Computer

J. F. Cornwall wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-03-14 16:06:22 -0700, "J. F. Cornwall" said:

Pat O'Connell wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-03-13 17:57:01 -0700, Paul J Gans said:

C J Campbell wrote:

Anyway, I use Macs because they seem to me to be more trouble
free and they
are prettier. I cannot speak for others.



Does the fact that the base operating system is
unix make any difference?

;-)



Hey, I'm not that old!

Yeah, the beard and sandals crowd love to get into Terminal and work
with arcane command lines. All the Unix commands are there.

I don't care about the base operating system. I care about the
interface. I like the Mac interface better than the Windows
interface.



I like the interface to be simple, and to get out of the way _now_
when I'm not using it. I like the Win2k style UI (but not the XP or
Aero "flashy" interfaces), the old Mac interface (not OSX), and
Unix Motif and similar UIs for Linux. I don't like animations on
mouse pointers, menus and windows that slowly display and hide
(Aero/OSX/WinXP if you don't disable that crap), and things like
semi-transparent windows which act like a bug, not a feature. I do
use the command line on Windows and Unix, Linux and BSD (aka OSX)
but am not tied to it.


A-frickin'-MEN!!! First thing I do on an XP box is make it revert
to Win2K appearance & behaviour as much as possible.

Jim (raised on Univac mainframes, 90% of my work is on Solaris now)


Whereas the first thing I did with Vista on the Mac was make it look
like OS X.

Animated mouse pointers? Who uses those. I set my interfaces to be
quick and instant.

I use animated mouse pointers, as they make it easier to locate the
things on the screen. Merely a matter of personal preference. I also
like the XP type display, but understand how some people may not like
it. I rather suspect that some would still be using the old DOS and
command lines, if it were convenient. I find businesses using old DOS
programs in a DOS box, on WinXP Pro. sigh. Luddites never die!

We have a few programs that our field techs use (to download from our
dataloggers on site visits) that are still DOS or Win 98 modes. When
the vendor doesn't update their programs, we do what we gotta do...

For some things, yes I do use a DOS command line. For others, I use the
GUI, but I want a small, fast GUI. Not a bunch of eye-candy. Hell,
most of the time I've got a half-dozen or more xterm windows open to our
development system, writing my Fortran code using vi... :-)


Jim

Reminds me of the 'good old days' when I ran an IBM 370/55 running an
emulator for 360/30 emulating a 1401. Darn thing STILL ran faster than
the 1401!
Doesn't mean converting the 1401 software wouldn't have been a better
solution (which we eventually DID).

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:13:31 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

How is that limit manifested? Refusal to start the MOVE, partial
completion of the MOVE, eventual crash during the MOVE, or ???

I have never run into a limit on MOVE operations, and I have moved
thousands of files at a time. This is a common operation I have done
many times over the years, and never run into a limit.
So, what IS the limit?

Only our imaginations.

(I originally wrote "Only your imagination" but imagined the
possibility of it being read the wrong way. g )

In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

J. F. Cornwall wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-03-14 16:06:22 -0700, "J. F. Cornwall" said:

Pat O'Connell wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-03-13 17:57:01 -0700, Paul J Gans said:

C J Campbell wrote:

Anyway, I use Macs because they seem to me to be more trouble
free and they
are prettier. I cannot speak for others.



Does the fact that the base operating system is
unix make any difference?

;-)



Hey, I'm not that old!

Yeah, the beard and sandals crowd love to get into Terminal and work
with arcane command lines. All the Unix commands are there.

I don't care about the base operating system. I care about the
interface. I like the Mac interface better than the Windows
interface.



I like the interface to be simple, and to get out of the way _now_
when I'm not using it. I like the Win2k style UI (but not the XP or
Aero "flashy" interfaces), the old Mac interface (not OSX), and
Unix Motif and similar UIs for Linux. I don't like animations on
mouse pointers, menus and windows that slowly display and hide
(Aero/OSX/WinXP if you don't disable that crap), and things like
semi-transparent windows which act like a bug, not a feature. I do
use the command line on Windows and Unix, Linux and BSD (aka OSX)
but am not tied to it.


A-frickin'-MEN!!! First thing I do on an XP box is make it revert
to Win2K appearance & behaviour as much as possible.

Jim (raised on Univac mainframes, 90% of my work is on Solaris now)


Whereas the first thing I did with Vista on the Mac was make it look
like OS X.

Animated mouse pointers? Who uses those. I set my interfaces to be
quick and instant.

I use animated mouse pointers, as they make it easier to locate the
things on the screen. Merely a matter of personal preference. I also
like the XP type display, but understand how some people may not like
it. I rather suspect that some would still be using the old DOS and
command lines, if it were convenient. I find businesses using old DOS
programs in a DOS box, on WinXP Pro. sigh. Luddites never die!

We have a few programs that our field techs use (to download from our
dataloggers on site visits) that are still DOS or Win 98 modes. When
the vendor doesn't update their programs, we do what we gotta do...

For some things, yes I do use a DOS command line. For others, I use the
GUI, but I want a small, fast GUI. Not a bunch of eye-candy. Hell,
most of the time I've got a half-dozen or more xterm windows open to our
development system, writing my Fortran code using vi... :-)


Jim

Reminds me of the 'good old days' when I ran an IBM 370/55 running an
emulator for 360/30 emulating a 1401. Darn thing STILL ran faster than
the 1401!
Doesn't mean converting the 1401 software wouldn't have been a better
solution (which we eventually DID).


We still program in binary. And we don't even get to use ones and
zeros. We have to use capital "ohs" and lower case "ells".

heh.

Ron Hunter wrote:
J. F. Cornwall wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-03-14 16:06:22 -0700, "J. F. Cornwall"
said:

Pat O'Connell wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-03-13 17:57:01 -0700, Paul J Gans said:

C J Campbell wrote:

Anyway, I use Macs because they seem to me to be more trouble
free and they
are prettier. I cannot speak for others.



Does the fact that the base operating system is
unix make any difference?

;-)



Hey, I'm not that old!

Yeah, the beard and sandals crowd love to get into Terminal and
work with arcane command lines. All the Unix commands are there.

I don't care about the base operating system. I care about the
interface. I like the Mac interface better than the Windows
interface.



I like the interface to be simple, and to get out of the way
_now_ when I'm not using it. I like the Win2k style UI (but not
the XP or Aero "flashy" interfaces), the old Mac interface (not
OSX), and Unix Motif and similar UIs for Linux. I don't like
animations on mouse pointers, menus and windows that slowly
display and hide (Aero/OSX/WinXP if you don't disable that
crap), and things like semi-transparent windows which act like a
bug, not a feature. I do use the command line on Windows and
Unix, Linux and BSD (aka OSX) but am not tied to it.


A-frickin'-MEN!!! First thing I do on an XP box is make it revert
to Win2K appearance & behaviour as much as possible.

Jim (raised on Univac mainframes, 90% of my work is on Solaris
now)


Whereas the first thing I did with Vista on the Mac was make it
look like OS X.

Animated mouse pointers? Who uses those. I set my interfaces to be
quick and instant.

I use animated mouse pointers, as they make it easier to locate the
things on the screen. Merely a matter of personal preference. I
also like the XP type display, but understand how some people may
not like it. I rather suspect that some would still be using the
old DOS and command lines, if it were convenient. I find
businesses using old DOS programs in a DOS box, on WinXP Pro.
sigh. Luddites never die!

We have a few programs that our field techs use (to download from our
dataloggers on site visits) that are still DOS or Win 98 modes. When
the vendor doesn't update their programs, we do what we gotta do...

For some things, yes I do use a DOS command line. For others, I use
the GUI, but I want a small, fast GUI. Not a bunch of eye-candy.
Hell, most of the time I've got a half-dozen or more xterm windows
open to our development system, writing my Fortran code using vi...
:-)


Jim

Reminds me of the 'good old days' when I ran an IBM 370/55 running an
emulator for 360/30 emulating a 1401. Darn thing STILL ran faster
than the 1401!
Doesn't mean converting the 1401 software wouldn't have been a better
solution (which we eventually DID).

Wanna have some fun try running that code on Hercules on a PC, if it
will run on one of the available operating systems.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

George Kerby wrote:


On 3/11/07 11:25 AM, in article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:

George Kerby wrote:
On 3/10/07 9:26 PM, in article , "J.
Clarke"
wrote:

Scubabix wrote:
"Irby" wrote in message
link.net...
It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures)
prefer a Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in
layman's terms of why this is? Thanks

In layman's terms, the Mac from the beginning has handled graphics
far better than PC. The PC is a business oriented machine modified
to handle graphics. I don't know many, if any serious graphics
oriented professionals that would use the PC if given the option.


Sorry, but the Mac being somehow "designed for graphics" don't hunt.
Does "PostScript" and "LaserWriter" mean anything to you?

Perhaps if you explained how either product distinguishes the Mac in
2007 you would make more progress than by simply tossing out one-liners.

The only attempt by anybody associated with Apple to incorporate
PostScript into the design of a computer was NextStep, which built
Display PostScript into the operating system, not the hardware, and ran
on either NeXT's proprieatary hardware or on PCs, not on Macs. This
approach was abandoned during OS/X development, so Postscript, other
than in printer drivers, was never designed into any Mac.

As for the Laserwriter, the whole family has long since gone out of
production so I fail to see how it has any relevance at all. In any
case it was tacked on to the Mac, not designed in. If you go to the
Apple site now and look at the printers that Apple sells they're the
same ones that everyone else sells, HP, Epson, Canon, etc, many of them
familiar names from the early days of the PC, and few of them
incorporating PostScript.

Now, care to embarrass yourself with another one-liner?
Yeah, the fact that Mac put these two things in the hands of graphic
designers and photographers WAY before your PeeCee even thought about doing
so speaks volumes.

PostScript was first used on Unix systems with TeX; the Mac was later.
Laser printers were around before Macs existed. The first affordable
laser printers were HP Laserjets (well they were cheaper than the Apple
printers), and they worked with PCs and early word processors (like
WordPerfect).

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Shawn Hirn wrote:

It's totally irrelevant since basic command line should be learned
by every Windows and *nix user.

The basic command like in Windows lacks grep. Do you know what grep
is?

Microsoft didn't include grep in Windows because they figured I didn't need
it and I could download it after the fact if I need it. Amazingly enough I
can't remember how many times I need to use it in Linux, so Microsoft was
right, I really didn't need it.

PowerShell, baybeeee. It's the wave of the future.

J. F. Cornwall wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-03-15 02:26:06 -0700, Ron Hunter said:

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-03-14 16:06:22 -0700, "J. F. Cornwall"
said:

Pat O'Connell wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-03-13 17:57:01 -0700, Paul J Gans said:

C J Campbell wrote:

Anyway, I use Macs because they seem to me to be more trouble
free and they
are prettier. I cannot speak for others.



Does the fact that the base operating system is
unix make any difference?

;-)



Hey, I'm not that old!

Yeah, the beard and sandals crowd love to get into Terminal and work
with arcane command lines. All the Unix commands are there.

I don't care about the base operating system. I care about the
interface. I like the Mac interface better than the Windows
interface.



I like the interface to be simple, and to get out of the way _now_
when I'm not using it. I like the Win2k style UI (but not the XP
or Aero "flashy" interfaces), the old Mac interface (not OSX), and
Unix Motif and similar UIs for Linux. I don't like animations on
mouse pointers, menus and windows that slowly display and hide
(Aero/OSX/WinXP if you don't disable that crap), and things like
semi-transparent windows which act like a bug, not a feature. I do
use the command line on Windows and Unix, Linux and BSD (aka OSX)
but am not tied to it.


A-frickin'-MEN!!! First thing I do on an XP box is make it revert
to Win2K appearance & behaviour as much as possible.

Jim (raised on Univac mainframes, 90% of my work is on Solaris now)


Whereas the first thing I did with Vista on the Mac was make it look
like OS X.

Animated mouse pointers? Who uses those. I set my interfaces to be
quick and instant.

I use animated mouse pointers, as they make it easier to locate the
things on the screen. Merely a matter of personal preference. I
also like the XP type display, but understand how some people may not
like it. I rather suspect that some would still be using the old DOS
and command lines, if it were convenient. I find businesses using
old DOS programs in a DOS box, on WinXP Pro. sigh. Luddites never die!


There is a lot to recommend in DOS. Typing "del *.xyz" was a lot
easier than using a mouse to select a bunch of xyz files, drag them to
the trash, and then empty the trash.

Anyone who has tried to copy a lot of files using a windowed operating
system can surely appreciate the flexibility and power of a simple
command like XCOPY. Windows has a limit on the number of files you can
move at once. Not so, XCOPY.

A lot of people, including myself, don't like having to take their
hands off the keyboard in order to manipulate a mouse. Such people are
called typists. They can do things a lot faster if not forced to use a
mouse.

No, I am a typist. Those who insist on using command lines for
everything are Luddites.

Has anyone actually insisted on using a command line for everything? Or
have we just expressed a preference for doing *some* things on a command
line?

I don't use a command line for everything, but if I need to delete all
files of a specific type (say .BAK) in a directory, opening up a command
line in that directory and typing "del *.bak" is pretty quick.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Pat O'Connell wrote:
George Kerby wrote:


On 3/11/07 11:25 AM, in article , "J.
Clarke" wrote:

George Kerby wrote:
On 3/10/07 9:26 PM, in article , "J.
Clarke"
wrote:

Scubabix wrote:
"Irby" wrote in message
link.net...
It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures)
prefer a Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in
layman's terms of why this is? Thanks

In layman's terms, the Mac from the beginning has handled
graphics far better than PC. The PC is a business oriented
machine modified to handle graphics. I don't know many, if any
serious graphics oriented professionals that would use the PC if
given the option.


Sorry, but the Mac being somehow "designed for graphics" don't
hunt.
Does "PostScript" and "LaserWriter" mean anything to you?

Perhaps if you explained how either product distinguishes the Mac in
2007 you would make more progress than by simply tossing out
one-liners.

The only attempt by anybody associated with Apple to incorporate
PostScript into the design of a computer was NextStep, which built
Display PostScript into the operating system, not the hardware, and
ran on either NeXT's proprieatary hardware or on PCs, not on Macs.
This approach was abandoned during OS/X development, so Postscript,
other than in printer drivers, was never designed into any Mac.

As for the Laserwriter, the whole family has long since gone out of
production so I fail to see how it has any relevance at all. In any
case it was tacked on to the Mac, not designed in. If you go to the
Apple site now and look at the printers that Apple sells they're the
same ones that everyone else sells, HP, Epson, Canon, etc, many of
them familiar names from the early days of the PC, and few of them
incorporating PostScript.

Now, care to embarrass yourself with another one-liner?
Yeah, the fact that Mac put these two things in the hands of graphic
designers and photographers WAY before your PeeCee even thought
about doing so speaks volumes.

PostScript was first used on Unix systems with TeX; the Mac was later.
Laser printers were around before Macs existed. The first affordable
laser printers were HP Laserjets (well they were cheaper than the
Apple printers), and they worked with PCs and early word processors
(like WordPerfect).

While laser typesetters and laser printers were around before the Mac,
PostScript wasn't to speak of--the LaserWriter and the PostScript RIP
for the Linotronics were more or less contemporary. A matter of lucking
into a market rather than any kind of brilliant planning--the first
laser imagesetters that could do halftones hit the market around the
same time that the Mac did and by using the same RIP on the printer and
the imagesetter the printer could be used as a cheap proofing tool for
the Linotronic.

The first PostScript output from TeX came a year or so later and I'm not
sure how long it was after that before dvips was ready for production
work.

But getting back to business, if Linotype hadn't decided to support the
Mac with the Linotronic, then nobody in the graphics business would have
given it a second glance. It's the Linotronic that was designed for
graphics, with the Mac being a kind of crappy peripheral.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Ron Hunter wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-03-15 02:26:06 -0700, Ron Hunter said:

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-03-14 16:06:22 -0700, "J. F. Cornwall"
said:

Pat O'Connell wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-03-13 17:57:01 -0700, Paul J Gans said:

C J Campbell wrote:

Anyway, I use Macs because they seem to me to be more trouble
free and they
are prettier. I cannot speak for others.



Does the fact that the base operating system is
unix make any difference?

;-)



Hey, I'm not that old!

Yeah, the beard and sandals crowd love to get into Terminal and work
with arcane command lines. All the Unix commands are there.

I don't care about the base operating system. I care about the
interface. I like the Mac interface better than the Windows
interface.



I like the interface to be simple, and to get out of the way _now_
when I'm not using it. I like the Win2k style UI (but not the XP
or Aero "flashy" interfaces), the old Mac interface (not OSX), and
Unix Motif and similar UIs for Linux. I don't like animations on
mouse pointers, menus and windows that slowly display and hide
(Aero/OSX/WinXP if you don't disable that crap), and things like
semi-transparent windows which act like a bug, not a feature. I do
use the command line on Windows and Unix, Linux and BSD (aka OSX)
but am not tied to it.


A-frickin'-MEN!!! First thing I do on an XP box is make it revert
to Win2K appearance & behaviour as much as possible.

Jim (raised on Univac mainframes, 90% of my work is on Solaris now)


Whereas the first thing I did with Vista on the Mac was make it look
like OS X.

Animated mouse pointers? Who uses those. I set my interfaces to be
quick and instant.

I use animated mouse pointers, as they make it easier to locate the
things on the screen. Merely a matter of personal preference. I
also like the XP type display, but understand how some people may not
like it. I rather suspect that some would still be using the old DOS
and command lines, if it were convenient. I find businesses using
old DOS programs in a DOS box, on WinXP Pro. sigh. Luddites never die!


There is a lot to recommend in DOS. Typing "del *.xyz" was a lot
easier than using a mouse to select a bunch of xyz files, drag them to
the trash, and then empty the trash.

Anyone who has tried to copy a lot of files using a windowed operating
system can surely appreciate the flexibility and power of a simple
command like XCOPY. Windows has a limit on the number of files you can
move at once. Not so, XCOPY.

A lot of people, including myself, don't like having to take their
hands off the keyboard in order to manipulate a mouse. Such people are
called typists. They can do things a lot faster if not forced to use a
mouse.

No, I am a typist. Those who insist on using command lines for
everything are Luddites.

Has anyone actually insisted on using a command line for everything? Or
have we just expressed a preference for doing *some* things on a command
line?

Jim

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

It's totally irrelevant since basic command line should be learned
by every Windows and *nix user.

Why? Because YOU like to type complex, hardly mnemonic, strings of
characters? Some aren't good typists, and others just don't want to
have to type at all.

No, because I know that I can when I need to.






Rita


So can I. I just have to remember where I put the command line thing.
I so rarely need such a thing, I always have to look for it.