On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Gary Barnett wrote: > > Actually, that's probably the major reason why it's lagging so > > horribly. Simply put, anything that tries to be pretty as hard > > as Win95 does, will have a few short-comings (power, speed, how > > easy it is for advanced users to get to features without having to > > go through a billion menus)... > > > > Hmm. Then why do I write code on win95, and test on it? Because it works > and it's a hell of a lot easier to debug problems than with GDB. It also > allows me to stay organized and have all the information I need at my > fingertips.. Pictures ARE easier than command line.. provided you can > configure your pictures to efficiently organize your work. As to actually > running a production mud on windows.. I agree, it's just not stable > enough and lacks key requirements for a server OS. Heaven forbid I start an OS war by saying something completely unrelated to whatever you're talking about above. I never said anything about Win95 not being "easy" (I called some of it's features inconvenient and did say it is lacking in power). I said Win95 is too "pretty" to pack the speed. And I certainly didn't say that you shouldn't/couldn't use Win95 for testing your code or even running a mud. You're reading a lot more into what I said than there is. Whatever you feel comfortable with is your choice. I never said anything neccessarily bad about Win95. It's just too focused around the interface to have a lot of fast, powerful features. -- Daniel Koepke dkoepke@california.com Forgive me father, for I am sin. +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: | | http://cspo.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list_faq.html | +-----------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST