home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!templar!jbickers
- From: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
- Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
- References: <jbickers.0m7q@templar.actrix.gen.nz> <1992Dec28.153620.13038@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>
- Message-ID: <jbickers.0m9r@templar.actrix.gen.nz>
- Date: 29 Dec 92 14:17:07 PST
- Organization: TAP
- Lines: 68
-
- Quoted from <1992Dec28.153620.13038@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> by jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel):
- > John Bickers (jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz) wrote:
-
- > : You are trying to dismiss the current stance taken by most of the
- > : computer industry as just my opinion.
-
- > Most of the computer industry believes that Windows is not a worthwhile OS?
- > I wasn't aware of this.
-
- We know. Even universities don't look at Windows as an example of
- an OS in their CS courses.
-
- > : Do you even admit that DOS is a broken vestige of the past?
-
- > Sure it's an antique, but why is it broken? It works just fine. BTW, when
- > did this discussion shift from Windows to DOS?
-
- When you avoided trying to claim that Windows is not dependent on
- DOS.
-
- > : you aware that Microsoft themselves are writing a replacement for
- > : Windows, "Windows NT", in order to elevate Windows to the level
-
- > And Plan 9 is supposed to replace Unix. Does that mean that Unix is not
- > a worthwhile OS?
-
- Completely different beasts. There are many flavors and "owners"
- of Unix, and Plan 9 is NOT supposed to replace them. There is only
- one owner of Windows, and that owner is playing a catch-up game
- against both IBM with OS/2, and Unix vendors.
-
- > : And yet you calmly said that your 386's GUI performance had always
- > : been as good as or better than an A3000. Good stuff.
-
- > It *was* always better, because Windows was moving 256-color graphics on an
- > 800x600 screen, while the Amiga had 4 colors at 640x400.
-
- And now it's "always" better? I find it amazing that my 640x480/4
- WIN-OS/2 screen updates slower than my 640x400/2 Workbench screen,
- despite the limited bandwidth of CHIP RAM and the fact that the
- Amiga has to deal with planes, multitasking a number of
- applications, and so on. And my Amiga is slower than an A3000.
-
- This leads me to think you are lying, just like you lied when you
- said it takes ZERO time to switch between screens under Windows.
-
- > : Not at all! But I remember people arguing before 3.1 that the
- > : Windows GUI performance was slow, and that the way Windows did
-
- > It wasn't slow, but it certainly had room for improvement, just like
- > everything does.
-
- Nice of you to say so after the fact. :/ If it wasn't slow, then
- how come the difference between < 3.1 and 3.1 is "noticeable"? And
- why are the '386s with Windows 3.1 here in the office still slow
- at window updates?
-
- Finally, you seem to be forgetting that this IS just a subset of
- what GUI performance is all about.
-
- I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that most of what you post
- is... a unique interpretation of how things really are, with
- further lies being produced on demand.
-
- > | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
- --
- *** John Bickers, TAP. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
- *** "Radioactivity - It's in the air, for you and me" - Kraftwerk ***
-