Re: LZ: PSOII Libraries
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: LZ: PSOII Libraries
At 02:59 AM 6/26/94 +0100, you wrote:
>I use unixish OSes all the time. I have linux set up on a dual boot
>with os/2 4.0. How can all you win95 users talk about "IQ Checks" when
>you are using the sinlge most lame operating system ever.
Actually, IMHO, the credit for the lamest operating system ever probably
goes to Macintosh. I know some people like it, and I respect thier
opinion. I just don't like it. And, just because I use Win95 doesn't
mean I'm stupid. I use it because it does what I need it to do and it does
it well. By adding a few utilities and spending a little time tweaking it,
you can vastly improve upon Win95. Also, most software is made for Win95
now, especially shareware. I have respect for UNIX OSes, in fact I would
probably use Linux if I didn't want to spend the time installing it and
finding software to replace the software that works perfectly now. I never
thought I would be defending Win95 :-)
>I understand
>USGARD fully. I don't feel that it is complicated. I don't even think
>that ease of use is a valid catagory in software review.
I do. I don't want to spend time learning how to use software when I could
actually be using it.
>In os/2
>instead of dos-like command prompts I choose to use bash or zsh. The
>problem with USGARD is that it is impracticle and has too much overhead
>for a 28k calculator. There is exactly 28226 bytes free availble on the
>calc. USGARD with shell (assuming you use the smallest one) takes up
>almost 10% of your memory. Then you have to add about double that for
>libraries in practicle use. I don't have a problem with the ideas
>behind USGARD, just how and where it was implemented. And as far as
>making programming easier, it really isn't (almost all the libraries are
>just converted commonly availible zshell routines).
>
I think that it's a little easier, but not enough to justify programing for
it.
Sorry for the off-topic post.
James Sulak
james@superb.net
References: