Linux-Advocacy Digest #715, Volume #27 Sun, 16 Jul 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: which OS is best? (salvador peralta)
Re: Microsoft ("greg")
Device Driver Development Tools - Jungo ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451742.747^-.000000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Ray Chason)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Peter Seebach)
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Darren Winsper)
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Microsoft PalmPcs/Transmeta ("Mike")
Re: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers. (Bloody Viking)
Re: My brain is new ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Craig Kelley)
Re: My brain is new ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers. (Ray Chason)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (John Jensen)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Craig Kelley)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: salvador peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 08:36:15 -0700
cp filenames location or mv filenames location. BTW: I still get pissed when
I'm at work on my windows machine and :wq doesn't save and exit. Or when
typing < in Netscape mail on either machine doesn't close the message and
return me to the mail folder.
Here's one for you. If you are debugging code, and you get an error on line
234, does notepad or wordpad or bbedit have something that gets you to the
error quicker than :234 ?
MH wrote:
> > But point and click can never be as efficient as using the keyboard. If
> > ALT + key is used to navigate on the screen, we have 40-odd keypresses
> > at our immediate disposal without having to move our hands away from
> > keyboard. The 2 or 3 buttons of a mouse cannot compete with this, and
> > especially not in situations where we also have to move our hand back
> > and forth between mouse and keyboard
>
> Gee, I agree with 99% of what you say. But I can't offhand think of an
> easier keyboard equivalent of opening up win explorer to a dir of choice,
> holding down the control key while left clicking to select any combination
> of arbitrary files in the right hand pane, right clicking, and choosing
> "send to ->>" source. How many commands would I have to type to accomplish
> this? I can't script that very easily. A better question would be why would
> I need to script what is inherently available?
--
Pan
www.la-online.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:43:13 GMT
> Gutenburg created the printing press.
For what it's worth, the printing press had already existed for some time
when Gutenburg came along. Gutenburg's credit was for inventing removable
typeset, which eliminated the need to create plates from scratch everytime
someone wanted to create a new page. He actually improved on an EXISTING
concept, allowing a better, faster, and cheaper means of duplicating printed
materials.
For what it's worth...
Greg
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Device Driver Development Tools - Jungo
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:41:41 GMT
visit jungo at: http://www.jungo.com
Jungo provides device driver development tools and high availability
solutions. All tools are cross platform - you only write your code once
for all supported operating systems.
Jungo's "WinDriver" and "KernelDriver" products dramatically simplify
and automate the development of device drivers for all major operating
systems.
Jungo's "GO Hot-Swap" operating system extension provides CompactPCI
hot swap capabilities for all major operating systems.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451742.747^-.000000000001
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 12:19:24 -0400
Here's another Tholen digest, in which Tholen continues to ignore the issue
about his alleged understand of reciprocation, choosing instead to make a
complete fool of himself by claiming that he would know a useful answer if
it walked up to him on the arse, and lying about his chat with TPTB at UofH.
Such a lie is one of the things I'm "fighting", to use his word for it.
He's continuing to ignore the issue about his reason for frequenting "these
precincts" -- after all, he's a self-proclaimed non-advocate. What's he
doing here? Inquiring minds want to know!
The digest:
[Oops, he's failed to address anything seriously!]
Thanks for reading.
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 16 Jul 2000 15:45:57 GMT
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There's more to Carbon than that. Mac developers are used to accessing
>memory directly, including low memory system globals, handles, and
>common data structures like windows or menus. For some reason that I
>don't understand, this isn't conducive to preemptive multitasking, and
>it obviously has issues with virtual address spaces.
Accessing a global resource such as a data structure in memory requires
locking if two or more processes can access the resource and at least one
may change it.
Here's an example:
int stack[100];
unsigned stack_pointer = 0;
void push(int n) { stack[stack_pointer] = n; stack_pointer++; }
int pop(void) { stack_pointer--; return stack[stack_pointer]; }
Now suppose you have two processes. Process A calls push, and push
assigns its parameter to the stack; but before it can increment
stack_pointer, an interrupt arrives and Process B wakes up. Process B
also calls push, which assigns its parameter to the stack. But Process A
didn't get a chance to update the stack pointer, and so Process B's push
overwrites the value pushed by Process A.
