MAC NETWORKING SUCKS!! REAL BAD!!!!
Thomas Trauth
I just wanted to tell all you Mac-Heads out there, especially you
Peter and Marc, that Apple's network software for the Mac is awful.
Macs linked together with Apple's networking software constantly
crash or freeze or log users out without their permission! They
throw scores of arcane error messages at you, like "Unknown Error
#4100" (and I thought Macs were supposed to be SOOO user friendly)
that makes the infamous UAE error of Windows 3.0 look like an
informative and helpful statement. And Apple networking software,
like everything else they've ever made (System 7 comes to mind) is
as slow as a slug and as hungry (for system resoruces) as a refugee
from Ethiopia! To put it in one concise statement "IT SUCKS!"
Maybe one of these days Apple will learn how to make decent products.
However, until that day (which just might occur in my next lifetime)
I will continue to ignore Apple and its consistently mediocre offerings!
End of anti-Mac diatribe #109.
*
* Tom Trauth
* tra...@paul.rutgers.edu
* The Mac is Crap (and that's a fact, Jack)!
*
PS: BTW why do the Centrises have their power button where the disk
eject button should be!!? To confuse everyone!? To make people
lose all their work by tricking them into turning off the computer
when all that they really want to do is eject a floppy disk!?
That's REEAALLLL user friendly!
PPS: Is System 7 still *85%* EMULATED!? Will System 7 ever go Native!?
Or become a halfway decent OS!?
Joseph P Lorenz
-snip snip-
>*
>
>PS: BTW why do the Centrises have their power button where the disk
> eject button should be!!? To confuse everyone!? To make people
> lose all their work by tricking them into turning off the computer
> when all that they really want to do is eject a floppy disk!?
> That's REEAALLLL user friendly!
>
Obviously you weren't paying much attention when you used that same
button to turn the thing ON! How much do you want one little button to
do anyway?
- Joe
*.Sparky.*
writes:
>I just wanted to tell all you Mac-Heads out there, especially you
>Peter and Marc, that Apple's network software for the Mac is awful.
>Macs linked together with Apple's networking software constantly
>crash or freeze or log users out without their permission!
Gee, here at trw.com we have about 1000 Macs all networked and humming along nicely. You
see, we have people here who know how to put a network together.
The only real freeze up I have had are with Microsoft ware.
S
Jim Wong
>Peter and Marc, that Apple's network software for the Mac is awful.
>Macs linked together with Apple's networking software constantly
>crash or freeze or log users out without their permission! They
>throw scores of arcane error messages at you, like "Unknown Error
>#4100" (and I thought Macs were supposed to be SOOO user friendly)
It sounds like your network is set up wrong or your software was
installed incorrectly. Have someone who knows what they're doing
take a look at it.
>* The Mac is Crap (and that's a fact, Jack)!
Ooh. Insanely clever.
>PPS: Is System 7 still *85%* EMULATED!? Will System 7 ever go Native!?
> Or become a halfway decent OS!?
Heh. Is the Amiga OS ever going to go RISC at all?
--
Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
sinc...@ins.infonet.net
>
>I just wanted to tell all you Mac-Heads out there, especially you
>Peter and Marc, that Apple's network software for the Mac is awful.
>Macs linked together with Apple's networking software constantly
>crash or freeze or log users out without their permission! They
>throw scores of arcane error messages at you, like "Unknown Error
>#4100" (and I thought Macs were supposed to be SOOO user friendly)
>that makes the infamous UAE error of Windows 3.0 look like an
>informative and helpful statement. And Apple networking software,
>like everything else they've ever made (System 7 comes to mind) is
>as slow as a slug and as hungry (for system resoruces) as a refugee
>from Ethiopia! To put it in one concise statement "IT SUCKS!"
Your credibility is zero when commenting on the Mac because of your obvious
bias.
>
>Maybe one of these days Apple will learn how to make decent products.
>However, until that day (which just might occur in my next lifetime)
>I will continue to ignore Apple and its consistently mediocre offerings!
Decent products? Apple must be, because C= went bankrupt and Atari was driven
out of the computer market.
>
>End of anti-Mac diatribe #109.
>
>*
>* Tom Trauth
>* tra...@paul.rutgers.edu
>* The Mac is Crap (and that's a fact, Jack)!
>*
>
>PS: BTW why do the Centrises have their power button where the disk
> eject button should be!!? To confuse everyone!? To make people
> lose all their work by tricking them into turning off the computer
> when all that they really want to do is eject a floppy disk!?
> That's REEAALLLL user friendly!
Don't tell me that you pressed the button and thought it was the eject button.
Was there ever a disk eject button on the Mac models? Shows how much you know.
For first time Mac beginners or say novice, please read the Manual so you won't
abuse the belove Mac..
>
>PPS: Is System 7 still *85%* EMULATED!? Will System 7 ever go Native!?
> Or become a halfway decent OS!?
If your using a PowerMac, the above is true. As for going native completely,
You have to wait for Copeland. Is Windows and OS2 optimized for Pentimum?
>
>
-Peter
Takegami
From your comments I would deduce you don't use a Mac (or not if you don't
have to anyway). Soooo, WHAT'S IT TO'YA?!?!?!?!
Every Mac is a happy Mac. Every PC needs an upgrade.
Don Carlile
<spa...@babylon5.trw.sp.com> wrote:
Gee, Sparky, I don't want to disagree with you, but by my estimate, that number
is way low. It's more like 3500,and that's just at Space Park. If you
add extended TRW, the number really goes up. But you're right, I've been
networking
Macs for almost 10 years, and I have *NEVER* seen anything like what Mr. Trauth
complains about.
Don Carlile
Thomas Trauth
>- Joe
It wasn't I who made that mistake, but several of my students. You see, for every
person who uses the Mac, 8 use the PC, and PC users are used to computers having disk
eject buttons. So naturally many of them will make that mistake when using the
Centrises. How are they supposed to know that Apple, in one of its crazy design
decisions, decided to annoy users by not including a disk eject button on the Mac.
That decision was made even though the first Macs didn't even have hard disks, making
it even more pathetic. And to all of you who doubt that Apple has made several bad
design decisions, let me remind you of the following: the original Mac keyboard (no
arrow keys!), the first Mac portable (unreadable screen that could easily ruin your
eyes), and the original Macintosh, the Mac128 (only had 10K of RAM after the OS was
loaded).
*
* Tom Trauth
* tra...@paul.rutgers.edu
* The Mac is Crap (and that's a fact, Jack)!
*
And System 7 is megacrap!!
Thomas Trauth
^^^^^^^^
||||||||
Peter Sinclair-Dickhead
[Snip]
>Your credibility is zero when commenting on the Mac because of your obvious
>bias.
Obvious bias towards the Mac? Look who's talking. If my credibility is zero
because of that, yours must be negative.
>>Maybe one of these days Apple will learn how to make decent products.
>>However, until that day (which just might occur in my next lifetime)
>>I will continue to ignore Apple and its consistently mediocre offerings!
>Decent products? Apple must be, because C= went bankrupt and Atari was driven
>out of the computer market.
And has a market share that is less than one fourth the size of the PC market.
>>PS: BTW why do the Centrises have their power button where the disk
>> eject button should be!!? To confuse everyone!? To make people
>> lose all their work by tricking them into turning off the computer
>> when all that they really want to do is eject a floppy disk!?
>> That's REEAALLLL user friendly!
>Don't tell me that you pressed the button and thought it was the eject button.
>Was there ever a disk eject button on the Mac models? Shows how much you know.
>For first time Mac beginners or say novice, please read the Manual so you won't
>abuse the belove Mac..
^^^^^^
See, told ya he's having sexual relations with his computer (or at least trying to)!
BTW I have known about the Mac's idiotic lack of a disk eject button for years! It
was not me who made that mistake but several students in my recitation. How were
they to know that Macs weren't nearly as "user friendly" as advertised!
>>PPS: Is System 7 still *85%* EMULATED!? Will System 7 ever go Native!?
>> Or become a halfway decent OS!?
>If your using a PowerMac, the above is true. As for going native completely,
>You have to wait for Copeland. Is Windows and OS2 optimized for Pentimum?
Are Windows and OS/2 *emulated* on the Pentium? I think not!
>-Peter
Can't you come up with a better .sig than that!?
*
* Tom Trauth
* tra...@paul.rutgers.edu
* The Mac is Crap (and that's a fact, Jack)!
* The Sincrap is Crap!
* The Sinflop is a Flop!
*
Mark Alan Cirino
worldwide nets. All Mac and mixed Mac / DOS / Windoze / Unix / WHATEVER.
I've never experienced any of the problems that you describe in your
"diatribe". Millions of companies all over the world are able to network
Macs and other platforms just fine, thanx. Perhpas your network
administrator is not equipped to handle the job and you should look for
another one. Good luck.
- Mark Alan
Peter Antoniw
: -snip snip-
: Obviously you weren't paying much attention when you used that same
: button to turn the thing ON! How much do you want one little button to
: do anyway?
: - Joe
I guess you have never used more than one computer at the same time ...
You go to pop the disk out to put in the other computer (Amiga/IBM)
and ... DOH!!!
(Sometimes you just get lost in your work)
MACS SUCK! (so do IBM's running anything other than linix)
Jim Wong
> the first Mac portable (unreadable screen that could easily ruin your
Wrong. The Macintosh Portable had a very nice active matrix screen.
>eyes), and the original Macintosh, the Mac128 (only had 10K of RAM after the OS was
>loaded).
Wrong. Please try to learn a little about the Mac before you
spout off about its deficiencies (and there are plenty of them --
you just don't have the first clue what they are).
--
Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
Jim Wong
>Peter Sinclair-Dickhead
That's mature.
>And has a market share that is less than one fourth the size of the PC market.
An Amiga advocate talking market share? Interesting.
--
Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
Derick Siddoway
jd-...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
> pant...@jupiter.scs.Ryerson.CA (Peter Antoniw) writes
> >I guess you have never used more than one computer at the same time ...
>
> I sure have -- it's so frustrating to switch to a system and
> alize it can't even eject disks from its own drives.
Yeah, especially when installing that huge program with 27 floppies.
On one of those *other* systems, you have to push the button, pull the
floppy, insert the floppy and hit any key. On my mac, two of these
steps are taken care of for me by the computer. (I thought that this
is what computers were for - to do work *for* me...)
-----------
Derick H. Siddoway __o If you stew cranberries like
sidd...@ee.utah.edu _>\<,_ applesauce, they taste much
University of Utah (_)/ (_) more like plums than rhubarb
Department of Electrical Engineering does. - (Groucho Marx) -
Jim Wong
>I guess you have never used more than one computer at the same time ...
I sure have -- it's so frustrating to switch to a system and
alize it can't even eject disks from its own drives.
>MACS SUCK! (so do IBM's running anything other than linix)
Heh.
--
Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
Athas
: In article <36h7c6$o...@u.cc.utah.edu>,
: Derick Siddoway <der...@gse.utah.edu> wrote:
: >Yeah, especially when installing that huge program with 27 floppies.
: >On one of those *other* systems, you have to push the button, pull the
: >floppy, insert the floppy and hit any key. On my mac, two of these
: >steps are taken care of for me by the computer. (I thought that this
: >is what computers were for - to do work *for* me...)
: >
: You can't be serious! Complaining that hitting an eject button is too
: strenuous a chore! Perhaps they should add disk ejecting to the decathlon!
: NO, seriously, any person who has used a PC for any length of time can
: with one fluent motion, reach up, eject the disk and take it just as easily
: as on a Mac. It's not like the Mac magically teleports the disk in and out
: of the machine. It just pushes the button for you. You still have to pull
: the disk out and insert with just the same amount of force as you would on
: a PC. In fact, hitting the eject button and removing a disk on a PC is
: faster than the automatic eject on a Mac.
: Andrew Sinclair
Well I think he still has a point on the auto ejector for installing
software. I can go do something else (human multitasking :>) then
hear sound of the auto eject mechanism or look across the room and
see the disk hanging out, then I know its time to feed another in.
Very helpful, I would think this would be especially useful for those
fat Windows programs.
Greg
P.S. Also I don't have to worry about my sister ejecting disks during
a write like she does on her pc.
Jim Wong
>computer. Are you sure that that screen was active matrix? If it was, than
>Apple is even more pathetic than I thought they were.
The Mac Portable had one of the best portable screens on the market
at the time.
>Someone told me it had 20K. THAT"S A REAL IMPROVEMENT!
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
--
Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
Jim Wong
>>Yeah, especially when installing that huge program with 27 floppies.
>>On one of those *other* systems, you have to push the button, pull the
>>floppy, insert the floppy and hit any key. On my mac, two of these
>>steps are taken care of for me by the computer. (I thought that this
>>is what computers were for - to do work *for* me...)
>Ever here of CD-ROMs?
Why don't you address his point instead of making snide comments?
And, by the way, it's "hear".
--
Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
Gerald G. Washington
: asin...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Andrew Sinclair) writes:
: > You can't be serious! Complaining that hitting an eject button is too
: >strenuous a chore! Perhaps they should add disk ejecting to the decathlon!
:
: in memory to be too much effort either.
How many memory locations are we talking about, and how many floppy
drives? I see some difference here.
: Little things count -- auto-
: eject is akin to power windows or door locks in a car.
No, an eject-signalling button would be akin to power windows. Auto-eject
is like having the windows go up on their own if it rains or you turn the
car off, etc.
-- Gerald
Shawn V. Hernan
>Ever here of CD-ROMs?
Ever..uh "here" of homophones?
Shawn
Shawn Valentine Hernan |
The University of Pittsburgh | Dump the RICO Laws
vale...@pitt.edu |
412-624-6425 |
Simon K Boocock
NETWORKING SUCKS!! .. by Thomas Tra...@pepper.rut
for years!
> It
> was not me who made that mistake but several students in my
recitation. How wer
> e
> they to know that Macs weren't nearly as "user friendly" as advertised!
>
Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 30-Sep-94 Re: MAC
NETWORKING SUCKS!! .. by Thomas Tra...@pepper.rut
> Your right about one thing: I wouldn't use a Mac if I didn't have to.
> The problem is that I DO have to because I am TAing a Mac lab.
>
So how were they to know about the power button -
maybe you could tell them.
Hope you do/did, early and often.
At least that should reduce instances of inadvertent Mac shutdown.
Fred Baker
Thomas Trauth <tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>advocate the Amiga. I have no idea where or how you got that idea.
It was a reasonable assumption. Having read a number of your previous posts,
I think you come off as puerile and as sophomoric as any Amigan Lost Boy.
>
>* Tom Trauth
Michael Guzzo
[snip]
>In fact, hitting the eject button and removing a disk on a PC is
>faster than the automatic eject on a Mac.
> Andrew Sinclair
In fact, hitting the reset button on a PC running DOS and Windows is much
more common that on a Mac running System 7 ;-)
*****
Michael Guzzo msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov
Email me for the FutureBasic FAQ - available RSN...
Thomas Trauth
Your right about one thing: I wouldn't use a Mac if I didn't have to.
The problem is that I DO have to because I am TAing a Mac lab.
What can I say...life sucks!
Jim Wong
>: Well, at one point they didn't consider using switches to set values
>: in memory to be too much effort either.
>How many memory locations are we talking about, and how many floppy
>drives? I see some difference here.
All the same, people didn't think anything of using punch cards
or other input methods that are primitve by today's standards.
>No, an eject-signalling button would be akin to power windows. Auto-eject
>is like having the windows go up on their own if it rains or you turn the
>car off, etc.
No, I think auto-eject is fairly analogous to power windows; in both
cases, the machine is stuck in its current state if you deprive
it of power. The biggest difference I can think of is that the
Mac gives you an obvious escape mechanism.
(This eject button thing is really one of your pet peeves, isn't it?
Every time if comes up, you get involved.)
--
Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
*.Sparky.*
asin...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca writes:
> NO, seriously, any person who has used a PC for any length of time can
>with one fluent motion, reach up, eject the disk and take it just as easily
>as on a Mac. It's not like the Mac magically teleports the disk in and out
>of the machine. It just pushes the button for you. You still have to pull
>the disk out and insert with just the same amount of force as you would on
>a PC. In fact, hitting the eject button and removing a disk on a PC is
>faster than the automatic eject on a Mac.
Gee, my Mac ejects the disk, updates the label, and puts it away in the correct disk
box. Have I got something special? Is this in the FAQ?
sparko
*.Sparky.*
writes:
>Amiga advocate!? Actually, I am a PC user. I have, am not, and will not
>advocate the Amiga. I have no idea where or how you got that idea.
He must have mistaken you for JAMES NGUYEN, another flame baiter who passed through here
a while back. JAMES thought the Amiga was an suitable equivalent for orgasms.
sparky
*.Sparky.*
writes:
>Ever here of CD-ROMs?
Thank you for playing our game: Verb Free Grammer!
You win a one way trip to the offices of Bill Gates!
:-)
spunky
Rick Tan
asin...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Andrew Sinclair) wrote:
> You can't be serious! Complaining that hitting an eject button is too
> strenuous a chore! Perhaps they should add disk ejecting to the decathlon!
>
> NO, seriously, any person who has used a PC for any length of time can
> with one fluent motion, reach up, eject the disk and take it just as easily
> as on a Mac. It's not like the Mac magically teleports the disk in and out
> of the machine. It just pushes the button for you. You still have to pull
> the disk out and insert with just the same amount of force as you would on
> a PC. In fact, hitting the eject button and removing a disk on a PC is
> faster than the automatic eject on a Mac.
>
> Andrew Sinclair
Mac's never had eject buttons, so the people who were complaining that the
power-up button is where the disk eject button are complaining about
nothing.
An advantage to an auto-eject is that you can't inadvertently mess up a
disk, like when you or someone else ejects a floppy while the computer is
writing to it.
As to the speed of hitting the eject button and removing a disk, how can
you say that 2 tasks takes less time than one task? Doesn't make sense at
all, if anything, it would be "AS FAST AS".
Rick
Bernd U Meyer
>jd-...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>>tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu (Thomas Trauth) writes:
>>>and the original Macintosh, the Mac128 (only had 10K of RAM after the OS was
>>>loaded).
>Someone told me it had 20K. THAT"S A REAL IMPROVEMENT!
But come on, it was designed to be upgraded to 512k without any pain.
Only they couldn't tell you about it, because the engineers did it
kind of secretly --- big Steve Jobs would have demanded this feature
removed if he had heard about it.....
Bernie
--
"And the band played 'Waltzing Mathilda' / as we stopped to bury our slain;
And we buried ours / and the Turks buried theirs | ..... living in Oz ....
And it started all over again" |
(The Pogues, "Waltzing Mathilda", orig by Eric Bogle, "And the band played WM")
Bernd U Meyer
> NO, seriously, any person who has used a PC for any length of time can
>with one fluent motion, reach up, eject the disk and take it just as easily
>as on a Mac.
Well, I found out that my MacPlus's auto-eject is a very nice feature :-)))
The thing runs out of memory (no wonder, only 1 Meg in there), and kicks
out some of its OS. Later it needs that part and asks for the OS disk,
ejecting whatever is in the drive. So I pick that one up with the right hand,
and insert the OS disk with the left (so far no difference to PC). Then, 5
seconds later, the Mac wants the app disk back and spits out the OS disk.
And now I *can* pick up the OS disk with the *left* hand and insert the
app disk with the right one (which I still have the app disk in...)
I still can't eject and catch a PC disk with my left hand.... :-)
Mike Cohen
>- Mark Alan
I'll bet he's trying to network PowerMacs & 68K macs via Localtalk, which can
result in those problems. The solution is to get Network System Installer 1.4.5
(I don't remember if you need to install it on the PowerMacs only or on all of
the macs).
--
Mike Cohen - is...@netcom.com
NewtonMail, eWorld: MikeC / ALink: D6734 / AOL: MikeC20
Home Page: file://ftp.netcom.com/pub/isis/home.html
Andrew Sinclair
>Yeah, especially when installing that huge program with 27 floppies.
>On one of those *other* systems, you have to push the button, pull the
>floppy, insert the floppy and hit any key. On my mac, two of these
>steps are taken care of for me by the computer. (I thought that this
>is what computers were for - to do work *for* me...)
>
You can't be serious! Complaining that hitting an eject button is too
strenuous a chore! Perhaps they should add disk ejecting to the decathlon!
NO, seriously, any person who has used a PC for any length of time can
with one fluent motion, reach up, eject the disk and take it just as easily
*.Sparky.*
writes:
>And has a market share that is less than one fourth the size of the PC market.
VHS stinks and has 99% of the market. What's your point?
S
*.Sparky.*
>* The Sinflop is a Flop!
>*
Can't you??????
S
Jim Wong
> You can't be serious! Complaining that hitting an eject button is too
>strenuous a chore! Perhaps they should add disk ejecting to the decathlon!
Well, at one point they didn't consider using switches to set values
in memory to be too much effort either. Little things count -- auto-
eject is akin to power windows or door locks in a car.
>of the machine. It just pushes the button for you. You still have to pull
>the disk out and insert with just the same amount of force as you would on
Actually, this isn't completely true; older Mac's disk drives will
grab the disk as you insert it. Apple abandoned this feature in the
name of cost cutting about a year ago.
--
Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
Matthias Neeracher
> And to all of you who doubt that Apple has made several bad design decisions,
> let me remind you of the following: the original Mac keyboard (no arrow
> keys!), the first Mac portable (unreadable screen that could easily ruin your
> eyes), and the original Macintosh, the Mac128 (only had 10K of RAM after the
> OS was loaded).
You have no idea what you are talking about. The 128K Mac *was* short on
memory, but even MacPaint 1.0 and MacWrite 1.0 were not quite sleek enough to
run in 10K. (And they *did* run, I can assure you).
Matthias
-----
Matthias Neeracher <ne...@iis.ee.ethz.ch> http://err.ethz.ch/members/neeri.html
"Rock and Roll adolescent hoodlums storm the streets of all nations."
-- William Burroughs, _The Naked Lunch_
Matthias Neeracher
> I just wanted to tell all you Mac-Heads out there, especially you
> Peter and Marc, that Apple's network software for the Mac is awful.
Isn't :-)
> Macs linked together with Apple's networking software constantly
> crash or freeze or log users out without their permission!
Not if the network is properly managed (Yes, Apple networks need to be managed
properly, just like any other networks).
> To put it in one concise statement "IT SUCKS!"
You are of course welcome to blame your own incompetence on the computer, but
that is not likely to yield any productive results.
> [...] I will continue to ignore Apple
Doesn't seem to me that you have been ignoring Apple, but I grant you that
you've shown yourself to be quite ignorant of it.
> PPS: Is System 7 still *85%* EMULATED!?
In terms of LOC, this is quite possible. In terms of time spent in the code, it
never was.
> Will System 7 ever go Native!?
An entirely native Mac OS will probably no longer have a version number
starting with 7.
> Or become a halfway decent OS!?
It has always been at least 66% decent, and I'd say System 7.5 is about 90%
decent.
Matthias
-----
Matthias Neeracher <ne...@iis.ee.ethz.ch> http://err.ethz.ch/members/neeri.html
"I'm set free to find a new illusion" -- Velvet Underground
Thomas Trauth
>tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu (Thomas Trauth) writes:
>> the first Mac portable (unreadable screen that could easily ruin your
>Wrong. The Macintosh Portable had a very nice active matrix screen.
Very nice active matrix screen!? You must have gotten I different one than
my uncle did, then. He got one of the original Mac Portables, and the screen
was so dimly lit that I could barely read it even with to lamps behind the
computer. Are you sure that that screen was active matrix? If it was, than
Apple is even more pathetic than I thought they were.
>>eyes), and the original Macintosh, the Mac128 (only had 10K of RAM after the OS was
>>loaded).
Someone told me it had 20K. THAT"S A REAL IMPROVEMENT!
>Wrong. Please try to learn a little about the Mac before you
>spout off about its deficiencies (and there are plenty of them --
>you just don't have the first clue what they are).
>--
>Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
Thomas Trauth
>tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu (Thomas Trauth) writes:
>>Peter Sinclair-Dickhead
>That's mature.
>>And has a market share that is less than one fourth the size of the PC market.
>An Amiga advocate talking market share? Interesting.
>--
>Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
Amiga advocate!? Actually, I am a PC user. I have, am not, and will not
advocate the Amiga. I have no idea where or how you got that idea.
* Tom Trauth
Thomas Trauth
>Yeah, especially when installing that huge program with 27 floppies.
>On one of those *other* systems, you have to push the button, pull the
>floppy, insert the floppy and hit any key. On my mac, two of these
>steps are taken care of for me by the computer. (I thought that this
>is what computers were for - to do work *for* me...)
Ever here of CD-ROMs?
Mike Cohen
>jd-...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>>tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu (Thomas Trauth) writes:
>>> the first Mac portable (unreadable screen that could easily ruin your
>>Wrong. The Macintosh Portable had a very nice active matrix screen.
>Very nice active matrix screen!? You must have gotten I different one than
WRONG. The original portable had an ugly passive matrix screen with no
backlighting (which was added in an upgrade later on) and used the same basic
design as the PowerBook 100, but in a heavy case that would only fit on
Roseanne's lap.
JohnC
> tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu (Thomas Trauth) writes:
>
> >jd-...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>
> >>tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu (Thomas Trauth) writes:
> >>> the first Mac portable (unreadable screen that could easily ruin your
>
> >>Wrong. The Macintosh Portable had a very nice active matrix screen.
>
> >Very nice active matrix screen!? You must have gotten I different one than
>
> WRONG. The original portable had an ugly passive matrix screen with no
> backlighting (which was added in an upgrade later on) and used the same basic
> design as the PowerBook 100, but in a heavy case that would only fit on
> Roseanne's lap.
People babble and babble about all the stuff they're sure about that just
isn't true, and they never bother to change the Subject: line...
The original Portable had an ACTIVE-MATRIX, NON-BACKLIT LCD screen. The
revised Portable added a backlight. It is proper to say that the
PowerBook 100 used a miniaturized version of the Portable's logic design
(miniaturized and manufactured by Sony, thus making the PB100 the only
Apple CPU not manufactured by Apple itself)
JohnC (j-cav...@uchicago.edu)
Jim Wong
>WRONG. The original portable had an ugly passive matrix screen with no
>backlighting (which was added in an upgrade later on) and used the same basic
>design as the PowerBook 100, but in a heavy case that would only fit on
>Roseanne's lap.
You are incorrect. The original Portable had an active matrix screen;
indeed, it's screen could be seen as one of its few redeeming qualities.
--
Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
Evan Torrie
>tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu (Thomas Trauth) writes:
>>jd-...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>>>tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu (Thomas Trauth) writes:
>>>> the first Mac portable (unreadable screen that could easily ruin your
>>>Wrong. The Macintosh Portable had a very nice active matrix screen.
>>Very nice active matrix screen!? You must have gotten I different one than
>WRONG. The original portable had an ugly passive matrix screen with no
>backlighting (which was added in an upgrade later on)
The original had no backlighting which made it hard to read, but it
WAS active-matrix (one of the first PC laptops to have an active-matrix
screen, BTW).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<A HREF="http://liber.stanford.edu/~torrie/>Evan Torrie</A>.
Stanford University, Class of 199? tor...@cs.stanford.edu (finger for PGP)
"And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which
limits or destroys the individual", _East_of_Eden, John Steinbeck.
