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

Hello Bob,

 BL> Brentopn has a smart trick. He uses an "information" screen to
 BL> distract you.
 
 Sorta like '95 puts up that boring screen to hide the config.sys &
autoexec.bat?

 JT> therefor, users have a lesser chance to get in. At the moment
 JT> this is no problem for me, and not likely to be either, but on
 JT> systems that process hugh amounts of mail, it *does* become an
 JT> issue. 

 BL> Buy another computer and network them. My 486/50 cost $300 6 months
 BL> ago. Computers are getting to the mature-stage of development, and the
 BL> possibilities are quite exciting.
 
 I have five pooties on my desk at the momemt.  I was thinking of using the
386 to process the mail while the mailer handles the file/mail transfers only.
I couldn't be bothered really, the load on the mailer at the moment is rather
low, so I can't warrant an extra machine to take that (little) load.

 BL> Good luck with 1% of the market...
 
 JT> Fine, I'll just have to be content with not being part of the
 JT> 99% of those strapped in on the roller-coaster ride to nowhere.

 BL> I agree with that, but you still have to follow the market.

 I *left* the computer market to be able to go my own way.  Sheez, I'm not
going to run software I loath, especially now that I don't have too...

 BL> To me,
 BL> Windows has the "feel" of a dead technology being patched
together. It
 BL> needs to take a large step back towards simplicity, but that can only
 BL> be hardware driven, on at least a 5-year timescale. We're stuck with
 BL> Windows for a while yet.

 I don't understand.  I know what MS is trying to do with NT, which is have
a common OS where you can run the same software on different hardware.  That
was the whole point wasn't it- make software that is completely independant
of hardware?
 But then again, that goes against what MS have been doing in the past.  Like
having to upgraded to MSoffice for '95 when you "upgrade" to win95.  ROFL!

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

 BL> I hate to say it, knowing it'll set you off, but you have to get
 BL> comfortable with pointers to write in Windows, whether Pascal *or* C,
 BL> and once you do that, it doesn't matter which language you use (except
 BL> Pascal is easier to read and C writes really horny shorthand). 

 I can use pointers without stuffing around with windows.  I've only really
played a bit with pointers so far.  I was using them to point to dynamically
allocated memory after the main program loads.  It makes things a little more
difficult for me, but makes the software more flexible.

 JT> Sorta like learning to touch-type. I know some professional
 JT> programmers that type with three fingers, just because they
 JT> can't afford the time it takes to get up to speed with touch
 JT> typing.

 BL> I've written a million words on three fingers, I can do 40 wpm, but
 BL> I take your point.

 I used to type about 30wpm with three fingers.  Now I do about 60, and could
go faster if my hand-eye co-ordination was better.  I can't even wank proper.
 There is no way I would have been able to do 60wpm with three fingers, not
even if I used my dick as the third finger.

 BL> I don't know if you're like me, but I can't learn anything unless I
 BL> have a need. It just keeps sliding off. That's where Delphi and
 BL> Windows is such a sneaky way into pointers and objects. For a minimum
 BL> amount of work you see results on the screen, it's fun... and then
 BL> when you take just one step inside, you are up to your eyes in
 BL> pointers and objects... in the nicest possible way. From there, it's
 BL> easy to convert to C++. 

 Dunno, I started touch typing after I got my hands on a pirate copy of a
touch-typing tutor program.  :-)  Maybe if I payed for it, I might be able to
type faster.
 Regardless, you don't *have* to know pointers, but it certainly helps, you can
get a whole lot more done...
 
 BL> If Windows is ever replaced, it won't be with something
 BL> similar, just as Windows was nothing like DOS, and IMO it will
 BL> be hardware driven.
 JT> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 JT> If microsoft has anything to do with it, it will. They write
 JT> new apps knowing the entry-level PC will be at a certain
 JT> (higher) level. Normally this is not too much of a problem, but
 JT> if you are in a large corporation, and you KNOW you will have
 JT> to upgrade your hardware **JUST** to run your **PRESENT**
 JT> software at the level intended by MS...

 BL> I meant that there will be a basic shift in the hardware itself...
 BL> perhaps a computer that handles standard objects or tokens; a step
 BL> *UP* in complexity that makes it externally simpler.

 You mean put part of the OS in the bios?  Nope.  That makes the machine more
expensive, with all that extra rom..
 That and, the OS can overwrite some of the bios functions anyway.  As a matter
of fact, that's what they do now anyway.  Full bios compatibility may have been
of upmost importance a while back when your "PC" may not have been fully
"compatible", but nowadays this is not the case.  Even Compaq have changed.
They used to have funny formats, now even they have moved to standard, defacto
standards or otherwise.
 
 JT> You're not looking at a couple of hundred dollars for a
 JT> motherboard upgrade that you're going to do yourself in your
 JT> bedroom you know, it's tens of thousands of dollars, and then
 JT> if you're big, even MORE money. TO KEEP DOING WHAT YOU ARE
 JT> DOING NOW.

 BL> The odd part is that Commerce once forced to make a step, took the
 BL> larger step to NT.
 
 I haven't seen it.  While I was a field tech, we helped the maquarie bank
upgrade ALL their machines to 12Mb.  After I left, I heard they
"upgraded" to
win'95.  ROFL.  That's a backward step!!

 JT> ROFL! To keep doing what I'm doing now costs me fuck-all in
 JT> upgrades. Because that's what it *really* costs. You should
 JT> only upgrade if the new system will save you longer term, over
 JT> the initial outlay costs. For a "home" type system, the only
 JT> consideration is dollar value. There are no "faster machine
 JT> means better production" considerations.

 BL> The same applies in commercial operations too. It would be very rare
 BL> if an office *needed* more than a 486/100 and Win31, or more than
 BL> 16-bit programs, butthat's not the way it works.
 
 This depends.  I don't see anyone upgrading unless they are keeping up with
the joneses, or the users complain about it being too slow.

 JT> "Home" systems only cover a small part of the market though,

 BL> ROFL! Like 85%...

 In that case, I'm GLAD I avoided the domestic market.  I've peeked my nose
into the domestic market, and it stunk to high heaven.
 
 JT> Oops, microsoft has them by the balls now. Just like everyone
 JT> else.

 BL> They'll learn... there is a limit to how much of a bad product and
 BL> poor service you can sell. Bill gets away with it in computers because
 BL> of the mystique, but my generation ofcomputer illiterates is dying
 BL> off and it won't be nearly as easy in his next life when M$ is selling
 BL> to people like car buyers, who know the product very well.

 Good.

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

... Jesus Saves!  Passes to Moses..  Shoots! .. HE SCORES!!
---