From: "Robert Comer" 

> The longer you've worked one way the harder it is to change, whatever the
> benefits.

I have no problem doing things different if there's a clear advantage.

>The question is whether 'how you want it' is rational or
> emotional.

I don't think so -- emotional is a valid reason for not doing something.
Say the new WinXP start menu, I happen to think it's ugly and have since
the first beta I tried, so that's an emotional response, now just why
should I tolerate something that provokes that much response?

>And then whether it matters.

Any negative response matters.

>It's clear that skipping XP isn't
> going to be a big deal, OTOH whatever comes next is going to be a bigger
> shock and may have compelling or necessary functionality.

Definitely a bigger shock, but compelling and necessary functionality??
Palladium is neither of those for me.  I happen to think they are going to
far with DRM -- to the point that a simple monopoly is going to be like a
party comparatively.

> Or maybe we'll all be fluent Unixoids by then, capable of efficient
> interaction with a myriad of desktops...

It's more likely someone will take the next step (pun somewhat intended)
and make something easy to use either out of Linux or something totally
new. Microsoft has to start championing the user again if they hope to
compete.

- Bob Comer


"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:3dcedc2f{at}w3.nls.net...
> The longer you've worked one way the harder it is to change, whatever the
> benefits. The question is whether 'how you want it' is rational or
> emotional. And then whether it matters. It's clear that skipping XP isn't
> going to be a big deal, OTOH whatever comes next is going to be a bigger
> shock and may have compelling or necessary functionality.
>
> Or maybe we'll all be fluent Unixoids by then, capable of efficient
> interaction with a myriad of desktops...
>
> Paul
>
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:3dced46e{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > You have to learn to vary your ways of operating your tool. This
always
> > > takes a while.
> >
> > If you have to, then it begs the question "is it worth it
when something
> > else is closer to the way I want it."
> >
> > > I prefer the look of XP, but I may have turned it 'down' slightly. I
do
> > like
> > > the empty desktop and the new style 'start' menu.
> >
> > That's what I totally dislike about it.  I like icons on the desktop and
> > that new style start menu is totally unpalatable.
> >
> > - Bob Comer
> >
> >
> > "Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
> news:3dceca8a{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > You have to learn to vary your ways of operating your tool. This
always
> > > takes a while.
> > >
> > > I prefer the look of XP, but I may have turned it 'down' slightly. I
do
> > like
> > > the empty desktop and the new style 'start' menu.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
> > > news:3dceb61b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > > If the tool now allows you do the same things in a
better way,
would
> > > > > accommodating that be acceptable? There's only one
way to find
out.
> > > >
> > > > You wouldn't have to accommodate it if it did the same things
> better...
> > > > It's arguable whether XP does much better than W2K --
it sure seems
> like
> > > > they made it harder to admin, recover from disaster,
and they made
it
> > UGLY
> > > > by default.)
> > > >
> > > > > FWIW I've been finding modern Unix extremely
frustrating. I'm
almost
> > > > happier
> > > > > at the raw console where I can operate
reflexively. Accommodating
XP
> > is
> > > > very
> > > > > low impact itself by comparison with any of the X desktops.
> > > >
> > > > I agree 100%, I've never been wild about any UNIX variant -- it
seems
> > > > obscurity is valued highly in UNIX circles, but there's
one thing at
> > least
> > > > Linux has over XP -- it's WAY lower cost up front makes it a lot
> easier
> > to
> > > > want to accommodate it than XP.
> > > >
> > > > - Bob Comer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
> > > > news:3dce8c40$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > > If the tool now allows you do the same things in a
better way,
would
> > > > > accommodating that be acceptable? There's only one
way to find
out.
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW I've been finding modern Unix extremely
frustrating. I'm
almost
> > > > happier
> > > > > at the raw console where I can operate
reflexively. Accommodating
XP
> > is
> > > > very
> > > > > low impact itself by comparison with any of the X desktops.
> > > > >
> > > > >  Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike '/m'" 
wrote in message
> > > > > news:sgvssu8hn475778ecau1mjv4bb44ea6d4e{at}4ax.com...
> > > > > > On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 00:07:44 -0000,
"Paul Ranson"
> 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >I think it's quite possible to reach an
accommodation with
XP...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I remain to be convinced that I have to
accomodate my computer.
> The
> > > > > > computer is my tool, not vice versa.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  /m
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4