NT or 95?
Joe Sloan
>Hi,
>
>Allways use NT for professional use !
Professional what? Microsoft advocacy?
Thanks but no thanks, I need Unix -
--
Joe Sloan Happily running Unix!
j...@netvoyage.net <a href="http://www.netvoyage.net/~jjs">
FrEdDiE ChAn
> Le...@PacX.Com (Lewis Mettler) writes:
>
> >Lisa Wang <lisa...@hydro.on.ca> wrote:
>
> >If you want to go slow use NT.
>
> >If you want unreliable operation use 95.
>
> >If you rather go fast and be reliable you will have to use OS/2.
>
> Fast and reliable, that sounds like Linux to me. Going fast until it
> suddenly crashes, with no applications to run, not supporting the most
> common hardware, that's OS/2.
My new laptop has win95 preinstalled. It took 15 minutes or so to enter
some configurations, reboot and it's done on setup.
But it's just a too damn dumb OS, interface is user unfriendly, if I
have to make a choice, I rather stick with the buggy unstable win3.1.
After 15 minutes of messing around, I decided to reformat the HD.
I once ran OS/2 on my desktop... after 1 week getting sick for hardware
incompatible problem with no tech support from ibm. I quitted! I sold it
to my one of my frd who's an OS/2 fan. And after a week he bought a new
video card...
Now, let's talk about NT. I installed it to my laptop yesterday, it ran
well. Everything runs smooth... I think it's a good OS to deal with.
Although setting it up is a little hard for some people. But sure it's a
nice product. (Believe it or not, this is the 1st time I think MS did a
good job, I used to say MS only makes craps)
Linux, YES! That's my favorite OS. I have been running it for 2 yrs. And
it give me a nice environment to deal with all the networking stuff. I
learned a lot from it. And still learning.
FreeBSD, don't want to mention it. Setup is too complicated, I
reformatted the partition after wasting 3 hrs trying to find how do I
reconfigure the hardware. No support for HiIRQ serial, my modem doesn't work.
Mac, my favorite crash machine. It doesn't reboot itself when it crashes,
instead it pops out a dialog asking you to click the <REBOOT> without any
option. You either stir at the screen with hopeless or click the REBOOT.
That's all...
Direct all flames to nu...@longyear.acs.nmu.edu
Suggestion/$$$/pizza/t-shirt/beer to xetr...@longyear.acs.nmu.edu
--
| Freddie Chan | Xetronic Labs | Xet @ IRC |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Email #1 | xetr...@longyear.acs.nmu.edu |
| Email #2 | fc...@nmu.edu |
| Homepage | http://longyear.acs.nmu.edu/~xetronic |
|----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
| IRC Help | http://www.irchelp.org |
| Mirror | http://www2.acs.nmu.edu/students/fchan (working) |
SnyPher
In article <4kjhpt$3...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, j...@brigid.ucr.edu says...
UNIX def. 1)-acronym U Now r Invited to eXplore my system.
2) come one in - HACK,HACK,HACK, HACK ,HACK ,HACK
What a pile of crap. Unix is a relic left over from AT+T, horribly insecure and
archaic. Kinf of like comparing a horse buggy to a Ferrari(NT).
Mr. Wizard
>
> UNIX def. 1)-acronym U Now r Invited to eXplore my system.
> 2) come one in - HACK,HACK,HACK, HACK ,HACK ,HACK
> What a pile of crap. Unix is a relic left over from AT+T, horribly insecure > and
> archaic. Kinf of like comparing a horse buggy to a Ferrari(NT).
>
> (If I only had a brain..... Maybe then I could be as cool as my Unix
> friends...)
Oh boy, oh boy! More MS Weenies (TM) to flame!
1) Unix is the most secure system possible. In your post up there,
you must have mixed up Unix with Windows. They're quite different things, you
know.
2) Unix is not a relic. It's alive and kicking. Winheads just love
to sit and drool about how cool it will be when they install NT, and their
computer could be as good as a "20-year-old" Unix OS.
3) NT is MS's attempt to make a valid Unix system. Yes, my dear SnyPher,
only now MS can try to copy Unix and come up with NT. You're not
comparing a horse buggy and a Ferrari, you're comparing a horse buggy
and it's imitaion straw cousin.
It amazing how much fallacies I found in these short 2-3 settences.
More Weenie flames welcome. My mind has not been trampled by Microsoft.
--
/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\
| |
| |--- | \ / | ___ | | \ / |--- ___ |
| |- | \ / | /___ | | \ / |- /___ |
| |--- |___ \/ | ___\ |___ | \/ |--- ___\ |
| |
\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/~\-/
Anthony D. Tribelli
: In article <316D16...@damen.nl>, J. van Benthem <j...@damen.nl> wrote:
: >Allways use NT for professional use !
: Professional what? Microsoft advocacy?
: Thanks but no thanks, I need Unix -
I seem to have missed the original post, but if the title "NT or 95" is
accuarate it sounds like the person needs Windows not Unix. NT would be
the better choice, linux would be a very poor choice.
I know its hard for you to believe, but many people use Windows in
professional situations and have zero need for Unix (including linux). :-)
Tony
--
------------------
Tony Tribelli
adtri...@acm.org
Steven Lorek
> it give me a nice environment to deal with all the networking stuff. I
> learned a lot from it. And still learning.
Have you had any problems getting Windows 32-bit and 16-bit apps to run (if
at all), and DOS games lice Wing Colmmander IV? I don't even know if this is
possible, as I've never used it before, but if this can be done, I want to
try it.
Thanks.
--
--------------------------------------------------
| Steve Lorek | slo...@tcp.co.uk |
--------------------------------------------------
| Editor, Ham Radio Today On-Line, the best |
| Amateur Radio Web site in the world!!! Visit |
| it at http://www.tcp.co.uk/~slorek |
--------------------------------------------------
Stephen Kawamoto
: In article <4kjhpt$3...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, j...@brigid.ucr.edu says...
: >
: >In article <316D16...@damen.nl>, J. van Benthem <j...@damen.nl> wrote:
: >>Hi,
: >>
: >>Allways use NT for professional use !
: >
: >Professional what? Microsoft advocacy?
: >Thanks but no thanks, I need Unix -
: >
: >
: UNIX def. 1)-acronym U Now r Invited to eXplore my system.
: 2) come one in - HACK,HACK,HACK, HACK ,HACK ,HACK
: What a pile of crap. Unix is a relic left over from AT+T, horribly
: insecure and archaic. Kind of like comparing a horse buggy to a
: Ferrari(NT).
For yer informatin, SnyPher <some...@kea.bc.ca>, UNIX can be secured
against hacker attacks. PC machines running DOS cannot; Macs cannot -
especially if either have accessible boot drives. This is why the local
library puts a pexiglass plate against the floppy drives on all its PCs.
It's cheaper than removing the floppy drives. (Yes, a PC can be booted
w/o having floppy drives connected but may give errors before reading
hard drive.) The best way to secure a PC or Mac is to upgrade to UNIX or
Windows NT. But UNIX is more robust than NT. After all MS bought
licence to UNIX from Bell Labs (now UNIX System Laboratories or USL) in
February 1980 and formed the XENIX group. SCO UNIX is XENIC licensed
from MS. In Sept. 1982, MS ran XENIX on MC68000 machines. 2 yrs later,
(May 84)MS introduced XENIX OS support package for the 32-bit MPU, the Intel
286.
In August 1984, IBM introduced the IBM PC AT; the system software,
including XENIX was developed by Microsoft.
Then Windows 2.11 was available around 1989. The next year MS put out
Windows 3.0 and began an aggressive marketing program. (About this time,
MS was also sabotaging its joint effort with IBM to product OS/2 begun in
April 1987. After MS announced Excel 3.0 for Windows, OS/2 and Mac
platforms simultaneously on Jan 9, 1991, nothing is mentioned about OS/2
in Microsoft's Key Events In Microsoft History file at its NT-based FTP
site ftp.microsoft.com /services/msft/backgrnd/keyeven.txt
And it was NT that forced the UNIX firms to cooperate rather than letting
the GUI war between OSF's Motif and Sun's Open Look tear apart the UNIX
community -- see UNIXWORLD, June 1993, page 13 for Dave Flach's editorial
"Necessary Threatware (NT)".
So I find it untenable that you think UNIX is insecure and open to hacker
attack. Lemme come over and use your computer and I bet I can crash your
Windows software using a Windows shareware package I have.
--
Address E-mail to: sa...@vanbc.wimsey.com | sa...@rainbow.descon.com
dead URL: http://mindlink.net/A7657/ due to lack of funds
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox ILYWAMHMBASA xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
please contact me at the following address for more information
Stephen H. Kawamoto <finger sa...@vanbc.wimsey.com for PGP Public Key>
John Severinsen
<NEWTNews.82924...@mattn.bandley1.netmanage.com>), mattn wrote:
--
>In Article<316C4E...@emi.net>, <or...@emi.net> writes:
>>
>> Fidelio wrote:
>> >
>> > Le...@PacX.Com (Lewis Mettler) writes:
>> >
>> > >Lisa Wang <lisa...@hydro.on.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> > >If you want to go slow use NT.
>> >
>> > >If you want unreliable operation use 95.
>> >
>> > >If you rather go fast and be reliable you will have to use OS/2.
>> >
>> > Fast and reliable, that sounds like Linux to me. Going fast until it
>> > suddenly crashes, with no applications to run, not supporting the most
>> > common hardware, that's OS/2.
>> >
>>
>> But, the question is...Can I load Win NT in a Win 95 directory? Will both
>> OS's be operational on my HD?
> ...sounds like a job for "System Commander"... :)
> -Matt
STOP IT, STOP IT, STOP IT!
Are you IDIOTS incapable of posting these discussions into APPROPRIATE news
groups? Stop cross posting this crap into irrelevant news groups. It's getting
tiresome to say the least. Currently it's being cross posted to:
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure
comp.sys.amiga.misc
comp.os.os2.misc
comp.os.os2.advocacy
comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup
comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc
comp.os.linux.advocacy
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows
alt.wired
alt.religion.scientology
alt.games.warcraft
alt.games.duke3d
alt.games.descent
alt.flame
alt.fan.bill-gates
alt.destroy.microsoft
alt.cyberspace
alt.cracks
alt.crackers
alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc
alt.bigfoot
alt.2600
What in the hell do half these groups have to do with this topic. Would the
stupid moron who starts these cross posts off stop it NOW.
SnyPher
Since UNIX does not have 72% market share this clearly indicates less security
than comparable operating systems. Read Masters of Deception or any of the
books on Mitnick. Almost all of the machines cracked were based on UNIX. I
guess you must me smarter than NASA, the Pentagon, the US Army, LAPD, TRW,
AT+T, Nynex and Tymnet cuz they have all been hit. I would not be so naive as
to say that you can protect UNIX 100% because this seems to imply that one
knows all the defects. You mention the solidification of the UNIX market.
It's in a real good state - AT+T sells USL to Novell, Novell screws it up
and then sells it to SCO at a 200 million dollar loss. I guess the UNIX
market was just too lucrative for them. As far as letting you break in to my
NT machine I doubt as to whether your shareware package can do it but maybe
we can make a friendly wager.
Mr. Wizard
> You are pretty naive. 72% of CERT advisories ahve to do with UNIX
> security.
> Since UNIX does not have 72% market share this clearly indicates less
> security
> than comparable operating systems. Read Masters of Deception or any of the
> books on Mitnick. Almost all of the machines cracked were based on UNIX. I
> guess you must me smarter than NASA, the Pentagon, the US Army, LAPD, TRW,
> AT+T, Nynex and Tymnet cuz they have all been hit. I would not be so naive > as
> to say that you can protect UNIX 100% because this seems to imply that one
> knows all the defects. You mention the solidification of the UNIX market.
> It's in a real good state - AT+T sells USL to Novell, Novell screws it up
> and then sells it to SCO at a 200 million dollar loss. I guess the UNIX
> market was just too lucrative for them. As far as letting you break in to
> my
> NT machine I doubt as to whether your shareware package can do it but maybe
> we can make a friendly wager.
SnyPher, you truly are a moron. NT is MS Unix. Judging by your post,
MS Unix is more secure than regular, tested Unix that runs the
vast majority of the Internet?
SnyPher, you are one hell of a major idiot. Shut the fuck up.
Your posts better not show up here again.
I'm warning you.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
>SnyPher, you truly are a moron. NT is MS Unix.
What's "Xenix"?
>Judging by your post,
>MS Unix is more secure than regular, tested Unix that runs the
>vast majority of the Internet?
>SnyPher, you are one hell of a major idiot. Shut the fuck up.
>Your posts better not show up here again.
>I'm warning you.
Based on history, it'd be substantially more accurate to say that NT
is Microsoft's VMX. Which has no particular relationship to Unix.
Viet-Trung Luu
Mr. Wizard <madsci...@dark.mountain.stronghold> wrote:
>SnyPher wrote:
>
>>
>> UNIX def. 1)-acronym U Now r Invited to eXplore my system.
>> 2) come one in - HACK,HACK,HACK, HACK ,HACK ,HACK
>> What a pile of crap. Unix is a relic left over from AT+T, horribly insecure > and
>>
>> (If I only had a brain..... Maybe then I could be as cool as my Unix
>> friends...)
>
>Oh boy, oh boy! More MS Weenies (TM) to flame!
>
>1) Unix is the most secure system possible. In your post up there,
>you must have mixed up Unix with Windows. They're quite different things, you
>know.
This is wrong, unfortunately. There are far more secure OSes than
standard UNIX... especially those built for security. Security wasn't
the prime concern in UNIX's design. However, there *is* Secure Ultrix,
which reaches B1.
That said, Windows 3.x/WfWG/95 are laughable in terms of security --
i.e., only adequate in a trusted, internal LAN. NT's is better, but then
again, it is not multiuser, etc. -- it's easy to provide security when
you provide few services (this can be accomplished with Linux by turning
off services such as telnet).
Much of NT's security is through obscurity. Security holes tend to go
unnoticed longer if source code is not available. That doesn't mean that
they'll go unexploited however...
>2) Unix is not a relic. It's alive and kicking. Winheads just love
>to sit and drool about how cool it will be when they install NT, and their
>computer could be as good as a "20-year-old" Unix OS.
Agreed. Funny how such a relic has had features that are considered
"new" in the Wintel world... (Networking, multitasking, security, users
(i.e., there's basically only one user in DOS/Windoze 3.x/95), long
(only to DOS) filenames, etc.)
>3) NT is MS's attempt to make a valid Unix system. Yes, my dear SnyPher,
>only now MS can try to copy Unix and come up with NT. You're not
>comparing a horse buggy and a Ferrari, you're comparing a horse buggy
>and it's imitaion straw cousin.
Yes, NT only goes to *match* UNIX in some areas. In others, it's still
far behind.
>It amazing how much fallacies I found in these short 2-3 settences.
>
>More Weenie flames welcome. My mind has not been trampled by Microsoft.
- Trung
root
> >you must have mixed up Unix with Windows. They're quite different things, you
> >know.
>
> This is wrong, unfortunately. There are far more secure OSes than
> standard UNIX... especially those built for security. Security wasn't
> the prime concern in UNIX's design. However, there *is* Secure Ultrix,
> which reaches B1.
Oh please...Ultrix? You're kidding, right? (Or maybe you didn't read the comment farmer makes
about Ultrix in the SATAN distribu.) Ultrix! I can't believe you said that.
>
> That said, Windows 3.x/WfWG/95 are laughable in terms of security --
> i.e., only adequate in a trusted, internal LAN. NT's is better, but then
> again, it is not multiuser, etc. -- it's easy to provide security when
> you provide few services (this can be accomplished with Linux by turning
> off services such as telnet).
NT not multiuser? Hmmm. I smell something fishy here. (And maybe you didn't know that NT alows
you to not only turn off any and all services, even selectively providing trusted addresses, it
also allows one to force call-back security.)
> Much of NT's security is through obscurity. Security holes tend to go
> unnoticed longer if source code is not available. That doesn't mean that
> they'll go unexploited however...
That IS true.
> >2) Unix is not a relic. It's alive and kicking. Winheads just love
> >to sit and drool about how cool it will be when they install NT, and their
> >computer could be as good as a "20-year-old" Unix OS.
No, UNIX is not a relic...in fact, it was multiuser and multitasking for many years prior to the
incredible strides by MS..."Imagine being able to format a disk and download something at the
same time!" Please! Or..."imagine being able to break the 640K barrier," or even
better..."Imagine being able to format your drive above 520m" Microsoft...hahahahaha! Do you know
WHY all the monster servers on the Net AREN'T MS? Can you figure it out?
> >3) NT is MS's attempt to make a valid Unix system. Yes, my dear SnyPher,
> >only now MS can try to copy Unix and come up with NT. You're not
> >comparing a horse buggy and a Ferrari, you're comparing a horse buggy
> >and it's imitaion straw cousin.
Well, I don't know about that. NT has a strong security rating now. For some reason, its TCP is
very, very poor...I dunno. It's generally not such a bad product. (But certainly infinitely
preferable to Win 3.1 and let's not talk about 95. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.)
>
> Yes, NT only goes to *match* UNIX in some areas. In others, it's still
> far behind.
>
> >It amazing how much fallacies I found in these short 2-3 settences.
> >
> >More Weenie flames welcome. My mind has not been trampled by Microsoft.
>
> - Trung
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm with you...I use Linux and SunOS. But...Ultrix? ULTRIX? Whew.
Viet-Trung Luu
> You are pretty naive. 72% of CERT advisories ahve to do with UNIX security.
>Since UNIX does not have 72% market share this clearly indicates less security
>than comparable operating systems. Read Masters of Deception or any of the
>books on Mitnick. Almost all of the machines cracked were based on UNIX. I
>guess you must me smarter than NASA, the Pentagon, the US Army, LAPD, TRW,
>AT+T, Nynex and Tymnet cuz they have all been hit. I would not be so naive as
>to say that you can protect UNIX 100% because this seems to imply that one
>knows all the defects. You mention the solidification of the UNIX market.
>It's in a real good state - AT+T sells USL to Novell, Novell screws it up
>and then sells it to SCO at a 200 million dollar loss. I guess the UNIX
>market was just too lucrative for them. As far as letting you break in to my
>NT machine I doubt as to whether your shareware package can do it but maybe
>we can make a friendly wager.
You are pretty stupid. By your logic, since Windows 3.x has a huge
market share, and there probably aren't many CERT advisories about it,
it must be *very* secure. I probably couldn't break into an NT box
because it provides so few services... even if you wanted me to be able
to use your NT machine across the Net, you wouldn't be able to let me.
And, yes, it is possible to make a UNIX machine as secure across
networks -- you just nuke the numerous services that it provides.
Further bad logic on your part: while UNIX may not have the most market
share, what's the proportion of UNIX boxes on the Net?
Sure, UNIX is decidedly not the best for security. However, you can't
even begin to compare UNIX's security to NT's security -- since NT is
*not* multiuser, provides few services, etc.
Further, NT's security has by no means proven itself -- basically
meaning that it attains C2 security only if it's not on a network. Yeah,
that's useful security. That means that you can only use it if you're at
the console... and then, it's only secure if the computer itself is
physically secure (i.e., you only have access to the keyboard and the
monitor... and the mouse, I guess).
If you want to compare... compare UNIX to VMS or somesuch -- and take
into account the proportion of UNIX boxes on a globally accessible
network (i.e., the Internet).
UNIX may well lose, but at least it'd be a fair comparison. (Plus, there
*are* secure UNICES...)
- Trung
Mats Andtbacka
[...]
>This is wrong, unfortunately. There are far more secure OSes than
>standard UNIX... especially those built for security. Security wasn't
>the prime concern in UNIX's design. However, there *is* Secure Ultrix,
>which reaches B1.
*Ultrix*?
you could at least have mentioned Trusted Solaris.
>That said, Windows 3.x/WfWG/95 are laughable in terms of security --
well, no, not really. they don't have any, and they never pretended
to. they meet their specs perfectly; unfortunately, their specs are
"there won't be any security".
>Much of NT's security is through obscurity.
i tend to think the same - the fact that the one NT setup with an
official rating didn't (so i believe, anyway, corrections welcome)
have any networking, tells me a thing or two.
--
"look on the bright side, is suicide" -- Nirvana
Dmitry V. Irtegov
Joe Sloan (j...@brigid.ucr.edu) wrote:
: In article <316D16...@damen.nl>, J. van Benthem <j...@damen.nl> wrote:
: >Allways use NT for professional use !
: Professional what? Microsoft advocacy?
: Thanks but no thanks, I need Unix -
I seem to have missed the original post, but if the title "NT or 95" is
accuarate it sounds like the person needs Windows not Unix. NT would be
the better choice, linux would be a very poor choice.
If person knows that he/she/it doesn't need unix, why he/she/it posts
to comp.os.linux.advocacy?
I know its hard for you to believe, but many people use Windows in
professional situations and have zero need for Unix (including linux). :-)
May be they just don't know they have need for unix?
--
Cheers,
Fat Brother.
* Everything you do, you do because of love.
* Without a love you would just sit on the ground
* and scream in terror or in disgust.
* V. Pelevin
Holly Patterson
into account the proportion of UNIX boxes on a globally accessible
network (i.e., the Internet).
UNIX may well lose, but at least it'd be a fair comparison. (Plus, there
*are* secure UNICES...)
- Trung
Some simple trivia...
VMS
WNT
:)
Viet-Trung Luu
>> This is wrong, unfortunately. There are far more secure OSes than
>> standard UNIX... especially those built for security. Security wasn't
>> the prime concern in UNIX's design. However, there *is* Secure Ultrix,
>> which reaches B1.
>
>
>about Ultrix in the SATAN distribu.) Ultrix! I can't believe you said that.
I didn't say generic, plain-jane Ultrix. I said *Secure* Ultrix. There's
a significant difference.
>> That said, Windows 3.x/WfWG/95 are laughable in terms of security --
>> i.e., only adequate in a trusted, internal LAN. NT's is better, but then
>> again, it is not multiuser, etc. -- it's easy to provide security when
>> you provide few services (this can be accomplished with Linux by turning
>> off services such as telnet).
>
>NT not multiuser? Hmmm. I smell something fishy here. (And maybe you didn't know that NT alows
>you to not only turn off any and all services, even selectively providing trusted addresses, it
>also allows one to force call-back security.)
No, multiuser in that lots of people can use the same computer at the
same time -- and not just for server services. I have access to various
(quite many) UNIX computers that I can *use* (not just for FTP, HTTP,
NFS)... I could actually run X apps across the Net if I wanted to, but
that'd be horribly slow.
Yes, NT allows you to turn on and off services, but, it doesn't provide
all that many services -- i.e., those that are needed for true multiuser
(versus server systems).
>> Much of NT's security is through obscurity. Security holes tend to go
>> unnoticed longer if source code is not available. That doesn't mean that
>> they'll go unexploited however...
>
>That IS true.
>
>> >2) Unix is not a relic. It's alive and kicking. Winheads just love
>> >to sit and drool about how cool it will be when they install NT, and their
>> >computer could be as good as a "20-year-old" Unix OS.
>
>No, UNIX is not a relic...in fact, it was multiuser and multitasking for many years prior to the
>incredible strides by MS..."Imagine being able to format a disk and download something at the
>same time!" Please! Or..."imagine being able to break the 640K barrier," or even
>better..."Imagine being able to format your drive above 520m" Microsoft...hahahahaha! Do you know
>WHY all the monster servers on the Net AREN'T MS? Can you figure it out?
Stick to 80 columns. PLEASE.
>> >3) NT is MS's attempt to make a valid Unix system. Yes, my dear SnyPher,
>> >only now MS can try to copy Unix and come up with NT. You're not
>> >comparing a horse buggy and a Ferrari, you're comparing a horse buggy
>> >and it's imitaion straw cousin.
>
>Well, I don't know about that. NT has a strong security rating now. For some reason, its TCP is
>very, very poor...I dunno. It's generally not such a bad product. (But certainly infinitely
>preferable to Win 3.1 and let's not talk about 95. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.)
Strong security rating? Ha. C2 is you don't connect it to anything.
*Secure* Ultrix reaches B1 (a much higher rating). M$ has also stated
that they don't plan on going above C2.
No, NT is not such a bad product. What it does, it does okay... it'll
make an okay Web server, or an okay FTP server... just don't expect it
to provide telnet sessions.
>> Yes, NT only goes to *match* UNIX in some areas. In others, it's still
>> far behind.
>>
>> >It amazing how much fallacies I found in these short 2-3 settences.
>> >
>> >More Weenie flames welcome. My mind has not been trampled by Microsoft.
>>
>> - Trung
>
>Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm with you...I use Linux and SunOS. But...Ultrix? ULTRIX? Whew.
I repeat: *Secure* Ultrix. Ultrix on paranoia pills. Ultrix with a few
feet of armor. It isn't easy getting a B1 rating -- especially for UNIX
systems.
- Trung
Eli the bearded
John Severinsen <js...@midland.co.nz> wrote:
>STOP IT, STOP IT, STOP IT!
I don't think I know that acronym. What is it?
STOPIT=Sliced Tomato On Premiums Immixed with Tabasco?
That actually sounds pretty good.
>Are you IDIOTS incapable of posting these discussions into APPROPRIATE news
>groups? Stop crossposting this crap into irrelevant news groups. It's getting
>tiresome to say the least. Currently it's being crossposted to:
IDIOTS= Italian Dressing, Including Olives Topping Saltines?
A little awkward but sounds even tastier than the last.
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
> comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure
> alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc
IBMPC= Ingestible Binary Machinery Primium Crackers
> comp.sys.amiga.misc
AMIGA= Alex's Massively Interactive Goldfish Aquarium
> comp.os.os2.misc
OS2.misc= On 2 saltines, miscellaneous recipes
> comp.os.os2.advocacy
Arguments for and against various recipes
> comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup
> comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc
WIN95= WheatThin Intelligent Networking Ver. 9.5
> comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc
NT= Nabisco Triscuits (a precursor to TOS)
> comp.os.linux.advocacy
LINUX= Light Is Not Under eXception -- politics about light
and low salt crackers being marginalized by the industry
> comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows
WWW= WheatThin/Water-cracker Workstation
> alt.wired
WIRED= WheatThin Intelligent Research, Education & Design
> alt.religion.scientology
some bozo group
> alt.games.warcraft
> alt.games.duke3d
> alt.games.descent
GAMES= Goldfish And MayonaisE Sandwich
> alt.flame
Cude device used to bake crackers
> alt.fan.bill-gates
some bozo
> alt.destroy.microsoft
MICROSOFT= Mozzerella Injected CRacker Orgone SOFTener
> alt.cyberspace
CYBERSPACE= Crakers Yet-again Belong in Everyone's Reach,
Society for Peoples Acceptance of Crackers Everywhere
> alt.cracks
some group people keep confusing with alt.crackers
> alt.crackers
Home of lively discussions about all sorts of crackers and
peripherals, plus the occasional recipe.
> alt.bigfoot
a bunch of guys who know how to drink beer, eat crackers and
talk about moose.
> alt.2600
Started as 2600 recipes for crackers, but has kinda drifted
recently.
>What in the hell do half these groups have to do with this topic. Would the
>stupid moron who starts these cross posts off stop it NOW.
It is hard to keep on topic in all of those groups, but some
might be able to manage it. I can only stay on topic in the
cracker related ones, but I cut the followups to just the
main cracker group anyway.
Elijah
------
The Illustrated Guide to Crackers
http://mathlab.sunysb.edu/~elijah/cstuff/
root
UNIX wouldn't lose. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that better than 72% of all servers
out there are UNIX-based, with SunOS/Solaris leading the pack. (We're talking SERVERS here folks,
not private individuals sporting those 24-7 PPP/ISDN lines on their box at home or work.)
Joe Sloan
Anthony D. Tribelli <a...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Joe Sloan (j...@brigid.ucr.edu) wrote:
>: Professional what? Microsoft advocacy?
>: Thanks but no thanks, I need Unix -
>
>I seem to have missed the original post, but if the title "NT or 95" is
>accuarate it sounds like the person needs Windows not Unix. NT would be
>the better choice, linux would be a very poor choice.
Never assume, Tony - you know what happens when you assume?
>I know its hard for you to believe, but many people use Windows in
>professional situations and have zero need for Unix (including linux). :-)
And these people would be well served by a cost-effective, stable,
multitasking OS which does not crash, lock up, or scramble their files -
There's no reason Linux couldn't see widespread use on the desktop,
other than the fact that the company in Redmond has this monopoly
thing going...
Bob Nelson
>> There's no reason Linux couldn't see widespread use on the desktop,
>> other than the fact that the company in Redmond has this monopoly
>> thing going...
Speaking of that company in Redmond, it's been mentioned here on
Usenet that Linus Torvalds occasionally uses some Microsoft
Windows-platform software...PowerPoint among them. Is this true or
just hearsay? Linus?
--
=============================================================================
Bob Nelson: Dallas, Texas, U.S.A. - bne...@netcom.com
Linux for fun, M$ for $$$...and the NFL for what really counts!
=============================================================================
Joe Sloan
Bob Nelson <bne...@netcom.com> wrote:
>On 17 Apr 1996 10:12:38 -0700, Joe Sloan wrote:
>
>>> There's no reason Linux couldn't see widespread use on the desktop,
>>> other than the fact that the company in Redmond has this monopoly
>>> thing going...
>
>Speaking of that company in Redmond, it's been mentioned here on
>Usenet that Linus Torvalds occasionally uses some Microsoft
>Windows-platform software...PowerPoint among them. Is this true or
>just hearsay? Linus?
Hey, you hear all sorts of dumb rumors on usenet -
But a dear friend who works at microsoft (I can't divulge the name
since it would likely result in instant termination) overheard
Bill Gates praising Linux -
True!
Anthony D. Tribelli
laurin keith davis (lau...@cyberhighway.net) wrote:
: i am using 3.11 on a dx4-100 with 12meg ram and looking for a new OS.
: any tips? how much does NT cost?
Anywhere from US$100 to $300 depending on where you shop. Try to locate
your local hole-in-the-wall no-name clone shop.
Lorne Tontegode
Another alternative to buying NT is to look up in the local Buy&Sell type newspapers. I purchased
mine from a guy that didn't like it and then did the upgrade. Saved about $150 Canadian on a $400
program.
--
Lorne Tontegode
Ideas in Motion
id...@interlog.com
http://www.interlog.com/~ideas
***Drop by my WWW Page for a visit***
***Always changing***
Bob Nelson
>> But a dear friend who works at microsoft (I can't divulge the name
>> since it would likely result in instant termination) overheard
>> Bill Gates praising Linux -
Maybe Bill Gates will allow torvalds to work for his corporation?
Joe Sloan
>Maybe Bill Gates will allow torvalds to work for his corporation?
Bill Gates would love that, wouldn't he?
I would hate to see Linus sink to such a desperate position.
Thomas A Lawson
>
> [newgroups trimmed a bit]
>
> laurin keith davis (lau...@cyberhighway.net) wrote:
> : i am using 3.11 on a dx4-100 with 12meg ram and looking for a new OS.
