Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!math.lsa.umich.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!hyc
From: hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu)
Subject: Re: "DOS machines" (Was: TT (Who has one?))
Message-ID: <1990Jul27.210647.6581@math.lsa.umich.edu>
Sender: usenet@math.lsa.umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor
References: <692@cvbnetPrime.COM> <1990Jul27.022748.29262@math.lsa.umich.edu> <1990Jul27.140916.3387@cbnewsh.att.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 21:06:47 GMT
Lines: 162

In article <1990Jul27.140916.3387@cbnewsh.att.com> wolf@cbnewsh.att.com (thomas.wolf) writes:
>*** Flame On.  Get that fire extinguisher out of my way :-) ***
 
Good thing I have a bag of marshmallows handy...   }-)

>In article <1990Jul27.022748.29262@math.lsa.umich.edu> hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes:
>>
>>I tend to call 'em DOS machines or 8086 boxes. (Or pieces of *Shit* but that's
>>not important right now...  }-) 
>>
>>I object to corporations like IBM taking generic language and turning it into
>>trademark status nomenclature. Used to be "PC" meant any personal computer.
>>The IBM PC wasn't even personable, let alone personal, at its introduction,
>>and has only slightly improved since. Nowadays you don't hear people saying
>>"personal computer" very much. I tend to say "micros," "minis," "mainframes,"
>>and "supers." If you want to talk about generic microcomputers, you can't say
>>"PC" any more. (Very sharp of IBM's marketing staff, I must say. But just
>>'cause it was obviously a smart move doesn't mean I have to like it. Just like
>>Sun calling their dreg of a system NFS. How generic-sounding. Bah...)
>
>I totally disagree with everything said so far.  First of all, I don't recall

That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You're even entitled to
voicing your own. No prob...

>anyone using the word "personal computer" before the IBM PC came out.  Back

...And you're entitled to advertising either a faulty memory or naievete, tho I
don't see why you'd want to...

>then, people used the words "micro".  Now, when people (at least the ones
>I know) talk about PCs they mean personal computers.  Hardly anyone

Ok, I should have said "*I* don't hear" instead of "*You* don't hear." For
this you're gonna roast me?

>uses the words "micro", "mini", "mainframe", etc. anymore since these terms
>are becoming virtually useless in a world where more and more personal
>computers have the power of what used to be mainframes (my long-winded way
>of saying that the boundry lines between categories are becoming fuzzy, whereas
>personal computer still means exactly what it did 10 years ago)...I'm saying
>that exactly the opposite of what the author claims is actually the case.

Fair 'nuff. I was just relating my own usage re: micro, mini, mainframe.
While I agree that by mere numbers the boundaries have blurred, by actual
use the distinctions are just as sharp as they've ever been. Note - the
boundary may not be in the exact same place as it was 10 years ago, but
that's to be expected. For the most part, capacities have increased. Micros
have aspired to minis have aspired to mainframes (which have gone nowhere.
Thanks, IBM! }-) But no class of computers has completely subsumed any other,
it's merely like a sliding scale, (with dinosaurs being edged out at one end.)

At least here at UM, the distinctions are still sharp. PCs and Macs are
"micros" - they do a helluva lot more than micros of 10 years ago, and a lot
that minis did, but they're not comparable to contemporary minis/workstations.
(And vice versa - workstations aren't a superset of micros, by any sense.)
The only class that hasn't changed appreciably is the mainframe, whose stomping
ground is quickly being devoured by the smaller class machines. (Consider, the
classic IBM 370 mainframe again. 24 bit addressing, 12 bit segments, 16 32 bit
data registers. That was where they were up till ... 1986? And the Motorola
68000 had a linear 24 bit address space and 16 registers since ... 1982? Micros
with 32 bit architectures rivaled the 370/XA... Now 370/ESA is here, which I
suppose puts a gap between it and micros again.)

I won't debate the "personal computing" issue with you, since my argument has
already been corroborated.

>Furthermore, when you call Suns "system" a "dreg", what exactly do you base
>your statement on?  First off, their _system_ is called "SunOS".  Their
>Network-based FILE System, NFS (taken in context, it doesn't sound so 
>"generic"), is a fairly advanced system, considering that
>it was available on Suns when others were still having problems getting a
>simple non-networked file system to work (I'm not saying it is perfect, but
>it is definitely not the "dreg" the author claims.)

Sure, the full name is Sun NFS, but you know and I know that everyone calls it
"NFS," and the industry marketing folks clamor for "NFS." Sun gave it a generic
name and tries to market it as a generic system, but we all know that it's
really just a poor abstraction of a Unix file system, with even worse consistency
characteristics. You seem to forget not only that Sun isn't the best, but also
wasn't the first. Apollo beats them on both counts, and the Apollo filesystem
was giving high performance with reliable consistency long before even SunOS2.
I have to live with NFS now, because it's a Wonderful Standard, but again, that
doesn't make it good. (Of course, Apollo had a serious problem, since even tho
their system was very good, it could never be a standard. So it goes...)
>
>>Pretty much. I personally loathe current Intel chips. I don't care what you
>>can do with one, a different architecture can do it better. 
>
>Is this statement made out of intimate knowledge or out of ignorance?
>If it is the former, you must certainly have worked much with the line of Intel
>chips to form this opinion - how do you reconcile your working on machines
>with these chips when you loathe them so much?
>If it's the latter, you're you're just filling the net with useless chatter.

Not even the benefit of the doubt, eh? So, if I say "I hate Macs" you're also
going to accuse me of useless chattering? I've got intimate knowledge of both,
because at one time or another, they were new to me, and I set out to learn
what I could of them. I like hacking, and back then I didn't have a system of
my own, so I hacked on whatever was available around me. The engin college
here was big on IBM PCs for a while; so I hacked on them for a couple years.
Lisas came in, but they didn't stay long. Macs came in, and they haven't left
yet. They were there, and I made a living working on them.

>Your statement "I don't care what you can do with one, a different
>architecture can do it better" is about as useless a statement as "I don't
>care what number you name, I can name one that is larger".

Well, let's be reasonable, eh? I'm not gonna invent and describe an architectur
out of thin air. But I'd stand by the statement that any number of other existing
architectures are better than Intel 80x8x. 680x0, TMS9900, Z80, Z8000 to name
a few. Of course, this, again, is my opinion only.
>
>[deleted text]
>>
>>I think there's more to the TT than meets the eye.
>
>That's just the point!  So far, nothing meets the eye (at least not in
>mass production :-)  Again, "the computer I plan to release probably is better
>than the one you currently have on your desk."
>
>[deleted text]
>
>>Look at their price/performance ratio. Look at IBM operating systems. They're
>>the standard in the IBM mainframe world...
>How ingenious a statement.  Like saying UNIX is the standard on UNIX machines.

How obtuse a statement. Do you run IRMX on all of your Intel-based hardware?
(If you've got any...) No? Why not? Don't you believe in the term "general
purpose computer" ? There are myriad operating systems available for IBM
mainframes, just as there are multiple operating systems for 8086s, 68000s,
and 'most any other architecture you can name. While IBM doesn't like to admit
it, just because they dictate the hardware specs doesn't mean they dictate the
software architecture for the hardware.

>[at the end, some apologetic statements about getting carried away]
>"Sorry, officer, I didn't mean to commit murder.  I just tend to get
>carried away!"

Whoa, running on at the keyboard is akin to murder, huh? Such wonderfully
applicable metaphors you choose. It's not even like I yelled "fire" in a
crowded theater. I'm not even yelling...

>*** Flame off ***

sputter sputter put put putttt....
>
>Tom
>
>-- 
>+-------------------------------------+ "Stupid" questions are better than
>| Tom Wolf      | (201) 949-2079      | no questions at all. No answer is
>| Bell Labs, NJ | wolf@spanky.att.com | better than a stupid one.
>+-------------------------------------+

What an unusually open-minded signature quote for such a typically narrow-
minded flame.
--
  -- Howard Chu @ University of Michigan
  one million data bits stored on a chip, one million bits per chip
	if one of those data bits happens to flip,
		one million data bits stored on the chip...
