Linux-Advocacy Digest #727, Volume #28 Tue, 29 Aug 00 08:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (D. Spider)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Jack
Troughton)
Linux support for IntelliEye (Ajeroth)
Re: How low can they go...? (Sam)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) (Gary Hallock)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Illya Vaes)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Quantum Leaper")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:11:00 GMT
It appears that on Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:56:15 -0500, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >They were generally accepted to be:
>> >Runs as many DOS and Win16 applications as possible
>> >Runs Win32 apps
>> >Can use DOS drivers
>> >Runs in 4MB of RAM
>> >Has pre-emptive scheduling
>>
>> It only fails on one of those then - the RAM requirements, obviously.
>
>Obviously? Win95 ran in 4MB or ram. And it did so equally as fast as Win
>3.1 did. Of course it ran MUCH faster than Win 3.1 when you had 8-16MB of
>ram, but that wasn't the requirement.
I'm just quoting this to point out to anyone else reading how obvious
it is you are, as we say in the vernacular, "talking out your rear."
You could coax Win95 into booting up on a 4 meg machine, but you
certainly couldn't do anything useful with it. With 3.1 you could do
quite a bit in 4 megs. Something anyone that actually USED them
(instead of relying on the marketing hype from the time you found with
a search engine) would know.
>Clearly you haven't used the start menu in many years.
I love this bit too, this is classic. Do you know how to read a
header? Clearly not. Let me point this out to you... figure out how to
tell outhouse express to show you the headers (I would tell you how,
but I don't allow such broken software to even sit on my disk, let
alone use it, so you'll have to figure out how to do this or ask
someone else) and look for the line that says X-Newsreader:. If you
still can't figure out why this line is funny, maybe someone else will
be kind to you and explain.
Picking though the rest of your posts on this thread for something
worth replying to...
No, just because Apple does something that doesn't mean it's right.
Apple historically has gotten less stuff wrong in the GUI area, less
stuff != no stuff. Is that concept really too hard for you to grasp?
You obviously think I'm a Mac zealot, well guess what, I can't stand
Macs! Just because I don't use or like them, however, doesn't mean I
can't see that they do some things right! Try to open your eyes and
see the world around you in all of it's wonderful shades and hues,
instead of this black and white illusion you are projecting onto it.
A user interface can be backward compatible with a previous one by
preserving the UI traits of the previous version. Doh!
Human engineering is not something made up by Apple, it's not even
something that is specific to computers (it's at least as important
when designing bulldozers, cranes, wheelchairs, desks, cars, etc.)
See:
http://www.me.berkeley.edu/hel/
http://www.pitt.edu/~rstherl/
http://www.bcresearch.com/ergonomics/design.htm
http://www.humaneng.co.uk/
http://www.cs.wright.edu/bie/
http://www.exponent.com/career/details/humanfactors.html
http://www.hfe.chalmers.se/
http://hfec.vt.edu/
just for starters.
There, everything that deserved a reply (and some stuff that didn't)
from all 4 of your posts are answered, and in the interests of my
signal to noise ration you are now going in my killfile - anyone that
comes out with such a tone of superior knowledge as you have, while
making so many incredibly ignorant statements at the same time, is
presumed to be a troll and dealt with accordingly.
Good day.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:24:24 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
aEGq5.8029$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
> > It certainly did not provide backwards compatibility with Win3.1 in
> > terms of user interface, and it certainly did NOT run as fast as
> > Win3.1 on the same machine.
>
> Backwards compatibility for applications and drivers. How can a user
> interface be backwards compatible? Compatible with what?
>
> Win95 (the original, first version released) *DID* run just as well in 4MB
> of ram as Windows 3.1 on a 386. I know this because I was responsible for
> benchmarking it for the company I worked for at the time. Windows 95 was
> several times faster if you gave it about 8-16MB of memory.
Oich, i once tested win95 on a 386... takes ages to boot, but it *DID*
run...
I wonder if i can install it on my USR Courier modem, it has a 386 in it;..
heh
<cut>
> Windows 2000 is proving to be more stable than Windows 3.51 (they moved
the
> drivers into the kernel in 4.0). Tell me again how this makes the OS
> inherantly more unstable.
Badly written drivers can bring the system down, this is true for all
systems where drivers
riside in the kernel space
<cut>
> > But placing them in one configuration will drastically increase the
> > chances vs another configuration.
>
> I have *NEVER* accidentally hit the close button. Ever. Not once.
I have, and i too would have prefered that the close button was on the left
side (that's why i double click on the left corner to close windows (i'm an
amiga user, it's a habit ^_^))
<cut>
> > I explained this in another post (and many of the other issues you
> > raise,) but briefly, the target area for a windows style menu control
> > is say (ballpark figure) 1/4"x1/8", whereas the effective target area
> > for an equivelent menu control in the mac style is 1/4"xinfinity. It
> > doesn't take a genius to see which one can be hit the quickest and
> > easiest, and which one may require much more detailed, careful, and
> > time consuming mouse manipulation.
>
> It apparently does take a genius, since you can't seem to understand how
> difficult this makes things in multi-monitor applications and how much
extra
> effort is expended moving the mouse to the top of the screen when you need
> only move it a few inches.
It comes down to a habit i guess... on my good ol' Amiga i just press the
mid mouse button to bring up the menu under my mouse, and rightklick for the
context menu's, hardly have to move at all ^_^
> > As to moving the mouse farther to get to the menu, while that is true,
> > the more relevant issue is not the absolute distance traveled, but the
> > difficulty of hitting the target, and the time it takes to do so. A
>
> Difficulty in hitting the target? You're joking. This is a complete
> non-issue for anyone who isn't handicapped or otherwise impaired. And for
> those people special tools exist.
Maybe he needs new glasses...
> > very small, but precise, movement may be harder to do, and take more
> > time and attention to accomplish, than a very large one in some cases.
>
> So let me get this straight. Because, in a small number of cases,
something
> *MIGHT* require more effort, it's clearly inferior. Meanwhile, the *MUCH*
> more common scenario of not having to move the mouse to the top of the
> screen is clearly unimportant.
>
> Right.
It would be nice to have a choice tho... =)
> > This is one. By making sure the menu is always on a screen edge, the
> > Mac designers insured that the window controls were effectively very
> > big targets, without squandering screen space by actually making them
> > big. Also, since they are always in the same place, motor memory
> > quickly memorises them, much the same way someone that is used to
> > keyboarding can activate functions with keystrokes much faster than
> > they can reach for a mouse.
>
> Tell me, why aren't dialog buttons also on the top of the screen? If it's
> so important, why this radical change in philosophy of putting them
> somewhere else?
LOL
<cut>
> > No, it's not. See the other post. Drag-and-drop is not the same as
> > Drag-and-hover-and-then-drag-some-more-and-drop. The application in
> > this case is totally different from any other use of drag and drop.
>
> The Mac uses the same interface when hovering over folders to expand them.
> There is little difference between this and a minimized application.
Very true
<cut>
I personally don't like the GUI neighter, but i wouldn't go as far as this
guy did, it's a matter of taske i guess, that's what's so funny about X11,
where you can make your own 'gui' :)
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:54:56 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 05:42:39, javelina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jack Troughton wrote:
>
>>>Last Friday I bought a sage iMac. Not only
>>>is it better than any PC of any kind, but
>>>anyone who bought a blue, red, white, or
>>>graphite iMac is a complete loser!
>>>
>>>Sage is where it's at.
>>
>>I'm coming in from c.o.o.a; os2.advocacy.
>>Pre-emptive multi-tasking and excellent memory
>>management are where it's at.
>>
>>Not to mention a desktop metaphor that rivals
>>if not exceeds that of the MacOS.
>>
>>I can actually run current software, despite the
>>fact my PC is over five years old now... which
>>is a good thing: I'd rather spend the
>>money on my kids than on my computer.
>
>You can keep the line, bobber, and sinker, but
>could you return the hook to me? I'm running
>out of those. Thanks.
No problem.
>Pre-emptive multi-tasking and memory management?
>Hmmmm, just a minute, I know I've got some of
>those sitting around here somewhere inside this
>Irix box, just a minute, let me see. Oh yes,
>here they are! They've been abused a little by
>Netscape, but they're still relatively intact.
>When Netscape trashes yours, feel free to
>borrow mine.
Sure, I'll keep that in mind; I think it would be fun to play on an
IRIX. Do you have any X software I can run? I'd have to re-setup
XFree86-OS/2, but for some of that 3d stuff those IRIX's got, it'd be
completely worth it (drool).
>Buzzwords on a Mac? It's simply not done, man.
>Did the Red Baron fly around inside an enclosed
>cockpit on his Fokker D with air-conditioning,
>heating, and a stewardess? Hell, no! Does a
>Stutz Bearcat ask you to please move away from the
>vehicle if you stand too close to it? Hell, no!
>Does Calista Flockhart have lips that could suck
>the chrome off a trailer hitch? Well, yes, but
>that's beside the point.
