Linux-Advocacy Digest #173, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("pookoopookoo")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (WJP)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("pookoopookoo")
LOCAL: Agenda Computing @ NBLUG (Sebastopol, CA) (William Kendrick)
Puget Sound Computer User : Demand your Linux rights ("www.pscu.com web2news.pl")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 20:03:58 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 22:03:53
> [...]
> >I really haven't had anything to do with OEM licensing. And I'm not
> >knowledgable about this cliff's-edge ppl agreements. I have a simple
> >question tho: how much does one pay for the MS O/S if it comes from a
> >vendor like IBM? If I have to upgrade the O/S it seems that I have to
> >pay around $80 to $90. [...]
>
> Unfortunatly, this is not a question that can be answered. Unless the
> OS is a line item on the invoice (AFAIK, MS contracts prevent this,
> since it will give a consumer an idea of just the information you are
> looking for, and MS wants to ensure you don't have) you're just
> guessing. If you can buy a "bare system" for $200, and the system w/OS
> is $250, it would seem as if it should be reasonable to say the OS costs
> $50. But this isn't a free market, so what you might assume if you
> expect competitive merits is misleading; the OEM may have to pay $249
> for the OS; you have no way of *knowing*. (Though obviously it would be
> ludicrous to suspect $249 like that; the point is that any number is
> just a guess; it could as easily be $1.)
>
> This is what comes from allowing dishonest business practices, in any
> form.
>
> In the end, WinDOS can go for anywhere from $15 TO $90 (and I'd expect
> IBM's would be on the higher end), while WinNT(/2K/XP) starts at $90 and
> probably goes up to about $300, for a regular consumer EULA.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Ok. Just as I thought at the beginning of this thread! I've shopped
around and have consistently found the price of Win98SE to be around
$150 to be installed on a hard drive without any prior MS software on
that drive. The cost to say HP or IBM is up for grabs. But for the
individual it is much more definable and predictable. Upgrades have
always cost less than the first time cost.
From all of the posts in this NG, are you studying to be a lawyer or
are you one?
Seems that your are but who am I to know?
--
V
------------------------------
From: "pookoopookoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 23:07:13 -0400
> I've been using Corel Draw since version 5, and I have seen it go from
> strength to strength. Version 9 was the last version I bought for Windows,
> and I have since purchased Version 9 for Linux, it is worth every dollar.
> It addresses all my needs, I can produce webpages with out the need to be
a
> hacker, and all my work is done with minimum fuss.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
Corel really has a chance to step in and make some serious dough with this
publishing thing. They could wrestle the stranglehold that Apple has on the
market and push linux to printers and Graphic artists to boot (rips are
already connected to NT/solaris machines most of the time anyway). Shit I
wish the people at Corel had their heads out of their butts. Not only that,
but we would get a realy stable platform FOR FREE! Not that win2k is not a
stable platform, but it's got a LOT of very annoying little idiosyncrasies,
the "no CDR use" unless admin being one of them. Even with the cost of the
apps (which I will gladly plunk my hard-earned dough for), thats 218$
canadian, I woundn't have to "steal" (the price of an OEM Windows license).
AND it would create a lucrative Linux support buisness. Everyone would win.
Well, except Microsoft. But they're getting a little too big anyway. But
it's the Jobs that would be created by the Linux support buisness that
really tickles my fancy. All these young punks would have great jobs...but
they would have similar skills...so they differentiate through
branding...and who does their branding / documents / letterheads / ads,
etc.etc. ad nauseam? ME! (and my designer cronies) HAHAHAHAHA and I shall
charge them ALL through the SCHNOZZLE! Of course, with what they make (and
they make A LOT around here, I don't think even my outrageous prices would
make them think twice, they'd just sign the blue sheets and tell me to print
it. They would be too busy with their lucrative support buisness to worry
about some stupid design...=)
------------------------------
From: WJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 22:11:24 -0500
On Thu, 03 May 2001 21:04:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
//snipped again//
>
>And how valuable is your time?
>
>Flatfish
Valuable enough to accept the challenge of learning something new and
different, detailed and explicit, progressive and positive. I, too, am
sick and tired of Microsoft telling me what I should know and not know.
I fiercely resent the heavy handed tactic of telling me (and then
writing over the boot sector) that I can only have Windows on my PC. By
the end of the year, I will no longer have to put up with their
heavy-handed B.S. That freedom will be well worth the time spent
re-arranging my Microsoft-filled paradigm.
I think of the learning curve challenge with Linux as something similar
to the man who recently died while climbing Mt. Everest. He had done it
numerous times before - he even spent hours on top of the mountain
without oxygen tanks. How valuable was his time? It appears it was
very valuable because he was "doing" something he enjoyed (and, he died
on that very mountain.) I too, enjoy learning, exploring, trying out
new 'things". Nowhere near the experience of climbing Mt. Everest, I
admit, however, if I ever stop "climbing", I will lose the excitement
and thrill of knowing that I gave it my best shot - regardless of the
naysayers and the folks who seem to be willing to just stand at the
bottom of the mountain and stare at the peak, meanwhile, accepting the
hum-drum of mediocrity.
YMMV
Regards,
Bill Powell
USAF/USA (Ret) Management Systems Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "pookoopookoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 23:14:35 -0400
> Just because you are unaware of the degradation doesn't mean it isn't
> there. I'm afraid I've got to insist you are mistaken; the output
> quality is an issue, though it might not be an issue of much importance
> in your circumstance.
Hehe, it's not, I've checked believe me, if not, I'd be on a mac =) But
remember, what matters in my field is not absolutes, it's perceptual
relations. If it _looks_ good, then the client is likely to be very happy
with it. And if I don't SEE it, it effectively isn't there to be seen. What
matters to me is perception, not reality =)
> "Coordinated" maybe. 'Driven', I think, might be an overstatement.
Roger that.
> That all sounds a bunch like what I said; I never said you couldn't hook
> a low end PC to high-end audio equipment. I was talking about the
> computer AS audio equipment, not the computer WITH audio equipment.
If you point me to a [serious] sound engineer that uses a PC or Mac without
special audio hardware hooked to it, I'll grow you a genetically altered pig
that flies =)
There is no such animal imho.
------------------------------
From: William Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LOCAL: Agenda Computing @ NBLUG (Sebastopol, CA)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.palmtops,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 03:36:39 GMT
What:
North Bay Linux Users' Group (NBLUG) Meeting
When:
Tuesday, May 8th
7:30pm
Where:
O'Reilly And Associates
103B Morris Street
Sebastopol, CA
Topic:
Agenda Computing
Makers of the "Agenda VR3," Linux-based PDA
"We've got a pretty cool meeting lined up for you this month.
Agenda Computing will be coming by to talk about their Linux-based PDA
device that they recently announced. This is a shipping Linux PDA that
you can order today.
"Agenda will have a techy on hand to answer all of your technical questions,
as well as someone on the product/marketing side to answer those questions
as well. Agenda will also be giving NBLUG an Agenda VR3 to give away at
the door prize drawing, so be sure to get there slightly before 7:30PM, as
we stop handing out tickets for the drawing once the meeting starts."
Contact:
Dustin Mollo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.nblug.org/
-bill!
(I posted this on behalf of NBLUG, since it looks like they didn't already)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 23:39:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Puget Sound Computer User : Demand your Linux rights
From: "www.pscu.com web2news.pl" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Puget Sound Computer User : Demand your Linux rights
On Task: Linux Advisor
Demand your Linux rights
Linux kernel updates give it a technical edge-but is it enough to capture the desktop?
Maggie Biggs
The 2.4 version of the Linux kernel has been out for some time now, and with it comes
a bevy of
improvements. Linux is now a more mature operating system than it was just a few years
ago, and
widespread support from the open-source community and industry heavyweights, such as
IBM, brings
Linux front and center.
There is no doubt that Linux has made huge inroads in the server arena. In fact, a
recent IDC
report estimates that in the next two years, Linux will have captured more than 30
percent of the
server market. Recent additions to the kernel, including support for 64-bit
architectures and
multiprocessor systems, make the operating system even more compelling for higher-end
servers.
Likewise, Linux is a good fit for the emerging mobile and embedded-device market. The
kernel is
small and lightweight enough to power post-PC devices, such as Linux-based PDA Yopy,
yet the
operating system is flexible enough to grow and change as new types of devices are
introduced.
Anyone who has worked with Linux will tell you that it's also a neat match for the
desktop. So
why hasn't Linux taken off on the desktop as it has on servers and embedded devices?
The answer:
user awareness.
I recently took an unscientific poll among several friends and colleagues regarding
the use of
Linux on the desktop. The prevailing opinion was that the operating system was
difficult to use
and install. Many had tried to install Linux on desktop systems a few years back, and
their
opinions generally reflected that previous experience.
I admit that when I first installed Linux on a desktop machine many moons ago it was a
tear-your-hair-out experience. But that was then. The Linux kernel and the major Linux
distributions have improved to the point where an installation of Linux on the desktop
today is
easier and less time-consuming than installing competing desktop operating systems.
In addition, many users don't want to install their own operating systems. Several of
the people
I polled simply used whatever came with the desktop system they purchased.
So, the Linux community needs to focus not only on producing great technology, but
also on
increasing end-user awareness and partnerships with major desktop OEMs and systems
integrators.
testing the waters To help change the perception of end-users, I decided to try
two tests.
First, I selected a colleague who always used whatever operating system came with the
desktop he
purchased.
I loaded the SuSE 7.1 Linux distribution and StarOffice on a Sony Vaio notebook and
lent it to
my colleague for two weeks. I challenged him to use it for all of the computing tasks
he
normally undertook. After the two weeks, he reported back that, indeed, he was able to
perform
every task he normally would have done using his other desktop system.
His experience was very positive. He was able to browse the Web, send and receive
e-mail, create
office documents, and the like. The system seemed fast to him and it didn't crash like
his
current desktop system often did. In addition, he liked the available options for
customizing
the desktop.
This person was not a power user. He relied on the graphical interface to interact
with Linux.
He typifies a large segment of the end-user population. User interfaces, such as KDE
and GNOME,
have made great strides forward in simplifying user interaction with Linux systems.
By the way, at the end of the two weeks, I had a hard time getting my notebook back
from my
colleague. He is now seeking a desktop provider that will sell him a system with Linux
preloaded.
take 2 My second test was a bit trickier. I have another colleague who tried to
install
Linux a few years back. His previous experience was not a positive one, and he was
skeptical
of Linux.
He had a Gateway system with two partitions. The first contained an installation of
Windows
while the second one was empty. I convinced him to attempt an installation of SuSE 7.1
on that
second partition.
The installation went off without a hitch, and SuSE's automated installer-YaST-did a
marvelous
job of automatically detecting his hardware and walking him through the installation
process. He
chose to set up a desktop with support for office documents.
After installation, he said that he was surprised at how automated everything was and
how
quickly he was able to install Linux. He especially liked the fact that he only needed
to
reboot once at the end of the process, as opposed to the multiple reboots often
required with
other desktop operating-system installations.
Like my other colleague, he liked the graphical user interface-KDE in this case. He
was pleased
to see that devices could automatically mount, and was surprised that he could access
data on
his Windows partition. Then I showed him how to execute Windows applications from his
Linux
partition.
After spending two weeks with the newly installed Linux on his second partition, my
colleague
also reported positive feedback. I was able to change his perception of using Linux on
the desktop.
the results I used my polling and these two tests to gauge the issues keeping
Linux from
the desktop. What I found is that the general end-user population has certain
perceptions of
Linux, many of which are outdated.
In addition, many casual computer users don't want to think about their operating
system or
take the time to endure a huge learning curve to use it. The only thing most users
want to do
is to buy, plug in, and use their machines to manage their everyday computing tasks.
Clearly, Linux is more prepared to tackle the desktop than ever before. Updates to the
kernel,
as well as packaging by distributors, make the operating system quite appealing for
desktops
(as well as for servers and embedded devices).
what you can do If you use Linux, there are some active steps you can take to
help the
operating system gain desktop market share. Talk to your friends and colleagues about
Linux.
Have them try it on your computer, or convince them to load it on a partition on their
system.
Challenge them to use it for two weeks and give you some feedback. Offer to help them
if
they need assistance or have questions.
Visit local retail computer stores and see if they sell Linux in boxed form. I
recently
visited a local computer outlet that did not carry Linux. I asked for the manager and
asked
why it didn't carry Linux. He asked me what it was, and I explained. The next week, I
returned
to the same store and found three Linux distributions on sale.
Send e-mail to providers of desktop systems that do not offer Linux as a preloaded
option.
Tell them that you'd love to buy one of their systems, but you'll only do so if they
offer
a system preloaded with Linux. If these providers receive enough e-mail requests, they
will
begin to listen and start offering Linux distributions for retail sale.
Linux undoubtedly has the technical capabilities to be a great desktop operating
system.
Perhaps what the operating system needs now is a little evangelizing to widen its
appeal.
Will you help?
Maggie Biggs >[EMAIL PROTECTED]< has more than 15 years of strategic and tactical
business
and IT experience.
Copyright © 2001 KFH Publications, Inc.
Full text at: http://www.pscu.com/articles/2001/May/article1051.htm
Posted with: http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=596972256&fmt=text
http: www pscu com articles 2001 May article1051 htm web2news.pl
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 20:38:23 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > I would say that Windows mutation into a full
> > > blown OS began with Windows/386, which started
> > > to do the virtual-machine thing.
> >
> > No, that was merely a graphical front-end to DOS.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that.
>
> At *no* time was Windows *just* a graphical
> front-end. Even the first version provided device
> indepedant printing, dynamic library support, and
> some rather crude multitasking.
>
At no time? Excuse ME! Windows at that time is housed over DOS!
Graphical Front-end is just that... front-end. Device independent
printing is of no relevance to the O/S at that point. The DLL concept
here was nothing new with MS... (Amiga had it first! Could it be when
Amiga Basic was developed that MS sort of borrowed this "concept"??)
Crude multi-tasking is an understatement with Win3.1 or 3.0.
At that time MS was still trying to "Carve" its way to the top. Other
O/Ses were already there. Borrowing or stealing... which ever way you
want it, virtual machine or architecture was long accomplished before.
> Windows/386 was the one that first had DOS boxes,
> or so I understand it. I believe that this is the code that
> was elaborated into what is now the Win32 subsystem
> of Windows 95.
>
> [snip]
>
> By the way, has anyone ever told you your .sig
> is too long?
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 20:40:31 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > No, that was merely a graphical front-end to DOS.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by that.
> >
> > This is why you are an idiot who is not sufficiently
> > knowledgeable to make a meaningful contribution to
> > this discussion.
>
> Well, you see, I'm a very shy person. I don't
> want to stand out from the crowd.
>
If you were shy you wouldn't be posting here.
> :D
>
> > > At *no* time was Windows *just* a graphical
> > > front-end.
> >
> > Windows 1.x, 2.x, 3.1, 3.11, 98, and 98 (all versions)
> > have been nothing other than a GUI running on top of
> > DOS. As time has gone on, the superstructure has
> > attempted to bypass the foundation, which is why the
> > latest versions (the 9x series) are so fucked up.
>
> You feel that Windows 3 is a better product than
> Windows 95?
>
> Still, Windows 1 wasn't "nothing but" a GUI on
> top of DOS; even then it had a few other things.
>
> Which I enumarated:
>
> > > Even the first version provided device
> > > indepedant printing, dynamic library support, and
> > > some rather crude multitasking.
> > >
> > > Windows/386 was the one that first had DOS boxes,
> > > or so I understand it. I believe that this is the code that
> > > was elaborated into what is now the Win32 subsystem
> > > of Windows 95.
> > >
> >
> > You are truly ignorant.
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
> I don't think what I just said is all that
> controversial.
>
> > Try taking a class in Operating systems, and get back to us.
>
> I have done, but it wasn't very helpful, actually.
>
> Can you tell? :D
>
> > In the future, remember this maxim
> > "Better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth, and
> > remove all doubt"
>
> I'm not persuaded that it is I who looks
> like a fool right now.
>
> > As long as you continue to post your inane drivel, we
> > well all *KNOW* that you are a fool.
>
> Who is "we"? You and Max?
>
> [snip]
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 20:42:26 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > This is why you are an idiot who is not sufficiently
> > > > knowledgeable to make a meaningful contribution to
> > > > this discussion.
> > >
> > > Well, you see, I'm a very shy person. I don't
> > > want to stand out from the crowd.
> >
> > Try getting a university education in Computer Science,
> > Electrical Engineering, or Computer Systems Engineering.
>
> Got one already. A BSCS from Rensselaer Polytechnic.
>
Never heard of them.... lets try MIT.
> Anything else you think I need before I'm
> sufficiently knowledgable to make a meaningful
> contribution to this, um, "discussion"?
>
> > Until then, please keep your idio-babble to yourself.
>
> I'm afraid I was a loudmouth before I graduated,
> too. I'm incorrigable.
>
> [snip]
> > > You feel that Windows 3 is a better product than
> > > Windows 95?
> >
> > They're all fucked up. But LoseDOS 95 and 98 have
> > fucked up device handling because the idiots in Redmond
> > decided that the GUI should bypass the DOS device drivers
> > and access them directly..
>
> They started doing *that* in Windows 3.1.
>
> Originally it was for performance, of course, but
> there is another reason: They need to move
> driver developers to a new API too, so they
> can transition to the NT codebase. NT must
> have drivers, not just apps.
>
> Hence all this "Windows Driver Model" stuff.
>
> > Which causes all sorts of device contention problems
> > if you run DOS code that wants a device.
>
> Yeah, but the point is to kill DOS.
>
> MS has been *cuting back* on DOS
> compatibility lately. Whoudathunkit?
>
> > > Still, Windows 1 wasn't "nothing but" a GUI on
> > > top of DOS; even then it had a few other things.
> >
> > a few other things that worked VIA the GUI front-end to DOS.
>
> No, it was really the other way around. The core of
> Windows 1 was the module linker; all the GUI stuff
> was (and indeed is) a bunch of dynamic link libraries.
>
> [snip]
> > > > As long as you continue to post your inane drivel, we
> > > > well all *KNOW* that you are a fool.
> > >
> > > Who is "we"? You and Max?
> >
> > get a clue
>
> Hard to do if you wont answer questions, you know.
>
> [snip- far, far too much sig]
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 20:43:55 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
> > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> Microsoft doesn't have competitors, only victims and those who are not
> > >> yet victims. At the time you suggest GEM was a 'real competitor', it
> > >> classified as the latter. Now it is the former.
> > >
> > >I think you are letting your, um, ideology show too much.
> >
> > I don't have an ideology; just my reason.
>
> Indeed.
>
> I think you'd be well advised to keep you, uh,
> "reason" under wraps. It does not enhance your
> credibility much.
>
> > And I think my reason is
> > showing you to be a passive-aggressive troll who has an agenda of
> > apologizing for a criminal monopoly. Doh!
>
> I may say this isn't the first time I've been called
> a "passive agressive" troll.
>
> What the heck does it mean? Is it a bad thing?
>
> The "passive agressive" part, I mean. I know
> all about trolling. :D
I'll make it simple for you. TROLL!!!
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 23:45:42 +0000
In article <9tiI6.3933$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>>> Windows _asks_ you before you change the time. Did you blindy accept
>>> it or did you bother to _read_ what it was about to do?
>>>
>> No it bloody well doesn't Pete (at least 9x doesn't). Trust me, I had
>> *exactly* the same experience when I was still dual-booting.
>
> Funny, mine did.
>
It doesn't for me. I've had Windows magically change the time on me many
times. Of course, any decent OS should be using UCT, not local time.
Windows refuses to do that.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 23:50:01 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I was tempted to give him a list of albums and projects that my keyboard
> playing appears as a credit, but I decided to ignore him instead.
>
But then you would have to tell us your real name. You are so full of it.
Gary
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 20:58:09 -0700
Greg Cox wrote:
>
> In article <B748965769C77DB2.2CBBD1F3F392FFA7.C5A6578BA192EAD3
> @lp.airnews.net>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >
> > Hmmm... that's strange... When I bought my IBM PC when it was first
> > released, I purchased it with two floppy disk drives. At that time no
> > one even considered cassette tapes as a viable way to do computing.
> > This paradigm was left to the Radio Shacks and others that used 8-bit
> > processors.
>
> As I said, very few machines were sold without at least one floppy drive
> installed but the cassette tape support was built into the motherboard.
> The minimum configuration for an IBM PC you could buy was 16K memory, a
> monochrome or color video card, and no disk drives. On the other hand,
> at that time there were many like me in the hobby market that couldn't
> afford floppy drive(s) so we were stuck using paper tape or cassette
> tape. On the other other hand, the IBM PC was damn expensive compared
> to the hobby machines on the market. I don't remember exact numbers for
> the PC but the IBM XT (an IBM PC with one floppy and a 10MB hard drive)
> I bought shortly after its release cost me $6000.
>
I bought my IBM PC with two floppies with a color adapter and 256K of
memory.
$3800! At that time I considered it the best for the money. I got
burned with the Apple III at that time. Got a refund and purchased a
NorthStar Horizon. Never regretted the move. Back then everything cost
a lot compared to todays configurations.
:-) Fun days those were!
> > In order to use the floppy drives you had to have an O/S or
> > you would have a non-functioning floppy drive sitting there. CP/M was
> > the rage before IBM PC showed up on the market. I saw my first IBM PC
> > at computerland and they offered PC-DOS first. A few months later
> > CP/M-86 came out and was priced almost double that of PC-DOS.
>
> Yep, that sounds correct. CP/M-86 was late getting out of the starting
> gate and Digital Research wanted a premium for it. As I remember IBM-
> DOS 1.0 retailed for around $60 while the first CP/M-86 release retailed
> for around $250. Considering they were pretty equivalent it's no wonder
> that IBM-DOS sold better...
>
The whole gist of the thread then... yes its as I remember. Funny thing
was, DRs own F77 compiler was a piece of crap. Simple format statements
caused errors during compilation. Awful stuff it was!
We (DOD) even tried DRs' Pascal compiler. Another piece of junk. IBM
was smart enough back then to release compilers that were useful and to
some extent bug-free.
> > Later
> > came UCSD P-System and this was even more expensive. At that time what
> > little software that was being written worked only under PC-DOS as
> > people "perceived" it to be IBMS' O/S and "It must be better than the
> > others" perceptions.
>
> Except for all the ports of existing CP/M code to CP/M-86. It could be
> ported very easily but the end result was you had 8 bit software running
> on a 16 bit machine.
>
At that time all of the software was 8-bit being ported.
CP/M-86 came after the fact, if only by a few months.
I suspect that DR was somewhat trying to protect its own market share...
not realizing that IBM was about to use its clout to support PC-DOS.
After all, PC-DOS was their first and foremost O/S to sell and to profit
from. Remember, IBM at that time was considered the "Evil Empire" like
mindset of that era. I've experienced this mindset directly ... many
wanted to use anything but IBM then. The slogans of "I've Been
Manipulated" amongst others.
> > CP/M-86 had software ready to go also .... but later on and it still
> > fell to the "perceptions" of IBM... Especially when PC-DOS 2.0 came out
> > with big improvements.
> >
> >
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
V
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
