To: John Tserkezis

 JT> The only process I see take time is when I do my personal mail.
 JT> It chugs on the mailbase for a short while, but I can put this
 JT> in my nightly event, so when I'm ready to read mail, it will
 JT> have pre-packed bluewave packets ready for me from the night
 JT> before. In that case, all I have to do is start my mail reader
 JT> only.

  That's exactly what I meant. By being cunning with the way you lay
out your program, you can hide all the time-consuming bits. I'm not
good enough to do this in the planning stages. I usually get it
working, and then move it all around later.

  Brentopn has a smart trick. He uses an "information" screen to
distract you.

 JT> Whoo hoo, *I* don't get affected by any time consuming
 JT> processes. But, the point I was trying to make, was the mailer
 JT> pc *does* get affected. It takes longer to process mail, and
 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. 

  Buy another computer and network them. My 486/50 cost $300 6 months
ago. Computers are getting to the mature-stage of development, and the
possibilities are quite exciting.

 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.

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

 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. 

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

 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.

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

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

 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...

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

 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.

  The odd part is that Commerce once forced to make a step, took the
larger step to NT.

 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.

  The same applies in commercial operations too. It would be very rare
if an office *needed* more than a 486/100 and Win31, or more than
16-bit programs, butthat's not the way it works.

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

  ROFL! Like 85%...

 JT> My present employer uses MS access for their database, and has
 JT> spent tens of thousands of dollars on software alone. And major
 JT> changes to hardware simply to make it faster. Had they known to
 JT> go another route, they would have a blindly fast system with
 JT> fully custom software that would do all they want and more.

  Yair...

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

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

Regards,
Bob



___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---