Re: �ber IIgs

["**** ****" <***@***.com>]

>> You asked the right questions, and came "oh so close" to getting the
>> right answers. It pains me to see that you got it wrong too. But
>> nothing horrifies me more than the suggestion of GS/OS x86. <someone
>> walked over my grave shiver>.
>
>It's quite interesting how computers, which supposedly are mimicing the
>rational parts of our minds, can become a QUITE religious issue to some
>people.....


In a way, I see them as art too, strange as that sounds. Is it any shock
that I might become somewhat irrational about them from time to time?

>Don't you think there are much more horrible things in this world than
>if someone happened to write an OS you're not interested in?
>
>> No single component makes the Apple2 what it is.
>
>Are you here referring to the Immaculate Apple 2, as opposed to
>bastards like e.g. the Franklin ACE or the Basis ?  <g>

I tend to respect clones quite a bit. Only really awful ones are the
exception. No idea if that means the Franklin or not.

>> Just as no single chemical element makes you the person you are. I don't
>> walk around saying "gee you are composed of 40% carbon,
>
>If you did, it would be a lie!  We're composed of 75% water already,
>which leavs only 25% to the remaining elements, of which a
>significant part already is Nitrogen.  So I don't think you'll get
>more than 20% carbon in a living creature, including humans.


Sorry, I was up late. Still, that was kinda dumb, guess I deserve it. Also,
you gotta remember that if depends on whether we are talking the mass of
those elements, or the count. Either way, I'd have to look it up to know
real numbers... it's been a long time since school.

>> just like everyone else, you're all the same".
>
>In a way, we ARE "all the same": we all require a pretty similar
>atmosphere and a pretty similar temperature to live and thrive.
>Despite individual variations, you wouldn't be able to find one
>single individual who would enjoy living on e.g. Venus (hot as an
>oven, 90%+ CO2 atmosphere 100 times denser than ours, and it's
>raining sulphuric acid), or Mars (colder than Antarctica, air
>pressure so low that your blood would soon boil).
>
>We take these similarities for granted so much that we even
>forget about them!
>
>> Your personality, all the way from the purely physical on up to
>> your entire spiritual soul, comes from the "pattern" of all those
>> little pieces.  Literally and figuratively.
>
>True; however your personality is really details on top of your basic
>physiology.  And our various personalities aren't as individual as
>many (most?) people would like to think: if we really were a bunch if
>actual individuals, then the mass movements of various kinds of today
>would not exist.  There would e.g. have been few Apple 2's, because
>everyone who wanted a computer would have preferred to design their
>own individual computer, the way THEY wanted it to be!


Without delving into peculiar aspects of sociology, I can hardly argue. Just
let me say that I respectfully surrender to that point.

>> At the risk of starting another "definition of computer platform" holy
war,
>> I dare say that the platform is kind of an open ended group of similar
>> computers. Clones count too, when you are talking about the apple2
platform,
>> or with any. Of all the computers built since the mid 70's, they all fall
>> into such a small number of "groups", and of those, the IBM compatible is
>> overwhelming. And it's so boring.
>
>That's mostly because it's overwhelming.  ANY platform would be perceived
>as "boring" by many, if it got that overwhelming -- including the Apple 2.


Agreed, though I was somewhat reluctant to say it myself.

>> Paradoxically, even though I just got my first 3d card for my main box
>> for Christmas, a Voodoo4, I find the older stuff far more interesting.
>
>So why don't you sell that card and stick to your older stuff?  There seem
>to be little point in moving on to newer stuff if you just find it boring.


That's a bit severe... I'd rather keep both. ;-)

>> I like the variety. Seeing all the different ways that were developed to
>> solve the same old problems.
>
>I.e. you enjoy re-inventing the wheel .... while that may be fun to the
>re-inventer, it's hardly productive.  But of course it's OK as a hobby.
>
>> What I don't need, nor anyone else, is Just Another x86 OS.
>
>If you don't need it, then just ignore it.  But please let others
>decide for themselves what they need!  Remember that writing "just
>another OS" for the x86 or for any other hardware platform is really
>nothing but "all the different ways that were developed to solve the
>same old problems" which you a few lines above said you liked.  Now,
>if you approve of re-inventing the wheel in graphics hardware, why
>don't you also approve of it in OS development?  Remember, it's a
>hobby, and everyone does what they want to do just for the enjoyment.
>So if someone would want to develop a GS OS for the x86, why should
>you object?  If you personally don't like it, fine, but apart from
>that, let it be THEIR business!


If he is a student or hobbyist wishing to experiement with OS-writing, then
I hope he'll please accept my apologies. There is nothing wrong with that,
it would be a great learning exercise. I was under the impression however,
that he was asking for opinions on what course the apple2 community should
take... as if we could all mutually decide that anyways. That being the
case, I thought that I was careful not to make any personal attacks, and
that even if the idea is dumb, there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
One only need search dejanews, to find out how many dumb ideas I've posted.

>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
>Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
>e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
>WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch