Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (29334)	3/3/1998 12:07:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573048

Paul, Windows 95 can use a faster CPU, but what it really needs is memory. I don't think Windows 95 is any slower than Windows 3.1. It just needs more memory to get started. Memory is now plentiful and cheap, the price of CPU power, hard disk space etc is a fraction of what it was. I think hardware is getting way ahead of software. All the hardware components are here to make really inexpensive, sub $500 PCs, but what is preventing this device from being as common as a VCR is software. Windows 95 way too complex to setup. The way software is installed and drivers are updated is a complete mess. I think what would help is to have the operating system burned into ROM, each component should have it's EPROM with it's drivers and complete plug-and-play information. (To make it more difficult for MSFT to screw up) Even though the supply for consumer PCs is there, Microsoft's inability to deliver stable, user friendly operating system is strangling the demand. Joe