MACINTOSH IS SHIT<APPLE/MAC BANKRUPT!!!!!
Uf da!
In article <ekleberr-270...@cmh-p004.infinet.com>, ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
>In article <313229...@kingdom.com>, InTerFerenCe
><The_m...@kingdom.com> wrote:
>
>> yeah...even if your computer is slow as hell, appearance is important
>> right? jerk.
>
>Your right! PC are slow AND look awful.
They let you out of your straight jacket long enough to type that?
If macs got any slower, they'd be going backwards (like the poor
sod's that buy them...).
OBJoke:
What is the difference between Divine Brown and Johnny Cochran?
Johnny's biggest client got off...
CYBERC0M
> If macs got any slower, they'd be going backwards (like the poor
> sod's that buy them...).
Slow? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA....... Apparently in your Ignorant stupor you
forgot about a little chip called the 604. Ever heard of it? Its every bit
as fast as a pentium PRO and costs about a third as much. And speaking of
slow, Win95 is perhaps the slowest OS I have EVER used. If macs suck why
does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
suck, why then is the costomer satisfaction up around 95%? Mac's are every
bit a "real" computer as anything else out there; just because it doesnt
have mant problems than Windows or DOS dosn't mean that its inferior. The
simple fact that it is less problematic suggests that it is MORE advanced
and not simply a toy. I choose Mac because it is the FUTURE and any one
that disagrees, email me, I'll be more than happy to send you Indepented
tests, polls, interviews or any thing else supporting my claim. And I love
to debate........
mrkite
> slow, Win95 is perhaps the slowest OS I have EVER used. If macs suck why
> does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
Please, stop comparing Windoze and Dos to macs... this is a hardware
discussion, not an os discussion... if you want to talk about Os's
compare bsd, os2 and linux to your lame little macOs. all three of
those run on a PC, and all three have true 32bit multitasking.
-mrk
Pixelated!
cybe...@eworld.com (CYBERC0M) wrote:
>does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
Why don't you make this claim to the folks at PARC. And then duck the
clubs they throw at you.
Pioneered, my foot. Shamelessly copied, you mean, and then *claimed*
they'd thought it up.
pi...@shore.net pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu pi...@basenji.com
An it harm none, do as thou wilt.
Will hack Symix for food.
DanielT722
the clubs they throw at you.
Pioneered, my foot. Shamelessly copied, you mean, and then *claimed*
they'd thought it up."
No, Apple *bought* the technology they saw at PARC. In exchange for Apple
stock (and not a small amount), Xerox gave Jobs and crew a tour of PARC
with the understanding that they would take ideas with them. Ideas weren't
as closely guarded in those days.
Further, the Mac team improved the original concepts considerably. Pick up
some texts which cover the Xerox Star, the creation of the Mac, and that
time in PC history for detailed info.
Daniel
Judas Iscariot
>> They let you out of your straight jacket long enough to type that?
>> If macs got any slower, they'd be going backwards (like the poor
>> sod's that buy them...).
>Slow? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA....... Apparently in your Ignorant stupor you
>forgot about a little chip called the 604. Ever heard of it? Its every bit
>as fast as a pentium PRO and costs about a third as much. And speaking of
>slow, Win95 is perhaps the slowest OS I have EVER used. If macs suck why
>does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
>suck, why then is the costomer satisfaction up around 95%? Mac's are every
>bit a "real" computer as anything else out there; just because it doesnt
>have mant problems than Windows or DOS dosn't mean that its inferior. The
>simple fact that it is less problematic suggests that it is MORE advanced
>and not simply a toy. I choose Mac because it is the FUTURE and any one
>that disagrees, email me, I'll be more than happy to send you Indepented
>tests, polls, interviews or any thing else supporting my claim. And I love
>to debate........
Here it is folks, we are looking at the insane ravings of a genuine,
certified graduate of Mac Brainwashing 101. I am really shocked that
he didn't comment on how the Macintrash is sooo pretty to look at too.
DanielT722
-mrk"
Yeah, too bad Microsuck can't seem to write a decent 32-bit OS for the
masses. How long are they going to tease people with Win95 before they
give users a real, NT-based personal OS?
Daniel
S. Carver Anderson
machines. I started out on the Apple IIe, and it was great at the time.
I will also keep a place in my heart for the company (not the machine)
that pioneered many aspects of personal compuing. But you speak of the
future? Get with it dude. Your oracle has expired.
John Goerzen
: > They let you out of your straight jacket long enough to type that?
: > If macs got any slower, they'd be going backwards (like the poor
: > sod's that buy them...).
: Slow? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA....... Apparently in your Ignorant stupor you
: forgot about a little chip called the 604. Ever heard of it? Its every bit
: as fast as a pentium PRO and costs about a third as much. And speaking of
: slow, Win95 is perhaps the slowest OS I have EVER used. If macs suck why
: does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
You have just proved for yourself that Macs suck. You say Win95 is slow (I
agree) and you say Win95 copies everything from Apple, thus they must have
copied their slowness from Apple (MacOS is even slower).
: suck, why then is the costomer satisfaction up around 95%? Mac's are every
: bit a "real" computer as anything else out there; just because it doesnt
: have mant problems than Windows or DOS dosn't mean that its inferior. The
A Mac comes nowhere NEAR my FreeBSD machine.
: simple fact that it is less problematic suggests that it is MORE advanced
: and not simply a toy. I choose Mac because it is the FUTURE and any one
: that disagrees, email me, I'll be more than happy to send you Indepented
: tests, polls, interviews or any thing else supporting my claim. And I love
: to debate........
Tell me something that a Mac can do that my FreeBSD machine can't.
--
John Goerzen, programmer and owner | Freedom..liberty..justice..democracy|
Communications Centre, Goessel, KS | ..limits on free spech on the Net...|
Main e-mail: jgoe...@complete.org | Which one doesn't belong? |
ALE
<mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
> CYBERC0M wrote:
> > slow, Win95 is perhaps the slowest OS I have EVER used. If macs suck why
> > does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
>
> Please, stop comparing Windoze and Dos to macs... this is a hardware
> discussion, not an os discussion... if you want to talk about Os's
> compare bsd, os2 and linux to your lame little macOs. all three of
> those run on a PC, and all three have true 32bit multitasking.
> -mrk
Yeah and two of those run on Mac and both have true 32-bit multi-tasking.
Live and learn. Macs still don't run OS/2.
ALE
> >forgot about a little chip called the 604. Ever heard of it? Its every bit
> >as fast as a pentium PRO and costs about a third as much. And speaking of
> >does Microcrap isist on copying everthing Apple has pioneered? If macs
> >bit a "real" computer as anything else out there; just because it doesnt
> >have mant problems than Windows or DOS dosn't mean that its inferior. The
> >and not simply a toy. I choose Mac because it is the FUTURE and any one
> >that disagrees, email me, I'll be more than happy to send you Indepented
> >tests, polls, interviews or any thing else supporting my claim. And I love
> >to debate........
>
> certified graduate of Mac Brainwashing 101. I am really shocked that
> he didn't comment on how the Macintrash is sooo pretty to look at too.
HEY! Just because PCs are ugly, doesn't mean thats the reason why we think
Macs are better! :-)
And by the way, just because you don't want to hear them, doesn't mean
facts are Brainwash!!!
ALE
ALE
<mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
> David Lewis wrote:
> >
> > How does this make him a insane and raving? These are facts. Also, the mac
> > has been 32 bit for years. It currently only does cooperative
> > multitasking, but that will change with Copland.
>
> the ibm has been 32bit for years as well.
THE OS AND SOFTWARE?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Nice try! Thanks for playing! Come again lat... ever.... hmmm... at all?
ALE
mrkite
> > the ibm has been 32bit for years as well.
>
> THE OS AND SOFTWARE?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
> Nice try! Thanks for playing! Come again lat... ever.... hmmm... at all?
>
> ALE
No moron. If people NEEDED to have 32bit software back in 1985, it would
have been easy to program. The 386 (1985) had multitasking and
protected mode. The fact is, the people didn't need to utilize this
feature until years later. This doesn't mean that it's any less
powerful, in fact it means it was more powerful. YEARS later, the same
machine still serves nicely for some people. I know many 386 owners...
and it's over a decade old now... how many people are still using those
mac classics?
-mrk
DanielT722
people are still using those mac classics?"
You don't hang out at very many colleges, do you?
Pluses/SE's/Classics are loaned out and used frequently, even today,
though this is changing. What I want to know is - how many 8086 machines
are still in use?
Daniel
DanielT722
#1: no textmode. (this may be subjective, but the macintosh doesn't even
give you the OPTION of having a textmode...)"
AppleScript can let you do everything a CLI can and more. And there are
text shells for Mac OS (though heaven knows why anyone would use them).
re: "#2: No option to write directly to periferals. (this is a coding
complaint)"
As if we don't have enough problems trying to write solid software today,
now you want to be able to muck around with the external hardware and just
screw the OS? Thanks but no thanks, give me a clean API any day and leave
the internals to the engineers who know about them. I don't want to have
to know about their work any more than they want to have to know about
mine.
Perhaps this attitude difference is part of the reason why Win upgrades
are such hell as compared to Mac OS upgrades.
re: "You only asked for 2... so there are my two...
now how about 2 reasons pc's are worse than macs?"
1) Ancient CISC architecture.
2) Loose and aging hardware standards defy attempts at PnP and
auto-configuration.
3) The "you add it later" design makes it difficult to tightly integrate
various features (audio/video I/O; high-speed universal peripheral I/O;
multimedia components; etc).
Does this mean that PC's suck? No. Each platform has its strengths and
weaknesses.
Daniel
Kevin Phillips
>
> re: "Please, stop comparing Windoze and Dos to macs... this is a hardware
> discussion, not an os discussion... if you want to talk about Os's
> compare bsd, os2 and linux to your lame little macOs. all three of
> those run on a PC, and all three have true 32bit multitasking."
>
> operating systems.
>
But its currently the best yardstick available to judge the power and
usefulness of a PC.
> Drag-n-drop OS extensions with no configuration hassles what-so-ever rank
> pretty high as well, especially with computer users more interested in
> their work than in the intimate details of the machine.
>
Or, that is, computer users unwilling to learn a little about what's under the
hood of their machine. You ignorant MAC users are to computers as the blonde
bimbo is to automobiles; Changing a spare tire or checking the oil? Not on your
life. Care about the speed and acceleration? Nah. Just as long as the thing
gets you where you want to go, doesn't matter if its slow and inefficient.
> The ability to update the OS, install software, and get rid of software
> with simple mouse movements and no configuration problems or startup
> difficulties also ranks pretty high.
>
Gee, sounds like you're describing my Pent 100 running Windows 95.. hmmm..
> A slick interface with powerful help features certainly isn't necessary
> for the "real man" computer user, but many others actually like the smooth
> operation and assistance. You see, they don't have time for CS 101.
>
Well, to be truly productive with a computer, you need to know a few basis
things. But could your above reasoning explain why the typical MAC has no eject
button for the floppy? (IE.. too complicated to use for those who do not have
time for CS 101, etc etc)
> Perhaps some enjoy playing with all of the various components needed to
> run multimedia titles. Then again, others would prefer they just ran.
>
I've installed internet connectivity software on ALOT of machines in my day..
MACs, AMIGAs, all sorts of PC's (even 386's), and the MAC, by far, has to be
the most inept and slowest machine I have ever seen. Sure, the application runs
--FINALLY-- after waiting and waititng and waiting.
What gets me is watching the dog-slow machine redraw the windows line by line
while a large program is running.. even on a machine with lots of memory. Don't
make the mistake of using the mouse to enlarge a window. The computer will
appear 'locked up' while it does -- SOMETHING --, and will buffer up anything
else you input for the next few seconds. Then, quite suddenly, it will return
to normal and execute everything you might have done.. pathetic.
> And while mastering every intimate detail of a large corporate network is
> truly the lifeblood of some in our world, others could get along just fine
> if the machine would network itself.
>
You are arguing for the uninformed idiot who refuses to learn. Instead, people
should just 'settle' for a simpler, slower machine: A Commodore 64-running GEOS
in a fancy box. This is truly sad.
> Every OS has its strengths and weaknesses. Surely multitasking is not Mac
> OS 7.5's greatest strength. It is, after all, cooperative multitasking.
>
???????
Euphamism for "single tasking computer in a multitasking world". This is why
MAC is destined to FOLD. Its already coming into sight! I can't wait.
Multitasking is not, to the rest of us, simply a 'feature' of our machines
that can be compared to your list of advantages.. (ie ability to
install/uninstall with a single click, powerful help features, etc) It is an
underlying tool that makes the OS much, much more efficient. The multitasking
nature is totally transparent, and it shows itself best when you DON'T NOTICE
IT.
There's just something about being able to play a hardware intense game like
DOOM II or Hexen while my website runs in the 'background', along with Netscape
2.0 and whatever else. But, then again, the ability to easily expand the memory
of my machine to 192 megs is nice.. but 32 works just fine right now.
> But be careful the reasons you choose for calling an OS "lame". When it
> comes to taking care of itself, Mac OS makes the even the mightiest OSes
> look like newborn infants.
>
Huh?? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA! Taking careof itself? Infants? Man, you >>ARE<<
twisted. The Commodore 64 'took care of itself' in exactly the same manner you
are talking about. And it is still on the same comparative level to that 8 bit
monstrosity.
The MAC is the enbodiment of the ignorant 'consumer' mentality that manifests
itself in the computer world. It is not suprising at all to me that you also
use AOL. Typical. Another example of "consumer level" ignorance. I pity you.
Kevin
DanielT722
work, not would it be wanted... we actually compile what we want and
don't want in the os. (meaning it's an internal features that we can
change)"
That's all very nice, but it's still something that it cannot do. Drag n
drop OS extension is easy for even the novice. Compiling in features is
powerful, but requires more knowledge, time and effort. Both have
strengths and weaknesses.
re: "2: plug and play has downpoints: for example, there's ALWAYS more
than one way to use hardware, if someone writes a driver which works
fasterthan another, we have the option of using it. (plus its slow because
the system has to be scanning all the ports for ALL devices that could
possibly be inserted)"
You make a false assumption, that Mac users are stuck with "built-in"
drivers. Not true, you can drag n drop whatever you want to use. There are
several different commercial drivers for CD-ROMs, for instance, that offer
more features than the plain old Mac OS driver.
As for scanning, I certainly don't mind that a few of those MIPS are used
at startup to check for new devices. That's not the reason why Mac OS
starts up slow.
re: "3: voice recognition hasn't taken off because we don't want to talk
to
our computers... This isn't a movie. (yes, there IS software that has
good voice recognition... there's also software that lets you DRAW your
commands using a graphics tablet (or your mouse) and these aren't
popular because the keyboard works just as fast)"
I want to talk to my computer for some commands. Properly used, voice
recognition can speed up your work. And I beg to differ regarding "drawing
commands". The fastest programming languages, for most tasks, I've
seen/used are graphical languages. Off topic, I know....
re: "4: My system says "welcome to linux" everytime i log in. It also
reads
local news, and scans for new email everytime I boot up... "
Welcome to linux is good enough...there's no MS logo ;-) You can make just
about any computer do what you want a startup, however.
Daniel
DanielT722
still
in use..."
Uh, no. The SE uses a 68000 CPU, first generation. A 386 is a 3rd
generation x86 chip, comparable to the 68030. Again, how many 8086
machines are still in use?
re: "btw, read my return address. I AM at college. We have mac, pc, and
sun labs... the mac lab is full of Scheme programmers for csc127, the pc
labs and the sun labs are the most crowded, with us C programmers for
csc227 and higher."
I'm not sure if you intended to imply anything with that, but I won't
assume....
And I'll bet if you search the dorms you would find a few Pluses and SE's
and Classics still in service. And a "shitload" of '030 based or higher
systems. Though I could be wrong, I don't know what you define as a
"shitload" ;-)
Daniel
Lex Friedman
<mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
*#1: no textmode. (this may be subjective, but the macintosh doesn't even
*give you the OPTION of having a textmode...)
Wrong. The highly-vauled, often discussed Programmer's (Interrupt) Switch
offers just that. It is available through one key or a key combo on any
Mac or Mac compatible. In fact, in "DOS Easy", PC guru John Fern says
"Although powerful, DOS can't hold an unlit candle to the power and
abilities of the Macintosh Programmer's Switch." (page 34)
*#2: No option to write directly to periferals. (this is a coding
*complaint)
There are several INITs that allow just that.
*
*You only asked for 2... so there are my two...
How about two real reasons?
*now how about 2 reasons pc's are worse than macs?
More expensive
Much less compatible with other platforms
Lex Friedman ,,, On IRC: Quam
---------...@epix.net---------------ooO(o o)Ooo------------
"Dead puppies aren't much fun." (_)
A.C. Online: Making the Internet - and you - a little cooler.
Rush to http://www.epix.net/~lexf/ac.html
Weird Al For President in 1996: http://www.epix.net/~lexf/al.html
www.apple.com - how Microsoft finds where they want to go today
John Goerzen
: Everything is said is 100% accurate.
: -The 604 is easisly as fast as the Pentium Pro
: -Apple Customer satisfaction is around 95%
: -WIN95 is painfully slow (ok, this is subjective, I have tried it though
: and that apple menu, opps, I mean start menu, is ****painfully**** slow to
: draw on a Pentium 100. Painful!)
How come it appeared instantly on my 486?
: How does this make him a insane and raving? These are facts. Also, the mac
: has been 32 bit for years. It currently only does cooperative
: multitasking, but that will change with Copland.
Anyway, FreeBSD clearly beats MacOS in everything that counts.
DanielT722
the
P7 is still fully compatible with software written over a decade before
it!"
Oh, but wait! The software written a decade ago runs s-l-o-w on the P7. Oh
no, the 604 is catching up because of this! Wait, the 604 is out of the
race. What's AIM doing? OH NO!!! It's the 630! And a 700 MHz BiCMOS
604e!!!! The P7 is dying!!!!!!
;-)
Daniel
John Goerzen
: re: "You have just proved for yourself that Macs suck. You say Win95 is
: slow (I agree) and you say Win95 copies everything from Apple, thus they
: must have copied their slowness from Apple (MacOS is even slower)."
: No, they invented sluggishness all on their own.
I tend to think that both OSs are sluggish.
: re: "A Mac comes nowhere NEAR my FreeBSD machine."
: That depends on what you define as "near". A mile? A hundred miles? I'm
: sure there are probably Macs within a hundred miles of you. If we are to
: take a Cyberspace view, then they touch your machine probably every time
: your surf the Web ;-)
I meant in terms of features, etc....but you make an interesting point :-)
: re: "Tell me something that a Mac can do that my FreeBSD machine can't."
: I don't know for sure, as I have not had the opportunity to play with
: FreeBSD, which I hear is an excellent OS. So I'm honestly asking:
: 1) Drag and drop OS extensions to add/remove them?
I am not quite certain what you mean by OS extensions.....
The FreeBSD equivolent to this is to uncomment or comment a line in the
kernel configuration file. Or, there are many libraries that can be loaded
at runtime. A single command can add a module to the kernel and most can be
unloaded later. For instance, the FreeBSD Linux emulator is a Loadable
Kernel Module (LKM) that is loaded with a single command.
: 2) Plug and play _all_ hardware?
No platform supports plug and play on all hardware. On a PC, this is a
hardware issue more than a software one. However, FreeBSD's Generic kernel
does an excellent job of this.
FreeBSD admittedly does not recognize all hardware w/o configuration. This
is only due to the incredible diversity on the PC platform and the vast
configuration options.
: 3) Recognize your voice commands?
AFAIK, there is not yet a program to do that under FreeBSD. But would you
like to say:
"l y n x space h t t p colon slash slash w w w period p g p period n e t
slash p g p n e t / tilde capitol f capitol t capitol p zero one period h t
mm l semicolon e x i t"
The FreeBSD interface simply is so different from MacOS interface that it
does not lend itself to this.
: 4) Smile at you at startup and paint "Welcome to Macintosh" across the
: screen? ;-)
I believe it prints "Welcome to FreeBSD!" on the screen during bootup, but
it flashes by quickly :-)
I'll have to make a kernel hack to add the smile <g>
: Just a few suggestions, although I'm sure you could come up with a few
: FreeBSD advantages to ;-)
The voice command is something that FreeBSD does not currently do AFAIK.
(There may be such software for X under Unix, in which case it would also
run under FreeBSD).
Some of my favorite FreeBSD/Unix features:
- In two minutes, I can add a dialup line
- I can call up my computer from anywhere in the world and run commands on
it
- I can do timesharing and graphical timesharing over a serial connection
- Multiple users can be logged in concurrently
- Security measures prevent users from messing with others' data
- Lots and lots of totally free software
- Free C and C++ compilers
- Free, powerful scripting languages like Perl, Tcl, and TK
- Native TCP/IP support (Internet)
- Automatic printer conversion
(converts, for example, PostScript output to LaserJet output if you are
printing on a different printer. No need to select drivers!)
- sendmail
- wu-ftpd
- Pine and Elm
- Tin
- Very powerful and fast command line
- Ability to read and write data in huge numbers of formats (Mac, DOS, Win,
OS/2, Amiga, Unix, etc) and archiving formats (tar, zip, lha, zoo,
uuencode, binhex, MacBinary) and document formats (PostScript, *roff, HTML,
TeX, LaTeX, etc)
- Full online documentation (all the printed manuals are online instead)
Of course, commercial Unices will give you even more.
Andrew Yalowitz
>re: "I know many 386 owners...and it's over a decade old now... how many
>people are still using those mac classics?"
>You don't hang out at very many colleges, do you?
>Pluses/SE's/Classics are loaned out and used frequently, even today,
>though this is changing. What I want to know is - how many 8086 machines
>are still in use?
What fucking college do you go to?? Here at Virginia Tech all of the CS, CPE, and EE's are either
running Dec Alpha's with NT or Pentium's... Apple][+ ? Ha! I'm a major IBM fan, but I'm not blind to
the impact Mac's are having across my campus. The music department loves them... Mac's are just
plain ass better at some things than others. For those of us who do real work, like designing
computer and operating systems, we something with pure power. Dec Alpha's and Pentium Pros! Do you
really think that Apple designed Mac on an Apple][2? I doubt it!
The whole damn point is, there just isn't anything you can do on a Apple][ outside of word
processing. Likewise, there isn't much one can do on a 286. I happen to be using a 386 to run Linux,
an I have it etherneted to the campus servers to do a majority of my work on. My 486 I use for Web
browsing, and my Pentium90 I use for design.
Anony-mouse
John Goerzen
: re: "Gee, the Unix software written a decade ago compiles 32-bit in
: FreeBSD and thus runs very quickly on P7."
: That's an amazing feat of FreeBSD considering that THE P7 DOESN'T EVEN
: EXIST YET!!!!!
: People, READ the post before responding! That was P *7*, not P6!
Oops <sheepish grin>
Typo...
mrkite
> Just one thing(I realy don't know that much about BSD) with FreeBSD can
> you plop a 2 1/2 year old on it and let him run the system?(let alone beat
> lemmings?) or FIND his Education programs?? And run 5 of them at one
> time?? (nothing about BSD multitasking i'm sure it has very good
> multitasking BUT The macs program, system meshing is the easiest i've
> seen)
>
> This may not seem important But the 2 1/2 year old knows more about
> computers than some new users I have seen.
>
> Allthough I don't know if this is a good thing.........I think I need
> LaunchPad..
No he couldn't. I think that he should go play on his Sony Playstation,
and leave the computer to those who know what they're doing. The PC is
a "big-boy's" toy.
Could you put a 2 1/2 year old in a car and let him drive?
Plus, what you don't know can hurt you. Mac users don't want to know
how their computer works (same w/ windoze users) and they'll get burned
for it later.
-mrk
ALE
> David Lewis (lew...@tuns.ca) wrote:
>
> : Everything is said is 100% accurate.
>
> : -The 604 is easisly as fast as the Pentium Pro
> : -Apple Customer satisfaction is around 95%
> : -WIN95 is painfully slow (ok, this is subjective, I have tried it though
> : and that apple menu, opps, I mean start menu, is ****painfully**** slow to
> : draw on a Pentium 100. Painful!)
>
> How come it appeared instantly on my 486?
Because you paid an exstra $1000 to buy a P-133.
> Anyway, FreeBSD clearly beats MacOS in everything that counts.
We have that. Big deal.
ALE
pi...@shore.net
-0800, mrkite <mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
>The textmode is the fastest video mode. For those of us who deal with
>textfiles (programming, newsgroups, irc) the textmode is the best,
>because more time is spent on content than trying to display it pretty.
Yah, tell me about it. Compare emacs versus, say, Microsoft Developer
Studio for respective code-editing speed. Note I say speed, *not*
ease. MSVC++ is certainly *easier* to use, but I'd rather pump out
raw code the fastet way possible, and I can usually out-type most
programmer's editors.
pi...@shore.net
-0800, mrkite <mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
>Elmer G. Croan Jr. wrote:
>Linux is NOT available for suns... and the dec has only BETA versions
>out. Suns run SunOS...
Yes, but you can *get* the Alpha version, can't you?
>For linux I went to /usr/src/linux and typed "make config" i kept
>hitting enter until I got to the part about CDroms, then I said "n" for
>panasonic cdrom (my old one) and "y" for atapi cdrom. I then typed
>"make zImage" to compile the new kernel, and copied the file to /vmlinuz
>then ran "lilo" and reboot... worked great.
Next time, do a "make zlilo" after the "make zImage" :)
>Now you're thinking, hey that was a lot to do... maybe it was, maybe it
>wasn't. All I know is that it is 2nd nature to me, and there were no
>problems because I knew what I was doing.
You could've skipped the make config by editing /usr/src/linux/CONFIG
or whatever directly, but why bother? It takes a whopping two minutes
to run the script, and if you can't handle *that*, you're probably not
even up to doing the bubble tests they use in school.
>they cost more? On the pc both Linux and FreeBSD are free. You can get
>linux from ftp.cdrom.com /pub/linux/slackware3.0 and there are hundreds
>of other ftp sites which carry linux. I dont' know any sites off hand
>for freeBSD because I prefer linux.
Well, cdrom.com has it as well, or you could try freebsd.com, I think.
>Now if you want to buy a Sun, I understand the cost... but us Software
>professionals will be perfectly happy on a PC or Unisys system.
Well, if I had a client who had mission-critical work, I'd suggest a
Sun over Linux, but only because business drones tend to be overly
conservative and would freak out at the idea of a free OS ("who can I
call for tech support?" springs irresistably to mind, (answer: Cygnus)
but that's not the point. :) ) No offense intended to business
drones. :)
>> > Well here you go again comparing FreeBSD to the MACOS it just seems that you don't get it.
>> Hell LINUX 1.1.59 ( not current version by a long shot ) can run Games such as DOOM much
>> faster than a PC running 4DOS ( yep PC's don't even run MSDOS for the really good games
^^^^
Good man.
>extender does is give doom and descent flat memory. You don't even need
Well, more than that, or you wouldn't bother using them--it's not
*that* hard to get protected mode and/or flat mode.
>But that's true... Linux 1.1.59 runs doom much faster than dos. Plus
>it's multitasking... I can change windows or consoles while I'm playing
Yeah. Try having two FTP sessions, two telnets, and a kernel compile
going on the Mac simultaneously. Well, barring the fact you couldn't
do a kernel compile...
>(not good while out in the open, you'll get your ass kicked just
>standing there ;)
Hahahahahahahaha. :)
pi...@shore.net
danie...@aol.com (DanielT722) wrote:
>Bull. Mac's come with more ports than PC's dream of in the factory. If it
Nope. Think of things like the Cyclades MUX. Ever hear of a
sixteen-port serial board? Know any macs *you* would feel comfortable
using along with twenty or thirty others *at the same time* under a
timesharing system? Linux/FreeBSDers do it all the time on PCs.
>Whether or not there are more brands available has nothing to do with it.
>The max number of attachable devices is still the same.
Yes, but it's higher than you seem to think it is.
>re: "Voice recognition still is buggy and has many problems on any
>platform."
>Dictation maybe, but command recognition works just fine on a Power Mac
>with enough spare RAM.
But why would you even want to do so? "Start Word. Open So-and-so
document" Aiiieeee. Get it away!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Voice recognition is ultimately useless *except* for dictation. Well,
except for handicapped users. Your life isn't measured by the number
of ergs your muscles expend, so it's not as if you *need* to save your
hands for more important tasks. Oh, ok, I suppose you could think of
some examples where voice recognition might be useful, but as a
generalized everyday activity? Sure, I can just see the crowded
office now, with everyone telling the computer what to do. Talk about
noise pollution. Wait till the bean counters find out how much it
costs to soundproof all those cubbys. Watch the voice recognition
software be removed.
mrkite
>
> re: "But the 8086 was released far before the Mac. The 386 was from the
> same time period as that chip."
>
> Again, no. The 286 is closer to the time period (and capability) of the
> SE's and Pluses. The '386 may have been out, but so was the '030, and
> since they are comparable they should be compared to each other.
>
> Daniel
When did the mac come out? I thought it made it's debut in 83 or 84...
and the 386 came out early 84... the 286 came out in 82...
-mrk
mrkite
>
> Uhhh, really?
> The P7 hasn't even seen beta silicon yet,
> and word has it that it WON'T be backward compatable(infoworld).
>
Infoworld is wrong... just because it is RISC doesn't mean it can't
handle programs written for CISC... if so, what good are RISC chips?!
-mrk
torro
THIS IS A BINARY GROUP NOT A FUCKING WAR ZONE.
IF YOU WANT A WAR ZONE START A NEW NEWS GROUP ALT.MAC.SUCKS OR ALT.IBM.SUCKS
JUST STOP THIS CHILDISH AND WASTEFULL STRING
IN CASE YOU DIDN'T REALIZE THIS IS ALT...WAREZ...
GROW UP
YOUR WORSE THAN LOSE LOSERS IN THE us GOVERNMENT
THOSE BLOOD CRAZED MINDLESS IDIOTS WHO WOULD RATHER SPEND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON WAR
MACHINES AND SPLATTER THE BRAINS OF INOCENT PEOPLE IN SOME OF WORLD COUNTRY AND GET
INVOLVED WHERE THEY DON'T BELONG WHILE PEOPLE ARE STARVING AND JOBLESS IN usA.
gO FIGURE THOSE MINDLESS FUCKHEADS OF HELL GONE BAD. AND THE KENEDYIES WHO WERE IN OFFICE
FOR SO LONG MADE THERE GREAT FORTUNE SELLING ILLEAGLE DRUGS AT THE TIME.
THE MENTALLITY OF usA SUCKS.
BLOOD THIRSTY FUCK HEADS.
On Sun, 03 Mar 1996 10:35:36 -0800, "Elmer G. Croan Jr." <egc...@iamerica.net> wrote:
>|John Goerzen wrote:
>|>
>|> Tygyr (z...@zz.zz.zz.zz) wrote:
>|>
>|> : ******************************************************************************
>|> : * MY CHALLENGE *
>|> : ******************************************************************************
>|>
>|> : My challenge to PC users is:
>|>
>|> : How exactly is the Macintosh 'worse' than a PC? In what ways? Provide
>|> : at least two answers.
>|>
>|> First, reliability. I am running FreeBSD on my PC and it is much more
>|> reliable than MacOS. I have never yet experienced a single crash on my
>|> FreeBSD machine. Ever. And I'm a programmer and since I'm human, I do make
>|> my share of errors. They've never crashed the OS, though.
>|>
>|
>|I say I don't believe you actually addressed his question since the MAC can also run a
>|form of unix ( ie Linux ) I don't believe we are talking exactly fairly.
>|I mena everything you are bragging about is because of FreeBSD and not MS-DOS !!
>|>
>|> : 'PCs are cheaper than Macs'
>|>
>|> That is true. Macs force you to get all sorts of things you may not need.
>|> Why do you need a sound card or color to type memos? You can get a PC with
>|> a B&W VGA monitor and no sound card for much less than a Mac. Macs force
>|> you to get unnecessary hardware.
>|>
>|> : 'PCs are more powerful than Macs' (HA!)
>|> Here again you answered with FreeBSD and not MS-DOS it must be you know he is right the
>|MAC_OS is better than MightySorry DOS so you again wanting to win the arguement are
>|replying with something not purely a PC operating system. I amgain repeat LINUX is avail
>|for the MAC and soon the POWERPC ...Hell LINUX is available for SUN SPARCS and DEC ALPHA
>|class machines and talk about bury you a ALPHA is 2-3 times fater than even the fastest or
>|soon to be released fastet P6's chips ...
>|
>|> Your Mac CANNOT read Unix formats. That is a flat-out lie. Just to make
>|> sure, I formatted a FreeBSD floppy and took it over to a Mac. The Mac did
>|> not read it.
>|
>|Hell your PC in MS-DOS can't read all the formats of the world, see your below comments
>|here agin you are preaching about FreeBSD, clearly not MS-DOS.
>|
>|> : 'PCs can use multimedia' (Adding a CD ROm drive doesn't mean multimedia, friend.
>|> : And Macs have a lot more than this)
>|
>|Have you ever added a CD-ROM from scratch on a PC or better yet changed to a different one
>|as compared to a MAC ?? I have and let me tell you even thou it is better than DOS 5.0 and
>|Windows 3.0 baby it aint much better and it doesn't even comapre to the memory model of
>|MACOS ...yep this was our biggest problem with the ($@#$# ing PC was getting in there and
>|finding out why when we opened a second application in Windows we could no longer read the
>|CD or drive D: ....Wow was this fun to try and fix since MIS only supported the MS memory
>|manager...well in the back door came a Quarterdeck product and we did a few XXXX or
>|exclude memroy staement s and it finally worked ..One week later and without the help of
>|MIS..... Oh the MAC product ( we were doing an evaluation ) worked right out of the box
>|since the MACOS does linear memory since the MC68000 family of processors can handle this
>|easily since they don't have banked memory system that is tied hopelessly into a Z80 at
>|64K banks this also makes compilers have to do extra work .... ( nuff said another
>|conversation entirely )
>|>
>|
>|> So you're to embarassed by the results you will get to have them on a public
>|> newsgroup? Well, surprise! I'm posting this to a newsgroup too!
>|> Yeah I am embarassed you are making such a fool out of yourself, you must agree with him
>|about MS-DOS being sorry all you keep saying is how great FreeBSD is. I don't htink you
>|will get any arguments from anybody here that UNIX is the operating syetem of choice when
>|it comes to pweople who want to be in control of their paltforms. I use all three
>|paltforms and must say I feel that for the enduser who doesn't want to be digging around
>|in the innards of the OS trying to make something work out of the box it is the MACOS that
>|is the winner here! I still prefere the UNIX workstations but they cost more and are for
>|Engineers and Software professional who can't do the same job on MS-DOS not matter what..
>|>
>|
>|> How come my FreeBSD on a clone 486DX2/80 (clone processor even) is faster
>|> than a PowerMac then?
>|> Well here you go again comparing FreeBSD to the MACOS it just seems that you don't get it.
>|Hell LINUX 1.1.59 ( not current version by a long shot ) can run Games such as DOOM much
>|faster than a PC running 4DOS ( yep PC's don't even run MSDOS for the really good games
>|that require reliable memory management and speed ... DOOM DESCENT all run another DOS
>|watch the bootup messages if you don't believe me )
>|>
>|
>|>
>|> : There is no material more inappropriate for a PC case than solid steel.
>|> : It transmits shocks easily, is prone to reverberation, expands and
>|> : contracts to a massive degree, is not flexible, the paint is not
>|> : durable and is heavy. Plastic is a greater shock absorber and basically
>|> : does not have any of these problems.
>|>
>|
>|Actually the Metal box does serve as a way to get a very cheap piece os harware from
>|causing too much RF interference ... I mean remember years ago when the FCC showed up at
>|COMDEX and wrote all the fines to people who were selling PC Clone box that had not
>|received the necessary FCC Class B ( HOME !! ) sticker in fact many were only capable of
>|the Class A ( industrial ) sticker which is three times as much allowable radiation...
>|Hmmmm seems to me those little metal can may help some, however if Apple could achieve
>|these stickers ( remember they started out home machines ) from the beginning well my hat
>|is off to them. Oh yeah BTW ATARI and AMIGA'a machines have always been Class B since they
>|were home machines from the beginning.
>|> --
>|
>|Well I surrender the soapbox over to someone else now .....
>|
>|BC
Kevin Davis
>re: "Please, stop comparing Windoze and Dos to macs... this is a hardware
>discussion, not an os discussion... if you want to talk about Os's
>compare bsd, os2 and linux to your lame little macOs. all three of
>those run on a PC, and all three have true 32bit multitasking."
>"True" 32-bit multitasking is not the be all and end all of computer
>operating systems.
True, but it is a very nice feature to have. BTW, what in your mind
is the end all be all of computer OS's?
>Drag-n-drop OS extensions with no configuration hassles what-so-ever rank
>pretty high as well, especially with computer users more interested in
>their work than in the intimate details of the machine.
What do you consider to be configuration hassles?
>The ability to update the OS, install software, and get rid of software
>with simple mouse movements and no configuration problems or startup
>difficulties also ranks pretty high.
This largely depends on the software itself, not the OS. (except in
the case of OS updates)
>A slick interface with powerful help features certainly isn't necessary
>for the "real man" computer user, but many others actually like the smooth
>operation and assistance. You see, they don't have time for CS 101.
Hmmm, I would've thought those with no time for CS101 would benefit
from a slick interface with powerful help features.
>Perhaps some enjoy playing with all of the various components needed to
>run multimedia titles. Then again, others would prefer they just ran.
What OS has difficulty "just running" multimedia?
>And while mastering every intimate detail of a large corporate network is
>truly the lifeblood of some in our world, others could get along just fine
>if the machine would network itself.
True.
>But be careful the reasons you choose for calling an OS "lame".
I would agree with you on this one. Different needs and preferences
result in different choices. The last thing we would want is to have
any one single company have a total monopoly with an OS.
mrkite
> Bull. Mac's come with more ports than PC's dream of in the factory. If it
> Mac standard on ports) it's only because the architecture is aging and
> patched in places.
>
> Whether or not there are more brands available has nothing to do with it.
> The max number of attachable devices is still the same.
My Scsi card (for PC) can control 12 scsi devices... I think that's MORE
than necessary. I also have 5 PCI ports and 3 ISA ports. What's inside
right now? Videocard(pci), soundcard(isa), modem(pci),
diskdrives(scsi), 10baseT ethernet(pci). That leaves 2 PCI ports open,
2 ISA ports, and 8 SCSI ports. Now I see the limitation of parallel
ports ans serial ports... my printer and scanner share the parallel
port(a y connection handles it, but i can't print and scan at the same
time :) and my mouse takes up the serial port...
then again, i can't think of anything else to hook up to my computer...
aside from the graphics tablet under my bed...
-mrk
mrkite
> > than your Mac. Name one thing your Mac can do that FreeBSD had no
> > equivolent for. I can name many things FreeBSD can do that your MacOS
> > can't.
>
> Like?
>
FreeBSD is telnetable. Nuff said.
Linux supports the following net protocols:
tcp/ip
ipx
netBeui
SMB
NFS
AppleTalk
Amature Radio
and others.
>
> Macs have BETTER graphics programs and BETTER graphic cards.
>
Oh suure they do. 3d studio is 2nd only to an SGI machine in the
computer art industry...
Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
-mrk
Aimee Devereaux
> In article <ender-02039...@199.212.152.46>, en...@interlog.comV
says...
> >Having no familiarity with FreeBSD, but here goes anyway. Can your FreeBSD
> >run Marathon?
>
> I saw Marathon this weekend (Marathon 2 to be exact), and did you ever notice
> that it has striking similarities between it and the DOOM engine? I
didn't see
> any sloping floors, sectors on sectors or anything that corrects the flaws in
> DOOM...
