🚀 go-pugleaf

Chad Irby wrote:

> The installed base of Macs has historically grown *faster* than the
> increase in market share, or absolute sales numbers.  Macs tend to stay
> in service *much* longer than Wintel boxes.  A 1987-era Mac II (or a Plus
> or an SE) can run System 7.5 and most modern software.  A 1987-era Wintel
> box is good for use as a fax server or a small hamster cage.

And an interpretation of that fact could be that the OS on the Mac still
isn't much better than it was in '87. They have a long way to even come 
close to some decent OSes like OS/2, NT, Unix, BeOS etc. And if they ever 
will, I'm quite sure that You won't be able to run it on your old Mac II.

-- 
Martin Nisshagen
MTS Technology, Sweden
martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)

In article <30ED06B8.2D83@mts.se>, Martin Nisshagen  <martin@mts.se> wrote:
>Chad Irby wrote:
>
>> The installed base of Macs has historically grown *faster* than the
>> increase in market share, or absolute sales numbers.  Macs tend to stay
>> in service *much* longer than Wintel boxes.  A 1987-era Mac II (or a Plus
>> or an SE) can run System 7.5 and most modern software.  A 1987-era Wintel
>> box is good for use as a fax server or a small hamster cage.
>
>And an interpretation of that fact could be that the OS on the Mac still
>isn't much better than it was in '87. They have a long way to even come 
>close to some decent OSes like OS/2, NT, Unix, BeOS etc. And if they ever 
>will, I'm quite sure that You won't be able to run it on your old Mac II.

Only if your definition of better is "requires faster hardware." And
when one compares the hardware requirements of 7.5 to those of Win 95,
one realizes very quickly how inadequate a definition that proves to be,
since 7.5 is clearly the superior OS even though 95 barely runs on a
486 with 8 megs.

>
>-- 
>Martin Nisshagen
>MTS Technology, Sweden
>martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)

-Dave

David Salvador Flores wrote:

> >And an interpretation of that fact could be that the OS on the Mac still
> >isn't much better than it was in '87. They have a long way to even come
> >close to some decent OSes like OS/2, NT, Unix, BeOS etc. And if they ever
> >will, I'm quite sure that You won't be able to run it on your old Mac II. 
> Only if your definition of better is "requires faster hardware." And

That doesn't have to be true. NT has been proved to be faster than MacOS
on comparable PPC hardware. Still it isn't that MacOS is slower that's
the big problem. It's the handling of resources like memory, CPU etc who
is a mess compared with real OSes (like OS/2, BeOS, NT, Unix, VMS etc).

> when one compares the hardware requirements of 7.5 to those of Win 95,

Why compare one lousy OS with another? I don't consider Win95 to be a
well designed OS.

> one realizes very quickly how inadequate a definition that proves to be,

It's *your* definition. Not mine.

> since 7.5 is clearly the superior OS even though 95 barely runs on a
> 486 with 8 megs.

Uh... MacOS.... Win95... why debate wich who is the worst OS? Use something
better instead!
 
-- 
Martin Nisshagen
MTS Technology, Sweden
martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)

In article <DKuFyA.D52@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
David Salvador Flores <dsf3g@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:

[snip]
>.... even though 95 barely runs on a 486 with 8 megs.

'95 runs fine on a 486-33 w/8 Meg of RAM.  As a matter of fact, it also runs
the VC++ v2.2 IDE in 8M of ram just fine.  Not that I like Windows, but 
you should at least have your facts straight.  
 



-- 
Mike - mikemc@macshack.com  -  Home of the JEO-Counter, graphic WWW counter
 /---------------------------------------\   My opinions belong to me, 
| Visit us at http://www.macshack.com     |  myself and I, not my employer,
 \......................................./   the government or my wife...:)

Mike McCammant (mikemc@macshack.com) wrote:
: In article <DKuFyA.D52@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
: David Salvador Flores <dsf3g@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:

: [snip]
: >.... even though 95 barely runs on a 486 with 8 megs.

: '95 runs fine on a 486-33 w/8 Meg of RAM.  As a matter of fact, it also runs
: the VC++ v2.2 IDE in 8M of ram just fine.  Not that I like Windows, but 
: you should at least have your facts straight.  

Turn off your swap file and see "How far DON'T you want to go today?"

If I had a large enough swap HDD, I could of done the rendering that 
was done with ToyStory with a 4MB system.  

Please state memory requirements with TRUE MEMORY, and not with VMM or 
RamDouble type programs.

On Wed, 10 Jan 1996 01:42:55 GMT, drizzit@eskimo.com (G. Baldwin)
wrote:


>
>Turn off your swap file and see "How far DON'T you want to go today?"
>
>If I had a large enough swap HDD, I could of done the rendering that 
>was done with ToyStory with a 4MB system.  
>
>Please state memory requirements with TRUE MEMORY, and not with VMM or 
>RamDouble type programs.

Virtual Memory is not the kiss of death to PC's.  Perhaps if we had
grown up with the Mac's awful paging scheme, I could understand of
being leery of it.  But having 20 megs of swap file in todays HD price
market is hardly a major barrier.

But yes, I will give you this- without a swap file, Win95 is useless.
You can operate a Mac without one- and from my experience, you want to
do that whenever possible.

In article <DKxzFK.2r6@eskimo.com>, G. Baldwin <drizzit@eskimo.com> wrote:
>Mike McCammant (mikemc@macshack.com) wrote:
>: In article <DKuFyA.D52@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>: David Salvador Flores <dsf3g@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>
>: [snip]
>: >.... even though 95 barely runs on a 486 with 8 megs.
>
>: '95 runs fine on a 486-33 w/8 Meg of RAM.  As a matter of fact, it also runs
>: the VC++ v2.2 IDE in 8M of ram just fine.  Not that I like Windows, but 
>: you should at least have your facts straight.  
>
>Turn off your swap file and see "How far DON'T you want to go today?"

Why would I want to turn off the swap file?  That would be stupid ;) It is 
part of the operating system.  OS/2 is not really happy, nor is a *NIX
based system without some form of virtual memory.

>If I had a large enough swap HDD, I could of done the rendering that 
>was done with ToyStory with a 4MB system.  
>
>Please state memory requirements with TRUE MEMORY, and not with VMM or 
>RamDouble type programs.

Let's just say "default installation".  I have never messed with the 
swap file in Win95.  Also Ramdouble programs are a crock.



-- 
Mike - mikemc@macshack.com  -  Home of the JEO-Counter, graphic WWW counter
 /---------------------------------------\   My opinions belong to me, 
| Visit us at http://www.macshack.com     |  myself and I, not my employer,
 \......................................./   the government or my wife...:)

Martin Nisshagen <martin@mts.se> wrote:

 >close to some decent OSes like OS/2, NT, Unix, BeOS etc. And if they
ever 

BeOS... Now you're talking... Is there somebody here who has already
'played' with a BeBox ?? The specs look great, the screenshots too,
but what about the real thing ??


     \|/
     @ @      Kris 'Droopy' Clynhens
--ooo(_)ooo----------------------------

Martin Nisshagen <martin@mts.se> wrote:

 >Why compare one lousy OS with another? I don't consider Win95 to be
a
 >well designed OS.

You don't have to consider it as a OS at all... It still is a shell on
DOS...


     \|/
     @ @      Kris 'Droopy' Clynhens
--ooo(_)ooo----------------------------

In article <4d0ih0$8nk@steel.interlog.com>, daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:
|> On Wed, 10 Jan 1996 01:42:55 GMT, drizzit@eskimo.com (G. Baldwin)
|> wrote:
|> 
|> 
|> >
|> >Turn off your swap file and see "How far DON'T you want to go today?"
|> >
|> >If I had a large enough swap HDD, I could of done the rendering that 
|> >was done with ToyStory with a 4MB system.  
|> >
|> >Please state memory requirements with TRUE MEMORY, and not with VMM or 
|> >RamDouble type programs.
|> 
|> Virtual Memory is not the kiss of death to PC's.  Perhaps if we had
|> grown up with the Mac's awful paging scheme, I could understand of
|> being leery of it.  But having 20 megs of swap file in todays HD price
|> market is hardly a major barrier.
|> 
    I've seen in a couple different sources that the PC has very bad memory
 management.  When it starts paging to it's hard drive it continues to do so
 even if real memory has freed up. This was with 3.1 so it may have been a 
 limitation of that os.  However, I've come across other data that use different
 oses and they've reported the same problem.  I have come across "good" reports
 also that virtual memory shuts off when real memory is available again.  Can 
 anyone shed a bit o' light on this since I have conflicting data?

|> But yes, I will give you this- without a swap file, Win95 is useless.
|> You can operate a Mac without one- and from my experience, you want to
|> do that whenever possible.
|>
     
   That's with *any* system.  Real 60ns (or better :) memory is *always* 
 better than grinding away on the hard disk. 

Shane

In article <30ED06B8.2D83@mts.se>, Martin Nisshagen <martin@mts.se> wrote:

<snip>

> And an interpretation of that fact could be that the OS on the Mac still
> isn't much better than it was in '87. They have a long way to even come 
> close to some decent OSes like OS/2, NT, Unix, BeOS etc. And if they ever 
> will, I'm quite sure that You won't be able to run it on your old Mac II.
> 
> -- 
> Martin Nisshagen
> MTS Technology, Sweden
> martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)

Some facts you have chosen to ignore:

1)  The OS of the Mac from '87 is still easier to use & more reliable than
Win95.

2)  The dialogue boxes that pop up in the Mac OS do not look like they
were written by Chinese graduate students,  unlike OS/who?

3)  Mac OS runs fine on 4MB of RAM on practically any Mac-computer while
WinNT needs pretty hefty hardware and beaucoup de memorie.

4)  Nobody who uses a home computer for "home computing" uses OS/w,  NT, 
UNiX,  or BeVaporware.

Thankyou,

Edward

In <edodge-1201962051120001@ip-pdx04-18.teleport.com>, edodge@teleport.com (Edward Dodge) writes:
>1)  The OS of the Mac from '87 is still easier to use & more reliable than
>Win95.

True and True.

>
>2)  The dialogue boxes that pop up in the Mac OS do not look like they
>were written by Chinese graduate students,  unlike OS/who?

Are you implying anything racist with this remark, hmm?

Rgds,

Chris

Rei Hino/Sailor Mars 	Ami Mizuno/Sailor Mercury 	Minako Aino/Sailor
Venus		Makoto Kino/Sailor Jupiter 	Haruka Tenoh/Sailor
Uranus		Michiru Kaioh/Sailor Neptune 	Setsuna Meioh/Sailor Pluto 
Usagi Tsukino/Sailor Moon	Hotaeru Tomoe/Sailor Saturn
Chiusagi Tsukino/Sailor Chibimoon *****crobato@kuentos.guam.net*****

Martin Nisshagen <martin@mts.se> wrote:

>Chad Irby wrote:

>> The installed base of Macs has historically grown *faster* than the
>> increase in market share, or absolute sales numbers.  Macs tend to stay
>> in service *much* longer than Wintel boxes.  A 1987-era Mac II (or a Plus
>> or an SE) can run System 7.5 and most modern software.  A 1987-era Wintel
>> box is good for use as a fax server or a small hamster cage.

>And an interpretation of that fact could be that the OS on the Mac still
>isn't much better than it was in '87. They have a long way to even come 
>close to some decent OSes like OS/2, NT, Unix, BeOS etc. And if they ever 
>will, I'm quite sure that You won't be able to run it on your old Mac II.

>-- 
>Martin Nisshagen
>MTS Technology, Sweden
>martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)

I think the whole thing comes down to backwards compatibility. Sure,
the mac classic will run 7.5, but I am not gonna live long enough to
wait for it to run any *useful* software (or to wait for anyone to
write any), so I run the dreaded Win '95. I run Linux by the side of
it, and can say from experience that Linux is the faster of the two
hands down. NOW, if MS or Apple, ir IBM, or Intel, or Motorola (should
I go on?) could drop all the backwards compatibility support,
EVERYTHING would run faster. But, we all know that's not gonna happen.
I just installed another 16 megs of ram (24 now) today, and am
completly satisfied with win '95's performance. (I definately wasn't
on 8)  It cost $400. Not a bad price. I now have an O/S I can live
with. The same is probably true for a Mac. If you don't have the money
to get the hardware you need, you are in the wrong line of work/hobby.
No amount of software can ever make up for having powerful hardware,
whether it be Motorola or Intel, or DEC.  No matter what O/S you put
on your Mac II, it'll never be a PPC *OR* a Pentium. 'nuff said.

Someone tell me to shut up.
Mark

Kris Clynhens wrote:
> 
> Martin Nisshagen <martin@mts.se> wrote:
> 
>  >close to some decent OSes like OS/2, NT, Unix, BeOS etc. And if they
> ever
> 
> BeOS... Now you're talking... Is there somebody here who has already
> 'played' with a BeBox ?? The specs look great, the screenshots too,
> but what about the real thing ??

Yes, they really do exist. Yes, they are great. And unlike certain
companies (like MS and Apple) the folks at Be haven't convinced
themselves of their own infallibility; they actually listen to (at this
point potential) customers and respond in tangible ways.

The current box with dual-603s is in every way faster and more
responsive than the fastest Mac I have played with (an 8500/120.) Linux
on this baby will _cook_, and the thought of dual 601s or (steady, now)
604s is almost too much to handle.
 
Guessing how the marketplace responds is always a tricky business, but
they really seem to have all the pieces; the tech, the attitude, and
some money. I know I'm getting one; I'm tired of waiting for Apple.

- 

Damir Smitlener                   damir@mindspring.com        
aka Little Caesar                 gt7092d@prism.gatech.edu

I gave up on trying to read this entire string after about 25 posts... 
I'm not sure, therefore, if this has already been said or not.
A PPC 601 chip is, according to a test performed by an independent and 
impartial agency (although I can't recall who they were... sorry if I 
can't keep my testing agencies straight...) 38% faster than a Pentium 
running at the same clock speed. This is the average for most users, and 
fits "the other 99%" that some people were arguing about. Obviously, it's 
not exactly 38% faster on everything. For graphics and such, it's 98%, 
there was something else that was 27%, but it all evened out to 38%. The 
PPC 604 chip is faster than the 601. Even if it weren't, a 150 MHz PPC 
would be as fast, for all practical purposes, as a Pentium 207. Since 
it's a 604 and not a 601, it seems like it could be more along the lines 
of a Pentium 240.

>>2)  The dialogue boxes that pop up in the Mac OS do not look like they
>>were written by Chinese graduate students,  unlike OS/who?
>
>Are you implying anything racist with this remark, hmm?

You are a fucking idiot.

   This person obviously meant that the dialogue boxes were confusing
and/or poorly written. The Chinese grad student analogy is present to
convey this. The grad student portion is used because they are so good at
bullshit-techno-babble. Add to this the fact that author was foreign and
we acheive a dialogue box that is poor at conveying its meaning.
   Why aren't you leaping to the defense of the graduate student? Get your
politically correct head out of your ass. Complain only about real racists
and racism will end just that much quicker.

darrin
   "unPC and unRacist"
      filer

In article <30F150BC.6D8D@mts.se>, Martin Nisshagen  <martin@mts.se> wrote:
>David Salvador Flores wrote:
>
>> >And an interpretation of that fact could be that the OS on the Mac still
>> >isn't much better than it was in '87. They have a long way to even come
>> >close to some decent OSes like OS/2, NT, Unix, BeOS etc. And if they ever
>> >will, I'm quite sure that You won't be able to run it on your old Mac II. 
>> Only if your definition of better is "requires faster hardware." And
>
>That doesn't have to be true. NT has been proved to be faster than MacOS
>on comparable PPC hardware. Still it isn't that MacOS is slower that's
>the big problem. It's the handling of resources like memory, CPU etc who
>is a mess compared with real OSes (like OS/2, BeOS, NT, Unix, VMS etc).

Alas, these OS's may be nice choices for hardcore programmers and
such, but there are those of us for whom computers are a tool,
not a job, or a way of life. For us three things matter (1) It
must have plenty of decent, affordable software. (2) It should
be simple to use. (3) It should be common enough a machine that
one's documents can be shared with others or edited on their
machines.

None of the OS's above meet the criteria as well as Mac OS and
Windows (3.1-95). And of the above criteria, windows exceeds
Mac OS only in the third.

>
>> when one compares the hardware requirements of 7.5 to those of Win 95,
>
>Why compare one lousy OS with another? I don't consider Win95 to be a
>well designed OS.
>
>> one realizes very quickly how inadequate a definition that proves to be,
>
>It's *your* definition. Not mine.

Not really, you were interpreting the fact that the mac OS still
runs on an SE/30 (or was it a plus?) to mean that it hasn't really 
gotten much better. That certainly implies that the true measure of an OS's
progress (and thus, capabilities) can be ascertained by measuring the 
bloody trail of obsolete hardware it leaves in its wake.

>
>> since 7.5 is clearly the superior OS even though 95 barely runs on a
>> 486 with 8 megs.
>
>Uh... MacOS.... Win95... why debate wich who is the worst OS? Use something
>better instead!

Because I actually want to get things done. Quite frankly, as your
"average user" I want a machine that I can use to write papers, play
games, telecommunicate with, Occasional OCR, some CD-Roms....

With my Mac I can pop into my unix account, check e-mail, open up
Macwrite Pro, pop in the Groliers encyclopaedia to check a reference,
then switch it for a music CD, all at once, without thinking twice. I 
have very few crashes. I can't even guess at how many crashes I have
a week, because they're just too infrequent. And it literally blows
my mind that I can use Macwrite Pro on the SE in our office, and
that my Girlfriend uses Word 5.1 on her Mac plus! And switching between
the different environments is a no brainer. Apple got the interface
pretty much right the first time, everything else has been refinements.

For me its gotta be a Mac. I can't imagine using a gui like Windows 
where documents and applications can't be moved about and
accesed in the same way. When windows changes this, then *maybe*
the PC game selection will cause me to wet my chops a bit, but
certainly not before then. (The whole idea of windows that are stuck
inside other windows also gives me the willies)

> 
>-- 
>Martin Nisshagen
>MTS Technology, Sweden
>martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)


-Dave

daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue) wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Jan 1996 01:42:55 GMT, drizzit@eskimo.com (G. Baldwin)
>wrote:


>>
>>Turn off your swap file and see "How far DON'T you want to go today?"
>>
>>If I had a large enough swap HDD, I could of done the rendering that 
>>was done with ToyStory with a 4MB system.  
>>
>>Please state memory requirements with TRUE MEMORY, and not with VMM or 
>>RamDouble type programs.

>Virtual Memory is not the kiss of death to PC's.  Perhaps if we had
>grown up with the Mac's awful paging scheme, I could understand of
>being leery of it.  But having 20 megs of swap file in todays HD price
>market is hardly a major barrier.

>But yes, I will give you this- without a swap file, Win95 is useless.
>You can operate a Mac without one- and from my experience, you want to
>do that whenever possible.

I have had times when I run out of swap memory when my swap file was
over 350 MB, and it wasn't because of what I was running, (Netscape,
Norton Utilities) it was because of poor swap file management

mikemc@macshack.com (Mike McCammant) wrote:

>In article <DKxzFK.2r6@eskimo.com>, G. Baldwin <drizzit@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>Mike McCammant (mikemc@macshack.com) wrote:
>>: In article <DKuFyA.D52@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>>: David Salvador Flores <dsf3g@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>: [snip]
>>: >.... even though 95 barely runs on a 486 with 8 megs.
>>
>>: '95 runs fine on a 486-33 w/8 Meg of RAM.  As a matter of fact, it also runs
>>: the VC++ v2.2 IDE in 8M of ram just fine.  Not that I like Windows, but 
>>: you should at least have your facts straight.  
>>
>>Turn off your swap file and see "How far DON'T you want to go today?"

>Why would I want to turn off the swap file?  That would be stupid ;) It is 
>part of the operating system.  OS/2 is not really happy, nor is a *NIX
>based system without some form of virtual memory.

>>If I had a large enough swap HDD, I could of done the rendering that 
>>was done with ToyStory with a 4MB system.  
>>
>>Please state memory requirements with TRUE MEMORY, and not with VMM or 
>>RamDouble type programs.

>Let's just say "default installation".  I have never messed with the 
>swap file in Win95.  Also Ramdouble programs are a crock.

Only with Windows, they work great on the Mac (mainly because they
manage VM MUCH, MUCH better)

>-- 
>Mike - mikemc@macshack.com  -  Home of the JEO-Counter, graphic WWW counter
> /---------------------------------------\   My opinions belong to me, 
>| Visit us at http://www.macshack.com     |  myself and I, not my employer,
> \......................................./   the government or my wife...:)

edodge@teleport.com (Edward Dodge) writes:

>4)  Nobody who uses a home computer for "home computing" uses OS/w,  NT, 
>UNiX,  or BeVaporware.

This certainly isn't true. Neither for OS/2 nor for Unix. Of course,
it _is_ true for BeOS and, to a very high degree, for NT.

But BeOS doesn't even exist for more than about 1000 machines, and NT
carries a price tag that is not encouraging for home use.

Bernie
-- 
==============================================================================
I'm using an experimental version of "nn" to read news. So if anything seems
strange about the headers of this mail or post, please inform me. Thanks!

Edward Dodge (edodge@teleport.com) wrote:

[snip]

: 1)  The OS of the Mac from '87 is still easier to use & more reliable than
: Win95.

The MacOS is very intuitive.  Albeit, simple in function (but powerful.)

: 2)  The dialogue boxes that pop up in the Mac OS do not look like they
: were written by Chinese graduate students,  unlike OS/who?

: 3)  Mac OS runs fine on 4MB of RAM on practically any Mac-computer while
: WinNT needs pretty hefty hardware and beaucoup de memorie.

And that's about it.  I can get Linux running on 4 megs of RAM too.

: 4)  Nobody who uses a home computer for "home computing" uses OS/w,  NT, 
: UNiX,  or BeVaporware.

So I guess my Linux box I am using this on doesn't count?  Noo 
wait...that's not real Unix is it?  Guess I'll switch to BSDi <sigh>

: Thankyou,

: Edward

--
SpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpam
SpamSpam      elvis@graceland.net   http://www.fred.net/elvis       SpamSpam
SpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpam

Damir Smitlener (damir@mindspring.com) wrote:

[...BeBox...]
: The current box with dual-603s is in every way faster and more
: responsive than the fastest Mac I have played with (an 8500/120.) Linux
: on this baby will _cook_, and the thought of dual 601s or (steady, now)
: 604s is almost too much to handle.

   Faster on timed calculations, or just more responsive?

: Guessing how the marketplace responds is always a tricky business, but
: they really seem to have all the pieces; the tech, the attitude, and
: some money. I know I'm getting one; I'm tired of waiting for Apple.

   I know how the market will respond--it will ignore the BeBox and the 
handfull of geeks who have nothing better to do than masturbate over 
visions of technological purity.   Why do so many tech people have such a 
flimsy grasp on marketting realities?  Success is not about the purity of 
your vision--it never was.  Success comes from pimping the product to the 
great unwashed masses, something Necrosoft has done very well, despite 
some appallingly poor products (Win 3.1, etc.)

antares@nando.net (Antares) writes:

>I have had times when I run out of swap memory when my swap file was
>over 350 MB, and it wasn't because of what I was running, (Netscape,
>Norton Utilities) it was because of poor swap file management

Well, AFAIK you can only get that much swap under Windows if you use
a temporary swapfile rather than a permanent. Performance in that case
is bound to be lousy.

Also, running out of swap with a temporary swapfile simply means that you
run out of diskspace. Which really isn't the OSs fault, but yours. You can't
expect the OS to put 350 Megs of swap on a disk with 10 Megs free/

So, either this is talking about a Mac (does the Mac have Norton Utilities?),
or you are doing something very very wrong.

Bernie

-- 
==============================================================================
I'm using an experimental version of "nn" to read news. So if anything seems
strange about the headers of this mail or post, please inform me. Thanks!

antares@nando.net (Antares) writes:

>mikemc@macshack.com (Mike McCammant) wrote:

>>Let's just say "default installation".  I have never messed with the 
>>swap file in Win95.  Also Ramdouble programs are a crock.

>Only with Windows, they work great on the Mac (mainly because they
>manage VM MUCH, MUCH better)

*Grin* the reason for this is that the Mac's VM is such an easy target.
The so called "Ram compressors" resort to compressing RAM only after
all other methods fail --- which is pretty late in the game on a Mac,
and pretty much any time Windows can't figure how to get more memory on
its own.

But if you want a real challenge --- try writing a ramdoubler kind of
program for linux.... If you manage to actually speed up a kernel compile,
I will be impressed. You chose the machine and the amount of physical ram :-)

Bernie


-- 
==============================================================================
I'm using an experimental version of "nn" to read news. So if anything seems
strange about the headers of this mail or post, please inform me. Thanks!

Darrin Filer wrote:
> 
> >>2)  The dialogue boxes that pop up in the Mac OS do not look like they
> >>were written by Chinese graduate students,  unlike OS/who?
> >
> >Are you implying anything racist with this remark, hmm?
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.
> 
>    This person obviously meant that the dialogue boxes were confusing
> and/or poorly written. The Chinese grad student analogy is present to
> convey this. The grad student portion is used because they are so good at
> bullshit-techno-babble. Add to this the fact that author was foreign and
> we acheive a dialogue box that is poor at conveying its meaning.
>    Why aren't you leaping to the defense of the graduate student? Get your
> politically correct head out of your ass. Complain only about real racists
> and racism will end just that much quicker.
> 
> darrin
>    "unPC and unRacist"
>       filerButthead.  Stick to tech talk, and take your hate somewhere else.

nahender@prairie.NoDak.edu (Nathanael J Henderson) wrote:

>[...BeBox...]
>: The current box with dual-603s is in every way faster and more
>: responsive than the fastest Mac I have played with (an 8500/120.) Linux
>: on this baby will _cook_, and the thought of dual 601s or (steady, now)
>: 604s is almost too much to handle.

Has anyone tried to install NT 3.51 on a BeBox?  If so, does it run
any faster than a comparable dual Pentium, or single Alpha?

Andy
alewman@tiac.net

In article <4dcksv$ijm@sundog.tiac.net>, alewman@tiac.net (Cyberphuck) wrote:

> nahender@prairie.NoDak.edu (Nathanael J Henderson) wrote:
> 
> >[...BeBox...]
> >: The current box with dual-603s is in every way faster and more
> >: responsive than the fastest Mac I have played with (an 8500/120.) Linux
> >: on this baby will _cook_, and the thought of dual 601s or (steady, now)
> >: 604s is almost too much to handle.

You would not see much change with 601s. the 603 is pretty close in
performance to the 601, and much easyer to design into the board.
Most of the responsiveness is in the BeOS and the extensive use of threading,
not in the hardware, which is (If I may say so...) unremarkable.

> 
> Has anyone tried to install NT 3.51 on a BeBox?  If so, does it run
> any faster than a comparable dual Pentium, or single Alpha?
> 

NT does not run on the BeBox. There is a Linux port underway.
________________________________
Joseph Palmer                         ***** Please send mail to jpalmer@be.com
Director of Hardware Engineering      ***** http://www.be.com
Be, Incorporated.

Bernd Bernie Meyer wrote:
> 
> edodge@teleport.com (Edward Dodge) writes:
> 
> >4)  Nobody who uses a home computer for "home computing" uses OS/w,  NT,
> >UNiX,  or BeVaporware.
> 
> This certainly isn't true. Neither for OS/2 nor for Unix. Of course,
> it _is_ true for BeOS and, to a very high degree, for NT.

No, it most certainly is not for unix. Our home computers are now
exclusively networked linux boxes. We have the 'office' apps we need (WP
and spreadsheet), we have a real networking with a real networked file
system, we have excellent internet connectivity, and we have no crashes.
P75s running linux easily outpace the 7100/80s running the software we
run (WP, netscape, CAD tools etc) for a fraction of the price. The last
of our PMacs is now for sale.

I will freely conceed that my sweetheart would never have done this on
her own, and that it is only possible because I was willing to invest a
little time (surprisingly little, BTW) in learning how to manage a small
network of unixen - but the payoff is certainly exceeding that
investment of time.

Oh, and we aren't waiting for Java - we can use it now.

[...snip...]

-- 

Damir Smitlener                   damir@mindspring.com        
aka Little Caesar                 gt7092d@prism.gatech.edu

Bernd "Bernie" Meyer (root@wombat.hanse.de) wrote:
: ... and NT
: carries a price tag that is not encouraging for home use.

Street-priced for WinNT3.51 at a Los Angeles computer swapmeet: US$135. 
Coincidentally, the same as the academic price :-).

Tony
-- 
------------------
Tony Tribelli
adtribelli@acm.org

Cyberphuck wrote:

> Has anyone tried to install NT 3.51 on a BeBox?  If so, does it run
> any faster than a comparable dual Pentium, or single Alpha?

Be doesn't follow the standards that all other PPC vendors (Apple, IBM,
FirePower, Motorola etc) has agreed on.

If Be will stop setting their own standards (as I have heard that they
eventually will) I'm quite sure that NT (and MacOS, OS/2, AIX etc) will 
run just fine on it.

-- 
Martin Nisshagen
MTS Technology, Sweden
martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)

Damir Smitlener wrote:

> Oh, and we aren't waiting for Java - we can use it now.

Sun's development kit for Java is only avaible for Solaris 2.X
and Windows NT.

-- 
Martin Nisshagen
MTS Technology, Sweden
martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)

Kris Clynhens wrote:

>  >Why compare one lousy OS with another? I don't consider Win95 to be a
>  >well designed OS.
> 
> You don't have to consider it as a OS at all... It still is a shell on
> DOS...

I agree 100%. That's a better definition of it! ;)

-- 
Martin Nisshagen
MTS Technology, Sweden
martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)

In article <30FB058B.408@mts.se>, Martin Nisshagen  <martin@mts.se> wrote:
>Cyberphuck wrote:
>
>> Has anyone tried to install NT 3.51 on a BeBox?  If so, does it run
>> any faster than a comparable dual Pentium, or single Alpha?
>
>Be doesn't follow the standards that all other PPC vendors (Apple, IBM,
>FirePower, Motorola etc) has agreed on.

What the hell standard is this?  So you are telling me that I can
get an RS/6000 and run MacOS on it?  The same machine runs NT?
So a PowerMac runs NT and AIX?  News to me.  Apple, IBM, and Motorola
couldn't even agree on what PReP should be, so why are you attacking Be?
You should attack the idiots who created the PowerPC for not being
able to agree on a standard for so long.

>If Be will stop setting their own standards (as I have heard that they
>eventually will) I'm quite sure that NT (and MacOS, OS/2, AIX etc) will 
>run just fine on it.

Be along with Apple, IBM, and Motorola have said they will support
CHRP now that the standard is supposedly finished.

Ravi
--
Ravi K. Swamy                http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rkswamy/www/
rkswamy@eos.ncsu.edu         root@genom.com

In article <DL7383.5Bv@wombat.hanse.de>, root@wombat.hanse.de (Bernd
"Bernie" Meyer) wrote:

> *Grin* the reason for this is that the Mac's VM is such an easy target.
> The so called "Ram compressors" resort to compressing RAM only after
> all other methods fail

Not true.  Paging out to disk is the last resort.

> But if you want a real challenge --- try writing a ramdoubler kind of
> program for linux.... If you manage to actually speed up a kernel compile,
> I will be impressed.

If you are using gcc, change compilers.  Almost every other compiler out
there is faster.  Also, gcc assumes an indefinite amount of virtual
memory; it was never designed to run on machines with small memory
footprints.  This is one of the bad side effects of having VM; programmers
tend to forget that most of the people using their software don't have the
same amount of resources that they do, and running their software on small
configurations tends to be very, very painful.
-- 
        Nevin ":-)" Liber       nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU    (520) 293-2799

Ravi Krishna Swamy wrote:

> >Be doesn't follow the standards that all other PPC vendors (Apple, IBM,
> >FirePower, Motorola etc) has agreed on. 
> What the hell standard is this?  So you are telling me that I can

The first standard that everyone uses now (except Apple) is PReP.

It can run AIX, NT, Solaris, OS/2 etc.

> get an RS/6000 and run MacOS on it?  The same machine runs NT?

This will be true with the next version of PReP (who is called CHRP)
that also Apple has agreed to follow.

> You should attack the idiots who created the PowerPC for not being
> able to agree on a standard for so long.

I agree that it would have been much better if they had agreed earlier.
 
> Be along with Apple, IBM, and Motorola have said they will support
> CHRP now that the standard is supposedly finished.

I didn't know that Be supports the CHRP standard (as they didn't bother
to support PReP). That's a good thing.

-- 
Martin Nisshagen
MTS Technology, Sweden
martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)

Bernd Bernie Meyer wrote:

> But BeOS doesn't even exist for more than about 1000 machines, and NT
> carries a price tag that is not encouraging for home use.

Even if maybe some home users will find it too high, I know that You
can get a Win 3.11 -> NT 3.51 upgrade for around $99.

Otherwise than beeing a bit more expensive (OS + another 4Mb) it's the
perfect home OS. The custom login setups will let verey family member
has it's own settings and desktop. The security is also great for all
working fathers (and mothers) who worries that the kids will zap their
important files by misstake.

And as home machines usually gets loaded with a broad range of disks 
and software in an uncontrolled way, it's great to apply the security 
to prevent being attacked by new viruses, that hasn't been updated in 
normal virus protection software.

For families who share their computers with each other it's simply the 
perfect operative environment that they can get!

-- 
Martin Nisshagen
MTS Technology, Sweden
martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)

In article <DL7383.5Bv@wombat.hanse.de>, root@wombat.hanse.de (Bernd "Bernie" Meyer) writes:

|> *Grin* the reason for this is that the Mac's VM is such an easy target.
|> The so called "Ram compressors" resort to compressing RAM only after
|> all other methods fail 

Wrong.

Connectix RamDoubler first tries to use RAM pages that are allocated
to other processes but not in use.  It uses these pages without any
backing store.  When they're gone, it will try and compress some pages
(least recently used?) into some ram it allocates for that purpose.
Decompressing a compressed page in RAM is faster than hitting the
disk.  When there is no more room in the compressed RAM cache, then
RamDoubler finally resorts to swapping pages to disk.

Chris
-- 
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   ChrisCWood@eworld.com

Martin Nisshagen <martin@mts.se> writes:

>Damir Smitlener wrote:

>> Oh, and we aren't waiting for Java - we can use it now.

>Sun's development kit for Java is only avaible for Solaris 2.X
>and Windows NT.

And, surprise surprise, linux. *Smirk*

Bernie
-- 
==============================================================================
I'm using an experimental version of "nn" to read news. So if anything seems
strange about the headers of this mail or post, please inform me. Thanks!

adt@netcom.com (Anthony D. Tribelli) writes:

>Bernd "Bernie" Meyer (root@wombat.hanse.de) wrote:
>: ... and NT
>: carries a price tag that is not encouraging for home use.

>Street-priced for WinNT3.51 at a Los Angeles computer swapmeet: US$135. 
>Coincidentally, the same as the academic price :-).

a) That _is_ extremely unattractive to me. For $135, I can get another 4 Megs
   of RAM, or a quad speed CD-Rom, or (almost) an 850M harddisk, or the
   keyboard of my dreams

b) Try to upgrade or even register that thing.

Bernie
-- 
==============================================================================
I'm using an experimental version of "nn" to read news. So if anything seems
strange about the headers of this mail or post, please inform me. Thanks!

In article <adtDL92w5.I8H@netcom.com>,
Anthony D. Tribelli <adt@netcom.com> wrote:
>Bernd "Bernie" Meyer (root@wombat.hanse.de) wrote:
>: ... and NT
>: carries a price tag that is not encouraging for home use.
>
>Street-priced for WinNT3.51 at a Los Angeles computer swapmeet: US$135. 
>Coincidentally, the same as the academic price :-).

That's $135 I would rather spend on other things -
Like WordPerfect for Linux, or a pile of O'Reilly Books...

--
Joe Sloan
jjs@roundup.com

Joe Sloan (jjs@taipei.ucr.edu) wrote:
: >Street-price for WinNT3.51 at a Los Angeles computer swapmeet: US$135. 
: >Coincidentally, the same as the academic price :-).

: That's $135 I would rather spend on other things -
: Like WordPerfect for Linux, or a pile of O'Reilly Books...

You need a "pile of O'Reilly Books"? You must be trying to run UNIX :-). 

Tony
-- 
------------------
Tony Tribelli
adtribelli@acm.org

Bernd Bernie Meyer wrote:

> >Sun's development kit for Java is only avaible for Solaris 2.X
> >and Windows NT.
> 
> And, surprise surprise, linux. *Smirk*

I just checked http://java.sun.com/JDK-beta2/index.html but I couldn't
find that Sun supported Linux.

-- 
Martin Nisshagen
MTS Technology, Sweden
martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)

The BeBox is a CHRP compliant machine. Meaning it will run Copland, 
Win NT, Solaris, A/UX, etc. in its final iteration.

On Tue, 16 Jan 1996 21:39:55 GMT, root@wombat.hanse.de (Bernd "Bernie"
Meyer) wrote:

>adt@netcom.com (Anthony D. Tribelli) writes:
>
>>Bernd "Bernie" Meyer (root@wombat.hanse.de) wrote:
>>: ... and NT
>>: carries a price tag that is not encouraging for home use.
>
>>Street-priced for WinNT3.51 at a Los Angeles computer swapmeet: US$135. 
>>Coincidentally, the same as the academic price :-).
>
>a) That _is_ extremely unattractive to me. For $135, I can get another 4 Megs
>   of RAM, or a quad speed CD-Rom, or (almost) an 850M harddisk, or the
>   keyboard of my dreams

So any software that costs $135 is "extermely unnattractive"?  How
much do you think the MacOS will cost when you buy a prep machine?
How much is the Win 95 upgrade? $135 is hardly out of line for an OS
as extensive as NT, and with home users purchasing Win95, the Plus
Pack, and usually 4 extra megs to go with it, apparently they don't
feel the price is out of line.

In article <30FD9223.5175@mts.se>, Martin Nisshagen  <martin@mts.se> wrote:
>Bernd Bernie Meyer wrote:
>
>> >Sun's development kit for Java is only avaible for Solaris 2.X
>> >and Windows NT.
>> 
>> And, surprise surprise, linux. *Smirk*
>
>I just checked http://java.sun.com/JDK-beta2/index.html but I couldn't
>find that Sun supported Linux.

Perhaps you should check this link instead.  I am too lazy to check now. :)

http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux.html

Ravi
--
Ravi K. Swamy                http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rkswamy/www/
rkswamy@eos.ncsu.edu         root@genom.com

daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 1996 21:39:55 GMT, root@wombat.hanse.de (Bernd "Bernie"
>Meyer) wrote:
>>adt@netcom.com (Anthony D. Tribelli) writes:
>>>Bernd "Bernie" Meyer (root@wombat.hanse.de) wrote:

>>>: ... and NT carries a price tag that is not encouraging for home use.
>>
>>>Street-priced for WinNT3.51 at a Los Angeles computer swapmeet: US$135. 
>>>Coincidentally, the same as the academic price :-).
>>
>>a) That _is_ extremely unattractive to me. For $135, I can get another 4 Megs
>>   of RAM, or a quad speed CD-Rom, or (almost) an 850M harddisk, or the
>>   keyboard of my dreams

>So any software that costs $135 is "extermely unnattractive"? 

No --- but any software that will give me, as a home user, not much
more benefit than the preloaded Windows 3.1 and still costs $135 is
unattractive. 

Well, to be honest --- yes, any software that costs $135 is unattractive
to me. I am not a pirate, but I still prefer not to pay for my software.
And in the days of linux, X, gcc, emacs, TeX, nn, Netscape and all the
others, that's actually possible.

The last app that I _bought_ was a present for my brother. Before that ---
well, if you want to count the Caldera Network Desktop preview, which cost
me about $50, then yes, I _did_ buy one piece of software in the years
1994-1995. Otherwise, I think the last software purchase would have been
"Comanche" in 1992.

>How much is the Win 95 upgrade? $135 is hardly out of line for an OS
>as extensive as NT, and with home users purchasing Win95, the Plus
>Pack, and usually 4 extra megs to go with it, apparently they don't
>feel the price is out of line.

Well, recent estimates show that about 3 million people actually went out
and bought win95.  That's extremely few. Also, the comment about the extra
megs cuts both ways --- an NT machine should have about 20 megs, even for
home use. That's at least 8 more than for win95, and 12 more than for
win3.1

Now tell me, at $35/meg, what does have more appeal to the average "I'll
write a letter to aunt Sally, and then balance my chequebook" home user?
Using the preinstalled win3.1 with the preinstalled Word 6.0 and the
purchased separately Quicken, or shell out $135 for NT, $420 for 12 megs
and $100 for a half-legal upgrade of Word? That's $655, plus the upgrade
hassle and the speed loss.

Bernie "running neither" Meyer




-- 
==============================================================================
I'm using an experimental version of "nn" to read news. So if anything seems
strange about the headers of this mail or post, please inform me. Thanks!

In article <4djqh8$fhg@steel.interlog.com>,
Dave Glue <daveacg@interlog.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 1996 21:39:55 GMT, root@wombat.hanse.de (Bernd "Bernie"
>Meyer) wrote:
>>a) That _is_ extremely unattractive to me. For $135, I can get another 4 Megs
>>   of RAM, or a quad speed CD-Rom, or (almost) an 850M harddisk, or the
>>   keyboard of my dreams
>
>So any software that costs $135 is "extermely unnattractive"?  How
>much do you think the MacOS will cost when you buy a prep machine?
>How much is the Win 95 upgrade? $135 is hardly out of line for an OS
>as extensive as NT, and with home users purchasing Win95, the Plus
>Pack, and usually 4 extra megs to go with it, apparently they don't
>feel the price is out of line.

No, I think he means that $135 is unattractive for an extra OS to
play around with. Superior server alternatives exist, e.g. Linux & 
FreeBSD, which in addition to being more powerful and flexible, come 
bundled with tons of utilities, applications, tools and souce code.

I would gladly pay $135 for some quality Unix tools -
but to be able to futz around with nt? nah, I'll pass, thanks..

--
Joe Sloan
jjs@amanslife.com

In article <4dlnmr$5cl@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, rkswamy@unity.ncsu.edu (Ravi
Krishna Swamy) wrote:

> >I just checked http://java.sun.com/JDK-beta2/index.html but I couldn't
> >find that Sun supported Linux.

> Perhaps you should check this link instead.  I am too lazy to check now. :)

Too lazy just to click your mouse once??  Oh, wait, I forgot, you don't
use a Mac; you use a so-called superior system that makes you apply so
much more effort just to do even the most trivial of tasks.

> http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux.html

I tried checking it myself, but it appears to be down.
-- 
        Nevin ":-)" Liber       nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU    (520) 293-2799

In article <nevin-1801961639090001@150.135.1.79>,
Nevin ":-]" Liber <nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>In article <4dlnmr$5cl@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, rkswamy@unity.ncsu.edu (Ravi
>Krishna Swamy) wrote:
>
>> >I just checked http://java.sun.com/JDK-beta2/index.html but I couldn't
>> >find that Sun supported Linux.
>
>> Perhaps you should check this link instead.  I am too lazy to check now. :)
>
>Too lazy just to click your mouse once??  Oh, wait, I forgot, you don't
>use a Mac; you use a so-called superior system that makes you apply so
>much more effort just to do even the most trivial of tasks.

Sigh...  Explain to me how your damn Mac is going to connect to
the stinking URL when you are connected to the Internet via
a terminal program running through a 2400 baud modem?  Yes, I
am REALLY waiting to know how the Mac manages to connect
to the URL.  

>> http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux.html
>
>I tried checking it myself, but it appears to be down.

I tried it myself with Lynx just now and it appears just fine.
I guess your Mac is not up to the task.  If you want to be
an annoying idiot and make stupid comments without knowing
the situation then I have no problems at doing the same.

Ravi
--
Ravi K. Swamy                http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rkswamy/www/
rkswamy@eos.ncsu.edu         root@genom.com

In article <4dmovb$bk7@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, rkswamy@unity.ncsu.edu (Ravi
Krishna Swamy) wrote:

> In article <nevin-1801961639090001@150.135.1.79>,
> Nevin ":-]" Liber <nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> >In article <4dlnmr$5cl@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, rkswamy@unity.ncsu.edu (Ravi
> >Krishna Swamy) wrote:
> >> Perhaps you should check this link instead.  I am too lazy to check now. :)

> >Too lazy just to click your mouse once??  Oh, wait, I forgot, you don't
> >use a Mac; you use a so-called superior system that makes you apply so
> >much more effort just to do even the most trivial of tasks.

> Sigh...  Explain to me how your damn Mac is going to connect to
> the stinking URL when you are connected to the Internet via
> a terminal program running through a 2400 baud modem?

I didn't know that your point of view was from the desire to keep using
80s technology (I haven't had a 2400 baud modem since early 1990).  I
suppose if that is what you want to do, Unix is the way to go.

> Yes, I
> am REALLY waiting to know how the Mac manages to connect
> to the URL.  

How I resolve a URL with a Mac:  I see a URL, usually in a news or email
message, and I command-click somewhere on it (the text need not be
selected, as it would have to be if I was using a more primitive
mechanism, such as copy and paste).  The extension ICeTEe then parses it,
selects the correct text, and sends it to the appropriate application,
which is Netscape in this case.  While Netscape is loading it in the
background, I keep on going through my netnews or email.  Eventually, when
I get bored of news, I go over to Netscape and see what the page looks
like.


> >> http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux.html

> >I tried checking it myself, but it appears to be down.

> I tried it myself with Lynx just now and it appears just fine.
> I guess your Mac is not up to the task.

The problem isn't the Mac, it's with either the server or the Internet,
which were both founded on those oh so great Unix design principles of
shipping the prototype, and coming up with protocols that can waste the
most bandwidth.

> If you want to be
> an annoying idiot and make stupid comments without knowing
> the situation then I have no problems at doing the same.

You said you were lazy.  I agreed with you.  Do you always get so angry
with people who take your side?
-- 
        Nevin ":-)" Liber       nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU    (520) 293-2799