On 2016/02/04 3:30 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> You conclusion about the Windows design goals are correct.
>
> Hardware Destroyer (power saving) was invented for the same reason (to 
> maximize the rate of hardware failure through imposition of unnecessary 
> thermal and mechanical stresses on all system components, causing early 
> failure and increasing profits due to replacement by consumers).
>
> Microsoft optimizes for "maximum busyness" of the CPU and I/O channels. and 
> "minimum busyness" of RAM and other cache's.
>
> This is, of course, 100% opposite of the correct way to design a computer 
> system.  However, it is Microsoft and no one (except a fanbois) ever claimed 
> they possessed any common (or other) sense whatsoever.

Keith, it's very unlike me to get into opinion-based parlance but I feel 
I have to say that while I agree with you mostly, this continuous MS 
hate-speech is getting somewhat repetitive and, dare I say, rather 
boring (in stark contrast to the other things you write).  I mean any 
time an arguer has to resort to calling opposing views "fanboyism", 
perhaps a blind-spot has appeared?

I'm not even disagreeing with you, excepting to say that the value that 
Linux has added to my life is immense, but so is the value MS and Apple 
gui-jungles added to the lives of my Mother and the artists at our 
offices for whom a CLI represents an immeasurable abyss.
Sure they do stuff wrong and sometimes downright laughable under the 
auspices of "improving the user-experience", but their explicit goal has 
never been to destroy hardware. (One does of course see some of what 
they do mess with hardware [or efficient computing in general], but that 
is a long way off suggesting intent/malevolence).

I'm not suggesting you stop either (since it isn't my place nor my 
goal), but may I simply intimate that, were you to dial it down a tad 
from "Evangelist" to simply "Educator", it would render all your posts 
brilliant and unboring to me.


Reply via email to