Sure. The Win'95 interface is just plan tacky. The rip off of NeXTStep
(look no further than the location control panel) and the overall
"cuteness" and "high tech" combination is just plan tacky. It's like
shopping at KMart for the latest fashions. Sure KMart shirts look like a
Stussey, but there is a big difference. As far as so-so NT is being touted
as a "industrial" strength OS. What it is, as you have stated, is a decent
desktop OS.
>Having mucked around in the innards of both NT and many of the Unix/Mach
>variants, I find NT to be the Land Rover/HMMV in the OS auto sales lot. It
>certainly weighs a lot, it may suck down resources, but its disk rotors
>won't warp from a little mountain driving.
>
Possibly, however it still sits at #4.
>
>PS. Regarding #7 - I actually have a ZX-81 in my office. It wears a label
>saying "Network Computer". Although to keep up with changing times, I
>should probably rename it to "Web TV".
A ZX-81??? cool. Now we all know where Ms got WIndows CE from. :-)
Tim
--I got two turntables and a microphone...
<> tbyars@earthlink.net <>