Re: [ProgSoc] New ITD Computer Laboratory Equipment (fwd)

[Christian Kent <ckent@nospam.socs.uts.edu.au>]

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Telford Tendys wrote:

> Why does everyone like zip drives. They are a single-source item

"Sorry Mom, the crowd has spoken ..."

> and so could go obsolete quite quickly. I'm in favour of using CD-burners

Ahem, don't think so.  Sony, VST, and some others too.  My money is on Zip
sticking around for its full potential life.  The day 100MB becomes
useless is a long way off.  I'd love to imagine the cost of disks coming
down as the years go by, and that's still one advantage that CD-R has.

> > of good video drivers, but why on earth are they using IE version 2 and
> > Netscape 3?  Any 1996 vintage machine can handle both latest versions.
> Nice software is a matter of opinion. I'm absolutely NOT going to
> upgrade the Win95 machine here to Win98 nor even to the latest IE.
> Basically there's too many gotchas and I have just got to a point where
> I have most of the sneaky features of Win95 and IE under control. The last

I'm the first to agree with you there.  I even caught myself getting
nostalgic at an ITD Win3.1 machine the other day because it's something I
can actually =know= all the features of.  Even though I'm comfortable with
Win95 now, I don't really think I can truthfully say I know it inside-out
like I did Win3.1.

> thing I want is for the software to start ordering me around again
> until a waste a further few months finding ways to beat it back
> under control.

However I have to stay with my opinion and recommend the latest version 4
stuff, since it's free anyway.  Just yesterday I got stuck on the web
because the idiots wouldn't accept a v3 browser.  Being at the NT labs,
there was nothing I could do.  Lo betide the lynx user.  I suppose it's
the same argument as "can't live with lynx" only a few notches up.

> > Also notwithstanding logistics, it'd be nice if all the features worked
> > without errors -- I don't know how serious those "can't save template" 
> > errors in Word 97 are, but are they impossible to accommodate within the
> Exactly what I was pointing out above, every upgrade has it's elements
> of downgrade until someone figures out the problem. We have so many people
> round here pushing to upgrade Word 95 to Word 97 -- because of features?

Well fine;  I mean, I could foreseeably configure some Win3.1 system with,
say Office 4.2 and MS's latest thunk-converters, and IE v4 for Win3.1.
You could probably try getting away with that indefinitely.  Though I'd
push hard for some decent SVGA drivers too ... grumble.

> NO -- because of bugfixes then? NO -- because simply that they get Word 97
> delivered with their machine at home and compatability is such that they
> have a hard time taking files back and forth between home and uni.

Oh look;  Word 97 is actually a decent upgrade from the 95 version.  I
like the doggies and psycho cat, OK?

> This is the worst reason in the world to upgrade but it's a real concern
> for most of the users.

We're all getting to that part of the game where the upgrade cycle seems
to have turned once too many times.  This seems to have happened to a few
jaded Mac users years ago, the ones with 640x480 screens who are still
running version 4 or 5 of Word and somehow missed the word that the
operating system got upgraded (for free, mostly).

> 
> > I'd =love= to see these new machines have Netscape 4, IE 4, Office 97,
> > Office 98, NT 4 and MacOS 8.1.  And let's not forget Powertoys, FinderPop,
> > and a bunch of other goodies (I'll vouch for the stability of a couple of
> Stability is everything in this sort of environment. Most people don't
> want them to play with, they want to get something done.

Actually the ones I'm advocating are quite stable.  |-)
Importantly they're free!

> Having said that, there is no reason why the bulk of the applications
> can't be running from a network server and available for all machines.
[snip]
> doubtlessly DLL conflicts, NT should have tricks to get past that).

With you all the way there;  if someone else can't figure out how to do
that I might just have to help do it myself!

> > Lastly PLEASE see that some of the old machines are kept!  I don't care if
> > we have to go to the lower basement of the tower to use them, in a lab
> > with no chairs and one 60 watt globe, but lack of computers is probably a
> Yeah, a wall of text only machines, booting linux and supporting six
> telnet sessions on virtual consoles -- the ultimate in user interface.

/:-)

> I think that a bigger problem is the space that they sit in. There's
> not much of UTS that could be called spare and it seems like they are
> finding more students all of the time. Mind you, computer usage is

The walls around the bottom of Engineering?  But isn't it strange how when
you're walking around uni that most rooms aren't being used.  Must be that
bloody Heisenburg timetabling principle at work.  I suppose it's because
most students want to use computers when they're =not= in lectures and
tutes.  Then they all migrate to the labs.  So how about if we install
the computers on pull-down Z-springs off the ceiling?

> going up and some text-only boxes would give the gurus a fair chance
> among the seething masses of blank faced GUI users.

You're a cynic.

> More catalogs at the library would be good too, I'm sure that there
> is some level surface in the library that doesn't contain a catalog
> terminal.

I'm finding it easier to check my email from those catalog terminals these
days ... oops better shut up now.


CK.

--
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au.
If you are having trouble, ask owner-progsoc@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au for help.

This list is archived at <http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/lists/progsoc/>