Re: Observation about group

[jalapeno1@mac.com (jalapeno)]

wbdesnoy@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Byron Desnoyers Winmill) wrote in message news:<9vc8gt$67k$1@nserve1.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
> Michael J. Mahon (mjmahon@aol.com) wrote:
> : If you become interested in digital photography, or even digital
> : video, you will soon learn why hundreds of megabytes of DRAM
> : and gigahertz processors are needed--and why 1280x1024 is
> : a cramped display!
> 
> I beg to differ.  The main issue with digital video is compression.

No it isn't. Compression is a kludge to deal with inadequate transfer
rates and/or storage capacities. It's the same with film. To get
"better" motion on film one uses faster shutters and projectors and
longer rolls of film.

> There is no reason why a much slower than 1GHz machine cannot handle
> video, and one with much less memory.  Even the IIgs could handle
> some primitive video manipulation with the VOC.  Apparently, the
> Amiga could do much better on an 68040 and the Video Toaster.  My
> Quadra 950 (another 68040) would be quite practical for digital
> photography.
> 

This is a quality issue. Personal standards of quality vary. 

<snip>

> 
> : One aspect of computing that has changed the world is the GUI
> : interface, by making downright computerphobes capable of getting
> : on the net and writing email and letters.
> 
> Sure, but does a GUI necessitate GHz processors?  The IIgs has
> quite a nice GUI at 7MHz.  

But at 2.5MHz it is unbearable. A 2GHz GS/OS GUI would be quite
usable, however. ;o)

<snip>

> 
> Give me an Apple II and a 300 bps modem, and I will take over the
> world. 

Sure you could, if you can guarantee yourself that the world hasn't
changed before your first upload completes ;o)

> ...   Give me the latest G4, and I will waste time choosing fonts
> for a webpage.

This sounds like a personal problem ;o)