Guy Fraser said:
>
> Whether the author {Fred Langa} can be called an expert is probably not
> at question here, he is aparently a technical writer. He completely
> failed to mention what hardware was being used, that was brand new and
> yet supported by a 1995 version of windows 1995. As many people recall
> the version of Windows 95 that came out in late 1995 was terrible, and
> not likely the version of Windows 95 he claims to have tried.
what i think alot of people are missing is that the big deal on the sound
working in win95 isn't in what he wrote, but what he DIDN'T write.
what he didn't write (more like 'remind') the reader of is this:
***THE INSTALL WAS DONE VIA A VPC*** the virtual pc he installed it
emulated a soundblaster generic blah blah, probably a sound blaster
generation 1 or a sb16 for utmost compatibility. he wasn't testing the
hardware when he did this, he was testing the vpc's software.
oh, and since WHEN is windows 3.1 an operating system? the sound would
have been handled by dos mode drivers, otherwise dos wouldn't have even
known that the card was there.
this guy is obviously a moron.
he also reminds me of an old dilbert strip where dogbert becomes a
technology columnist... the rationale was something along the lines of him
not being at all knowlegeable in the field, but will base his opionions on
knee jerk reactions. a great quote : "is the risc processor appropriate
for the elderly? HELLO?! IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE?!"
well, he's a bit better than dogbert, but i don't think he knows what he's
doing.
-d
p.s. sorry for the rant, but it doesn't look like i'm the first to do so.
-+(duncan brown
-+(duncanbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-+(http://www.linuxadvocate.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ - against microsoft attachments
Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy
evidence of the fact.
-- George Eliot
