Tim, I'd venture that part of the lack of knowledge about .Net is Microsoft not wanting to spread full details of it's all encompassing plan ...yet . I'm always interested in hearing what's going on with this intiative. If you've got a chance please post a few details. TIA
>>I follow the ".Net" thing through an interest I have in Smalltalk. A guy I respect, Dave Simmons, is a principal developer of Smallscript, a Smalltalk-like core ingredient of .Net. Having said this, I expect most PC users to say "Huh?" to this new thang called ".Net."
Maybe a year from now the average user, and the average corporation, will have heard of it. For now, though, it's a curiosity, barely on the edge of the radar screen.
(How many readers *here* really know what .Net is supposed to deliver? And of those, how many care what a product is _supposed_ to deliver, as opposed to what is actually shipping?)<<
>>His point was that he's not editing movies or designing chips, his downloads are more constrained by bandwidth than CPU power, and that his ancient 40 MHz machine does what he asks it to do.<<
I sure don't have that kinda patience, I like the speed myself , but just don't need bleeding edge nowadays to get the job done. That just goes to show the divergence of computing needs and uses. Nice anecdote from your lunch.
>>Once a machine is fast enough to handle all reasonable intended uses, many users have little interest in upgrading.<<
Yes exactly and trying to convince them otherwise is a toughie. Especially if they've got a PIII machine.
>>Machines became fast enough to handle 30 frames per second, HDTV-resolution video a couple of years ago. (Modulo download speeds, of course!) It's not clear that most users will feel the need to upgrade to speeds beyond this. <<
I think they will but not at the traditional prices that Intel/AMD has been used to getting in the past.
stak |
