Accessing partitions in drive images

[Tom Buskey]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org> wrote:

> On 01/31/2012 07:14 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Jon "maddog" Hall <maddog at li.org>
> wrote:
> >>>   I started looking into this more today, and quickly rediscovered how
> >>> much of a giant pile of kludges the IBM-PC is.
> >> The IBM PC was released in 1981.  You expected something other than
> >> "kludges"?
> >   Heh.  Anything old will have its share of historical accidents, to
> > be sure.  But there's reasonable design failings, and then there's
> > design by the infinite monkey method.  As much as I live and play in
> > the IBM-PC world... much like laws and sausage, it's best not to look
> > too closely at the innards.
> Compare the Apple model to the IBM model.
> Apple model is closed and controlled by one company.
> The IBM-PC was open. Many manufacturers of systems, mother boards, and
> just about every thing else. So it kind of falls into the infinite
> monkey paradigm.
>
> But, as new technology comes around you will get kludges. Remember the
> 640K memory limitation. There were all sorts of kludges to expand memory
> on the PC.
>
>
Actually, the IBM-PC was following the Apple ][.   Jobs hadn't gotten into
his control everything mode yet and Woz put the full schematics and ROM in
the back of the user manual.  That manual managed to teach new users (who
to be fair, were more technical than today's average user) and get into the
full technical detail that us geeks want.

Nowadays manual are written on drool proof paper and I often wonder if the
author & developer ever saw the software on anything but a fresh Windows XP
sp2 install.  Or worse, the daily desktop they used that looks nothing like
a standard system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20120201/9f5898b0/attachment.html