[keithr]

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
John Byrns wrote:

But I more than willing to be wrong on that, but it was far more common to
find CP/M on Intel/Zilog shape processors, and it certainly was first
written for them.

--
Nick

The major advance that CP/M made was to separate the operating system from
the peripheral drivers. The OS was called BDOS (Basic Disk Operating System)
and the drivers were called BIOS (Basic Input Output System). DR only sold
BDOS and the specs for BIOS which the OEM had to peovide themselves.

I personally never encounter a setup where BDOS ran on anything other than a
Z80 but my first proper micro ran BIOS on a 68B09, switching between the
chips on every IO operation. In fact it ran quite brilliantly, after I
swapped the original Z80A for a Z80H and upped the clock accordingly, it
actually outperformed the original IBM PC.

Keith

[keithr]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...

Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent of inducing apoplexy in losers by merely
existing

Charisma is in the eye of the beholder, who is usually the person who thinks
that he has charisma

[keithr]

"Joe" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:41:25 +1100, keithr wrote:

[snip]

I don't know the figures, but windows would have many times the amount
of "Useful" software than either the Mac or Linux. Unix is in it's
death throes (a couple of years ago my employer had a hundred or so
developers beavering away SUN workstations using Unix, now they all use
Linux on PCs)

[snip]

Linux *is* "Unix" - dickhead.

SCO spent a lot of money trying to prove just that, and got slapped down for
their troubles.

[keithr]

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...
The interface is no
simpler than windows (except that the mouse only has one button). I have
spent zilch on anti-virus software and have never had a virus infection.

*** I hope "not spending zilch" means that you have downloaded the free
stuff, and not that you are unprotected. I see a lot of PCs and most of
them have some kind of virus. Apparently, you are luckier or smarter than
most.

nope, I don't run any sort of anti virus software on my personal machine
(with my work machine I have Macafee imposed on me by the IT department).
You just have to be careful where you go and what you open. If you visit
porn sites or open e-mail from unknown sources that you are asking for it.
If you insist on dangerous practices then you should use a virtual machine
to do so like running another copy of windows inside VMware or running
Internet Explorer inside SandboxIE. When you close the environment down
everything goes poof! including any trojans or viruses. Anti virus software,
in many cases simply gives a false sense of security, threats are evolving
on a daily basis and there is an excellent chance that you will be infected
long before you get an update to your AV software.

Do not get the idea BTW that there are less viruses for the Mac because it
is more secure, it is just that there are so many more PCs in the world that
the returns are much greater creating viruses for that environment.

Keith

[Jon Yaeger]

Do not get the idea BTW that there are less viruses for the Mac because it
is more secure, it is just that there are so many more PCs in the world that
the returns are much greater creating viruses for that environment.

Keith



Evil is not limited to afflicting the largest numbers.

I have been told that the kernel structure of BSD makes it less vulnerable
to attacks than Windows. Accordingly, you have to be able to access the
root user to do any real damage.

Is that almost right?

[Patrick Turner]

Andre Jute wrote:

Mac users earned their air of superiority by their good judgement in
choosing a computer that was all there and complete, which now the
Windows OS copies badly. Why switch to an also-ran copy-cat product
like Windows, whose makers clearly don't understand that the user is
more important than the programmer? Mac users earn their continuing
air of superiority by using the original and best, not the cheap copy
made for the undiscriminating.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent of inducing apoplexy in losers by merely
existing



Car is ma Ford Laser, little old ******* of a car, but it'll do.

Ma computas mighta been Macs, but all these old Windoze hand-me-downs
came available
with W95 back in 2000, then W98 in 2001, and 2 years back my sister
grades up to a laptop
and she gives me her WXP PC for free....

Dunno 'bout you, but whatever PC is dirt cheap and does the job
is the one I get.

I'm fussy about triodes, but when there is 2 million bjts crammed inna
box I ain't fussy.

Patrick Turner.







On Mar 5, 11:41 am, "keithr" wrote:
"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message

...



The Mac is used either by posers who like to think that they are cleverer
than the unwashed masses or people unable or unwilling to learn how to
use a
computer. Strange how 95% or more CAD professionals use PCs and the
leading
CAD package doesn't even run on the Mac (but then so much of the best
software doesn't)

Pardon?

Try buying AutoCAD for the mac. There obviously are other CAD programs for
the mac, but AutoCAD is the standard for professional users.



The Mac is used by people who appreciate a simple interface, and don't
wish
to spend $$, CPU cycles, and grief fending off viruses and other attacks.

Preference should not be confused with arrogance.

The problem with Mac users is their air of superiority. The interface is no
simpler than windows (except that the mouse only has one button). I have
spent zilch on anti-virus software and have never had a virus infection. As
for other attacks, a standard ADSL router will fix that, or you can turn the
windows firewall (free with the operating system) on.



Sure, there are packages not designed for Macs -- there is a particular
shortage of decent accounting programs, for example -- but if an owner of
a
current Mac wishes to do so, he can install a virtual Windows machine and
run Mac, Windows, & a flavor of Linux or Unix. In other words, just about
anything.

I don't know the figures, but windows would have many times the amount of
"Useful" software than either the Mac or Linux. Unix is in it's death
throes (a couple of years ago my employer had a hundred or so developers
beavering away SUN workstations using Unix, now they all use Linux on PCs)

Can a Windows box match that? No that I know of.

Jon

I have a virtual Linux machine on my windows machine, I could run Unix under
that virtual machine, but there really is no point in doing so with Linux
already there. I don't think that there is any provision to run OS/X,
probably because of a lack of demand. Basically Apple ripped off BSD Unix
and stuck a pretty interface over it to hide the nasty command line
interface of the original (Apple people wouldn't like that).

[Joe[_11_]]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:55:47 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:46:03 -0600, Joe wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:41:25 +1100, keithr wrote:

[snip]

I don't know the figures, but windows would have many times the amount
of "Useful" software than either the Mac or Linux. Unix is in it's
death throes (a couple of years ago my employer had a hundred or so
developers beavering away SUN workstations using Unix, now they all
use Linux on PCs)

[snip]

Linux *is* "Unix" - dickhead.

Linux is 'Unix like' but is not Unix

Only to a copyright lawyer. Anyone with real experience who has written
software (for Unix), knows that Sun SunOS/Solaris, IBM AIX, HPUX, Linux,
*BSD* and many others, all belong to the same family. They are all "Unix"

[Joe[_11_]]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:16:44 +1100, keithr wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:41:25 +1100, keithr wrote:

[snip]

I don't know the figures, but windows would have many times the amount
of "Useful" software than either the Mac or Linux. Unix is in it's
death throes (a couple of years ago my employer had a hundred or so
developers beavering away SUN workstations using Unix, now they all
use Linux on PCs)

[snip]

Linux *is* "Unix" - dickhead.

SCO spent a lot of money trying to prove just that, and got slapped down
for their troubles.

That was a copyright issue and nothing to do with the fundamentals of the
OS. If you'd ever written any "Unix" software, you'd know that (except
for kernel related stuff), code written for one "Unix" will compile and
run on any other "Unix" either "as is" or with only minor changes.
That's why it's so easy to change from Sun Solaris to Linux.

[keithr]

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...


Do not get the idea BTW that there are less viruses for the Mac because
it
is more secure, it is just that there are so many more PCs in the world
that
the returns are much greater creating viruses for that environment.

Keith



Evil is not limited to afflicting the largest numbers.

I have been told that the kernel structure of BSD makes it less vulnerable
to attacks than Windows. Accordingly, you have to be able to access the
root user to do any real damage.

Is that almost right?

Not necessarily, at one time Unix systems were the most hacked of all. They
represented the majority of online machines, and were definitely the
juiciest targets. These days there are attacks that bypass the operating
system altogether like "Blue pill" that uses the hardware virtualisation
present on most modern CPU chips, any machine running on Intel or AMD chips
can be vulnerable to this. I don't know if there is much of it in the wild
but none of the anti-virus programs will find it.The answer is be careful
where you go and what you open.

Keith

[keithr]

"Joe" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:16:44 +1100, keithr wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:41:25 +1100, keithr wrote:

[snip]

I don't know the figures, but windows would have many times the amount
of "Useful" software than either the Mac or Linux. Unix is in it's
death throes (a couple of years ago my employer had a hundred or so
developers beavering away SUN workstations using Unix, now they all
use Linux on PCs)

[snip]

Linux *is* "Unix" - dickhead.

SCO spent a lot of money trying to prove just that, and got slapped down
for their troubles.

That was a copyright issue and nothing to do with the fundamentals of the
OS. If you'd ever written any "Unix" software, you'd know that (except
for kernel related stuff), code written for one "Unix" will compile and
run on any other "Unix" either "as is" or with only minor changes.
That's why it's so easy to change from Sun Solaris to Linux.

"Except for kernel related stuff" the kernel is what Linux is, the rest of
the distro is GNU, KDE, Gnome, or whatever the distributor decides to throw
in. The term "Linux" tends to be used in a very loose context.

[keithr]

Come on then Andre, you still haven't explained how you had your very own
tube computer when you were aged 13 or less, actually considerable less if
there were only a few hundred computers in the whole world.

[keithr]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 6:27 am, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...%20NoBleed.jpg

Hah !

For all your talk, you can't even afford a decent meter.

RAT is a DIY hobby group, Poopie, so I proudly show on my netsite a
meter I built myself, and so well that after nearly twenty years it is
still in use.

But I have several other meters, including a couple of handheld
scopemeters that I find convenient to use if not quite as often as the
autoranging DMM I built myself.

Of course, since it was a kit, all it needed was to be soldered together and
the case screwed shut. Not, I would have thought, an achievement that a
great mind like yours would have been especially proud of.

[Joe[_11_]]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:02:33 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 03:11:24 -0600, Joe wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:55:47 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:46:03 -0600, Joe wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:41:25 +1100, keithr wrote:

[snip]

I don't know the figures, but windows would have many times the
amount of "Useful" software than either the Mac or Linux. Unix is
in it's death throes (a couple of years ago my employer had a
hundred or so developers beavering away SUN workstations using Unix,
now they all use Linux on PCs)

[snip]

Linux *is* "Unix" - dickhead.

Linux is 'Unix like' but is not Unix

Only to a copyright lawyer.

No, to anyone who cares about SUS and POSIX compliance.


Fair point. But my experience as a developer was that typically
any differences (in writing code) between a POSIX compliant Unix and
a non-compliant one was trivial. YMMV.

Anyone with real experience who has written
software (for Unix), knows that Sun SunOS/Solaris, IBM AIX, HPUX, Linux,
*BSD* and many others, all belong to the same family. They are all
"Unix"

That's like saying a Collie is a German Sheppard because they both
belong to the 'dog family'.


No it isn't. The word family was used as an illustration, not as a
definition.

'Linux', btw, is a kernel, not an OS.

Not necessarily. Some people prefer to refer to Linux as the OS and
the Linux kernel as the kernel. Others prefer to use GNU/Linux as
the OS and Linux as the kernel. It is usually clear from the context
whether "Linux" is referring to the kernel or the OS, and the quote
that started this thread was referring to Linux as the OS.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

Car is ma Ford Laser, little old ******* of a car, but it'll do.

Ma computas mighta been Macs, but all these old Windoze hand-me-downs
came available
with W95 back in 2000, then W98 in 2001, and 2 years back my sister
grades up to a laptop
and she gives me her WXP PC for free....

Dunno 'bout you, but whatever PC is dirt cheap and does the job
is the one I get.

I'm fussy about triodes, but when there is 2 million bjts crammed inna
box I ain't fussy.

Are you sure there are 2 million bjts crammed inna box, especially a PC
box? I have to wonder if there were even any old mainframes built with
as many as 2 million bjts crammed inna box?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 6, 11:19*am, John Byrns wrote:

Are you sure there are 2 million bjts crammed inna box, especially a PC
box? *I have to wonder if there were even any old mainframes built with
as many as 2 million bjts crammed inna box?

I think Patrick may have meant "a lot". Do you need the precise
count?

The Pentium Core 2 Duo processors have 291 million transistors
"crammed inna box".

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/...r_timeline.pdf

A Pentium 4 has a mere 42 million.

So, the claim of mere 2 million is rather modest as it happens.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[John Byrns]

In article
,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Mar 6, 11:19*am, John Byrns wrote:

Are you sure there are 2 million bjts crammed inna box, especially a PC
box? *I have to wonder if there were even any old mainframes built with
as many as 2 million bjts crammed inna box?

I think Patrick may have meant "a lot". Do you need the precise
count?

I don't need a count, but I do need some idea of what he/you may mean by
a "lot"? If a "lot" is anything near 2 million bjts, then he needs to
provide some proof.

The Pentium Core 2 Duo processors have 291 million transistors
"crammed inna box".

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/...microprocessor timeline.pdf

A Pentium 4 has a mere 42 million.

So, the claim of mere 2 million is rather modest as it happens.

2 million bjts is not a modest number at all! Peter, do you ever check
your facts before you start typing? Please provide an example of a PC
that has 2 million bjts crammed inna box? Most PC's that I know of
presumably use only a mere handful of bjts. While we are at it I am
curious if there were even any "real" computers that had as many as 2
million bjts crammed inna box?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 6, 12:15*pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article
,
*Peter Wieck wrote:

On Mar 6, 11:19*am, John Byrns wrote:

Are you sure there are 2 million bjts crammed inna box, especially a PC
box? *I have to wonder if there were even any old mainframes built with
as many as 2 million bjts crammed inna box?

I think Patrick may have meant "a lot". Do you need the precise
count?

I don't need a count, but I do need some idea of what he/you may mean by
a "lot"? *If a "lot" is anything near 2 million bjts, then he needs to
provide some proof.

The Pentium Core 2 Duo processors have 291 million transistors
"crammed inna box".

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/...ortimeline.pdf

A Pentium 4 has a mere 42 million.

So, the claim of mere 2 million is rather modest as it happens.

2 million bjts is not a modest number at all! *Peter, do you ever check
your facts before you start typing? *Please provide an example of a PC
that has 2 million bjts crammed inna box? *Most PC's that I know of
presumably use only a mere handful of bjts. * While we are at it I am
curious if there were even any "real" computers that had as many as 2
million bjts crammed inna box?

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/

So, please define your terms. Intel lists its processors with that
many *Transistors* or many, many more. The first Pentium had 3 million
+. Do you mean, perhaps, discrete units? I have a feeling that Patrick
did not mean that either. And, if you haven't noticed, he uses the
generic BJT as a loose descriptive for about any transistor not
otherwise defined - which he is careful to do when it matters. So, as
the expression goes: kwitcherbitchin.

You are following your usual propensities - searching for trouble
where none was expressed or meant. Patrick was dead-right in his off-
hand description for the purposes of this discussion... and you then
leap in with your typical yammering worried that perhaps the fly-poop
may be contaminate with pepper. You must be a blast at parties.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Peter Wieck]

he uses the generic BJT

Should added ILO the more accurate "CMOS... "

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

Car is ma Ford Laser, little old ******* of a car, but it'll do.

Ma computas mighta been Macs, but all these old Windoze hand-me-downs
came available
with W95 back in 2000, then W98 in 2001, and 2 years back my sister
grades up to a laptop
and she gives me her WXP PC for free....

Dunno 'bout you, but whatever PC is dirt cheap and does the job
is the one I get.

I'm fussy about triodes, but when there is 2 million bjts crammed inna
box I ain't fussy.

Are you sure there are 2 million bjts crammed inna box, especially a PC
box? I have to wonder if there were even any old mainframes built with
as many as 2 million bjts crammed inna box?

Not bipolar transistors for sure.

Intel's 'Prescott' P4 has 125 million transistors but they'll be mosfets..

Graham

[Eeyore]

Peter Wieck wrote:

On Mar 6, 11:19 am, John Byrns wrote:

Are you sure there are 2 million bjts crammed inna box, especially a PC
box? I have to wonder if there were even any old mainframes built with
as many as 2 million bjts crammed inna box?

I think Patrick may have meant "a lot". Do you need the precise
count?

The Pentium Core 2 Duo processors have 291 million transistors
"crammed inna box".

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/...r_timeline.pdf

A Pentium 4 has a mere 42 million.

So, the claim of mere 2 million is rather modest as it happens.

But they're not *bipolar* transistors.

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article
,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:15*pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article
,
*Peter Wieck wrote:

On Mar 6, 11:19*am, John Byrns wrote:

Are you sure there are 2 million bjts crammed inna box, especially a PC
box? *I have to wonder if there were even any old mainframes built with
as many as 2 million bjts crammed inna box?

I think Patrick may have meant "a lot". Do you need the precise
count?

I don't need a count, but I do need some idea of what he/you may mean by
a "lot"? *If a "lot" is anything near 2 million bjts, then he needs to
provide some proof.

The Pentium Core 2 Duo processors have 291 million transistors
"crammed inna box".

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/...ortimeline.pdf

A Pentium 4 has a mere 42 million.

So, the claim of mere 2 million is rather modest as it happens.

2 million bjts is not a modest number at all! *Peter, do you ever check
your facts before you start typing? *Please provide an example of a PC
that has 2 million bjts crammed inna box? *Most PC's that I know of
presumably use only a mere handful of bjts. * While we are at it I am
curious if there were even any "real" computers that had as many as 2
million bjts crammed inna box?

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/

So, please define your terms. Intel lists its processors with that
many *Transistors* or many, many more. The first Pentium had 3 million
+. Do you mean, perhaps, discrete units? I have a feeling that Patrick
did not mean that either. And, if you haven't noticed, he uses the
generic BJT as a loose descriptive for about any transistor not
otherwise defined - which he is careful to do when it matters. So, as
the expression goes: kwitcherbitchin.

Patrick said and I quote "I'm fussy about triodes, but when there is 2
million bjts crammed inna box I ain't fussy." "bjt" is in no way a
generic term, if he wanted to speak generically he could have simply
said "transistors" in place of "bjts", in this case I believe it matters
big time.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 6, 2:20*pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article

Patrick said and I quote "I'm fussy about triodes, but when there is 2
million bjts crammed inna box I ain't fussy." *"bjt" is in no way a
generic term, if he wanted to speak generically he could have simply
said "transistors" in place of "bjts", in this case I believe it matters
big time.

YIKES!

Lemme see. Making a generic point about non-fussiness, we have a
choice between an acronym that comes easily off the fingers in four
strokes, or a more precise-but-meaningless-in-context term in ten
strokes? A fussbudget (and therefore inconsistent with the point)
would go for the ten strokes. Of course, that would deprive you of an
opportunity for learned blather at that same party mentioned earlier.

I cannot write for Patrick, but I suspect that he could care less as
to whether it is BJTs, CMOS devices or gerbils "crammed inna box" - as
long as it does the trick.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

Patrick Turner wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Mac users earned their air of superiority by their good judgement in
choosing a computer that was all there and complete, which now the
Windows OS copies badly. Why switch to an also-ran copy-cat product
like Windows, whose makers clearly don't understand that the user is
more important than the programmer? Mac users earn their continuing
air of superiority by using the original and best, not the cheap copy
made for the undiscriminating.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent of inducing apoplexy in losers by merely
existing



Car is ma Ford Laser, little old ******* of a car, but it'll do.

A proper Australian drives a V8. The only six-cylinder car permissable
is an FJ Holden. My mate Woody had one, and I offered him my sleek
Citroen DS in a straight swap but he said a Citroen was a sheep-
shagger's car.

Ma computas mighta been Macs, but all these old Windoze hand-me-downs
came available
with W95 back in 2000, then W98 in 2001, and 2 years back my sister
grades up to a laptop
and she gives me her WXP PC for free....

The best price is free!

But there is a difference between us, Patrick. You're a hoity-toity
amp designer. I'm a manual worker. I earn my living with my hands on
my keyboard. A skilled worker shouldn't mind spending a few bucks on
the best tools. The best tool for my sort of manual worker is made by
Apple.

Dunno 'bout you, but whatever PC is dirt cheap and does the job
is the one I get.

If they delivered the free PC to you, it was a bargain. If you had to
drive over to pick it up, it cost you petrol and time.

Seriously, my Macs last a long time; over time they cost *less* than
getting a new PC every year because it is built with such shoddy
components. And there is the matter of my time, which in just a couple
of hours pays for the difference between a Windoze computer and a
maxed-out Mac. On the MicroShoddy machine I waste at at least eight or
ten hours a week fighting the wretched OS, hours that on the Mac
instead goes to productive work.

I'm fussy about triodes, but when there is 2 million bjts crammed inna
box I ain't fussy.

I talk to my Western Electric 300B and they sing to me. But is is
difficult to have a close relationship with a bit of melted sand that
looks like cockroach, never mind a swarm of cockroaches.

Patrick Turner.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Seriously, my Macs last a long time; over time they cost *less* than
getting a new PC every year because it is built with such shoddy
components.

You do talk the most amazing tripe. Buy a PC the same price as a Mac and
you'll find many parts the same inside it. OTOH you can now buy a PC for
under £200 including an non-Linux OS. I wouldn't expect that to have premier
quality parts in it.

Apple for example used to use the very same Quantum drives I used in my own
PC.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

I talk to my Western Electric 300B

You're an odd chap.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

The best price is free!

So why do you look down on free software ?

I got my Saab for free FWIW.

Graham

[Patrick Turner]

Andre Jute wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Mac users earned their air of superiority by their good judgement in
choosing a computer that was all there and complete, which now the
Windows OS copies badly. Why switch to an also-ran copy-cat product
like Windows, whose makers clearly don't understand that the user is
more important than the programmer? Mac users earn their continuing
air of superiority by using the original and best, not the cheap copy
made for the undiscriminating.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent of inducing apoplexy in losers by merely
existing



Car is ma Ford Laser, little old ******* of a car, but it'll do.

A proper Australian drives a V8. The only six-cylinder car permissable
is an FJ Holden. My mate Woody had one, and I offered him my sleek
Citroen DS in a straight swap but he said a Citroen was a sheep-
shagger's car.

Gees Andre, I thinkya outa touch with us Ozzies.

The V8 is the choice of the young hoon minority,
while the massive SUV is what you need to be "in".

Citroen???

Some french thing with vacuum cleaner styling.

FJ Holden????

They are now all museum peices.

6cyl Toyotas are much better....



Ma computas mighta been Macs, but all these old Windoze hand-me-downs
came available
with W95 back in 2000, then W98 in 2001, and 2 years back my sister
grades up to a laptop
and she gives me her WXP PC for free....

The best price is free!

But there is a difference between us, Patrick. You're a hoity-toity
amp designer. I'm a manual worker.


Huh? me a hoity toity amp designer?

Sure, part of what I do is design,
but the vast majority of my work is metal;work and wiring up and winding
and
assembly. Plus repairs and re-engineering.

I am 90% hands on the soldering iron, side cutters, long nose pliers
etc.






I earn my living with my hands on
my keyboard. A skilled worker shouldn't mind spending a few bucks on
the best tools. The best tool for my sort of manual worker is made by
Apple.


A good tradesman doesn't blame his tools, he allows for their
shortcomings,
and does not let tool quality compromise job quality.
So without auto wire traversing on my winding lathe I take longer than
the guy with a
real nice German made tranny winding lathe.

But winding is only a small part of tranny making, and tranny making a
small part of amp making.

So i don't need the very best tools.

But if you are a man of words, then a decent typewriter is a boon..



Dunno 'bout you, but whatever PC is dirt cheap and does the job
is the one I get.

If they delivered the free PC to you, it was a bargain. If you had to
drive over to pick it up, it cost you petrol and time.

I have NEVER spent what industry analizers have told us is the average
amount
on PCs and their replacemets and upgrades.

If I needed to drive to get a cheap fix, I did.



Seriously, my Macs last a long time; over time they cost *less* than
getting a new PC every year because it is built with such shoddy
components. And there is the matter of my time, which in just a couple
of hours pays for the difference between a Windoze computer and a
maxed-out Mac. On the MicroShoddy machine I waste at at least eight or
ten hours a week fighting the wretched OS, hours that on the Mac
instead goes to productive work.

Hmm, I get by with windoze fine, but then I don't ask much from the PC
I won't even use Frontpage fr my website to make it look
professional.

The tradesmanship of WYSIWYG of Mozilla is fine.

MS paint is OK enough for my schematics.

I ask what I can do for my craft and customers, not what I can do for my
PC,
which is a dumb slave I keep to tell the world its a dumb slave.



I'm fussy about triodes, but when there is 2 million bjts crammed inna
box I ain't fussy.

I talk to my Western Electric 300B and they sing to me. But is is
difficult to have a close relationship with a bit of melted sand that
looks like cockroach, never mind a swarm of cockroaches.

Well yeah...

Patrick Turner.


Patrick Turner.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Patrick Turner]

John Byrns wrote:

In article
,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:15 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article
,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Mar 6, 11:19 am, John Byrns wrote:

Are you sure there are 2 million bjts crammed inna box, especially a PC
box? I have to wonder if there were even any old mainframes built with
as many as 2 million bjts crammed inna box?

I think Patrick may have meant "a lot". Do you need the precise
count?

I don't need a count, but I do need some idea of what he/you may mean by
a "lot"? If a "lot" is anything near 2 million bjts, then he needs to
provide some proof.

The Pentium Core 2 Duo processors have 291 million transistors
"crammed inna box".

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/...ortimeline.pdf

A Pentium 4 has a mere 42 million.

So, the claim of mere 2 million is rather modest as it happens.

2 million bjts is not a modest number at all! Peter, do you ever check
your facts before you start typing? Please provide an example of a PC
that has 2 million bjts crammed inna box? Most PC's that I know of
presumably use only a mere handful of bjts. While we are at it I am
curious if there were even any "real" computers that had as many as 2
million bjts crammed inna box?

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

So, please define your terms. Intel lists its processors with that
many *Transistors* or many, many more. The first Pentium had 3 million
+. Do you mean, perhaps, discrete units? I have a feeling that Patrick
did not mean that either. And, if you haven't noticed, he uses the
generic BJT as a loose descriptive for about any transistor not
otherwise defined - which he is careful to do when it matters. So, as
the expression goes:

Patrick said and I quote "I'm fussy about triodes, but when there is 2
million bjts crammed inna box I ain't fussy." "bjt" is in no way a
generic term, if he wanted to speak generically he could have simply
said "transistors" in place of "bjts", in this case I believe it matters
big time.

Regards,

John Byrns

"bjts" is easier to type than "transistors".

I meant 'numerous solid state devices of many types'.

Q. How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb in the
kitchen?

A. Don't givem a bulb; let the bitches cook in the dark.

Is it "kwitcherbitchin"?

Patrick Turner.

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Patrick Turner]

Peter Wieck wrote:

On Mar 6, 2:20 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article

Patrick said and I quote "I'm fussy about triodes, but when there is 2
million bjts crammed inna box I ain't fussy." "bjt" is in no way a
generic term, if he wanted to speak generically he could have simply
said "transistors" in place of "bjts", in this case I believe it matters
big time.

YIKES!

Lemme see. Making a generic point about non-fussiness, we have a
choice between an acronym that comes easily off the fingers in four
strokes, or a more precise-but-meaningless-in-context term in ten
strokes? A fussbudget (and therefore inconsistent with the point)
would go for the ten strokes. Of course, that would deprive you of an
opportunity for learned blather at that same party mentioned earlier.

I cannot write for Patrick, but I suspect that he could care less as
to whether it is BJTs, CMOS devices or gerbils "crammed inna box" - as
long as it does the trick.

Yup, I don't care what's in there.
Lotsa counting go in there and you don't need triodes to count things.

Please don't show me the full schematic of the PC.

It'd cover the whole suburb if laid out I am told,
and take me 40 years to understand, and i'd have forgotten
how the first part worked when I found out how the last part worked.

Then, with frazzled brain, I would go for the brain transplant
which will become available within 40 years, and one made up
out of the latest hard and software from Silicon Valley or wherever.
(Designer Consiousness and Personality will be chosen by relatives of
Alzimers patients.)


In the 1970s there was serious discussions in hi-fi mags about the sonic
qualities
of different solid state devices, ie, SSDs, and some folks spoke
reverently about
how Japanese devices definately were better in detail and resolution
than equivalent
American Motorolas etc, or vice versa. I thought such discussions were
idiotic.....
That was when premium audio gear used all discrete SSDs, not opamps
like now. Back then the discretes were regarded as better sounding than
the opamps.
But discretes usually had less open loop gain and less NFB and higher
thd/imd.

All very accademic really.

Patrick Turner.



Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[bassett[_2_]]

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Andre Jute wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Mac users earned their air of superiority by their good judgement in
choosing a computer that was all there and complete, which now the
Windows OS copies badly. Why switch to an also-ran copy-cat product
like Windows, whose makers clearly don't understand that the user is
more important than the programmer? Mac users earn their continuing
air of superiority by using the original and best, not the cheap copy
made for the undiscriminating.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent of inducing apoplexy in losers by merely
existing



Car is ma Ford Laser, little old ******* of a car, but it'll do.

A proper Australian drives a V8. The only six-cylinder car permissable
is an FJ Holden. My mate Woody had one, and I offered him my sleek
Citroen DS in a straight swap but he said a Citroen was a sheep-
shagger's car.

Gees Andre, I thinkya outa touch with us Ozzies.

The V8 is the choice of the young hoon minority,
while the massive SUV is what you need to be "in".

Citroen???

Some french thing with vacuum cleaner styling.

FJ Holden????

They are now all museum peices.

6cyl Toyotas are much better....

The poor simply minded little sod, lives in a time warp

[Joe[_11_]]

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:43:39 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:06:06 -0600, Joe wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:02:33 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 03:11:24 -0600, Joe wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:55:47 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:46:03 -0600, Joe wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:41:25 +1100, keithr wrote:

[snip]

I don't know the figures, but windows would have many times the
amount of "Useful" software than either the Mac or Linux. Unix is
in it's death throes (a couple of years ago my employer had a
hundred or so developers beavering away SUN workstations using
Unix, now they all use Linux on PCs)

[snip]

Linux *is* "Unix" - dickhead.

Linux is 'Unix like' but is not Unix

Only to a copyright lawyer.

No, to anyone who cares about SUS and POSIX compliance.


Fair point. But my experience as a developer was that typically any
differences (in writing code) between a POSIX compliant Unix and a
non-compliant one was trivial. YMMV.

Windows with SFU is POSIX complaint too but I'd hardly say it "is" Unix.


Anyone with real experience who has written
software (for Unix), knows that Sun SunOS/Solaris, IBM AIX, HPUX,
Linux, *BSD* and many others, all belong to the same family. They are
all "Unix"

That's like saying a Collie is a German Sheppard because they both
belong to the 'dog family'.


No it isn't.

Yes it is.

The word family was used as an illustration, not as a
definition.

I didn't say it was a 'definition'. But you used a word one might agree
with, Linux being in 'the family', to do a switchero jump, all off a
sudden, to 'same thing'.

And my example can be worded exactly the same way. Collies, German
Shepherds, Daschunds, and many others, all belong to the same family
(dog). They are all German Shepherds.


'Linux', btw, is a kernel, not an OS.

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily.

Some people prefer to refer to Linux as the OS and
the Linux kernel as the kernel.

Which is incorrect, despite the 'widespread usage'.


Utter nonsense - there is no authority which has decided
that "Linux" refers solely to the kernel. That is your
(and others) preference based on your "religious"
viewpoint.

Others prefer to use GNU/Linux as
the OS and Linux as the kernel.

That's because 'Linux" is the kernel and to get an OS out of it you hang
a pile of GNU, and whatever strikes the distributor's fancy, on it. Or,
rather, GNU didn't have a kernel and picked 'Linux'. Or Linux didn't
have an OS and picked GNU. Take your pick but, in any case, 'Linux', all
by its lonesome, isn't an 'OS'.


"Clutching at straws" springs to mind here - you really don't know
much about Linux at all, except what you've read. I've used Linux
since the early 1990's (kernel 0.9x) and am fully aware of the
history of it. "Linux" was used to describe the complete OS then
(including the GNU stuff and window managers like FVWM) - the
kernel was referred to as (surprise, surprise) "the Linux kernel".
The use of Linux to describe the kernel only came much later -
possibly because people like Richard Stallman were unhappy about
the lack of recognition given to GNU in the make-up of a Linux
system.

Btw, GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix."


Well, I never, that's a complete surprise to me (not).
Sticking in gratuitous pieces of "knowledge" you've probably
gleaned from Wikipedia impresses me not one jot.


And then you hang GNOME, or KDE, or some other windowing system on it
that isn't GNU and certainly not UNIX either.

It is usually clear from the context
whether "Linux" is referring to the kernel or the OS, and the quote that
started this thread was referring to Linux as the OS.

People use all sorts of slang and words incorrectly. Often it's of
little consequence because, as you say, it can be 'decoded' from the
context but you're the one who got all huffy about what you apparently
considered an 'erroneous' usage so it's a bit odd you want to now hang
your hat on fuzzy wording.

The only "huffy" one is yourself in pedantically sticking your oar
in by claiming that Linux is "Unix-like" rather than "Unix".
If you wish to believe that the only Unix systems are those
that are allowed to use the UNIX trademark or that are POSIX
compliant Unix systems, you are perfectly free to do so. Many other
people (myself included), have a rather more practical approach -
somewhat along the lines of "if it walks like a Unix and quacks like
a Unix, the it is a Unix".

[Nick Gorham]

flipper wrote:

The only "huffy" one is yourself in pedantically sticking your oar
in by claiming that Linux is "Unix-like" rather than "Unix".


Making a case is not 'huffy'. "Linux *is* "Unix" - dickhead" is.


