>Aren't you contradicting yourself here? In fact, advances in software
>possibilities drive advances in hardware, and advances in hardware
drive
>advances in software. Both ways, it's a good thing on the whole.
I never said advances in hardware drive advances in software only the
other way around. Each new version of a Microsoft package requires
faster processors with more memory. As to weather these newer versions
are better than the old is very debatable. More features is not
necessarily better software design.
>
>I''ve got no more than an ordinary end-users smattering of knowledge of
>computers, but it seems to me that despite its faults, Win95 is a
>definite advance on Win 3.1 in terms of ease of use, speed of running
>programs, and multitasking capability. I *have* spent the occasional
>day or two tearing my hair out over some problem, but then I expected
>that when I got a computer, because the need for
backwards-compatibility
>and the many different manufacturers of ever snazzier hardware and
>software having slightly different standards means that there will *
>always* be problems. In fact come to think of it, most of the
>complaints of the kind you make seem to forget that a lot of the reason
>for Win95's 'bloatedness' is caused by these things, plus the
requirement
>that the PC ought to be operatable by even relatively stupid people.
>This last requirement is never quite fulfillable, of course, precisely
>because it requires a bloated, complex program that is prone to the
>occasional problem! :-)
I've been using both Windows and Mac-Based platforms for years. During
a 2 month period my company kept track of productivity comparisions
between the two platforms. The results were devastating to the Wintel
Platform - every time a Mac crashed, the Wintel equivalent crashed 6
times!
>A piss test for taking a job is the employer's privilege. That is
>completely different from govt., because the govt. in no way *owns* the
>country.
>
I'm not sure I quite follow you here. The government *owns* the country
in all sorts of ways.
>Also, the bigger operator is still losing money if s/he undercuts; the
>bigger s/he is the more money they lose, so in the *long run*, such
>monopolies are unsustainable.
Please see my previos post in this regard. Rockefeller only lowered
prices on gas where he was opening new stations. This hardly put a dent
in his pocket.
Cheers!
Bobby Whalen
_______________________________________________________
Get Private Web-Based Email Free http://www.hotmail.com