|
|
| Author |
Message |
Everett M. Greene
science forum beginner
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 32
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:35 pm Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
| Quote: | a_plutonium@hotmail.com wrote:
That is a lousy comparison and illogical. I can counter by saying there
is someone still using a Toyota bought in 1970 (if Toyota made vehicles
then). Apple 2 computers of 1982 can not do online banking and cannot
do most modern functions due to security, and is so limited as to what
it can do that it is a useless antique as regards to functioning.
Right. Well, when you say "life" in the title of this thread, there
are two possibilities. I took it at first you meant "functioning", but
you may also mean "not obsolete". A functioning computer becomes
obsolete because you decide that some functions of new computers are
essential to your utility profile of "computer".
Computers become obsolete far faster than cars because, of course, they
are still somewhere in the middle of the logistics curve, whereas cars
are well into the asymptote, and only improving marginally in
functionality. I'm writing on a computer of the same vintage as your
Toyota, BTW (1999).
|
The function of an automobile is to provide transportaion.
The function of a computer is to perform computations.
Neither of these has changed in their history. Later
models of both are faster, more comfortable, have more
bells and whistles, etc., but perform the same functions
they always have.
[This is written on my mid-80s vintage computer which
performs the same functions of newer computers. It is
not as fast as newer machines but it's fast enough to
suit me. "My computer does nothing faster than your
computer" has never impressed me.] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:56 pm Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
I wanted to get a measurable quantity of technology compared to greedy
company desire to force obsolence just to enrich companies.
Why should something faced with huge friction, wear and tear of a
automobile transport such as Toyota which lasts 10 years without a
problem and then looking at computers which should last longer than 10
years.
So I wanted something to tell me of a measurable quantity as to how
much the computer companies are pulling the wool over the general
public and that comparison is Toyota pickup to computers.
Because my computers were rendered obsolete unless I major overhauled
them in 2005 when I bought them and the Toyota in year 2000. So my
Toyota may go obsolete by 2010, yet my computers went obsolete in 2005.
This tells me that the computer companies are so greedy for money that
they force the obselescence of computers to a 5 year cycle.
And because, well, we all know that a pickup faces far more adverse
conditions and can hold up for 10 years without any problems tells me
that the greed factor of computer companies is that of a 5 year
quantification.
Speaking purely in terms of technology, every computer sold and walked
out the door should be good for a minimum of 10 years with never any
problem and this is because the automobile industry which has alot more
friction and wear and tear is good to last for 10 years-- witness my
Toyota pickup.
This tells me that the computer companies are so full of greed and that
is the reason why my computers became obsolete in 2005. They are
forcing obsolescence just so that the money profit flows. They could
have made compatible software but that means less profit.
The Toyota comparison is a measure of the computer industry money
greed.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Edward Green
science forum addict
Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:03 am Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
Everett M. Greene wrote:
| Quote: | "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
... when you say "life" in the title of this thread, there
are two possibilities. I took it at first you meant "functioning", but
you may also mean "not obsolete". A functioning computer becomes
obsolete because you decide that some functions of new computers are
essential to your utility profile of "computer".
The function of an automobile is to provide transportaion.
The function of a computer is to perform computations.
Neither of these has changed in their history. Later
models of both are faster, more comfortable, have more
bells and whistles, etc., but perform the same functions
they always have.
|
So a car moves from A to B, and a computer moves bits from A to B, and
so neither has changed in function since their inception?
New Buzz word: "emergent"
My computer, and yours for that matter, could emulate the logical
operations necessary to play a digital movie, or run the latest game
(given enough external storage and perhaps a cobbled together scheme
for accessing it) but, neither could do so fast enough to be useful.
So there are emergent capabilities even though reductionistically we
are simply running more and more logical operations per second hooked
to more and more memory.
Computers are still functionally advancing whereas cars have been
functionally stagnant for at least 50 years.
| Quote: | [This is written on my mid-80s vintage computer which
performs the same functions of newer computers. It is
not as fast as newer machines but it's fast enough to
suit me. "My computer does nothing faster than your
computer" has never impressed me.]
|
I'm with you, but I stand by "A functioning computer becomes obsolete
because you decide that some functions of new computers are essential
to your utility profile of 'computer'". You have merely not made that
decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Everett M. Greene
science forum beginner
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:59 pm Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
| Quote: | Everett M. Greene wrote:
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
... when you say "life" in the title of this thread, there
are two possibilities. I took it at first you meant "functioning", but
you may also mean "not obsolete". A functioning computer becomes
obsolete because you decide that some functions of new computers are
essential to your utility profile of "computer".
The function of an automobile is to provide transportaion.
The function of a computer is to perform computations.
Neither of these has changed in their history. Later
models of both are faster, more comfortable, have more
bells and whistles, etc., but perform the same functions
they always have.
So a car moves from A to B, and a computer moves bits from
A to B, and so neither has changed in function since their
inception?
|
Essentially correct. It's all just ones and zeroes.
| Quote: | New Buzz word: "emergent"
My computer, and yours for that matter, could emulate the logical
operations necessary to play a digital movie, or run the latest game
(given enough external storage and perhaps a cobbled together scheme
for accessing it) but, neither could do so fast enough to be useful.
|
Agreed. Turing proved this many years ago.
| Quote: | So there are emergent capabilities even though reductionistically we
are simply running more and more logical operations per second hooked
to more and more memory.
|
That's equivalent to saying that adding a bigger engine
and more seats to an automobile makes it functionally
different.
| Quote: | Computers are still functionally advancing whereas cars
have been functionally stagnant for at least 50 years.
[This is written on my mid-80s vintage computer which
performs the same functions of newer computers. It is
not as fast as newer machines but it's fast enough to
suit me. "My computer does nothing faster than your
computer" has never impressed me.]
I'm with you, but I stand by "A functioning computer becomes obsolete
because you decide that some functions of new computers are essential
to your utility profile of 'computer'". You have merely not made that
decision.
|
If you'd change from saying "function" to saying "capacity",
I'd agree with you completely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Edward Green
science forum addict
Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:06 pm Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
Everett M. Greene wrote:
| Quote: | "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
So there are emergent capabilities even though reductionistically we
are simply running more and more logical operations per second hooked
to more and more memory.
That's equivalent to saying that adding a bigger engine
and more seats to an automobile makes it functionally
different.
|
I can see we are not going to accomplish anything here, because I am
very carefully laying out two possible senses of "function", without
insisting that either is the only reasonable one -- only that we
recognize the distinction is a reasonable and possible one -- whereas
you are stubbornly insisting that only your druthers are correct, and
mine apparently don't even exist.
Do you insist, for example, that the ability to digitally edit movies
in times significantly less than a human lifetime is in no plausible
sense of the word a new "function" which has emerged from faster
processing and greater memory, because your old functionally equal
machine (so you claim) could accomplish the same job merely given a few
centuries?
That's just being willfully pig-headed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Everett M. Greene
science forum beginner
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 5:12 pm Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
| Quote: | Everett M. Greene wrote:
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
So there are emergent capabilities even though reductionistically we
are simply running more and more logical operations per second hooked
to more and more memory.
That's equivalent to saying that adding a bigger engine
and more seats to an automobile makes it functionally
different.
I can see we are not going to accomplish anything here, because I am
very carefully laying out two possible senses of "function", without
insisting that either is the only reasonable one -- only that we
recognize the distinction is a reasonable and possible one -- whereas
you are stubbornly insisting that only your druthers are correct, and
mine apparently don't even exist.
|
My error. I read the word "functionality" into the cited paragraph
when you hadn't said that.
| Quote: | Do you insist, for example, that the ability to digitally edit movies
in times significantly less than a human lifetime is in no plausible
sense of the word a new "function" which has emerged from faster
processing and greater memory, because your old functionally equal
machine (so you claim) could accomplish the same job merely given a few
centuries?
|
It depends on how many pixels you want in the picture... :-)
| Quote: | That's just being willfully pig-headed.
|
It's my Scots ancestry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christian Winter
science forum beginner
Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 11:05 am Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
a_plutonium@hotmail.com schrieb:
| Quote: | Why should something faced with huge friction, wear and tear of a
automobile transport such as Toyota which lasts 10 years without a
problem and then looking at computers which should last longer than 10
years.
|
What again makes you believe that computers should last longer than 10
years? I mean, they do, ya know? Most people just won't want to use
them, just as the majority of people prefere a new car over a 10 year
old one. While there are certainly more people prefereing new computers
over new cars, I am still convinced that the majority of people would
rather have a new car than a 10 year old one.
