Re: OS/2 & Cyrix

[Peter Evans peterev@xxxxxxxx]

At 10:15 PM 7/31/97 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote to this mailing list and
*also* to me [why the duplication?]:

>But perhaps you've never
>tested beta software and have no concept of what that can mean.

Wrong on both counts, as it happens.

>  Take a 110mhz Pentium and a 110mhz Sparc (such as the Netra) -- which
>do you think is faster? Are they even remotely comparable?

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

>>  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
software installation takes an incredible amount of time and trouble.
What's more, many apps we tested required the use of a license manager that
monitors the use of the pricey Unix applications. You have to enter a
magic code that allows you to run the application for a certain amount of
time. Run out of time and you'll need a new code from the vendor. . . .

End quote. *PC Magazine*, 22 April 1997, p. 104, apropos of graphics
programs on so-called "graphical workstations". Now, I'll rush to concede
that this magazine is unlikely to be unbiased. It's a Windows-boosting rag
(though this time they conclude by recommending NT boxes no more strongly
than they recommend Unix and Mac alternatives). Praise of Unix would
confuse the readers. So they may exaggerate. But is what they say about
installation of commercial packages untrue?

>>  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
emulator such as SoftWindows? The article says "the overhead of an OS
running under an OS leaves a high-priced workstation running about as well
as a 486/66."

NB I do not want to suggest that Unix is inherently inferior to one or
other Microsoft OS; merely that its superiority would be of no help to me,
or (I suspect) to many users of XyWrite. And I'd happily switch to Linux
if it allowed me to do everything I do now, and more, as easily as I do it
now.

You say:

>[ZD] forget the most basic tenet of webpublishing -- that it has
>to work with whatever -- and insist upon plug-ins, plus lock up
>the browser over and over.

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 much-touted but
dismal CD-ROMs. (I don't know why I bought the latter a second time; I'll
never buy it a third time.) Try accessing with Navigator ver. 3 (or
above), with the option of not downloading graphics; it's then easy to
navigate. (Plug-ins may be necessary for the mulchmedia gimmickry, but not
for text. My browser doesn't lock up.)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Peter Evans