Hi Steven,

I think you meant to reply to dim (Shiva)? I've got all that stuff you
mentioned, on a 1.3 GHz Celery with dual boot (W98SE and Mandrake 9.1)

Cheers,
Fred

Steven Dinius wrote:
Fred, you're faster than I am (333 MHz Celeron/Pentium II)...get a network
card and DSL or a cable modem, at least 256K, and you'll run like a cat from
a Doberman on the Net. If it's available and cheap, you'll thank yourself.
"Shiva" wrote in message
...

"Fred Nachbaur" wrote in message
t...


Shiva wrote:
[....]


KDE & the rest of *nix gui shells may look like win / mac shells,

They can, but they don't have to. On one extreme is the minimalist (but
still highly configurable) WM, which makes it possible to run a GUI
environment even on slowish computers. The range continues through the
more "fancy dancy" shells like Blackbox and Gnome (actually, Gnome was
more of a spinoff of a suite of apps than a "ground-up" GUI). At the
"top" (and I use that term loosely) is Enlightenment, which is a total
showboat for the GUI-addicted; everything's textured and animated and
bloated within an inch of its life. So, choose your weapon.


Hi Fred -
Since at this point "slowish computers" are Pent II's & III's (mine is but

a

slugly pent II chokin' on memory), slick clock-tick counting apps are ...

of

historical & masturbatory (for folks who write them) value only. Unless
you're doing *heavy* graphics or playin' video games. I'd rather spend an
extra $20 and buy a faster proc (actually, I spent $5 recently to get my

PII

up to a blazin' 400MHz), than run on a stripper shell. Gettin' old &
lazy...



KDE is somewhere in the middle, and is my choice for routine use because
it can have a very similar look/feel to Windows (which I'm used to) and
because there's very little that can't be done in the GUI, as
implemented in Mandrake 9.

Yeah, I used that and Gnome, both were nowhere near win functionality -
console open all the time... Like win 3.1 real mode, the *nix GUIs are
simply wrappers on an OS which was designed to run from a command (err...
console?) line. Afterthoughts.


the problem is... *nix is not suited too well to GUI.

The same argument could be made for DOS or the NT kernel.

DOS - for sure. bein' a sort-a unix - inspired OS, DOS was not suited for
full-on GUI shells - like *nix, it wasn't the *kernel* that was the
problem - IO.SYS was not what DOS was about - that was a tiny lil' shnod

of

DOS. DOS, like unix, was a big collection of applets, with switches,

pipes,

batch language, heavily reliant on BIOS calls - in short, a com. line OS.
Early versions even came with asm & a linker, bot 100% switch dependant.

It

wasn't the kernel. It was the OS as a whole.
NT? Win 2000's doin' just fine... The choice of Grannys everywhere...

Not' coz it's a bad
thing - the philosophy behind the design is unsuitable for GUI. it

needs

much more than a front end - it needs - to be a different OS.

Why? I get the sense that it's been a long time since you've tried it.
Linux and X are very much *evolving* technologies, unlike the microshaft
stuff which is just one big cumulative patch.

well, no. Microsoft stuff is *not* one cumulative patch. It's hip to

dump

on microsoft, but there's a huge difference 'tween patching code, and
replacing componenets. Win 2000 is not a single, integral appy either -
it's a bunch of stuff working (hopefully) together. Is the fact that the
*nix kernels get updated at regular intervals make them "patches"? Just
'coz you don't need to re-compile win 2000 to install components doesn't
mean that it's patches-on-top-of-patches. That was DOS.

How much time
do you actually spend in a GUI?

Almost all of it. The exception is when running strictly command-line
stuff like seti-at-home, or doing other operations that are possible in
the GUI, but easier on the command line.

Almost *everything* in *nix is easier on the console, most people who use
unix for a livin' don't run GUIs - x-windows or some such for graphic /
imaging / plotting, but no GUI.


And, if a GUI is running, is the "console",
or whatever the comand window is called, always open?

No. The kernel is always running of course, just as it is in NT or
DOS-based version of Winwoes. Opening a command window is almost the
identical operation to opening a DOS box in windoze.

You've missed the point, Fred - when I was in a *nix GUI, to get anything
done, I had to go to the console window. Don't get me wrong - *nix is a
great OS for some tasks - a true multi-user secure [if confiogured by
someone who knows it] OS, but... for a personal desktop? I'll check in

in

another couple 'o years... Besides, *Ampex* came from Redwood, too...
-dim

[...]

Cheers,
Fred

--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects: http://dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+






--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

Shiva wrote:
"Steven Dinius" wrote in message
...

"Greg Pierce" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:45:10 +0000, the highly esteemed Shiva

enlightened

us with these pearls of wisdom:



You've missed the point, Fred - when I was in a *nix GUI, to get

anything

done, I had to go to the console window. Don't get me wrong - *nix is

a

great OS for some tasks - a true multi-user secure [if confiogured by
someone who knows it] OS, but... for a personal desktop? I'll check

in in

another couple 'o years... Besides, *Ampex* came from Redwood, too...
-dim

Once again, I agree with Fred - it has been a while since you used

either

Gnome or KDE. On Red Hat 9, you dont have to touch a command line to
do ANYTHING (I still use the command line for messing with files and
such - it is faster than ANY GUI interface). Also, you keep saying the
GUI for *NIX is an afterthought. It isn't ANY different from Windows.

The

entire Windows GUI is composed of executables and DLLs which are
seperate from the kernel. BTW, for those who were saying Windows is
based in UNIX, its not. Win95 was based on DOS, while WinNT was based
on VMS. With WinNT, they matched (as closely as possible) the Windows
95 API, so that most programs could run on either. Win 98 and ME were
sort of cross-pollinations of NT and Win95, while Win2K is pure NT with
additions. WinXP is totally NT style, again with additions. In any case,
the GUI is not part of the core kernel - it just seems that way because,
unlike *NIX, it is virtually impossible to administer or use Windows

with

a CLI.

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed

Linux.

And my hardware was basically making 98SE twitch until I got the situation
figured out. But it's STILL doing okay as always.

What is binary (or hex) for 73?




Click Start- programs- accessories - calculator-view-scientific. Tada!
-dim

Start Apps - Applications - Sciences - Math - Kcalc. Tada! right
back at ya!

49,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

Fred Nachbaur wrote:


Start Apps - Applications - Sciences - Math - Kcalc. Tada! right
back at ya!

49,
Fred

snip 100 lines - Post!
73,
Bill

--exray-- wrote:
Fred Nachbaur wrote:


Start Apps - Applications - Sciences - Math - Kcalc. Tada! right
back at ya!

49,
Fred


snip 100 lines - Post!
73,
Bill

Thanks, Bill. Feel free to trim and repeat my posts without any
significant addition any time you like.

Cheers,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

"Fred Nachbaur" wrote in message
news:WpCdb.15493$o21.342@edtnps84...


Shiva wrote:
"Steven Dinius" wrote in message
...

"Greg Pierce" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:45:10 +0000, the highly esteemed Shiva

enlightened

us with these pearls of wisdom:



You've missed the point, Fred - when I was in a *nix GUI, to get

anything

done, I had to go to the console window. Don't get me wrong - *nix is

a

great OS for some tasks - a true multi-user secure [if confiogured by
someone who knows it] OS, but... for a personal desktop? I'll check

in in

another couple 'o years... Besides, *Ampex* came from Redwood, too...
-dim

Once again, I agree with Fred - it has been a while since you used

either

Gnome or KDE. On Red Hat 9, you dont have to touch a command line to
do ANYTHING (I still use the command line for messing with files and
such - it is faster than ANY GUI interface). Also, you keep saying the
GUI for *NIX is an afterthought. It isn't ANY different from Windows.

The

entire Windows GUI is composed of executables and DLLs which are
seperate from the kernel. BTW, for those who were saying Windows is
based in UNIX, its not. Win95 was based on DOS, while WinNT was based
on VMS. With WinNT, they matched (as closely as possible) the Windows
95 API, so that most programs could run on either. Win 98 and ME were
sort of cross-pollinations of NT and Win95, while Win2K is pure NT with
additions. WinXP is totally NT style, again with additions. In any
case,
the GUI is not part of the core kernel - it just seems that way
because,
unlike *NIX, it is virtually impossible to administer or use Windows

with

a CLI.

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed

Linux.

And my hardware was basically making 98SE twitch until I got the
situation
figured out. But it's STILL doing okay as always.

What is binary (or hex) for 73?




Click Start- programs- accessories - calculator-view-scientific.
Tada!
-dim

Start Apps - Applications - Sciences - Math - Kcalc. Tada! right
back at ya!

49,
Fred

Look here, Fred - I've just spent an hour coloring in shapes with crayons &
getting a "Try Again" on my writing assignment 'coz my handwriting (which
really does need *something*...) didn't meet my kid's approval. Computers?
Comshuters! I'm off to play with my kitty! (we really did just get one -
all black with a tiny white bib...)
-dim

--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

"--exray--" wrote in message
...
Fred Nachbaur wrote:


Start Apps - Applications - Sciences - Math - Kcalc. Tada! right
back at ya!

49,
Fred

snip 100 lines - Post!
73,
Bill

Real slow modem, huh?
-dim (bandwidth? as long as 20 to 20k is fairly flat, I couldn't care less)

Shiva wrote:


snip 100 lines - Post!
73,
Bill


Real slow modem, huh?
-dim (bandwidth? as long as 20 to 20k is fairly flat, I couldn't care less)


No, real slow reader :-)
-BM

"Shiva" wrote in message
...

well, that's 'coz win is *designed* to be run with a GUI shell. There's
no
reason you can't write applets, or even huge apps, to run with command
line.
To shoot myself in the foot, and weaken my "GUI" argument, i still have
the
command prompt (startin with "doskey", to make things easier) right on the
toolbar - most networking stuff is so much simpler that way...
-dim

PING!


--
.................................................. ........................
Choky
Prodanovic Aleksandar
YU

"don't use force, "don't use force,
use a larger hammer" use a larger tube
- Choky and IST"
- ZM
.................................................. ...........................
...

Shiva wrote:
[...]

Start Apps - Applications - Sciences - Math - Kcalc. Tada! right
back at ya!

49,
Fred


Look here, Fred - I've just spent an hour coloring in shapes with crayons &
getting a "Try Again" on my writing assignment 'coz my handwriting (which
really does need *something*...) didn't meet my kid's approval. Computers?
Comshuters! I'm off to play with my kitty! (we really did just get one -
all black with a tiny white bib...)
-dim

LOL! Good for you, dim. Kids and crayons are nice. Kitties are nice. Enjoy!

Cheers,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects: http://dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

"Shiva" wrote in message
...

"Steven Dinius" wrote in message
...

"Greg Pierce" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:45:10 +0000, the highly esteemed Shiva
enlightened
us with these pearls of wisdom:
[--]

What is binary (or hex) for 73?



Click Start- programs- accessories - calculator-view-scientific.
Tada!
-dim

Darn, I'll have to reinstall that calculator I uninstalled.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 14:36:49 +0000, the highly esteemed Fred Nachbaur
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

Hi Steven,

I think you meant to reply to dim (Shiva)? I've got all that stuff you
mentioned, on a 1.3 GHz Celery with dual boot (W98SE and Mandrake 9.1)

Cheers,
Fred


Brag

Im runnin' dual Athlon 2400s on a Tyan Tiger MPX mobo - this rig runs like
a scalded cat :-p

/Brag

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

Yeah, well, the Athlon 1000 may not have died with it's mobo and I've been
offered an 850 Duron chip so I might network all three someday.

MWAHHHHAHAHAHA
destroying the planet with 9v alkaline power
I'd do it with tubes but you can only do it ONCE, see?

"Greg Pierce" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 14:36:49 +0000, the highly esteemed Fred Nachbaur
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

Hi Steven,

I think you meant to reply to dim (Shiva)? I've got all that stuff you
mentioned, on a 1.3 GHz Celery with dual boot (W98SE and Mandrake 9.1)

Cheers,
Fred


Brag

Im runnin' dual Athlon 2400s on a Tyan Tiger MPX mobo - this rig runs like
a scalded cat :-p

/Brag

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 13:53:29 +0000, the highly esteemed Shiva enlightened
us with these pearls of wisdom:


"Greg Pierce" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:45:10 +0000, the highly esteemed Shiva enlightened
us with these pearls of wisdom:



You've missed the point, Fred - when I was in a *nix GUI, to get
anything
done, I had to go to the console window. Don't get me wrong - *nix is a
great OS for some tasks - a true multi-user secure [if confiogured by
someone who knows it] OS, but... for a personal desktop? I'll check
in in
another couple 'o years... Besides, *Ampex* came from Redwood, too...
-dim

Once again, I agree with Fred - it has been a while since you used either
Gnome or KDE. On Red Hat 9, you dont have to touch a command line to
do ANYTHING (I still use the command line for messing with files and
such - it is faster than ANY GUI interface). Also, you keep saying the
GUI for *NIX is an afterthought. It isn't ANY different from Windows. The
entire Windows GUI is composed of executables and DLLs which are
seperate from the kernel.

HI Greg -
Of course the GUI shell in win is not a part of the kernel - Otherwise "boot
gui = 0" wouldn't work... Which in no way implies that, while windoze wa
created with GUI in mind, *nix was (and still is) primarily a command-line
OS.


Technically, *NIX is a kernel - it is the APPS that are command line OR
GUI, depending on how they are written. In many instances, the command
line programs are so useful and well written that someone has simply made
a GUI wrapper for them, for the point-and-clickers out there. The point is,
you seem to think that the basic design of *NIX precludes it from having
a good GUI interface - that simply is not the case. Anyone who was used
Gnome or KDE on the latest RH, Mandrake, Debian, etc. distros (I use
RH 9 myself) will tell you the same thing.


--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

PS The software said it required Win2K or better. If I can't kludge it, I
don't need it.
"Greg Pierce" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 13:53:29 +0000, the highly esteemed Shiva enlightened
us with these pearls of wisdom:


"Greg Pierce" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:45:10 +0000, the highly esteemed Shiva
enlightened
us with these pearls of wisdom:



You've missed the point, Fred - when I was in a *nix GUI, to get
anything
done, I had to go to the console window. Don't get me wrong - *nix
is a
great OS for some tasks - a true multi-user secure [if confiogured by
someone who knows it] OS, but... for a personal desktop? I'll
check
in in
another couple 'o years... Besides, *Ampex* came from Redwood,
too...
-dim

Once again, I agree with Fred - it has been a while since you used
either
Gnome or KDE. On Red Hat 9, you dont have to touch a command line to
do ANYTHING (I still use the command line for messing with files and
such - it is faster than ANY GUI interface). Also, you keep saying the
GUI for *NIX is an afterthought. It isn't ANY different from Windows.
The
entire Windows GUI is composed of executables and DLLs which are
seperate from the kernel.

HI Greg -
Of course the GUI shell in win is not a part of the kernel - Otherwise
"boot
gui = 0" wouldn't work... Which in no way implies that, while windoze
wa
created with GUI in mind, *nix was (and still is) primarily a
command-line
OS.


Technically, *NIX is a kernel - it is the APPS that are command line OR
GUI, depending on how they are written. In many instances, the command
line programs are so useful and well written that someone has simply made
a GUI wrapper for them, for the point-and-clickers out there. The point
is,
you seem to think that the basic design of *NIX precludes it from having
a good GUI interface - that simply is not the case. Anyone who was used
Gnome or KDE on the latest RH, Mandrake, Debian, etc. distros (I use
RH 9 myself) will tell you the same thing.


--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

Shiva wrote:
"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...

Whoa there dim! You're missing a really big part of the picture. All
variants of Winblows are just a graphical interface sitting on top of
a dos like operating system. NT and its bretheren are using a dos type
operating system that is more like *nix in its kernel than it is like
the old dos kernel.


Well... No. Unless your definition of "DOS-like" is all - inclusive. NT
has nothing to do with DOS - IO.sys is simply not there. DOS apps simply
won't run on early NT - TSR's won't load, nada. A whole new ball o' wax.
On 2000, DOS apps run in a wrapper, and fairly badly The file system's
different... what makes you say it's "DOS-like"?

Sorry, when I said "All variants of Winblows", I was thinking of all
true variants of Winblows, that being Win 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, which
are just graphical interfaces sitting on top of DOS. The rest
are variants of Winflows NT, which are graphical interfaces sitting on
top of a *nix like kernel. By *nix like, I mean they are true demand
multitasking kernels.

-Chuck

Chuck Harris wrote:

Shiva wrote:
"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...

Whoa there dim! You're missing a really big part of the picture. All
variants of Winblows are just a graphical interface sitting on top of
a dos like operating system. NT and its bretheren are using a dos type
operating system that is more like *nix in its kernel than it is like
the old dos kernel.


Well... No. Unless your definition of "DOS-like" is all - inclusive. NT
has nothing to do with DOS - IO.sys is simply not there. DOS apps simply
won't run on early NT - TSR's won't load, nada. A whole new ball o' wax.
On 2000, DOS apps run in a wrapper, and fairly badly The file system's
different... what makes you say it's "DOS-like"?

Sorry, when I said "All variants of Winblows", I was thinking of all
true variants of Winblows, that being Win 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, which
are just graphical interfaces sitting on top of DOS. The rest
are variants of Winflows NT, which are graphical interfaces sitting on
top of a *nix like kernel. By *nix like, I mean they are true demand
multitasking kernels.

-Chuck

What, you never used Windows 1 or 2? BTW, Windows 1.0 was shipped on
5¼" 360k floppy disks.
--


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

In rec.antiques.radio+phono Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Sorry, when I said "All variants of Winblows", I was thinking of all
true variants of Winblows, that being Win 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, which
are just graphical interfaces sitting on top of DOS. The rest
are variants of Winflows NT, which are graphical interfaces sitting on
top of a *nix like kernel. By *nix like, I mean they are true demand
multitasking kernels.
What, you never used Windows 1 or 2? BTW, Windows 1.0 was shipped on
5?" 360k floppy disks.

Also, the OP probably meant to say ME instead of 2000, which is NT5...

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

Sorry, when I said "All variants of Winblows", I was thinking of all
true variants of Winblows, that being Win 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000,
which are just graphical interfaces sitting on top of DOS.

Windows 2000 is an NT variant.

wrote:
In rec.antiques.radio+phono Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Sorry, when I said "All variants of Winblows", I was thinking of all
true variants of Winblows, that being Win 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, which
are just graphical interfaces sitting on top of DOS. The rest
are variants of Winflows NT, which are graphical interfaces sitting on
top of a *nix like kernel. By *nix like, I mean they are true demand
multitasking kernels.

What, you never used Windows 1 or 2? BTW, Windows 1.0 was shipped on
5?" 360k floppy disks.


Also, the OP probably meant to say ME instead of 2000, which is NT5...

That is correct, 95,98,98SE and ME are all basically 3.1 prettied up.
ME they hid the dos box, but it is still there ready for use.

I took Windog off of my resume after 95. I didn't want to write
drivers for that crap anymore.

-Chuck

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
Shiva wrote:
"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...

Whoa there dim! You're missing a really big part of the picture. All
variants of Winblows are just a graphical interface sitting on top of
a dos like operating system. NT and its bretheren are using a dos type
operating system that is more like *nix in its kernel than it is like
the old dos kernel.


Well... No. Unless your definition of "DOS-like" is all - inclusive.
NT
has nothing to do with DOS - IO.sys is simply not there. DOS apps
simply
won't run on early NT - TSR's won't load, nada. A whole new ball o'
wax.
On 2000, DOS apps run in a wrapper, and fairly badly The file system's
different... what makes you say it's "DOS-like"?

Sorry, when I said "All variants of Winblows", I was thinking of all
true variants of Winblows, that being Win 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, which
are just graphical interfaces sitting on top of DOS. The rest
are variants of Winflows NT, which are graphical interfaces sitting on
top of a *nix like kernel. By *nix like, I mean they are true demand
multitasking kernels.

-Chuck

Hi Chuck -
2000 is basically NT, multi-tasking, multi-proccessing & multi-threadin.
I;m pretty sure that XP's about the same, don't deal with it much.... From
here it's a bit more ragged. People seem to have different definitions of
"multitasking". There's a queesy notion of "cooperative" multitasking,
where the appys themselves aee supposed to be so well-behaved as to release
resources to other appys. Cheese available on win 3.1. ... Why am i even
*thinkin* abou this?! Anyhow, there's a mmess of jargon like multitasking
(coop /preemptive, time slicing /splicing), multthreading, multiprocessing
(parallel, limited proc number, distributed, architecture dependant
/independant, etc., etc) - all stuff relevant to networked systems /servers,
but ... hopefully ... transparent to the user. At this point I'm quite
happy if my GF's box does what she's *got to do*, if the kid's boxen don't
crash when they're playing games written by slickos who can't write for win
2000, so i could spend *some* time working & foolin' around with goofy
amps...
-dim

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In rec.antiques.radio+phono Michael A. Terrell
wrote:

Sorry, when I said "All variants of Winblows", I was thinking of all
true variants of Winblows, that being Win 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, which
are just graphical interfaces sitting on top of DOS. The rest
are variants of Winflows NT, which are graphical interfaces sitting on
top of a *nix like kernel. By *nix like, I mean they are true demand
multitasking kernels.

What, you never used Windows 1 or 2? BTW, Windows 1.0 was shipped on
5?" 360k floppy disks.


Also, the OP probably meant to say ME instead of 2000, which is NT5...

That is correct, 95,98,98SE and ME are all basically 3.1 prettied up.
ME they hid the dos box, but it is still there ready for use.

I took Windog off of my resume after 95. I didn't want to write
drivers for that crap anymore.

-Chuck

Hi again -
I'm horrible at win programming, and don't even know all the latest wistles
& bells on the latest procs, so writing good drivers for win is beyond me
.... unless ... I use libs written by people who know better, and use other
people's code as templates. Just like with Perl (when was the last time you
scripted somethiong non-trivial from scrath, without looking at how somone
else has dealt with the same problem?), tons of win appys on the 'net.
-dim

Hi Dim,

Back when I was insane, I used to do a pretty good business writing
various kinds of device drivers for Dos, OS2, Windy Oh's (3.x,95).
I never could get anybody to pay me for writing anything on *nix
systems. There were so many students that knew that scene that the
money was scarce. OS/2 LADDR drivers were my first failure in the
business world. I had a SCSI CDROM driver to write, and the customer
insisted it be written using the Microslop LADDR standard. Well, at
that time, LADDR didn't work, and Microflop was no help... And I got
handed my butt. So I have my reasons for disliking Microsplot. I have
known the technical details of the various Windblows systems entirely
too intimately. After '95 I said, "no more!" Now if they could get
their stock prices back up, maybe I could sell, and retire....

ON second thought BUY WINDOWS!!!!!. Yeah, that's the ticket!

-Chuck

Shiva wrote:


Hi again -
I'm horrible at win programming, and don't even know all the latest wistles
& bells on the latest procs, so writing good drivers for win is beyond me
... unless ... I use libs written by people who know better, and use other
people's code as templates. Just like with Perl (when was the last time you
scripted somethiong non-trivial from scrath, without looking at how somone
else has dealt with the same problem?), tons of win appys on the 'net.
-dim

Geez, dim, I haven't got past "install/uninstall/install
again/gripe/settings/repeat"

"Shiva" wrote in message
...

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
Shiva wrote:
"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...

Whoa there dim! You're missing a really big part of the picture. All
variants of Winblows are just a graphical interface sitting on top of
a dos like operating system. NT and its bretheren are using a dos
type
operating system that is more like *nix in its kernel than it is like
the old dos kernel.


Well... No. Unless your definition of "DOS-like" is all - inclusive.
NT
has nothing to do with DOS - IO.sys is simply not there. DOS apps
simply
won't run on early NT - TSR's won't load, nada. A whole new ball o'
wax.
On 2000, DOS apps run in a wrapper, and fairly badly The file
system's
different... what makes you say it's "DOS-like"?

Sorry, when I said "All variants of Winblows", I was thinking of all
true variants of Winblows, that being Win 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, which
are just graphical interfaces sitting on top of DOS. The rest
are variants of Winflows NT, which are graphical interfaces sitting on
top of a *nix like kernel. By *nix like, I mean they are true demand
multitasking kernels.

-Chuck

Hi Chuck -
2000 is basically NT, multi-tasking, multi-proccessing & multi-threadin.
I;m pretty sure that XP's about the same, don't deal with it much....
From
here it's a bit more ragged. People seem to have different definitions
of
"multitasking". There's a queesy notion of "cooperative" multitasking,
where the appys themselves aee supposed to be so well-behaved as to
release
resources to other appys. Cheese available on win 3.1. ... Why am i
even
*thinkin* abou this?! Anyhow, there's a mmess of jargon like
multitasking
(coop /preemptive, time slicing /splicing), multthreading, multiprocessing
(parallel, limited proc number, distributed, architecture dependant
/independant, etc., etc) - all stuff relevant to networked systems
/servers,
but ... hopefully ... transparent to the user. At this point I'm quite
happy if my GF's box does what she's *got to do*, if the kid's boxen don't
crash when they're playing games written by slickos who can't write for
win
2000, so i could spend *some* time working & foolin' around with goofy
amps...
-dim

In WpCdb.15493$o21.342@edtnps84 Fred Nachbaur writes:

Shiva wrote:
"Steven Dinius" wrote in message
...

What is binary (or hex) for 73?

Click Start- programs- accessories - calculator-view-scientific. Tada!
-dim

Start Apps - Applications - Sciences - Math - Kcalc. Tada! right
back at ya!

Or....

gothicdigital.com7# bc
obase=2
73
1001001
obase=16
73
49
quit
gothicdigital.com8#

All that click-n-point'n! No wonder folks get carpel-tunnel syndrome.

--
Tim Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 -------

Tim Mullen wrote:

Start Apps - Applications - Sciences - Math - Kcalc. Tada! right
back at ya!


Or....

gothicdigital.com7# bc
obase=2
73
1001001
obase=16
73
49
quit
gothicdigital.com8#

All that click-n-point'n! No wonder folks get carpel-tunnel syndrome.

You mean you have to type all that in...not to mention memorizing it?

-BM

In "william_b_noble" writes:

before we all fall into the *nix propaganda, let's look at an experiment I
tried - I made a simple diagram inside one of the open source office
components that is like powerpoint - a page with two donuts on it, and then
printed it.

Now there's your problem -- the donut's clogged up the printer.

I did find that internet browsing worked fine, but it
took me forever to get my Intel print server recognized so that I could
print properly

There's certainly a learning curve with unix. Once you get the basics
under you belt -- and anyone who can remember what a 6L6 is can learn
pretty quickly -- it's a damn stable system. I'm not just talking about
crashes, I'm talking about standards. Programs follow a common paradigm
as to what they expect for input and how and when they produce output,
stuff doesn't get installed behind your back, your "favorite browser"
doesn't get nuked by some company with an agenda.

Depends on how you want your pain, I guess. I'd sooner have a root
canal than put up with a toothache every day for years on end.
What a lot of this discussion comes down to is the toothache crowd
saying that even after the root canal you'll still have a (different)
toothache. Don't believe it.

--
Tim Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 -------

Fred Nachbaur wrote in news:WpCdb.15493$o21.342
@edtnps84:



Shiva wrote:
"Steven Dinius" wrote in message
...

"Greg Pierce" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:45:10 +0000, the highly esteemed Shiva

enlightened

us with these pearls of wisdom:



You've missed the point, Fred - when I was in a *nix GUI, to get

anything

done, I had to go to the console window. Don't get me wrong - *nix
is

a

great OS for some tasks - a true multi-user secure [if confiogured by
someone who knows it] OS, but... for a personal desktop? I'll
check

in in

another couple 'o years... Besides, *Ampex* came from Redwood,
too...
-dim

Once again, I agree with Fred - it has been a while since you used

either

Gnome or KDE. On Red Hat 9, you dont have to touch a command line to
do ANYTHING (I still use the command line for messing with files and
such - it is faster than ANY GUI interface). Also, you keep saying the
GUI for *NIX is an afterthought. It isn't ANY different from Windows.

The

entire Windows GUI is composed of executables and DLLs which are
seperate from the kernel. BTW, for those who were saying Windows is
based in UNIX, its not. Win95 was based on DOS, while WinNT was based
on VMS. With WinNT, they matched (as closely as possible) the Windows
95 API, so that most programs could run on either. Win 98 and ME were
sort of cross-pollinations of NT and Win95, while Win2K is pure NT
with
additions. WinXP is totally NT style, again with additions. In any
case,
the GUI is not part of the core kernel - it just seems that way
because,
unlike *NIX, it is virtually impossible to administer or use Windows

with

a CLI.

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed

Linux.

And my hardware was basically making 98SE twitch until I got the
situation
figured out. But it's STILL doing okay as always.

What is binary (or hex) for 73?




Click Start- programs- accessories - calculator-view-scientific.
Tada!
-dim

Start Apps - Applications - Sciences - Math - Kcalc. Tada! right
back at ya!

49,
Fred

bc
obase=2
73


r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Tim Mullen wrote:
Depends on how you want your pain, I guess. I'd sooner have a root
canal than put up with a toothache every day for years on end.
What a lot of this discussion comes down to is the toothache crowd
saying that even after the root canal you'll still have a (different)
toothache. Don't believe it.

When I was 15, I had a rear molar collapse. 20 years later, I had
the remaining 13 teeth removed. Now toothless, I haven't had a
moment's regret. I really _is_ nice to wake up in the morning and
not have your mouth feel like you've been hit with a claw hammer.

Jeff


--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"

There's nothing wrong with criticizing Windows for its problems, or Bill Gates
for his marketing practices.

But don't overlook the fact (CMIIW) that, at the time IBM introduced the PC,
Unix for the 8088 did not exist. It certainly didn't exist for IBM's new
machine.

Twenty years ago, nobody knew how important the personal computer would become.
This was especially true of IBM, who saw PCs as sophisticated terminals for
their mainframes. The need for a highly stable, bullet-proof, virtually
unhackable operating system for PCs was not at all obvious.

Don't blame Microsoft for IBM's "mistake" in going with another operating
system.

"Steven Dinius" wrote in message
...
Geez, dim, I haven't got past "install/uninstall/install
again/gripe/settings/repeat"

Helpfull hint #1:
Never press the windows "help" button - the help system was created [my
guess] as an example for developers who wish to write help for their apps.
It surely never helped me. I think they got one of the shrink-wrappers to
write it.
-dim


"Shiva" wrote in message
...

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
Shiva wrote:
"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...

Whoa there dim! You're missing a really big part of the picture.
All
variants of Winblows are just a graphical interface sitting on top
of
a dos like operating system. NT and its bretheren are using a dos
type
operating system that is more like *nix in its kernel than it is
like
the old dos kernel.


Well... No. Unless your definition of "DOS-like" is all -
inclusive.
NT
has nothing to do with DOS - IO.sys is simply not there. DOS apps
simply
won't run on early NT - TSR's won't load, nada. A whole new ball o'
wax.
On 2000, DOS apps run in a wrapper, and fairly badly The file
system's
different... what makes you say it's "DOS-like"?

Sorry, when I said "All variants of Winblows", I was thinking of all
true variants of Winblows, that being Win 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000,
which
are just graphical interfaces sitting on top of DOS. The rest
are variants of Winflows NT, which are graphical interfaces sitting on
top of a *nix like kernel. By *nix like, I mean they are true demand
multitasking kernels.

-Chuck

Hi Chuck -
2000 is basically NT, multi-tasking, multi-proccessing & multi-threadin.
I;m pretty sure that XP's about the same, don't deal with it much....
From
here it's a bit more ragged. People seem to have different definitions
of
"multitasking". There's a queesy notion of "cooperative" multitasking,
where the appys themselves aee supposed to be so well-behaved as to
release
resources to other appys. Cheese available on win 3.1. ... Why am i
even
*thinkin* abou this?! Anyhow, there's a mmess of jargon like
multitasking
(coop /preemptive, time slicing /splicing), multthreading,
multiprocessing
(parallel, limited proc number, distributed, architecture dependant
/independant, etc., etc) - all stuff relevant to networked systems
/servers,
but ... hopefully ... transparent to the user. At this point I'm quite
happy if my GF's box does what she's *got to do*, if the kid's boxen
don't
crash when they're playing games written by slickos who can't write for
win
2000, so i could spend *some* time working & foolin' around with goofy
amps...
-dim

Having started computing with PDP/8s (our passwords were 3 non printing
control characters), I would never blame MS for what happened back
in the days of the 8088 thru 80286. Personal computers resided on
desktops, and lived a relatively insular life. The only chance of
attack was through swapping infected disks, or downloading trojans from
a BBS somewhere. And these attacks spawned an industry of security
companies, like Norton, McAfee, etc.

Back then (early '80s) most unix systems lived on networks, and it was
considered good sport to crack into the unix systems found in
universities everywhere. I can remember spending a fair amount of time
on PDP11s and VAXs doing just that.

The continuous and relentless attacks on university unix systems is to a
very large part responsible for the strength of the security of current
*nix systems. And indeed, the continuous and relentless attacks on
Microslop systems will hopefully, one day, cause Microslop to change its
mindset to one where security really is in the forefront. It hasn't
happened yet, but maybe one day. In the meantime, all you guys relying
on MS systems being secure are living on a wing and a prayer!

-Chuck

William Sommerwerck wrote:
There's nothing wrong with criticizing Windows for its problems, or Bill Gates
for his marketing practices.

But don't overlook the fact (CMIIW) that, at the time IBM introduced the PC,
Unix for the 8088 did not exist. It certainly didn't exist for IBM's new
machine.

Twenty years ago, nobody knew how important the personal computer would become.
This was especially true of IBM, who saw PCs as sophisticated terminals for
their mainframes. The need for a highly stable, bullet-proof, virtually
unhackable operating system for PCs was not at all obvious.

Don't blame Microsoft for IBM's "mistake" in going with another operating
system.

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
Hi Dim,

Back when I was insane, I used to do a pretty good business writing
various kinds of device drivers for Dos, OS2, Windy Oh's (3.x,95).
I never could get anybody to pay me for writing anything on *nix
systems. There were so many students that knew that scene that the
money was scarce. OS/2 LADDR drivers were my first failure in the
business world. I had a SCSI CDROM driver to write, and the customer
insisted it be written using the Microslop LADDR standard. Well, at
that time, LADDR didn't work, and Microflop was no help... And I got
handed my butt. So I have my reasons for disliking Microsplot.

Chuck, that only proves that you're like the rest of the folks. Early
low-level Win programming was insane. When I got a beta of win 1.0, I
laughed so hard... I thought win would be mercifully put to sleep. BBoy,
was I wrong.

I have
known the technical details of the various Windblows systems entirely
too intimately. After '95 I said, "no more!" Now if they could get
their stock prices back up, maybe I could sell, and retire....

ON second thought BUY WINDOWS!!!!!. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Hey, I'm still running on final beta - mainly 'coz it doesn't ask you for
all the ##'s to type in when you install it, and, after installing the
retail version, you have to update it anyway. Microsoft updates final beta
just like the retail product. So... BUY FROM BILL? Nah.
-dim (just cleaned up my bench)

-Chuck

Shiva wrote:


Hi again -
I'm horrible at win programming, and don't even know all the latest
wistles
& bells on the latest procs, so writing good drivers for win is beyond
me
... unless ... I use libs written by people who know better, and use
other
people's code as templates. Just like with Perl (when was the last time
you
scripted somethiong non-trivial from scrath, without looking at how somo
ne
else has dealt with the same problem?), tons of win appys on the 'net.
-dim

I'd say Symantec did a very good job. I get attacked but I DON'T suffer. I'd
make the analogy that it like Coke (great marketing and aggressive
defense/offense, now a world standard not for lack of trying), but I drink
Diet Linux-er-Pepsi Cola.

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
Having started computing with PDP/8s (our passwords were 3 non printing
control characters), I would never blame MS for what happened back
in the days of the 8088 thru 80286. Personal computers resided on
desktops, and lived a relatively insular life. The only chance of
attack was through swapping infected disks, or downloading trojans from
a BBS somewhere. And these attacks spawned an industry of security
companies, like Norton, McAfee, etc.

Back then (early '80s) most unix systems lived on networks, and it was
considered good sport to crack into the unix systems found in
universities everywhere. I can remember spending a fair amount of time
on PDP11s and VAXs doing just that.

The continuous and relentless attacks on university unix systems is to a
very large part responsible for the strength of the security of current
*nix systems. And indeed, the continuous and relentless attacks on
Microslop systems will hopefully, one day, cause Microslop to change its
mindset to one where security really is in the forefront. It hasn't
happened yet, but maybe one day. In the meantime, all you guys relying
on MS systems being secure are living on a wing and a prayer!

-Chuck

William Sommerwerck wrote:
There's nothing wrong with criticizing Windows for its problems, or Bill
Gates
for his marketing practices.

But don't overlook the fact (CMIIW) that, at the time IBM introduced the
PC,
Unix for the 8088 did not exist. It certainly didn't exist for IBM's new
machine.

Twenty years ago, nobody knew how important the personal computer would
become.
This was especially true of IBM, who saw PCs as sophisticated terminals
for
their mainframes. The need for a highly stable, bullet-proof, virtually
unhackable operating system for PCs was not at all obvious.

Don't blame Microsoft for IBM's "mistake" in going with another
operating
system.

My method is better as you are forced to solve the problem yourself or wait
forever for somebody with no time to tell you the answer that was so
"obvious"...
"Shiva" wrote in message
...

"Steven Dinius" wrote in message
...
Geez, dim, I haven't got past "install/uninstall/install
again/gripe/settings/repeat"

Helpfull hint #1:
Never press the windows "help" button - the help system was created [my
guess] as an example for developers who wish to write help for their apps.
It surely never helped me. I think they got one of the shrink-wrappers to
write it.
-dim


"Shiva" wrote in message
...

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
Shiva wrote:
"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...

Whoa there dim! You're missing a really big part of the picture.
All
variants of Winblows are just a graphical interface sitting on top
of
a dos like operating system. NT and its bretheren are using a dos
type
operating system that is more like *nix in its kernel than it is
like
the old dos kernel.


Well... No. Unless your definition of "DOS-like" is all -
inclusive.
NT
has nothing to do with DOS - IO.sys is simply not there. DOS apps
simply
won't run on early NT - TSR's won't load, nada. A whole new ball
o'
wax.
On 2000, DOS apps run in a wrapper, and fairly badly The file
system's
different... what makes you say it's "DOS-like"?

Sorry, when I said "All variants of Winblows", I was thinking of all
true variants of Winblows, that being Win 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000,
which
are just graphical interfaces sitting on top of DOS. The rest
are variants of Winflows NT, which are graphical interfaces sitting
on
top of a *nix like kernel. By *nix like, I mean they are true
demand
multitasking kernels.

-Chuck

Hi Chuck -
2000 is basically NT, multi-tasking, multi-proccessing &
multi-threadin.
I;m pretty sure that XP's about the same, don't deal with it much....
From
here it's a bit more ragged. People seem to have different
definitions
of
"multitasking". There's a queesy notion of "cooperative"
multitasking,
where the appys themselves aee supposed to be so well-behaved as to
release
resources to other appys. Cheese available on win 3.1. ... Why am i
even
*thinkin* abou this?! Anyhow, there's a mmess of jargon like
multitasking
(coop /preemptive, time slicing /splicing), multthreading,
multiprocessing
(parallel, limited proc number, distributed, architecture dependant
/independant, etc., etc) - all stuff relevant to networked systems
/servers,
but ... hopefully ... transparent to the user. At this point I'm
quite
happy if my GF's box does what she's *got to do*, if the kid's boxen
don't
crash when they're playing games written by slickos who can't write
for
win
2000, so i could spend *some* time working & foolin' around with goofy
amps...
-dim

In rec.antiques.radio+phono William Sommerwerck wrote:
There's nothing wrong with criticizing Windows for its problems, or Bill Gates
for his marketing practices.

But don't overlook the fact (CMIIW) that, at the time IBM introduced the PC,
Unix for the 8088 did not exist. It certainly didn't exist for IBM's new
machine.

It did. I think it was called Xenix, and hardly better than PC-DOS
(which was good enough for what it was intended for, back then).

This was especially true of IBM, who saw PCs as sophisticated terminals for
their mainframes. The need for a highly stable, bullet-proof, virtually
unhackable operating system for PCs was not at all obvious.

Indeed.

---
Met vriendelijke groet,

Maarten Bakker.

In --exray-- writes:

Tim Mullen wrote:

Start Apps - Applications - Sciences - Math - Kcalc. Tada! right
back at ya!


Or....

gothicdigital.com7# bc
obase=2
73
1001001
obase=16
73
49
quit
gothicdigital.com8#

All that click-n-point'n! No wonder folks get carpel-tunnel syndrome.

You mean you have to type all that in...not to mention memorizing it?

O.K. The true equivalent, to get you to the same starting place, as
all the menu pointing and clicking, is....

bc

Even GUI's don't type the data in for you.

--
Tim Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I in your basement? Looking for antique televisions, fans, etc.
------ finger this account or call anytime: (212)-463-0552 -------