Re: PC or Mac?

["Byron Q. Desnoyers Winmill" <byron@b60z27hbb464i.ab.hsia.telus.net>]

Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> You think that if a thing can be done and would be useful, then
> it should be done.
> 
> Developers think that if a thing can be done and would be profitable,
> then it should be done.
> 
> I think that explains the paradox.

To a degree.  Clearly most software developers do not make money when
they force users to upgrade their operating system or hardware, yet
they persist in creating software with higher and higher system
requirements.  This leaves the user with a choice: upgrade to meet the
requirements, or be left behind.  For whatever reason there is a
stigma with being left behind.  I have even been in arguments where
people insists that laptops are a necessity for primary and secondary
students; while laptops, cd burners, and digital cameras are
necessities for college and university students.  It is all tied into
the myth that you are a lesser person if you do not have the latest
gadgetry.  As such, the software industry has had it good and can
expect users to upgrade.

What you said explains the paradox, but only because we live in a
culture of hysterical upgrading.  If consumers were more sensible in
their purchasing decisions we would probably see software which would
run on a broad range of systems.  There may only be three platforms on
the market (Macintosh/Unix/Windows) as we see today, but you would be
able to access email and usenet with modern tools on a 68030 and better,
publish reasonably sophisticated documents and access the web with a
68040 and better, and you could still get a G4 for video editing.  But,
as it stands today, it is becoming difficult to access the web (without
unecessary complications) with anything less than a 200MHz Pentium.

Byron.