dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) (12/07/90)
>>In article <3+_7KS1@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>>But running DOS this horsepower is pointless As others have pointed out, a DOS user can certainly purchase off-the- shelf applications that decidedly strain the hardware. However, the average DOS user perhaps does not run them. Part of the reason is that the average DOS user does not invest a lot of time and effort into discovering interesting new compute-expensive things to do. The rest of the reason is that the average DOS developer make sures its software will at least run acceptably on an 8088-vanilla PC. This does not mean the average DOS user has no "need" for computer power. Certainly the DOS user is able in principle to benefit from having the computer do more things in his/her behalf. It only means the average DOS user does not need more computer power to run the applications that (s)he is likely to purchase, which is something entirely different. If a person doesn't have a wallet to put their money in, will we say the person doesn't "need" money? As 386 PC's become the standard, software will evolve upward in complexity and power, and this will tax the available hardware more. To tie together another thread in this newsgroup, consider what widespread use of CD-ROM will do. Since CD-ROM makes large amounts of information available for occasional and simultaneous access, multi-tasking on top of other applications is essential. Indexing, caching, and decompression schemes add overhead. And let's don't even talk about multimedia stuff. People will want to use this, even unsophisticated users, if it is designed and packaged intelligently. -- Dan Mocsny Snail: Internet: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu Dept. of Chemical Engng. M.L. 171 dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu University of Cincinnati 513/751-6824 (home) 513/556-2007 (lab) Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0171
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (12/08/90)
In article <6879@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes: > As 386 PC's become the standard, software will evolve upward in > complexity and power, and this will tax the available hardware more. I quite agree. Should the average user be able to buy and effectively use an O/S worthy of the name for the IBM-PC, the situation will change. But when I said a 386 was a waste of horsepower for most DOS users, I *was* talking of DOS, and I was talking of today's users. I don't see that changing in the near future. (meanwhile, I've had 5 years use out of a computer that can quite effectively use such additional horsepower and has all the nifty features IBM and Apple are still trying to get working... but that's another topic) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (12/10/90)
In article <1625@svin02.info.win.tue.nl>, rcpieter@svin02.info.win.tue.nl (Tiggr) writes: > herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: > >>And it is up to us to figure out (or invent) what this means and >>bring some of this incredible power into the reach of the masses. > > The problem is that the technical people can produce whatever great > things they want; the masses will only buy what their neighbour buys > _or_ what the marketing creap tells them to buy _or_ what bears those ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > horrible three letters. > > Proof: the technically great machine I'm using... > > Tiggr What should we tell them to buy? And why, from their point of view, should they buy it? dan herrick dlh Performance Marketing POBox 1419 Mentor, Ohio 44061 (216)974-9637 herrickd@astro.pc.ab.com