Dale Adams
> tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu (Thomas Trauth) writes:
>
> >jd-...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>
> >>tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu (Thomas Trauth) writes:
> >>> the first Mac portable (unreadable screen that could easily ruin your
>
> >>Wrong. The Macintosh Portable had a very nice active matrix screen.
>
> >Very nice active matrix screen!? You must have gotten I different one than
>
> WRONG. The original portable had an ugly passive matrix screen with no
> backlighting (which was added in an upgrade later on) and used the same basic
> design as the PowerBook 100, but in a heavy case that would only fit on
> Roseanne's lap.
Nope, still wrong (at least partly). The original Mac Portable had an
active matrix screen. Indeed, I believe it was the _first_ portable
computer to use one. What it did not have, and what is the source of the
controversy here, is a backlit screen. This made it difficult to view in
low light situtations, and made its clarity dependent on the ambient
lighting situation. The screen upgrade merely added a backlight. The fact
that the PowerBook 100 was based on the design of the original Mac Portable
has absolutely nothing to do with the screen technologies used in either
machine.
- Dale Adams
Michael Molloy
say _something_.
Sir, I must have lost your point. I understand you feel that Mac networking
stinks. I think so...the built-in Localtalk anyways. I haven't seen
TokenRing or Ethernet/talk. Slow comes to mind. However, I have _yet_
to find my 20-node network -- which I think is wired back-asswards in the
first place -- having any problems. No crashes due to it, infact, the
machines are all running 7.0, which as we _all_ know was buggy to
begin with, and not a single problem. You think you are having problems?
I think you should investigate the source. The #1 source of all computer
problems is related to the person who types at the keyboard or flicks
his mice around. (probably like yourself...do you by some odd chance
beat up on machines when they mess up? You think that _maybe_ you were
the cause of the problem in the first place? Nahh...next question.)
The Mac is _not_ crap. A Mac is not the biological refuse of some a
biological process from some biological organism.
On the serious side, though, I believe that people should buy a computer
solely based on how much work you can do on it and how well you and this
computer can get along. If you cannot use the computer, it would not
make sense to buy it, as you will spend _more_ time getting the machine
to work for you rather then the opposite. If you hate Macs so much,
by God then man, do use one. You obviously cannot function with one.
Your forte is the PeeCee I would guess. Use them. Some people can't
use PeeCees.
Now I am not one who can't use a PeeCee. I can use any computer put in
front of my face...I am a Computer Theorist, I guess that comes with the
territory. But I always play when I am on a PeeCee, trying to push it
until it breaks. That's all I think of when someone mentions a PeeCee:
a game machine. I use my Mac solely for work. I don't play on it,
and probably won't in the near future. However, the point remains:
If you cannot function with the computer, the computer will not function.
End of story, end of lecture, end of post. Period.
Michael A Molloy
(mmo...@delphi.com)
Computer Science Major: Computer Theory
---------------------------------------
Michael Molloy
>In article <36de61$a...@pepper.rutgers.edu> tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu (Thomas Trauth) writes:
>
> -snip snip-
>>*
>>
>>PS: BTW why do the Centrises have their power button where the disk
>> eject button should be!!? To confuse everyone!? To make people
>> lose all their work by tricking them into turning off the computer
>> when all that they really want to do is eject a floppy disk!?
>> That's REEAALLLL user friendly!
Oh yeah, and that reminds me. My point about not being able to use a machine.
My point is well noted in that little PS. If ignorance prevailed in this
world, we wouldn't be where we are today, don't you think?
I just want to point out to the original poster that all Macs _never_ had
a disk-eject button on the drives. Second, I don't feel that Apple
made a good choice putting the power button on the front too.
I have a IIsi, and I feel that the power-key was there for a _reason_.
I think that Apple should make all Macs that way, it is so impressive.
I have yet to see a PeeCee with such a simple feature: Turn on the
machine with the keyboard.
Michael Molloy
Michael Molloy
>Your right about one thing: I wouldn't use a Mac if I didn't have to.
>The problem is that I DO have to because I am TAing a Mac lab.
>
>What can I say...life sucks!
Tom, I must feel for you. I think you might have read my earlier post
about I position on PeeCee's. I cannot function with them, I get no
work done with them. However, I get work done on my Mac.
My Point: My computer lab at school is based solely on PeeCees.
I live in MS-DOS hell, where everyone thinks that the PeeCee is the only
machine in the world and everything else is wrong. I show them a Mac,
and they sit and wonder, like the inbred selves they are. It is
_different_.
And why are you TAing a Mac lab? Can't find another easy credit?
Michael Molloy
>It wasn't I who made that mistake, but several of my students. You see, for every
[much bitching thrown into into hell for safekeeping]
That just proves one point, Mr. Tom. People who use only use one computer
become ignorant. They don't know how to co-op with anything else.
But that would violate my rule about if you can't use a computer don't
use it. I never mentioned the fact that you will still have to deal
with it, so it is best to take up this Renaisannce philosophy:
Learn about that which is alien to you.
You will be better off in the end. Your students who use PeeCee's need
to start learning about the other worlds, and the newbies need to
learn about the unity of all the worlds. If you don't teach that,
you are providing to this ignorance and are hence a bad instructor.
You aren't teaching, you are throwing ignorance around, assuming that
you don't teach the differences in computers.
However, I do see your point in the design compromises by Apple.
However again, I challenge you to tell me why the hell Microsloth
put that 640k barrier on MS-DOS. Was it the fact that _maybe_ it
was thought that the end user wouldn't need that?
Something to think about, however, teach that to your students as well.
History tends to repeat itself, unless it the past is versed.
Michael Molloy
>Peter Sinclair-Dickhead
[and still more bitch to be thrown into hell for safekeeping, as my master
might want to look into that guy...]
I might want to ask you what credibility you have? You are obviously
ignorant to tolerance. You are like my father: a man that thinks he knows
all, but when a problem comes up and cannot be fixed, becomes a major a
<hit delete key at that last 'a'> asshole. I mention the IIgs. He got
all pissed off when he couldn't get the machine to boot. He was used to
PeeCees and mainframes. They basically boot themselves.
He punched the machine, and broke it. I managed to fix it myself.
Works just fine, thank you.
MY POINT: If you lack enough tolerance to even ignore the surface and
ignore the problem and get down to the _solution_, then you have lost
the entire battle and are no longer honorable in anything you do.
MY POINT'S SECONDARY SUB-CLAUSE: If you cannot function with the computer,
don't use _that_ computer. Find another one that provides the necessary
functions you desire.
End of point, end of lecture, end of post. Period.
Michael Molloy
>Wrong. Please try to learn a little about the Mac before you
>spout off about its deficiencies (and there are plenty of them --
>you just don't have the first clue what they are).
have their shortcomings. No computer is either perfect or for everyone.
I challenge _anyone_ to prove that wrong. And if you can, I want
triple-redundant sources with sources proving those. Because I know
that no one can.
But you may try all you want. Failure will be the tale of doom and woe
Michael Molloy
>Yeah, especially when installing that huge program with 27 floppies.
>On one of those *other* systems, you have to push the button, pull the
>floppy, insert the floppy and hit any key. On my mac, two of these
>steps are taken care of for me by the computer. (I thought that this
>is what computers were for - to do work *for* me...)
Michael A Molloy
(mmo...@delphi.com)
Computer Science Major: Computer Theory
---------------------------------------
Michael Molloy
> NO, seriously, any person who has used a PC for any length of time can
>with one fluent motion, reach up, eject the disk and take it just as easily
>as on a Mac. It's not like the Mac magically teleports the disk in and out
>of the machine. It just pushes the button for you. You still have to pull
>the disk out and insert with just the same amount of force as you would on
>a PC. In fact, hitting the eject button and removing a disk on a PC is
>faster than the automatic eject on a Mac.
There is a single, underlying point:
Some people can't use PeeCees, just as some can't use Macs, just as come
can't use UNIX, just as some can't use Amigas, just as some...
Can you grasp that?
Michael Molloy
>Nope, still wrong (at least partly). The original Mac Portable had an
>active matrix screen. Indeed, I believe it was the _first_ portable
>computer to use one. What it did not have, and what is the source of the
>controversy here, is a backlit screen. This made it difficult to view in
>low light situtations, and made its clarity dependent on the ambient
>lighting situation. The screen upgrade merely added a backlight. The fact
>that the PowerBook 100 was based on the design of the original Mac Portable
>has absolutely nothing to do with the screen technologies used in either
>machine.
The Macintosh Portable had an Active-Matrix screen, non-backlit, and
was the first machine to incorporate this technology in portables.
The PowerBook 100 used a passive matrix screen, backlit.
The later Mac Portables had backlighting, just before they were
discontinued. I know I have the non-backlit one. Didn't upgrade.
Michael Molloy
>As to the speed of hitting the eject button and removing a disk, how can
>you say that 2 tasks takes less time than one task? Doesn't make sense at
>all, if anything, it would be "AS FAST AS".
It is true. I can eject a disk from a PeeCee faster than I can in my Mac.
It would analogous to the RISC/CISC debate. It takes more instructions
on a RISC processor, yet it is obviously faster at executing instructions.
Michael Molloy
>I'll bet he's trying to network PowerMacs & 68K macs via Localtalk, which can
>result in those problems. The solution is to get Network System Installer 1.4.5
>(I don't remember if you need to install it on the PowerMacs only or on all of
>the macs).
Best bet...install it on _all_ the macs. You know what happens when
you get different LaserWriter driver versions on the same network:
HELL!
Michael Molloy
>WRONG. The original portable had an ugly passive matrix screen with no
>backlighting (which was added in an upgrade later on) and used the same basic
>design as the PowerBook 100, but in a heavy case that would only fit on
>Roseanne's lap.
Reroute your command process to the PB100. It had a passive-matrix screen.
Halimi Mohamed
to tell you guys my story.
I was originally a Peecee user (a damn good one, i tell you!) while
I was in Malaysia since our lab don't have any other computer. But then, it
was 6 years ago. I never heard of a Mac or any other computers except the
peecees. Even when my auntie gave me an Apple II for my birthday present,
I still think that the Apple was an peecee based machine. My point is that
I have never given a chance to get to learn to use other comp. besides a pc.
BTW, the Apple II, was broken down merely after a year with me.
When I came to the States, I realized that there are different kinds
of computers. That's when I get to know Sun, HP, Macs, Amiga etc etc. Then,
my schoolwork often forces me to use Macs. I remember that I used IIcis for
my graphing, and spreadsheets. And I thought, that was really fast computers.
Then, I learn how to use UNIX based machines because, at that time in our lab
only the Unix based comp. can send emails, play irc, ftp and other internet
stuff. I was very impressed. But, I stress here, I never find any advantages
of using peecees at that time. Peecees was unattractive, clumsy, and not
suited for my taste anymore. I threw away all the peecees softwares that I
brought to the States. I found Macs and Unix based comp. as more attractive
and have more features to fullfill my need at that time. IOW, I was more
exposed to the Macs and Unix machines than the pcs. I never regret that, and
I am proud to say, that it's been a year now, and I haven't break my Q605 yet.
(hopefully).
Get the idea?
******************************************************************************
Adly Azamin Azman Be Cool
University of Wisconsin - Whitewater It Makes You Hot!
Chemistry/Mathematics Department azma...@uwwvax.uww.edu
******************************************************************************
Michael Molloy
>Very nice active matrix screen!? You must have gotten I different one than
>my uncle did, then. He got one of the original Mac Portables, and the screen
>was so dimly lit that I could barely read it even with to lamps behind the
>computer. Are you sure that that screen was active matrix? If it was, than
>Apple is even more pathetic than I thought they were.
have backlighting. It also weighed in at 12 lbs, and had a very nice
battery life (I had one and the battery multiple times lasted 12+ hours
before recharges/replugs.)
And yes sir, it was an active matrix screen, the first to be used in
production portables, BTW.I say to you again sir. The computer you use is fine for you...it may not
be for everyone else.
Michael Molloy
>Amiga advocate!? Actually, I am a PC user. I have, am not, and will not
>advocate the Amiga. I have no idea where or how you got that idea.
you were a PeeCee user. I do not see where Amigas from you came up.
However, you sound like James, a particular favorite here in CMSA.
And he _is_ an Amiga user.
Michael A Molloy
(mmo...@delphi.com)
Computer Science Major: Computer Theory
---------------------------------------
Some faster than others. The faster one are the better ones.
They get out of your life and memory faster.
Michael Molloy
>>Yeah, especially when installing that huge program with 27 floppies.
>>On one of those *other* systems, you have to push the button, pull the
>>floppy, insert the floppy and hit any key. On my mac, two of these
>>steps are taken care of for me by the computer. (I thought that this
>>is what computers were for - to do work *for* me...)
>
>Ever here of CD-ROMs?
what was you point, sir?
Michael Molloy
>P.S. Also I don't have to worry about my sister ejecting disks during
> a write like she does on her pc.
This person has made a valid point. I would like someone to say something
about that. They might say things to the line of "I don't do that"
However, you are not everyone, and I know quite a number of people
how I have had to tell them about ejecting disks during writes.
They don't listen to me, and screw up many disks that way...
<sigh>
Michael A Molloy
(mmo...@delphi.com)
Computer Science Major: Computer Theory
---------------------------------------
Michael Molloy
Michael Molloy
>It was a reasonable assumption. Having read a number of your previous posts,
>I think you come off as puerile and as sophomoric as any Amigan Lost Boy.
This is a good point for what NOT to advocate:
<x> is better than <y>, and that's because they have names like <z>
Can anyone graph that?
Ryan Andrew Kubica
>I think you come off as puerile and as sophomoric as any Amigan Lost Boy.
>Fred
>fba...@nyx.cs.du.edu
Excuse me, but would you and all the others please not start calling names?
It's not so much of an insult to be called an Amigan or Amigoid but
Amiga lost boy is certainly derogitory (sp?).
Personally, just my 2 cents, I kind of like the eject mechanism on the MAC.
It's not particularly useful in any sense, but it is a neat novelty. On the
other hand it would have been nice if Apple HAD installed a button, an
electronic one though. That way you would still not screw any writes up.
My major problem with the MAC is not the eject button or the one button
mouse or the slow booting OS. The thing just can't multi-task worth a damn.
Networking is nice, apps are nice, the inits are nice in functionality,
control panels are cool, window gfx updaters are great, user interface
progs are great.
But with all of that the damn thing STILL can't multi-task worth @#&^.
...Andrew
Mark Eaton
<mmo...@delphi.com> wrote:
> Thomas Trauth <tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu> writes:
>
> >>Yeah, especially when installing that huge program with 27 floppies.
> >>On one of those *other* systems, you have to push the button, pull the
> >>floppy, insert the floppy and hit any key. On my mac, two of these
> >>steps are taken care of for me by the computer. (I thought that this
> >>is what computers were for - to do work *for* me...)
> >
> >Ever here of CD-ROMs?
>
> And, if I remember right, all Mac CD-ROMs come with eject buttons, so
> what was you point, sir?
>
Actually, the eject button is there due to manufacturing standards. It is
ignored by the Mac. (Except tray loaders, which require you to push the
button to open the tray and put the disk in, but wont let you take it out
that way. inconsistent, but not Apple's fault.)
> Michael A Molloy
> (mmo...@delphi.com)
> Computer Science Major: Computer Theory
> ---------------------------------------
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Eaton
ma...@infi.net
Mark Eaton
<mmo...@delphi.com> wrote:
> Rick Tan <ri...@lightside.com> writes:
>
> >As to the speed of hitting the eject button and removing a disk, how can
> >you say that 2 tasks takes less time than one task? Doesn't make sense at
> >all, if anything, it would be "AS FAST AS".
>
>
> It is true. I can eject a disk from a PeeCee faster than I can in my Mac.
> It would analogous to the RISC/CISC debate. It takes more instructions
> on a RISC processor, yet it is obviously faster at executing instructions.
>
If you say so. I have my doubts.
I think it's more a matter of situation. someone else brought up
multi-floppy software installs, where the installer ejects the disk and
waits for the next one to be inserted. You, I think, are talking about
every day use.
And btw, I bet I can hit command-y faster than you can push the eject button.
> Michael A Molloy
> (mmo...@delphi.com)
> Computer Science Major: Computer Theory
> ---------------------------------------
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Eaton
ma...@infi.net
Mike Cohen
>Thomas Trauth <tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu> writes:
>
>>Very nice active matrix screen!? You must have gotten I different one than
>>my uncle did, then. He got one of the original Mac Portables, and the screen
>>was so dimly lit that I could barely read it even with to lamps behind the
>>computer. Are you sure that that screen was active matrix? If it was, than
>>Apple is even more pathetic than I thought they were.
>
>
>Maybe you should read spec sheets, sir. The original Mac Portable didn't
>have backlighting. It also weighed in at 12 lbs, and had a very nice
>battery life (I had one and the battery multiple times lasted 12+ hours
>before recharges/replugs.)
>And yes sir, it was an active matrix screen, the first to be used in
>production portables, BTW.
>
I recall thinking it looked much nicer than any other screen when it first
came back, but looking at one now, it's ugly as hell.
--
Mike Cohen - is...@netcom.com
NewtonMail, eWorld: MikeC / ALink: D6734 / AOL: MikeC20
Home Page: file://ftp.netcom.com/pub/isis/home.html
Mike Cohen
I have a PB100 sitting next to me. The ROMs are the same and the electrical
design is the same, although it now uses customized chips & was redesigned (I
think by Sony) to be smaller & lighter. I still prefer the size & weight of it
to any of the larger models; only the Duo & 150 are as convenient to lug
around.
Thomas D. Halter
In a previous article, ber...@cs.monash.edu.au (Bernd U Meyer) says:
>asin...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Andrew Sinclair) writes:
>
>> NO, seriously, any person who has used a PC for any length of time can
>>with one fluent motion, reach up, eject the disk and take it just as easily
>>as on a Mac.
>
You forget the biggest advantage of having the OS eject the disk, rather
than doing it manually. Manual floppies pretty much negate any form of
disk caching. On the Mac, floppies are mounted just like CD-ROMS, hard
drives, and other removeable media. The disk cache (well, at least the
new and improved one in System 7.5) works very well with floppies.
I have to yuk whenever I use a PC. Every time I open up the floppy, it
has to physically check the disk, to make sure that it is still there,
regardless of whether or not it is the same floppy. Obviously, nothing
can be cached, since the computer never knows when you are going to
eject the floppy.
PC Unix implementations are even more hilarious. You have to insert the
disk and manually mount it with the mount command. When you are done,
you have to type the unmount command to purge the buffers before you can
eject it, lest you end up with a corrupt or unupdated floppy.
Tom
Thomas Trauth
>>result in those problems. The solution is to get Network System Installer 1.4.5
>>(I don't remember if you need to install it on the PowerMacs only or on all of
>>the macs).
No. All the Macs in the network are Centris 610s. NO PowerMacs.
And thank God for that. Those Macs cause enough problems without
having the additional burden of having to *emulate* 85% of its own
opeating system, including THE WHOLE FILE SYSTEM!! I pesonally
wouldn't touch a PowerMac until A) They have PCI, B) a 100% native
OS, and C) Lots of native software. Anyone who buys the first
release of ANYTHING, including all new computer lines, without a
good reason is extremely foolish. They are unwitting beta-testers.
*
* Tom Trauth
* tra...@paul.rutgers.edu
* The Mac is Crap (and that's a fact, Jack)!
*
Shimpei Yamashita
Thomas Trauth <tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu> wrote:
:
:No. All the Macs in the network are Centris 610s. NO PowerMacs.
:And thank God for that. Those Macs cause enough problems without
:having the additional burden of having to *emulate* 85% of its own
:opeating system, including THE WHOLE FILE SYSTEM!! I pesonally
:wouldn't touch a PowerMac until A) They have PCI, B) a 100% native
:OS, and C) Lots of native software. Anyone who buys the first
:release of ANYTHING, including all new computer lines, without a
:good reason is extremely foolish. They are unwitting beta-testers.
How can you judge a system without touching it first? I've personally
had almost no problems with my PowerMac that I wouldn't have had with
any other computer. Networking was no more of a pain than on 68k Macs.
Oh, and as far as native software goes, what do you need that isn't native
already? Just about everything I use these days is native (OK, so the
terminal program isn't, but who cares if the vt100 emulation goes a bit
slower? It's still just as fast as on a Quadra.) I would have agreed with
you about the beta testing part, but the PowerMacs are just about the
most trouble-free first release of any new architecture that I've seen
or heard about. I changed my mind about waiting for the second round,
went out and bought mine, and haven't regretted it since.
BTW, 85% of the operating system is emulated if you judge by lines of code,
but the ratio is more like 10-20% if you go by execution time. Native
QuickDraw helps a lot.
--
Shimpei Yamashita, Stanford University shi...@leland.stanford.edu
Michael Molloy
>Personally, just my 2 cents, I kind of like the eject mechanism on the MAC.
>It's not particularly useful in any sense, but it is a neat novelty. On the
>other hand it would have been nice if Apple HAD installed a button, an
>electronic one though. That way you would still not screw any writes up.
come with electronic eject buttons, which work like a charm. I just
wonder why apple didn't see fit to include the button with the main
system.
Just a thought.
Michael A Molloy
Computer Science Major: Computer Theory
(mmo...@genonl.sccsi.com | Shadowrunner)
-----------------------------------------
Michael Molloy
>And btw, I bet I can hit command-y faster than you can push the eject button.
Michael A Molloy
Computer Science Major: Computer Theory
(mmo...@genonl.sccsi.com | Shadowrunner)
-----------------------------------------
Michael Molloy
>I recall thinking it looked much nicer than any other screen when it first
>came back, but looking at one now, it's ugly as hell.
Michael A Molloy
Computer Science Major: Computer Theory
(mmo...@genonl.sccsi.com | Shadowrunner)
-----------------------------------------
Michael Molloy
>No. All the Macs in the network are Centris 610s. NO PowerMacs.
>And thank God for that. Those Macs cause enough problems without
>having the additional burden of having to *emulate* 85% of its own
>opeating system, including THE WHOLE FILE SYSTEM!! I pesonally
>wouldn't touch a PowerMac until A) They have PCI, B) a 100% native
>OS, and C) Lots of native software. Anyone who buys the first
>release of ANYTHING, including all new computer lines, without a
>good reason is extremely foolish. They are unwitting beta-testers.
Like the new processors from DEC, Sun, and all those machines that
don't have a decent supply of applications? Nextstep is _nice_, let
me tell you, and was better on the Black Cube, and now that it is
on the PeeCee...well, I think it sucks.
You are very closed minded, it seems to me. I embrace all new
technology, because it is my feelings that the future is the
technology we put forth, and if we do not embrace and see the new
the old will eventually drag us to the proverbial Stone Age.
Michael A Molloy
Computer Science Major: Computer Theory
(mmo...@genonl.sccsi.com | Shadowrunner)
-----------------------------------------
Michael Guzzo
>
>Like the new processors from DEC, Sun, and all those machines that
>don't have a decent supply of applications? Nextstep is _nice_, let
>me tell you, and was better on the Black Cube, and now that it is
>on the PeeCee...well, I think it sucks.
What is so different about NextStep on the x86/AT/bastardized platform that
makes it suck?
>Michael A Molloy
>Computer Science Major: Computer Theory
>(mmo...@delphi.com)
>(mmo...@genonl.sccsi.com | Shadowrunner)
>-----------------------------------------
*****
Michael Guzzo msg...@srqa01.jsc.nasa.gov
Email me for the FutureBasic FAQ - available RSN...
Gerald G. Washington
: ger...@warbird.usae.bah.com (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
: >No, an eject-signalling button would be akin to power windows. Auto-eject
: >is like having the windows go up on their own if it rains or you turn the
: >car off, etc.
:
: No, I think auto-eject is fairly analogous to power windows; in both
: cases, the machine is stuck in its current state if you deprive
: it of power. The biggest difference I can think of is that the
: Mac gives you an obvious escape mechanism.
The Mac can eject the disk without giving you a choice. The disk
might contain a different file system, for example, or the Mac might
just want another disk.
: (This eject button thing is really one of your pet peeves, isn't it?
: Every time if comes up, you get involved.)
(Yeah. It just seems like such an obvious error. A soft eject button
would be sensible.)
-- Gerald
Derick Siddoway
tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu (Thomas Trauth) writes:
> >Yeah, especially when installing that huge program with 27 floppies.
> >On one of those *other* systems, you have to push the button, pull the
> >floppy, insert the floppy and hit any key. On my mac, two of these
> >steps are taken care of for me by the computer. (I thought that this
> >is what computers were for - to do work *for* me...)
>
> Ever here of CD-ROMs?
Sure. But not all software packages come on a CD. I'd love it if they
did.
-----------
Derick H. Siddoway __o If you stew cranberries like
sidd...@ee.utah.edu _>\<,_ applesauce, they taste much
University of Utah (_)/ (_) more like plums than rhubarb
Department of Electrical Engineering does. - (Groucho Marx) -
Derick Siddoway
asin...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Andrew Sinclair) writes:
>
> You can't be serious! Complaining that hitting an eject button is too
> strenuous a chore! Perhaps they should add disk ejecting to the decathlon!
>
> NO, seriously, any person who has used a PC for any length of time can
> with one fluent motion, reach up, eject the disk and take it just as easily
> as on a Mac. It's not like the Mac magically teleports the disk in and out
> of the machine. It just pushes the button for you. You still have to pull
> the disk out and insert with just the same amount of force as you would on
> a PC. In fact, hitting the eject button and removing a disk on a PC is
> faster than the automatic eject on a Mac.
>
> Andrew Sinclair
Not so. After supporting Macs for a year, I got a new job where my
work was done on a PC. I found that I expected the drive to eject the
disk for me, so I had the next disk in hand already. Then I had to
fiddle with the next disk to position my hand so I could hold it and
eject the other disk at the same time. (My other hand was usually
otherwise occupied, generally with documentation.) So, yes, it does
become a concern. I will admit that after time I got used to the PC
manual eject method, but it still isn't nearly as elegant as the soft
eject.
I guess it does sound sort of wimpy, though. :)
Thomas Trauth
>asin...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Andrew Sinclair) writes:
>> You can't be serious! Complaining that hitting an eject button is too
>>strenuous a chore! Perhaps they should add disk ejecting to the decathlon!
>Well, at one point they didn't consider using switches to set values
>in memory to be too much effort either. Little things count -- auto-
>eject is akin to power windows or door locks in a car.
Don't tell me that pushing on a small button on the front of the computer
is anymore strenuous than hitting Command-E, dragging a disk to the trash
with the mouse, or choosing Eject Disk from the Special menu. In fact, I
think that pushing a disk eject button is LESS strenuous than all the ways
one can eject a disk on the Mac. OTOH pushing a button in your is much
less strenuous than rolling up the windows manually. Your comparison is
flawed. And BTW manual windows have some advantages over power windows,
like the ability to open or close the windows when the ignition is off.
>>of the machine. It just pushes the button for you. You still have to pull
>>the disk out and insert with just the same amount of force as you would on
>Actually, this isn't completely true; older Mac's disk drives will
>grab the disk as you insert it. Apple abandoned this feature in the
>name of cost cutting about a year ago.
>--
>Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
Jim Wong
>Don't tell me that pushing on a small button on the front of the computer
>is anymore strenuous than hitting Command-E, dragging a disk to the trash
>with the mouse, or choosing Eject Disk from the Special menu.
It is, and ejecting disks under operating system control has other
advantages as well, including, as has been pointed out elsewhere,
some protection against corruption of disk data structures and
the capability to cache data stored on removable media. These
are not insignficant advantages, as much as you'd like to ignore
them.
>one can eject a disk on the Mac. OTOH pushing a button in your is much
>less strenuous than rolling up the windows manually.
No! I want my windows under MY control! It's no big deal anyway!
It's not any easier! Wah!
--
Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
John K. Liddard
I just wanted to tell all you Mac-Heads out there, especially you
Peter and Marc, that Apple's network software for the Mac is awful.
Macs linked together with Apple's networking software constantly
crash or freeze or log users out without their permission! They
throw scores of arcane error messages at you, like "Unknown Error
#4100" (and I thought Macs were supposed to be SOOO user friendly)
that makes the infamous UAE error of Windows 3.0 look like an
informative and helpful statement. And Apple networking software,
like everything else they've ever made (System 7 comes to mind) is
as slow as a slug and as hungry (for system resoruces) as a refugee
from Ethiopia! To put it in one concise statement "IT SUCKS!"
What operating software do you use that has networking features built-in and
ready to go when you pull your feecee out of the packing box. There's not
many clones that allow you to stick a cable in the back of the machine and
have instant networking capability. Tha Mac has since 1984-85 (but you
probably already knew that)!
As for speed; if any mac user needs optimum network performance they install
an ethernet card, yeah, believe it or not, just like you. But it's nice to
know we don't have to fork out extra if we happen to want to bounce a few
files around the office to a few other machines.
Windows and OS/2 are trying, and eventually they may even become Mac-like.
But for now you'll have to settle for the REAL thing!
PS: BTW why do the Centrises have their power button where the disk
eject button should be!!? To confuse everyone!? To make people
lose all their work by tricking them into turning off the computer
when all that they really want to do is eject a floppy disk!?
That's REEAALLLL user friendly!
No it was done just to confuse you. The Mac was advanced enough that it
NEVER did require a disk eject button (but I know you knew that to). Let me
ask how you turned the machine on in the first place? Do you always push the
Disk Eject button to turn your PC on? I'm beginning to believe the old joke
indicating "DOS is a perfect example that PC users can't take a joke" may
actully be true. Espescially if your falling for Apple's Industry "Trick".
Take a Pill!
Thomas Trauth
[Snip]
>No it was done just to confuse you. The Mac was advanced enough that it
>NEVER did require a disk eject button (but I know you knew that to). Let me
>ask how you turned the machine on in the first place? Do you always push the
>Disk Eject button to turn your PC on? I'm beginning to believe the old joke
>indicating "DOS is a perfect example that PC users can't take a joke" may
>actully be true. Espescially if your falling for Apple's Industry "Trick".
>Take a Pill!
Smoke some crack!!
How many times do I have to say this...? It *WAS NOT* me who mistook the power
button on the Centris for a disk eject button, but several of the students in a
class that I am TAing. I have known for years that Macs lack disk eject buttons -
in fact that is one of the main reasons why I have hated Macs so much. I know
that people shouldn't be "stupid" enough to mistake the power button on the
Centris, which is RIGHT BELOW the floppy disk drive, for a disk eject button. I
mean everybody, even people who have never seen a Mac in their life should realize
that Macs don't and never did have disk eject buttons even though the vast
majority of computers that are out there (PC's) do. IT'S COMMON KNOWLEDGE, RIGHT!?
And even if mistaking a power button for a disk IS stupid, isn't the whole idea
of the Mac that it should usable even by people who have an IQ less than that of
a flea!? And as for the argument that the lack of a disk eject button is great
because it prevents people from ejecting a disk while it is being written to,
isn't doing that just as stupid, if not more so, than mistaking a power button
for a disk eject button!? Let me tell ya, this newsgroup sure is full of
hypocrites.
And BTW if the Mac is so great, why the 15% market share?
Karl Bellve
I want to just to point out that when I move files between my
A3000T (68030) and a mac IICI (68030) I get a regular 35k/s but when
I transfer files between the A3000T (68030) and a 486/33 I get transfer
rate of 70-80k/sec. These files are the same that I am moving around.
Just shows you how slow macs can be at networking. This mac has the same
microprocessor at the same speed as the A3000T I believe but it can't
keep up. The mac and the amiga are in the same hub while the 486 is not.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Bellve LLLL L L LLLLL LLLL LLLL
University of Maryland at Baltimore L L LL LL L L L L L
Dept. Of Physiology LLLLLL L L L L L L LLLLLL
L L L L L L L LLL L L
POWER NETWORKING only with the AMIGA! L L L L L L L L L
L L L L LLLLL LLLL L L
kbe...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu /* unix box -popmail account */
kbe...@wade1.ab.umd.edu /* personal A3000T 17mb AmiTCP A2065 */
kbe...@umab.umd.edu /* mainframe-mail forwarded */
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athas
: How many times do I have to say this...? It *WAS NOT* me who mistook the power
: button on the Centris for a disk eject button, but several of the students in a
: class that I am TAing. I have known for years that Macs lack disk eject buttons -
: in fact that is one of the main reasons why I have hated Macs so much. I know
I think every Mac person here will agree that putting the power button
under the disk was a bad idea (that there even is a power button is
a bad idea). Sure Apple has made some mistakes, but soft eject is not
one of them. It fits in very nicely with the automounting/dismounting
on the mac. I think it is disgusting that when you pop a disk into
a pc you then have to tell the computer to mount it, there is no auto
update of what's on the drive (you have to reread it).
Greg
Alex Stephens
(Thomas Trauth) wrote:
> PPS: Is System 7 still *85%* EMULATED!? Will System 7 ever go Native!?
> Or become a halfway decent OS!?
Yet it still manages to blow away Pentiums and SGIs at math-intensive
tasks like running Photoshop. The 100% (or so I hear) native System 8
should widen the performance advantage of the Power Macs.
Microsoft continues to admit the superiority of the Macintosh GUI by
imitating it. Having seen the beta of Windows 95, I can safely say that
the interface is a virtual clone of the Mac's. Do you, per chance, run
Windows on your Wintel box, or are you one of those holdovers still using
MS-DOS exclusively? If you're an MS-DOS-only user, you should realise
that sales of Mac programs now exceed sales of MS-DOS programs; MS-DOS is
dieing. Further, Windows 95 boots directly, and doesn't have an option to
quit. If you use Windows 3.1, you're already halfway to a Mac-style
interface. Upgrade to Windows 95, and you'll be using an interface which
is a clone of the very Macintosh interface you complain about. That would
certainly be ironic. The WinTel world is becoming more and more like the
Mac, not vice-versa. It shows which way of doing things represents the
future - and which represents the past.
Alex Stephens
Gerald G. Washington
: You forget the biggest advantage of having the OS eject the disk, rather
: than doing it manually. Manual floppies pretty much negate any form of
: disk caching.
If Amigas were still in production, this would disprove your argument.
:)
-- Gerald
Alex Stephens
(Thomas Trauth) wrote:
> No. All the Macs in the network are Centris 610s. NO PowerMacs.
> And thank God for that. Those Macs cause enough problems without
> having the additional burden of having to *emulate* 85% of its own
> opeating system, including THE WHOLE FILE SYSTEM!! I pesonally
> wouldn't touch a PowerMac until A) They have PCI, B) a 100% native
> OS, and C) Lots of native software. Anyone who buys the first
> release of ANYTHING, including all new computer lines, without a
> good reason is extremely foolish. They are unwitting beta-testers.
Unless they need the fpu processing power of the Power Macs, which is
unavailable on either 68k Macs or Pentiums. In that case, given that the
vast majority of software is compatible, and that most major applications
(ClarisWorks, Word, Excel, Photoshop, WordPerfect, etc.) have been ported
to the PowerPC, they would be wise to purchase a Power Mac.
The Power Macs also have a very bright future. The PowerPC 601 is vastly
superior to the Pentium, and the PowerPC 604 (which was released a couple
of months ago, and is going into mass production this quarter) is as fast
or faster than the Hexium, which isn't scheduled (unless delayed) to be
released until the fourth quarter of next year. For Windows fans, Windows
NT for PowerPC is either finished, or close to it, and I believe it will
run (native, of course) on Power Macs. Combine that with the upcoming
AIX, and you've got the best computing platform available today in the
Power Macintosh platform.
Alex Stephens
Jim Wong
>I want to just to point out that when I move files between my
>A3000T (68030) and a mac IICI (68030) I get a regular 35k/s but when
>I transfer files between the A3000T (68030) and a 486/33 I get transfer
>rate of 70-80k/sec. These files are the same that I am moving around.
>Just shows you how slow macs can be at networking. This mac has the same
>microprocessor at the same speed as the A3000T I believe but it can't
>keep up. The mac and the amiga are in the same hub while the 486 is not.
This has nothing to do with the Mac and everything to do with the
software you're running on it. I don't suppose you'd care to share
that knowledge, would you? If not, your tale is utterly valueless.
--
Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
Ned Holbrook
Thomas Trauth <tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>Don't tell me that pushing on a small button on the front of the computer
>is anymore strenuous than hitting Command-E, dragging a disk to the trash
>with the mouse, or choosing Eject Disk from the Special menu. In fact, I
>think that pushing a disk eject button is LESS strenuous than all the ways
>one can eject a disk on the Mac.
You forgot Command-Y. It's much easier to hit Command-Y than to push
a button, especially when the drive is not right at hand, such as when
the drive is part of a computer that is sitting on the floor.
When I'm using an automated installer program, I'd rather have the
program spit the disks back out than wait to hit the 'eject' button.
Ned
--
_ _ _ _ Ned Holbrook | THE MAGIC |
| |_ ___| | |__ _ _ ___ ___| |__ holb...@worf.infonet.net | WORDS ARE |
| ' \/ _ \ | '_ \ '_/ _ \/ _ \ / / "Tranlucent newts | SQUEAMISH |
|_||_\___/_|_.__/_| \___/\___/_\_\ wear zoot suits." -Me | OSSIFRAGE |
Alex Stephens
G. Washington) wrote:
> Jim Wong (jd-...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> : ger...@warbird.usae.bah.com (Gerald G. Washington) writes:
> : >No, an eject-signalling button would be akin to power windows. Auto-eject
> : >is like having the windows go up on their own if it rains or you turn the
> : >car off, etc.
> :
> : No, I think auto-eject is fairly analogous to power windows; in both
> : cases, the machine is stuck in its current state if you deprive
> : it of power. The biggest difference I can think of is that the
> : Mac gives you an obvious escape mechanism.
>
> The Mac can eject the disk without giving you a choice. The disk
> might contain a different file system, for example, or the Mac might
> just want another disk.
That's certainly an advantage, as it's faster to simply remove the disk,
without having to push the eject button first. And, on the old
auto-inject Sony drives (which I have), it's faster and easier to put a
new disk in. In my opinion, that feature was at least as good as
auto-eject; I think it was a big mistake to drop it in the name of
cost-cutting.
>
> : (This eject button thing is really one of your pet peeves, isn't it?
> : Every time if comes up, you get involved.)
>
> (Yeah. It just seems like such an obvious error. A soft eject button
> would be sensible.)
I wouldn't want one, frankly. My hands are generally at my keyboard when
I'm using my computer, and typing command-y or command-shift-1 seems much
more convenient to me than pressing a button (especially those bloody
manual ones that non-Macs have). For swapping disks (during install
procedures and the like), auto-eject and auto-inject are very nice
features.
>
> -- Gerald
Alex Stephens
Alex Stephens
G. Washington) wrote:
True, but the Amiga method of constantly checking the drive was rather
clumsy; better than the PC method, but certainly inferior to the way the
Mac handles floppies.
>
> -- Gerald
Alex Stephens
Ryan Andrew Kubica
>> PPS: Is System 7 still *85%* EMULATED!? Will System 7 ever go Native!?
>> Or become a halfway decent OS!?
>Yet it still manages to blow away Pentiums and SGIs at math-intensive
>tasks like running Photoshop. The 100% (or so I hear) native System 8
>should widen the performance advantage of the Power Macs.
Oh you read that article in MacWeek or MacUser also?
Well I guess you didn't catch the part about the SGI still being
able to render an image in the backround with no slow down while
Photoshop was doing it's thing.
Don't presume to think a PPC is faster than a SGI, it's not.
>Microsoft continues to admit the superiority of the Macintosh GUI by
>imitating it. Having seen the beta of Windows 95, I can safely say that
>the interface is a virtual clone of the Mac's. Do you, per chance, run
>Windows on your Wintel box, or are you one of those holdovers still using
>MS-DOS exclusively? If you're an MS-DOS-only user, you should realise
>that sales of Mac programs now exceed sales of MS-DOS programs; MS-DOS is
>dieing. Further, Windows 95 boots directly, and doesn't have an option to
>quit. If you use Windows 3.1, you're already halfway to a Mac-style
>interface. Upgrade to Windows 95, and you'll be using an interface which
>is a clne of the very Macintosh interface you complain about. That would
>certainly be ironic. The WinTel world is becoming more and more like the
>Mac, not vice-versa. It shows which way of doing things represents the
>future - and which represents the past.
It's no big thing to out-sell an out-dated interface/DOS. And such is
DOS on the PC. BTW is MAC out-selling Windows software? I think not.
Besides isn't it funny that Microsoft will still crush the MAC now that
the nice interface of the MAC will not be a MAC only thing?
Hmmm, and Apple still hasn't done multi-tasking yet, Windows (whatever)
will be out an multi-tasking (pre-emptively) before System x.x is.
Seems as if Apple is falling behind.
>Alex Stephens
Alex Stephens
(Thomas Trauth) wrote:
> And BTW manual windows have some advantages over power windows,
> like the ability to open or close the windows when the ignition is off.
What a pity that they don't offer a manual mechanism in case of situations
where power is unavailable, like Mac floppy drives do.
> *
> * Tom Trauth
> * tra...@paul.rutgers.edu
> * The Mac is Crap (and that's a fact, Jack)!
> *
Alex Stephens
Thomas Trauth
>In article <36nhhv$k...@pepper.rutgers.edu>, tra...@pepper.rutgers.edu
>(Thomas Trauth) wrote:
>> No. All the Macs in the network are Centris 610s. NO PowerMacs.
>> And thank God for that. Those Macs cause enough problems without
>> having the additional burden of having to *emulate* 85% of its own
>> opeating system, including THE WHOLE FILE SYSTEM!! I pesonally
>> wouldn't touch a PowerMac until A) They have PCI, B) a 100% native
>> OS, and C) Lots of native software. Anyone who buys the first
>> release of ANYTHING, including all new computer lines, without a
>> good reason is extremely foolish. They are unwitting beta-testers.
>Unless they need the fpu processing power of the Power Macs, which is
>unavailable on either 68k Macs or Pentiums. In that case, given that the
>vast majority of software is compatible, and that most major applications
>(ClarisWorks, Word, Excel, Photoshop, WordPerfect, etc.) have been ported
>to the PowerPC, they would be wise to purchase a Power Mac.
Note that I said "Anyone who buys the first release of ANYTHING...without a
good reason is extremely foolish." Needing the extra FPU power of the
PowerMac is a good reason to take the plunge and buy one. However, if you
DON'T need the extra power of the Power Mac, than you are probably better
off, for now, with a Quadra. If you don't need a new computer now, you
should probably put off your purchase till sometime next year...by that
time the Power Macs will be PCI, most of System 7 should be native, and
native apps should be plentiful. Buying a Power Mac now if you can wait
or make due with a Quadra is very foolish though - why make the risk?
>The Power Macs also have a very bright future. The PowerPC 601 is vastly
>superior to the Pentium, and the PowerPC 604 (which was released a couple
>of months ago, and is going into mass production this quarter) is as fast
>or faster than the Hexium, which isn't scheduled (unless delayed) to be
>released until the fourth quarter of next year. For Windows fans, Windows
>NT for PowerPC is either finished, or close to it, and I believe it will
>run (native, of course) on Power Macs. Combine that with the upcoming
>AIX, and you've got the best computing platform available today in the
>Power Macintosh platform.
You are right about the PPC 601 and PPC 604 being more powerful than the
Pentium. However, you are wrong about NT and AIX, unless Apple has decided
to adopt PREP after all; NT for PPC and AIX for PPC will run *only* on PREP-
compliant PPC-based systems. Since the current (probably future) Power Macs
are not PREP-compliant, AIX and NT will not run on them.
>Alex Stephens
Thomas Trauth
[Snip]
> You forgot Command-Y. It's much easier to hit Command-Y than to push
>a button, especially when the drive is not right at hand, such as when
>the drive is part of a computer that is sitting on the floor.
My PC sits on the floor, and I never had any trouble pressing the disk-eject
button. Maybe if Command-E or Command-Y is easier when you have your computer
on the floor, but the other ways to eject a floppy disk from a Mac, like
dragging the disk icon to the trash, is still more strenuous than hitting a
a disk eject button unless your computer is in a VERY awkward place - like
on the ceiling.
> _ _ _ _ Ned Holbrook | THE MAGIC |
>| |_ ___| | |__ _ _ ___ ___| |__ holb...@worf.infonet.net | WORDS ARE |
>| ' \/ _ \ | '_ \ '_/ _ \/ _ \ / / "Tranlucent newts | SQUEAMISH |
>|_||_\___/_|_.__/_| \___/\___/_\_\ wear zoot suits." -Me | OSSIFRAGE |
Bernd U Meyer
>>I want to just to point out that when I move files between my
>>A3000T (68030) and a mac IICI (68030) I get a regular 35k/s but when
>>I transfer files between the A3000T (68030) and a 486/33 I get transfer
>>rate of 70-80k/sec. These files are the same that I am moving around.
>>Just shows you how slow macs can be at networking. This mac has the same
>>microprocessor at the same speed as the A3000T I believe but it can't
>>keep up. The mac and the amiga are in the same hub while the 486 is not.
Well, all you have shown is that the 486 has better networking than the
Mac.....
Bernie
--
"And the band played 'Waltzing Mathilda' / as we stopped to bury our slain;
And we buried ours / and the Turks buried theirs | ..... living in Oz ....
And it started all over again" |
(The Pogues, "Waltzing Mathilda", orig by Eric Bogle, "And the band played WM")