"Day Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > Linux is superb for networks and multi-users. but for > a single user at his own machine, linux adds overhead > that makes all of the routine tasks on that same > hardware slower. The 'drag and drop' is intuitively > simple, but I am not so stupid that I cannot figure > out how to run a scrollbar tool like DC.com. > > With DC, I can type the first letter of the file name > and it hops down to those files which start with that > letter. a couple down/arrow keys later, the file is > hilighted, and F1 copies it to the destination. This > saves a couple seconds or more with every step of the > file management process, and multiplied by the amount > of time spend dragging the mouse around add up to a > lot of inconvenience.
You keep picking the same silly examples over and over again, and making them out to be some serious shortcoming of Linux. You're focusing on the specific app that YOU prefer for a task, and ignoring the fact that the TASK is what's important. What EXACTLY is it that you do with the system? Copy files, organize directory structures, browse the web? Do you really spend the vast majority of your time in DOS staring at the DC screen? What ELSE do you do? Not the APP but the TASK. There are dozens of apps for BOTH operating systems that allow a user to accomplish basic tasks. Surprise, surprise, keystrokes vary among them, and are a matter of personal preference. You may prefer WordStar, another Word Perfect. There's no "right" answer. It's the TASK that's accomplished that's important. I suspect there are alternatives for any common task on BOTH platforms. > And while Linux may do a long file download or whatever > in the background, when faced with that, an OCR scan, > or whatever, the home user can do what the office user > cannot: that is, go away from the computer. the home > user has no need to look like he is busy and productive > at the computer. That sort of offsets all your arguments about the efficiency of the interface, doesn't it? SO WHAT if a mouse drag takes a second or two longer. So WHAT if the app takes a few milliseconds to load? Not like you have to look busy, right? Sheesh. I don't know about you, but I value my personal time more than my work time. If an OCR scan were to take longer at work, that's part of the job and is built into the equation. At home, I'm trying to get something done on my own nickle. DOS or Linux, I don't want to sit around waiting longer than necessary. I go nuts sitting around waiting for a file to download before I can do anything else, and I despise just watching the drive churn doing floppy formats. > It is one of the reasons the SURVPC is still so damn > useful. If it takes 20 minutes rather than 5 to do some > task, that is no big deal. The home user has lots of > other things that need doing in the home during that > time. Maximizing the productivity of the computer dont > always maximize the productivity of a life. Sure, but then you get into the whole "16 bit registers are JUST right" when someone using that same argument suggests an 8 bit OS might be superior. An XT is an overcomplicated solution when you just need to bang out some text in an editor. An Apple II with 64KB RAM could do that, and ran far quieter. No noisy fan either. And you could still have a good chance of fixing the motherboard when something went wrong. But oh yeah, DOS and the i808x architecture are the ONLY "right" answer, aren't they? - Bob 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