> : any tips? how much does NT cost?
>
> Anywhere from US$100 to $300 depending on where you shop. Try to locate
> your local hole-in-the-wall no-name clone shop.
>
> Tony
> --
> ------------------
> Tony Tribelli
MS assured me that NT would run "just fine" in 16MB on an Acer DX2/66.
However, had a long list of problems, and got into a major battle with MS Australia.
Could find absolutely no one outside Microsoft who had been able to get NT to work well in 16MB, even though MS
insists you can get by with 12.
Finally found out that Microsoft itself runs NT in 24MB.
I objected to having to upgrade my aging machine. Microsoft eventually gave me a credit for NT, and I
"downgraded" to Win95.
Win95 has LOTS of problems, but in 16MB it performs far better than NT.
Indeed, there is very little reason to use NT on a single user machine, unless you are desperate to get away
from GPFs.
I never encountered a signel GPF in NT, but I nearly drowned in a sea of "Access Violations".
Of course, Win95 is also GPF free, isn't it? Just the periodic "violation".
I miss my Mac.
Regards,
Tom Lawson
Olaonipekun Oliyide
: Anthony D. Tribelli wrote:
: >
: > [newgroups trimmed a bit]
: >
: > laurin keith davis (lau...@cyberhighway.net) wrote:
: > : i am using 3.11 on a dx4-100 with 12meg ram and looking for a new OS.
: > : any tips? how much does NT cost?
: >
: > Anywhere from US$100 to $300 depending on where you shop. Try to locate
: > your local hole-in-the-wall no-name clone shop.
: >
: > Tony
: > --
: > ------------------
: > Tony Tribelli
: Another alternative to buying NT is to look up in the local Buy&Sell type newspapers. I purchased
: mine from a guy that didn't like it and then did the upgrade. Saved about $150 Canadian on a $400
: program.
: --
: Lorne Tontegode
: Ideas in Motion
: id...@interlog.com
: http://www.interlog.com/~ideas
: ***Drop by my WWW Page for a visit***
: ***Always changing***
Another alternative is to go to the shop, buy NT, get the installation
diskettes or CDs, go home, make a cup of coffee, and use the CDs as a
coffee mat.
Why post this to alt.destroy.micro$oft? Get the f**K OUTTA dodge!
Anthony D. Tribelli
: Another alternative is to go to the shop, buy NT, get the installation
: diskettes or CDs, go home, make a cup of coffee, and use the CDs as a
: coffee mat.
An extremely poor suggestion, CDs have no absorbency. ;-)
Erik Johnson
> isn't, does it?
>
> Until there's a RealityEngine for NT based platforms, I doubt
> SGI will be losing any sleep.
>
> Computer Graphics is just one of those places where you _always_
> need the best and the fastest, no matter what.
Not true... price is often a *major* consideration. And considering
the performance of, say a dual Pentium Pro with a few thousand dollar
high end 3d accelerator and the ability for network rendering to
further improve rendering performance, I think that SGI will be in
pretty big trouble on the low/mid end. Start up companies and
individuals can little afford a high-end SGI machine, and the low end
SGI machines cannot compete in the performance arena. As those
companies mature, do you think that they will switch platforms and
replace all their software? I don't think so. I see SGI becoming
more of a niche platform, that won't be widely used outside of places
like big budget Hollywood.
-Erik Johnson
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/vgallery.html
Joe Sloan
Kyonghun Lee <kyon...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Joe Sloan wrote:
>
>> Those who are really serious will go for the best - some
>> insanely powerful SGI, for example - they're not going to
>
>with the price tag of $100,000 and up...
I've seen some nice Indys for $5000 to $10,000
>Such machines as Intergraph ZD400 with 2-4 P5 chips running NT/OpenGL
>blows doors off some of the 3-4times more expensive SGIs.
Surprise, surprise!
Who provided the benchmarks? Someone trying to peddle windows nt
graphics packages, right? (chuckle) You are quite easily taken in...
>NT WILL be (since even MIPS machines ship with it..) the next great
>3D work station OS.
yawn... I reckon Sun and SGI must be really scared...
BTW I trimmed the newsgroups for you, you silly boy.
Lir...@ix.netcom.com
Does anyone know if the Windows NT 3.51 Upgrade ($99), not the cheaper Step-up version will install if my hard disk does not have
Windows NT on it (i.e. a freshly formatted hard drive), or do I have to re-install an earlier version of NT before I can upgrade?
root
Neither! Just get OS/2 Warp.
(I'm reading this in an OS/2 group, BTW. Snipped a lot of spare groups out
of the Newsgroups & Followup-To lines)
kri...@ibm.net wrote:
: evrw...@powergrid.electriciti.com (Ed Redondo) wrote:
: >First WinNT requires a minimum of 20mb. With 20mb it will run, but will be
: >slow. For optimum use you'll need 32mb.
: Nope. Recommended is 16 megabytes. Required is 12 megabytes. We run NT
: on 12 megabyte, 16 megabyte, and 32 megabyte systems. Sure, it's slower on
: the 12 megabyte system, but it works and works fine.
OS/2 requires only 4MB, but is slow snail in that amount of ram (unless you
run it in text mode exclusively)
I've seen it do quite well on an 8MB machine without multimedia. (It did have
the internet dialup stuff on it though). It's a bit sluggish with
multimedia installed, but should do well in 12MB. Warp flies on my 486-66
with 20MB, with all the goodies. Dos compatibility is generally good,
although some games (Doom) tend to have trouble with sound.
[snip]
: In fact, the 16-bit
: Windows kernel that runs on Windows NT is a virtual copy of Windows 3.x
: itself running on a Windows NT virtual machine.
This is a bit unclear.
The NT support for 16 bit apps thunks all of the calls to the "win 3.x"
kernel to calls to the 32 bit NT kernel. NT simply dresses itself up to
look like Windows 3.1 to Windows apps.
OS/2 actually loads up a copy of Windows 3.1 (or 3.0 if you've got a really
old version, like OS/2 v2.0) as a "Dos" application, using a few replacement
parts to allow Windows programs to run seamlessly on the OS/2 desktop, cut &
paste between Win & OS/2, etc.
Michael A. Goettsch Team OS/2
Linux Since 2/94 OS/2 Warp Since 12/94
Anthony D. Tribelli
Stephen Drye (scd...@entrust.com) wrote:
: Anthony D. Tribelli wrote:
: > At SigGraph 95 in Anaheim I saw a bunch of GL-based Sun and SGI 3D
: > modeling and animation packages being introduced for Windows NT.
: Doesn't really matter if the software is there when the hardware
: isn't, does it?
Not everyone is rendering dinosaurs. :-)
: Until there's a RealityEngine for NT based platforms, I doubt
: SGI will be losing any sleep.
I believe there are currently GL based accelerators that will satisfy many
user.
If SGI is loosing sleep could it be because they are up late developing
rendering engines for PCs? I'm sure SGI would enjoy selling really
expensive rendering engines to WinNT users nearly as much as they enjoy
selling them to SGI users. I just hope they don't forget the linux
drivers.
: Computer Graphics is just one of those places where you _always_
: need the best and the fastest, no matter what.
You always WANT the fastest, but sometime the cost/benefit ratio doesn't
support it. If I come work for you will you sign off on my SGI Onyx
purchase request? :-)
Rob Stauffert
>
> Dear Edmond
> You wrote:
>
> >
> > Haven't had any problems. It does take longer to load applications in 16
> > megs than 24 megs.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Does this mean you have run Access95/7/whatever in NT with 16MB, with no problems? A number of people are
> tunning NT in 16MB, but not one (thus far) claims to be running Access.
>
> So let me redefine the survey:
>
> Will everyone who is:
>
> - runnning WinNT 3.5.1 in 16MB
> - using Access95
> - happy
>
> please post a message, or Email me.
>
> Office95 is the only reason for using either NT or Win95.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom
It's a little slow w/ only 16Mb, but it runs OK. Of course, now that SIMM's are
so cheap, I'm planning to upgrade to 24Mb.
--
Rob Stauffert =:o)
r.sta...@utoronto.ca
Webmaster
Cognitive Science Students' Association
www.utoronto.ca/cogsciai
Sean Damian Edmison
>
> In article <317D2D...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu>,
> Kyonghun Lee <kyon...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >Joe Sloan wrote:
> >
> >> Those who are really serious will go for the best - some
> >> insanely powerful SGI, for example - they're not going to
> >
> >with the price tag of $100,000 and up...
>
> I've seen some nice Indys for $5000 to $10,000
>
> >Such machines as Intergraph ZD400 with 2-4 P5 chips running NT/OpenGL
> >blows doors off some of the 3-4times more expensive SGIs.
>
> Surprise, surprise!
> Who provided the benchmarks? Someone trying to peddle windows nt
> graphics packages, right? (chuckle) You are quite easily taken in...
Maybe, but that doesn't diminish their benchmarks, if they performed
them in any reasonably reproducible way.
> >NT WILL be (since even MIPS machines ship with it..) the next great
> >3D work station OS.
>
> yawn... I reckon Sun and SGI must be really scared...
Well, having worked on the Microsoft SOFTIMAGE 3D port to NT,
I know that when we shipped, SGI started shipping machines with
Alias in the box, and their prices dropped markedly. I don't
know that this means Gloom and Doom for them forever, but the
fact is that they are not the only game in town for high-end
graphics anymore. A well-equiped MIPS, Alpha, or P6 machine
running NT and SOFTIMAGE now has what it takes to do "real"
graphics, and that does mean something, regardless of what
die-hard SGI fans say about it.
>
> BTW I trimmed the newsgroups for you, you silly boy.
Amen!
--
Sean Damian Edmison
sedm...@rice.edu
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~sedmison/
Kyonghun Lee
> Will everyone who is:
>
> - runnning WinNT 3.5.1 in 16MB
> - using Access95
> - happy
That would be me...I just finished an access project with the above config.
It used to run on a 486/66 but now it is on a P166 machine.
_________________________________________________________________________
|Kyonghun Lee |
| | \ / | Class of '93 | || || | Class of 19?? |
| | \/ | University of \ \/ /\ \/ / University of Wisconsin |
| | |\ /| | Michigan Mech.E. \ / \ / Mechanical Engineering |
|| |\/| | Go Blue! | | | | Go Badgers?...NOT! |
|kyon...@cae.wisc.edu & http://smartcad.me.wisc.edu/~kyonghun/kh.html |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Copeland
In article <317aa188...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
<kri...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Wrong again. Windows NT can be used for both single-user and multi-user
>systems. It's not "intended" for what you call "central-servers" and
>"multi-user" systems. For example, why do you think Microsoft calls it
>"Windows NT Workstation"? Why do you think the Workstation version has
>much of the server features stripped out? And, again, you are wrong about
>the full 16-bit backwards-compatibility. If you are using Windows 3.x
>programs, just about all of them work fine. If, on the other hand, you are
>using DOS applications, you won't have as much luck. In fact, the 16-bit
>Windows kernel that runs on Windows NT is a virtual copy of Windows 3.x
>itself running on a Windows NT virtual machine.
I'm very curious as to what you consider to be "multi-user". Remember,
acting as a file server is not "multi-user"!!! I've seen practically no
facilities that readily allow for multiuser use of NT. Even people who
have enough experience and have used real multiuser OS's don't consider
NT to be "multi-user". Even in this month's BYTE magizine, they refer
to NT as being single user.
I'm serious, what do you have to offer as real world evidence to support
your claim of NT being "multi-user". BTW, I do not consider claims like,
"well it's API have security...blah...blah...blah...", OS/2 now has security
API but that doesn't make it "multi-user". Can you provide real world
examples of an NT machine actively being used as a multiuser box?!?! I
personally doubt it since NT is GUI biased and NT's GUI is not distributed.
I really would be interested in even hearing about your telnetd experience
on an NT box (I can sure share mine).
Sign,
Greg Copeland
gc...@CyberRamp.Net
dar...@bc.cybernex.net
k92...@kingston.ac.uk (Olaonipekun Oliyide) wrote:
>Lorne Tontegode (id...@interlog.com) wrote:
>: Anthony D. Tribelli wrote:
>: >
>: > [newgroups trimmed a bit]
>: >
>: > laurin keith davis (lau...@cyberhighway.net) wrote:
>: > : i am using 3.11 on a dx4-100 with 12meg ram and looking for a new OS.
>: > : any tips? how much does NT cost?
>: >
>: > Anywhere from US$100 to $300 depending on where you shop. Try to locate
>: > your local hole-in-the-wall no-name clone shop.
>: >
>: > Tony
>: > --
>: > ------------------
>: > Tony Tribelli
>: > adtri...@acm.org
>: Another alternative to buying NT is to look up in the local Buy&Sell type newspapers. I purchased
>: mine from a guy that didn't like it and then did the upgrade. Saved about $150 Canadian on a $400
>: program.
>: --
>: Lorne Tontegode
>: Ideas in Motion
>: id...@interlog.com
>: http://www.interlog.com/~ideas
>: ***Drop by my WWW Page for a visit***
>: ***Always changing***
>Another alternative is to go to the shop, buy NT, get the installation
>diskettes or CDs, go home, make a cup of coffee, and use the CDs as a
>coffee mat.
>Why post this to alt.destroy.micro$oft? Get the f**K OUTTA dodge!
The current issue of Window Sources has a special report on WIndows NT
4.0. To clear a few things first off NT will not be available on
floppy disk. It is on CD. Second just to run NT you will need a
486dx2/66 minium with 16 meg of ram. The major difference between NT
4.0 and Windows 95 is this version doesn't support Plug and Play like
WIndows 95. However by 1998 there will be an NT version with plug and
play. The major advantage that NT has over windows 95 as of now is
that it has been cleaned up, and if I read things correctly it will
support older 16 bit programs unlike with Windows 95 which is
anybody's guess.
Max Bell
In article <31807E...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu>,
Kyonghun Lee <kyon...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Max Bell wrote:
>> >NT on 12MB is A LOT better than X on 4MB.
>>
>> NT Server on 24MB is a swap box. Therefore, NT Server on 12MB will swap
>
>Well am I wrond to conclude that you did not really run NT on 12MB machine?
No, you are not "wrond". However, since I _have_ run NT Server on a 24MB
Pentium at 60Mhz and experienced unacceptable performance, it is logically
indisputable that the performance of a machine with half that much memory
can only be worse not better.
>> twice as much. Since X will run with lots and lots of swapping in 4MB,
>> it makes a fair comparison to the endlessly swapping NT Server one will
>> get with 12MB of RAM.
>
>Nope. Running realistic apps for extended periods of time is a good comparison.
>I have been using a 16MB setup for a long time and did not notice
>much swapping...certainly not the way you described it.
A 16MB setup running Workstation or running Server? They are not the same.
If you are claiming you are running NT Server in 16MB without swapping, you
are a liar, because I know that it swaps a lot in 24MB from experience.
>> NT Workstation is not compariable to Linux or any other free unix since it
>> is deliberately limited in various roles to motivate users to purchase
>
>Err how so? NT Workstation is a client machine. It it identical to the
>server except its server capability. In other words, users who
>just run apps and do end-user programmins won't notice the difference.
You answered your own question in your second sentence. The fact that some
users will not miss these abilities does not change the fact that Linux and
its friends are not similarly limited.
>> NT Server and they are not. Linux and other free unix flavors work just
>> fine in 8MB for everything but workstation grade apps.
>
>Maybe so, but that is not what we are talking about.
>I say NT works just fine with 16MB RAM and it is not worse than a X on 4MB
>with 12MB which the original message suggested.
Ok. And I say that NT Server is tolerable but fairly swappy with 24MB, and
I find your assertion that NT _Server_ will run well enough to be useful in
12MB highly unlikely.
>> >> Pentium 60, so I doubt 16MB would be very enjoyable either.
>> >
>> >It is enjoyable. It is more "enjoyable" than a bloated UNIX on a 32MB SGI.
>>
>> Yes, but not more enjoyable than Linux on a 16MB 486, assuming one is
>> measuring useful cycles and core available.
>
>I am measuring useful hours with my favorite apps.
>Nt on a 16MB Pentium 60 is thoroughly enjoyable. More enjoyable than Linux
>on a 486.
To each their own measurement. You value MS applications enough to accept
the loss of otherwise available cycles and core to run them. I have no need
of MS applications and am uninterested in wasting hardware resources on them
that I could be putting to better use.
Max
P.S. In response to the various polite requests received, I have trimmed
most of the newsgroups included in your post from my response post.
--
.----------------------------------------+----------------------------------.
| /\ /\/ Max Bell <mb...@europa.com> | Help save the Net. Support your |
| / \/ /\ http://www.europa.com/~mbell | local Internet Service Provider! |
`----------------------------------------+----------------------------------'
Lir...@ix.netcom.com
> OS/2 actually loads up a copy of Windows 3.1 (or 3.0 if you've got a really
> old version, like OS/2 v2.0) as a "Dos" application, using a few replacement
> parts to allow Windows programs to run seamlessly on the OS/2 desktop, cut &
> paste between Win & OS/2, etc.
>
> Michael A. Goettsch Team OS/2
> Linux Since 2/94 OS/2 Warp Since 12/94
Can OS/2 load up a copy of Windows 95 and run NT compatible apps? The world is (slowly) moving towards Win95 apps.
Mike Brannigan MCSE
<snip>
> Can OS/2 load up a copy of Windows 95 and run NT compatible apps? The world is (slowly) moving towards Win95 apps.
No.
--
Mike Brannigan MCSE
Systems Architect
SHINOBI Systems Ltd. (UK)
Mi...@shinobi.demon.co.uk
Mike_Br...@msn.com
10034...@compuserve.com
World Wide Web
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/SHINOBI_Systems
Alex Burgos
In article <318258...@ix.netcom.com>, Lir...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> OS/2 actually loads up a copy of Windows 3.1 (or 3.0 if you've got a really
>> old version, like OS/2 v2.0) as a "Dos" application, using a few replacement
>> parts to allow Windows programs to run seamlessly on the OS/2 desktop, cut &
>> paste between Win & OS/2, etc.
>>
>> Michael A. Goettsch Team OS/2
>> Linux Since 2/94 OS/2 Warp Since 12/94
>
>
>is (slowly) moving towards Win95 apps.
The only world moving there are those people that do not wipe preloaded
software off intel_type personal computers.
That's a very small segment. Usually not_to_be_bothered home users.
(which is quickly disappearing. Home users are getting smarter)
Not a very important segment seeing that consumer margins are in the
low sub 3% range.
Usually a loss_leader market.
alex burgos
Bryan Seigneur
dar...@bc.cybernex.net wrote:
>
> The current issue of Window Sources has a special report on WIndows NT
> 4.0. To clear a few things first off NT will not be available on
> floppy disk. It is on CD. Second just to run NT you will need a
> 486dx2/66 minium with 16 meg of ram. The major difference between NT
> 4.0 and Windows 95 is this version doesn't support Plug and Play like
^and the hellacious bloat.
> play. The major advantage that NT has over windows 95 as of now is
> that it has been cleaned up, and if I read things correctly it will
> support older 16 bit programs unlike with Windows 95 which is
> anybody's guess.
SOOOOO, they INCREASED the RAM requirements, eh? I might just be a
tad premature, but I think this calls for a superiority dance.
Hit it Glenda! (or Gilda, or something? I haven't seen a church
lady(tm) skit in a while.) Anyway, hit it Maelcum! :)
Bryan
--
__ _
/ / (_)__ __ __ _ __
/ /__/ / _ \/ // /| |/ /
/____/_/_//_/\___//_/|_|...priceless.
Russ McClelland
>SOOOOO, they INCREASED the RAM requirements, eh? I might just be a
>tad premature, but I think this calls for a superiority dance.
>Hit it Glenda! (or Gilda, or something? I haven't seen a church
>lady(tm) skit in a while.) Anyway, hit it Maelcum! :)
Just a comment:
I've actually read that although they mark the box to say 16 MB RAM,
it actually requires less because they moved things into the kernel
and optimized some things also.
Anyway, it's been no secret that the sweet spot for OS/2 NT and Win95
has always been 16 MB RAM
Russ McClelland
>I'm very curious as to what you consider to be "multi-user". Remember,
>acting as a file server is not "multi-user"!!! I've seen practically no
>facilities that readily allow for multiuser use of NT. Even people who
>have enough experience and have used real multiuser OS's don't consider
>NT to be "multi-user". Even in this month's BYTE magizine, they refer
>to NT as being single user.
WinFrame by Citrix (www.citrix.com). They licensed the NT kernel,
made some modifications and now have what everyone in the UNIX
community calls multi-user. Clients log into the server machine and
run apps on the servers processors with all the I/O routed to their
machines.
Mr M A Hobby
Joe Sloan (j...@digital.netvoyage.net) wrote:
: In article <317D2D...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu>,
: Kyonghun Lee <kyon...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu> wrote:
: >Joe Sloan wrote:
: >
: >> Those who are really serious will go for the best - some
: >> insanely powerful SGI, for example - they're not going to
: >
: >with the price tag of $100,000 and up...
: I've seen some nice Indys for $5000 to $10,000
: >Such machines as Intergraph ZD400 with 2-4 P5 chips running NT/OpenGL
: >blows doors off some of the 3-4times more expensive SGIs.
: Surprise, surprise!
: Who provided the benchmarks? Someone trying to peddle windows nt
: graphics packages, right? (chuckle) You are quite easily taken in...
: >NT WILL be (since even MIPS machines ship with it..) the next great
: >3D work station OS.
: yawn... I reckon Sun and SGI must be really scared...
: BTW I trimmed the newsgroups for you, you silly boy.
Laugh! Thats because you need a MIPS machine to run intensive
stuff like bloated Word Processors, and mission critical software
like solitaire
Sangria
In article <4lhkmn$3...@thetics.europa.com>, Max Bell, mb...@atheria.europa.com says...
>>NT on 12MB is A LOT better than X on 4MB.
>
>NT Server on 24MB is a swap box. Therefore, NT Server on 12MB will swap
>twice as much. Since X will run with lots and lots of swapping in 4MB,
>it makes a fair comparison to the endlessly swapping NT Server one will
>get with 12MB of RAM.
???
I'm running NT Server in *16MB* right now (downgraded from 24 for
my wife's machine). It's currently running as PDC. It's also running
IIS, my web server, finger server, and my port relays.
Does it swap? You bet.
Is it as bad as X in 4MB? Not even close.
Infact, it's not as bad as X in 8MB.
This isn't some guesstimate or supposition. It's what's running
on my LAN right now.
>NT Workstation is not compariable to Linux or any other free unix since it
>is deliberately limited in various roles to motivate users to purchase
>NT Server and they are not.
???
Are you aware the real difference between NT Workstation and NT Server?
The difference is strictly marketing nonsense. If you know where to hack
it, you can make an NT Workstation look and behave very much like NT
Server.
The difference is purely arbitrary.
And NT Workstation is definately comparable to Linux.
Followup trimmed like a SOB...
-- Sang.
********************************************************
* Sang K. Choe san...@inlink.com *
* http://sangria.inlink.com/index.html *
* finger: sa...@sangria.inlink.com *
********************************************************
James McArthur
G'Day mag...@softcom.net, you wrote:
: On Tue, 23 Apr 1996 17:18:42 +0100, J R Brewin <hc...@dmu.ac.uk> wrote:
: >stop fucking posting to the wrong groups, you might have a valid point to
: >make, don't you think if people wanted to read up on such wonders they'd
: >go to the proper newsgroup. ALT.GAMES.DUKE3D or any other such group IS
: >NOT fucking comp.sys.ibm.pc.whatever PLEASE STOP SENDING IT TO OUR GROUP
: >delete alt.games.duke3d from the newsgroups to reply to list....
: It would seem as though you left alt.games.duke3d out of the Newsgroups line
: when you posted this wonderful message. I thought I'd help you out by
: readding it (and adding it to my next five posts) so that you get the idea
: I don't like being complainted to.
Poor fella.. not liking being complained too.. Why dont you just go home
and cry to mummy.. Whah! Whah! Whah!
I'll take bets that your a Win95'er.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
James McArthur jam...@it.ntu.edu.au + jam...@taunet.net.au
http://www.cs.ntu.edu.au/itss/webpages/jamesm/main.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
...The AMIGA.. Coming to a SET TOP BOX near you soon...
Bryan Seigneur
Russ McClelland wrote:
>
> >SOOOOO, they INCREASED the RAM requirements, eh? I might just be a
> >tad premature, but I think this calls for a superiority dance.
> >Hit it Glenda! (or Gilda, or something? I haven't seen a church
> >lady(tm) skit in a while.) Anyway, hit it Maelcum! :)
>
> Just a comment:
>
> I've actually read that although they mark the box to say 16 MB RAM,
> it actually requires less because they moved things into the kernel
> and optimized some things also.
Yeah, but the recommended minimum for NT 3.51 is 12. So, they either
increased the requirements for 4.0 or they are admitting that 12 meg
for NT 3.51 was a ridiculous number, i.e. a lie. You can't win this
argument, MS already lost it for you. Linux just gets sleeker, NT
gets bigger.
> Anyway, it's been no secret that the sweet spot for OS/2 NT and Win95
> has always been 16 MB RAM
That's supposed to be the sweet spot, not the minimum. Remember Eddie
Murphy's raw skit, where he's recalling a fight he got into and how
his lip swelled up: "Bwwwwwuuuuph..bwwwwwuuuuph..bwwwuuuph....thump-
thump thump-thump thump-thump" That's NT.
Bryan Seigneur
--
Y W8 4MS?
LNX4FREE!
Bryan Seigneur
ADD-ONS COUNT FOR ZERO UNLESS THEY'RE FREE. I'm guessing this MODIFIED
NT (i.e., it's not NT) costs a pretty penny.
Bryan
Kyonghun Lee
Joe Sloan wrote:
>
> In article <317D2D...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu>,
> Kyonghun Lee <kyon...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >Joe Sloan wrote:
> >
> >> Those who are really serious will go for the best - some
> >> insanely powerful SGI, for example - they're not going to
> >
> >with the price tag of $100,000 and up...
>
> I've seen some nice Indys for $5000 to $10,000
I am sitting at one right now. It is an Indy with R4600 chip
it cost about $6500. It only has 8bit video.
It is NOWHERE near someof the PPro machines you can buy with that money.
You could probably get a PPro 150 or 200 with similar components and
3d video (matrox, for example) for that money.
Sigh...
>
> >Such machines as Intergraph ZD400 with 2-4 P5 chips running NT/OpenGL
> >blows doors off some of the 3-4times more expensive SGIs.
>
> Surprise, surprise!
> Who provided the benchmarks? Someone trying to peddle windows nt
> graphics packages, right? (chuckle) You are quite easily taken in...
Well several. Byte had a feature on different 3d workstations and
also on Intergraph ZD machines and PPros faired VERY well.
Better than MIPS machines by far.
>
> >NT WILL be (since even MIPS machines ship with it..) the next great
> >3D work station OS.
>
> yawn... I reckon Sun and SGI must be really scared...
They are. Evidence is the introductions of UltraSparc 3D and new
low-end MIPS R5000 machines. Even those have hard time keeping up.
Just give it up. I am doing PhD work on Solid Modelling
and believ me, I KNOW al about price/performance of 3D workstations.
>
> BTW I trimmed the newsgroups for you, you silly boy.
Good job!
>
> --
> Joe Sloan Happily running Unix!
> j...@netvoyage.net <a href="http://www.netvoyage.net/~jjs">
--
_________________________________________________________________________
|Kyonghun Lee (kyon...@cae.wisc.edu -or- kyon...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu)|
| | \ / | Class of '93 | || || | Class of 19?? |
| | \/ | University of \ \/ /\ \/ / University of Wisconsin |
| | |\ /| | Michigan Mech.E. \ / \ / Mechanical Engineering |
|| |\/| | Go Blue! | | | | Go Badgers?...NOT! |
|HTTP://smartcad.me.wisc.edu/~kyonghun/kh.html ->My Web Page! |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyonghun Lee
Max Bell wrote:
> >Nope. Running realistic apps for extended periods of time is a good comparison.
> >I have been using a 16MB setup for a long time and did not notice
> >much swapping...certainly not the way you described it.
>
> A 16MB setup running Workstation or running Server? They are not the same.
> If you are claiming you are running NT Server in 16MB without swapping, you
> are a liar, because I know that it swaps a lot in 24MB from experience.
Workstation, mostly, in my case. However, NT Server is also very acceptable
according to benchmarks published by Byte and others.
Also we did not really make any distinctions between NT Server/Workstation
so far...
> >Err how so? NT Workstation is a client machine. It it identical to the
> >server except its server capability. In other words, users who
> >just run apps and do end-user programmins won't notice the difference.
>
> You answered your own question in your second sentence. The fact that some
> users will not miss these abilities does not change the fact that Linux and
> its friends are not similarly limited.
Fair enough. But so far, I assumed we were generally comparing typical
desktop machines.
> >Maybe so, but that is not what we are talking about.
> >I say NT works just fine with 16MB RAM and it is not worse than a X on 4MB
> >with 12MB which the original message suggested.
>
> Ok. And I say that NT Server is tolerable but fairly swappy with 24MB, and
> I find your assertion that NT _Server_ will run well enough to be useful in
> 12MB highly unlikely.
well to be fair 12MB is the MINIMUM for Server OR for Workstation.
I guess the distinction between them have not been clear.
> To each their own measurement. You value MS applications enough to accept
> the loss of otherwise available cycles and core to run them. I have no need
> of MS applications and am uninterested in wasting hardware resources on them
> that I could be putting to better use.
That is the point. NT, contrary to the belief does not waste that much useful cycle.
Just because it is slower, than say, its Win95 counter part, does not mean it must
be bloated. It does a lot of useful stuff in the back ground that is not really
available on any OS. Keeping track of events is one. enforcing C2 level
security is another...
Kyong
Kyonghun Lee
Mr M A Hobby wrote:
> : >NT WILL be (since even MIPS machines ship with it..) the next great
> : >3D work station OS.
> Laugh! Thats because you need a MIPS machine to run intensive
> stuff like bloated Word Processors, and mission critical software
> like solitaire
This comment shows ONCE AGAIN how clueless you are on this subject.
NT on MIPS as we all know is a joke...yet.
MIPS (read, SGI) needs NT. NT does not need it.
NT is, and will be, primarily an Intel OS.
Usually NT on Intel machines runs circles around NT on similarily
priced MIPS machines.
Kyonghun Lee
Sean Damian Edmison wrote:
A well-equiped MIPS, Alpha, or P6 machine
> running NT and SOFTIMAGE now has what it takes to do "real"
> graphics, and that does mean something, regardless of what
> die-hard SGI fans say about it.
And the REAL scary thing is ACIS on NT.
Thesedays, any solidmodeller worth the box it comes with
is based on ACIS engine.
Russ McClelland
>You said it right there, office 95 runs under NT, just not smoothly.
