Re: Problems in "Modernizing" a //gs

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

B.J. Major wrote:
> Nathan Mates <nathan@visi.com> wrote:
> > In article <19971031144339152254@slip129-37-106-71.wa.us.ibm.net>,
> > B.J. Major <bjblackbear@ibm.net> wrote:
> > >Not that I've seen it hasn't.  And, Windows 95 also has DOS running
> > >underneath it as well.  Just because something has been made practically
> > >invisible does not mean it is not there.  Unless/until the architecture
> > >of the PC changes in the future, DOS will *always* be there, underneath
> > >everything.
> >
> >    This is the 90s. NT does not use DOS underneath now, and never will.
> > Been available since, oh, 93 or 94.
> 
> Not everyone who has a PC uses NT, FYI.  And NT was not a part of the
> discussion--only Win 3.1 and Win '95 were.

Ah, but in the previous post, you distinctly said that "neither
the PC nor the Mac (under MacOS 8, but not Rhapsody) can do
multitasking).  DOS is underneath Win95" to paraphrase.  When
you say "PC," that includes all the OS it runs.

I've defended the strong points of Apple and I will defend
the PC also.  Once we see the strengths and weaknesses of
each, we'll stop arguing.  And once we agree than 256K was
not enough memory for the early GS.  :)

> 
> >
> > >Where did I claim this, *exactly*????   This is a sentence you
> > >fabricated to draw me into yet another argument.  Neither PC or Mac
> > >(with the current Mac OS) does *true* multitasking.
> >
> >    Look, as long as you KEEP making these nonsensical claims that have
> > nothing to do with reality, you will keep *starting* all these
> > arguments and flames. And you deserve all of the pain you get for not
> > thinking before posting.
> 
> FYI:  His sentence WAS fabrication.  I never, ever claimed that the Mac
> OS as it is right now under 0S 8 does true multitasking.  Yet that is
> what he said I said.
> 
> I'm NOT starting anything.  Mitchell said that both Win 95 and Win 3.1
> did some sort of multitasking.  Then he jumped to conclusions that I
> somehow claimed that the Mac OS as it now stands does true multitasking.

You may be right.  We've all been jumping to conclusions.

> Wrong!!!  And, Win NT was NEVER a part of the discussion!!  If you are
> going to comment on what I say, pay attention to what *I'm* talking
> about and what I refer to.  Again, Win NT was never a part of the
> discussion (until you brought it up, of course)!!!!

That's jumping to conclusions too because you said "PC" (see
above), which includes all the OS's that it runs.

> 
> I'm really sick of this constant picking of nits and misquoting that
> goes on both in this discussion and in this group in general.  I thought
> we were all here to share information, not to get pounced on the minute
> someone else has another thought on what's said (or god forbid, a
> differing opinion).  And in my case, an attack for something that was
> never even talked about.

We've all made mistakes.  Let's be tolerant.

> 
> >
> >    WinNT has protected memory and full preemptive (i.e. 'true')
> > multitasking. So does Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris x86, and a whole
> > bunch more OSs.

And Win NT on a PPC PowerMac or clone.  :)

> 
> Again, I never said they didn't.  I hope you enjoy talking to yourself.

Nate was a harsh, but come on.  We've all gotten used to his
ways even if most of us don't agree on his berating people.

> 
> > And you deserve all of the pain you get for not
> > thinking before posting.
> 
> This is in no way related to the above discussion of computers, but I
> can think of *plenty* of people who don't think before posting (or who
> don't think before making decisions that will affect others) and the
> biggest one to come to mind is--yourself.

I think, for Nathan Mates, he has shown remarkable restraint.
His attack still seems mean to normal people, but I suspect
he has been holding back correcting you for weeks.

256K _was_ way too little memory to fulfill what the GS was
marketed as.  GS users who've made extensive use of the
machine have kept saying so.  Why can't you accept that?  If
you told me the Mac SE needed a SuperDrive to be productive
in response to me saying Apple should not have given it a
SuperDrive because it was a waste of money, I would have
accepted your argument because you make extensive use of the
SE.  Why can't you reciprocate?

-Scott G.