-=> Quoting Bob Lawrence to John Tserkezis <=-

Hello Bob,

 JT> Since I've cut down on my mail base, I only keep a full message
 JT> base on a few echos, and only keep the last month on all the
 JT> others, I've cut my nightly event from 20+ minutes to about 6
 JT> minutes. The archiving bit actually takes a bit of time though,
 JT> I *could* cheat, and not have all my mail packed like it is
 JT> now, but then I would end up with a million files in my
 JT> outbound instead of 10 average.

 BL> You're missing the point of what I'm saying. When you *use* a
 BL> computer program you interact with the interface. If you have to wait,
 BL> it's annoying, so the trick is to hide the stuff that takes a long
 BL> time either with other stuff that *unavoidably* takes a long time, or
 BL> put it where there is no interaction. If a computer has to process big
 BL> things, then it should do so unattended.

 That's what I'm doing now.  The mailer PC takes care of all the scanning,
tossing, sorting and whatnot.  If it takes a year, who cares?  I don't see how
long it takes.
 The only process I see take time is when I do my personal mail.  It chugs on
the mailbase for a short while, but I can put this in my nightly event, so
when I'm ready to read mail, it will have pre-packed bluewave packets ready for
me from the night before.  In that case, all I have to do is start my mail
reader only.

 Whoo hoo, *I* don't get affected by any time consuming processes.
But, the point I was trying to make, was the mailer pc *does* get affected.  It
takes longer to process mail, and therefor, users have a lesser chance to get
in.  At the moment this is no problem for me, and not likely to be either, but
on systems that process hugh amounts of mail, it *does* become an issue.
 
 JT> Fuck windows. Any of my apps that NEED windows will get trashed
 JT> now. I wash my hands of it all. I'm not going to let that gates
 JT> character decide what is best for me.

 BL> Good luck with 1% of the market...

 Fine, I'll just have to be content with not being part of the 99% of those
strapped in on the roller-coaster ride to nowhere.
 
 JT> Yeah, it's going to take me a while to move everything over,
 JT> and learing c++ might take most of my time, but at least I'll
 JT> confuse myself in style. :-) 

 BL> You have to learn C++ anyway, and I have,

 I started a while back, I spose I can pick up where I left off quickly, but
it'll be a while before I get to where I am with pascal at the moment.  It'll
be better for long term, even if it takes longer now.

 I just don't want to get into the situation of where the cost of learning a
new skill that help you long term, is too high to pay because of current
restraints.  Sorta like learning to touch-type.  I know some professional
programmers that type with three fingers, just because they can't afford the
time it takes to get up to speed with touch typing.
 I don't spew much code from here, it only comes out in drips and drabs, so
I'll have to bear with no real productive code till I get up to speed with C.

 BL> but I can't see any point in OS/2 or Unix.

 I can. Unix has been doing for over 15 years what Windows NT claims is
"new technology".

 BL> If Windows is ever replaced, it won't be with
 BL> something similar, just as Windows was nothing like DOS, and IMO it
 BL> will be hardware driven.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 If microsoft has anything to do with it, it will.  They write new apps knowing
the entry-level PC will be at a certain (higher) level.  Normally this is not
too much of a problem, but if you are in a large corporation, and you KNOW you
will have to upgrade your hardware **JUST** to run your **PRESENT** software at
the level intended by MS...
 You're not looking at a couple of hundred dollars for a motherboard upgrade
that you're going to do yourself in your bedroom you know, it's tens of
thousands of dollars, and then if you're big, even MORE money.

 TO KEEP DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW.
ROFL!  To keep doing what I'm doing now costs me fuck-all in upgrades.  Because
that's what it *really* costs.  You should only upgrade if the new system will
save you longer term, over the initial outlay costs.  For a
"home" type system,
the only consideration is dollar value.  There are no "faster machine means
better production" considerations.
 "Home" systems only cover a small part of the market though,

 My present employer uses MS access for their database, and has spent tens of
thousands of dollars on software alone.  And major changes to hardware simply
to make it faster.  Had they known to go another route, they would have a
blindly fast system with fully custom software that would do all they want
and more.
 They can't do that now, because they've spent too much going this route to
turn around and do it properly.

 Oops, microsoft has them by the balls now.  Just like everyone else.

 BL> Windows was not possible on an XT, NT is not
 BL> possible on anything but a Pentium... the next generation of computer
 BL> hardware will create its own software, probably owned by M$ or IBM.

 And I'll have to be content with upgrading only when *I* need to, not when
MS says I should...   Oh dear, how sad, I'll just have to learn to live with
myself.

John Tserkezis, Sydney, Oz. Fidonet: 3:712/610  Internet: jt{at}suburbia.com.au

... Efficiency is a highly developed form of laziness.
---