IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

Post by Dav » Sun, 05 May 1996 04:00:00



   I use both platforms of systems regularly, (IBM and Mac) and I must say
that IBMs are ONLY good for games!  And thats it, they are worthless
otherwise... In fact, if there were more games available for Mac, IBM
would be 100% worthless.

   I don't understand what's so good about IBM's anyway!?  Whats so
appealing about a dumbass OS?

   Well thats my two cents.

-D

 
 
 

IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

Post by Anthony Monr » Sun, 05 May 1996 04:00:00



>   I use both platforms of systems regularly, (IBM and Mac) and I must say
>that IBMs are ONLY good for games!  And thats it, they are worthless
>otherwise... In fact, if there were more games available for Mac, IBM
>would be 100% worthless.

>   I don't understand what's so good about IBM's anyway!?  Whats so
>appealing about a dumbass OS?


are truly 3l33t.)

And this is concerning...?  

And you are trying to prove...?

Unlike a lot of other machines, I can count at least nine operating systems
that you can run on an IBM-clone.  And believe it or not, not all of them are
"dumbass."

What's even more shocking about IBM clones is that even though I know they're
far from perfect, I have had very little trouble getting my work done with
them.  Although they are good for games, they're actually good for a lot of
other things too.  (Heaven forbid.)

Perhaps you need a change in perspective.  There are other machines out
there besides IBM's and Macs, you know.

--
             Tony Monroe, in a nice white wine sauce with couscous

                  Chief Squid, Tony's SquidWarez Incorporated
Proprietor of Dingbat Wizwarp's Tran*ation Tavern and Alteration Apothecary

 
 
 

IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

Post by Hugh McCur » Mon, 06 May 1996 04:00:00



>   I use both platforms of systems regularly, (IBM and Mac) and I must say
>that IBMs are ONLY good for games!  And thats it, they are worthless
>otherwise... In fact, if there were more games available for Mac, IBM
>would be 100% worthless.
>   I don't understand what's so good about IBM's anyway!?  Whats so
>appealing about a dumbass OS?
>   Well thats my two cents.
>-D

I find it pretty darn interesting that "Dave" isn't confident enough
in his own opinions to leave a valid E-mail address.

But in case "Dave" is out there --

1. Why do you equate Computer Architecture with Operating System?

2. Why do you think your personal experience can be extrapolated to
the entire population of computer users worldwide?

3. I personally know of rather serious appications that run on PC
architecture machines (mostly under Unix/Linux).  This is a FACT which
contradicts your assertion/conclusion (pretty hard to say which).

Many of the programs I'm think of are not for the home user.  But that
takes me back to #2.

OK "Dave" your turn.  BTW, my E-mail address is real.  And I know I
cross posted, but I can't tell who Dave is because I planned to send
him E-mail instead of posting at all.

 
 
 

IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

Post by Bill Marc » Mon, 06 May 1996 04:00:00


At least they're good for something, which is more than I can say for
these stupid IBM vs. Mac vs. Vic-20 vs. Cray vs... wars.

--

On 22 July, 1996, at 6:00 pm GMT, everyone in the world    
just START HUMMING.  Those who don't know will freak.      

 
 
 

IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

Post by Faust » Mon, 06 May 1996 04:00:00


As well, I believe that I agree with you, two cents is the value of that opinion, and damnedably
inflated at that - it is of little worth to common sense to enter an IBM group to express your
hatred for the IBM - a bit like entering a PETA meeting to sell hotdogs.


>   I use both platforms of systems regularly, (IBM and Mac) and I must say
>that IBMs are ONLY good for games!  And thats it, they are worthless
>otherwise... In fact, if there were more games available for Mac, IBM
>would be 100% worthless.

>   I don't understand what's so good about IBM's anyway!?  Whats so
>appealing about a dumbass OS?

>   Well thats my two cents.

>-D

Nihil est quod timeas...
___________________________________________________

...Aus dem Grabe werd'ich ausgetrieben, Noch zu suchen das
vermifste Gut, Noch die schon verlornene Geliebte zu lieben ...
-Goethe, modified.

Si l'ignorance de la nature donna la naissance aux dieux,
la connaissance de la nature est faite pour les detruire!
*****Systeme de la Nature, MDCCLXXXI ac*****
            Leis na beannachdan,
----------> FAUSTUS, incarnate of Aangra Mainyu
            later of Clann 'IcLeoid

--------------------------------
He who first achieves enlightenment before others, must then
pursue that enlightenment in spite of the others
________________________________

 
 
 

IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

Post by Micah Bleech » Mon, 06 May 1996 04:00:00



>   I use both platforms of systems regularly, (IBM and Mac) and I must say
>that IBMs are ONLY good for games!  And thats it, they are worthless
>otherwise... In fact, if there were more games available for Mac, IBM
>would be 100% worthless.

>   I don't understand what's so good about IBM's anyway!?  Whats so
>appealing about a dumbass OS?

>   Well thats my two cents.

I guess its true... we get what we pay for. Next time I'll save my 2
cents.

______________________________________________________________________
: Datacraft Systems, Inc.- Multi-user Database Development and Design
: URL: http://www.datacraft.db.com
: Philadelphia - New York - Washington DC

 
 
 

IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

Post by Benjamin Smit » Mon, 06 May 1996 04:00:00


I don't consider IBM to be the PC clone machines anymore. IBM makes many
of the 601's and 604's Power PC chips that are in Power Macs. The 486,
'Pentium and Pentium Pro machines are Wintel.

Ben S.

 
 
 

IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

Post by Tim Gerchm » Tue, 07 May 1996 04:00:00



>   I use both platforms of systems regularly, (IBM and Mac) and I must say
>that IBMs are ONLY good for games!  And thats it, they are worthless
>otherwise... In fact, if there were more games available for Mac, IBM
>would be 100% worthless.

>   I don't understand what's so good about IBM's anyway!?  Whats so
>appealing about a dumbass OS?

>   Well thats my two cents.

but worth maybe a penny at best...

--

Visit my universe at http://www.blarg.net/~future/index.html

 
 
 

IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

Post by pb401 » Tue, 07 May 1996 04:00:00


Good for games? Isn't it a "PAIN" to do even that? Never used an IBM,
nor care to, but all I've heard about them is everything is pretty much
a tedious task for something that should be simple. This comes from
IBM'ers mostly.

 
 
 

IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

Post by Michael Herma » Tue, 07 May 1996 04:00:00


|>    I use both platforms of systems regularly, (IBM and Mac) and I must say
|> that IBMs are ONLY good for games!  And thats it, they are worthless
|> otherwise... In fact, if there were more games available for Mac, IBM
|> would be 100% worthless.
|>
|>    I don't understand what's so good about IBM's anyway!?  Whats so
|> appealing about a dumbass OS?

When why do you use the Mac ? The MacOS is a lot dumber than either Win95
or OS/2. Perhaps you should learn a little about computers and OSes
before making such an idiot of yourself.

 -Mike

 
 
 

IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

Post by MacNi » Tue, 07 May 1996 04:00:00




> >   I use both platforms of systems regularly, (IBM and Mac) and I must say
> >that IBMs are ONLY good for games!  And thats it, they are worthless
> >otherwise... In fact, if there were more games available for Mac, IBM
> >would be 100% worthless.

> >   I don't understand what's so good about IBM's anyway!?  Whats so
> >appealing about a dumbass OS?

> >   Well thats my two cents.

> I guess its true... we get what we pay for. Next time I'll save my 2
> cents.

> ______________________________________________________________________
> : Datacraft Systems, Inc.- Multi-user Database Development and Design
> : URL: http://www.datacraft.db.com
> : Philadelphia - New York - Washington DC


This message is crossposted in a binary group, what are you guys even
doing here? If you have no warez to post , get out.
 
 
 

IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

Post by Hellrai.. » Tue, 07 May 1996 04:00:00


On Tue, 07 May 1996 09:21:12 -0500, Michael Teter



>[snip]
>> I have used the PC platform for about 4 years, and mac for 2.  Before I
>> touched a mac, I thought the PC was the greatest.  After about 6 months of
>> the mac, I changed my preference.
>> For productivity, mac os is the clear winner.  For games, PC is the clear
>> winner.  For a brute force technically better os, Unix is the winner, b/c
>> it has all that great stuff like:  Preemptive multitasking, flat memory
>> model, multiuser system, command line shell (for all you programmers),
>> multithreading, multi-cpu, blah, blah.  Does a true end user need any of
>> that crap?  Nope.  Just an easy mouse click and no crashes.  Macintosh.

>> Now, thats my 2 cents.

>> Dave.

>> ------------------------------+--------------------------------------

>> Linear Software               | Location: Winnipeg, MB  CANADA
>> ------------------------------+--------------------------------------

>begging your pardon, but what mac have you been using that doesn't
>crash?  most computers crash at least occasionally.  mac is certainly
>not excluded.

>--
>Michael D. Teter | Structured Software Services Group, Inc./NEC America


>http://home1.gte.net/teter/index.htm (yeah well, haven't gotten around to it)

>"There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum."
>Arthur C. Clarke

How can you say MACs are better.. MAC OS doesn't even have preemptive
multitasking!! Get Windows 95.. It has preemptive multitasking for
32-bit apps and co-operative multitasking for 16-bit apps... and MACs
don't have nearly as much software as PCs do..Maybe that's why 99% of
businesses use PCs and not MACs.. It doesn't matter.. Apple will be
out of busineess by 1997...Get a real computer
 
 
 

IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

Post by David Brackm » Wed, 08 May 1996 04:00:00



>   I use both platforms of systems regularly, (IBM and Mac) and I must say
>that IBMs are ONLY good for games!  And thats it, they are worthless
>otherwise... In fact, if there were more games available for Mac, IBM
>would be 100% worthless.

>   I don't understand what's so good about IBM's anyway!?  Whats so
>appealing about a dumbass OS?

>   Well thats my two cents.

I have used the PC platform for about 4 years, and mac for 2.  Before I
touched a mac, I thought the PC was the greatest.  After about 6 months of
the mac, I changed my preference.

You are correct, the PC platform is a great game player.  Productivity is
difficult to obtain.  Everything is brute force in the os.

With macs, the os is elegant in the way it interfaces with the user, ie.
*true* "plug n play".  Hell, we don't even call it "plug n play".  We just
plug it in, and it plays!

For productivity, mac os is the clear winner.  For games, PC is the clear
winner.  For a brute force technically better os, Unix is the winner, b/c
it has all that great stuff like:  Preemptive multitasking, flat memory
model, multiuser system, command line shell (for all you programmers),
multithreading, multi-cpu, blah, blah.  Does a true end user need any of
that crap?  Nope.  Just an easy mouse click and no crashes.  Macintosh.

Now, thats my 2 cents.

Dave.

------------------------------+--------------------------------------

Linear Software               | Location: Winnipeg, MB  CANADA
------------------------------+--------------------------------------

 
 
 

IBM's are good for games, and well sorry to say, THATS IT!

Post by Michael Tete » Wed, 08 May 1996 04:00:00


[snip]

> I have used the PC platform for about 4 years, and mac for 2.  Before I
> touched a mac, I thought the PC was the greatest.  After about 6 months of
> the mac, I changed my preference.
> For productivity, mac os is the clear winner.  For games, PC is the clear
> winner.  For a brute force technically better os, Unix is the winner, b/c
> it has all that great stuff like:  Preemptive multitasking, flat memory
> model, multiuser system, command line shell (for all you programmers),
> multithreading, multi-cpu, blah, blah.  Does a true end user need any of
> that crap?  Nope.  Just an easy mouse click and no crashes.  Macintosh.

> Now, thats my 2 cents.

> Dave.

> ------------------------------+--------------------------------------

> Linear Software               | Location: Winnipeg, MB  CANADA
> ------------------------------+--------------------------------------

begging your pardon, but what mac have you been using that doesn't
crash?  most computers crash at least occasionally.  mac is certainly
not excluded.

--
Michael D. Teter | Structured Software Services Group, Inc./NEC America


http://home1.gte.net/teter/index.htm (yeah well, haven't gotten around to it)

"There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum."
Arthur C. Clarke

damn the newsreader!