In any case, what makes you believe that you cannot use your computer
past 10 years? If you do not need to improve your experience, as you
are not improving your experience with your car, then you can use both
for the same time frame. In fact, I would argue that your computer will
probably last much longer, considering that there are little to no
moving parts in it, and that those are either cheap to replace or
unlikely to fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deowll
science forum beginner
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:25 pm Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
<a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123405831.693567.242150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | That is a lousy comparison and illogical. I can counter by saying there
is someone still using a Toyota bought in 1970 (if Toyota made vehicles
then). Apple 2 computers of 1982 can not do online banking and cannot
do most modern functions due to security, and is so limited as to what
it can do that it is a useless antique as regards to functioning.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Both are antiques as regards to functioning unless they have been altered |
from their original format which would void any claim of antiquity.
The question is can they do what the owner needs them to do? In the case of
the Apple II it runs software that teaches specific skills to young students
which is exactly what it did when new.
Desk top computers weren't invented in 1970.
Did your parents live down range of a nuclear test site or maybe near a
toxic waste dump? Have you been checked for high levels of mercury? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deowll
science forum beginner
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:50 pm Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
This is an old computer that was top notch when I bought it. It is now
several years old. It isn't my top end computer but I still use it to serf
the net. Its stats still equals or exceeds a lot of new lap tops. I realized
after I bought the new one that about the only difference I could see in it
and the new machine that was 2.6 rather than 1.6 GHz was in games. I could
buy a 3.0GHz but why? If you only need to run office this machine will do it
as well as the 3.0 Ghz. Office is not that demanding.
On the other hand a lady at school has a 128 meg xp in her room. It is newer
than this machine and it is kind of limited but this one cost a little over
$1000 when new without the monitor and hers cost about $400 with a monitor.
If you buy an antique you get antique performance and most likely the
message "this machine wont do that a lot sooner." The main road block is ram
when it comes to running most business style softwar.
One teacher is using a windows 95 and it does what he wants. It doesn't have
as fast a processer as my PDA nor does it have have 64 meg of ram nor is its
hard drive a gig the way the memory chip in my pda is. Of course the key
board and monitor are bigger but I can thumb type okay. I can also serf the
net using a wirely connection. My word processing program isn't as fancy but
it works okay and it handles pdf documents just fine.
<a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123610213.954610.155760@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | I wanted to get a measurable quantity of technology compared to greedy
company desire to force obsolence just to enrich companies.
Why should something faced with huge friction, wear and tear of a
automobile transport such as Toyota which lasts 10 years without a
problem and then looking at computers which should last longer than 10
years.
So I wanted something to tell me of a measurable quantity as to how
much the computer companies are pulling the wool over the general
public and that comparison is Toyota pickup to computers.
Because my computers were rendered obsolete unless I major overhauled
them in 2005 when I bought them and the Toyota in year 2000. So my
Toyota may go obsolete by 2010, yet my computers went obsolete in 2005.
This tells me that the computer companies are so greedy for money that
they force the obselescence of computers to a 5 year cycle.
And because, well, we all know that a pickup faces far more adverse
conditions and can hold up for 10 years without any problems tells me
that the greed factor of computer companies is that of a 5 year
quantification.
Speaking purely in terms of technology, every computer sold and walked
out the door should be good for a minimum of 10 years with never any
problem and this is because the automobile industry which has alot more
friction and wear and tear is good to last for 10 years-- witness my
Toyota pickup.
This tells me that the computer companies are so full of greed and that
is the reason why my computers became obsolete in 2005. They are
forcing obsolescence just so that the money profit flows. They could
have made compatible software but that means less profit.
The Toyota comparison is a measure of the computer industry money
greed.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deowll
science forum beginner
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:51 pm Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1123646635.202942.246110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Everett M. Greene wrote:
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
... when you say "life" in the title of this thread, there
are two possibilities. I took it at first you meant "functioning", but
you may also mean "not obsolete". A functioning computer becomes
obsolete because you decide that some functions of new computers are
essential to your utility profile of "computer".
The function of an automobile is to provide transportaion.
The function of a computer is to perform computations.
Neither of these has changed in their history. Later
models of both are faster, more comfortable, have more
bells and whistles, etc., but perform the same functions
they always have.
So a car moves from A to B, and a computer moves bits from A to B, and
so neither has changed in function since their inception?
New Buzz word: "emergent"
My computer, and yours for that matter, could emulate the logical
operations necessary to play a digital movie, or run the latest game
(given enough external storage and perhaps a cobbled together scheme
for accessing it) but, neither could do so fast enough to be useful.
So there are emergent capabilities even though reductionistically we
are simply running more and more logical operations per second hooked
to more and more memory.
Computers are still functionally advancing whereas cars have been
functionally stagnant for at least 50 years.
[This is written on my mid-80s vintage computer which
performs the same functions of newer computers. It is
not as fast as newer machines but it's fast enough to
suit me. "My computer does nothing faster than your
computer" has never impressed me.]
I'm with you, but I stand by "A functioning computer becomes obsolete
because you decide that some functions of new computers are essential
to your utility profile of 'computer'". You have merely not made that
decision.
Agreed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deowll
science forum beginner
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:55 pm Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
"Christian Winter" <cwinter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123851920.622573.256300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
a_plutonium@hotmail.com schrieb:
Why should something faced with huge friction, wear and tear of a
automobile transport such as Toyota which lasts 10 years without a
problem and then looking at computers which should last longer than 10
years.
What again makes you believe that computers should last longer than 10
years? I mean, they do, ya know? Most people just won't want to use
them, just as the majority of people prefere a new car over a 10 year
old one. While there are certainly more people prefereing new computers
over new cars, I am still convinced that the majority of people would
rather have a new car than a 10 year old one.
In any case, what makes you believe that you cannot use your computer
past 10 years? If you do not need to improve your experience, as you
are not improving your experience with your car, then you can use both
for the same time frame. In fact, I would argue that your computer will
probably last much longer, considering that there are little to no
moving parts in it, and that those are either cheap to replace or
unlikely to fail.
|
The hard drives go and may not be possible to replace just as parts for
other old machines may not be possible to find. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Lybanon
science forum beginner
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:55 pm Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
in article 1123851920.622573.256300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, Christian
Winter at cwinter@gmail.com wrote on 8/12/05 8:05 AM:
| Quote: |
a_plutonium@hotmail.com schrieb:
Why should something faced with huge friction, wear and tear of a
automobile transport such as Toyota which lasts 10 years without a
problem and then looking at computers which should last longer than 10
years.
What again makes you believe that computers should last longer than 10
years? I mean, they do, ya know? Most people just won't want to use
them, just as the majority of people prefere a new car over a 10 year
old one. While there are certainly more people prefereing new computers
over new cars, I am still convinced that the majority of people would
rather have a new car than a 10 year old one.
In any case, what makes you believe that you cannot use your computer
past 10 years? If you do not need to improve your experience, as you
are not improving your experience with your car, then you can use both
for the same time frame. In fact, I would argue that your computer will
probably last much longer, considering that there are little to no
moving parts in it, and that those are either cheap to replace or
unlikely to fail.
|
This post is coming from a new (less than 1 year old) Mac G5, sitting next
to a Mac G3 more than 10 years old. The old Mac works just fine, every part
of it. And I still use it for some things (I have a perfectly good scanner
connected to a SCSI port on the G3).
The new one is much faster, has a much larger hard disk, and has some nice
software that runs under OS X. The main reason I got the new one is because
of a software issue, and to some extent it's an artificial issue. The old
Mac is running an old OS (MacOS 8.6), because I wasn't sure it had the
"horsepower" to handle OS X. Web browsers for systems that old can't handle
some of the stuff companies put on their web pages today.
A large fraction of the new stuff is, basically, just useless fancy stuff (I
was able to pay many credit card bills using the old Mac, and as the
webmaster for a club's site I have not gotten any complaints for my efforts
to keep it simple and use code that will run on the greatest possible range
of browsers.
For years I worked on image processing algorithms, using computers with less
capability than the old Mac sitting next to this one. When people whose
computer use is limited to shopping online and sending e-mail messages need
computers with far more power than than the ones NASA used in the Apollo
program, something is wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christian Winter
science forum beginner
Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:58 pm Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
deowll schrieb:
| Quote: | The hard drives go and may not be possible to replace just as parts for
other old machines may not be possible to find.
|
For one thing, hard drives do not fail as often as they seem to be made
out to. I worked in IT for well over 2 years and can't remember more
than one or two hard drive failures. I never had one quit on me in 10+
years. Also, the point is moot since you can install virtually any
harddrive on an old machine. They are all IDE drives and in most cases
you can even still find DOS drivers for them. You may not be able to
use them to their full capacity, but you can most certainly replace
them. You can also still buy old 80286 processors and the like, old
RAM, and so on. They don't sell that at BestBuy but at most bigger
electronic parts stores. I bet I could put together a fully functioning
80286 16 MHz machine right now with all new parts. Would probably cost
next to nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deowll
science forum beginner
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 12:59 pm Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
"Matthew Lybanon" <lybanon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BF2230A6.A915%lybanon@earthlink.net...
| Quote: | in article 1123851920.622573.256300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Christian
Winter at cwinter@gmail.com wrote on 8/12/05 8:05 AM:
a_plutonium@hotmail.com schrieb:
Why should something faced with huge friction, wear and tear of a
automobile transport such as Toyota which lasts 10 years without a
problem and then looking at computers which should last longer than 10
years.
What again makes you believe that computers should last longer than 10
years? I mean, they do, ya know? Most people just won't want to use
them, just as the majority of people prefere a new car over a 10 year
old one. While there are certainly more people prefereing new computers
over new cars, I am still convinced that the majority of people would
rather have a new car than a 10 year old one.
In any case, what makes you believe that you cannot use your computer
past 10 years? If you do not need to improve your experience, as you
are not improving your experience with your car, then you can use both
for the same time frame. In fact, I would argue that your computer will
probably last much longer, considering that there are little to no
moving parts in it, and that those are either cheap to replace or
unlikely to fail.
This post is coming from a new (less than 1 year old) Mac G5, sitting next
to a Mac G3 more than 10 years old. The old Mac works just fine, every
part
of it. And I still use it for some things (I have a perfectly good
scanner
connected to a SCSI port on the G3).
The new one is much faster, has a much larger hard disk, and has some nice
software that runs under OS X. The main reason I got the new one is
because
of a software issue, and to some extent it's an artificial issue. The old
Mac is running an old OS (MacOS 8.6), because I wasn't sure it had the
"horsepower" to handle OS X. Web browsers for systems that old can't
handle
some of the stuff companies put on their web pages today.
A large fraction of the new stuff is, basically, just useless fancy stuff
(I
was able to pay many credit card bills using the old Mac, and as the
webmaster for a club's site I have not gotten any complaints for my
efforts
to keep it simple and use code that will run on the greatest possible
range
of browsers.
For years I worked on image processing algorithms, using computers with
less
capability than the old Mac sitting next to this one. When people whose
computer use is limited to shopping online and sending e-mail messages
need
computers with far more power than than the ones NASA used in the Apollo
program, something is wrong.
|
The goofer net worked fine for information and business. It could run at
blazing speed on dial up using old systems.
Then every thing went graphic. 99% of our computer horse power is tied up in
making things look pretty.
The power to do it is out there so I guess its okay.
The down side is/was without all the bells and whistles I think the goofer
net would be a much safer communications system to defend and cost very
little to use. The facts were also easier to find.
Time marches on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deowll
science forum beginner
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:01 pm Post subject:
Re: computers have only 1/2 life of my Toyota pickup
|
|
|
"Christian Winter" <cwinter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123865896.045514.48640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
deowll schrieb:
The hard drives go and may not be possible to replace just as parts for
other old machines may not be possible to find.
For one thing, hard drives do not fail as often as they seem to be made
out to. I worked in IT for well over 2 years and can't remember more
than one or two hard drive failures. I never had one quit on me in 10+
years. Also, the point is moot since you can install virtually any
harddrive on an old machine. They are all IDE drives and in most cases
you can even still find DOS drivers for them. You may not be able to
use them to their full capacity, but you can most certainly replace
them. You can also still buy old 80286 processors and the like, old
RAM, and so on. They don't sell that at BestBuy but at most bigger
electronic parts stores. I bet I could put together a fully functioning
80286 16 MHz machine right now with all new parts. Would probably cost
next to nothing.
|
Assuming you could find software to run on it could you get a printer to
work with it? What about a vidio and sound card? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:18 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Free Ringtones | Internet Advertising | Loans and Credit Cards | MPAA | Car Loan
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Engineering
