> > Some while ago (years?) someone made the point that school-leavers at that
> > time would have first been taught to use computers (sometime in the late
> > 80's) on either:
> > (i) 286 or 386 systems running mainly 16-bit single-tasking DOS software (in
> > schools that used PC's)
> > (ii) 32-bit Acorn RISC systems using a multi-tasking operating system with
> > fully graphical user interface (in schools that used Acorn)
> You appear to be referring to my editorial in the May 95 issue of RISC User
> when I said:
> "Now think back to 1989, when today's graduates were in secondary school..
> which child would be getting the better grounding in today's computing
> techniques - the one using the DOS command line on a 286 to run single-
> tasking programs, or the one using a RISC-powered Acorn with a
> multitasking GUI?"
> I was commenting on an article in an Internet magazine that claimed schools
> had wasted 10 years by becoming wedded to Acorn technology.
Well put Alan,
I am advocate of the goal post moving theory. In the early eighties networks
were all the go, Acorn had one. But what became vogue? Interaction between
packages, Acorn came up with !Word, !Sheet and !Store, so they moved the goal
posts to windows GUI based operating systems. Acorn responded with Arthur and
RiscOS. Then Multi tasking was all the go, Acorn had that one already
covered so it became pre-emptive multi tasking that they really meant.
And so on and so on, outline fonts vs postscript, logo, C, C++ etc Even
random access files were a criteria in the very early stages. Well, come to
think of it even an operating system was a criteria in the Apple ][ days. So
what will they think of next? Java compilers?
I was sick to death of parents who had just completed their two year
university course about 6 years ago who were ranting and raving about their
children in year 7 who had not been using DOS machines because they were
industry standards. The University based semesters of work around DOS!
Where are those courses now???? We chose the Acorns because we had a
very strong belief that their designs were capable of teaching computing
*FUNDIMENTALS* that would be appropriate in the future. So we struggled on
with our multi-tasking, true drag and drop, Outline font capable, 256 colours
multi mode screens, ethernet network, running true 32 bit applications, etc
etc enduring the negative droning-on of the 'clone' bigots. And what came
along? Windows 95 (with just a little 16 bit and DOS thrown in, ahhhh blech).
All I can say in response to that is *ho hum*.
See the latest Risc-User for some very perceptive comments about OS-2 as far
as task bars go, and then to Apple OS that will soon incorporate true drag
and drop. Yes, I am sorry, but I just I don't feel I have left a legacy of
computing crippled classes behind me.
I know let's start a thread on CISC vs RISC to re-live the golden days
of those very worthwhile arguments. Ah the nostaglia of it all.