"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

>/Most/ computer users wouldn't know what they desire if it
>jumped up and bit them.

This might be true, or it might not.  Either way, I don't see it as a
valid reason for OS vendors to eliminate features used by those who do
know what they desire.

So let's try it this way:

A more optimistic view is that an amazing achievement of the computer
software industry is its continuing use of the steady and staggering gains
made by the computer hardware industry to implement systems that many
computer users desire.                                           ^^^^

>Somehow, Billy Gates has convinced people that instead of
>"640 Kbytes of memory is more than anyone will ever need",

Yes, and IBM's Thomas J. Watson is reported to be of the opinion that "there
might be a world market for maybe five computers."  They both are guilty of
failing to have been in possesion of 100% accurate crystal balls.  So what?

>they now need 64 Mbytes minimum just to load his OS.  If
>they would like to do some useful work, they had better
>have even more hardware resources.

Do you think you could write an OS and supporting programs that provide
Window's current functionality and performance in 640K of RAM?

>Those who know what features they seek know they don't
>need bloatware to get it.

Given Microsoft's success in the market, it seems that a great many Windows
users are willing to accept it.

One more thing: You guys who so much love to hate "Billy Gates" make me
laugh.  You make him out to be the mother of all computing evils, but I
cannot imagine that any of you would hesitate for even an instant to be
in his place.

-- 
========================================================================
          Michael Kesti            |  "And like, one and one don't make
                                   |   two, one and one make one."
          m...@gv.net            |          - The Who, Bargain

Here is just what you want-a-stripped-down-OS people are looking for.

http://www.thebentinel.com/040814-microsoft-preparing-shoehorn-release.html

-- 
========================================================================
          Michael Kesti            |  "And like, one and one don't make
                                   |   two, one and one make one."
          m...@gv.net            |          - The Who, Bargain

"Michael R. Kesti" <m...@gv.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:4...@gv.net...
> "Everett M. Greene" wrote:
>
> >/Most/ computer users wouldn't know what they desire if it
> >jumped up and bit them.
>
> This might be true, or it might not.  Either way, I don't see it as a
> valid reason for OS vendors to eliminate features used by those who do
> know what they desire.
>
> So let's try it this way:
>
> A more optimistic view is that an amazing achievement of the computer
> software industry is its continuing use of the steady and staggering gains
> made by the computer hardware industry to implement systems that many
> computer users desire.                                           ^^^^
>

and what is that?

> >Somehow, Billy Gates has convinced people that instead of
> >"640 Kbytes of memory is more than anyone will ever need",
>
> Yes, and IBM's Thomas J. Watson is reported to be of the opinion that
"there
> might be a world market for maybe five computers."  They both are guilty
of
> failing to have been in possesion of 100% accurate crystal balls.  So
what?
>
> >they now need 64 Mbytes minimum just to load his OS.  If
> >they would like to do some useful work, they had better
> >have even more hardware resources.
>
> Do you think you could write an OS and supporting programs that provide
> Window's current functionality and performance in 640K of RAM?

tell me what windows' current functionality needs 64M? they keep drawing 2d
boxes on the screen...an idea that wasnt from them...
the worst thing is that microsoft has TONS of resources, so i'd think they
could write an optimized OS, they just dont want to, cause then you wouldnt
need a 3GHz processor just to send emails, and Intel et al. will see that
people wont buy new computers, and wont buy new OS' either...
tell me why would a home user need a 3GHz processor if he just wants to surf
the web, send emails and chat?! that's wasted computing power, wasted power
consumption (cause desktop computer dont come with "M" processors), wasted
everything!
but what the heck, business are business...

>
> >Those who know what features they seek know they don't
> >need bloatware to get it.
>
> Given Microsoft's success in the market, it seems that a great many
Windows
> users are willing to accept it.
>

i believe their "success" is because you get windows preinstalled and
because of their dumping policy...among other "policies"...
for most people, there's no choice but to use micro$hit

> One more thing: You guys who so much love to hate "Billy Gates" make me
> laugh.  You make him out to be the mother of all computing evils, but I
> cannot imagine that any of you would hesitate for even an instant to be
> in his place.
>

maybe you?
why would anybody want to be "hated" and treated like he is?