From: David Ross (ross_at_math.hawaii.edu)
Date: Thu Nov 22 2001 - 19:04:04 EST
Both arguments are correct here. There are many normal uses for large-capacity machines,
and those of us who need them used to have to spend vast sums for them (or rent mainframe time).
However, the demands on hardware made by the complexification of more prozaic applications
(such as word processing), especially software from MS, has spread this need across a wide fraction
of the computer-using population, and helped to drive hardware power up and hardware cost down.
For this I am personally most grateful: the same statistical model for which I needed a $10K
workstation just a few years ago can now be cranked faster on my $400 laptop.
- David R.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Geary" <Mike_at_Geary.com>
To: <thinkpad_at_cs.utk.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 7:20 AM
Subject: [OT] Why we need memory (RE: (2) 128mb PC100 SODIMMs for Sale [T21])
> > >> Remember the IBM folks that thought that [640k] was more
> > >> than enough memory and that nobody would ever need
> > >> more? Just think what they would have said if they had a
> > >> crystal ball that worked!
> >
> > Did you ever consider that M$ Pigware has everything to do with the
> > ever constant need for more hardware!
>
> <yawn>
>
> Did you ever consider that what we do with our PCs today simply takes more
> memory than what we did back in the old days?
>
> Or is it Microsoft's fault that I use my PC to edit a 50 megabyte panoramic
> photo? :-)
>
> -Mike
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:57:48 EST