Re: A83: Help
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A83: Help
Hey fuck off dick head. I've now got 100 odd messages from you dick snap,
trying to comare computers.
This list is for the 83 not 286's, macs etc. Take your little argument off
this list you fuck stain.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitri Hammond <dimitri@dynet.com>
To: Phelan Wolf <gwatford@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Thursday, 16 April 1998 13:13
Subject: Re: A83: Help
>
>How the hell do you figger that!?
>
>
> -Dimitri
>
>
>On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Phelan Wolf wrote:
>
>>
>> I took a 286, added a class 1 math coprocessor, 64 ram, and a 2gig HD,
and it runs
>> faster than my pII 333.
>>
>> Grant Stockly wrote:
>>
>> > opps... you sounded like one of those anti-motorola guys for a second
>> > there... :)
>> >
>> > Ohh...well, It takes about 52 seconds to start... I use the SCSI chips
>> > from the Amiga/Quadra computers... My SE starts up faster than my
25MHz
>> > 68040. My next hack is to put a 100MHz 68060 in the 128k... (jokeing
:)
>> > )
>> >
>> > :) on my 386 DX 20 with math coprocessor and fpu, running
windows95/7/8
>> > looks like a slide show.. you can 'watch' the screen update,
literally...
>> > And compiling a kernal for it is something I dont want to get started
>> > with... :)
>> >
>> > >I will retract my previous statement about the first mac. I have an SE
and what
>> > >I'm wondering is if my SE took 5 minuted to start Sys 7.5.1, how can
you
>> > >get any
>> > >performance out of the 8MH 68000 (same processor that my SE has)?? or
did you
>> > >upgrade the processor? I like my Duo 280c with 24Mb ram and a 320Mb HD
enough.
>> > >Running Mac OS 8.1 (Even without minor modification, having an SE
Running
>> > >System
>> > >7.1 can one-up a comparable PC, which would be...if we are judging on
an
>> > >equivalent PC I think maybe a slow 486 or fast 386 would be
equivalent!) My Duo
>> > >280c can do things that those dumb PIIs still can't do!
>> > >
>> > >Long live the Mac!
>> > >Nick
>> > >
>> > >P.S. Lets see if we can get a TI-89 or 92 to run Mac OS!
>> > >
>> > >Grant Stockly wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I suggest you say nothing about the first mac, or any other mac. My
mac
>> > >> 128k has an 800k disk drive (from 400k), a SCSI port, 4MB Ram (up
from
>> > >> 128k), and it can run system 7.5.5 right off a 9GB hard drive
without a
>> > >> glitch. Now, do that with an 8MHz 8080 IBM. The IBM has to run
win95
>> > >> perfect. Impossible, period...
>> > >>
>> > >> Beleive me, my 128 and 512k are the kings of macs... :)
>> > >>
>> > >> Btw, the Z80 is an 8080 clone...we don't see our calcs running
win95...
>
>
>> > >> Hail to motorola!
>> > >>
>> > >> >Kinda sounds like the first mac that wasn't upgradable and couldn't
be open
>> > >> >without the "Jaws of Life"!
>> > >>
>> > >> You need a 15" screwdriver, and then it popps off. They did that
because
>> > >> you can literally kill yourself from the flyback
transformer/capicator/or
>> > >> anything close to the monitor... Same goes with TVs, or any
computer
>> > >> monitor...
>> > >>
>> > >> >Trey Jazz wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> its like this: you system sounds too much like a room with four
walls
>> > >>and no
>> > >> >> door. it sounds like if you do what u want to accomplish then it
will be
>> > >> >> tightly sealed. the reason why most anyone wants a computer is
that it is
>> > >> >> fun, has cool stuff, internet, etc. what you are trying to do is
>> > >>change this
>> > >> >> so that you are like the supreme lord of puters which is worse
than what
>> > >> >> bill gates is doin. why would you expect ppl to buy a puter that
you can
>> > >> >> open up any time you want cuz u got the 0 access or whatever. if
its
>> > >>hard to
>> > >> >> program then you wont have any 3rd party support which means your
system
>> > >> >> will have no external funding which means your systems are gonna
cost
>> > >>like a
>> > >> >> million dollars each. another problem ive found....you say that
the
>> > >>cpu when
>> > >> >> pulled out will erase itself but you also say how you were going
to
>> > >> >> piggyback the chips on top of each other to add new commands. so
youre
>> > >> >> saying that everytime someone wants to upgrade their cpu they are
>> > >>gonna have
>> > >> >> to send you their puter?
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> >actually i am a dedicated hacker and i have found no way around
my own
>> > >> >> >system. it isn't symbolised the way you said, it's more like
you can
>> > >> >> >put anything in the toaster that YOU want (recording your
presence), and
>> > >> >> >only YOU can get it out, anyone else touching the toaster will
get
>> > >> >> >zapped (not killed, just a tingle). the toaster can make
poptarts too.
>> > >> >> >you can put something in one end of the toaster and someone else
put
>> > >> >> >something in the other end, and only you two can access your own
stuff
>> > >> >> >(of course you can tell it for other people to be able to touch
it like
>> > >> >> >wife/husband).
>>
>>
>>