Actually Mafud, I think Microsoft IS partly to blame. The fact is most people that have a computer don't have it because they're computer buffs. They have it because it's a tool that let 's accomplish a task. They have know desire to be computer geeks.
Microsoft of course advertises to sell to the biggest audience. Expectations by consumers is that when they buy something it should work. When Win95 came out I believed the box said 'requires a minimum of 8meg of RAM and some pre-Pentium processor'. We all know that would be a joke, but Microsoft maximized sales that way. I run Photoshop 4.0 right now on Pentium 133 with 48meg running Win95. I should have upgraded long ago, but it's more trouble than it's worth to continually risk having to rebuild your system, and have favorite applications stop working. Yes I find it slow, at least I have enough hard drive that I can usually get things done in virtual memory. The other day though I inadvertendently started scanning pictures to my H:/ drive which is the drive Windows wants. You should see it when you try to open a 20mb file and have about 650K of swap space left. That of course was my fault. Tom Mafud writes: > > Hello Dave. > > Both Me (ME) and XP ~demand~ updated software and ~regular~ maintenance. Me > simply would not tolerate my old Norton Utilities/AntiVirus. I bought and > installed Norton SystemWorks2001 and no problems. > Whereas you and me might tolerate fools and charlatans, (especially if they > are our relatives or friends), neither Me or XP can tolerate "dirty" > operating environments, particularly if there are old clunky programs loaded > in a multitasking environment. > > Though Microsoft does design for and anticipate owners operating old > (Windows98) computers in a "dirty" environment, not even Microsoft can be > called to fault for the millions of underpowered (processor and memorywise) > Windows95(a) and before clunkers people try to operate under conditions ripe > for failure. > **A computer designed with Windows95(a) architecture (or before), is simply > out of its depths with Me or XP. Again, too many try running resources > intensive applications on underpowered machines. > ***Worse, we've all read posts from persons who own a Pentium 100/133 > computer with 32 Max RAM, complaining about why his Windows (any) is running > slow. > We are usually too kind to tell the operator what they ought to do with their > undepowered-overmatched pip-squeak. > > Mafud > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
