Author: pavel
Date: 19:20:33 06/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2002 at 19:46:21, Russell Reagan wrote: >On June 15, 2002 at 19:06:53, Mike S. wrote: > >>Generally, I find it a pain that there are so many Windows versions. This is not >>very useful. I.e., one version offers SMP support but some games or chess >>programs won't run, and vice versa... It should be possible to make ONE Windows >>version which includes anything of that and be supported by anybody. > >How would Micro$oft get you to keep paying them money if they didn't release >another OS every year or two? :) > >God forbid them create a single OS that can do just about anything, and do it >fast, secure, and stable. Only a group without financial factors as their #1 >priority could create such a product. > >I think it's similar to how writers for TV shows put out a "less than their >best" product. I've heard it said before that the writers intentionally do not >write their best stuff because of various reasons (not all of which made much >sense). But the main idea is to not give you something that you'll have and be >content with. They want to keep you coming back for more. So basically all >Microsoft does is use you, to put it bluntly. > >I see no reason why Microsoft couldn't or shouldn't create a single OS, call it >Windows, and make it fast, stable, and secure, with all of the bells and >whistles that anyone could ever want. Just because they're greedy doesn't mean >they're without creativity and skill to make a good solid product. It would be >very simple to add in custom installs for a single user home machine, a server >machine, etc. And I keep hearing that MS is going to get rid of the command line >in Windows, which is about the most ridiculous thing ever, since you can be >about 12 times as efficient when working from a command line. I guess that's the >reason Unix sys admins get paid about twice as much as Windows sys admins. > >(...the rant ceases) > >Russell I dont know if any of guys have seen the offocial next generation .net OS from MS. One of my professor is a beta-tester, who is also writing a book on this OS, I had the pleasure to see it last month on his laptop. Its not just yet another MS OS, its a whole lot differant, nothing like we are used to see from MS. Its beautiful, not like the default look of XP which is ugly. IMO if you are a win 95/98 user there is a very good reason to upgrade your OS to win2k, if you are win2k user, not need to get XP. Even though I use XP, win2k is by far my favourite MS-OS. I also use SuSe Linux currently. cheers, pavs
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.