Heheheh. OTOH, she's a bonerack... ewww.
>My Sage iMac is a work of art! It does one thing
>at a time, rather well if you manually allocate its
>free RAM for it, reboot it every day, turn it off
>at night, keep it free of lint and dust, turn off
>unused INITs, zap the PRAM, rebuild the desktop
>every month, and leave the night light on.
Actually, my PC is a work of art, too, as well as being a workhorse.
Mind you, the art involved is different, but... Built it myself, yadda
yadda yadda, and works very well for me. I have a lot of fun with my
PC.
Ease!
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montr�al PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:16:26 +0100
From: Ajeroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux support for IntelliEye
I have a USB IntelliEye mouse, which I like enough not to want to swap
it back to the PS/2 mouse that originally came with my system.
I used to have OpenCaldera 2.2 on my old 400Mhz Amd k6-2 with a ps/2
mouse and managed to bring back some memories of my University Unix
days.
Now, however, I have a 750Mhz Athlon with a GeForce2 GTS (working
overtime is good for something after all!) and of course this new mouse.
Are there any drivers that will run under linux for it? Considering that
it is a Microsoft mouse, this many not be possible.
I don't particularly want to change mice every time I want to run a
different OS.
And Im posting to this group as my company do not have any other linux
newsgroups.
Ta, Lee
--
Systems Software Engineer, BAE SYSTEMS (UK)
------------------------------
From: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:29:56 +1000
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 18:00:33 GMT, fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>...that's MORE EXPENSIVE than Windows 2000 Professional.
Wrong
>I don't want to get overly cynical here[1] but it seems to
>me like this is a marketing excercise to find out just how
>ignorant/gullible the "buying public" really is.
You think MS is big ?
If everyone who uses Microsoft products actually paid for them, MS
would be many times larger
I am constantly amassed at computer fairs where vendors openly give
two prices for systems, one with an official (?) OS CD and one
without. Both have Windows installed.
In many poorer countries there are very few legitimate copies sold yet
Windows is the most popular OS.
Sam
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:44:33 +0200
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 18:00:33 GMT, fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >...that's MORE EXPENSIVE than Windows 2000 Professional.
>
> Wrong
>
> >I don't want to get overly cynical here[1] but it seems to
> >me like this is a marketing excercise to find out just how
> >ignorant/gullible the "buying public" really is.
>
> You think MS is big ?
>
> If everyone who uses Microsoft products actually paid for them, MS
> would be many times larger
>
> I am constantly amassed at computer fairs where vendors openly give
> two prices for systems, one with an official (?) OS CD and one
> without. Both have Windows installed.
>
> In many poorer countries there are very few legitimate copies sold yet
> Windows is the most popular OS.
So? Should we feel sorry for them? I'll pay for winblows when they bring out
a version i actually enjoy using...
Amon_Re
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 07:55:10 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> I'm sorry. I simply do not believe you that A system with X, KDE, and
> several other major services only takes 35MB. X with KDE alone will take up
> at least that much (KDE buffers consume huge amounts of memory in fact).
>
Believe what you want, but I run X, KDE, and man other things on my Thinkpad
with 32MB of memory.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:57:27 +0200
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>>>>>Wrong. If you believed in a free market (as you pretend to), you'd
>>>>>realize that companies are driven by obtaining the maximum profit
>>>>>possible without breaking the law.
>>>>Maximum over which timeframe? One fiscal year? Two years? Ten? Thirty?
>>>>Fifty?
>>>There's no definite answer and securities laws do have some flexibility.
>I pointed out that, by law (securities laws), companies are obligated to
>maximize profit.
>Illya raised a legitimate question that those laws don't specify what
>time frame should be considered.
No, I asked (or meant to ask) over what timeframe you think a company should
maximize profits over. It's a question (in response) to you, not to / about
any law.
>I answered his question.
Not really.
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:03:12 GMT
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8oe1jv$ddc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >Also, Win9x's design goal was to run on the same
> hardware
> > that typical Windows 3.x machines were running on in 1995 and be as
> fast, or
> > faster than Windows 3.x. All of which it achieved.
>
> What?! I have never heard anyone claim thet win 95 is as fast as win3.x.
> This also goes directly against my personal experience and the
> experience of many people that I know. Try running them on an old 486.
> 95 is a little sluggish. On a fast pentium, win311 flies.
>
Win95 is about the same speed Win3.11 if you have more than 16 megs. If you
have less than 16 megs, Win95 is slower than Win3.11. How many Win3.11
computers had more than 16 megs? 16 megs cost over $250, in August 1995.
Most computers only had 8 megs, when they were sold.
>
> > > More of a case
> > > in this regard could be made against NT Server - whether it was an
> > > explicit design goal or not to provide a robust and powerful
> platform
> > > relative to the hardware investment, given what it's marketed as, it
> > > should have been. Running video drivers in kernel space, and having
> no
> > > gui-less operating mode, are arguably major design flaws for any
> > > server OS.
> >
> > Arguably. Lots of things run in kernel space on various Unix servers.
> > Linux now has a new kernel space web server. There are telnet servers
> that
> > run in kernel space and sockets that run in kernel space.
>
> You can choose not to run these thing in kernel mode. Yopu do not have
> thet choice with NT. For a dedicated webserver, it might be useful.
>
>
>
> > > Examples of these problems are not hard to find. Start with the
> > > placement of the window control widgets -
> > > minimise-maximise/restore-close clustered together is a poor design.
> > > The Mac OS9 and prior layout, placing close on the opposite corner
> > > from the others is a better design.
> >
> > Again, this is subjective. I don't find them to be a poor design at
> all.
> > Anywhere you put them, people will accidentally hit them.
>
> It is much easier to hit them accidently in Windows, where they are next
> to other commonly used buttons. I used macs for quite a while (a while
> ago) and I never _once_ accidently hit close when I didn't mean to. I
> cannot (still) say the same about windows.
>
Just use the menu, to pick if you want to minimize, maximize or close the
window, if you have problems controling the mouse. You do realize how to
do that, right?
>
> > No "inconsistent version of explorer" is used. Explorer is used. The
> start
> > menu is just another directory in your file system, and explorer is
> opened
> > up in that directory.
>
> You can't go up from that directory to a higher one, though. It,
> therefore works differently to most instances of explorer, therefore it
> is inconsistent. That's how it woprks on this 95 machine here, anyway.
>
You can't go up from the Desktop either, so are you going to complain about
that next? The Start Menu is the HIGHEST directory that you can edit the
start menu.
>
> >
> > I don't see what's so hard about right clicking on the start menu and
> > choosing "open" to find where to edit it. Although with IE4 and 5 you
>
> That's another inconsistency. it uses a slightly different instanec of
> explorer top edit it, if invoked from there,
>
The only thing different, is one had a Folder view and the other doesn't.
Personally I hate having the folder view open, so I'm glad I can close it.
>
> > > Ever try to drag and drop to an app running on the taskbar? Again,
> > > they went to the trouble to describe how drag and drop should work
> in
> > > their own guidelines, then disregard those guidelines entirely
> > > themselves.
> >
> > And what part of the guideline does this violate? I notice your
> arguments
> > are getting to be more hand waving than substance as your argument
> rolls on.
>
> You cannot just drag an icon to a running app on the taskbar. You drag
> the icon on to the task bar, wait for the app to be raised, then drag it
> on to the app. That is not how the rest of DnD on win 95 works. The rest
> of DnD is consistent with MS's guidelines, this is different, therefore
> it does not comply with the guidelines. That is not a handwaving
> argument. Try it, I did just a second ago.
>
You do realize the reason, they didn't do that right or are you blowing hot
air? It maybe inconsistant, but it the only USEFUL way MS could have done
it.
> (sys tray stuff...)
> > That's entirely application defined. The taskbar tray might not be
> used for
> > interaction at all. It might just be a visual notification.
>
> So the operation of bits on the systray is not consistent. It would be
> easy to make it consistent for instance if you click (or was that double
> click) on a tray button used only for visual notification, it could
> bring up a box telling you there was nothing to do. That would be better
> than leaving the user wondering why it hasn't worked.
>
EVERY application in my system tray can be access a menu by right clicking
on the icon. Double clicking on a icon tends to bring up the program that is
running to a window. Why is that inconsistant? Most of the time if your
running an application in the systray, you won't be accessing the program
often.
> (interface hall of shame comment...)
> > He also makes the proclamation that seperate windows for folders and
> files
> > is the correct way of doing things. I disagree. A single, unified
> > interface is much easier to learn and use than seperate ones. Apple
> > understands this, which is why their finder has a unified interface.
> I have to disagree. Having 2 panes makes it much easier to navigate than
> a single unified one. And again, if Apple got it worong, it doesn't make
> it OK that MS got it wrong too.
>
It all comes down what you like or dislike. My friend likes to navigate 'My
Computer' with ONE folder, and I perfer multiply folders showing. So I
would say there is no 'right' answer to the question.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
