[Table of Contents] [Search]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "Digital Dark Age"



>dt fletcher
>
>Sorry Dave, you are making basically the same logical error as the others. You
>reiterate a list of technologies that have become obsolete and then leap to
>the conclusion that therefore all technologies must become obsolete with
>absolutely no basis for it.

        I think they are more trying to forecast human events and humans
have never been real good at acting logically for long periods of time on a
world wide basis.  ;)


>Some technologies have remained with us since
>their invention and no doubt will continue to be used as long as modern
>civilization exists.
>

        Yeah, like the writing, paper, and ink. (GO BOOKS!!)

> Computers will continue to exist in one form or another for a very long time.
>In fact, I think we can agree that computers in the future will be very much
>more powerful than today. Yet, for some reason you seem to believe that the
>computers of tommorow will be so dim, stupid and inflexible that they won't be
>able to run Windows  if they wanted to.
>


        Yes, in fact there is real physical work being done on quantum
computers.  They will be, by astronomical amounts, more powerful than
today's computers.  Never dim nor inflexible.  However, Windoze (GO MAC!)
and other operating systems would seem dim and inflexible to a quantum
computer, no?  Why would they build a quantum computer then go and give it
Windows or Mac as an operating system?  To make it backwards
compatible...perhaps.  But looking at current trends in software and
backwards compatibility I don't think that computers of the future will be
infinitely backwards compatible.  I think that the industry would expect
people to continue to purchase new more powerful products and bringing
their own information forward.  In fact I would say they are banking on it.


>The issue of technological obsolence was one, actually THE, reason for the
>adoption of the IBM clone and Intel 386 technology.

I thought the reason was money.  IBM had it and everyone wanted it.  As for
IBM using Intel technology that was money too.  IBM wanted to get a PC off
the ground fast and decided that it was most efficient to use off the shelf
components rather than making their own.

*************************************

Happiness bought and paid for
is happiness none the less.

Duncan
<dmc@minn.net>

*************************************


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]