Just sign us both amazed, then!
PS, below is my first 'computer'..... a Friden
Posted on 02/04/2004 10:04:38 AM PST by avg_freeper
I have to agree with you.
I have three active PC's, and without 'Boot Disks' [3 1/2" Floppies], the rebuilding of my P II 450 Gateway [Windows 98 Svp #1], P III 800 E-Machine [Windows ME], and even the P4 1.7 GHz SONY Vaio Digital Studio [Windows XP] would be impossible!
That having been said, I will ask at the class being held this Saturday at the Mac Resellers what to do about interfacing the Floppies with the G5 I hope to acquire in the near future!!
The cost, both in Software,
Please pardon the Gateway crash!
The cost, both in Software and time, has become prohibitive.
I hope to migrate to the G5 at some point!
Jobs is both a genius and idiot at the same time. He's the reason Macs are great and the reason they will never have more than 4% market share.
Just sign us both amazed, then!
PS, below is my first 'computer'..... a Friden
I have pretty much given up on 3 1/2 inch floppies. I carry a usb drive on my keychain with 128 megs of repair utilities. That and an assortment of bootable CDs make up 95% of my emergency recovery kit.
To be a traveling PC doctor you need a copy of each version of Windows since '98, a bootable Norton CD and a copy of the latest virus definitions (this is most conveniently done on floppies), a couple of spyware removers, Winzip, a USB ethernet adapter with drivers, and some other stuff.
I have a bootable TuffTest disk which will find memory and disk problems, and a bootable disk repair utility from each of the drive manufacturers. All this is pretty much free software if you assume the installed copies of Windows and Norton antivirus are legal.
Many PCs are being sold without floppy drives. You can usually get to a DOS prompt from a bootable CD of Windows. It helps to have a CD of the utilities and drivers.
Displaying ignorance of the subject does not get you anywhere, Discostu. However, ignorance is curable. Go out and learn!
Discostu, I have never been insulting to you. I am not the only one on this thread that is pointing out your errors about the Macintosh.
You have made flat statements about the Macintosh that demonstrate that you are completely unfamiliar with the platform. You pontificate on the subject and continue to demostrate you are ignorant of Macintosh history, modern Macs, or its operating system. That is curable. Go get a Mac and use it for a while. I have pointed out your errors because someone might believe your incorrect information.
The fact that YOU saw a two button mouse for a DOS computer in 1982 is an assertion on your part. It probably is true. One was shown at the Fall Comdex in 1982. But it was certainly not a common piece of equipment shipped with every DOS computer. The Macintosh was not even the first Apple computer that had a mouse as an included input device... the LISA (January 1983) gets that nod.
I don't have the money to buy a MAC, so I use LINUX instead and am typing this on a machine i built from the ground up (a dual processor Celeron with 360 MHz CPUS overclocked to 550MH. I built this machine over two years ago -- it runs 24/7 but occasionally hickups under heavy load from a badly sized capacitor -- a well know BP6 flaw! -- from the ground up (well, I didn't actually smelt the silicon from fine sand, etch the chips, or wavesolder the ABIT BP6 motherboard, i must admit ;) With a MAC, you don't have the same hardware options and pretty much must take whatever steve jobs in his infinite wisdom doles out to you, even more so than what bill gates in his infinite lawyerly wisdom decides where you want to go today if you are enslaved by Micro$oft...
I must also say that of everyone I know who has a MAC (about 6 or so) NONE had to pay for their own machine, and every one of them (sorry, MAC fans, i'm just describing the MAC owners I happen to know!) is a bit of an elitist.
Now, if I had to actually use Windows caca-ware and didn't have enough computer skills to use Linux to do my work, i have no doubt i'd be using a MAC as a soothing alternative to M$ idiot-ware
(whoops -- i'm transforming into a LINUX elitist!!!)
ROTFLMAO!!!
Look at the cover of "TRANCE-formations" by Grinder and Bandler [now sadly out of print].
SHOW ME ONE POST WHERE I USED THE WORD "IDIOT"! You will not find it, Discostu, because there is not one. None.
I have said that you were ignorant of the Macintosh... and every reply you made just confirmed that. But ignorance is not a slur. It just means that you don't know something. It is not an insult.
Just one example:
You said: . . . the fact that it took them (Apple) to the mid 90s to finally stick a print buffer in the OS shows how entirely non-revolutionary they always have been and always will be.
You claimed that the Macintosh computers did not have a print buffer in the operating system until the mid 1990s. You offered this as "proof" of Apple's lack of innovation. I pointed out your claim was wrong! Apple included "background printing" in their OS since they introduced the Multifinder, far earlier than the mid 1990s.
You dismissively replied: There was no print buffer in System 7, at least not one that would be remotely useful.
You tried to defend your stance with an anecdote about your experience printing a large document in a library and your dissatisfaction with the Macintosh. This merely demonstrated how your limited experience with a public Macintosh computer running OS7.x in a Library lead you to erroneously believe that the Macintosh did not have a print buffer. You then extended that erroneous assumption to claim that System 7 did not have a print buffer AND that Apple did not see fit to include a print buffer in the OS until the mid 1990s. You then uttered your erroneous OPINION, based on extremely limited experience, as fact, and used it as an example of proof of something entirely different.
I then, again, provided MY professional experience as Mac network administrator to demonstrate that your claim was wrong... and ignorant of the facts. Discostu, the reason you could not use the print buffer in the library computer was that SOMEONE TURNED IT OFF! That, my friend, is ignorance. It is not stupidity, it's just not knowing.
You, however, extended your error by claiming it as a "truth" even when presented with the actual facts. There is no insult in pointing out that someone, claiming knowledge and pontificating as an "expert," making claims that are patently untrue, is ignorant of the true facts. Why should you be allowed to base your arguments on erroroneous, mis-informed opinions?
When you could not acknowledge that perhaps you were wrong about your "facts" you became dismissive and claimed insult. It doesn't wash, Discostu.
Admit it, Discostu, you really don't know much about the Macintosh operating systems... especially OS-X. The real point is that you CAN learn. . . if you want to.
As for OS X I really don't care what I'm missing.
Perhaps you don't want to.
The first step in learning is to realize you do not know something.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
"I'm always amazed at how Mac and Unix users classify all Windows users as brain-dead idiots blindly worshipping at the altar of Bill Gates and who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any computer."I'd estimate that the number of Windows users who are brain-dead idiots blindly worshiping at the altar of Bill Gates is well under one per cent. :') Hmm. Wonder why that number is so low? [rimshot!]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.