Author: leonid
Date: 14:01:31 12/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 1999 at 14:07:03, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 08, 1999 at 02:17:06, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>>>>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. :-/ > > >That's right. That was one of the reasons I wanted W98. Because since I got >W95B, I had the HIMEM.SYS driver taking 46Kb in DOS memory (instead of less than >10Kb in the original W95). This has been described by Microsoft as a problem, >and they published a patch for this, that did not work. > >Also I hoped W98, with the alledged better memory management, would run faster >on my 32Mb computer. > >I was of course totally disappointed. HIMEM took the same amount of memory, and >my computer was much slower. > >I added 32Mb of RAM, and it was still much slower. > >Don't believe what you read. > > > >>>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. > > >You can maybe avoid it because you are able to swap parts in your own computer. > >The majority of people I know think it's risky, so they just change everything. > >Even companies think this way. They don't upgrade, they buy new computers. > > > >>>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. > > >Are you really that naive? Or do you work at Microsoft? > > > >>>>>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? > > >Consider: >1) it is possible to write software that is of reasonnable size and run at an >acceptable speed even on old computers >2) if you do so, people will not buy new computers so often > >If you are involved in selling an OS that is shipped with every new computer >sold, what are you going to do??? > >I'm talking about something very concrete about an industry that is just going >crazy and taking advantage of people's ignorance. > >I'm in this business since 20 years. In the beginning I used to think exactly >like you: "this just cannot be true". Over the years I have seen so many waves >roll and disappear that I think I should have ignored most of them. > >Feel free to believe all this is done for the good of humanity. > >I'm eagerly waiting for the day users will have more knwoledge about the tools >they use and will be able to refuse the new shining stuff coming from some >companies. > > > > Christophe Very liked what you said. It make me laugh as well. All those wonders of Windows are created more for inducing us to dependence that they are necessary to make our program running or our programming possible. Why we must have all those 100 or 200M to start with? We can have only slim basic system of 5 or 10k, and that is all! All fantasy package (expensive and not necessary for all of us) must be available for those who need it. And never, ever make the programming accessible only for the rich man, like it is now with Windows. Now you will never end spending your money by looking for basic tools (SDK) and trying discover secrets of Windows. Secrets that are anyway not for sale. To enter actually into programming for Windows you must inevitably pass through the intrance indicated by: "For Rich Only". How many full of ideas but empty pocketed guys was thrown out this way? This will stay for ever as big, sad mystery. Leonid.
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.