[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: OT: New low for Microsoft!



On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 03:11, Preston Crawford wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 22:13, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 05:42:21AM +0100, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
> > > It's at times like these, that I am greatly relieved I'm not a Windows
> > > user:
> > > http://www.genesis-x.nildram.co.uk/news/article00005.html
> > 
> > Yeah, sure would suck to have software designed to take capabilities of what
> > sounds like a pretty average machine three years from now. Oh, the humanity.
> 
> You're kidding, right? You're actually defending software bloat for the
> sake of software bloat? I run a PIII 800 I bought 3 years ago. Given the
> current needs of Open Source Software I can see myself using this
> machine for another 4 years. Easily. Is there something wrong with
> stretching your dollar for computer hardware or did I miss the memo that
> we must purchase new machines every other year? This machine works
> great. I do email, web, development, run a mySQL server, CVS server and
> an HTTP server on it and I have RAM and CPU cycles to spare. Even when
> I'm ripping CDs, burning CDs and watching DVDs. I don't need more power
> now and I'm already like 3 years behind the curve in terms of power. I
> can't imagine NEEDING the specs that this article describes. 
> 
> If I do, there's something fundamentally wrong with the software I'm
> running. Either that or the software better be balancing my checkbook,
> running my budget, setting up appointments for me, answering my voice
> mail and returning phone calls per my instructions and looking up all
> data I request via voice recognition. Oh, and it should carry on
> conversations with me if I'm bored. Meaning, this kind of power means
> the software better be doing a lot more than just bloating an already
> bloated OS and adding a few minor software enhancements. Otherwise, I
> don't see what Longhorn could do to justify these specs.
> 
> Preston
Really couldn't agree more. 

My real taste and learning about computers was with a 286-12 with 2Mb
RAM and 70MB total hard drive running ACAD and PCAD at about the same
speed as they run now. Yes there are more bells and whistles that rarely
get used. And yes the eye candy is nice, but, these old versions did
everything that really needed to be done. 

My point is this.
Bigger, prettier, faster(?), more more more --- spend spend spend
Why should I give my money to a (for lack of a usable word) sleazy
software monopoly?
-- 
jludwig <wralphie comcast net>



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]