From: Feldman, Robert <Robert_Feldman(a)jdedwards.com>
>Having just (re)installed Win95 twice in 3 weeks on reformatted hard drives
>(trying to install Adaptec CD burning software trashed Windows so badly
that
>I had to reformat the drive to clean up the mess), I can say that an
>installation is not one keystroke. You have to agree to the EULA, enter the
>serial number, select the install directory, select the type of install,
and
>must reboot at least once in the process.
As someone that uses winders to make a living. Most of the hearsay I've
heard
I'd have believed at one time. I do winders installs that are annoying in
the
number of reboots though with a tweeked install script and some planning
that can be cut down some. The only time I do this is when I install a new
drive
so I do have users running W95osr2 that havent seen a reinstall for years
due to
care and clearing the junk at install time. If you know how to manage the
install
you can run W95 successfully (if not slowly) on a 386/16 with a 120mb disk
and
have it useful. The standard install puts a lot of junk on and it isn't
anywhere near
optimum for number of reboots or general configuration.
However, the real problem is that many of the windows apps can be damaging
if
installed in the wrong order, or in the case of devices in the wrong way.
You learn
which ones do and dont work. In my case the adaptec Cd-burner software is
the
prefered (really!!) one. But it does expose the real problem with W9x, the
OS
and it's working files and libraries are exposed to bad tempered apps and
users
which can kill the OS.
Do I like winders? No. Is it useful? Yes. Could it be better? You bet!
Does it limit
me in the work I need to do? Not yet. I've used it for everything from
lightweight
servers to RT systems.
Allison
>> But I'm a geek. At what cost have we dumbed-down the computer
>> so that nearly anyone can use it? And are you aware that in
>> the minds of marketing people, the market is *far* from
>> saturated, as there are still lots of people who never use
>> them and don't have them. So you can expect another order of
>> magnitude of dumbing-down...
>
>It is not hiding information that is the problem, it is
>locking the knowlage it in a safe, throwing away the key
>and dumping in the sea.
This is why I think OS X will be favorable with many "geeks". Apple is
AOLizing the UI so that people that currently are still afraid of a
computer, will be willing to use it. Apple is dumbing it down as much as
they can (just look at the colored buttons for close, minimize and
expand).
BUT... Apple is leaving all the hard core tools there. They aren't
stopping anyone from using them. They are just providing pretty front
ends to the most commonly needed and wanted tools.
Basically, Apple is trying to make OS X a "magic toaster oven"... for the
computer afraid, all they have to do is walk up and press a button, and
get their toast. But for those that want to, they can press that button
on the side, and watch the toaster change into (insert Transformer OO EE
OO AA AA noise here) a microwave, or dishwasher, or rocket car, or
anything else you darn well want it to.
MS seems to want you to buy the toaster, and they will bundle a mop &
bucket, light bulb, step stool, and oil filter wrech. All of which will
just cause the toaster to suck up enough power to trip your fuse box
every few uses. And later, if you decide you want to microwave some
popcorn... well, you have to buy the microwave attachment, which won't
fit quite right, and will most likely cause your toaster to burn out. But
the microwave will be bundled with a lint brush, wrapping paper, bug
guard, stapler, and three Mortal Combat action figures.
And when you decide you want to use the toaster as a rocket car... well,
MS will tell you you can't do that... for that you need to buy "Toaster
2k Pro" and none of the current add ons you bought are legally
transferable, so you need to repurchase them and reinstall them from
scratch. Oh, and with Toaster 2k Pro, each person that wants to make
toast now has to have a seperate permission slip to do so, at $80 a pop.
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
I've had to reinstall WinTrash 98 at least six times in the past two weeks due to network problems and Robert is correct. Not only do you have to manually input all that stuff but you also have to tell it to add drivers for MODEMs, network cards, Video cards etc etc etc and you have to insert and remove their driver disks frequently along with repeatedly swappin the Win install disks in and out. Further WinTrash frequently can't find the drivers on the disks so you have to search for the files manually and manually enter the full path name for the files. THEN you have to reinstall all of your applications and reset all your favorites, server names and addresses, remove the trash MS applications that WinBlows installs, configure the desktop, add virus protection, firewalls, etc etc. It takes at least a day to get a DECENT system configured and running.
However from what I've seen of Linux and most other Unixs, WinBlows is still faster and easier to install for 99.99% of the people. ?NIX is just too cryptic and it seldom comes with hard copies of documentation. (Exactly how are you supposed to refer to documentation or help files when the application/system isn't running? Both ?NIX and MS are lousy in this regard!)