> --
> +====Tod Weitzel====+
> |t...@wile.thetech.org|
> +===================+
If you want to argue M2 vs Doom2 you should go to alt.games.marathon.
They would make threads 90+ posts long, arguing M2 VS D2 or M2 vs Dn3d
They used to have a whole lot of this sort of crap until they realized, 1
they had to much time on there hands or 2 they had there prioritys messed
up...Maybe we should learn this here..(comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
_Adam D.
mrkite
> > Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
> > card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
>
> So what? Saying what you have without knowing what others have means nothing.
>
> ALE
But I do know what other's have... I know that 1280x1024 is one of the
highest video modes... i KNOW that 16 million colors is the most # of
colors available, and I know that 128 bits is the highest out right now.
-mrk
Eugene Regis
> On 3 Mar 1996, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > FreeBSD is a PC-only operating system.
> >
> > PCs have no "standard" OS. Many PCs don't even come with any OS
> > preinstalled.
>
> yah, right. People used to call macs a monopoly, now, if you don't have
> a pentium and win95, you're out-of-date, and can't get shit to work for
> you. Now microsoft in the monopoly.
>
> As for any UN*X OS's, they're for power, and networking, and as I
> understand it, the Mac still beats the pentium, and mac's even have their
> own networking servers.
>
> True, I'm about to install FreeBSD on my 386, but hey, just because I
> don't feel like leaving my mac on 24 hours a day to run our LAN, who
> cares? I'm a cross-platform guy, it just depends upon the task I'm
> trying to do (usually done more easily on a Mac).
>
> > In certain areas, MacOS is better than DOS. FreeBSD is not available for
> > the Mac.
>
> for the 6100DOS, you can install it. But the mac also has UNIX-type OS's
>
> > I never claimed Win3.0 is better than MacOS.
>
> "PC's are better than mac's" is kind of a blanket statement....
>
> > Linux is PC. DOS is PC. You are arguing the virtues of one PC OS over
> > another, not PC vs. Mac.
>
> There is a Linux version for Mac.
>
> -otherguy
>
>
what the hell is this shit doing in
alt.tasteles.jokes
--
Eugene Regis
World Wide Web: http://www.york.ac.uk/~ear104
___________________________________________________
"You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment."
pi...@shore.net
-0800, mrkite <mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
>My Scsi card (for PC) can control 12 scsi devices... I think that's MORE
Nahh. My Adaptec 2940 PCI can do 15 devices, not counting itself.
>than necessary. I also have 5 PCI ports and 3 ISA ports. What's inside
four and four, on my development machine at work.
>right now? Videocard(pci), soundcard(isa), modem(pci),
>diskdrives(scsi), 10baseT ethernet(pci). That leaves 2 PCI ports open,
On-board serial/parallel. PCI video card and PCI SCSI host adapter.
ISA network card. 2 PCI slots, 3 ISA slots. I wanted a PS/2 style
mouse adapter for an extra com port but they ordered the wrong
machine.
>2 ISA ports, and 8 SCSI ports. Now I see the limitation of parallel
>ports ans serial ports... my printer and scanner share the parallel
>port(a y connection handles it, but i can't print and scan at the same
>time :) and my mouse takes up the serial port...
You can buy an expandable card that will give you three parallel
ports. There's an analogous version for 4 serial ports, if you have
enough IRQs free.
John Goerzen
otherguy <othe...@dash.com> writes:
>On 4 Mar 1996, DanielT722 wrote:
>
>> re: "I am not quite certain what you mean by OS extensions.....
>>
>> The FreeBSD equivolent to this is to uncomment or comment a line in the
>> kernel configuration file. Or, there are many libraries that can be
>> loaded
>> at runtime. A single command can add a module to the kernel and most can
>> be unloaded later. For instance, the FreeBSD Linux emulator is a Loadable
>> Kernel Module (LKM) that is loaded with a single command."
>>
>> architecture is better than the UNIX design in everything (it's not), but
>> dragging an icon over a folder is a lot easier than any configuration file
>> I've ever seen, especially to the insecure novice.
>>
>> re: "No platform supports plug and play on all hardware."
>>
>> Ahem, I beg to differ ;-)
>
>I must totally agree with the differing here. If a peice of hardware is
>made for the mac, then you can plug it in and play, if it isn't, then why
>the hell are you buying it if you don't have a mac? I lost the software
Then let me ask you this. Why...if you get a Mac modem, must you still
configure it?
>that came with my video card, (note I had to use the monitor to install
>the software), and it is currently not installed, yippity, all the
>features are still availble to me, even without the software because it
>is built into the OS.
>
>-otherguy
John Goerzen
ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
>In article <4ha095$8...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) wrote:
>
>> David Lewis (lew...@tuns.ca) wrote:
>>
>> : Everything is said is 100% accurate.
>>
>> : -The 604 is easisly as fast as the Pentium Pro
>> : -Apple Customer satisfaction is around 95%
>> : -WIN95 is painfully slow (ok, this is subjective, I have tried it though
>> : and that apple menu, opps, I mean start menu, is ****painfully**** slow to
>> : draw on a Pentium 100. Painful!)
>>
>> How come it appeared instantly on my 486?
>
>Because you paid an exstra $1000 to buy a P-133.
READ MY TYPING....I said "486". Not "Pentium"!
>> Anyway, FreeBSD clearly beats MacOS in everything that counts.
>
>We have that. Big deal.
OK, since you are sooooo convinced you have FreeBSD, go check out FreeBSD's
home page at http://www.freebsd.org and tell us all where it says that it's
available for the Mac. FreeBSD, of course, is not available for the Mac.
ALE
> diskdrives(scsi), 10baseT ethernet(pci). That leaves 2 PCI ports open,
> ports ans serial ports... my printer and scanner share the parallel
> port(a y connection handles it, but i can't print and scan at the same
> time :) and my mouse takes up the serial port...
Well... The same thing is availble for Macs.
ALE
ALE
>
> > > than your Mac. Name one thing your Mac can do that FreeBSD had no
> > > equivolent for. I can name many things FreeBSD can do that your MacOS
> > > can't.
> >
> > Like?
>
> FreeBSD is telnetable. Nuff said.
> Linux supports the following net protocols:
> tcp/ip
> ipx
> netBeui
> SMB
> NFS
> AppleTalk
> Amature Radio
May I ask, so what? All of those above that I've ever had to deal with,
my Mac supports. As for the rest, why should I care about those if the
one my Mac doesn't support, I never will need to use anyway.
> > Macs have BETTER graphics programs and BETTER graphic cards.
>
> Oh suure they do. 3d studio is 2nd only to an SGI machine in the
> computer art industry...
Lex Friedman
ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) wrote:
*In article <4hiu5f$4...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen)
*wrote:
*> Can you also read ufs and ffs disks? Have multiple OSs on a
single
drive?
*> Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
*Unsure (I don't think so), Yes, Yes, Yes.
That first one is also a yes, my friends. My Mac, which is used with many
other computers in a crowded layout office for a national magazine, is
able to read all the following disks:
ufs, ffs, Mac, ProDOS, DOS, Windows, Apple II, Apple I, Sun, Com 64
(really!), Amiga, Firestar, 2232, and more.
Lex Friedman
*> Then let me ask you this. Why...if you get a Mac modem, must you still
*> configure it?
*
*I didn't, did someone else?
No. With a MAC modem, no configuration is necessary. Note these
instructions of the Romodi external hard drive installation for Mac:
Install the driver software (La Cie Silverlining) from the disks included
after putting the device anywhere on your SCSI chain (Chapter 2). Use
terminator if it's the last device. Silverlining will load the SCSI
device if you run it.
Now, the SAME products Windows/Windows 95 instructions:
Insert the disk marked 'One.' Using File Manager, type A:\install.exe
where A:\ is your floppy drive, or the floppy drive in question. If
installation does not commence, try restarting your computer and launching
from DOS. If this does not work, call our tech support number (see inside
cover). If the installation through the six disk process
(MY INTERRUPTION: REMEMBER THE MAC HAD ONE DISK!)
continues without a hitch but the software is not on your computer, try
installing it again in Windows. Or, try restarting and installing from
DOS. If nothing works, call the tech support number.
Ah - Windows plug and play really is!
How so? Everytime someone tries it, Apple's REAL plug-and-play gets
another PLUG!
pi...@shore.net
jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960304202642.15604C-100000@dean1>,
^^^^^^^^
I've always thought this was cute.
Newsgroups line trimmed.
Kazimir Kylheku
>CYBERC0M (cybe...@eworld.com) wrote:
>: > Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
>: > card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
>
>: Its, its a 128 bit video card for the mac!! Oh and by the way,
>: 1280x1024x16mill is no big deal mine is in that res right now but wait,
>: there's more!! Mine does it with 2 megs of vram!!!
>
>What's the point? The human eye can only see 24 Bit.
Umm, sorry to break this to you, but the 128 bit doesn't refer to the width of
a pixel. The "16mill" above clearly refers to 16.7 million colors, which is 24
bit (8 bit RGB triplets).
The 128 bits refers to the width of the internal datapath between the card's
coprocessor and video memory. A wide datapath greatly speeds up operations such
as copying a rectangular window from one region to another and the rendering of
raster primitives. The fast copies are important to display systems like X,
many of whose window managers support opaque window dragging (as opposed to
repositioning a window by dragging a thin outline).
>--
>Regards,
>Anthony e-mail: to...@warp.co.uk
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Hellshok
>
> CYBERC0M (cybe...@eworld.com) wrote:
> : > Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
> : > card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
>
> : Gee, isn't that great... a 128 bit video card, but wait, whats that?!!
> : Its, its a 128 bit video card for the mac!! Oh and by the way,
> : 1280x1024x16mill is no big deal mine is in that res right now but wait,
> : there's more!! Mine does it with 2 megs of vram!!!
>
> What's the point? The human eye can only see 24 Bit.
>
> Regards,
> Anthony e-mail: to...@warp.co.uk
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cards on PC) 64 bit and 128 bit is the flow of data between the bus and the
cpu if I am not mistaken.
The human eye at birth can see little more than a 17-40 year old person.
You all have the wrong info here the Mac Number9 graphics card can have
up to 8MB of VRAM which gives 16.7 million+ colors @1600x1280
resolution on a Mac monitor which would be even higher on a PC Because
the resolution is set up differently.
PCs will never have the same clarity for publishing or color reference
just ask a professional if they want to see it perfectly they look to a Mac!!
How often do you ever see a Radius PressVeiw system hooked up to a PC?
That would be ridiculous!
+++Hellshok+++
Robert A. Decker
>
>Perhaps because you are too brainwashed to notice?
talk about brainwashed. This is coming from the guy that thinks he's
running BSD! Boy is he fooled.
>
>Dialin is not a programmer-only feature. COMPLETE online documentation is
>not a progammer-only feature. Timesharing is not a programmer-only
feature.
>Superior GUIs is not a programmer-only feature.
yes they are. prove otherwise with citations. you are a liar.
>Yes, plenty of people. Why would somebody that works with word processing
>or spreadsheets all day need the ability to play little boings?? There is
>NO reason! There are people around here that still use old PC XTs (and
even
>some people that have original PCs) that still function fine in today's
>business world. They do not need sound to type memos or work in
>spreadsheets!
you are wrong. There aren't even such things as word processors or
spreadsheets on PC's!
and it has been proven again and again that boings are needed for a good
computer to function properly. If you can't get your computer to boing then
you don't have a computer.
>Gee, I thought it was fast and easy to replace hardware on the Mac.
>(According to you Mac advocates). If that's so, why can't they just yank
>out the sound card on the Macs that don't have it? On a PC, that would
take
>oh, say, 3 seconds...
No it wouldn't. prove it. You can't remove the sound on a PC.
>
>Wow....I had never known that... <sarcasm>
don't lie.
>No. There are plenty of people that are even annoyed by that. Especially
>in open office environments (lots of computers in the same room with
little
>or no partitions).
again, if it doesn't boing then it isn't a computer! Are you that dense?
I bet your OS can't boing! If it can I bet it can't boing and eep at the
same time. It's doubly worthless then!
rob
---------------------------------------------------
This message was created and sent using the Cyberdog Mail System
---------------------------------------------------
InTerFerenCe
for one, If you are posting to this thread you obviously own some sort of
computer(point being, you have already made your decision)...and chances are that
some other guy telling you his is better is not going to get you to go out and buy
the other kind...I personally prefer PCs, so if you think Im an idiot or that your
Mac is better, then fine. I will deal with it.
In the meantime, please shut up and go away.
cheers....
Candide
{DELETED]
>Or you could go the Apple route and fuck the users every time a new
>machine or OS revision comes out by making it incompatible with all
>the existing softare and hardware.
{DELETED]
>pi...@shore.net pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu pi...@basenji.com
>An it harm none, do as thou wilt.
>Will hack Symix for food.
You have NEVER seen a Mac, have you?...
Where do you come up with crap like: "...every time a new machine or OS
revision comes out by making it incompatible with all the existing softare
(!) and hardware."?
Why do you lie/make up such idiotic fantesies? What do you hope to gain
from making an ass of yourself?
Candide
--
"Madness is rare in individuals; but in groups, parties, nations and ages, it is the rule."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Ryan Krueger
> Anthony Barlow wrote:
> >
> > CYBERC0M (cybe...@eworld.com) wrote:
> > : > Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
> > : > card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
> >
> > : Gee, isn't that great... a 128 bit video card, but wait, whats that?!!
> > : Its, its a 128 bit video card for the mac!! Oh and by the way,
> > : 1280x1024x16mill is no big deal mine is in that res right now but wait,
> > : there's more!! Mine does it with 2 megs of vram!!!
res. Do the math. It takes 3 bytes for each pixel.
1280x1024=1,310,720
1,310,720x3=3,932,160 4megs
> > What's the point? The human eye can only see 24 Bit.
2^24=16mill
> Let me inform you on some important facts about graphics cards(i.e. video
> cards on PC) 64 bit and 128 bit is the flow of data between the bus and the
> cpu if I am not mistaken.
The 64 or 128 bits does not refer to the data path between your cpu and
the card. That is determined by the bus architecture: NuBus, PCI, ISA,
EISA, LocolBus, PDS, MicroChannel... It also doesn't refer to the card to
monitor interface, that is way different. It does refer to the internal
data bus. Internal to the card. It's mostly marketing... Man, is
everyone her stupid?
> The human eye at birth can see little more than a 17-40 year old person.
> You all have the wrong info here the Mac Number9 graphics card can have
> up to 8MB of VRAM which gives 16.7 million+ colors @1600x1280
> resolution on a Mac monitor which would be even higher on a PC Because
> the resolution is set up differently.
>
> PCs will never have the same clarity for publishing or color reference
> just ask a professional if they want to see it perfectly they look to a Mac!!
> How often do you ever see a Radius PressVeiw system hooked up to a PC?
> That would be ridiculous!
Get this straight: Macs are the definitive machine in graphics and
publishing. The cards available beat the pants off anything PC's have.
The #9 card with 128 bits is also available on the Mac. But thats not the
best there is. Believe it or not, non-128 bit cards are better still.
BUT: Macs now have the upper hand, but to say "PCs will never have the
same clarity..." is dumb. There's always the future. It's not likely,
but possible.
-Ryan Krueger
-RSKr...@TaylorCorp.com
Anthony Barlow
: > Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
: > card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
: Gee, isn't that great... a 128 bit video card, but wait, whats that?!!
: Its, its a 128 bit video card for the mac!! Oh and by the way,
: 1280x1024x16mill is no big deal mine is in that res right now but wait,
: there's more!! Mine does it with 2 megs of vram!!!
What's the point? The human eye can only see 24 Bit.
--
John Goerzen
Le...@epix.net (Lex Friedman) writes:
>In article <313b99e3...@news.shore.net>, pi...@shore.net wrote:
>
>
>*Yeah. Try having two FTP sessions, two telnets, and a kernel compile
>*going on the Mac simultaneously. Well, barring the fact you couldn't
>*do a kernel compile...
>
>Two things: Using Kern+, available on vy FTP, you in fact can do a kernel
>compile on a Mac. Furthermore, it is with extreme simplicity, speed, and
A kernel compile would require the source code to MacOS. Do you have the
source code? Has Apple made it available? No. Thus you are NOT doing a
kernel compile.
>ease that one can have 2 FTPs, two telnets, and a Kernel compile going on
>a Mac simultaneously. I do similar activity all the time.
How about posting some statistics on the speed of those FTPs?
>
>-Lex
>
>Lex Friedman ,,, On IRC: Quam
>---------...@epix.net---------------ooO(o o)Ooo------------
> "Dead puppies aren't much fun." (_)
>A.C. Online: Making the Internet - and you - a little cooler.
> Rush to http://www.epix.net/~lexf/ac.html
>Weird Al For President in 1996: http://www.epix.net/~lexf/al.html
> www.apple.com - how Microsoft finds where they want to go today
--
John Goerzen
cybe...@eworld.com (CYBERC0M) writes:
>> Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
>> card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
>
>Gee, isn't that great... a 128 bit video card, but wait, whats that?!!
>Its, its a 128 bit video card for the mac!! Oh and by the way,
>1280x1024x16mill is no big deal mine is in that res right now but wait,
>there's more!! Mine does it with 2 megs of vram!!!
Please stop spreading these useless lies. It is very obvious that you are
not doing that with 2 megs of VRAM....
1280 * 1024 * 3 = 3932160 bytes = 3.75 Megs
John Goerzen
ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
>> ALE wrote:
>>
>> > > than your Mac. Name one thing your Mac can do that FreeBSD had no
>> > > equivolent for. I can name many things FreeBSD can do that your MacOS
>> > > can't.
>> >
>> > Like?
>>
>> FreeBSD is telnetable. Nuff said.
>> Linux supports the following net protocols:
>> tcp/ip
>> ipx
>> netBeui
>> SMB
>> NFS
>> AppleTalk
>> Amature Radio
>
>May I ask, so what? All of those above that I've ever had to deal with,
>my Mac supports. As for the rest, why should I care about those if the
>one my Mac doesn't support, I never will need to use anyway.
Oh, so you're saying that just because ONE PERSON doesn't need the program,
Apple shouldn't put it in their OS?
>
>> > Macs have BETTER graphics programs and BETTER graphic cards.
>>
>> Oh suure they do. 3d studio is 2nd only to an SGI machine in the
>> computer art industry...
>> Better graphics cards? #9 has a 128 bit card out... my current 64bit
>> card is currently in 1280x1024x16million colors... 4megs of video ram.
>
>So what? Saying what you have without knowing what others have means nothing.
>
>ALE
--
pi...@shore.net
jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) wrote:
removed asce.
pi...@shore.net
-0500, Le...@epix.net (Lex Friedman) wrote:
>In article <313b99e3...@news.shore.net>, pi...@shore.net wrote:
>Two things: Using Kern+, available on vy FTP, you in fact can do a kernel
>compile on a Mac. Furthermore, it is with extreme simplicity, speed, and
>ease that one can have 2 FTPs, two telnets, and a Kernel compile going on
>a Mac simultaneously. I do similar activity all the time.
And how many other people are logged in? My lowly 386 could handle
half-a-dozen interactive logins?
This whole thread is silly. It doesn't even belong in
alt.startrek.creative.erotica. I've removed it from the newsgroups
list. Please don't put it back. If you feel you have something you
feel I *must* see, mail it to me instead. But stop cluttering up my
group.
pi...@shore.net
jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) wrote:
alt.startrek.creative.erotica summarily removed from the Newsgroups
line.
pi...@shore.net
cybe...@eworld.com (CYBERC0M) wrote:
alt.startrek.creative.erotica summarily removed from Newsgroups: line.
pi...@shore.net
-0800, mrkite <mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
alt.startrek.creative.erotica removed.
pi...@shore.net
ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) wrote:
>In article <4hiu5f$4...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen)
>wrote:
>
>> In article <ekleberr-040...@cmh-p001.infinet.com>,
>> ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
>>
>> [deletion]
>>
>> >> First, reliability. I am running FreeBSD on my PC and it is much more
>> >> reliable than MacOS. I have never yet experienced a single crash on my
>> >> FreeBSD machine. Ever. And I'm a programmer and since I'm human, I
>do make
>> >> my share of errors. They've never crashed the OS, though.
>> >>
>> >We have that, big deal.
>>
>> No you don't! I locked up MacOS in about 1.5 hours (I was installing Doom).
>
>WOW! Really? You must have been trying really hard! I installed Doom, no
>problem here! This is really interesting! How is it you PC users always
>seem to crash MacOS when I have such a hard time crashing it?
>
>> >> Second, value. MacOS doesn't even come with a C compiler. FreeBSD
>not only
>> >> comes with C compiler, but it also has full C library reference, C++
>> >> compiler, C++ class reference, TCL and TK and references for both, Perl and
>> >> references for it. MacOS cannot act as a dialin machine. On my FreeBSD
>> >> machine, I change a single character in a configuration file, reboot, plug
>> >> in a modem, and I can dialin remotely and run programs and access files. I
>> >> can also do graphical timesharing as well as text-mode timesharing.
>> >> Something totally unheard of on your Mac. And, FreeBSD is completely FREE.
>> >
>> >Now we have a real brain here. So FREEBSD is Free? Really? That cool.
>>
>> You have failed to respond to the rest of my message that pointed out many
>> serious lackings in MacOS. Does that mean that you acknowledge that MacOS
>> doesn't have things that a free OS does?
>
>Most people are not programers (beleive it or not). I speaking from their
>stand point. Mr. Sales Rep. from GM, isn't going to spend all day
>programing whatever computer he has. Now FOR YOU, yes, freeBSD may in
>FACT be better. But for me, who couldn't care less about what compiler it
>has, no, its not better. Theres no such thing as an EVERYONE computer
>OS.
>
>> >> That is true. Macs force you to get all sorts of things you may not need.
>> >> Why do you need a sound card or color to type memos? You can get a PC with
>> >> a B&W VGA monitor and no sound card for much less than a Mac. Macs force
>> >> you to get unnecessary hardware.
>> >>
>> >You can get B&W on Mac as well. I have yet to see anyone that didn't want
>> >sound. Besides, its not like it costs more. And the Idea the PC are
>>
>> Good-quality sound card does add more to the price. So you're saying that
>> Macs come with low-quality sound?
>
>Buy a low-quality mac, yes. Buy a high quality Mac, no. Consider for a
>moment that there isn't anyone that wants a computer without sound. I
>mean, have you seen anyone the didn't want sound?
>
>> And even that does have an impact on the price of the computer. If Apple
>> really cared about minimizing prices, they would not force sound on users.
>> I think that this is just a small example of what Apple does.
>
>No one would buy a Mac that didn't have sound. With that in mind, how
>would Apple stay in buisness? They would have to raise their prices just
>to replace all the money they lost try to sell the no sound Mac. How is
>that minimizing prices?
>
>> >cheaper is true is if its stript down, which sucks.
>>
>> Why the heck does somebody that only does word processing need a CD-ROM or
>> sound?
>
>You can get Macs without CD roms.
>
>Don't get me wrong, you argument IS logical. But that JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN!!
>People WANT sound. I have yet to meet a Mac user of ANY kind, that didn't
>want sound. Now there may be PC users who don't want sound. And the Mac
>isn't for them. But most people want sound.
>
>> http://www.freebsd.org
>>
>> >> FreeBSD can read DOS, Windows, DriveSpaced, Unix, ISO-9660, and Mac
>> >> formatted disks, among others.
>> >
>> >Same on Mac.
>>
>> Can you also read ufs and ffs disks? Have multiple OSs on a single drive?
>> Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
>
>Unsure (I don't think so), Yes, Yes, Yes.
>
>ALE
pi...@shore.net
-0800, Clay Flocco <cfl...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
Newsgroups line trimmed.
Spaceman Spiff!
>
>
>******************************************************************************
>* MY CHALLENGE *
>******************************************************************************
>
>My challenge to PC users is:
>
>
>How exactly is the Macintosh 'worse' than a PC? In what ways? Provide
>at least two answers.
Economics:
2 things that contributed to the success of the PC and the x86
family of computers are;
a) the efforts in keeping all incarnations of the main OS
(MSDOS/Windows) compatible with all previous incarnations in order to maintain
the installed user base and;
b) the licensing of the development of x86 computers by third party
companies to further expand this user base. Additionally, new integral
hardware (like MBs) provide compatibility with older expansion architectures
for the same reason the software does.
This results in the 'IBM PC' family of computers having the largest
installed user base for home/office/education use than any other computer
architecture. A feat accomplished not by the direct action of any particular
corporation but by sheer market driven forces. (Not unlike capitalism and
the free-market economy)
Apple, OTOH, took the 'welfare state' approach in which it strove to
control not only hardware production but by enforcing strict guidelines to
its software developers, on software as well. This, although in theory
idealistic in a Marxist kind of way, causes the same stifling effect the
communism has on the economy.
As a result, although the PC software/hardware market then becomes
flooded with a dearth of crappy software/hardware, it also comes up with the
a lot of the best too since most developers would want to release their
product to the widest market first in order to capture a larger audience.
For example, WC4, with a 12 million dollar budget is being released to the PC
market first before any other platform because that is where the money is.
To reiterate, given similar development costs for any two markets, it makes
economic sense to address the larger of the two than the smaller.
Situations like this occur altogeter too often in history, VHS v
Betamax, MCA v VLBus, (CD+CC) v (MD+DCC+DAT) and hell, why not compare it to
Communism v Capitalism. Technological superiority is often an irrelevance
in matters such as this. Sure, the PPC and ARM chips may have some 'nice
bits' but Macs and Acorn RISCPCs will never be 'mainstream' computers in the
same way PCs are and may sadly go the way of Betamax and the like.
And I suppose the success of any 'creation' would be its ability to
survive and dominate (and this, the PC has undiniably done, hands down...).
Hence, the PC is a better animal than the Mac in this respect.
Adaptability & Modularity:
A slightly less esoteric argument would be that PCs are the best
'Jack of all Trades' in the market. Because of it's modular form. You can
get a bare bones system and adapt it to almost anything you want - _without_
paying for extras that you wouldn't use...
For example, if I wanted to use the PC mainly as a MIDI sequencing
and editing machine, I could just shove in a top of the range Turtle Beach
soundcard and a mid range processor w/o having to get all the uncessary
options like network cards and w/o paying for something that I wouldn't use
like a built in sound board. If I wanted a network/internet server, an ISDN
modem with several large UWSCSI/RAID hard drives and a mid range processor
would do me fine. Graphics? A system with a 128bit 4-8 MB fast accelerated
graphics card+fast processor would do just fine.
This modularity again brings about the economic argument in that
third party hardware developers abound in the PC world. The result, the
consumer is able to get the best value/performance from their peripherals
due to the competition and spreading of costs.
Again, here, Macs lose out because of the smaller marker share...
sure Apple is trying to rectify the situation, but the expression 'too
little too late comes to mind'....
ObMacKnock1:
Why do they put the power button of the the PowerMac in my college
where the 'eject' button of the floppy should be?
ObMacKnock2:
Why does it screw up the PowerMac when you use the 'Eject' option on
the menu rather than dragging the floppy to the Trash Icon?
Spiff!
--
Thariq U Ahmad : GM -d+ p+ c++(++) l+ u+ e+ m++@ s/+ n+@ h+ f? g+ w- t+ r y?(*)
Peakie, Trekker, X-Phile, Linuxer, StarGazer, Golfer, Gourmet, FilmFan, Trader.
Isn't he the guy from Star Wars?....
pi...@shore.net
+0000, Hellshok <an52...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
>> What's the point? The human eye can only see 24 Bit.
Well, no, it can't do even that, I think only around 3 million shades
or so.
>The human eye at birth can see little more than a 17-40 year old person.
But not enough to distinguish 16,777,216 colors, so any more are a
waste, anyway.
>You all have the wrong info here the Mac Number9 graphics card can have
>up to 8MB of VRAM which gives 16.7 million+ colors @1600x1280
>resolution on a Mac monitor which would be even higher on a PC Because
>the resolution is set up differently.
What? Guess what, the several varieties of Number 9 cards for the PC
can do that too.
>PCs will never have the same clarity for publishing or color reference
>just ask a professional if they want to see it perfectly they look to a Mac!!
Oh, yeah, sure. What a crock. I suppose next you'll claim Jurassic
Park or Toy Story were done with Macs?
Duh. *True* professionals use *real* graphics computers. Silicon
Graphics workstations.
pi...@shore.net
RSKr...@TaylorCorp.com (Ryan Krueger) wrote:
>data bus. Internal to the card. It's mostly marketing... Man, is
>everyone her stupid?
No.
>Get this straight: Macs are the definitive machine in graphics and
Buzzzzzzzz! Thank you for playing. Silicon Graphics workstations are
the definitive graphics machines.
What, you think the Mac has been even dreamed of that can come close
to the performance of an Indigo Extreme?
>publishing. The cards available beat the pants off anything PC's have.
Wrong again, many of the same cards are available for the PC and Mac.
Or didn't you know there are 8MB Vram PC cards? Never heard of the #9
Imagination, or whatever it's called?
>BUT: Macs now have the upper hand, but to say "PCs will never have the
Macs have the upper hand, probably, over PCs. Compared to *real*
computers, they're not even in the same league.
John Goerzen
ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
>In article <4hiu5f$4...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen)
>wrote:
>
>> In article <ekleberr-040...@cmh-p001.infinet.com>,
>> ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
>>
>> [deletion]
>>
>> >> First, reliability. I am running FreeBSD on my PC and it is much more
>> >> reliable than MacOS. I have never yet experienced a single crash on my
>> >> FreeBSD machine. Ever. And I'm a programmer and since I'm human, I
>do make
>> >> my share of errors. They've never crashed the OS, though.
>> >>
>> >We have that, big deal.
>>
>> No you don't! I locked up MacOS in about 1.5 hours (I was installing Doom).
>
>WOW! Really? You must have been trying really hard! I installed Doom, no
>problem here! This is really interesting! How is it you PC users always
>seem to crash MacOS when I have such a hard time crashing it?
Perhaps because you are too brainwashed to notice?
>
>> >> Second, value. MacOS doesn't even come with a C compiler. FreeBSD
>not only
>> >> comes with C compiler, but it also has full C library reference, C++
>> >> compiler, C++ class reference, TCL and TK and references for both, Perl and
>> >> references for it. MacOS cannot act as a dialin machine. On my FreeBSD
>> >> machine, I change a single character in a configuration file, reboot, plug
>> >> in a modem, and I can dialin remotely and run programs and access files. I
>> >> can also do graphical timesharing as well as text-mode timesharing.
>> >> Something totally unheard of on your Mac. And, FreeBSD is completely FREE.
>> >
>> >Now we have a real brain here. So FREEBSD is Free? Really? That cool.
>>
>> You have failed to respond to the rest of my message that pointed out many
>> serious lackings in MacOS. Does that mean that you acknowledge that MacOS
>> doesn't have things that a free OS does?
>
>Most people are not programers (beleive it or not). I speaking from their
>stand point. Mr. Sales Rep. from GM, isn't going to spend all day
>programing whatever computer he has. Now FOR YOU, yes, freeBSD may in
>FACT be better. But for me, who couldn't care less about what compiler it
>has, no, its not better. Theres no such thing as an EVERYONE computer
>OS.
Dialin is not a programmer-only feature. COMPLETE online documentation is
not a progammer-only feature. Timesharing is not a programmer-only feature.
Superior GUIs is not a programmer-only feature.
>e
>> >> That is true. Macs force you to get all sorts of things you may not need.
>> >> Why do you need a sound card or color to type memos? You can get a PC with
>> >> a B&W VGA monitor and no sound card for much less than a Mac. Macs force
>> >> you to get unnecessary hardware.
>> >>
>> >You can get B&W on Mac as well. I have yet to see anyone that didn't want
>> >sound. Besides, its not like it costs more. And the Idea the PC are
>>
>> Good-quality sound card does add more to the price. So you're saying that
>> Macs come with low-quality sound?
>
>Buy a low-quality mac, yes. Buy a high quality Mac, no. Consider for a
>moment that there isn't anyone that wants a computer without sound. I
>mean, have you seen anyone the didn't want sound?
Yes, plenty of people. Why would somebody that works with word processing
or spreadsheets all day need the ability to play little boings?? There is
NO reason! There are people around here that still use old PC XTs (and even
some people that have original PCs) that still function fine in today's
business world. They do not need sound to type memos or work in
spreadsheets!
>> And even that does have an impact on the price of the computer. If Apple
>> really cared about minimizing prices, they would not force sound on users.
>> I think that this is just a small example of what Apple does.
>
>No one would buy a Mac that didn't have sound. With that in mind, how
>would Apple stay in buisness? They would have to raise their prices just
>to replace all the money they lost try to sell the no sound Mac. How is
>that minimizing prices?
Gee, I thought it was fast and easy to replace hardware on the Mac.
(According to you Mac advocates). If that's so, why can't they just yank
out the sound card on the Macs that don't have it? On a PC, that would take
oh, say, 3 seconds...
>
>> >cheaper is true is if its stript down, which sucks.
>>
>> Why the heck does somebody that only does word processing need a CD-ROM or
>> sound?
>
>You can get Macs without CD roms.
Wow....I had never known that... <sarcasm>
>Don't get me wrong, you argument IS logical. But that JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN!!
>People WANT sound. I have yet to meet a Mac user of ANY kind, that didn't
No. There are plenty of people that are even annoyed by that. Especially
in open office environments (lots of computers in the same room with little
or no partitions).
>want sound. Now there may be PC users who don't want sound. And the Mac
>isn't for them. But most people want sound.
>
>> http://www.freebsd.org
>>
>> >> FreeBSD can read DOS, Windows, DriveSpaced, Unix, ISO-9660, and Mac
>> >> formatted disks, among others.
>> >
>> >Same on Mac.
>>
>> Can you also read ufs and ffs disks? Have multiple OSs on a single drive?
>> Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
>
>Unsure (I don't think so), Yes, Yes, Yes.
Please explain how to do the last three things so that we all know.
John Goerzen
>> > certified graduate of Mac Brainwashing 101. I am really shocked that
>> > he didn't comment on how the Macintrash is sooo pretty to look at too.
>>
>> The only reason Macs have such a high consumer approval rating is because
>> they are dummy proof. They limit you as to what you can do with their
>> software, so of course you can't screw up. Besides, I've learned more
>> from my screw ups on a PC than I did in a mac class. I would rather
>> screw up on a machine I can do a lot with than be in a fake comfort zone
>> with a machine that limits my options
>>
>> The Black Knight
>
>Well... feel free to screw yourself up all ya want. As for me, I think
>I'll get back to work.
You failed to make even one specific response to his points. Does this mean
you agree that they are correct?
InTerFerenCe
128 bit video card to its capacity...nosiree...64 bit is it..(for now).
Its like using a PCI card in a 32 bit motherboard.
George Lopez
wrote:
>In article <31384DD6...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu>, mrkite
><mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>*#1: no textmode. (this may be subjective, but the macintosh doesn't even
>*give you the OPTION of having a textmode...)
>
>Wrong. The highly-vauled, often discussed Programmer's (Interrupt) Switch
>offers just that. It is available through one key or a key combo on any
>Mac or Mac compatible. In fact, in "DOS Easy", PC guru John Fern says
>"Although powerful, DOS can't hold an unlit candle to the power and
>abilities of the Macintosh Programmer's Switch." (page 34)
>
>*#2: No option to write directly to periferals. (this is a coding
>*complaint)
>
>There are several INITs that allow just that.
>
>*
>*You only asked for 2... so there are my two...
>
>How about two real reasons?
>
>*now how about 2 reasons pc's are worse than macs?
>
>More expensive
>Much less compatible with other platforms
>
>Lex Friedman ,,, On IRC: Quam
>---------...@epix.net---------------ooO(o o)Ooo------------
> "Dead puppies aren't much fun." (_)
>A.C. Online: Making the Internet - and you - a little cooler.
> Rush to http://www.epix.net/~lexf/ac.html
>Weird Al For President in 1996: http://www.epix.net/~lexf/al.html
> www.apple.com - how Microsoft finds where they want to go today
Mac's are still the shits!
Paul Smith
(CYBERC0M) wrote:
<... much sad misinformed inane ramblings deleted ...>
I thought this was some kind of a warez group.... why the fuck are there
shit loads of sad losers intent on debating the shit out of different
machines' pros + cons... get a life
Kazimir Kylheku
What are you talking about? The 128 bits refers to an internal datapath between
the processor on the video adapter and the frame buffer. Get a clue.
The processor on the adapter sure as heck _can_ use the datapath. The
performance difference shows when you move windows opaquely, for instance, in
the form of accelerated rectangle copies. Of course, a 128-bit card won't
necessarily do these things faster than 64. There are even some pretty
impressive 32-bit pixel pushers out there.
--
Hellshok
>
> While prying the lemmings from hir ankles Thu, 07 Mar 1996 09:34:03
> +0000, Hellshok <an52...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
> >> What's the point? The human eye can only see 24 Bit.
>
> Well, no, it can't do even that, I think only around 3 million shades
> or so.
You are kind of wrong here to. It can only see about 3 million shades in a
picture but all 16.7 million are distinguishable by most people seperately.
Talk to an Optomologist.
>
> >The human eye at birth can see little more than a 17-40 year old person.
>
> But not enough to distinguish 16,777,216 colors, so any more are a
> waste, anyway.
I didn't say there were many, if any more colors, but your scanner or some
scanners can find them.
>
> >You all have the wrong info here the Mac Number9 graphics card can have
> >up to 8MB of VRAM which gives 16.7 million+ colors @1600x1280
> >resolution on a Mac monitor which would be even higher on a PC Because
> >the resolution is set up differently.
>
> What? Guess what, the several varieties of Number 9 cards for the PC
> can do that too.
I also did not say this was the best graphics card. That has to go to Radius
ThunderColor30/1600 definately top of the line, never seen one for a PC
though.
> Oh, yeah, sure. What a crock. I suppose next you'll claim Jurassic
> Park or Toy Story were done with Macs?
No, but most of all graphics for publishing are all done on Macs.
>
> Duh. *True* professionals use *real* graphics computers. Silicon
> Graphics workstations.
You are also wrong here I'm not totaly sure about Jurassic Park but I know
for a fact that Toy Story was created on Sun Microsystems workstations,
you need to dig for more facts. Neither were done on any form of PC let me
tell you. And as a matter of fact JurassicPark special effects were done by
Industrial Light & Magic they do use a lot of Macs I've seen the production
facility. Making movies doesn't make anybody more "professional" than
3/4 of all paper and web published media, a publisher is just as
professional!
+++Hellshok+++
Candide
wrote:
[The heresy of an nonbeliever in John's omniscience, has been DELETED]
>>> Can you also read ufs and ffs disks? Have multiple OSs on a single drive?
>>> Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
>>
>>Unsure (I don't think so), Yes, Yes, Yes.
>
>Please explain how to do the last three things so that we all know.
>
>>
>>ALE
>
>--
>John Goerzen, programmer and owner | Freedom..liberty..justice..democracy|
>Communications Centre, Goessel, KS | ..limits on free spech on the Net...|
>Main e-mail: jgoe...@complete.org | Which one doesn't belong? |
Master, you have made me lose face in front of these, these...Mac users!..
If you keep this up, you will only encourage their blasphemy and growing
doubt regarding your Universal knowledge. Now, you would not want that,
would you?...
Here, I'll whisper the answers to you. I'm sure that you already know what
they are, but you wanted only to test this, this Mac user!... Just to see
if he is worth talking to, right?...
