On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> Unlike you, Sellam, some folks actually did useful work with these
> machines, in spite of their apparent weaknesses. There were ways in
What is this supposed to mean? Can you ever post without introducing
rhetoric into the argument? That's usually the sign of insecurity, or
someone who knows their argument is full of shit.
> which one could avoid the pitfalls associated with the various
> problems that were discovered, and there were a number of problems
> that weren't real, but which suffered from a high level of folklore
> among their user community.
GEE, YA THINK!? If ever there was a propagator of bullshit it is you.
> The guys who actually earned their living with Apple hardware
> generally knew this, and, since I knew what kinds of cars and houses
> their work provided them back then, I find it a reasonable way to
> benefit from the experience of those who were successful at using
> those tools. I don't listen to the guys who were selling used cars
> then and are selling stocks now, no matter how skilled they are at
> talking about the Apple.
Ok, so what you are saying here basically discredits the assertions you
were making before, which were that the Apple ][ disk system was such a
piece of crap that no useful work could be done on it. Hmmm, people who
were able to buy cars and houses from work done on Apple ][ computers
sound like they had little, if any, problems with the disk subsystem.
So once again, in true Dick style, you are basically now contradicting
your previous (and erroneous) assertions. The next phase is when you
start backtracking and claiming you never said the Apple disk system was
unrealiable.
Since I've revealed the plot, you can just cut to the finale and admit you
were wrong and an idiot and once again wasted bandwidth.
> If that were the case, those habits would have shown up in contexts
> other than the Apple.
Or more likely your recollection is in error.
> Unfortunately, the Apple just lights the LED on the drive and hangs.
Ok, so this information is about as useless as this whole discussion has
been.
What does this have to do with the disk drive??? Have you ever considered
that the disk is bad, and that the software doesn't have adequate error
handling?
> If it were limited to a single system, that's what I'd suspect, but it
> behaves just the same on an ][+, IIe, and //c. by virtue of the
> physical differences, some of these "difficulties" aren't encountered
> on the //c, since it doesn't have drives sitting between the main box
> and the monitor.
Ok, I see the problem here. You have one disk with a bad sector and
crappy software that wasn't designed to handle faults properly. So
instead of suspecting the disk (the ONE thing common across all the
machines you are trying to run it on) you assume that all the drives you
are attempting to use are defective?
I'm in tears.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
Received on Sat Nov 10 2001 - 19:07:20 GMT