If you wish to believe that the only Unix systems are those
that are allowed to use the UNIX trademark or that are POSIX
compliant Unix systems,


'Unix' systems are those that meet the standards which define it.


you are perfectly free to do so. Many other
people (myself included), have a rather more practical approach -
somewhat along the lines of "if it walks like a Unix and quacks like
a Unix, the it is a Unix".


Well, I think a more sensible definition would be something that can
trace its development back to Bell Labs or at the least Berkley. So that
(despite what SCO would have us believe) excludes Linux, as it does
Xenix, Idris, and several other workalike.

Or are you suggesting anything with a system call without the e on creat
is Unix?

Not that it matters in the least.

--
Nick

[Nick Gorham]

flipper wrote:




Oh, I dunno. How would you like it if you bought a Ferrari and it
turned out to be a 'look alike'?

Well, having worked with SCO and Linux for many years, I will happly
take the look alike.

Especially as if it went faster, cost nothing in the first place, was
much cheaper to maintain, looked better, and ran on water instead of petrol.

--
Nick

[WindsorFox-{SS}-]

Andre Jute wrote:
A Mac is an elegant implementation for elegant people, so it isn't
surprising that someone without elegance, like you Poopie, won't
understand; you should try to look beyond the components to the
concept, if you can.


No it's an elegant implementation for those not interested in or
more commonly not capable of the intricacies involved in managing a PC.
Ad for those it is a far better choice so far.

--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Contacting shutterfly help is an exercise in stupidity
as they can't seem to grasp the fact it's NOT MY BLOODY
ACCOUNT and some ******, one crack pipe short of a holiday,
has signed me up in a system that has no closed loop
confirmation yet has credit card information for billing." - Rev.
Beergoggles

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 9, 8:09*pm, WindsorFox-{SS}- wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
A Mac is an elegant implementation for elegant people, so it isn't
surprising that someone without elegance, like you Poopie, won't
understand; you should try to look beyond the components to the
concept, if you can.

* * No it's an elegant implementation for those not interested in or
more commonly not capable of the intricacies involved in managing a PC.
Ad for those it is a far better choice so far.

I'm not surprised you don't get it, Foxy. People whose only skill is
operating abstruse computer command lines generally overvalue their
skill.

The point is that a computer is a utility. No one cares what the
gubbins of an electric kettle is or does or how it is addressed.
People just want to turn a switch and get hot water. They're entitled
to. A computer is the same. People are entitled to be empowered to
communicate without having to learn about the gubbins.

Even Bill Gates belatedly realized this, when he ripped the Mac idea
of a GUI -- and implemented it atrociously badly.

That a Mac is also a very high-level tool for artists in the visual
and audio art forms is really a distraction; the key thing about the
Mac is the elegant ergonomics of the interface.

We Mac owners are still waiting for one of you clowns to explain to us
why we should buy a cheap and incompetent copy of an OS that has
served us well for a generation now. And from a firm, Microsoft, with
an atrocious history of clumsy programming. The very idea that Windows
or Vista can compete with OS X is ludicrous.

Don't bother replying unless you have something new to say. This crap
is getting repetitive.

Andre Jute
Oh, for the return of my Progamma 101

...
For those who don't know, Olivetti's Programma was the first desktop
computer that had all the characteristics of a modern desktop
computer. I got mine about forty years ago, and shortly replaced it
with a Programma 203.

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 9, 6:19*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

A great deal of pretentious crap.

Computers are tools. Period. Some tools do some things better than
similar tools. Not every tool does the same thing as well as another
dissimilar tool.

That being writted, Macs do some things better than PCs. PCs do some
things better than MAC.

The end.

The rest of it is pretentious, meaningless, silly, stupid idiocy
promulgated by poseurs on either side of the question. The choice is
simply that. Similar to brown shoes or black shoes. Some go better
with one choice of dress, some with another choice. Neither is
"better" and one might actually be "worse".

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Eeyore]

WindsorFox-{SS}- wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
A Mac is an elegant implementation for elegant people, so it isn't
surprising that someone without elegance, like you Poopie, won't
understand; you should try to look beyond the components to the
concept, if you can.

No it's an elegant implementation for those not interested in or
more commonly not capable of the intricacies involved in managing a PC.
Ad for those it is a far better choice so far.

Modern Macs are just PCs with a borked BIOS chip to stop them running
Windows (unless you know how) anyway.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

The point is that a computer is a utility.

And a modern Mac is simply a PC running OS X. It's the ONLY difference.

Since you like FREE things, why not try Linux ? OS X is after all based on
Unix.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Even Bill Gates belatedly realized this, when he ripped the Mac idea
of a GUI

In the same way, Apple ripped off Xerox who ORIGINATED the idea of a
graphical OS.

I have actually used a Xerox Star. have you ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Peter Wieck wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

A great deal of pretentious crap.

Computers are tools. Period. Some tools do some things better than
similar tools. Not every tool does the same thing as well as another
dissimilar tool.

That being writted, Macs do some things better than PCs. PCs do some
things better than MAC.

Thery are both the same hardware these days. Apple has being going down
the PC route for decades.

Graham