🚀 go-pugleaf

In article  kri...@ibm.net writes:
>Subject: Re: Why prolong the agony?  Just get Windows 95...you'll be glad (you don't have a choice)
>
>>I have to agree. The Mac interface still looks like the bland Windows
>>3.0 interface. Not even a 3D button in sight. I have a friend with a
>>PowerMac 6100/60 (with the DOS compatibility card) and I hate using
>>it. Single button mouse so no right-click menus, have to hold the
>>button down to keep menus on the screen, and the interface is
>>b-o-r-i-n-g. Black and white and no 3D effects anywhere.
>
>And worst of all, filenames are limited to 32 characters.  Why are Mac
>users so excited about long filenames when they only have 32
>characters?  I can use 255 character filenames in Windows 95 and NT.
>And I can't tell you how many times I've typed a filename that would
>normally be 40 or 50 characters only to find that the Macintosh won't
>let me type in the name.
>

People using long filenames in Windows 95 should _not_ throw stones.  Doesn't
Windows 95 use some horrible 4DOS like kludge to achieve more than 8.3?
Use a file or something to keep track of the real filename, I think that's
what it does.  Now _that's_ efficient.  I'd rather use a filesystem limited
to 32 than one that's horribly inefficient and slow.  Of course, the Mac
FS may very well be both, I don't know.

But am I right that this is how 95 has 'long' filenames?
--
Buh?
PGP: finger jrob...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
email: jrob...@uiuc.edu [MIME/PGP accepted]