Re: [OT] How far have we come?
On Sun, 06 May 2001, Gerardo wrote:
> DOS (and any serious OS) can do anything Windows does, because Windows is a
> DOS program. Micrsoft thought up the Windows graphical interface as a
> wrapper for individual programs, only after their spectacular failure with
> dosshell.exe (remember DOS 4.0?). Yet dosshell came with both a text-based
> and a graphics mode. The first was no real advantage over the DOS command
> line, and those were the times of the Norton Commander and Xtree.
Correct. And most working programmers had their own text-mode windowing
routines, complete with listboxes, pop-up messages, menus, etc., the majority
of which worked and looked better than Microsoft's efforts.
All of which made Microsoft look amateurish, and worse than that, irrelevant.
Once you had a copy of DOS and a programming language, you could
create useful, saleable programs. Microsoft was effectively out of the
cash flow loop. They couldn't stand that.
> Have we gained anything? Yes and no. Yes, because anything that gives you
> more power actually gives you the option to use it as you see fit; ....
Actually, I think users have lost a certain amount of productivity, especially
if they use programs that adhere to the proper Windows conventions, because
they _can't_ use them as they see fit.
I've had several clients ask for Windows programs that could be operated
entirely from the keyboard, just like the old dos programs they were used
to using. Why? Because they found using the mouse, keyboard, and juggling
paperwork required more hands than they were born with, and slowed down their
work.
If you could get Bill Gates to pay back $1 for every hour lost to Windows
inefficiencies and crashes, he wouldn't be the richest man in the world. If he
paid back another $1 for every hour spent playing games on those office
computers, he'd be broke ;)
> So, turn your spyglass around. It's not that Windows should improve
> anything. Windows is just a tool, a medium. ...
Yes, but suppose you were a landscaper, and everyone who wanted you
to plant a petunia insisted that you bring a bulldozer to do the job.
Bulldozer costs a lot more than a shovel.
Bulldozer is a lot more difficult to operate.
Bulldozer uses a lot of fuel and is subject to expensive breakdowns.
Bulldozer makes a mess of the yard, which you're responsible for cleaning up.
So, the price of planting that petunia just went up to $5,000
Is it not true that the only winner in this deal is the maker of the bull-
erm... dozer.? ;)
Regards,
Irv
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
