From: Catherine Rees Lay <Catherine@reeslay.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: M$ to STRIKE again...
Date: 1997/04/07
Date: 1997-04-07T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <+ma59EAm5QSzEwBX@reeslay.demon.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3348FC2E.A8B@csolve.net
In article <3348FC2E.A8B@csolve.net>, Mike Monett <add@csolve.net>
writes
>We erased WIN95 a year ago and moved everything back to DOS. For each
>function we now do in DOS, we gain at least 10X improvement in throughput
>and productivity. This is the promise that MicroSoft has been making all
>along, but you have to know how to apply the appropriate filter.
>
>There is a wealth of DOS available on the web for anyone who cares to
>look. In fact, there is a lot of innovative and useful stuff for DOS that
>is simply not available in Windows.
>
>If you subscribe to the SimTel mailing list, it is astonishing how much
>programming effort goes into "advanced" screensavers and personal address
>books. How many more of these "advanced" programs do we need?
>
>The thing that frightens me most about Windows is looking in the Borland
>Delphi Bugs List and checking these newsgroups. It is amazing to see the
>workaraounds people have to use to solve problems they run into. If this
>is an example of professional programming and how to write solid code,
>then DOS is the future for us. It is still supported by IBM and Caldera.
>
>Anyway, with email, who needs a 50 megabyte word processor anymore?
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Michael R. Monett
>CEO
>Analog & Digital Design
>PO Box 460
>Victoria Harbor
>Ontario Canada L0K 2A0
>mailto:add@csolve.net
Win95 is not as solid as DOS, it's true. However, it is a LOT better
than Windows 3.1. Not switching from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 because
of the bad things you have heard about 95 is a big mistake. Not
switching from DOS, on the other hand, I can understand, though you may
find new commercial software harder and harder to come by - most people
won't buy DOS-based software any more, so most companies no longer
target it.
Don't be too hard on Delphi, btw - just because Borland are prepared to
acknowledge their bugs doesn't mean they have any more than other
companies/products. The existence of a well-defined bugs list is a plus,
not a minus.
Catherine.
--
Catherine Rees Lay
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-04-07 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-04-06 0:00 M$ to STRIKE again essoft
[not found] ` <3348FC2E.A8B@csolve.net>
1997-04-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-04-07 0:00 ` essoft
1997-04-08 0:00 ` Peter Seebach
1997-04-07 0:00 ` Catherine Rees Lay [this message]
1997-04-07 0:00 ` James Giles
1997-04-08 0:00 ` Michael Dodas
1997-04-07 0:00 ` Mark Wilden
1997-04-12 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1997-04-13 0:00 ` Bruce Rosner
1997-04-14 0:00 ` Deutscher
[not found] ` <3353A5E4.2FD4@sni.de>
1997-04-16 0:00 ` Tom Wheeley
1997-04-13 0:00 ` Dave Sharp
1997-04-16 0:00 ` Avi Cohen Stuart
[not found] ` <33555E64.2556@student.csi.cuny.edu>
1997-04-17 0:00 ` Best way to kill Microsoft (Re: M$ to STRIKE again...) William Frye
1997-04-17 0:00 ` Lint-like program for C++ Steve Dimig
1997-04-17 0:00 ` Uwe Baemayr
1997-04-18 0:00 ` Chris Durand
1997-04-18 0:00 ` Oliver Boehm
1997-04-18 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-04-21 0:00 ` James Youngman
1997-04-17 0:00 ` Best way to kill Microsoft (Re: M$ to STRIKE again...) Corey Minyard
1997-04-18 0:00 ` S. Narasimh Reddy
1997-04-17 0:00 ` Da Borg
1997-04-18 0:00 ` Emilio Lopes
1997-04-18 0:00 ` M A
1997-04-18 0:00 ` Da Borg
1997-04-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-04-18 0:00 ` Jose Miguel Perez
1997-04-21 0:00 ` Paul Oldham
1997-04-21 0:00 ` C.Pitz
1997-04-18 0:00 ` Jay Lyerly
1997-04-18 0:00 ` Alexander Lehmann
1997-04-18 0:00 ` kwm
1997-04-18 0:00 ` Kim Robert Blix
1997-04-18 0:00 ` Corey Minyard
1997-04-07 0:00 ` M$ to STRIKE again Steve Lionel
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox