Ross Smith wrote:
> 
> You keep using that phrase. Perhaps there would be less OS bigotry
> around if people were a bit more skeptical about hearsay. I have several
> years of software development on both Win32 *and* Linux (and OS/2 and a
> little Irix) behind me (and, I hope, several more in front of me :-) ),
> so I think I can claim to know what I'm talking about. The rumours of
> NT's death (blue screen of) are greatly exaggerated.

Well, I knew the phrase "from what I've heard" would raise a red flag. I
used NT several years ago writing a C++ graphing class. I had more
problems with MFC than I did with NT, as I recall. Then, too, I was
using a workstation, not a server. However, the "from what I've heard"
referred to "reliable hearsay" (I can hear the groans now). I've talked
to three system administrators specifically about NT in the past two
months and they were not too hard on NT, but when compared to Unix, NT
lost out all around.
 
I _do_ use Windows 95 at home and at work as well as several flavors of
Unix. I develop in C++ at home under Win95 and Windows 95 is quite
forgiving. I also really enjoy programming under Windows. And the big
complaint I have about programming under Unix is the lack of a really
good IDE. But when I program under Windows I can't help shake the
feeling that Windows is a big fat kludge. What is it that they say ...
"Windows is a 32-bit GUI built on a 16-bit OS for an 8-bit processor for
a 4-bit something-or-other by a two-bit company". When I compare it to
the GUI running on the Mac or even the Amiga I see a Windows as a
bloated, inefficient GUI. Granted, it has a lot of capabilities that the
former two do not have...

jb

Post a reply to this message