Re: X is dead. Long live windows.

On 2009-04-10, James Eacret <[email protected]> wrote:
> It seems to me, that if this is what "killed" X, than Windows 95 was
> the death of Windows.  And if that had not done the trick, Windows ME
> and Vista were two pointblank shots to the temple, leaving a rotting
> carcass behind.

Oh, no, there's no single one thing that killed X, but all the
recent actions to "modernise" (read: over-complexify) it:

  http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/b/archives/2008/07/13/T18_03_06/

  http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/b/archives/2008/03/20/T13_47_17/

  http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/b/archives/2009/03/13/T16_46_57/

"DOS as a simple and manageable system was the high point of computing. XP
was a local maximum: the last OS with good fonts, and not even nearly as bad
as W95, around the release of which I switched from DOS to what can now
clearly be seen as the failure known as Linux/FOSS."

> But, like I said, having very little in the way of true programming
> experience, I am an ignorant, if not blissfully ignorant user.  I just
> see irony in you outlying the increase memory use, cpu power, and
> battery consumption; my wife's new laptop with Vista is all that, and
> more bothersome for me, it is way to colorful.

Vista does suck in my experience... in vmware. But I use XP.
Windows 7 sees like in improvement.. based on vmware tests.

You can select a W98-lookalike theme in both Vista and W7,
and as a nice side effect blurring gets disabled.

-- 
In 1995, Linux was almost a bicycle; an alternative way of live to the
Windows petrol beasts that had to be taken to the dealer for service.
By 2008, Linux has bloated into a gas-guzzler, and local vendors and
artisans have had to yield to "all under one roof" big box hypermarkets.