Rare Apple I computer sells for $216,000 in London

[Joe Thompson]

On 2011-01-24, Jim Brown <jb45678@gmail.com> wrote:

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
The cost of installing another OS is the cost of
obtaining it (download time plus blank media -

Not if you have it already as part of the process of deciding what you
want on the laptop.

Under this definition, a new car is free if I already bought one as part
of the process of starting a new job. -- Joe
--
Joe Thompson -
E-mail addresses in headers are valid. | http://www.orion-com.com/
"...the FDA takes a dim view of exploding pharmaceuticals..." -- Derek Lowe

 

[Jim Brown]

Joe Thompson wrote

Jim Brown <jb45678@gmail.com> wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote

The cost of installing another OS is the cost of
obtaining it (download time plus blank media -

Not if you have it already as part of the process
of deciding what you want on the laptop.

Under this definition, a new car is free if I already
bought one as part of the process of starting a new job.

Nope, I was talking about the situation where you have
already used the OS you prefer on your desktop etc
and decide you want to have that on the new laptop too.

 

[Rod Speed]

Joe Thompson wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote

- until NT Windows wasn't an OS,

Thats a lie.

MSDOS was the OS and Windows was an addon.

Another lie.

Were you even around in the pre-Win95 days?

Yep, in fact long before even the DOS days too, with DEC minis.

And was even involved in developing an OS for the PDP9 that you likely havent even heard of.

The way it worked was that DOS would boot, then you'd start Windows
(or AUTOEXEC.BAT would do it) using the WIN command.

Doesnt mean that Win was just an addon for DOS, that was just how it was started.

Windows 3.x and its antecedents were really
just DOS shells with fancy APIs available,

That is just plain wrong. Disk ops were nothing like that.

kinda like GNOME is not the same as the underlying OS but adds its own APIs.

Nothing like in fact.

It wasn't until WinNT/Win95 that you could boot Windows directly as a bare-metal OS.

That was just how Win was booted, it didnt actually use much at all of DOS once booted.

Nothing like Gnome which still uses the *nix kernal for everything that matters OS wise.

 

[Joe Pfeiffer]

Joe Thompson <spam+@orion-com.com> writes:

On 2011-01-24, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
- until NT Windows wasn't an OS,

Thats a lie.

MSDOS was the OS and Windows was an addon.

Another lie.

Were you even around in the pre-Win95 days? The way it worked was that
DOS would boot, then you'd start Windows (or AUTOEXEC.BAT would do it)
using the WIN command. Windows 3.x and its antecedents were really just
DOS shells with fancy APIs available, kinda like GNOME is not the same
as the underlying OS but adds its own APIs.

It wasn't until WinNT/Win95 that you could boot Windows directly as a
bare-metal OS. -- Joe

I don't think you could with W95 (nor 98 nor ME) -- those were still the
old code base. They may have done a better job of hiding DOS under it.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)

 

[Rod Speed]

Joe Pfeiffer wrote

Joe Thompson <spam+@orion-com.com> writes
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote

- until NT Windows wasn't an OS,

Thats a lie.

MSDOS was the OS and Windows was an addon.

Another lie.

Were you even around in the pre-Win95 days? The way it worked was
that DOS would boot, then you'd start Windows (or AUTOEXEC.BAT would
do it) using the WIN command. Windows 3.x and its antecedents were
really just DOS shells with fancy APIs available, kinda like GNOME
is not the same as the underlying OS but adds its own APIs.

It wasn't until WinNT/Win95 that you could boot Windows directly as a bare-metal OS.

I don't think you could with W95 (nor 98 nor ME) -- those were still the old code base.

No they werent. Particularly when they installed device drivers for
all the hardware and even rescanned for drives visible, and didnt
use the bios or dos functionality at all, even for the keyboard etc.

They may have done a better job of hiding DOS under it.

They didnt hide DOS, it was only used during the boot phase and in the DOS box.

 

[SG1]

"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
news:500.76T2782T6136571@kltpzyxm.invalid...

In article <8q1jn3FhpbU1@mid.individual.net>, rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
(Rod Speed) writes:

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
SG1 wrote just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.

You did it, SG1. You got him looping again.

No hard when he is loopie???

--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

 

[Scott Lurndal]

"Jim Brown" <jb45678@gmail.com> writes:

Seebs wrote
Joe Thompson <spam+@orion-com.com> wrote
Jim Brown <jb45678@gmail.com> wrote
Seebs wrote

Back in the day, I once spent a day and a half trying to find
a vendor who was willing to sell me a non-Windows laptop.

