Yo! BUD:
Sunday June 15 1997 03:05, BUD JAMISON wrote to BILL CHEEK:
->>
-> BJ>> How does it affect YOU or your system if someone else is running
-> BJ>> on a C=128 or similar?
->>
->> It doesn't. Who said it did?
BJ> You did, as quoted above. 'degrade their resources'.
You can't degrade the resources of a C-128. But a system designed for
C-128's certainly can degrade the resources of a more advanced machine.
->> Put a CPU resource meter on your system and watch it for a while. Th
->> what's going on.
BJ> But my point is, what DIFFERENCE does it make what the CPU is doing,
BJ> IF it does the job. I play in the background, 2 or 3 windows open, and
BJ> the users never know I'm there. And I have y other system for 'heavy'
BJ> stuff like the Internet.
The DIFFERENCE is that Fido just doesn't offer as much anymore. The Pilgrims
didn't leave England because they loved it. They started an exodus that
continues to this day. Fido is geared to the lowest common denominator in a
technology of fifteen years ago. THAT is the DIFFERENCE. And the declining
numbers at a rate of about 0.5% per week or 25% per year is testimony of that
DIFFERENCE.
->> Yeah, I know, Bud. I was running Windows back when you were swearing
->> was the greatest thing since peanut butter sandwiches. Remember how
->> to slam "Windoze"........
BJ> I STILL don't like Windows, but it's easier to do certain things with
BJ> it. Graphics Workshop for Dos does exactly the same job as the WIn
BJ> version, faster and with less load on the system. I COULD go with a
BJ> shell account on the Internet, run a dos-based program, AND get faster
BJ> FTP transfers and fewer system crashes, but I like seeing what people
BJ> are wasting them time doing with graphic web pages! :)
Well, I remember not too many moons ago where you'd not touch Windows with a
ten-foot pole. And anyone who did was lower than whale dung. ;-/
BJ> There is nothing I currently do in Windows that I couldn't do in Dos,
BJ> IF I wanted to.
Then you must not DO all that much...... but obviously, you now see where
Win95 multitasks much better than DesqView and where it's a better investment
to let a modern machine run other things besides a klunky old DOS program.
BJ> But I realize that that WILL change one day, and I also needed to
BJ> learn more about WIn so I could answer questions my friends have.
Ahhhhhh........magic word. CHANGE. That's what Fidonet is doing. It's
shrinking and getting smaller. That's because it is mired and wallowing in
an ancient technology designed for MS-DOS and C-128's and XT's. People are
getting a little uncomfortable with it and are vacating by the droves. Users
are bailing off the BBS's and SysOps are bailing out of Fido........
(You even argued with me over that about a year ago.) :-)
So it doesn't make any "difference" if that C-128 SysOp demands his rights.
He can have 'em. It won't be long until Fido is populated almost exclusively
with ancient machines.
BJ> I'll be installing a boot manager, with Win 95, Linux, and OS/2 Warp4
BJ> once I get a larger HD.
I used to dream of that sort of scenario, too. There was a time when I was
running a multi-machine system under DOS, Win 3.1, and OS/2. But it spread
me too thin in terms of time and resources. You just can't get good at a
whole bunch of diverse things in any short time. Well, maybe YOU can. I
couldn't.
I was day-dreaming of a Linux machine until recently, too. But then I came
to my senses and installed Microsoft BackOffice 2.5 with NT 4.0 Server and
the Information Servers instead.
And........I found "The Force". It's utterly awesome........... My NT
Server runs Web, FTP, Gopher, and ILS sites, as well as post office, files,
and printers....and it ain't no where near strained.
I mean, I look at Fido and then I look at the Internet...... I look at my
Fido software and then at NT Server running all the real goodies....and I
just have to shake my head.
Tsk....... tsk......tsk........
Bill Cheek ~ bcheek@san.rr.com
Windows 95 Juggernaut Team ~ Microsoft MVP
--- Hertzian Mail+
---------------
* Origin: Do you reckon a frog's ass is water-tight? (1:202/731)
|