1. Multiple OSs on a single Mac HD:
a) The Software Route. Choice of MacOS, MachTen & A/UX (Unix), SoftWindoze
(PC Micro$lut) and Linux (Unix) (available soon). Installed on a single HD
with one or more partitions. No hardware whatsoever.
b) The Software/Hardware Route. DOS compatibility card(s). I believe that
the latest Wintel chip for such a card is a 486DX2 but I could be
mistaken. I'm not omniscient, after all... Combine that with the software
from above and you achieve multiple OSs on a single Mac HD. Apple made a
6100 PPC with a built in DOS card too...
2. Start Up Menu
Hmmm...Don't know if I can help you there, master. I do however believe
that a Mac with a DOS card (perhaps even without one, depending on the
options of the other OS installed) is able to start in either MacOS mode
OR in DOS/Windoze mode. Moreover, you can have BOTH (SIMULTANEOUSLY)up &
running and be able to switch between one and the other with a simple
click of the mouse. The ONLY CLI command needed would probably be C:/win
when in the Windoze/DOS environment...
3. Boot-Up of a secondary HD
No problem there either, master. In the MacOS (I know that you have
never actually SEEN this MacOS heresy, but try to imagine it, will you?)
there is a control panel called "Start Up Disk". I know, I
know...confusing but it is there nevertheless.
ANY and ALL volumes/partions/drives (internal, external or
removable)/optical disk drives/Syquest or Iomega Zip drives/ internal or
external CD ROM drives/etc. WILL show up as options. This is true of all
SCSI Macs, which, with a couple of exceptions, are ALL of the Macs. You
may designate ANY of the items which show up in this confusing control
panel, as the Start Up Disk/Drive...Crazy, I know, but it is done millions
of times every day, nonetheless. You can even start up from a puny Iomega
Zip disk, if you so choose. There is only one requirement. There MUST be a
System folder on whatever device you designate as the start up volume.
That's all!
Icing on the cake? You can even start up from a System folder on another
drive, in another building, in another country and on another continent if
your Mac is properly networked! What will those devils at Apple, think of
next!...
Hope that this helped, master. Don't let their puny arguments deter you
from spreading the Wisdom...
A humbled,
ZAVEN
<<ZAVEN>>
************ZAVEN************
Blaine Jones
> >Oh, but wait! The software written a decade ago runs s-l-o-w on the P7. Oh
> >no, the 604 is catching up because of this! Wait, the 604 is out of the
> >race. What's AIM doing? OH NO!!! It's the 630! And a 700 MHz BiCMOS
> >604e!!!! The P7 is dying!!!!!!
> >Daniel
> nice to know all you folk have a heartfelt concern for the important
> issues in life. enjoy your little battle of the egos.
> Maybe one day you will all grow up and let this string die.
Ain't it the truth! I remember these pissy little fights when I was
15 years old and got my first modem (300 baud). At that time, it was
Atari vs. Apple II, though. These losers need to get a life.
John Davis
and PC's running Linux and DOS/Win3.1. I haven't got any real bias, Mac
versus Unix based but I am really tired of DOS.
>Dialin is not a programmer-only feature. COMPLETE online documentation >is
>not a progammer-only feature. Timesharing is not a programmer-only >feature.
>Superior GUIs is not a programmer-only feature.
These points are all pointless, two are fallacies, the other one makes no
sense.
Dialin- Get RemoteAccess.
Timesharing- Macs are designed as a single user system, BSD, all
versions, regardless of platform, is written as a multiple user system.
Superior GUI- If you are calling X a superior GUI I have no idea what you
are thinking, Macs are graphics based to the core.
>>> Can you also read ufs and ffs disks? Have multiple OSs on a single drive?
>>> Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
>>
>>Unsure (I don't think so), Yes, Yes, Yes.
>
>Please explain how to do the last three things so that we all know.
I can answer two of them, Multiple OSes- ever heard of A/UX? You can run
A/UX and the MacOS on one partitioned drive very easily. Boot off of the
second hard drive, and the CD-ROM, and the floppy drive, and your tape
drive, and your Iomega, and any other volume by selecting it for boot.
I also have to assume that there are startup menus to support the use of
A/UX.
This is a pointless argument, Macs are cool, FreeBSD is cool, Linux is
cool, OS/2 is cool. The reason that all of these systems and more are
cool is because they are technically superior, they are well designed,
they are well engineered, and they are elegant, each in their own way.
These systems are all better than Win95. They are cool because they rely
on users that love them and will continue to support them and use them
because they like them. They are cool because the people that use them
use them because they are good, not because it is what the market and the
media tell them to use. These OSes are cool because the subvert the
dominant paradigm in favor of a better set of rules.
-John Davis
Candide
>While prying the lemmings from hir ankles 6 Mar 1996 15:13:04 GMT,
>ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) wrote:
>
>>In article <4hiu5f$4...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ekleberr-040...@cmh-p001.infinet.com>,
>>> ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) writes:
[DELETED]
>>> Can you also read ufs and ffs disks? Have multiple OSs on a single drive?
>>> Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
>>
>>Unsure (I don't think so), Yes, Yes, Yes.
>>
>>ALE
>
>pi...@shore.net pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu pi...@basenji.com
>An it harm none, do as thou wilt.
>Will hack Symix for food.
And here is YET ANOTHER reposting of the famous 1996 John Goerzen vs
Ale debate, brought to you by the blank mind (tabula rasa) of Pixel.
Partner and co-owner of Pixel & Jonathan J Hall Reposting/Spamming
Services Inc. The company which stated with a simple logo:
"I'm trying to think, but nothing happens!"
Now we will return to our feature movie, already in progress...
Kevin B. Hayes
: While prying the lemmings from hir ankles Fri, 08 Mar 1996 08:18:54
: +0000, Hellshok <an52...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
: >1- With a DOS compatability card or Soft Windows we can partition our
: >drives with a few different OSes it'll even ask you to do it.
: So, you need a second OS to have multiple OSes? Something seems fishy
: here, but I just may not be thinking straight at the moment.
: >2- Our startup menu is used before we shut down it's a control panel if
: >this is what youare talking about. Then again you could be talking about the
: >"start" button, we just configure the Apple menu for that, real easy.
: Hmmm...I think he meant more like Win95's Safe mode/Logged
: boot/regular Win95/previous version of DOS, or the ability (with LILO)
: to (and this combines multiple OSes and booting off multiple drives
: *and* startup menus into one item, come to think of it) boot Win,
: Win95, DOS, Linux, OS/2, NT, etc.
: >the right one it loads. It could be any of my twelve drives attached right
: >now.
: Why twelve drives? Ditch all those silly little 80 meggers and get a 1
: gig drive. You'll be happier. :)
: pi...@shore.net pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu pi...@basenji.com
Mortuus
> While prying the lemmings from hir ankles Thu, 07 Mar 1996 09:34:03
> +0000, Hellshok <an52...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
> >> What's the point? The human eye can only see 24 Bit.
>
> Well, no, it can't do even that, I think only around 3 million shades
> or so.
>
> >The human eye at birth can see little more than a 17-40 year old person.
>
> But not enough to distinguish 16,777,216 colors, so any more are a
> waste, anyway.
>
> >You all have the wrong info here the Mac Number9 graphics card can have
> >up to 8MB of VRAM which gives 16.7 million+ colors @1600x1280
> >resolution on a Mac monitor which would be even higher on a PC Because
> >the resolution is set up differently.
>
> What? Guess what, the several varieties of Number 9 cards for the PC
> can do that too.
>
> >PCs will never have the same clarity for publishing or color reference
> >just ask a professional if they want to see it perfectly they look to a
Mac!!
>
> Oh, yeah, sure. What a crock. I suppose next you'll claim Jurassic
> Park or Toy Story were done with Macs?
>
> Duh. *True* professionals use *real* graphics computers. Silicon
> Graphics workstations.
>
>
> pi...@shore.net pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu pi...@basenji.com
> An it harm none, do as thou wilt.
> Will hack Symix for food.
Actually Toy Story was done on Sun Sparc Stations and the graphic work
done by Pixar that is owned by Steve Jobs (who I'm sure you don't know),
is one of the origional founders of Apple. As for SGIs being true graphics
machines, how much was your computer ? $20,000 and up? I realize that for
that you probably got 128mb of ram and so on and so forth but you could
equip a Mac to be the same as your SGI for roughly the same money. I'm a
Mac fan and have seen SGIs do their stuff but nobody even mentions the
Amiga anymore. Check out Babylon 5 next time its on and look at the
graphics. Done with a network of Amigas and Macs.
As for bashing other platforms, are you all that unhappy with your own
computers that you have to put down other computers to feel that you
haven't made an error in judgement with your purchase? Grow up ! If your
computer meets your needs then good for you. Another computer may not but
it doesnt mean its inferior.
Candide
>While prying the lemmings from hir ankles Fri, 08 Mar 1996 08:18:54
>+0000, Hellshok <an52...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
>
>>1- With a DOS compatability card or Soft Windows we can partition our
>>drives with a few different OSes it'll even ask you to do it.
>
>So, you need a second OS to have multiple OSes? Something seems fishy
>here, but I just may not be thinking straight at the moment.
Go with that thought...You may be RIGHT/thinking "straight at the
moment", when you state that you may be WRONG/"not thinking straight"
period...
[DELETED]
>>the right one it loads. It could be any of my twelve drives attached right
>>now.
>
>Why twelve drives? Ditch all those silly little 80 meggers and get a 1
>gig drive. You'll be happier. :)
[DELETED]
What makes you ASSUme that the 12 HDs in question, are NOT 1 gig. EACH?...
Would you admit that you were presumptious (once again), if the 12 HDs
HAPPEN to be, let's say, 2 gig. in size, EACH?(24 gigs) Sure you would...
>
>pi...@shore.net pi...@gnu.ai.mit.edu pi...@basenji.com
>An it harm none, do as thou wilt.
>Will hack Symix for food.
You seem thin...Have you been eating right, lately? :)
Candide
>People the only good mac is a ToaStEd Mac kIsSs MY ass ANd SHOvE iT uP
>yer Ass!!!
>Go AWAY MAC LOVERS!!!!!!
>-sativa-
>
>
>--
>
>
Hmmm...Looks like NAMBLA is starting their membership drive, early this year.
They even got the volunteers from their janitorial staff attempting to
recruit, via UseNet spams.
Sativa...Even THAT, sounds perverse...
MASADA
Deathstalker
u943...@sys.uea.ac.uk (Paul Smith) writes:
>I thought this was some kind of a warez group.... why the fuck are there
>shit loads of sad losers intent on debating the shit out of different
>machines' pros + cons... get a life
Yeah, well, quit crossposting into comp.os.msdos.misc. We don't want to
hear it either.
Deathstalker
(Candide) writes:
>some examples of what they might try to confuse you with:
<much pointless drivel deleted>
If I'm not mistaken, everything in Win 3.1 can be done on the keyboard.
EVERYTHING. I know since I had to go without a mouse for 2 years.
cho...@pc.jaring.my
PLease hel[p
Jeremy Fetvedt
> >GROW THE FUCK UP ALL OF
> YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;\
> I second that notion. PLEASE CHECK THE GROUP YOU CROSSPOST TO.
All in favor?
Alan Shutko
3> In article <313e4ab3...@news.shore.net>, pi...@shore.net
3> wrote: *And how many other people are logged in? My lowly 386
3> could handle *half-a-dozen interactive logins?
3> Fantastic. My Quad 610, using shareware FTPed or NetPresenz or
3> even MacTP can hanle as many as 99. In fact, FTPed can handle 200.
An interactive login and an ftp are two different things. Interactive
logins can put a lot more of a drain on resources.
John Goerzen
"Robert A. Decker" <com...@umich.edu> writes:
>>>John Goerzen, programmer and owner and a first rate nut case wrote:
>>Yes
>>
>
>no
Bob, before dropping useless nonsense on the Net, at least quote enough of
the prior message so that we know what you're talking about!
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>This message was created and sent using the Cyberdog Mail System
>---------------------------------------------------
John Goerzen
>wrote:
>
>>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960304201545.15604A-100000@dean1>,
>> otherguy <othe...@dash.com> writes:
>>>On 3 Mar 1996, John Goerzen wrote:
>
>{DELETED}
>
>>>True, I'm about to install FreeBSD on my 386, but hey, just because I
>>>don't feel like leaving my mac on 24 hours a day to run our LAN, who
>>>cares? I'm a cross-platform guy, it just depends upon the task I'm
>>>trying to do (usually done more easily on a Mac).
>>
>>Give me an example of a task done more easily on a Mac.
>>
>
>[DELETED]
>
>>John Goerzen, programmer and owner | Freedom..liberty..justice..democracy|
>>Communications Centre, Goessel, KS | ..limits on free spech on the Net...|
>>Main e-mail: jgoe...@complete.org | Which one doesn't belong? |
>
>ability to refute any and all examples the Mac infidels might needlessly
>trouble themselves with giving you, but... Just as a precaution, here are
>some examples of what they might try to confuse you with:
>
>into another folder/sub-directory. They might try to trick you with their
>mice, but don't give up! Stick to the keyboard!...Victory shall be yours,
>I think...
Simple! cd foldera; cp filea fileb filec filed lastfile ../folderb; cd ..
>b) Open a 10 Mb EPS file in Photoshop, apply a couple of filters to it,
>rotate it 90 degrees counter-clockwise, reduce it and save it as a 100K or
>less JPG. file and then insert it into a HTML document. That's a tough
>one... I don't know what to advise you on that. I'm sure that you will
>come up with something on the keyboard, though...You DO have Photoshop for
>your FreeBSD machine, right?
