Re: Observation about group

[wbdesnoy@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Byron Desnoyers Winmill)]

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.
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.

Yeah you can do all of that stuff on a modern PC, but it is all
brute force.

: As the personal computer has evolved at the speed of Moore's Law,
: its power/capacity has increased by a factor of 1000 per decade.

Capacity increased by a factor of 1000 per decade?  Did the Apple II
have 256 bytes of RAM in 1982?  I could swear that it was about
64kB (factor of 200 off).  Did not most Apple II's have 360kB
capacity (ie. 2 floppy drives), rather than 40kB capacity (more
modest factor of 10 off)?  Did disk or memory performance even keep
up with processor performance?  (On that note: is a 2GHz Pentium IV
really 1000 times faster than a 40MHz 68040?  Maybe it is, but it
sure doesn't feel like it.)

: 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.  IMHO, a Macintosh from around 1992
through 1995 had a vastly superior GUI when compared to today's
CPU cycle guzzlers.

Even so, I would argue that the GUI only gives the perception of
user friendly.  Is AppleWorks (on the Apple II) substantially
more difficult to use than Office 97?  AppleWorks is sort-of menu
driven.  In the PC world (which is what I used at home way back
when), dropdown menus were incorporated into textual applications.
Event driven software with pulldown menus were what made computers
usable, and not the GUI.  (The one thing which the GUI had in its
favour was consistency.  MacOS and Windows offered more consistency
than the eclectic mix of UI features found in textual software.)

: So, enjoy hacking!  Revel in what you can make obsolete technology
: do!

I will.

: But don't minimize the need or significance of the exponential
: progress of computer technology.

Computers may be faster, but it feels like there has been very
little progress over the last five or ten years.  Oh how many
times have I heard of the latest and greatest "invention," only
to discover that it already existed on much earlier machines.
I mean, look at what Apple is passing off as a revolutionary OS:
Unix.  Unix has existed since the late sixties.  Quartz (that is
the PDF engine, right?) is PostScript in light disguise.  Most of
the GUI elements have existed since the 1984 Macintosh.   The
Internet is not terribly revolutionary either, though it does have
scope and speed in its favour.  (Or maybe the instantaneous
response of the Internet is actually a disadvantage?  Maybe those
Apple II and Commodore 64 users putzing around with BBSes in the
eighties had it right.  We certainly did not have to deal with an
over abundance of 'content', upgrading our software just to access
that 'content', nor have the pleasure of tracking something down
which spontaneously disappeared -- besides the BBS that is. :-)

Give me an Apple II and a 300 bps modem, and I will take over the
world.  Give me the latest G4, and I will waste time choosing fonts
for a webpage.

Byron.