Author: Will Willis
Date: 08:30:10 12/05/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 1997 at 17:24:20, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>Ok, you won.
>
>But - as I said: when I want to start a DOS-program, I run windows again
>with f8
>and decide to choose the dos-prompt. I get a NORMAL himem.sys, normal
>autoexec.bat with himem.sys on and no-ems.
>This gives enough memory for any chess program.
>If I want to get a /x program, I do it the same way, but this time
>bypass the 2 lines with the memory-devices. THIS IS ALL. No boot disk,
>no editing a config/autoexec-file, very easy.
>And if I would write a menue in the config.sys, it could be much
>easier...
I undertstand what you're saying, and you're right, for us techies
what your describing is a no-brainer operation. For the typical end user
that might as well be rocket science.
>I will no longer defend this DOS. DOS is also a Microsoft product. The
>problem with monopols (and Microsoft HAS a monopol) that they do not
>allow other companies to produce better products.
>No other company had the chance to make it better.
>They were beaten before their approaches were tried out.
What about IBM PC-DOS? Novell DR-DOS? It's not Microsoft's fault these
companies lacked the vision to do something besides try to imitate
MSDOS. As someone else posted, why not a 32-bit DOS? IBM put it's eggs
in their OS/2 basket to compete with Windows but it ran horribly on the
typical hardware most end users had compared to Windows. I don't think
the loyalty to Microsoft is really there, most people I know have a
strong distrust of them, and would give another vendor's product a
chance, if it could compete against DOS/Windows in terms of usability,
support, and availability of apps.
>
>Imagine all car-companies would have no own products but MERCEDES would
>be the big boss and GM, BMW, PORSCHE, Volkswagen, FIAT, ... would only
>deliver engines to MERCEDES.
>All cars you could drive would be MERCEDES-clones. I would die of
>boredom.
I think having chess engines interchangeable is a good thing. These
days it is more than playing strength which makes or breaks a program.
Most average cars you're going to buy (say a regular old American 4-door
sedan) is going to have similar performance. So why buy a Cavalier over
a Taurus over a Saturn and so on... why buy one sports utility vehicle
over another? The all do basicaly the same thing in terms of performance
(engine strength). The answer is features and looks. Just like program
features and the interface sets one chess program apart from another. I
don't want to start an argument over the differencs in chess engines, I
understand that there are differences and the programs do not play the
exact same game of chess. My point though is that in terms of playing
strength they are in the ballpark with each other. What's wrong with
owning Fritz and being able to plugin a diffent engine for a different
style of play? I don't think that makes the Fritz program features and
interface the standard anymore than dropping a Corvette or Porsche or
Ferrari engine into my Saturn would that make me not want to buy the
real full blown Porsche or whatever. Genius or Rebel or Fritz or CSTal
or M-Chess or whatever is going to sell based on more than it's engine,
it will also sell based on what it offers the customer in terms of GUI,
database options, training features, and all of the other stuff KK is
always telling us about. So I don't think there is too much danger of
Fritz taking over the market because you can plug other engines into it.
<--Will->
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.