From: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:17:07 PST
Organization: TAP

Quoted from <1992Dec28.153620.13038@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> by jerry@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel):
> John Bickers (jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz) wrote:

> :     You are trying to dismiss the current stance taken by most of the
> :     computer industry as just my opinion.

> Most of the computer industry believes that Windows is not a worthwhile OS?
> I wasn't aware of this.

    We know. Even universities don't look at Windows as an example of
    an OS in their CS courses.

> :     Do you even admit that DOS is a broken vestige of the past?

> Sure it's an antique, but why is it broken?  It works just fine.  BTW, when
> did this discussion shift from Windows to DOS?

    When you avoided trying to claim that Windows is not dependent on
    DOS.

> :     you aware that Microsoft themselves are writing a replacement for
> :     Windows, "Windows NT", in order to elevate Windows to the level

> And Plan 9 is supposed to replace Unix.  Does that mean that Unix is not
> a worthwhile OS?

    Completely different beasts. There are many flavors and "owners"
    of Unix, and Plan 9 is NOT supposed to replace them. There is only
    one owner of Windows, and that owner is playing a catch-up game
    against both IBM with OS/2, and Unix vendors.

> :     And yet you calmly said that your 386's GUI performance had always
> :     been as good as or better than an A3000. Good stuff.

> It *was* always better, because Windows was moving 256-color graphics on an
> 800x600 screen, while the Amiga had 4 colors at 640x400.

    And now it's "always" better? I find it amazing that my 640x480/4
    WIN-OS/2 screen updates slower than my 640x400/2 Workbench screen,
    despite the limited bandwidth of CHIP RAM and the fact that the
    Amiga has to deal with planes, multitasking a number of
    applications, and so on. And my Amiga is slower than an A3000.

    This leads me to think you are lying, just like you lied when you
    said it takes ZERO time to switch between screens under Windows.

> :     Not at all! But I remember people arguing before 3.1 that the
> :     Windows GUI performance was slow, and that the way Windows did

> It wasn't slow, but it certainly had room for improvement, just like
> everything does.

    Nice of you to say so after the fact. :/ If it wasn't slow, then
    how come the difference between < 3.1 and 3.1 is "noticeable"? And
    why are the '386s with Windows 3.1 here in the office still slow
    at window updates?

    Finally, you seem to be forgetting that this IS just a subset of
    what GUI performance is all about.

    I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that most of what you post
    is... a unique interpretation of how things really are, with
    further lies being produced on demand.

> | JERRY J. SHEKHEL  | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
--
*** John Bickers, TAP.                   jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
***    "Radioactivity - It's in the air, for you and me" - Kraftwerk    ***
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy