Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 23:17:06 12/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
>>>I see that you have accepted the money philosophy. >>> >>>What if I have bought a computer last year? >> >>Then you probably have several gigs free. Last year's hard drives were 6-10 Gb. >> >>>Every year I should upgrade my hard disk and my RAM? >> >>Every three years. > > >Most people I know, even if they use their computers only to play, need to >change their computer every 18 months. > >Personally I am forced to upgrade every year... I upgrade _something_ every year, but not my whole machine. My video card is several years old, that will probably be next. I'll grant that most people are not capable of swapping in new hardware parts themselves, but on the other hand, they can get someone to do it. >>>Having a 14Gb hard disk costs me twice its price. It costs me the price of the >>>current disk I have, and that I can throw to the trash can, PLUS the price of >>>the new hard disk. >> >>You don't have to throw it in the trash. Most computers have four IDE >>connections. One will be taken up by a CD-ROM (or DVD-ROM), another by the >>original hard drive. That means there's two free spots left. > > >No IDE port left on my computer. 1 hard disk + 1 CD Writer + 1 DVD drive + 1 >internal ZIP = 4 IDE connections. > >I can't add an IDE port for (at least) 2 reasons: >* No IRQ available any more >* I think I have already too many peripherals in my system Yikes. Sounds like you have enough stuff that you should be using SCSI. >>>Tell me why a very good operating system could not fit in 100Mb? >> >>Our definition of a "very good operating system" has changed from 30 years ago. >>If you want CICS, I'm sure you can fit that into 100 megs no problem. :-) > > >My definition of "good" is approximately: "an OS that has not too many >limitations, and that can run almost all the popular software I want to run". > >A debugged Windows95 with a limited set of extra features would do the job >perfectly. But this will never exist, of course, because not enough money would >be generated from it (or: much more money can be generated by forcing the >consumers to throw out their current computers to buy a new one with a fat OS). > >What is the justification of the extra 500Mb for Windows 2000? One of the things I read about Win98 was that it performed better than Win95 when there was not much memory in a machine. You seem pretty convinced that that isn't the case, though. :-/ >You can add a lot of things in an OS, like SMP support, net support, database >support and much more, why on earth is it going to take 500Mb on my hard disk??? > >But if you begin to paint the title bar with millions of colors, use an >incredibly fat Internet browser to display the content of your hard disk, and >add fancy functions to your desktop interface, then of course you are on the >right way to overflow the poor 1Gb hard disks spread everywhere in the world. > > > >>>The price for us is the price of a computer each year. Computers cost much more >>>than what people think generally. The average guy buying a computer in a >>>supermarket or in a store does not realize how much this is going to cost him. >> >>That's because most of the price is software, not hardware, but people tend to >>look at the big sticker at the beginning (not that I blame them.) > > >No. The problem is the price of the hardware. Because people don't understand >that you don't buy a computer once. You are forced to buy one every 18 months or >so. This just isn't true. >4 years ago, people using a word processor and a spreadsheet were totally >satisfied with a P100, or even a 486-66. > >You cannot use these computers anymore if you want to use a recent word >processor (the one your employees have learned to use). > >You could use them, but in pratice you can't, and the reason is that recent >software, by DESIGN, cannot run on them anymore. Recent software is FAT. It is not specifically *designed* to bloat. It is designed *knowing* that modern computers have more resources than older ones. >>>This cost is increased artificially by companies like Microsoft. >> >>If you are suggesting that they deliberately write their software to use far >>more resources than it requires, then I will have to disagree with you. > > >I'm not even suggesting it. I'm saying it loud and clear. > >Open your eyes and let's talk about it again in several years. And about Elvis too? > Christophe Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.