Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 15:16:02 08/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 2004 at 13:41:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 10, 2004 at 12:58:22, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On August 10, 2004 at 02:38:33, Peter Skinner wrote: >> >>>... >>> >>>I am hardly a "Windows Guru" either, but I am learning the more technical >>>aspects of the operating system as a result of using Linux. When configuring >>>drivers, desktops, and application in Linux, learning the scripting value in >>>Windows almost seems required. It is actually 200 times easier believe it or >>>not. >> >>The difference is probably due to the fact that I am not "configuring drivers, >>desktops, and application" in Windows. Strange, but it just works. >> >>Thanks, >>Eugene >> >>>Peter > > >I would agree, within limits. Windows 95/98/ME were pieces of trash that >crashed more than they ran. Windows NT (and its derivatives) have been >rock-solid here (including XP). Our windows labs have been using NT/2000/XP >since they were distributed and our only problems have been the occasional >virus-related gaffe here and there... For Windows 95/98/ME priorities were different. Backwards compatibility was much more important than stability. The user should be able to run his old DOS TSR program (do you remember those animals?) or old program that access any hardware directly. With those requirements there were no way to reliably isolate processes from hardware or from each other. Also those Windows should be able to run GUI interface on PCs with limited resources. You may not like those decisions but you should understand why they were made. Thanks, Eugene
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.