
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
It was open stage night in rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, when
David Williams stepped up to the microphone and muttered:
"Eliyahu Rooff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
flat-panel monitor. Of course the C-64 did have a couple advantages -- the OS was hard-wired into it, so there was no wait for bootup and no chance of the files being corrupted, and the CPU was in the keyboard, reducing the space it needed.
Both sound like pretty cool ideas. But then Bill Gates couldn't
make Billions by duping everyone into chasing the perpetual OS
upgrade myth. (And the attendant hardware upgrade myth which
inexorably follows...)
I don't think the "hardware upgrade myth" was much of a myth. From 1995 to 2000, processor upgrades made noticeable differences in the speed of the average computer. Goodness knows that I'd be yanking my hair out if I was still using my old P-100. But when Intel hit the gigahertz marker, the PC was thinking faster than the average user could.
I've got two computers from 2000 and both of them are fast enough for most of what I do. They do lag on some graphic or audio work, but not enough that I'd need to buy a new computer. Sure, some audio and video editors (and gamers) need better and faster - but I don't.
Of course, it's funny that it took 3 years for the PC makers to realize that the 3 year cycle was history. I figured that out when I got my 800 mhz PIII.
Oh, imagine the effects B5 could have had if only... ;)
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |