From: Lance.Parsons@p16.f113.n267.z1.fidonet.org (Lance Parsons)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.comp.literacy
Subject: Fast Pace
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:47:24 PST
Organization: FidoNet node 1:267/113.16 - COMNET BBS Headquar, Albany NY

 >>     Best thing to do is to is to use what you can on your machine
 >> until you feel you must upgrade to keep pace. I had an old IBM PC
 >> (pre-XT) and it lasted almost 10 years before it had to be retired.
 >> It still works GREAT, but it just can't keep up with the new
 >> software. And the software is what drives the market, NOT hardware.

 > I agree with you that wait until you have to upgrade is a good idea.  My
 > problem is that if your IBM PC lasted 10 years should I not expect that
 > a machine I buy today would last about the same length of time?

    Well, it depends on what you mean by "last." My PC is an XT with CGA. It can't run most new stuff and there were a few years that it couldn't run most stuff. It still did what I needed though. I wordprocessed for 5 or six years before there was anything grahical. I lasted another 4 or 5 years without any of the new graphical stuff.

 > Given the pace of change it would seem that we are on a fast rollercoster.
 > Today's machine is a clunker in two to three years.

    I wouldn't necessarily say that. Not as fast as many others, but by no means a cluncker. My PC, now there is a clunker!

 > Unless as a user we
 > buy in and keep what we have for the ten year period.

    Ah ha. I think this may be a very good choice. If it worked this year, it should work next year. Maybe not as well as Joe Shmo's new computer, but just fine.

 > My fear is that
 > System 7? and Windows 3.? will drive the industry and the software
 > producers getting all the R&D dollars so that little new software will
 > be written for System6.? and Dos 5.?

    This is probably true, but I wouldn't worry too much. Many of the high profile stuff is graphical, but if you look hard enough, you can find some really good DOS stuff. Most users are still running DOS anyways.

 > I bought a 386Sx 3 years ago.  Had to replace it with a 386 20 within two
 > years.

    Why is that? My father uses a 386SX 16 and it runs just fine. A bit slow, but it runs everything he has asked it to.

 > Now the 386 20 is showing its age trying to run Windows 3.1 with
 > any speed.  Our work place is full of both IBM clones and Mac's. Those
 > se's and se 30's and even the Mac Classic's are not looking great trying
 > to run software written for speed demons.

    Patience. That is the key. Windows 3.1 runs well on a 386 SX with 4 megs and a 60MB HD if you wait a little bit. It really isn't that bad. You get used to it.

 > Where are we going at what price?

    We are headed into new frontiers. The indstry will continue to push itself orward and it won't wait for those who can't keep up. Just be willing to live a little slow and a little far behind for a while, and you will do just fine.
    Besides, software is just starting to keep up with processors. OS/2 2.0 exploits the full potential of the 386 and 486 processor. Even with a 386SX 16, it runs great, though you need about 6 or 8 megs. But memory is cheap and can be added, unlike a CPU chip. Even CPU are getting more upgradable with the 486SX line. Just look at some of the new stuff coming from companies other than Intel. They make em faster and cheaper in some cases. I don' know about better, but time will tell.

     -Lance


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!267!113.16!Lance.Parsons
Internet: Lance.Parsons@p16.f113.n267.z1.fidonet.org