Re: CFA: Microsoft overcharges consumers $10 billion in 3 years

["Joseph F. Moore" <joemoore@cs.uky.edu>]

On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Mitch Stone wrote:

> --- From a message sent by Steve Cohen on 1/12/99 6:42 PM ---
> 
> >One thing I guess you can credit Windows for - making mass computing possible
> >and forcing the demand for more powerful machines, and therefore the supply
> >of them.  Without it would the 486 be the majority machine of choice today?
> >What would a Pentium cost?
> 
> I don't suppose Moore's Law would have been suspended if Microsoft hadn't 
                 (No relation)
> been driving the need for more processing power to run its bloated 
> applications and OSs. The quest for faster crunching is _the_ story of 
> computer evolution -- Microsoft has only assured us that we'd get less 
> raw benefit from the astonishing increases in power we've seen over the 
> last few years. That's why I find Gates' remarks so ironic.
> 
> Mitch Stone
> mstone@vc.net
> 
> 

Maybe it's just my associates, but a lot of people I see using their
computers are working with MS Word, under Windows 98, Browsing the
internet with IE4.0, and run on a Pentium II, 400MHz with 100+ Mb of RAM.
At home, I have a Cyrix P-150+ (I've never owned an Intel CPU), with
Linux, LaTeX, X, and Navigator 4. Of those, Netscape is the worst
(performance wise).  I often browse with Lynx in an Xterm window.  I get
the same work done, usually faster (since I don't have to worry about text
formatting in LaTeX) and easier.  With 1/10 the raw processing power. 

IMO, M$ created a market for 400 MHz home PCs to run their bloated
programs with the same performance as the previous versions of
their less-bloated programs.  As M$ "integrates" more functionality, this
trend will only get worse.

--Joe