Coding push as stack[stack_pointer++] = n doesn't help, because there is
no guarantee that anything larger than a single instruction will complete
without preemption.
To implement push correctly, you need some way to ensure that Process B
can't enter push until Process A is done with it:
void push(int n)
{
wait();
stack[stack_pointer] = n; stack_pointer++;
release();
}
where wait() is defined to let the first process pass, and block any
subsequent processes until release() is called. That way, Process B blocks
when it reaches the wait(), Process A completes its operation and calls
release(), and Process B can then complete its push correctly.
pop, of course, has to be locked in the same way.
Back to the Mac: I don't know Mac development, but my guess is that those
accessor functions are there to provide the locking I've described here.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: 16 Jul 2000 16:22:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Peter Seebach in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>It depends an awful lot on the software. Windows has been sold to tens of
>>millions of people, many of whom didn't want it or need it. Niche market
>>software often sells for a fixed 25% cut over what it costs to write.
>Only for creative values of "what it costs to write it".
I dunno. If I have to pay a guy $N/hour to write a piece of software, and
I sell it to the one customer for $N*1.25/hour, I think that's a 25% markup.
>Other than getting bought out or having their market disappear, I'm not
>sure if very many have. Not the large commercial ones. One product
>developer's trying to play the trade secret game die off all the time,
>of course, but that's not the same thing.
This depends; look at the game industry, where companies fail routinely.
>I'm not sure if you're clear on how "profit" relates to "fixed" and
>"variable" costs. The trick with software is its all in the fixed
>costs.
Most of it, yes.
>That's why they're really more of a services business model.
In general, yes. Or at least, they should be.
However, video games have never done very well on that, and it may not be
possible to make certain kinds of software viable under such a model.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: 16 Jul 2000 16:23:53 GMT
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:00:13 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Install is actually superior to Windows IMHO.
>
> In what way? Installing Mandrake 7.0/7.1 the only real difference was the
> number of reboots - Windows seems to require a few, Mandrake just one.
You should try installing WinME then. I managed to "aquire" a copy of
the 3000 build, apparently the RTM one, and it has some interesting
features. When I first installed it, everything went fine until I
wanted to install some 3rd party drivers. My *certified* Matrox
Mystique drivers still kill the system, forcing a wipe and reinstall.
My Voodoo2 drivers wouldn't install, and when I tried to remove a "PCI
video device" listed under the 'stuff we can't find a driver for, so we
didn't bother asking' part, I got a BSOD.
Oh, and there seem to be a hell of a lot of complaints about the new
IE5.5 final build. I seem to be seeing people on various message
boards complaining of instabilities, lack of standards compliance and
slowness. Hmm....
Myself, I'm still pissed off with the sorry state of browsers across
the board. I'm developing a web site right now and the only browser it
will correctly render on is Mozilla. Neither IE or Opera support PNG
alpha-channels (MacIE might), both IE and Opera have CSS bugs I've hit
(You'd think "font-size: smaller" would mean a smaller font size than
normal. Microsoft disagree it seems).
> The big jump in the Windows desktop was with Windows 95.
Definately. In fact, with GNOME and KDE I now see a lot of
similarities in peoples' reaction to that with the launch of Win95.
"Oh, M$ ripped off RISC OS", "Win95 == MacOS87" etc. etc. The only
difference I see now is it's everyone complaining that KDE and GNOME
are copying Windows.
KDE, OK, I can see the similarities. Visually, they are quite similar,
but that's about where the comparison ends. The KDE panel is quite
different to the taskbar and the 'running programs' panel is at the
top. You can even have a MacOS-like menubar at the top.
With GNOME, I see even less credibility. The GNOME panel is *much*
more flexible to the taskbar. Right now I have several applets,
launchers and menus in my panel (It's menu-panel BTW). The default
widget look follows Motif more than Windows (Which I think is
butt-ugly, so I threw together a nice ThinIce based theme).
> >Active desktop (or whatever it is called?)? That's the first thing
> >users typically turn off.
>
> Yes, Active Desktop. Along with a whole bunch of other features, like
> animated menues, (Windows 2000) fadin/out menues, hidden files etc.
I actually keep hidden files on, they remove some clutter and it's
easy to turn them back on when you want to alter them.
> >Some folks like to do everything manually, and for them these WM's
> >offer that level of control.
>
> I'm still investigating KDE. I'm not sure I like the two toolbars - why not
> one?
KDE2 sticks to just one panel IIRC.
> >My PERSONAL opinion is that Linux should focus on the server/technical
> >user market and should forget going for the desktop.
>
> Then it will remain in the background and never challenge Microsoft.
It would, but in a different way. The problem is MS is using it's
desktop dominance to leverage their server products and they stand to
win if their desktop dominance goes unchallenged.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://stellarlegacy.sourceforge.net
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:26:30 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:11:36 GMT...
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It was the Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:13:55 GMT...
> > ...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Desktop domination?-- it's a LONG way off, if at all. And I think
> that's a
> > > >good thing for Linux. And computer users in general.
> > >
> > > My PERSONAL opinion is that Linux should focus on the
> server/technical
> > > user market and should forget going for the desktop.
> >
> > Linux cannot focus on anything because Linux is neither an
> > organisation nor a product.
> >
>
> Linux is focused enough to become a treat to Microsoft! Seems focused to
> me!
You misspelled "threat", and no, Linux is not focused on being a
threat to Microsoft. It's possible to become a threat to somebody
without "focusing" on them.
mawa
--
(__) (__) (__) (__) (__)
(oo)------\ (oo)------\ (oo)------\ (oo)-----\ (oo)------\
\/ SILLY| * \/ AND | * \/ PROUD| * \/ OF | * \/ IT | *
||~~~~|| ||~~~~|| ||~~~~|| ||~~~~|| ||~~~~||
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft PalmPcs/Transmeta
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:00:11 GMT
As of February, PalmOS accounted for 87%, WinCE for 11%. WinCE sales were
down because of the impending upgrade to the Microsoft OS. I don't know if
they've rebounded since then.
EPOC isn't on anyone's list, as far as I can find.
-- Mike --
"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Sat, 15 Jul 2000 16:35:20 GMT...
> ...and bigbinc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was seaching the net, just browsing like any normal man and I found
> > saw all these new handheld pcs and a most of them are sporty
> > microsoft's new os.
>
> Then that's just hype or a wrong impression. The handheld market is
> firmly ruled by PalmOS and EPOC; Windows CE holds just a comparably
> small fraction of it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers.
Date: 16 Jul 2000 17:03:25 GMT
Ray Chason ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Remove the '#' from last line if you need a form feed at the end. Save
Happily I don't need to add a formfeed character to the print job. If I did, I
would have had the script just cat it onto the end of the file before printing
it.
If I knew how to get a script to read an argument like "lpr file.txt" I would
have done the easy though fucked up thing of renaming lpr and name the script
"lpr". Something like that is how I made "pico" the default text editor on my
box instead of vi.
The way I would fix it is of course fucked up. The advantage is not having to
dig for the config files. The drawback is that any future Admin would not know
what to do in the event of swapping out the printer.
--
DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: My brain is new
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:07:13 GMT
See that!
I know a die-hard OS/2 teamer when I see one :)
Of course I have always been one myself.
It's too bad IBM had to attempt to market it or it might have done
much better :(
Peace!
DP
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:44:48 -0700, Bob Lyday
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:30:03 -0700, Bob Lyday
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes it is and that was the original topic of my "Bit-Twiddler" post. I
>> >> > was not talking about programmers or techno-geeks, I was speaking
>> >> > about the average user who grew up and suffered with DOS, OS/2
>> >
>> >Suffered with OS/2, one of the best OS's ever made? I think you need a
>> >brain transplant.
>>
>> Bzzzzt wrong again.
>>
>> Guess you don't remember when OS/2 worked on PS/2's and very few if
>> any clones.
>
>Before my time, oldster.
>>
>> Used OS/2 since 1.0. Suffered through 30 somewhat diskettes of 1.2 EE
>> hoping that none of them had a bad sector.
>
>Ah, the nightmarish install, I get it!
>
>Used 1.3 which was ok
>> except for the DOS penalty box and the fact that OS/2 applications
>> were rare.
>
>Suffered through the lack of apps, ok.
>
>Went through all the versions of Warp to the current
>> version.
>
>Congrats!
>>
>> Went through all of the hardware comparability problems with OS/2 2.0
>> when as a Team OS/2 member I was begging manufacturers to write
>> drivers for their hardware.
>
>Suffered thru the lack of drivers, I get it. Slap on the back to a Team
>OS/2 guy!
>
>> I didn't say OS/2 was a poor OS I said I suffered THROUGH it.
>
>I c.
>
>I happen
>> to believe, and have stated many times, OS/2 was one of the best OSen
>> ever written.
>
>Is. Great, so we agree. :)
>
>> As for the brain transplant comment, It appears you have already been
>> through the process, so I will pass until the bugs can be worked out
>> of it.
>
>Sing to the tune of "My Heart is Blue" (remember that one?):
>
>New, new
>My brain is new
>It's guaranteed til 2002.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 Jul 2000 11:09:35 -0600
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see your point. It shouldn't be the other app that "determines when
> to give up control", though, it should be the common rules which I
> assumed are what make up the Cooperative Multi-tasking system as a
> whole. I know you realize I don't know the details, but I figured there
> must be some maximum quantum which the active process can use until
> yielding. Is this incorrect? Considering the true time span of these
> quantum, I get the impression that "responsiveness" may be a term with a
> slightly unique flavor when discussing multi-tasking, but I can't be
> sure.
That 'quantum' marks the difference between a CMT- (which doesn't have
it) and a PMT-system (which does have it).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 Jul 2000 11:11:40 -0600
John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : Huh? It was pointed out that Apple probably didn't implement PMT because
> : the original Mac didn't have the RAM. The fact that a later Mac with
> : more RAM was on the market before the Amiga shipped doesn't make any
> : difference -- Mac OS had already been written.
>
> I'm sure it's possible that it was a memory tradeoff, but I have a nagging
> suspicion that a lot of the Mac crew were ex-Apple II programmers without
> any PMT experience. IOW, it is possible that there was a cultural
> element.
Possibly. But I doubt it.
It only takes a day or so of programming until you really appreciate a
PMT architecture.
(unless you enjoy hearing the bootup-beep, that is)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: My brain is new
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:16:52 GMT
They were introduced together.
Try this link for information:
http://www8.zdnet.com/eweek/news/0330/03mps2.html
DP
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 14:02:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
() wrote:
>
>
>That never happened here on earth. OS/2 from day one was written for PC
>clones before the PS/2 was even a glimer in any IBM exec's imagination.
>(originaly os/2 was written for the IBM PC/AT)
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers.
Date: 16 Jul 2000 16:36:39 GMT
Paul Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ray Chason wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I finally got off my arse and quickly coded up a quick shell script that
>> >undoes the "staircase" problem some printers have.
>> >
>> >It is:
>> >
>> >---begin---
>> >cat > /tmp/temp
>> >perl -pi.bak -e 's/\n/\r\n/g' /tmp/temp
>> >lpr /tmp/temp
>> >rm /tmp/temp
>> >---end---
>> >
>> >Once chmoded executable, to use you simply type this at the command line:
>> >
>> >lprint <file.txt
>>
>> There's a script to do this in the Printing-HOWTO:
>>
>> #!/usr/bin/perl
>> # This script must be executable: chmod 755 filter
>> while(<STDIN>){chop $_; print "$_\r\n";};
>> # You might also want to end with a form feed:
>> #print "\f";
>>
>> Remove the '#' from last line if you need a form feed at the end. Save
>> this as /var/spool/lpd/lf-to-crlf.pl, chmod it to 755, and have this entry
>> in /etc/printcap:
>>
>> lp:lp=/dev/lp0:sd=/var/spool/lpd:if=/var/spool/lpd/lf-to-crlf.pl:sh
>>
>> You can then just say "lpr foo" and your file will print without
>> staircasing.
>
>Owch! What if the last character of a line (e.g., before EOF) isn't a
>\n? Much safer to use chomp() than chop().
Thanx. Checked with the Camel Book. Done. Perl drives me nuts.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 16 Jul 2000 17:21:27 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: >: Huh? It was pointed out that Apple probably didn't implement PMT because
: >: the original Mac didn't have the RAM. The fact that a later Mac with
: >: more RAM was on the market before the Amiga shipped doesn't make any
: >: difference -- Mac OS had already been written.
: >
: > I'm sure it's possible that it was a memory tradeoff, but I have a nagging
: > suspicion that a lot of the Mac crew were ex-Apple II programmers without
: > any PMT experience. IOW, it is possible that there was a cultural
: > element.
: Possibly. But I doubt it.
: It only takes a day or so of programming until you really appreciate a
: PMT architecture.
: (unless you enjoy hearing the bootup-beep, that is)
In 1986 or so, a fellow mac programmer said to me "so, how does this
multitasking that you keep talking about work?" It knocked me back a bit,
before I paused and started explaining fixed time interrupts, context
switches, and the like.
This was a different time,
John
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 Jul 2000 11:22:17 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) writes:
> In article <8kq8hj$one$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:30:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> > >
> > > >The Mac128 came out 1/24/1984.
> > > >The Mac512 came out 9/10/1984.
> > >
> > > In other words, both came out _well_ before the Amiga 1000, with 256k
> > > of RAM. Thanks for proving my point.... (no offense to you; the
> > > original poster who answered "The Amigas had more RAM" or somesuch was
> > > wrong, though)
> >
> > Yes, but the point is when they were _designed_, not released.
>
> Then should we talk about the Lisa, with 1 meg of ram, introduced in
> january of 1983? (I assume it was designed earlier.... (' ). But I don't
> know how they did it--I had an Apple //e with 1 meg of ram too back in the
> late 80s, but that ram card had an awful lot of chips on it.
>
> And FWIW, I like the amiga, it was a great system--as I've said before,
> when the first one hit town, my left leg was in an immobilizer, so I
> talked a friend into driving me down to the store to take a look.
> Outstanding graphics for the day.
The LISA was a very cool machine. There hasn't been anything like it
since. It still does things that even Windows 9x can't do. It used
an object-based pascal and a gui builder.
http://www.hughes.net/~gcifu/applemuseum/lisa2.html
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 Jul 2000 11:28:24 -0600
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <LnPb5.80691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Jeff Hummer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Here's some irony for you. A knowledgeable friend and I installed both
> > Windows 2000 and Gentus Linux 6.2 on an HDD last night. Windows took 5.5
> > hours to install and it still crashes during boot, despite much tweaking at
> > the command line level. This is supposed to be easy?
> > On the other hand, at 12:30 A.M., we inserted the Linux CD and began
> > installing. Twenty minutes later I was seeing GNOME for the first time, and
> > it works beautifully. I still don't know what to do with it, but I can't
> > wait to learn!
> > I'm converted.
>
> I smell a rat. 5.5 hours for Windows 2000? Twenty minutes for Linux with
> Gnome. Sounds like a fishy story to me. They both usually take around the
> same time.
Dunno about Windows 2000, never used it (but from what I hear, it
takes up about 10 times the space that NT 4 does...).
After booting from three floppies, being forced to do a slow format
and then converting to NTFS and then applying the latest services pack
and *then* installing useful software (and, please don't forget to
*re-apply* the service pack because some software products (ahem IE
and Office) replace newer system files with older ones.
I could believe maybe 2 hours, unless you had to re-do somthing (and,
hence, re-re-format the hard disk the slow way [try it with 10GB
sometime...], lather, rinse, repeat); in which case it could easily
get to 5 hours (esp-esp-especiallifically if you're downloading the
service packs using the braindead mini-setup).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
