test-drb January 2001

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

181 participants
415 discussions

by mtapley＠swri.edu

Richard, >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:30:01 -0700 >From: "Richard Erlacher" <edick(a)idcomm.com> > >Sir, you damage your credibility with statements like some you've made here. >While it's true that the Microsoft products may not be the "best" thing for >thos of us who are inclined to fuss and fiddle with our computers, they're >WAY better for those who can't, won't, or shouldn't. There are errors of commission and errors of omission. You make one of the latter here. While it is true that Microsoft packages its OS's and Applications in such a way that they are easier to install, configure, and use than most similar unix software, it is also true that Apple packages its OS's and Applications so that they are *much* easier to install, configure, and use than Microsoft software. Mac OS software is far superior to equivalent Windows anything (as well as to Unix anything in my experience) for those of us not inclined to fuss or fiddle with our computers. This I know from personal experience with MacOS, Windows 95/98, NeXTStep (a variant of unix), Solaris, and AIX. I cannot speak for Linux, and there may be other OS/Application sets (Amiga?) on either end of the spectrum that are pertinent here but not familiar to me. >They enable a whole range of people who, 15 years ago, wouldn't have been >allowed in the same room with a computer to accomplish useful work, >something which FEW of us do, computer design, programming, and maintenance >all being overhead rather than useful work in most environments. They also >enable people to use resources such as the internet, who otherwise might >never have that experience, never mind that they use it primarily to save a >trip to the convenience store to buy a magazine in a brown wrapper. Although the market has disagreed horribly with me for many years, I can see no valid argument for choosing the Microsoft middle ground between Macintosh ease of use and unix power, security, and flexibility. (The most-cited argument, lower cost of underlying hardware, has been shown repeatedly to be invalid in most cases because of the time typically spent/lost trying to get Windows and its applications to play nice together, fighting viruses, configuring networks, etc.; I'll admit that competent power users like you and Allison can probably circumvent that and make Windows systems essentially as cost-effective as MacOS or linux systems.) As always, if the application you need is available on only one OS, that OS is the best for you and there's no valid argument against that, whatever the other characteristics of the OS. But for people who wouldn't have been allowed in the same room with a computer, or who just want to access the internet, Microsoft is a *long, long* way behind Apple and its third parties for ease-of-use. >I would exhort you to eschew reiteration of other people's falsehoods and, >instead, search for a solution to the problems you so clearly perceive. >Squandering bandwidth on matters that most of the computer world doesn't >perceive as a problem will only hasten the day when we have to pay for our >internet use by the bit. My solution is maintaining a Microsoft-free zone at home and minimizing use of Microsoft at work. This is not only because I dislike their products (excepting Excel, which has merit IMO), but because I really regret and fear what their illegal business practices have done to the industry in many areas, including file interchange standards, expected reliability and pre-release testing of software, customer support, etc. etc. >Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:06:10 -0700 >From: "Richard Erlacher" <edick(a)idcomm.com> >... >Both Windows and the popular varieties of LINUX are pretty easy to install >these days. However, Windows suffers greatly from the fact that it has >tried to maintain the usefulness of those applications that were written for >and bought concurrently with much earlier versions of the OS. >... I must point out that MacOS has the same "burden" - and bears it *much* better, as "antique" Mac software is far more likely to run on a new Mac system than same-vintage Win/DOS software on a Windows machine. (I *hate* to think I may have accidentally brought this back on-topic...) >Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:20:43 -0700 >From: "Richard Erlacher" <edick(a)idcomm.com> > >It's just the American way of doing business. Detroit's been doing it for >50 years. Get over it! By definition, it's not the American way if it violates US antitrust laws. MS was convicted in court of criminal practices (anticompetitive actions) essentially victimizing me, the consumer. Am I going to willingly send them more money? Is this a trick question? Based on their record, I believe that if they can find a legal or illegal way to decrease Linux' effectiveness, they will do it immediately. I'd much rather see Linux reduce MS to a footnote. CorelSuite, AppleWorks, NetScape, Adobe, Filemaker, and StarOffice would all still be there, I'd still be able to get my work done - and file standards would stay a lot more standard. - Mark

24 years

Nuke Redmond!

by jtinker＠coin.org

Richard Erlacher wrote: > > It's because, not only are other companies as devious, in fact ALL other > surviving companies are, in their way, as devious, but that's what they're > SUPPOSED to be. No, companies are limited liability constructs of the state. They fall under the same social contract that the state does, even more so. Yes, we can, and should, insist that corporations be ethical. The nature of a corporation's "rights" is quite different than the nature of an individual's rights. The corporation exists at the pleasure of the state. Corporations are SUPPOSED to be what the state intends them to be. The same is not true of individuals. The state has the power to regulate the ethical behavior of corporations, even to the extent of demanding that the corporation be altruistic. But altruism is not the issue with Microsoft. Rather the issue is unethical business practice. Beyond that, you have not answered my question as to why you are defending unethical behavior. Why not let those who would promote ethical behavior take the lead, even if you don't think they have much chance at success? Why try to shoot them down? What is to be gained by it? -- John Tinker

24 years

Nuke Redmond!

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

From: Iggy Drougge <optimus(a)canit.se> > >And Zilog developed a 16 (or 32-bit?) descendant of the Z80 themselves, too, I >might add. The Z8000. Z80 and Z8000 are not even close to each other. The Z80 is superset of 8080 and 8088 is more an offshoot of that. The 16bit Z80 and the later 32bit are the Z280 and 380 series and they are z80 code compatable. >The 65816, right? Used in the Super Nintendo, amongst others. AppleIIgs as well. Allison

24 years

Aquarius?

by russ＠rbcs.8m.com

My friend has a Mattel Aquarius computer on eBay - thought I'd mention it since it's still cheap and may be of interest to someone that collects older machines. It's item 1208196262 if you're inclined to check it out. I believe it's a fairly complete setup and in good condition. I can however attest to the fact that the seller is very repautable and very good to work with.

24 years

operating system integrity (coming from Nuke Redmond)

by dhquebbeman＠theestopinalgroup.com

> There is the OS/2 operating system, the workplace shell, the MPTS product, > the TCP/IP product, and the multimedia product to name a few. This > modular approach is one thing that makes OS/2 so scaleable. Like Linux and > BSD and unlike any Windos product, you don't NEED the GUI to have a useful > machine. Without the GUI, a 4mb 386sx with a small hard drive can be made > to perform useful work with good performance. There are also several > alternate GUI's provided that are not as processor intensive as the > Workplace Shell/Presentation Manager product. With OS/2 2.0, 2.1, and > 2.11, there was even an alternate GUI that gave OS/2 a Windows 3.x look > and feel. Just like changing the Windows 9x gui to Progman.exe by editing > System.ini will give 9x a 3.x look and feel. Under 9x, you can also > "Start, Run, Progman". That sounds like Stardock's Object Desktop for OS/2... I believe they brought this product up to version 3/Warp revision level, but just recently dropped support for the product. Regards, -dq

24 years

first programs

by kapteynr＠cboe.com

I don't remember the first program that I wrote. It was probably "print 1+1" on the PDP-8 we had at school. I do remember the first program that I loaded into my Altair when I got it running. Remember that Altair came with no I/O other than the switches and LEDs of the front panel. The program came from the Altair User's Group and was a simple game called "Kill The Bit". The Altair has 8 "data" LEDs on the front panel. "Kill The Bit" lit one of the 8, and kept changing it, around and around. Your job was to toggle one of the front panel switches at just the right time, otherwise you would create more "bits" to kill. Rob Kapteyn

24 years

operating system integrity (coming from Nuke Redmond)

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

From: THETechnoid(a)home.com <THETechnoid(a)home.com> >When you run a win3x application under 9x, the entire multitasking scheme >reverts to cooperative which not a nice thing to do even to windos. Also, >all win3x apps share the same space, one crashes, all can crash because of >it. Actually I run Paradox/DOSV4.5 under win95 and if you set things up right it can run protected dos space and the cooperative multitasking is only within that virtual dos window. It's a bigger probem that it tried to talk to the printer directly and Windows blocks on that if the setup is not exactly right. >As pertains to running windows programs, OS/2 does 'cooperative >preemption' in a way. If you want to run a win3x application, you can >either run it entirely in it's own, protected memory space (seamless), or >in a shared, protected space (shared between several win3x apps together >in the same space). In the first mode, if a seamless 3x app crashes, it >affects only it's own space. If an app running in shared space crashes, >it can crash all it's buddies sharing it's memory. NT4 also has this and it works well. BUT, you have to watch as some dos programs may try to share a file and you can get file locking problems. >OS/2 does not run Windows apps, it runs Windows. You can run as many as >240 copies of Windows 3.11 with as many apps each as each can support. Keep the education going. >I don't think there is another operating system out there that is NEARLY >so flexible in supporting the multitasking of instances of other operating >systems. In addition, each individual session can be customized by >altering any of 75 provided settings for it such as priority, hardware >access, XMS and EMS and DPMI memory sizes, video refresh, and on and on >and on. Adjusting a setting in one dosbox affects only that box. Win9x's Its clear that NTs dos support is based on OS/2s. Just for curiousity I've got a OS/2 Warp V3 kit including the bonus pack. What would it take to get networking going (TCP/IP prefered)? Also what later versions can be purchased and approximate cost? Allison

24 years

Nuke Redmond!

by mbg＠world.std.com

>> Spent the day 'upgrading' to Windows ME I assume... > >If you don't agree with Redmont, I suggest you put your money where your >mouth is. We still have a free choice. Use it as long as you can. I do... I have Linux on all my PCs... I read a report earlier today in which teh president and CEO of M$ declared that Linux was the #1 threat to the company as they enter the new year... Megan Gentry Former RT-11 Developer +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+ | Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry!zk3.dec.com | | Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg!world.std.com | | Compaq Computer Corporation | addresses need '@' in place of '!' | | 110 Spitbrook Rd. ZK03-2/T43 | URL: http://world.std.com/~mbg/ | | Nashua, NH 03062 | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler | | (603) 884 1055 | required." - mbg KB1FCA | +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

24 years

Nuke Redmond!

by dhquebbeman＠theestopinalgroup.com

> I don't know why Intuit has survived, but I am kind of curious given the > boneheadedness of the product. I mean everybodies first two programs are, > hello world, then checkbook. Granted they have put more than a little > polish on Checkbook 1.0, but they have also managed to drag it out over 9 > major releases. Being a bad seed, my first program printed out random vulgar phrases instead of "hello world". This was on a CDC-6500 running Dual-MACE at Purdue University. My next two programs were a program to compute the dynamic compliance of a tonearm, and another to compute, based on the native resonant frequency of a driver (speaker), and the proposed dimensions of a room to be constructed, the frequencies where the bass would resonate in the room, and the distribution of the nodes (antinodes?). Over a two- week period, I coded these programs in CDC-6000 Series BASIC, CDC-6000 Series Fortran, and our local port of Niklaus Wirth's Pascal Compiler. Eventually, I bought Electric Checkbook for the Macintosh, a great program I rarely used due to extra work of maintaining my check register. The moral of this tale: Beware of Geeks bearing Revisionist History. ;-) -dq

24 years

Funky looking mouse and other TCF stuff...

by btobler＠magnet.ch

Hi I found an old email from you on the web: http://www.classiccmp.org/mail-archive/classiccmp/1997-04/0324.html Hi guys, just wanted to say what I got at TCF. I managed to get there at 3:45 on Sunday (15 minutes before closing on the last day of the show.) Anyway here's what I got: 2 Seagate MFM Hard Drives *FREE* 1 Sysquest tape(?) drive *FREE* the tape drive is about the size of a CD-ROM, what is it? 1 Apple IIe Users Guide *FREE* (why? I dunno, it was in the trash) 1 CBM 8032 $5 (this things got some kind of memory board that plugs into the CPU socket and a parallel interface) 1 Funky Mouse *FREE* This last thing I need help with. It looks to be about 20+ years old but I could be wrong... It is bright red, almost perfectly round, has a steel ball as the roller, 3 black switches, and says "5271" and then "DEPRAZ - MOUSE" on the bottom. It has what looks likea standard serial cable. The guy said it was for a terminal right before he threw it out. Any ideas? More importantly.... do you think I could use it on my PeeCEE? 8) Les PS what'd everyone else get at TCF? ---------------------------------------------------------------- If you are still interested in the origin of the funky looking red mouse, I can tell you. I got one myself. So before I write down the whole history, give me an note whether you are still interested in it. Greetings from Basel, Switzerland, Beatrice. Beatrice Tobler || Konservatorin f?r Computer/Neue Medien | Museum f?r Kommunikation | Helvetiastr. 16 | CH-3000 Bern 6| Tel: 031 357 55 44 (Di-Fr)| b.tobler(a)mfk.ch | http://www.mfk.ch || Blauensteinerstrasse 8 | CH-4053 Basel | Tel: 061 274 10 36 | btobler(a)magnet.ch | http://www.unibas.ch/volkskunde/tobler.html || VolO - Volkskunde Online: http://www.unibas.ch/volkskunde/volo

24 years

← Newer
1
...
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
...
42
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb January 2001