Linux-Advocacy Digest #623, Volume #34 Sat, 19 May 01 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! ("CHMC")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Rich Soyack")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux disgusts me (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Advice needed. ("David Kistner")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "CHMC" <@chmc.org>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 09:55:57 -0700
Hey, lets get growed up about this. Stuff happens, one crash does not make
the whole bad. I have had my miseries with installations with both MS and
Linux and have lost important data. If any OS is garbage, it is windows, but
I have to use it because of its current functionality. So, I now backup,
ALWAYS, no matter what system. She had a bad experience and if she was
mature enough that life isn't perfect, she'd know that the installation went
bad, for whatever reason. Have you tried to install windows 2000. Can be
nightmarish. The worst W2K bug I found so far, it does run in Ultra DMA 4,
only 2. This is a known problem by Western Digital and it seems that MS
hasn't a clue, since they couldn't help me. If Linux could serve my
everyday needs, then I would use it everyday. I daytrade some, but no
software for it and several other issues like this. Nothing is perfect.
Period. This goes out to all Linux and windows dorks, geeks and closed
minded people, including Wendy.
Buhbye
"wendy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I tried to install Mandrake 8.0 on my Athlon based system and it
> virtually destroyed all of my data.
>
> It overwrote my Bootmagic bootloader with some "grubby" thing and
> rendered my win 2000 partition useless.
>
> I lugged the entire system to CompUSA where I bought it and they got
> it back for me thank goodness without any data loss.
>
> They also told me that they get many customers in there who try to
> install Linux and it trashes their systems....
>
>
> What a piece of crap this Linux garbage is...
>
> And before you tell me everything I have done wrong I told Linux to
> install on the Linux drive, not the mbr. It still put that grubby
> thing in there.
>
> Good name for a linux program..
>
>
> wendy
------------------------------
From: "Rich Soyack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 17:27:08 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e65su$7me$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This is what the CDC used to say before political pressure was brought
>
> chukachukachuka... here come the black helicopters...
>
> > to bear. Tell me, why do you think vaginal transmission is common in the
> > rest of the world but not in Europe or the USA?
Not at all. Political pressure was brought to bear in many areas that
wanted to permanently
close homosexual bath houses in the mid to late 80s. At about this same
time political pressure
was put on the CDC and other bodies to broaden their definitions of AIDS and
to change the
way transmission vectors were described.
I don't think this was part of a terrible conspiracy. I think it was done
to broaden the appeal to
fund AIDS research.
>
> Condoms+low icidence.
So, the reason for the low incidence of vaginal transmission in the USA and
Europe is the low
incidence of vaginal transmission in the USA and Europe?
Rich Soyack
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 17:57:42 GMT
Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 18 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Any text file is "a standard API-accessible address book".
>> >
>> >*Any* text file?
>>
>> Yes; any text file. Create a format; define an API; viola.
>
>So what's your point? That you can't do that in Windows? That you can't do
>it in Unix? What?
You appeared to be claiming that because a single
"monopoly-not-standard" method of accessing an address book such as is
implemented in the Windows platform, and would be implemented in any
other middleware platforms had MS's illegal market manipulations not
gotten very close to preventing this entirely, you "can't use an API as
a standard API-accessible address book" on Linux.
Just trying to point out how you're confusing yourself, and end up
apologizing for the monopoly, both at the same time, by forgetting that
running an address book is really not a function of the operating
system, per se.
>> >So Linux apps lack "lack the access" to text files?
>>
>> Yes, because it is the job of middleware, which doesn't exist due to
>> Microsoft illegal manipulation of markets, to provide such access.
>
>You heard it here first, folks. Linux apps can't access text files, because
>that's the job of middleware that doesn't exist. Brought to you by the mind
>of T. Max Devlin.
You are a shmuck and an idiot, Sean.
[...]
>> You need APIs to access address books, according to you.
>
>According to *ME*?
Yes, that's you said, IIRC.
>> Windows is monopoly crapware. Repeat: Windows is monopoly crapware.
>> Wanna hear it again?
>> Windows is monopoly crapware.
>> Just to make sure you know; Windows is monopoly crapware.
>> 'Nuf said.
>
>Aw, come on, Max. Don't you think you should rephrase that?
[...]
No.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 17:57:42 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 18 May 2001 21:26:35
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> According to who? You? Guffaw.
>
>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Not too original, are you, Pete?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 17:57:44 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 18 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>They don't seem to have seen them as much of a threat.
You seem to be trying to deny the facts.
>> > their core
>> > business isn't office suites. It's development tools.
>>
>> Their "core busines" is first, window$, second, window$ apps.
>
>That covers virtually their entire product line;
>not exactly "core".
It is when it's where the monopoly is, where 90% of your revenues are,
and the only one with a consumer market.
>[snip]
>> > Yeah. Very definitely.
>> >
>> > This .NET thing is not just some spasm; Microsoft
>> > has been losing developers to Sun. They want them
>> > back.
>> >
>> > *This* is the real threat to Microsoft's buisness
>> > model. As long as they have the developers, Windows
>> > cannot fail, and that gives Microsoft great influence.
>>
>> As long as micro$oft has a desktop monopoly, window$ cannot fail.
>
>If I understand what you mean, you are saying that
>as long as Windows does not file, Windows won't
>fail.
>
>I'm tyrying to tell you *why* it's so firmly
>entrenched.
No, you're making up fanciful reasons to deny that it is so firmly
entrenched for quite precisely the same reasons it was made a felony
more than a century ago.
>> > But if they lose the developers, then Windows
>> > is at *most* a bunch of (no doubt very stable :D )
>> > device drivers.
>>
>> If developers could figure out a way to develop an OS that was
>> "compatible" with window$, thy would. That is what's scaring m$.
>
>Oh, come now. That'll a sure-fire losing strategy, as
>IBM discovered with OS/2 2.0.
OS/2 is a product IBM continues to make millions of dollars a year on.
>Being "Windows, only not from Microsoft" just
>means you are perpetually behind MS, since they
>are hardly going to give you a stationary
>target.
>
>It buys you nothing.
So why then, would it scare Microsoft so much they will do anything they
can to prevent it?
[...]
>> > I don't know why you put the scare quotes around "buy"
>> > there; they very definitely do buy out their competitors
>> > sometimes.
>>
>> And if they cant buy them they kill them. Or at least try.
>
>Ah, no scare quotes now. Much better.
Better if you're purposely ignorant, maybe. The scare quotes are
explained as valid by the statement you agreed with. You're not even
pretending to try to be logical, as long as you get to apologize for the
monopoly.
Sock puppets will quibble punctuation, or anything else they can come up
with, as long as it keeps the conversation away from Microsoft's
continuing criminal behavior.
>> > You may not like it, but you aren't the one getting all
>> > that money.
>> >
>> > MS also has been known to compete straight out,
>> > and sometimes they win. But sometimes they lose;
>> > and developers know this.
>>
>> They have never won on competition alone.
>
>Hmmmmmm. I know you see virtualy anything
>they do as nefarious, but I'd be surprsied if
>there was *no* counter-example to your claim.
>
>How about Visual Basic? What is the dirty trick
>with that one?
What was the competitive merit? Doh!
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 17:57:44 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 18 May 2001
[...]
>> They stole the market place.
>
>Do you, like, do 50 of thoes every morning? :d
Are you, like, a troll?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 17:57:47 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 18 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > > Indeed, he is, because it is reasonable.
>> >
>> > I dunno. Seems like he's insulting the
>> > intelligence of, well, practically everyone.
>>
>> They buy what "everyone else" has. Thats the whole point of
>> monopolizaiont, you know. To make sure you are THE vendor.
>
>I think you need to sit down and think that
>through again. Are you *sure* the whole point of
>monopolization is to appeal to herd instincts?
I think you should stop being dishonest, Daniel. A reasonable person
would have realized they were being dishonest long ago, Daniel, but you
have not. Is that because you are unreasonable, or because you are just
fundamentally dishonest?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 17:57:48 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 17 May 2001 08:48:36
[...]
>> Linux wins, again.
>
>In one small percentage of the whole market. Not enough.
I would guess that you're the kind of wintroll, Pete, who would claim
the world would be a better place if there was only one company
producing everything.
"Enough" is enough to be profitable; competing does not require
monopolizing to be profitable. That's why competing is not illegal, and
monopolizing is illegal. If one small percentage of the whole market is
"not enough", then either you are breaking the law, or someone else is.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 17:57:50 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 18 May 2001 21:43:37
>In article <9e3t51$2cl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> If I could put the entire context of the thread in the subject, there
>> would be no need for the rest of the post. Clearly you think this which is
>> why you haven't read the post.
>
>You could put "Linux beats Win2K in terms of scalability". Instead you
>put the more inclusive version and added "again".
Well, that's because the reality is that Win2K really really sucks.
Just for you, he didn't put that in the subject line, though.
>> And in case you hadn't notices, I was refering solely to *real* world
>> scalability and price performance. This has nothing to do with the
>> desktop. Clearly, you are unable to understand this.
>
>But why the emphasis on *real*? What's the implication here? Are you
>suggesting everything else is not real by that?
He rather clearly explained that the implication (in fact, the direct
claim) was that benchmarks are not "the real world". Why are you
flopping around like a flatfish?
>> Now, I don't care what you went ranting on about, since you have not shown
>> how it is relavent to Linux thrashing Win2K in terms of scalibility or
>> price/performance, which is what the thread was about.
>
>OK, here's something on thread for you.
>
>What's the biggest computer out there at the moment?
>
>Is it one of your machines, the one you refer to in your original post?
>
>No.
>
>It's millions of desktop machines, 80% of which are running Windows of
>one form or another. That's the *real* world.
In the real world, those are separate desktop machines, not one big
machine.
>And how many projects are taking advantage of this computer power?
>
>Can you think of any?
>
>I can think of two.
[...]
Nobody said a Windows computer was incapable of being a computer. Just
incapable of being reliable or high-performance.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 17:57:51 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 18 May 2001 18:21:58
[...]
>I was responding to the title "Linux beats Win2K (again)" and the
>references to "*real* computing".
>
>The desktop is about as *real* as you get.
Why is it that you always claim you are responding to the subject line,
when someone points out that you are literally ignoring what they
specifically said in the post you are responding to?
Linux beats Win2K easily on the desktop, and everywhere else. The only
place where Windows doesn't entirely suck is monopolization. Too bad
for Microsoft that is illegal.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 17:57:53 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 18 May 2001 18:23:38
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> For many people, Linux is more than good enough of a desktop system. If
>> it doesn't please you, then just run Windows.
>
>For anyone who wants stoneage computing maybe.
A computer is a computer, and Linux is more advanced, technologically,
than Windows.
>> So, what exactly is a "good enough desktop system" by your standards?
>
>Something that is better than Windows.
So you will admit that a) Windows sucks, and b) Windows has no
competition, but not c) Microsoft illegally monopolizes. Is that it?
>> Obviously, for you it means something that looks and acts exactly like
>> Windows.
>
>Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Please stop putting words on the newsgroup.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "David Kistner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Advice needed.
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 08:11:27 -0500
I need advise.
I am using Microsoft Frontpage 2000, Access 2000 and Visual Basic 6 to
manage databases and develop/manage multiple database driven websites. I'm
locked into the Microsoft world at work, but want to escape Microsoft for
the sites I manage on my own from home. These sites are for non-profit
groups and frankly I can't afford to keep up with Microsoft's prices for the
web dev products.
1. I want to try Linux but am bewildered by the different Linux offerings.
What Linux O.S. should I try?
2. What web tool could replace my Frontpage, or is there anything like
this?
3. What database could replace my Microsoft Access 2000?
4. What programming language would you recommend to replace Visual Basic?
Any additional advice would be greatly appreciated. I'm very very
disillusioned with Microsoft and would like to escape to a better world - I'
m hoping it's Linux.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 14:08:22 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > No, I mean the reason why anyone cares that
> > > Windows is the dominant OS. Anyone but OS
> > > connoseurs, anyway.
> >
> > Are you really that clueless.
>
> Apparently. :D
>
> > > You say users choose windows because "everyone
> > > is using it"; but why do they care?
> >
> > So they can share apps, data, etc. ???
>
> Apps? They share apps? Don't tell Bill,
> he'll go banana's and start bribing OEMs to
> find out whose not buying Office. :D
>
> Seriously, they may well buy an app
> because their co-workers use it and
> they want to share data or otherwise
> collaborate.
>
... they use what everyone else uses.
> But they buy the OS so they can run that
> app.
>
... they use what everyone else uses.
> [snip]
> > > I'd like to see those reviews. If this is the original 8 bit
> > > CP/M on an 8080 or Z80 we are talking about, I
> > > wonder what they found to like about it.
> >
> > Search for them, now that your interest is piqued. IIRC, it was more the
> > hardware. Im not sure why.
>
> Maybe it was just cheaper. PC's were pricey
> at first. CP/M machines didn't have a lot of
> fancy coprocessors.
>
> Anyway, it's kind of hard for me to search for
> them if you can't even give me the machine's
> model number, or an author, or something.
>
You profess to be such an expert on things and you dont even know the
TRS 80 model numbers? I, II, III, 4, 4P
> And the chance that such an old article would
> appear on the web is pretty small. I'd have
> to, like, use a library or something. :D
>
Too lazy to look, huh?
> [snip]
> > > > Yeah. m$-DO$ was very close to CP/M. Thats why IBM paid Killdal
> 800,000
> > > > dollar so he would sue over the CP/M code in it.
> > >
> > > Miffed at Microsoft, were they?
> >
> > No, moron. Scared Killdal would sue. Cant you read?
>
> If they were scared, why did IBM pay him to
> sue?
>
Damned typos. I have told you this beofer, but now you seize on the
typo.. here's the correction:
m$-DO$ was very close to CP/M. Thats why IBM paid Killdal $800,000
dollar so he wouldn't sue over the CP/M code in it.
> That's what you claimed. I quoted it above.
>
> It's not completely nonsensical to say that; IBM and
> MS were very much at odds at times.
>
Hopefully, they will be MORE at odds not that IBM is looking towards
Open or Free Software.
> [snip]
> > > A good example of a 16-bit OS is MacOS
> > > (er, pre X that is). No fancy MMU stuff
> > > (they didn't have those), but lots of
> > > application services.
> >
> > When was teh Mac OS -ever- a 16 bit OS?
>
> On the 68000. The instruction set of this
> computer was admirably forward looking, and
> made it very much easier to move to 32 bits
> in, oh, 1987- years before the PC did it.
>
IIRC the The Mac OS was 24 bit from the beginning.
> But from a performance and memory standpoint,
> the 68000 was a 16-bit computer. True, it
> was a far less awful one than the 8086; it could
> access 16MB of memory not just 1MB; but
> at the time few could afford even 1MB, and
> early Macs were well below that line.
>
Well, if the 68000 could only access 1 meg of memory, why was the Plus
able to use 4 megs - not constrained by the 68000, but by the Mac
hardware?
> It had a 16 bit ALU, no MMU, no caches
> to speak of.
>
> [snip]
> > > You never tried to program one, I think.
> >
> > What does that matter? It worked well for me.
>
> That's what I'm trying to explain: what
> matters is what works well for developers.
>
Users dont care what worls well for developers. And developers will do
what it takes to make money. When will you get that through your head?
> You may love AppleWorks, but if Apple
> hadn't writen it nobody else would have;
> too much effort compared to doing the
> same things on the PC.
>
Hmmm. IIRC, Appleworks was commissioned. The Apple II also had
AppleWriter, which was a programable word processor. BTW, you filed to
answer the question that you snipped. What was missing from Appleworks
that others DID have... in THAT time frame?
Rupert Lissner wrote it. Apple marketed it,
> > > Programs like AppleWorks were remarkable
> > > coups of software engineering, in that
> > > they were able to cope with such a horrid
> > > execution environment.
> >
> > It wasnt horrid AT THE TIME.
>
> Yes it was. "Real" computers had been
> doing *vastly* better since the '60s.
>
The sould you here is passive-aggressive dDaniel moving the damned goal
posts again. "real computers"?? "Real ones"?? Like WHAT. C64? Tandy
Model II? Color Computer? SOL? Altair? We are talking "personal
computers" here. So answer the question about Appleworjs in that light.
> It was awful. But it was cheap.
>
It was NOT awlful. It addressed over 1 meg of ram. It had integrated WP,
SS and DB.
> > > But such efforts are, in a sense, wasted;
> > > all the clever coding that made AppleWords
> > > possible could have been better applied
> > > to more substatial features.
> >
> > What substantial features did Appleworks need in 1987, that Appleworks
> > didnt have?
>
> It didn't have anything like WYSIWYG;
> the Macintosh was already well established
No the Mac wasnt already "established" when Appleworks shipped.
Appleworks shipped in 1984.
> with this feature by then. AppleWorks couldn't
> compete.
>
> Its database was a poor joke. Flat file, and only
> one file at a time. No programming to speak of.
> No external access.
>
So what? there is nothing wrond with flat file DBs if you dont need
realtional tables.
> It didn't provide much of anything in terms of
> integration. You couldn't put a spreadsheet in
> a word processing document, not even statically.
>
Yes, you could. And Mail merges. And reports.
> It had no graphics module at all.
>
IIRC, third party ADD-on.
> It would have to hit the disk switching
> between modules as I recall, and those
> disks were not real fast. Integrated
> packages on better computers did not
> have to do that.
>
What "better" computers?
> Compare with the later Macintosh ClarisWorks
> program. ClarisWorks simply makes AppleWorks
> look like a joke. It shows how big a difference
> chosing the right platform makes.
>
Apples/oranges... goal posts moving.
> [snip]
> > > > And I was accessing 1 meg while you PeeCee people were giddy over the
> > > > possiblity of 640K.
> > >
> > > I meant, of course, *more than* 640k.
> > >
> > > The 8086 and 8088 could address 1 megabyte of
> > > memory directly, but the IBM PC had lots of
> > > hardware IO stuff mapped into the top of the
> > > address space. Thus it could not be used for
> > > RAM, just as with the Apple II.
> >
> > Except I WAS running Appleworks with 1 meg of RAM and almost all of it
> > was accessible to Appleworks.
>
> Not directly. AppleWorks was one of the few
> programs that would do bank switching to get
> to it.
>
Except I WAS running Appleworks with 1 meg of RAM and almost all of it
was accessible to Appleworks. And the IIRC, there was a utility to allow
other apps to accesss the bank switched memory. Pinpoint?
> Just as Lotus 1-2-3 could use more
> than 1 meg of memory on an 8086.
>
> [snip]
> > > > The end user didnt see any of that.
> > >
> > > No, what the end user saw was that
> > > PC applications were better. They
> > > ran faster and they had more features.
> >
> > No, they didnt. No they werent. No they didnt. No they didnt.
>
> You've got an extra denial in there; I only
> made three claims.
>
> > > Developers saw that they could
> > > program with Turbo Pascal. *That*
> > > was a big deal. :D
> >
> > Really? They saw they coould program with Turbo Pascal? They must have
> > discovered this after finding out Pascal was used on the Apple II
> > family.
>
> It wasn't used much. USCD Pascal worked, but it worked
> by emiting what we now call bytecodes to be interpreted
> at runtime; the interpreter could overcome the memory
> limits to some extent by paging to disk!
>
Pascal wasnt used much? For the Apple II? HAhahahahhahahah...
You+credibility=0
> Floppy disk that is.
>
> It was slow, but sometimes it was good enough.
>
> [snip]
> > > You know: "allow them to produce a more
> > > competitive product"; can the "them" really
> > > be construed to refer to Microsoft somehow?
> > >
> > > I think it can only refer to "game developers"
> > > or "other developers".
> >
> > Too bad.
>
> Rick, you are a piece of work, you are.
YEah, Well, at least I am capable of changing my mind when presented
with facts.
--
Rick
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
