Wednesday, 24th June 1998

Well, here are I am again. Talk about a hectic week.

And I'm not the only one. Microsoft release Windows 98 here in the UK today, and what a fuss over nothing that will be. I've see the Beta releases, and the "pretty-close to nearly finished" versions. I know its been out the US for a little while.

The whole computing community has been saved once again. NOT.

Integrated web? Web-centric as the Microsoft-fed press were stating a year ago (strangely). But I'm not so sure. Already you had reduced workspace, with a menu per each window (apparently, the world had a surplus of them, what with the Mac using only one which it changes, and DOS not having any real ones), but now you also get to have a whole set of icons in your top-bar as well.

I'm not sure whether its only me, but in Netscape's Navigator/Communicator and IE4, once you get rid of all the real estate at the top and bottom for icon-status-button-thingies, you screen is really small, even at 1024x768, and I run at 800x600 most of the time (mainly because I need really big pixels on those late nighters). And Microsoft have built it in. Perhaps they own 21" monitor companies? (As a footnote: In Netscapes web brower I've tried using the News program. Why, oh why didn't they make those three windows seperate. I have to fit all my newgroups into a window the size of a postage stamp, all the message titles (all 2000 of them) into another postage stamp window, and a little 5 line window down the bottom which isn't even big enough to display the headers, let alone the the message. And I wonder why people are still using Newswatcher!)

And then there is all the problems with installation. Now I've installed Win3.11, WinNT and Win95 on a variety of configurations of PC's; totally well over 50 machines. And you know what? The only machine I installed them as a "everything works first time" was a G3 Mac running Connectix Virtual PC. Ironic eh?

So when I say problems with installation, I mean problems with installation. Of course not all of it is Microsoft's fault. I've done OS/2 installations a plenty as well. And there can be trouble "in them there hills" as well. I suppose I could say it's not IBM's fault, but it is their blinking hardware. You tend to be OK with OS/2 if you can edit a 25th century config.sys by hand. No, that date doesn't bear thinking about in context with ANY file called config.sys.

I have used a PC operating system that didn't give me any problems, and worked with five machines I tried installing it on - Linux (Red Hat distribution). Of course, you have to be a hacker to know how to partition your hard drive from the set up program, but the rest of it is good. You also need to be a hacker to use Linux, but I've been told that's on purpose - to keep all those people "who really should have licenses before they are allowed to use a computer" types away, apparently. Oh, and two of the five were VPC on PowerMacs, which does help.

When I and a lot of people have Win95 running just fine, then I don't particularly want to break it by installing Win98. And there's the fact the v1.0 is bound to be buggy. (I am a little paranoid about v1.0 of anything though). Of course, my Uncle will just HAVE to upgrade. Net result: Rob has to fix it. (Note for the record: My standard reply is "You wouldn't have this problem on a Mac". Second line of defence "I did tell you to get a Mac").

Windows 98 does have one good feature in it, actually. Support for multiple monitors - at last! And Mac's have had it for how long? I'm not sure how many people have more than one monitor, but take it from me, its the bees knees for programming (and graphics work, and...). Stu did it first, and showed me. It takes about a week to get used to it. Of course, when I had to use a PC I couldn't, and I was pulling my hair out!

I'm just waiting for someone to ask whether Win98 is 2000 compliant. Oh no, it can't be, otherwise they wouldn't have a sales pitch for Windows2000. What a horrific thought...

And whilst I'm on the subject - I'm just trying to figure out how companies are CHARGING for upgrades in their software to make them 2000 compliant, when (a) it's probably only a one line fix, and (b) its their bug anyway! All sounds like a big money making scam to me. One that, unfortunately the press seem to have missed, blinded by the fact that they can understand something about the machines.

If only they knew the truth, and were really alerted to the real problems facing computers. Much more pressing problems more than a sort problem (the reality), compounded by some programmers fantastic ability to make their software crash just because the year says 00 (so the press tell me). I think I'll get off this subject before my blood pressure reaches unsafe limits (if I get asked once more about 2000 problems...).

Two last things, two quotes, first from someone quite a few of us know (you know who you are):-

"...For example, did you know that you can read all kinds of different things under the heading "The Programmers Dream"? That Stu guy has been terribly busy, whereas the Rob fellow hasn't said anything for about a year and a half..."

Oh really? Thanks for that.

Secondly, seeing Stu is always quoting me, it's time for a "Classic Stu Quote":-

"I never have time to play games"

Want any tips playing Duke Nukem3D?? How about Heroes2 ? (which is mine, but it doesn't look like I'm ever going to get back - even though it is my current fav. game on the Mac).

Oh well, enough already.

Till the next time, Code On.

HIT YOUR BACK BUTTON or click Random Rob