OMG you totally need QEMM man. On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:25 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey, I got a 486 with 4 x 4 MEG EDO memory.. Oh baby, its got a > smoking 40 meg IDE running PIO Mode 2. I can kick out some awesome > graphics with my Dual 3DFX card that makes Duke Nukem 3D practically > non pixilated in 16 Color VGA, not no EGA mode here. Wait till I > tell you how I tweaked my autoexec and config.sys to to get me 612k > of usable memory under EMS mode without a bootloader. Plus its so > cool that with the fan on the side I can set an glass of ice next to > it and I got a built in AC unit. Now that’s efficient. > > From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 8:08 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: OT - Anyone VM a Mac Leopard OS on a PC? > > Huh? I haven’t noticed anything particularly optimised about the two > Macs (one Macbook and one Mac Mini) I have at home, that I can’t get > in other brands... > > Cheers > Ken > > From: Eric Brouwer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, 18 December 2008 5:02 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: OT - Anyone VM a Mac Leopard OS on a PC? > > Agreed. Apple's are FAR from generic white boxes. They are HIGHLY > optimized, extremely efficient architectures. > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Jonathan Link wrote: > > It's not whitebox, it's branded, that brand is Apple. When I > purched my MBPro, I spec'ed similary equipped notebooks from HP, > Dell and Lenovo. Apple was more expensive than some, less than > others, and I had the option of running a true UNIX as was mentioned > earlier. > > Apple is a Tier 1 manufacturer just as HP, Dell and Lenovo are. > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:11 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Joseph L. Casale" <[email protected]> wrote on 12/17/2008 > 11:13:17 AM: > > > > >Yes, but Apple is all about total control - if you limit the OS to > > only running hardware you produce, then you absolutely know that it > > is *guaranteed* to work with any hardware your customer owns, and > > > you can spend your software time and resources in other directions, > > rather than finding ways to make it run on any hardware ever > > invented (which is part of MS's problem). > > > > > >That's the theory, as I see it, anyway. > > > This was exactly my point in the old justification towards the > > expense of the platform. > Sorry; I haven't been following the whole thread ... > > > Now its whitebox intel run-of-the mill stuff? Does this _still_ > apply? > It does if they say so. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > If this email is spam, report it here: > http://www.OnlyMyEmail.com/ReportSpam > THIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND > PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF THE SENDER. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED FOR > USE BY THE ADDRESSEE ONLY. ANY OTHER INTERCEPTION, COPYING, > ACCESSING, OR DISCLOSURE OF THIS MESSAGE IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE > RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER > AND DELETE THIS MAIL AND ALL ATTACHMENTS. DO NOT FORWARD THIS > MESSAGE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE SENDER. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
