David Kastrup wrote: > And? There are live disks that install in 15 minutes on a good system. > There are live disks that take 2 hours (take the TeXlive DVD). There > are differences in layout and effectiveness.
How oddball a situation are you willing to stretch-for to make your alleged point? > As I said: the CD exacerbates the situation. Running off a CD is slow. > If the result is worse than expected, What might be "expected" by a newbie who has no experience in such matters? As soon I first heard the CD spin-up when I wanted to do something, I would "expect" those kinds of delays when running off a CD. You lose. > it might point to the access patterns being worse than expected, and > that may well reflect on the installed system performance. Gibberish. This is not that difficult a situation for the average computer user to interpret. You're just being ridiculous. > If you don't get it, don't be sad. At least you can sling mud competitively. I see you can "sling mud" yourself. >> So? Is it not reasonable to assume that a PC operating system would >> be "reasonably responsive" when installed on a modern PC? > > If you never have been exposed to Microsoft operating systems, probably. > But since the market leader does not meet that expectation, many > experienced computer users will not take it for granted. Good joke, but in reality Windows isn't that bad in the responsiveness department. My point remains. (Most) people ain't that dumb. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
