17 Nov
2004
17 Nov
'04
9:41 a.m.
>>> I've heard that Windows users expect
to have to re-install their OS and
applications every month or so, and get a crash
at least once a day.
I'm no MSFT lover by any means. But if that's the latest you hear about
Windows, then you're talking to people who haven't used it since the pre-1994
"vintage" Windows era of 3.x... or at least Win95.
Once again, for emphasis: I'm no Microserf! Win 2000 was good; WinXP is very
good. I've had it loaded for about a year (on a mediocre $500 clone) and never
needed to reinstall anything.
--- Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
would come
forward so I can write about them. However one thing I never
pretend is that vintage systems are actually "better" than today's.
I don't pretend that either, because I don't need to. Many times the
older machine _is_ better. OK, it's got less memory, it's got a slower
processor, but it's plain nicer to use and does more _useful work_ as
opposed to displaying a flashy user interface that gets in the way after
you get used to the machine. The older machine just does the job.
Another thread seems to be indicating that the HP41, which is 25 years
old this year, is a more useful calcualtor than most (if not all)
calculators that came after it. And for some applications that's true of
computers too...
I've heard that Windows users expect to have to re-install their OS and
applications every month or so, and get a crash at least once a day. If
one mof my classics started behaving like that I'd be grabbing the
service manuals and logic analyser. Computers should not crash -- ever.
If they do there's something wrong.
- Evan (happily using his XP machine and Yahoo email)
-tony (Happily avoiding everything from M$).