Hallo Marck,
On Saturday, October 30, 1999, 7:22:24 PM (GMT+0800), Marck D. Pearlstone wrote:
>>> Well, the OS is software in my vocabulary, so you are actually
>>> saying you agree with me? :-))))
SL>> No, OS does not equal software. The same software on 6 different
SL>> OSs could yield 6 different levels of performance based on the OS.
SL>> Software runs on an OS.
MDP> Hmm. By strict definition, of course the OS is software -
MDP> I'm just engaging in some terminological pedantry. Ignore me. You know
MDP> it makes sense. ;-)
I think Steve and I were talking about different things here, as the
OS alone does not do much; you need applications. ;-)
>>> I agree with you here. But that does not prevent me from being
>>> frustrated at times. Even in Windows, a wrong click and I lost my
>>> card game.
SL>> It worked as expected. For me I would be frustrated at *me*.
MDP> Very true! Computers are not the source of frustration. It is an
MDP> individual's own ineptitude that provides it.
You are both right, but still I am human and I get frustrated when the
programme does something else than I want it to do. See my other mail.
SL>> Now, would I want the computer to somehow have programming to try
SL>> to second guess me in this regard? No. Never, ever, ever, EVER,
SL>> would I want that. Sure, I lost an hour of headbanging but that
MDP> I couldn't agree more. Actually, I could. Okay. I agree more.
I agree with you guys here, absolutely. Still, the situation would
have been called "frustrating" for me. It was such a simple thing, hey
we all know this: the moment I read that the thing didn't print, I
thought of course, take the redirect out. It's easy for an oputsider
to see; pbasically it is the same thing as the "missing semicolon"
example I brought up earlier in this threat. I guess we only have
different definition of "frustrating". ;-)
>>> That *would* be unreasonable, but people don't expect that. People
>>> don't expect that any new member of mankind can go to toilet
>>> without training.
SL>> Incorrect, they do expect to use a computer with no training at
SL>> all. Just look at the number of computer stores that boast that
SL>> you can take their computer home, plug it in and turn it on.
SL>> Viola', it works!
MDP> Completely and utterly true. It *is* a just small percentage of the
MDP> millions of computer owners and users that have actually put any
MDP> effort or time into training, let alone bothered to RTFM!
I disagree with you very much. You live in the computer world, both of
you, and don't see what is going on "out here". In our office, we
have two kinds of regular training for the staff: 1.) Sales Training,
2.) Computer Training (which is centered around MS Office <urrg>). No
secretary will be employed unless she has "sufficient" computer
knowledge, and computer schools open up like crazy. And on it goes.
SL>> Computers are *NOT* complicated. Women, now that is a complicated
SL>> piece of equipment!
MDP> ROFLOL <sigh>
<speechless> <g>
--
Cheers,
Thomas mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message reply created with The Bat! 1.36
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998
using an Intel Celeron 366 Mhz, 128MB RAM
