Mo,
"There you go again..."
Just when I settle into a comfortable pattern of lurking, you come out with something that just demands a response.
<<Windows 95 generally runs at least a week - or sometimes two - between problems>>
And you consider this good? That means anywhere from 26 to 52 times a year you are not productive with your computer.
No one considers that good -- only better in relative terms.
If we assume 1 hr. per event...
Are you kidding me? To reboot a machine (which is all that's needed for probably 95 percent of the time)?? What kind of cheeseball machine are you running? Let me guess, a Timex Sinclair (but, hey, you bought the 16K RAM upgrade, right? ;) We're talking about 2-4 annoying minutes. Annoying, absolutely. Do we deserve better? You bet. Fatal? Hardly.
Another reason for the DOJ to require the OS to be free.
Ex-freakin-SCUSE me??
1. A free OS -- with no company to turn to for support and a bunch of finger pointing -- is somehow going to be MORE stable? What are you smoking? The idea that OS instability is a reason for the DOJ to "free" the OS is the most absurd statement I've yet heard from you. I expect better from you. If anything, OS instability is an argument for keeping it within a commercial firm that is responsible and (by reason of profit) motivated to improve it. Before you go anywhere with the "MSFT isn't motivated because they're a monopoly," save your typing. They absolutely are motivated to improve it, if only to reduce their amazingly large technical support costs.
2. Gee, I used a Mac II AND a Mac Portable (the big ugly things before the PowerBooks). Those suckers crashed left, right, and center. Should the DOJ force Apple to put OS8 in the public domain???
Think McNealy and Jobs should have to "liberate" their OS, too? What kind of incentive would there be to create one in the first place?
Scarecrow |
