!Re: Nuke Redmond!

From: allisonp_at_world.std.com <(allisonp_at_world.std.com)>
Date: Thu Apr 6 11:56:30 2000

> The folks I see having problems with their MS-OS-based systems generally are
> the ones that (1) hand around the "chat" rooms (where their computers get
> "social diseases"), (2) try to squeeze more performance out of their
> computers by violating the components' specifications, (3) try to get their
> computers to do other sorts of things for which they (or their software)
> weren't intended. Now, that's not to say it doesn't happen otherwise, but
> from where I sit, that's what I see.

Or an app like Netscape falls over and takes out the OS. For a cpu with
protected mode, and an os that mutters things about that it seems odd that
an app failing kills the os!

> > Someone mind explaining why if I install software on a Microsoft system or
> > make *very* minor changes I've got the reboot the _at_*& #$)@ thing?!?!

many OSs have this, VMS does under fewer cases though as do NT4.
Linux/freebsd is better than UNIX(and kin) three years ago.

> Well, the cost differential was larger than the cost of the PC machines I
> used to demonstrate what a poor choice the uVAXII was as a platform during
> my last stint in the aerospace industry. THE JPL guys liked the uVAX-II so
> they used it to replace the Apple-][ that was originally designed into a
> military-oriented project. I wouldn't argue that the uVAX-II didn't do
> better than the Apple-][, but their ESDI interface didn't outperform SCSI,

What EDSI? DEC never had one! The RQDX3 is MSCP/ST506 MFM and not
considered a perfromer but, MFM drives really arent either.

> which they claimed it did, and the high-res graphics cards we were told to
> use in the uVax-II cost as much as the entire uVAX-II with all the other
> peripherals. A comparable card from the same vendor but designed for the
> PC/AT cost only $600.

Back then (1988) I could not get a 1280x1024x8 card for a PC. I was
however running one on the GPX. I might add with a 21" color tube.

> Not all cases are so extreme, but it's the extremes that tend to be
> remembered. It's also no surprise that DEC seems to have gone out of their
> way, during the early days of widespread internet use (1985-1988). to make
> their LAN boards incompatible with anyone else's. They also tweaked their
> protocols to weaken their own networking system so people wouldn't be
> tempted to mix and match.

IP was not the rule until years after DECnet phaseIII and when IP started
to become more wide spread there was PhaseIV and PHASEV decnet which was
routable, capable of doing IP over decnet and a lot of other tricks that
PCs needed. PCs under winders were doing lanman then.

> I guess it just says that when there's a tool that gets the job done, it
> makes sense to learn how to use it as opposed to sticking one's nose in the
> air because it seems too "unsophisticated". What's more, people pay for the
> process of getting the job done. They don't want to pay for doing it the
> "hard" way.

All the world is a nail when all you got is a hammer.


Allison
Received on Thu Apr 06 2000 - 11:56:30 BST