| From: | Jonas Thorell |
| Date: | 30 Aug 99 at 23:55:36 |
| Subject: | RE: Future of Amiga |
Rick Hodger wrote:
>> But I seriously don't think that is something to
>> complain about really. Everyone with a PC already has got
>> that equipment or better. It's rather hard finding harddisks
>> smaller than approx. 6 gig anyway (new ones
>> that is).
> Erm....no it's not (Lifts a PC mag) ...4 Gb Fujitsu drive costs 61 ex VAT
> (flips a few pages) Seagate 1.2 Gb for 45 ex VAT.
Depends on where you live I suppose. Here it is, or getting there at
any rate. The retailers dumps them at a fast rate. We can get 6 gig drives
for that price. Or almost. I bought one for work yesterday for 69 plus VAT.
No discount or anything.
> > (not to mention stable) OS's but as far as requirement goes, the above
> > specs is low-end.
> But the point is that Microsoft have steadily increased the need for
> resources over the years
And other platforms have suffered the same, without Microsoft or the
OS-maker
being responsible. A couple of years ago I could comfortably use my Amiga
with 8 megs of fast. Today, that's practically nothing. There's a reason I
have 100 megs of FAST nowadays. Memory requirement goes up as the hardware
and
software gets better.
> to force people to upgrade, and you essentially
> don't get much benefit, plus I really wouldn't want to touch an OS that
> needs over a gigabyte of hard-disk....
It doesn't either. Microsoft states it but it does runs on smaller sized
disks
at well.
> if something went wrong software wise
> you'd be better off just flattening the thing and starting over from
> scratch.
Or being wise enugh to have a ghost-image of it.
> The Microsoft equivelent going by Windows2000 standards would
> need to be PII 550 with 256Mb of RAM and a probably need at least a 10 Gb
hard-disk...
I know perfectly well that Linux is more efficient than Windows. I work with
both
at work, and have some experience with OpenVMS as well. Windows is number
three
performance-wise of those three. And as far as I know, there are no 550 Mhz
versions
of the PII. 450, yes. I know, I'm being picky...
> and it would still probably be slow, not to mention the fact that
Windows2000
> is amazingly unstable (just check the logfile on
> www.windows2000test.com if you want to see for yourself, crashed 9 times
in 2 days)
Haven't checked that site but that number seems a little too high, although
it
isn't the most stable of systems. I've even managed to crash NTFS myself...
>Oh, and don't you know that Microsoft plan to use the same Windows2000 to
>sell to the home market? This is half the fun, they want to merge
>Windows98 and Windows NT so they don't have to spend as much.
I do know that they intend to use the 2000 kernel in the home-market arena
but that it otherwise will be a stripped-down 2000. How much stripped down
I do not know but the GUI is more or less going to be Internet Explorer.
Yup, that's right. They are that stupid.
/Jonas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: blitz-list-unsubscribe@netsoc.ucd.ie
For additional commands, e-mail: blitz-list-help@netsoc.ucd.ie