Raymond Moyers wrote:
> On Sunday 28 April 2002 09:13, you wrote:
>
>>Raymond Moyers wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.nop.org/misc/pics/ibmpc
>>
>>Why? I didn't get a kick out of it then.
>
>
> Well, part of the discussion here was about cost
> and the article has a price table comparing with
> machines like the model 4
>
> I made no inference about merit.
Nor did I, particularly.
>
> Indeed, the x86 chip started as a controler for
> a cad terminal, and ss100 had plenty life in
> it, esp with the opening it gave for others to
> make cards, like the then common practice
> of stuffing several single board computers into
> a single ss100 chassis to get multiuser into one
> box.
>
> the x86 line had everyting to bitch about, it was
> register starved and GP regs that wasnt really GP
>
> Linux is making computing CPU agnostic however
> and with a system that runs on anything, all that
> matters for the hardware is price/performace.
>
> In this new climate, perhaps the dark/ice age of
> winblows dumbing down mankind will abate.
>
Windows doesn't dumb anybody down, really, it just confuses and
frustrates in an attempt to patronize. Even if it does have some useful
features, they come at a cost, beyond the purchase price.
It would be nice if there was an out-of-the-box power-user GUI option
(eg. a decent regedit tool with a kb backend capable of running off
remote repositories) with more informative and relevant error-messaging
and handling options, instead of the brain-dead dialog boxes. Trying to
accomplish any system configuration using them is like running in a
squirrel cage. It would also be nice if you didn't have to reboot to
have config or driver changes take effect.
But I no longer care. It's been years since my command-line knowledge
was up to the task of maintaining Windows in any way that didn't test my
patience and temper.
This is topical, even. Got my first 386 in Feb. '92, and noticed this
right away. That's when I first installed Slackware off the Night Owl 10
CD. (This was alleged to be difficult, btw. Right.)
I finally gave up on Windows a few years later when it was clear that
everything was going to change again with each new release, and 90% of
what you'd learned before was going to be irrelevant or wrong. Not the
mention the need to fork out again for new apps. This isn't just
inefficient and wasteful, it constitutes gross abuse.
MS as whole has consistently perpetrated this kind of insult to
developers, programmers, and users. No telling what the overall economic
cost has been. But, again, you can't really pin the blame on them,
ultimately. They're just doing what's expected of them. "What the market
wants" (Actually, just all the market is allowed to want.) They'd be up
on charges if they didn't, not just being sued. That's the way the
system works. Planned obsolescence, and all it entails, is an extremely
bad idea when it comes to software, though. Especially system software.
I will avoid channelling Rand and discussing the arbitrary, ad-hoc, and
capricious balancing of screw-over rights and court-ordered robbing
Peter to pay Paul known as antitrust if you will leave Mr. Hannity on
the radio.
jbdigriz
Received on Mon Apr 29 2002 - 09:48:43 BST