Re: [NTLK] [OT] Bigger than iWalk

From: BK (bk_newtontalk_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jan 07 2002 - 16:22:23 EST


On Tuesday, January 8, 2002, at 05:44 , Jon Glass wrote:

> on 1/7/02 3:25 PM, BK at bk_newtontalk_at_yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Yes, internet related software is often involved when it comes to
>> crashes or freezes but what excuse is this ? The internet is now part
>> of
>> office life and therefore I expect the software to work. Heck, it works
>> on Unix boxes - there isn't any excuse.
>
> The problem is that the internet is as fickle as you can get. It isn't
> like
> a local network with fairly consistent loads and data. Anything can and
> does
> come down the pike, and the poor web browser is expected to handle it
> all,
> and worse, to handle it all gracefully. You have html, horrible html,
> and
> the absolutely worst html, Java, bad Java, and the worst Java, flash,
> and
> who knows what-not all coming down the pipe. Instead of calling it
> plumbing,
> maybe we should call it the sewage. You also have the inconsistencies of
> speed and other garbage. I can imagine that no web browser that is
> designed
> to handle it all can really do so. :-)

As I said, whatever internet related problems I have had on Windoze or
legacy Macs (and not all of that is browser stuff) I have not had on any
Unix box I have used. And as soon as the MacOS has "converted" to Unix
the problems I have had with OS7/8/9 before have gone (with the
exception that IE sometimes quits on its own). There is no excuse.
Desktop OSes like the legacy MacOS and Windoze are just not designed for
the Internet, they are a from an era before the Internet and they have
gone well beyond their expiry date. Luckily one of those (the legacy
MacOS) has been given its lethal injection and will soon be buried for
good. One almost down - One more to go !!!

> Here is a question, do Newton
> browsers ever crash or cause problems? I know that I have never gotten
> one
> to work properly on either my 120 or 130. Do they ever die on a 2k
> series or
> eMate??

The only problems I have experienced (using NetHopper on the 2000 and
2100) were when the cache was filling up the available memory and it
popped up windows telling me there was no memory left to continue. But I
have never experienced any crashes or freezes (even though it can be
rather slow).

So, here we go again. A well designed system (and not a Unix system in
this case) on a fairly tiny computer with plenty of constraints on
hardware beats Windoze and legacy MacOS decisively in terms of
reliability even in a field (Internet) which is considered a
nothing-you-can-do-about-it problem child.

The key here is again that there are constraints on hardware that have
forced developers to be smart instead of using brute force. The
preservation and sharing of scarce resources and making the best
possible use of them, that is what makes good design.

You don't have that on Wintel because in the Wintel world you just throw
bigger hardware at whatever problem there is. Like it says in Murphy's
law ... if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

The legacy MacOS got stuck in between two worlds. on one side it wanted
to do as Wintels did but on the other it had more constraints than the
Wintels. Thus it turned out half stable and half instable.

Of course at some point there are things you can't do if your hardware
is too limited, getting a browser working on the MP130 may fall into
this category. So, I guess you will have to get yourself a 2000 or 2100
to use a browser. But if you do, it will be fine, no colors, no flash,
no JavaScript and a bit slow, but it will work and it won't crash, as
far as I can tell from my own experience.

rgds
bk


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

-- 
This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net
To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or
	mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 16:02:04 EST