What systems can use USB? - VMS

This is a discussion on What systems can use USB? - VMS ; On May 12, 1:20*pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote: > 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: What systems can use USB?

  1. Re: What systems can use USB?

    On May 12, 1:20*pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    Koehler) wrote:
    > 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.


    That's thousands in one company. Multiply that by the thousands of
    companies and schools and libraries and home users (and plenty I
    forgot) and pretty soon.....

    And yes I would agree that the decision is being made by CIOs and such
    and then inertia takes hold.

  2. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    In article <0001HW.C44D176A00928FD0F0284530@news.verizon.net>,
    Jonathan Cronin writes:
    > 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.


    I was just curious if the MAC supported remote display like X11 or local only
    lime Windows (although that is apparently not the case anymore when you look
    at Terminal Services.)

    bill

    >> 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.)


    In reality, yes. Which doesn't mean it was worth the effort.

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


    I always thought that VMS was considered a logical development from RSX because
    the PDP-11 was percieved to be at the end of it's development life and was
    replaced by the VAX. Simply porting RSX to the VAX would have been rather
    silly.

    >
    >>
    >> 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...


    In which case, I am glad I did miss it. :-)

    >
    >>
    >> 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.


    People here (in c.o.v) frequently attack Unix as well as MS. As for X11,
    so many people attack it but I have yet to see anything that can match what
    it does.

    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

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:

    > I was just curious if the MAC supported remote display like X11 or local only
    > lime Windows (although that is apparently not the case anymore when you look
    > at Terminal Services.)


    The Mac can't export a Mac GUI display out of the box. With the remote
    access tool (purchased separately), a remote computer can access your
    computer (aka: system manager accessing your machine in GUI mode with
    the display going to a window on his machine.

  4. Re: What systems can use USB?

    Bob Koehler wrote:
    > 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.


    But you will also need a hardware upgrade then !

    :-)

    Arne

  5. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    In article <4828eaac$0$31177$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >
    > The Mac can't export a Mac GUI display out of the box. With the remote
    > access tool (purchased separately), a remote computer can access your
    > computer (aka: system manager accessing your machine in GUI mode with
    > the display going to a window on his machine.


    vnc works, too. At no cost.


  6. Re: What systems can use USB?

    On May 10, 10:48*pm, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
    > 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.


    But that is only because Intel is selling more chips than ever,
    not because Microsoft makes either computers, networks,
    Google, Lasers, Robots, A.I. or Satellites.




    >
    > 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- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -



  7. Re: What systems can use USB?

    On May 11, 3:48 am, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
    > 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.


    When you've got a almost-100% monopoly of the desktop, as Microsoft
    have had for the last decade or more, the only way to go in market
    share terms is down, which is made easier by increasingly credible
    alternatives from the likes of Macintosh and Ubuntu. Whether you or I
    like it or not is irrelevant, that's simply the way the numbers work.

    >
    > 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.


    Indeed the Linux and Mac market share is still small. But their share
    is bigger than it has been, and therefore Microsoft's share is
    smaller. The reasons aren't hard to see, for anyone who is willing to
    see them.

    >
    > 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.


    How many people are actually *choosing* to buy Vista (eg Vista retail
    upgrades, or Vista as a corporate desktop choice)? I suspect it's
    negligible compared with the number of Vista licences being "sold"
    with new PCs, which occurs for the simple reason that doing so allows
    PC builders to get best Windows prices from MS. To get best Windows
    pricing from MS, big PC builders (Dell, HP, etc) have to pay for a
    Windows licence on *every* PC they sell, and the Windows MS want them
    to ship today is Vista, so that's what buyers are force-fed.

    >
    > 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.
    >


    And some of the "Vista, for everything, everywhere, now. Because
    Microsoft can do no wrong." input comes from Microsoft-dependent
    people inside *and* outside MS (certified professionals, trainers,
    desktop outsourcers, etc). So?

    Just because someone's not a full time Windows Vista user doesn't
    necessarily mean they don't know anything about Vista, surely? At home
    my Windows of choice is still Win2K unless there's a particular need
    for the DRM stuff in XP (typically legit TV downloads). At work
    there's a mixture of Win2K and XP (locally, still more 2K than XP, for
    now, though for a while I've been one of the ones with XP). Some of my
    neighbours look to me for PC help, and some of them have XP, and some
    of them have Vista (because they were force-fed Vista on new PCs). So
    I'm not a full time Vista user, but nor am I unqualified to make
    independent comment.

    Anyway, is Ballmer right when he says (paraphrased) "if customers
    prefer to stay with XP we should not discourage them yet", or is
    Ballmer wrong?

    2p
    John





  8. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > 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?


    When I wanted to run an X app on my newly purchased Mac running OSX 10.4
    I had to download the X11 support stuff from Apple an install it. I
    don't know if it is installed by default on 10.5, but I had to go get it
    to run my X stuff.

  9. Re: OT: Desktop wars

    In article , Marty Kuhrt writes:
    >Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> 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?

    >
    >When I wanted to run an X app on my newly purchased Mac running OSX 10.4
    >I had to download the X11 support stuff from Apple an install it. I
    >don't know if it is installed by default on 10.5, but I had to go get it
    >to run my X stuff.


    Is it still as lame an X11 server as it has always been? I purchased eXodus
    to run on my Mac because the X11 server Apple was supplying left so much to
    be desired. Even the X11 server under Ubuntu is more robust.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

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