info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Old software
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Steve Hayes
May 7, 2018, 10:18:56 PM5/7/18
to
On Mon, 7 May 2018 19:36:26 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>On 2018-05-07 01:44:32 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
>
>>
>> [ … ]
>>
>> They keep promising me a "better experience" if I upgrade, but waiting
>> ages for something to open is not my idea of a "better experience". Of
>> course if I were rich, as website developers assume everyone to be, I
>> could just buy a new computer every 6 months, to have the bigger
>> membory and more powerful processor needed to cope with software
>> bloat. and, of course, that's what keeps them in business.
>
>I agree completely. 30 years ago on my MacPlus I did my word processing
>with a program called WriteNow. It was much faster than any of the
>better known rivals -- Word, WordPerfect etc. -- and could open and
>save files virtually instantaneously, and was small enough to fit on a
>floppy leaving space some documents, so I could use it on other
>people's computers. Despite the fact that my present computers are
>vastly more powerful I know of no current high-end word processors in
>the same class. I _hate_ upgrading, and only do it when I'm forced.
Yes, I still use the XyWrite word processor, which I've been using for
over 30 years. It lacks the bells and whistles of the latest
bloatware, but still has more pistons and cylinders and actually
processes words better and faster. It was slowed down somewhat by the
introduction of keyboards with function keys along the top instead of
on the left where God intended them to be, but still ran faster on an
old 8088 8Mhz CPU than the bloatware does on the latest multi-gigaherz
ones.
And it too fitted easily on a 360K floppy disk.
This is drifting more towards the topic of soc.genealogy.computing, so
I'll copy it there.
Speaking of which, I also still use a genealogy program of about the
same vintage -- about 1987, though I did update to the 1993 version --
Family History System. I still use it, because it does some things
that thw latest programs don't. The program is the Family History
System by Philip Brown.
Most of the "updates" promise a better "user experience", but it often
goes along with reduced functionality, which, for me at any rate,
makes for a bad experience.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>On 2018-05-07 01:44:32 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
>
>>
>> [ … ]
>>
>> They keep promising me a "better experience" if I upgrade, but waiting
>> ages for something to open is not my idea of a "better experience". Of
>> course if I were rich, as website developers assume everyone to be, I
>> could just buy a new computer every 6 months, to have the bigger
>> membory and more powerful processor needed to cope with software
>> bloat. and, of course, that's what keeps them in business.
>
>I agree completely. 30 years ago on my MacPlus I did my word processing
>with a program called WriteNow. It was much faster than any of the
>better known rivals -- Word, WordPerfect etc. -- and could open and
>save files virtually instantaneously, and was small enough to fit on a
>floppy leaving space some documents, so I could use it on other
>people's computers. Despite the fact that my present computers are
>vastly more powerful I know of no current high-end word processors in
>the same class. I _hate_ upgrading, and only do it when I'm forced.
Yes, I still use the XyWrite word processor, which I've been using for
over 30 years. It lacks the bells and whistles of the latest
bloatware, but still has more pistons and cylinders and actually
processes words better and faster. It was slowed down somewhat by the
introduction of keyboards with function keys along the top instead of
on the left where God intended them to be, but still ran faster on an
old 8088 8Mhz CPU than the bloatware does on the latest multi-gigaherz
ones.
And it too fitted easily on a 360K floppy disk.
This is drifting more towards the topic of soc.genealogy.computing, so
I'll copy it there.
Speaking of which, I also still use a genealogy program of about the
same vintage -- about 1987, though I did update to the 1993 version --
Family History System. I still use it, because it does some things
that thw latest programs don't. The program is the Family History
System by Philip Brown.
Most of the "updates" promise a better "user experience", but it often
goes along with reduced functionality, which, for me at any rate,
makes for a bad experience.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 8, 2018, 6:06:24 AM5/8/18
to
On Tue, 08 May 2018 04:18:32 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>Most of the "updates" promise a better "user experience", but it often
>goes along with reduced functionality, which, for me at any rate,
>makes for a bad experience.
For many of us there is a "point of no return". I think we reach that
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>Most of the "updates" promise a better "user experience", but it often
>goes along with reduced functionality, which, for me at any rate,
>makes for a bad experience.
point much quicker when my age (90).
Our kids, grands and great grands have a cell phone in their hands
24/7/365 (seems like); I make and receive a few calls each week on
mine.
Our sons have at least one computer, and iPad and a cell phone - all
open. I use one at a time and some not for a day or two. They charge
the phone every night - mine is usually dead for a day or two before I
charge. It's not dementia - I just don't care.
I wonder if Siri, or Cortana would kiss where the sun don't shine.
But that door bell that lets you look at the cell phone to see who is
there might be worthwhile.
I don't know any Joneses to keep up with.
Hugh
Keith Nuttle
May 8, 2018, 7:00:30 AM5/8/18
to
On 5/7/2018 10:18 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> ystem. I still use it, because it does some things
> that thw latest programs don't. The program is the Family History
> System by Philip Brown.
My problem is the fact that with an upgrade things are lost. Example
> ystem. I still use it, because it does some things
> that thw latest programs don't. The program is the Family History
> System by Philip Brown.
being the Family Tree maker upgrade. When the latest release to 2017
Family Tree Maker a the internet functionality of the old version was
destroyed, and they added nothing useful.
While I waited for the release, I do not use it as I don't know what
will be removed when they upgrade the 2017 version. I don't want to
become dependent on something that will be removed in a future release
--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 8, 2018, 10:08:16 AM5/8/18
to
RootsMagic.
Hugh
Steve Hayes
May 8, 2018, 10:10:06 PM5/8/18
to
>While I waited for the release, I do not use it as I don't know what
>will be removed when they upgrade the 2017 version. I don't want to
>become dependent on something that will be removed in a future release
Yes. I use an old version of Microsoft Office -- Office 97.
>will be removed when they upgrade the 2017 version. I don't want to
>become dependent on something that will be removed in a future release
It came with a handly little gizmo that displays desktop icons along
the top or the screen (or side, if you prefer). I became dependent on
it. If I'm working in one program and need to open another, I can open
it with one click, instead of searching for it.
Newer versions don't have that.
--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com
Sally Thompson
May 24, 2018, 11:19:43 AM5/24/18
to
J. Hugh Sullivan <Ea...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
> But that door bell that lets you look at the cell phone to see who is
> there might be worthwhile.
>
We have one, and it is! You can say you can’t get to the door right now and
be hundreds of miles away.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
>
<snip>
> But that door bell that lets you look at the cell phone to see who is
> there might be worthwhile.
>
be hundreds of miles away.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
0 new messages