On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:09:18 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

kony writes:

It is techincally superior only in certain contexts.

It's technically superior in just about every way.

You are biased. Use of MS-DOS environment shows it.

I've been working with computers too long and in too many ways to be
biased.

Hardly. The moment you mentioned DOS, as if that's a bad
thing, you showed it. Keep in mind, not everyone, nor
everything requires one (and only ONE) do-everything
uber-PC. WinXp is useful for someone to have, if they had
only one system and can use it for ALL their needs... I
never meant to imply otherwise. On the other hand, that
does not make it of virtue for tasks that don't need the
things you feel make it superior.



There's nothing wrong with using a more streamlined
environment for tasks that don't require a more complex one.

Sure, but single-tasking is rare for users today.

Only in your limited context. You are like the fellow who
wants a leatherman tool in his pocket because it does SO
much, but when it comes right down to it, almost anything
that leatherman tool does, is not as good as the one
dedicated tool would be.

A few people might
want to run only one program or game, but most want to use their
computers for more than one thing.

Maybe "computer", minus the "s". Most people are not
multitasking on more than one system simultaneously.



Better than what?

Better than Windows 9x.

not supported by any evidence

I've seen it again and again.

Nope, you first take a mindset of a specific set of
functionality, so defined that the mindset itself literally
grew based upon the functionality WinXP provided, which is
not unusal since it is effectively the only widespread
modern commercial OS for a PC. Where your argument falls
apart is when it's more carefully examined, that most people
don't actually DO all those things.

In fact, I know plenty of people with Win98 and no desire to
upgrade their system or OS. They don't care if you think
it's better. Wonder why? Because they know it suits their
needs.




There were a lot of reasons including rapid hardware
evolution vs driver support, but in general, no the problem
was NOT "barely sufficient to run it", not at all. NT ran
ok on 32MB memory and a pentium 1, there was no pressing
need for faster hardware at that time, NT could have been
the choice up until Win2K.

It _was_ the choice, for me.

So be it. Making an informed choice is what it's all about.
I don't urge anyone to use one, or the other, but to examine
their real needs, not those needs projected by others.



Somewhat true but a pretty big stretch for many users who
have 9x.

Yes, but as soon as they upgrade,

Upgrade what?
I'm not in favor of reusing old OS on new systems. It can
be done, but not necessarily the best choice since they must
have had some reason to upgrade, else it was just from a
hardware failure... in which case they'll have to make the
call whether it was suitable or not.

So far as upgrading individual components, not necessarily.
Win9x can handle 1GB memory, modern video cards and (in case
of 98SE), modern sound cards with WDM drivers. If one needs
more than 1GB memory or some crazy (for a so-called "PC")
100 applications, of course 9x is not suited for the
system... and I never claimed it was.

The bottom line is always about what is actually needed, not
theory but what the real user, really does.

9x will start to choke, because
software is continuously bloating, and many modern versions of popular
software are too bloated to run well on 9x.

Nonsense. There is no software bloat that creates a problem
on 9x.



I installed Acrobat 7.x a week ago. Acrobat 4.x occupied 44 MB on
disk. Acrobat 7.x occupies 760 MB.


So? Fire up acrobat and see how much memory it's using.
Not anywhere close to approaching any limit to what 9x can
do. MS Office can weight over a GB too, but 9x again shows
it can run it fine, several instances of it.

I suspect you've made some quick assumptions then never
bothered to actually try them. Besides that, you keep
trying to suggest scenarios that are not typical. The
typical user of 9x is not one building a new system then
installing Acrobat 7 on it. Rather, they are as the OP is,
needing to maintain compatibility, or looking only to
contiue doing the same tasks.


Remember I'm not suggesting buying 9x new today
for a new system, rather it is typically what is already ON
a system and being used already.

Any system that is working acceptably should not be modified.

Exactly
Never have I suggested that anyone buy a new system, buy
win9x for it, without need for 9x. 9x's virtue is in more
backwards compatibility and the light footprint.



Actually, no. There is a certain amount of caching and
hardware driver support necessary that 9x does provide and
DOS does not.

The same can be said of NT and its successors in comparison to 9x.

It's all relative. 512MB of caching is more than the
typical user, makes use of. Power users can easily need
more, so again it's all a matter of the specific needs.


You have to try hard to stretch things to make a point.

I'm not stretching things. A lot of users have dozens of applications
open at one time. There is a tendency to open applications and leave
them open until the computer is shut down.

.... and a lot of users don't. Nobody is trying to force 9x
on them, nor should anyone be falsely suggesting XP is a
good choice without specific reasons directly applicable to
their expressed needs.