Phuck Winblowz. (was: Re: Winblows 95 Birthday!)
Andrew Fremantle
=BORG= <vlad...@iceonline.com> wrote:
>SomEbOdy WroTe:
>
>: As for LINUX and OS/2, these are NOT mainstream OSs .. they are merely
>: for
>: computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer
>: god"
>: and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO!
>Well, I will agree... there are not as many apps for Linux as for
>Winblowz95... But at least they are free. 95% of apps you download
>from the Net have those stupid beggars' nag screens, different
>functionality-limiting features, registration codes and crap like
>that. Many ms-windoze shareware authors threaten you with the most
>terrible consequences that may occur if you don't [send $20, register,
>erase your copy etc ...] and if you do [reverse-engineer, re-distribute,
>decompile, disassemble... etc.] I see nothing like this when dealing
>with Linux programs.
>Why did there appear computer viruses? Because of MS-DOS/Windoze.
>Why did there appear software piracy? MS-DO$/Windoze.
>Thanks to what millions of users every day stare at dark blue
>screens with `General Exception Fault' messages?? M$-DOS/Winblows.
>Eraze your Winblowz partition today! Uze Linux/FreeBSD instead.
>Make Uncle Billy starve.
>M$-Windows user to techsupport: "Who is General Failure and
>why is he reading my hard drive?"
>M$-DOS error mesage: "No keyboard detected. Please press F1
>to continue".
>--
>*-=-=-=-=-=#include <disclaimer.h>-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
>*-=Vladimir Petersen <vlad...@iceonline.com>=-*
>*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Vancouver, B.C.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
>*-=-=-=-Good pings come in small packets-=-=-=-*
I Agree fully with your opinion of WinFroze, but I disagree with your
opinion of Micro$loth DOS. Granted, DOS was a breeding ground for
viruses with it's lack of security, but for it's time it was an
excellent OS. Unfortunately, that time has past. I am a DOS fan, and I
find M$ trying to squeeze me into using it's WinFlaws products. I will
not tolerate this. This is the reason I am moving into UNIX [ Linux,
specifically ]. At this time, I find DOS/Windows3.1 more useful than
Linux, but keep in mind i've been using Micro$loth for years and linux
for about 2 weeks. In some respects, I find DOS superior to Linux. For
really processor intensive graphics applications [ games, mostly ] DOS
is better than Windoze OR linux because it allows the game to access
the hardware directly. but overall, Linux is better. I find the
prospects of having my own ftp/www server very tempting, and under
DOS/Winfroze I would not have a hope in hell of doing it. And don't
try that age-old Micro$loth line, but Windows95 doesen't use dos....
bullshit.... Windoze95 is DOS/Windows with somewhat better memory
management and a new face.
=BORG=
Bill Terrell
Skyhawk seems to find it difficult to discuss the merits of Win95 without
uning a variety names to denigrate it. Perhaps the arguments are weak enough
so that he need to buttress them with the terms he uses:
WinFroze
Micro$loth
M$
WinFlaws
Windoze
Windoze95
In the middle of all that, he says, " I find DOS/Windows3.1 more useful
than Linux ...". Perhaps when he has learned to use Linux, he will be able to
give their newsgroups his attention rather than spewing out hate on the
Windows newsgroups.
Good luck with Linux, Skyhawk
Bill
Volante
On Fri, 30 Aug 1996 19:59:23 GMT, sky...@smartt.com (Andrew
Fremantle) wrote:
>=BORG= <vlad...@iceonline.com> wrote:
>
>>SomEbOdy WroTe:
>>
>>: As for LINUX and OS/2, these are NOT mainstream OSs .. they are merely
>>: for
>>: computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer
>>: god"
>>: and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO!
>
>>Well, I will agree... there are not as many apps for Linux as for
>>Winblowz95... But at least they are free. 95% of apps you download
>>from the Net have those stupid beggars' nag screens, different
>>functionality-limiting features, registration codes and crap like
>>that. Many ms-windoze shareware authors threaten you with the most
>>terrible consequences that may occur if you don't [send $20, register,
>>erase your copy etc ...] and if you do [reverse-engineer, re-distribute,
>>decompile, disassemble... etc.] I see nothing like this when dealing
>>with Linux programs.
>
>>Why did there appear computer viruses? Because of MS-DOS/Windoze.
>>Why did there appear software piracy? MS-DO$/Windoze.
>>Thanks to what millions of users every day stare at dark blue
>>screens with `General Exception Fault' messages?? M$-DOS/Winblows.
I though it was "(This).EXE has caused a General Protection Fault in
...."
>
>>Eraze your Winblowz partition today! Uze Linux/FreeBSD instead.
>>Make Uncle Billy starve.
Uncle Billy won't starve unless the blood banks stop him from making
withdrawls.
>
>>M$-Windows user to techsupport: "Who is General Failure and
>>why is he reading my hard drive?"
>>M$-DOS error mesage: "No keyboard detected. Please press F1
>>to continue".
>
>>--
>>*-=-=-=-=-=#include <disclaimer.h>-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
>>*-=Vladimir Petersen <vlad...@iceonline.com>=-*
>>*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Vancouver, B.C.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
>>*-=-=-=-Good pings come in small packets-=-=-=-*
>
>
>I Agree fully with your opinion of WinFroze, but I disagree with your
>opinion of Micro$loth DOS. Granted, DOS was a breeding ground for
>viruses with it's lack of security, but for it's time it was an
>excellent OS. Unfortunately, that time has past. I am a DOS fan, and I
>find M$ trying to squeeze me into using it's WinFlaws products. I will
>not tolerate this. This is the reason I am moving into UNIX [ Linux,
>specifically ]. At this time, I find DOS/Windows3.1 more useful than
>Linux, but keep in mind i've been using Micro$loth for years and linux
>for about 2 weeks. In some respects, I find DOS superior to Linux. For
>really processor intensive graphics applications [ games, mostly ] DOS
>is better than Windoze OR linux because it allows the game to access
>the hardware directly. but overall, Linux is better. I find the
>prospects of having my own ftp/www server very tempting, and under
>DOS/Winfroze I would not have a hope in hell of doing it. And don't
>try that age-old Micro$loth line, but Windows95 doesen't use dos....
>bullshit.... Windoze95 is DOS/Windows with somewhat better memory
>management and a new face.
Did you say better memory management? Second, it doesn't use DOS, it
emulates the DOS environment. If it used DOS, it would say at the
very beginning: "Starting MS-DOS:" It doesn't. It says: "Starting
Windows 95:"
-----
"Although the shortest distance between two points is a straight line,
we don't always have that option." --Volante
Kevin L.
I Still think you are all full of it, Windows 95 runs like a dream for me
and never crashes. So, why would I ever change to something else?
I can find all I need Free for Win95 as well, browsers, newsreaders,
ect. I'm not locked into a small choice like I would be with something
else.Win95->WinNT->Infinity will be my path through life.
Anand Krishna Thakur
: >SomEbOdy WroTe:
: >Well, I will agree... there are not as many apps for Linux as for
: >Winblowz95... But at least they are free. 95% of apps you download
: >from the Net have those stupid beggars' nag screens, different
: >functionality-limiting features, registration codes and crap like
: >that. Many ms-windoze shareware authors threaten you with the most
: >terrible consequences that may occur if you don't [send $20, register,
: >erase your copy etc ...] and if you do [reverse-engineer, re-distribute,
: >decompile, disassemble... etc.] I see nothing like this when dealing
: >with Linux programs.
You've gotta remember, when programming for MS platforms, there are costs
involved. You've gotta pay for the OS, and on top of that, pay for the
compiler (up to several hundred dollars). In Linux, all parts of it are
free, so the only cost involved in programming applications is time and
power bills.
Don't knock shareware authors. And, FYI, there are several shareware
applications for Linux as well, ie. xv. It's rare, granted, but not
something to scorned.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anand K. Thakur ath...@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gabhan O'Loughlin
> >I Agree fully with your opinion of WinFroze, but I disagree with your
> >opinion of Micro$loth DOS. Granted, DOS was a breeding ground for
> >viruses with it's lack of security, but for it's time it was an
> >excellent OS. Unfortunately, that time has past. I am a DOS fan, and I
> >find M$ trying to squeeze me into using it's WinFlaws products. I will
> >not tolerate this. This is the reason I am moving into UNIX [ Linux,
> >specifically ]. At this time, I find DOS/Windows3.1 more useful than
> >Linux, but keep in mind i've been using Micro$loth for years and linux
> >for about 2 weeks. In some respects, I find DOS superior to Linux. For
> >really processor intensive graphics applications [ games, mostly ] DOS
> >is better than Windoze OR linux because it allows the game to access
> >the hardware directly. but overall, Linux is better. I find the
> >prospects of having my own ftp/www server very tempting, and under
> >DOS/Winfroze I would not have a hope in hell of doing it. And don't
> >try that age-old Micro$loth line, but Windows95 doesen't use dos....
> >bullshit.... Windoze95 is DOS/Windows with somewhat better memory
> >management and a new face.
>
> Did you say better memory management? Second, it doesn't use DOS, it
> emulates the DOS environment. If it used DOS, it would say at the
> very beginning: "Starting MS-DOS:" It doesn't. It says: "Starting
> Windows 95:"
>
People are so petty.
Ms-Doze could read MS-Dozed and you'd believe there was a difference.
Gazza the Great
Chris Yokum
On Sun, 01 Sep 1996 03:20:26 GMT, vol...@cris.com (Volante) wrote:
>>bullshit.... Windoze95 is DOS/Windows with somewhat better memory
>>management and a new face.
>Did you say better memory management? Second, it doesn't use DOS, it
>emulates the DOS environment. If it used DOS, it would say at the
>very beginning: "Starting MS-DOS:" It doesn't. It says: "Starting
>Windows 95:"
Try this.. SYS a disk in drive A, and boot from it. It still says
"Starting windows 95" but you end up in DOS.. Windows 95's DOS is the
same as every other DOS except it runs in protected mode, has built-in
support for Win95, and they put MSDOS.SYS into IO.SYS.
Tim Gerchmez
On Sat, 31 Aug 1996 04:55:35 GMT, =BORG= <vlad...@iceonline.com>
wrote:
>SomEbOdy WroTe:
>
>: As for LINUX and OS/2, these are NOT mainstream OSs .. they are merely
>: for
>: computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer
>: god"
>: and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO!
>
>Well, I will agree... there are not as many apps for Linux as for
>Winblowz95... But at least they are free. 95% of apps you download
>from the Net have those stupid beggars' nag screens, different
>functionality-limiting features, registration codes and crap like
>that.
Since when? You sound like you're back in about late 1984. Most apps
available on the Internet are totally free these days. Many (like
Pointcast) are paid for by advertising and other such sponsorship.
>Many ms-windoze shareware authors threaten you with the most
>terrible consequences that may occur if you don't [send $20, register,
>erase your copy etc ...] and if you do [reverse-engineer, re-distribute,
>decompile, disassemble... etc.]
Never in my life have I seen a threat on a Windows shareware program
like you mention.
>Why did there appear computer viruses? Because of MS-DOS/Windoze.
Yeah, sure, right. It's all DOS and Windows' fault.
>Why did there appear software piracy? MS-DO$/Windoze.
Hahahahahaahahhahahah....
>Eraze your Winblowz partition today! Uze Linux/FreeBSD instead.
>Make Uncle Billy starve.
shut up.
>M$-Windows user to techsupport: "Who is General Failure and
>why is he reading my hard drive?"
That's a humorous tagline/.sig that's been around for years.
>M$-DOS error mesage: "No keyboard detected. Please press F1
>to continue".
That's a BIOS error.
--
Check out my home page at http://www.blarg.net/~future/index.html
Sam Duncan Idaho Freeman Clemmons Sharma
>very beginning: "Starting MS-DOS:" It doesn't. It says: "Starting
>Windows 95:"
>
Ever try booting your Windows 95 "emergency rescue disk" ?
Try it now
Report back to us what it tells you is booting.
Report back to us what actually booted.
Check and ..........oh, can it be?.............MATE.
Volante
On 2 Sep 1996 02:37:14 GMT, ash...@inforamp.net (Sam Duncan Idaho
Freeman Clemmons Sharma) wrote:
If I ever need to use an "emergency rescue disk", I'll just format the
drive and stick DOS6.22 and Win3.1 back on. They work fine.
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
=BORG= (vlad...@iceonline.com) wrote:
| Why did there appear computer viruses? Because of MS-DOS/Windoze.
Wrong. They appeared because some people found that they could exploit
architectural features of some software to cause mischeivous programs to
replicate. A combination of human invention and human malice.
Think : Macintosh viruses also exist.
| Why did there appear software piracy? MS-DO$/Windoze.
Wrong. Software piracy appeared because people charge for software, and
the nature of human greed is to avoid paying such charges.
Think : people also pirate everything from CDs to T-shirts.
=BORG=
Tim Gerchmez wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Aug 1996 04:55:35 GMT, =BORG= <vlad...@iceonline.com>
> wrote:
> >SomEbOdy WroTe:
> Since when? You sound like you're back in about late 1984. Most apps
> available on the Internet are totally free these days. Many (like
> Pointcast) are paid for by advertising and other such sponsorship.
Lies. Most of Winblowz apps are shareware. Most of Linux/FreeBSD apps
are freeware with the source code. Even if M$-Winblowz apps are free,
they are never (very very seldom) distributed with sources! If I don't
have a source for my apps, I do not consider the applications to be
a freeware. They are distributed freely in binary form only.
> >Many ms-windoze shareware authors threaten you with the most
> >terrible consequences that may occur if you don't [send $20, register,
> >erase your copy etc ...] and if you do [reverse-engineer, re-distribute,
> >decompile, disassemble... etc.]
>
> Never in my life have I seen a threat on a Windows shareware program
> like you mention
Because you never read 'em. Typical M$ uzers never read manuals
and README's that come with programs.
> shut up.
I will... only after you shove your winblowz installation disks
up your rectum and make a GPF.
Happy computing,
Mikko Rauhala
On Sun, 01 Sep 1996 23:51:51 GMT, Chris Yokum <dm...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>Try this.. SYS a disk in drive A, and boot from it. It still says
>"Starting windows 95" but you end up in DOS.. Windows 95's DOS is the
>same as every other DOS except it runs in protected mode, has built-in
>support for Win95, and they put MSDOS.SYS into IO.SYS.
Bzzt. Thank you, next please!
- Mjr, sivari
Mikko Rauhala, m...@iki.fi, http://www.iki.fi/mjr/
PGP Public key available via WWW -^ or by fingering m...@helsinki.fi
I speak for me, myself and I only
Roger Davies
I agree - Windows 95 is just as stable as my old DOS systems .. I did have
some installation problems
on my first 'converted' PC, but traced most of those problems to missing or
invalid drivers for non-compliant
hardware .. I install Windows 95 on all my new PC's and really find little
to complain about ..
Why is there so much "I messed up my Window .. who can clean it up for me"
on this newgroup?
--
Soft Serve Direct Inc
c/o Roger Davies
re:
Kevin L. <kil...@inetport.com> wrote in article
<01bb980f$f7d9d440$7ac9...@killjoy.ccsi.com>...
Matthew J. Farrenkopf
Volante (vol...@cris.com) wrote:
: Did you say better memory management? Second, it doesn't use DOS, it
: emulates the DOS environment. If it used DOS, it would say at the
: Windows 95:"
A rose by any other name...
Why is it that one can hit F8 to get to DOS mode without having to go
through Windoze?
Why is it you can type "WIN" and have it run Windoze?
Sounds like DOS with a Windoze shell to me.
--
Matthew J. Farrenkopf, EMT-B | Contrary to what some people want to believe,
Portland, OR 97212 | bowling is TRULY a sport of skill. Join your
-----------------------------| local bowling league today for a challenging
ma...@teleport.com | team sport!
Ron Knights
Roger Davies wrote:
>
> I agree - Windows 95 is just as stable as my old DOS systems .. I did have
> some installation problems
> on my first 'converted' PC, but traced most of those problems to missing or
> invalid drivers for non-compliant
> hardware .. I install Windows 95 on all my new PC's and really find little
> to complain about ..
>
That's they key here.
Windows 95 demands good hardware, and demands a certain amount of memory
before it works well.
If we have bad hardware, it may work fine under DOS or Windows 3.X, but
Windows 95 will give you problems.
My only gripe: Windows 95 error messages often don't tell the truth
about what's wrong. You get error messages pointing to something else,
or merely crytpic messages with no details.
I've found no help in the "manual," or the other "helpless" files that
come with Windows 95. No help in "Windows 95 Secrets," either.
Somehow you manage to muddle through, making your own guesses as to the
problems....
> Why is there so much "I messed up my Window .. who can clean it up for me"
> on this newgroup?
>
Windows 95 has a lot of work to be done before it's really ready for
those who have problems. Error messages need to be more truthful. We
need a *real* manual with real documentation, and references to problems
many of us have encountered.
Windows 95 also needs to be refined.... It's much better than Win 3.X,
but there is work left to do....
Mats Ljungqvist
ma...@teleport.com (Matthew J. Farrenkopf) wrote:
>Volante (vol...@cris.com) wrote:
>: Did you say better memory management? Second, it doesn't use DOS, it
>: emulates the DOS environment. If it used DOS, it would say at the
>: very beginning: "Starting MS-DOS:" It doesn't. It says: "Starting
>: Windows 95:"
>through Windoze?
>Why is it you can type "WIN" and have it run Windoze?
>Sounds like DOS with a Windoze shell to me.
So Netware is also a DOS shell? Type SERVER at the DOS prompt to
start.
I'm not saying Win95 doesn't rely on DOS since in some cases it does
and in some cases it doesn't, but You cannot generalize by saying that
everything loaded by DOS is a DOS Shell.
In some cases Win95 can run without using DOS. This is when 32-bit
file and disk drivers are enabled and no DOS device drivers are needed
to use, for example, a CD-ROM.
// Mats
Denny Payne
Ron Knights (ronk...@gte.net) wrote:
:
: Windows 95 demands good hardware, and demands a certain amount of memory
: before it works well.
:
: If we have bad hardware, it may work fine under DOS or Windows 3.X, but
: Windows 95 will give you problems.
:
: My only gripe: Windows 95 error messages often don't tell the truth
: about what's wrong. You get error messages pointing to something else,
: or merely crytpic messages with no details.
I certainly saw this. "A device attached to the system is not
functioning." Hmmm....lotta help there!
:
: I've found no help in the "manual," or the other "helpless" files that
: come with Windows 95. No help in "Windows 95 Secrets," either.
:
: Somehow you manage to muddle through, making your own guesses as to the
: problems....
:
Or you get fed up with the constant problems and switch to another OS,
like I did to OS/2 Warp.
: > Why is there so much "I messed up my Window .. who can clean it up for me"
: > on this newgroup?
: >
: Windows 95 has a lot of work to be done before it's really ready for
: those who have problems. Error messages need to be more truthful. We
: need a *real* manual with real documentation, and references to problems
: many of us have encountered.
:
: Windows 95 also needs to be refined.... It's much better than Win 3.X,
: but there is work left to do....
Guess it's too bad that it's merely a stopgap product intended to move
people to NT. Microsoft has said this themselves, so they clearly don't
intend to do the refinements it needs. That's why I've gone to OS/2. IBM
is behind it (PSP anyway ;-), and will stay behind it.
Denny
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Mynd you, moose bytes kan | Denny Payne at Illuminati Online |
| be pretti nasti.... | http://www.io.com/~nregel |
| -Monty Python and | |
| the Holy Grail | Team OS/2! Warped and loving it! |
| | |
| Never cared for what they say, never "42" - Douglas Adams |
| cared for what they know. But I know. |
| -Metallica "Nothing Else Matters" |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate...
In article <01bb980f$f7d9d440$7ac9...@killjoy.ccsi.com>, "Kevin L." <kil...@inetport.com> writes...
>I Still think you are all full of it, Windows 95 runs like a dream for me
>and never crashes. So, why would I ever change to something else?
>I can find all I need Free for Win95 as well, browsers, newsreaders,
>ect. I'm not locked into a small choice like I would be with something
>else.Win95->WinNT->Infinity will be my path through life.
You are completely locked in. You are an open-beaked chick in the nest, utterly
dependent on the next round of regurgitated bill-barf for your very survival.
And bill is loving you good for your love of him.
Tom O'Toole - ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - JHUVMS system programmer
This message has been brought to you by bill gates, inventor of the internet
Nobody ever got fired for buying bill gates...
Tim Gerchmez
On Sun, 01 Sep 1996 23:51:51 GMT, dm...@cornell.edu (Chris Yokum)
wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Sep 1996 03:20:26 GMT, vol...@cris.com (Volante) wrote:
>
>>>bullshit.... Windoze95 is DOS/Windows with somewhat better memory
>>>management and a new face.
>>Did you say better memory management? Second, it doesn't use DOS, it
>>emulates the DOS environment. If it used DOS, it would say at the
>>very beginning: "Starting MS-DOS:" It doesn't. It says: "Starting
>>Windows 95:"
>
>Try this.. SYS a disk in drive A, and boot from it. It still says
>"Starting windows 95" but you end up in DOS.. Windows 95's DOS is the
>same as every other DOS except it runs in protected mode, has built-in
>support for Win95, and they put MSDOS.SYS into IO.SYS.
Also, it doesn't include certain utilities that other DOS versions
had. If you wanted, you could go so far as to call it "Win95 text
mode."
Tim Gerchmez
On 1 Sep 1996 14:16:47 GMT, "Kevin L." <kil...@inetport.com> wrote:
>I Still think you are all full of it, Windows 95 runs like a dream for me
>and never crashes. So, why would I ever change to something else?
>I can find all I need Free for Win95 as well, browsers, newsreaders,
>ect. I'm not locked into a small choice like I would be with something
>else.Win95->WinNT->Infinity will be my path through life.
It's a decent path too, don't let anyone tell you differently. Not
all of us care about some esoteric quality like "technical
superiority" - and if we do, we want it with a ton of the latest apps,
good support, and a company with a strong vision. OS/2 may not be
dead, but IBM's long-term vision for it is a joke.
Ron Knights
Denny Payne wrote:
> : My only gripe: Windows 95 error messages often don't tell the truth
> : about what's wrong. You get error messages pointing to something else,
> : or merely crytpic messages with no details.
>
> I certainly saw this. "A device attached to the system is not
> functioning." Hmmm....lotta help there!
>
Yes, I got this message whenever I attempted to install floppy-based
software when running Windows 95. However, I was still able to install
CD software..
I also got a host of other error messages.
> :
> : I've found no help in the "manual," or the other "helpless" files that
> : come with Windows 95. No help in "Windows 95 Secrets," either.
> :
> : Somehow you manage to muddle through, making your own guesses as to the
> : problems....
> :
>
> Or you get fed up with the constant problems and switch to another OS,
> like I did to OS/2 Warp.
>
Heh, I left OS/2 after 3-4 years of constant frustration.
Tell me, where is the OS/2-section in most stores that sell computer
products?! Where are all the OS/2 magazines?! Do you need to scour the
countryside to find one, so you can subscribe because you're tired of
running all around town?!
> : Windows 95 also needs to be refined.... It's much better than Win 3.X,
> : but there is work left to do....
>
> Guess it's too bad that it's merely a stopgap product intended to move
> people to NT. Microsoft has said this themselves, so they clearly don't
> intend to do the refinements it needs. That's why I've gone to OS/2. IBM
> is behind it (PSP anyway ;-), and will stay behind it.
>
Oh, yeah. IBM is so "behind OS/2" that it's a lame-duck product for most
of its poor "average users" like me.
Hell, I eagerly bought the OS/2 version of Corel Draw because Corel
promised earnestly to continue supporting it. Imagine my frustration
after seeing so many better Windows versions out there?!
Where is the OS/2 version of WordPerfect, or the Corel WordPerfect Suite
7?!
Nothing is out there for people who demand variety and quality.
Screw OS/2 and IBM who's too dumb to make a good thing work.
Ron Knights
Tim Gerchmez wrote:
>
> It's a decent path too, don't let anyone tell you differently. Not
> all of us care about some esoteric quality like "technical
> superiority" - and if we do, we want it with a ton of the latest apps,
> good support, and a company with a strong vision. OS/2 may not be
> dead, but IBM's long-term vision for it is a joke.
>
Of course, they did the same with such wild ideas as the PC Jr, etc.
Tom Torrance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==
Matthew J. Farrenkopf
Mats Ljungqvist (mats.lj...@enator.se) wrote:
: So Netware is also a DOS shell? Type SERVER at the DOS prompt to
: start.
Never played with Netware. I can't comment on this one.
: I'm not saying Win95 doesn't rely on DOS since in some cases it does
: and in some cases it doesn't, but You cannot generalize by saying that
: everything loaded by DOS is a DOS Shell.
No, not just "everything" is a DOS shell. But generally anything which
either replaces or used as a replacement to the functions in COMMAND.COM is
a "shell". PC Tools (it's been a LONG time since I used this one) used to
have a "shell" which allowed you to manage files, view them, run programs
from within it, etc. Windoze does the same thing, except in a graphic
environment. Even more basic, the old DOSSHELL.
I'm sure anyone and everyone will come up with their own definitions of what
a "shell" is.
: In some cases Win95 can run without using DOS. This is when 32-bit
: file and disk drivers are enabled and no DOS device drivers are needed
: to use, for example, a CD-ROM.
Basically, it doesn't need to use DOS for anything that is native to the
Windows 95 environment. That's fine. But, at least for now, how many TRULY
native 95 programs are out there? Not many, for certain, which means that a
lot of what 95 does will need to rely, to some extent, on the old underlying
DOS system.
Steve Nichols
=BORG= wrote:
>
> Tim Gerchmez wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Aug 1996 04:55:35 GMT, =BORG= <vlad...@iceonline.com>
> > wrote:
<snip>
> If I don't
> have a source for my apps, I do not consider the applications to be
> a freeware. They are distributed freely in binary form only.
>
<snip>
From your posting, I assume that you believe that if people are not
programmers, they shouldn't be using a computer.
Then do you also belive that if an individual is not a mechanic they
should not drive motor vehicles, or not watch TV or listen to radio
because they are not electronic technicians?
Just some thoughts...
Denny Payne
Ron Knights (ronk...@gte.net) wrote:
: Denny Payne wrote:
:
: > : My only gripe: Windows 95 error messages often don't tell the truth
: > : about what's wrong. You get error messages pointing to something else,
: > : or merely crytpic messages with no details.
: >
: > I certainly saw this. "A device attached to the system is not
: > functioning." Hmmm....lotta help there!
: >
: Yes, I got this message whenever I attempted to install floppy-based
: software when running Windows 95. However, I was still able to install
: CD software..
I got it just trying to get to the DOS prompt.
:
: I also got a host of other error messages.
:
: > :
: > : I've found no help in the "manual," or the other "helpless" files that
: > : come with Windows 95. No help in "Windows 95 Secrets," either.
: > :
: > : Somehow you manage to muddle through, making your own guesses as to the
: > : problems....
: > :
: >
: > Or you get fed up with the constant problems and switch to another OS,
: > like I did to OS/2 Warp.
: >
: Heh, I left OS/2 after 3-4 years of constant frustration.
:
: Tell me, where is the OS/2-section in most stores that sell computer
: products?! Where are all the OS/2 magazines?! Do you need to scour the
: countryside to find one, so you can subscribe because you're tired of
: running all around town?!
:
I can get magazines at any one of about 10 stores here in town. CompUsa
has a little OS/2 software. There is a local OS/2 only store (Simply
Intelligent) that I can get whatever I need from. You are behind the
times.
:
: > : Windows 95 also needs to be refined.... It's much better than Win 3.X,
: > : but there is work left to do....
: >
: > Guess it's too bad that it's merely a stopgap product intended to move
: > people to NT. Microsoft has said this themselves, so they clearly don't
: > intend to do the refinements it needs. That's why I've gone to OS/2. IBM
: > is behind it (PSP anyway ;-), and will stay behind it.
: >
: Oh, yeah. IBM is so "behind OS/2" that it's a lame-duck product for most
: of its poor "average users" like me.
:
Merlin is coming out this month and v5 is in the works. How much more
'behind' do you need?
: Hell, I eagerly bought the OS/2 version of Corel Draw because Corel
: promised earnestly to continue supporting it. Imagine my frustration
: after seeing so many better Windows versions out there?!
:
: Where is the OS/2 version of WordPerfect, or the Corel WordPerfect Suite
: 7?!
Who cares? We have DeScribe and a host of others that do the job just as
well. Just because you don't recognize the names doesn't mean the
products aren't there.
: Nothing is out there for people who demand variety and quality.
:
Completely false. Look at Colorworks. Quality is definitely there.
: Screw OS/2 and IBM who's too dumb to make a good thing work.
IBM != OS/2. The PSP division of IBM is behind OS/2, and that's all that
matters.
drsoran
Steve Nichols (hws...@state.me.us) wrote:
: From your posting, I assume that you believe that if people are not
: programmers, they shouldn't be using a computer.
: Then do you also belive that if an individual is not a mechanic they
: should not drive motor vehicles, or not watch TV or listen to radio
: because they are not electronic technicians?
To operate a motor vehicle you are required to take certain tests
that determine whether or not your are proficient enough to drive said
vehicle. You are *not* allowed to just take a car and start driving it
around on the streets without knowing how the hell to operate it.
Computers can be just as dangerous when they fall into incompetant hands.
Anyway, sticking to that analogy, no, people who cannot
understand the BASIC workings of the car should *not* be on the road.
"Gas pedal, brake, shift lever, steering wheel... UGH! Why does this
have to be so complicated!? Why can't they just make it with one button
to push and make it go and do the things I want? I don't want to have to
read a book to learn how to steer but this steering wheel concept is so
foreign and complicated to me!" You're telling me you wouldn't just slap
that person until you knocked some sense into them?
Computers are *complex* machines. You can slap all the silly
little GUI happy faced icons on them and just have two buttons to operate
the whole thing but that doesn't make the thing any less complex...
especially if you need to do something more complex than adding 2+2.
Do you also bitch about how complex your new state of the art CD
player is? "Why does it have to have all these buttons?? Skip a track?
Why would I want to do that? I just want a play and a stop button like
my radio has! Why do I need a power button? I can just unplug it. Why
can't I stick tapes in my CD player? That's stupid! Who's the idiot
that designed it to be so complicated!?" <sigh>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
drs...@ni.cba.csuohio.edu I love it when a .plan comes together.
"Blinky lights are the essence of modern technology."
Paul E Larson
Denny Payne <nre...@io.com> wrote in article <50hqk5$b...@nntp-1.io.com>...
> Guess it's too bad that it's merely a stopgap product intended to move
> people to NT. Microsoft has said this themselves, so they clearly don't
> intend to do the refinements it needs. That's why I've gone to OS/2. IBM
> is behind it (PSP anyway ;-), and will stay behind it.
>
Hate to tell ya, but OS/2 Warp v.3 is just a stop gap, same with v4.0 of Warp and NT etc.. All OS's are technically stop gap until the next and brightest are built. So Microsoft was a little more honest when they tell you that Win95 is a bridge product to NT.
--
Brought to you from the brain of Paul E Larson a.k.a.
whis...@servtech.com. Okay it might not be much but
I thought they said trains. I believe that everyone
has the right to their own opinion no matter how wrong
they are.
Jim Polaski
In article <50keki$a...@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, drs...@ni.cba.csuohio.edu
(drsoran) wrote:
> Steve Nichols (hws...@state.me.us) wrote:
> : From your posting, I assume that you believe that if people are not
> : programmers, they shouldn't be using a computer.
>
> : Then do you also belive that if an individual is not a mechanic they
> : should not drive motor vehicles, or not watch TV or listen to radio
> : because they are not electronic technicians?
>
> To operate a motor vehicle you are required to take certain tests
> that determine whether or not your are proficient enough to drive said
> vehicle. You are *not* allowed to just take a car and start driving it
> around on the streets without knowing how the hell to operate it.
> Computers can be just as dangerous when they fall into incompetant hands.
=====
I NEVER saw a computer, improperly driven that ran over a child running in
the street, nore have I seen one jump the curb and crash into a building!
Not a good analogy...try again!
=====
> Anyway, sticking to that analogy, no, people who cannot
> understand the BASIC workings of the car should *not* be on the road.
> "Gas pedal, brake, shift lever, steering wheel... UGH! Why does this
> have to be so complicated!? Why can't they just make it with one button
> to push and make it go and do the things I want? I don't want to have to
> read a book to learn how to steer but this steering wheel concept is so
> foreign and complicated to me!" You're telling me you wouldn't just slap
> that person until you knocked some sense into them?
=====
Hmmm...does this mean that sicn I watch the TV I should know about it's
circuts, how the tuner, power supply, tube, electron guns, shadow mask
etc...operate and understand the theory?
No...not right...again....TRY AGAIN!
=====
> Computers are *complex* machines. You can slap all the silly
> little GUI happy faced icons on them and just have two buttons to operate
> the whole thing but that doesn't make the thing any less complex...
> especially if you need to do something more complex than adding 2+2.
> Do you also bitch about how complex your new state of the art CD
> player is? "Why does it have to have all these buttons?? Skip a track?
> Why would I want to do that? I just want a play and a stop button like
> my radio has! Why do I need a power button? I can just unplug it. Why
> can't I stick tapes in my CD player? That's stupid! Who's the idiot
> that designed it to be so complicated!?" <sigh>
====
dsoran....you should realize that if you want to put your hands in and
muck around, that is your priviledge...but for many..the *complex machine*
as you call it is no more than a "window" into a world of information
gathering and transfer. If one had to wrooy or conern oneself with the
"workings" of a window in your house every time you tied to open it...why
have one? Computing should be simple...one whould not have to spend half
the time putzing with the box....just to get things to work ok....in fact,
about as complicated as a microwave might be about right....not that I
need that....but for many, it should be a transparent means of information
access....now go study about metaphor an analogy....and we'll try this
again!
--
...a traveler on the information super-cyber highway, occasionally stopping to get lost and find something new!
Stanley Fisher
=BORG= <vlad...@iceonline.com> wrote on Sat, 31 Aug 1996 04:55:35 GMT:
>SomEbOdy WroTe:
>
>: As for LINUX and OS/2, these are NOT mainstream OSs .. they are merely
>: for
>: computer NERD/GEEKS who have nothing to do all day put play "computer
>: god"
>: and search for programs that will run on their esoteric OSs! IMHO!
Well, I'm running DOS/Win, OS/2, Linux and NT 4 server on the same machine and also setup several
Novell servers and my experience is that NO operating system always installs flawlessly the first
time; I've had my problems with all of them.
The one that wins for me is the one that's most productive for my everyday work I need to do and
that's OS/2 Warp Connect. Nothing can tip it. (now that I know it quite well) it installs without
hickups and runs stable all the big hot shots. You know, I survive without all the buggy 95 stuff
out there. The WPS interface in Warp is just the end; I've seen the 95 interface on Win 4 and I'm
really disappointed: it's less usable, there's too much clutter on the screen, the pop-up menu's are
a joke (there's nothing in it) and it's slow. That's another remark for NT: SLOW SLOW SLOW (I have
32 Mb RAM and run everything off 2 SCSI disks from which the one NT is on, is a 7200 RPM and the one
OS/2 is on isn't.)
I didn't really get to know Linux that well but I'm going to in the next month; first remark
(you,know it): hard to install; but I'll manage...
So, don't make everyone think Win 95 is the answer because Billy says so...
Yours,
David Caulton
> To operate a motor vehicle you are required to take certain tests
> that determine whether or not your are proficient enough to drive said
> vehicle. You are *not* allowed to just take a car and start driving it
> around on the streets without knowing how the hell to operate it.
> Computers can be just as dangerous when they fall into incompetant hands.
I think this is a bit of a stretch. A car WILL be dangerous when driven by
an incompetant. I don't know of anyone who was ever killed because I
misused my spellchecker.
> Anyway, sticking to that analogy, no, people who cannot
> understand the BASIC workings of the car should *not* be on the road.
> "Gas pedal, brake, shift lever, steering wheel... UGH! Why does this
> have to be so complicated!? Why can't they just make it with one button
> to push and make it go and do the things I want? I don't want to have to
> read a book to learn how to steer but this steering wheel concept is so
> foreign and complicated to me!" You're telling me you wouldn't just slap
> that person until you knocked some sense into them?
But should they have to understand the complexities of an internal
combusion engine? I think not. This is a continuum, but I think that our
current state with computers is more like, "You turn the steering wheel to
the right to go left, left to go right. Why? Because it was easier to
implement that way." And "as you press on the gas, make sure you turn the
knob that increases the flow of water through the engine to cool it, or
you'll risk burning out the engine". And "make sure you don't turn the
steering wheel to far, or it will be perpendicular to the line of travel
and you'll tear the front wheels off".
Sure, a "car-literate" user would know to do all these things - but is it
necessary for them to know it all? Why not make it as easy as possible,
given the users goals?
> Computers are *complex* machines. You can slap all the silly
> little GUI happy faced icons on them and just have two buttons to operate
> the whole thing but that doesn't make the thing any less complex...
> especially if you need to do something more complex than adding 2+2.
> Do you also bitch about how complex your new state of the art CD
> player is?
People DO bitch about this. They also used to bitch about how complex
programming a VCR is - and as a result it's gotten much better, much more
simple.
Computers should be as simple as possible, given the users' goals. I don't
think that the current computer systems are NEARLY as simple as possible.
Dave
--
David Caulton, Ph.D.
Usability Specialist
Microsoft DAD HCI group
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
Jeremy Nelson
Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
>=====
>I NEVER saw a computer, improperly driven that ran over a child running in
>the street, nore have I seen one jump the curb and crash into a building!
>Not a good analogy...try again!
>=====
An incompetent computer user can cause a plane to crash, or cause a
chemotherapy machine to give incorrect doses, or a nuclear power plant
to melt down. Your assertion that simply because you havent the
intelligence to figure out how a computer could do harm means that no
expertise should be required to use it is an admirable, but misguided
logical fallacy. Try again!
>=====
>Hmmm...does this mean that sicn I watch the TV I should know about it's
>circuts, how the tuner, power supply, tube, electron guns, shadow mask
>etc...operate and understand the theory?
>No...not right...again....TRY AGAIN!
>=====
Noone asked you to become an electrical engineer in order to use a
computer. Why do you use the analogy to televisions? Dont you think
that most all-in-one remote controls are at least as complex as any
mouse-driven computer interface? Nope. Youre definitely wrong.
TRY AGAIN!
>====
>dsoran. You should realize that if you want to put your hands in and
>muck around, that is your [privilege]. But for many, the *complex machine*
>as you call it is no more than a "window" into a world of information
>gathering and transfer. If one had to [worry] or [concern] oneself with the
>"workings" of a window in your house every time you [tried] to open it...why
>have one?
Simply because other devices are easy to use does not automatically require
that computers be easy to use. A computer is significantly more complex
than a storm window, and hence it requires more expertise to use. Why
is this such a hard concept for people to grasp?
>Computing should be simple...one whould not have to spend half
>the time putzing with the box....
The only limiting factor to how much time you spend "putzing with the
box" is your own refusal to spend time learning the rudiments to be
productive to the degree you require with the products that you insist
you have to use. Typically, the "mass market" software and operating
systems that so many extol as being the panacea for all things computer-
related are the very things that bind and restrict users to
non-productivity. Yet for some reason, like bleeting sheep, refuse to see
the obvious and instead attack people who are telling you why youre not
productive -- the products you use are crap!
>just to get things to work ok....in fact,
>about as complicated as a microwave might be about right....not that I
>need that....
A computer is significantly more complex than a microwave. Please explain
why a general-purpose computer should be dumbed-down to the point where
you have no functional control over its activities?
>but for many, it should be a transparent means of information
>access....
Then you should go out and design such a device. However, such a device
does not currently exist, and your loud bleetings that we are persecuting
you because we (computer software and hardware designers) refuse to reduce
the complexity of a computer to a "Peas, Porridge, Pot" level are not
impressive to those who require computers to be powerful at the expense of
having the masses be able to use them.
>now go study about metaphor an analogy....and we'll try this again!
With as poor as your imagery and logical reasoning powers seems to be,
you are hardly the one to be making this assertion about others.
-jfn
Koro
> ma...@teleport.com (Matthew J. Farrenkopf) wrote:
> >Volante (vol...@cris.com) wrote:
> >: Did you say better memory management? Second, it doesn't use DOS, it
> >: emulates the DOS environment. If it used DOS, it would say at the
> >: very beginning: "Starting MS-DOS:" It doesn't. It says: "Starting
> >: Windows 95:"
> >Why is it that one can hit F8 to get to DOS mode without having to go
> >through Windoze?
> >Why is it you can type "WIN" and have it run Windoze?
> >Sounds like DOS with a Windoze shell to me.
> So Netware is also a DOS shell? Type SERVER at the DOS prompt to
> start.
> I'm not saying Win95 doesn't rely on DOS since in some cases it does
> and in some cases it doesn't, but You cannot generalize by saying that
> everything loaded by DOS is a DOS Shell.
> In some cases Win95 can run without using DOS. This is when 32-bit
> file and disk drivers are enabled and no DOS device drivers are needed
> to use, for example, a CD-ROM.
And I don't have to have a sound driver in DOS to have sounds in
windows either. Doesn't mean windows doesn't sit uttop DOS.
KORO
Ned Kelly
Andrew Fremantle (sky...@smartt.com) wrote:
: the hardware directly. but overall, Linux is better. I find the
: prospects of having my own ftp/www server very tempting, and under
: DOS/Winfroze I would not have a hope in hell of doing it. And don't
I'm getting tempted to get a UUCP feed to set up an anon.penet.fi clone.
Being how my computer is a Packrat Bell, I'm tempted to call the site
ValuNet (valunet.com) or Anon Penet Chi Il US (anon.penet.chi.il.us).
I'll probably end up being the next Julf. While there is a Winblows-based
anon remailer package for SLIP connections, there's no way to use M$
crapware to make a nymserver like my proposed Anon Penet Chi Il US. I'd
like to see the scripts Alpha C2 Org used. That would be even better than
Anon Penet Fi, as the nyms are protected by PGP reply blocks instead of a
database that can be raided by $cientology.
--
Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!! http://www.suburbia.net/~nedkelly/Seppo_Navy.html
"That isn't a knife.... This is a KNIFE!" - Paul Hogan
The Navy: It's Not Just A Job..... It's $cientology Lite!
Ned Kelly
Volante (vol...@cris.com) wrote:
: emulates the DOS environment. If it used DOS, it would say at the
: very beginning: "Starting MS-DOS:" It doesn't. It says: "Starting
: Windows 95:"
That's a lame argument for your saying "Winblows 95 doesn't use DOS". All
M$ did was a lame hex edit, like the people who convert international PGP
to "Yank" PGP that's warez.
Ned Kelly
Jim Polaski (jpol...@wwa.com) wrote:
: I NEVER saw a computer, improperly driven that ran over a child running in
: the street, nore have I seen one jump the curb and crash into a building!
: Not a good analogy...try again!
True, but a computer hooked up to factory equipment could indeed have the
potential to kill! Consider a computer hooked up to a discoteque-style
light show machine while you're changing the bulb and your kid in the
other room decides to run the light show proggie!
Twilight
Ron Knights <ronk...@gte.net> wrote in article <322C8D...@gte.net>...
> Tim Gerchmez wrote:
> >
>
> > It's a decent path too, don't let anyone tell you differently. Not
> > all of us care about some esoteric quality like "technical
> > superiority" - and if we do, we want it with a ton of the latest apps,
> > good support, and a company with a strong vision. OS/2 may not be
> > dead, but IBM's long-term vision for it is a joke.
> >
> I agree, IBM dropped the ball years ago.
they apparently have some HOT stuff coming out next year, (Hardware wise.)
Did you know... IBM spends more on Research and Development than Microsoft
gets in net revenue!
(By 3 BILLION!)
Twilight
Steve Nichols
drsoran wrote:
>
> Steve Nichols (hws...@state.me.us) wrote:
> : From your posting, I assume that you believe that if people are not
> : programmers, they shouldn't be using a computer.
>
> : Then do you also belive that if an individual is not a mechanic they
> : should not drive motor vehicles, or not watch TV or listen to radio
> : because they are not electronic technicians?
<snip>
> Anyway, sticking to that analogy, no, people who cannot
> understand the BASIC workings of the car should *not* be on the road.
<snip>
The basic anology still stands, LINUX is generally far beyond the new
user capabilities. It is still considered a non-standard OS and while
availiable free, it does not have a centralized support system, software
availiability, nor easy accessibility for the masses.
The posting I replied to implied that the individual seemed to believe
that if he didn't have the source code for an application, it wasn't
worth having indicating that he was more concerned with programming
rather than end-user operation. While I work in MIS/IS and Network
Administration,I have to be concerned with ease of use for end users.
End users do not have to understand network engineering to log in and
use the LAN or WAN connections made availiable to them, only some basic
computer operations and rules of the road.
> Computers are *complex* machines. You can slap all the silly
> little GUI happy faced icons on them and just have two buttons to operate
> the whole thing but that doesn't make the thing any less complex...
> especially if you need to do something more complex than adding 2+2.
Yeah, I know they are complex machines. This is why my high school
would not let anyone near the school's computer access (remember
maineframe time sharing) unless they were math majors with at least a B+
average. It was believed (then) that to use a computer you had to fully
comprehend math theory beyond algebra.
This is where programmers, techs, and network administrators come in.
All a computer can really do is respond to simple electronic equivalents
of turning switches on and off. It's programming that makes all the
bells and whistles appear. However, it doesn't mean that an end-user
must be a programmer to use their systems.
Steve Nichols
Twilight wrote:
>
> Ron Knights <ronk...@gte.net> wrote in article <322C8D...@gte.net>...
> > Tim Gerchmez wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > It's a decent path too, don't let anyone tell you differently.
> > I agree, IBM dropped the ball years ago.
>
> they apparently have some HOT stuff coming out next year, (Hardware wise.)
>
> Did you know... IBM spends more on Research and Development than Microsoft
> gets in net revenue!
>
> (By 3 BILLION!)
>
> Twilight
And they still can't get it right either!
BTW Most of IBM's R&D goes into their AS400 and RISC, not workstations
and PC's for the masses.
That's the whole problem with IBM; Trying to use mainframe mentality on
a PC.
Jacek Margos
How can you expect the modern computers being simple ?
The progams offer thousands of new function every month.
The client-server environment _is_ complex (you cannot expect
defining the connection between C & S be simple as pluging in
one cable). Many people cannot even connect the printer to
their PC.
Computers _are_ complex and will only be more complex.
And Microsaft's marketing strategy saying that GUI and the
whole Winblows stuff is siple are LIES !!
LIES !!
LIES !!
But i'm _very_ happy that computes are complex - it's my job.
Jacek
David Caulton wrote:
[ cut ]
Olaonipekun Oliyide
Jeremy Nelson (nel...@cs.uwp.edu) wrote:
: Jim Polaski <jpol...@wwa.com> wrote:
: >just to get things to work ok....in fact,
: >about as complicated as a microwave might be about right....not that I
: >need that....
: A computer is significantly more complex than a microwave. Please explain
: why a general-purpose computer should be dumbed-down to the point where
: you have no functional control over its activities?
: >but for many, it should be a transparent means of information
^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >access....
: Then you should go out and design such a device. However, such a device
: does not currently exist, and your loud bleetings that we are persecuting
: you because we (computer software and hardware designers) refuse to reduce
: the complexity of a computer to a "Peas, Porridge, Pot" level are not
: impressive to those who require computers to be powerful at the expense of
: having the masses be able to use them.
Computers "should be" a transparent means of information access,
but they are NOT. Its a popular misconception, which applies to almost
every new technology (i.e. real new technology not re-hash like WindozeNT),
that the said new technology is the be-all-and-end-all of human problems.
It is not, it merely transferes the focus of attention from one side to
another. Computers have been around for such a long time now, you would
think people would realise it.
Consider, when the film of Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 was released in the
late 1960s. At the same times UNIX was developed. Yet as we approach
2001 we are no where near seeing an intelligent computer like 'HAL',
anywhere on the horizon. UNIX has changed very little, and probably is
still one of the best OS in existence.
What does it mean for a computer to be 'transparent'?
Does it mean it should give you all the information, you require
with the minimum of fuss?
Doesnt someone has to code the computer?.
Wont that person, in order to predict what information you are going to
require, going to have to use his/her intuition to make that information
easily available?
But in using his/her intuition, are they not going to subject
their own personal straits into the computer program?
Can it be any longer considered as 'transparent'?
Wont it simply be a personal view?
Do not personal views change from country to country,
culture to culture, town to town, time to time?
Looking ahead to 2001, it not that people's expectation/imaginations
outstrips reality. It is more the case that people's expectations
have NOTHING to do with reality, but with making money.
=BORG=
Steve Nichols wrote:
[....]
> <snip>
>
> > Anyway, sticking to that analogy, no, people who cannot
> > understand the BASIC workings of the car should *not* be on the road.
> <snip>
>
> The basic anology still stands, LINUX is generally far beyond the new
> user capabilities. It is still considered a non-standard OS and while
Far beyond??? Have you tried it? It'd be probably far beyond for you
if you ever had to administer your own ftp/www/nntp/smtp site, but
for home use I find it as easy to use as Winblowz. Have you ever
seen that dark blue screen with `GENERAL EXCEPTION FAULT AT OBFF:0F55'
and other crap like that? Does it give you ANY clue what happened?
At least, Linux error messages are more verbose and very often
you can troubleshoot these things without even calling any techsupport.
> availiable free, it does not have a centralized support system, software
Please clarify what do you mean `centralized support system'?
Manufacturer support? Linux is the best documented OS I ever
knew. There are hundereds of mailing list for Linux users.
There are more Linux-related www pages available on the Net
than for windowz (check with altavista search)! I ask a question,
and the next day I receive 10-20 replies, sometimes even more,
and I even have to cancel my post, since my question has been
answered already and I am still getting replies. If you want
`real' techsupport, buy commercial Linux releases, such as
those of RedHat and Caldera. RedHat Picasso comes with 30-days
email and phone support (provided you buy a CD-ROM from them,
not form a re-seller). At least, I could always reach these
people by email if I needed.
> availiability, nor easy accessibility for the masses.
Availability? Don't make me laugh. Go to a book store,
and get a $10 CD with all the stuff you ever need. Or
get any one of those Linux books, they often throw a CD
at a little pocket on the last cover page.
> The posting I replied to implied that the individual seemed to believe
> that if he didn't have the source code for an application, it wasn't
> worth having indicating that he was more concerned with programming
> rather than end-user operation. While I work in MIS/IS and Network
You don't understand. You DO NOT need to know C and C++ and you can
still compile programs on Unix systems. By having sources you can
be sure that there's no trojan horses in the program. You type
`make', the computer does the rest for you.
> Administration,I have to be concerned with ease of use for end users.
> End users do not have to understand network engineering to log in and
`Network engineering'? What are you talking about? Millions of Internet
users dial up their ISPs and login. Why do you think they are all
network engineers?
naz...@magi.com
In <01bb9a8c$a52fe8e0$4e90...@PPP.syr.servtech.com>, "Paul E Larson" <whis...@servtech.com> writes:
>Denny Payne <nre...@io.com> wrote in article <50hqk5$b...@nntp-1.io.com>...
>
>> Guess it's too bad that it's merely a stopgap product intended to move
>> people to NT. Microsoft has said this themselves, so they clearly don't
>> intend to do the refinements it needs. That's why I've gone to OS/2.
>IBM
>> is behind it (PSP anyway ;-), and will stay behind it.
>>
>Hate to tell ya, but OS/2 Warp v.3 is just a stop gap, same with v4.0 of
>Warp and NT etc.. All OS's are technically stop gap until the next and
>brightest are built. So Microsoft was a little more honest when they tell
>you that Win95 is a bridge product to NT.
>
Does that mean I can go and get the WIN NT 4.0 Upgrade package for Win 95????
Technically the next OS should improve and extend the previous version.
so Win 95 extended Win 3.x and Win 96? 97? 98? should do the same....
Win NT is a separate ball game in which they are trying to fuse some of the Win 95 stuff....
So Microsoft sold a product with no future unless you go out and start investing in Win NT hardware and software.....
So was that a show of honesty or a lure to buy more????.
Anyways it is your MONEY.......
*****************************
Nasser Haymour
naz...@magi.com
*****************************
Eric van Bezooijen
In article <50lfeo$5...@news.ais.net>, Ned Kelly <nedk...@eagle.ais.net> wrote:
>
>Jim Polaski (jpol...@wwa.com) wrote:
>
>: I NEVER saw a computer, improperly driven that ran over a child running in
>: the street, nore have I seen one jump the curb and crash into a building!
>: Not a good analogy...try again!
>
>True, but a computer hooked up to factory equipment could indeed have the
>potential to kill! Consider a computer hooked up to a discoteque-style
>light show machine while you're changing the bulb and your kid in the
>other room decides to run the light show proggie!
Let us not forget the legacy of ancient software written back when a few
bytes of storage space was a big deal! I for one hope to be on a remote
island when all the ancient computer systems controlling aircraft, public
transportation, nuclear reactors/missile silos, traffic systems, power
plants, banks, etc., start ticking over from the year 1999 to 2000 and
all hell breaks loose! Total chaos!
-Eric
--
http://www.activesw.com/~eric/ EL!TE YOONICKS(TM) Solaris & FreeBSD user
Eric van Bezooijen | "Faboo!"- Wakko Warner, Animaniacs #Warlord *THIS*
er...@csua.berkeley.edu | "Oh joy of Joys!"- Stimpson J. Cat, Ren & Stimpy
er...@activesw.com | "Spoon!"- The Tick #Pixies and Talking Heads rule!
Joe Ragosta
> An incompetent computer user can cause a plane to crash, or cause a
> chemotherapy machine to give incorrect doses, or a nuclear power plant
> to melt down. Your assertion that simply because you havent the
> intelligence to figure out how a computer could do harm means that no
> expertise should be required to use it is an admirable, but misguided
> logical fallacy. Try again!
Oh. I get it.
Your initial argument was that Windows is better than MacOS because users
shouldn't be protected from the hardware and should know how the computers
works.
From the above, I guess you're saying that _everyone_ who uses a computer
uses it to run a nuclear plant or to direct airplanes?
BTW, what makes you think the FAA uses Windows3.1?
>
> Simply because other devices are easy to use does not automatically require
> that computers be easy to use. A computer is significantly more complex
> than a storm window, and hence it requires more expertise to use. Why
> is this such a hard concept for people to grasp?
If you could make a computer as easy to use as a storm window without
crippling its capabilities, would you? You seem to be saying you wouldn't.
>
> A computer is significantly more complex than a microwave. Please explain
> why a general-purpose computer should be dumbed-down to the point where
> you have no functional control over its activities?
Oh. Now you're arguing that Mac users have no functional control over
their computer's activities. I guess we all just turn our computers on and
watch the screen all day.
--
Regards, Joe Ragosta
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
=BORG= (vlad...@iceonline.com) wrote:
| You don't understand. You DO NOT need to know C and C++ and you can
| still compile programs on Unix systems. By having sources you can
| be sure that there's no trojan horses in the program. You type
| `make', the computer does the rest for you.
It seems strange that someone who doesn't know C and C++ would be able to
determine whether there were trojan horses in any source code that they
compiled. And "you type `make', and the computer does the rest for you"
sounds like an exercise in blind faith, to me.
Also note that there was a famous paper published by Brian Kernighan that
showed that there was at least one way that a trojan horse could survive in
a system even if *all* of the source was compiled by the C/C++ compiler.
Koro
> drsoran wrote:
> >
> > Steve Nichols (hws...@state.me.us) wrote:
> > : From your posting, I assume that you believe that if people are not
> > : programmers, they shouldn't be using a computer.
> >
> > : Then do you also belive that if an individual is not a mechanic they
> > : should not drive motor vehicles, or not watch TV or listen to radio
> > : because they are not electronic technicians?
> <snip>
> > Anyway, sticking to that analogy, no, people who cannot
> > understand the BASIC workings of the car should *not* be on the road.
> <snip>
> The basic anology still stands, LINUX is generally far beyond the new
> user capabilities.
The fact that one is a newbie, does not mean that they are incapable
of learning. Just drill about 5-10 words through your head and you
can navigate LINUX. Research everyrthing else with a tutorial when
the need to have a certain function arises. That's how I learned DOS
(I didn't have winblows at the time), and is how I'm learning UNIX.
> It is still considered a non-standard OS and while
> availiable free, it does not have a centralized support system,
comp.os.linux.* is good enough for a support system.
> software
> availiability,
You have all of the LINUX apps, DOS EMU for the DOS apps, Wine for the
windows apps, I think there's something for OS/2 also, and w95
compatibility is being worked on.
> nor easy accessibility for the masses.
You go to the computer store, pick up the friggin' CD, and leave. How
hard can that be?
KORO
anonymous
On Fri, 06 Sep 1996 21:20:18 GMT, ksa...@best.com (Koro) Said "It
should be noted:"
Yes indeed, pick up your CD, leave the store, and become a LINUX user.
You'll be right in tune with what percent of the personal computing
population. Lets lear it - maybe 1%. Great support network - yes -
all the cheese heads who eat quiche. If you want to be a big boy, a
really big boy, step up and go UNIX.
Chung-Chen Lin
That is your own experience... And a very unique one too as so far my
and people who I know have experience something very ugly. My hardware
configuration and driver is consider fairly new. Yet windows can lock up
my system for no apparent reason. Symptoms including mysterious crashes
(the blue screen) every 1-3 hours while the computer is idles, wave sounds
that would hang not stop, while saving a MS Word document the Word would
suddenly crash, Direct3D like MS Monster Truck games goes into scribbly
line screen (yes I have installed directX 2.0), printing spools halted and
need to be restarted, PNP causing device conflicts and windows goes into
safe mode, applications would suddenly hangs, windows crashes while
shutting down... etc
And I update my hardware driver to even the most recent version.
I also installed many applications and windows 95 patches...and
everything points to /dev/null. Windows 95 delivers almost nothing it
promises except maybe good looking interface.
In case you think I have old 386 with some no name hardware,
please look at my hardware configuration:
Tyan Titan III motherboard + 512kpipelined cache
Matrox Millienum w/ 4mb
96mb edo 60 ns memory
Buslogic 956c fw scsi + ibm ultrastar xp + seagate baracuada
*four* fans for superb cooling in a mini case
Esoniq Soundscape Elite
USR 28.8
3com905XL 10/100baseT ethernet
Whereas OS/2 warp and linux offers more reliability than windows
95 although I have to admit I haven't really stretched OS/2 Warp yet. I
think the windows 95 anniversary page is for celebrating Microsoft's
success (I know they are laughing their butt off now) to have induced
stupid fools like me to buy their windows 95. Now they are advertising
Windows NT 4.0 Workstation on one of the link! Errrr!!
PS I JUST HATE THEIR ANNIVERSARY PAGE WHICH SHOWS THE PERFECT WINDOWS 95.
How much more from truth can the Microsoft stretch?
Chung
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: "Roger Davies" <ssdi...@agt.net>
I agree - Windows 95 is just as stable as my old DOS systems .. I did have
some installation problems
on my first 'converted' PC, but traced most of those problems to missing or
invalid drivers for non-compliant
hardware .. I install Windows 95 on all my new PC's and really find little
to complain about ..
Why is there so much "I messed up my Window .. who can clean it up for me"
on this newgroup?
--
Soft Serve Direct Inc
c/o Roger Davies
re:
Kevin L. <kil...@inetport.com> wrote in article
<01bb980f$f7d9d440$7ac9...@killjoy.ccsi.com>...
> I Still think you are all full of it, Windows 95 runs like a dream for me
> and never crashes. So, why would I ever change to something else?
> I can find all I need Free for Win95 as well, browsers, newsreaders,
> ect. I'm not locked into a small choice like I would be with something
> else.Win95->WinNT->Infinity will be my path through life.
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
=BORG= (vlad...@iceonline.com) wrote:
| Have you ever
| seen that dark blue screen with `GENERAL EXCEPTION FAULT AT OBFF:0F55'
| and other crap like that? Does it give you ANY clue what happened?
I cannot speak for Steve Nichols, but I haven't seen it. But then again,
I don't use DOS+Windows.
The operating system that I use generally gives a full register dump and
the module name of the executable whenever it encounters an exception in an
application. That has been enough for me, in the past, to work out what was
going on, yes.
| At least, Linux error messages are more verbose and very often
| you can troubleshoot these things without even calling any techsupport.
The same is true of most other operating systems. The one that I use, for
example, comes with a manual with detailed troubleshooting tips for common
error messages.
Incidentally :
"panic: Here is the problem"
-- Linux kernel error message (fs/buffer.c)
"panic: Here is the problem"
-- a *different* Linux kernel error message (fs/buffer.c)
"panic: Here is another problem"
-- another Linux kernel error message (fs/buffer.c)
bor...@ibm.net
In <50ldn7$5...@news.ais.net>, nedk...@eagle.ais.net (Ned Kelly) writes:
>Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!! http://www.suburbia.net/~nedkelly/Seppo_Navy.html
Ned Kelly is dead, I killed him las week when I was in Sydney :-)
Dr. O. Borkner Delcarlo
Via Magazzino 40/42 I-40053 Bazzano (Bo)
Tel: +51-832078 Fax: +51-835015
Tim Gerchmez
On Wed, 04 Sep 1996 21:28:09 GMT, ksa...@best.com (Koro) wrote:
>> I'm not saying Win95 doesn't rely on DOS since in some cases it does
>> and in some cases it doesn't, but You cannot generalize by saying that
>> everything loaded by DOS is a DOS Shell.
>
>> In some cases Win95 can run without using DOS. This is when 32-bit
>> file and disk drivers are enabled and no DOS device drivers are needed
>> to use, for example, a CD-ROM.
>
>And I don't have to have a sound driver in DOS to have sounds in
>windows either. Doesn't mean windows doesn't sit uttop DOS.
And the fact that windows can be booted from a DOS prompt doesn't
necessarily indicate that it DOES either. You have to look at other
factors to decide whether it does or not.
--
Check out my home page at http://www.blarg.net/~future/index.html
Tim Gerchmez
On 5 Sep 1996 02:39:46 GMT, nedk...@eagle.ais.net (Ned Kelly) wrote:
>
>Volante (vol...@cris.com) wrote:
>
>: emulates the DOS environment. If it used DOS, it would say at the
>: very beginning: "Starting MS-DOS:" It doesn't. It says: "Starting
>: Windows 95:"
>
>That's a lame argument for your saying "Winblows 95 doesn't use DOS". All
>M$ did was a lame hex edit, like the people who convert international PGP
>to "Yank" PGP that's warez.
Just as he overstated the truth about how little of DOS Win95 needs,
you overstated your point as well. IMO you're both uninformed.
David M. Cook
On Fri, 06 Sep 1996 23:51:02 GMT, anonymous <i'm-...@home.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Sep 1996 21:20:18 GMT, ksa...@best.com (Koro) Said "It
>should be noted:"
>Yes indeed, pick up your CD, leave the store, and become a LINUX user.
>You'll be right in tune with what percent of the personal computing
>population. Lets lear it - maybe 1%.
Please stop learing at me.
Why should I feel the need to be in tune with any percentage of the
personal computing population? I'm not going to wear the damn computer
to a cocktail party.
>Great support network - yes -
Yes. You can get nearly any question answered very quickly by very
knowledgable people. Most phone tech support people have nowhere near
the expertise demonstrated on the newsgroups. I bet this situation is
the same for Win95/NT as for Linux.
>all the cheese heads who eat quiche.
I run on diet coke.
Dave Cook
Larry Brasfield
Please see interspersed comments.
Chung-Chen Lin <c...@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote in article
<50qtda$a...@ix.cs.uoregon.edu>...
> That is your own experience... And a very unique one too as so far
my
> and people who I know have experience something very ugly. My hardware
> configuration and driver is consider fairly new. Yet windows can lock up
> my system for no apparent reason. Symptoms including mysterious crashes
> (the blue screen) every 1-3 hours while the computer is idles,
This is an reliable indication of a hardware problem. You might want to
borrow
some parity-checked memory. A lot of systems are being sold today without
any error detection in the DRAM system, including yours. Depending upon
the exact make and luck of the draw with respect to alpha particle sources
in each DRAM IC's packaging, random single-bit errors can plague such
systems. When one occurs, if it is in memory storing code, a crash is very
likely. I would never run a non-checked system.
> wave sounds
> that would hang not stop,
I don't know about this.
> while saving a MS Word document the Word would
> suddenly crash,
I have used Word for years and never observed this. I have found a few
other ways to crash it, but never this one.
> Direct3D like MS Monster Truck games goes into scribbly
> line screen (yes I have installed directX 2.0), printing spools halted
and
> need to be restarted,
This is not an OS problem. You have set a video mode near the edge of
what your monitor can handle. When you switch to that mode, your
monitor either manages to sync up, or it does not and you see scribbly.
> PNP causing device conflicts and windows goes into
> safe mode,
The PNP initialization and boot processes are fairly deterministic.
The fact that you see variation from boot to boot in the result of
these processes is more evidence of either memory corruption
or some other randomness in your hardware.
> applications would suddenly hangs, windows crashes while
> shutting down... etc
This is more evidence of memory corruption.
>
> And I update my hardware driver to even the most recent version.
> I also installed many applications and windows 95 patches...and
> everything points to /dev/null.
These things are not going to fix your flawed hardware.
> Windows 95 delivers almost nothing it
> promises except maybe good looking interface.
If Microsoft promised that Windows 95 would run on flawed hardware,
you should ask for a refund.
>
> In case you think I have old 386 with some no name hardware,
> please look at my hardware configuration:
>
> Tyan Titan III motherboard + 512kpipelined cache
> Matrox Millienum w/ 4mb
> 96mb edo 60 ns memory
Note that EDO memory as commonly sold today is not parity checked.
David Hines
> An incompetent computer user can cause a plane to crash, or cause a
> chemotherapy machine to give incorrect doses, or a nuclear power plant
> to melt down. Your assertion that simply because you havent the
> intelligence to figure out how a computer could do harm means that no
> expertise should be required to use it is an admirable, but misguided
> logical fallacy. Try again!
>
>
> >Hmmm...does this mean that sicn I watch the TV I should know about it's
> >etc...operate and understand the theory?
> >No...not right...again....TRY AGAIN!
> >=====
>
> that most all-in-one remote controls are at least as complex as any
> mouse-driven computer interface? Nope. You re definitely wrong.
> TRY AGAIN!
>
There's no need to "TRY AGAIN" because becoming and electrical engineer is
exactly what your saying we should be, to use these machines. But of course
you just HAD to say that to defend yourself because you on a computer and
your not an electrical engineer.
As a matter of fact I think that this whole thread of full of shit. That
is, unless you can program and USE the computer in the binary language And
for some reason I doubt that you have spent that much time "in the box..."
And because you can not use a computer in the binary language your
arguments are based on sand ready to be washed away by someone who can. You
rely in on ease of interface and program to understand what's going on and
do what needs to be done, AND until you can use a computer in the binary
language you need to sit down, shut up, and realize that just because you
know how to click on two buttons. doesn't mean I can't click on one.
--
David
What is this button for.....uh,oh
Volante
On Tue, 03 Sep 1996 10:11:42 -0400, Ron Knights <ronk...@gte.net>
wrote:
>Roger Davies wrote:
>>
>> I agree - Windows 95 is just as stable as my old DOS systems .. I did have
>> some installation problems
>> on my first 'converted' PC, but traced most of those problems to missing or
>> invalid drivers for non-compliant
>> hardware .. I install Windows 95 on all my new PC's and really find little
>> to complain about ..
>>
>
>That's they key here.
>
>Windows 95 demands good hardware, and demands a certain amount of memory
>before it works well.
>
>If we have bad hardware, it may work fine under DOS or Windows 3.X, but
>Windows 95 will give you problems.
>
>My only gripe: Windows 95 error messages often don't tell the truth
>about what's wrong. You get error messages pointing to something else,
>or merely crytpic messages with no details.
>
>I've found no help in the "manual," or the other "helpless" files that
>come with Windows 95. No help in "Windows 95 Secrets," either.
>
>Somehow you manage to muddle through, making your own guesses as to the
>problems....
>
>> Why is there so much "I messed up my Window .. who can clean it up for me"
>> on this newgroup?
>>
>Windows 95 has a lot of work to be done before it's really ready for
>those who have problems. Error messages need to be more truthful. We
>need a *real* manual with real documentation, and references to problems
>many of us have encountered.
>
>Windows 95 also needs to be refined.... It's much better than Win 3.X,
>but there is work left to do....
Much work. Much, much, much, MUCH work left to do. Much work.
And, you're talking about cryptic error messages? Could SOMEONE
e-mail me or something and tell me who can understand this error
message (besides MS and NTS programmers)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NETSCAPE caused a general protection fault
in module NETSCAPE.EXE at 0011:000050dd.
Registers:
EAX=2487b1ba CS=20c7 EIP=000050dd EFLGS=00000206
EBX=26ffb1ba SS=302f ESP=0000e6c4 EBP=0000e6da
ECX=00013ecf DS=302f ESI=81550001 FS=013f
EDX=32bf32bf ES=32bf EDI=0000b1ba GS=0000
Bytes at CS:EIP:
26 ff 5d 58 83 c4 04 8b f0 0b f6 75 08 33 c0 1f
Stack dump:
32bfb1ba 6b18302f 00006ad2 01a432bf 0000b74e
e6f80005 20cfb085 32bfb1ba 6b18302f e8a66ad2
e720302f e7a23ecf 302f302f c368e70c 6ad220cf
302f3ecf
{This error message created with Netscape 2.01 and Win95.}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Just because people say it's good doesn't mean it really is."
--Volante
Chung-Chen Lin
First of all, thank you for trying to help... But I have experience
the similar problems exist on my 486dx2-66 with true paraity (not fake
paraity like eagle paraity) simms. Besides, triton 1 motherboard does not
support paraity checking. As for the directX 2.0 problems, I believe MS
Monster Truck is the fault because Quake and Hell Bender both runs on it
with the *same* resolution under windows 95 (although, not surprisingly,
Hell Bender crash more frequently than quake). So that would rules out the
possiblity of the monitor unable to handle sync frequency. In addition,
linux never gives me errors like sig 11 fault while compiling. So it
would points out that it is most likely not the hardware problem.
Furthermore I always use latest bios update for my hardware such as Award
3.01 bios and matrox millenium's vga bios 2.2. In short, many errors only
point to either Windows 95 or Microsoft product. I can say that everyone
(and I know many) who have suffered such frustration of dealing with
windows 95 deserves compensation from the stupid Microsoft Co. (Ok, that
is a wishful thinking ;))
More reasons why to use linux and/or OS/2 warp.
---------------------------------
From: "Larry Brasfield" <lar...@earthlink.net>
Ned Kelly
bor...@ibm.net wrote:
: In <50ldn7$5...@news.ais.net>, nedk...@eagle.ais.net (Ned Kelly) writes:
: >Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!! http://www.suburbia.net/~nedkelly/Seppo_Navy.html
: Ned Kelly is dead, I killed him las week when I was in Sydney :-)
The real Ned Kelly was hung at the Melbourne Gaol in 1888. (Hence the
Organization: line!) Doesn't this belong in aus.* ?
--
Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!! http://www.suburbia.net/~nedkelly/Seppo_Navy.html
Larry Brasfield
You raise a question which many people wonder about, and which
could be explained better than I have yet seen. So, here goes ...
(answer far below)
[snipped other topics]
>
> And, you're talking about cryptic error messages? Could SOMEONE
> e-mail me or something and tell me who can understand this error
> message (besides MS and NTS programmers)?
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> NETSCAPE caused a general protection fault
> in module NETSCAPE.EXE at 0011:000050dd.
>
> Registers:
> EAX=2487b1ba CS=20c7 EIP=000050dd EFLGS=00000206
> EBX=26ffb1ba SS=302f ESP=0000e6c4 EBP=0000e6da
> ECX=00013ecf DS=302f ESI=81550001 FS=013f
> EDX=32bf32bf ES=32bf EDI=0000b1ba GS=0000
>
> Bytes at CS:EIP:
> 26 ff 5d 58 83 c4 04 8b f0 0b f6 75 08 33 c0 1f
>
> Stack dump:
> 32bfb1ba 6b18302f 00006ad2 01a432bf 0000b74e
> e6f80005 20cfb085 32bfb1ba 6b18302f e8a66ad2
> e720302f e7a23ecf 302f302f c368e70c 6ad220cf
> 302f3ecf
>
> {This error message created with Netscape 2.01 and Win95.}
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Yes, this is cryptic and nobody except a programmer can be
expected to understand it. (And even programmer's can take
quite awhile to do anything useful with it.)
When this popup appears, it means that the application (in this
case, the one started from the file NETSCAPE.EXE) has attempted
to access memory at an address that has not been made available
for memory read/write/execute operations by the operating system.
In an operating system that uses no memory protection, this could
lead to a later system crash if it was a write to OS code or data
structures. Even if it was a read attempt, it is an excellent indicator
that something has gone very wrong within the application. And if it
was an execute attempt, the application is already quite bonkers.
With rare exceptions, this invalid memory access means that just
about anything further the program does is suspect.
The particular register dump you provided shows that the instruction
pointer (EIP, the address from which CPU instructions were being
fetched) was the culprit, since its value matches the location of the
fault. There was no point in letting this program continue. (However,
applications can be written to handle their own GPF's, so they can
make their own determination about continuing.)
If you were to provide this information to Netscape, along with the
exact usage steps that repeatably cause the GPF, any competent
programmer they may have could determine which line of code was
failing, and probably what part of that line differed from what was
expected. (Of course, we all expect our programs to not do this!)
The operating system cannot be expected to provide any more
useful specific information than you see. There is no way for it to
know what was being attempted, or what more abstract operation
has failed. It knows only that an attempted memory access makes
no sense. And programmers know that most of the time, such an
access attempt is the beginning of the end, where the final end, (if
it was not avoided by the operating system shutting down the errant
application), is either complete lock-up, corruption of data files, or
production of indecipherable garbage. Even worse, in many cases,
can be the production of not-obviously wrong results. (Of course,
this last is not as likely for a mere browser.)
I think it would be nice if Microsoft were to provide another button
on the GPF dialog, labeled "What does this mean?". Pushing it
would bring up a help topic saying things resembling my note. And
if I was doing it, I would relabel the "OK" button. Mine would say
"Not OK, but proceed anyway".
Of course GPF's are aggravating. Perhaps you can take solace in
the fact that the OS caught it instead of letting everything go to heck.
-Larry Brasfield
Jeremy Nelson
Joe Ragosta <jrag...@dca.net> wrote:
>Your initial argument was that Windows is better than MacOS because users
>shouldn't be protected from the hardware and should know how the computers
>works.
>
>
>Oh. Now you're arguing that Mac users have no functional control over
>their computer's activities. I guess we all just turn our computers on and
>watch the screen all day.
What is with these paranoid rantings? I have made no statement of any
manner or sort with respect to the macintosh computer. My statements
were directed at those who use windows saying that operating systems
like unix were "arcane" becuse they required a triple digit IQ to use.
Macs are an irrelevancy. Why did you bring them up?
-hop
Jeremy Nelson
I said:
>> No one asked you to become an electrical engineer in order to use a
>> computer. Why do you use the analogy to televisions? Dont you think
>> that most all-in-one remote controls are at least as complex as any
>> mouse-driven computer interface? Nope. You re definitely wrong.
>> TRY AGAIN!
David Hines <thor...@snet.net> wrote:
> There's no need to "TRY AGAIN" because becoming and electrical engineer is
>exactly what your saying we should be, to use these machines. But of course
>you just HAD to say that to defend yourself because you on a computer and
>your not an electrical engineer.
You forgot to point out where i said that you had to be a chemical
engineer to cook, an agronomist to plant a garden, and a plumber to
take a bath. Tsk. Tsk. How could you?
[more delusional stuff deleted]
Just one of those evil unix users who will enslave your children and make
them use computer software that doesnt crash all the time (how DARE i!)
-jfn
Chris Johnson
In article <50lfeo$5...@news.ais.net>, nedk...@eagle.ais.net (Ned Kelly) wrote:
> Jim Polaski (jpol...@wwa.com) wrote:
> : I NEVER saw a computer, improperly driven that ran over a child running in
> : the street, nore have I seen one jump the curb and crash into a building!
> : Not a good analogy...try again!
> True, but a computer hooked up to factory equipment could indeed have the
> potential to kill! Consider a computer hooked up to a discoteque-style
> light show machine while you're changing the bulb and your kid in the
> other room decides to run the light show proggie!
Let me put it this way (considering the thread topic...)
I do not wish to be taken to the hospital and put on a computerized
life-support system designed by Microsoft to work less effectively with
certain auxiliary programs Microsoft does not make. Even if all the
programs involved were Microsoft's, the idea of intentional crippling of
technology is very disturbing when seen in this light- and such use would
be a logical extension of their stated goals.
I do not wish to drive a car that used Microsoft technology to design
it- yet the technology was sold because it ran faster than the competing
programs- which it did with a minor loss of analysis detail that okayed a
steering linkage subassembly that, when deflected by the suspension system
to 98% of design limits, snaps one time in a thousand.
I don't wish to be a passenger on an airliner landing at NT Airport at
the moment that several thousand bits of incoming data suddenly
synchronize and overload the air traffic control computers, bought because
'they're all the same really and these are cheaper to get', causing them
to freeze up and thrash while the software grudgingly extricates itself
from the unusual load.
Bug fixes...
The main reason I really hate Microsoft is not what they are, but what
they could become.
Jinx_tigr
(aka Chris Johnson)
Koro
On Sat, 07 Sep 1996 07:31:03 GMT, fut...@blarg.net (Tim Gerchmez)
wrote:
Well, it really depends on what you concider to be an OS. This is a
pointless discussion, for I will admit that windows has OS like
qualities, and I will admit that it still sits on top of DOS. The
rest is up for interpretation.
I still feel that an OS must not rely uppon another OS to simply
function. w95 is not stand alone, and an OS that is not stand alone
is not an OS IMO.
KORO
Koro
On Fri, 06 Sep 1996 23:51:02 GMT, i'm-...@home.com (anonymous) wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Sep 1996 21:20:18 GMT, ksa...@best.com (Koro) Said "It
> should be noted:"
> Yes indeed, pick up your CD, leave the store, and become a LINUX user.
Purdy much.
> You'll be right in tune with what percent of the personal computing
> population. Lets lear it - maybe 1%.
So go with the flow is all you can state in retaliation? Sheep.
> Great support network - yes -
Actually, it *is* a great support network.
> all the cheese heads who eat quiche. If you want to be a big boy, a
> really big boy, step up and go UNIX.
What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to say an OS is a
measure of masculinity (I wonder what Joan and Loren have to say about
this one....)?
Heh heh heh, at least I don't have to post anon to slander a man Mr.
Virtual Courage.
KORO
David Caulton
> My statements
> were directed at those who use windows saying that operating systems
> like unix were "arcane" becuse they required a triple digit IQ to use.
This is probably futile, but I'll say it again. PEOPLE WHO CAN'T/WON'T USE
UNIX OR OS/2 OR WHATEVER OS ARE NOT STUPID. You are not inherently more
intelligent than them You are not morally superior to them. You do not
have a higher IQ than them.
They simply don't want to spend any more time/effort than is necessary
learning how to use their computer. They do not enjoy learning to use
computers, and thus do not value that activity as an end to itself. They
may be Nobel laureates, astrophysicists, physician - yes, they may even be
(gasp) SMARTER THAN YOU!!! Yes, I honestly believe that's possible. That
someone is really really smart, yet chooses to apply that intelligence in
non-computer related endeavors, is actually possible. Expands, the mind,
no? Probably not.
Most of the world considers computers to be a tool used to perform tasks -
and would rather they not become a task unto themselves. Whoever designs
the easiest-to-use computing system that can perform those tasks will win
the race.
Nothing pleases me more than hearing the competition (or, more fairly,
their apologists) arguing that "the harder the system is to use, the
better" - because I couldn't agree more. The harder the competition's
systems are to use, the better - for Microsoft.
So go ahead - put in a few more DOS compatibility settings. Dump the whole
GUI concept. Make the system even MORE configurable, and add even MORE
settings. Use MORE random strings as shell commands. Have even MORE error
messages that require "a double digit IQ" to understand.
Meanwhile, I will continue to strive for LESS of all these things, as I
think Microsoft will - making computers accessible to all those masses who
have lower IQs than you. Which, I'm sure you will concede, is nearly
everyone.
Dave Caulton
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation
Bruce Ediger
"David Caulton" <dcau...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>They simply don't want to spend any more time/effort than is necessary
>learning how to use their computer. They do not enjoy learning to use
>computers, and thus do not value that activity as an end to itself. They
>may be Nobel laureates, astrophysicists, physician - yes, they may even be
>(gasp) SMARTER THAN YOU!!! Yes, I honestly believe that's possible. That
Now who's the elitist?
>Most of the world considers computers to be a tool used to perform tasks -
>and would rather they not become a task unto themselves. Whoever designs
>the easiest-to-use computing system that can perform those tasks will win
>the race.
Seems like the real world works a bit differently, David. Apple made the
easiest-to-use computing system (demonstrated by studies over and over),
yet they are losing market share.
>Nothing pleases me more than hearing the competition (or, more fairly,
>their apologists) arguing that "the harder the system is to use, the
>better" - because I couldn't agree more. The harder the competition's
>systems are to use, the better - for Microsoft.
What about the people who correctly argue that to be fully expressive,
some systems must be harder to use than a toaster or a refrigerator?
Also, see the real-world example of an easier-to-use system: the Macintosh.
Larry Brasfield
Trouble-shooting hardware problems (or software ones) is a
task that requires meticulous experiment, observation and
reasoning, and doing so thru this medium is not practical.
So I cannot pretend to offer any conclusive diagnosis.
However, millions of people manage to run the idle loop
code in Windows 95 for lengthy periods of time. (I turned
on the monitor attached to my running Win95 machine in
my office, after a couple months of use, and it was doing
just fine.) I find it hard to believe that the same code,
running on your hardware, while not going off to run any
unique code on your system (such as device drivers you
may have), is crashing when it runs fine on other systems.
You have reported a variety of time-random failures that
do not generally appear on systems running Windows 95.
(I am extrapolating from my own observations of actual
systems (many dozens) and first-hand reports of other
people. (dozens) So this becomes hearsay to you.)
If it was my problem, I would be swapping out memory
and/or borrowing another motherboard to use with the
same peripherals and drivers. (My son is fond of finding
discarded motherboards in local dumpsters. I am not
at all surprised that sort-of-working motherboards end
up in the trash. A bad one is not worth fixing anymore.)
You can run some other OS, but I am willing to give you
better than even odds that you will see similar problems.
-Larry Brasfield
Chung-Chen Lin <c...@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote in article
<50t77v$7...@ix.cs.uoregon.edu>...
David Caulton
Bruce Ediger <bed...@csn.net> wrote in article
<50v13i$m...@teal.csn.net>...
> "David Caulton" <dcau...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >They simply don't want to spend any more time/effort than is necessary
> >learning how to use their computer. They do not enjoy learning to use
> >computers, and thus do not value that activity as an end to itself.
They
> >may be Nobel laureates, astrophysicists, physician - yes, they may even
be
> >(gasp) SMARTER THAN YOU!!! Yes, I honestly believe that's possible.
That
>
> Now who's the elitist?
I fail to see how the above is elitist - I think it's fine that some people
consider computers an end unto themselves, and enjoy using them. We NEED
such people. Otherwise, I was simply implying that someone (not
necessarily me) might be smarter than you. Can that be such a shocking
concept?
> >Most of the world considers computers to be a tool used to perform tasks
-
> >and would rather they not become a task unto themselves. Whoever
designs
> >the easiest-to-use computing system that can perform those tasks will
win
> >the race.
>
> Seems like the real world works a bit differently, David. Apple made the
> easiest-to-use computing system (demonstrated by studies over and over),
> yet they are losing market share.
Obviously there are other factors. I do think apple proves my point. IBM
managed to crush EVERY SINGLE competing PC standard that existed prior to
them, and to drive every single computer company either (a) out of business
or (b) into their standards after they introduced the PC. Every company
but one - Apple. Why did apple survive? Why did they manage to continue
innovating and making money with a non-IBM supported standard? It wasn't
'cause they were cheap, it wasn't because they were well managed, it wasn't
because they were high-performance - it was because they were easy to use.
Now they are suffering due to a long series of bad management/strategic
decisions, but their usability has always been their key to survival.
> >Nothing pleases me more than hearing the competition (or, more fairly,
> >their apologists) arguing that "the harder the system is to use, the
> >better" - because I couldn't agree more. The harder the competition's
> >systems are to use, the better - for Microsoft.
>
> What about the people who correctly argue that to be fully expressive,
> some systems must be harder to use than a toaster or a refrigerator?
> Also, see the real-world example of an easier-to-use system: the
Macintosh.
"Fully expressive"? You are the first person I've ever heard list that as
a primary goal of computing. Most people list goals like "write papers",
"manage projects", "analyze data", "design art". What does "fully
expressive" mean? What percentage of the market makes buying decisions
based on how "fully expressive" an OS is? Where does the OS/2 Warp box
mention "full expressiveness" on their box? Must be in really tiny
print...
Dave
Alexander Linden
David Caulton (dcau...@microsoft.com) wrote:
:
: People DO bitch about this. They also used to bitch about how complex
: programming a VCR is - and as a result it's gotten much better, much more
: simple.
:
Sure.But you forget that a computer which is as easy to use as a VCR cannot
do much more than a VCR.Surely,you cannot expect for example from a person
who wants to do nothing but writing some letters to learn about the internals
of operating systems,this is legitimated.But likewise,you cannot expect
from a technically educated person that he wants to be restricted to the
functions the software manufacturers have provided buttons for.Win95 and
even NT appears incredibly poor to such people,and you will never impress
them with all this funny advertising graphic.Such people *want* to tinker
around with complexity,this is what makes the fun.
With the 'VCR-Philosophy',it is clearly a restricted system with intensions
only for beginners and occasional users.As a part of the war against
software freedom,microsoft seems to disagree more and more with all
standardized,platform independend conventions which makes Win even
of limited value as a comfortable user-frontend in Unix-networks.I really
recommend people a pencil and a sheet of paper instead of a Win-computer,
because this would dramatically increase their freedom in creativity,even
if they have to spend more time for their work (and I would never give it
to my children,like I never give them a VCR).
BTW,some time ago I have read in a german magazine an interview with
a microsoft manager who has used exactly the same arguments than you.
Even the VCR argument was there.He did also say that it would be
wonderful (his word) if mircosoft can take full control over the internet
one day.And he was not afraid of becoming killed for that...;-)
And I hate microsofts success in placing advertising even on the
keyboards.One month ago I had to phone 6 dealers just to get a replacement
for my keyboard (in black) without it.No,this it not fair marketing,
this is because microsoft gives disadvantages to dealers who don't
agree with microsoft's rules.
bye...
Bruce Ediger
"David Caulton" <dcau...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Obviously there are other factors. I do think apple proves my point. IBM
>managed to crush EVERY SINGLE competing PC standard that existed prior to
>them, and to drive every single computer company either (a) out of business
>or (b) into their standards after they introduced the PC. Every company
Sun, Data General, SGI, HP, DEC, Tandem, Stratus, DEC. All are still in
business, all make computers that don't conform to the nebulous PC
standard.
>"Fully expressive"? You are the first person I've ever heard list that as
>a primary goal of computing. Most people list goals like "write papers",
>"manage projects", "analyze data", "design art". What does "fully
>expressive" mean? What percentage of the market makes buying decisions
"Fully expressive" could easily be taken as "lets me do things that you
didn't anticipate me doing". All you did was list categories of human
endeavor. You did not bother to think about what accomplishing those
endeavors implies. If you do, you will find that "expressive" means
something close to "turing complete". For example, "analyzing data"
could mean doing word and sentence counts on an enormous text corpus:
perhaps one has 10 megabytes of usenet postings that an entity that
named itself "Serdar Argic" posted over 4 years. How am I to do this
with a less than fully expressive tool like Excel or Word? The answer:
I'm not going to be able to, not in a single human lifetime. I have
to write my own tools to do this.
I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. Shades of expressiveness
is what computing is all about, really.
Paul M. Schuer
Parity checked? I have heard of parity memory and it does exist in
EDO. Parity memory is not a factor of EDO or non EDO. Random crashes
are also not necessarily a memory or hardware problem. Check out
Windows GFP's
Chung-Chen Lin
From: "Larry Brasfield" <lar...@earthlink.net>
>Trouble-shooting hardware problems (or software ones) is a
>task that requires meticulous experiment, observation and
>reasoning, and doing so thru this medium is not practical.
>So I cannot pretend to offer any conclusive diagnosis.
>However, millions of people manage to run the idle loop
>code in Windows 95 for lengthy periods of time. (I turned
>on the monitor attached to my running Win95 machine in
>my office, after a couple months of use, and it was doing
>just fine.) I find it hard to believe that the same code,
>running on your hardware, while not going off to run any
>unique code on your system (such as device drivers you
>may have), is crashing when it runs fine on other systems.
The key word is idle. I guess for people who only
does straight word processing (no fancy formatting etc)
and perhaps occasional spreadsheet, the windows 95 will not
crash much. But if you touch other areas of application
then windows 95 will cause a major crisis.
>You have reported a variety of time-random failures that
>do not generally appear on systems running Windows 95.
>(I am extrapolating from my own observations of actual
>systems (many dozens) and first-hand reports of other
>people. (dozens) So this becomes hearsay to you.)
I have witness in person from a dozen computers
in the local computer lab running windows 95. These
computers are Dell Pentium 90 which is one of the
configuration being tested with before release of windows
95... suppose to be stable... but it crashes frequently too.
>If it was my problem, I would be swapping out memory
>and/or borrowing another motherboard to use with the
>same peripherals and drivers. (My son is fond of finding
>discarded motherboards in local dumpsters. I am not
>at all surprised that sort-of-working motherboards end
>up in the trash. A bad one is not worth fixing anymore.)
I'm curious to figure out why in that my system runs fairly
stable under linux and OS/2 Warp while windows is crashing like
a screaming banshe using my configuration? Because both linux
and OS/2 Warp is rather stable on my system, (meaning neither
operating system has not being able to crash to a halt in period
of one month), I can say for my case windows 95 is at fault
most of the time. More importantly, I bought my motherboard
new from a reliable and reputable dealer. Not unknown dealer
or from a recycling yard. It is also less than a year old.
>You can run some other OS, but I am willing to give you
>better than even odds that you will see similar problems.
*I'm running other OS* as you may have overlook from my previous
post. Linux and os/2 warp. I have also see and witness about a dozen
such cases, both in the local comptuer lab and from my friend's computer
BTW, you can't have a sort of working motherboard, it either doesn't work
or does. If it got weak electrical components, quite likely that the
motherboard will not work after a month. But I have my computer for bit
more than a half year now.
Chung
Ashok Katwala
Koro <ksa...@best.com> wrote:
>> nor easy accessibility for the masses.
>You go to the computer store, pick up the friggin' CD, and leave. How
>hard can that be?
Beware - some storekeepers get a bit peeved if you don't /pay/ ;-)
--
Ashok Katwala <*> __ http://homepages.enterprise.net/ashok/
Member: Team AMIGA /\_\ Because the alternative is unthinkable...
She is risen... \/_/ (\\\\\I===============-----
... The real world is a special case.
Steve Mading
anonymous (i'm-...@home.com) wrote:
: Yes indeed, pick up your CD, leave the store, and become a LINUX user.
: You'll be right in tune with what percent of the personal computing
: population. Lets lear it - maybe 1%. Great support network - yes -
: all the cheese heads who eat quiche. If you want to be a big boy, a
^^^^^^^^^^^^
So you're saying that most Linux people are Packer fans from
Wisconsin? I don't think us cheeseheads are really that
intelligent, but thanks for the compliment anyway.
: really big boy, step up and go UNIX.
Steve Nichols
Bruce Ediger wrote:
>
> "David Caulton" <dcau...@microsoft.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Seems like the real world works a bit differently, David. Apple made the
> easiest-to-use computing system (demonstrated by studies over and over),
> yet they are losing market share.
That is only because Apple waited too long to make make systems
affordable
to the general public compared to the Intel PC. For the most part,
Apple
targeted Education (Institutions and Students) , perhaps in hopes of
building a strong user base in that arena with the idea that all or most
of the Apple/Mac users would continue to purchase the same said
equipment
because the public would be comfortable with what they were familiar
with.
This also seems to be the same reason that Apple has had so many
problems
today, they waited too long with their precious corporate secrets and
kept
prices too high for too long. I, nor anyone else on this thread has
even
mentioned Apple (until now). The thread Began with Windows 95 and
encompassed other OS's such as LINUX and OS/2.
Steve Nichols
Jeremy Nelson wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Just one of those evil unix users who will enslave your children and make
> them use computer software that doesnt crash all the time (how DARE i!)
> -jfn
Just for Info,
I haven't seen a Unix box yet that didn't crash on occassion.
There is no perfect OS no matter what kind of box, mini or mainframe
is used.
Larry Brasfield
Of course you are right. That's why I wrote
"Note that EDO memory as commonly sold today is not parity checked."
But EDO memory with parity is very difficult to find. I know this because
I searched hundreds of ads and made dozens of phone calls trying to
find some for my system that would do ECC with it.
And yes, random crashes can be a software problem. However, such
crashes in an idle machine are extremely likely to show up across all
kinds and instances of PC's. Since the complainer reported crashes
during idle time, I think the hardware is likely the culprit. Certainty is
not available in these matters, except for the merits of OS's, of course.
-Larry Brasfield
Paul M. Schuer <pm...@voicenet.com> wrote in article
<51016r$h...@gnews2.voicenet.com>...
Koro
On 8 Sep 1996 06:22:43 GMT, "David Caulton" <dcau...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> > My statements
> > were directed at those who use windows saying that operating systems
> > like unix were "arcane" becuse they required a triple digit IQ to use.
> This is probably futile, but I'll say it again. PEOPLE WHO CAN'T/WON'T USE
> UNIX OR OS/2 OR WHATEVER OS ARE NOT STUPID. You are not inherently more
> intelligent than them You are not morally superior to them. You do not
> have a higher IQ than them.
"Won't", I can understand. They either have a valid reason or are
stubborn SOB's. "Can't", on the other hand, usually would coincide
with low IQ scores. If you cannot keep 10 words (or rather commands)
in your memory, you won't score very highly on any IQ tests.
[snip]
KORO
David Caulton
Bruce Ediger <bed...@csn.net> wrote in article
<5109ut$p...@teal.csn.net>...
> "David Caulton" <dcau...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >Obviously there are other factors. I do think apple proves my point.
IBM
> >managed to crush EVERY SINGLE competing PC standard that existed prior
to
> >them, and to drive every single computer company either (a) out of
business
> >or (b) into their standards after they introduced the PC. Every company
>
> Sun, Data General, SGI, HP, DEC, Tandem, Stratus, DEC. All are still in
> business, all make computers that don't conform to the nebulous PC
> standard.
>
Most of these companies don't make PCs - they make workstations and larger
machines. The difference is blurring, but I think it's still pretty
clear.
Dave
Eric van Bezooijen
In article <01bb9e5e$68dd5230$d2912599@bit-blitzer>,
Larry Brasfield <lar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Of course you are right. That's why I wrote
> "Note that EDO memory as commonly sold today is not parity checked."
>
>But EDO memory with parity is very difficult to find. I know this because
>I searched hundreds of ads and made dozens of phone calls trying to
>find some for my system that would do ECC with it.
>
If you want ECC then you will have to go to a vendor who actually cares
about the integrity of the data on their systems. For example Sun workstations
have 3 bits of parity these days, I believe. A single bit of parity, like
on a PC, is much less useful. Detection, yes, correction, no.
-Eric
--
http://www.activesw.com/~eric/ EL!TE YOONICKS(TM) Solaris & FreeBSD user
Eric van Bezooijen | "Faboo!"- Wakko Warner, Animaniacs #Warlord *THIS*
er...@csua.berkeley.edu | "Oh joy of Joys!"- Stimpson J. Cat, Ren & Stimpy
er...@activesw.com | "Spoon!"- The Tick #Pixies and Talking Heads rule!
BORG
My Linux box crashed only once this year. It was darn stupid of
me to try to `swapon' /dev/hdb1 (which is /) instead of /dev/hdb3.
Regards,
--
*-=-=-=-=-=#include <disclaimer.h>-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
*-=Vladimir Petersen <vlad...@iceonline.com>=-*
*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Vancouver, B.C.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
*-=-=-=-Good pings come in small packets-=-=-=-*
Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate...
In article <01bb9dbf$eb506710$d2912599@bit-blitzer>, "Larry Brasfield" <lar...@earthlink.net> writes...
>Trouble-shooting hardware problems (or software ones) is a
>task that requires meticulous experiment, observation and
>reasoning, and doing so thru this medium is not practical.
>So I cannot pretend to offer any conclusive diagnosis.
[excess shit removed]
You need to troubleshoot your billie gates welcome to the internet wow I'm
so neat jonny come lately usenet poster program. You added your text at the
beginning (apparently billie gates welcome to the internet wow I'm so neat
jonny come lately usenet poster program is famous for defaulting out messages
like this), AND you didn't trim any of the reams of text you followed up to
(is this another "WOULD YOU PLEASE PASS THE JELLY?" gaffe of the bill gates
programmers who have never used the internet, but with the new mandate to
jonny come lately take over the internet by spending buckets of dollars and
leveraging the monopoly are attempting to figure out 'these strange open
systems protocols', at least until the time bill gates can control and
proprietize things?).
Tom O'Toole - ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - JHUVMS system programmer
This message has been brought to you by bill gates, inventor of the internet
Nobody ever got fired for buying bill gates...
Koro
> Jeremy Nelson wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > Just one of those evil unix users who will enslave your children and make
> > them use computer software that doesnt crash all the time (how DARE i!)
> > -jfn
> Just for Info,
> I haven't seen a Unix box yet that didn't crash on occassion.
> There is no perfect OS no matter what kind of box, mini or mainframe
> is used.
Hey, my calculator doesn't crash.... Well, I've seen some that can
get viruses (there's one out for the TI-8X series), but many will
never crash.
KORO
Paul Wade
Gee, I will run to the store first thing in the morning to get myself a Mac
or two, that is, if Apple is still in business.
--
SeE Ya oN tHe NeT -Paul AKA MrDigital
Bruce Ediger <bed...@csn.net> wrote in article
<50v13i$m...@teal.csn.net>...
>
> Seems like the real world works a bit differently, David. Apple made the
> easiest-to-use computing system (demonstrated by studies over and over),
> yet they are losing market share.
>
>
John Stevens
And the really surprising thing is that these so called "intelligent"
people never realize that these command strings aren't random. They
are contractions:
rm => is short for remove.
ls => is short for list.
mv => is short for move.
cd => is short for change directory.
And the command line switches are abreviations as well. Such as:
rm -i, cp -i and mv -i all "inquire" whether or not files should be
removed, or overwritten.
Really, this isn't to difficult. People memorize much less
mnemonic stuff, like telephone numbers.
Unix isn't perfect by a long shot. But it is a superset of almost every
other desktop OS. I have a window manager running on my Linux box that
gives me a Win95-like GUI (easier for the wife to use). I have seen
window managers that duplicate the MacIntosh GUI.
However, on the other hand, I have yet to see true pre-emptive
multi-tasking on a Mac.
Things like GUI's are simple additions to an OS like Unix, while adding
pre-emptive multi-tasking to a Mac is a *MAJOR* pain.
John S.
John Stevens
In article <323425...@state.me.us>,
Steve Nichols <hws...@state.me.us> wrote:
>Jeremy Nelson wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> Just one of those evil unix users who will enslave your children and make
>> them use computer software that doesnt crash all the time (how DARE i!)
>> -jfn
>
>Just for Info,
>
>I haven't seen a Unix box yet that didn't crash on occassion.
>
>There is no perfect OS no matter what kind of box, mini or mainframe
>is used.
Just for your Info, he said:
"computer software that doesnt crash all the time".
not "computer software that never crashes".
In the last 15 years, I've only seen a Unix system actually *CRASH* two or
three times, if you define crash as when the whole OS goes down the tubes
and you have to turn the box off, and restart it (or push the big red reset
button).
Once was on a bad hard drive (on which the root partition was stored), and
another time was on an experimental version of the Linux kernel. A third
time was when a hacker cracked a commercial system and spawned off so many
processes so fast that the process table filled up and I couldn't log on
to stop it (bad configuration). That last was not really a crash, but it
had a similar effect.
Crashes happens. But the point is that it happens a *LOT* less often with
a protected OS, than with a non-protected OS.
In contrast, my Mac crashed more than 197 times in three years.
As you might guess, I don't use Macs for any activity above that of "toy" or
"appliance" level anymore. They are neato keen for doing certain tasks, but
I woudn't trust one for business use.
John S.
John Walker
Larry Brasfield wrote:
>
> Eric van Bezooijen <er...@logrus.berkeley.edu> wrote in article
> > have 3 bits of parity these days, I believe. A single bit of
> > parity, like
> > on a PC, is much less useful. Detection, yes, correction, no.
How are you going to get correction even with 3 bits of parity?
John
Tom Hamilton
Does the mention of "Hamming Codes" explain this?
Larry Brasfield
> If you want ECC then you will have to go to a vendor who actually cares
> about the integrity of the data on their systems. For example Sun
workstations
like
> on a PC, is much less useful. Detection, yes, correction, no.
You can buy Pentium Pro systems from Dell with ECC memory. I have
a no-name system with Intel's "Venus" motherboard which has ECC
memory. Its chipset uses the extra parity bits on each 8-byte word to
support ECC. (The reason I know EDO with parity is rare is because of
the difficulty I had finding the SIMM's for this system.) Hi-end Gateway
systems are sold with this motherboard, although they do not sell them
with the x36 SIMM's necessary to support ECC. Hewlett Packard also
sells Pentium Pro systems with ECC.
Unfortunately, IMO, many PC vendors are going the other way on this
and dropping even parity error detection. (Micron, for example)
--
Larry Brasfield
Larry Brasfield
Dear Old-Fashioned, or Tom,
If your eyes and brain worked, you would be able to tell that I did
remove
part of the previous postings. What I left was intentional.
I don't see anything else in your posting that merits a response.
-Larry Brasfield
Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate... <ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote in
article <10SEP199...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>...
[excess garbage cleared out]
Larry Brasfield
If you review my posting, you will see that I said
"the extra parity bits on each 8-byte word". This
refers to the extra 8 bits that are alongside each
64-bit word. (I used "word" in the older way that
refers to the machine word size. At the bus level,
Pentiums access data 8 bytes at a whack.)
The "3 bits" fragment was from an earlier posting.
Sorry if I was unclear.
--
Larry Brasfield
John Walker <John_...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote in article
<323784...@mindlink.bc.ca>...
> Larry Brasfield wrote:
> >
> > Eric van Bezooijen <er...@logrus.berkeley.edu> wrote in article
>
> > > have 3 bits of parity these days, I believe. A single bit of
> > > parity, like
> > > on a PC, is much less useful. Detection, yes, correction, no.
>
Tim Gerchmez
On 9 Sep 1996 02:00:55 -0700, c...@cs.uoregon.edu (Chung-Chen Lin)
wrote:
>From: "Larry Brasfield" <lar...@earthlink.net>
>
>>Trouble-shooting hardware problems (or software ones) is a
>>task that requires meticulous experiment, observation and
>>reasoning, and doing so thru this medium is not practical.
>>So I cannot pretend to offer any conclusive diagnosis.
>
>>However, millions of people manage to run the idle loop
>>code in Windows 95 for lengthy periods of time. (I turned
>>on the monitor attached to my running Win95 machine in
>>my office, after a couple months of use, and it was doing
>>just fine.) I find it hard to believe that the same code,
>>running on your hardware, while not going off to run any
>>unique code on your system (such as device drivers you
>>may have), is crashing when it runs fine on other systems.
>
> The key word is idle. I guess for people who only
>does straight word processing (no fancy formatting etc)
>and perhaps occasional spreadsheet, the windows 95 will not
>crash much. But if you touch other areas of application
>then windows 95 will cause a major crisis.
How ignorant and foolish. I rarely do either word processing and
never spreadsheets on Win95. Rather, I access the Internet and surf
the Web, read Email, download from FTP, Telnet to various sites, etc -
all at the same time. Works like a charm, no major crisis here. I've
had 4 simultaneous downloads going in Netscape, while reading news in
Agent newsreader, occasionally checking Email every 5 minutes or so,
playing solitaire, etc. You may claim that this is 'nothing,' but it
sure ain't word processing or spreadsheets, and it works fine.
> I have witness in person from a dozen computers
>in the local computer lab running windows 95. These
>computers are Dell Pentium 90 which is one of the
>configuration being tested with before release of windows
>95... suppose to be stable... but it crashes frequently too.
I'm not sure I understand your English, but are you saying that
they're running with a Win95 beta? If so, I'm not surprised it's
crashing frequently.
> I'm curious to figure out why in that my system runs fairly
>stable under linux and OS/2 Warp while windows is crashing like
>a screaming banshe using my configuration?
Perhaps because your machine is poorly configured.
>Because both linux
>and OS/2 Warp is rather stable on my system, (meaning neither
>operating system has not being able to crash to a halt in period
>of one month), I can say for my case windows 95 is at fault
>most of the time. More importantly, I bought my motherboard
>new from a reliable and reputable dealer. Not unknown dealer
>or from a recycling yard. It is also less than a year old.
Perhaps it's your BIOS settings.
--
Check out my home page at http://www.blarg.net/~future/index.html
Ned Kelly
anonymous (i'm-...@home.com) wrote:
: Yes indeed, pick up your CD, leave the store, and become a LINUX user.
: You'll be right in tune with what percent of the personal computing
: population. Lets lear it - maybe 1%. Great support network - yes -
: all the cheese heads who eat quiche. If you want to be a big boy, a
: really big boy, step up and go UNIX.
However, a bit of Latin is useful here: Caveat Emptor(tm). Not all CD
drives are supported, and some only work in some cases, and the newbie
ends up with a partially operational Linux box. Also, the distributions
in bookstores are notorious for being fucked up, like SAMS Publishing
with Slackware 2.2 at least for a while. I have gone through a lot of
trials and tribulations to get a good Linux box running, but I did it.
It's not always easy, like OS/2.
--
Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!! http://www.suburbia.net/~nedkelly/Seppo_Navy.html
"That isn't a knife.... This is a KNIFE!" - Paul Hogan
The Navy: It's Not Just A Job..... It's $cientology Lite!
Chung-Chen Lin
From: fut...@blarg.net (Tim Gerchmez)
>On 9 Sep 1996 02:00:55 -0700, c...@cs.uoregon.edu (Chung-Chen Lin)
wrote:
>> The key word is idle. I guess for people who only
>>does straight word processing (no fancy formatting etc)
>>and perhaps occasional spreadsheet, the windows 95 will not
>>crash much. But if you touch other areas of application
>>then windows 95 will cause a major crisis.
>How ignorant and foolish. I rarely do either word processing and
>never spreadsheets on Win95. Rather, I access the Internet and surf
>the Web, read Email, download from FTP, Telnet to various sites, etc -
>all at the same time. Works like a charm, no major crisis here. I've
>had 4 simultaneous downloads going in Netscape, while reading news in
>Agent newsreader, occasionally checking Email every 5 minutes or so,
>playing solitaire, etc. You may claim that this is 'nothing,' but it
>sure ain't word processing or spreadsheets, and it works fine.
Good for you then. I'm glad someone is running a stable windows
95 system with internet application. I have to say Netscape 3.0 is
working pretty well for me too when compare to MSIE 3.0.
>> I have witness in person from a dozen computers
>>in the local computer lab running windows 95. These
>>computers are Dell Pentium 90 which is one of the
>>configuration being tested with before release of windows
>>95... suppose to be stable... but it crashes frequently too.
>I'm not sure I understand your English, but are you saying that
>they're running with a Win95 beta? If so, I'm not surprised it's
>crashing frequently.
No, it is full version of window 95. It is unlikely that the
university computer lab cannot afford to purcahse a retail version of
windows 95 and have to run beta version.
>> I'm curious to figure out why in that my system runs fairly
>>stable under linux and OS/2 Warp while windows is crashing like
>>a screaming banshe using my configuration?
>Perhaps because your machine is poorly configured.
For most of part, my machine is not poorly configured. I don't
install a beta program except for one of netscape's plugin call cosmo
player. I install windows 95 into seperate directory than win 3.1.
Moreover, I don't install 16bit applications. All my hardware drivers are
designed for windows 95 and none of them are real mode driver. I have
only load five dos drivers that comes with windows 95 in my config.sys and
autoexec.bat.
>>Because both linux
>>and OS/2 Warp is rather stable on my system, (meaning neither
>>operating system has not being able to crash to a halt in period
>>of one month), I can say for my case windows 95 is at fault
>>most of the time. More importantly, I bought my motherboard
>>new from a reliable and reputable dealer. Not unknown dealer
>>or from a recycling yard. It is also less than a year old.
>Perhaps it's your BIOS settings.
Meaning? What, if any, could you suggest about problems with the
bio setting? I have the latest award 3.01 bios for my Tyan Titan III and
most of the bio setting is set to default except for some performance
enhancement such as bio shadowing. BTW, I am running my system at the
designed clock speed. Why is Linux and OS/2 Warp are more stable under
the same bio setting?
From your opening comment you are either still in your early teens
or just immature or you are working for Microsoft. In my previous
message, I am speaking from my experience and also from seeing *dozen* of
other people's experiences. So don't assert windows 95 is stable cause
from your internet applications are running stable. As indicated in my
previous messages, I've seen dozen lock up incidences accross different
machines and configurations running application ranging from internet to
program development. Also Netscape crashes too depend on the stability of
plugins you have and the type of web pages you visit. (i.e. vrml)
Chung
Gian Uberto Lauri
"David Caulton" <dcau...@microsoft.com> writes:
> This is probably futile, but I'll say it again. PEOPLE WHO CAN'T/WON'T USE
> UNIX OR OS/2 OR WHATEVER OS ARE NOT STUPID.
No, they are not, they only lack the necessary knoledge to understand
where and why some famous products are not up to their fame.
They simply need to use the computer in their work, and have no time
to develope the skills I mentioned(?) above.
And since they lack those skills they are more "vulnerable" to heavy
advertisement than people that understands that a company having
rights on TWO good file systems can't put a patched up FAT in a
O.S. developed in the '90s and still claim to be fair with the
customers. And this is an Example.
The other product offered by the same firm, at least in the Beta 2
release is all but comfortable to use, especially for the
administrative side of the work. It needs some megabyte of GNU
software to give it an acceptable feel.
These two products are not good. I have the experience to find these
weak points, and this is true for several other computer users. But
not for the majority. Most of the people developed excellent skills in
other fields rather than computers. These people, when asked, will
give you their best prefessional skills. They deserve
respect. Especially from the manufacturers of software. And I refer to
the largest one.
This large manufacturers simply fools the users inducing them in
beliving that poorly written software is the best they can have. What
they really offer is a powerful, amazing, misleading marketing. A
marketing that considers the customers like orange to squeeze.
> The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
> and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation
It's hard to find better jokes.
o oooooo Gian Uberto Lauri "So, are you working on finding
o o sa...@maya.dei.unipd.it that bug *now* or leaving it until
o o later?" - "Yes!"
David Caulton
In article <saint20g...@palladio.dei.unipd.it>, Gian Uberto Lauri <sa...@palladio.dei.unipd.it>
<50kog0$g...@news.inc.net> <jragosta-060...@news.dca.net>
<50tg8i$6...@news.inc.net> <01bb9d4e$da29c100$d516369d@dcaulton3> wrote:
>"David Caulton" <dcau...@microsoft.com> writes:
>> This is probably futile, but I'll say it again. PEOPLE WHO CAN'T/WON'T USE
>> UNIX OR OS/2 OR WHATEVER OS ARE NOT STUPID.
>
>No, they are not, they only lack the necessary knoledge to understand
>where and why some famous products are not up to their fame.
>
>They simply need to use the computer in their work, and have no time
>to develope the skills I mentioned(?) above.
>
>And since they lack those skills they are more "vulnerable" to heavy
>advertisement
[...deleted list of sins that MS has committed, especially not dumping FAT for
something better...]
>This large manufacturers simply fools the users inducing them in
>beliving that poorly written software is the best they can have. What
>they really offer is a powerful, amazing, misleading marketing. A
>marketing that considers the customers like orange to squeeze.
I disagree. I don't think that the majority of users are "fooled" by
Microsoft or Apple. I think that MS and Apple have a different list of
priorities than most of their competitors, and those priorities are more in
line with their users. Most users don't care that VFAT isn't maximally
efficient. They have huge HDs, and what matters is not "how efficient it is",
it's whether their HD is "big enough" and "fast enough". "big enough" is
easily defined - can I fit my OS, my apps, and my docs onto this HD. For most
users, with any OS, 1.2 or 1.6 gig is plenty. And it's extremely cheap to
add more.
Multitasking? Memory protection? I know, I know...UNIX, NT, and OS/2 have an
advantage here. I think one needs to reframe the issue - users don't care
about these abstract concepts - they care about "how often does my system go
down" and "how often do I have to wait for something to happen". These
questions are obviously effected by the features mentioned above, but if the
differences are small, users won't care.
And I don't think most users notice the difference. I have apps crash all
the time in all these platforms (UNIX, OS/2, Mac, NT, and Windows95), but I
almost never have crashes in any but the mac that hang the system. I did
have a period a couple of weeks ago in which I installed win95 on one of my
computers, it installed the wrong video driver, and I had an extremely
unstable system (froze up every 30 sec or so). However, in the weeks since I
corrected the problem, I haven't rebooted once. Not that this is an excuse -
setup problems are unforgivable, and many users will give your product the
one-fingered salute very quickly for this sort of thing. In general, these
arguments remind me somewhat of the CD enthusiasts who get all worked up over
"'my CD player is 2x oversampling'. 'Oh yeah? Mine is 8x oversampled'.
'Well MINE is super linear - it's much better. Let me show you. I'll just
hook up my oscilloscope...'" Of course, the differences between win95 and
NT/OS2/UNIX are perceptible, but I think they aren't enough to make people
want to switch.
So what do I think users DO care about? Things that they can see - that
affect them in a big way:
They care a lot about long file names - and win95 offers that. Of course,
it's not as elegant as the UNIX, MAC, OS/2 or NT implementation, but if it
works, they're happy - they don't know better, and if you tell them, they
won't care.
They also care about installation - and Win95 put tremendous amounts of effort
into the installation process - making sure it worked with the thousands (10's
of thousands? Hundreds?) of hardware combinations out there. This made for a
smoother installation process - something that has been missing in most of
it's competition (except Apple, of course, which has the ultimate solution to
this problem - complete ownership over the hardware standards).
They care about ease-of-use. I think OS/2 has improved a lot alongside
Windows in this arena - but I think nobody yet matches the Mac.
They care about Apps. They care LOTS about apps. Native apps. Not everyone
shares this view - lots of folks are happy with the word processors,
spreadsheets, personal finance, etc...packages for OS/2 or UNIX. They've made
that apparent here, and that's great. I think it makes sense to say, "If I'm
going to run windows software, I'll run windows". Especially 32-bit win
software. And they don't want obscure software that most people have never
heard of. They want to be able to ask their neighbor "what word processor do
you use and why do you like it?" and get a useful answer - something that runs
native on their OS.
I don't think these priorities are indications of ignorance - users just want
to mimimize the time they spend dealing with their computer. They want to
take very few risks (such as committing to an OS and then finding later that
it can't do something they want to do - like run some specific program they
need...).
HOWEVER, I DON'T MEAN BY ANY OF THIS TO PUT DOWN USERS OF UNIX, OS/2, OR ANY
OTHER OPERATING PLATFORM. There is a BIG difference between saying "Platform
X is not what some people want" and saying "Platform X is bad". When I need
to analyze fMRI data, Win95, NT, or OS/2 simply won't do it. You need the
most powerful machine you can get, and then it crawls along. You need UNIX on
a Sparcstation, on which the best analysis software runs. Likewise I would
never suggest using win95 for a server. There are many, many different types
of users, and everybody has different needs and thus may choose different
software. That's fine.
I use a Philips head screwdriver to take the back off of my computer. That
doesn't mean I hate people who use a socket wrench, or think that
manufacturers of pliers are evil. For each job, a different tool.
>> The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
>> and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation
>
>It's hard to find better jokes.
>
Hey, Microsoft would *shudder* if they knew some of my views...
Dave
David Caulton, Ph.D.
Usability Specialist
Microsoft DAD HCI group
dcau...@microsoft.com
Tim Gerchmez
On 13 Sep 1996 18:05:27 +0000, Gian Uberto Lauri
<sa...@palladio.dei.unipd.it> wrote:
>"David Caulton" <dcau...@microsoft.com> writes:
>
>
>> This is probably futile, but I'll say it again. PEOPLE WHO CAN'T/WON'T USE
>> UNIX OR OS/2 OR WHATEVER OS ARE NOT STUPID.
>
>No, they are not, they only lack the necessary knoledge to understand
>where and why some famous products are not up to their fame.
That is false. I've been using computers since 1984 (program in
assembly language, Basic and C), and have used OS/2 2.1, OS/2 Warp
Beta, DOS, Windows 3.x, Windows 95, GEOS and several others. I'm not
exactly lacking in computer knowledge, nor am I lacking in knowledge
about Win95. I do use it, however, because I like it. Bam, your
theory is shot down.
>They simply need to use the computer in their work, and have no time
>to develope the skills I mentioned(?) above.
A mindless generalization, if I've ever heard one before. You sound
like the typical "OS snob" type that likes to look down at their noses
at "the masses." Surprise, you're a sheep too, just of a different
flock.