Re: OS/2 & Cyrix

[Harmon Seaver hseaver@xxxxxxxx]

Peter Evans wrote:
> *also* to me [why the duplication?]:

  Because when I hit "reply" it only goes to you, and "reply to all"
sends a copy to you and to the list, and I'm too lazy to edit the "to"
anc "cc" lines.

> Assuming that they're comparable, and that each has a single CPU, I'd have
> guessed that the CISC design would be inherently faster.
>

  I can't imagine running our web server on a 110 pentium, but the
Netra handles it just fine, and a couple of maillists as well.


> >>  UNIX applications are (I've heard) a pain to install
> >
> >  Nope -- or at least not for anyone who knows unix
>
> Quote:
>
> Those of you used to the easy installation of applications expected in the
> Windows and Mac worlds can forget it with Unix. We found that routine

  As I said: Nope -- or at least not for anyone who knows unix
>
> End quote. *PC Magazine*, 22 April 1997, p. 104, apropos of graphics

  I gave up reading PC Magazine years ago.

> installation of commercial packages untrue?

  I don't know what version of unix they were talking about, it
certainly is untrue of either Solaris or Linux. Solaris has the pkgadd
utility (and also a utility which automagically mounts a CD when you put
it in the drive, pops up a window with the contents, etc.) which
simplifies things greatly -- as does Linux with rpm, but hey, even just
unzipping, untaring, and compiling the source code isn't all that
difficult.
  Their complaints about the difficulty just points up their
ineptness. But that's okay too -- I'd just as soon that it all remained
a bit difficult -- more job security and higher salaries for me! 8-)

>
> >>  UNIX (and other) Windows and DOS emulations are (I believe) slow
> >
> >  Nope -- in fact, most windoze apps are faster under unix.
>
> How? Via a translator such as Wabi? The same PC Mag article says "most
> Windows application [sic] won't run with Wabi--in fact, we couldn't get a
> few of the applications it does support running at all" (p. 103). Via a

  Well -- why am I not surprised. Sounds like a pretty incompetent
bunch there at PC Rag. But why do you bother to read trash like that for
info on unix? Why not read Linux Journal, Unix Review, Byte, or
something appropriate?

> I'm mystified by this. ZD's website seems to me to have a lower percentage
> of garbage than numerous websites--and certainly than their


  There was almost no content -- the screen was almost all frames and
graphics with just a tiny text window -- the "reviews" were only a
pathetic few sentences really. And just incredibly slow -- compared to
several other websites I tried in the same time period, so slow that it
seemed to lock up my browser (Netscape) -- and I didn't get that on the
other sites I hit during that time period. Can't say I saw anything
there that made me want to return.


--
Harmon Seaver hseaver@xxxxxxxx http://www.dibbs.net/~hseaver
=======================================================================
All is impermanent, but this too shall pass away, and the way of the
Samurai is death -- so speak your mind now, or forever hold your peace.
=======================================================================
Copyright, Harmon F. Seaver, 1997. License to distribute this post is
available to Microsoft for US$1,000 per instance, or local equivalent.
=======================================================================