From: lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick)
Subject: Re: Gates Interview
Organization: CSIRO Division of Mineral Products, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 03:09:52 GMT

rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK) writes:
>And I know several people who take it quite personally that the world 
>has move past their Osborne I (DD, 80 column of course).  I don't care
>if it takes up 200K, or 500K or 2 megs more than it would if it was
>hand crafted in assembler.  Memory is cheap.  My time and the time of
>the people I support isn't.  Adding 2 megs to each clerical machine
>costs about one days pay (with benefits) for our secretaries.  If
>Windows can boost their productivity by 0.5% over the next year, the
>memory pays for itself.  That's how the real world works :-)

>--rick


Yes memory and hard-disks and new 486 motherboards are 
relatively cheap.  But you try telling that to you guy
who has to sign on the dotted line.  The query that most
of them seem to ask is " You seem to be doing the same
thing as the previous version.  Why do you need more computer
power to do the same stuff with a new version of the sofware?"

If they are in a really good mood, you will get a lecture on
how XT's used to do the same stuff, and look at that old DEC
portable computer with only 32K of RAM, it can do
graphics up with best of them.  Then you might hear the story
on how the Mafia/CIA/NAZIS have taken over the computer industry
and that is why we are paying all this money on software
and hardware upgrades.

I'm not saying I agree with the above opinions, but if you
tally up all small costs? (harddisk, motherboard)
due to upgrades to 100 or so 
computers you are looking at a big cost on the books.
And that is what the accountants look at, not the 
hidden costs of people having to wait 10 or 30 more
seconds to get a printout or have a screen refresh. 

I quite like Windows and the apps but it is the problem
with upgrades.  What type of PC are we going to need to run
the next Windows for DOS upgrade - 500Meg hard-disk 32 Meg of
RAM?  And the problem is we will just be doing the same old
things that older versions of Windows did with
less computer power.  This implies that MS is hiding bad
code behind the ever increasing speed and size of PC's and
hard-disks.

Personally, I would like to flame the 640k limitation of
DOS rather than what Gates is waffling on about.  This is
why I am trying to goto OS/2.  I know it needs heaps of disk
space, but it has a reputation of running applications fast,
and giving me all my memory.  if anyone knows different
please say so.  The way Microsoft is going is indicative
of how it treats its customers.  The DOS that millions rely
on is dumped in the sewer while MS goes for pie in the sky
with more convoluted OS's and 1/2 OS's that need powerfull
rather expensive PC's.  Would Windows for DOS run so slow
if it didn't have to work within the 640k limitation of DOS?

Yo all,  Lachlan
-- 
  Lachlan Cranswick  -  CSIRO             _--_|\  lachlan@dmp.CSIRO.AU
  Division of Mineral Products           /      \ tel +61 3 647 0367
  PO Box 124, Port Melbourne 3207        \_.--._/ fax +61 3 646 3223
  AUSTRALIA                                    v