Again, simple!
gs -sDEVICE=ppm myfile.eps | pnmrotate 90 | pnmscale yourfactor | cjpeg >
file.jpeg
Of course, you just put the appropriate item in your HTML.
>
>c) Perform as many Internet/UseNet/etc. tasks as possible within a 5
>minute time span. (e.g. e-mail, check and send/read, Netscape connection
>to either Micro$lut's homepage or to Apple's homepage and download of ONE
>file in BOTH HTML and TEXT formats, FTP to the archive of choice and
>download a 200K or smaller item, download either 5 items from a binary
>UseNet newsgroup OR post 10 replies to a mac advocacy newsgroup ;), and
>other similar tasks for each of which points will be awarded). Try to
>stall them on either this one or the Photoshop one. Maybe you can
>improvise something, meanwhile...
FreeBSD easily beats Mac here... For instance, I can download a file:
ncftp ftp://ftp.apple.com/comparisons/why_macs_suck.tar.gz
Download a HTML page....
lynx -dump http://www.apple.com/comparisons/Unix_beats_apple.html > a.html
To get HTML source, simply replace -dump with -source.
To do both at once...
echo "-source -dump" | xargs -n 1 lynx
http://www.apple.com/Unix_is_faster.html > outputfile
Or to put them in a separate file, one could use...
printf "#\!/usr/local/bin/bash\nlynx -source \$1 > \$2\nlynx -dump \$1 >
\$3\n" > tempscript; bash ./tempscript
http://www.apple.com/ThePowerOfUnix.html file.{html,txt}; rm tempscript
I'm sure there are easier ways -- I'm fairly new to Unix.
Or of course, you could use Netscape and do it that way.
>d) Perhaps they might also throw some multimedia tasks your way, like
>editing of movies, sound/music sampling/recording/editing and so on. Steer
>clear of those traps. They mean trouble, I think...
Oh gee...Unix far outperforms Mac in this area! Ever heard of Sun? SGI?
>
> I'm sure that you are already prepared to counter any AppleScript
>treachery they might throw in simultaneously with any or all of the
>examples from above, as well as pesky little posturing with their
>drag-n-drop or multi-threaded tasking, so I won't even bring them up
>again. But be aware of TWO deceptions they will most certainly attempt to
>pull on you. They most likely will insist that the TIME and EASE of
>performing any/all of these tasks are to be the criteria for the
>evaluation (e.g. number of steps/commands/key strokes/mouse clicks
>required to acomplish X task on a Mac vs a PC or even a CLI Unix). Play
>that off as being unimportant or trivial. That will give more time with
>the keyboard and your FreeBSD secret weapon, see?.. If they still insist
>with those infuriatingly unreasonable criterias, laugh it off and just say
>that you have already finished all of those things (on your FreeBSD) and
>then give them the times/results which will truly show the inferiority of
>their OS/platform...
I can do all the things you've said already faster than on a Mac and easier.
The short program above is very fast to write. It shows the power of the
Unix command line, although I know that such a menial task can certainly be
done easier. One way is with two Lynx invocations thusly:
lynx -source http://www.apple.com/UnixIsBetter.html > file.html; lynx -dump
file.html > file.txt
If you don't create the above tempscript each time, the command becomes a
simple
/tempscript http://www.apple.com/TheEaseOfUnix.html file.{html,txt}
> You can't lose this way, see?...
I know I can't lose :-)
>
>
>A humbled,
>
>Candide
>
>--
>"Madness is rare in individuals; but in groups, parties, nations and ages, it is the rule."
>
>Friedrich Nietzsche
--
John Goerzen
>
>*> Then let me ask you this. Why...if you get a Mac modem, must you still
>*> configure it?
>*
>*I didn't, did someone else?
>
>No. With a MAC modem, no configuration is necessary. Note these
>instructions of the Romodi external hard drive installation for Mac:
>
>Install the driver software (La Cie Silverlining) from the disks included
>after putting the device anywhere on your SCSI chain (Chapter 2). Use
>terminator if it's the last device. Silverlining will load the SCSI
>device if you run it.
Gee, I can add a modem to me FreeBSD machine with NO disks. I can make it
dialin capable by making a simple (2 second) edit to one file.
>
>Now, the SAME products Windows/Windows 95 instructions:
>
>Insert the disk marked 'One.' Using File Manager, type A:\install.exe
>where A:\ is your floppy drive, or the floppy drive in question. If
>installation does not commence, try restarting your computer and launching
>from DOS. If this does not work, call our tech support number (see inside
>cover). If the installation through the six disk process
>
>(MY INTERRUPTION: REMEMBER THE MAC HAD ONE DISK!)
>
>continues without a hitch but the software is not on your computer, try
>installing it again in Windows. Or, try restarting and installing from
>DOS. If nothing works, call the tech support number.
>
>Ah - Windows plug and play really is!
>
All that shows is how stupid Windows is.
>How so? Everytime someone tries it, Apple's REAL plug-and-play gets
>another PLUG!
That's no plug and play as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I could have my
FreeBSD machine configured so that it automatically recognizes the presence
of another modem and automatically makes it dialin capable. You can't do
that on your Mac!
>
>Lex Friedman ,,, On IRC: Quam
>---------...@epix.net---------------ooO(o o)Ooo------------
> "Dead puppies aren't much fun." (_)
>A.C. Online: Making the Internet - and you - a little cooler.
> Rush to http://www.epix.net/~lexf/ac.html
>Weird Al For President in 1996: http://www.epix.net/~lexf/al.html
> www.apple.com - how Microsoft finds where they want to go today
--
John Goerzen
Le...@epix.net (Lex Friedman) writes:
>In article <ekleberr-060...@cmh-p027.infinet.com>,
>ekle...@infinet.com (ALE) wrote:
>
> *wrote:
>
> *> Can you also read ufs and ffs disks? Have multiple OSs on a
>single
> drive?
> *> Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
>
>*Unsure (I don't think so), Yes, Yes, Yes.
>
>That first one is also a yes, my friends. My Mac, which is used with many
>other computers in a crowded layout office for a national magazine, is
>able to read all the following disks:
>
>ufs, ffs, Mac, ProDOS, DOS, Windows, Apple II, Apple I, Sun, Com 64
>(really!), Amiga, Firestar, 2232, and more.
Now we know you're lieing. Commodore 64, Apple II, etc. disks are not a
size that can physically fit into a Mac drive!
KALiPORNiA
>>Install the driver software (La Cie Silverlining) from the disks included
>>Insert the disk marked 'One.' Using File Manager, type A:\install.exe
Now, from what I can tell, these are the same instructions with the exception
that the DOS based instructions seem to have one file name in them, which is
obviously WAY too much for the average Mac user to comprehend. The other
problem I have with this is the same problem I have with the person who
installs DOS software through Windows.
John Goerzen
to...@soho.ios.com (Candide) writes:
>In article <4ho3jt$5...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen)
>wrote:
>
>[The heresy of an nonbeliever in John's omniscience, has been DELETED]
>
>>>> Have a startup menu? Boot off of your second hard drive?
>>>
>>>Unsure (I don't think so), Yes, Yes, Yes.
>>
>>Please explain how to do the last three things so that we all know.
>>
>>>
>>>ALE
>>
>>--
>>Communications Centre, Goessel, KS | ..limits on free spech on the Net...|
>>Main e-mail: jgoe...@complete.org | Which one doesn't belong? |
>
>
> If you keep this up, you will only encourage their blasphemy and growing
>doubt regarding your Universal knowledge. Now, you would not want that,
>would you?...
>
>Here, I'll whisper the answers to you. I'm sure that you already know what
>they are, but you wanted only to test this, this Mac user!... Just to see
>if he is worth talking to, right?...
>
>
>1. Multiple OSs on a single Mac HD:
>
>a) The Software Route. Choice of MacOS, MachTen & A/UX (Unix), SoftWindoze
>(PC Micro$lut) and Linux (Unix) (available soon). Installed on a single HD
>with one or more partitions. No hardware whatsoever.
Nifty. Finally caught up with a feature PCs have had since oh, 1982. I'll
conceed this point.
>
>b) The Software/Hardware Route. DOS compatibility card(s). I believe that
>the latest Wintel chip for such a card is a 486DX2 but I could be
>mistaken. I'm not omniscient, after all... Combine that with the software
>from above and you achieve multiple OSs on a single Mac HD. Apple made a
>6100 PPC with a built in DOS card too...
>
>2. Start Up Menu
>
> Hmmm...Don't know if I can help you there, master. I do however believe
>that a Mac with a DOS card (perhaps even without one, depending on the
>options of the other OS installed) is able to start in either MacOS mode
>OR in DOS/Windoze mode. Moreover, you can have BOTH (SIMULTANEOUSLY)up &
>running and be able to switch between one and the other with a simple
>click of the mouse. The ONLY CLI command needed would probably be C:/win
>when in the Windoze/DOS environment...
But you cannot, upon turning on your computer, pick between various Mac OSs.
>
>3. Boot-Up of a secondary HD
>
> No problem there either, master. In the MacOS (I know that you have
>never actually SEEN this MacOS heresy, but try to imagine it, will you?)
>there is a control panel called "Start Up Disk". I know, I
>know...confusing but it is there nevertheless.
>ANY and ALL volumes/partions/drives (internal, external or
>removable)/optical disk drives/Syquest or Iomega Zip drives/ internal or
>external CD ROM drives/etc. WILL show up as options. This is true of all
>SCSI Macs, which, with a couple of exceptions, are ALL of the Macs. You
>may designate ANY of the items which show up in this confusing control
>panel, as the Start Up Disk/Drive...Crazy, I know, but it is done millions
>of times every day, nonetheless. You can even start up from a puny Iomega
>Zip disk, if you so choose. There is only one requirement. There MUST be a
>System folder on whatever device you designate as the start up volume.
>That's all!
But you cannot do that at startup.
> Icing on the cake? You can even start up from a System folder on another
>drive, in another building, in another country and on another continent if
>your Mac is properly networked! What will those devils at Apple, think of
>next!...
Gee, again PCs have been able to do that for ages.
>
> Hope that this helped, master. Don't let their puny arguments deter you
>from spreading the Wisdom...
>
>A humbled,
>
>Candide
>
>--
>"Madness is rare in individuals; but in groups, parties, nations and ages, it is the rule."
>
>Friedrich Nietzsche
--
Kevin B. Hayes
True. However, MacOS is not a multi-user OS. I could easily say - "My
Apple Menu has hierchies 10 levels deep, more than yours"
If you run UNIX on that Quad 610 - I would say performance in a multiuser
environment would beat that of your 386.
jb
wrote:
<<a whole bunch of stuff about why unix is so great>>
If unix is so great, why does it take a full-time administrator just to
keep it functioning at all?
That is, on a machine other than a 486....
:P
KALiPORNiA
Kazimir Kylheku
>In article <4i7j0e$3...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen)
>wrote:
>
><<a whole bunch of stuff about why unix is so great>>
>
>If unix is so great, why does it take a full-time administrator just to
>keep it functioning at all?
well, if the hardware doesn't have a clock timer, someone has to stand there
and push a big, red "Interupt!" button, I suppose... is that what you mean by
full time?
Most of the places I know will have someone take the time to look after
backups, setting up accounts, troubleshooting network stuff, and so on.
Hardly full time.
UNIX doesn't need a full time administrator. Just because someone is sitting at
the console and hacking doesn't mean that that person is _required_. Most UNIX
admins do nothing but goof off all day while pretending that the are working.
Xpilots, IRC, UseNet...
I'm currently doing software development on a Sun Sparc 20 that is completely
unattended most of the time and miles away from my terminal. It is going to
function with even less operator intervention when the project is complete.
There are companies with UNIX boxes that don't even have a monitor and
keyboard.
>That is, on a machine other than a 486....
The Intel instruction set has a feature which eliminates the need for a UNIX
sysop: you toggle a certain flag in a secret register.
--
Keith R. Fyhr
: >I thought this was some kind of a warez group.... why the fuck are there
: >shit loads of sad losers intent on debating the shit out of different
: >machines' pros + cons... get a life
: Yeah, well, quit crossposting into comp.os.msdos.misc. We don't want to
: hear it either.
Ok, why don't we just drop this stupid thread?????
--
|=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=|
| FREE SPEECH ONLINE! | Sticks and Stones, |
|----------------------------------| May break my bones, |
| krf...@mtu.edu | But so would an 80 lb. carrot! |
|----------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Electricians do it til it HZ!! | Tomorrow is the second day |
|(well, thats the *current* belief)| of the rest of your life! |
|=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=|
Mike McCammant
>wrote:
>
><<a whole bunch of stuff about why unix is so great>>
>
>If unix is so great, why does it take a full-time administrator just to
>keep it functioning at all?
Well, maybe because it is not a stupid box. It is the operating
system for a COMPUTER SYSTEM, not a simple, single user shell for a brick.
There are a ton of small systems that do not have full time admins. There
are even mid-range systems that require minimal administration.
>That is, on a machine other than a 486....
Even a 486 running UNIX can require a full-time administrator. It depends
on the functions the platform is supporting.
You may ask yourself why a NASCAR car requires a full crew and the old Vega
just runs and runs. ;)
--
Mike - mik...@macshack.com - Home of the JEO-Counter, graphic WWW counter
/---------------------------------------\ My opinions belong to me,
| Visit us at http://www.macshack.com | myself and I, not my employer,
\......................................./ the government or my wife...:)