Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!husc6!wjh12!redsox!campbell
From: campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Low Productivity of Knowledge Workers
Message-ID: <1458@redsox.bsw.com>
Date: 30 Sep 89 04:02:28 GMT
References: <9676@venera.isi.edu> <189@crucible.UUCP> <291@voa3.UUCP> <7765@microsoft.UUCP> <6313@ficc.uu.net> <7886@microsoft.UUCP>
Reply-To: campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell)
Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Lines: 25

In article <7886@microsoft.UUCP> philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) writes:
-Hmmm,  let me see.  Yeah, I'm running on a compaq.  Yup, there's dos down
-there somewhere.  Yup, excel, my bug database and mail program are
-all still running. Not to mention my vtp to the local news server which
-is what I'm using to post this message (at least when I'm not switching
-back to make sure the other stuff is running .  The network seems to still
-be up -- and so are the servers I'm connected to.   And I could run this
-stuff on a lowly 286.

And what multitasking operating system are you running?  Oh, you're not?
You're running DOS?  With a bunch of TSR hacks loaded?  Oh, OK, how would
one go about writing such a TSR, reliably?  How do I know it's not going to
step on someone else's TSR?  I just follow a bunch of undocumented rules,
right?  Wouldn't it be nice if these rules were codified, standardized, and
documented?  Wouldn't people like Borland (Sidekick), Lotus (Metro), and the
Prokey folks love to have a _reliable_ way to write TSRs without crashing
your PC?  Didn't these people talk Microsoft into participating in such a
standardization effort?  And didn't Microsoft tube the whole project in
order to try to shove OS/2 down our throats instead?

Pardon me while I fetch my airsick bag...
-- 
Larry Campbell                          The Boston Software Works, Inc.
campbell@bsw.com                        120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell                   Boston, MA 02146