Very Computer

by **exil** » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00

David> damages some data it's not the end of the world. Then the
David> best choice of operating system is Windows 98. Period. End
David> of story. You will hear people say "Hey, you can do all

That's simply one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

David> available. 90% of NT machines are used mainly for the sole
David> purpose for which Windows was designed - running Word. And
David> they do it just fine.

A purpose that would be served a hundred times better by a 486 running
wp5.1.

Or emacs, LyX, KLyX, etc, etc, etc...

_{exile}_____________________________________________________________
http://www.freespeech.org/apophysis

"Where are your ideas?" {Jello}

by **Phil** » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00

Odd reasoning and a statistic telling you how useless NT is:

Quote:> David> available. 90% of NT machines are used mainly for the sole
> David> purpose for which Windows was designed - running Word. And
> David> they do it just fine.

> A purpose that would be served a hundred times better by a 486
running
> wp5.1.

> Or emacs, LyX, KLyX, etc, etc, etc...

Especially considering that Word, 2.0 through 2000, has NEVER been able
to handle RTF files correctly. Word97 is the sole reason that I wrote
Phil's Text Machine in VB while working on an NT-based contract. Word
isn't a good enough reason to do anything except upgrade yourself to
WordPerfect Office for Windows or download the thing FREE for linux. I
would buy the "gee, run Windows because you can run Word" argument if
Word were an acceptable program. As it stands, it's another example of
sixty million lines to code to accomplish what can be done in around
500,000. Hell, Phil's Text Machine was an RTF editor that supported
E-mail and web browsing and took around 2,000 lines of code and compiled
to a whopping 43K executable. Then again, MS's VB Run-time *
dictated that this 43K executable became a 10MB installation package...
ANYWAY, that aside, stating a word processor choice as a reason to
choose an OS is kind of odd...only in the MS world, huh?

Peace,

Phil

--
-------------------------------------------------
Philip Ware
"I've never been so insulted in all my life."
"It's early, yet." -- G. Marx

Sent via Deja.com http://www.veryComputer.com/
Before you buy.

by **JEDIDI** » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00

>Odd reasoning and a statistic telling you how useless NT is:

>> David> available. 90% of NT machines are used mainly for the sole
>> David> purpose for which Windows was designed - running Word. And
>> David> they do it just fine.

>> A purpose that would be served a hundred times better by a 486
>running
>> wp5.1.

>> Or emacs, LyX, KLyX, etc, etc, etc...

>Especially considering that Word, 2.0 through 2000, has NEVER been able
>to handle RTF files correctly. Word97 is the sole reason that I wrote
>Phil's Text Machine in VB while working on an NT-based contract. Word
>isn't a good enough reason to do anything except upgrade yourself to

MS Word is the word processor of the hegemony. It's the
msword <current> year files that you have to deal with.
It seems as if those formats are built specifically to
make it harder for non-word running win32 people to get
their work done.

Quote:>WordPerfect Office for Windows or download the thing FREE for linux. I
>would buy the "gee, run Windows because you can run Word" argument if
>Word were an acceptable program. As it stands, it's another example of

[deletia]

It has nothing to do with quality, just conformity.
That's why I found the "we run DOS, therefore we
can run EVERYthing" argument less compelling over time.

Very Computer

A level headed answer - Re: Why Linux?

A level headed answer - Re: Why Linux?

A level headed answer - Re: Why Linux?

A level headed answer - Re: Why Linux?