🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DCrFw5.2nz@ecf.toronto.edu>, hongd@ecf.toronto.edu (HONG  DUC) writes:
|> In article <schmeul-3107950906340001@pscmc3.chemistry.aa.wl.com>,
|> Sam Huffman <schmeul@umich.edu> wrote:
|> >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
|> 
|> 
|> What I really love abot BlackHoleQ is that he thinks VFAT is a better file
|> system than the Mac's... talk about a dodo.

The scary thought is that it just might be, at least
as far as clustering is concerned.  Both FAT and HFS
have a limitation of 64K allocatable clusters.
If VFAT has improved on this (doubtful, but possible) ...

But I suspect all Win95 did was put in a hokey hack that
will break everyone's disk optimizer (uh, yeah, we planned
that, big time, that way they'd have to buy ... OURS!!! :-) ).
No changes to the File Allocation Table format.  (I wonder
if Win95 still supports 12-bit FATs? :-) )

|> 
|> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
eric_williams@mentorg.com
My views!