Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!cbmvax!daveh From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: They'll Look Like Toys? (Was: The Amiga's Future) Message-ID: <22340@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 11 Jun 91 20:20:42 GMT References: <5068@orbit.cts.com> <16647@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <#g1H3+$o@cs.psu.edu> Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 81 In article caw@miroc.Chi.IL.US (Christopher A. Wichura) writes: >In article <#g1H3+$o@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>You Amiga users are going to have to try and understand that the A3000 >>is probably not the last computer that you are ever going to own, That depends greatly on why you own a computer. Certainly, if your main reason is "to own a hot computer", you'll be upgrading as soon as possible, since a computer never looks hot for long; there's always something hotter out next year. If you have other interests in keeping up with the latest, maybe you're a developer, you also will probably upgrade as soon as you can. Beyond that, the A3000, or from a larger viewpoint, A3000-class machines, which include Mac IIs and '386/'486 PClones, may very well be the last computers many people buy, at least for themselves. >>In a couple of years(I say two) that A3000 is going to look like a toy. >And in that same couple of years the high-end Mac's won't look like a toy >either? Or i486 based machines? Or even a SPARC 1? They aren't going to look like toys, and the reason for this is that computers are catching up to humans. They have been for awhile, and they have a ways to go, but they're getting close to being able to serve most people as well as they need to be served. Human expectations about computers have been changing over the years, but humans themselves haven't been. Your eye is still going to be basically happy with 300DPI proofs and no more than 24 bit color 200 years from now. Each generation of new systems has been extending the reach of the computer, certainly, but after each generation, fewer users, as a percentage, move on to the next one. You don't meet too many people still using CP/M. Lots still use MS-DOS, and have no desire to move on to a GUI-based OS. On the home front, most people upgraded from their PET/TRS-80 type machines. A good number upgraded from the C64 generation, but there are still folks who are happy with them. By the time there's an obvious replacement for the A500 at the base level of home computers, you'll find some upgrades, but eventually, there won't be an overwhelming reason to go to the next big thing. Even if it's not as flashy, if your current machine does everything you could possibly ask of it, you won't upgrade it. Why spend the money? Same reason the vast majority of people in the country don't drive performance cars, or own top of the line stereo systems, or camera systems. What they have does everything they're prepared to ask of the system. It'll certainly take a bit longer in businesses, but it is happening already. With every generation of PClones that comes along, there are fewer systems that need replacing. In business, that doesn't mean it won't get replaced, but what kind of computer do you really need if all you're interested in is WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, etc. In the scientific and engineering markets, people will always be willing to pay for more and more. That's because the of nature of the problems they attack with computers. Today's computers don't solve these problems well enough. In fact, I'm writing this while I'm waiting for a simulation to finish on our VAX 6420. That's an expensive computer, but not fast enough. Our Chip guys all have SparcStations on their desk, which also aren't fast enough, but they're better than having everyone on the VAX. The new generation of workstations, like HP's Snakes and whatever Sun replaces it's SparcStation 2 with, are also not fast enough, but they're an improvement. If they ever do get fast enough, we have no obvious insentive to upgrade anymore. It won't be cost effective, if all we get is an unnecessary speed improvement. At that point, someone has to figure out how to solve the problem "better", and make that better solution require a faster computer, before they're any point in upgrading. Most people, business and home alike, need a good reason to buy a new computer. Doing the same old thing with 90% CPU idle time rather than 40% CPU idle time wouldn't get my money, and would not relegate my current machine to "toy" status, no matter what fancier toys are out there. If someone comes up with a fundamentally new way to use a computer that's overwhelmingly attractive, and mine can't be presuaded to do that thing very well, then you might convince me. But major changes don't come along that often. In all of practical computer history, we've gone from punched cards to text and finally graphics interfaces. All in the last 30 years (eg, my lifetime), but pretty much all of computer history outside of ivory tower stuff. And at this point, just about anyone can sit down and use a computer without knowing much about it. I don't think we have much farther to go, any other major improvments are just gravy. At least until we get to the direct brain interface. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.