|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
UG:
I appreciate your critique of my email. I'm sorry to read you're showing such favoritism
towards Unix. Give Windows 98 another chance. Maybe you'll find better stability which
will bring you over to the Microsoft camp. Be fair and don't show prejudice. Most
software is now written in Windows 95/8 and I don't plan to switch. Yes, Microsoft should
make their system more stable instead of inventing more unneeded features. They should
rewrite the Kernel so that anti-crashing software can hook into it. Symantec has already
complained about this.
I don't know about other users, but for my system I take the precaution of booting before
downloading. I use, and don't attack me here, DriveSpace3. FAT16 is wasteful with
partitions larger than 511 MB. After that, the cluster waste increases to 25% and I find
this ridiculous. I'm not going to have a 1 GB partition and lose 250 MB's.
I plan to upgrade my system, including Windows 98 with FAT32, sometime in Jan/99. Because
CPU's have become so incredibly cheap, I'm going to buy an AMD K6-2 350/100 which should be
in the $120 range. In Jan/99, other computer related improvements will be released which I
desire. I'm not going to bore the group with the details. Email me personally if anyone
wants my component recommendations for a fast and inexpensive computer. I'll write a
one-time generic email.
I can't imagine anyone using a pager or Palm-Pilot for this ListServ. The volume is quite
high. Anyway, I just installed my new 56K US Robotics V.90 modem so I'm happy. :^)
Sincerely,
Daniel Martinez
UG wrote:
> A couple of editorial notes on your email. First and foremost, thanks
> for the input; I just ordered QP2, and am looking for any and all
> information I can have on it; good *and* bad. Thanks!
>
> Secondly, as you might guess from my email, I'm a unix guy. Bigot, some
> might say. I find it absolutely amazing that anyone should accept
> having to reboot a machine _DAILY_. Some people even seem to think that
> it's *SUPPOSED* to be that way! Vote for quality, folks. If you don't
> want to use a stable OS, don't. If you need to use Windows, and I'm in
> that camp, tell Microsoft to fix what they have before they start adding
> all these "gee-whiz" new featuers to every release.
>
> And lastly, and I'm throwing myself at your mercy here, unless there's
> some compelling NEED to use HTML-mail on a mailing list, please don't.
> On mailing lists, there are a lot of people reading the email with a lot
> of different systems. I'm on a unix shell account using a reader which
> doesn't render HTML for me, I know of people who have the mail sent to
> their alpha-pagers which don't either. And how about those of use who
> might read this email on their Palm-Pilots? Unless they install the
> web-app there which takes a lot of precious memory, they won't be able
> to render it either.
>
> I didn't find anything in your email which NEEDED the markup
> capabilities of HTML. What I *did* find was a lot of <...>'s that had 0
> content.
>
> Thanks.
|