Good Bye ASUS Hello Apple G5 WoW!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Art C.
  • Start date Start date
Thanks for making my point about computer illiterates; if you only had
a third child in the media business, the trinity would be complete.
Apple's ONLY fatal mistake? Apple's made a phonebook of mistakes, as
their marketshare well demonstrates: In the last two quarters, Apple's
marketshare has dropped from 2.3 to 1.9 percent, which is pretty much
the equivalent of falling like a rock. Selling $14,000 (or even
$2,000) computers is probably not the ticket out of this Hero to Zero
story.
 
Key point in your statement "You dont see it because you
dont buy things in that isle of the store". Keyword (singular) Isle vs.
(Plural) Isle's for windows software. In the retail stores I frequent in
the heart of Apple country (Campbell Ca) it's about a 4 to 1 ratio.

If you like to pay twice as much for half the horesepower more power to you,
but youre barking up the wrong tree here in a PC based NG.


Mitch
 
Nothing's wrong with Unix but why do you want to run an ancient
version of it that's been dumbed down for the discriminating Mac user?
What's wrong with SuSE or Mandrake or Solaris? Since Apple did not
publish any benchmarks against the Opteron, it's probably safe to
assume that there's a reason, namely, the Opteron will wipe the floor
with the G5 and for a much lower price. Apple long ago became nothing
but a retailer of fashion accessories for computer illiterates but its
aging and clueless base these days looks pretty much like Steve Jobs
himself: a flabby, aging would-be hipster in too-tight jeans and a
paunchy black turtleneck who generally has the demeanor of someone
coming off of or going into (depending on the subject) a three-day
crack binge. And of course you can always run Windows 2000/XP/2003, a
truly modern operating system that isn't carrying thirty-plus years of
baggage, designed from the ground up by the best OS development team
of all time, Dave Cutler and the team responsible for most of DEC's
OSes, one of which (VMS) was often called "Unix done right."
Click to expand...

Guffaw -- the OS designed by Dave Cutler was a compromise to begin
with, and is in any case long gone, replaced by something that's about
as elegant as a drunk gorilla.

Josh
 
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/evaluation/news/fromms/kanoarchitect.asp

http://www.sysinternals.com/insidew2k.shtml

http://www.windows-help.net/microsoft/amd64.html

I could go on, but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know the history. I also know that NT/Portable OS/2 was
crippled from the start by the need for compatibility with the Windows
API; that Microsoft destroyed much of the elegance that was in the
architecture when they moved the drivers to Ring 0; that they further
damaged the operating system when they ported the Windows 95 interface
and combined Internet Explorer with Windows Explorer for reasons that
are politely called legal; and so forth. Every change and addition MS
has made has included one or another inelegancy, and what we have
today is a slow, flaky mess which achieves stability by fixing in the
mix rather than getting things right in the first place, and is
hobbled by early design mistakes like shared DLL's.

Because XP is a hodgepodge of exceptions and special cases, tasks that
should be trivial, like moving programs and data to a new disk or
system are a time-eating nightmare. Just copying or trying to move
files is an ordeal. And stability means little when you have to reboot
every time you install a new program. Microsoft's answer, as usual:
more fixes. There are more ways to repair Windows than you can shake a
stick at, and half the time, none of them work. So typically Microsoft
.. . .


Josh
 
Hi Justin
when IBM and Microsoft went their separate ways (IBM
keeping OS/2 for itself), Microsoft was left with no upmarket strategy
which was why they bought DEC's OS development group in the first
place.
Click to expand...

Minor correction: the DEC folks joined Microsoft a bit before
the IBM/MS OS/2 split. Not a long time before, but a bit before.

Stan
who worked at MS in Systems at the time
 
Thanks for the clarification, Stan.

Hi Justin


Minor correction: the DEC folks joined Microsoft a bit before
the IBM/MS OS/2 split. Not a long time before, but a bit before.

Stan
who worked at MS in Systems at the time
Click to expand...
 
Well I guess there's at least one thing you don't know: NT and its
successors (Windows 2000/XP/2003) have got nothing to do with OS/2,
except that when IBM and Microsoft went their separate ways (IBM
keeping OS/2 for itself), Microsoft was left with no upmarket strategy
which was why they bought DEC's OS development group in the first
place. DEC had already decided to follow a Unix strategy whereby it
hoped to continue to sell its proprietary hardware at a premium while
claiming that its OS was open to all. Sound familiar? It probably
won't work any better for the remaining companies trying to pull off
the same sleight of hand. Your description of XP sounds more like Win
Me (e.g., your ridiculous asertion that you have to reboot every time
you install a new program or your baffling characterization of file
transfer). However, there is a computer that is designed for the
computationally challenged like yourself. You can find it here:

http://www.apple.com/
Click to expand...

While there are indeed many things I don't know about NT, your
assertion is incorrect: NT was originally "Portable OS/2" and was
developed by Microsoft under its co-development agreement with IBM.
Indeed, NT runs (or ran) character-based OS/2 applications, and
understood OS/2's file system.

Nowhere did I say that one has to reboot every time one installs a new
program in XP. And the fact that you appear to be unfamiliar with XP's
other flaws suggests to me that you aren't particularly familiar with
computers, operating systems, or Microsoft's operating systems, which
are pretty uniformly reviled by those of us who are. In particular,
you refer to DEC's operating systems, but if you had used them you
would know that they had always an elegance and functionality that
Microsoft's operating systems lack in spades.

Finally, I find it amusing that you tout XP, a dumbed-down OS if there
ever was one, but call the Mac a computer for the computationally
challenged. I will point out, however, that I have never owned a Mac,
and that I'm as comfortable programming in assembly language as you
appear to be at double clicking -- and add, in fairness to Apple, that
the knowledgeable users I know who have tried both OS X and XP have
inevitably preferred the former.

And please don't top post.









Josh
 
Nowhere did I say that one has to reboot every time one installs a new
program in XP.
Click to expand...


Joshua P. Hill said on 7/12/03 at 7:28 am :
" Because XP is a hodgepodge of exceptions and special cases, tasks
that should be trivial, like moving programs and data to a new disk or
system are a time-eating nightmare. Just copying or trying to move
files is an ordeal. And stability means little when you have to reboot
every time you install a new program."


Your denial seems to fly in the face of the facts.

Course, your comment on the 'ordeal' of copying and moving files in XP
is also pretty idiotic. :-)
 
Joshua P. Hill said on 7/12/03 at 7:28 am :
" Because XP is a hodgepodge of exceptions and special cases, tasks
that should be trivial, like moving programs and data to a new disk or
system are a time-eating nightmare. Just copying or trying to move
files is an ordeal. And stability means little when you have to reboot
every time you install a new program."


Your denial seems to fly in the face of the facts.
Click to expand...

I didn't bother rereading what I'd written because the notion that one
has to reboot XP every time on installs a program is so patently
ridiculous it never occurred to me that I, or anybody else, would say
it. Now that you've gone to the trouble of quoting me, I see that I
did say it -- but as an obvious hyperbole. Same thing.
Course, your comment on the 'ordeal' of copying and moving files in XP
is also pretty idiotic. :-)
Click to expand...

Again, it's called "hyperbole," and it's a fair bet that when you use
it or any form of sarcasm or satire on Usenet some overly-literal
doofus won't recognize it. (Of course, that may be me -- I'm as likely
to be a doofus as the next guy, [Don't answer that!])

But, hyperbole aside, have you ever tried to copy a large number of
files with XP or another Windows variant? Half the time it craps out
(and /please/ don't complain that it actually really only craps out
13.935% of the time, because I find that no more reassuring than the
knowledge that death happens, on average, only once). Happened to me
just a few days ago, as I was trying to recover from one of XP's
glorious system-destroying crashes, the cause of which I won't even
print here for fear that Bill Gates will commit suicide out of shame.
The error message? "Filename too long to copy." Sheesh! If the
filename was too frigging long, why did XP allow it in the first
place? (Ah, you say, it was probably a path length limitation --
perhaps, but then it should have ****ing said so.) And, of course, the
move or copy always craps out in the middle of the operation, instead
of just copying what it can and giving you an error message, "such and
such a file could not be copied because . . . "

And sometimes those delightful files can't be erased by Explorer, and
you have to find out what they are and erase them from the command
line.

Oh, and then there are the files that get locked for reasons known
only to the world's worst systems programmers and God . . . and of
course produce the entire crap-out scenario again.

Start the copy all over again, carefully avoiding the file that won't
copy and hoping it's the only one . . . oh, I just love Windows! I
have wasted so much time on this kind of crap, and it stays the same
from version to version, because Microsoft doesn't give a flying ****
or maybe because, as a systems programmer friend alleges, the smart
programmers don't choose to work there. Windows is a tax on the
nation, on the world, on /me./

Josh
 
But, hyperbole aside, have you ever tried to copy a large number of
files with XP or another Windows variant? Half the time it craps out
Click to expand...
Yes and it has never crapped out
 
Joshua P. Hill said on 7/12/03 at 7:28 am :
" Because XP is a hodgepodge of exceptions and special cases, tasks
that should be trivial, like moving programs and data to a new disk or
system are a time-eating nightmare. Just copying or trying to move
files is an ordeal. And stability means little when you have to reboot
every time you install a new program."


Your denial seems to fly in the face of the facts.
Click to expand...

I didn't bother rereading what I'd written because the notion that one
has to reboot XP every time on installs a program is so patently
ridiculous it never occurred to me that I, or anybody else, would say
it. Now that you've gone to the trouble of quoting me, I see that I
did say it -- but as an obvious hyperbole. Same thing.
Course, your comment on the 'ordeal' of copying and moving files in XP
is also pretty idiotic. :-)
Click to expand...

Again, it's called "hyperbole," and it's a fair bet that when you use
it or any form of sarcasm or satire on Usenet some overly-literal
doofus won't recognize it. (Of course, that may be me -- I'm as likely
to be a doofus as the next guy, [Don't answer that!])

But, hyperbole aside, have you ever tried to copy a large number of
files with XP or another Windows variant? Half the time it craps out
(and /please/ don't complain that it actually really only craps out
13.935% of the time, because I find that no more reassuring than the
knowledge that death happens, on average, only once). Happened to me
just a few days ago, as I was trying to recover from one of XP's
glorious system-destroying crashes, the cause of which I won't even
print here for fear that Bill Gates will commit suicide out of shame.
The error message? "Filename too long to copy." Sheesh! If the
filename was too frigging long, why did XP allow it in the first
place? (Ah, you say, it was probably a path length limitation --
perhaps, but then it should have ****ing said so.) And, of course, the
move or copy always craps out in the middle of the operation, instead
of just copying what it can and giving you an error message, "such and
such a file could not be copied because . . . "

And sometimes those delightful files can't be erased by Explorer, and
you have to find out what they are and erase them from the command
line.

Oh, and then there are the files that get locked for reasons known
only to the world's worst systems programmers and God . . . and of
course produce the entire crap-out scenario again.

Start the copy all over again, carefully avoiding the file that won't
copy and hoping it's the only one . . . oh, I just love Windows! I
have wasted so much time on this kind of crap, and it stays the same
from version to version, because Microsoft doesn't give a flying ****
or maybe because, as a systems programmer friend alleges, the smart
programmers don't choose to work there. Windows is a tax on the
nation, on the world, on /me./
Click to expand...
Oh I see. You don't know what the hell you're doing . Don't blame that
on MS.
 
Yes and it has never crapped out
Click to expand...

Then you are either not talking about a large number of files (e.g.,
most or all of a drive) or you haven't done it often, because this is
a well-known problem.

Josh
 
For someone who can't remember what he wrote from post to post,
working at the command line in any operating system is probably not a
good idea and might explain the real cause of your reported problems
with Win XP. As for the slowest OS on the planet, I believe the
uncontested champion in that category is OS X.
 
<<
But, hyperbole aside, have you ever tried to copy a large number of
files with XP or another Windows variant? Half the time it craps out
(and /please/ don't complain that it actually really only craps out
13.935% of the time, because I find that no more reassuring than the
knowledge that death happens, on average, only once). Happened to me
just a few days ago, as I was trying to recover from one of XP's
glorious system-destroying crashes, >>

Some thing i find difficult to understand. If XP is so dam bad, why
the hell are you using it?
 
You are right about one thing: "the notion that one has to reboot XP
every time one install a program is so patently ridiculous." It is
also completely erroneous. However, this does not qualify it as an
'obvious hyperbolic' statement.
The rest of your post continues to reinforce the impression that you
don't know what the heck you are talking about.


Joshua P. Hill said on 7/12/03 at 7:28 am :
" Because XP is a hodgepodge of exceptions and special cases, tasks
that should be trivial, like moving programs and data to a new disk or
system are a time-eating nightmare. Just copying or trying to move
files is an ordeal. And stability means little when you have to reboot
every time you install a new program."


Your denial seems to fly in the face of the facts.
Click to expand...

I didn't bother rereading what I'd written because the notion that one
has to reboot XP every time on installs a program is so patently
ridiculous it never occurred to me that I, or anybody else, would say
it. Now that you've gone to the trouble of quoting me, I see that I
did say it -- but as an obvious hyperbole. Same thing.
Course, your comment on the 'ordeal' of copying and moving files in XP
is also pretty idiotic. :-)
Click to expand...

Again, it's called "hyperbole," and it's a fair bet that when you use
it or any form of sarcasm or satire on Usenet some overly-literal
doofus won't recognize it. (Of course, that may be me -- I'm as likely
to be a doofus as the next guy, [Don't answer that!])

But, hyperbole aside, have you ever tried to copy a large number of
files with XP or another Windows variant? Half the time it craps out
(and /please/ don't complain that it actually really only craps out
13.935% of the time, because I find that no more reassuring than the
knowledge that death happens, on average, only once). Happened to me
just a few days ago, as I was trying to recover from one of XP's
glorious system-destroying crashes, the cause of which I won't even
print here for fear that Bill Gates will commit suicide out of shame.
The error message? "Filename too long to copy." Sheesh! If the
filename was too frigging long, why did XP allow it in the first
place? (Ah, you say, it was probably a path length limitation --
perhaps, but then it should have ****ing said so.) And, of course, the
move or copy always craps out in the middle of the operation, instead
of just copying what it can and giving you an error message, "such and
such a file could not be copied because . . . "

And sometimes those delightful files can't be erased by Explorer, and
you have to find out what they are and erase them from the command
line.

Oh, and then there are the files that get locked for reasons known
only to the world's worst systems programmers and God . . . and of
course produce the entire crap-out scenario again.

Start the copy all over again, carefully avoiding the file that won't
copy and hoping it's the only one . . . oh, I just love Windows! I
have wasted so much time on this kind of crap, and it stays the same
from version to version, because Microsoft doesn't give a flying ****
or maybe because, as a systems programmer friend alleges, the smart
programmers don't choose to work there. Windows is a tax on the
nation, on the world, on /me./

Josh
Click to expand...
 
Then you are either not talking about a large number of files (e.g.,
most or all of a drive) or you haven't done it often, Incorrect
because this is a well-known problem.
Click to expand...

Incorrect the problem seems to be you don't have a clue as to why
certain files can't be moved.
 
Back
Top