30 Jan
2005
30 Jan
'05
10:12 p.m.
On 31/01/2005, at 6:04 AM, Jay West wrote:
Windows can't be considered "classic"
because it IS the recent school
of thought/theory. When it hasn't been the prevailing school of
thought for a while, AND it is in opposition of the then current
school of thought - it may well become classic and perfect for
discussing here. This is not likely to happen in our lifetimes. A
major strike against that ever happening is that it was (is) SO
pervasive so I'm not sure it ever be "classic". But in the final
analysis, this argument is one that will be decided by our children &
grandchildren, not us.
The Model-T Ford is a useful analogy. During it's lifetime it was the
dominant example of it's type (certainly in the US), but today, nobody
is likely to argue that it's anything other than classic.
I have to disagree though, I doubt that Windows will be the dominant
force by the end of my lifetime (assuming that is that I live to the
average life expectancy which gives me another 30 years or so). Just
remember what the dominant paradigm was 30 years ago and the pace of
technological change is accelerating.
This is exactly why I'm not opposed to DOS being
discussed on the
list. It comes from the days of the traditions I speak of above,
before 90% of the cpu and memory was dedicated to a pretty gui.
"I can't define Classic, but I sure know it when I see it"
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au
Melbourne | "If soccer was meant to be played in the
Australia | air, the sky would be painted green"