Windoze 95 ( Want a Mac Interface..?..get a Mac...! I Did..!!! )

Windoze 95 ( Want a Mac Interface..?..get a Mac...! I Did..!!! )

Post by ANDREW GRYG » Sun, 10 Sep 1995 04:00:00





>We've all noticed that Mac versions are some months behind the Pee Cee
>versions.  The reason for this is that if management let the
programmers
>do the Mac version first, the Pee Cee version would never get done.
>The programmers would sit on their thumbs, "discover bugs", etc etc
etc.
>--

Well, the picture may shift a bit when Windows95 for the Macintosh is
released.  

Remember when Microsoft issued the Z80 card and business programming
for the Apple II came to a screeching halt?  What happens when all the
large software houses find they can cover both markets with just one
development effort?  The 10%/90% market share ratio will do its magic.
And remember who is the * software publisher for Macintosh?  A
little outfit named Microsoft - and they have already started making
their Mac versions look like their Windows versions, as any Mac user
who upgraded to Word 6.x knows.  

"Absurd!" you say.  "Why would Microsoft put out that much effort for
that small a market?"  Well, because it isn't much effort.  Remember,
new Macs are Power Macs, based on the Power PC chip.  IBM has ported
Windows NT to the Power PC.  Microsoft has access to that port.
Microsoft has already committed to putting the Win95 interface on NT.
Get the picture?  Its nearly all done already.  

"Absurd!" you say.  "Mac users would never, never, never switch!"
Well, not willingly anyway.  But as the Mac declines in the business
world, Apple maintains their growth by selling more machines to new
users in the home market.  These users aren't committed to System 7.x,
or any version of the Mac operating system.  The only thing they have
ever heard of is Windows95.  And if all the latest versions of software
are for Win95, you know what the dealer is going to sell.  

"So?" you ask, "If they're just going to run Win95, why would they buy
a Mac in the first place?"  Real good question.  

Andrew Grygus
La Crescenta, CA

 
 
 

Windoze 95 ( Want a Mac Interface..?..get a Mac...! I Did..!!! )

Post by Ni » Wed, 13 Sep 1995 04:00:00


[Newsgroups: line ripped down to size]

[lots of info scrunched]

:        I am very aware of the validity of my statements. You are evidently

You are evidently suffering from delusions. Might I recommend seeing
your psychiatrist. Or alternatively, perhaps a philosopher might help. I
believe that you have confused the meanings of the terms 'valid' and
'invalid', possibly owing to confusing the meanings of 'true' and
'false', and possibly 'truth' and 'balderdash'.

: not a graphic designer and are unaware of the functions of a MAC. A disk

You are talking in general terms about computer systems in general. Mac
caches work in similar fashions to other caches IMNSHO. What has being a
graphic designer got to do with it?

: cache does use ROM twerp.

Pardon? Rom *CANNOT BE WRITTEN TO*, full stop. It is *not* possible to
write to ROM after manufacture (except in the case of specialised types
like E(E)PROM). Accordingly it cannot be used for a disk cache. As it's
slower than RAM, I wouldn't recommend it anyway.
:                           Have you used Adobe Photoshop lately? NOT!

No. So what's that got to do with disk caching? Or any other kind of
caching? Make yourself clear.

: READ
: ONLY MEMORY is capable of being written to as a RAM supplement, i.e.

WHAT?!???????? Disk space is so capable. If you desire, you can view
disk space as very, very slow RAM. It can be randomly accessed, and is
read/writeable.

ROM *CANNOT BE WRITTEN TO* again. I think I'm missing something; you
must be misdefining a term here...

: Apples Virtual Memory and CONNECTIX virtual memory. This is only capable
: with a 32bit OS which you are evidently not using. Besides if you can't

VM is irrelevant, the size of the address bus and pointers is likewise
irrelevant.

: write to it how do you save files idiot. Not in RAM because it dumps every
: time the computer restarts or is shut down. READ ONLY refers to storage
: capablity such as a CD ROM or a hard drive. Of course you are going to

Oh good God. I think I see your problem here. A minor redefinition:
listen and learn.

ROM in customary usage refers to memory in *chip form* or some other
in-machine hardware mechanism *which does not possess a filesystem*.
Normally, devices which are controlled as though they were disks (ie
CDROM drives, hard drives, &c) are *not* ROM. They are disks.

ROM is (for example) the place where the bootup code, and (on the Mac at
least) a chunk of the windowing code goes. Nothing else goes there
normally except for OS service routines which are implanted at
manufacture time. A CDROM is *not* ROM. It's a disk; the ROM is a
comparison with *real* ROM (on a chip or such).

I hope this clears it up. You seem to have been using the word 'ROM'
with regard to disks. Everyone else has been using it with regard to
chips only. Please fix your semantics.

: claim you can't write to CDs; don't bother you would be wrong. ROM refers

You can, but it's expensive, irreversible, and very slow.

: to the hardware device itself. A RAM cache stores repeatedly used

ROM refers to *chip-based* memory *which cannot be written to* and is
manufactured in a specific manner.

: functions in main memory as you use them not a disk cache. KEYword here

I don't understand this sentence. Do you mean that a disk cache doesn't
store data in main memory when it's used? It does. A RAM cache stores
oft-used chunks of RAM in very fast RAM to speed things up a little
more.

: being disk. Furthermore, random access memory does read/write from ROM to
: retrieve info. YOU CAN"T PERMANENTLY STORE INFO IN RAM. Why do you think a

Second point is true. First is wrong. The processor writes data to/from
RAM by means of *disks* or *net links* *not ROM*. ROM is for
*chip-based* memory.

: quad CD ROM has a transfer rate of 600kb a second or a decent hard drive
: has a speed access of 11ms? Beacause it must transfer data to RAM. A RAM
: cache can be achieved via a third party card or software. An accelorater

No, it can't. Software can code disk caches. Not RAM caches, as they
must reside in RAM or something slower than that themselves during
execution.

: card with a RAM cache or through software such as Speed Doubler. On board
: RAM caches are not as efficient. Finally, virtual memory refers to logical

!!!!!!! Yes, they damn well are; they don't work unless they're
implemented in hardware. I really don't see what you are getting at
here.

: not physical memory.KEYword here being "virtual" as in not real. Only
: virtual memory system that I am aware of that does not use hard drive
: space is RAM DOUBLER. A partitioned RAM DRIVE is NOT a virtual memory

I imagine there are others; you could easily VM swap to another machine
over a net link; where the data goes when it's there is another matter.

: system. A 50MB RAM drive will hold up to said amount of data and work that
: data as fast as the CPU-FPU will allow becuase it is sitting in memory.

However, you would need 50Mb of RAM. And the RAM may impose wait states;
you'd need 50Mb of RAM cache to completely eliminate these.

: The only person chopping on free toes is you an your mis-informed
: opinions. That's right opinions, I have told you the facts.

I'm sorry, it's your definitions that are faulty. Not our facts.

: **go back to school you evidently did not learn anything while you were there**

Insults are not necessary.

--
---------------------------------------------------
'I use pico. pico is God.' - Stuss
'I'm never gonna die.' - Officer Cadet Gerhard Symons, TA.
Opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of its
author, owing to excessive exposure to caffeine.

 
 
 

Windoze 95 ( Want a Mac Interface..?..get a Mac...! I Did..!!! )

Post by Daniel Kian Mc Kierna » Thu, 14 Sep 1995 04:00:00



Quote:> listen and learn.

What?  Sorry, but my CRT is too quiet for me to hear. (And, anyway,
I've got a banana in my ear.)

          It's always Dark.  Light only hides the Darkness.

          Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan           (619) 535 - 0546

 
 
 

Windoze 95 ( Want a Mac Interface..?..get a Mac...! I Did..!!! )

Post by Doug Gillesp » Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:00:00




>>    You're wrong, the more RAM you have the more you can do as far as MACS
>>are concerned. You can run more apps at once, work with larger files,
>>print at 300 plus dpi, and have more system INITS and CONTROL PANELS which
>>add to OS performance.

>Ho ho ho, first of all, I'd hate to work in a word processor where I can
>edit my text, but can't print because it tries to build the whole page
>in RAM at 300 dpi ! Why would I add more RAM only for the printing part ?
>Besides, if you stuff your memory with 100 init's, you can't print at 300dpi
>even with 32 MB, and why does the Mac need so many third party init's
>anyway ? Must be a sign System 7.5 is lacking in various parts.

>R
>--
>~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

>NOTE: my opinions are strictly my own and not those of my employer

--


Some people ride the bus, others bring their lunch.  The rest are left handed.
                - + * Wiener dog sweater sold separately. * + -
 
 
 

Windoze 95 ( Want a Mac Interface..?..get a Mac...! I Did..!!! )

Post by Doug Gillesp » Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:00:00




>>    You're wrong, the more RAM you have the more you can do as far as MACS
>>are concerned. You can run more apps at once, work with larger files,
>>print at 300 plus dpi, and have more system INITS and CONTROL PANELS which
>>add to OS performance.

>Ho ho ho, first of all, I'd hate to work in a word processor where I can
>edit my text, but can't print because it tries to build the whole page
>in RAM at 300 dpi ! Why would I add more RAM only for the printing part ?
>Besides, if you stuff your memory with 100 init's, you can't print at 300dpi
>even with 32 MB, and why does the Mac need so many third party init's
>anyway ? Must be a sign System 7.5 is lacking in various parts.

>R
>--
>~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

>NOTE: my opinions are strictly my own and not those of my employer

STOP SENDING THESE MESSAGES TO IRRELEVANT GROUPS!!
EDIT YOUR DAMN HEADERS!!
--


Some people ride the bus, others bring their lunch.  The rest are left handed.
                - + * Wiener dog sweater sold separately. * + -
 
 
 

1. Windoze 95 ( Want a Mac Interface..?..get a Mac)


were there**

Stick to graphic designing. You definitely have no future in computers.
A hard disk is >>not<< ROM (except in rare special cases where write
inhibit has been set with a jumper).  It is certainly not a ROM on a
Macintosh, even.  A disk cache most certainly doesn't use ROM "twerp",
and neither does a RAM disk.  I won't comment further because your
twisted prose is too difficult to make any sense of.  

Andrew Grygus
La Crescenta, CA

2. Kernel Change Summary 2.0.1

3. Windoze 95 ( Want a Mac Interface..?..get a Mac.)

4. What am I doing Wrong!

5. Windoze 95 ( Want a Mac Interface..?..get a Mac...!)

6. Console access

7. ( Want a Mac Interface..?..get a Mac...! )

8. Need a good Sys Admin book, and that damn delete key!!

9. Multiple MACs from same Interface OR MAC/VLAN NATting

10. Windoze 95 ( Want a Mac Interface..?..get a Mac...! I

11. Windoze 95 ( Want a Mac Interface..?..get a Mac...! I Did..!!! )

12. comp.sys.mac.misc comp.sys.mac.system comp.sys.mac.apps