> I was talking more about more sources of content. At our current technol=
ogical
> level, we could deliver most anything (except for a pizza) over the net.
> Streaming video/audio, etc. I'm talking more about a more distributed ne=
twork,
> faster data access, and more sources of information.
>
> A correct analogy, except that the "content" has improved, while the spe=
ed has
> stayed the same. However, run Wolf3d on your Pentium! =3D)
>
No improvement, since Wolfenstein didn't ask for anything that a
486DX-33 couldn't deliver.
>
> Vesa Local Bus was *very* successful. MCA bus died because of IBMs licen=
cing
> schemes. EISA didn't catch on because there wasn't a need. I didn't say
> "high-end" - I said QUALITY. You're better off spending a bit more money=
for a
> part that you won't have to upgrade immediately, whereas you'd have to u=
pgrade
> a cheaper part quicker. I get by with my AMD K6/166 - no way is it the
> fastest.
> But, it was good when I bought it, and I could feasibly use it for sever=
al
> years before I would *need* to upgrade.
Sure, you COULD use it for years, but it would depend on your
applications. My parents will never need to upgrade their 1994
Macintosh 68040, because they will be running the same applications
ten years from now. Your AMD 166 is already considered "entry-level"
in the gaming arena, and you won't even be up to the minimum specs
for most games in two years. That may not matter to you, but then
again it may. Likewise, the "best" 16-bit sound card in the world
didn't do people a lick of good when they wanted to use the new 32
bit sound applications. Operating systems bite EVERYBODY in the ass
because within a short time, all the new applications will require
them, and the minimum specs to run the OS usually increase by a hefty
amount.
Vesa local bus was successful for a few years, until it was
totally eclipsed by PCI. I didn't even mention the first year of
local bus where every motherboard had to have a proprietary graphics
card, since there was no standard yet. IBM did shoot themselves in
the foot with Microchannel, but who would have known that when they
first came out? The idea was great--a 32-bit architecture to replace
the old 8.33 Mhz ISA bus. I feel sorry for the people that tried to
find a microchannel modem or sound card two years later. As for
EISA, there WAS a need for it, since it was faster than the current
standard, ISA. No one could have known early on what standards would
stick around and what wouldn't. It's kind of amazing that we still
have ISA slots at all.
I still don't know what you consider the "best" time to invest in
new technology. Do you do it as soon as it's available, and take the
hit on price, and not know if your standard will be supported in two
years, or do you wait until a technology is firmly established, and
buy a second or third-tier computer for little money? In that case,
you're behind the speed curve, and will have to upgrade sooner if you
want to run the newer/faster/bigger applications. Just in the recent
past, how about the people that have dropped big money upgrading to
PCI graphics cards? Now we have AGP, with the double whammy of being
faster than PCI, and being able to use main RAM for texture maps,
reducing the need for on-board video ram. How long do you think it
will take for application developers to take full advantage of THAT
added capability? A year? two, maybe? The same thing happened with
the current 3d developments. Several competing standards, and I dare
you to tell me which ones will dominate, or even exist, in two years.
You seem to have it all figured out, so can I borrow your crystal
ball for a while? :)
> >As for computer choice, I think we have differing terminology.=A0
> >Packard Bell is HARDLY a generic computer.=A0 In fact, it's one of the
> >most proprietary pieces of crap the world has ever seen.=A0
> I used to build computers for an OEM. I rebuilt tons of PBs. I would *ne=
ver*
> own them. PB uses GENERIC PARTS (Cirrus video, ESS sound, etc)
>
How did you rebuild Packard Bells? Rape a few parts out of them
and put them in a new case with the new motherboard, since the PB
case wouldn't accept a standard AT board? That crappy board that PB
used with the one riser slot that put all *3* of the available
slots PARALLEL to the motherboard was the biggest kludge to come down
the pike! Of all the lousy ways to shave some height off of the
case... As far as I'm concerned, no one "rebuilds" PB computers, the
best you can do is scavenge the useful parts and start over. I built
and sold computers, also, and cringed when a PB owner walked through
the door, because we had to sell them a new case before we could even
think about adding the new drive that wouldn't fit in the PB case or
the new motherboard that wouldn't either.
Scott Gardner
> BEN RUSET - http://www.monmouth.com/~bruset
> Safety Fast & MG Cars Webring - http://www.infi-pos.com/~oasis
>
>
>
>
|