Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (
More info?)
In article <VtXqc.213$J_7.150@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
> news:st3tn1x33a.ln2@mail.sfchat.org...
> > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips tony <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > > "Nate Edel" <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote in message
> > > > called a commie, but capitalism responds to certain sort of feedback
> > > > faster than other systems, and other sorts of regulated or centrally
> > > > managed systems respond better to other sorts of feedback.
> > >
> > > Theory (everyone's got one!). Stop making it sound so difficult.
> >
> > Real-world systems are f___ing complex. Just how they are.
>
> That's how "they" like it.
Indeed. Customers like complexity in their hardware. They pay
for it, after all.
>
> > > > The PC industry, though, is still one of the fastest-moving industries
> > > > around.
> > >
> > > God help us then: Pretty soon we'll be going backwards!
> >
> > Compare to the auto industry. "New models" every year, but _real_ changes
> > to most models every 3-10 years, whole new technologies... about once a
> > decade.
> >
> > And compare that to the aviation industry. Or to banking. Or to consumer
> > aspects of the telecom industry.
>
> It's slow compared to a free (unconstrained, unmanipulated) environment.
> Things change more for profit reasons than other. Keep it complex, keep it
> proprietary, keep it "new", keep "innovating" are the mottos to keep making
> money. It's all very contrived.
Give us an example of a business that is more un-constrained, and
faster moving than the PeeCee business.
I do note that you're still using WinBlows, even though your in a
tiff about the hardware. ...go figgr.
> > > > WAY faster than any regulated or centrally managed system could
> > > > account for, or most capitalist industries.
> > >
> > > Orders of magnitude slower (actually I don't know how much slower, I
> just
> > > know it is slower) than in an unconstrained environment.
> >
> > Capitalism is about as unconstrained as you can get
>
> That's just "defending the god". Sounds like it anyway.
Nope, simply sating the facts that you don't want to see.
> > without taking the old
> > Cold-war DARPA approach of just throwing tons and tons of money at
> multiple
> > approaches to a problem.
>
> >
> > TOO unconstrained, typically. Most industries require some balance of free
> > market and regulation, or excesses occur. True, to an extent, in the PC
> > industry but not really that badly yet.
>
> I guess if you "know the rules", you can easily be blinded by them. You
> apparently
> buy into the design without really knowing what factors are causing what
> results since there are so many points of untraceability. But nevermind.
> If mine was an RFP to improve, saying "it can't be done" would be rejected.
I guess *you* don't understand the rules. You buy, we sell what
you buy (and *only* what you buy). It's all *YOUR* fault! ;-)
> > > > We may well have monopolies in the tech industry someday,
> > >
> > > Someday??
> >
> > Yes, someday. If you think Microsoft is a monopoly now, or Intel, try
> > looking into a real monopoly someday. They're certainly dominant players,
> > but there's a real difference. If Intel tripled their prices arbitrarily,
> > you'd see pretty much the whole world turn to AMD and Via and not miss a
> > beat.
>
> Surely we all miss what could have been and could have been sooner that
> would have resulted in an environment that simply works well.
I note that you're using WinBlows. Isn't that *your* fault?
> > Compare that to what's happening in the oil industry...
> >
> > > Certainly in software "we" are still moving backwards. It'll be a few
> more
> > > years before any significant progress is made. (Oh, perhaps you think
> > > just because wrong paradigms were chosen a long time ago and now
> > > they are slowly being corrected that that is progress. No, that's simply
> > > a mistake (or maybe wool over the eyes) rather than progress.
> >
> > Software evolves as fast as it has to.
>
> It's tied mostly to profit rather than need. Hence it has been slow going
> (no
> "need" to evolve since it is making money or can be milked for more).
....and *you're* still a WinBlows customer. Amazing!
> > With hardware getting more powerful
> > much faster than most applications require, there's no need for it to.
>
> I think you've just described a "vicious cycle".
Certainly, but you've done exactly what to end it? Let me remind
you that you're still a Win-luser. You're a hypocrite if you
want others to change, but aren't willing yourself.
> > It's
> > hardly a matter of moving backwards.
> >
> > We know how to do things better, but it's more expensive to do so. As long
> > as more MIPS/memory/disk keeps being close to a free bonus with the normal
> > replacement/purchasing cycle, why bother?
> >
> > > Probably wouldn't have happend in an unconstrained environment.
> >
> > What are you visualizing for an unconstrained environment?
>
> Oh I wouldn't want to constrain your own thinking of such.
Nice (non)answer. Of course no one takes your seriously with
your adolescent attitude. Take charge of your own life and stop
whining!
> > > Oh well, like they say: capitalism is a bitch, then you die.)
> >
> > They say that about life, too. But like many things, life is better than
> > the alternative.
>
> So much for analogies (and analogy wars)! Someone always has to escalate
> the analogy just to win rather than make a point clear.
No someone has to take charge of their own life. If you don't
like what's offered, don't buy. I build my own systems because
noone offers what I want. There is a lesson here, but I suspect
that you don't want to pay any premium for your *wants*. ...I
am.
--
Keith
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram