Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 02:07:22 -0600 From: "Kris Kirby, KE4AHR" <kris@ninbsdbox.dyn.ml.org> To: FreeBSD-Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Crapintosh bashing, was:Re: cdrecord Message-ID: <347E7BBA.362451B9@ninbsdbox.dyn.ml.org> References: <199711280141.TAA21099@nospam.hiwaay.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Kelly wrote: > > Michael Porter opened his big fat mouth and said: > > > > <redirected to CHAT due to subject change> > > Good idea. I second the motion. > > 1:) I've heard they're hard to upgrade. I've never tried, so this could be > > totally wrong I'm sorry, but after the second word I am skeptical of his right to criticize. Heard? Isn't that a little unsubstantial? > With the popularity of PCI, PC's are beginning to take the concept of > multiple displays seriously. One day they may get to where Apple was in > 1985 with the Mac II, where up to 6 monitors simply required 6 video > cards to produce one large desktop spread across all the monitors. If > you didn't like Apple's default layout of the monitors one could drag > graphic scale models around to establish the relationship desired. Windows 95 (or was that 98?) I had heard was due to support two monitors, but the conditions were awful. 2 Identical PCI video cards. I mean same manufacturer, same make, same everything. And they *had* to be PCI. The monitors had to be identical too. Or at least dumb enuf that Windoze couldn't talk to them. > > Software development with two 19" monitors is pretty fun. In my case I > was also laying out PCB's. Placing B&W schematics on my 19" greyscale > monitor and multiple layer PCB artwork in color on another 19" was very > handy. Ultimately I unhooked my 14" color monitor (3rd) because there > were too many screens facing me. I saw this. It was without a doubt cool. > > 2:) Although I've heard that the PowerPC chip is *very* good (hey, it's made > > by Motorola and IBM, it's got to be at least pretty good!) Comparing same > > software on same price systems, and similar chip-clock-rate systems yields > > better results on IBM compatibles (my tests and my friends) Again, unsubstantial. > Cutthroat 3D graphic card availability is much better for PC than Mac. I > don't know if the 3D cards for PC's are faster than those for the Mac. > Considering the nature of the PC market the PC 3D cards are probably > much better at benchmarks than in real applications. Yeah, I'd have to go along with that. But (just about) the only apps for 3D cards are games. So the only real measure is some complicate render of something. > There is an awful lot of good that has come from Apple and the Mac. I > was glad to hear Rhapsody was taking a BSD slant. Give me a Mac, or > give me Unix, preferably both. I have no use for Windows. I have used Windows off and on (more off than on) since I could fit BSD on my machine. I use DOS for the toys and FBSD for the downloads and such. I haven't been able to leave Windows running Netscape (4) during a download and not have it crash. Or any FTP client for that matter. FBSD hasn't crashed on me. Netscape has, but I was running a beta. I am proud to say that I run FBSD. Windows is useless, except for Tetris. (I don't have a Nintendo.) Yes, I know about netris, but I haven't downloaded it and tried it. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR <kris@airnet.net> ------------------------------------------- Measure with a micrometer. Mark with chalk. Cut with an axe. (Now that's precision!)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?347E7BBA.362451B9>