please see remarks embedded below
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: <allisonp_at_world.std.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: !Re: Nuke Redmond!
> > 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!
>
Well, I avoid this by refusing to support a system that uses Netscape. It's
probably throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but I've never seen a
system that uses Netscape working well with Windows.
>
> > > 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.
>
EMULEX made an MSCP-compatible ESDI controller and that was the PATH the DEC
junkies at JPL wanted to pursue. Imagine the red faces when I showed them
the (also EMULEX) SCSI setup worked MUCH better! Of course, I nearly lost
my job for causing such a stir. When I pointed out that the SCSI approach
saved $1k on each drive and on the controller as well, while providing
potentially 2.5x the performance (though the system couldn't really
capitalize on the improved performance) it caused more red faces.
>
> > 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.
>
I had several of them. They weren't cheap, but the boards from Matrox,
Vectrix, et al, were out there. There was even a cheap card from Trident.
>
> > 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.
>
Yep! It's just another oversimplification, but if it achieves the desired
result, it's believed to work.
>
> Allison
>
>
Received on Thu Apr 06 2000 - 12:57:22 BST