Bob George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
}- Do you honestly, truly feel that anything with the name
}- Microsoft on it is useless?
Yes, oh yes, I honestly do. And I think the poorest software
written comes right out of Redmond Washington. It is one of the
biggest, most blatant consumer rip-offs in the history of the US
and the world. THERE ARE NO, LET ME REPEAT *NO* MICRO$OFT
PRODUCTS ON MY MACHINE. I run DR-OpenDOS, freeware and shareware
written for DOS. I get all my work done and needs taken care of
just fine with no help from Micro$oft.
And just another interesting little point to ponder. Every
"power user" I know that left DOS for Windows has gone back to
DOS on their home machines. And some of these people have the
very latest, hottest iron. And this includes one-time rabidly
devoted Windows fans.
}- Isn't the very DOS you love at least largely based on the
}- product Microsoft sold (even if it had its origins elsewhere)?
The Micro$oft version of DOS is a direct rip-off of CPM which was
a Unix-ish OS. As far as most OS's still in use today, DOS is
the mother and Unix is the grandmother. And in many, many, more
ways than one DOS is the matrix. Windows is nothing but a huge,
God-awful messy, overlay on top of DOS. My son, who knows much
more about the actual code than I do said, "I have never seen
such a precarious house of cards as Windows 9x."
}- For a useless and poor tool, a lot of work still manages to
}- get done. People aren't COMPLETE idiots. Windows didn't catch
}- on until it at least made a reasonable leap towards usability
}- and stability (let the lawyers argue what "reasonable" means).
Hmmmm. I know a lot of people who work in the field, and that's
not what I hear from them. More and more people I know who have
large networks to manage are switching to Linux. My son recently
switched several of his servers at work to Linix. Just the other
day he told me that they had yet to need a reboot where the
Windows and NT servers needed rebooting every few days. They
couldn't afford all the downtime. I'm no fan of Linux, it's not
a single-user-single-tasking OS, but now when people ask me what
I recommend for networks I prescribe Linux, a bottle of Excedrin,
a box of tissues, and a fifth of tequila if all else fails.
Not to mention my own experience with Windows. I tried it for
approximately 6 months, and it was a God-awful mess. Nothing
helped: more memory, faster processor, etc, and etc. Not to
mention the huge footprint on the HD. I went back to DOS and am
very glad I did.
}- Don't get me wrong folks: I was a DOS user back when it was
}- v3.3 running on an Apple II+. I resisted ProDOS, resisted IBM
^^^^^^^^^
This explains it, you've been point and drool, excuse me, point
and click from the beginning. Apple never let the user get their
hands on the OS, system config, etc so of course this doesn't
bother you. It bothers me, and most DOS users I know. Some of
us are not afraid, in fact we enjoy getting right down in the
guts of the system.
Boanne
--
FROM: Over the hills and far away...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A Dinosaurs Garden (collection of DOS links and files)
http://www.jdreece.com/dinosaur/dg.htm
*Trust your technologist.
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.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
