Okay, it's a pretty good article, but the reason I think that 8-bit computers are so cool is because the current computer industry is so bland. There's virtually no diversity. In the beginning-very early 90's, there were a great many different platforms to choose from. They all pretty much had their varying degrees of strengths and weaknesses (with some having no redeeming value whatsoever), but it was fun. Now the PC is on top. I don't care if you have a 486DX-66 with 16MB RAM and a 500 MB hard disk, it operates much the same as a PIII-500MHz machine with 128MB RAM and a 10GB hard drive. Sure, the 486 is slower, but they generally have the same capabilities. What fun is that? Computers may have gotten faster and more standardized, but since the death of Commodore, computers have lost their soul. It's sad. :( *Geoff!* On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, [ISO-8859-1] Marko Mäkelä wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Raymond Blum wrote: > > > In case you haven't yetr seen it, check out the article on good > > computers at > > http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/07/circuits/articles/22bitt.html > > You will need to register to the service first. The link is on the main > page <URL:http://www.nytimes.com/>. I think that the article is worth it. > I could only find one (funny) mistake in it: "At a time when mega, giga > and tetra are the popular prefixes, ..." Yeah, isn't tetra the Greek for > the number 4? > > Marko > > - > This message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list. > To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe | mail email@example.com. > - This message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list. To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe | mail firstname.lastname@example.org.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.1.1.