> Yes, but the size won't really matter. It's the speed that does. I belie=
ve
> that
> it will eventually reach a point where it levels out, and instead of spe=
ed
> being increased, the content will be.
I think this has already happened. See Trevor's excellent post about
waiting time being essentially constant as bandwidth increases.
>There is so much online now, but there
> could be so much more stuff that I would like to see online. We'll event=
ually
> have a better (non-telco) based communications network (wireless) runnin=
g via
> satellite - (like those star trek comm badges), smart money, etc.
True, I should have said "performance" seems to be staying constant,
not "capability". My 8088 would spell-check a document as fast as
my Pentium, it just had to do it in a text-based OS. The action
in Castle Wolfenstein was as fast or faster than a modern computer
running Quake II, but it was 256 colour, 2D technology, with no
coloured lighting, 3D effects, or 32-bit soundtrack.
> > I should have seen this coming sooner.=A0 My first hard drive was a
> >$900 ten megabyte external unit, and it filled up quicker than I
> >would have imagined.=A0 Ditto for the 40Mb, the 120MB, and the 2.1GB.=A0=
> >Now that hard drive prices have really begun to plummet, DVD-ROMs are
> >becoming popular, with a capacity of 17GB.=A0 Imagine how much
> >drive space games and even office applications are going to take up
> >in a year or so.
>
> You have to know when the time to buy into technology is. If you time it
> right,
> you can get many years out of a particular piece of hardware before it b=
ecomes
> obsolete. Ditto for not buying generic computers - those built with infe=
rior
> parts will tend to need "upgrading" faster than those built with good pa=
rts &
> support. A Dell or Micron will far outlast a Packard Bell in terms of
> usability, although a good home made computer will blow the doors off a
> Micron.
As far as when to buy into technology, there's a SERIOUS trade-off
you forgot to mention. If you buy the newest, fastest technology
with the hopes of extending the useful system life, you're always
paying top dollar for your components. I did that with the $900
Apple hard drive, and I did it again a few years later, paying $409
for a 14,400 baud modem when they FIRST became available. You also
run the risk of investing big bucks into the newest, fastest
technology, only to see it partially or totally abandoned by the
market a short time later. Remember the IBM Microchannel bus? Vesa
local bus? EISA?
As for computer choice, I think we have differing terminology.
Packard Bell is HARDLY a generic computer. In fact, it's one of the
most proprietary pieces of crap the world has ever seen. I've
home-built all of my computers since 1990. The box I have
now is on its fifth motherboard, fourth hard drive, second graphics
card, second sound card, second CD-ROM, and third keyboard. The only
original parts left are the monitor, case, and one of the floppies.
I've never had to replace a part I didn't want to to upgrade
something else, with the exception of going from 30-pin memory to
72-pin memory when the market shifted.
The problem with some name-brand computers isn't the QUALITY of
components being used. Most computers use the same drives,
processors, memory, etc. It's the fact that you can't put anybody
else's motherboards in them when it comes time to upgrade. Even
Compaq, IBM, and Dell have had this problem.
> > Is it just me, or are the numbers just getting bigger, while
> >capability stays pretty much the same?
>
> No. Look at how much more you can do now, compared to 5 years ago? Now w=
e have
> the Internet in all of it's commercial glory, 3d video, video conferenci=
ng,
> etc. 5 years ago, we had the beginnings of VGA graphics, Windows 3.0, et=
c.
>
See comment above.
> >(Who remembers when a bulletin board was some guy's Apple IIe with a
> >300 baud modem and a floppy in each drive.)
>
> Old hardware is still cool to have though. I'm going to be buying an Ata=
ri
> 800xl (circa 1983) to play around with. Old hardware still can be fun to=
work
> with. I for one believe that games were better back in the olden days of
> Atari!
> =3D)
>
You're talking to the guy that still uses his reel-to-reel, Atari
2600, and 1912 Burroughs hand-crank adding machine!
> I'm also looking for the old 70s Pong machines!
>
I'm looking for a Galaga arcade machine for my wife. If you see one
for sale, let me know!
>
>
> BEN RUSET - http://www.monmouth.com/~bruset
> Safety Fast & MG Cars Webring - http://www.infi-pos.com/~oasis
>
>
>
>
|