Very Computer

: : Wow, that's means we will have Windows 00 in 5 years!

: Win00? I doubt it, marketting will probably argue Win2000 sounds cooler.

: Actually from what I've read the Win95 product line ends in '99. From '99
: on Microsoft expects even home users to have powerful enough hardware to
: run WinNT.

        Considering that Windows is a 0 product anyway :), it WOULD be
        more truthful advertising!

--
__________________________________________________________

Web page: http://junior.wariat.org/~patrick
Proud owner of an AT&T 3B2/400 (If you don't know what this is, don't ask!)

    Hmmm, it seems we have a major differing of opinion here ....

--
===============================================================================
Arcadio Alivio Sincero, Jr.
Sophomore, Computer Science Major at the University of Maryland at College Park

"Q: Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together?"
"A: To prevent the sensible ones from going home."

[ deletion ]

:     Are you saying that it is OK for a OS developer to ship drivers which
: don't work (or work correctly) with their product?  Not only would that be a
: waste of money (shipping drivers which don't work seems like a really big
: waste to me), but it would be bad pub for the OS because the less-informed
: computer user would most likely blame the OS for something not working and
: not the driver (for example, I often see in the OS/2 advocacy groups many
: posts blaming OS/2 for problems in which the drivers are actually at fault).

:     Hmmm, it seems we have a major differing of opinion here ....

Think about it.  If an OS vendor ships a product with faulty drivers, it is
most certainly the fault of the OS vendor for doing inadequate testing.

However, if the OS vendor does not ship drivers at all (as is the case with
many Unixes), it is not their problem if a driver malfunctions.  It is the
fault of the driver developer in this case.

Now, let me say that I personally hate the Mac/Win/OS2 way of doing device
drivers.  I really love the way Unix does it, but it would be nice to see
more ready-made scripts to use in the Unix world with various printers.

John

--
John Goerzen, programmer and owner | Use #10 for your Win95 CD: it makes |
Communications Centre, Goessel, KS | an excellent cupholder.             |

  I had my doubts about it too, and I still do, but I'm running it..
*sigh* thats all that new computers have on 'em these days.. Microsoft
is trying to take over..

  Anyways, tell ya what, Windows, and the whole Microsoft Corporation
is a criminal * run by Bill Gates & The League of Satan
Worshippers Anonymous <g> j/k =D

  Well, see ya..

Yippie Bandit
   <PHAT>

I like Windows95, it is just too hard to program for.
--

"It can't rain all the time"
-Kryptology

Quote:>: If you are talking about Windows 95, you are ignorant.  I have been
>: able to format a floppy in the background with nearly the same speed
>: as if it were the only thing I was doing.  As far as other
>: multitasking, I am easily able to make a PPP connection, run MSIE with
>: three web sites open, do a multiple file FTP transfer, Read news with
>: Freeagent, etc, etc, have a floppy formatting all in the background
>: while I'm playing solitaire and getting response nearly as well as if
>: it were the only thing open.  And oh, yes, I have a 486dx33 ISA system
>: with 8 MB RAM.  Not exactly a powerhouse.
>Oops, I seem to have had good performance under Unix.  How could that be?
>Tossing megabytes of UUCP mail & news while simultaneously compiling Emacs
>and two other large programs and having PPP and two FTP sessions, one Lynx
>session, and one Netscape session going on my 486sx/25 and I still have
>near-optimal response on my interactive tin session?  BTW, my system is 8
>megs also.

I'm glad the microsoft world has finally figured out multitasking, I gave
up on them for Linux because they never made a decent product.  I've used
windows 95 on two of my friends' boxes.. both 486dx33's with 8 megs of
ram (one had softram which has now been proven to do NOTHING) and they
both seemed about the same anyway.  The bottom line is you're stuck with
a doggish graphical interface.  No matter how slick it is, it slows you
down.  I thought it was a disadvantage to have to wait about a second for
each sub-menu under the start button to pop up.  I thought it was a pain
the way the thing ran slowly.  Yes, windows 95 may seen to run faster
than windows 3.1 but you're still stuck in the cave (as in plato's
allegory of the cave).  Windows 95 may be a truer light but all you're
seeing is shadows on the wall.  Linux is the Truth.  :)

Get Unix.  Easy to program for.  Very easy to program for.

Great OS.

--
John Goerzen, programmer and owner | Use #10 for your Win95 CD: it makes |
Communications Centre, Goessel, KS | an excellent cupholder.             |

I like unix, but writing portable code is not exactly trivial.  Otherwise
we wouldn't need things like autoconf.  ANd if you're not writing
portable code, then why not?
Or maybe you mean something like perl, python, or tcl, or whatever.
OK, but I don't think you can really say that programming in perl, say,
is really programming in Unix (unless you use stuff like getpwnam)

  ==Jake

Quote:>: Your 486dx33 seems to run Win95 a helluva lot faster than mine, but I
>: believe what you say.

: >: I like Windows95, it is just too hard to program for.
: >Get Unix.  Easy to program for.  Very easy to program for.
: >Great OS.

: <cough> <cough>  
: What?  Programming one variant of unix might be easy, but just you try
: to get your program to run on any other flavor.  Do I need unistd.h?
: What's the directory type, dirent or direct, and which file do I include?
: Is function foo(3) available, and what are its parameters and return
: values?  You're the FreeBSD missionary in this thread, what's that int variable
: that FreeBSD and NetBSD define in std[io|lib].h that all the programs out
: there use for error handling but don't expect it already defined? I want
: to say int errno, but I odn't think that's it.

Need I say `POSIX'?

Many programs get along fine by just #including stdlib.h, stdio.h, and
string.h, and unistd.h.

Only if you start doing funky directory/permission modification, user
parameter changes, etc. do you get stuck.  fopen(), etc. is universal.

ncurses will run on just about any platform also.

Let me point out that no Mac program has that functionality.

: I like unix, but writing portable code is not exactly trivial.  Otherwise
: we wouldn't need things like autoconf.  ANd if you're not writing
: portable code, then why not?

Autoconf is a nice program.  Makes programs portable easily.

: Or maybe you mean something like perl, python, or tcl, or whatever.
: OK, but I don't think you can really say that programming in perl, say,
: is really programming in Unix (unless you use stuff like getpwnam)

Well, what platform is tcl or perl programming for anyway?  C is just about
the same for Unix as for any other character-based OS or system.  GUIs tend
to unnecessarily complicate things.

--
John Goerzen, programmer and owner | Use #10 for your Win95 CD: it makes |
Communications Centre, Goessel, KS | an excellent cupholder.             |

Quote:>I dont know why everyone thinks that Win95 hard to program for.  I am
>only four* and I can do it quite well.  Of course I program in VB4
>Enteprise.  I just dont get it.  Tell me why you think it hard to
>program for.

Quote:>Because some of us prefer real programming langauges?

I have used various assembly languages, C, Basic(s) VBasic, Clipper,
Fortran, Powerbuilder, and probably a half dozen other "languages" or
programming environments including so-called "object oriented" and "4th"
generation programming tools. They each have their strengths and
weaknesses. They each have applications to which they are ideally suited.

One thing about the newsgroups....I get tired after a while of seeing one
thread after another filled with childish arguments over the "best"
anything. Usually those arguments don't contain objective measurements,
but end up sounding more like "my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad."

/=====================================================/

                   /
/     The absurdity of a claim is not a valid measure of its probability  
       /
/=====================================================/