Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!"
Try more ad hominem attacks to prove your case. Ohhhh...what case? ------------ "Mike Marlow" wrote in message ... Oh please! In theory only. You just destroyed your credibility with two simple statements there Jack. ------------------- Jack wrote: Disk and memory access was in the terabytes, disk fragmentation was non-existent and on and on and on. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
That's one I have never heard of.
Geeezzzz I used a Radio Scrap CoCo II, running a multitasking, multi user O/S with 32K for a business. ------------- wrote in message news:23284940.663.1319033716417.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prgt10... m II, I believe that United Technologies, which counts among its subsidiaries Pratt & Whitney and Sikorski, counts as a "decent sized business" and they had company-provide Apple IIs before IBM shipped their first PC. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On 10/19/11 6:42 PM, m II wrote:
May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!" You are the absolute stupidest idiot I've ever seen on the internet. Pay attention, moron... just because two people have the same first name, doesn't mean they are the same person. -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
Bull****!
-------------- "-MIKE-" wrote in message ... On 10/19/11 6:42 PM, m II wrote: May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!" You are the absolute stupidest idiot I've ever seen on the internet. Pay attention, moron... just because two people have the same first name, doesn't mean they are the same person. -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On Oct 19, 7:48*pm, "m II" wrote:
Bull****! -------------- "-MIKE-" *wrote in ... On 10/19/11 6:42 PM, m II wrote: May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!" You are the absolute stupidest idiot I've ever seen on the internet. Pay attention, moron... just because two people have the same first name, doesn't mean they are the same person. If that little prick ever met me face-to-face, he'd crap his panties. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On 10/19/11 7:54 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 19, 7:48 pm, "m wrote: Bull****! -------------- "-MIKE-" wrote in ... On 10/19/11 6:42 PM, m II wrote: May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!" You are the absolute stupidest idiot I've ever seen on the internet. Pay attention, moron... just because two people have the same first name, doesn't mean they are the same person. If that little prick ever met me face-to-face, he'd crap his panties. Why would you be in his mommy's basement? -- Froz... The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
-MIKE- wrote:
On 10/19/11 6:42 PM, m II wrote: May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!" You are the absolute stupidest idiot I've ever seen on the internet. Pay attention, moron... just because two people have the same first name, doesn't mean they are the same person. He's just a freakin' moron Mike... -- -Mike- |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
m II wrote:
Bull****. That's one I have never heard of. Geeezzzz I used a Radio Scrap CoCo II, running a multitasking, multi user O/S with 32K for a business. ------------- wrote in message news:23284940.663.1319033716417.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prgt10... m II, I believe that United Technologies, which counts among its subsidiaries Pratt & Whitney and Sikorski, counts as a "decent sized business" and they had company-provide Apple IIs before IBM shipped their first PC. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On 10/19/2011 5:32 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:24:30 -0400, wrote: Nothing I said should give you that idea. IBM contracted with Gates for the DT/PC OS. They could have written it themselves with no problem. Actually, the couldn't. It would have cost *far* too much. Perhaps you have no clue how much money IBM had/has. They had cocktail party's that cost more than Gates bought DOS for. Why they contracted with Gates is pure speculation, but NEVER did I say it was because IBM couldn't do it themselves. My GUESS is IBM didn't think the PC market would do anything, and if it did, they didn't want another anti-trust suit, so they contracted with a dip**** they thought they could control. For the anticipated 25K units? No, the reason they didn't write it themselves is that it would have cost 100x too much. The PC was a "skunkworks" project, flying under the RADAR of the monster. The whole design team was only a few people. And the reason they contracted with Gates, who didn't have or own an OS instead of someone already established was because what the hell, PC's were skunkwork, right. IBM wanted Gates to develop OS/2 so they could use it as the OS for ATM machines, which had to be stable, unlike DOS/WIN. When Gates couldn't deliver after years of trying, IBM did it themselves in less than a year, after Gates said it was impossible to do what IBM wanted. ATMs were *one* application for OS/2. There were *many* others. I know, I ran my BBS under it. IBM took over the design because they needed it for their ATM business. Now, I think between MS, IBM and INTEL, they have a cartel and it will take an act of god to get them to do more than rip everyone off. They "have" a cartel? IBM isn't even in that business anymore. BTW, Intel and MS hate each other. Sure they do. IBM was shipping 32-bit preemptively multitasking protected virtual operating systems when Bill Gates was still in high school. Doesn't change the fact they contracted with Gates to provide an OS for their PC. Gates didn't even HAVE one at the time. IBM could have gone to Patterson themselves and bought the OS instead of Gates. I don't know why they didn't, but the most likely story I heard was Gates mother was in with some IBM big cheese. I've never heard that story and I worked for the beast. Any citations? Millions worked for the beast, and didn't even know who the CEO was let alone who his friends were. Any how, this was fairly common knowledge during the OS wars in the BBS world. Since you worked for the beast, I assume you can explain why IBM contracted with a looser like Gates when they were developing and marketing and servicing complex multitasking systems and equipment when Gates was jerking off in the boys room. Why didn't IBM just go to Patterson and buy DOS off of him, or off Digital Research that already had a working system or anyone other than a college dropout that had no product to sell? Microsoft bailed on OS/2 because Windows was making much more money for them, pure and simple. Yep. MS never could get OS/2 to work. IBM took the project off of MS when they failed to deliver. IBM dropped OS/2 when it started to threaten MS corner on the DT/PC OS market. Why they did this is speculative, my feeling is the anti-trust thing, combined with the cozy cartel IBM/MS/INTEL has going for them. Baloney. IBM withdrew it when it was clear there was no money to be had. There was no money to be had because they didn't want to spend the $200M needed to market it. IBM was in tough shape in the early '90s, borrowing money to pay dividends. Baloney, $200 million was nothing compared to the potential returns, and IBM had the money if they wanted to go that way. They spent more money just on R&D than Microsoft grossed in those days. They could have trashed MS with ease, had they wanted too. They had the product (OS/2) they had the money, they had all they needed, but, they didn't want to go that way. My guess is anti-trust fears, but since you worked for the beast, I'm sure you know the real deal. And if IBM was selling a million copies a month then it must have been more available than you claim. All I know is you could not buy a PC at any retail outlet (other than possibly IBM, not sure about that) with OS/2 installed. There were retail outlets, both storefront and Internet, that sold PCs with OS/2 installed. Dell, HP, and Gateway didn't, if that's what you mean. What I mean is no large retailers sold PC's with anything other than windows on it. The geek down the street selling 20 PC's a year didn't matter much, and they mostly sold DOS/WIN for a variety of reasons, all related to the MS monopoly when OS/2 Warp was out. None of the retail stores around here sold OS/2, I know that because I had to get my copies directly from IBM. The sales numbers were being reported by OS/2 user groups, I don't know where they got their numbers but I was following them closely because I was keenly interested. IBM did little to no retail marketing of OS/2, and most of the noise about it came from delighted users, and the OS/2 user group. The user group got some, but very little support from IBM. It was obvious to me that IBM was not interested in competing with the company to which they bestowed the DT/PC OS market. IMO, had they wanted to, they could have crushed Gates and MS like a grape. Wrong. -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life. http://jbstein.com |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On 10/19/2011 7:29 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Jack wrote: Disk and memory access was in the terabytes, disk fragmentation was non-existent and on and on and on. Oh please! In theory only. Well yeah, PC's didn't have terabytes of memory, but the OS/2 kernel was theoretically able to access 64 terabytes of it. Pretty sure the same was true of disk space. Dos/win limits were perfect for requiring annual upgrades as memory limits were reached on almost a monthly basis. As far as disk fragmentation, it was non-existent on an HPFS drive, I know, I ran one for many years, writing and deleting many thousands of files daily. Never once had to defrag. I reckon theoretically it was possible, but in reality, never happened. (I'm not even sure it was possible theoretically). HPFS I'm fairly sure was developed by MS, which should give you a hint I don't care who writes the good stuff, just the crap) Pretty neat they chose to use DOS to manage their disks. Piece of ****, good enough for the dos/win losers, who were happy as hell to lose files, have massive fragmentation and have to upgrade every time memory and drives grew past DOS limits, which was usually within a month of each release (IBM don't ya know). That could all have been avoided if MS and IBM would simply have gone with OS/2. Wait, they couldn't have raped the user year after year if the software worked for decades instead of months. Oh, and Gates would be as much a hero to me as Ritchie. You just destroyed your credibility with two simple statements there Jack. Too bad, I've made plenty of mistakes, well, maybe not plenty, but not these two statements. Besides if I make a statement from memory of what OS/2 was doing in 1995, and it happened to be wrong, seems pretty ****ing disingenuous I'd lose all credibility for that? I thought you were better than that. I went ahead and looked up the 64 terabytes of memory address since it cost me all credibility. Happy to report I was correct. I'll stick with my memory on the disk memory and defrag issues. -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life. http://jbstein.com |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On 10/19/2011 8:17 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote: On 10/19/11 6:42 PM, m II wrote: May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!" You are the absolute stupidest idiot I've ever seen on the internet. Pay attention, moron... just because two people have the same first name, doesn't mean they are the same person. He's just a freakin' moron Mike... I thought both you Mikes were too smart to waste time with the trolls, right? Really... -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life. http://jbstein.com |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:10:11 -0400, Jack wrote:
On 10/19/2011 7:29 PM, Mike Marlow wrote: Jack wrote: Disk and memory access was in the terabytes, disk fragmentation was non-existent and on and on and on. Oh please! In theory only. Well yeah, PC's didn't have terabytes of memory, but the OS/2 kernel was theoretically able to access 64 terabytes of it. Pretty sure the same was true of disk space. Dos/win limits were perfect for requiring annual upgrades as memory limits were reached on almost a monthly basis. As far as disk fragmentation, it was non-existent on an HPFS drive, I know, I ran one for many years, writing and deleting many thousands of files daily. Never once had to defrag. I reckon theoretically it was possible, but in reality, never happened. (I'm not even sure it was possible theoretically). Less likely but it would fragment. HPFS I'm fairly sure was developed by MS, which should give you a hint I don't care who writes the good stuff, just the crap) Pretty neat they chose to use DOS to manage their disks. Piece of ****, good enough for the dos/win losers, who were happy as hell to lose files, have massive fragmentation and have to upgrade every time memory and drives grew past DOS limits, which was usually within a month of each release (IBM don't ya know). That could all have been avoided if MS and IBM would simply have gone with OS/2. Wait, they couldn't have raped the user year after year if the software worked for decades instead of months. Oh, and Gates would be as much a hero to me as Ritchie. HPFS was indeed written by Steve Ballmer. It's really not all that different from NTFS. An HPFS drive is a *little* less likely to fragment because of the way it uses "bands" of the disk, but it will if the disk gets filled. You just destroyed your credibility with two simple statements there Jack. Too bad, I've made plenty of mistakes, well, maybe not plenty, but not these two statements. Besides if I make a statement from memory of what OS/2 was doing in 1995, and it happened to be wrong, seems pretty ****ing disingenuous I'd lose all credibility for that? I thought you were better than that. I went ahead and looked up the 64 terabytes of memory address since it cost me all credibility. Happy to report I was correct. I'll stick with my memory on the disk memory and defrag issues. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:24:09 -0400, Jack wrote:
On 10/19/2011 5:32 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote: On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:24:30 -0400, wrote: Nothing I said should give you that idea. IBM contracted with Gates for the DT/PC OS. They could have written it themselves with no problem. Actually, the couldn't. It would have cost *far* too much. Perhaps you have no clue how much money IBM had/has. They had cocktail party's that cost more than Gates bought DOS for. I have a little clue. I worked for them for 32 years. You certainly don't understand IBM or business, for that matter. Why they contracted with Gates is pure speculation, but NEVER did I say it was because IBM couldn't do it themselves. My GUESS is IBM didn't think the PC market would do anything, and if it did, they didn't want another anti-trust suit, so they contracted with a dip**** they thought they could control. For the anticipated 25K units? No, the reason they didn't write it themselves is that it would have cost 100x too much. The PC was a "skunkworks" project, flying under the RADAR of the monster. The whole design team was only a few people. And the reason they contracted with Gates, who didn't have or own an OS instead of someone already established was because what the hell, PC's were skunkwork, right. The Boca PC folks couldn't do it and they certainly didn't have the cash to pay the OS developers to do it (they asked the question and were laughed out of town). So, yes, pretty much. IBM wanted Gates to develop OS/2 so they could use it as the OS for ATM machines, which had to be stable, unlike DOS/WIN. When Gates couldn't deliver after years of trying, IBM did it themselves in less than a year, after Gates said it was impossible to do what IBM wanted. ATMs were *one* application for OS/2. There were *many* others. I know, I ran my BBS under it. IBM took over the design because they needed it for their ATM business. No, they needed it for *many* businesses and *many* customers. ATMs were a small one. Now, I think between MS, IBM and INTEL, they have a cartel and it will take an act of god to get them to do more than rip everyone off. They "have" a cartel? IBM isn't even in that business anymore. BTW, Intel and MS hate each other. Sure they do. You got your words swapped; "They sure do!" IBM was shipping 32-bit preemptively multitasking protected virtual operating systems when Bill Gates was still in high school. Doesn't change the fact they contracted with Gates to provide an OS for their PC. Gates didn't even HAVE one at the time. IBM could have gone to Patterson themselves and bought the OS instead of Gates. I don't know why they didn't, but the most likely story I heard was Gates mother was in with some IBM big cheese. I've never heard that story and I worked for the beast. Any citations? Millions worked for the beast, and didn't even know who the CEO was let alone who his friends were. Of course you don't. More cred down the drain. Any how, this was fairly common knowledge during the OS wars in the BBS world. Any more fairy tales? Since you worked for the beast, I assume you can explain why IBM contracted with a looser like Gates when they were developing and marketing and servicing complex multitasking systems and equipment when Gates was jerking off in the boys room. Why didn't IBM just go to Patterson and buy DOS off of him, or off Digital Research that already had a working system or anyone other than a college dropout that had no product to sell? They didn't have the contacts. That was tough. Microsoft bailed on OS/2 because Windows was making much more money for them, pure and simple. Yep. MS never could get OS/2 to work. IBM took the project off of MS when they failed to deliver. IBM dropped OS/2 when it started to threaten MS corner on the DT/PC OS market. Why they did this is speculative, my feeling is the anti-trust thing, combined with the cozy cartel IBM/MS/INTEL has going for them. Baloney. IBM withdrew it when it was clear there was no money to be had. There was no money to be had because they didn't want to spend the $200M needed to market it. IBM was in tough shape in the early '90s, borrowing money to pay dividends. Baloney, $200 million was nothing compared to the potential returns, and IBM had the money if they wanted to go that way. They spent more money just on R&D than Microsoft grossed in those days. They could have trashed MS with ease, had they wanted too. They had the product (OS/2) they had the money, they had all they needed, but, they didn't want to go that way. My guess is anti-trust fears, but since you worked for the beast, I'm sure you know the real deal. I know IBM was under water at the time. They had *massive* layoffs in the early-mid '90s and were "two weeks from missing payroll". IBM, under Akers, had borrowed money to pay dividends for a decade. The cards almost crashed. Your "guesses" are just that; pathetic guesses. And if IBM was selling a million copies a month then it must have been more available than you claim. All I know is you could not buy a PC at any retail outlet (other than possibly IBM, not sure about that) with OS/2 installed. There were retail outlets, both storefront and Internet, that sold PCs with OS/2 installed. Dell, HP, and Gateway didn't, if that's what you mean. What I mean is no large retailers sold PC's with anything other than windows on it. The geek down the street selling 20 PC's a year didn't matter much, and they mostly sold DOS/WIN for a variety of reasons, all related to the MS monopoly when OS/2 Warp was out. I detect goalposts in motion. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:27:01 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote: wrote: On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:46:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow" wrote: zzzzzzzzzz wrote: On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:38:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow" wrote: zzzzzzzzzz wrote: IKWUABWAI? Pure stupidity. You are either a 20-something text adict or you are simply too lazy to type a comprehensive sentence - expecting everyone else to either understand or to look up your "acronyms". I can't help it if you're net illiterate, as well. Not at all net illiterate. Obviously not true. To you - and I've reached the point where what is obvious to you has become meaningless to me. So... **** off. I don't really care that you insist on making your ignorance public. Just not as lazy as you when it comes to actually typing out what I mean to say. At that - your cute little acronym is childish at best. And you consider yourself to be literate - in exactly what way? At least I know the common Usenet idioms. Ohhhhhh... good for you! You are such a freakin' hero... Don't cry! |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:42:49 -0400, "m II" wrote:
May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!" "May as well blurted"? Incredible lack of English skills you have there. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
Jack wrote:
Too bad, I've made plenty of mistakes, well, maybe not plenty, but not these two statements. Besides if I make a statement from memory of what OS/2 was doing in 1995, and it happened to be wrong, seems pretty ****ing disingenuous I'd lose all credibility for that? I thought you were better than that. I went ahead and looked up the 64 terabytes of memory address since it cost me all credibility. Happy to report I was correct. I'll stick with my memory on the disk memory and defrag issues. Ok - I'll take the hit that my statement was a tad on the strong side Jack. You hit a button with the "memory" comment above since at my age, memory is only something we... remember.. -- -Mike- |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
I'll be in Sarnia this week-end!
Where will you be? ----------- "Robatoy" wrote in message ... On Oct 19, 7:48 pm, "m II" wrote: Bull****! -------------- "-MIKE-" wrote in ... On 10/19/11 6:42 PM, m II wrote: May as well blurted your usual "Bull****!" You are the absolute stupidest idiot I've ever seen on the internet. Pay attention, moron... just because two people have the same first name, doesn't mean they are the same person. If that little prick ever met me face-to-face, he'd crap his panties. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
hmmmmmmm.....
Mikeys like Bull****! -- mike ------------- "Jack" wrote in message ... I thought both you Mikes were too smart to waste time with the trolls, right? Really... -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life. http://jbstein.com |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
Bull****!
--------- "Mike Marlow" wrote in message ... Funny hearing that from you - Since that is your characteristic comment. Asshole... Try more ad hominem attacks to prove your case. Ohhhh...what case? Do a goodle search on the definition of ad hominem before you use big words like that in your posts - which you clearly do not understand. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
Bull****!
Looking for a last friend? -- mike ------------- "Mike Marlow" wrote in message ... Ok - I'll take the hit that my statement was a tad on the strong side Jack. You hit a button with the "memory" comment above since at my age, memory is only something we... remember.. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
No! Mike Mashmallow wrote
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message ... m II wrote: Bull****. ****in bottom feeders |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
m II wrote:
Bull****! Looking for a last friend? ***** FOR SALE ***** One badly used usenet stalker. Not in very good condition - but I couldn't afford the good model Still some limited use left in it - just do not expect much from it Willing to part with it cheap Make your best offer - no offer too low Great way to get started, until you can afford a good model Call now - operators are standing by... -- -Mike- |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On Oct 20, 9:18*am, "m II" wrote:
I'll be in Sarnia this week-end! Where will you be? Good, I'll keep an eye out for an asshole. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On 10/20/11 9:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
m II wrote: Bull****! Looking for a last friend? ***** FOR SALE ***** One badly used usenet stalker. Not in very good condition - but I couldn't afford the good model Still some limited use left in it - just do not expect much from it Willing to part with it cheap Make your best offer - no offer too low Great way to get started, until you can afford a good model Call now - operators are standing by... There is a strict no returns policy on usenet stalkers/assholes. You got him, he is yours. :-) -- Froz... The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On Oct 20, 10:19*am, FrozenNorth
wrote: On 10/20/11 9:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote: m II wrote: Bull****! Looking for a last friend? ***** *FOR SALE ***** One badly used usenet stalker. Not in very good condition - but I couldn't afford the good model Still some limited use left in it - just do not expect much from it Willing to part with it cheap Make your best offer - no offer too low Great way to get started, until you can afford a good model Call now - operators are standing by... There is a strict no returns policy on usenet stalkers/assholes. You got him, he is yours. :-) -- Froz... The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance. LOL |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
FrozenNorth wrote:
On 10/20/11 9:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote: m II wrote: Bull****! Looking for a last friend? ***** FOR SALE ***** One badly used usenet stalker. Not in very good condition - but I couldn't afford the good model Still some limited use left in it - just do not expect much from it Willing to part with it cheap Make your best offer - no offer too low Great way to get started, until you can afford a good model Call now - operators are standing by... There is a strict no returns policy on usenet stalkers/assholes. You got him, he is yours. :-) G'damnit! I hate that small print stuff... -- -Mike- |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
FrozenNorth wrote:
On 10/20/11 9:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote: m II wrote: Bull****! Looking for a last friend? ***** FOR SALE ***** One badly used usenet stalker. Not in very good condition - but I couldn't afford the good model Still some limited use left in it - just do not expect much from it Willing to part with it cheap Make your best offer - no offer too low Great way to get started, until you can afford a good model Call now - operators are standing by... There is a strict no returns policy on usenet stalkers/assholes. You got him, he is yours. :-) ***** REVISED ADD ***** FREE!!!! Get it now - while the offer still lasts. Due to insufficient demand, and a clear lack of interest in the market, this product has been reduced to give-away status. Manufacturer is discontinuing the product for lack of demand. No cost - no risk. Would look great on your fireplace mantle (especially upside down...) Will ship for free. Can also be used as a play toy for pets (probably all it's really good for...) ACT NOW - this is a limited time offer. Product will go in the burn pile on Friday. -- -Mike- |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
|
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On 10/20/11 10:55 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
FrozenNorth wrote: On 10/20/11 9:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote: m II wrote: Bull****! Looking for a last friend? ***** FOR SALE ***** One badly used usenet stalker. Not in very good condition - but I couldn't afford the good model Still some limited use left in it - just do not expect much from it Willing to part with it cheap Make your best offer - no offer too low Great way to get started, until you can afford a good model Call now - operators are standing by... There is a strict no returns policy on usenet stalkers/assholes. You got him, he is yours. :-) ***** REVISED ADD ***** FREE!!!! Get it now - while the offer still lasts. Due to insufficient demand, and a clear lack of interest in the market, this product has been reduced to give-away status. Manufacturer is discontinuing the product for lack of demand. No cost - no risk. Would look great on your fireplace mantle (especially upside down...) Will ship for free. Can also be used as a play toy for pets (probably all it's really good for...) ACT NOW - this is a limited time offer. Product will go in the burn pile on Friday. Please pack in an air-tight shipping container, prepaid shipping to Antarctica, via a leaky canoe. Send $1000.00 Canadian to FrozenNorth Enterprises for our valuable assistance in this matter, note the terms are Net 10 Days, 2% cash discount if paid by yesterday. We are hoping you have enjoyed this business dealing, and will continue to provide further services on an as-needed basis. -- Froz... The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
FrozenNorth wrote:
On 10/20/11 10:55 AM, Mike Marlow wrote: FrozenNorth wrote: On 10/20/11 9:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote: m II wrote: Bull****! Looking for a last friend? ***** FOR SALE ***** One badly used usenet stalker. Not in very good condition - but I couldn't afford the good model Still some limited use left in it - just do not expect much from it Willing to part with it cheap Make your best offer - no offer too low Great way to get started, until you can afford a good model Call now - operators are standing by... There is a strict no returns policy on usenet stalkers/assholes. You got him, he is yours. :-) ***** REVISED ADD ***** FREE!!!! Get it now - while the offer still lasts. Due to insufficient demand, and a clear lack of interest in the market, this product has been reduced to give-away status. Manufacturer is discontinuing the product for lack of demand. No cost - no risk. Would look great on your fireplace mantle (especially upside down...) Will ship for free. Can also be used as a play toy for pets (probably all it's really good for...) ACT NOW - this is a limited time offer. Product will go in the burn pile on Friday. Please pack in an air-tight shipping container, prepaid shipping to Antarctica, via a leaky canoe. Send $1000.00 Canadian to FrozenNorth Enterprises for our valuable assistance in this matter, note the terms are Net 10 Days, 2% cash discount if paid by yesterday. We are hoping you have enjoyed this business dealing, and will continue to provide further services on an as-needed basis. SORRY BIDDERS - this sale has concluded, with the above referenced bidder as the winner. Congratulations to FrozenNorth for his/her successful bid. Your shipment will be packaged and sent within the next 30 days. Please allow for a particularly stinky package, upon its arrival. SHIPPING NOTICE - Due to the unusual stinky nature of this shipment, it may be difficult to find a carrier willing to accept this offering for shipment. Shipper accepts no responsibility for said difficulties. Canadian customers: Please note that we are unable to pay or refund in Canadian funds, and all sales or refunds or payments will be made in depreciated NY state budget funds. Current depreciation rates are 130%. Please remit the amount of your referenced fee/offer, plus 30%. Limited time offer - provide your mother-in-law's mailing address and receive this offer, shipped directly to her for no fee, no shipping. Offer expires on 10/19/2011. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
In article ,
Larry Blanchard wrote: On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:24:53 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote: I always thought the Nat'l Semi 16032 and its relatives had the best instruction set of the micro chips, but my real favorite was a mainframe from the '60s, the GE4xx series. Not a lot about it on the web but a little at: Mixed thoughts there Larry 0 GE4x was not a microprocessor based machine. Well, I did say it was a "mainframe", but I see what you mean. I guess I should have said the 4xx had my favorite instruction set of all computers, main, mini, or micro. For sheer simplicity, and elegance, the CDC 6600 was hard to beat. Five(5!!) opcode mnemonics accounted for over _half_ the hardware instruction set. you didn't need a 'cheat sheet' (aka "green card", "yellow card", or whatever) to keep track of the instruction set. If you had any experience with any assembler language, you could learn assembler for the 6600 in a single afternoon. The *entire* language -- well enough to start writing real applications. Now, the closer to the 'bare metal' you got, the 'stranger' the hardware got, but it _had_ it's endearing characteristics. *MUCH* to the annoyance of the pure computer-science types, and for any data set* up to the size of main memory, a carefully hand-coded one-key _bubble-sort_ would out-perform _any_ other sorting algorithm. Oh yeah, 'self-modifying code' was an integral part of the architecture. At the _hardware_ level. You could _not_ do significant programming on the machine without using self-modifying code. And to add to the fun "CPU HALT" was a legitimate _user_mode_ (i.e. 'unprotected') instruction. In fact, it was the 'preferred' way for a user program to exit. *great* fun. grin |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
....and to further and repeat after your avoidance and macho
declarations, "where will you be?" ---------------- "Robatoy" wrote in message ... On Oct 20, 9:18 am, "m II" wrote: I'll be in Sarnia this week-end! Where will you be? Good, I'll keep an eye out for an asshole. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:19:06 -0400, "m II" wrote:
Good, I'll keep an eye out for an asshole. You don't have to look far dweeb. You see one in the mirror every morning. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
In article , "m II"
wrote: ...and to further and repeat after your avoidance and macho declarations, "where will you be?" ---------------- "Robatoy" wrote in message ... On Oct 20, 9:18 am, "m II" wrote: I'll be in Sarnia this week-end! Where will you be? Unlike you, I don't hang around my mother's basement all day. In fact I have an active social life and have many friends, some nicer than others. So why don't you give me an exact time and your cell number and then I will tell you where I'll be. You can't expect me to sit around in one spot all day, now can you? |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On Oct 21, 11:39*am, Robatoy wrote:
In article , "m II" wrote: ...and to further and repeat after your avoidance and *macho declarations, "where will you be?" ---------------- "Robatoy" *wrote in message ... On Oct 20, 9:18 am, "m II" wrote: I'll be in Sarnia this week-end! Where will you be? Unlike you, I don't hang around my mother's basement all day. In fact I have an active social life and have many friends, some nicer than others. So why don't you give me an exact time and your cell number and then I will tell you where I'll be. You can't expect me to sit around in one spot all day, now can you? Besides, what if you are a 15 year old girl? I don't want to be on Dateline being told "to have a seat over here". |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
ROFLMAO!! So true, so true!!
I was going to buy you a beer (Canadian stuff) for the price of seeing your CNC. That's OK... Clinical Neurosis Councillors get boring after a few minutes, anyway. -------------- "Robatoy" wrote in message ... Besides, what if you are a 15 year old girl? I don't want to be on Dateline being told "to have a seat over here". |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On Oct 21, 2:31*pm, "m II" wrote:
ROFLMAO!! So true, so true!! I was going to buy you a beer (Canadian stuff) for the price of seeing your CNC. Rather than buying me a beer, why don't you take a more mature approach in how you're dealing with people here. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
I only give what I get and really don't give a **** anymore. The group
is almost useless with the Sybil goons here. I have learned quite well and my forty other IDs get information, when I want it, here. You want to kick teeth, don't expect roses delivered. --------------- "Robatoy" wrote in message ... Rather than buying me a beer, why don't you take a more mature approach in how you're dealing with people here. |
Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:00:12 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
Rather than buying me a beer, why don't you take a more mature approach in how you're dealing with people here. Occasionally you trying responding to him like he's some sort of responsible adult and all you get is his bilge in return. Gotta admit Toy, you're ever the optimist. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter