Re: Windows Vista at One Year (Dark Side Report)

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Rumpelstiltskin wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:14:48 -1000, "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, El Castor wrote:

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:49:52 -1000, "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, El Castor wrote:

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:20:18 -0800, Rita
<Rita@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:57:53 -0800, El Castor
<No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:35:14 GMT, jimstevens
<jimstevens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[Default] On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:00:30 -1000,
"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Rumpelstiltskin wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:06:09 -0500, Gary
<none@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:25:55 -0500, Jim Higgins
<gordian238@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

A computer shop's sales pitch: 'We remove
Vista'
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/130626.asp?source=mypi

fter reading today's story about Windows
Vista's first year, reader Bruce Finlayson of
Seattle sent along this photo that he snapped
in October outside a computer store in
Milford, N.H. ...

I made some calls to computer stores in
Milford (pop. 15,000) and confirmed that the
sign appeared in the window of A&D Computer,
across the street from the town square. Shop
manager Aaron Kaplan said they were prompted
to put it up because so many people were
having problems with Windows Vista, including
compatibility issues with older software and
trouble adjusting to the interface.

I'm beginning to think that Vista was designed
in cahoots with various hardware and software
manufacturers to force us to buy new version of
stuff we already have.

I've got a good flatbed scanner that will not
work with Vista, plus several older software
programs.

I suppose Bill Gates need some extra money for
his charities.


I still run some DOS programs. My computer
bridge game (Micro Bridge Companion) is one
example. Windows developers seem to concentrate
on a glitzy interface in preference to making a
strategically powerful game. I've never bought
and rarely played any of the wow-graphics
shoot-em-up games that are all the rage with the
young whippersnappers, because I'm such an old
fart, so I couldn't comment on those. The
computer games I play are pretty much limited to
GO, "Litlite" (Scrabble), Bridge, Spades,
"Wintris" (Tetris), Crazy Eights, Gin, "Rattler"
(an ancient eat-the-dots-while-being-chased-
through-a-maze game), and Yachtzee. Of those,
the Bridge, Crazy Eights, Gin and Rattler games
are DOS.

Noticeably missing is Chess, which I used to
play a lot in my 20's but which I've rarely
played in recent years. I still like to watch
people play chess, but it's too much pressure
for me to want to play it myself these days.

I have a computer Q-Bert game that I really
like. I was addicted to that game at amusement
parks. It's now unplayable though, because the
graphics go blank in an early screen if I try to
play it via Windows.

I used to "play" SimCity too, but I've gotten
tired of it. It's become Barbie-Doll-ish in
that there are an expanding number of
accoutrements associated with it these days,
which puts me off.

I still use my windows 95 machine when the
windows 98 goes down. Worried about upward
compatibility? I worry more about downward
compatibility. Those operating systems are no
longer supported. I haven't bought new s/w in
years because so much is available for free
nowadays-- not that I use that stuff. Am thinking
of updating an older machine to linux and
hopefully will find much open source s/w to
use... Tactics of the retired to save costs.

There is nothing better then taking a nice box
home, opening it and putting the hardware
together, pulling hard drive out of old PC and
trashing the rest of the old machine as crap that
will take time to keep going. I love it.

In a day when you can buy a Dell dual core
machine for $500, it is also a great way to spend
more money. Considering the life span of hard
disks, using an old relic for more than data
transfer is a terrific way to lose data. As for
Win 95 and Win 98, not only are they vulnerable
to every hack that the mind of an Albanian
teenager can devise, with an old processor and
modern software they must take a half hour to
boot up. Other than that, sounds great! (-8

I wonder if there are any firewalls or anti-virus
checkers or spyware detectors available today --
and that are kept updated -- that support Win 95
and Win 98? If not, you might as well say
computer security doesn't matter.

Might as well.

Thanx to Rita, I have switched to FireFox which has
been easily updated and keeps on working. The same
can be said about an AVG virus checker, and SpyBot
and Adaware spywhere checkers. My firewall is by
Sygate. These are all free versions. My machine
takes a reasonable time to boot up-- more like 5
instead of 30 minutes. It's only shutdown that's a
little dicey. Sometimes I will just used the switch
to powerdown in a hurry. Othertimes, I will just use
an extra 5 minutes to stop all processes except the
OS to shutdown with no problems.

I've generally used shell access because I can
access my ISP from a variety of machines. I mainly
do some email, but also need to do some
documentation and analysis with a spread ***.
Nothing that needs any new software.

Well, I can't argue with success, or semi-success, as
the case may be. Do I understand that you have a
shell account? I didn't think they did that anymore?
My first account was a shell. Made me learn a little
Unix. After a month or two I got a copy of TIA (The
Internet Adapter), a Unix program that allowed me to
use a graphical interface. TIA was sort of an illicit
thing. Some ISPs didn't permit it, but mine didn't
seem to mind -- or didn't know. I always felt like I
was getting away with something. (-8

The main problem with the windows 95 system is that
I've run out of hard drive. Have been meaning to
swtich-in a 6G drive for the 3.2G I have presently. I
would then have more room for virus checker updates,
etc. But will probably start in on the Linux stuff
before that. The main thing about my old system is that
it has a good VB compiler on it. C is too hard a
language for me to use. Even found that turbo C is not
very good either. Have been trying some functional
programing and Python and see that kind of high level
language as what I need. The VB programs work on the
Windows 98 machine, too.

Re. unix. I like the shell account because I can use the vi editor and write some small scripts. I also find that a keyboard based browser is faster than a graphics interface because I already know most of the magic key strokes after years of using pine-- started with tin.



I took a community college course in C++, but though I got pretty good at it, I never fell in love with it at all. Visual Basic is easier to use, and the regrettably now-extinct Quick-Basic was far easier to use than either of them. With Visual Basic, I'm constantly checking the HELP file to find out what the heck it wants me to do with the syntax, but if there are no examples provided, the "explanation" that's given without the aid of such examples is just another stumbling block to understanding. I think Microsoft must do something to the brains of their employees during training, because they just don't seem to think in a way that's lucid or very approachable to ordinary humans.

Yes it's hard to remember all the features of the magic words. But re the recent stuff (and I started on VB after I retired) with objects, I prefer this to having a large library of subroutines and functions. The solution to your problem is a language with very broad and powerful primitive commands and functions. Not like the old PL1 which many believed to be superior to Fortran, but really was just too complicated (like C++) to learn. The language just needs to be simple and powerful so it's possible to learn and master. It should be very expressive-- just let the compiler work harder.
.