Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:26:17 -0500 (EST) From: M Ross Subject: Re: udma-100 and some thoughts about dos To: opendos AT delorie DOT com In-Reply-To: <001501c09da2$b44d4700$0100007f@whitedragon> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: opendos AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, White Dragon wrote: > ... It is useless to build faster controllers if > internal mechs can't keep the pace. Obviously IMHO... Obviously, generations of subsystems do not always keep pace with each other. But where does anyone draw the line? And technology in computers changes rapidly. For the average user, upgrading often, to the latest, solves nothing. Does the system do as is required? The history of any open design, like the IBM PC, allows for hardware subsystem change-outs that may not always be usable immediately. Software alone has a track record of lagging, surging, lagging. But I prefer the open design, to a closed design. Apple MacIntosh is the example of a relatively closed design. While they still have the graphics software interface that works best in my opinion, they never seem to make a successful hardware system to support it. Sales of PC systems over Apple systems is the evidence I offer for my opinion. > Well, sadly i must agree that dos cannot strike and win against windows. ... > So i asked why they keept trying under windoz while they surrended after two > seconds under dos. Well, they said that clicking is not that difficult > as writing text commands... A lazy attitude those students have acquired, possibly due to a dumbing down system; not much of a future I see. Effective, efficient, reliable, tight software is not written in high level languages. It has always been written in assembly language, or @ least something like "C". Simple batch code in DOS is very simple to learn & use. But it does require effort. Have the game machine concepts worked against productivity? > I belive that even linux without xwindows can beat Microcrap. Future will be > lamer friendly... Sales hype, marketing, can sell or destroy. Especially in the consumer market. Serious business has learned, is taking a second look, will more than likely return to solid software, probably some form of UNIX. With or without graphical user interface. The Best To You & Your's, Ross ARR ico p046715b AT pb DOT seflin DOT org