14 Feb
2001
14 Feb
'01
1:11 p.m.
At 03:49 PM 2/14/01 -0800, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
A friend told me off-list that when copying a file,
there is a graphic
icon of each bit being moved. He suggested that the floating point was
required for the OS due to some MICROS~1 OS programmer being unable to
compute the parabolic trajectory of the bits without using floats.
BTW, 95 will install on the same machine without the FPU (486SX).
Which apps, etc. are different? Or did MICROS~1 simply do the FPU
requirement to reduce the number of performance complaints about their
apps?
You mean to tell me that you've never seen or used contemporary
post-95 Windows, but you feel comfortable criticizing it? Yes,
there's a lame animation when copying files. I can tell you a
number of things wrong with *just that animation* - such as
that it's not actually an accurate depiction of anything.
It doesn't represent bits, bytes, blocks or any actual percentage
of completion in any consistent fashion (between apps)
as far as I can tell, and doesn't adequately represent errors.
I highly doubt the code to do the arc uses floats. There are
only a small number of steps in the animation. I would guess
the tweens are hard-coded.
As for the FPU, if they raised the bar for a minimum
processor to an Intel level that includes an FPU, then they
no longer need to compile code that can either use a software
floating-point library or the hardware FPU. I was looking
over the Windows 2000 requirements today - they only demand
a Pentium 133 as the minimum... and that was the "recommended"
level of system for Windows NT 3.x five-six years ago, as I recall.
- John
14 Feb
14 Feb
12:49 p.m.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, John Foust wrote:
You mean to tell me that you've never seen or used
contemporary
post-95 Windows, but you feel comfortable criticizing it? Yes,
Does anyone really NEED to use MS products to know that they suck?
Please...
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
11:32 p.m.
At 06:49 PM 2/14/01 -0800, Sellam wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, John Foust wrote:
OK, the next time you reprimand someone for not knowing what
they're talking about, I'll just state that you don't really
need to use or understand something in order to say it "sucks".
- John
You mean to tell me that you've never seen or
used contemporary
post-95 Windows, but you feel comfortable criticizing it? Yes,
Does anyone really NEED to use MS products to know that they suck?
Please... 
15 Feb
15 Feb
1:07 a.m.
Does anyone
really NEED to use MS products to know that they suck?
Please...
OK, the next time you reprimand someone for not knowing what
they're talking about, I'll just state that you don't really
need to use or understand something in order to say it "sucks".
2:26 a.m.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, John Foust wrote:
At 06:49 PM 2/14/01 -0800, Sellam wrote:
Dweeb.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, John Foust wrote:
OK, the next time you reprimand someone for not knowing what
they're talking about, I'll just state that you don't really
need to use or understand something in order to say it "sucks". You mean to tell me that you've never seen or
used contemporary
post-95 Windows, but you feel comfortable criticizing it? Yes,
Does anyone really NEED to use MS products to know that they suck?
Please...
11:44 p.m.
At 08:26 AM 2/15/01 -0800, Sellam Ismail wrote:
Uh, Sellam, you're hanging out writing messages on a mailing
list composed entirely of dweebs who like old computers.
To paraphrase Firesign Theater, "we're all dweebs on this bus."
- John
OK, the next
time you reprimand someone for not knowing what
they're talking about, I'll just state that you don't really
need to use or understand something in order to say it "sucks".
Dweeb.
16 Feb
16 Feb
2:12 a.m.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, John Foust wrote:
At 08:26 AM 2/15/01 -0800, Sellam Ismail wrote:
Uh, Sellam, you're hanging out writing messages on a mailing
list composed entirely of dweebs who like old computers.
To paraphrase Firesign Theater, "we're all dweebs on this bus."
Dork.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
OK, the
next time you reprimand someone for not knowing what
they're talking about, I'll just state that you don't really
need to use or understand something in order to say it "sucks".
Dweeb. 
15 Feb
15 Feb
4:49 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 461 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010215/8f947c2f/at…
14 Feb
14 Feb
5:04 p.m.
At 03:49 PM 2/14/01 -0800, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)
wrote:
>A friend told me off-list that when copying a file, there is a graphic
>icon of each bit being moved. He suggested that the floating point was
>required for the OS due to some MICROS~1 OS programmer being unable to
>compute the parabolic trajectory of the bits without using floats.
>BTW, 95 will install on the same machine without the FPU (486SX).
>Which apps, etc. are different? Or did MICROS~1 simply do the FPU
>requirement to reduce the number of performance complaints about their
>apps?
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, John Foust wrote:
You mean to tell me that you've never seen or used
contemporary
post-95 Windows, but you feel comfortable criticizing it?
1) My friend (who has a small but nice collection of Ohio Scientific,
Northstar, Osborne, etc.) likes to bash Windows, and made the remark NOT
to let me know about the existence of the graphic, but to [JOKINGLY]
identify that graphic as being the FPU needy ap.
I do use a lot of Windoze machines, and am familiar with it.
2) Does this mean that it would be inappropriate for me to criticize a
Yugo if I don't own one? Or that I have to own a Ferrari to be able to
say that it is NO GOOD for transporting minicomputers? Actually, I
generally agree with your point - Ralph Nader does not have enough
experience wrenching, driving, nor owning cars to have appropriate
standing to criticize ANY of them, even VW or Corvair.
Yes,
there's a lame animation when copying files. I can tell you a
number of things wrong with *just that animation* - such as
that it's not actually an accurate depiction of anything.
It doesn't represent bits, bytes, blocks or any actual percentage
of completion in any consistent fashion (between apps)
as far as I can tell, and doesn't adequately represent errors.
I highly doubt the code to do the arc uses floats. There are
only a small number of steps in the animation. I would guess
the tweens are hard-coded.
3) Once again, we were JOKING about that animation as:
a) producing animation for every bit
b) calculating positions for the animation
c) using float for the calculations
d) being THE reason why 98 "needs" a FPU.
all exaggerations, and presumably NOT valid.
As for the FPU, if they raised the bar for a minimum
processor to an Intel level that includes an FPU, then they
no longer need to compile code that can either use a software
floating-point library or the hardware FPU. I was looking
over the Windows 2000 requirements today - they only demand
a Pentium 133 as the minimum... and that was the "recommended"
level of system for Windows NT 3.x five-six years ago, as I recall.
That still does not address why an OPERATING SYSTEM would EVER need to
"compile code" that uses float! Certainly many aps might need float. But
what POSSIBLE legitimate reason would there ever be for an OS to need or
use floating point? Can anyone name any variable in an OS that should be
float? Or are you actually saying that the FPU requirement is NOT for the
OS at all, but that the OS is doing that for the sake of some aps?
If I don't care about the speed, why would I need to have 133 for 2000?
Does it still use "i386" as it's directory on the CD?
Any reason why I couldn't create a glacially slow machine running it on a
386SX?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
8710
days inactive
8712
days old
8 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu