Electrolytics question - update
 

Joel Koltner wrote:

"msg" wrote in message

6. Vista is a truly unfortunate step in the wrong direction

Well, yes, most people -- even many within Microsoft -- agree on that.

I've heard it referred to as ' ME II '

Graham

Electrolytics question - update
 

Eeyore wrote:

Joel Koltner wrote:

"msg" wrote in message

6. Vista is a truly unfortunate step in the wrong direction

Well, yes, most people -- even many within Microsoft -- agree on that.

I've heard it referred to as ' ME II '


No, that's England. ;-)


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

Electrolytics question - update
 

Eeyore wrote:

Joel Koltner wrote:

"msg" wrote in message

6. Vista is a truly unfortunate step in the wrong direction

Well, yes, most people -- even many within Microsoft -- agree on that.

I've heard it referred to as ' ME II '


No, that's England. ;-)


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

Electrolytics question - update
 

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Joel Koltner wrote:
"msg" wrote

6. Vista is a truly unfortunate step in the wrong direction

Well, yes, most people -- even many within Microsoft -- agree on that.

I've heard it referred to as ' ME II '

No, that's England. ;-)

You'll have to explain that one to me I fear. Unless you were simply referring
to the use of ' II '.

Graham

Electrolytics question - update
 

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Joel Koltner wrote:
"msg" wrote

6. Vista is a truly unfortunate step in the wrong direction

Well, yes, most people -- even many within Microsoft -- agree on that.

I've heard it referred to as ' ME II '

No, that's England. ;-)

You'll have to explain that one to me I fear. Unless you were simply referring
to the use of ' II '.

Graham

Electrolytics question - update
 

"flipper" wrote in message

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS. With Windows the component that crashes most, on my PC, is
the Explorer shell.

When I used OS/2 it was also the shell (Presentation Manager) that crashed
the most. Jerry Pournelle loved OS/2 but commented on how unstable PM was.
It crashed a lot less than Windows of the time (either 95 or NT) but it had
the unfortunate habit of overwriting the MBR with whatever file I was trying
to save when it crashed.

Come to think of it, pre-95 Windows was very unreliable, but it was only a
DOS shell.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Electrolytics question - update
 

"flipper" wrote in message

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS. With Windows the component that crashes most, on my PC, is
the Explorer shell.

When I used OS/2 it was also the shell (Presentation Manager) that crashed
the most. Jerry Pournelle loved OS/2 but commented on how unstable PM was.
It crashed a lot less than Windows of the time (either 95 or NT) but it had
the unfortunate habit of overwriting the MBR with whatever file I was trying
to save when it crashed.

Come to think of it, pre-95 Windows was very unreliable, but it was only a
DOS shell.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Electrolytics question - update
 

"msg" wrote in message
ernet...
Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

You know Graham, I've never been a Gates / MS / Windoze basher. A lot of
the flak that they take seems to come from people not liking the fact
that they tied the market up, and make squillions of dollars a day. OK,
so maybe there was something better than Windows just waiting to come on
the market, and maybe Gates and co did stop it by working to make Windows
the dominant OS worldwide, but looking at it the other way, it has got to
have done more to 'standardise' the world of home (and business)
computing, and to make it practical and affordable to the whole world at
large, than any other factor which has had an influence.

It is difficult not to want to respond to this post and I hope that other
folks do express their opinions in this thread (yet another o/s religious
debate), especially those with expertise and experience in these matters,
but I would like to make a few points (briefly);

1. O/S2 should have been the 'standardized' MS o/s; it incorporated the
Win3x
API but was built on a sane kernel and improved security model and its
driver structure IMHO was superior; later versions were poised to
outperform
Win9x but due to the IBM departure, were relegated to business and mission
critical
applications. It could have incorporated the Win9x API for compatibility.

2. Windows API emulation on Unix is a superior platform for legacy
development
and maintenance as MS abandons hardware and o/s versions as a
continuous-upgrade
business strategy. Virtual machine technology is also permitting retaining
older
Windows installations deployed on new hardware that can't directly support
them;
this wouldn't be necessary in a scalable o/s that doesn't force hardware
migration
at every release.

3. Much objection to MS Windows regards the hiding of critical portions of
the API
and kernel hooks to thwart third parties; also the forced inclusion of
non-o/s
functionality at low levels has degraded the o/s (again in an attempt to
thwart
third parties).

4. Continuous patching would not be necessary if the o/s was secure by
design;
evidently NT engineering was headed by ex DEC VMS folks imported to MS -
they
could have preserved the best of NT philosophy in designing the new o/s
but
must have been pressured by other internal forces to release a product
insecure-by-default.

5. Yeah, I like the convenience of expecting hardware and software to
'just work'
and Windows (up to XP) provided that experience for most folks, but when
push comes
to shove, I use versions of linux to identify, test and qualify hardware
that Windows
doesn't quite grok. Currently I am wrestling with a system timer issue
that
borks certain multimedia drivers and applications running on a rather
significant
list of motherboard chipsets under NT/2K/XP; MS considers the behavior a
'feature'
whereas the rest of the world knows it is a 'bug'; fixing it will require
changes
to drivers and applications, whereas it should be fixed in the kernel, and
would
be done so quickly in most other operating system development and
maintenance
programs (e.g. opensource).

6. Vista is a truly unfortunate step in the wrong direction - even more
bloat forcing
ever more powerful hardware to just maintain a performance level of
previous generations;
forced DMCA and IP protection, impossible driver restrictions, poor
quality control
in releases not-ready-for-prime time, etc., etc. Folks are desperate
enough to be
stocking spare machines and software to permit running earlier Windows
releases
into the indefinite future since new commodity hardware now, if not in the
near future,
not run them. Vista wont run a large number of apps used by folks like
embedded
engineers which depend on certain types of peripheral port access, DOS
windows, and
other services which have always been available in Windows.

With these sorts of issues, many people may decide to use a scalable
opensource o/s
that has worldwide continuous support and development in order to preserve
their
investments in software and hardware. And many of these alternatives also
'just work'
and support even more hardware than under Windows.

Michael

I don't really dispute any of these points Michael, but you are getting a
bit specific and specialised here. I was talking in general about an
operating system that pretty much 'works out of the box' for the vast
majority of home and business users. It allows an average person who is an
average computer user rather than 'understand-er', to get excellent
functionality from something which, if you stop and think about it, is
actually an incredibly complex piece of technology.

I think that you would have to agree that without Windows providing a
standardised and user friendly platform, the use of the home computer, and
small business computer, would never have spread around the world like it
has. Nor would there be the huge raft of add-ons and peripherals that are
guaranteed to just work straight out of the box, and the price advantages
that that has brought with it, nor the unimaginably vast mountain of amateur
and professional software that having this 'universal' platform, has
spawned.

