🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43l2uc$mps@beowulf.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
Jason Garman <garman@cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>In article <43iq16$mu2@orion.cybercom.net>,
>Jerry Shekhel <jerry@cybercom.net> wrote:
>>Juergen Wahlmann (ibl-juwa@wiso.wiso.uni-dortmund.de) wrote:

>>The large sizes of Windows apps are due to their larger capabilities.

The large sizes of Windows applications are due mostly to the bloated and
inefficient software layers they are built with.  They certainly are not
over 50 times more functional than past 8-bit era versions as they would
have to be to fully account for the difference in their image sizes.

>>Hell, I suppose you think the C64 word processors were superior to them
>>all, since they ran in 64KB.

The C64 word processors tended to have crude interfaces compared to the
GUIs of modern ones, but they were certainly quite functional and capable
of turning out nicely formatted spell-checked documents.

>Actually they had some nice wp's for the C64... amazing what programmers
>could do in 64kb...

Actually what's amazing to me is how, Window dressing aside, modern
applications remain functionally similar to their 8-bit ancestors, despite
the incredible increases in hardware resources.

>True they didn't have things like the "How do I go to the bathroom" Wizard
>and pretty itsy-bitsy little icons, but they sure as hell got the job
>done...

They also weren't written by people who think Visual BASIC is comparable
to C or Assembler as a programming language.  BASIC was invented as an
instructional language to teach programming concepts and that is what it
is best at.  The fact that it has become a GUI'fied application development
language is rather revolting and a clear reflection of the decline of
program quality during the reign of Microsoft.

>>: >I've seen Linux running on a 2MB PC, with 850KB free.

>>: You've seen it. Does X run? Do you worked with it? Do you have lounched a 
>>: single application such as FrameMaker?

Contrary to modern belief, it is quite possible to perform useful work
without clicking on icons and dragging a pointer across a screen.

[discussion about the availability of FrameMaker for Linux omitted]

>>: The Point is, with AmigaOS you can WORK in 2MB.

>>How do you know?  Have you launched an application like FrameMaker on it?

Perhaps because he owns an Amiga and has experience with using it? 

>>Again, on a C64 you can WORK in 64K.  Does that make it a superior machine?

>Actually that makes the people who programmed for it superior...

Quite.

Max
-- 
.----------------------------------------+----------------------------------.
|  /\  /\/  Max Bell <mbell@europa.com>  | Help save the Net.  Support your |
| /  \/ /\  http://www.europa.com/~mbell | local Internet Service Provider! |
`----------------------------------------+----------------------------------'