Linux-Advocacy Digest #705, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Donn Miller)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Win2000 Annoyances (Michael Marion)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:51:02 GMT
"Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:zrzO6.22194$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Yep, all of the 80s. Prices never came down until very recently to
the
> > > level of a C64 price, even then it was still more expensive.
> >
> > Weeeell. I daresay that by 1989, if you could
> > find a original IBM PC 5150, it would be cheaper
> > than a C64. It would also be older, of course;
> > you could still buy a new C64 then, couldn't
> > you?
> >
> New or used? New PC would cost you about $3500 for a 386, I know because
> my friend bought his 386 PC in 1989, used I wouldn't know the price for
the
> PC. I told him he should was a couple of months for the 486s...
386s were, of course, a bit high end back then. You could
get shiney new 286 boxes.
> A C64 with
> Drive would cost you about $200 in 1989, maybe less. A used C64 with
> drive could be picked up for around $50 bux or even less, I know a
original
> IBM PC at the time was about $300, and most likey it was a USED PC
anyway.
If it was really an original IBM PC, it would have to be
used.
[snip]
> > It was cheap. There were cheap PCs
> > too, but they were substantially inferior
> > to PCs that cost $2000. PCjr anyone? :D
>
> PCjr was a lemon, I could give you a list of Commodore's lemons.
:D
The PCjr was a lemon.
> When the C64 was introduced Commodore also introduced 4
> other computers that turned out to be lemons.
> Also the PCjr cost quite a bit more than a C64.
Well, yes, but it was from, like, IBM, so it was
worth it, right? :D
> > The fall of the C64 was gradual. You can't point
> > to any particular year and say "at this point the
> > C64 is dead".
> >
> > But it did still die.
>
> Everything dies, something dies when it no longer being produced by the
> company. I think 1991 was the last production year of the C64C.
Yeah, something like that. The Apple //e outlasted it
by a couple of years, but not by much. The C64 really
hung in there.
[snip]
> > That may explain it. More effort. BASIC proved
> > quite inconsequential on the IBM PC, for various
> > reasons. This must have been quite a shock
> > for MS- their whole business had been
> > BASIC, before the PC.
>
> I would tend to agree, Commodore was such a big company compared to MS in
> 78, Commodore didn't have to put MS copyright on the title screen until
the
> C128 in 1984 or 85.
Interestingly, IBM got a similar deal in '81; for years
they had versions of DOS that gave an IBM copyright.
Weird stuff. How come these companies wanted to
do that?
[snip]
> > Source code size isn't really the point. The difficulty
> > is in optimizing 6502 machine code. Doing that
> > algorithmically is hard; programmers tend to do it
> > experimentally.
> >
> I have never used a Assembler on a PC, but does it do optimizing of the
> code?
No, but PC compilers do.
> I could see what your getting at if it was a high level langauge but
> the C64 really didn't have any,
A perenial problem for the 8-bit computers
in general. There were such things, but the
performance and size sacrifices you had to make
were too severe.
> and when it did have one, they were very
> good.
Which C64 high level language was very good?
> > The fool thing had only 3 8-bit registers and
> > no cache. You benefit if you can keep stuff
> > in registers, as on any computer, but it's
> > profoundly hard to do it on a 6502.
> >
> Thats why you had to do everything in memory, I started out on a 8085,
it
> was a pain to work with the 6510.
You got faster code if you were clever enough to
manage to keep things in registers for any
length of time; it made quite a difference,
since there was no cache. But it was hard
to do.
[snip]
> > :D
> >
> > The Color Computer wasn't all that
> > popular, it's true. But it was cheaper than
> > an Apple II, if nothing else.
> >
> Atari, Color Computer and C64 were all cheaper than the Apple II.
So were quite a few others, actually. There
were a *lot* of different PCs available then.
[snip]
> > Yes. But the C64 was able to undercut it in
> > price. Which is why the C64 lasted so long.
> >
> Atari was that more expensive, maybe $10 or $20 at most, and alot of
places
> sold them for the same price. I remember a computer store near my house,
> it used sell Atari and Commodore stuff, and the price were about the
same.
> The only thing I liked was they rented software. ;)
I think this changed around 84-85, when Commodore cut
their prices deeply.
Atari wound up rather halfheartedly pursuing
a 16-bit computer line that did not do so well.
[snip]
> > > No, but a company did sell the prototypes.
> >
> > Oh, that doesn't count. :)
> >
> It wasn't production model, but they were sold, and for a short time a
> very HOT item.
How many of them were sold?
[snip]
> > In 1981, could the IIgs have been made
> > cheaply, it would have taken over the
> > industry. It had large memory spaces,
> > a faster 16-bit CPU, decent backwards
> > compatibility with old II software, and
> > an OS with a GUI and all the works.
> >
> The GS came out in what 1984 or 85, it was after the C64, I do remember
> that, since the C64 had the best sound until the GS.
Long after the C64, actually. It was considerably
pricier than teh C64 too- it was in the same
category with the Mac, Amiga or IBM PC,
more or less.
[snip]
> True, but I know alot of people who did buy C128, how many people do you
> know who bought a III?
None. But I don't know anyone personally who bought
a C128 either.
Thing abou the III was that it had delusions
of gradure; it was prices around $3500, as if
it was going to take on the IBM PC.
A certain reality deficit there.
[snip]
> > Well, in a few ways. It had the 68000 CPU,
> > but so did the Mac. It had decent multitasking
> > and nobody else did, but then nobody cared.
> > Even today, nobody really cares about the
> > multitaksing deficiencies of Windows 9x
> > or MacOS. Nobody but us advocates. :D
> >
> True, but I dislike the MacOS interface more than anything else...
Oh? What's so bad about it?
> > It had marvelous graphics though, which
> > proved advantages in the home market
> > and a few others.
> >
> I think thats the only saving grace with the Mac, if it wasn't for that,
> Mac would a footnote along with the rest.
The Mac brought in a new generation of
system software that made applications like
PageMaker and such feasible. It may be
crude by todays standards, but in 1983 it
had no equal.
(It also had no memory, but that's another
story. :D )
[snip]
> > I tend to agree. It's not enough to have a better
> > widget, you have to sell it. The Amiga really should
> > have been able to win more of a market for
> > itself than it did in the early days.
> >
> Very true, the best widget doesn't win, the best marketed widget win,
> example is Beta vs. VHS.
Sort of.
The Amiga wasn't really the best widget,
except in a narrow sense as a game machine.
It wasn't as bad as it marketshare implied,
but it was never going to "win".
Beta is a similar story; without the capacity
to put full length movies on the tapes,
it wasn't going to win out. But it might have
done better if Sony's licensing had been
a little less suicidal.
It's worth noting that *despite* Commdore's
ineptitude, the Amiga did win itself
a chunk of the market.
[snip]
> > Was the 65 going to leap to 16-bit, then?
>
> It used the 65816 chip.
That would seem to suggest so.
[snip]
> > Yes. This slaughted the other low-end PC
> > vendors. They simply couldn't make their stuff
> > that cheap, never mind profits.
> >
> Commodore had an advantage, they also owned MOS who made most the chips
for
> the C64.
I didn't know that. MOS made the 6502, didn't they?
[snip]
> > Hmm. I hadn't thought of that. You have a point;
> > the C64 was being squeezed down into the 'games
> > machine' market, where it woudl compete with
> > stuff like the 2600- and win, the 2600 was junk.
> >
> The C64 was also a Game console but they never really sold any, the 64Max
> or something like that...
It would have been hard to make a 'cut down'
C64 that would be substantially cheaper; it
was already awful cheap.
[snip]
> It started the downward spiral the Commodore couldn't recover from, even
> with the Amiga.
I think that if they were in such a position that NES
could knock them off their perch, they were already
in trouble.
[snip]
> > Oh, I see. What you are talking about is an IDE
> > (Integrated Development Environment) not a
> > compiler.
> >
> I really wouldn't call it an IDE, you had to run each module, though
> GEOProgammer could almost call it a IDE.
Hmmmmmm. I remember Apple II
assemblers that were quite IDE like;
no debugger though.
[snip]
> > Yes. In many ways thet was the fate of the Apple II,
> > though Apple showed *far* more support for
> > the old warhorse. Remember "Apple II Forever"?
> >
> No, I don't remember much about the Apple other than my friend's dad,
sold
> Apple computers.
Well, Apple made quite the hoo-haw about
how there weren't abandoning the Apple II
line for the Macintosh.
That was just before they abandoned the
Apple II line for the Macintosh, as I recall. :D
[snip]
> It called a C128. It may not have had a better keyboard, but it did
have
> 80 column text and faster drives.
Was it as cheap as the C64?
I'm thinking of a thing like the Apple //e,
*not* like the Apple III- which was far,
far too expensive for what you got.
[snip]
> > Surely they could have found something else that was
> > fast.
> >
> They did, but they wanted to mantain backwards compatibile with the 1540.
> They could have fixed the problem in the 1541 but they finally fixed the
> problem in the C128. Too little too late....
Yes. It's a shame; the C64 had many advantages;
a few relatively small things and it would have
at least been an Apple II killer.
[snip]
> > Yes, also it uses a lot of disk and RAM, and
> > those computers didn't have much of either.
> >
> C64 did have a Ram Expanison Module (REU 128K to 512K or 2M with a
hardware
> hack) or RamLink (up to 16 Megs, with 1 or 4 megs simms, just wished my
> Ramlink worked). The really problem was speed, more than anything. I do
> wish I had tried the C compiler for the C64, never got around to trying
it.
I wish you had too. :D
I suspect that that RAM expansion module for
2 megs must have cost a mint; and I'm sur ethat
few programs would have used it. Bank switching
is a pain.
[snip]
> > This is an example of what I find so remarkable. It was
> > very difficult to do a GUI for the 640k IBM PC 5150;
> > Microsoft never managed to keep acceptable
> > performance out of Windows on such machines, and
> > they did try.
> >
> GEOS was very nice, the only program the 'required' an REU (atleast in my
> opinion) was GeoPublish, unless you wanted to wait 5 minutes between
doing
> thing. Burkley Softworks (I don't remember their current name) did a
great
> job making GUI for the C64/128 and Apple II, also PC Geos petty good
also.
PC Geos is still around, but it's called "New Deal Office";
it can apparently do a reasonable GUI on an old 8086
machine.
I would love to know how GEOS managed to pull
it off on all those tiny computers. Nobody else
managed; Apple never got the Mac user interface
to work on anything less than a 65816. Windows
never worked worth a damn on anything lower
than an 80286.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:51:29 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Robert Morelli wrote:
> I've been arguing for a while that Linux advocates should not promote
> Linux for the desktop for the near future. The reason is simple, but for
> Linux advocates a bitter pill to swallow: Linux technology is simply
> too primitive and inferior, and the Linux programmers writing desktop
> apps don't have high enough caliber to compete against Windows
> programmers.
Really? Last time I checked, Linux and Windows programmers coded in the
same exact C, C++, Lisp, and Java languages. There are simply more
Windows programmers, which increases the pool of "good" programmers.
> My attitude makes me rare among Linux advocates, but I simply can't
> see any alternative. As far as the desktop goes, Linux is still years
> behind Windows 95. How could any reasonable person expect Linux
> to take over the desktop with technology that is 5 or 10 years behind
> Microsoft?
You mean years behind, as in you can configure your desktop exactly the
way you want it, as opposed to the Windows way of forcing a desktop
policy on the user?
> Trying to argue away the technological inferiority of Linux is not
> advocacy in my book. It's just a waste of time. You can spout all
> the words you want, but when an end user sits in front of a Linux
> box, loaded with apps about 10 years behind comparable Microsoft
> apps, the game is up.
So, where exactly is the technological inferiority? The fact that Linux
shared libs have version numbering but Windows doesn't, the fact that
Linux has a more consistent directory structure than Windows?
> that Linux is limited on the desktop by technological deficits, then
> you have no mystery to solve, just some work to get done.
Hey, they each have different philosophies in their design layouts.
Each is suited to a particular kind of user. Personally, I think it's
great that users have a choice to decide for themselves.which OS they
like best, instead of following the One True Way of one dominant
company. In fact, Microsoft themselves admitted in the Halloween
Documents that Linux has some superior aspects over Windows NT. This
caused MS to raise the bar for the quality of their next offering, Win
2000. If MS were the only choice in operating systems, there would be
no motivation for Microsoft to continually improve their products. If
Windows NT and 98 were the only operating systems out there, stability
wouldn't matter as much. It would still matter, but consumers would not
be able to choose a better alternative, and they would have no other
software products to compare to, because quality is all relative
anyways.
If Windows 2000 is a great product, and I'm sure it is (aside from some
bloat 8-), it's because of the competition provided by Linux and *BSD.
Linux is not dead on the desktop. People will still use Linux, and
Linux will still experience growth despite the perception that Linux is
dead on the desktop, because it is an OS free from all the licensing
issues and online registration issues of Windows XP.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
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: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:54:22 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > Im sure. dBAse II ran on the Apple II also. Do you know how?
> > >
> > > If it did, I bet it involved putting a CP/M
> > > computer in an expansion slot. :D
> >
> > Guessing?
>
> Yes. It's possible there was a port of the
> Vulcan Database to the Apple II that
> flopped; I merely have no evidence for
> it.
>
I said dBase II. dBAse II ran on the Apple II
> Certainly it was an even worse platform
> for it than CP/M.
>
So now were back to CP/M being a lousy platform, even when running
relational datatbases.
> [snip]
> > > Same reason MS later paid off Digital;
> > > they had clearly ripped off big hunks of
> > > the design, and it wouldn't take *that*
> > > much creativity to make a lawsuit out
> > > of it.
> >
> > Other people say differently. Other people say "Microsoft DOS contined
> > lines of code written by DRI's founder Gary Kildall. In fact, IBM was
> > so paranoid about that when they realized Gates had sold them a clone,
> > they paid Kildall about $8000,000..."
> > I've given you the reference many times.
>
> It does not matter who said it; it's still
> impossible. The IBM PC was the first PC
> to use the 8088 CPU. There was
> no version of CP/M that ran on this CPU
> before MS-DOS came along.
>
And source code is transferable... even a little... EVERYTHING had to be
completely re-written?
> [snip]
> > > No, I don't think it did. The stuff about
> > > merit came into this thread when I made
> > > the argument that the merits of Windows
> > > had been what attracted developers, and
> > > that this was what Microsoft's little
> > > empire was based.
> >
> > And you are wrong. Developers followed the money.
>
> I know your opinion on this matter;
> I observe that you can't defend it, but
> must repeat it over and over.
>
I can, and do, defend my posision at least as well as you.
> > > I was certainly speaking of merits
> > > for development at all times.
> >
> > But your premise is wrong. They didnt move becasue of development tools.
> > They moved because they could make money. The tools came later.
>
> I should speak of "development environment" rather
> than tools. Just having a larger address space is
> a win. So is having a floppy disk as a standard
> feature. So is having lowercase as a standard
> feature.
>
> This is true even if you have to code machine
> langauge bytes directly.
>
> Mind you, there *were* development tools
> for the early PC, and they quickly
> outstripped what you could do on an
> 8-bit machine.
>
It doesnt matter. If there is no one to sell to, no market, the there
will be no development. Unless you creat a market, or two, like Apple
has done.
> [snip]
> > > > "... this Randy Brandt". You really are clueless about the A2 world,
> > > > arent you?
> > >
> > > You mean there's *another* Randy Brandt
> > > besides this one?
> > >
> > > Or do you just mean he is a famous
> > > Apple II diehard?
> > >
> > Clueless. Just clueless. Ever hear of things like Timeout? Beagle
> > Brothers? Things like that?
>
> I've heard of the Beagle Brothers, but I didn't
> know them personally.
>
> You don't seem to be able to provide a reason
> to think this Brandt is the source of the data
> he has promulgated.
>
> Why is that?
>
> [snip]
> > > > As an Appleworks addon programmer, I'd say he had plenty of sources.
> Try
> > > > the Softalk reader's pools.
> > >
> > > I fail to see what sources an AppleWorks add-on
> > > programmer would have so especially.
> >
> > You would.
>
> Yes, yes, I would.
>
Figures.
> > > What would the Softtalk reader's pools do
> > > for him?
> >
> > Are you that stupid? How baout give some idea of what people liked..
> > what was selling... why.
>
> Softtalk was a magazine of the time, wasn't it?
>
> Why would anyone thing its readership was
> representative of anything in particular?
>
I just dont believe you. They were computer users. They used computers
and software. What do you think they represented... Ford dealers?
> [snip]
> > > > It as so not useful that it sold tons, and several versions of Cp/M
> ran
> > > > on it.
> > >
> > > Hacks like that will sell to hobbists, yes,
> > > but businesses have better things to do
> > > than that.
> >
> > Did you just say that businesses did NOT buy the Softcard? Clueless
> > again.
>
> Well, the smart ones didn't. :D
>
How would you know? Did you know the capabilities? The needs of the
purchasers? Anything? No? I thought not. Passive-aggressive
*(!&(!$#&(^$!#).
> > > It's like the PC-on-a-card add-ons for
> > > Macs. There's a small market, but it
> > > doesn't really amount to much in
> > > the grand scheme of things.
> >
> > Then why did the SoftCard sell so well? Maybe to run CP/M -business-
> > applications? Hmmm?
>
> What makes you think the SoftCard
> sold "well" at all?
>
It did. Do some research. Go to a library, since you cant use google.
> There was much less reason to put
> CP/M on an Apple II than there
> is to put a PC-card in a Mac. The
> Apple II had more software than
> CP/M did, back then.
>
You have no basis to make this claim.
> [snip]
> > > > No they werent. Unless you can WP, DB, SS meaningless work.
> > >
> > > You might want to read a little more carefully.
> > > I certainly do not call word processing or
> > > shreadsheets "meaningful database work";
> >
> > Why dont you go to an administrative assistant convention and tell them
> > they do meaningless work. Or tell an accountant. You really are an
> > arrogant self-important SOB.
>
> I said "database" not "fnord". You are allowed to
> see that word. :D
>
So, are you saying WP, SS, DB meaningless work, or not?
> > > and the glorified cardfiles you could get- like
> > > the one in AppleWorks- hardly count.
> >
> > Does dBMaster Pro count?
>
> Never heard of it.
>
Some Apple II expert. Sheesh.
> > Does dBAse II count?
>
> Yes.
>
> > What counts except what
> > you like? Who do you think bought Apple IIs and Visicalc? "Hobbyists"?
> > Oh, Im sorry. Did that scare you?
>
> Business bought VisiCalc, and Apple IIs to run
> it on. The II wasn't a bad machine for a small
> spreadsheet to run on; 48k of memory was
> enough, and fast bootable disks were very
> helpful.
>
> 40 column, all uppercase text was ugly, but
> it wasn't a big handicap for a spreadsheet.
>
SO, Apple IIs runnign vivicalc were OK, huh? Not just puny little toys?
You might want to read up on what people thought about Visical when it
first came out. Apparently many businessmen were amazed.
> [snip]
> > > Well, yes, but you could get *real*
> > > database from any number of sources;
> > > you just had to get a minicomputer.
> >
> > Sure. Just any pld litle office could bet a mini. Idiot.
>
> You might be surprised about that. They
> were expensive, but they weren't
> *that* expensive.
>
sez you.
> [snip]
> > Other computers ahd datanses too. Just becasue you dont think anything
> > counted before the PeeCee doesnt make that right.
>
> Sure. But *8-bit* computers were no good
> at databases; tiny disks and tiny memories
> are real problems. Databases need to
> store and work with volumes of data-
> even for a small office.
>
You know DBs, dont have to HUGE to be meaningful to a business... just
in your self-imoortant mind.
> [snip]
> > > In 1981, however, the PC was up against
> > > the Apple ][+, which also had a terrible
> > > keyboard, no lowercase, and only 40
> > > column text.
> > >
> >
> > And it had VisiCalc,
>
> Yes. The PC really needed Lotus 1-2-3
> to take off properly.
>
> But the PC did have a larger address
> space and 80-column display, both of
> which were advantageous for spreadsheets.
>
> > and lowercase kits and 80 column video cards.
>
> These hardly count.
>
Sel-important arrogance again..puff, puff... These hardly count. harumf
harumf.
> [snip]
> > > I mean the kind of things programs
> > > like Crystal Reports do, or what programs
> > > like RPG did for years.
> >
> > Too bad you dont mean reports like normal people mean it.
>
> Ah. As I thought; you have some weird idiosyncratic
> definition of "reports".
>
> Unti you tell me what you think reports
> are, I can't say much more about this.
>
> [snip]
> > > ClarisWorks was plenty integrated. *Microsoft*
> > > Works wasn't.
> > >
> >
> > m$ Works was just as integrated as Clarisworks, without the GUI.
>
> Huh?
>
> MS Works *has* a GUI.
>
MS Works -didnt- when it first came out.
> It was not, however, as integrated as
> ClarisWorks. ClarisWorks made quite
> the splash when it was released because
> of this. It set a new standard.
>
I dont hink so, and I used both, on Macs and PeeCees
> [snip]
> > > There were other integrated
> > > packages, but I am not familiar enough
> > > with them to tell you what their strengths
> > > were.
> >
> > Just name 3. # that were out within 1 year of Appleworks.
>
> I guess you can't do it yourself, because you
> know very little about the other packages
> available at the time.
>
I see you sidestepped the question. Still cant work google?
> > > Since you know everything about early 80's
> > > micros, perhaps you could point out
> > > AppleWorks' competition, and tell us all
> > > how exactly they fell short of AppleWorks
> > > standards?
> >
> > I just said there wasnt any competition. For a while.
>
> You ought to show why other products fell
> short, so that they weren't competition.
>
You ought to show there were other products.
> > > It would boost your argument considerably,
> > > if you did.
> >
> > Like you'd lieten?
>
> I suspect I'm the only one with the
> patience to do so. :D
>
> [snip]
> > > In 1978 (or was it 77?) it was the best
> > > you could have for the price. In 1981 that
> > > was no longer true.
> > >
> > > Some engineers may have considered it clever,
> > > but I consider it a kludge.
> >
> > That just shouw you self-important arrogance.
>
> By the way, just what engineers do you know
> who considered the Apple IIs graphics
> system a work of "art"?
>
Only what Ive read in many articles and books, since I didnt know them
personally.
> [snip]
> > > That is not much of an alibi. You
> > > really should need an add-on kit
> > > for lower-case support.
> >
> > Like anyone really knew the micro market at the time. These were still
> > pioneers.
>
> That does not make it any better.
>
> [snip]
> > > > What reasons are there for using big iron for office work?
> > >
> > > What do you mean by "office work"?
> >
> > Dolt. Did the quotes scare you? "office work" mean work done in an
> > "office".
>
> Sweeping up the floors? :D
>
Jerk
> > > If you mean the work done by MS Office
> > > and equivalents, there is no reason; mainframes
> > > are terrible at it.
> > >
> > > If you mean "work done in the offices
> > > of business", the main reason is that
> > > this stuff is highly critical and the bigger
> > > offices do not want to trust their
> > > critical data to some johnny come
> > > lately technology.
> >
> > You just said bigger offices dont use m$ Office.
>
> No, I didn't. What they don't use is
> SQL Server. :D
>
No big business offices use SQL?
> I get the feeling, Rick, that you don't know
> too much about what actually goes on in offices.
>
i get the feeling that you are assuming again.
> It isn't exactly all word processing. In fact, that
> is kind of peripheral.
>
ReallY?
> Computers have been used for years and years
> now to automate office work; they were used
> for that years before word processors as such
> even existed.
>
> They have been used for data entry, for
> accounting, and for workflow automation.
>
> And they are used for data analysis; and
> that mostly means reporting.
>
> This was all stuff the 8-bit micros culd
> not handle. They did not have the storage,
> and even more than that they did not have
> the tools.
>
> The IBM PC began the change here;
> it was only able to handle very small
> problems of this sort, but it was at
> least able to do that.
>
> [snip]
> > > > Mainframes run older software? My Tandy Model 102 is a mainframe?
> > >
> > > No. The Tandy Model 102 is an '80s
> > > computer. A young whipper snapper. A
> > > veritable babe in the woods.
> > >
> > > I had one of those once. Neat little
> > > toy. So cute. Adorable, really.
> >
> > You really are a jerk.
>
> What, just for liking the Model 102?
You dissed the 102.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:51:34 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I've got a tin ear, so 3D sound isn't one of my needs. All I need is
> clarity.
I have a tin ear too, but after working with 3D sound for about two
years, I miss 3D sound when it's not there. Games sound very flat and
lifeless without it. Not having rockets roar past my ears, and being able
to figure where something else by sound (when you can't see it) is
something else.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2000 Annoyances
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:54:40 GMT
Marcello Barboni wrote:
> "new hardware" such as my NIC my SCSI card, plus a mysterious "unsupported
> device". At the end of the story (and after 3 reboots) it BSOD'ed.
What's fun is when you upgrade the mobo and it detects a new device like which
goes something like this:
I've detected a new device.. looks like an IDE controller, please insert the
CD-ROM so I can get the drivers.
- You realize, hmm.. I have an ATAPI CD-ROM, but it needs the IDE driver to
see the IDE drive... now I'm in a catch 22.
I've had it do that for both IDE based and SCSI based systems. My solution:
Boot into Linux and copy the CD into a folder on the windows drive (luckily I
had enough space for it).
Lame!
--
Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Senior Engineer-Qualcomm-http://www.miguelito.org
What's the difference between a Van DeGraf static generator and a belt driven
vacuum cleaner?
Answer: Not much. Don't use a vacuum to clean your computer.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:53:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Since writing 3D sound drivers is what you do, Linux not having
> drivers is partly your fault.
There's no interest in the market. There are not enough applications or
games to require it.
> Are you wanting someone else to do your job and give the software to
> you ?
No.
> Are you complaining that no one has written a Linux driver that you
> can copy ?
No.
> Does your boss know how you work ?
Yes.
--
Pete
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
