"AZ Nomad" <a...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:s...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
> The joy of microsoft operating systems that have consistently stayed two
steps
> ahead of available hardware.  Requiring 3 BILLION bytes of memory just to
draw a
> desktop and run a few relatively simply low performance applications like
a word
> processor and web browser is an incredible feat.

Not to mention the 4 seconds it takes on a multiple GHz machine to empty the
recycle bin with only one tiny file in it....

Meindert

On Aug 27, 9:11=A0am, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:05:09 GMT, przemek klosowski <przemek.klosow...@gm=
ail.nospam> wrote:
> >On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:51:37 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:
> >> Perhaps it's just me, but i expect a quad-core 3GHz machine to be able
> >> to keep up with my typing as well as my Commodore 128 does.
> >Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.
>
> And microsoft does it faster than the chip makers can.

But what they produce is called clogware, not software. :-)

Didi

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/

Robert Baer wrote:
> 
>    The *idea* of a registry seems to be OK, but in WinDoze, it is a
> veritable garbage can.
>    I think that each program should have its own *findable* (and
> readable) registry in the same directory that the program is stored.
>    That might make it easier to !totally! remove a program...


   And screw up all file associations.


-- 
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

AZ Nomad wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:05:06 +0200, Dombo <d...@disposable.invalid> wrote:
> >AZ Nomad schreef:
> >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:31:30 +0200 (CEST), Jack <p...@pluto.com> wrote:
> >>> AZ Nomad <a...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
> >>> news:s...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:
> >>
> >>>> The joy of microsoft operating systems that have consistently stayed
> >>>> two steps ahead of available hardware.  Requiring 3 BILLION bytes of
> >>>> memory just to draw a desktop and run a few relatively simply low
> >>>> performance applications like a word processor and web browser is an
> >>>> incredible feat.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just think.  In ten years will have 200ghz machines and microsoft will
> >>>> still make them dog slow.
> >>
> >>> That's not (only) Microsoft. That's Software Engineer and OO programming.
> >>
> >> It is only microsoft.  Other companies have no problem using OO
> >> programming and actually getting *more* efficient over time.
> 
> >Only Microsoft?  You are showing you bias. Adobe is another fine
> >example, ever looked at recent versions of Acrobat Reader? It gets
> >buggier, slower, bigger and behaves more and more like a pig with every
> >new release. And frankly even Linux distributions have become more a lot
> >more bloated over the years.
> 
> Perhaps, linux doesn't make the fastest desktop computers run like shit.
> 
> Maybe with 10ghz of cpu and 20GB of ram vista might run OK, but otherwise
> it's a steaming mountain of pig shit.
> 
> And adobe's latest reader runs just fine under linux on my 1.4 ghz laptop
> with a typical 5200rpm laptop drive.  If MS wrote it, you could count on it
> being unable to run on such hardware.
> 
> A $250 computer from 5 years ago will run extremely well w/ linux where
> vista won't run at all.



   Who WANTS to run Vista on a five year old computer?


-- 
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:05:06 +0200, Dombo <d...@disposable.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>AZ Nomad schreef:
>>
>>>On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:31:30 +0200 (CEST), Jack <p...@pluto.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>AZ Nomad <a...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
>>>>news:s...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net: 
>>>
>>>>>The joy of microsoft operating systems that have consistently stayed
>>>>>two steps ahead of available hardware.  Requiring 3 BILLION bytes of
>>>>>memory just to draw a desktop and run a few relatively simply low
>>>>>performance applications like a word processor and web browser is an
>>>>>incredible feat.  
>>>>>
>>>>>Just think.  In ten years will have 200ghz machines and microsoft will
>>>>>still make them dog slow.
>>>
>>>>That's not (only) Microsoft. That's Software Engineer and OO programming.
>>>
>>>It is only microsoft.  Other companies have no problem using OO
>>>programming and actually getting *more* efficient over time.
> 
> 
>>Only Microsoft?  You are showing you bias. Adobe is another fine 
>>example, ever looked at recent versions of Acrobat Reader? It gets 
>>buggier, slower, bigger and behaves more and more like a pig with every 
>>new release. And frankly even Linux distributions have become more a lot 
>>more bloated over the years.
> 
> 
> Perhaps, linux doesn't make the fastest desktop computers run like shit.
> 
> Maybe with 10ghz of cpu and 20GB of ram vista might run OK, but otherwise
> it's a steaming mountain of pig shit.
> 
> And adobe's latest reader runs just fine under linux on my 1.4 ghz laptop
> with a typical 5200rpm laptop drive.  If MS wrote it, you could count on it
> being unable to run on such hardware.

Consider that Adobe needs 100MB hard disk space for just a reader, where 
others can produce a PDF reader that takes less than 1 MB and starts at 
least 10x faster, and you still believe Adobe is producing efficient 
software?

Ever tried Lotus Notes, or CM Synergy (nowadays both IBM), or Borland 
C++ Builder and still believe Microsoft is the only company that 
produces crap software.

> A $250 computer from 5 years ago will run extremely well w/ linux where
> vista won't run at all.  

And sometimes you can't get Linux to install at all, or only without 
wireless, ACPI...etc.

Your hate towards Microsoft has apparently blinded you. I don't like 
Microsoft, or their products, but the fact is most software companies 
produce utter crap (especially the bigger ones), and some manage to 
produce even worse crap than Microsoft. And let's face it Windows sucks, 
Linux sucks, they only suck in different ways. Choose your poison.

AZ Nomad wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:05:09 GMT, przemek klosowski <p...@gmail.nospam> wrote:
> >On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:51:37 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:
> 
> >> Perhaps it's just me, but i expect a quad-core 3GHz machine to be able
> >> to keep up with my typing as well as my Commodore 128 does.
> 
> >Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.
> 
> And microsoft does it faster than the chip makers can.


    The ironic thing is Microsoft wrote part of the firmware for the
Commodore 128.


-- 
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:56:39 -0400, Michael A. Terrell <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>AZ Nomad wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:05:09 GMT, przemek klosowski <p...@gmail.nospam> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:51:37 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:
>> 
>> >> Perhaps it's just me, but i expect a quad-core 3GHz machine to be able
>> >> to keep up with my typing as well as my Commodore 128 does.
>> 
>> >Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.
>> 
>> And microsoft does it faster than the chip makers can.


>    The ironic thing is Microsoft wrote part of the firmware for the
>Commodore 128.

no wonder it was a failure.
The probably had something to do with that commadore 64 floating around that
couldn't run any commadore 64 software.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:55:25 -0400, Michael A. Terrell <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>AZ Nomad wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:05:06 +0200, Dombo <d...@disposable.invalid> wrote:
>> >AZ Nomad schreef:
>> >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:31:30 +0200 (CEST), Jack <p...@pluto.com> wrote:
>> >>> AZ Nomad <a...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in
>> >>> news:s...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net:
>> >>
>> >>>> The joy of microsoft operating systems that have consistently stayed
>> >>>> two steps ahead of available hardware.  Requiring 3 BILLION bytes of
>> >>>> memory just to draw a desktop and run a few relatively simply low
>> >>>> performance applications like a word processor and web browser is an
>> >>>> incredible feat.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Just think.  In ten years will have 200ghz machines and microsoft will
>> >>>> still make them dog slow.
>> >>
>> >>> That's not (only) Microsoft. That's Software Engineer and OO programming.
>> >>
>> >> It is only microsoft.  Other companies have no problem using OO
>> >> programming and actually getting *more* efficient over time.
>> 
>> >Only Microsoft?  You are showing you bias. Adobe is another fine
>> >example, ever looked at recent versions of Acrobat Reader? It gets
>> >buggier, slower, bigger and behaves more and more like a pig with every
>> >new release. And frankly even Linux distributions have become more a lot
>> >more bloated over the years.
>> 
>> Perhaps, linux doesn't make the fastest desktop computers run like shit.
>> 
>> Maybe with 10ghz of cpu and 20GB of ram vista might run OK, but otherwise
>> it's a steaming mountain of pig shit.
>> 
>> And adobe's latest reader runs just fine under linux on my 1.4 ghz laptop
>> with a typical 5200rpm laptop drive.  If MS wrote it, you could count on it
>> being unable to run on such hardware.
>> 
>> A $250 computer from 5 years ago will run extremely well w/ linux where
>> vista won't run at all.



>   Who WANTS to run Vista on a five year old computer?


Who wants to run vista on any machine?

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:05:48 -0700, Robert Baer
<r...@localnet.com> wrote:

<snip>
>> 
>   The *idea* of a registry seems to be OK, but in WinDoze, it is a 
>veritable garbage can.
>   I think that each program should have its own *findable* (and 
>readable) registry in the same directory that the program is stored.
>   That might make it easier to !totally! remove a program...

Actually, there should be parallel "Program Files" & "Data Files"
directory structures.  Non-changeable things to the first, changeable
things to the second.  That would make backups easier.
-- 
ArarghMail808 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html

To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.

AZ Nomad schreef:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:56:39 -0400, Michael A. Terrell <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> AZ Nomad wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:05:09 GMT, przemek klosowski <p...@gmail.nospam> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:51:37 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:
>>>>> Perhaps it's just me, but i expect a quad-core 3GHz machine to be able
>>>>> to keep up with my typing as well as my Commodore 128 does.
>>>> Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.
>>> And microsoft does it faster than the chip makers can.
> 
> 
>>    The ironic thing is Microsoft wrote part of the firmware for the
>> Commodore 128.
> 
> no wonder it was a failure.

Actually sales wise it was a reasonable success.

> The probably had something to do with that commadore 64 floating around that
> couldn't run any commadore 64 software.

Percentage wise even a larger part of the Commodore 64 firmware was 
written by Microsoft. I don't recall a Commodore 64 that couldn't run 
Commodore 64 software. The Commodore 128 did run Commodore 64 software 
pretty well too.