On Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 02:00 PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 06:01 PM 4/9/03 +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
I don't think that anyone who has learned to read and write one of the languages based on Chinese characters would agree that they are "atrocious". If your native language is written using a western alphabet, characters are hard to learn. But once learned, they are conveniently concise.
Yes, one's first operating system is always the best.
If there is any insinuation that this implies to _computer_ OSes, I disagree completely. My first OS was some OS I don't remember from an HP 9825 computer. Too trivial to remember. (Actually, I used various BASIC machines prior to this, from 1968-74, but they rarely had OS names that were memorable.) Then RT-11 on a DEC PDP-11/34A. Then RSX-11M on the same machine. Then some exposure in 1978-79 to Unix, courtesy of some of my friends who were active in the Unix community. Then VMS for the VAX. Then PC-DOS for the first IBM PC. Then the LISP-based OS for the Symbolics LISP Machine. This was a wonderful OS. Then the Mac OS, starting with Finder 1.0/Chooser 1.0 in 1984 (and proceeding to every version). Occasional use of Windows 1.0 (horrible) in 1984, Windows 2.0 around 1986 (still unusable), and Windows 3.0/3.1 around 1990 (the first OS to catch up to where the Mac had been years earlier). For the past couple of years I've had Mac OS X on all four of my Macs able to run it efficiently. It has bits and pieces of BSD Unix, a Mach kernel, and of course a wonderful graphics interface. So, no, one's first OS is not always the best. --Tim May "We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania." "We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia." "We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq. "We are at war with France. We have always been at war with France."