Linux-Advocacy Digest #633, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Dave Martel)
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! (Terry Porter)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 23:19:04 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > I think you are having difficulty with the term
> > > "core"; it doesn't mean "what T Max Devlin doesn't like".
> > >
> >
> > micro$osoft's -main- business is first, its OS, then it window$ apps.
> > Core doesnt mean what ever Daniel wants.
>
> I suppose you are trying to exclude
> Microsoft's Unix and Macintosh apps,
> and I would too.
>
> But I still think it's unreasonable to
> dub the vast bulk of MS's product line
> the core of the lineup.
>
I dont really care what you think. m$'s main business is first its OS,
then its apps.
> [snip]
> > > > No, you're making up fanciful reasons to deny that it is so firmly
> > > > entrenched for quite precisely the same reasons it was made a felony
> > > > more than a century ago.
> > >
> > > You seem very certain that no explaination but
> > > black magic can account for Microsoft's
> > > dominance.
> > >
> >
> > You dont seem to coprehend the terms anti-trust or predatory. Get a
> > clue. Borrow one, steal one or buy one, but get one.
>
> Actually, it seems to me that you don't seem to
> mean anything by those terms besides "black magic".
>
Dont tell me what I think. You continue to deny that m$ is a predatory
anti-comeptitive company.
> Besides, Max was saying it was a felonious
> behavior that did it, and these little antitrust
> things aren't felonies, and weren't a hundred
> years ago either. Witchcraft on the otherhand,
> is a possibility there.
>
They arent "little" (did that scare you?) ant-trust actions. They just
may result in the breakup of micro$oft. Doubtful, but possible.
> [snip]
> > > > >Oh, come now. That'll a sure-fire losing strategy, as
> > > > >IBM discovered with OS/2 2.0.
> > > >
> > > > OS/2 is a product IBM continues to make millions of dollars a year on.
> > >
> > > IBM's OS strategy derailed because
> > > OS/2 failed to attract developers. The product
> > > is profitable, sure, but it can't act as
> > > a bridge to the now-canceled "Workplace OS".
> >
> > Oh, the "failure" of OS/2 didnt have anyhting to do with micro$oft's
> > FUD? Bull.
>
> What Microsoft FUD do you have in mind?
>
Any/All of it.
> I think the failure was that IBM sold it
> to consumers as a better Windows and
> a better DOS. There was no future in
> doing that, ever.
>
> Selling it to developers as a better
> platform might have worked, but IBM
> chose not to do that.
>
> [snip]
> > > > So why then, would it scare Microsoft so much they will do anything
> they
> > > > can to prevent it?
> > >
> > > They haven't bothered to do much of anything
> > > about WINE and Open32.
> > >
> >
> > I dont know about OS/32. WINE is pretty much useless. And, unless you
> > regularly try to use it, dont try any of your m$ aplopgist crap. WINE is
> > pretty much useless.
>
> Sure is. Open32 is too, same way.
>
> There's no *point* to developing for a portable
> subset of Win32. Never was.
>
Then why should m$ be scared of them? You used them as an example ofm$
leaving "compeitors alone".
> But that's all WINE and Open32 can
> offer.
>
> > > It's Java that scares them, and Java isn't anything
> > > like a Windows-compatibility layer.
> >
> > Any that works scares them.
>
> I think you are missing a noun there. Any *what*
> that works? Any anything?
>
There noesnt necessarily need an anything there, but that is indeed what
I meant. I also see that you skipped a reply.
> [snip]
> > > I don't see how it explains why "buy" should have scare quotes;
> >
> > TRhats becasue you are not too bright. Buy imples the seller has a
> > choice. When m$ tries to "buy" something, the seller rarely has a
> > choice.
>
> Oh?
>
> What makes you think so?
>
> I have never heard this accusation against
> Microsoft before.
>
You refuse to listen.
> [snip]
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Well, sometimes it's all you can profitably discuss.
> > > Rick is not, um, real receptive to argument.
> >
> > Liar. I am receptive to facts. You ignore them or you try to change them
> > to fit your reality.
>
> I dunno. You seem quite unreceptive to the
> facts of development on 8-bit PCs.
>
You havent provided any clear facts on 8 bit development. You want to
argue developers' point of view when the conversation is from the users'
point of view. in fact, your credibility continues to erode.
> [snip]
> > > VB made if very easy to build simple but
> > > reasonable user interfaces. Just point and
> > > click.
> > >
> > > Other development tools existed but they
> > > were much harder to use.
> > >
> > > The only exception I Can think of is
> > > Hypercard and its clones. They were
> > > easy, but the user interfaces they provided
> > > were weird and nonstandard.
> >
> > Weird and non-standard from YOUR point of view only.
>
> No, not really. Ever seen what a Hypercard
> stack looks like?
>
have you? Habe you not yet figures out I have uses Apple II's?
> [snip]
> > More context losing snips.
>
> I buy them in bulk. :D
Look. Another grinning dolt.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 May 2001 03:16:53 GMT
On Sun, 20 May 2001 02:31:55 +1200,
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 18 May 2001 20:55:39 -0700,
>> Paolo Ciambotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Terry Porter"
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I see "flatfish" has replied to "wendy" in a futile attempt to lend
>> > legitimacy to the original post.
>> It sure seems so.
>>
>> > Where have we seen this before?
>> Let me see if I can remember ..... oh yeah ........ COLA and
>> "Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
>> S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
>> Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish and possibly 'Wendy'"
>
> remember to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the list as well.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
>
Are you claiming that Flatfish *is* Ubercat ????
I don't think this is true, as Flattie isnt as manic
or as technically savvy as Ubercat, imho.
No offence implied Flatty :)
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 May 2001 03:20:09 GMT
On Sat, 19 May 2001 18:36:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They think I am everyone from Clara Barton to the Pope...
No they don't, I've never seen you accused of using those
names on COLA.
>
> but, if it keeps them busy tracking things so be it.
What a time waster you are :-
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
>
> flatfish
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 May 2001 03:22:15 GMT
On Sat, 19 May 2001 14:49:57 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope.
> Someone is copying "me style" to create some traffic.
Hahah it's the highest form of flatfishery!
> My material is much better.
Agreed.
>
> Besides, I haven't even tried Mandrake 8.0 yet, it's on my TODO list
> and I can certainly install GRUB or LILO and especially Windows.
> Grub Windows 2k boot loader and Bootmagic work well together anyhow
> and it is almost impossible to screw them up. The only thing that
> happens is depending upon which is installed last, that one will call
> the others and so forth. It works fine though.
Well said.
>
> flatfish
>
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 11:40:06 +0100, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>flatfish++++ is that you?
>>
>>
>>-Ed
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 21:13:42 -0600
On Sat, 19 May 2001 22:51:47 +0000, "Gary Hallock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mart van de
>Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> You could look at it this way of course: if radio waves(==light) travel
>> at .88c in an atmosphere, then they will travel at .88c in space as
>> well, as there is no acceleration (of course assuming the radio waves
>> originate from a planetary surface). I am applying simple Newtonian
>> physics here, and I have a feeling that this would not be exactly right,
>> but it sounds deceptively logical to me.
>
>Yep, deceptively logical. Of course, it is also deceptively logical,
>using Newtonian physics, that If you shine a flashlight in front of you
>and travel at near the speed of light that the light from the flashlight
>will travel at 2xc. But experiment shows otherwise. Which is what
>caused the upheaval in physics near the turn of the 20th century and led
>to the theory of relativity.
>
It's been 20 years since I did VHF design, but I think .88c is the
speed of radio waves in a coaxial cable.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 May 2001 03:31:43 GMT
On Sat, 19 May 2001 12:58:52 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=terry+porter+linux&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&btnG
>=Google+Search&meta=site%3Dgroups
> Relevant Messages for terry porter linux Results 1 - 10 of about 4,330.
> Search took 0.56 seconds
>
Gee I'm a prolific Wintroll baiter arn't I :)
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=flatfish&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&meta=site%3Dgr
> oups
> Results 1 - 10 of about 2,800. Search took 0.38 seconds
>
> Now then. Who is spending 'their entire lives posting ..." ????
>
> Idiot.
Shame shame Uberdummyspitter, I have always posted under 'Terry Porter",
(my real name), I *never* change my ID.
Now even to a intelectually challenged Wintroll like yourself
it should be apparent that Flatfish's 2,800 posts would far
exceed that number when results from a search for :-
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
were added to the 2,800 above.
Please do your research properly in future, its boring
waiting for you to get a clue.
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
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 23:43:31 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > ... they use what everyone else uses.
> > >
> > > ... and for a reason. It's the reason that matters,
> > > but you seem averse to discussing it.
> > >
> > > Why is that?
> >
> > Why do people get window$, dolt? Becasue everybody else uses it.
>
> No, because it will run their apps.
>
... which everyone else uses.
> [snip]
> > > > You profess to be such an expert on things and you dont even know the
> > > > TRS 80 model numbers? I, II, III, 4, 4P
> > >
> > > Those guys weren't CP/M machines. They
> > > had a thing called TRS-DOS, I believe.
> >
> > Tehy did run TRS-DOS, AND CP/M
>
> <shrug>So did Apple IIs, with the appropriate
> upgrade.
>
The TRS 80s didnt need an upgrade. They ran CP/M out of the box.
> > > They were kinda weak even for 8-bit computers;
> > > they certainly were not better than IBM PCs.
> >
> > Weak??? AHahahhahhha ahahahahhahah. Were you even alive then?
>
> Yes. TRS-80s had the usuasl limitations for
> 8-bit computers, but unusually poor graphics
> support- really pretty much nonexistant actually.
>
> This put a big kink in game support for the
> computer, and games were really big on PCs
> back then. Even moreso than now.
>
Games !?!?!? Graphic laden games at eh time of the Model I, II, II??
AHahhahahahahah...
name some.
> [snip]
> > > I really can't, not without more than what
> > > you've given me.
> > >
> >
> > It's easy. Google, trs, model I, II, III, I4, 4, 4p... you can do it,
> > you're just too lazy, or scared.
>
> I tried those search items just now. Didn't see
> any review. Lots of nostalgia pages though.
>
> Am I supposed to search each?
>
Do your own research.
> [snip]
More context removing snips.
> > > Oh.
> > >
> > > Sure, they probably thought that if he hadn't
> > > patented something in CP/M, we surely could.
> > >
> > > MS-DOS and CP/M were just awful close.
> > > Same problem with Windows NT and VMS.
> >
> > Not awlful close. MS-DOS had CP/M code in it. Code written, if not by
> > Killdal himself, at least by Digital Research.
>
> Where'd they get it from, then?
>
Where did who get what?
> [snip]
> > > The 68000 could access 16 megs, not 1. That was
> > > par for the course for 16 bit CPUs of that era.
> > >
> > > What was unusal was that it did it with
> > > no segments.
> > >
> > > The reason early Macs had so much less
> > > memory was that it was expensive back
> > > then.
> >
> > Define early Macs.
>
> The first Macintoshes were
> the original 128k Macintosh,
> and then a later 512k Macintosh.
>
The 128K macs had upgrade kits available before the fat macs came out.
> *Then* you get the Macintosh Plus,
> which supports up to 4 megs if you
> can afford it.
>
Many pep[le were putting in the 4 megs as soon as they got their
Plusses.
> [snip]
> > > > Hmmm. IIRC, Appleworks was commissioned. The Apple II also had
> > > > AppleWriter, which was a programable word processor.
> > >
> > > The very first on a PC, as I recall. Very primitive stuff,
> > > but groundbreaking in concept.
> >
> > Primitive? Sheesh. Primitive by "todays standards.. maybe.
>
> Well, it was very different from the stuff
> that you could get for timesharing systems.
>
Get this through your thick passive-agressive head - we are discussing
microcomputers.
> > > How was it "programmable"? I didn't think it had
> > > a macro system.
> >
> > You didnt think? We know that. Now, be a good litte chap and run off a
> > learn about AppleWriter's glossary.
>
> I can find some references, but no details. You know
> a good website on this?
>
I dont need no steenking website. I have the manual. Find your own web
site, or go to an Apple II group and try not to look to ignorant.
> [snip]
> > > > Rupert Lissner wrote it. Apple marketed it,
> > >
> > > Put some new life in the Apple II, it did, but
> > > that kind of thing is the exception, not the rule.
> >
> > It was the best sell software fir years.
>
> Hmmm?
It was the best selling software for years.
>
> It may have been the best selling Apple II
> software, but that didn't amount to all
> that much for long.
>
No. Not the best selling for Apple IIs. The best selling software.
> > > Even then it was limited by the Apple II's
> > > capabilities.
> >
> > What were the limitations, given its timeframe?
>
> It's limitations are not dependant on its
> timeframe. The biggest one for an integrated
> package is the problematic graphics support.
>
Sheesh. It was the most advance piece of software of its time, yet you
continue to compare it to later stuff. What the hell is wrong with you?
> [snip]
> > > No, compared to *real* computers. Even compared to
> > > little ones like PDP-11s. Compared to a System 360s,
> > > PCs were jokes.
> >
> > Well then EVERY "personal computer" was a joke, even your precious
> > little IBM PC.
>
> Well, I dunno about that. The IBM PC was no 360, but at
> least you could put a compiler on the fool thing.
>
Anything you could do with a PC 5150 you could do with an Apple II.
> > It was the biggest joke of all. AAnd we are talking about
> > "personal computers" here, ot mainframes and mini's. You just cant stay
> > in one place can you. You present too much of a target.
>
> The inadequacies of early 8-bit PCs do not go
> away just because you don't want to compare them
> with better computers.
>
THe comparisons are with the computers of the -same- timeframe.
> > > The PCs got better. The introduction of the IBM PC
> > > was a big step in the right direction.
> >
> > The Apple IIs got better.
>
> Yes. But the introduciton of the 16-bit
> Apple IIgs was too late to prevent what
> was by then the inevitable.
>
What was that?
> > > I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm telling you that
> > > the problems faced by programmers were
> > > recognizable even at the time.
> >
> > You keep dropping in developers. I dont give a rats ass about
> > developers. leave them out of the conversation.
>
> I, on the other hand, do give a rats ass about
> developers, and I think you *should*, since
> they are crucial to understand how the
> industry has developed.
>
> Nobody bought an IBM PC to run COMMAND.COM,
> but they bought them to run Lotus 1-2-3.
>
And people bought Apple II's first to run Visicalc, then Appleworks.
> [snip]
> > > > It was NOT awlful. It addressed over 1 meg of ram. It had integrated
> WP,
> > > > SS and DB.
> > >
> > > It certainly did not *address* 1 meg of anything; the 6502
> > > had an address space of 64k, period. It used bank switching
> > > to get beyond that.
> >
> > I had a 1024k desktop. I dont care how it got there. I had it. At the
> > time I had it, the PC didnt.
>
> PC's could have that much memory, or more, by 1987.
>
Apple IIs had it before that and more.
> Even 8086s could. 80286s could access 24 megs of
> memory directly, as is typical for 16-bit CPUs.
>
> And the 386 was released in '87 wasn't it?
>
Doubtful. I thought you were supposed to be the big bad expert
know-it-all person.
> > > AppleWorks is a neat product, but it's not really a
> > > first class anything. That's the problem integrated
> > > suites always have.
> >
> > Then why was it the best sellin pice of software, for years... without
> > advertising?
>
> Apple didn't advertise it? You sure about that?
>
It didnt advertise it until very late in the product cycle. Word of
mouth sold it at first.
> > > But then, AppleWorks wasn't terribly integrated.
> > > The modules didn't work together very much.
> >
> > No, you could only put spreadsheets and database reports in WP
> > documents.
>
> You could put "database reports" in WP documents?
>
> I think you are talking about mail-merge and
> have dressed it up as "reports".
>
I tell you what. Get the damned manual and then tell me what you think
since it is painfully obvious you have never used the program.
> [snip]
> > > You said 1987. In 1987 the Mac was well
> > > established.
> > >
> > > In 1984 the Mac existed and could do things
> > > AppleWorks could not, already.
> >
> > The Mac did not have software that worked together like Appleworks. No
> > computer did. Prove ptherwise. Give an example.
>
> Certainly they did not. Only an 8-bit computer
> would benefit from *that*.
>
If only an 8 bit computer would benefit from an inegrated program, why
did micro$oft develop and -continue- to market micro$oft work$?
> The 16 bit computer could *multitask*,
> and that gave you everything AppleWorks
> did and much more.
>
Multitasking, in and of itself does not integrate apps, or allow them to
share information. there also has to be a way for the dtat to be shared.
Your credibility continues to erode.
BTW, it was many years before Word and Excel could share information any
where near as well as you could with micro$oft work$.
> Later integrated products had to offer much
> tighter integration than AppleWorks did
> to compete.
>
> [snip]
> > > > So what? there is nothing wrond with flat file DBs if you dont need
> > > > realtional tables.
> > >
> > > It's weak. It's like an address book.
> >
> > So WHAT???? Thats all many people need.
>
> So, you can do much more on better
> platforms.
>
Not... at.. that.. time... on ... microcomputers. GET IT?
> [snip]
More context removing snips. Just what are you afraid of?
> > > I know you could do mail merge. I doubt
> > > it could do reports, but if you say so.
> >
> > YOU doubt. YOU??? I thought you knew it all. It could do mail merges. It
> > wa an integrated program, dolt.
>
> It wasn't all that integrated, really.
>
Prove it. Prove to me it was integrated... as I sit here with my
Appleworks manual, and the disks, and an Apple IIgs in the living room.
prove to me you one bit of correct information on Apple IIs in general
and Appleworks specifically.
> [snip]
> > > > > It had no graphics module at all.
> > > >
> > > > IIRC, third party ADD-on.
> > >
> > > Oh? What was it called? I may
> > > look it up.
> >
> > Really? That will be a first for you.
>
> Yep. :D You so rarely give me enough
> information to verify your claims.
>
Look. Its the grinning dolt that is too stupid to do google searches.
> > > Apple IIs had really seirous issues
> > > with supporting graphics. The
> > > display hardware was not much,
> > > not even compared to other 8 bit
> > > computers.
> >
> > HAhahahhahahah. The graphics capabilities of the Apple IIs were called
> > works of art by engineers of the day.
>
> They were *cheap*; they were implemented more
> cheaply than anyone else. They got to market
> first.
>
HAhahahhahahah. The graphics capabilities of the Apple IIs were called
works of art by engineers of the day.
> But by 1981, they were obsolete and feeble
> even by the standards of 8-bit computers.
>
No, they werent.
> [snip]
> > > > What "better" computers?
> > >
> > > Macs. PCs. Amigas.
> >
> > PCs? Crap.
>
> In 1981 they were the best thing going.
>
Except for the TRS 80s, the C64s, and of course, the Apple IIs.
> > The Mac took a LONG time to establish itself. What was the
> > integrated software for the Amiga called?
>
> The Amiga had quite impressive multitasking
> from day one, and didn't need "integrated"
> packages like AppleWorks at all.
>
You continue to mistake multitasking for for integraton. BTW, the PC
first had taskswitching, not true multitasking. Look up the difference.
> [snip]
> > > > Apples/oranges... goal posts moving.
> > >
> > > No, really ClarisWorks is a integrated
> > > package that fills a market nice very
> > > similar to that of AppleWorks; a lightway
> > > productivity suite that is very easy to
> > > use.
> >
> > That came out YEARS after Appleworks. How can uyou compare the 2?
>
> Well, I'm pointing out that the new 16-bit
> platforms made better applications possible
> than had been possible before. ClarisWorks
> is an example.
>
> > > ClarisWorks is *much* better at it.
> >
> > Because it came out YEARS after Appleworks.
>
> Programmers didn't become smarter in the
> intervening years. The platforms got better.
>
> [snip]
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > There is no way to make apps use back-switched
> > > memory unless they already know how, not at the
> > > Apple II with its rigid address space map.
> >
> > Appleworks did it.
>
> Certainly not. You don't appear to even
> understand what you yourself are saying.
>
I came home one night from a party. I had a 64k Apple II. I installed a
memory card with 1 meg on it and went from about a 10k desktop to a
700somethingk desktop. You do the math.
> > > Other apps did use it, but it wasn't common.
> >
> > OK.. just how uncommon was it?
>
> Quite uncommon. :D
>
How uncommon grinng idiot dolt?
> [snip]
> > > > Pascal wasnt used much? For the Apple II? HAhahahahhahahah...
> > > > You+credibility=0
> > >
> > > Well, it was good for playing around, and
> > > there was a famous game written using it-
> > > the original Wizardy.
> > >
> > > But it was *visibly* slowed by using
> >
> > It was *visibly* slowed.. compared to what? How could you compare? What
> > action was there in Wizardry?
>
> Compare to later products on the same hardware;
> products written in assembly.
>
Again with the LATER products. What is it with you? So, the Wright
brothers' plane was shit becasue a 747 is better?
> > ... and are those "scare" asterisks?
>
> No, they are emphasis asterisks..
>
Oh, but when I use " they are scare ". I see.
> > > Pascal. Other similar games came after
> > > that were dramatically faster and better
> > > looking- and they used assembly to do it.
> > >
> >
> > "... Other similar games came after that were dramatically faster and
> > better"
> >
> > You keep comparing what came AFTER. AFTER. Thats like saying the V1 was
> > shit because the Saturn 4 was so much better. You cant compare the 2.
>
> Sure I can. And the V1 *was* shit, it was totally ineffective
> and a waste of resources. :D
>
it was the best rocket -at the time-.
> But more to the point, the programmers who saw
> Wizardry learned from it; they learned not to use
> Pascal.
>
> [snip]
> > > When did that last happen? :D
> >
> > Look... its the grinning moron again.
>
> <looks around>
>
> Where?
Look in the mirror.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 May 2001 03:40:58 GMT
On Sat, 19 May 2001 19:09:51 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Porter wrote:
>
>>> Yet I've done a few upgrades with Windows and they appear to work.
>
>> You have to be the most gifted Windows user, and the most cursed
>> Linux user I've ever met Pete.
>
> That's what happens for me.
>
>> My daughters old boyfriend tried upgrading Win95 to Win98 about 13 months
>> ago .... result was a pc that was unbootable.
>
> Early days for Windows upgrade.
Hahahh, not according to the claims of "easy upgrade" on the package!
>
>>>> At least with Linuxits as easy as saving your /home dir,then just
>>>> installing the new version from scratch.
>>>
>>> That saves your data... well that's not hard on Windows.
>> It also saves *all* my configs, for *all* my applications,
>> Window Managers, shell scripts etc.
>>
>> Can you spell CONFIGS Pete ?
>
> I did say data, did I not?
Yes you did, and I said CONFIGS.
>
>> Easy saving of all configs, bookmarks, news_posts, etc, are saved
>> in the /home directory for a reason, and thats to make upgrading,
>> re-installs etc, as EASY as possible.
>
> What about the system configuration stored in /etc? Is that compatible
> across different distros?
I've no idea, but we were talking about the /home directory, were we not ?
This question has no relevance at this point imho. I might as well reply
, how compatible is your data from DOS to Win2k ?
>> Linux makes life easier for its users, in many of ways.
>
> And makes life harder in others, in many ways.
So *you* keep claiming.
>
> --
> Pete
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
