From: earnie_boyd AT hotmail DOT com (Earnie Boyd) Subject: RE: Win 95 Console Stuff... 5 Nov 1997 05:54:11 -0800 Message-ID: <19971105130910.6634.qmail.cygnus.gnu-win32@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain To: ErnieC AT ix DOT netcom DOT com Cc: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Ernie, You could also join the freedows team. From the web pages they are looking for qualified volunteers. see http://www.freedows.org There is also a freedos. They even already have a download ready. see http://www.freedos.org. - \\||// ---o0O0--Earnie--0O0o---- -earnie_boyd AT hotmail DOT com- ------ooo0O--O0ooo------- >From: "Ernest Clayton Cordell, Jr." >To: "'jeffdb AT netzone DOT com'" >Cc: "gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com" >Subject: RE: Win 95 Console Stuff... >Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:20:30 -0500 > >Mikey & al., > I apologize first for straying a bit from the central theme of console >concerns. While I understand Sergei's position and its merit as a >technical recommendation, I tend to agree that some sort of recompense >would seem to be in order from the producers of this "Windows operating >system." > I can't defend this position as passionately or as eloquently, but it does >seem that an incomplete product has been foisted on an unsuspecting >marketplace; it makes me wonder what the requirements are for a class >action suit. The product is so bad that the producers have all but >abandoned it, lending probably only the legal minimum in support. > While it is easy to muse over the availability of other choices, many of >us as developers had to respond to an opinion among our clients that >"nobody was ever fired for choosing Big Blue." Microsoft has been making >the "prepackaged choice" in operating systems for small computers (largely >IBM and compatibles) since my first involvement with them, more than twenty >years ago. > Realistically, I find great fault with the choice of "flash" over >"function" in the window-driven philosophy, but PC DOS 1.0 with all of its >bugs was vastly superior to CP/M (IBM's original choice), and DOS 2.0 >included lessons learned from the building of XENIX. Bill Gates was >impressed by UNIX features and _until_ considerable _USER_ flurry over the >"widgets and gadgets" of an operating system rather than emphasis upon >reliable functions, things seemed to be headed in the UNIX direction. > In terms of "functional evolution," we can see leaps between PC DOS and MS >DOS 2.0 and from later versions of DOS towards Win 3.11 -- but the launch >of Windows 95 strikes me as a bungled overcommitment from someone who had >no appreciation for the ambitiousness of the technical undertaking. > On the heels of the Win9x series that was produced too fast and released >too early, it does seem a little much to accept a remedy that not only >involves greater capital outlay for software, but for hardware acquisition >to support increased memory requirements. While it is easy for a casual >user to say "Oh, stop whining -- just spring for NT and an upgrade," I just >came from a shop that will have to get licenses and upgrades for 200 >machines just to run a package that is central to operation of the >business; I'm sure there are worse horror stories out there. > In short, I don't think we can blame Microsoft for responding to market >forces, but neither should we be penalized for the obvious planning errors >in their production schedules. > I feel sorry for the poor kids who had to crank this stuff out while the >rest of their lives went to pieces. > Having put in my 37 cents, I'll shut up for another few months, >Ernie >---------- >From: Mikey >Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 5:18 AM >To: Sergey Okhapkin >Cc: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com >Subject: Re: Win 95 Console Stuff... > >You want me to give MORE money to MS, >when they haven't even paid for all the >aggravation they caused me with this >95 piece of junk NO WAY!!! >(and the win3.0, win3.1, win3.11, and dos junk) > >The only reason I'm working on this stuff in >the first place is to try and keep them from >getting money from my brother programmers, and I >for vc++ which SHOULD be provided with the OS. > >On Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:41:24 +0300, you wrote: > >>Jason M. Felice wrote: >>> As we all know, Win95's console support *sucks* -- it is slow as hell. >>> I've been thinking about ways to fix it. There are three ways that I >can >>> think of: >>> >>> 1) Support for DOS (16 bit, DJGPP) isn't slow at all. It's just the >Win32 >>> >>> 2) DirectX allows direct access to the graphics hardware, including text >>> >>> 3) We could write a VXD that would allow aware applications to write >> >>4) We can run Windows NT and forget about Nightmare'95 :-) >> >>-- >>Sergey Okhapkin, http://www.lexa.ru/sos >>Moscow, Russia >>Looking for a job. >> >> >>- >>For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to >>"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help". >> > >(jeffdbREMOVETHIS AT netzone DOT com) >delete REMOVETHIS from the above to reply > Mikey >- >For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to >"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help". > > >- >For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to >"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help". > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".