Joe
At 08:22 AM 5/7/02 -0600, Robert wrote:
>Having just (re)installed Win95 twice in 3 weeks on reformatted hard drives
>(trying to install Adaptec CD burning software trashed Windows so badly that
>I had to reformat the drive to clean up the mess), I can say that an
>installation is not one keystroke. You have to agree to the EULA, enter the
>serial number, select the install directory, select the type of install, and
>must reboot at least once in the process.
>
>Also, by the way, Win95B is OSR2, IIRC.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick@idcomm.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 12:21 AM
>To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
>Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
>
>
>I agree it's a pain to babysit the Windows installation if you have to. An
>installation on a bare drive is just one keystroke and a 40-minute wait,
>during which you can go out to lunch. It's simply going to assume the
>defaults when you do that but at least you get to eat lunch.
>
>What's really awful is when you upgrade, say, from 95B to 95OSR2, having
><snip>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glen Goodwin" <acme_ent(a)bellsouth.net>
> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:07 PM
> Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
>
> > > From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc(a)conman.org>
> >
> > > So why do people expect to get immedate work out of a computer without
> > > training?
> >
> > Because Bill Gates said they could.
> >
> > Glen
> > 0/0
>
> Is it because of Bill, or because it's simply so?
>
> Dick
Twenty-eight years ago, I walked up to a Teletype ASR33
hooked to a Control Data 6500 and started writing BASIC
programs, and the closest thing to training I had was
to find a drawer containing some end-user documentation.
Five years later, on my first day of my first professional
full-time position as a programmer on a system I'd never
used before (a Prime), I was handed a magtape from another
system I'd used only once or twice (an HP 2000/Access system),
and before the day was over, had pulled the programs from
the tape and had several of them running.
But I'm a geek. At what cost have we dumbed-down the computer
so that nearly anyone can use it? And are you aware that in
the minds of marketing people, the market is *far* from
saturated, as there are still lots of people who never use
them and don't have them. So you can expect another order of
magnitude of dumbing-down...
-dq
> Yes, if you install the Accessibility Options in Windows, there is the
>MouseKeys function, which allows you to control the mouse with the numeric
>keypad...
>
> I'm the useless knowledge fountain today, aren't I? ;P
Easy Access control panel will do the same IIRC on the Mac. (and it has
"sticky keys" which will let you use one finger to press multi-key
combos, you start with the first key, and it remembers that it should be
down, and lets you move to the next and so forth... it was supposed to
help people that had to use things like a bite stick to type)
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
> 1./ It ejects CD's when I insert them. Is it sick or is it
> just trying to say "invalid SCSI connection"?
> There currently is none.
I have this nagging feeling that drive will not take and hold a CD unless
it is connected to a Mac.
Otherwise, check the front eject button and make sure it isn't stuck. You
may have to remove the faceplate, many mac eject buttons are actually
just as pass thru button to the real drive button behind it.
If you can't get it up and going, I will try to remember to look at mine
when I get home tonight. See if there is anything else I can suggest to
try.
> 2./ I'm using the standard CD caddies, is that OK?
Yes, it should work with any old CD caddies. Apple's caddies were nice,
but I have used generic ones on that drive in the past without problem.
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
>The Macintosh doesn't even offer a command line interface, right?
System 1.0 thru OS 9.x.... no, no command line, no need for it.
OS-X, yes, there is one IF you wish to use it, but there is very little
need for it (and less and less of one with each update issued)
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
Anyone have a reasonable source for Phillips 82S141's?
I also need 82S129's - Jameco has these around 7 bucks a pop, but was
curious of anyone knows of a better price/source.
Thanks!
Jay West
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cameron Kaiser [mailto:spectre@stockholm.ptloma.edu]
> > Bash is the 'borne-again shell' (a user-friendly version of
> the Bourne
> > Shell.
> Of course, *real* men use tcsh. ;-) ;-) ;-)
Actually, I found the bourne shell to be user-friendly enough
for me. ;) (I do like some bash features, like the command-
history and what not, so I use it on that account)
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
>From: ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk
>
>>
>> Hi
>> I believe the main difference between the 2708 and 8708 is that
>> the 8708 could handle negative levels on the data bus so it
>> could be connected directly to the 8080's data bus.
>
>Err, Every 8080 I've ever used has had TTL levels on all the pins apart
>from the clock inputs. There is no problem using 'normal' EPROMs with an
>8080 AFAIK
>
>-tony
>
Hi
I couldn't remember exactly what it was so I looked it up.
I was both right and wrong. First, it wasn't negative levels,
it was positive levels. The 8080 requires 3.3 volt highs on
their inputs. Most TTL only require 2.5 volts. Intel made a
number of parts compatable with these higher input threshold
levels. The statement that 8080's are TTL compatable is
only mostly true. They could drive TTL but to receive from
TTL often required pull-up resistors or drivers that had
higher outputs. So, it was drive level and not input voltage
that was significant.
Dwight
