Tom, You may have noticed how the amount of support has diminished and the cost of support has increased. I can't even imagine attempting to support something on the scale of Windows running on almost any mish-mashed hardware. Maybe the bigger rejoicing is the ability to say "Try upgrading, maybe that will fix your problems." Many times it is a clean install that does the trick. But what a cost to the user to do a clean install. I bought a whole new laptop (Sony) to have Win2K pre-installed with all drivers, etc working rather than attempt to upgrade my older HP laptop to run Win2K. Too many things would cease to work correctly, especiallly on a laptop.
Bruce Friday, November 09, 2001, 11:25:20 AM, you wrote: a> Bruce, a> One other thought I had. a> On Microsoft's part, while maybe not a deliberate *conspiracy*, but surely a a> deliberate act, operating systems are written with little attempt to a> optimize efficiency, with the knowledge that they will require new hardware. a> New hardware will necessarily come with the new operating system a> pre-installed. a> I'm sure hardware makers (the fat cats there) rejoice at the new OS releases a> as much as the software fat cats. a> Is it bad? Well it's kept the economy going for a long time. a> Is it good? Depends who you are. a> Tom C. a> ----- Original Message ----- a> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a> To: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 11:08 AM a> Subject: Re[2]: Windows XP - Scary! (Was=3 A OT: A computer question...) >> aimcompute, >> >> I've been writing code for 20 years and have never encountered a >> company requiring the code to be ineffecient. On the contrary, >> programmers are quite capable, without being told, to write >> ineffecient code. Most commonly are deadlines, which don't allow the >> code to be optimized. The other big problem is that code is very >> heavily layered, such that most of the layers were not written by the >> programmer trying to do the optimization. They are many times viewed >> as black boxes. >> >> In the old days, hardware was more expensive than software >> development, so you had to be very careful to not overtax the >> hardware. Today, hardware is quite cheap, so many just rely on >> hardware upgrades to make up for ineffecient code. >> >> Conspiracy? No. >> Something else (attitude, economics, ineptitude)? Yes! >> >> For the ultimate in inefficiency, try checkout out the Palm OS world >> to the PocketPC world. PocketPC tries to overcome in hardware, great >> waste and inefficiency in software. It is a real eye opener. >> >> >> Bruce Dayton >> >> >> >> Friday, November 09, 2001, 9:54:53 AM, you wrote: >> >> a> Do you know better? >> >> a> I've worked with some commercial software products where when you look a> at >> a> the internals, a program may be doing something thousands of times that a> it >> a> only needed to do once. Or it's not filtering data at the appropriate >> a> places and hence tablizing tens of thousands of records and moving them a> all >> a> over the place. >> >> a> As time goes by, data volume grows, and performance nose dives. Time a> to >> a> upgrade the hardware! >> >> a> Suspicious that the software and hardware companies always "partner" to >> a> bring the best to corporate America and consumers. >> >> a> Tom C. >> >> a> ----- Original Message ----- >> a> From: "Kent Gittings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> a> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> a> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 7:36 AM >> a> Subject: RE: Windows XP - Scary! (Was=3 A OT: A computer question...) >> >> >> >> It also depends on the speed of the PC. If I didn't know better I a> suspect >> >> that Microsoft put in some instability code tied to a timing loop that >> a> makes >> >> it a little shaky the slower the machine you put it on. Sort of a deal a> to >> >> make people buy faster PC's. >> >> Kent Gittings >> a> - >> a> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, >> a> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to >> a> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . >> - >> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, >> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to >> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . a> - a> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, a> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to a> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
