On Mar 29, 2005, at 11:51, Liam Proven wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:25:47 +0100, Liam Proven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
You should go download the old QNX demo then, and try it on a
random Net-attached PC.
I've been asked off-list about this. It's been removed from QNX's
official site (www.qnx.co
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:25:47 +0100, Liam Proven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should go download the old QNX demo then, and try it on a
> random Net-attached PC.
I've been asked off-list about this. It's been removed from QNX's
official site (www.qnx.com) but a bit of digging on Google quick
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:50:13 -0500, Eagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I get what you're saying, but I take another view of it. I look at
> what Microsoft did with the Windows NT (e.g. Windows 2000, Windows XP)
> line in order to make it compatible with Win95 code
I think you're confused here.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:10:52 -0500, Eagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I guess you're not a fan of *any* Mac OS that runs on a PowerPC, is
> that it?
:¬)
> See, Mac OS on PPC includes a Motorola m68k emulator for two
> reasons: first, because for early (and perhaps all) PPC versions of
> "c
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:59:00 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OS 10.3 is just unbearable to me.
[...]
> 5) Any Mac OS that basically has to go into an emulator mode to run
> "classic" Mac programs is *not* a Mac OS
Well, no, it's not. OS X is NeXTstep with a facelift &
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:24:43 -0500, Eagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I had to pick the greatest of the reasons I like my Compacts, it has
> to be the wonder of the OS that fits on a single floppy.
You should go download the old QNX demo then, and try it on a random
Net-attached PC. Complete
Nice collection... Mine follows...
>Forgot to make my little list of Apples, Macs and the one clone
>
>3 Apple ][e's
>1 Apple //c
>1 Franklin Ace 500 (not working currently)
>2 Mac 512K's (IIRC)
>6 Mac Pluses (3 need to be worked on)
>1 Mac SE (Maybe 2 of these, will have to check)
>1 Mac SE FDHD
Forgot to make my little list of Apples, Macs and the one clone
3 Apple ][e's
1 Apple //c
1 Franklin Ace 500 (not working currently)
2 Mac 512K's (IIRC)
6 Mac Pluses (3 need to be worked on)
1 Mac SE (Maybe 2 of these, will have to check)
1 Mac SE FDHD
1 Mac LC
1 Performa 405
1 Performa 450
1 IIcx
On Mar 24, 2005, at 21:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I guess you're not a fan of *any* Mac OS that runs on a PowerPC, is
that it? See, Mac OS on PPC includes a Motorola m68k emulator for two
reasons: first, because for early (and perhaps all) PPC versions of
"classic" Mac OS, not all of the OS w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"good ol' days" either. At the company I work for (a 200+ employee
newspaper office), we've been experimenting with OS X for months, putting
it on one or two machines at a time, truly being afraid to upgrade at
times because we could hardly manage a *stable* machine out of
> On Mar 24, 2005, at 17:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Lots of snipping here . . .
>>
>>> As I mentioned before, I got into Macs after OS X, then I got
>>> interested in the OS's history and got an SE/30, with System 6 &
>>> System
>>> 7 floppies, and who-knows-what on the HD (I forget).
>>
> [..
On Mar 24, 2005, at 17:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lots of snipping here . . .
As I mentioned before, I got into Macs after OS X, then I got
interested in the OS's history and got an SE/30, with System 6 &
System
7 floppies, and who-knows-what on the HD (I forget).
[...]
5) Any Mac OS that basic
On Mar 24, 2005, at 2:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any reason why I should "stop worrying and love the bomb"?
Oh, yes, there's plenty of reasons. But, as I'm beginning to see,
Classic Mac OS curmudgeons are nearly worse than Windows zombies.
There'll be no convincing you no matter w
Lots of snipping here . . .
> As I mentioned before, I got into Macs after OS X, then I got
> interested in the OS's history and got an SE/30, with System 6 & System
> 7 floppies, and who-knows-what on the HD (I forget).
OS 10.3 is just unbearable to me. With my Classic II running OS 7.1, I'm
bac
On Mar 24, 2005, at 13:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But at the end of the day, do you REALLY love the old Macs because they
still work as well today as they did then? That you can still network
them
today? Because they are so much better a computer experience than PCs?
I think it's much more inta
Mac v. PC superiority is really moot here ... even if you could network a
PC, who actually enjoyed it? Actually Apple got it right the 3rd time (as
far as performance is concerned) -- if Jobs hadn't stuck his ego into the
construction process, the Plus may have been Apple's first offering Mac --
OT
16 matches
Mail list logo
