Virus, Virus, Everywhere!
in [Laptops]
|
From: Richard Bonner on 22 Jul 2010 07:37 BillW50 (BillW50(a)aol.kom) wrote: > John Doue typed on Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:32:39 +0300: > > I am surprised Richard did not mention DOS ... I seem to remember > > he is a big fan of it. What would your stats be? :-). > Hi John! Yes I too am surprised that Richard didn't recommend DOS as > well. And DOS was doing well up to about the year 1993, when Windows 3.1 > came out. And Windows 3.1 was so good at the time, it did away with > other competitors like GEM, GEOS, and even hit OS/2 hard. *** That was more marketing than it being so good. OS/2 was ahead of Win 3.x in multitasking and multithreading, at the minimum. I had 3.1 and had issues with it - especially with resource memory limitations. Eventually, it would not boot properly, so I dumped it. > Why GEM and GEOS didn't bother to improve and compete against Windows, > I have no idea. *** It was the same as with DOS, Microsoft quashed the competition with its "DOS is Dead" campaign. That really hurt Digital research which had both DR-DOS and GEM. Microsoft was always playing catch up with DR-DOS, so they had to quash it somehow. (I use a newer version of DR-DOS to this day.) I should mention that DOS continued to do well into the late 1990s. Sales of DOS software exceeded those of all other operating systems combined. DOS of course continues to this day, but mainly in embedded systems and in retail POS setups. Still, consumer DOS software is available. My graphic browser has a date of 2008, and my USB drivers and 4DOS are 2009. Speaking of USB, an even newer driver (from another source) was released just last month. > And to be honest, under DOS I can't do as much as I could with it back > in 1993. That is because many of those programs don't even work on newer > hardware for one. *** What version of DOS are you using? Try a newer one. > And the ones that get you online like AOL for DOS > (which was really a GEOS application) won't even get you online for over > a decade now. Worse, it only works on dialup and that is all. No browser > either if I remember correctly. *** Yup, that stuff is pretty old. > So my stats for DOS would be that DOS would only allow me to do 1% of > what I want to do. Pretty sad, eh? > -- > Bill *** Hmm, well given that DOS does 95% of what I and my company do, I would have to say that your DOS setup is not up to snuff, Bill. (-: -- Richard Bonner http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
From: Richard Bonner on 22 Jul 2010 07:51 BillW50 (BillW50(a)aol.kom) wrote: > In news:i26mae$el4$1(a)Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca, > Richard Bonner typed on Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:39:58 +0000 (UTC): > > BillW50 (BillW50(a)aol.kom) wrote: > >> I have one of those USB floppy drives too, but who knows why I > >> do though? > >> -- > >> Bill > > > > *** It's convenient if one needs to get something from an old floppy > > backup, or when some friend shows up with a file or utility I want > > that is on floppy. Of course, it can be a life saver if one needs to > > diagnose a hard drive when no CD or USB is available. > True, but who puts things on floppy anymore? Anything important should > have been moved to another format by now, after all it is 2010. > -- > Bill *** There is the cost of changing over those archives. I have heard rumblings that some businesses are unhappy with having to now move CD-ROM archives to DVD, a format that will in turn be obsolete in a few years when anything that turns will be passe and we all go to solid state drives. I saw a piece on this somewhere regarding this cost to libraries. At least some have simply opted to maintain the devices needed to view film, microfilm, microfiche, floppy and CD-ROM discs. So to answer your question, anyone with archives on floppy discs will need a floppy drive, as will those with CD and DVD archives. Requests are dwindling, but I still get people crying for help to retrieve something or other off of floppy discs. I keep both 5.25 and 3.5 drives in working order at work and at home, as do several friends of mine. I should also mention that in my case, since DOS has remained compatible with itself, that I can easily run programs from the past quarter century up to 2010. As such, I often find usable utilities on floppy discs that have been given to me. -- Richard Bonner http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
From: Richard Bonner on 22 Jul 2010 07:56 BillW50 (BillW50(a)aol.kom) wrote: > In news:i26mte$f47$1(a)Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca, > Richard Bonner typed on Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:50:06 +0000 (UTC): > > BillW50 (BillW50(a)aol.kom) wrote: > > > >> Richard Bonner wrote: > >>> If you decide to switch to a different operating system, I > >>> suggest Debian or Linux Mint. Regarding the latter, last year two > >>> friends of mine switched from XP to Mint and won't go back for any > >>> reason, now. > > > > > > (Snip) > >> 4) Linux runs 5% of what I want to run. And Linux is also awful when > >> it comes to running multimedia. As you need 3x more processing power > >> than XP does on the same machine. Plus Linux support for different > >> file types is very limited. > > > > *** Those were similar complaints from my friend until he installed > > Mint. He had issues with wireless Internet as well, but none with > > Mint. His wife ran XP all the time he had Mint on another system in > > their home. She is an accountant, but yet she too, has switched > > exclusively to Mint. > Can you run the most popular games under Linux? Nope! *** I can ask my Mint friend; he is a gamer. > When you buy new > devices do you come with Linux drivers? Nope! When you buy a new digital > camera with fancy software to edit video, does it run under Linux? Nope! > Does your new scanner OCR software run under Linux? Nope! Hell I haven't > even got my KW-TVUSB506RF-PRO USB TV tuner or Palm OS to work with Linux > yet. Linux does so little it is almost completely useless to me. *** This was the same argument back in the Windows days. Why was software made for it? The same will happen with Linux. > > Am I saying it, or any operating system, is for every user? No. > > However, I urge people to expand their horizons and give other ones a > > good run if they are unhappy with their present operating system. > Apparently I am expanding my horizons far more than you or your friends. > Because I know for a *fact* that Linux makes for a very lousy general > purpose OS. Hell I am watching live TV right on my Windows right now > with pause and rewind. You know how many years I would have to work and > write my own code to get this working under Linux? It would take > forever! So why bother? *** You need not - software makers will do it for you. > > *** I am sorry that your Linux experience has not been a good one, > > Bill. However, I belong to a computer group, of which more members > > run Linux as compared to Windows. I also belong to a Linux-only > > group. I don't see any of those users having the issues you describe. > > Perhaps you are running software that requires Windows, but for > > day-to day usage, Mint seems fine to me. I should also add that > > several of the Linux users in these > > groups are system administrators, and one is a retired IBM employee > > with 35+years of experience. If Linux is that bad, I cannot see > > persons with their experience sticking with such an operating system. > That is because they don't do anything worthwhile with their computers! > They just do the plain simple things that a PDA can handle alone. If you > what to expand your horizons, Linux won't get you there. Hell Linux > doesn't even have good IM software either. If you want to voice chat and > webcam with your friends, the only one I know of that works under Linux > is Skype for Linux. Well that is great, but what happens if your friends > are using MSN, Yahoo, AIM, ICQ, or something else? You are screwed! And > Skype charges you 10 cents to send a SMS text message to a cell phone. > While the others do not and it is free. You just don't understand how > limited your options under Linux really are, do you? > -- > Bill *** No, because I rarely turn on my Linux machine. However, I will print your post off and have some of those users answer these questions. I will post back here after the next meeting. -- Richard Bonner http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
From: BillW50 on 24 Jul 2010 10:22 Richard Bonner wrote on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:51:22 +0000 (UTC): > BillW50 (BillW50(a)aol.kom) wrote: >> In news:i26mae$el4$1(a)Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca, >> Richard Bonner typed on Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:39:58 +0000 (UTC): > >>> BillW50 (BillW50(a)aol.kom) wrote: >>>> I have one of those USB floppy drives too, but who knows why I >>>> do though? >>>> -- >>>> Bill >>> *** It's convenient if one needs to get something from an old floppy >>> backup, or when some friend shows up with a file or utility I want >>> that is on floppy. Of course, it can be a life saver if one needs to >>> diagnose a hard drive when no CD or USB is available. > >> True, but who puts things on floppy anymore? Anything important should >> have been moved to another format by now, after all it is 2010. >> -- >> Bill > > *** There is the cost of changing over those archives. I have heard > rumblings that some businesses are unhappy with having to now move CD-ROM > archives to DVD, a format that will in turn be obsolete in a few years > when anything that turns will be passe and we all go to solid state > drives. Really? I remember taking all of the software I had for a Commodore VIC-20 that I was using for a couple of years... well later I copied all of them and it all fit on a single 720kb 3.5" floppy. Considering a VIC-20 only had 3.5kb of available memory, a 3.5" floppy was like a huge hard drive for storage. I have 4TB worth of storage nowadays and I still have thousands of floppies around. And if I moved it all to this storage, it won't even make a dent in the space. So how costly could it be? As storage has been getting larger and larger and cheaper and cheaper all of the time. > I saw a piece on this somewhere regarding this cost to libraries. > At least some have simply opted to maintain the devices needed to view > film, microfilm, microfiche, floppy and CD-ROM discs. I still have microfiche and two viewers around. I haven't used them in decades and I don't think I ever will either. > So to answer your question, anyone with archives on floppy discs will > need a floppy drive, as will those with CD and DVD archives. Requests are > dwindling, but I still get people crying for help to retrieve something or > other off of floppy discs. I keep both 5.25 and 3.5 drives in working > order at work and at home, as do several friends of mine. > > I should also mention that in my case, since DOS has remained > compatible with itself, that I can easily run programs from the past > quarter century up to 2010. As such, I often find usable utilities on > floppy discs that have been given to me. All of the programs and utilities that I left on floppies wouldn't do me any good today anyway. As we have so much better programs and utilities nowadays. Maybe the old archives might be interesting to look at someday, but if they do fade away it won't be a big loss anyway. And by the way, I haven't touched a floppy in many years. But how often are those old floppies have become unreadable? -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)
From: BillW50 on 24 Jul 2010 10:40
Richard Bonner wrote on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:56:53 +0000 (UTC): > BillW50 (BillW50(a)aol.kom) wrote: >> In news:i26mte$f47$1(a)Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca, >> Richard Bonner typed on Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:50:06 +0000 (UTC): >>> BillW50 (BillW50(a)aol.kom) wrote: >>> >>>> Richard Bonner wrote: >>>>> If you decide to switch to a different operating system, I >>>>> suggest Debian or Linux Mint. Regarding the latter, last year two >>>>> friends of mine switched from XP to Mint and won't go back for any >>>>> reason, now. >>> >>> (Snip) >>>> 4) Linux runs 5% of what I want to run. And Linux is also awful when >>>> it comes to running multimedia. As you need 3x more processing power >>>> than XP does on the same machine. Plus Linux support for different >>>> file types is very limited. >>> *** Those were similar complaints from my friend until he installed >>> Mint. He had issues with wireless Internet as well, but none with >>> Mint. His wife ran XP all the time he had Mint on another system in >>> their home. She is an accountant, but yet she too, has switched >>> exclusively to Mint. > >> Can you run the most popular games under Linux? Nope! > > *** I can ask my Mint friend; he is a gamer. I can't see a Linux user being a serious gamer. As the most popular games don't even run under Linux. >> When you buy new >> devices do you come with Linux drivers? Nope! When you buy a new digital >> camera with fancy software to edit video, does it run under Linux? Nope! >> Does your new scanner OCR software run under Linux? Nope! Hell I haven't >> even got my KW-TVUSB506RF-PRO USB TV tuner or Palm OS to work with Linux >> yet. Linux does so little it is almost completely useless to me. > > *** This was the same argument back in the Windows days. Why was > software made for it? The same will happen with Linux. Almost nobody was serious about Windows until about '93. And Linux was born in '91. And we have been waiting 19 years for Linux to mature. Trust me, it isn't ever going to happen! And anybody willing to wait for it to happen will died sadly very disappointed. >>> Am I saying it, or any operating system, is for every user? No. >>> However, I urge people to expand their horizons and give other ones a >>> good run if they are unhappy with their present operating system. > >> Apparently I am expanding my horizons far more than you or your friends. >> Because I know for a *fact* that Linux makes for a very lousy general >> purpose OS. Hell I am watching live TV right on my Windows right now >> with pause and rewind. You know how many years I would have to work and >> write my own code to get this working under Linux? It would take >> forever! So why bother? > > *** You need not - software makers will do it for you. I have been waiting 9 years now for software makers to do it. Sorry that is just way too long. Time to move on. >>> *** I am sorry that your Linux experience has not been a good one, >>> Bill. However, I belong to a computer group, of which more members >>> run Linux as compared to Windows. I also belong to a Linux-only >>> group. I don't see any of those users having the issues you describe. >>> Perhaps you are running software that requires Windows, but for >>> day-to day usage, Mint seems fine to me. I should also add that >>> several of the Linux users in these >>> groups are system administrators, and one is a retired IBM employee >>> with 35+years of experience. If Linux is that bad, I cannot see >>> persons with their experience sticking with such an operating system. > >> That is because they don't do anything worthwhile with their computers! >> They just do the plain simple things that a PDA can handle alone. If you >> what to expand your horizons, Linux won't get you there. Hell Linux >> doesn't even have good IM software either. If you want to voice chat and >> webcam with your friends, the only one I know of that works under Linux >> is Skype for Linux. Well that is great, but what happens if your friends >> are using MSN, Yahoo, AIM, ICQ, or something else? You are screwed! And >> Skype charges you 10 cents to send a SMS text message to a cell phone. >> While the others do not and it is free. You just don't understand how >> limited your options under Linux really are, do you? >> -- >> Bill > > *** No, because I rarely turn on my Linux machine. However, I will print > your post off and have some of those users answer these questions. I > will post back here after the next meeting. Well good luck with that, as you will need it. ;-) -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03) |