 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mac, PC or other?
|
|
|
Subject: Mac, PC or other? From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 02 Jul 01 - 01:44 PM A while back I learned that you don't need to have a PC or a Mac to visit Mudcat. John in Hull uses a set top box for internet access, which I think means he views this on his TV via a cable company decoder. So I was wondering if he is unique in that respect or are there other non-PC forms of access? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 02 Jul 01 - 01:56 PM I am using an ADSL set top box, it is called KIT, I think Les in Hull uses this as well.(We have our own phone company in Hull), they have a website at www.kit.tv Our phone co. is called Kingston Communications. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Jon Freeman Date: 02 Jul 01 - 02:09 PM Roger, WebTV is the best known of these things. I guess they may help some people access the Internet (not sure on the prices) but if I had to have one machine to do both jobs, I'd have a TV card in a computer - far more flexible. JOn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 02 Jul 01 - 02:25 PM Jon the upside is that JiH gets really fairly cheap access and doesn't have to buy a computer, the downside is he can't get Mudcat Radio or do some of the other computer things we take for granted. The punctuation thread just got me thinking that some people don't have the copy/paste, spell check, and other facilities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 02 Jul 01 - 02:32 PM I pay 15 uk pounds a month, for this I get 12 tv channels, unlimited internet access with a permanent ADSL connection , and unlimited e mail, but as Roger said ther is no spellchecker or any other software with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: GeorgeH Date: 02 Jul 01 - 02:34 PM Roger, I can't get mudcat radio either . . not all PCs have sound cards!! And I can certainly access Mudcat from my trusty old Acorn at home, but that doesn't support any of the Internet audio formats (as far as I can tell - I've not really tried!) Regards George |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Jon Freeman Date: 02 Jul 01 - 02:43 PM Which Acorn have you got George? I never had the pleasure of using one but I believe they made some excellent machines. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Jon Freeman Date: 02 Jul 01 - 02:48 PM John, that sounds quite a deal! Is there a way of using a PC instead of the box for the Internet? Roger, I suppose I do a lot of taking for granted with the PC, I've got so many uses... Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 02 Jul 01 - 03:01 PM Jon-No, unfotunately you have to use a special box that they give you(its about the same size as a video recorder, and says"PACE DSL DIGITAL MULTIMEDIA" on the font of it). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Mark Clark Date: 02 Jul 01 - 03:03 PM One could also access Mudcat through certain personal digital assistant (PDA) and mobile telephone products. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Amos Date: 02 Jul 01 - 03:36 PM Personally, if you have the price, I'd suggest a Mac. Faster to use, easier to fix, more reliable, less complex, true plug and play, and many other virtues. 'Course if you want to spend your time working on your computer, instead of getting work done using it, why that's your call... Might be time fer a little duckin' and runnin' about now.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Jon Freeman Date: 02 Jul 01 - 04:24 PM I've no experience with Macs but I think it is probably an each to their own choice and I quite like the PC. I would say that hardware wise, a PC is very easy to work on providing you have a reasonable case and I've not run into any major problems upgrading or repairing mine. I have also found mine to be reliable - I still have a 1985 8086 in good working order. The only major problem I have had was caused by lightening which zapped, motherboard, processor, soundcard and modem but I can't blame the PC for that! Rebuilding after the damage was quite straightforward once I had worked out what I was going to build and which motherboard, processor, etc. to go for. Software, OK, I don't think Windows is that great but it is useable and is perhaps more stable than some suggest. There is also a wealth of software availible. I would like to see Linux go futher but I can't be bothered with all the command level bits you seem to have to know - maybe one day... Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: dwditty Date: 02 Jul 01 - 04:30 PM PC...then you can use Paltalk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Bill D Date: 02 Jul 01 - 08:49 PM if there was true justice in this world, MACs would rule, but they screwed up in those days when they wouldn't release the code and lost the chance. So, in order to play and get LOTS of free toys, I use a PC.....I only have to re-boot it 2-3 times a day...*grin* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Jon Freeman Date: 02 Jul 01 - 09:18 PM Seriously, what sort of re-boot periods do other Windows users have to put up with? As a general rule, I can have problems using Paltalk that force a reboot but other than that, apart from the occasional program crash, things seem pretty stable. It is not uncommon for this PC to be switched on 24hrs a day for a week without me needing a reboot. That was with my pevious build (K6-2 500, 128MB RAM) as well as my latest build (Athlon 1Ghz, 256 MB RAM). I don't dispute that there are memory leaks during this period or that there is perhaps a general slow down but nothing so bad that it forces me to close down. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jul 01 - 09:26 PM I wonder about Macs and compatibility. The Mac version of the Digital Tradition works on Mac System 6 and System 7. We had been working on a new version, but then OS-X came out and caused more compatibility problems. The DOS version of the Digital Tradition runs on every DOS or Windows computer that has a hard drive. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Amos Date: 02 Jul 01 - 09:28 PM Well, okay, since we're being honest here, I'll put down my guidon and confess that I have by necessity been using a Pentium / Win2K at work and it is fairly reliable -- probably no more than one or two forced reboots a week with heavy use. That's less than I ever saw from a MS OS before, so it's clear they are getting better, but it is still a lot more than I have to put up with from my Mac at home -- and the Mac is faster. And a helluva lot easier to learn and operate. And if you really have to use PalTalk, there's two emulators you can buy to take careof such stuff. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Amergin Date: 02 Jul 01 - 09:40 PM and with xp coming out where you need to phone up microsoft to get a code everytime you install the bloody thing...i have been thinking seriously of switching to macs....alot more stable.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: mg Date: 02 Jul 01 - 09:50 PM I got a mac and wish I had gotten a pc. I had tons of trouble with it and no skills to fix it and in a new town without people I could bug for help. Also there are all sorts of cool things that I would like that I at least can't get on the Mac. Probably someone else could make it work though. mg O |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 02 Jul 01 - 10:05 PM If anybody in the UK is interested in WebTv, Argos are now selling the Bush Internet Box (model no. I BOX 100), for 48 pounds, this is a good saving, when they first came out they were 200 pounds.In Hull we can get an ADSL box free from the local phone company (Kingston Communications). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Jon Freeman Date: 02 Jul 01 - 10:10 PM Umm Amerigin, maybe it is time I start getting to grips with Linux after all. Joe, I've wondered about compatibility for years. It seems to me to be a double edged sword and I'm not really sure what is right - the advantages of compatibility are obvious but there are problems. As an example, the old DOS limit of 64K still rears its ugly head - try Notepad. There must be performance losses buy trying to cater for old and new, building on the old probably leads to a lot of redundancy, etc. I think overall, I reckon that DOS and the PC as it stood then should have been scrapped when it became obvious that the 64K architecture just wasn't enough. Amos, perhaps one reason for seeing better from Windows now does stem from this 64K bit. Windows 3.x, I believe set shared resources between programs for things such as a Window/ dialog box to 64K - I think there were 2 main 64K chunks - called User and GUI. You could have 1GB of RAM but only this small section could be used for certain purposes and you would run out of system resources - a Microsoft marvel - particularly with a leaky/lossy OS! I'm not sure what the state of play on this issue is but I believe 95 allowed more space, at least for some resources and 98 made further improvements. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Bert Date: 02 Jul 01 - 10:41 PM Apple really blew it with the Mac. They had cornered the whole market with the Apple II series and they threw it all away. If they had written the Mac software for the open platform II series they would have been unbeatable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Amos Date: 02 Jul 01 - 10:59 PM Well, Bert, some people make honest mistakes, and some make dishonest ones. And for a company that really blew they seem to be doing okay considering the jungle is infested with a 2400-pound gorilla! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 02 Jul 01 - 11:04 PM If I had the money, I'd run both platforms; each has its strengths and weaknesses. Both, too, have their own zealot adherents who insist that the other isn't worth a light; both are probably wrong. I do wish, though, that the printing trade (with which I have to deal rather a lot) was not quite so religiously locked into the Mac; it's a bit limiting. So far as web TV goes, it does seem to be aimed at people who don't know much about it all (AOL seems to go for a similar market) as an easy fix; users then assume that whenever something doesn't work, it must be somebody else's fault rather than an inherent limitation of the cheap and limited system they've bought into. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Bert Date: 02 Jul 01 - 11:09 PM I know they didn't do it on purpose Amos, but just imagine - An Apple IIC that works like a Mac. I'd go out and buy one. But I wouldn't buy a Mac 'cos I'm a programmer and it's too much hassle to get to the machine underneath. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: wysiwyg Date: 03 Jul 01 - 12:18 AM My answer: Maybe, Yes, and Not Anymore, but Maybe Again sometime. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 03 Jul 01 - 12:23 AM ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Bill D Date: 03 Jul 01 - 12:31 AM stability of Win98 seems to depend on a lot of things....mine is on a lot, and it has steadily gone downhill as I have installed new things...it seems to have long pauses in the boot process now, and shut-down issues. I suspect memory settings and too many things competing for user resources is dragging me down...I have found a little memory recovery program which seems to help.. under system utilities is MaxMem It has various settings to help fight the loss. I may just try re-installing Windows soon...perhaps that will get my PalTalk working...hmmmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Bill D Date: 03 Jul 01 - 12:33 AM and, one step back in that page there are other neat things..music programs & the like |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Amergin Date: 03 Jul 01 - 02:41 AM Bill, check your resources.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: mooman Date: 03 Jul 01 - 04:10 AM PCs at work (I was also given the additional dubious job of maintaining the wretched system as a "reward" in lieu of a pay rise being the "scientist" in the organization!), Mac at home (only one major crash is 5 years but generally very reliable, I'll upgrade it to an i-Mac next year. Plug and play as they say and permanently connected to an ADSL line it will be my main internet computer. And a PC portable for when I'm in between (well no I don't actually use it while riding the bike!) And I still have a fully functioning 12 year old Acorn Archimedes 420/1 which is still my personal favourite and which I use for various odd jobs! mooman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Gervase Date: 03 Jul 01 - 04:56 AM Macs at home and work - and they seem to work just fine for me, even when using with a GSM phone for going online - something I used to have to do on a daily basis from all sorts of weird and wonderful places. So far (touch wood) there's been no mission-critical crash, and I've been using the things since 1987. I've had a couple of PCs, but never really got on with them; a computer is just a tool like any other, and I'd rather spend my time using the tool than farting around with it and wet-nursing it through a zillion incarnations. That said, the Mac does have some drawbacks. Cussed things, really - they inspire extraordinary loyaltly bordering on the obsessive in some folk. A bit like cats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: GeorgeH Date: 03 Jul 01 - 06:51 AM Bert said . . "it's too much hassle to get to the machine underneath" like, Windows is SO open and transparent?? (OK, you did say you were talking from a programmers perspective . . so I realise I'm twisting what you said . . At home we have (in use!) four Acorns (3 x Risc PC and 1 x A5000 - until 2 months ago that was my main machine, despite its only haveing 4Mb memory . . ), 1 x PC (why has PC - personal computer - come to mean "machine running a Mickysoft OS"?). It's not been unknown for daughter and her boyfriend to visit with their computers, bringing a pair of Macs into the house . . So I guess we're pretty "multi-platform". My considered opinion (which you don't really want to know) is that reliability is inversely proportional to Mickysoft product usage. Fortunately I use Adobe Framemaker for most of my REAL work at work . . G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Amos Date: 03 Jul 01 - 10:36 AM Hell, Bert, I yearn for my old Osborne sometimes too. But if it's plain C_++ devel and compile you want you can do that as well on a Mac as anywhere else using modern environments like CodeWarrior. Including debuggers. Because a lot of the graphic elements were built into ROM in the 68xxxx Macs (I dunno if OS 9, OS X or the PPC architecture changed that at all) they had a reputation for being hard to manage technically; but I'veknown half a dozen Mac programmers who are quite content with the access. So I guess it depends on what you want. And with OS X you have all the visibility of BSD UNIX including the whole vocabulary of utility commands, grep and (shudder) even vi if you wanted it, and you can push that boat around from the tailshaft if you need to that way! If you wanna promote yer geekiness, just fire up that command line and type in ps -ev! Regards,A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Bill D Date: 03 Jul 01 - 11:52 AM "check your resources" ..ya know, I have read my Norton utilities explanation of 'resources' 27 times, (along with all the other little pages about the various forms of memory...and a lot of it just leads in circles! I get the general idea, but like most people, I don't have the concepts of how all this is related worked out. It's like my car...I can change the oil and check for leaks and have basic tools to tighten loose parts..etc., but I don't know the physics of octane ratings or motor oil viscosity and can't trace electrical circuit eccentricities to make my stupid cigarette ligher work again! In my PC there seem to be 4 or 5 types of 'memory', and VERY few people who do understand it seem to be able to do a decent job of explaining it! What I am good at it is inductive reasoning...that is, finding things that work, and building up a set of 'rules' and procedures that describe the situation and how to deal with it. But in a computer, there are a VERY large number of those, and I ain't there yet!
The ONLY thing Norton, and most others I have found, seem to 'explain' about resources is "if you use too many, try to close some stuff and see if that helps"...pooh! I need a manual that says clearly ...."go here to read the graphs and usage...go here2 to see the components...go here3 to see what is 'normal' range in THIS machine"...then give me a list of ways to re-arrange, re-boot, re-align, and re-stock the various memory components for optimum usage! I know the 'more RAM' helps some things...(got 128megs)...I know a larger HD helps...(got 10 gigs with only 3.8 used)...I know Windoze is famous for 'leaking' memory under certain conditions...but I do NOT know exactly why, even with most extraneous programs closed, and my browser clearing it's cache automatically, and WIN98 supposedly managing it's swap file automatically, that I keep getting a build-up of sludge in my memory/resources and getting warnings that resources are low!.....eventually, re-booting is all that will help, and I really don't know WHY that helped, and more important, I don't know why I can't do whatever re-booting does BEFORE needing to re-boot! ....Sure, I can occasionally delay a crash by closing some things, but...I wanted them open...and I know 'some' folks run with more stuff open than I do...how do they do it? What are MY limits, and why can't some sensor tell me when I am in the danger zone and suggest WHAT will help? and by the way...after installing and tweaking 200+ programs...WHY won't PalTalk work,,*grin*...I have edited the registry and re-installed...and all I get is the ambiguous message in a PalTalk 'help' page..."well, if 'x' doesn't work you may not be able to run it from that computer & location"....WHY NOT???? nice way to start the day, hmmm? *grin* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Lin in Kansas Date: 04 Jul 01 - 05:27 AM John In Remote Kansas (JIRK) on LIK's cookie This is almost an ancient argument, and LIK will probably do unkind things to me for getting into it on her cookie, but: MAC is a tremendous machine. The MAC philosophy has been – and probably still is – that THEY know so much that you don't need to know anything about how it works. This is a good idea for a lot of us. It is plug-and-play simply because the code is tightly held, and it is all but impossible to market anything that the MACGODs don't approve. The MAC still holds primacy in many publishing (including music) and graphics fields. Most things that a MAC can do can now be done on a PC, but the MAC is established as the standard in these areas. Most of the programs that the MAC built this reputation on are "major muscle" jobs – and it's not necessarily a good idea to use your "bread and butter" machine for trivial stuff. (Nobody I know uses their CATIA terminal to surf the web.) If you're not doing these kinds of heavy duty things, there are few reasons to argue strongly for or against the MAC. Pick the one that suits the software you need. The PC is, in current versions, also a very good machine, and Windows isn't all that bad. Because early versions of Windows needed more complex programming, modular/script based programming methods (think JAVA? for a nonWindows similar concept) have become progressively more important. At the present time, almost anyone can still write a "Windows" program. This means that there are many more programs available to PC users, but also means that a lot of them are not really as clean as they might be. Anyone who is not happy with either the MAC or the PC is certainly free to use one of the UNIX/LINUX op systems. These are at the extreme of "open." The problem with them is that anyone using them MUST occasionally write, debug, assemble, disassemble, and otherwise mangle code. (A command line input is a trivial kind of coding, especially if you include switches or other options.) For most of us the GEEK QUOTIENT required exceeds our GLAZE FACTOR. (See the Hackers Dictionary – any edition). There are a lot of comlaints about frequent crashes with Windows. The above cited "semi-open" status is probably responsible for most of these. Crashes do occur, but very infrequently, if the machine runs only "good" programs. You can load yourself up with freeware, shareware, and other such. Some of it is very good, but a lot of it is good without the "very." Memory leaks are one of the most common faults in "less than fully compliant" programs. For BillD and others – re memory leaks. Nothing runs until it has been loaded to RAM. In order to speed things up, Windows will usually fill at least 80 to 90 percent of available ram, if open programs are that big. RAM is filled by "pages," and one of the processor intensive Windows functions is "swapping" pages so that the next part of the program that is needed will be ready to go. Even though most of the RAM may "have something in it," only those parts of RAM that are "active" in running programs counts against resources. Windows will also swap to the Hard Drive, and in fact does a full "mirror" of a running program in Hard Drive Temp files. After initial program opening, all swaps in and out of RAM are made from the Temp copy of the program. A well behaved program will tell the computer what parts of its code are needed, and will "close" a part of code that has finished executing and is no longer needed. A well behaved program will obviously "close" all its share of memory when the program is closed. When a program fails to close unneeded memory, you have a "leak." Code is in RAM, and/or is in Temp on the Hard Drive, and since the program that put it there has gone away, it may stay there until a reboot (and sometimes after). Too much RAM can actually slow a Windows PC down, at least through Win95. The reason for this is that the processor spends so much of its time keeping track of the swaps, that there is nothing left to run the program. Microsoft's recommendation for Win95 and NT3 on Pentium2 machines was, as I recall, that you NOT install more than 128M of RAM (unless you have a particular program – like CAD or some high-end graphics stuff - that really needs more). Newer versions will handle more, but I haven't heard what the "best" values are for Win98, Win2000, NT4, etc. Microsoft core applications (Office) are not without memory leaks of their own. These occur mainly when a program "calls" a "plug-in," which may not free its memory when it finishes. The extent of these leaks is usually minor, and should not cause serious problems. All of the people I have known personally who have had a history of extremely frequent Windows crashes have been people who use a lot of freeware (it's free – I gotta download it) or aftermarket software. Screensavers (totally unnecessary, but fun) are a common culprit. With newer Windows versions, legacy programs that you got when you had an earlier (more DOSsy) version of Windows may also be a problem. I have, unfortunately, observed apparent memory management problems with all commercial music publishing software I've tried out. Maybe the shareware is better? Resources include RAM – but it's usually all "full" anyway. Temp space on the hard drive is a common resource problem, since Windows limits the percent of free disk space it will use for Temp files. You can change the limit, but be careful. Interrupts and DMA channels are also resources. The problem here is that newer versions of Win may use a lot of shared IRQs and DMAs (there ain't enough of them) and if you open a program that has to share with something already running, the processor has to manage the share, and has to keep track in memory. Windows writes changes to the Registry only on shutdown. Changes are frequent. It is highly recommended that you shut down and reboot on a regular basis, if for no reason other than to "capture" the current state of the Registry. (I "religously" observe this warning by shutting down whenever a thunderstorm is forcast – at least 10 or 12 times a year.) Your hard drive is your permanent storage for everything. Obviously it must be big enough to hold (store) all your programs and all your documents. To accomplish the above cited memory swaps (with default settings) ten percent of the FREE space on your hard drive must also be enough to hold all of the programs you will have open at any one time, plus at least TWO copies of each "document" that is open – plus of course all the cookies, etc. Your RAM is where everything happens. For a new Windows machine, I would consider 128M a minimum, and would think about 256M. It is unlikely that you will need more than that for the forseeable future. Buffer:pipeline:I/O RAM is tied to the processor in most cases. If you have picked your processor, it's automatic – forget about it. Video and Sound Card RAM are built into your accessory cards, and (usually) are addressed internally by the card. They do not affect your basic machine performance – they only affect video and sound performance. Microsoft now thinks that Windows is "so obvious" that you don't need instructions. The one real beef I have with them is that WINDOWS DOCUMENTATION SUCKS! I know that Linux is well papered. I also know that some very intensive attempts to find out something about MACs a few years ago were useless. Every good piece of meat has a bone? I'm told that in some parts of the world local phone calls are metered (time per call). Boston in 1960 is the only US location where I've run into this. This can make it somewhat costly to connect – even on a local line – to your ISP by POTS (plain old telephone service). I should think that this might be one of the key factors in electing a hard-wired service. For my own purposes, POTS connection is plenty fast enough, and at present all of the other available options are still on the wait-and-see list. There have been some horror stories about TOS (Terms of Service) contracts, and there is still some fairly frequent shake-out in terms of here-today/are-you-still-there companies. ANY always-on connection needs a GOOD FIREWALL!! At present, software solutions are helpful but not fully adequate IMHO. Far too much, but you get a lot for your nickel here. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: GeorgeH Date: 04 Jul 01 - 06:52 AM John In Remote Kansas (JIRK): Lots of interresting stuff there, and it's hard to disagree with it. Indeed "windoze isn't all that bad" is pretty accurate, although I'd add "until something minor goes wrong". Anything major - you'll give the day-and-a-half it takes to fix it. Minor irritations (constant messages about font info. having changedl, other error messages which actually don't affect anything, strange but occasionally software crashes - for starters) and you just live with it 'cause it's not worth the hassle of doing otherwise. But I suppose that's covered by the "the documentation sucks" comment . . Cheers, and thanks! G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Amergin Date: 04 Jul 01 - 07:12 AM The thing folks got to be aware of when they use a firewall...is that sometimes (not all the time, but it does happen) the firewall can actually go wrong and block your connection to the internet....and sometimes it will still be blocked after the firewall is uninstalled...and it can only be fixed by a reghack....deleting any reg key the firewall may have left behind.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Jon Freeman Date: 04 Jul 01 - 07:38 AM For BillD and perhaps others: In many versions of Windows, running out of resources has nothing to do with the ammount of RAM your PC has. Windows have managed these resources in various ways, ranging from Win 3.x where GDI and USER resources were limited to 64K each to NT which I believe sets no limit. This is the area I believe where most problems (at least ones a user becomes aware of) occur - other memory may get "lost" but as John has noted, there is the swap file and computers have rather more memory availible that the limits imposed by versions of Windows on the resouces - it is the weakest link if you like. Every time a window is opened (even edit boxes, etc are windows), System Resources are used, every time a drawing operation takes place, resources are allocated and are not always released properly - often because of poor programing - in simple terms, if you ask Windows for a Pen to draw, it is your responsibility to return it when done.... This leads me to program crashes - as far as I understand it, if a program terminates abnormally, the resources assosciated with it may not be released so one that crashes regulalry is not just a pain for someone trying to use it, it is also bad news for everything else. Jon
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Lin in Kansas Date: 04 Jul 01 - 07:48 AM John In Remote Kansas (JIRK) on LIK's cookie GeorgeH The only programs I've had a noticeable number of font faults with are legacy ones that I got back in Win3.11 (WWG) days. One in particular is "Rhapsody" which is my main music printing program. About 5 percent of re-opens on old files give me a "font xxx not found" which is meaningless, because the font it says is missing is not one that is used. I'm still using the program on Win98, but it wouldn't run at all on LIK's Win2000 machine, so we had to get her something else. There have been some significant changes is font handling in Win98 and Win2000. I still haven't figured out how they get Adobe fonts to run without a type manager - but they do work. About the only other glitch I see is "illegal operation" which is always a "page fault" in that busy memory management thing. Especially with "not quite current" software, there are some formerly accepted memory calls that don't work well in newer Wins, and they crop up occasionally even in the uSoft stuff. Amergin - You hit one of my several main reasons for not going hard-wired. Firewalls are messy stuff. There is a very fine line between preventing the unwanted action and preventing everything from working. Like the recent NASDAQ shutdown - when someone "testing some software" fried the password for rebooting the system - and it's probably not even Windows. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Jon Freeman Date: 04 Jul 01 - 08:08 AM One other point about stability: Hardware can also be to blame. I experienced this when I re-built my PC after the storm. I hadn't realised the memory had been damaged and used the old memory at first but enountered "write protection errors" and an abnormal ammount of "illegl ops" until I changed it. Also, settings at BIOS level can cause problems - it's quite possible to make a "tweak" there, e.g. some BIOS allow "Turbo" mode for memory - sounds good - it may well work but if your memory is not up to the job, you may find overall stability decreases. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Bill D Date: 04 Jul 01 - 11:47 PM well!!...*digesting slowly*....some of that is not 'new' to me, but much of it is was said in new & pretty consise ways, and I think I see hazy forms thru the fog now. Since I DO have some freeware, it may be that I have increased my 'leaks' to where I just have to live with it, or carefully uninstall things and do LONG careful tests to see which things are the problem....since time is at a premium, I may just have to live with it...*sigh*. I have seen some programs which tell you exactly what programs, DLLs, plug-ins..etc,, are running and how much memory they are using, but I doubt that they monitor 'lost' memory when things are closed. I get the impression that there is memory 'space' allocated to run 'X', and then when 'X' is closed, some of that space is still allocated and un-available even though it is not required any longer.... I suspect that one answer is to have 3 or 4 computers, all set up for different tasks, one for big graphics, one for surfing the WWW, one for text and storage, and one for games...etc., [with storage devices to transfer needed files between them when necessary]...(and I suppose lots of guys do just that..) well, thank you JIRK,*grin*.. for the essay.....(used to live in not-so-remote Kansas, myself..Wichita & Lawrence)..It doesn't solve anything 'specific', but it MAY prevent me from just sputtering at the screen...and it is about as close to a clear explanation as I have seen! Now, if I can find a 'free' analysis program to test all my OTHER programs for weak memory-return code...*BIG grin*
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 05 Jul 01 - 12:07 AM John in Kansas=I found your post very interesting and informative, when you say Freeware is that the free discs you find on the front of computer magazines? I have a always on ADSL connection,do I need a Firewall? (what is a firewall?) I asked a friend this, he said "I dont think you need one for ADSL, but I am not sure" Thanks.john |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Lin in Kansas Date: 05 Jul 01 - 03:15 AM John In Remote Kansas (JIRK) on LIK's cookie john in hull Many web sites post programs that you can download and use without payment. Usually there is a disclaimer saying that you can not "distribute" it - i.e. sell it to others. Some say that, if you pass it on, you must pass it on "complete," which means that what you give somebody else has to include all of the files and source credits. But it is "FREE." That is what is usually meant by "freeware." Programs provided on disks in a magazine would usually be included in this category. Some programs will allow you a "trial use" period, sometimes with certain features disabled. If you want full use of the program, you send them money, and they either send you the full program - or a code to unlock the mutilated features. These are what we usually call "shareware." A few commercial programs allow you to download "trial versions," usually with a whole lot of things (like the Help File and printing) disabled. You get the whole program by paying them their fee to get an "unlock code." I wouldn't call these shareware, but the principal is the same. I can't claim to be an expert on sysadmin stuff, but the advice I get, from what I consider reliable sources, is that anyone with any permanent connection to the net should probably have a hardware firewall. Very few people who operate their own computers actually have one. Some ISPs (Internet Service Providers - the guys you connect to to get to the net) claim to have firewalls that protect everyone connected to them, but the big guys in the business say it ain't necessarily so. You could try asking your ISP what his security features are, but chances are he's too busy selling hookups to give you a good answer. A good hardware firewall will run to 4 or 5 hundred $$, so many people try software protection as a first step. The current hot product in this category is called BlackIce Defender, which runs about $40 on the street. BlackIce will block some kinds of access attempts, but the main thing that BlackIce will give you is a log of when, how often, and sometimes "from-where" your system has been "attacked." The usual response to the first look at a log is "astonishment." Most people are unaware of how many a******* are out there trying to screw with everybody else. My main source for information about general computer stuff is "PC Magazine." I get the "Systems Manager" version, which may not be quite the same as what is on the newsstands. You can look at most of the mags content at www.pcmag.com. An article in the Feb 22, 2000 issue, titled "Security," gave a rundown of Win2000 Security issues - probably more than you want to know if your not Win2000 on a network. Subsites are at www.pcmag.com/solutions (some good utility [freeware] downloads), www.pcmag.com/pipeline (industry news), www.cpmag.com/opinions (some editors even more opinionated than I am), www.firstlooks.com (new products - should include some reviews of security stuff). Virtually All(?) of the PC magazines published in the US come from Ziff Davis publishing. You should be able to get some good info from www.zdnet.com. Last time I looked, you could link from zdnet to pcmag, but that may have changed. I hate to recommend that you go surf a site as deep as these, because it can be a real time-eater, but they can be helpful if you have a concern. The pros recommend at least a software ap like BlackIce for POTS connection, or if you ALWAYS log off when not in use. They generally do not consider this adequate by itself for any constant-connected link. Not to scare anyone, but the opionion of regular professional web users is "If you're not paranoid, you don't understand the situation." JIRK - disconnecting :-)! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 05 Jul 01 - 03:36 AM Thanks John, that was really helpful.john |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Lin in Kansas Date: 05 Jul 01 - 03:42 AM John In Remote Kansas (JIRK) on LIK's cookie Bill D If you are running any recent Windows system, you can go to a DOS window [Start - Programs - Accessories - DOS Prompt or Command Prompt] and type MEM to get a reading of what is loaded in memory. MEM/D (memory - debug) will give you a more complete listing. If you type "MEM /D >memlist.txt" it will make a file named memlist.txt (or whatever name you want to use) that you can open in NotePad, WordPad, or Word, so that you can study it. Depending on your system, you may get a lot more that you really want to know - but you don't have to look at all of it. Just look for things that might be "suspect." In the "Command Prompt" Window (sometimes called DOS prompt on older systems), you can get the details on a DOS command by typing the command followed by "/?," i.e. "MEM /?". You may want to "page" the result, since it could run more than a screen full. The OldDOS "MEM /? /P" or "MEM /? |MORE" will work. [I'm not sure how an HTML'd | will look, but it's a Shift-BackSlash on most keyboards - pronounced "pipe."] The results from MEM /D may be pretty cryptic, with a lot of "unknown program" at memory locations XXXX-YYYY, etc; but you might get lucky and find some leaks - or at least something to work with. The trick is to look "at the right time" so that you have an idea what you're getting. When you're done with the Command Prompt Window, your last "command" should be "EXIT" (without the "" - of course). Windows doesn't always leave gracefully if you just try to close the window with the little X thingy. There are some other good tools built into Windows, but shotgunning what "might" help could lead us on some pretty wild trips. Norton's "Guide to Windows XX," where "XX" is your version can be helpful. "The Hackers Guide to XX" is usually also a good source - if you feel like you really need to work a problem. Try to borrow one though, neither of these is cheap. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Amos Date: 05 Jul 01 - 09:52 AM If you want high-volume Internet access and the least complexity in use, maximum stability and minimum disruption, I would suggest an IMac hooked up to a cable-modem service like RoadRunner or Cox, running Mac OS9.x. It can run for years without crashing, and is fast as anything, not too expensive, and provides all the software you could need -- with PalTalk being one exception, except that you can run it on an emulation program. As for it being hard to find out something about Macs, John, I must disagree. The web is crawling with Mac docs. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Gervase Date: 05 Jul 01 - 09:57 AM Ah, I dreams of cable modems... Last I saw in the UK there were just 40,000 users hooked up to DSL lines. ISDN hasn't really taken off as a mass domestic phenomenon, and probably the majority of users still rely on dial-up connections, usually metered by the minute (although BT has a free connection option, for which you pay). Maybe that's why so many of us Brits access the 'Cat during working hours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: pavane Date: 05 Jul 01 - 10:23 AM Just want to confirm the need for a firewall. I was working recently on a mobile phone/internet development project, with one guy fully occupied on security testing. Even so, within a few hours of opening up to the real internet, someone had tried to hack in and set up a WAREZ site on the server. On my own machine, I use Zonealarm, and it often detects attempted hacking within a minute or two of dialling up. Apparently there are people who continuously run programs which try to 'ping' all possible numbers within a domain or subdomain. Once they get a reply, it is known to be a valid address and can be attacked in many ways. At the very least, they will try to seach the hard disk for useful items like credit card numbers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: dick greenhaus Date: 05 Jul 01 - 01:02 PM A pox on both. The "improvements" in both Mac and Windows have been a severe impediment to producing updates to DigiTrad--we've been totally wrapped up n trying to make these "superior" systems stop crashing with pre-existing programs. Wouldn't be so bad if the new versions worked better than the old ones, but they don't seem to. Who dreamed up the bizarre notion that a user should be aware of--or even learn to "use"--an operating system? If anything calls fo transparency and stability, it's an operating system. Linux/Unix seems promising, but trying to provide distributable databases and software written in a Unix environment that will also run under all flavors of Windows and OSs seems like a futile dream. I'm quite familiar with DOS limitations; only wish that they could have been overcome without the bloated training-wheels approach that seems to have become the wave of the present. Grump! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Bill D Date: 05 Jul 01 - 02:08 PM John in Kansas...thanks..that is very helpful, and my wife & I make a very good "Jack Sprat" team, since she does DOS in her sleep..(30 years of programming)...and I can find my way around the Windows stuff that Dick G *grumps* about...(Dick...why do I have an image of Henry Ford saying "You can have any color you want, as long as it's black"? to John in Hull and ALL...about firewalls...I use two right now.. both free, AtGuard, which has been bought by Norton and 'sort' of integrated into their NOT free system...(but there are old copies floating about, and some people still swear by it...like me..*grin*).....also ZoneAlarm ,which is probably the most used. But I am about to try a VERY highly recommended program called Tiny Personal Firewall which is free for personal use, and gets rave reviews form those who try all theses things/// |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Bill D Date: 05 Jul 01 - 02:40 PM here is the direct link to Tiny....Firewall |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Jon Freeman Date: 05 Jul 01 - 04:32 PM I've never been sure about using MEM under Windows - I'm not sure what it really reports but it seems to me that each DOS Window opened gets it's own complete environment complete with memory allocation. Here's an example that paerhaps John can explain: I go to MSDOS prompt, open up a DOS Window, type MEM and note that I have 545K of conventional memory free. I then start a DOS program - Turbo Pascal 4.5. I check my MEM in the original DOS Window and it still reports 545K of conventional memory even though TP is running. TP has a nice little feature that lets me shell to DOS so I use that and type MEM. This instance of MEM reports 300K of conventional memory free - seems reasonable to me seeing as TP is running! I open up another DOS Window just to be sure and type MEM and sure enough, I have 545K free. If I am reading this correctly, MEM is only any good for reporting the memory usage for that particular DOS shell. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: wysiwyg Date: 05 Jul 01 - 04:43 PM How about a more basic discussion of system requirements to do the basic-level things Mudcatters like to do? I have had what I think has been some good input on that, and am about to purchase a system; maybe I should post the whole set of specs (with the prices I am getting now). ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Jon Freeman Date: 05 Jul 01 - 05:15 PM Well Susan, to be honest to browse Mudcat, play with CakeWalk 3 for MIDIs, use Hearme, and to run a few office programs such as Word 97, my Pentium 133 with 32Mb RAM running Windows 95 met my requirements although I think 133 was getting near the min spec for Hearme and I think is below the PalTalk spec. I upgraded when an opertunity to strike a good deal on swapping parts arose and the AMD K6-2 500 with 128Mb running Windows 98 more than met my current needs. If it hadn't have been for the storm, and a forced rebuild, I think I would have stuck with that for a couple more years. My own FEELING (specs would have to be checked) is that any current entry level PC is going to provide more power than many of us need. I think the most important thing to know is your software requirements. Then you can start looking for hardware to run that effectively - hopefully also allowing a for a little bit of "future proofing". Jon Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: GUEST Date: 05 Jul 01 - 05:42 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: wysiwyg Date: 05 Jul 01 - 06:15 PM Thanks Jon. I am in that ballpark. Maybe it would be helpful to others to see the specs list. ~S~
System Name: Gateway Performance 1300
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Bill D Date: 05 Jul 01 - 08:19 PM well.....take 2nd look at the digital camera...anything below 2 million pixel resolution is a fancy toy...anything above 3 mil is gravy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Jon Freeman Date: 05 Jul 01 - 09:25 PM Susan, while I don't know what other 'catters may consider "basic-level things", I would feel confident in sugessting that spec is rather higher than "system requirements to do the basic-level things Mudcatters like to do" Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: wysiwyg Date: 05 Jul 01 - 11:34 PM *G* What, I'm above basic now that I want to burn CDs? Where do you see me running high? Really asking. Thanks Bill-- ya know, I didn't kow that, and I have no idea what the specs for the camera are. They happened to have been throwing the camera in for free this month, so at least if it's crap it ain't costing me. Hardi prefers 35mm and we can scan from that if the digicam is lousy. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Amos Date: 05 Jul 01 - 11:43 PM Don't say I didn't tell ya!! Love, A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: wysiwyg Date: 05 Jul 01 - 11:53 PM (Geeze you'd think I'd denigrated his manhood!) I'll put the thing side by side with the Mac and they can duke it out at the next Gathering. You will have to come run the Mac though to get the most out of it, dear. Start packing for the September Gathering. I'll grease up the trackball speshul for ya. *G* ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Bill D Date: 06 Jul 01 - 12:12 AM well, I gotta tell, ya....I barely look at my nice 35mm any more...I get GOOD pics instantly, and don't have to pay for prints till I like them....scanning is great, but I got SO spoiled so fast!...well, you do what seems right...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Jon Freeman Date: 06 Jul 01 - 07:56 AM Susan, I'd better first make it clear I'm not trying to advise you on what to get - just passing some general comments in terms of "basic" and "minimum". The main component in a PC that is used to indicate performance is the processor and a Pentium 4 1.3Ghz is a pretty fast processor. I have just had a look at one UK company's "entry level Intel machines" to try and get an idea of current trends (they change so fast) and there most basic machine uses a Celeron 800Mhz processor - suffice it to say you are a lot higher than that. I also looked up the minimum system requirements for CD RW drives with a similar spec to yours and I am finding Pentium II 300 with 32-64 Mb RAM as typical - a lot slower than the "entry level" Celeron 800Mhz... Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Jul 01 - 08:09 AM Thanks Jon. Bill, of course our computer and cameras have two users-- and we have distinct preferences in both repects. I am mostly the computer one, as far as communication, although Hardi will like the sound capabilities for his fidle music. We have not had any online sound at all, at home, since.... since we had it briefly when I first joined Mudcat. Hardi is mostly the photo one. When he takes a photo, he wants to use all the things he has learned about 35mm to get the shot looking the way he wants. When I take one, tho, it is to make a record of a thing, or catch some people I don't see very often (like Catters) and so the portability and facility of the digital camera appeals to me a lot. We plan to use this to do a lot of church music too-- not large runs of CDs, but a few. The CD ROM and separate CDRW were a good tip I got and I think will be a great help. No more tape duplicating and head cleaning! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 06 Jul 01 - 09:46 AM Don't mean to thread creep here, but.... BillD, how do you solve the battery problem with a digital camera? Mine literally eats batteries. I can plug into the wall instead of using batteries, but one extension cord didn't work. Was it just the cord? I agree though, it's nice to take lots of shots and throw away the ones I don't want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Bill D Date: 06 Jul 01 - 05:04 PM I use rechargable NiMH batteries (AA),,(Nickle-metal hydride)..better than NiCad...I have 3 sets..(maybe over kill,,,but..)I have a charger on my desk, and a little one I carry with me that plugs directly into a wall socket with no cord...(fold-out prongs)... Both my camera & chargers are by Olympus...they have never given me ANY problems..(the charger can be used by anyone who needs AA batteries) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Bill D Date: 06 Jul 01 - 06:25 PM yes...those batteries are not cheap, but in the long run they save $$$ and aggravation |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Amos Date: 06 Jul 01 - 06:37 PM You can huff and puff, but jus; remember when the time comnes.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Jul 01 - 07:27 PM Huff&puff? As far as I know you are the only one currently huffing and puffing. GET OVER IT, or I won't tell you when we start ALSO using the ()*&*^%%^ Mac. (I love you for it, but 'nuff SAID!) The camera turns out to be combo video and still, with storage for short video clips onboard or 128 pix. I forget the resolution... it's not great but should be fine for stills. I loved Gateway's online spec sheets and intractive chat for settling details. (They are not paying me to say so.) The sales associate I had I think is actually a secret Mudcatter (and I will post a link to his e-mail when I get around to it). At least he thought it quite funny when I said we would be using the video cam for that Rapture thing-- the JesusCam, to record our departure when He lands here in Pennsyltucky, and beam it out to all our pals. Amos, I suspect the Mac would not have done THAT. *G* ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 07 Jul 01 - 08:26 AM Bill D what you got? (camera that is) I just bought a 3040 and it is very nice though I am missing the precision through the lens focusing of my 'real film' Pentax. To have pictures up on the computer screen in seconds is very impressive Susan be careful with package deals (which is what I have) sometimes they look great but you may be getting an old spec. camera or scanner, I had to replace the scanner within six months as it just wasn't good enough for what I wanted. Like Bill said if you camera is 1-2 mega pixel then you might be disappointed with the quality unless you are just viewing on a computer screen. Or am I just being a bit green eyed with envy? (I hate it when mines the smallest drive in town!!!) I don't think JiH will need a firewall will he? I am guessing that the system he uses doesn't store any details that could be hacked did someone say Macs are easy? We have one at work and it is like a foreign langauge to me Roger |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Jon Freeman Date: 07 Jul 01 - 09:09 AM Roger, I did some reading up on WebTV to try to answer a couple of queries in the help forum and found one security related issue I didn't like: As far as I could make out, cookies are not stored on the WebTV but on one of WebTV's servers and the user has no control over what cookies are accepted or over thier deletion. I'd guess the system JiH uses may be the same. Jon (who likes his "real film" Pentax ME Super) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Bill D Date: 07 Jul 01 - 11:27 AM yep...on home systems cookies are under YOUR control..on WebTV there's no way...but..I guess there's no way to get a virus, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mac, PC or other? From: Amos Date: 07 Jul 01 - 04:37 PM From the "MacAttorney's" email list, for all you Hard Diskers: To partition, or not ... an outstanding question! A |