🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3vhc1f$eps@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, blackholeq@aol.com
(BlackHoleQ) wrote:

> >       Said it before, and I'll say it yet again, I like Windows '95.
> It's
> >a GREAT improvement over Win 3.1(although I think you actually have to
> TRY
> >to make something worse), however, aside from multitasking(which didn't
> >help the amiga from going the way of the dodo), it's still=
> >
> >       Win '95 = MacOS '89
> 
> I don't see how so many people seem to insist that underpowered OS +
> stupid interface = perfect operating environment. Win95 is faster, better
> at multitasking, better at virtual memory, has a better file system,
> better disk caching, has a better inteface and more naitive apps. At 6%
> market share, which is likely to get smaller when newbies begin flocking
> to Win95, mac is much more likely to "go the way of the dodo" than
> Windows.
> 
> BlackHoleQ

Okey, Mr. BlackHoleQ...

I will give you that Win95 has some features the MacOS doesn't currently
have. Putting aside, for the moment anyway, your ridiculous and naive
comments about the MacOS being "underpowered" and having a "stupid
interface", may I ask you why, up to this point, you have used Windows
3.1? And before that, probably DOS?

Talk about underpowered... Talk about a lousy-ass interface. Well, I'm
pretty sure the reason you used it is because it's all you have been
exposed to. In fact, I think most people who _voluntarily_ use Windows use
it because that's all they've been exposed to (am I wrong?)

This doesn't make it better. It doesn't make it more powerful. It makes it
more popular by default, but certainly not because it's better. It's not.
Yes, the MacOS hides more some details from the regular user. But if one
wants to get at them, he can. The point is, he ISN'T FORCED TO DEAL WITH
STUFF HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.

Umm, so anyway.. that's really about all I had to say I guess.

Sam Huffman
schmeul@umich.edu