Re: Win 98 (Eric, is this off topic :)?)

[andersen <andersen -at- CADVISION -dot- COM>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel D Hall <MISTERHALL -at- PRODIGY -dot- NET>
To: <TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 1999 8:32 PM
Subject: Win 98 (Eric, is this off topic :)?)
>
> The cost seems reasonable, and I'm glad I did it. As for Win 2000, I
haven't
> heard much. Anyone?
>
> Dan Hall
> misterhall -at- prodigy -dot- net


Windows 2000 Consumer will continue to be a hybrid 16/32-bit graphical
front-end to DOS, based on the 9X kernel -- evidentially we'll be living
with that for 4 or 5 years to come, little more than ongoing bug fixes,
patches and minor interface tweaks to Windows 95 (although the
"Professional" and "Server" versions will be upgrades to Windows NT, of
course). For a modest C note or so per shot.

Word has it no matter what the flavour, Windows will continue to bloat and
the 9X versions will needless to say continue to have the inherent problems
they currently have.

It boggles my mind that this issue is not fomenting revolt among Windows 9X
users; it truly is a golden age for Microsoft, where they can pretty much
feed people crap and they'll call it ice cream. I don't consider myself a
Microsoft basher, in fact like their products fine, but suspect the company
is as bloated as their software, with (reminicent of Canadian telcos in the
70s and 80s) too many soft-skill "chiefs", marketing hacks and seat-warmers,
and not enough hard-skill developers accountable for their work in any real
way. (Although I begin to wonder whether that's merely a sign of the times
in the bubble-world of high-tech.)

Rick


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=