Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE=&quot;Rickideemus, post: 100801, member: 12677&quot;]I'm talking strictly about operating system design, nothing else.A few simple examples:- How many times have you seen a loading web page take over a computer, such that hitting the X in upper right corner -- or ANY procedure -- refuses to abort and return Power To The User? The user (aka computer owner) should have top priority at all times over all processes. Simplest thing in the world. Just do it.- Virtually infinite programming power (transparent, to use your term) could be available right now to every user. Visual Basic comes close. It's very simple to go one small extra step and write out the UI for this capability. Thanks to Turing, we know if you can write the UI (and a couple other criteria, which are all met), you can program it. But they won't do it, because they can't live without the programming suite sales. Programming must remain some sort of black art.- Every software upgrade, by definition, should make older hardware work better, not the reverse. Why don't they do this? Because OS sellers are in bed with hardware sellers (&quot;Wintel&quot;), and because people don't know this is even possible. Trust me, it's possible.- Instead, every software upgrade, by definition, is a scam that allows the software co. yet another opportunity to take a thorough inventory of your hard drive.- Each new upgrade has the potential to disrupt functionality in other programs or processes, and often does. Yet people blindly follow this practice, grateful to brag they are first on the block with the latest tweaks and features, instead of asking, simply, WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO GET IT RIGHT??Computers are a universally frustrating experience for all end users. It doesn't have to be that way. Moore's law applies to hardware speed, not software efficiency. You could turn the hardware clock back ten years, and people would be happier with the whole experience, if they just allowed owners to keep some semblance of control over their own hardware.Sorry, you've drunk so deeply from the kool-aid, communication may be a :deadhorse:Rick[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Rickideemus, post: 100801, member: 12677"]I'm talking strictly about operating system design, nothing else. A few simple examples: - How many times have you seen a loading web page take over a computer, such that hitting the X in upper right corner -- or ANY procedure -- refuses to abort and return [I][B]Power To The User?[/B][/I] The user (aka computer [U]owner[/U]) should have top priority at all times over all processes. Simplest thing in the world. Just do it. - Virtually infinite programming power (transparent, to use your term) could be available [B]right now[/B] to every user. Visual Basic comes close. It's very simple to go one small extra step and write out the UI for this capability. Thanks to Turing, we know if you can write the UI (and a couple other criteria, which are all met), you can program it. But they won't do it, because they can't live without the programming suite sales. Programming must remain some sort of black art. - Every software upgrade, by definition, should make older hardware [U]work better[/U], not the reverse. Why don't they do this? Because OS sellers are in bed with hardware sellers ("Wintel"), and because people don't know this is even possible. Trust me, it's possible. - Instead, every software upgrade, by definition, is a scam that allows the software co. yet another opportunity to take a thorough inventory of your hard drive. - Each new upgrade has the potential to disrupt functionality in other programs or processes, and often does. Yet people blindly follow this practice, grateful to brag they are first on the block with the latest tweaks and features, instead of asking, simply, [B]WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO GET IT RIGHT??[/B] Computers are a universally frustrating experience for all end users. It doesn't have to be that way. Moore's law applies to hardware speed, not software efficiency. You could turn the hardware clock back ten years, and people would be happier with the whole experience, if they just allowed owners to keep some semblance of control over their own hardware. Sorry, you've drunk so deeply from the kool-aid, communication may be a :deadhorse: Rick[/QUOTE]

Name

Verification