home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!str-ccsun!strath-cs!st-and!gta
- From: gta@st-andrews.ac.uk (Graham Allan)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn
- Subject: Re: New PC's, what's happening acorn?
- Message-ID: <2BkCATj010n@st-andrews.ac.uk>
- Date: 17 Aug 92 04:15:42 GMT
- References: <9208161049.AA10301@sand.sics.bu.oz.au>
- Sender: gta@st-andrews.ac.uk (Graham Allan)
- Reply-To: gta@st-andrews.ac.uk
- Organization: Greyfriars mail-relay
- Lines: 24
-
- s047@SAND.SICS.BU.OZ.AU (Jeremy Lee) writes:
-
- > Also, adhering to that wonderfull american ideology that we all know and
- > love, they have thrown even more into Windows proper than was ever
- > necessary. They now have, wait for it, a screensaver built into the
- > desktop controls. Why?!?! It's useless. It provides three screensaver
- > options, each of which are very dull. It also ignores that fact that
- > After Dark has just been released for Windows, and there has been a
- > reasonable PD screensaver called "ScreenPeace" available for one and a
- > half years!! There are other examples, but hardwiring a weak, useless
- > screensaver into what is basically the operating system just seems
- > insanely stupid.
-
- Actually, although I dislike Windows in other (most) respects, I think this
- one point is a little unfair. It depends entirely on your philosophy for a
- screensaver (if such a petty thing could be said to have a 'philosophy'!!).
- If you want something entertaining, fine, use After Dark. The one built into
- Windows (like the one in RISC OS 3) fulfils other criteria: (1) a screen
- saver is arguably useful for the health of the monitor (2) other than that,
- it isn't very important so should take mimimum memory or CPU time from other
- tasks. This is the approach I would agree with; if it blanks the screen
- successfully and runs in about 2K of RAM, that's good enough.
-
- Graham
-