2026

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

List overview
Download

test-drb

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

101090 discussions

Start a nNew thread

what precautions are called for when moving an RM03 ?

by GOOI＠oce.nl

Hi all. Well, the weekend of the big move is getting closer. I intend to take 2 RM03's and not only for the good looks! I actually want to hook them to the 11/70 and operate them. Changing electricity cabling is planned ;-) The big question is: how do I move these "washing machines" so that afterward they still are in working order? I have experience with head locking RL01/RL02, RK05, RA81 and RA60. I suspect that the RM03 also have some head lock mechanism. Perhaps also some trick for the spindle like the tension of the drive belt in the RA81? Thanks for all the good advice received on the RM03's so far. I am looking forward to read more on topic info from this fine list. For those who like my StarShip website: I got the stars on the main screen correctly plotted with the rotation matrix algorithms, so an update will hit the site in a month or so. kind regards, - Henk.

23 years, 11 months

3
2
0 0

Seeking Interest in Group Purchase, Avery Magtape Labels

by dquebbeman＠acm.org

> > Tape Reel High Speed Computer Labels > > 3-7/8" x 1-13/16", White, Dot Matrix, > > Removable, 5000 labels per box > > 04052 5000 Labels per Box $139.15 > > > > If there are just ten people on the list who'd have use > > for 500 labels, it's close to fifteen bucks per person. > > > > OTOH, is anyone sitting on a stash of them? I found a > > sheet with precisely three labels, and I've quite a > > few more tapes than that... > > Check to see if the adhesive still sticks to anything. My long-term > experience with tape-reel labels is that the "permanent' adhesive > lets go after 10 years or so, leaving me with a rack of unlabeled > tapes and a bunch of labels on the floor. Dunno what kind of labels my old ones are, but labels applied in the 1978 through 1983 period remain firmly fastened to the reels. I took one of the three unused label, peeled it from the backing paper, and applied it to a new reel of tape. It stuck, but threatened to not do so very well. Some hand pressure seems to have done the trick. It looks ok now... write me back in 10 years for an update. ;)

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by csmith＠amdocs.com

> -----Original Message----- > From: David Woyciesjes [mailto:DAW@yalepress3.unipress.yale.edu] > > From: Christopher Smith > > I certainly hope that changes. I could stand to see many people > > replace their peesees with Macs. > Instead of a Mac, how about a DEC 3000/400, or Sun > Ulltra1 Creator > or an SGI, or... Even better, but there's less of a chance that will happen. Chris Christopher Smith, Perl Developer Amdocs - Champaign, IL /usr/bin/perl -e ' print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n"); '

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

by dquebbeman＠acm.org

> On Wed, 1 May 2002, Douglas H. Quebbeman wrote: > > > OK, so who knows the sequence and differences between: > > > MP/M-86 > > > Concurrent CP/M-86 > > > Concurrent PC-DOS (announced by DRI at Comdex, because IBM did NOT > > > trademark "PC-DOS" ("It's a description, not a name"), but > > > then DRI backed down and changed the name) > > > Concurrent DOS > > > DR DOS > > Very good, Fred! The answer to your question is "Fred Cisin"! > > Well, you confirmed my guess as to the sequence, but it wasn't a > rhetorical question. I really DON'T know what the differences are. Oops! My bad... MP/M-86: multiuser, multi-terminal version of CP/M. Supports more memory than CP/M-86 though... Concurrent CP/M-86: MP/M-86 with multi-terminal support removed. User can run multiple programs simultaneously. Concurrent PC-DOS: Concurrent CP/M-86 with support for Microsoft loader conventions, Microsoft disk formats, etc. while pre- serving existing CP/M-86 program & media support Concurrent DOS: Don't know the differences but whatever it is it's Concurrent PC-DOS modified to do <xyz> DR DOS: Lots of support added for stuff like running mouse and network drivers in upper memory blocks, etc. Generally a catch-up revision of the previous product, but was already surpoassed by the latest Microsoft DOS. hth,-dq

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by DAW＠yalepress3.unipress.yale.edu

> From: Christopher Smith > > > There are advantages to being a 5% market... small targets > > don't get hit > > often. > > I certainly hope that changes. I could stand to see many people > replace their peesees with Macs. > > Chris > Instead of a Mac, how about a DEC 3000/400, or Sun Ulltra1 Creator or an SGI, or... -- --- David A Woyciesjes --- C & IS Support Specialist --- Yale University Press --- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu --- (203) 432-0953 --- ICQ # - 905818 Mac OS X 10.1 - Darwin Kernel Version 5 Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

New Toy - VAX 4000-710

by dittman＠dittman.net

BTW, if you decide not to keep it, I'll buy it from you. -- Eric Dittman dittman(a)dittman.net Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

by dquebbeman＠acm.org

> OK, so who knows the sequence and differences between: > > MP/M-86 > > Concurrent CP/M-86 > > Concurrent PC-DOS (announced by DRI at Comdex, because IBM did NOT > trademark "PC-DOS" ("It's a description, not a name"), but > then DRI backed > down and changed the name) > > Concurrent DOS > > DR DOS Very good, Fred! The answer to your question is "Fred Cisin"! ;)

23 years, 11 months

2
1
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by csmith＠amdocs.com

> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris [mailto:mythtech@mac.com] > The wonderful bonus you have here with the Mac is... AppleTalk isn't > passed by home internet routers or modems. So you can safely have the > default settings of a home file/print sharing turned on on > your Macs, and > no one outside of your home network will know it is there. Won't argue with that. In fact, that sounds like just what I was saying. ;) > This changes if you turn on AppleTalk over IP, but since that > is off by > default, you must explicitly set it when you turn on your > filesharing. At > that point, if you don't know what you are activating, you > deserve what > you get. If you make changes to the configuration, as I said, it's likely to get worse. > Also, even if I run servers/services that DO interact with the > internet... I am far less likely to be hacked simply by > virtue of there > is almost no one trying to hack the Mac servers. That isn't true with > Windows and Unix where any 13yr old script kiddie can get > tools to make > attempts. It's a trivial, but not obvious to an idiot, exercise to make those "tools" work under Unix, too, and they become outdated very quickly. If you're running a newer or older Unix than the "tool" is designed to break, you'll likely have no problem there, either. This whole part of the discussion might be irrelevant, though, since nobody does anything interesting in that area any more. It's generally "denial of service" crap, and mostly depends on saturating peoples' network pipe, but what can you expect? > I don't pretend that Mac internet servers are unhackable... just that > people aren't making easy tools to try, so the script kiddies > ignore them. Possible. Just imagine how "safe" Amiga users are in that respect :) > Much like Mac users being "immune" to viruses. We are FAR > from immune... > we just don't really see them because no one is interested in trying. Wait 'till I get my Prime. ;) > There are advantages to being a 5% market... small targets > don't get hit > often. I certainly hope that changes. I could stand to see many people replace their peesees with Macs. Chris Christopher Smith, Perl Developer Amdocs - Champaign, IL /usr/bin/perl -e ' print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n"); '

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by mythtech＠mac.com

> And I should clarify, the only reason this machine has been rebooted >since I loaded OS X back on 1/22/2002 is because Apple hasn't figured out >how to update the system without a reboot... So that's only 3 reboots, all >by choice, not crashes. Now if they can just fix Classic so when a freaking installer forces you to reboot after installing a classic app, it doesn't take down the whole machine! 4 different installers did that to me. After installing in classic, it forced me to reboot, and rather than just rebooting classic, it froze the entire computer. Of course, that brings up another pet peeve of mine... installers that FORCE you to reboot after installing. Thanks, but I'll decide when it is a good time to reboot, give me the option of rebooting then, or quitting and doing it myself later. -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

FW: Dig UNIX Alpha V3 CD-ROM Kit

by DAW＠yalepress3.unipress.yale.edu

> From: Zane H. Healy > > > I've got here the Digital UNIX (a.k.a. D/UX, right?) v3.2F CD box > >here. The way the docs read, without an OSF-BASE license PAK, I can have > >only 1 user logged in at a time, not counting root. the OSF-BASE PAK will > >let me have 2 simultaneous users, and anything higher needs an > appropriate > >OSF-USER PAK, right? > > Either way, I'm hoping to get my hands on a OSF-BASE PAK, at least. > > You might just want to buy the Tru64 V5.1 Hobbyist Kit. It's about $100, > and it includes PAK's. Or better yet, put OpenVMS on the system :^) > > Zane > -- > OpenVMS? Maybe eventually. When I started really getting into computer work, it was as an operator, on an OpenVMS system... But since I do have the CDs and docs here for D/UX, I'll give it a whirl, and see if it fits my needs. Does it allow only one user at a time, without the OSF-BASE PAK? This afternoon I'll be firing up my 3000/400 to see what's installed, before I try throwing D/UX on it... -- --- David A Woyciesjes --- C & IS Support Specialist --- Yale University Press --- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu --- (203) 432-0953 --- ICQ # - 905818 Mac OS X 10.1 - Darwin Kernel Version 5 Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

by knightstalkerbob＠netscape.net

Dan Wright <dtwright(a)uiuc.edu> wrote: >Tarsi said: > >Though, I think any machines that are truly on-topic wouldn't be able to run >IRIX 6.5 anyway ;) > >- Dan Wright >(dtwright(a)uiuc.edu) >(http://www.uiuc.edu/~dtwright) > I've successfully installed 6.5 on an Indy with a 2 Gig drive. Barebones with only 2 Gig, but it runs:) -- Bob Mason 2x Amiga 500's, GVP A530 (40mhz 68030/68882, 8meg Fast, SCSI), 1.3/3.1, 2meg Chip, full ECS chipset, EZ135, 1084S, big harddrives, 2.2xCD Gateway Performance 500 Piece 'o Crap, 'ME, 128meg, 20Gig & 40Gig, flatbed. Heathkit H-89A, 64K RAM, hard and soft-sectored floppies, SigmaSoft and Systems 256K RAM Drive/Print Spooler/Graphics board HDOS 2 & CP/M 2.2.03/2.2.04 __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

23 years, 11 months

10
15
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by DAW＠yalepress3.unipress.yale.edu

> From: Chris > > > And Chris, couldn't you tell I' was breaking your stones? C'mon, > >you've seen my basement... :) > > Yes... but your statement was still correct. I implied that Apple was far > better than it really is when compared to things outside the wintel > world. I was simply wrong in that respect. > > Besides, how could you be anything but pro-Mac... you proudly display > your OS X uptime in your sig > > -chris > Well, I'm not sure if it's really pro-Mac, but more of pro-OS X, or is it pro-*BSD, and a bit of 'about time someone took it to the masses'. And I should fix my sig, it's now 10.1.4... [~] dwoycies% uname -a Darwin dwoyciesjes-g4.unipress.yale.edu 5.4 Darwin Kernel Version 5.4: Wed Apr 10 09:27:47 PDT 2002; root:xnu/xnu-201.19.3.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc And I should clarify, the only reason this machine has been rebooted since I loaded OS X back on 1/22/2002 is because Apple hasn't figured out how to update the system without a reboot... So that's only 3 reboots, all by choice, not crashes. So, technically the "Running without a crash" isn't really wrong. -- --- David A Woyciesjes --- C & IS Support Specialist --- Yale University Press --- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu --- (203) 432-0953 --- ICQ # - 905818 Mac OS X 10.1.2 - Darwin Kernel Version 5.2: Fri Dec 7 21:39:35 PST 2001 Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by mythtech＠mac.com

>You mean it'll work with the older mac's? It has a "normal" (for MAC's) >video >cable, and its model number is 1710AV. I just checked the tech manual for the 1710AV, it indeed has the standard RGB plug, so you should be good to go with just about any mac that has an RGB port. Some of the older ones will only be able to display in 640x480 resolution, but the Q650 you are looking into will do higher. If you want the PDF of the manual, let me know, I'll send it to you offlist. It's about 3.6MB, has some interesting notes about repair problems with that model (Apple even has/had a repair extension program in place for some of it) >It has what appears to be >pass-through's for the mouse and for a mike, that funny thing that looks like >the USB symbol but isn't That's the ADB port. Predates USB by some time. The idea was you could run one cable bundle from the screen to the Mac, and then be able to plug the keyboard and mic into the screen (mouse would be connected to the keyboard's ADB port). >but it's only a 16" >diagonal visible (not viewable) screen so I don't think it's supposed to be a >17", though you never know these days. It is listed as a 17" with 16.1" viewable image size. Although, it was made back in the day when apple was a little less than honest with their screen sizes (before they were sued over it), so who knows what it really has. >I saw a >Quadra 650 or something on that order for $5 earlier today. It had a part of >the front face missing, else I'd have probably looked inside. Probably missing the CD bezel. Most likely it was stripped of the CD before being junked. If the CD is missing, verify that the rest of the system is there, who knows what else was pulled. -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

23 years, 11 months

3
2
0 0

FW: Dig UNIX Alpha V3 CD-ROM Kit

by DAW＠yalepress3.unipress.yale.edu

Yep, this is about 4 years shy of being on topic, but I know I can find help here... I've got here the Digital UNIX (a.k.a. D/UX, right?) v3.2F CD box here. The way the docs read, without an OSF-BASE license PAK, I can have only 1 user logged in at a time, not counting root. the OSF-BASE PAK will let me have 2 simultaneous users, and anything higher needs an appropriate OSF-USER PAK, right? Either way, I'm hoping to get my hands on a OSF-BASE PAK, at least. The DEC 3000/400 that this will be installed on, I have never seen what OS is on there now. Maybe I'll get lucky and there will be a valid OSF-BASE PAK there already? Nah, doubt it. Not my luck. I think the previous owner said something about NetBSD on it... -- --- David A Woyciesjes --- C & IS Support Specialist --- Yale University Press --- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu --- (203) 432-0953 --- ICQ # - 905818 Mac OS X 10.1.2 - Darwin Kernel Version 5.2: Fri Dec 7 21:39:35 PST 2001 Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash

23 years, 11 months

2
1
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by mythtech＠mac.com

>Now there's one of the problems with Apple's approach ... My old (1993-94) >'486 setups support PCI, (some of 'em ... the ones I use) while these old >MAC's don't because Apple was slow to adopt PCI. Not slow to adopt... too arrogant to get with the program and stop using their own standards. The first PCI based macs showed up in 1995 -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

23 years, 11 months

2
1
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by mythtech＠mac.com

> And Chris, couldn't you tell I' was breaking your stones? C'mon, >you've seen my basement... :) Yes... but your statement was still correct. I implied that Apple was far better than it really is when compared to things outside the wintel world. I was simply wrong in that respect. Besides, how could you be anything but pro-Mac... you proudly display your OS X uptime in your sig -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by dquebbeman＠acm.org

> >Now there's one of the problems with Apple's approach ... My old (1993-94) > >'486 setups support PCI, (some of 'em ... the ones I use) while these old > >MAC's don't because Apple was slow to adopt PCI. > > Not slow to adopt... too arrogant to get with the program and stop using > their own standards. I've always thought of apple as the Sony of Computing... there may be fans of the memory stick here, but Sony was slow to come out with high-density versions... hell, in the CompactFlash format, I can eschew solid state for a tiny 1-inch IBM 1GB hard drive... now *that's* density! -dq

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by csmith＠amdocs.com

> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris [mailto:mythtech@mac.com] > specifying that on this list, I opened the comment to compare > them to a > slew of machines that would blow Apple out of the water. I imagined you would be comparing them directly to peesees, but I couldn't pass that up. > Sorry it was my > Mac Evangelist side popping out too quickly. That's ok. I like to evangelize VMS once in a while. > Ok... I was thinking security as in how often we loose or > destroy your > files. Not how often we let someone steal your files. No That's different. I've seen it happen, of course, but I'd rather handle the MacOS "corrupt preferences" problem that is so common than the windows "I just stomped on the wrong DLL" counterpart. :) > Apple doesn't > excel at keeping the files intact, but they are no worse than > many others. I often think that windows machines should come with a VAX/PDP-like "Write protect fixed disk 0" button. :) > In terms of allowing someone to steal or alter your files, I > agree, short > of encrypting the files, there is nothing acceptable on the > Mac pre-OS X Of course, PGP is fine for that, but I wasn't counting it since it's third-party. > I have seen few even half way decent security systems to keep > people off > your Mac. And even the half way decent ones tend to be easy > to bypass if > you have sufficient access to the machine (ie: steal it and take your > time) Even if not, I've seen far too many that can be disabled by hitting "shift" during boot-up. > Although, in the Mac's defense, in terms of "hacker" access > from over the > internet, I will trust my Mac running any pre-OS X version of the OS > before I will trust ANY other OS (even well configured Unix). In that Are you certain? If the Mac was running the same network services as that Unix box, I'd bet your chances of a problem are even -- if not worse on the Mac, due to their popularity among "home users," which unix isn't... > line, then I stand by my overly stated statement saying that > the Mac has > far better security. I think that the closer-to-default Mac configuration is better by virtue of it's not running unnecessary network services. The Unix one needs a lot of help in that respect. Now, if a given system must run these services, or if you want to compare a Unix set up to be "Mac like" in this respect to a Mac, it's a whole different thing. Chris Christopher Smith, Perl Developer Amdocs - Champaign, IL /usr/bin/perl -e ' print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n"); '

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by DAW＠yalepress3.unipress.yale.edu

> From: Chris > > >> WOAH?!? That's just a shot from the dark... Apple is known for how good > > >> their quality IS... sure they had a few flops, but most of their > hardware > >> is built well, and built to last. And security? Um... compared to what? > > >> Windows? BWAA HAA HAA HAA HAA!!! > >> > >> -chris > >> > > Really Chris? Then why was I very busy making good money doing > >Apple/Mac support at Electric Boat up here? ;) > > Sorry, that was a poorly worded direct comparison to the PC WinTel world. > Having done Mac and PC hardware repair for the last don't know how long, > I can tell you that PCs break down 10x more often than a Mac. Hardware > wise that is. Software wise, well, that isn't fair... Windows just isn't > up to the task of being compared to anything. > > Alas, I forgot what list I was on, and many (if not most) of the > computers applicable to this list would blow Apple stuff out of the water > in terms of reliability in hardware AND software. > - Hmmm, actually, compared to x86/Win stuff, Apple is generally better, so your comment isn't that far off. And Chris, couldn't you tell I' was breaking your stones? C'mon, you've seen my basement... :) -- --- David A Woyciesjes --- C & IS Support Specialist --- Yale University Press --- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu --- (203) 432-0953 --- ICQ # - 905818 Mac OS X 10.1.2 - Darwin Kernel Version 5.2: Fri Dec 7 21:39:35 PST 2001 Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash

23 years, 11 months

3
2
0 0

by f.heite＠hccnet.nl

Pat Finnegan wrote: >Cool. Next question: is there any software for MSDOS or Linux (preferably >that I don't need to pay for) that will read/write CP/M-86 (1) hard disk >partitions or (2) 1.44M floppies. I've noticed 22DSK doesn't support much >more than 5-1/4" floppies. Out-of-the-box "CP/M-86 for the IBM PC" does not support 1.44 MB diskettes. But if you still need it: some time ago I wrote a software package called "The 1.44 MB Feature for CP/M-86" that provides this support as an add-on to standard CP/M-86 for IBM. See the CP/M-86 software repository at www. seanet.com/~klaw There's also a definition for 22disk in the package. Freek Heite.

23 years, 11 months

2
1
0 0

MacEthernet (Was: RE: APPLEVISION Monitor)

by mythtech＠mac.com

>> networks, but they've since been renamed by Apple to 'PhoneNet' because of >> the satin phone cable you typically use to connect the adaptors together. > >Actually, I think 'LocalTalk' is what they now call the serial-connected >network. Not quite sure where I got 'phonenet' from... LocalTalk was always technically the cabling system that Apple developed. It uses a 4 wire round cable and connects to a box that connects to the serial port of the Mac (traditionally the printer port) PhoneNet/TeleNet/TeleTalk was always technically the cabling system that used 2 wires in a phone cable to connect. I believe this was first developed by TOPS, but I'm probably wrong. Also connected to an adaptor that connected to the serial port. Serial was always technically the cabling system where you take a mac printer cable and connect two macs together with it (AppleTalk over Serial... wonder why it was never refered to as SerialTalk) Localtalk has been perverted into meaning any of the above topologies, and any others that use the serial port on the Mac. And Farallon perverted the PhoneNet name by using it in one of their ethernet cards (PhoneNet EN) -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by mythtech＠mac.com

>> their hardware >> is built well, and built to last. And security? Um... > >I've seen better. I have better. (I also have a couple of >Macintosh's, a IIGS, etc... which still work fine, to be >fair) I was making the comparison to the WinTel world, forgetting that without specifying that on this list, I opened the comment to compare them to a slew of machines that would blow Apple out of the water. Sorry it was my Mac Evangelist side popping out too quickly. >> compared to what? > >VMS? :) Even a poorly configured Unix -- until OS X. >MacOS had no built-in security at that point. (I hope you >won't seriously suggest that "At Ease" counts... :) Ok... I was thinking security as in how often we loose or destroy your files. Not how often we let someone steal your files. No Apple doesn't excel at keeping the files intact, but they are no worse than many others. In terms of allowing someone to steal or alter your files, I agree, short of encrypting the files, there is nothing acceptable on the Mac pre-OS X (at least OS 9 finally added built in encryption if you wanted to use it). I have seen few even half way decent security systems to keep people off your Mac. And even the half way decent ones tend to be easy to bypass if you have sufficient access to the machine (ie: steal it and take your time) Although, in the Mac's defense, in terms of "hacker" access from over the internet, I will trust my Mac running any pre-OS X version of the OS before I will trust ANY other OS (even well configured Unix). In that line, then I stand by my overly stated statement saying that the Mac has far better security. -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by mythtech＠mac.com

>> WOAH?!? That's just a shot from the dark... Apple is known for how good >> their quality IS... sure they had a few flops, but most of their hardware >> is built well, and built to last. And security? Um... compared to what? >> Windows? BWAA HAA HAA HAA HAA!!! >> >> -chris >> > Really Chris? Then why was I very busy making good money doing >Apple/Mac support at Electric Boat up here? ;) Sorry, that was a poorly worded direct comparison to the PC WinTel world. Having done Mac and PC hardware repair for the last don't know how long, I can tell you that PCs break down 10x more often than a Mac. Hardware wise that is. Software wise, well, that isn't fair... Windows just isn't up to the task of being compared to anything. Alas, I forgot what list I was on, and many (if not most) of the computers applicable to this list would blow Apple stuff out of the water in terms of reliability in hardware AND software. -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

23 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by csmith＠amdocs.com

> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris [mailto:mythtech@mac.com] > >Apple Computer Co. always impressed me as being > >entirely too willing to compromise the quality of MY > hardware/software, and > >the security of my data, in favor of their profits. > WOAH?!? That's just a shot from the dark... Apple is known > for how good > their quality IS... sure they had a few flops, but most of I wouldn't say that. Apple hardware is passable for "consumer" stuff, sure, but it's not good. Better than most peesee clone manufacturers? Sure, but again, that doesn't make it good. You're welcome to buy an all-in-one box with a plastic bubble for a case if you like, but I'm not going to. :) I will also grant that Apple's hardware used to be better when compared to peesee stuff than it is now (possibly due to Apple's cutting costs)... > their hardware > is built well, and built to last. And security? Um... I've seen better. I have better. (I also have a couple of Macintosh's, a IIGS, etc... which still work fine, to be fair) > compared to what? VMS? :) Even a poorly configured Unix -- until OS X. MacOS had no built-in security at that point. (I hope you won't seriously suggest that "At Ease" counts... :) > Windows? BWAA HAA HAA HAA HAA!!! Heh. Chris Christopher Smith, Perl Developer Amdocs - Champaign, IL /usr/bin/perl -e ' print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n"); '

23 years, 11 months

3
3
0 0

APPLEVISION Monitor

by csmith＠amdocs.com

> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick@idcomm.com] > Does the MAC support USB? How about USB-2? 5-port boards Yes, and "possibly" -- if a USB-2 interface is available on a PCI board, there's a good chance of finding one supported by Apple. Chris Christopher Smith, Perl Developer Amdocs - Champaign, IL /usr/bin/perl -e ' print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n"); '

23 years, 11 months

2
1
0 0

Jump to page: