Mail Archives: opendos/2001/02/22/22:10:17
Thanks, I say anybody can use DOS, certainly with a little help to create
DOS menus with batch programing. But still, my comments were only based
on this message base, to discuss DOS, not who is able to use it. I
assumed this to be a technical message base on DOS, Open or DR or related.
The Best To You & Your's,
Ross ARR
ico p046715b AT pb DOT seflin DOT org
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, da Silva, Joe wrote:
> This is crap. Well, at least in part ...
>
> Mere mortals would NEVER be able to get by with Windoze,
> if not for people like us "holding their hand" and "replacing
> panes of glass" (Windoze is fragile!!!) for them!
>
> Mere mortals are just as capable of using DOS as Windoze,
> particularly with any of a number of menu programs, etc.
> Just give them some motivation, like a game, and watch
> how quickly they pick it up!!! They have merely been mislead
> by Gates into thinking they have ANY chance of coping with
> this Windoze crap by themselves. I still remember the
> disgraceful Windoze ads where an oldish secretary, returning
> to work after a 5 year break, and never having touched a
> computer before, goes for a job interview. While left alone
> for a few minutes, she accidentally touches the mouse,
> starts experimenting, and within a few minutes is creating
> spreadsheets and graphs and the like! What complete, utter,
> unmitigated crap!!! This is the sort of total misrepresentation
> that Gates used to convince the public and company
> executives (who are quite computer illiterate, yet make all
> the decisions on IT policy!) that with Windoze, anybody
> can use a computer! Total BS!!! ...
>
> There, I feel better now! ... <g>
>
> I for one, don't "Use Windoze but dabble in DOS" ... rather
> I use Windoze only out of necessity - for most things I prefer
> DOS - it's cleaner, more efficient, and more transparent!
>
> Joe.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Webb [SMTP:tawebb AT earthlink DOT net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 February 2001 5:36
> > To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
> > Subject: Re: DOS v. Windooozz
> >
> > Windoze was the natural result of a need to "dumb down" computer use so
> > that mere mortals could get the benefits. We have Apple and MicroSoft to
> > thank for the massive growth in the microcomputer industry. Without the
> > "consumerization" of the technology, we would still be running CP/M on
> > $8000 8-bit machines. (I was there, and believe me, those were not the
> > "good old days")
> >
> > If you want better tools, they are out there in the form of all the
> > flavors of unix, DR-DOS and the like. The reason Windoze has a virtual
> > lock on the world is that it is ->MARKETED<- big time and is
> > shrinkwrapped in an attractive package. Windoze is a perfect example of
> > the victory of style and cosmetics over content, but it and systems like
> > it will live forever because most of the buying population buys style
> > and content, not substance. Personally, I can't afford the time spent in
> > keeping MicroSoft stuff running cleanly. I use Linux/Xwindows with
> > StarOffice and it is bulletproof on an old Pentium 133. DR-DOS and
> > Arachne are a great combination for 486 and older machines, and Arachne
> > gives you a gui desktop for launching other DOS applications. We are
> > using DR-DOS and Arachne as the default platform for computers we run
> > through the recycling operation, and have had excellent luck with it.
> >
> > The sense I am getting from this thread is that there are a lot of
> > people running Windoze that are dabbling in DOS, but staying firmly
> > entrenched in Windoze. My own experience has been that your experience
> > would be much more pleasant and enriching if you would get an old
> > clunker 486 for $25-$50 and put DR-DOS on it by itself. Bill G never has
> > played well with the other kids, and there's little reason to believe he
> > ever will.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Webb
> > Come visit at http://wordwonder.com
>
- Raw text -