D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] (Another rant) [Fwd: Microsoft shuts down Windows 98]

 

Paul Weaver wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:49:35PM +0100, Theo Zourzouvillys wrote:
>   
>> While my grandparents had a washing machine that lasted 25 years, my mother 
>> gets through one every 2-3 years (5 kids!).  I've only got through 2 kettles 
>> this year alone - but i blame the amount of coffee i drink.  my mother has 
>> had just one kettle in 4 years... or at least one that looked the same last 
>> time i was there.
>>     
>
> A domestic kettle shouldn't die in a few months, no matter how many
> times you boil it. Get you're money back.
>
>   
>> Explain why computers are any different?  People seem to forget that windows 
>> 98 is now 8 years old, and ME is 7 [1].  A very long time in computer terms.  
>> 6 years before that we were lucky to have DOS, let alone windows.
>>     
>
> Perhaps, but I'm of the opinion we throw away too much stuff already.
> People chuck perfectly good TV's because a capacitor goes. With mass
> production abroad, it's cheaper to buy a new appliance than to fix the
> old one, however it means full landfills, 
>
> A computer that hasn't had any hardware failure will do the tasks today
> that it did 8 years ago.
>
>   
>> Going back to the car analogy: i'd think you are a complete idiot for putting 
>> the public at risk if you were driving around a car lacking basic safety 
>> features.  even more so if you were actually advising the use of dangerous 
>> cars.  again, exactly the same thing with computers.
>>     
>
> Cars kill people, computers don't, get some perspective. 
>
>   
>> I'm heavily up for computers requiring a certain "software safety standard" - 
>> for both the software and the user [3] (the hardware already has in form of 
>> CE in Europe) before being allowed to connect to the internet. Hopefully a 
>> law will one day require this. 
>>     
>
> Oh great, that means that anything you run will have to be certified,
> meaning spending money. So much for open source. If I patch some
> software I have to spend money on getting it "allowed"? Electrical
> devices are certified because they can kill people. Bad software on home
> PC's can't. 
>
>   
>> I'm sure the same bunch of you will be complaining then, too. "Oh no the 
>> government are forcing us to use certain software/algorithms, ohh no! whine 
>> whine whine, microsoft mumble mumble mumble!".
>>     
>
> So freedom is an alien concept to you?
>
>   
>> it's exactly you people that will help cause the law in the first place (NO! 
>> WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T UPGRADE!!!).
>>     
>
> My inlaws computer runs ME. It's dog slow (10 minute bootup) because of all the
> gunk they *have* to have installed on it, but it does what they want it
> to do. You'd rather they paid £400 and bought a new computer, or spend
> £200 on an XP upgrade, which wouldn't work. 
>
>   

 why spend £400 on a new computer? You can probably get all the 
performance you need by sticking in a new processor/memory. And perhaps 
a new (second-hand)  motherboard if that's not an option.
Tom te tom te tom


-- 
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html