Re: fruits of Bill Gates labor worth $50 billion.

From: Ross A. Finlayson (extropy@apexinternetsoftware.com)
Date: Sat Nov 16 2002 - 05:00:12 MST


On Friday, November 15, 2002, at 09:07 PM, spike66 wrote:

> > "Charles Hixson" <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>
> >
> >>Yes. I believe that Mr. Gates has been a net detriment to the
> >>computer community.
>
> I love games and competitions. They bring out the
> best and worst in humans, they sharpen our minds
> and bodies, they are fun to watch. We are seeing
> a great competition between Gates and Moore.
>
> Fourteen years ago I bought a mac. Took a couple
> minutes to boot up. Five years ago I bought a
> Personal Confuser running Windows. Altho the
> PC was 50 times faster, much to my dismay it still
> took about 2 minutes to boot. Score tied.
>
> Last year I bought a 2 GHz PC. It only takes
> about a minute to boot, so Moore might be slightly
> ahead of Gates. But wait, Microsloth fans! Bill
> might yet have an effective counterattack. Perhaps
> Billware may prove rapacious enough to cleverly
> devour all the performance increases dished out
> by Intel.
>
> Of course in the long run, computing performance
> improvements face some fundamental limits: the
> size of atoms and the speed of light, whereas
> there is no apparent limit to the ever increasing
> inefficiency of software. Perhaps quantum computing
> will come along and again put Moore in the lead.
> But then of course, Gates could counterattack with
> quantum bloat.
>
> Can someone explain to me why, on a 2 GHz computer,
> it *still* takes over a minute to boot? In those
> 100 billllllion clock cycles, please someone tell
> me exactly what the hellllll is going on in that
> operating system? Why does it takes over 100 billllllion
> cycles? Why could my old mac boot up with less than
> five thousanths as many cycles? Is this not the most
> stunning example of retrograde technology in all of
> human history? Will we eventually see multi-terahertz
> personal computers that still take 2 minutes to boot?
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>

Gates = IBM is not a monopoly.

Ross



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:10 MST