> "vastly more productive environment" is a very bold statement. I'd be
> very interested to see you back that one up. Some people may start to
> waffle on about stability and stuff, well, while I'll admit that my
> Linux box is far more stable than my Win95 box, my Win95 box is pretty
> stable (once crash per week, perhaps less). What I'd like to see is
> some real proof that the above would, at a general level, be a "vastly
> more productive environment" than Win95 and the usual attendant
is equally productive, no matter what the platform. Ie, let's
ignore the "my wordprocessor is better than yours" type argument.
You say that you have to reboot your machine "once per week, perhaps less";
machine crashes are not very good for productivity, IMHO.
You're at your favourite wordprocessor, and you've been typing away
for a couple of hours. Bang! Your machine crashes, taking with it
your work: not very productive, is it? Meanwhile, the UNIX users,
with their stable OS merrily keep working...
PC (well, windoze anyway) users seem to think that frequent reboots
are a necessary fact of life: they're not. There is no excuse
for an unstable OS. Reminds me of the time when Win3.1 came out:
No more UAEs, Microsoft proudly proclaimed. What they didn't say
was that they'd simply renamed the error to GPF...
If it ain't analogue, it ain't music.
#include <disclaimer.h> \\|// - ?
| Sun Service Contractor |
| Voice: +44 (0)1276 691974 |
| .oooO |
| ( ) Oooo. |
\===================================\ (==( )==========/
\_) ) /