I know that a lot of people who think of themselves as 'experts', decry the
inclusion of e-mail and browser software in the OS, and declare both
Explorer and OE to be useless rubbish, but again, the fact that they are
there - and to all but the most picky of users, do what they should - has, I
think, done more than any other factor to promote the use of e-mail and the
internet to average people, who never thought that they would ever be able
to cope with such things. Lets face it, most regular Joes have difficulty
working their VCR or washing machine in detail, so it really is remarkable
that they have got to grips so well with a highly complex item like a
computer. Even old grannies can do it, so that has got to say something
about the validity of the Windows platform, hasn't it ?

I don't have Vista on any machines here, so can't really comment. Maybe they
have got it wrong with that product, but I guess that you can't get it right
all the time ...

Arfa

Electrolytics question - update
 

"msg" wrote in message
ernet...
Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

You know Graham, I've never been a Gates / MS / Windoze basher. A lot of
the flak that they take seems to come from people not liking the fact
that they tied the market up, and make squillions of dollars a day. OK,
so maybe there was something better than Windows just waiting to come on
the market, and maybe Gates and co did stop it by working to make Windows
the dominant OS worldwide, but looking at it the other way, it has got to
have done more to 'standardise' the world of home (and business)
computing, and to make it practical and affordable to the whole world at
large, than any other factor which has had an influence.

It is difficult not to want to respond to this post and I hope that other
folks do express their opinions in this thread (yet another o/s religious
debate), especially those with expertise and experience in these matters,
but I would like to make a few points (briefly);

1. O/S2 should have been the 'standardized' MS o/s; it incorporated the
Win3x
API but was built on a sane kernel and improved security model and its
driver structure IMHO was superior; later versions were poised to
outperform
Win9x but due to the IBM departure, were relegated to business and mission
critical
applications. It could have incorporated the Win9x API for compatibility.

2. Windows API emulation on Unix is a superior platform for legacy
development
and maintenance as MS abandons hardware and o/s versions as a
continuous-upgrade
business strategy. Virtual machine technology is also permitting retaining
older
Windows installations deployed on new hardware that can't directly support
them;
this wouldn't be necessary in a scalable o/s that doesn't force hardware
migration
at every release.

3. Much objection to MS Windows regards the hiding of critical portions of
the API
and kernel hooks to thwart third parties; also the forced inclusion of
non-o/s
functionality at low levels has degraded the o/s (again in an attempt to
thwart
third parties).

4. Continuous patching would not be necessary if the o/s was secure by
design;
evidently NT engineering was headed by ex DEC VMS folks imported to MS -
they
could have preserved the best of NT philosophy in designing the new o/s
but
must have been pressured by other internal forces to release a product
insecure-by-default.

5. Yeah, I like the convenience of expecting hardware and software to
'just work'
and Windows (up to XP) provided that experience for most folks, but when
push comes
to shove, I use versions of linux to identify, test and qualify hardware
that Windows
doesn't quite grok. Currently I am wrestling with a system timer issue
that
borks certain multimedia drivers and applications running on a rather
significant
list of motherboard chipsets under NT/2K/XP; MS considers the behavior a
'feature'
whereas the rest of the world knows it is a 'bug'; fixing it will require
changes
to drivers and applications, whereas it should be fixed in the kernel, and
would
be done so quickly in most other operating system development and
maintenance
programs (e.g. opensource).

6. Vista is a truly unfortunate step in the wrong direction - even more
bloat forcing
ever more powerful hardware to just maintain a performance level of
previous generations;
forced DMCA and IP protection, impossible driver restrictions, poor
quality control
in releases not-ready-for-prime time, etc., etc. Folks are desperate
enough to be
stocking spare machines and software to permit running earlier Windows
releases
into the indefinite future since new commodity hardware now, if not in the
near future,
not run them. Vista wont run a large number of apps used by folks like
embedded
engineers which depend on certain types of peripheral port access, DOS
windows, and
other services which have always been available in Windows.

With these sorts of issues, many people may decide to use a scalable
opensource o/s
that has worldwide continuous support and development in order to preserve
their
investments in software and hardware. And many of these alternatives also
'just work'
and support even more hardware than under Windows.

Michael

I don't really dispute any of these points Michael, but you are getting a
bit specific and specialised here. I was talking in general about an
operating system that pretty much 'works out of the box' for the vast
majority of home and business users. It allows an average person who is an
average computer user rather than 'understand-er', to get excellent
functionality from something which, if you stop and think about it, is
actually an incredibly complex piece of technology.

I think that you would have to agree that without Windows providing a
standardised and user friendly platform, the use of the home computer, and
small business computer, would never have spread around the world like it
has. Nor would there be the huge raft of add-ons and peripherals that are
guaranteed to just work straight out of the box, and the price advantages
that that has brought with it, nor the unimaginably vast mountain of amateur
and professional software that having this 'universal' platform, has
spawned.

I know that a lot of people who think of themselves as 'experts', decry the
inclusion of e-mail and browser software in the OS, and declare both
Explorer and OE to be useless rubbish, but again, the fact that they are
there - and to all but the most picky of users, do what they should - has, I
think, done more than any other factor to promote the use of e-mail and the
internet to average people, who never thought that they would ever be able
to cope with such things. Lets face it, most regular Joes have difficulty
working their VCR or washing machine in detail, so it really is remarkable
that they have got to grips so well with a highly complex item like a
computer. Even old grannies can do it, so that has got to say something
about the validity of the Windows platform, hasn't it ?

I don't have Vista on any machines here, so can't really comment. Maybe they
have got it wrong with that product, but I guess that you can't get it right
all the time ...

Arfa

Electrolytics question - update
 

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:
Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !
There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS. With Windows the component that crashes most, on my PC, is
the Explorer shell.

When I used OS/2 it was also the shell (Presentation Manager) that crashed
the most. Jerry Pournelle loved OS/2 but commented on how unstable PM was.
It crashed a lot less than Windows of the time (either 95 or NT) but it had
the unfortunate habit of overwriting the MBR with whatever file I was trying
to save when it crashed.

Come to think of it, pre-95 Windows was very unreliable, but it was only a
DOS shell.


Depends which version. OS/2 2.0 was a bit unstable, though never in the
Win 95 class (even though it came out almost four years earlier than Win
95). OS/2 2.11 was, beyond comparison, the most stable OS I've ever
used. It needed rebooting after a power failure, but almost never
otherwise.

Warp 3.0 was pretty good, and Warp 4 rather better, but the Warp 4.5
Convenience Packs (2002 or thereabouts) are bulletproof. I use Warp CP
frequently to this day--the laptop I'm typing this on triple-boots XP,
Warp, and Fedora.

Win95 was much less stable than Win 3.1, if you were actually trying to
use it for anything. Win 98 wasn't great, but it was a *huge*
improvement over '95.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

Electrolytics question - update
 

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:
Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !
There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS. With Windows the component that crashes most, on my PC, is
the Explorer shell.

When I used OS/2 it was also the shell (Presentation Manager) that crashed
the most. Jerry Pournelle loved OS/2 but commented on how unstable PM was.
It crashed a lot less than Windows of the time (either 95 or NT) but it had
the unfortunate habit of overwriting the MBR with whatever file I was trying
to save when it crashed.

Come to think of it, pre-95 Windows was very unreliable, but it was only a
DOS shell.


Depends which version. OS/2 2.0 was a bit unstable, though never in the
Win 95 class (even though it came out almost four years earlier than Win
95). OS/2 2.11 was, beyond comparison, the most stable OS I've ever
used. It needed rebooting after a power failure, but almost never
otherwise.

Warp 3.0 was pretty good, and Warp 4 rather better, but the Warp 4.5
Convenience Packs (2002 or thereabouts) are bulletproof. I use Warp CP
frequently to this day--the laptop I'm typing this on triple-boots XP,
Warp, and Fedora.

Win95 was much less stable than Win 3.1, if you were actually trying to
use it for anything. Win 98 wasn't great, but it was a *huge*
improvement over '95.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

Electrolytics question - update
 

Arfa Daily wrote:

"msg" wrote in message
ernet...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

You know Graham, I've never been a Gates / MS / Windoze basher. A lot of
the flak that they take seems to come from people not liking the fact
that they tied the market up, and make squillions of dollars a day. OK,
so maybe there was something better than Windows just waiting to come on
the market, and maybe Gates and co did stop it by working to make Windows
the dominant OS worldwide, but looking at it the other way, it has got to
have done more to 'standardise' the world of home (and business)
computing, and to make it practical and affordable to the whole world at
large, than any other factor which has had an influence.

It is difficult not to want to respond to this post and I hope that other
folks do express their opinions in this thread (yet another o/s religious
debate), especially those with expertise and experience in these matters,
but I would like to make a few points (briefly);

snip
Geoff,

This discussion really merits in-depth analysis, and indeed there are ample
resources on the 'net addressing the arguments on each of your points, but
I'd like to pursue just a few of them a little further.

I don't really dispute any of these points Michael, but you are getting a
bit specific and specialised here.

Sorry, I should have interspersed my reply with some of your points which I
specifically tried to address from memory of your O.P.

I was talking in general about an
operating system that pretty much 'works out of the box' for the vast
majority of home and business users. It allows an average person who is an
average computer user rather than 'understand-er', to get excellent
functionality from something which, if you stop and think about it, is
actually an incredibly complex piece of technology.

Perhaps unmanageably complex in its current form; I remain a supporter
of the network computing model (thin clients for the average user) which
solve issues of software maintenance, client security, ease of use and
ultimately significantly lower total cost of ownership and operation.

Personal computers should not be allowed on public data networks without
being under the responsible aegis of a proven and responsible party, perhaps
licensed much like amateur radio stations. Unconnected PCs are free to
host as much malware as their owners care to tolerate.


I think that you would have to agree that without Windows providing a
standardised and user friendly platform, the use of the home computer, and
small business computer, would never have spread around the world like it
has. Nor would there be the huge raft of add-ons and peripherals that are
guaranteed to just work straight out of the box, and the price advantages
that that has brought with it, nor the unimaginably vast mountain of amateur
and professional software that having this 'universal' platform, has
spawned.

If not MS Windows, there would have been some other o/s; I always felt that
CP/M-86 and Concurrent CP/M-86 (multi-user and multi-tasking in some versions)
worked astonishingly well on the 8086 and could have evolved into a first-class
o/s. There were quite a few 8086 o/s candidates whose names have long since
vanished from consciousness that could have fit the bill, and as the x86
architecture advanced, Unix and the X11 GUI was poised to be the platform for
the future.

I know that a lot of people who think of themselves as 'experts', decry the
inclusion of e-mail and browser software in the OS, and declare both
Explorer and OE to be useless rubbish, but again, the fact that they are
there - and to all but the most picky of users, do what they should - has, I
think, done more than any other factor to promote the use of e-mail and the
internet to average people, who never thought that they would ever be able
to cope with such things. Lets face it, most regular Joes have difficulty
working their VCR or washing machine in detail, so it really is remarkable
that they have got to grips so well with a highly complex item like a
computer.

I submit that we all would have been far better off if this had not happened,
since the libertarian character of the Internet is under attack and is likely to
vanish in the coming years under new draconian rules in the various wars on
'terror', IP protection, identity theft, wire crimes of all sorts, etc., etc.
due to the escalating damage by armies of botnets, trojans, malware of all sorts
ad infinitum.

If 'Joe Blow' had only been allowed on administered systems (such as the old BBS,
timesharing services, private networks, etc.) and network clients, this predicament
certainly would not have happened in this fashion, and we would be more likely
to preserve our freedoms.

Even old grannies can do it, so that has got to say something
about the validity of the Windows platform, hasn't it ?

I have some experience in this area, and have found that Windows is far from
convenient or useful for many seniors, who can easily learn how to operate
other modern technology. These same folks use WebTV, Mailstations, and other
Internet appliances quite well, and I again submit that the network client
is a better choice for anyone who is not willing or able to technically
qualify and maintain a computer.

Electrolytics question - update
 

Arfa Daily wrote:

"msg" wrote in message
ernet...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

You know Graham, I've never been a Gates / MS / Windoze basher. A lot of
the flak that they take seems to come from people not liking the fact
that they tied the market up, and make squillions of dollars a day. OK,
so maybe there was something better than Windows just waiting to come on
the market, and maybe Gates and co did stop it by working to make Windows
the dominant OS worldwide, but looking at it the other way, it has got to
have done more to 'standardise' the world of home (and business)
computing, and to make it practical and affordable to the whole world at
large, than any other factor which has had an influence.

It is difficult not to want to respond to this post and I hope that other
folks do express their opinions in this thread (yet another o/s religious
debate), especially those with expertise and experience in these matters,
but I would like to make a few points (briefly);

snip
Geoff,

This discussion really merits in-depth analysis, and indeed there are ample
resources on the 'net addressing the arguments on each of your points, but
I'd like to pursue just a few of them a little further.

I don't really dispute any of these points Michael, but you are getting a
bit specific and specialised here.

Sorry, I should have interspersed my reply with some of your points which I
specifically tried to address from memory of your O.P.

I was talking in general about an
operating system that pretty much 'works out of the box' for the vast
majority of home and business users. It allows an average person who is an
average computer user rather than 'understand-er', to get excellent
functionality from something which, if you stop and think about it, is
actually an incredibly complex piece of technology.

Perhaps unmanageably complex in its current form; I remain a supporter
of the network computing model (thin clients for the average user) which
solve issues of software maintenance, client security, ease of use and
ultimately significantly lower total cost of ownership and operation.

Personal computers should not be allowed on public data networks without
being under the responsible aegis of a proven and responsible party, perhaps
licensed much like amateur radio stations. Unconnected PCs are free to
host as much malware as their owners care to tolerate.


I think that you would have to agree that without Windows providing a
standardised and user friendly platform, the use of the home computer, and
small business computer, would never have spread around the world like it
has. Nor would there be the huge raft of add-ons and peripherals that are
guaranteed to just work straight out of the box, and the price advantages
that that has brought with it, nor the unimaginably vast mountain of amateur
and professional software that having this 'universal' platform, has
spawned.

If not MS Windows, there would have been some other o/s; I always felt that
CP/M-86 and Concurrent CP/M-86 (multi-user and multi-tasking in some versions)
worked astonishingly well on the 8086 and could have evolved into a first-class
o/s. There were quite a few 8086 o/s candidates whose names have long since
vanished from consciousness that could have fit the bill, and as the x86
architecture advanced, Unix and the X11 GUI was poised to be the platform for
the future.

I know that a lot of people who think of themselves as 'experts', decry the
inclusion of e-mail and browser software in the OS, and declare both
Explorer and OE to be useless rubbish, but again, the fact that they are
there - and to all but the most picky of users, do what they should - has, I
think, done more than any other factor to promote the use of e-mail and the
internet to average people, who never thought that they would ever be able
to cope with such things. Lets face it, most regular Joes have difficulty
working their VCR or washing machine in detail, so it really is remarkable
that they have got to grips so well with a highly complex item like a
computer.

I submit that we all would have been far better off if this had not happened,
since the libertarian character of the Internet is under attack and is likely to
vanish in the coming years under new draconian rules in the various wars on
'terror', IP protection, identity theft, wire crimes of all sorts, etc., etc.
due to the escalating damage by armies of botnets, trojans, malware of all sorts
ad infinitum.

If 'Joe Blow' had only been allowed on administered systems (such as the old BBS,
timesharing services, private networks, etc.) and network clients, this predicament
certainly would not have happened in this fashion, and we would be more likely
to preserve our freedoms.

Even old grannies can do it, so that has got to say something
about the validity of the Windows platform, hasn't it ?

I have some experience in this area, and have found that Windows is far from
convenient or useful for many seniors, who can easily learn how to operate
other modern technology. These same folks use WebTV, Mailstations, and other
Internet appliances quite well, and I again submit that the network client
is a better choice for anyone who is not willing or able to technically
qualify and maintain a computer.

Electrolytics question - update
 

If 'Joe Blow' had only been allowed on administered systems (such as the
old BBS,
timesharing services, private networks, etc.) and network clients, this
predicament
certainly would not have happened in this fashion, and we would be more
likely
to preserve our freedoms.

What a lovely bit of doublespeak. If only things had started
constrained, managed, well controlled, without freedoms then we
wouldn't be (supposedly) on the way to losing the 'freedoms' that were
never allowed.


I'm not usually given to disagreeing with the majority of what you say,
Michael, but in this case, I'm with Flipper. Surely, you can't live your
life worrying about retrospective 'what ifs' can you ? Almost no piece of
modern life could ever have existed if this sort of life model had been
applied to it at the outset. Again, you are talking very specifically when
discussing computers in terms of networks and professional use. I don't
dispute that there are operating systems out there now, and that there have
been others in the past, that more specifically address a set of industrial
problems / requirements for computing functionality. There may well also
have been other OSs poised to be released (unleashed?) on the public, which
may have been better at the time than Windows, or may have grown to have
been better.

However, the fact remains that they didn't make it to market in time, or
they weren't promoted 'ruthlessly' enough by their creators. As a
businessman myself (allbeit a very small one), I can't knock Gates for
having done this. At the time, MS was a relatively small company. Its
ultimate success comes from the fact that at its head was a technically
extremely competent person, who was also a visionary businessman.

As far as the 'net goes, I can't see it ever being controlled in the
Draconian way you suggest that it will be. It is just too large, lumbering,
international and unbelievably complex to police in any way that is at all
practical. Governments like to make noises about this sort of thing as part
of their "we're doing something about it" public side, but on their private
side, they know that in reality, there's probably nothing that they can do
to change anything about it. If they could, and it was that easy, they would
have long ago stopped all of the fraud that goes on. You must also realise
in this context, that a government's hold on its tenure, is fragile at best,
and they won't, for the most part, have the balls to interfere with anything
that keeps the people under their 'control', docile, compliant, and happy.
The 'net is such a drug to entire populations from kids just about old
enough to sit in a chair, to grannies just about strong enough to carry
their laptop into hospital with them ...

And, like it or not, this is facilitated by the presence of that global
'standard' Windows, running - for the most part - quietly and satisfactorily
on the vast majority of machines.




Even old grannies can do it, so that has got to say something
about the validity of the Windows platform, hasn't it ?

I have some experience in this area, and have found that Windows is far
from
convenient or useful for many seniors, who can easily learn how to operate
other modern technology. These same folks use WebTV, Mailstations, and
other
Internet appliances quite well, and I again submit that the network client
is a better choice for anyone who is not willing or able to technically
qualify and maintain a computer.


But, had you have put these items in front of them *before* they had
experienced the graphic UI of Windows, and found that it was very easy to
learn icons and mousing, I would venture to suggest that they would have had
considerable difficulty. I too have a lot of experience of citizens from a
generation ago, trying to cope with technology, and for a very great deal of
them, operating today's technology is a serious challenge. Hell, even MY
generation can't work a lot of the stuff. In just the last couple of weeks,
I have had in for repair, two fairly straightforward items of home
entertainment equipment, both with 'faults' being caused by a lack of
understanding of the equipment, leading to functions being disabled in
menus.

Arfa

Electrolytics question - update
 

If 'Joe Blow' had only been allowed on administered systems (such as the
old BBS,
timesharing services, private networks, etc.) and network clients, this
predicament
certainly would not have happened in this fashion, and we would be more
likely
to preserve our freedoms.

What a lovely bit of doublespeak. If only things had started
constrained, managed, well controlled, without freedoms then we
wouldn't be (supposedly) on the way to losing the 'freedoms' that were
never allowed.


I'm not usually given to disagreeing with the majority of what you say,
Michael, but in this case, I'm with Flipper. Surely, you can't live your
life worrying about retrospective 'what ifs' can you ? Almost no piece of
modern life could ever have existed if this sort of life model had been
applied to it at the outset. Again, you are talking very specifically when
discussing computers in terms of networks and professional use. I don't
dispute that there are operating systems out there now, and that there have
been others in the past, that more specifically address a set of industrial
problems / requirements for computing functionality. There may well also
have been other OSs poised to be released (unleashed?) on the public, which
may have been better at the time than Windows, or may have grown to have
been better.

However, the fact remains that they didn't make it to market in time, or
they weren't promoted 'ruthlessly' enough by their creators. As a
businessman myself (allbeit a very small one), I can't knock Gates for
having done this. At the time, MS was a relatively small company. Its
ultimate success comes from the fact that at its head was a technically
extremely competent person, who was also a visionary businessman.

As far as the 'net goes, I can't see it ever being controlled in the
Draconian way you suggest that it will be. It is just too large, lumbering,
international and unbelievably complex to police in any way that is at all
practical. Governments like to make noises about this sort of thing as part
of their "we're doing something about it" public side, but on their private
side, they know that in reality, there's probably nothing that they can do
to change anything about it. If they could, and it was that easy, they would
have long ago stopped all of the fraud that goes on. You must also realise
in this context, that a government's hold on its tenure, is fragile at best,
and they won't, for the most part, have the balls to interfere with anything
that keeps the people under their 'control', docile, compliant, and happy.
The 'net is such a drug to entire populations from kids just about old
enough to sit in a chair, to grannies just about strong enough to carry
their laptop into hospital with them ...

And, like it or not, this is facilitated by the presence of that global
'standard' Windows, running - for the most part - quietly and satisfactorily
on the vast majority of machines.




Even old grannies can do it, so that has got to say something
about the validity of the Windows platform, hasn't it ?

I have some experience in this area, and have found that Windows is far
from
convenient or useful for many seniors, who can easily learn how to operate
other modern technology. These same folks use WebTV, Mailstations, and
other
Internet appliances quite well, and I again submit that the network client
is a better choice for anyone who is not willing or able to technically
qualify and maintain a computer.


But, had you have put these items in front of them *before* they had
experienced the graphic UI of Windows, and found that it was very easy to
learn icons and mousing, I would venture to suggest that they would have had
considerable difficulty. I too have a lot of experience of citizens from a
generation ago, trying to cope with technology, and for a very great deal of
them, operating today's technology is a serious challenge. Hell, even MY
generation can't work a lot of the stuff. In just the last couple of weeks,
I have had in for repair, two fairly straightforward items of home
entertainment equipment, both with 'faults' being caused by a lack of
understanding of the equipment, leading to functions being disabled in
menus.

Arfa

Electrolytics question - update
 

Arfa Daily wrote:

msg wrote:
flipper wrote:

If 'Joe Blow' had only been allowed on administered systems (such as the
old BBS,
timesharing services, private networks, etc.) and network clients, this
predicament
certainly would not have happened in this fashion, and we would be more
likely
to preserve our freedoms.

What a lovely bit of doublespeak. If only things had started
constrained, managed, well controlled, without freedoms then we
wouldn't be (supposedly) on the way to losing the 'freedoms' that were
never allowed.

Perhaps I should have defined 'freedoms'. As with any example of a fast
proliferating phenomenon throughout history, disorder and threats to perceived
community order always produce regulation, restriction, taxation and
elimination. These reactions are often mitigated if the phenomenon is
at its outset responsibly deployed.

Please read John Walker's "Digital Imprimatur"; the creator of the very
popular first generation VoIP program 'spreakfreely' was very concerned
about the trends that now concern me and as a result stopped development
and support of his program. His lengthy statement is he

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/




I'm not usually given to disagreeing with the majority of what you say,
Michael, but in this case, I'm with Flipper. Surely, you can't live your
life worrying about retrospective 'what ifs' can you?

Heck, I have much more mundane worries that consume my worry budget; I just
felt compelled to join this discussion ;)

snip
There may well also
have been other OSs poised to be released (unleashed?) on the public, which
may have been better at the time than Windows, or may have grown to have
been better.

However, the fact remains that they didn't make it to market in time, or
they weren't promoted 'ruthlessly' enough by their creators. As a
businessman myself (allbeit a very small one), I can't knock Gates for
having done this. At the time, MS was a relatively small company. Its
ultimate success comes from the fact that at its head was a technically
extremely competent person, who was also a visionary businessman.

Debate over the reasons for MS' success is abundant and consensus really doesn't
yet exist; I was just pointing out that under other circumstances you may have
been thanking Gary Kildahl or someone else ;)


As far as the 'net goes, I can't see it ever being controlled in the
Draconian way you suggest that it will be. It is just too large, lumbering,
international and unbelievably complex to police in any way that is at all
practical.
snip

I hope and pray that you are right, but I fully expect to see forms of taxation,
regulation, pricing structures, and monitoring that effectively end today's
libertarian Internet.

In alt.internet.wireless Jeff Liebermann recently speculated:
"I've used the Wi-Fi hindsight example sufficiently that I've thought
about what wireless would be like in 2018. Visualize the DHS (Dept of
Homeland Security) running all communications and where you are
required to positively identify yourself before being allowed to use
the public airwaves. Meanwhile, spread spectrum bandwidth will be
auctioned by the megabyte in real time by the FCC, where user fees
have replaced spectrum auctions. SDR (software defined radio) will
have taken over, and every user can have their own protocol, optimized
for their specific application. More horror stories when I have time."


Michael

Electrolytics question - update
 

Arfa Daily wrote:

msg wrote:
flipper wrote:

If 'Joe Blow' had only been allowed on administered systems (such as the
old BBS,
timesharing services, private networks, etc.) and network clients, this
predicament
certainly would not have happened in this fashion, and we would be more
likely
to preserve our freedoms.

What a lovely bit of doublespeak. If only things had started
constrained, managed, well controlled, without freedoms then we
wouldn't be (supposedly) on the way to losing the 'freedoms' that were
never allowed.

Perhaps I should have defined 'freedoms'. As with any example of a fast
proliferating phenomenon throughout history, disorder and threats to perceived
community order always produce regulation, restriction, taxation and
elimination. These reactions are often mitigated if the phenomenon is
at its outset responsibly deployed.

Please read John Walker's "Digital Imprimatur"; the creator of the very
popular first generation VoIP program 'spreakfreely' was very concerned
about the trends that now concern me and as a result stopped development
and support of his program. His lengthy statement is he

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/




I'm not usually given to disagreeing with the majority of what you say,
Michael, but in this case, I'm with Flipper. Surely, you can't live your
life worrying about retrospective 'what ifs' can you?

Heck, I have much more mundane worries that consume my worry budget; I just
felt compelled to join this discussion ;)

snip
There may well also
have been other OSs poised to be released (unleashed?) on the public, which
may have been better at the time than Windows, or may have grown to have
been better.

However, the fact remains that they didn't make it to market in time, or
they weren't promoted 'ruthlessly' enough by their creators. As a
businessman myself (allbeit a very small one), I can't knock Gates for
having done this. At the time, MS was a relatively small company. Its
ultimate success comes from the fact that at its head was a technically
extremely competent person, who was also a visionary businessman.

Debate over the reasons for MS' success is abundant and consensus really doesn't
yet exist; I was just pointing out that under other circumstances you may have
been thanking Gary Kildahl or someone else ;)


As far as the 'net goes, I can't see it ever being controlled in the
Draconian way you suggest that it will be. It is just too large, lumbering,
international and unbelievably complex to police in any way that is at all
practical.
snip

I hope and pray that you are right, but I fully expect to see forms of taxation,
regulation, pricing structures, and monitoring that effectively end today's
libertarian Internet.

In alt.internet.wireless Jeff Liebermann recently speculated:
"I've used the Wi-Fi hindsight example sufficiently that I've thought
about what wireless would be like in 2018. Visualize the DHS (Dept of
Homeland Security) running all communications and where you are
required to positively identify yourself before being allowed to use
the public airwaves. Meanwhile, spread spectrum bandwidth will be
auctioned by the megabyte in real time by the FCC, where user fees
have replaced spectrum auctions. SDR (software defined radio) will
have taken over, and every user can have their own protocol, optimized
for their specific application. More horror stories when I have time."


Michael

Electrolytics question - update
 

snip

As far as the 'net goes, I can't see it ever being controlled in the
Draconian way you suggest that it will be. It is just too large,
lumbering, international and unbelievably complex to police in any way
that is at all practical.
snip

I hope and pray that you are right, but I fully expect to see forms of
taxation,
regulation, pricing structures, and monitoring that effectively end
today's
libertarian Internet.

In alt.internet.wireless Jeff Liebermann recently speculated:
"I've used the Wi-Fi hindsight example sufficiently that I've thought
about what wireless would be like in 2018. Visualize the DHS (Dept of
Homeland Security) running all communications and where you are
required to positively identify yourself before being allowed to use
the public airwaves. Meanwhile, spread spectrum bandwidth will be
auctioned by the megabyte in real time by the FCC, where user fees
have replaced spectrum auctions. SDR (software defined radio) will
have taken over, and every user can have their own protocol, optimized
for their specific application. More horror stories when I have time."


Michael

As a lurker and long-time contributor to this group Michael, you cannot have
missed that Jeff can often be a contentious poster, and takes great delight
in discussing such subject matter. You can almost see the twinkle in his eye
as you read what he says. I'm sure that he's probably following this thread,
waiting for the opportunity to jump in ... :-)

It's all very well what he says in the snippet above, and I'm sure that
there is boundless 'evidence' (on the 'net at least) to support what he is
worrying is going to happen, but in reality, it borders on conspiracy
theory. For the most part, governments haven't got the time, money,
resources or inclination to try to police or control activities of this
type, in the way Jeff envisages.

It would actually be rather easy for governments to tax internet access by
levying a charge on every user, via their ISP, who is already collecting
money from them every month. But they haven't, which has to make you ask the
question "why?".

I think that Jeff correctly summed up his post when he chose the two words
"horror" and "stories" ...

Arfa

Electrolytics question - update
 

snip

As far as the 'net goes, I can't see it ever being controlled in the
Draconian way you suggest that it will be. It is just too large,
lumbering, international and unbelievably complex to police in any way
that is at all practical.
snip

I hope and pray that you are right, but I fully expect to see forms of
taxation,
regulation, pricing structures, and monitoring that effectively end
today's
libertarian Internet.

In alt.internet.wireless Jeff Liebermann recently speculated:
"I've used the Wi-Fi hindsight example sufficiently that I've thought
about what wireless would be like in 2018. Visualize the DHS (Dept of
Homeland Security) running all communications and where you are
required to positively identify yourself before being allowed to use
the public airwaves. Meanwhile, spread spectrum bandwidth will be
auctioned by the megabyte in real time by the FCC, where user fees
have replaced spectrum auctions. SDR (software defined radio) will
have taken over, and every user can have their own protocol, optimized
for their specific application. More horror stories when I have time."


Michael

As a lurker and long-time contributor to this group Michael, you cannot have
missed that Jeff can often be a contentious poster, and takes great delight
in discussing such subject matter. You can almost see the twinkle in his eye
as you read what he says. I'm sure that he's probably following this thread,
waiting for the opportunity to jump in ... :-)

It's all very well what he says in the snippet above, and I'm sure that
there is boundless 'evidence' (on the 'net at least) to support what he is
worrying is going to happen, but in reality, it borders on conspiracy
theory. For the most part, governments haven't got the time, money,
resources or inclination to try to police or control activities of this
type, in the way Jeff envisages.

It would actually be rather easy for governments to tax internet access by
levying a charge on every user, via their ISP, who is already collecting
money from them every month. But they haven't, which has to make you ask the
question "why?".

I think that Jeff correctly summed up his post when he chose the two words
"horror" and "stories" ...

Arfa

Electrolytics question - update
 

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:55:11 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:18:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:53:15 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



Peter Hucker wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Meee wrote:

I was wondering why vertical mounting electrolytics have like an
indented cross on them.

To release the pressure and gunk under fault conditions (or bad
manufacture).

The reason I ask is because there's 4 largeish
one around my CPU on the motherboard and they have all split open,
along the indentations.

Oh dear.

A: How old is it ? (from date of manufacture)

B: Can you read what brands they are ?

C: Has your PC sharted behaving strangely yet ?

D: What brand mobo is it ?

E: Replace ASAP with well-known brand, low ESR (switching) types.

That is REPLACE ALL OF THEM, NOT JUST ONES THAT HAVE BLOWN TODAY


You will find a lot of info here.
http://badcaps.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague

Nice quip from the above

" From so many users, ranging from large corporate networks all the way
to the home user, the number one reason people give for wanting to
repair their hardware is they want to avoid a new system and the
disaster known as Windows Vista!

On a humorous note regarding Vista, I spoke to an IT guy who manages a
small business network for an insurance company (maintains a 100
terminal network), and had a bunch of failing Dell SX280's, which I
repaired. One branch had the brilliant idea to "upgrade" to Vista
systems, and his job was to make them all play nice with each other.
This gentleman was probably the most professional, polite, and courteous
clients I've ever spoken with on the phone, until we got onto the
subject of Vista....then the four-letter words started flowing
freely... In the end, he wiped all the Vista machines, and upgraded
them back to XP Pro."

Maybe he is ioncompetant. I have zero problems with Vista.

Aside from the fact it runs slower than XP on the same hardware

You're not supposed to put newer software on old equipment. Memory is cheap, just add some.

That might have some validity if there was anything useful added.

But needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance.

It's not the same thing at all.

So much for Microsoft's marketing strategy of selling upgrade
versions, eh?

I didn't write that clearly. It's fine to put a new OS on old equipment, just upgrade it a little. Memory is cheap and is the main factor preventing a newer OS from functioning well.

Under your theory, what is the point of buying faster hardware to run
slower software so you end up where you started?

You don't end up where you started, you get more features

You mean 'features' like having to tell it twice over that, yes, you
really do want to run the program you already asked it to run?

I switched that off. Yes it was a silly idea, presumably intended to cover up some security problems.

Or the
'productivity feature' of being able to make a video your background
instead of suffering with it in a window?

Never tried it.

And of course, the biggie: transparent window borders. That one is so
useful I now print documents on special paper with cellophane around
the edges.

That is very useful. I don't have to peak under things to see stuff underneath.

and less bugs.

LOL

How can you tell with half your software gone because it's
'incompatible'?

I lost zero software. Including some dodgy stuff I though M$ would prevent operating like CloneDVD.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

The remarkable thing about my mother is that for 30 years she served us nothing but leftovers. The original meal has never been found. -- Calvin Trillin

Electrolytics question - update
 

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:48:42 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:34:45 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
m
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS.

As you just said, you remember the *app* crashing and freezing.

DOS was (is) basically a program loader and control of the machine
goes to the app so unless, in it's brain dead stupor as it crashes, it
hands control back to the CLI then that's all she wrote.

What about managing TSRs?

With Windows the component that crashes most, on my PC, is
the Explorer shell.

When I used OS/2 it was also the shell (Presentation Manager) that crashed
the most. Jerry Pournelle loved OS/2 but commented on how unstable PM was.
It crashed a lot less than Windows of the time (either 95 or NT) but it had
the unfortunate habit of overwriting the MBR with whatever file I was trying
to save when it crashed.

Come to think of it, pre-95 Windows was very unreliable, but it was only a
DOS shell.




--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

_,,,_
.-'` ( '.
.-' ,_ ; \___ _,
__.' ) \'.__.'(:;'.__.'/
__..--"" ( '.__{':');}__.'
.' ( ; ( .-|` ' |-.
/ ( ) ) '-p q-'
( ; ; ; ; |.---.|
) ( ( ; \ o o)
| ) ; | ) ) /'.__/
) ; ) ; | ; //
( ) _,\ ; //
; ( ,_,,-~""~`"" \ ( //
\_.'\\_ '. /_
\\_)--\ \ \--\
)--\""` )--\"`
`""` `""`

Electrolytics question - update
 

On 2008-12-09, Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:48:42 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:34:45 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
om
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS.

As you just said, you remember the *app* crashing and freezing.

DOS was (is) basically a program loader and control of the machine
goes to the app so unless, in it's brain dead stupor as it crashes, it
hands control back to the CLI then that's all she wrote.

What about managing TSRs?

they bascially took care of themselves.

Electrolytics question - update
 

On 2008-12-09, Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:48:42 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:34:45 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
om
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS.

As you just said, you remember the *app* crashing and freezing.

DOS was (is) basically a program loader and control of the machine
goes to the app so unless, in it's brain dead stupor as it crashes, it
hands control back to the CLI then that's all she wrote.

What about managing TSRs?

they bascially took care of themselves.

Electrolytics question - update
 

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2008-12-09, Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:48:42 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:34:45 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
om
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS.

As you just said, you remember the *app* crashing and freezing.

DOS was (is) basically a program loader and control of the machine
goes to the app so unless, in it's brain dead stupor as it crashes, it
hands control back to the CLI then that's all she wrote.

What about managing TSRs?

they bascially took care of themselves.


Sure they did. Most remained in the system RAM, and used resources,
until you rebooted. Very few did a clean exit when they were finished.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

Electrolytics question - update
 

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2008-12-09, Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:48:42 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:34:45 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
om
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS.

As you just said, you remember the *app* crashing and freezing.

DOS was (is) basically a program loader and control of the machine
goes to the app so unless, in it's brain dead stupor as it crashes, it
hands control back to the CLI then that's all she wrote.

What about managing TSRs?

they bascially took care of themselves.


Sure they did. Most remained in the system RAM, and used resources,
until you rebooted. Very few did a clean exit when they were finished.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

Electrolytics question - update
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:25:05 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:47:00 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:48:42 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:34:45 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
m
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS.

As you just said, you remember the *app* crashing and freezing.

DOS was (is) basically a program loader and control of the machine
goes to the app so unless, in it's brain dead stupor as it crashes, it
hands control back to the CLI then that's all she wrote.

What about managing TSRs?

DOS simply loads TSRs, it doesn't 'manage' them.

Then what gives each program time on the CPU?

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Please tell your pants it's not polite to point.

Electrolytics question - update
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:25:05 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:47:00 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:48:42 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:34:45 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
m
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS.

As you just said, you remember the *app* crashing and freezing.

DOS was (is) basically a program loader and control of the machine
goes to the app so unless, in it's brain dead stupor as it crashes, it
hands control back to the CLI then that's all she wrote.

What about managing TSRs?

DOS simply loads TSRs, it doesn't 'manage' them.

Then what gives each program time on the CPU?

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Please tell your pants it's not polite to point.

Electrolytics question - update
 

"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:25:05 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:47:00 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:48:42 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:34:45 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
om
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of
the
app, not the OS.

As you just said, you remember the *app* crashing and freezing.

DOS was (is) basically a program loader and control of the machine
goes to the app so unless, in it's brain dead stupor as it crashes, it
hands control back to the CLI then that's all she wrote.

What about managing TSRs?

DOS simply loads TSRs, it doesn't 'manage' them.

Then what gives each program time on the CPU?


PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

Its a service call that loads into memory and then returns control to the
system as if its quit, it can be triggered at a later time by a specific
event - probably similar to an interrupt handler.

Electrolytics question - update
 

"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:25:05 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:47:00 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:48:42 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:34:45 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
om
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of
the
app, not the OS.

As you just said, you remember the *app* crashing and freezing.

DOS was (is) basically a program loader and control of the machine
goes to the app so unless, in it's brain dead stupor as it crashes, it
hands control back to the CLI then that's all she wrote.

What about managing TSRs?

DOS simply loads TSRs, it doesn't 'manage' them.

Then what gives each program time on the CPU?


PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

Its a service call that loads into memory and then returns control to the
system as if its quit, it can be triggered at a later time by a specific
event - probably similar to an interrupt handler.

Electrolytics question - update
 

ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

I had a grumble at a manager at the local supermarket as to why they never seem
to have 1/2 size baguettes any more. Apparently there's a shortage of *bakers*
! So he says. I guess school taught them all to be environmentalists, health
and safety workers, estate agents (realtors), rock stars and so on.

Graham

Electrolytics question - update
 

ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

I had a grumble at a manager at the local supermarket as to why they never seem
to have 1/2 size baguettes any more. Apparently there's a shortage of *bakers*
! So he says. I guess school taught them all to be environmentalists, health
and safety workers, estate agents (realtors), rock stars and so on.

Graham

Electrolytics question - update
 

"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
...
DOS simply loads TSRs, it doesn't 'manage' them.

Then what gives each program time on the CPU?

TSRs just hooked into DOS's keyboard handler, and responded when a
particular key combination was pressed, usually ALT-something. When this
key combo was pressed DOS would hand control to the TSR. When you
"exited" the TSR, control was passed back DOS (or whatever other app was
running at the time the ALT-something key was pressed).

DOS was merely a program loader, a disk formatter and some related
utilities. Everything else was left up to the apps - memory management,
printing, video, serial comms, etc. That is why each word processor come
with it's own printer drivers.

Electrolytics question - update
 

"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
...
DOS simply loads TSRs, it doesn't 'manage' them.

Then what gives each program time on the CPU?

TSRs just hooked into DOS's keyboard handler, and responded when a
particular key combination was pressed, usually ALT-something. When this
key combo was pressed DOS would hand control to the TSR. When you
"exited" the TSR, control was passed back DOS (or whatever other app was
running at the time the ALT-something key was pressed).

DOS was merely a program loader, a disk formatter and some related
utilities. Everything else was left up to the apps - memory management,
printing, video, serial comms, etc. That is why each word processor come
with it's own printer drivers.

Electrolytics question - update
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

I had a grumble at a manager at the local supermarket as to why they never
seem
to have 1/2 size baguettes any more. Apparently there's a shortage of
*bakers*
! So he says. I guess school taught them all to be environmentalists,
health
and safety workers, estate agents (realtors), rock stars and so on.

Graham


My local Co-op store sells half baguettes from the "French Cuisine" (or some
such - can't quite remember now ...) range. My wife also sells many half
baguettes every day in the cafe she owns. Readily available from both one of
her suppliers, and the cash and carry warehouse she uses. None of those
sources seem to have any trouble supplying, so presumably, aren't short of
bakers !

Arfa

Electrolytics question - update
 

On 2008-12-10, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2008-12-09, Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:48:42 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:34:45 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
om
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS.

As you just said, you remember the *app* crashing and freezing.

DOS was (is) basically a program loader and control of the machine
goes to the app so unless, in it's brain dead stupor as it crashes, it
hands control back to the CLI then that's all she wrote.

What about managing TSRs?

they bascially took care of themselves.

Sure they did. Most remained in the system RAM, and used resources,
until you rebooted. Very few did a clean exit when they were finished.

that's because they weren't designed to finish.

Electrolytics question - update
 

On 2008-12-10, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2008-12-09, Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:48:42 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:34:45 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
om
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS.

As you just said, you remember the *app* crashing and freezing.

DOS was (is) basically a program loader and control of the machine
goes to the app so unless, in it's brain dead stupor as it crashes, it
hands control back to the CLI then that's all she wrote.

What about managing TSRs?

they bascially took care of themselves.

Sure they did. Most remained in the system RAM, and used resources,
until you rebooted. Very few did a clean exit when they were finished.

that's because they weren't designed to finish.

Electrolytics question - update
 

On 2008-12-10, Peter Hucker wrote:


What about managing TSRs?

DOS simply loads TSRs, it doesn't 'manage' them.

Then what gives each program time on the CPU?

the inteerupt table (or nothing).

Electrolytics question - update
 

On 2008-12-10, Peter Hucker wrote:


What about managing TSRs?

DOS simply loads TSRs, it doesn't 'manage' them.

Then what gives each program time on the CPU?

the inteerupt table (or nothing).

Electrolytics question - update
 

On 2008-12-11, Bob Campbell wrote:
"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
...
DOS simply loads TSRs, it doesn't 'manage' them.

Then what gives each program time on the CPU?

TSRs just hooked into DOS's keyboard handler, and responded when a
particular key combination was pressed, usually ALT-something.

BIOS's keyboard event interrupt, well, some did.

I wrote a few that used the 18.2Hz timer interrupt or the 1024Hz RTC
interrupt.

When this key combo was pressed DOS would hand control to the TSR.

well, no. when any key was pressed the TSR would check it and decide
if it needed to take further action.

When you
"exited" the TSR, control was passed back DOS (or whatever other app was
running at the time the ALT-something key was pressed).

DOS was merely a program loader, a disk formatter and some related
utilities. Everything else was left up to the apps - memory management,
printing, video, serial comms, etc. That is why each word processor come
with it's own printer drivers.

actually dos had rudimetary serial comms and would provide every
application with a file handle ( number 3 or 4 - I forget which) opened on
(almost always) COM1

Electrolytics question - update
 

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2008-12-10, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2008-12-09, Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:48:42 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:34:45 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
om
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS.

As you just said, you remember the *app* crashing and freezing.

DOS was (is) basically a program loader and control of the machine
goes to the app so unless, in it's brain dead stupor as it crashes, it
hands control back to the CLI then that's all she wrote.

What about managing TSRs?

they bascially took care of themselves.

Sure they did. Most remained in the system RAM, and used resources,
until you rebooted. Very few did a clean exit when they were finished.

that's because they weren't designed to finish.


That's what SR in TSR meant 'Stay Resident'. Some tied up other
resources they were no longer using as well, because they were so poorly
written.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.