I saw this on an OS/2 mail list posting and thought SurvPCers might enjoy it
too.
===========================================================================
>>: Richard Bonner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>>
>>: > *** Everyone has not abandoned DOS. It's far more efficient and
>>: > faster than Windows. Many still use it.
>>
>>: Yeah? Ever try restructuring your directory tree with DOS?
>>: Oh, sure it can be done. But you can't do it effeciently or faster,
>>even
>>: though DOS has less overhead, and actually can do the task faster.
>>
>>*** I don't often have need for directory restructuring, but I often
>>need to place files in various directories and then have to sort & move
>>them later. I have written several batch files that tell DOS to search
>>for
>>certain files and if found, move them to the appropriate directory. This
>>is done without that annoying desk rodent and its accompanying point &
>>click tedium. Much faster and simpler.
>>
>> I should have been more descriptive with my "efficient and faster"
>>comment. I meant that DOS takes up less room than the equivalent Windows
>>(or any GUI operating system), thus it is less of a resource hog and is
>>indeed more efficient and faster. Of course, the down side is that DOS
>>has
>>a much slower learning curve compared to Windows, but once learned, it's
>>much quicker to directly access your work than having multiple point &
>>click operations placed between you and the task at hand.
>>
>>
>>: I guess you don't quite grasp the advantage of 32 bit software.
>>: A 32-bit processor gets pretty inefficient processing 16 bit code, not
>>to
>>: mention 16 bit code does not
>>: have the extra instructions available. Did it ever dawn on you that
>>32-bit
>>: applications blow the shit out
>>: of 16 bit applications, that is why people have left the shit for
>>people
>>who
>>: can't tell the difference?
>>
>>*** I am not against 32-bit applications, just in their inherent
>>slowness. The more bits used, the more processing required; and it's not
>>even that. I would use Windows if there was a way to bypass all the menus
>>and use a direct command line.
>>
>> An analogy would be television remotes: Let's say you are on channel 3
>>and wish to go to channel 29. With the Windows remote you must first
>>push a button to get a menu of channels, then push (or at
>>least scroll past) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
>>19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and finally to 29. All that the
>>DOS
>>remote requires is to push "29".
>>
>> Another analogy is the resturant: In a Windows resturant you are not
>>allowed to speak to the waiter. You go in, sit down and the waiter places
>>a menu in front of you on which there are 3 images: one of breakfast, one
>>of lunch, and one of supper. It's noon time so you place your finger at
>>the top of the menu where you must run it past breakfast to get to the
>>"lunch" picture. You tap it twice.
>>
>> At this point the waiter opens a lunch menu and places it on top of
>>the first. You place your finger at the top of that menu and run it past
>>all the stuff you don't want until you get to say, "Hamburger". You tap
>>twice.
>>
>> At this point the waiter opens another menu and places it on top of
>>the first two. This one has everything that one might want on the
>>burger. You place your finger at the top of the menu and run it
>>past all the stuff you don't want until you get to say, "Cheese". You
>>tap twice. You then run your finger past some more stuff you don't want
>>and tap on "Relish". You tap some more to signal the waiter that you have
>>finished selecting.
>>
>> At this point, the waiter removes the third menu and you notice that
>>there is a picture at the bottom of the second menu representing
>>beverages. You tap on it and the waiter places a mini menu with various
>>beverages on top of the second menu. You place your finger at the top of
>>this menu and run it past all the stuff you don't want until you get to
>>say, "Pop". You tap on it and yet another menu is placed on top of the
>>beverage menu showing the various brands of soft drinks available. You
>>place your finger at the top of this menu and run it past all the stuff
>>you don't want until you get to say, "Pepsi". Now, yet another menu is
>>placed on top of this one with pictures showing the various sizes. You
>>place your finger at the top of this menu and run it past all the sizes
>>you don't want until you get to say, "Large".
>>
>> You then finally tap on the waiter who folds & removes the table full
>>of menus, and you get your order.
>>
>> Now in the DOS resturant, all you do is walk in and say to the waiter
>>"Chesseburger with relish and a large Pepsi."
>>
>> THAT'S why I hate Windows!!
>>
>>
>> : Well the sun is shining on your butt crack now.
>>
>>*** Hmmm, well I always wear clothes when I'm in sunlight, so the
>>above doesn't apply to me. (-:
>>
>>
>>: > That aside, Windows was supossed to be backward compatible. 16-bit
>>apps
>>: > should not hang or crash a properly designed system. One should not
>>be
>>: > forced to give up perfectly good older programs that do just as a
>>person
>>: > wants, to buy new ones and line Microsoft's pockets. That is part of
>>the
>>: > reason the are being sued by consumer groups in the U.S.
>>
>>: No it is not part of the reason. The only reason is unfair trade
>>practices
>>: that keep competitors from gaining access to markets. Nice wish though.
>>
>>*** Oh, that was the more recent lawsuit. I'm talking about the one
>>from a few years ago that was against the Microsoft notion that would
>>force
>>consumers to throw out their present computers and purchase new ones
>>along
>>with new software. The Microsoft philosophy is to get people using, and
>>dependent on, one version of their hard/software, then discontinue it,
>>refuse to support it, and make people buy the same thing all over again
>>except in a more tedious format. They have already tried to pull that
>>with
>>DOS & Windows 1 - 3, and will it soon happen with Windows 4 (WIN 95).
>>This
>>is what that lawsuit was about.
>>
>>
>> : Yes, DOS is still around, and so is GEM, CP/M and other obsolete OSes.
>>: People still use Assembler too.
>>: But it is a spit in the ocean. There are no major software developers
>>making
>>: anything for DOS,
>>: and that is when you know a product is dead, when nobody is developing
>>for
>>: it.
>>
>>*** Many DOS products are still being developed. They simply are not
>>Microsoft products.
>>
>>
>>: And good thing to, since DOS is crap.
>>: Always was, always will be.
>>
>>*** I can only assume from this statement that you never fully learned
>>to
>>use DOS. On the surface with the basic commands, it may seem like crap,
>>but DOS can be programmed to do most any task. Yes, I agree it takes
>>learning, just as it takes schooling to learn to write a sentence. But
>>once one knows how, one never returns to pre-school picture pointing.
>>
>>
>>: > Microsoft's planned obsolescence is just plain morally wrong.
>>
>>: It has more to do with demand for new and better, than obsolesence.
>>: Microsoft caters to the demand, progress plans the obsolesence.
>>
>>*** That is because Microsoft creates the demand by refusing to support
>>its previously loyal customers whom purchased MS products. If there are
>>only Windows products, what else is the public going to buy?
>>
>> I, for one, do not support this kind of behaviour and no longer
>>purchase
>>MS products.
>>
>>Richard
============================================================================
Regards,
Dale Mentzer
This mail written by a user of Arachne, the DOS Internet Client
WWWWW World Wide Web Without Windows
http://home.arachne.cz Arachne DOS Browser Home Page
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
