From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 19:58:23 -0700, pyotr filipivich   
    wrote:   
      
   >Steve Hayes  on Sat, 08 Apr 2017 05:04:28 +0200   
   >typed in alt.comp.os.windows-xp  the following:   
   >>On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 19:17:05 -0700, pyotr filipivich   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>Steve Hayes  on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 01:36:18 +0200   
   >>>typed in alt.comp.os.windows-xp  the following:   
   >>   
   >>>>If a new version (say Windows 10) could install itself over my   
   >>>>existing system, without my having to reinstall every app on it, which   
   >>>>means having to spend time hunting for the original installation   
   >>>>discs, reentering keys and all that stuff, I'd have little or no   
   >>>>objection to it.   
   >>>   
   >>>	Yes - in a nutshell.   
   >>   
   >>Of course there is also the thought that as each new version becomes   
   >>more bloated than the last, I might need new hardware to run it on,   
   >>and that would mean more expense.   
   >   
   >	I remembering thinking "What will you need 128K or RAM for?" and   
   >then a few years later complaining because it was taking "forever" to   
   >download a 256k program over the network to run my class assignments.   
   >   
   >	Or when a 40 Meg Harddrive was Hughmongous!  And now I have data   
   >files for browsers which are that big.  Grumble, grumble ...   
      
   Yes, the ascii backup for my diary is now 23 Mb, but the data file in   
   the database where I keep it is now nearly 52 Mb.   
      
   The longer you use a computer, the more space you need for data. But   
   program bloat is something else.   
      
   My XyWrite word processor, which is more powerful than MS Word, fits   
   on a single 360k floppy. It doesn't have the bells and whistles of MS   
   Word, but it has more pistons and cylinders.   
      
   I had an HP laptop, which I bought in 2005 and it was stolen in 2010.   
   When I bought it it ran fine. It had 250Mb of RAM. But by the time it   
   was stolen it was running painfully slowly. The reason was that each   
   new version of a program that was updated was more bloated than the   
   last and needed more memory to run, though this bloat made little   
   opractical difference to what one could actually DO with the program.   
   It was mostly bells and whistles, not pistons and cylinders. So the   
   only practical effect was that the new and improved version of the   
   program ran more slowly. I was glad it was stolen -- it was taking 30   
   minutes to shut down, with lots of swapping to disk.   
      
      
      
   >   
   >	Rocks,   Should have stuck with rocks.   If scrolls were good   
   >enough for Archemedies ...   
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm   
   http://khanya.wordpress.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)