Re: TI-H: Off Topic, Windows 95 trivia


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: TI-H: Off Topic, Windows 95 trivia




On Thu, Dec 31, 1998 at 11:19:01AM -0900, Grant Stockly wrote:
> 
> >I don't see why, a command line has no inherent superiorities
> >over an intellegently designed GUI.  The usual problem is that
> >the interfaces are not well designed, Windows NT has always
> >had some options in screwy places.
> >
> >Now, I'm not saying that not having a command interpreter
> >is good, just that anything you can do on a command line
> >you can also do with a GUI.
> 
> Sure, but navigating with a mouse is alot slower than typing 70wpm.
> 
> >Not sure why you would try to install two copies (multi-boot
> >with the same OS maybe?  one for testing, one for normal use?).
> >
> >Anyway, there is no excuse for releasing production software
> >with major bugs, particularly in the installer.
> 
> If you mess it up in most cases you have to remove the OS with another OS
> or the installer won't create a fresh copy.
> 
> Its sad that it can hardly play 2 movies on a 166MHz Pent...  These movies
> are 320x240 at 15fps.  That is NOT good multimedia.

Actually from what i'd heard the graphics speed far exceeded current UNIX
implementations (i.e. X windows) and i can run nearly 10 movies at that
res in my 1600x1200 desktop (AMD K6-2 300 w/128 megs of ram). Possibly
you've got something set up wrong on that pent? Because i know my 300 is
faster, but it's not that much faster :> Of course, if these are MPEG
movies, it's probably not the display speed but the decompression speed.
MPEG video decompression is a fairly CPU intensive task (which is why you
usually need an MPEG decoder card if you buy a DVD drive and actually want
to watch movies with it :)

-- Jon Olson


Follow-Ups: References: