Re: Observation about group

["Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>]

Nice riposte!

"Byron Desnoyers Winmill" <wbdesnoy@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca> 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.
> 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.