🚀 go-pugleaf

>To say that people don't "need" any more computer power is to say that
>they have no further aspirations. That is plainly silly.  As soon as
>hardware/software reduces f(X) for one task enough to give the user
>some spare time, the user will then advance to the next profitable
>task. The real problem is that the industry cannot produce
>general-purpose computing machines that keep themselves doing useful
>things at full tilt without requiring constant attention from highly
>skilled users.
>
>Dan Mocsny

It's not that they have no further aspirations, it's that they have no
further software. And that's not silly.

You can hypothesize all this software which "they" will find useful
and will require all these extra cycles but it remains just that, a
hypothesis, an extrapolation of past experience which may or may not
be valid. I will grant it will be valid in some applications domains
but in others it may very well not be valid.

In fact, they'll scream for more cycles *after* that software shows
up, not in anticipation of it.

If we have to hypothesize non-existant software to soak up the cycles
we already have, then we have entered a very different realm indeed
from a very few years ago.

The current thinking in this field is reminiscent of the "rising
expectations" of the 60's where the common view was that of
ever-expanding, limitless resources and economies. (More) prosperity
is just around the corner.

I'm not saying this thinking is wrong, but I am saying its proponents
seem unexamined, zealotry is a word which comes to mind.
-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade         | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs