John R. Hogerhuis | 2 Nov 01:24
Picon
Favicon

Re: Windows: Why I don't run Linux on my PCs

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Paul Treuthardt
<treuthardt@...> wrote:
>
>
>> http://www.suckless.org/dwm/
>
> ...which says, inter alia :
>
> Because dwm is customized through editing its source code, it's pointless to
> make binary packages of it. This keeps its userbase small and elitist. No
> novices asking stupid questions.
>
> Which is not very user friendly ....

Depends on the user ;-)

wmii is the big brother to dwm and is packaged with many distros.

-- John.

Lee Kelley | 2 Nov 01:34

Re: Windows: Why I don't run Linux on my PCs

Even Word's "reveal codes" function isn't as useful as WordPerfect's "reveal
codes"

Lee

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 7:24 PM, John R. Hogerhuis <jhoger@...> wrote:

>  On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Paul Treuthardt
> <treuthardt@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> http://www.suckless.org/dwm/
> >
> > ...which says, inter alia :
> >
> > Because dwm is customized through editing its source code, it's pointless
> to
> > make binary packages of it. This keeps its userbase small and elitist. No
> > novices asking stupid questions.
> >
> > Which is not very user friendly ....
>
> Depends on the user ;-)
>
> wmii is the big brother to dwm and is packaged with many distros.
>
>
> -- John.
>

(Continue reading)

M H Stein | 2 Nov 02:30

RE: Windows: Why I don't run Linux on my PCs

Kinda says it all....

Down to the wire in Brazil tomorrow, eh Paul?

mike
**************

----------
From: 	Paul Treuthardt[SMTP:treuthardt@...]
Sent: 	Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:52 AM
To: 	m100@...
Subject: 	Re: Windows: Why I don't run Linux on my PCs

> http://www.suckless.org/dwm/

...which says, inter alia :

Because dwm is customized through editing its source code, it's pointless to 
make binary packages of it. This keeps its userbase small and elitist. No 
novices asking stupid questions.

Which is not very user friendly ....

Paul

London

M H Stein | 2 Nov 02:38

RE: Windows: Why I don't run Linux on my PCs

Conversion? To what? Why?

m
****************

----------
From: 	Paul Treuthardt[SMTP:treuthardt@...]
Sent: 	Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:49 AM
To: 	m100@...
Subject: 	Re: Windows: Why I don't run Linux on my PCs

> I think the WP 5 (IIRC) was more user friendly than any of the early
> versions of Word, whether for DOS or Windows, and more capable.
> Lee

My wife still insists on using WP 5.1 - and then I have to do the conversion 
to enable docs to be emailed, etc !
But she has one major point, the ease of searching the directory and the 
one-click viewer of any file.  Would that newer editors followed that lead.
Paul
London

Stephen Adolph | 2 Nov 01:39
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Question about REX

Hi Ron,
REX is limited to the signals on the option rom socket, and IO/M is
not there, so REX can't see CPU IOs happening.  Also, it has no RAM,
only flash, so REX just can't do it.

Sorry- Steve

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Ron Wiesen <ronw@...> wrote:
> Hello to Steve Adolph and Phil Avery:
>
> Does REX have built-in 256 KByte RamPac emulation, as is the case with ReMem?
> An inquiring, albeit feeble, mind wants to know (and can't recall).
>
> Keeper of the Primordial Bit (born of the Big Bit Bang),  -= Ron Wiesen =-
>
>

Mitch Parker | 2 Nov 01:51
Picon

Re: Windows: Why I don't run Linux on my PCs

Paul,

WordPerfect 5.1 is one of the few packages that can be read by darn near
anything, including OpenOffice, without major conversion.

If you want a newer version with a better document format, the last DOS
version is buried on the Corel WordPerfect 7 CD.  You can find that on eBay
for a pittance.

One of my customers is a law firm.  They have to use WordPerfect, as the US
legal system will not change (US DOJ has 20,000+ WordPerfect seats licensed)
for many reasons, mostly having to do with the fact that Microsoft Word
can't keep proper document rendering between supposedly compatible versions
correct, let alone competing products.

WordPerfect14 allows you to open/save as PDF from the window.  It's also
incredibly quick, and has a user interface option for a WP5.1-like
interface.

At the least, do her a favor and try and dig up the last DOS version so she
can save to a newer WP format, or get her WPO14 to give her the user
interface she likes, along with the ability to save as PDF so you do not
have to do conversions.

Mitch

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 9:38 PM, M H Stein <dm561@...> wrote:

> Conversion? To what? Why?
>
(Continue reading)

Stephen Adolph | 1 Nov 22:45
Picon
Gravatar

I hear the list is not working...

let's see if this gets through!  Steve

Bob Pigford | 2 Nov 03:10

RE: I hear the list is not working...

Gets through to where, Steve?
	Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: m100@...
[mailto:m100@...] On Behalf Of
Stephen Adolph
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 5:46 PM
To: m100@...
Subject: I hear the list is not working...

let's see if this gets through!  Steve

tonym | 2 Nov 03:24
Favicon

M100/102 and NEC Cassette Cables WAS Re: I hear the list is not working...

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Adolph twospruces <at> gmail.com
>Sent 11/1/2008 5:45:46 PM
>To: m100 <at> list.30below.com
>Subject: I hear the list is not working...
>
>.let's see if this gets through! Steve
>

I got two bounces super-early this morning, and my msg still never went through, apparently.

To repeat what I sent:

Looking at the pinouts, it looks to me as though the CoCo 1/2/3 and
M100/M102 use the same cable,
as the pinouts are the same, as well as the Tano Dragon...

Correct?

If so, I looked at the pinout in a file Gary has for the NEC, and it LOOKS
as though the same cable can be used, except no remote, and the plugs 
need to be reverse, ie, the red normally going to MIC goes to EAR, and 
the normally to EAR goes to MIC. Remote looks unusable, as it's on 
different pins than what the Tandy's use.

Look/Sound correct?

Tony:

(Continue reading)

Xeys | 2 Nov 03:25
Picon
Favicon

Re: Question about REX

Unsubscribe

On Nov 1, 2008, at 7:39 PM, "Stephen Adolph" <twospruces@...> wrote:

Hi Ron,
REX is limited to the signals on the option rom socket, and IO/M is
not there, so REX can't see CPU IOs happening.  Also, it has no RAM,
only flash, so REX just can't do it.

Sorry- Steve

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Ron Wiesen <ronw@...> wrote:
Hello to Steve Adolph and Phil Avery:

Does REX have built-in 256 KByte RamPac emulation, as is the case with ReMem?
An inquiring, albeit feeble, mind wants to know (and can't recall).

Keeper of the Primordial Bit (born of the Big Bit Bang),  -= Ron Wiesen =-


Gmane