🚀 go-pugleaf

Pete Blair wrote:
> 
> -> Is windows 95 the biggest piece of crap the world has ever seen? If
> -> retards want a Mac interface,buy a bloody Mac!

As Pete says, this is nothing but offensive, to either Mac or Windows
users. The present Windows GUI is just a step along the path to learning
how the majority of people USE computers. In MS's case it just took alot
longer. An excellent GUI OS is GEOS which ran on several platforms. The
PC version came out roughly at the same time as Windows 1.0 and was so
far advanced in the features that it provided that it still boggles my
mind how MS can market ice to Eskimos. GUIs will continue to change
until maybe some point in the future they can be accurately voice or
neurally controlled ( some might call that computer nirvana or
nerdvana).

> Do you know anything about what you're talking about???  I'm sorry, but
> the way that you stated your feeling are both obnixious and embarasing.
> And what do you mean by "Mac interface"?  Are you refering to a GUI?
> Macs aren't the only OSs that have implemented graphics into the way
> that the user interacts with the system.  Commodore had GUI systems way
> before Macintosh ever came out with theirs.  People who buy the
> Windoes95 OS aren't looking for Macs.  If they were looking for Macs,
> then they'd buy one.  

Sorry Pete, gotta disagree with you here. It has very little about what
people would like to use or looking to buy. The dynamics of the computer
industry and the literacy of the users, New and Old has alot of impact.
Inexperienced users ask their expert friends what to buy; most say PC
because they don't realize the difference in literacy that they have
compared to their friends. If Apple had licensed the Mac and MacOS to
clone manufacturers at the same time that IBM released the
specifications for the veritable PC, it may be a different story. Macs
are easier to configure and maintain and generally are more useable.
(proven by IS professional studies time and time again). Power users
will disagree with this last statement; and for them, they are likely
right as the MacOS hides its inner workings better than Windows had
previously (mind you the registry is just plain scarry,;-)). This tends
to keep peoples fingers where they belong. For users who are not
experts, even a PnP Win95 gives them trouble as it doesn't always work
and sometimes leads to big problems for them. Windows is coming along
and hopefully will be able to provide a stable and useable envinronment
for all levels of users in the future. (especially in light of Apples
recent decision to integrate the NextOS with the MacOS, but if they can
do as an outstanding job as they did with the 68K to PPC conversion it
may live.)

>But alot of people want an easy interface
> while staying with what they're comfortable with.  I sure wouldn't >want
> to start fresh with a Mac after years with a PC.

In fact I know alot of people that have actually done that and are happy
that they did make the switch because they are not experienced enough to
comfortably work with Windows 3. Win95 may change this, but it most
certainly isn't because people want to stay with an 'easy' (I take it
you are referring to GUIs in general) interface. If that were true, then
GEOS would have taken off years ago. Pre-emptive multi-threaded OS with
long filenames ontop of DOS with a very good GUI shell. (Version 1 on a
286 with 640K ran nicely; Version 2 on a 386 with 2-4MB screamed).
Computers, like any consumer product, does not go with the best
technology or best for the user, but rather with the best marketing
strategist. Right now that's MS, who knows maybe it will be Netscape in
the Future (I doubt it, but one never knows. MS just has too much
momentum and industry leverage; it's time that there was a divesture
between OS vendors and Application vendors with very strict anti-trust
agreements.)

> I'm sorry, but your message was just too offencive and shoking to pass
> by.
I agree. Atleast be somewhat civil. You don't win friends by coming out
punching.(Although MS did)

Ciao,

Cliff Sobchuk.