In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wolfgang Lenerz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Surely you do not suggest that making a boot file (or similar) that loads
separate programs in a standardized way is difficult at least as far the
"great unwashed" (where ever did that expression come from?) are concerned.
So for "them", there would be no difference in the way the computer presents
itself to them.
If the boot program was pre written they would have no problem but I
have direct experience that even on the QL basic level some people
cannot write BOOT files,
However, separating the user program from the OS makes you desgin a cleaner,
leaner OS from which, ultimately, all programs will benefit, even those that
are then supplied next to it.
I have no real knowledge of the code involved but I am fairly sure that
the programs provided by the M$ O/S are not loaded on startup just set
up to be called when needed. If you change the response to the file
extensions, you can change the programs called. In Windoze it is very
easy.
.
>By all means, though, heap on any extra program you want (media players and
>what not) NEXT to the OS - provided you clearly explain what they
>are and how
>I could get rid of them if I want any others.
But you do not have to remove them, just not use them and that is fairly
easy to do.
This is not so. In my mind, there are two aspects here: first of all, those
programs that are supplied in/with the OS : you pay for them. Whatever you
may think, when M$ incoporates yet another prog into their OS, people have
worked on this prog and M$ has paid them for it. It will want to get its
money back (which seems fair enough). However, instead of giving you the
choice of acquiring it separately, they make you pay for it when you buy the
OS. That's a philosophy I disagree with.
But Windoze is now cheaper than it was when they did not have this stuff
installed. You see my main argument here is that you need to present
people with a working system at the start. We are used to buying all the
extra stuff we need but today's computer user is shocked when he turns
on a machine and it cannot do any of the normal functions like playing
CDs, showing DVDs etc. You may disagree with it in principle but that is
the way things are in the PC world and I actually think it is right.
Second, why does windows XP, for example not run any longer on the same
machines as win98 used to? Because (amongst other reasons) it is too fat. In
other words, incorporating all of those progs into the OS practically forces
you to upgrade your machine. Again, this is a cost which I could do without.
Yes it is true that you cannot run XP on a machine much lower than
500MHz with 256Mb RAM and, yes, it is also true that this means that you
will have to update your system to run this but that is what keeps the
PC field alive and has made ours so stagnant. Given a programmer more
power and storage space and he will use it. If the user buys new
hardware he expects better functionality so the programmer works harder
to give him that. You could not run SMSQ/E on a Trump card for instance.
It is called feedback and it keeps the system alive and moving. Ours is
static. I was very disappointed that the Q40 did not jolt the software
side of the QL scene into some action but it has, at last, started to
respond to the new colours and facilities and I hope that it may
continue to revive.
And finally, try eradicating IE from a windows computer, and you will see
that it is FAR from easy.
Because it has become part of the system in the way the P.E. is part of
SMSQ/E. I would be happier about this if I.E. was a little more stable
but it has got better.
--
Roy Wood
Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex.
Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030 fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501
web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
