NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/misc-part1/3338

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 5.8 KB

Path: news.enter.net!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Phewl)
Newsgroups: alt.2600,alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc,alt.comp.virus,alt.crackers,alt.cracks,alt.cyberspace,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.wired,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.unixware.misc
Subject: Re: DOORS 95 or WINDOWS 95
Date: 28 Jan 1996 03:26:07 GMT
Organization: Psychotic Ghetto Parables Inc
Message-ID: <4eeqcf$[e-mail]>
References: <1d7cc$[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]>   <[e-mail]> <4dap0r$[e-mail]>    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>       <4dbk1c$[e-mail]> <4dev5u$[e-mail]>     <4df3ti$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4eahfm$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp45.enter.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.4

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
says...
>
>Wired Earp wrote:
--humorous, but long, fake conversation between Dave and HAL removed.
> Ha! Ha! But even more hilarious would have been a world dominated by
>Apple with its refusal or inablility to make software backward
>compatible. Each time there was an operating system upgrade, orphaned
>users were stuck with their favorite software which would no longer run
>on the new system.  The ability and effort to make the sofware backward
>compatible to an archaic dos has actually done more good than harm.
>That is why Microsoft dominates - because they went the extra miles to
>provide such backward compatibility.  It is because of this that other
>better operating systems never took hold in the mass market - not
>Microsoft's size or marketing Gates's influence. Is there better stuff
>out there than Windows 95 and its senile older brother dos? Of course.
>Will people use it? Mostly not.  I'm not sure I like being herded
>towards Win NT.  But I like to use Windows 95 and I'm not going to
>bother with the alternatives, however better they may be.

Remarkably enough, I feel very similarly to you. However, I find some mistakes
in your logic:

Apple started by not making its upgrades backwardly-compatible. This
doomed it in the future. However, in the future (1985+), when the Macintoshes
were arriving, and the Mac OS was being upgraded, it did keep backward
compatibility to earlier versions...Until PowerMac, which had a new way of
addressing the sound hardware, which created problems with some
games...But other than that, even PowerMac (and its OS, and Copeland, then
next release) are backward compatible....

Win95 is not, in reality, inferior to any operating system. No operating system is
inferior to another. A friend of mine in my PC/LAN course told me that Win95
lets you "toy around" with multitasking--but that in OS/2, you can fax while
printing while continuing to work. I found the analogy amusing. It's like saying
that a sporty little Mazda lets you "toy around" with driving--but a Maserati
truly gives you performance. Why bother with performance you don't need,
and can't (or won't) use? I don't have a printer, and while I fax or use my
modem (for long transfers) I play a game or something--no problem.
Sometimes, I just go watch TV or read a book (gasp! what's that?!)...If you
use the capabilities of your operating system to their fullest potential, then you
have what is probably the best choice of operating system for you. If you don't,
then you should step back a notch (go back to DOS 6 with Win3.1), and if you
need more room, then you should step up a notch (go up to OS/2 Warp or a
Mac). It depends on what you need, what your budget is, and what you want.

I also don't agree with your debunking of Billy-boy's market dominance and
influence--they have a great deal to do with why MS products are #1. That,
and keeping all of the true programming secrets internal. MS products can do
things that others can't (well, except Fury3, which refuses to deliver a decent
frame rate on my P-90--thank God it was only a demo, and I didn't cough up
$50 for the real thing!) because they make the operating system. I firmly believe
that the Justice Department should have torn MS to pieces by now--at least
separating the apps from the OSes...

In conclusion (yikes was THIS long! Sorry about the bloody spam, but
whoever started it did that!), I would like to say that no one with half an ounce
of sense (and isn't RUNNING a LAN) should buy NT. NT is a great LAN
server--very stable, very powerful, and very fast. It sucks as an OS, though, in
that it has a dated interface, lackluster help, and terrible documentation. For the
Network end-user OS, go with Win95 (until the GPFs start occurring)...Or run
the whole LAN off of OS/2 Warp (until you start getting trap errors, that is), or
upgrade everyone to Macs and be happy with that (until system bombs start
occurring)...NT should NOT be used as an end-user platform, though, despite
its stability over the others, because of its terrible interface, help, and
docs...Keep one of the less powerful ones on the end-user, because they
probably won't crash if set up properly, and at least won't bring down the
LAN....

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Couldn't quit the bullshit made me represent
 Hit the bar and played the star everywhere I went"
--2Pac
"There is a kind of freedom in being totally screwed.
 It is knowing that your life can't go any lower."
--Matthew Broderick, "The Freshman"