But was so stupid that you couldnt even manage to work out that
even you should be able to add anything you liked to the hardware.

It doesn't count as a "real choice" unless it's on the same terms.
If I have to pay for Windows even though I intend to wipe the drive
and install another OS before Windows ever boots, I do not have a
real choice.

Exactly. That I could, of course, load something else doesn't change
the fact that it was extremely difficult to not buy a copy of Windows.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

Yes, it would be more convient if the bulk of the market wanted the
OS you prefer, but when it doesnt, you still have a real choice of OS.

Why should I pay microsoft for something I've no intention of ever
using?

 

[Jim Brown]

Scott Lurndal wrote

Jim Brown <jb45678@gmail.com> wrote
Seebs wrote
Joe Thompson <spam+@orion-com.com> wrote
Jim Brown <jb45678@gmail.com> wrote
Seebs wrote

Back in the day, I once spent a day and a half trying to find
a vendor who was willing to sell me a non-Windows laptop.

But was so stupid that you couldnt even manage to work out that
even you should be able to add anything you liked to the hardware.

It doesn't count as a "real choice" unless it's on the same terms.
If I have to pay for Windows even though I intend to wipe the drive
and install another OS before Windows ever boots, I do not have a
real choice.

Exactly. That I could, of course, load something else doesn't change
the fact that it was extremely difficult to not buy a copy of Windows.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

Yes, it would be more convient if the bulk of the market wanted the
OS you prefer, but when it doesnt, you still have a real choice of OS.

Why should I pay microsoft for something I've no intention of ever using?

Because few bother to cater for those of you that prefer a different OS.

You might as well whine about having to pay for heated seats when
you want to use a car in a place like Hawaii that never needs them.

Or child restraint anchor points in your new car when
you dont have any kids and never have kids in your car.

 

[T.T.]

"Scott Lurndal" <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote in message
news:gZm%o.953$x12.182@news.usenetserver.com...

"Jim Brown" <jb45678@gmail.com> writes:
Seebs wrote
Joe Thompson <spam+@orion-com.com> wrote
Jim Brown <jb45678@gmail.com> wrote
Seebs wrote

Back in the day, I once spent a day and a half trying to find
a vendor who was willing to sell me a non-Windows laptop.

But was so stupid that you couldnt even manage to work out that
even you should be able to add anything you liked to the hardware.

It doesn't count as a "real choice" unless it's on the same terms.
If I have to pay for Windows even though I intend to wipe the drive
and install another OS before Windows ever boots, I do not have a
real choice.

Exactly. That I could, of course, load something else doesn't change
the fact that it was extremely difficult to not buy a copy of Windows.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

Yes, it would be more convient if the bulk of the market wanted the
OS you prefer, but when it doesnt, you still have a real choice of OS.

Why should I pay microsoft for something I've no intention of ever
using?
Because it's there.

 

[Charlie Gibbs]

In article <8q614jFv9mU1@mid.individual.net>, jb45678@gmail.com
(Jim Brown) writes:

Charlie Gibbs wrote

(Joe Thompson) writes:

Jim Brown <jb45678@gmail.com> wrote

Seebs wrote

Back in the day, I once spent a day and a half trying to find
a vendor who was willing to sell me a non-Windows laptop.

But was so stupid that you couldnt even manage to work out that
even you should be able to add anything you liked to the hardware.

It doesn't count as a "real choice" unless it's on the same terms.
If I have to pay for Windows even though I intend to wipe the drive
and install another OS before Windows ever boots, I do not have a
real choice.

Nor is it a choice in environments where other people
are sending you files in proprietary Microsoft formats.

You can obviously use something that can handle those.

There's a lot more to choice than mere availability.

Using that utterly mindless line, there never is any real choice
anywhere.

And that is quite obviously mindlessly silly.

"The secret word is 'mindless'." Thank you, Groucho.

Wow - flamed by both of his personalities in the same day.
I've made it (whatever "it" is).

--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

 

[Jim Brown]

Jim Brown wrote

Scott Lurndal wrote
Jim Brown <jb45678@gmail.com> wrote
Seebs wrote
Joe Thompson <spam+@orion-com.com> wrote
Jim Brown <jb45678@gmail.com> wrote
Seebs wrote

Back in the day, I once spent a day and a half trying to find
a vendor who was willing to sell me a non-Windows laptop.

But was so stupid that you couldnt even manage to work out that
even you should be able to add anything you liked to the hardware.

It doesn't count as a "real choice" unless it's on the same terms.
If I have to pay for Windows even though I intend to wipe the
drive and install another OS before Windows ever boots, I do not
have a real choice.

Exactly. That I could, of course, load something else doesn't change the fact that it was extremely difficult to
not buy a copy of Windows.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

Yes, it would be more convient if the bulk of the market wanted the
OS you prefer, but when it doesnt, you still have a real choice of OS.

Why should I pay microsoft for something I've no intention of ever using?

And you dont have to anyway, you can buy one of the chinese laptops that doesnt
pay a cent to microsoft for anything if you dont want microsoft to get a cent of yours.

Because few bother to cater for those of you that prefer a different OS.

You might as well whine about having to pay for heated seats when
you want to use a car in a place like Hawaii that never needs them.

Or child restraint anchor points in your new car when
you dont have any kids and never have kids in your car.

 

[F Murtz]

Charlie Gibbs wrote:

In article<8q614jFv9mU1@mid.individual.net>, jb45678@gmail.com
(Jim Brown) writes:

Charlie Gibbs wrote

(Joe Thompson) writes:

Jim Brown<jb45678@gmail.com> wrote

Seebs wrote

Back in the day, I once spent a day and a half trying to find
a vendor who was willing to sell me a non-Windows laptop.

But was so stupid that you couldnt even manage to work out that
even you should be able to add anything you liked to the hardware.

It doesn't count as a "real choice" unless it's on the same terms.
If I have to pay for Windows even though I intend to wipe the drive
and install another OS before Windows ever boots, I do not have a
real choice.

Nor is it a choice in environments where other people
are sending you files in proprietary Microsoft formats.

You can obviously use something that can handle those.

There's a lot more to choice than mere availability.

Using that utterly mindless line, there never is any real choice
anywhere.

And that is quite obviously mindlessly silly.

"The secret word is 'mindless'." Thank you, Groucho.

Wow - flamed by both of his personalities in the same day.
I've made it (whatever "it" is).

Blimey this subject has generated a lot of verbiage.

 

[SG1]

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4d3e37b8$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

Charlie Gibbs wrote:
In article<8q614jFv9mU1@mid.individual.net>, jb45678@gmail.com
(Jim Brown) writes:

Charlie Gibbs wrote

(Joe Thompson) writes:

Jim Brown<jb45678@gmail.com> wrote

Seebs wrote

Back in the day, I once spent a day and a half trying to find
a vendor who was willing to sell me a non-Windows laptop.

But was so stupid that you couldnt even manage to work out that
even you should be able to add anything you liked to the hardware.

It doesn't count as a "real choice" unless it's on the same terms.
If I have to pay for Windows even though I intend to wipe the drive
and install another OS before Windows ever boots, I do not have a
real choice.

Nor is it a choice in environments where other people
are sending you files in proprietary Microsoft formats.

You can obviously use something that can handle those.

There's a lot more to choice than mere availability.

Using that utterly mindless line, there never is any real choice
anywhere.

And that is quite obviously mindlessly silly.

"The secret word is 'mindless'." Thank you, Groucho.

Wow - flamed by both of his personalities in the same day.
I've made it (whatever "it" is).



Blimey this subject has generated a lot of verbiage.

Yes Roddles & verbal diarrhoea go together.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2011-01-24, Stan Barr <plan.b@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:55:44 +0000 (UTC), Joe Thompson <spam+@orion-com.com> wrote:
On 2011-01-24, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
- until NT Windows wasn't an OS,

Thats a lie.
s
MSDOS was the OS and Windows was an addon.

Another lie.

Were you even around in the pre-Win95 days? The way it worked was that
DOS would boot, then you'd start Windows (or AUTOEXEC.BAT would do it)
using the WIN command. Windows 3.x and its antecedents were really just
DOS shells with fancy APIs available, kinda like GNOME is not the same
as the underlying OS but adds its own APIs.

It wasn't until WinNT/Win95 that you could boot Windows directly as a
bare-metal OS. -- Joe

Indeed. And I remember thinking when W95 came out (late!) how much
Microsoft had "borrowed" from MacOS, AmigaOS, Next and the *nix window
managers.

95 and 98 were still DOS underneath, you could close 95 and get back
to the dos prompt, with a little tweaking you could do the same in 98

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2011-01-24, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

It wasn't until WinNT/Win95 that you could boot Windows directly as a bare-metal OS.

I don't think you could with W95 (nor 98 nor ME) -- those were still the old code base.

No they werent. Particularly when they installed device drivers for
all the hardware and even rescanned for drives visible, and didnt
use the bios or dos functionality at all, even for the keyboard etc.

So did DOOM, that doesn't make it an operating system.






--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

 

[Mike Pumford]

In article <8purf7F44vU1@mid.individual.net>,
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

greenaum wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Win stopped using the bios LONG ago. Its basically just used in the boot
phase now.

Actually in modern PC's there is an increase in BIOS use. Windows and other

32bit protected mode operating systems stopped using the BIOS as the
BIOS vendors never wrote protected mode friendly code. A modern PC with
an ACPI BIOS provides a bytecode that can be executed in the OS kernel
to do chipset specific operations in an OS neutral way. ATI also do
a similar thing in their video card ROMS for certain setup operations
as well. Suspending and resuming a modern laptop is done this way as are
a lot of the motherboard device discovery/power managment.

This bytecode approach gives the OS vendor a way of controlling the processor
mode and leaves it up to the OS to make sure the bytecode interpreter
is suitable for the OS environment. These BIOSs are not without their bugs
but the situation is getting better especially since newer versions of
Windows don't tolerate bugs in these bits of code.

Makes you wish they had done it this way in the first place although I'd
imagine the performance penalty on even a 486 would be shocking.

Mike

 

[jmfbahciv]

Roland Hutchinson wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:12:19 +0000, Joe Thompson wrote:

On 2011-01-24, Jim Brown <jb45678@gmail.com> wrote:
Seebs wrote
However, a "real choice" in economic terms suggests that, say, you
basically get to choose which products to buy.

And that is precisely what you got when the alternative is quite
literally free.

Not when there is a product one cannot choose not to buy.

If the only way to get a burger king burger were to buy a burger from
McD's, at which point you could throw the burger out but keep the
carton, then go to BK and have them put a free burger in the carton,
that would not be a "real choice"

Corse it would be.

Not unless McDonald's gave me a refund for the unwanted burger, so that
my free burger was actually free. -- Joe

I'm sorry, but your burger was licensed only for eating out of the
original carton. It has no value by itself.

But it didn't have a mouse ball.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Charlie Gibbs wrote:

In article <20110123073328.9a4a3ccb.steveo@eircom.net>,
steveo@eircom.net (Ahem A Rivet's Shot) writes:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:46:54 +1100
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
SG1 wrote just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.

Well that didn't take long this time.

At least he's chosen new catchphrases.

Not really. He's writing the same old shit he spews

in other newsgroups.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2011-01-24, Stan Barr <plan.b@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:55:44 +0000 (UTC), Joe Thompson
spam+@orion-com.com> wrote:
On 2011-01-24, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
- until NT Windows wasn't an OS,

Thats a lie.
s
MSDOS was the OS and Windows was an addon.

Another lie.

Were you even around in the pre-Win95 days? The way it worked was that
DOS would boot, then you'd start Windows (or AUTOEXEC.BAT would do it)
using the WIN command. Windows 3.x and its antecedents were really just
DOS shells with fancy APIs available, kinda like GNOME is not the same
as the underlying OS but adds its own APIs.

It wasn't until WinNT/Win95 that you could boot Windows directly as a
bare-metal OS. -- Joe

Indeed. And I remember thinking when W95 came out (late!) how much
Microsoft had "borrowed" from MacOS, AmigaOS, Next and the *nix window
managers.

95 and 98 were still DOS underneath, you could close 95 and get back
to the dos prompt, with a little tweaking you could do the same in 98

And, after that, it was NT underneath.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Jim Brown wrote:

Charlie Gibbs wrote
(Joe Thompson) writes:
Jim Brown <jb45678@gmail.com> wrote
Seebs wrote

Back in the day, I once spent a day and a half trying to find
a vendor who was willing to sell me a non-Windows laptop.

But was so stupid that you couldnt even manage to work out that
even you should be able to add anything you liked to the hardware.

It doesn't count as a "real choice" unless it's on the same terms.
If I have to pay for Windows even though I intend to wipe the drive
and install another OS before Windows ever boots, I do not have a
real choice.

Nor is it a choice in environments where other people
are sending you files in proprietary Microsoft formats.

You can obviously use something that can handle those.

Sigh! Proprietary meant that the formats were not published.
To translate that sentence for you, it meant that nobody
knew what the formats were and, thus, could not write code
to read those formats unless they were ble$$ed by MS.



/BAH