kempf@tci.bell-atl.com (Cory Kempf) (01/03/90)
werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. That is true... the mac doesn't normally have a command line interface. If you want one, it is available. Say Em-Pee-Double-you. Say "Open <filename>" > Now you can see the file. In Multi-finder this is especially >trivial. [increadibly silly description of someone using a full-blown word processor as a text editor deleted] Try opening up any text editor desk accessory (Sigma-Edit, MacSync, etc). Open the file. Alternatively, have MPW in the background. Or uEmacs. If you are going to post examples to "Prove" that a machine with a 16 bit processor, a 640kB limit on RAM and a 32MB disk size limit is better than a system with a 32 bit processor, capable of fully using 32 MB of RAM, and a 4GB disk size limit, at least try to come up with reasonable examples. +C -- Cory Kempf Technology Concepts phone: (508) 443-7311 x341 uucp: {anywhere}!uunet!tci!kempf, kempf@tci.bell-atl.com DISCLAIMER: TCI is not responsible for my opinions, nor I for theirs
woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) (01/03/90)
In article <519@tci.bell-atl.com> kempf@tci.bell-atl.com (Cory Kempf) writes: > >That is true... the mac doesn't normally have a command line >interface. If you want one, it is available. Say Em-Pee-Double-you. >Say "Open <filename>" > say VERY EXPENSIVE... > >If you are going to post examples to "Prove" that a machine with a 16 >bit processor, a 640kB limit on RAM and a 32MB disk size limit is >better than a system with a 32 bit processor, capable of fully using >32 MB of RAM, and a 4GB disk size limit, at least try to come up with >reasonable examples. > if you are going to make comparisons... there is no longer a 32MB size limit on the disk, a 640kB limit on RAM, or only 16 bit processors... in spite of these changes to the IBM/CLONES... you are still living a decade behind... do some research. we are working at improving our machine... yours is still a piece of shit. /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
lad@lad.scs.com (Lawrence A. Deleski) (01/03/90)
From article <5904@eos.UUCP>, by woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood): > In article <519@tci.bell-atl.com> kempf@tci.bell-atl.com (Cory Kempf) writes: > say VERY EXPENSIVE... MPW, very expensive? I should say not. Just bought 3.01 for $125. thru APDA. > if you are going to make comparisons... there is no longer a 32MB size > limit on the disk, a 640kB limit on RAM, or only 16 bit processors... Oh, hmmm, maybe in DOS 4.01. But prior DOS's still have the 32MB DOS partition limit. And there is still a 640K limit on 'real' memory. > in spite of these changes to the IBM/CLONES... you are still living a decade > behind... do some research. > > we are working at improving our machine... yours is still a piece of shit. > > /*** woody **************************************************************** Spoken like a true ignoramus. I'd say the best 'improvement' to a PC (Clone) is (was) Unix. DOS is(was) the OS of the 70's. Unix is the OS of the 80's. The Finder is the OS of the future, here today. -- Lawrence A. Deleski | Silicon Compiler Systems lad@sdl.scs.com | 15 Independence Blvd. uunet!sdl!lad | Warren, NJ 07060 MABELL: (201) 580-0102 | Ext. 216
aland@infmx.UUCP (Dr. Scump) (01/04/90)
In article <519@tci.bell-atl.com> kempf@tci.bell-atl.com (Cory Kempf) writes: > ... >If you are going to post examples to "Prove" that a machine with a 16 >bit processor, a 640kB limit on RAM and a 32MB disk size limit is >better than a system with a 32 bit processor, capable of fully using >32 MB of RAM, and a 4GB disk size limit, at least try to come up with OK, I'll bite: How do you fit 4 GB of disk in a Mac? Where does this Mac with 4 GB of disk (even external disk) reside? I'd like to see it. What is it hooked up to, an IBM 3380? >reasonable examples. >Cory Kempf Technology Concepts phone: (508) 443-7311 x341 Perfect example of what I was just talking about. Every damn limit that you are babbling about here has NOTHING to do with PC architecture. I am setting up PCs now with 24 MB (easily expandable to 40MB), 600 MB of internal disk, and support for 20 users (easily), all for about the price of a fully-loaded single-user Mac IIci. Get with the '90s, pal. Or even the late '80s. -- Alan S. Denney @ Informix Software, Inc. "We're homeward bound {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland ('tis a damn fine sound!) -------------------------------------------- with a good ship, taut & free Disclaimer: These opinions are mine alone. We don't give a damn, If I am caught or killed, the secretary when we drink our rum will disavow any knowledge of my actions. with the girls of old Maui."
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (01/04/90)
In article <519@tci.bell-atl.com> kempf@tci.bell-atl.com (Cory Kempf) writes: > >If you are going to post examples to "Prove" that a machine with a 16 >bit processor, a 640kB limit on RAM and a 32MB disk size limit is >better than a system with a 32 bit processor, capable of fully using >32 MB of RAM, and a 4GB disk size limit, at least try to come up with >reasonable examples. > Looks like you're comparing a 1981 PC running some prehistoric version of DOS to a 1987 Mac II. As I've said before, this type of totally unfair comparison seems to be the basis for all of the senseless claims of Mac superiority. If you insist on using a current Mac in your argument, let's use a current PC as well -- a 386 system running OS/2. 16-bit processor? Try again. 640KB RAM limit? Nope. OS/2 addresses as much physical RAM as you can get your hands on. And it's a *real* OS with virtual memory and preemptive multitasking. 32MB disk size limit? Well, let's see. What was the Mac's disk size limit before Apple switched file systems? Now that IBM has switched file systems to OS/2's HPFS, the PC has a *file* size limit in the *gigabytes*. >-- >Cory Kempf Technology Concepts phone: (508) 443-7311 x341 --- +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ | | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | | Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | | | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+