No Subject

>But seriously, anyone buying a system past a certain "power point" would
>be better served by getting a real OS and investing the time and effort in
>learning how to use it effectively. My point is that 95, toy though it may
>be, is actually doing the job for some people. Nowhere near as many as MS
>would have us believe, naturally. But it is fast turning from "the one true
>way" to just another one of many choices. We may cringe at the notion of
>crippling a nice fast system with a bloated, inefficient OS, but people
>have the right to make bad choices. I do my part by making people aware of
>the alternatives, as I'm sure most people on this list do.

I think toy/tool is better defined by the purpose for which it is used.  A
Jet Ski is called a toy, even though it costs more than the before
mentioned computer, because it serves no "useful" purpose.  My father's
Packard Bell 286 running GeoWorks is a tool becuase he uses it to write
business letters.

>Oh mais oui. I still doubt the average Win95 user will EVER compile a
>program, and I don't see much of a point to programming under 95 anyway.
>I think the world would be better off if all development tools for 95
>suddenly vanished, forcing programmers to program with REAL development
>tools in a REAL OS. But I'm not gonna go around wiping hard drives to
>achieve that goal, desirable though it may be...

Just to be argumentative average users compile programs all the time if they
surf the web much,  it called JAVA.  Most new virtual machines contain
Just-In-Time compilers these days.  Sorry,  couldn't resist.