Windows: what we lost

32 visualizzazioni
Passa al primo messaggio da leggere

Ricardo

da leggere,
6 nov 1999, 03:00:0006/11/99
a
I was sitting around reading these posts and thinking...there was never a
more stable operating system than FREAKING DOS. Poor underrated, scorned
FREAKING DOS never crashed, never gave you illegal operation screens or any
of the other BS that you get from Windows: registry hassles; FATAL ERRORS;
WINDOWS IS BUSY BS, lost data, rebooting, CONTROL-ALT-DELETE, on and on.

And what did we get with Windows? We got to have two or three programs open
at the same time. And we didn't have to learn DOS. LA DE Freaking DAH.

You could teach any novice all the DOS they'd ever need to know in 30
minutes. Try teaching someone Windows in 30 minutes? And wouldn't it be
great to have the choice to use the ever stable DOS, and use all that
horsepower we've got now to run the freaking programs we want to run without
squandering the power on a high mainteance, Zsa Zsa Gabor style operating
system that gives you crashes, error messages, reboots and data loss?

So all you guys who think you're so wise to poo poo DOS need to take off the
blinders and think about what we lost with dirty old DOS. And don't give me
any crap about 32 bit processors. A simpler operating system could handle
what Windows does without the crap that comes with that ugly swamp of
Windows code lurking just below the surface, seething, smoking, oozing. It's
a big zit waiting to pop, brothers.


--
Blaise Pascal's excuse for his verbose letters: "I have only made this
[letter] longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter."


Conaill

da leggere,
6 nov 1999, 03:00:0006/11/99
a
Actually, I would have to agree with you in part. DOS was the system that I
learned on, actually I first learned CP/M on the Commodore 128, so moving to
DOS wasn't all that terribly difficult, short of remembering that back-slash
was not the same as forward-slash.

To this day I still drop to the DOS shell to do many things in Wnidows98 and
NT, however I must point out that a well maintained/administered Windows
system seldom if ever crashes. It is the nuances of the OS and not taking
the time to learn and understand what Windows is doing in the background
that causes most system crashes. That is to say that it is the user that
causes the system to crash, not the OS.

In my learning days, I was even able to make DOS applications hang and
crash, so the problem of TSH (terminate system and hang) is not unique to
just Win, it would even happen in DOS. Thus, your comments, while mostly
accurate, are to say the least, unfounded.

What really chaps my hide is the user who meddles around blindly, tinkering
and changing things with his/her system, without the foreknowledge of what
they are doing, and the impact therein. Then turn around and blame not
themselves for hosing their system up, but Microsoft and Windows in general.
Granted, many of these users are home users, but think about it... if IS
professionals maintained their systems in the office the same way that home
users maintain home systems, how long would any one company be up and
running on a stable environment? Moreso to the point, how long would that
professional be in gainful employment?

Just how many home users do you think tackle the tough questions here and
attempt to help? I'm willing to bet that most of the technical answers come
from IS professionals like myself, with those answers in an easy to
understand, down to Earth no nonesense method that is which easy to
understand and comprehensible, by even the simplest home user. As I said
before, Windows is stable, for the most part, yes there are bugs and
security holes, but I challenge anyone to show me a perfect OS. Come on,
throw it in my face. You can't, because no system is totally free of bugs
or security holes, and most especially, no system is invulernable to the
tinkering "end-user."

Conaill

Ricardo <ric...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:801km6$jo7$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

Jim Sweeney

da leggere,
6 nov 1999, 03:00:0006/11/99
a
And one of the real tragedies is that the there is less and less literature
around. In this high priced neighborhood of mine the are three book stores and
three computer stores. None had an up- to-date and authoritative printing of any
DOS after 6.2.
JPS

Ricardo

da leggere,
6 nov 1999, 03:00:0006/11/99
a
Read the Federal Court's decision. Microsoft has used its OS monopoly to
stifle competition. It has virtually no competitors so it doesn't have to be
good, just so so. It's practically the only game in town.

Ever use a Mac? Its OS is simpler, more stable, and doesn't weave the
application into the OS to such an extent that the only solution to some
problems is a clean reinstall of the OS. The graphics and printing industry
eschews Windows in favor of Mac's much more stable OS. There's a reason.

Microsoft's predatory upgrade policy, which makes full blown versions
difficult and expensive to buy, only exacerbates the instability problem.
There are some systems out there with three layers of MS code on their hard
drives: 3.1; 95 and 98. Yikes!

Mac doesn't pull that crap. You buy their OS, it's full blown.


Conaill <con...@somewhere.you.arent> wrote in message
news:p_YU3.98$Xc....@newsfeed.slurp.net...

Bernard Davis

da leggere,
6 nov 1999, 03:00:0006/11/99
a
On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:49:29 -0800, "Ricardo" <ric...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Ever use a Mac? Its OS is simpler, more stable, and doesn't weave the
>application into the OS to such an extent that the only solution to some
>problems is a clean reinstall of the OS. The graphics and printing industry
>eschews Windows in favor of Mac's much more stable OS. There's a reason.

Don't forget that there is one significant difference between the Mac
and a PC. The Mac has only one real hardware configuration and a
significantly smaller number of applications. The PC can have an
almost unlimited number of hardware configurations and a vastly larger
number of software applications.

This is the real reason why there are more crashes in Windows than
MacOS, that is not to saythat there aren't crashes on the Mac.


Regards
Bernard Davis
bda...@castlecs.clara.co.uk
http://www.castlecs.clara.co.uk
Tel/Fax UK 01772 751465

Conaill

da leggere,
6 nov 1999, 03:00:0006/11/99
a
I don't believe that the original post stated anything about the recent
federal decision about Micrsoft. What I had said was that Windows is as
stable as any other OS is, however with a user tinkering without knowledge
of what they are doing, is generally what causes most system problems.

Mac's can be blown out of the water to by an inexperienced user just as
well. For using a Mac, yes I have used a Mac, as a former Novell Network
Administrator and NT Administrator, I have many times installed a Mac onto
the network. And I have seen just as many OS related problems as I have
with DOS and Windows systems.

I stand by my statement that no system is that stable that it runs forever,
as it is the end-user that causes most problems with OS crashes, on Mac,
Windows, or Unix.

Ricardo <ric...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:801ta8$jko$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...


> Read the Federal Court's decision. Microsoft has used its OS monopoly to
> stifle competition. It has virtually no competitors so it doesn't have to
be
> good, just so so. It's practically the only game in town.
>

> Ever use a Mac? Its OS is simpler, more stable, and doesn't weave the
> application into the OS to such an extent that the only solution to some
> problems is a clean reinstall of the OS. The graphics and printing
industry
> eschews Windows in favor of Mac's much more stable OS. There's a reason.
>

Walt

da leggere,
6 nov 1999, 03:00:0006/11/99
a
While I am not a computer professional I have been actively and
extensively working with PC's for 17 years and "consult" on an amateur
basis for a lot of newbies. I find that most of the problems they have
understanding things are based on a lack of knowledge of, and an
unwillingness to learn, anytrhing about DOS. This may change when OS's
are no longer based on DOS. But it is seems much harder to get people
to comprehend directory (pardon me, folder) structure even to the
extent that they can find files and understand what they are doing
than it should be. Confusing memory with hard disk size is very
common. They can learn to do things by rote, but if something goes
wrong they are lost. Maybe I am a lousy teacher but I think a good
background in DOS is essential to dealing with the vagaries of
Windows. I used to love dabbling in assembly language - I still could
of course, but not in any useful fashion. I appreciate Windows has a
lot of advantages and I use it, but more things (using different
fonts, task-switching though not multitasking, many graphics
functions) could be done under DOS than a lot of newcomers realize. I
still do a lot of stuff in DOS which, I guess, marks me as an old
fogie stereotypically longing for "the good old days". I use a DOS
database and my spreadsheet is Quattro Pro 1, a DOS program that does
everything I need quite efficiently .

Storage King Self Storage Ltd.

da leggere,
6 nov 1999, 03:00:0006/11/99
a
Does anyone remember C-Dos?
That was sweet for resource handling, and running multiple proggies at once.
Kinda reminds me of the terminals in Unix actually.
Does anyone know if Unix is what inspired Concurrent Dos?

Just curious.


Ricardo wrote in message <801km6$jo7$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...

Ricardo

da leggere,
6 nov 1999, 03:00:0006/11/99
a
I sympathize with any IS tech who has to keep computer systems running
despite the myriad screw ups that the average user can inflict on Windows
98, NT or otherwise. But that's simply blaming the real victims of Windows,
the average user who shouldn't have to have fifteen years' experience
spanning CP/M, DOS, and the various incarnations of Windows to use the
product reasonably trouble-free.

If showroom new automobiles operated as poorly as the average new Win/tel
product, Washington and the public would be declaring war on Detroit.


Conaill <con...@somewhere.you.arent> wrote in message

news:dh%U3.191$Xc...@newsfeed.slurp.net...

Conaill

da leggere,
6 nov 1999, 03:00:0006/11/99
a
I would agree with all that you said. Most people (read the average end
user) has a hard time with comprehension of folders vs. directory structure.
Often times, while one the phone I will slip up and say something like "do
you see the directory xyz in your structure?" only to be met with a "huh?"
So I will rephrase and say "folder" vs. "directory" and find the folder.
The average user depends on the techie, wether that tech is the help-desk,
LAN administrator, or third-party support (read vendor), and has no clue as
to the proper terminology. A good tech find the common ground and talks to
the user on that level. While this may sound condenscending, it is often
time required to walk the user through a problem on the phone.

I am arrogant, this I know to be true, but gee... I've been putzing around
with computers as a programmer since 1978, found PC's in 1982 and have
evolved from a programmer, to Network Administrator, Network Engineer,
Systems Engineer, Help Desk (Level 3) to Service Manager of a reseller. I
hold not a CNA, CNE, MCSE, MCP, A+ and after the first of year when the test
becomes available in my area will go for my Network+ exam. I'm not a rookie
by no means, and I offer helpful advice. I find all to often that the user
misunderstands the tech, often times because the tech speaks over the users
level of knowledge. This very fact is something that I pointed out in an
earlier post, only to have NoMail jump my case.

In short, I can communicate with my customer on a level that he/she
understands, so that there are no miscommunications or misconceptions. More
techs should try to bring themselves down to Earth (hello NoMail, ya hear
me?) and talk to an end-user, instead of spewing babble that the average
end-user isn't going to understand.

Walt <kn...@migpige.com> wrote in message
news:8021fk$mna$0...@216.155.32.104...

Conaill

da leggere,
6 nov 1999, 03:00:0006/11/99
a
The average user knows how to operate a car though; the average computer
user doesn't have a clue in how to operate a computer.

Ricardo <ric...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:802atl$spr$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

Unbeliever

da leggere,
6 nov 1999, 03:00:0006/11/99
a
I still have fond memories of CPM - shame it got killed by DOS.

100% Recycled <n...@thisplace.com> wrote in message
news:3828c204.10719491@news...
> I remember Q-DOS, sadly that reminds me of just how close to
> retirement I am. BTW, Q-DOS, and all DOSes that followed were the
> product of The Rand Corporations UNIX Operating system based on this
> document:
> http://www.rand.org/cgi-bin/Abstracts/ordi/getab.pl?1117884-1119454
>
> Interestingly enough, the Internet was based on another RAND document:
> (This one in full)
> http://www.rand.org/publications/RM/RM3420/


>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 21:49:25 GMT, "Storage King Self Storage Ltd."
> <stor...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >Does anyone remember C-Dos?
> >That was sweet for resource handling, and running multiple proggies at
once.
> >Kinda reminds me of the terminals in Unix actually.
> >Does anyone know if Unix is what inspired Concurrent Dos?
> >
> >Just curious.
> >
> >
> >Ricardo wrote in message <801km6$jo7$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...

Richard Cranium

da leggere,
6 nov 1999, 03:00:0006/11/99
a
On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:53:10 -0600, "Conaill"
<con...@somewhere.you.arent> wrote:

>Actually, I would have to agree with you in part. DOS was the system that I
>learned on, actually I first learned CP/M on the Commodore 128, so moving to
>DOS wasn't all that terribly difficult, short of remembering that back-slash
>was not the same as forward-slash.
>
>To this day I still drop to the DOS shell to do many things in Wnidows98 and
>NT, however I must point out that a well maintained/administered Windows
>system seldom if ever crashes.

Maintenance, Schmaintenance! I bought my first PC in 1988 and I
didn't know the first thing about house cleaning. DOS 3.3 NEVER
crashed without my doing something to it. I always fixed it in a
matter of minutes and it ran like a Swiss watch.

> It is the nuances of the OS and not taking the time to learn and understand
> what Windows is doing in the background that causes most system crashes.

Nuance is an excellent word choice when referring to windows! It is
precisely those "nuances" that produce inconsistent results on a very
regular basis. DOS always did what you told it to -- Always.

> That is to say that it is the user that causes the system to crash, not the OS.

Bull! I get error messages after a complete and fresh reinstall when
only windows is installed. That never happens with DOS

>In my learning days, I was even able to make DOS applications hang and
>crash, so the problem of TSH (terminate system and hang) is not unique to
>just Win, it would even happen in DOS.

Agreed. But you didn't need a newsgroup full of experts from around
the world to help you sort through the debris to get your system
running again.

> Thus, your comments, while mostly accurate, are to say the least, unfounded.

They're not unfounded. I know exactly what he is referring to and so
do probably 75% of the people requesting advise here.

>What really chaps my hide is the user who meddles around blindly, tinkering
>and changing things with his/her system, without the foreknowledge of what
>they are doing, and the impact therein. Then turn around and blame not
>themselves for hosing their system up, but Microsoft and Windows in general.

The reason most people meddle with their system is because they want
(and need) their system to do what they want it to, not what Bill
Gates wants it to every once in a while.

>Granted, many of these users are home users, but think about it... if IS
>professionals maintained their systems in the office the same way that home
>users maintain home systems, how long would any one company be up and
>running on a stable environment? Moreso to the point, how long would that
>professional be in gainful employment?
>
>Just how many home users do you think tackle the tough questions here and
>attempt to help? I'm willing to bet that most of the technical answers come
>from IS professionals like myself, with those answers in an easy to
>understand, down to Earth no nonesense method that is which easy to
>understand and comprehensible, by even the simplest home user.

You hit the nail on the head with this one! At least with a simple OS
like DOS there wasn't the need for the home user to bring in the heavy
weights to solve a problem.

> As I said before, Windows is stable, for the most part, yes there are bugs and
>security holes, but I challenge anyone to show me a perfect OS. Come on,
>throw it in my face.

The perfect OS is what Windows is running on -- DOS. Not only that,
the whole thing fit on a single floppy and even a "Non IS
Professional" like myself could install it in a couple of minutes.
Try installing Windows that quickly.

> You can't, because no system is totally free of bugs or security holes,
> and most especially, no system is invulernable to the tinkering "end-user."

I ran my old PC for 8 years and you could count on one hand how many
times I had to reboot because DOS crashed. The first week I had
windows I lost track of how many times I had to reboot.

One final point. DOS was an operating system and nothing more.
That's all I wanted. Why are there so darn many advertisements on
Windows. I want a reliable operating system not an infomercial!!!

100% Recycled

da leggere,
7 nov 1999, 03:00:0007/11/99
a

Conaill

da leggere,
7 nov 1999, 03:00:0007/11/99
a
yada yada.... you perfection then? try linux.

I stand by my statement that windows is a stable operating system, until the
user starts putzing around with it. Further, DOS was stable too, until the
user putzed with it. I can lock up any DOS system, equally as fast as
locking up a windows systems.


Richard Cranium <Richard...@Home.Now> wrote in message
news:HdQkOKLvEr3pWq...@4ax.com...

Envy

da leggere,
7 nov 1999, 03:00:0007/11/99
a
As a fellow tech let me just say, If not for the unstability of the Windows
OS with me exploring it, I would have never learned a thing about a
computer or how to support it. I have no degrees to speak of just my own
screw-ups and the fixes I found for them. In that respect I must say thank
you to Bill. Other than that I have nothing nice to say to the man. The
average user trying new things in an effort to enhance their own knowledge
of the system can cause problems. I want to build a unix or linux system as
a way of broadening my own skills, but also in the effort of finding a
better OS. Another point I would like to make is the average user I get on
the tech support line these days seems to be "lazy", for a lack of a better
word, not wanting to LEARN how to fix but rather be told how to do it. I
tell them everyday, the best way for a novice user to learn is to break it,
fix it yourself and remember how you did it.

Conaill wrote in message ...

Richard Cranium

da leggere,
7 nov 1999, 03:00:0007/11/99
a
On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 00:28:48 -0600, "Conaill"
<con...@somewhere.you.arent> wrote:

>yada yada.... you perfection then? try linux.
>
>I stand by my statement that windows is a stable operating system, until the
>user starts putzing around with it. Further, DOS was stable too, until the
>user putzed with it. I can lock up any DOS system, equally as fast as
>locking up a windows systems.

I agree, I could lock up DOS too, IF I TRIED.

Unfortunately I don't have to try with Windows -- that is one of the
undocumented features that is included for free(?).

Ricardo

da leggere,
7 nov 1999, 03:00:0007/11/99
a
Windows defenders who hang out in this news group remind me of shade tree
mechanics who like nothing better than tearing their engines apart every
weekend to fix, replace or tweak them. These guys always have a wrench in
one hand and a greasy rag hanging out their back pocket. If the car runs too
well, they find an excuse to take it apart.

OK, Windows tinkerers. You've got the perfect OS to complement your
problem-solving egos. But the rest of us just want to work with the
applications, not the freaking OS.

Richard Cranium makes a good point. Look at all the poor SOB's in this
newsgroup begging for help. They can't get out of Safe Mode. They've got
illegal operations. They've got protection faults. Their screens are frozen.
Their start buttons have disappeared. Their drivers don't drive. They've got
wallpaper problems. One guy says..."MS is killing me."

Earth to Bill Gates. You could double your fortune by coming out with a
stripped down, highly stable OS without all the freaking bells and whistles
of Windows, but one that doesn't crash, freeze, stall, snooze, puke, or
fart. In fact, on boot up, give us a choice...the stable OS that never
crashes, or the high maintenance Zsa Zsa Gabor version for those who like
the unexpected.

Ken Blake

da leggere,
7 nov 1999, 03:00:0007/11/99
a
Ricardo <ric...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:804vrb$ajo$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> Richard Cranium makes a good point. Look at all the poor
SOB's in this
> newsgroup begging for help. They can't get out of Safe
Mode. They've got
> illegal operations. They've got protection faults. Their
screens are frozen.
> Their start buttons have disappeared. Their drivers don't
drive. They've got
> wallpaper problems. One guy says..."MS is killing me."


OK, fine. I looked at the number of people who come here
looking for help. Now look at the vastly greater number of
Windows 98 who have no problems and don't come here or
anywhere else looking for help.

This *is* a support newsgroup. People with problems do come
here looking for help. Extrapolating from that to the
statement that Windows 98 is a problem-ridden operating
system is simply nonsense.

It would be far stranger if most of the posts here said
things like "Everything is hunky-dory with Windows 98 here."


--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup.


Ricardo

da leggere,
7 nov 1999, 03:00:0007/11/99
a
For every one who makes it to a support news group, how many are out there
living with a limping Windows OS because they don't know what else to do? If
five percent of Windows users have read or posted to a Usenet group, I'd be
surprised.

Read the remarks of the federal judge who declared MS a monopoly that
produces a problem plagued OS because there is no effective competitor to
challenge them to make a better product.

Sure...there are a lot of Windows co-dependants. But many are getting out
into the fresh air, getting some exercise, and realizing the extent of their
tunnel vision.


<BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com> wrote in message
news:38262790...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...

> You really should have taken that course in critical thinking and
> statistical analysis when it was offered.
>
> BB


Envy

da leggere,
8 nov 1999, 03:00:0008/11/99
a
As I stated last night, I know what I know from windows because of it's
unstability. I am in no way "Co-Dependant" on this OS and I think most
people who do REAL support work of this OS would probably be offended by
that comment. I would probably guess that you made the post below from a
windows machine Ricardo, Please don't generalize with such comments. It
only makes you look ignorant. I have another point. My father always said,
"If you don't vote, you can't bitch about the results, or the job being
done." I have since changed that for people like Ricardo....."If you don't
build software, don't bitch about it's performance..or just don't use it."
How about coming up with something better yourself Ricardo. Then you can be
the next Bill Gates. Nothing positive comes from such negativity.


Ricardo wrote in message <805drq$44p$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...


>For every one who makes it to a support news group, how many are out there
>living with a limping Windows OS because they don't know what else to do?
If
>five percent of Windows users have read or posted to a Usenet group, I'd be
>surprised.
>
>Read the remarks of the federal judge who declared MS a monopoly that
>produces a problem plagued OS because there is no effective competitor to
>challenge them to make a better product.
>
>Sure...there are a lot of Windows co-dependants. But many are getting out
>into the fresh air, getting some exercise, and realizing the extent of
their
>tunnel vision.
>
>
>
>
><BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com> wrote in message
>news:38262790...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>> On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 14:51:04 -0800, "Ricardo" <ric...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>

100% Recycled

da leggere,
8 nov 1999, 03:00:0008/11/99
a
I really think those who think that non-MS Oses are "trouble-free"
should visit comp.unix.solaris or alt.os.linux, before spouting off
at the mouth


On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 17:56:50 -0700, "Ken Blake" <nob...@home.com>
wrote:

>Ricardo <ric...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:804vrb$ajo$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>

>> Richard Cranium makes a good point. Look at all the poor
>SOB's in this
>> newsgroup begging for help. They can't get out of Safe
>Mode. They've got
>> illegal operations. They've got protection faults. Their
>screens are frozen.
>> Their start buttons have disappeared. Their drivers don't
>drive. They've got
>> wallpaper problems. One guy says..."MS is killing me."
>
>

john shields

da leggere,
8 nov 1999, 03:00:0008/11/99
a
Have you been doing your push-ups lately? Just remember you can install a tilt
mechanism on a computer so if you kick it hard enough it will in fact tilt.

Mike

da leggere,
8 nov 1999, 03:00:0008/11/99
a

Conaill wrote:

> Actually, I would have to agree with you in part. DOS was the system that I
> learned on, actually I first learned CP/M on the Commodore 128, so moving to
> DOS wasn't all that terribly difficult, short of remembering that back-slash
> was not the same as forward-slash.
>
> To this day I still drop to the DOS shell to do many things in Wnidows98 and
> NT, however I must point out that a well maintained/administered Windows

> system seldom if ever crashes. It is the nuances of the OS and not taking


> the time to learn and understand what Windows is doing in the background

> that causes most system crashes. That is to say that it is the user that


> causes the system to crash, not the OS.
>

> In my learning days, I was even able to make DOS applications hang and
> crash, so the problem of TSH (terminate system and hang) is not unique to

> just Win, it would even happen in DOS. Thus, your comments, while mostly


> accurate, are to say the least, unfounded.
>

> What really chaps my hide is the user who meddles around blindly, tinkering
> and changing things with his/her system, without the foreknowledge of what
> they are doing, and the impact therein. Then turn around and blame not
> themselves for hosing their system up, but Microsoft and Windows in general.

> Granted, many of these users are home users, but think about it... if IS
> professionals maintained their systems in the office the same way that home
> users maintain home systems, how long would any one company be up and
> running on a stable environment? Moreso to the point, how long would that
> professional be in gainful employment?
>
> Just how many home users do you think tackle the tough questions here and
> attempt to help? I'm willing to bet that most of the technical answers come
> from IS professionals like myself, with those answers in an easy to
> understand, down to Earth no nonesense method that is which easy to

> understand and comprehensible, by even the simplest home user. As I said


> before, Windows is stable, for the most part, yes there are bugs and
> security holes, but I challenge anyone to show me a perfect OS. Come on,

> throw it in my face. You can't, because no system is totally free of bugs


> or security holes, and most especially, no system is invulernable to the
> tinkering "end-user."

I build systems, but I started learning computers at home. Under Windows 2.x and
3.x I had my DOS prompt on the desktop and under Windows NT and 9x it still sits
there. I drop out to do the majority of my file operations and what not as I
still find it much easier to do this than use the Explorer interface. I even
have the old 3.11 WinFile on my desktop. The ONLY operation I consistently do in
Explorer is clone floppies and Zip disks because it does this faster.

As to the end users screwing up the system. As you say no OS is immune to this.
However, I find that, even when DOS was the OS, many software companies "know
what is good for you" and install all kindsa crap to run. In Windows these
things usually run in the background. Programs like MS FindFast, which is pure
crap as far as I am concerned, Iomega's "disk management" utilities,
WordPerfect's DAD and PerfectPrint, Norton's System Monitor, Crash Gaurd,
Uninstall, Virus checker, and so on and on and on.

Quite a bit I find myself at someone's house or office deinstalling the crap
that Norton, Iomega, Corel, Adobe, or some other software has placed in a
person's startup or run section of the registry that is causing the sytem to
hang or run slow. So do not blame it all on the user, some of the blame needs to
reside with people who write software that "knows what is best".

>
>
> Conaill


>
> Ricardo <ric...@nospam.com> wrote in message

> news:801km6$jo7$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

--
Mike Burkett

To email me remove the second 2.

ACTUAL TECH SUPPORT CALLS:

Caller: "Eudora keeps giving me the error 'connection confused'."
Caller: "My computer's telling me I performed an illegal abortion."

A SMART TECH SUPPORT PERSON

Customer: "I am getting an error on my computer"
Tech Support: "What kind of error?"
Customer: "It says I have a corrupted file on my hard drive, and I should run
'Check Disk'."
Tech Support: "Ok, we need to call in a ticket, and someone will be down
shortly."
Customer: "Can you make sure you bring some extra Check Disks, because mine does
not work."
Tech Support: "Uh. We're out of stock right now, but I'll order some."

MY CALL TO TECH SUPPORT AFTER TWEAKING A MODEM FOR FOUR HOURS

Me: "I,ve tried ??????. Now what should I do?"
Tech Support: "Restart the computer in DOS and then type FDISK."
Me (laughing): "How many idiots do you get to actually do that?"
Tech Support: "Let me get my supervisor."

100% Recycled

da leggere,
8 nov 1999, 03:00:0008/11/99
a
Ain't that the truth. I also like the way Software vendors make sure
that you can find thier applications by placing one or more Icons on
the desktop, a half dozen or so in the start menu and a "quick start"
icon in the systray, just to make sure that they have thier share of
resources when Windows first opens. Very naughty of them.

DOS is a hoot, and still very capable, in fact, I have been working
on a website that (I hope) will encourage people to "recycle" thier
older computers by installing and configuring DOS on them. Thier have
been some tremendous improvements in applications designed for DOS
over the last five years, especially from authors based in Europe and
Asia. The rough draft of the site can be viewed at:

http://thedoofus.homepage.com/

I should be able to have the thing up and running sometime after
Christmas.

Ron Goodenow

da leggere,
10 nov 1999, 03:00:0010/11/99
a
I'd put in a vote for Win 3.1 myself. I have it running on an old 486 50
laptop with
16 meg of ram and Stacker [remember Stacker?]. I've got MS Office and
several imaging packages on the machine. I surf the web easily with a
28.8 modem and Netscape Gold. I use a little meter to track memory
utilization. It NEVER crashes. In fact, if it did I would be cooked
since the floppy died a long time ago. Utterly reliable, and easy to use
dos.


Brian Recknagel

da leggere,
10 nov 1999, 03:00:0010/11/99
a
so is linux

Ron Goodenow <rkg...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3829FFD0...@mindspring.com...

John Sheehy

da leggere,
16 nov 1999, 03:00:0016/11/99
a
In message <804vrb$ajo$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Ricardo" <ric...@nospam.com> wrote :

>Richard Cranium makes a good point. Look at all the poor SOB's in this
>newsgroup begging for help. They can't get out of Safe Mode. They've got
>illegal operations. They've got protection faults. Their screens are frozen.
>Their start buttons have disappeared. Their drivers don't drive. They've got
>wallpaper problems. One guy says..."MS is killing me."

You know, if you hang out at a police precinct, everyone you meet is a
cop, a criminal, or the victim of a crime. Would you say the same of
everyone in that city?

There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism of MS or Windows, but
people like you wear their ulterior motives on their sleeves. People
like you will gather data that supports their viewpoint aggressively,
and ignore, or even accuse of lying, people who are not having major
problems with Windows.

Hosed Windows systems are probably something that happens maybe once
every 3 to 5 years, to the average user. With all the hundreds of
millions of people who are using Windows, that means a lot of potential
problems. It doesn't mean that the average user is constantly bombarded
with them, though. And many times, the problems are due to hardware and
3rd party drivers, not Windows itself. People like you are quick to
blame anything that goes wrong on a computer with Windows on Windows,
with no need for further investigation.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Rispondi a tutti
Rispondi all'autore
Inoltra
0 nuovi messaggi