Posted by Gene E. Bloch on 07/03/06 02:25

Richard Ragon <bsema05@hananho.com> wrote in
news:r9zpg.76229$4L1.38679@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>
>> On 6/29/2006, Richard Ragon posted this:
>>
>>> doc wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> AND, the above statement is the picture that is often
>>>> demonstrated by folks in here and in typical Mac users. They
>>>> often state their product as superior and easy to use when the
>>>> truth is quite the converse AND again not just our experience
>>>> but that of a many others who are reluctant (like we
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dont you just love how when a Windows user states that a PC is
>>> the way to go... No one can say anything.
>>>
>>> Richard
>>
>>
>> Well, in the interest of helping this thread keep growing, I can
>> only say 'turnabout is fair play' :-)

It worked: the thread is growing! :-)

> So, your saying that there was a time when Macs ruled, and no one
> said a bad thing about Mac? Perhaps I just arrived to this
> universe, but I don't remember that time.

Nah, I'm saying that Mac people complain about PCs and PC people
complain about Macs. it was always that way, and it will go on and
on as long as there are PCs and Macs.

And I don't even mean *all* Mac people or *all* PC people, just
enough to ... keep threads like this growing.

>> I think it would be less fun if we were more reasonable! However,
>> the risk of that is slight, whichever side anyone here is on.
>
> I stated the obvious and now I'm unreasonable? huh?

OK, Richard, are you pulling my chain and hoping I'll get flustered?
It almost worked :-)

But if you meant it: notice that I stated that some degree of
unreasonabilty is what makes this fun. Parts of this thread have
been unpleasant for me and definitely for others as well, but much
of this thread has been fine, a bit unreasonable on both sides, but
generally almost good-natured.

>> I'll just stick to my old IBM 7090.
>
>
> Yeah, but what graphics card are your using?
>
> -Richard

Yeah, graphics. I actually did some on that machine. Here's what you
did: you got the document for the interface, then wrote the code in
Fortran II, then compiled it and ran it to send the data to the
graphics processor.

It was a machine about the size of three washing machines in a row.
It had a bright CRT with a one line scan, and a lens to project the
CRT image onto a frame of 35mm film. Via the software, you'd create
and expose a line, move the film a bit, do the next line, and so on.
Then eventually the film got developed and you got a picture. The
picture was always wrong, because of programming errors.

With luck, you'd get to fix the bug and get the source deck back to
the computer in time to get a second run the same day.

Eventually, the program ended up pretty robust.

I have completely forgotten the name of the graphics machine (this
was about 1964).

Oddly enough, I thought all that was fun. Same guy that finds this
thread fun at times, I guess :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino) ... letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

[Back to original message]