
> is draw a good likeness of chess pieces, when the chess program
> was loaded from tape. That was the best-looking software I had.
>
>    Paul

I know the Commodore (VIC-20, C64, C128) had special characters for card
games.

[nospam]

In article <1LsQJ.9538$WZCa...@fx08.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>

wrote:

> >
> >> Speaking of the aforementioned manufacturers, I am still baffled, years
> >> later, that the IBM PC and its clones ended up winning the war. The
> >> prices were strongly in Atari and Commodore's favour, as was mentioned
> >> by the 8-bit Guy in his latest video <https://youtu.be/kjapiUQOi2s?t=1441>
> >>
> >> Atari ST: $999
> >> Macintosh: $2,495
> >> IBM PC/AT: $6,000
> >> Commodore Amiga: $1,285
> >>
> >> Of the above, Atari and especially the Amiga were clearly superior yet
> >> cost less.
> >
> > atari and amiga were very definitely *not* superior. not even remotely
> > true. they were slow, flaky and had negligible support. hobbyists might
> > not mind tinkering but businesses and software developers had little to
> > no interest in them.
>
> Yes, the monochrome Mac with 2-bit colour was clearly superior to the
> Amiga with its palette of 4,096 colours with 32 on-screen
> simultaneously. The Mac's beeps and bops for sounds were also _clearly_
> superior to Amiga's four PCM-sample-based sound channels. What was I
> thinking?

you weren't thinking at all.

what you list may be useful for games, but not for businesses, students
and many others, all of whom have actual work to do.

the mac was first mainstream wysiwyg computer, launching the desktop
publishing industry. many companies bought the mac *just* for that
reason alone because it was far less expensive than existing solutions.

there was very little point in creating documents with colours when
they could not be printed, at least not with any resemblance of
quality.

> The Macintosh's 8MHz 68000 was also much faster than the Commodore
> Amiga's 68000 running at 7.09MHz.
>
> Amiga users also _hated_ the fact that AmigaOS provided them with
> pre-emptive multitasking. They would much have preferred not to have
> multitasking at all.

except there was no memory protection, making it not very good. crashes
were common.

also, the mac *did* have multitasking, the difference being the
scheduling. it also supported limited preemption since day one.

i started writing mac apps back then and know quite well what could and
could not be done. you were not and do not.

as with everything, there are advantages and disadvantages.

> You can't possibly be this dense of an Apple zealot.

it's not zealotry and specs isn't everything.

the reality is that apple and microsoft had actual developer programs,
with extensive documentation, tech support, training and much more, a
sales network so that people could actually buy the computers and the
software along with a large user base that could justify writing the
apps.

commodore and atari did not, and it was also *very* difficult to find a
store that carried anything commodore or atari. it was a hobbyist
computer.

computer stores at the time mostly sold cp/m, dos, apple ii and/or mac.

software developers focused on mac, dos and later, windows. in fact,
there was so little software available for amiga and atari that users
had to get mac emulators to be able to do anything useful with their
computers, and it didn't work as well as the real thing.

[nospam]

In article <oWsQJ.25283$R1C9....@fx22.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
wrote:

>
> If the original Macintosh were so much better than both the Amiga and
> Atari ST (both of which also offered the ability to run Mac applications
> within their environment at a charge), then how does he explain Apple
> eventually releasing the Apple IIgs specifically to counter the Atari ST
> and Amiga?

the ii gs was *not* released to counter either of those. it was the
next generation apple ii.

> If Apple is so virtuous and geared toward the end-user, how
> would he explain Apple's insistence on crippling that same computer's
> processor to prevent it from competing with the Apple Macintosh?

apple didn't cripple it. in fact, the ii gs was actually better than
the mac in some ways, notably its sound capabilities. the processor was
a 16-bit version of the venerable 8-bit 6502 used in previous apple ii
models. it was also the first to have apple desktop bus (adb) on which
usb was based, which macs adopted a few months later. it targeted an
entirely different demographic than the mac.

[Commander Kinsey]

I never noticed a difference between 3 and 3.1, why does everyone say they were significantly different?

[Commander Kinsey]

Please take this to alt.history

[Commander Kinsey]

Not a PC.

[Commander Kinsey]

So not under $300 then. Nobody falls for that. I love buying a car from a showroom that says £999.99 and refusing to pay that huge amount, then offering him 1 grand instead. If anything, all those 9s make the number look bigger. 9s are more than 0s.

[Joel]

Coming from you, that's laughable. Your posts are inane.

--
Joel Crump

[rabidR04CH]

And what machine did people who wanted to do video editing buy, pray
tell? While desktop publishers liked what the Mac had to offer - for
monochrome publishing no less - anyone who wanted to do _more_ got the
Amiga or the ST. One was used for video editing until the late 90s
(Amiga) and the other is sometimes still used to this day for music (the
ST). What kind of a moron would someone have to be to believe that
because Macs were good for desktop publishing and literally nothing
else, they somehow were better machines than the Amiga and the ST which,
by the way, could emulate the Mac.

>> The Macintosh's 8MHz 68000 was also much faster than the Commodore
>> Amiga's 68000 running at 7.09MHz.
>>
>> Amiga users also _hated_ the fact that AmigaOS provided them with
>> pre-emptive multitasking. They would much have preferred not to have
>> multitasking at all.
>
> except there was no memory protection, making it not very good. crashes
> were common.
>
> also, the mac *did* have multitasking, the difference being the
> scheduling. it also supported limited preemption since day one.

As of 1987, liar. It was also _cooperate_ multitasking, not preemptive.

> i started writing mac apps back then and know quite well what could and
> could not be done. you were not and do not.

I call this a lie too.

> as with everything, there are advantages and disadvantages.

There were literally no advantages on the Mac back then. Not for sound,
not for colour, not for gaming, not for video editing, not for
multitasking. It was a limited machine and everyone knew it but,
unsurprisingly, you want to rewrite history and tell everyone that even
their personal experiences of the time were incorrect.

< snip more propaganda >

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-20 3:10 p.m., nospam wrote:

> In article <oWsQJ.25283$R1C9....@fx22.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If the original Macintosh were so much better than both the Amiga and
>> Atari ST (both of which also offered the ability to run Mac applications
>> within their environment at a charge), then how does he explain Apple
>> eventually releasing the Apple IIgs specifically to counter the Atari ST
>> and Amiga?
>
> the ii gs was *not* released to counter either of those. it was the
> next generation apple ii.

The GS stood for Graphics and Sound, something the Apple II and the Mac
both lacked that the ST and Amiga had. From the link I post below:
"Compute! described the IIGS in November 1986 as "two machines in one—a
product that bridges the gap between the Macintosh and Apple IIe, and in
so doing poses what may be serious competition for the Commodore Amiga
and the Atari ST series"."

Once again, you lie.

>> If Apple is so virtuous and geared toward the end-user, how
>> would he explain Apple's insistence on crippling that same computer's
>> processor to prevent it from competing with the Apple Macintosh?
>
> apple didn't cripple it. in fact, the ii gs was actually better than
> the mac in some ways, notably its sound capabilities. the processor was
> a 16-bit version of the venerable 8-bit 6502 used in previous apple ii
> models. it was also the first to have apple desktop bus (adb) on which
> usb was based, which macs adopted a few months later. it targeted an
> entirely different demographic than the mac.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IIGS>

"The 2.8 MHz clock was a deliberate decision to limit the IIGS's
performance to less than that of the Macintosh. This decision had a
critical effect on the IIGS's success; the original 65C816 processor
used in the IIGS was certified to run at up to 4 MHz."

Once again, you lie.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 00:30:58 -0000, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/19/2022 7:08 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:37:29 -0000, David Brooks <B...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it was the Sinclair ZX81 kit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX81
>>>
>>> We had all manner of hardware, Atari and Commodore come to mind but
>>> recollection now is hazy.
>>

>> I just had a ZX Spectrum. It was opened twice, once to install an extra 32K of RAM (that involved a soldering iron to introduce another page of RAM!), and once to replace the keyboard membrane.

>
> The selling feature of the ZX81, was the purchase price.
>
> Early PCs seemed to go for $5000 a pop, and arrived
> on your doorstep with nothing.
>
> Whereas the ZX81 had BASIC in it, and you had a tape recorder
> interface for saves from one session to another.

I don't know why everyone didn't get the microdrives, which were something like a hard disk or a floppy disk?

ROTFPMSL! I mistyped "something" and Opera tried to change it to somersetting, which is apparently old English for somersaulting.

> What was kooky about the BASIC, was the amount of block moves
> it would do in memory. It's an absolute pig, when

> the memory is full. I wrote a x86 disassembler for fun on it,

> and it just about killed me. The fuller the memory got, the
> slower it got. And that's without my program running. Just
> entering lines of BASIC code, make it run slower and slower.

I don't know what you mean. Why would it do block moves?

I did notice that if you typed a very long line, the cursor got very very slow towards the end. I can't think why.

> And no, it didn't have "rounded corners". What it could do,
> is draw a good likeness of chess pieces, when the chess program
> was loaded from tape. That was the best-looking software I had.

Agreed, I had all 10 of them. Cyrus was good. Made a cool noise too.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 18:48:10 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not....@all.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/19/22 18:30, Paul wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The selling feature of the ZX81, was the purchase price.
>>
>> Early PCs seemed to go for $5000 a pop, and arrived
>> on your doorstep with nothing.
>>
>> Whereas the ZX81 had BASIC in it, and you had a tape recorder
>> interface for saves from one session to another.
>>
>> What was kooky about the BASIC, was the amount of block moves
>> it would do in memory. It's an absolute pig, when
>> the memory is full.
>
> Garbage collection for strings? I remember my first computer doing that.

What is garbage collection?

>> I wrote a x86 disassembler for fun on it,
>> and it just about killed me. The fuller the memory got, the
>> slower it got. And that's without my program running. Just
>> entering lines of BASIC code, make it run slower and slower.
>>
>> And no, it didn't have "rounded corners". What it could do,
>> is draw a good likeness of chess pieces, when the chess program
>> was loaded from tape. That was the best-looking software I had.
>

> I know the Commodore (VIC-20, C64, C128) had special characters for card
> games.

Everything other than the Spectrum had proper graphics. The Spectrum had only 2 colours allowed per character space.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 18:48:10 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not....@all.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/19/22 18:30, Paul wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The selling feature of the ZX81, was the purchase price.
>>
>> Early PCs seemed to go for $5000 a pop, and arrived
>> on your doorstep with nothing.
>>
>> Whereas the ZX81 had BASIC in it, and you had a tape recorder
>> interface for saves from one session to another.
>>
>> What was kooky about the BASIC, was the amount of block moves
>> it would do in memory. It's an absolute pig, when
>> the memory is full.
>
> Garbage collection for strings? I remember my first computer doing that.
>
>> I wrote a x86 disassembler for fun on it,
>> and it just about killed me. The fuller the memory got, the
>> slower it got. And that's without my program running. Just
>> entering lines of BASIC code, make it run slower and slower.
>>
>> And no, it didn't have "rounded corners". What it could do,
>> is draw a good likeness of chess pieces, when the chess program
>> was loaded from tape. That was the best-looking software I had.
>

> I know the Commodore (VIC-20, C64, C128) had special characters for card
> games.

But the Spectrum had a lovely purring sound - the DC-DC convertor?

[Commander Kinsey]

The sarcasm whooshed over your head.

[rabidR04CH]

Aesthetically, the differences are minor but 3.1 is the first to support
Internet connectivity, as far as I know. 3.1 also dropped real mode support.

[rabidR04CH]

Please shove this <=======8 up your ass.

[Joel]

Wrong, imbecile, the relevance of the posts you were replying to went
over your dumb head. You are a clear and present fool among the
intelligent posters in this newsgroup.

--
Joel Crump

[Snit]

On Feb 20, 2022 at 7:34:41 PM MST, "rabidR04CH" wrote
<6TCQJ.76323$Gojc....@fx99.iad>:

> On 2022-02-20 3:10 p.m., nospam wrote:
>> In article <oWsQJ.25283$R1C9....@fx22.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If the original Macintosh were so much better than both the Amiga and
>>> Atari ST (both of which also offered the ability to run Mac applications
>>> within their environment at a charge), then how does he explain Apple
>>> eventually releasing the Apple IIgs specifically to counter the Atari ST
>>> and Amiga?
>>
>> the ii gs was *not* released to counter either of those. it was the
>> next generation apple ii.
>
> The GS stood for Graphics and Sound,

Not Granny Smith? :)

> something the Apple II and the Mac
> both lacked that the ST and Amiga had. From the link I post below:
> "Compute! described the IIGS in November 1986 as "two machines in one—a
> product that bridges the gap between the Macintosh and Apple IIe, and in
> so doing poses what may be serious competition for the Commodore Amiga
> and the Atari ST series"."
>
> Once again, you lie.
>
>>> If Apple is so virtuous and geared toward the end-user, how
>>> would he explain Apple's insistence on crippling that same computer's
>>> processor to prevent it from competing with the Apple Macintosh?
>>
>> apple didn't cripple it. in fact, the ii gs was actually better than
>> the mac in some ways, notably its sound capabilities. the processor was
>> a 16-bit version of the venerable 8-bit 6502 used in previous apple ii
>> models. it was also the first to have apple desktop bus (adb) on which
>> usb was based, which macs adopted a few months later. it targeted an
>> entirely different demographic than the mac.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IIGS>
>
> "The 2.8 MHz clock was a deliberate decision to limit the IIGS's
> performance to less than that of the Macintosh. This decision had a
> critical effect on the IIGS's success; the original 65C816 processor
> used in the IIGS was certified to run at up to 4 MHz."
>
> Once again, you lie.


--

Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

[Commander Kinsey]

Ah, I'd never even heard of the internet until I was on Windows 95. I borrowed a friend's old 1200 baud modem and connected using er.... some weird shit the geek did, got telnet working, proved the phoneline was ok. Then I ordered a 33.3 or was it a 56K? When I moved house I got 2 lines installed to double them up, BT had a freephone number and I had them both connected 24/7. They didn't like that. They tried to say that "Anytime" (the name of their package) didn't mean all-the-time.

[Commander Kinsey]

Sarcasm whooshed over your head.

[Commander Kinsey]

Bullshit. Im just not interested in the history of anything. I prefer to look to the future. Got dark matter research running on 7 PCs.

[Snit]

On Feb 20, 2022 at 7:55:07 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
<op.1hw6d...@ryzen.lan>:

Newbie! I was using the 'net back in 1987 and even a bit before that.

> I borrowed a friend's old 1200 baud modem and connected using er.... some
> weird shit the geek did, got telnet working, proved the phoneline was ok.
> Then I ordered a 33.3 or was it a 56K? When I moved house I got 2 lines
> installed to double them up, BT had a freephone number and I had them both
> connected 24/7. They didn't like that. They tried to say that "Anytime" (the
> name of their package) didn't mean all-the-time.

[Snit]

On Feb 20, 2022 at 7:49:57 PM MST, "rabidR04CH" wrote
<q5DQJ.105701$SeK9....@fx97.iad>:

You can do what you wish with those who are willing but I doubt he is.

[rabidR04CH]

It whooshed over mine as well. Try to be clear since sarcasm doesn't
translate too well in written form over Usenet.

[Commander Kinsey]

Since Joel said "coming from you", he should have realised I was joking and would never care about off topic posts.

[nospam]

In article <6TCQJ.76323$Gojc....@fx99.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>

wrote:

> >> If the original Macintosh were so much better than both the Amiga and
> >> Atari ST (both of which also offered the ability to run Mac applications
> >> within their environment at a charge), then how does he explain Apple
> >> eventually releasing the Apple IIgs specifically to counter the Atari ST
> >> and Amiga?
> >
> > the ii gs was *not* released to counter either of those. it was the
> > next generation apple ii.
>
> The GS stood for Graphics and Sound,

some say it also stood for gassee and sculley, who were at the time
director of european operations and apple ceo.

> something the Apple II and the Mac
> both lacked that the ST and Amiga had. From the link I post below:

> "Compute! described the IIGS in November 1986 as "two machines in one蟻

> product that bridges the gap between the Macintosh and Apple IIe, and in
> so doing poses what may be serious competition for the Commodore Amiga
> and the Atari ST series"."

the ii gs was a natural successor to the apple ii line. the amiga and
atari had nothing to do with its design goals.

> Once again, you lie.

nope. just stating facts.

> >> If Apple is so virtuous and geared toward the end-user, how
> >> would he explain Apple's insistence on crippling that same computer's
> >> processor to prevent it from competing with the Apple Macintosh?
> >
> > apple didn't cripple it. in fact, the ii gs was actually better than
> > the mac in some ways, notably its sound capabilities. the processor was
> > a 16-bit version of the venerable 8-bit 6502 used in previous apple ii
> > models. it was also the first to have apple desktop bus (adb) on which
> > usb was based, which macs adopted a few months later. it targeted an
> > entirely different demographic than the mac.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IIGS>
>
> "The 2.8 MHz clock was a deliberate decision to limit the IIGS's
> performance to less than that of the Macintosh. This decision had a
> critical effect on the IIGS's success; the original 65C816 processor
> used in the IIGS was certified to run at up to 4 MHz."

wikipedia is often a great resource, but because anyone can edit it,
it's not always correct, including the above, which is flat out wrong.

i know people who worked on the ii gs. the cpu speed was *not* limited
because of the mac nor did that have any effect on its success or lack
thereof.

the processor was clocked what it was for several reasons, none of
which had anything to do with crippling it to push the macintosh, which
is a ridiculous claim on its face. the two systems did not compete
against each other and served very different demographics.

regardless of cpu speed, the iigs was still an apple ii, which at the
time (1985) was nearly a decade old system. another problem was that
most developers didn't update their software for 16 bit support, making
it not that much better than existing apple ii series. the sound chip
was about the only interesting thing about it.

it was also downclocked for some timing-specific functions, which were
dependent on design decisions made a decade earlier, when hardware
limitations were very different.

> Once again, you lie.

nope.

you are trying to rewrite history, and failing.

[nospam]

In article <bNCQJ.44596$yi_7....@fx39.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
wrote:

>
> >> Yes, the monochrome Mac with 2-bit colour was clearly superior to the
> >> Amiga with its palette of 4,096 colours with 32 on-screen
> >> simultaneously. The Mac's beeps and bops for sounds were also _clearly_
> >> superior to Amiga's four PCM-sample-based sound channels. What was I
> >> thinking?
> >
> > you weren't thinking at all.
> >
> > what you list may be useful for games, but not for businesses, students
> > and many others, all of whom have actual work to do.
> >
> > the mac was first mainstream wysiwyg computer, launching the desktop
> > publishing industry. many companies bought the mac *just* for that
> > reason alone because it was far less expensive than existing solutions.
> >
> > there was very little point in creating documents with colours when
> > they could not be printed, at least not with any resemblance of
> > quality.
>
> And what machine did people who wanted to do video editing buy, pray
> tell? While desktop publishers liked what the Mac had to offer - for
> monochrome publishing no less - anyone who wanted to do _more_ got the
> Amiga or the ST. One was used for video editing until the late 90s
> (Amiga) and the other is sometimes still used to this day for music (the
> ST). What kind of a moron would someone have to be to believe that
> because Macs were good for desktop publishing and literally nothing
> else, they somehow were better machines than the Amiga and the ST which,
> by the way, could emulate the Mac.

you're jumping around with your claims.

video editing on personal computers wasn't a thing in the mid-80s, when
the mac was only monochrome and pcs were struggling with low res
colour, and hard drives were far too slow and expensive to support it.

colour came to the mac with the mac ii in 1987, with better colour
support than what existed at the time. video capture cards followed. i
was offered a job to work on one of those cards.

quicktime, the basis for video and audio on the mac (which microsoft
later stole), was released in 1991, and alongside that, supermac
introduced the video spigot, a low priced video capture card that was a
*huge* success, greatly exceeding their expectations.

the video toaster was another option, which was popular with hobbyists,
while pros used far more capable systems.

> >> The Macintosh's 8MHz 68000 was also much faster than the Commodore
> >> Amiga's 68000 running at 7.09MHz.
> >>
> >> Amiga users also _hated_ the fact that AmigaOS provided them with
> >> pre-emptive multitasking. They would much have preferred not to have
> >> multitasking at all.
> >
> > except there was no memory protection, making it not very good. crashes
> > were common.
> >
> > also, the mac *did* have multitasking, the difference being the
> > scheduling. it also supported limited preemption since day one.
>
> As of 1987, liar. It was also _cooperate_ multitasking, not preemptive.

true in the general case with multifinder, however, preemptive was
possible since day one for some things, which was extended later on
sometime in the system 7 days (don't remember exactly when, as it's
only been 25-30 years).

there is nothing inherently wrong with cooperative. it's simply a
different scheduling algorithm with advantages and disadvantages.

claims to the contrary represent a lack knowledge about both mac os and
operating systems.

> > i started writing mac apps back then and know quite well what could and
> > could not be done. you were not and do not.
>
> I call this a lie too.

then you'd be wrong. my first app was in 1985. many more followed.

> > as with everything, there are advantages and disadvantages.
>
> There were literally no advantages on the Mac back then. Not for sound,
> not for colour, not for gaming, not for video editing, not for
> multitasking.

all very much false.

if that were even slightly true, the mac would never have survived.

the reality is it *did* survive because there were numerous advantages.
many people sought out macs because it was the *only* system that could
do what they needed to be done, and with minimal hassle.

> It was a limited machine and everyone knew it but,
> unsurprisingly, you want to rewrite history and tell everyone that even
> their personal experiences of the time were incorrect.

i'm not the one who is trying to rewrite history.

unlike you, i lived it.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 2/20/22 16:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

>> I remember looking at an ad for the ZX81 in 1982 when I decided to buy a
>> computer. I didn't like the idea of not having a real keyboard, so I got
>> the Commodore VIC-20 ("The worlds first color computer for under $300",
>> which was $299.95) which came with 5K RAM.
>
> So not under $300 then.  Nobody falls for that.  I love buying a car
> from a showroom that says £999.99 and refusing to pay that huge amount,
> then offering him 1 grand instead.  If anything, all those 9s make the
> number look bigger.  9s are more than 0s.

They (the nines) look bigger to me to. More so since the way I write
that digit has a vertical line rather than a curved line, which makes it
look even bigger.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Jesus said, 'Love your neighbors.' Well, I do love them. I love to kill
them." ["Nasty Nick," Croatian Policeman]

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-21 11:32, nospam wrote:
> In article <6TCQJ.76323$Gojc....@fx99.iad>, rabidR04CH <ra...@r04.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>>> If the original Macintosh were so much better than both the Amiga and
>>>> Atari ST (both of which also offered the ability to run Mac applications
>>>> within their environment at a charge), then how does he explain Apple
>>>> eventually releasing the Apple IIgs specifically to counter the Atari ST
>>>> and Amiga?
>>>
>>> the ii gs was *not* released to counter either of those. it was the
>>> next generation apple ii.
>>
>> The GS stood for Graphics and Sound,
>
> some say it also stood for gassee and sculley, who were at the time
> director of european operations and apple ceo.

Dude, just let it go. It's clear that since it offered superior graphics
and sound to the typical Apple ][, it stood for graphics and sound. I
completely reject your decision to rewrite history here.

>> something the Apple II and the Mac
>> both lacked that the ST and Amiga had. From the link I post below:

>> "Compute! described the IIGS in November 1986 as "two machines in one‹a

>> product that bridges the gap between the Macintosh and Apple IIe, and in
>> so doing poses what may be serious competition for the Commodore Amiga
>> and the Atari ST series"."
>
> the ii gs was a natural successor to the apple ii line. the amiga and
> atari had nothing to do with its design goals.

It wasn't a "natural successor" because the Apple IIgs was very
different from the regular Apple ][, notably with the inclusion of
MacOS-like operating system in addition to the graphics and sound
upgrades. By omitting the Amiga and the Atari ST, you are lying by
downplaying the influence of platforms you're not a zealot to.

We get it: you love the Mac but don't you dare act like the Amiga and
the Atari ST were somehow worse than a monochrome Mac with no sound
capabilities whatsoever and that the Amiga, in particular, had a less
profound impact on the computing space than the shitty little Mac which
couldn't even be upgraded. You lose all credibility by making such
idiotic statements and make it clear why most people here filter your
posts.

I simply do not believe a single word you write.

<https://lowendmac.com/2020/thoughts-on-the-apple-iigs/>

"I understand that Apple used the 65C816 processor in it for its
backward compatibility with the old Apple II line, but releasing a 2.8
MHz computer in 1986 was somewhat foolish. The 65C816 started its life
as a 4 MHz CPU and was eventually available at speeds up to 14 MHz. The
only conclusion I can draw is the same one many others have: Apple
didn’t want the IIGS to compete with Macs."

Even the 8-Bit Guy, who is a lot more credible than you are, came to the
same conclusion when he looked at the Apple IIgs in this video
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h4tepFbMso> as did many others on the
same site when speaking specifically about the machine.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29

[Mark Lloyd]

On 2/20/22 20:35, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

>> I know the Commodore (VIC-20, C64, C128) had special characters for card
>> games.
>
> Everything other than the Spectrum had proper graphics.  The Spectrum
> had only 2 colours allowed per character space.

The VIC-20 had 8 colors, but no real bitmap display mode. You could
simulate it with custom characters. 256 normal 8*8 characters would
allow graphics on about 60% of the screen. There was a way to enable
8*16 characters, although I don't know if anyone successfully enabled
full graphics (considering RAM limitations).

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-21 11:32, nospam wrote:

Video editing on computes wasn't the norm in the mid-80s which is why it
was so important when Amiga finally made it a reality with an
announcement in 1987 and a release in 1990.

> colour came to the mac with the mac ii in 1987, with better colour
> support than what existed at the time. video capture cards followed. i
> was offered a job to work on one of those cards.
>
> quicktime, the basis for video and audio on the mac (which microsoft
> later stole), was released in 1991, and alongside that, supermac
> introduced the video spigot, a low priced video capture card that was a
> *huge* success, greatly exceeding their expectations.
>
> the video toaster was another option, which was popular with hobbyists,
> while pros used far more capable systems.

And what system was the Video Toaster released on? When was this?

>>>> The Macintosh's 8MHz 68000 was also much faster than the Commodore
>>>> Amiga's 68000 running at 7.09MHz.
>>>>
>>>> Amiga users also _hated_ the fact that AmigaOS provided them with
>>>> pre-emptive multitasking. They would much have preferred not to have
>>>> multitasking at all.
>>>
>>> except there was no memory protection, making it not very good. crashes
>>> were common.
>>>
>>> also, the mac *did* have multitasking, the difference being the
>>> scheduling. it also supported limited preemption since day one.
>>
>> As of 1987, liar. It was also _cooperate_ multitasking, not preemptive.
>
> true in the general case with multifinder, however, preemptive was
> possible since day one for some things, which was extended later on
> sometime in the system 7 days (don't remember exactly when, as it's
> only been 25-30 years).
>
> there is nothing inherently wrong with cooperative. it's simply a
> different scheduling algorithm with advantages and disadvantages.
>
> claims to the contrary represent a lack knowledge about both mac os and
> operating systems.

The problem with cooperative is that if one application fails, so do all
of the others which were cooperating. Every application gets a turn but
everything goes out of whack when one of the participants dies while
playing the game.

>>> i started writing mac apps back then and know quite well what could and
>>> could not be done. you were not and do not.
>>
>> I call this a lie too.
>
> then you'd be wrong. my first app was in 1985. many more followed.

I just don't believe you.

>>> as with everything, there are advantages and disadvantages.
>>
>> There were literally no advantages on the Mac back then. Not for sound,
>> not for colour, not for gaming, not for video editing, not for
>> multitasking.
>
> all very much false.
>
> if that were even slightly true, the mac would never have survived.
>
> the reality is it *did* survive because there were numerous advantages.
> many people sought out macs because it was the *only* system that could
> do what they needed to be done, and with minimal hassle.

Minimal hassle is true because MacOS was clearly a lot more intuitive
than either DOS or AmigaOS. Atari's TOS was similar but didn't have any
kind of multitasking at that time so the Mac looked better in that
respect even though TOS had colour from day one.

>> It was a limited machine and everyone knew it but,
>> unsurprisingly, you want to rewrite history and tell everyone that even
>> their personal experiences of the time were incorrect.
>
> i'm not the one who is trying to rewrite history.
>
> unlike you, i lived it.

I lived it as well except that I'm the only one between us who isn't an
Apple apologist who is willing to rewrite the story to make my fruity
religion of choice look virtuous, moral and brilliant.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29

[Mark Lloyd]

On 2/20/22 20:49, rabidR04CH wrote:

[snip]

> Aesthetically, the differences are minor but 3.1 is the first to support
> Internet connectivity, as far as I know. 3.1 also dropped real mode
> support.

AFAIK, Windows 3.1 did NOT come with internet support, but it could be
added (came with the optional IE). I don't know if there were any
differences that came with Win 3.1 to make that possible.

I also remember downloads of IE. Those for 3.1 were larger (having to
include TCP/IP) than those for 95.

At the time, I had CompuServe, with also came with internet support.

Win 95 came with TCP/IP, but it would have to be manually bound to the
LAN port. At the time, you were supposed to use some other protocol on a
LAN. Something I had forgotten in 2020, when I was setting up a Win 95
VM (curious about IE 1.0).

Yes, I do remember 3.1 dropping real mode support.

BTW, at the time I still had my first hard disk & controller (seperate,
since this was not IDE). That controller card had a problem that it
would not work in 386 mode. Windows had to be run in 286 mode (when was
that dropped?).

[Mark Lloyd]

On 2/20/22 20:55, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

> Ah, I'd never even heard of the internet until I was on Windows 95.   I
> borrowed a friend's old 1200 baud modem and connected using er.... some
> weird shit the geek did, got telnet working, proved the phoneline was
> ok.  Then I ordered a 33.3 or was it a 56K?  When I moved house I got 2
> lines installed to double them up, BT had a freephone number and I had
> them both connected 24/7.  They didn't like that.  They tried to say
> that "Anytime" (the name of their package) didn't mean all-the-time.

The internet existed for 20 years of more before that, although before
the nineties it was mainly for governments and universities. I used to
have a book about using the internet then (it was also before the web).
You couldn't get direct access on a home computer, but had to go through
a service.

My first internet access was in 1995, when they increased the size of
the local telephone calling area, and it now included some numbers for
CompuServe (I had a way to find out, for that service).

I had a 19.2K modem at that time. It worked fine on BBSes but gave a lot
of trouble on CSI (CompuServe). After awhile I found some conflict
between speeds over 14.4K and Windows (at least for that modem).

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-21 4:09 p.m., Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 2/20/22 20:49, rabidR04CH wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Aesthetically, the differences are minor but 3.1 is the first to
>> support Internet connectivity, as far as I know. 3.1 also dropped real
>> mode support.
>
> AFAIK, Windows 3.1 did NOT come with internet support, but it could be
> added (came with the optional IE). I don't know if there were any
> differences that came with Win 3.1 to make that possible.

No, it didn't come with but you could easily get the software needed to
connect to the Internet through it. Technically, you could connect to a
shell account using HyperTerminal though but that wasn't the web which
most people nowadays consider synonymous with the Internet.

> I also remember downloads of IE. Those for 3.1 were larger (having to
> include TCP/IP) than those for 95.
>
> At the time, I had CompuServe, with also came with internet support.
>
> Win 95 came with TCP/IP, but it would have to be manually bound to the
> LAN port. At the time, you were supposed to use some other protocol on a
> LAN. Something I had forgotten in 2020, when I was setting up a Win 95
> VM (curious about IE 1.0).
>
> Yes, I do remember 3.1 dropping real mode support.
>
> BTW, at the time I still had my first hard disk & controller (seperate,
> since this was not IDE). That controller card had a problem that it
> would not work in 386 mode. Windows had to be run in 286 mode (when was
> that dropped?).

I would have to bet that it was with the release of Windows 95.
Apparently, Windows 3.1 ran on 286 machines with 2MB of RAM albeit slowly.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 17:09:14 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not....@all.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/20/22 16:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> I remember looking at an ad for the ZX81 in 1982 when I decided to buy a
>>> computer. I didn't like the idea of not having a real keyboard, so I got
>>> the Commodore VIC-20 ("The worlds first color computer for under $300",
>>> which was $299.95) which came with 5K RAM.
>>
>> So not under $300 then. Nobody falls for that. I love buying a car
>> from a showroom that says £999.99 and refusing to pay that huge amount,
>> then offering him 1 grand instead. If anything, all those 9s make the
>> number look bigger. 9s are more than 0s.
>
> They (the nines) look bigger to me to. More so since the way I write
> that digit has a vertical line rather than a curved line, which makes it
> look even bigger.

Ah the upright nine with the athletic back muscles.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 17:20:05 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not....@all.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/20/22 20:35, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> I know the Commodore (VIC-20, C64, C128) had special characters for card
>>> games.
>>
>> Everything other than the Spectrum had proper graphics. The Spectrum
>> had only 2 colours allowed per character space.
>
> The VIC-20 had 8 colors, but no real bitmap display mode. You could
> simulate it with custom characters. 256 normal 8*8 characters would
> allow graphics on about 60% of the screen. There was a way to enable
> 8*16 characters, although I don't know if anyone successfully enabled
> full graphics (considering RAM limitations).

I got a program for the Spectrum that allowed any size of letters, not sure how it did it.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 21:22:14 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not....@all.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/20/22 20:55, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Ah, I'd never even heard of the internet until I was on Windows 95. I
>> borrowed a friend's old 1200 baud modem and connected using er.... some
>> weird shit the geek did, got telnet working, proved the phoneline was
>> ok. Then I ordered a 33.3 or was it a 56K? When I moved house I got 2
>> lines installed to double them up, BT had a freephone number and I had
>> them both connected 24/7. They didn't like that. They tried to say
>> that "Anytime" (the name of their package) didn't mean all-the-time.
>
> The internet existed for 20 years of more before that, although before
> the nineties it was mainly for governments and universities. I used to
> have a book about using the internet then (it was also before the web).
> You couldn't get direct access on a home computer, but had to go through
> a service.
>
> My first internet access was in 1995, when they increased the size of
> the local telephone calling area, and it now included some numbers for
> CompuServe (I had a way to find out, for that service).
>
> I had a 19.2K modem at that time. It worked fine on BBSes but gave a lot
> of trouble on CSI (CompuServe). After awhile I found some conflict
> between speeds over 14.4K and Windows (at least for that modem).

My friend connected his Spectrum to a BBS with a modem, but that wasn't the internet.

I'd never heard of the internet until a geeky friend started university and told me to go play in the IT Suite.

[Tim Slattery]

Mark Lloyd <not....@all.invalid> wrote:

>AFAIK, Windows 3.1 did NOT come with internet support, but it could be
>added (came with the optional IE). I don't know if there were any
>differences that came with Win 3.1 to make that possible.

We downloaded Trumpet Winsock to use the internet with Win3.x. MS had
defined the winsick (Windows Sockets) protocol, but had not bothered
to implement it in Win3. So an Aussie named Peter Tattam did it, and
zillions of us downloaded and installed it.

>Win 95 came with TCP/IP, but it would have to be manually bound to the
>LAN port.

Nor sure what that means.

> At the time, you were supposed to use some other protocol on a
>LAN.

NetBios, maybe?

--
Tim Slattery
tim <at> risingdove <dot> com

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 21:09:32 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not....@all.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/20/22 20:49, rabidR04CH wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Aesthetically, the differences are minor but 3.1 is the first to support
>> Internet connectivity, as far as I know. 3.1 also dropped real mode
>> support.
>
> AFAIK, Windows 3.1 did NOT come with internet support, but it could be
> added (came with the optional IE). I don't know if there were any
> differences that came with Win 3.1 to make that possible.

I'm sure I just installed something called winsock.

> I also remember downloads of IE. Those for 3.1 were larger (having to
> include TCP/IP) than those for 95.
>
> At the time, I had CompuServe, with also came with internet support.

Was that anything like AOL? Which didn't allow anything except its own software to see the internet?

> Win 95 came with TCP/IP, but it would have to be manually bound to the
> LAN port. At the time, you were supposed to use some other protocol on a
> LAN. Something I had forgotten in 2020, when I was setting up a Win 95
> VM (curious about IE 1.0).

In 1997, the LAN at my work used NetBEUI, TCP/IP and the other one I've forgotten. I'd always switch all three on because TCP/IP never seemed to find everything. The network admin didn't like that as the other two didn't route, so wasted bandwidth through the whole building.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:21:06 -0000, Tim Slattery <t...@risingdove.com> wrote:

> Mark Lloyd <not....@all.invalid> wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, Windows 3.1 did NOT come with internet support, but it could be
>> added (came with the optional IE). I don't know if there were any
>> differences that came with Win 3.1 to make that possible.
>
> We downloaded Trumpet Winsock to use the internet with Win3.x. MS had
> defined the winsick (Windows Sockets) protocol, but had not bothered
> to implement it in Win3. So an Aussie named Peter Tattam did it, and
> zillions of us downloaded and installed it.

That's the one, trumpet.

>> Win 95 came with TCP/IP, but it would have to be manually bound to the
>> LAN port.
>
> Nor sure what that means.

Neither am I. I set up a network of three Win95 machines, one in my house, and the others in two friend's houses down the street. I ran a coax cable along the back wall of some neighbours, I don't remember having to bind anything. I ran some audio cable too so we could yell at each other when we won at a multiplayer game. Or wake each other up in the middle of the night.

>> At the time, you were supposed to use some other protocol on a
>> LAN.
>
> NetBios, maybe?

NetBeui I believe. The other was IPX/SPX or something.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 2/21/22 20:24, rabidR04CH wrote:

[snip]

> I would have to bet that it was with the release of Windows 95.
> Apparently, Windows 3.1 ran on 286 machines with 2MB of RAM albeit slowly.

Also, Win 95 was the last version that could run on a PC without a FPU
(floating point unit). At the time I had a little notebook with an
80486SX (the version without a working FPU).

BTW, I actually had 3,1, but checked on a 95 upgrade. It required more
RAM than the 4MB in the machine. It could be upgraded, but that was
proprietary RAM and expensive. That machine had other problems, so the
upgrade wasn't worth it.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me,
it is the parts that I do understand." [Mark Twain]

[Mark Lloyd]

On 2/22/22 09:21, Tim Slattery wrote:

[snip]

>> Win 95 came with TCP/IP, but it would have to be manually bound to the
>> LAN port.
>
> Nor sure what that means.

Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol. Used for internet
connections (you were supposed to have a modem connected directly to he
PC then).

>> At the time, you were supposed to use some other protocol on a
>> LAN.
>
> NetBios, maybe?

Maybe, although I do remember something called IPX/SPX (or something
like that).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

[rabidR04CH]

On 2022-02-22 1:34 p.m., Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 2/21/22 20:24, rabidR04CH wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I would have to bet that it was with the release of Windows 95.
>> Apparently, Windows 3.1 ran on 286 machines with 2MB of RAM albeit
>> slowly.
>
> Also, Win 95 was the last version that could run on a PC without a FPU
> (floating point unit). At the time I had a little notebook with an
> 80486SX (the version without a working FPU).
>
> BTW, I actually had 3,1, but checked on a 95 upgrade. It required more
> RAM than the 4MB in the machine. It could be upgraded, but that was
> proprietary RAM and expensive. That machine had other problems, so the
> upgrade wasn't worth it.

Having used Windows 95 on a 386DX-33 with 4MB of RAM, I can assure you
that it would work but that the experience wasn't too stellar. At the
640x480 resolution I used it in with 256 colours, it was OK. However, I
can't imagine how awful it would have been with more simultaneous
colours and a higher amount of pixels on screen. On anything
pre-Pentium, you were better off sticking to 3.1 for your Internet needs.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11

"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:09:05 -0000, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 18, 2022 at 12:15:27 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
> <op.1hryf...@ryzen.lan>:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 16:58:25 -0000, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 17, 2022 at 9:37:51 AM MST, "Joel" wrote
>>> <hcus0ht6bs8vd6ns5...@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 16, 2022 at 7:47:09 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
>>>>> <op.1hprc...@ryzen.lan>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do iphone screens and now apps have rounded corners? This horrid kid's toy
>>>>>> design has leaked out onto Windows 11 aswell. First thing I did was undo that
>>>>>> crap. Rounded corners belong on 70s TV sets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure I see what it harms.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, it's just the fear of change. If the Commander is really that
>>>> obsessed over the details, he should just go back to Win10. I, for
>>>> one, am sticking with 11, especially with the new cumulative update
>>>> preview.
>>>
>>> At some point I likely will get a new Mac and a new PC to run Windows 11. I am
>>> getting behind the times on Windows.
>>
>> Always best to buy the parts individually. Gives you fun/experience building
>> it, and you get to choose exactly what's under the hood. And you can get
>> cheaper or better parts, first or second hand, depending on which parts are
>> important to you.
>
> I have no issue with folks making them themselves... but I will likely just
> buy one off the shelf. Not going to do much with the PC.

You'll get shite. At least use a company where you specify each component. RAM/CPU power/graphics/storage space have different priorities to different people.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:09:32 -0000, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 18, 2022 at 12:12:56 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
> <op.1hryb...@ryzen.lan>:

>
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 16:35:07 -0000, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 16, 2022 at 7:47:09 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
>>> <op.1hprc...@ryzen.lan>:
>>>
>>>> Why do iphone screens and now apps have rounded corners? This horrid kid's toy
>>>> design has leaked out onto Windows 11 aswell. First thing I did was undo that
>>>> crap. Rounded corners belong on 70s TV sets.
>>>
>>> Not sure I see what it harms.
>>

>> See TVs in the 70s/80s with round corners because that's the only way tubes
>> could be made? See when Sony came out with flatter squarer tubes? See how we
>> progressed to LCD perfectly flat and rectangular screens? Why go backwards?
>
> Why assume design styles have to be linear?

Because things tend to improve with time.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 18:40:38 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not....@all.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/22/22 09:21, Tim Slattery wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Win 95 came with TCP/IP, but it would have to be manually bound to the
>>> LAN port.
>>
>> Nor sure what that means.
>
> Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol. Used for internet
> connections

I know what that means. But I don't know what "manually bound to the LAN port" means.

> (you were supposed to have a modem connected directly to the PC then).

Supposed to? By who's authority?

>>> At the time, you were supposed to use some other protocol on a
>>> LAN.
>>
>> NetBios, maybe?
>
> Maybe, although I do remember something called IPX/SPX (or something
> like that).

There was that, it was a lazy way of setting up a network, with no routing.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 18:34:52 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not....@all.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/21/22 20:24, rabidR04CH wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I would have to bet that it was with the release of Windows 95.
>> Apparently, Windows 3.1 ran on 286 machines with 2MB of RAM albeit slowly.
>
> Also, Win 95 was the last version that could run on a PC without a FPU
> (floating point unit). At the time I had a little notebook with an
> 80486SX (the version without a working FPU).

I gather on some you could just turn on the FPU you hadn't paid for with a bit of soldering, or on some boards a jumper!

> BTW, I actually had 3,1, but checked on a 95 upgrade. It required more
> RAM than the 4MB in the machine. It could be upgraded, but that was
> proprietary RAM and expensive. That machine had other problems, so the
> upgrade wasn't worth it.

Proprietary RAM my arse. You've just got to get the exact geometry etc.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 2/23/22 10:44, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 18:40:38 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not....@all.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/22 09:21, Tim Slattery wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Win 95 came with TCP/IP, but it would have to be manually bound to the
>>>> LAN port.
>>>
>>> Nor sure what that means.
>>
>> Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol. Used for internet
>> connections
>
> I know what that means. But I don't know what "manually bound to the
> LAN port" means.

II don't really understand it, but you did have to change a network
setting to make TCP/IP work with the LAN port.

>> (you were supposed to have a modem connected directly to the PC then).
>
> Supposed to? By who's authority?

It seemed to be the most common way then, possibly having to do with the
fact that most people had only one PC.

At that time, I was already using a network-connected modem, but this
was not common then (I don't remember the model number, but IIRC a
Netgear 4-port 10Gb router with Texas Instruments 50Kb modem).

>>>> At the time, you were supposed to use some other protocol on a
>>>> LAN.
>>>
>>> NetBios, maybe?
>>
>> Maybe, although I do remember something called IPX/SPX (or something
>> like that).
>
> There was that, it was a lazy way of setting up a network, with no
routing.

You don't need routing for such a small LAN. I don't remember what (if
any) advantage there was to using a different protocol for local
connections..

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Inspiration: A peculiar effect of divine flatulence emitted by the Holy
Spirit which hisses into the ears of a few chosen of God...." [Voltaire]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Inspiration: A peculiar effect of divine flatulence emitted by the Holy
Spirit which hisses into the ears of a few chosen of God...." [Voltaire]