What systems can use USB? - VMS

This is a discussion on What systems can use USB? - VMS ; On May 10, 4:41 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > In article , > "johnhreinha...@yahoo.com" writes: > > > On May 10, 9:39 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > >> In article , > >> JF Mezei writes: > >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49

Thread: What systems can use USB?

  1. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    On May 10, 4:41 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article ,
    > "johnhreinha...@yahoo.com" writes:
    >
    > > On May 10, 9:39 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > >> In article <482414f8$0$31195$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>,
    > >> JF Mezei writes:
    > >> > Remember that Apple started with essentially nothing left, and came out
    > >> > with a totally new operating systems (OS-X) in roughly 2001.

    >
    > >> Since when is OS-X "a totally new operating system"? That would be
    > >> like me repackaging Slackware, calling it "Bill-OS V5.0" and claiming
    > >> it was "a totally new operating system"!!

    >
    > > Close, but not quite. It would be like you repackaging Slackware and
    > > then writing the equivalent of Gnome or KDE and calling it Bill-OS
    > > V5.0. Aqua, the Apple GUI (plus a lot of utilities) is theirs and
    > > they wrote it themselves (maybe some came from NEXT? I'm not sure).

    >
    > What they actually wrote isn't a GUI. Their GUI is X-windows. All
    > they wrote themselves was a Window Manager which is quite a bit less
    > than either a GUI or an OS. Next ran Display PostScript which I think
    > was Adobe's.


    Bill, you're wrong. Aqua is the GUI. GUI stands for Graphical User
    Interface. That's what Aqua does. It defines the appearance of the
    various windows components. It defines how those component work and
    what they can do. Aqua is based on Apple's Cocoa framework. This
    framework calls Apple's Quartz graphics subsystem to draw using the
    graphics hardware. No where in this path does X-windows come into
    play. On OS X you don't even have to run a X-window server if you
    don't want one. If you do then there is the X11 application which is
    based on the X server from the XOrg Foundation. The original code
    from XOrg has been modified to use the Cocoa or Carbon APIs to access
    the graphics hardware.


  2. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    In article <112d9b3d-fbf6-41eb-af64-3fe09b4ab2e1@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
    "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" writes:
    > On May 10, 4:41 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> "johnhreinha...@yahoo.com" writes:
    >>
    >> > On May 10, 9:39 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >> >> In article <482414f8$0$31195$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>,
    >> >> JF Mezei writes:
    >> >> > Remember that Apple started with essentially nothing left, and came out
    >> >> > with a totally new operating systems (OS-X) in roughly 2001.

    >>
    >> >> Since when is OS-X "a totally new operating system"? That would be
    >> >> like me repackaging Slackware, calling it "Bill-OS V5.0" and claiming
    >> >> it was "a totally new operating system"!!

    >>
    >> > Close, but not quite. It would be like you repackaging Slackware and
    >> > then writing the equivalent of Gnome or KDE and calling it Bill-OS
    >> > V5.0. Aqua, the Apple GUI (plus a lot of utilities) is theirs and
    >> > they wrote it themselves (maybe some came from NEXT? I'm not sure).

    >>
    >> What they actually wrote isn't a GUI. Their GUI is X-windows. All
    >> they wrote themselves was a Window Manager which is quite a bit less
    >> than either a GUI or an OS. Next ran Display PostScript which I think
    >> was Adobe's.

    >
    > Bill, you're wrong. Aqua is the GUI. GUI stands for Graphical User
    > Interface. That's what Aqua does. It defines the appearance of the
    > various windows components. It defines how those component work and
    > what they can do. Aqua is based on Apple's Cocoa framework. This
    > framework calls Apple's Quartz graphics subsystem to draw using the
    > graphics hardware. No where in this path does X-windows come into
    > play. On OS X you don't even have to run a X-window server if you
    > don't want one. If you do then there is the X11 application which is
    > based on the X server from the XOrg Foundation. The original code
    > from XOrg has been modified to use the Cocoa or Carbon APIs to access
    > the graphics hardware.


    Well, you could be right as I am not a Mac fanatic(and never will be
    although I do own a number of M68K Macs that I play with.) but I know
    the professor I have to support that is a Mac fanatic has no problem
    displaying X applications on his Mac which tells me there is X11 under
    there somewhere. And when another professor went out and grabbed all
    the OSX (aka Darwin) sources the only thing he didn't get was the
    window manager that had the MAC look and feel. What is it that they
    say about walks like a duck and quacks like a duck?


    And, regardless of all that , it still isn't "a totally new operating
    system" which was the original claim!!

    Thinking about this brought one more comment to mind just before I hit
    the send button. XFree86 and Xorg do not support things like the VAX
    3100 seriesa because DEC modified the X11 code to support these and
    never released it to the world. Does that meant that because it's not
    in Xorg it wasn't X11?

    bill


    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  3. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> Since when is OS-X "a totally new operating system"? That would be
    >> like me repackaging Slackware, calling it "Bill-OS V5.0" and claiming
    >> it was "a totally new operating system"!!

    >
    > OS-X has extremely little in common with its previous MacOs. Yeah,
    > NetBSD has been around for a long time, but from a desktop point of
    > view, OSX started with 0 native applications.
    >
    > So Apple was able to concuct a new OS (by assembling pieces from Netbsd,
    > Next and a compatibility bits from its old OS) and, within a couple of
    > years, get real traction in the marketplace and attract all the popular
    > desktop applications.


    Even though NetBSD and FreeBSD are very closely related and they
    probably have gotten pieces from all 3 newer BSD's, then traditionally
    FreeBSD get the honor not NetBSD of supplying the BSD stuff to
    MacOS X.

    Arne

  4. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article <482601ea$0$20536$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    > JF Mezei writes:
    >> Yeah,
    >> NetBSD has been around for a long time, but from a desktop point of
    >> view, OSX started with 0 native applications.

    >
    > Not true. OSX uses Xwindows and unless Apple goes to a lot of trouble
    > breaking them, all Xwindows application should work just fine under OSX.
    > Apple's only true contribution is a Window Manager. And to some of us,
    > not a very good one.


    X is an option on MacOS X.

    Wikipedia has a nice picture:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:D...chitecture.svg

    >> So Apple was able to concuct a new OS (by assembling pieces from Netbsd,
    >> Next and a compatibility bits from its old OS) and, within a couple of
    >> years, get real traction in the marketplace and attract all the popular
    >> desktop applications.

    >
    > Um.... BSD already ran on Intel hardware, just what is it the that you
    > think Apple did that was so great?


    You mean that BSD already run on PPC, which was the CPU MacOS X was
    developed for. The x86 support came later (version 10.4.4).

    > Just what desktop applications
    > can the Apple run under OSX (other than Microsoft garbage) that isn't
    > available on Linux or other Unix platforms?


    Apples own I would assume.

    Arne

  5. Re: What systems can use USB?

    DaveG wrote:
    > On May 9, 1:22 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    > Koehler) wrote:
    >> In article , "John Wallace" writes:
    >>
    >>> In particular the much-delayed arrival of Vista (and the associated Office
    >>> "upgrades") changes things. Vista's "success" in the market (no one sensible
    >>> buys it unless they have to) shows that even Microsoft's monopoly isn't
    >>> necessarily forever.

    >> The only people I know of who have Vista and/or the new Office are
    >> kids at my daughter's college who were clueless when the bought new
    >> PCs for their frosh year.

    >
    > My daughter works for a big accounting firm. Used to be one of the
    > big 8, but after fall of Arthur Anderson, its <8 now. They're
    > starting to migratre all their users to Vista.


    My understanding is that Windows XP goes from mainstream
    to extended support April 2009.

    A lot of companies will plan switching before that.

    Arne

  6. Re: What systems can use USB?

    John Wallace wrote:
    > "FredK" wrote in message
    > news:fvqmtf$6ao$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
    >> The "desktop" wars ended years ago. Windows won. The UNIX workstation
    >> market collapsed. As a consolation prize, Linux PC's are available for
    >> those who crave a UNIX desktop.

    >
    > Two years ago, few people would have disagreed with you that Windows won.
    > Times can change though.
    >
    > In particular the much-delayed arrival of Vista (and the associated Office
    > "upgrades") changes things. Vista's "success" in the market (no one sensible
    > buys it unless they have to) shows that even Microsoft's monopoly isn't
    > necessarily forever. No sensible and informed person chooses to buy it
    > retail. Many folks are force-fed Vista on new PCs, but some major PC vendors
    > are still offering routes to Windows XP either discreetly or blatantly,
    > depending on how Microsoft-dependent they are, and in the corporate world,
    > any pre-loaded Vista is often immediately overwritten with the local
    > standard image of XP or in some cases Win2K, and there's no corporate plan
    > to upgrade the installed base to Vista.
    >
    > Even MS's Ballmer has said that they'd be crazy not to extend the life of XP
    > if customers preferred it to Vista. The MS spin machine went into full
    > denial mode immediately afterwards, but the damage had been done. E.g.
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...stomer_demand/
    >
    > There's going to be a lot of Windows out there for the foreseeable future,
    > but probably less in % terms than they're used to.


    That is mostly wishful thinking from people that does not like MS.

    It is true that a lot of people and companies are discussing when to
    go to Vista or whether they should skip Vista and go directly to
    Windows 7.

    The number switching to Linux and MacOS X is still relative small.

    Vista is not selling as good as it should. But the ambition level
    is rather high. Vista is still selling more licenses in one week
    than VMS done ever and in a few months more than the combined
    number of Linux and MacOS X.

    Vista got a lot of criticism. But if you look into it, then a big
    portion of it comes from non-Windows users. And that does not really
    tell much.

    Arne

  7. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    On May 10, 8:15 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article <112d9b3d-fbf6-41eb-af64-3fe09b4ab...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
    > "johnhreinha...@yahoo.com" writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 10, 4:41 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > >> In article ,
    > >> "johnhreinha...@yahoo.com" writes:

    >
    > >> > On May 10, 9:39 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > >> >> In article <482414f8$0$31195$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>,
    > >> >> JF Mezei writes:
    > >> >> > Remember that Apple started with essentially nothing left, and came out
    > >> >> > with a totally new operating systems (OS-X) in roughly 2001.

    >
    > >> >> Since when is OS-X "a totally new operating system"? That would be
    > >> >> like me repackaging Slackware, calling it "Bill-OS V5.0" and claiming
    > >> >> it was "a totally new operating system"!!

    >
    > >> > Close, but not quite. It would be like you repackaging Slackware and
    > >> > then writing the equivalent of Gnome or KDE and calling it Bill-OS
    > >> > V5.0. Aqua, the Apple GUI (plus a lot of utilities) is theirs and
    > >> > they wrote it themselves (maybe some came from NEXT? I'm not sure).

    >
    > >> What they actually wrote isn't a GUI. Their GUI is X-windows. All
    > >> they wrote themselves was a Window Manager which is quite a bit less
    > >> than either a GUI or an OS. Next ran Display PostScript which I think
    > >> was Adobe's.

    >
    > > Bill, you're wrong. Aqua is the GUI. GUI stands for Graphical User
    > > Interface. That's what Aqua does. It defines the appearance of the
    > > various windows components. It defines how those component work and
    > > what they can do. Aqua is based on Apple's Cocoa framework. This
    > > framework calls Apple's Quartz graphics subsystem to draw using the
    > > graphics hardware. No where in this path does X-windows come into
    > > play. On OS X you don't even have to run a X-window server if you
    > > don't want one. If you do then there is the X11 application which is
    > > based on the X server from the XOrg Foundation. The original code
    > > from XOrg has been modified to use the Cocoa or Carbon APIs to access
    > > the graphics hardware.

    >
    > Well, you could be right as I am not a Mac fanatic(and never will be
    > although I do own a number of M68K Macs that I play with.)


    I know that you are not a Mac fan. Not only is that obvious, but it's
    been well noted in the past. And the M68K Macs have nothing to do
    with OS X.

    but I know
    > the professor I have to support that is a Mac fanatic has no problem
    > displaying X applications on his Mac which tells me there is X11 under
    > there somewhere.


    No. As I explained before, X11 is an application layered on top of
    OS X and Aqua. X11 is "under" nothing. It need not even be
    installed. If you don't, then you CAN'T run X-window apps.

    And when another professor went out and grabbed all
    > the OSX (aka Darwin) sources the only thing he didn't get was the
    > window manager that had the MAC look and feel.


    Actually grabbing the Darwin sources IS NOT grabbing OS X. Because
    Darwin is the kernel for the OS X, not the GUI. Darwin is the open
    source portion that Apple got from FreeBSD. Aqua and all the other
    layers on top of Darwin is the proprietary portion that Apple wrote
    which has the "Mac look and feel".

    Arne Vajhoj found a pretty good link that shows the makeup of OS X.
    It should help clear up your misconceptions.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:D...chitecture.svg

    >What is it that they
    > say about walks like a duck and quacks like a duck?
    >
    > And, regardless of all that , it still isn't "a totally new operating
    > system" which was the original claim!!


    Yeah, well that was JF. What do you expect? But it also wasn't as
    easy of a job as you are trying to claim.
    >
    > Thinking about this brought one more comment to mind just before I hit
    > the send button. XFree86 and Xorg do not support things like the VAX
    > 3100 seriesa because DEC modified the X11 code to support these and
    > never released it to the world. Does that meant that because it's not
    > in Xorg it wasn't X11?
    >
    > bill
    >
    > --
    > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    > billg...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    > University of Scranton |
    > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include



  8. Re: What systems can use USB?

    On May 11, 3:40 am, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
    > DaveG wrote:
    > > On May 9, 1:22 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    > > Koehler) wrote:
    > >> In article , "John Wallace" writes:

    >
    > >>> In particular the much-delayed arrival of Vista (and the associated Office
    > >>> "upgrades") changes things. Vista's "success" in the market (no one sensible
    > >>> buys it unless they have to) shows that even Microsoft's monopoly isn't
    > >>> necessarily forever.
    > >> The only people I know of who have Vista and/or the new Office are
    > >> kids at my daughter's college who were clueless when the bought new
    > >> PCs for their frosh year.

    >
    > > My daughter works for a big accounting firm. Used to be one of the
    > > big 8, but after fall of Arthur Anderson, its <8 now. They're
    > > starting to migratre all their users to Vista.

    >
    > My understanding is that Windows XP goes from mainstream
    > to extended support April 2009.
    >
    > A lot of companies will plan switching before that.
    >
    > Arne


    Being outside of formal support doesn't worry the customers who are
    still using WIndows2000 today. Even if the claims about end of support
    were to be true (Ballmer clearly thinks otherwise), there are plenty
    of folks who know that they need to watch what Microsoft do, not what
    Microsoft say. When did MS finally end Windows 98 support? A *long*
    time after Billco first said it was going to end. Much like VMS; if it
    works, why rush to upgrade it, unless there is a pressing business
    need (sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't). Currently the
    market (outside the MS-centric ecosystem) doesn't see the benefits in
    upgrading to Vista/nuOffice, and some are waiting for the rush release
    of Windows 7...



  9. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    In article ,
    "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" writes:
    > On May 10, 8:15 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >> In article <112d9b3d-fbf6-41eb-af64-3fe09b4ab...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
    >> "johnhreinha...@yahoo.com" writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > On May 10, 4:41 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >> >> In article ,
    >> >> "johnhreinha...@yahoo.com" writes:

    >>
    >> >> > On May 10, 9:39 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >> >> >> In article <482414f8$0$31195$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>,
    >> >> >> JF Mezei writes:
    >> >> >> > Remember that Apple started with essentially nothing left, and came out
    >> >> >> > with a totally new operating systems (OS-X) in roughly 2001.

    >>
    >> >> >> Since when is OS-X "a totally new operating system"? That would be
    >> >> >> like me repackaging Slackware, calling it "Bill-OS V5.0" and claiming
    >> >> >> it was "a totally new operating system"!!

    >>
    >> >> > Close, but not quite. It would be like you repackaging Slackware and
    >> >> > then writing the equivalent of Gnome or KDE and calling it Bill-OS
    >> >> > V5.0. Aqua, the Apple GUI (plus a lot of utilities) is theirs and
    >> >> > they wrote it themselves (maybe some came from NEXT? I'm not sure).

    >>
    >> >> What they actually wrote isn't a GUI. Their GUI is X-windows. All
    >> >> they wrote themselves was a Window Manager which is quite a bit less
    >> >> than either a GUI or an OS. Next ran Display PostScript which I think
    >> >> was Adobe's.

    >>
    >> > Bill, you're wrong. Aqua is the GUI. GUI stands for Graphical User
    >> > Interface. That's what Aqua does. It defines the appearance of the
    >> > various windows components. It defines how those component work and
    >> > what they can do. Aqua is based on Apple's Cocoa framework. This
    >> > framework calls Apple's Quartz graphics subsystem to draw using the
    >> > graphics hardware. No where in this path does X-windows come into
    >> > play. On OS X you don't even have to run a X-window server if you
    >> > don't want one. If you do then there is the X11 application which is
    >> > based on the X server from the XOrg Foundation. The original code
    >> > from XOrg has been modified to use the Cocoa or Carbon APIs to access
    >> > the graphics hardware.

    >>
    >> Well, you could be right as I am not a Mac fanatic(and never will be
    >> although I do own a number of M68K Macs that I play with.)

    >
    > I know that you are not a Mac fan. Not only is that obvious, but it's
    > been well noted in the past. And the M68K Macs have nothing to do
    > with OS X.


    Some people might have different opinions on that. Some people actually
    believe ther eason Apple opted to move to Unix was because of the dismal
    performance of their previous attempts at designing and writing their
    own operating systems. I am one of those people. :-)

    >
    > but I know
    >> the professor I have to support that is a Mac fanatic has no problem
    >> displaying X applications on his Mac which tells me there is X11 under
    >> there somewhere.

    >
    > No. As I explained before, X11 is an application layered on top of
    > OS X and Aqua. X11 is "under" nothing. It need not even be
    > installed. If you don't, then you CAN'T run X-window apps.


    Well, actually X11 is an application running on top of any operating
    system. Can a Mac display windowed application on another Mac without
    having X11 installed or is like the MS GUI philosophy? (That's a serious
    question! Does OS X require X11 in order to do remote display?)

    >
    > And when another professor went out and grabbed all
    >> the OSX (aka Darwin) sources the only thing he didn't get was the
    >> window manager that had the MAC look and feel.

    >
    > Actually grabbing the Darwin sources IS NOT grabbing OS X. Because
    > Darwin is the kernel for the OS X, not the GUI. Darwin is the open
    > source portion that Apple got from FreeBSD. Aqua and all the other
    > layers on top of Darwin is the proprietary portion that Apple wrote
    > which has the "Mac look and feel".


    So, you consider all the applications and not just the kernel to be the OS?
    In which case, Apple really didn't write more than a timy piece of OS X!
    Remember, the original statement had to do with OS X being "a totally new
    operating system".

    >
    > Arne Vajhoj found a pretty good link that shows the makeup of OS X.
    > It should help clear up your misconceptions.
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:D...chitecture.svg


    When I have a chance, I will take a look. Not that I place much faith in
    anything I get from Wikipedia. Heck, I could just go there and change it
    to say OS X uses X11. :-)

    >
    >>What is it that they
    >> say about walks like a duck and quacks like a duck?
    >>
    >> And, regardless of all that , it still isn't "a totally new operating
    >> system" which was the original claim!!

    >
    > Yeah, well that was JF. What do you expect? But it also wasn't as
    > easy of a job as you are trying to claim.


    If all they really wrote themselves was the GUI, it may not have been easy
    enough for your average pre-pubescent Linux geek to do, but they really
    can't claim to have created anything truly new as more than 90% of OS X
    was acquired from someone else already written.

    And of course there is the old question of why so many MAC fanatics spend
    time knocking Unix when that is all OS X really is under the hood!!

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  10. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    On May 11, 12:30 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article ,
    > "johnhreinha...@yahoo.com" writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On May 10, 8:15 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > >> In article <112d9b3d-fbf6-41eb-af64-3fe09b4ab...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
    > >> "johnhreinha...@yahoo.com" writes:

    >
    > >> > On May 10, 4:41 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > >> >> In article ,
    > >> >> "johnhreinha...@yahoo.com" writes:

    >
    > >> >> > On May 10, 9:39 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > >> >> >> In article <482414f8$0$31195$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>,
    > >> >> >> JF Mezei writes:
    > >> >> >> > Remember that Apple started with essentially nothing left, and came out
    > >> >> >> > with a totally new operating systems (OS-X) in roughly 2001.

    >
    > >> >> >> Since when is OS-X "a totally new operating system"? That would be
    > >> >> >> like me repackaging Slackware, calling it "Bill-OS V5.0" and claiming
    > >> >> >> it was "a totally new operating system"!!

    >
    > >> >> > Close, but not quite. It would be like you repackaging Slackware and
    > >> >> > then writing the equivalent of Gnome or KDE and calling it Bill-OS
    > >> >> > V5.0. Aqua, the Apple GUI (plus a lot of utilities) is theirs and
    > >> >> > they wrote it themselves (maybe some came from NEXT? I'm not sure).

    >
    > >> >> What they actually wrote isn't a GUI. Their GUI is X-windows. All
    > >> >> they wrote themselves was a Window Manager which is quite a bit less
    > >> >> than either a GUI or an OS. Next ran Display PostScript which I think
    > >> >> was Adobe's.

    >
    > >> > Bill, you're wrong. Aqua is the GUI. GUI stands for Graphical User
    > >> > Interface. That's what Aqua does. It defines the appearance of the
    > >> > various windows components. It defines how those component work and
    > >> > what they can do. Aqua is based on Apple's Cocoa framework. This
    > >> > framework calls Apple's Quartz graphics subsystem to draw using the
    > >> > graphics hardware. No where in this path does X-windows come into
    > >> > play. On OS X you don't even have to run a X-window server if you
    > >> > don't want one. If you do then there is the X11 application which is
    > >> > based on the X server from the XOrg Foundation. The original code
    > >> > from XOrg has been modified to use the Cocoa or Carbon APIs to access
    > >> > the graphics hardware.

    >
    > >> Well, you could be right as I am not a Mac fanatic(and never will be
    > >> although I do own a number of M68K Macs that I play with.)

    >
    > > I know that you are not a Mac fan. Not only is that obvious, but it's
    > > been well noted in the past. And the M68K Macs have nothing to do
    > > with OS X.

    >
    > Some people might have different opinions on that.


    On what? That M68K Macs don't have anything to do with OS X? They
    don't. They can't run it. It wasn't designed for them. There's no
    connection. If people have a different opinion then they're welcome
    to it, but they're way wrong and delusional.

    >Some people actually
    > believe ther eason Apple opted to move to Unix was because of the dismal
    > performance of their previous attempts at designing and writing their
    > own operating systems. I am one of those people. :-)


    Well, duh. That's been highly documented and public for years.
    Apple's "Copland" was a dismal failure and resulted in the return of
    Steve Jobs as CEO (because he held the keys to NEXT)


    >
    > Well, actually X11 is an application running on top of any operating
    > system.


    Exactly. Yet you keep trying to say that X11 is required in OS X to
    do any display. It's not. All of the OS X native applications
    available all work without a bit of X-window code. Get it?

    > Can a Mac display windowed application on another Mac without
    > having X11 installed or is like the MS GUI philosophy? (That's a serious
    > question! Does OS X require X11 in order to do remote display?)


    I don't see what that has to do with the original question of whether
    or not X11 was required for OS X to display. However, according to
    various sources, the Quartz graphics system in OS X has a latent
    ability to display it's contents on a remote server. But as far as I
    know there is currently no built-in way to display the Mac desktop on
    a remote machine. Apple does have some remote management tools
    available at extra cost for remote administration which do have the
    ability to show a remote OS X system's screen on a central management
    system. See http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/

    >
    >
    >
    > > And when another professor went out and grabbed all
    > >> the OSX (aka Darwin) sources the only thing he didn't get was the
    > >> window manager that had the MAC look and feel.

    >
    > > Actually grabbing the Darwin sources IS NOT grabbing OS X. Because
    > > Darwin is the kernel for the OS X, not the GUI. Darwin is the open
    > > source portion that Apple got from FreeBSD. Aqua and all the other
    > > layers on top of Darwin is the proprietary portion that Apple wrote
    > > which has the "Mac look and feel".

    >
    > So, you consider all the applications and not just the kernel to be the OS?


    No. How did you ever draw that conclusion?

    > In which case, Apple really didn't write more than a timy piece of OS X!
    > Remember, the original statement had to do with OS X being "a totally new
    > operating system".
    >


    Remember, I agreed with you on that. I was just contesting your
    statement "That would be
    like me repackaging Slackware, calling it "Bill-OS V5.0" and claiming
    it was "a totally new operating system"!! "

    In fact it was much more than just repackaging another OS
    distribution.

    >
    >
    > > Arne Vajhoj found a pretty good link that shows the makeup of OS X.
    > > It should help clear up your misconceptions.
    > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:D...chitecture.svg

    >
    > When I have a chance, I will take a look. Not that I place much faith in
    > anything I get from Wikipedia. Heck, I could just go there and change it
    > to say OS X uses X11. :-)
    >


    Fine. Apple has it's own version. Go edit that one.
    http://developer.apple.com/macosx/ar...ure/index.html

    >
    >
    > >>What is it that they
    > >> say about walks like a duck and quacks like a duck?

    >
    > >> And, regardless of all that , it still isn't "a totally new operating
    > >> system" which was the original claim!!

    >
    > > Yeah, well that was JF. What do you expect? But it also wasn't as
    > > easy of a job as you are trying to claim.

    >
    > If all they really wrote themselves was the GUI, it may not have been easy
    > enough for your average pre-pubescent Linux geek to do, but they really
    > can't claim to have created anything truly new as more than 90% of OS X
    > was acquired from someone else already written.
    >
    > And of course there is the old question of why so many MAC fanatics spend
    > time knocking Unix when that is all OS X really is under the hood!!
    >


    And vice-versa.

  11. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article ,
    > "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" writes:
    >> No. As I explained before, X11 is an application layered on top of
    >> OS X and Aqua. X11 is "under" nothing. It need not even be
    >> installed. If you don't, then you CAN'T run X-window apps.

    >
    > Well, actually X11 is an application running on top of any operating
    > system. Can a Mac display windowed application on another Mac without
    > having X11 installed or is like the MS GUI philosophy? (That's a serious
    > question! Does OS X require X11 in order to do remote display?)


    Probably not. Neither can Windows. That does not make X the
    native GUI for either MacOS X or Windows.

    >> Actually grabbing the Darwin sources IS NOT grabbing OS X. Because
    >> Darwin is the kernel for the OS X, not the GUI. Darwin is the open
    >> source portion that Apple got from FreeBSD. Aqua and all the other
    >> layers on top of Darwin is the proprietary portion that Apple wrote
    >> which has the "Mac look and feel".

    >
    > So, you consider all the applications and not just the kernel to be the OS?
    > In which case, Apple really didn't write more than a timy piece of OS X!
    > Remember, the original statement had to do with OS X being "a totally new
    > operating system".


    Obviously it was not all new code. They got something from Next. They
    got something from FreeBSD. They made something themselves. There are
    probably a whole bunch of other open source stuff also.

    Wsa DEC OSF/1 a new OS ? It was certainly a lot of new code compared
    to Ultrix. But they also got a lot of code from elsewhere (OSF/IBM,
    VMS, older Unix stuff, open source stuff etc.).

    >> Arne Vajhoj found a pretty good link that shows the makeup of OS X.
    >> It should help clear up your misconceptions.
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:D...chitecture.svg

    >
    > When I have a chance, I will take a look. Not that I place much faith in
    > anything I get from Wikipedia. Heck, I could just go there and change it
    > to say OS X uses X11. :-)


    It would get corrected soon.

    >>> What is it that they
    >>> say about walks like a duck and quacks like a duck?
    >>>
    >>> And, regardless of all that , it still isn't "a totally new operating
    >>> system" which was the original claim!!

    >> Yeah, well that was JF. What do you expect? But it also wasn't as
    >> easy of a job as you are trying to claim.

    >
    > If all they really wrote themselves was the GUI, it may not have been easy
    > enough for your average pre-pubescent Linux geek to do, but they really
    > can't claim to have created anything truly new as more than 90% of OS X
    > was acquired from someone else already written.


    Reuse is usually considered a good thing. I don't know if they achieved
    90%, but it must have been reasonable high. Considering that the Mac
    people like the result, then I would say that they did a very good job.

    > And of course there is the old question of why so many MAC fanatics spend
    > time knocking Unix when that is all OS X really is under the hood!!


    If they talk base OS; then it is rather silly.

    Latest MacOS X is even officially Unix 03 certified (together
    with Solaris, HP-UX and AIX).

    If they talk GUI, then MacOS X native GUI and the X based GUI's
    has very little in common.

    Arne

  12. Re: What systems can use USB?

    johnwallace4@gmail.com wrote:
    > Being outside of formal support doesn't worry the customers who are
    > still using WIndows2000 today.


    Obviously not since 2000 prof ended mainstream support
    in June 2005.

    But the usage of 2000 on client PC's based on internet statistics
    is now below 4%.
    > Much like VMS; if it
    > works, why rush to upgrade it, unless there is a pressing business
    > need (sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't).


    Same with VMS. A lot of sites prefer to run supported software
    and supported hardware.

    > Currently the
    > market (outside the MS-centric ecosystem) doesn't see the benefits in
    > upgrading to Vista/nuOffice, and some are waiting for the rush release
    > of Windows 7...


    Most of them are planning not "if" but "when" to go to Vista.

    It is a pretty big task.

    Arne

  13. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:30:32 -0400, Bill Gunshannon wrote
    (in message <68ol98F2u7kf2U1@mid.individual.net>):
    >
    > Well, actually X11 is an application running on top of any operating
    > system. Can a Mac display windowed application on another Mac without
    > having X11 installed or is like the MS GUI philosophy? (That's a serious
    > question! Does OS X require X11 in order to do remote display?)
    >


    If you mean can a Mac serve it's native GUI to an application on another Mac
    the answer is no. Like MS, it's the whole desktop or nothing for native
    remote access. I'm not sure of the point of the question.

    A difference between MS and Apple is that, like x11, the apple GUI is mostly
    outside the kernel.

    >
    > So, you consider all the applications and not just the kernel to be the OS?


    This is an over-simplification; the OS is certainly more than just the
    kernel. Think about what is covered by the Posix standards. Making another
    over-simplification, Darwin is the Posix covered bits that Apple kept. (I
    have no idea to what degree they meet the standard, I just mean they are the
    subject of the standard.)

    To say X11 is not part of the OS is disingenuous, to say it is not part of
    the kernel is correct.

    > In which case, Apple really didn't write more than a timy piece of OS X!
    > Remember, the original statement had to do with OS X being "a totally new
    > operating system".
    >


    I think you win that one, though I missed the start of this dis-information
    fest. Was Linux a totally new operating system? (I'm asking both sides of
    this debate.)

    (Of course, we could make a (weak) argument that VMS was not a totally new
    operating system...lot of RSX floating around.)

    >
    > If all they really wrote themselves was the GUI, it may not have been easy
    > enough for your average pre-pubescent Linux geek to do, but they really
    > can't claim to have created anything truly new as more than 90% of OS X
    > was acquired from someone else already written.


    If you had used the beta of OS X, you might of thought it was adapted by that
    pre-pubescent Linux geek...

    >
    > And of course there is the old question of why so many MAC fanatics spend
    > time knocking Unix when that is all OS X really is under the hood!!
    >


    Well, since they are Mac fanatics they confuse the GUI with the OS and
    they're really knocking X11, which deserves it . Actually I seemed to have
    missed the roaming mobs baying for Unix blood, though I hear the cries to
    string up Microsoft a lot.

    Jonathan


  14. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    JF Mezei schrieb:

    >
    > But OS-X has significant differences and additions to Next: It is a
    > totally different window manager (Quartz instead of Display Postscript),
    > it also built a carbon framework on OX-S to support older applications,
    > an OS-X "fInder" application, the dock etc etc.
    >
    > The Unix kernel also brings "standards compliance" with the rest of the
    > world, that includes various TCP utilities like NFS, NTP etc etc. And
    > you can run Apache, postfix etc. And you can also run X11.


    The biggest achievement of OSX is being a showcase that it is
    well possible and economical viable to produce a user-friendly,
    easy-to-use Unix (or at least non-Windoze) system,
    something many people here seem to deny.
    A litmus test for me is e.g.: how does it handle the
    ineradicable doc attachments ?
    OSX seamlessly calls TextEdit which is doc-aware.
    On most other non-M$ system one would have to save
    the attachments and call some converter (e.g. "antiword",
    sometimes even "strings" does the job) to be able
    to read the plain text.

    >
    > If VMS were to change hands and some rich uncle wanted to give VMS a big
    > boost, VMS might get an updated X11, with popular Linux frameworks (KDE
    > etc). At that point, it would be the new kid on the block and if things
    > are done right, it would invite ISVs to start porting to the new VMS.


    It would be just on par with the rest of the world.
    Hardly an incentive for ISVs to port.


  15. Re: What systems can use USB?

    In article <6410f959-619b-4c2b-b3ce-e6448799f0a5@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, DaveG writes:
    >
    > My daughter works for a big accounting firm. Used to be one of the
    > big 8, but after fall of Arthur Anderson, its <8 now. They're
    > starting to migratre all their users to Vista.


    Exceptions prove the rule, right?

    I think I'll migrate from WXP directly to VMS 8.3.


  16. Re: What systems can use USB?

    In article <48277b5e$0$90264$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= writes:
    >
    > Most of them are planning not "if" but "when" to go to Vista.


    And some are still supporting W95, even if Billy boy doesn't.


  17. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    In article <68ms4bF2ts7euU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >
    > Well, you could be right as I am not a Mac fanatic(and never will be
    > although I do own a number of M68K Macs that I play with.) but I know
    > the professor I have to support that is a Mac fanatic has no problem
    > displaying X applications on his Mac which tells me there is X11 under
    > there somewhere.


    I have no problems displaying X11 on my Windoze OC, my Mac OS 10.2,
    or my classic Macs. All I had to do is start an X11 server, which just
    means someone wrote a working X11 server that knows how to use the
    graphics libraries provided by the platform. IMHO cygwin now has the
    best X11 server for Windoze.

    I wouldn't be the least bit suprised if Apple included a working X11
    server in thier application suite, even to the point of making it
    start up transparently.


  18. Re: What systems can use USB?

    On May 12, 8:38*am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    Koehler) wrote:
    > In article <6410f959-619b-4c2b-b3ce-e6448799f...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, DaveG writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > My daughter works for a big accounting firm. *Used to be one of the
    > > big 8, but after fall of Arthur Anderson, its <8 now. *They're
    > > starting to migratre all their users to Vista.

    >
    > * *Exceptions prove the rule, right?
    >
    > * *I think I'll migrate from WXP directly to VMS 8.3.


    Not sure what you mean by exceptions. We're talkin' thousands of
    systems here. And if they're doin' the upgrade to Vista, I suspect
    that the other big accounting firms are at least thinking about it as
    well. Most if not all of the big accounting firms are international,
    so these updates extend across both ponds. And btw, when I asked my
    daughter about what she thinks about upgrading to Vista, her answer
    was "I don't care, as long as I can get my work done". My guess would
    be that's a pretty common response from a non bit head.

  19. Re: What systems can use USB?

    On May 12, 11:30*am, DaveG wrote:
    > On May 12, 8:38*am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    >
    > Koehler) wrote:
    > > In article <6410f959-619b-4c2b-b3ce-e6448799f...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, DaveG writes:

    >
    > > > My daughter works for a big accounting firm. *Used to be one of the
    > > > big 8, but after fall of Arthur Anderson, its <8 now. *They're
    > > > starting to migratre all their users to Vista.

    >
    > > * *Exceptions prove the rule, right?

    >
    > > * *I think I'll migrate from WXP directly to VMS 8.3.

    >
    > Not sure what you mean by exceptions. *We're talkin' thousands of
    > systems here. *And if they're doin' the upgrade to Vista, I suspect
    > that the other big accounting firms are at least thinking about it as
    > well. *Most if not all of the big accounting firms are international,
    > so these updates extend across both ponds. *And btw, when I asked my
    > daughter about what she thinks about upgrading to Vista, her answer
    > was "I don't care, as long as I can get my work done". *My guess would
    > be that's a pretty common response from a non bit head.


    But, that's really the correct attitude with computers, though.
    Since what bitheads don't understand about computers is that
    it's all terrabytes, lasers, and robots. Bits are math, not
    computers.



  20. Re: What systems can use USB?

    In article , DaveG writes:
    >
    > Not sure what you mean by exceptions. We're talkin' thousands of
    > systems here. And if they're doin' the upgrade to Vista, I suspect
    > that the other big accounting firms are at least thinking about it as
    > well. Most if not all of the big accounting firms are international,
    > so these updates extend across both ponds. And btw, when I asked my
    > daughter about what she thinks about upgrading to Vista, her answer
    > was "I don't care, as long as I can get my work done". My guess would
    > be that's a pretty common response from a non bit head.


    Thousands is a pretty small number of PCs. Directions to go to Vista
    or not are being made by CIO and such, not by the bitheads.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast