GTWW2Z9Z@umiami.miami.edu (Jason Gross) (07/09/89)
Remember how we laughed at IBM for making their uses need at least 2 MB to
run OS/2 and how complicated their software was?
Does anyone REALLY like having to go out and buy more memory just to run
an operating system (I agree its a great OS, but now I hafta sink $200
just to use it!)? Does anyone really like knowing that their machines
can't make full use of all the functions of an operating system?
Does anyone really like Word 4.0 and it's 4.756*10^6 menus?
"The machine for the rest of us" has now become "The machine for those lucky
enough to have the memory and 68030 CPU or a 68020 with a PMMU."
--
Jason Gross Comp Sci Ugrad University of Miami Class of '91 (?)
===========================================================================
Not my damn planet | At the tone, leave your reply and Visa card number at
monkey-boy, got it? | Internet: gtww2z9z@umiami.miami.edu
- J. Bigboote | Bitnet: gtww2z9z@umiami
===========================================================================
** Disclaimer: Disclaimer? Why, I never claimed 'er in the first place! **
P.S. I still love my Mac and would never let an IBM replace it. Maybe a
NeXT, but not an IBM :^). It's just ironic to see someof those things we've
always hated in an IBM come to us now.frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (07/11/89)
In article <1132@umiami.miami.edu> GTWW2Z9Z@umiami.miami.edu (Jason Gross) writes: > ... >Does anyone really like Word 4.0 and it's 4.756*10^6 menus? Since you asked... I've criticized Word 3.0 and am not totally satisfied with Word 4.0, but I still believe it's the best word-processor available. It's much more solid than before, and the user interface is very nice if you take the time to customize all those menus. (I tried Nisus for a week and gave up; it's prettier than Word, and has several features I wish Word had, but it just doesn't have the same power. Worst is that it doesn't have style sheets!) -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) (07/11/89)
In article <1132@umiami.miami.edu> GTWW2Z9Z@umiami.miami.edu (Jason Gross) writes: >Remember how we laughed at IBM for making their uses need at least 2 MB to >run OS/2 and how complicated their software was? I believe that OS/2 will require *four* megabytes to run reasonably or at all... >Does anyone REALLY like having to go out and buy more memory just to run >an operating system (I agree its a great OS, but now I hafta sink $200 >just to use it!)? Does anyone really like knowing that their machines >can't make full use of all the functions of an operating system? At least one industry analyst has forecast that 1-meg SIMMs will have dropped in price to about $75 by next summer. That may be around the time System 7.0 is finally released. Considering you pay almost $400 for a piece of software like PageMaker, $150 for the functionality of System 7.0 seems a small price... >"The machine for the rest of us" has now become "The machine for those lucky >enough to have the memory and 68030 CPU or a 68020 with a PMMU." System 7.0 will be runnable on any Mac with 2 megs. The only thing you lose by not having an 030 or 020-PMMU combo is virtual memory. While VM is a nice thing, it's certainly not the best thing about System 7.0; perhaps it's among the top ten things. You may be able to get a 7.0-compliant expansion board for not a whole lotta bucks by next summer if VM is that important to you. Again, doing so is like getting another computer, which you'd have to pay for anyway. >P.S. I still love my Mac and would never let an IBM replace it. Maybe a >NeXT, but not an IBM :^). It's just ironic to see someof those things we've >always hated in an IBM come to us now. I sorta like the NeXT box, but it requires eight megs to run its OS (which is more powerful in many ways than the Mac's 7.0 will be). Maybe I'll wait for System 8.0 :-). John Heckendorn /\ BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A 1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarne |()| Berkeley, CA 94709 Phone: (415) 549-2684 | |
sklein@cdp.UUCP (07/15/89)
In message <idunow> GTWW2Z9Z sez: >Remember how we laughed at IBM for making their uses need at least 2 MB to >run OS/2 and how complicated their software was? > >Does anyone REALLY like having to go out and buy more memory just to run >an operating system (I agree its a great OS, but now I hafta sink $200 >just to use it!)? Does anyone really like knowing that their machines >can't make full use of all the functions of an operating system? Ah, but at least when you buy a Mac, the OS is free! OS/2 Extended Edition has a list price of $795 last time I checked. Then add in the price of memory... -shabtai
fnf@estinc.UUCP (Fred Fish) (07/18/89)
In article <141200059@cdp> sklein@cdp.UUCP writes: >Ah, but at least when you buy a Mac, the OS is free! OS/2 Extended Edition >has a list price of $795 last time I checked. Uh, what you really mean is that when you buy a Mac you are buying a hardware/software bundle, with no choice in the matter. The hardware is something you have to buy to get the software, which is probably the more valuable part of the bundle. -Fred -- # Fred Fish, 1835 E. Belmont Drive, Tempe, AZ 85284, USA # 1-602-491-0048 asuvax!{nud,mcdphx}!estinc!fnf