>I would reserve judgement until NT 4.0 comes out. I would suspect
>that much of you not running smooth are MS work around for the
>Win95 features that aren't in NT 3.xx.
I agree. I run Office 95 very smoothly on NT 4.0 b1234. The mail
integration, scheduling and drag-n-drop attachments are slick. Never
crashed, OLE is faster and long file names are awesome.
Jackson Harris
>
> <snip>
> > Can OS/2 load up a copy of Windows 95 and run NT compatible apps? The world is (slowly) moving towards Win95 apps.
>
> --
>
> Mike Brannigan MCSE
> Systems Architect
> SHINOBI Systems Ltd. (UK)
>
> Mi...@shinobi.demon.co.uk
> Mike_Br...@msn.com
> 10034...@compuserve.com
>
> World Wide Web
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/SHINOBI_Systems
souldier
jam...@it.ntu.edu.au (James McArthur) wrote:
:Poor fella.. not liking being complained too.. Why dont you just go
home
:and cry to mummy.. Whah! Whah! Whah!
:I'll take bets that your a Win95'er.
Any money says you're a competitor of win95 trying to scare sales your
way.
Ravi K. Swamy
[your totally ridiculous crossposting trimmed]
In article <4m6gdv$q...@nntp.crl.com>,
Smoke Crack and Worship Satan <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
>In article <31844A6B...@gramercy.ios.com>, Bryan Seigneur
><fr...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bob Davis wrote:
>> >
>> > I find it interesting that in all of these posts, I have yet to see any
>> > comapriaon between Windows NT and Windows 95.
>> >
>> > Gee I wonder why ?
>>
>> So you EXPECT threads to have anything to do with their titles?
>> NT is robust. NT is bloated.
>> 95 has a glass jaw. 95 is fast.
>> Linux is robust. Linux is fast! Linux has better networking skills than
>> either. Linux can interface with everything, especially Unix, which is,
>> after all, the OS style in use in open, high end installations, where NT
>> would like to be, but isn't. Why not go with the encumbent? Why cause
>> yourself extra work? There's no general reason except that one might
>> be swayed by MS's sheer marketing madness. Stop the madness. @:^O o--
>
>Linux is robust? No, FreeBSD is more robust.
FreeBSD is probably more robust especially in the networking areas but
this doesn't mean that Linux isn't robust.
>Linux is fast? Add a GUI and it ain't so fast. Easy to be fast in character
>mode; less to do.
Gee, I'm running X in 1280x1024 and it seems much faster than win3.1 on
the same machine.
>Linux has support? Nope. Unless you enjoy USENET for support, in which
>case you need a lobotomy.
Perhaps you should get the lobotomy instead. There are quite a few
organizations that sell support for Linux. Do you need names?
>Linux is a nice freeware UNIX, but let's not get too carried away here.
>There is a reason UNIX hasn't become a mainstream OS. Remember when
>they predicted in the mid-80's we would all be running UNIX now?
Not really. I wasn't into computers much at the time.
>Gee, I wonder why that didn't happen. Maybe we should all drop
>other OSes and switch to character mode LINUX. That'd be a giant
>step backwards!
No thanks, I'd rather use Linux w/ X.
Ravi
--
Ravi K. Swamy http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rkswamy/www/
rks...@eos.ncsu.edu ro...@genom.com
Joe Sloan
In article <318667...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu>,
Kyonghun Lee <kyon...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Sean Damian Edmison wrote:
> A well-equiped MIPS, Alpha, or P6 machine
>> running NT and SOFTIMAGE now has what it takes to do "real"
>> graphics, and that does mean something, regardless of what
>> die-hard SGI fans say about it.
>
>And the REAL scary thing is ACIS on NT.
>Thesedays, any solidmodeller worth the box it comes with
>is based on ACIS engine.
If you think it's scary on nt, you'd most likely wet your pants
if you saw it run under linux - No reason it couldn't be ported...
Mark Hamstra
Oh, the add-ons count: they do effectively allow NT to be used as an X client host... and
they add considerably to the bottom line. The real point is: Why pay twice (once for the
OS and once to make it actually work) for a system which does not now have the supposed
advantages of adhering to a Micro$oft 'standard' when you can get the same thing for free
with Linux or FreeBSD? The only possible argument is a lack of some vital app in a given
environment, and this is changing; industry standard apps are coming to Linux, and Linux
is coming to industry standards (e.g., try running SunOS binaries on a Linux app server).
Mark
Kyonghun Lee
Joe Sloan wrote:
fans say about it.
> >
> >And the REAL scary thing is ACIS on NT.
> >Thesedays, any solidmodeller worth the box it comes with
> >is based on ACIS engine.
>
> If you think it's scary on nt, you'd most likely wet your pants
> if you saw it run under linux - No reason it couldn't be ported...
No reason it SHOULD be ported either.
FYI ACIS runs on following machines:
Intel/NT
HP-UX
Solaris
SGI-IRIX
DEC Alpha
As far as I know no word on porting it to Linux. Ever.
Kyong
--
_________________________________________________________________________
|Kyonghun Lee |
| | \ / | Class of '93 | || || | Class of 19?? |
| | \/ | University of \ \/ /\ \/ / University of Wisconsin |
| | |\ /| | Michigan Mech.E. \ / \ / Mechanical Engineering |
|| |\/| | Go Blue! | | | | Go Badgers?...NOT! |
Bryan Seigneur
Kyonghun Lee wrote:
> Max Bell wrote:
> > >Nope. Running realistic apps for extended periods of time is a good comparison.
> > >I have been using a 16MB setup for a long time and did not notice
> > >much swapping...certainly not the way you described it.
> >
> > A 16MB setup running Workstation or running Server? They are not the same.
> > If you are claiming you are running NT Server in 16MB without swapping, you
> > are a liar, because I know that it swaps a lot in 24MB from experience.
>
> Workstation, mostly, in my case. However, NT Server is also very acceptable
> according to benchmarks published by Byte and others.
> Also we did not really make any distinctions between NT Server/Workstation
> so far...
>
> > >Err how so? NT Workstation is a client machine. It it identical to the
> > >server except its server capability. In other words, users who
> > >just run apps and do end-user programmins won't notice the difference.
> >
> > You answered your own question in your second sentence. The fact that some
> > users will not miss these abilities does not change the fact that Linux and
> > its friends are not similarly limited.
>
> Fair enough. But so far, I assumed we were generally comparing typical
> desktop machines.
A laid-back response, from Kyonghun?
> > >Maybe so, but that is not what we are talking about.
> > >I say NT works just fine with 16MB RAM and it is not worse than a X on 4MB
> > >with 12MB which the original message suggested.
> >
> > Ok. And I say that NT Server is tolerable but fairly swappy with 24MB, and
> > I find your assertion that NT _Server_ will run well enough to be useful in
> > 12MB highly unlikely.
>
> well to be fair 12MB is the MINIMUM for Server OR for Workstation.
> I guess the distinction between them have not been clear.
>
> > To each their own measurement. You value MS applications enough to accept
> > the loss of otherwise available cycles and core to run them. I have no need
> > of MS applications and am uninterested in wasting hardware resources on them
> > that I could be putting to better use.
>
> That is the point. NT, contrary to the belief does not waste that much useful cycle.
> Just because it is slower, than say, its Win95 counter part, does not mean it must
> be bloated. It does a lot of useful stuff in the back ground that is not really
> available on any OS. Keeping track of events is one. enforcing C2 level
> security is another...
If an OS isn't multiuser, it doesn't take much to enforce C-2. I don't doubt
NT is doing important stuff, but it seems Linux does almost as much important
stuff much faster (and of course it does some stuff NT doesn't think about
doing) It's a trade off, and I think that 97% of sites don't need or even
want (or know about) the extra stuff NT is doing. We have a case here, where
MS, usually advocating fast, "good enough" software for the majority, is
advocating slow, "much more than is needed" software. What's more, the
extra features of NT decrease it's flexibility and functionality.
> Kyong
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________________
> |Kyonghun Lee (kyon...@cae.wisc.edu -or- kyon...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu)|
> | | \ / | Class of '93 | || || | Class of 19?? |
> | | \/ | University of \ \/ /\ \/ / University of Wisconsin |
> | | |\ /| | Michigan Mech.E. \ / \ / Mechanical Engineering |
> || |\/| | Go Blue! | | | | Go Badgers?...NOT! |
> |HTTP://smartcad.me.wisc.edu/~kyonghun/kh.html ->My Web Page! |
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Aschen
On Wed, 01 May 1996 04:49:15 GMT, souldier wrote:
>Bryan Seigneur <fr...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote:
>
>:So you EXPECT threads to have anything to do with their titles?
>:NT is robust. NT is bloated.
>:95 has a glass jaw. 95 is fast.
>:Linux is robust. Linux is fast! Linux has better networking skills than
>:either. Linux can interface with everything, especially Unix, which is,
>:after all, the OS style in use in open, high end installations, where NT
>:would like to be, but isn't. Why not go with the encumbent? Why cause
>:yourself extra work? There's no general reason except that one might
>:be swayed by MS's sheer marketing madness. Stop the madness. @:^O o--
>:[Jerry Seinfeld with mic]
>:NT is open compared to an IBM mainframe or a telco switch. Unix is open
>:compared to NT. Gee it's hard not to get off the thread's subject. :P
>
>Personally, I don't begrudge Bill Gates his wealth. He earned it.
>
>
I agree with you! I dislike Windows 95 mainly for the false promises
and bullshit, but Bill Gates didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and
tell them to buy his software! They just .. did. How he convinced
them is another story, but convince them he did. Isn't that what
selling anything is all about?
Sean
* People who put their computer setup in their signature have problems. *
Anthony D. Tribelli
Joe Sloan (j...@digital.netvoyage.net) wrote:
: Kyonghun Lee <kyon...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu> wrote:
: >
: >And the REAL scary thing is ACIS on NT.
: >Thesedays, any solidmodeller worth the box it comes with
: >is based on ACIS engine.
:
: If you think it's scary on nt, you'd most likely wet your pants
: if you saw it run under linux - No reason it couldn't be ported...
To continue with the biological cliches, don't hold your breath waiting. :-)
Tony
--
------------------
Tony Tribelli
adtri...@acm.org
John Millington
Some idiot wrote:
> :> Personally, I don't begrudge Bill Gates his wealth. He earned it.
>
> :Earned it!? How?
>
> He wrote the first operating system for Apple computers when none
> existed.
Wow... we're really off to a good start here! Are you _really_ this
wacked out, or did someone play a joke on you when you left your keyboard
unattended?
> He switched over to GUI when others were still pushing Unix and DOS.
Bzzt. Everybody else was already using GUIs when MS was still pretty anti-
GUI. MS didn't get serious about promoting GUIs until 1990 when Doze 3.0
came out. Prior to that time, Doze's memory management was so pathetic that
even MS' underhanded techniques (like preloading it and denying MS-DOS sales
to people who sold MS-DOS alternatives) couldn't successfully push it. That
was 1990. GUIs were already getting pretty ancient by then. Remember all
those 68k computers that came out in the mid 1980s? Macintosh, Amiga, ST --
the users of these systems were so happy that nearly all of them became
fanatics, and were stunned at the total lack of progress happening in the
PeeCee world. The only progress the PeeCee was making was later, in 1987,
when OS/2 came out. And MS even turned their back on that. It seems like
MS did just about everything in they could to prevent (or at least delay)
the switch to GUIs.
> If it weren't for Bill Gates, Unix would have been the heir
> apparent operating system for computers.
Not necessarily; there were lots of other OSs out there.
But if it _had_ happened, that wouldn't be so bad. People will still be
using Unix decades after Windoze is forgotten. And if Unix ain't your
cup o' tea, try a Mac. (Or, if you enjoy *both*, maybe try an Amiga.)
> With a army of dedicated programmers, he's produced high quality products
Oh please! MS' overall evilness may be what they are best known for,
but their poor quality (i.e. unreliability, inefficiency, huge size,
slowness, eagerness to crash and lose data, insecurity) are a close
second. Lots of people may want to kill Gates for destroying progress
and forcing his products on them, but there's also plenty of people
(who have lost the will to fight) that would gladly accept Microsoft
domination -- if only the software would WORK!
> and stayed abreast, if not ahead, of computer developments (the only
> oversight being Web Browsers,)
Um.. like what? Name _one_ Microsoft product that isn't an imitation of
another product that was out at least 5 years earlier. (Being an imitation
of a product out 1 year earlier is ok, since I guess that counts as
"staying abreast of computer developments".) Actually, their web browser
may be the _only_ "abreast" product, since it seems to be a rehash of
products that have only been out for a couple of years (unless you consider
GUI browsers to be imitations of Lynx).
> His foresight, his effort, parlayed into his success.
Well, I won't argue with _that_. Some people refer to it as the "Microsoft
conspiracy". His cleverness (used in a perverted and evil way) kept people
from switching to GUIs until 'Doze was pretty enough. Then he told them
that 'Doze was what they wanted all along. People believed him, or at
least they believed that other people would believe him, so they jumped on
the bandwagon.
> Newsgroups:
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure
comp.sys.amiga.misc
comp.os.os2.misc
comp.os.os2.advocacy
comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup
comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc
comp.os.linux.advocacy
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows
alt.wired
alt.religion.scientology
alt.games.warcraft
alt.games.duke3d
alt.games.descent
alt.flame
alt.fan.bill-gates
alt.destroy.microsoft
alt.cyberspace
alt.cracks
alt.crackers
alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc
alt.bigfoot
alt.2600
Did you _really_ think that "NT or 95?" was appropriate to all those
newsgroups? Or are you just unable to figure out how to use your software?
Or is it just really pathetic software? Or did you just not CARE?
> From: souldier
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
You don't even know your own email address?
I think we can infer a lot about Microsoft by looking at the prey that
they feed off of. Their market is chosen for its ignorance. He sure had
foresight alright. He correctly predicted that "there's a sucker born
every minute" would apply to computers.
Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin,
John Millington
Joe Sloan
In article <318868...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu>,
>> >Thesedays, any solidmodeller worth the box it comes with
>> >is based on ACIS engine.
>>
>> If you think it's scary on nt, you'd most likely wet your pants
>> if you saw it run under linux - No reason it couldn't be ported...
>
>FYI ACIS runs on following machines:
>
>Intel/NT
>HP-UX
>Solaris
>SGI-IRIX
>DEC Alpha
>As far as I know no word on porting it to Linux. Ever.
That would be foolish, since Linux is increasing in popularity
and now runs on Intel, Dec ALPHA, Sun Sparc and other architectures.
With the completion of the Linux on Mach effort now under way to
port Linux to the Power Macintosh, support for other platforms will
accelerate.
If ACIS already runs on Solaris and SGI, it would be relatively easy
to port to Linux compared to the ordeal it must have been to port it
to windows "nt".
Mark Hamstra
Anthony D. Tribelli wrote:
>
> Joe Sloan (j...@digital.netvoyage.net) wrote:
> : Kyonghun Lee <kyon...@smartcad.me.wisc.edu> wrote:
> : >
> : >Thesedays, any solidmodeller worth the box it comes with
> : >is based on ACIS engine.
> :
> : If you think it's scary on nt, you'd most likely wet your pants
> : if you saw it run under linux - No reason it couldn't be ported...
>
You could try it if you can hold your breath for about 5 or 6 months...
Mark
John Severinsen
On 02-May-96 12:28:08 (Msg ID: <4m8vio$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>), OJDIDIT789
wrote:
--
>Kill this damn thread !!!!!!!!!!
Why is this STILL being cross posted?????????????????
It is currently being posted in the following groups:
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure
comp.sys.amiga.misc
comp.os.os2.misc
comp.os.os2.advocacy
comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup
comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc
comp.os.ms-
windows.nt.misc
comp.os.linux.advocacy
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows
alt.wired
alt.religion.scientology
alt.games.warcraft
alt.games.duke3d,alt.games.descent
alt.flame
alt.fan.bill-gates
alt.destroy.microsoft
alt.cyberspace
alt.cracks
alt.crackers
alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc
alt.bigfoot
alt.2600
Exactly what it is doing in most of these groups is beyond me and several
messages have been sent asking for it to be stopped. Why is it still
happening? Are you people incapable of comprehending this request?
If you reply in future, please remove the cross posts. They are nothing but a
nuisance.
Paul Thurrott
In article <4mdc6e$d...@mack.rt66.com>, slo...@mack.rt66.com (John Millington) wrote:
>Bzzt. Everybody else was already using GUIs when MS was still pretty anti-
>GUI. MS didn't get serious about promoting GUIs until 1990 when Doze 3.0
>came out.
Look, I dont mean to stick up for Microsoft or anything, but they were
never "anti-GUI". MS started working on Windows in 1983 and always thought
that the Mac was a great idea--in fact, Bill Gates BEGGED Apple to license
the OS to other hardware manufacturers so that it could become the standard.
Only after Apple's reluctance to do so and the split with IBM did MS
start pushing Windows as the standard. Everybody carps on the MS "monopoly"
but they tried to give the IBM OS to Digital Research in 1982 and tried to
give the OS mantle to Apple in 1983-84. Apple would have none of it,
and as a result, they're now dying. So cut the crap and tell the truth.
>Prior to that time, Doze's memory management was so pathetic that
>even MS' underhanded techniques (like preloading it and denying MS-DOS sales
>to people who sold MS-DOS alternatives) couldn't successfully push it.
MS-DOS is a single user OS written at a time when a 64K 8088 was a big deal.
It was so unreasonably successful that it made marketing sense to prolong
it and extend it....surely you don't believe that MS wanted MS-DOS to be
the OS of the century? I'm sure they were more surprised by its success than
anyone.
>That
>was 1990. GUIs were already getting pretty ancient by then. Remember all
>those 68k computers that came out in the mid 1980s? Macintosh, Amiga, ST --
>the users of these systems were so happy that nearly all of them became
>fanatics, and were stunned at the total lack of progress happening in the
>PeeCee world.
True enough. I went through an Amiga faze myself, wondering why the PC
world couldn't see that my computer/OS was clearly superior. Mac and OS/2
users suffer from a similar, delirious, problem today. It's called
ignorance.
>The only progress the PeeCee was making was later, in 1987,
>when OS/2 came out. And MS even turned their back on that. It seems like
>MS did just about everything in they could to prevent (or at least delay)
>the switch to GUIs.
As I mention above, this is very, very wrong. Try reading a couple of
books about MS.
>> If it weren't for Bill Gates, Unix would have been the heir
>> apparent operating system for computers.
>Not necessarily; there were lots of other OSs out there.
Unix was never going to be a mass market success because it was designed
as a multi-user OS and the computer revolution of the 1980's occurred at
the single-user desktop level. If it wasn't MS, it could have been
Digital Research (picture using GEM95 today!), Apple (with the Mac OS)
or even the Commodore Amiga. Unfortunately for all of those companies,
the company controlling the killer OS (DOS, go figure) is a marketing
wonder.
>But if it _had_ happened, that wouldn't be so bad. People will still be
>using Unix decades after Windoze is forgotten. And if Unix ain't your
>cup o' tea, try a Mac. (Or, if you enjoy *both*, maybe try an Amiga.)
Doubtful. Perhaps you need to take a look at MS Windows NT 4.0. It
has the wonderful Win95 UI, the security and multiuser features of Unix,
and is a killer networker. NT is the future.
>> With a army of dedicated programmers, he's produced high quality products
Also true enough. People tend to look at companies like Apple, who
control all of the hardware that runs their OS, but MS must support
millions of hardware combinations that they cannot control. Surely
anyone would agree that Windows 95 is a marvel of engineering greatness
once you consider what it actually does. That it runs at all is
great--but it runs great, and that is truly amazing.
>Oh please! MS' overall evilness may be what they are best known for,
>but their poor quality (i.e. unreliability, inefficiency, huge size,
>slowness, eagerness to crash and lose data, insecurity) are a close
>second.
You need to get up to speed on current MS programming projects. MS
is working on Internet browsers, mail and news programs, servers, etc.,
that are all small, lean and quick. The move toward bloatware in the
late 1980's-early 1990's was due to competition, where feature wars
drove EXE sizes sky high. Thanks to the internet, and the need for
speed, those days are ending. MS was not to blame, however.
>Lots of people may want to kill Gates for destroying progress
>and forcing his products on them, but there's also plenty of people
>(who have lost the will to fight) that would gladly accept Microsoft
>domination -- if only the software would WORK!
Well, start accepting then, because it does work. It works great.
I run Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0 on dual boot on my home network.
>Um.. like what? Name _one_ Microsoft product that isn't an imitation of
>another product that was out at least 5 years earlier.
Sounds like the Mac.
CYNTHIA KAY HAHN
COuld all you knowlegeable readers please answer a few questions about
Win95? I am thinking off getting it.
1) Can you just upgrade it? Will you have to take all your files and
format the drive?
2) Is it really better than Win3.11?
3) Are there any compatibility problems for programs designed for
Win3.11?
Please answer my questions and EMAIL me. I won't be able to check
newsgoups that often. Thanks.
Lucas Hahn
jha...@ix.netcom.com
Hotel California
In article <4mgde5$p...@news.getnet.com>, thur...@getnet.com (Paul
Thurrott) wrote:
> In article <4mdc6e$d...@mack.rt66.com>, slo...@mack.rt66.com (John
Millington) wrote:
> >Bzzt. Everybody else was already using GUIs when MS was still pretty anti-
> >GUI. MS didn't get serious about promoting GUIs until 1990 when Doze 3.0
> >came out.
>
> Look, I dont mean to stick up for Microsoft or anything, but they were
> never "anti-GUI". MS started working on Windows in 1983 and always thought
Yes they were. Until MS got a popular Windows product out Bill himself way
saying stuff like GUIs are just a fad, people prefer the power and
simplicity of a command line.
> that the Mac was a great idea--in fact, Bill Gates BEGGED Apple to license
Actually, Bill Gates used revoking the license for AppleSoft as a threat
to force Apple to license some of Apple's GUI technology to Bill G.
> the OS to other hardware manufacturers so that it could become the standard.
> Only after Apple's reluctance to do so and the split with IBM did MS
> start pushing Windows as the standard. Everybody carps on the MS "monopoly"
> but they tried to give the IBM OS to Digital Research in 1982 and tried to
> give the OS mantle to Apple in 1983-84. Apple would have none of it,
> and as a result, they're now dying. So cut the crap and tell the truth.
Gee, isn't this revisionist history great folks? Get a clue and learn the
truth, not the MS marketing hype.
> >Prior to that time, Doze's memory management was so pathetic that
> >even MS' underhanded techniques (like preloading it and denying MS-DOS sales
> >to people who sold MS-DOS alternatives) couldn't successfully push it.
>
> MS-DOS is a single user OS written at a time when a 64K 8088 was a big deal.
> It was so unreasonably successful that it made marketing sense to prolong
> it and extend it....surely you don't believe that MS wanted MS-DOS to be
> the OS of the century? I'm sure they were more surprised by its success than
> anyone.
The MacOS was written at at time when the only computer that ran it
had 128k of memory and a single 400k floppy drive. However, it has
never hit a memory limit. DOS sucks, just face it. MS rode on the
coattails of IBM's name.
> >That
> >was 1990. GUIs were already getting pretty ancient by then. Remember all
> >those 68k computers that came out in the mid 1980s? Macintosh, Amiga, ST --
> >the users of these systems were so happy that nearly all of them became
> >fanatics, and were stunned at the total lack of progress happening in the
> >PeeCee world.
>
> True enough. I went through an Amiga faze myself, wondering why the PC
> world couldn't see that my computer/OS was clearly superior. Mac and OS/2
> users suffer from a similar, delirious, problem today. It's called
> ignorance.
You are the one suffering from ignorance. OS/2 can run any Windows 3.1
software and it can do it better than Windows (3.1 or 95 or NT) itself.
> >The only progress the PeeCee was making was later, in 1987,
> >when OS/2 came out. And MS even turned their back on that. It seems like
> >MS did just about everything in they could to prevent (or at least delay)
> >the switch to GUIs.
>
> As I mention above, this is very, very wrong. Try reading a couple of
> books about MS.
What, you mean the PR advertisement books? Try reading some books about
the computer industry and history and you'll get a different picture.
> >> If it weren't for Bill Gates, Unix would have been the heir
> >> apparent operating system for computers.
>
> >Not necessarily; there were lots of other OSs out there.
>
> Unix was never going to be a mass market success because it was designed
> as a multi-user OS and the computer revolution of the 1980's occurred at
> the single-user desktop level. If it wasn't MS, it could have been
> Digital Research (picture using GEM95 today!), Apple (with the Mac OS)
> or even the Commodore Amiga. Unfortunately for all of those companies,
> the company controlling the killer OS (DOS, go figure) is a marketing
> wonder.
What does it matter if UNIX has multi-user features, that still doesn't
take away from its single-user uses. DOS is a UNIX eunich. :)
> >But if it _had_ happened, that wouldn't be so bad. People will still be
> >using Unix decades after Windoze is forgotten. And if Unix ain't your
> >cup o' tea, try a Mac. (Or, if you enjoy *both*, maybe try an Amiga.)
>
> Doubtful. Perhaps you need to take a look at MS Windows NT 4.0. It
> has the wonderful Win95 UI, the security and multiuser features of Unix,
> and is a killer networker. NT is the future.
NT isn't as stable as UNIX. It isn't multi-user. It doesn't have all
the features of UNIX. Just ask any UNIX advocate.
> >> With a army of dedicated programmers, he's produced high quality products
>
> Also true enough. People tend to look at companies like Apple, who
> control all of the hardware that runs their OS, but MS must support
> millions of hardware combinations that they cannot control. Surely
> anyone would agree that Windows 95 is a marvel of engineering greatness
> once you consider what it actually does. That it runs at all is
> great--but it runs great, and that is truly amazing.
That isn't amazing. The hardware was designed to support Windows. It's not
like he wrote some OS that will run on any hardware out there. It only
works on computers designed to run DOS. Gee it's great that my car can
drive on all these roads designed by different governments.
> You need to get up to speed on current MS programming projects. MS
> is working on Internet browsers,
Bad copy of Netscape.
> mail and news programs, servers, etc.,
> that are all small, lean and quick. The move toward bloatware in the
> late 1980's-early 1990's was due to competition, where feature wars
> drove EXE sizes sky high. Thanks to the internet, and the need for
> speed, those days are ending. MS was not to blame, however.
However, other programs had similar feature, without the bloat.
> >Lots of people may want to kill Gates for destroying progress
> >and forcing his products on them, but there's also plenty of people
> >(who have lost the will to fight) that would gladly accept Microsoft
> >domination -- if only the software would WORK!
>
> Well, start accepting then, because it does work. It works great.
> I run Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0 on dual boot on my home network.
For you maybe, but that is not the general consensus.
> >Um.. like what? Name _one_ Microsoft product that isn't an imitation of
> >another product that was out at least 5 years earlier.
>
> Sounds like the Mac.
Because all MS can do is copy others. He did it with the Mac and with
all kinds of software. MS is only where it is because of backstabbing,
stealing, and marketing.
T.Simpson
On 5 May 1996, CYNTHIA KAY HAHN wrote:
> 1) Can you just upgrade it? Will you have to take all your files and
> format the drive?
Upgrading from Win31 to Win95? No need to trash everything.
Upgrading may be a pain, but it's worth it!
> 2) Is it really better than Win3.11?
It allows 32-bit disk access (meaning it pulls information off
the disk twice as fast as Win3.11), and it's easier to use. I'm upgrading
later this month to see if this is true!
> 3) Are there any compatibility problems for programs designed for
> Win3.11?
Some compilers may have problems, but for the home user, it's
rare. The only problem would be with RAM.
> jha...@ix.netcom.com
>
>
_____________________________________________
| |
/)| Homepage |(\
/ )| http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/6949 |( \
__( (|_____________________________________________|) )__
((( \ \> /_) | \ </ / )))
(\\\ \ \_/ / "Communication is the | \_/ / ///)
\ / difference between being \ /
\ _/ a friend and an acquaintance" \_ /
/ / | |
/ / | |
The Mighty Fu
Hotel California wrote:
>
> In article <4mgde5$p...@news.getnet.com>, thur...@getnet.com (Paul
> Thurrott) wrote:
>
> > In article <4mdc6e$d...@mack.rt66.com>, slo...@mack.rt66.com (John
> Millington) wrote:
> > >Bzzt. Everybody else was already using GUIs when MS was still pretty anti-
> > >GUI. MS didn't get serious about promoting GUIs until 1990 when Doze 3.0
> > >came out.
> >
> > Look, I dont mean to stick up for Microsoft or anything, but they were
> > never "anti-GUI". MS started working on Windows in 1983 and always thought
>
> Yes they were. Until MS got a popular Windows product out Bill himself way
> saying stuff like GUIs are just a fad, people prefer the power and
> simplicity of a command line.
>
> > that the Mac was a great idea--in fact, Bill Gates BEGGED Apple to license
>
> Actually, Bill Gates used revoking the license for AppleSoft as a threat
> to force Apple to license some of Apple's GUI technology to Bill G.
That was an apple claim... never substaintiated
>
> > the OS to other hardware manufacturers so that it could become the standard.
> > Only after Apple's reluctance to do so and the split with IBM did MS
> > start pushing Windows as the standard. Everybody carps on the MS "monopoly"
> > but they tried to give the IBM OS to Digital Research in 1982 and tried to
> > give the OS mantle to Apple in 1983-84. Apple would have none of it,
> > and as a result, they're now dying. So cut the crap and tell the truth.
>
> Gee, isn't this revisionist history great folks? Get a clue and learn the
> truth, not the MS marketing hype.
Maybe he is a little out there... but you just a typical little pissed off nobody who hates MS cause it's
the cool thing to do.
>
> > >Prior to that time, Doze's memory management was so pathetic that
> > >even MS' underhanded techniques (like preloading it and denying MS-DOS sales
> > >to people who sold MS-DOS alternatives) couldn't successfully push it.
> >
> > MS-DOS is a single user OS written at a time when a 64K 8088 was a big deal.
> > It was so unreasonably successful that it made marketing sense to prolong
> > it and extend it....surely you don't believe that MS wanted MS-DOS to be
> > the OS of the century? I'm sure they were more surprised by its success than
> > anyone.
>
> The MacOS was written at at time when the only computer that ran it
> had 128k of memory and a single 400k floppy drive. However, it has
> never hit a memory limit. DOS sucks, just face it. MS rode on the
> coattails of IBM's name.
Yeah... but it sure is an architectual pile of shit. Block memory allocation, coopertative multitasking via
tacked on multifinder and fake parent task schedualed "multithreading?". Face it MacOS also sucks... and you
cant even access hardware easily. (Also there was a change from 24bit memory addressing to 32 bit... every
had to deal with the campatiblity problems of programs that aren't 32bit clean).
>
> > >That
> > >was 1990. GUIs were already getting pretty ancient by then. Remember all
> > >those 68k computers that came out in the mid 1980s? Macintosh, Amiga, ST --
> > >the users of these systems were so happy that nearly all of them became
> > >fanatics, and were stunned at the total lack of progress happening in the
> > >PeeCee world.
> >
> > True enough. I went through an Amiga faze myself, wondering why the PC
> > world couldn't see that my computer/OS was clearly superior. Mac and OS/2
> > users suffer from a similar, delirious, problem today. It's called
> > ignorance.
>
> You are the one suffering from ignorance. OS/2 can run any Windows 3.1
> software and it can do it better than Windows (3.1 or 95 or NT) itself.
Uhh... nope. Sorry. NT is a far more architectually robust than OS/2. There are still holes in the OS/2
memory protection scheme. In OS/2 system code is mapped between 512mb and 4GB. As in Windows 95 this address
range is shared by ALL 32 bit processes and as a result system components are left open to getting trampled
on by ill-behaved applications... thus causing a, you guessed it folks, system crash. NT on the other hand
maps from 2GB to 4gb all lowlevel system code, which is not visible to applications. Under NT applications
see a flat 2gig address space between 64k and 2gb. At the top of the 64k-2gig region are the client side
DLL's which pass on API calls to seperate system server processes. The server, running in a memory region
that is not visable to the application, validates the call and then the actuall system code executes. The NT
setup is signifigantly more robust than OS/2. Period.
>
> > >The only progress the PeeCee was making was later, in 1987,
> > >when OS/2 came out. And MS even turned their back on that. It seems like
> > >MS did just about everything in they could to prevent (or at least delay)
> > >the switch to GUIs.
> >
> > As I mention above, this is very, very wrong. Try reading a couple of
> > books about MS.
>
> What, you mean the PR advertisement books? Try reading some books about
> the computer industry and history and you'll get a different picture.
No... not every book that doesn't condem Bill Gates as the Devil is a PR effort.
>
> > >> If it weren't for Bill Gates, Unix would have been the heir
> > >> apparent operating system for computers.
> >
> > >Not necessarily; there were lots of other OSs out there.
> >
> > Unix was never going to be a mass market success because it was designed
> > as a multi-user OS and the computer revolution of the 1980's occurred at
> > the single-user desktop level. If it wasn't MS, it could have been
> > Digital Research (picture using GEM95 today!), Apple (with the Mac OS)
> > or even the Commodore Amiga. Unfortunately for all of those companies,
> > the company controlling the killer OS (DOS, go figure) is a marketing
> > wonder.
>
> What does it matter if UNIX has multi-user features, that still doesn't
> take away from its single-user uses. DOS is a UNIX eunich. :)
>
> > >But if it _had_ happened, that wouldn't be so bad. People will still be
> > >using Unix decades after Windoze is forgotten. And if Unix ain't your
> > >cup o' tea, try a Mac. (Or, if you enjoy *both*, maybe try an Amiga.)
> >
> > Doubtful. Perhaps you need to take a look at MS Windows NT 4.0. It
> > has the wonderful Win95 UI, the security and multiuser features of Unix,
> > and is a killer networker. NT is the future.
>
> NT isn't as stable as UNIX. It isn't multi-user. It doesn't have all
> the features of UNIX. Just ask any UNIX advocate.
What.... have you ever actually used NT... NT is arguably, more architectually robust than manyt Unix's. Gee
i guess a 2500 dumb terminal network isn't multi-user enough. What features might you be talking about...
details. Yeah a unix advocate is a good source of unbiased information.
>
> > >> With a army of dedicated programmers, he's produced high quality products
> >
> > Also true enough. People tend to look at companies like Apple, who
> > control all of the hardware that runs their OS, but MS must support
> > millions of hardware combinations that they cannot control. Surely
> > anyone would agree that Windows 95 is a marvel of engineering greatness
> > once you consider what it actually does. That it runs at all is
> > great--but it runs great, and that is truly amazing.
>
> That isn't amazing. The hardware was designed to support Windows. It's not
> like he wrote some OS that will run on any hardware out there. It only
> works on computers designed to run DOS. Gee it's great that my car can
> drive on all these roads designed by different governments.
huh? No... the hardware was designed to do certain tasks... like play music, capture video. The fact that
Win95 does a pretty good job at getting it all to work is a testament to a lot of programmers staying up all
night writing device drivers.
>
> > You need to get up to speed on current MS programming projects. MS
> > is working on Internet browsers,
>
> Bad copy of Netscape.
No actually Internet Explorer is based on NCSA Mosaic. In many respects MS-Inet explorer is better. For one
thing it is quite a bit faster. Granted Netscape is still the best... but internet explorer is not a bad
copy of netscape...
>
> > mail and news programs, servers, etc.,
> > that are all small, lean and quick. The move toward bloatware in the
> > late 1980's-early 1990's was due to competition, where feature wars
> > drove EXE sizes sky high. Thanks to the internet, and the need for
> > speed, those days are ending. MS was not to blame, however.
>
> However, other programs had similar feature, without the bloat.
Bullshit... Novell's Wordperfect 6.1 required nearly twice the minimum install compared to Word 6.0 and 2
megs more minimum ram. Amipro didn't have nearly the features and the OS/2 versions was hugely bloated and
very buggy.
>
> > >Lots of people may want to kill Gates for destroying progress
> > >and forcing his products on them, but there's also plenty of people
> > >(who have lost the will to fight) that would gladly accept Microsoft
> > >domination -- if only the software would WORK!
> >
> > Well, start accepting then, because it does work. It works great.
> > I run Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0 on dual boot on my home network.
> For you maybe, but that is not the general consensus.
Turn off the reality distortion field for a second. The stuff does work. And compared with it's competition,
for the general population it makes more sense than OS/2 or Linux... and MacOS, while easy to use, is
architectually unsound.
>
> > >Um.. like what? Name _one_ Microsoft product that isn't an imitation of
> > >another product that was out at least 5 years earlier.
> >
> > Sounds like the Mac.
>
> Because all MS can do is copy others. He did it with the Mac and with
> all kinds of software. MS is only where it is because of backstabbing,
> stealing, and marketing.
You are one angry little person. Your view is considerably more twisted than origional poster. You really
need to get off the bullshit anti-ms bandwagon. Why don't you spend more time hearlding the superior aspects
of your OS of choice instead of spouting Anti-MS bullshit. If you like OS/2 then talk about it's fantastic
SOM (if you even know what that is). If your a Unix fan then give technical reasons as to why Unix is REALLY
better than NT... get technical. But don't just sit there and spout bullshit.
Clarkmon
T.Simpson wrote:
> > 2) Is it really better than Win3.11?
>
> It allows 32-bit disk access (meaning it pulls information off
> the disk twice as fast as Win3.11), and it's easier to use. I'm upgrading
> later this month to see if this is true!
>
Win95 has the same 32-bit disk access as Win 3.11. Any differences will
be minimal.
David
Colin Smith
[newsgroups deleted]
Joseph Halstead (de...@soho.ios.com) wrote:
: On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 21:31:53 GMT, Miggs wrote:
: >Freewolf <Ewo...@wnstar.com> wrote:
: >
: >>laurin keith davis wrote:
: >>>
: >>> i am using 3.11 on a dx4-100 with 12meg ram and looking for a new OS.
: >>> any tips? how much does NT cost?
: >>>
: >>> anyway, thanx for being such a great listener! your'e a swell person
: >>> (despite what they say) and it's been real groovy.
: >>>
: >>> htiek
: >>>
: >>> lau...@cyberhighway.net
: >retaill is about 300 , but you can find one at a show for about 130
: >
: Lauren Windows NT requires 16 megs of ram. At this time Workstation
: retails for 300 dollars and server for about 750. I would go with 95
: upgrade for 89.99 or less and then upgrade to nt when 4.0 is released.
: NT 3.51 looks just like windows 3.11 and works similar. 95 is a better
: chose till NT 4.0 is out in Augst G-D Allowing.
But then, if you want 100% 32bit, Pre-emptive multitasking, multi-user
etc In the 12Mb you've got just now. Then you could try Linux. Free from
your local FTP site. Or try OS/2, that's fully 32bit & would run on your
hardware.
--
Linux; 32bit, multi-tasking, multi-user and Free.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
... But if we laugh with derision, we will never understand. Human
intellectual capacity has not altered for thousands of years so far as
we can tell. If intelligent people invested intense energy in issues
that now seem foolish to us, then the failure lies in our understanding
of their world, not in their distorted perceptions. Even the standard
example of ancient nonsense -- the debate about angels on pinheads --
makes sense once you realize that theologians were not discussing
whether five or eighteen would fit, but whether a pin could house a
finite or an infinite number.
-- S. J. Gould, "Wide Hats and Narrow Minds"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linux mellifluous 1.2.13 #1 Mon Feb 26 10:31:20 GMT 1996 i486
9:04am up 70 days, 21:02, 0 users, load average: 0.23, 0.05, 0.02
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Smith (co...@mellifluous.europe.dg.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are mine and not necessarily anyone else's.
Bradd W. Szonye
On Monday, May 06, 1996, Clarkmon wrote...
Actually, PC Magazine published an article about eight months ago
comparing the speed and reliability of the various DOS-descended OSes for
Intel boxes (through Pentium; PPro was not yet available). Here were the
overall results:
Speed...
1. Windows 3.11
2. Windows 95
3. Windows 3.1
4. OS/2
5. Windows NT
Stability...
1. Window NT
2. OS/2
3. Windows 95
4. Windows 3.1
5. Windows 3.11
Interesting to compare the two lists, no? By the way, the better speed and
lower stability for 3.11 were both attributable to 32-bit file access.
Basically, the system was blazing fast, but patched on so badly that it
destabilized the system.
--
Bradd W. Szonye (bra...@ix.netcom.com), Doubleplus Corporation
"To chill or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp, there it is."
-- Hamlet, Prince of Denmark
GONZO
You have to realize that the comparisons above don't indicate what type
of software was running. Win95 tends to be slower with 16 bit apps than
3.11 on some machines. I haven't noticed any difference on my machine
since I switched. If anything the 16 bit apps run faster on Win95
Anthony D. Tribelli
Mark Hamstra (mham...@wolfenet.com) wrote:
There is hope for linux yet! User's are emulating Bill Gates' marketting
tactics: "It'll be done real soon". ;-)
Mr. Wizard
T.Simpson wrote:
> > 2) Is it really better than Win3.11?
Yes. It has green dialog boxes, and it also shows a cool cloud logo on
boot-up.
--
\ | /
____________________________________________________ \ | /
/\ My Infamous Magic Wand \\\_ --- -=
\/___________________________________________________///~ --- -=
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
Mark Hamstra
I resent the guilt by association. Take a look at
http://www.redhat.com/dtc/judges for a little more
info...
Mark
Michael Nordstrom
GONZO <kuce...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
>On 7 May 1996, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
>>
>> On Monday, May 06, 1996, Clarkmon wrote...
>> > T.Simpson wrote:
>> >
>> > > > 2) Is it really better than Win3.11?
>> > >
I did run Winstone from PCMag on my 3,11 system WS= 120
After installing W95 WS=110
16 bit apps do run slower on W95 but system resources are handeld
better and so is multi tasking.
So in the end it comes down to your personal needs.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------
Michael Nordstrom Voice +46 8 96 39 18
Anhaltsv. 21 Fax +46 8 96 15 20
191 40 SOLLENTUNA E-mail mich...@remotecom.se
SWEDEN
----------------------------------------------------
KORO the Great
CYNTHIA KAY HAHN wrote:
>
> COuld all you knowlegeable readers please answer a few questions about
> Win95? I am thinking off getting it.
>
> format the drive?
It runs better if you format... With w95 I'd take any edge I could get!
> 2) Is it really better than Win3.11?
Depends on who you talk to. Some people who think that the user
interface is everything would say yes. Technologically, however, there
is little improvement over w3.11.
Sure, w95 has a lot of new and superior features to w3.11, but if you
plan on running any of your old windows apps, you can kiss those features
goodbye. You see, when you run old 16-bit apps, w95 technology
disapears, and everything starts working like windows 3.11 again. Your
computer will crash just as frequently, it will be slower (it's like
w3.11 with less free memory), and you will have wasted your money.
> 3) Are there any compatibility problems for programs designed for
> Win3.11?
Too many. Netscape's (one of M$'s main competitors) applications
mysteriously stop working (it's either a planned bug or just another
incompatibility. Knowing M$, I chose the former) allong with a lot of
other complications.
Also, if you plan on using a mouse, it may interest you to know that
there are utterly thousands of bugs in the mouse drivers causing the
machine to crash at times.
--
KORO the Great
KORO the Great
souldier wrote:
>
> hot...@cris.com (Hotel California) wrote:
>
> :In article <4m6fq6$k...@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>, souldier wrote:
>
> :> Personally, I don't begrudge Bill Gates his wealth. He earned it.
>
> :Earned it!? How?
>
> He wrote the first operating system for Apple computers when none
> existed.
I can't dispute this, I don't know enough about the first Apple OS.
> He leased his operating system to IBM when everyone else was
> selling.
If you mean DOS, he bought it.
> He switched over to GUI when others were still pushing Unix
> and DOS.
You mean he stole the concept of the GUI from XEROX and Apple.
> If it weren't for Bill Gates, Unix would have been the heir
> apparent operating system for computers.
That would be *much* better than the status quo. I've never seen a
single M$ product that is worthy of being used (excluding NT, the overly
rich can use it).
> Finally, he parlayed his
> earnings into a large staff with vested interest in the business (who
> themselves became millionaires.)
You mean a vested interest in their pocket books. They are all just
businessmen and care nothing about quality products as long as they sell.
> With a army of dedicated programmers,
> he's produced high quality products
Sory to burst your bubble, but M$ marketing doesn't exactly portray M$
products as they are.
> and stayed abreast, if not ahead,
> of computer developments (the only oversight being Web Browsers,)
That's because, untill recently, the people using the networks were
technophiles who used high quality products. Also, untill recently,
Netscape provided high quality products so they are the leader in their
market.
> all
> while avoiding anti-monopoly lawsuits.
Heh heh heh... they just happen to have a deal with the Anti-trust
commitee..... Same happened with Intel...
> How many of us even have to
> worry about anti-monopoly, much less avoid because we're so
> successful?
If it means becomming like Bill Gates, I'll pass.
> His foresight, his effort, parlayed into his success. Better than
> inheriting the wealth, or winning it in a lottery, is earning it the
> hard way.
Sure, he's a genious, no doubt about that, but he is also a lier and a
greedy bastard.
--
KORO the Great
drsoran
CYNTHIA KAY HAHN (jha...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: COuld all you knowlegeable readers please answer a few questions about
: Win95? I am thinking off getting it.
: 1) Can you just upgrade it? Will you have to take all your files and
: format the drive?
If you've got enough space on the drive to install Win95 (90 megs?)
: 3) Are there any compatibility problems for programs designed for
: Win3.11?
Probably.
I've been having some thoughts about self mutilation recently and
decided that installing Win95 Monday night would probably be less
stressful than getting a ring in god-knows-what organ.. Results? Win95
(upgrade) installed great! Took awhile to copy.. two hours to get my
drives repartitioned and setup so I wouldn't lose data, etc.. after that
it was easy and braindead.. typical MS installation procedures.. course..
now that the bloody thing is installed I've got a huge piece of shit that
only runs in 640x480x16 color mode.. Some may find that adequate but I'm
so used to 1024x768x256 in X I'm spoiled I guess.. Amazingly it was
suggested to me that it was my crappy "Korean Special" Cirrus Logic
chipset video card that was the problem.. once I get my #9 card we shall
see if that was the problem.. another person suggested my 14"
1024x768x256 (interlaced) monitor was the problem.. but I doubt that.. my
monitor runs non-interlaced at anything less than that yet the cirrus
logic drivers don't work at ALL.. I had similar problems with OS/2.. OS/2
detected my card as a 5428 when actually I had to manually change it to
use the 5424 (?) drivers to get it to work right.. So yes.. I love
Win95.. why? Becuase after all is said and done I'll most likely buy a
new 17" monitor and have a decent VLB video card for my 486... ;) (god..
I get the chills whenever I see that damned cloudy sky with "Windows95"
written upon it.. I wonder if that can be changed to make it a dark
thunderstorm sky.. :)
--
--------------------------------
drs...@ni.cba.csuohio.edu
Christopher Hanecak
jha...@ix.netcom.com(CYNTHIA KAY HAHN) wrote:
>COuld all you knowlegeable readers please answer a few questions about
>Win95? I am thinking off getting it.
>
>1) Can you just upgrade it? Will you have to take all your files and
>format the drive?
>
>
>Win3.11?
>
>newsgoups that often. Thanks.
>
>Lucas Hahn
>jha...@ix.netcom.com
better? Well, in some ways, yes, in other ways, definitely no. For a
full list of compatibility problems, visit Microsoft's website. For one
the interface is nothing like 3.1. The cost of an upgrade is
$80-$90,while a full version is around $140.
prof.ir. M.Tels
On woensdag 8 mei 1996, KORO the Great wrote...
> > He leased his operating system to IBM when everyone else was
> > selling.
>
> If you mean DOS, he bought it.
And then licensed it to IBM.
> > He switched over to GUI when others were still pushing Unix
> > and DOS.
>
> You mean he stole the concept of the GUI from XEROX and Apple.
Only from XEROX. And to say he stole it is inacurate; PARC had not
protected or patented its findings, so Microsoft acted completely within
the law when it offered the underpayed personnel of PARC jobs in return
for their knowledge.
And, by the way, if you really have such moral dilemma's about anything
connected to or built by Microsoft, I suggest you abandon OS/2 and switch
back to CP/M.
> > If it weren't for Bill Gates, Unix would have been the heir
> > apparent operating system for computers.
>
> That would be *much* better than the status quo. I've never seen a
> single M$ product that is worthy of being used (excluding NT, the overly
> rich can use it).
Your opinion.
> > Finally, he parlayed his
> > earnings into a large staff with vested interest in the business (who
> > themselves became millionaires.)
>
> You mean a vested interest in their pocket books. They are all just
> businessmen and care nothing about quality products as long as they
sell.
Can you blame them? If you could make unparallelled amounts of money,
would you not? And your statement about quality is disputable.
> > With a army of dedicated programmers,
> > he's produced high quality products
>
> Sory to burst your bubble, but M$ marketing doesn't exactly portray M$
> products as they are.
This statement is generally true of all advertising.
> > all
> > while avoiding anti-monopoly lawsuits.
>
> Heh heh heh... they just happen to have a deal with the Anti-trust
> commitee..... Same happened with Intel...
Either prove this or shut up about it, you are beginning to irritate me.
And with proof I don't mean unbased ravings, but a signed document from
Microsoft or the DoJ outligning the terms of this agreement.
> > His foresight, his effort, parlayed into his success. Better than
> > inheriting the wealth, or winning it in a lottery, is earning it the
> > hard way.
>
> Sure, he's a genious, no doubt about that, but he is also a lier and a
> greedy bastard.
You should be aware of suits for slander with things like this. If you
have a grievance with Microsoft, have it with Microsoft. But don't act
like a spoiled 3-year old by getting personal.
sys...@niuhep.phys.niu.edu
>> > If it weren't for Bill Gates, Unix would have been the heir
>> > apparent operating system for computers.
CP/M? Amiga? Apple? Macintosh?
>> That would be *much* better than the status quo. I've never seen a
>> single M$ product that is worthy of being used (excluding NT, the overly
>> rich can use it).
>
>Your opinion.
KORO was a bit harsh, Win3.1 and DOS are worthy of being used as toys
(or even lightwt. wordproc.).
>> Sure, he's a genious, no doubt about that, but he is also a lier and a
>> greedy bastard.
>
>You should be aware of suits for slander with things like this.
bwahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahha!
>If you have a grievance with Microsoft, have it with Microsoft.
but Bill Gates IS Microsoft.
>But don't act like a spoiled 3-year old by getting personal.
awww, that wasn't personal, that was a statement of how he runs his
business. Now all the obnoxious posts discussing his sexual preferances...
that was personal. And stupid. And ignorant. but I believe in the
right to free speech and the right of morons to be morons (but not
the right to spam or forge posts!) sigh.
Robert
Curtis D. Levin
>>> Speed...
>>> 1. Windows 3.11
>>> 2. Windows 95
>>> 3. Windows 3.1
>>> 4. OS/2
>>> 5. Windows NT
>>>
>>> Stability...
>>> 1. Window NT
>>> 2. OS/2
>>> 3. Windows 95
>>> 4. Windows 3.1
>>> 5. Windows 3.11
Only thing I can say about this is that I've never seen a faster system
than os/2 at the command line. Notice that DOS wasn't involved in the
speed or stability classes, but I can run os/2 and multitask dos apps, so
I guess that would be a part of the dos category. Because 32 bit apps take
longer to load, and since the tasker inside the box has to do up the
threads, it takes a little longer to start an app. But I am absolutely
positive that os/2 is indeed faster than any flavor of win at the command
line, without losing any of it's multitasking capabilities. According to
the hswitch box, I'm running 8 usable apps right now, and the speed is
still unbelievable. It's unfortunate that noone ever even considers using
the command line as a viable speed comparison test. It's probably a better
comparison if you include linux as well, and maybe even bsd, etc, because
they also multitask at the command line. The problem with windows is that
it doesn't, although you can run all the apps full screen from windows,
and maybe get it to work that way. To put it simply, Os/2 will definitely
beat win in all flavors in speed, if they give it a chance to perform in
it's native element. The reason I say this, is I used to multitask under
win3.1, and thought I got it going pretty good. Believe me though, once I
ran VIO I saw the light. If you happen to have a copy of os/2 laying
around, don't trash it until you give it a try. My WPS is cmd.exe, and I
load and run hswitch because it also has dos switching capabilities. With
hstart, you can start a game from the os/2 cmd line without the wps, and
have dos settings as well. This little 8 meg machine shines with the best
of them.
--
_________________________________________________________________
| Curtis D. Levin | Team Os/2 | kd4zkw.ampr.org [44.98.2.22] |
| cdl...@shadow.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~| kd4...@amsat.org |
| http://www.shadow.net/~cdlevin | kd4zkw@ae4ej.#MIAFL.USA.NOAM |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Warning!! This post may be inappropriate for .misc newsgroups.
Suitable discretion is advised.
Jamie Neil Riddell
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960505230434.13457A-
100...@freenet2.scri.fsu.edu>, "T.Simpson" <tsim...@freenet2.scri.fsu.e
du> writes
>On 5 May 1996, CYNTHIA KAY HAHN wrote:
>
>> format the drive?
>
>Upgrading may be a pain, but it's worth it!
>
>
>the disk twice as fast as Win3.11), and it's easier to use. I'm upgrading
>later this month to see if this is true!
>
I have found Win 95 a lot better to use than 3.11 - takes a bit of time
to get to know as it is a radical departure (for Windows), however
working from the desktop is much much easier. Also the ability to have
LONG file names is a real bonus. Trouble is u can only do this on the
desktop nowhere else (someting they don't tell you.)
>> 3) Are there any compatibility problems for programs designed for
>> Win3.11?
>
> Some compilers may have problems, but for the home user, it's
>rare. The only problem would be with RAM.
If you are using a printer u may have to get new drivers, I
believe Hewlett Packard were a bit slow off the mark but I think u can
get hold of them somehow, either oin free CDs certainly on the web
somewhere.
>
>> jha...@ix.netcom.com
>>
>>
>
> _____________________________________________
> | |
> /)| Homepage |(\
> / )| http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/6949 |( \
> __( (|_____________________________________________|) )__
> ((( \ \> /_) | \ </ / )))
> (\\\ \ \_/ / "Communication is the | \_/ / ///)
> \ / difference between being \ /
> \ _/ a friend and an acquaintance" \_ /
> / / | |
> / / | |
>
>
>
>
>
--
Jamie Neil Riddell
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
T.Simpson
With these rankings, I have a question: Which is better, Win95 or
OS/2 Warp? I am getting a laptop soon, but it comes with Win3.11. So,
which should I use? Unless the other OS' can run Windows programs, I
prefer to hear only about these two...
Todd
Joe Ragosta
In article <01bb3df1.a7412e20$c5d9...@prof.irt>, prof.ir. M.Tels
<tel...@iaehv.iaehv.nl> wrote:
> On woensdag 8 mei 1996, KORO the Great wrote...
> > You mean he stole the concept of the GUI from XEROX and Apple.
>
> Only from XEROX. And to say he stole it is inacurate; PARC had not
> protected or patented its findings, so Microsoft acted completely within
> the law when it offered the underpayed personnel of PARC jobs in return
> for their knowledge.
You have a really strange 'understanding' of intellectual property laws.
Your reasoning is the same as saying it's OK for me to take any car I want
on the street as long as it isn't locked.
In reality, copying someone else's copyrighted work is illegal regardless
of whether it is patented. And a copyright does not require any action on
the author's part. Simply doing the work is sufficient for copyright
protection.
Of course, then you have to answer the question as to what constitutes
copyrighted work. In this area, the courts have basically punted
(wrongfully).
--
Regards, Joe Ragosta
Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1996. Non-exclusive, royalty free
license to distribute this post granted to any service provider
except Microsoft. By posting this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per
posting.
KORO the Great
T.Simpson wrote:
>
> With these rankings, I have a question: Which is better, Win95 or
> OS/2 Warp?
depends on what you like.... are you a superficial person when it comes
to OS prefrence? in that case, pick w95, it has a good looking interface
but nothing substantial besides that.
If you want raw power go for another OS. OS/2 is good in this area.
> Unless the other OS' can run Windows programs, I
> prefer to hear only about these two...
There's LINUX, which can support w95 apps although not too well. Who
needs them anyways? LINUX has it's own equivelents of w3.1 software and
they are all free just like LINUX.
--
KORO the Great
Ben Werdmuller
>There's LINUX, which can support w95 apps although not too well. Who
>needs them anyways? LINUX has it's own equivelents of w3.1 software and
>they are all free just like LINUX.
Welllll ... Microsoft have been really shitty to us users, and have
managed to get a load of companies to start producing exclusively Win95
stuff. :( If you don't do things like play games, then fine, don't get
Win95, but if you'd kind of like to play SimCity 3000 or something to
wind down, or if you want to run some new multimedia CD-ROM - W95 only,
folks. :(((
---
|~~|
|oo| Ben Werdmuller
----ooo---()---ooo---------------------------------------
<A HREF="http://phoenix.jr2.ox.ac.uk/spire">Spire</A>
-- "You are a fishmonger" - Hamlet, Act II, Scene II --
Wayne Willcox
In article <u$SzfLAgB...@smackme.demon.co.uk>,
Jamie Neil Riddell <ja...@smackme.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960505230434.13457A-
>100...@freenet2.scri.fsu.edu>, "T.Simpson" <tsim...@freenet2.scri.fsu.e
>du> writes
>>On 5 May 1996, CYNTHIA KAY HAHN wrote:
>>
>>> 1) Can you just upgrade it? Will you have to take all your files and
>>> format the drive?
>>
>> Upgrading from Win31 to Win95? No need to trash everything.
>>Upgrading may be a pain, but it's worth it!
>>
>
>>> 2) Is it really better than Win3.11?
>>
>> It allows 32-bit disk access (meaning it pulls information off
>>the disk twice as fast as Win3.11), and it's easier to use. I'm upgrading
>>later this month to see if this is true!
>>
>
allows you to use DMA to transfer data instead of using bios.
DMA is much faster and it is 32 bits wide instead of 16 like bios.
Also it allows to do alot fewer processor interupts which allows the
cpu to do other things instead of just putting data in memory.
so it is faster.
>I have found Win 95 a lot better to use than 3.11 - takes a bit of time
>to get to know as it is a radical departure (for Windows), however
>working from the desktop is much much easier. Also the ability to have
>LONG file names is a real bonus. Trouble is u can only do this on the
>desktop nowhere else (someting they don't tell you.)
>
>
>>> 3) Are there any compatibility problems for programs designed for
>>> Win3.11?
>>
>> Some compilers may have problems, but for the home user, it's
>>rare. The only problem would be with RAM.
>
> If you are using a printer u may have to get new drivers, I
>believe Hewlett Packard were a bit slow off the mark but I think u can
>get hold of them somehow, either oin free CDs certainly on the web
>somewhere.
>>
>>> jha...@ix.netcom.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________
>> | |
>> /)| Homepage |(\
>> / )| http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/6949 |( \
>> __( (|_____________________________________________|) )__
>> ((( \ \> /_) | \ </ / )))
>> (\\\ \ \_/ / "Communication is the | \_/ / ///)
>> \ / difference between being \ /
>> \ _/ a friend and an acquaintance" \_ /
>> / / | |
>> / / | |
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Jamie Neil Riddell
>
>Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
--
Slowly and surely the unix crept up on the Nintendo user ...
Wayne Willcox I will not eat green eggs and ham
wa...@obiwan.pmr.com I will not eat them Sam I Am!!
wa...@obiwan.pmr.com (or obiwan%wa...@uunet.uu.net)
Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate...
In article <319DFC...@easyaccess.com>, KORO the Great <ksa...@easyaccess.com> writes...
>to OS prefrence? in that case, pick w95, it has a good looking interface
>but nothing substantial besides that.
Agreed, but WHY are you posting from windoze, eh?
Tom O'Toole - ecf_...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu - JHUVMS system programmer
**WAKE UP folks! Boycott Net$cape and Micro$oft greed driven proprietary
"enhancements"! BOYCOTT micro$oft network "msn.com", micro$oft money and other
attempts by the micro$oft monopoly to control electronic banking and commerce!**
KORO the Great
Ben Werdmuller wrote:
>
> >There's LINUX, which can support w95 apps although not too well. Who
> >needs them anyways? LINUX has it's own equivelents of w3.1 software and
> >they are all free just like LINUX.
OH OH OH I think I wrote the above and I made a horribly bad error...
in the first sentance, scratch w95 and replace it with w3.1....
thanks...
> Welllll ... Microsoft have been really shitty to us users, and have
> managed to get a load of companies to start producing exclusively Win95
> stuff. :( If you don't do things like play games, then fine, don't get
> Win95, but if you'd kind of like to play SimCity 3000 or something to
> wind down, or if you want to run some new multimedia CD-ROM - W95 only,
> folks. :(((
I've lost complete and total intrest in games... LINUX, thus, serves my
purposes just dandy. Actually, a platform like LINUX would be good for
games because it takes up very little memory and almost no CPU power.
Thus, more of your computer's potential can be used to feul the game...
It's like DOS on sterroids, yet 10 times more stable and needing less
space!
--
KORO the Great
KORO the Great
Old-Fashioned Staffordshire Plate... wrote:
>
> In article <319DFC...@easyaccess.com>, KORO the Great <ksa...@easyaccess.com> writes...
> >to OS prefrence? in that case, pick w95, it has a good looking interface
> >but nothing substantial besides that.
>
> Agreed, but WHY are you posting from windoze, eh?
I have to.... you see, I'm using this BBS based server (hell it's FREE
and is a great place to spend while in between servers or during a crash)
for the Inet and the software used to support it (Excalibur) only runs in
winblows 3.1. Hmmph, I have to settle for M$.
--
KORO the Great