On 4 Apr 2004 at 23:58, Roy wood wrote: (...) > If the boot program was pre written they would have no problem but I > have direct experience that even on the QL basic level some people > cannot write BOOT files,
I wasn't suggesting that the users write the boot file themselves. (....) > I have no real knowledge of the code involved but I am fairly sure that > the programs provided by the M$ O/S are not loaded on startup just set > up to be called when needed. If you change the response to the file > extensions, you can change the programs called. In Windoze it is very > easy. You mean that the user who can't change a line in a boot file could do this? And, seeing all the DLLs loaded at startup, I doubt that the programs are just "set up" to start executing... The fact often is that you can't completely remove them from the OS, because the OS then won't work anymore. (....) > But Windoze is now cheaper than it was when they did not have this stuff > installed. And how much cheaper it would be if it weren't? > You see my main argument here is that you need to present > people with a working system at the start. We are used to buying all the > extra stuff we need but today's computer user is shocked when he turns > on a machine and it cannot do any of the normal functions like playing > CDs, showing DVDs etc. You may disagree with it in principle but that is > the way things are in the PC world and I actually think it is right. Well, then let the user buy an explicit multimedia machine. (...) > (...) Given a programmer more > power and storage space and he will use it. If the user buys new > hardware he expects better functionality so the programmer works harder > to give him that. You could not run SMSQ/E on a Trump card for instance. That is simple because the OS has so much more functionality that is doesn't fit in the machine. But this functionality is OS functionality, not more user programs. > It is called feedback and it keeps the system alive and moving. Ours is > static. I was very disappointed that the Q40 did not jolt the software > side of the QL scene into some action but it has, at last, started to > respond to the new colours and facilities and I hope that it may > continue to revive. No argument from me, here, though this is not the point of the discussion - we do need more progs, but do we need to integrate them into the OS? > >And finally, try eradicating IE from a windows computer, and you will see > >that it is FAR from easy. > Because it has become part of the system in the way the P.E. is part of > SMSQ/E. I would be happier about this if I.E. was a little more stable > but it has got better. But that's the hole poin tof this discussion, isn't it? WHY should an internet browser become part of the system? For me, this is a perfectly identifiable separate application. The pointer environment is not. Wolfgang _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
