Re: What if...

["Sheane and Bonnie Meikle" <action1@telusplanet.net>]

Rubywand you've sold me!!! So lets stop talking about it in theory and do
it. Maybe we could start with the remaining documentation from the never
released Avatar project? If Bill Heineman was willing to release his notes
it would give us a place to start. We have people around here that know the
insides of computers better than anybody. People like Tony Diaz are able to
make thing work in ways they were never meant to work. If we did come up
with a super GS we could probably get someplace like Altech to make them
piecemeal until sales picked up. I've started a thread at
http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb996045 dealing with this subject, just
click on "Time To Put Aside Differences!!!!" and leave your thoughts on this
subject.

Sheane


Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote in message
38B739E7.2F1519C2@swbell.net">news:38B739E7.2F1519C2@swbell.net...
> Phoenyx writes ...
> >
> > Somehow, I doubt we will see a simple home oriented computer. The
> > powers that be have already decided that our home computers should
> > handle all our communication.
> >
> > Sometimes, I think the computer companies miss the point. It is
> > possible to create a simple system with enough power to satisfy
> > the needs of the home user. It could still have easy to use web
> > access and enough power to run the basic desktop apps.
> >
> > But that's too easy. And how would the R&D for the big computers
> > get funded if the masses started using a simpler device?
>  ....
>
>
>      It is probably fair to say that most users-- home, business,
education,
> ...-- want a computer that is simple to use. You may do lots of complex
> stuff; but, the machine itself should not get in the way.
>
>      At the same time, the home user wants the highest performance machine
> he/she can afford. You need lots of RAM plus good speed, graphics, and
sound
> capabilities to get the most from new entertainment releases. And, you
need
> lots of HD capacity to save MP3's, pics, etc. you download.
>
>      The home user market for entertainment and net applications is the
> driving force behind computing technological innovation. So, while the
home
> user would like (very much) to have a computer that is simple to use, this
> user is not going to trade away high performance + hassles for low
> preformance + simplicity.
>
>      Most current computer R&D is being done by chip makers (e.g. Intel,
AMD,
> TI, ...) and peripheral card makers (like Diamond and Creative).
Motherboard
> makers continue to tweak their designs for new features and more speed;
but,
> the basic platform design remains.
>
>      For now, a serious platform morph is blocked by the success of the
> current platform. Which is to say that those most able to make big changes
> have the best reasons to avoid them. Even Apple has become comfortable
with
> its role as a pseudo-PC manufacturer.
>
>      A remaining option is a user-designed and promoted computer. It might
> begin as a new Apple II-- much improved over the current IIgs but still
not a
> super-threat to PC. We could attract Apple users and, perhaps, users from
> other 65xxx machines.
>
>      One big difference between a new user-designed computer and modestly
> revolutionary machines like iMac is that there would be no concerns about
> limiting performance to preserve some higher priced product line. Even
> better, it would be purposefully not-PC and not hobbled by the weaknesses
of
> the PC platform. The way would be open to rapid upgrades to achieve both
> simplicity and high performance and, eventually, to attract users from PC.
>
>
>
> Rubywand