🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CnG1C5.78n@pts.mot.com>,  <heda_mo@pts.mot.com> wrote:
                                                   ^^^^^^^
>
>
>I have an interesting technical/scientific question.  Please think carefully before answering it ::
>
>Suppose we were living in 1970 again, with all technical knowledge that we have today.
>What stages of progress would we / could we  skip ??


We'd not have produced TVs with the "works in a drawer" :^)

In article <CnG1C5.78n@pts.mot.com> heda_mo@pts.mot.com writes:
>
>I have an interesting technical/scientific question.  Please think carefully
> before answering it ::
>
>Suppose we were living in 1970 again, with all technical knowledge that we
>have today.
>What stages of progress would we / could we  skip ??
>
>Basically, what mistakes did we do ??

The Intel 8086 and MS-DOS!

>You may say, none of them were mistakes but a way to learn and correct
>ourselves.  I agree.  But if you could do it again, what wouldn't you repeat
>??

Basically, the whole personal computer industry repeated the mistakes that
were made in the 1950s and 1960s.  I guess if we couldn't learn from the past,
we shouldn't expect to learn from the future either.  If we knew then what we
know now, Bill Gates would probably still be a billionaire from selling
MS-DOS.

-John

--
	John Witters			(206) 353-4672 (H)   (206) 356-5274 (W)
	210 124th ST. S.W. Apt. #1	witters@eskimo.com	     (Internet)
	Everett, Washington  98204
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!

In article <2nc8tt$bk5@news.acns.nwu.edu> mack23@andre.mech.nwu.edu (Chris Walsh) writes:
>From: mack23@andre.mech.nwu.edu (Chris Walsh)
>Subject: Re: An Interesting Question
>Date: 30 Mar 1994 16:21:17 GMT

>In article <CnG1C5.78n@pts.mot.com>,  <heda_mo@pts.mot.com> wrote:
>                                                   ^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>>I have an interesting technical/scientific question.  Please think carefully before answering it ::
>>
>>Suppose we were living in 1970 again, with all technical knowledge that we have today.
>>What stages of progress would we / could we  skip ??


>We'd not have produced TVs with the "works in a drawer" :^)

>Chris

With IC's and tubes on the same Bd.  ;-}

Bill

In article <CnG1C5.78n@pts.mot.com>, heda_mo@pts.mot.com  writes:
>
>
> I have an interesting technical/scientific question.  Please think
> carefully before answering it ::
>
> Suppose we were living in 1970 again, with all technical knowledge
> that we have today.
> What stages of progress would we / could we  skip ??
>
> For example, perhaps, we wouldn't make pulse-system telephones.
> We would directly go to Tone phones, or Fiber Optics.
> Making a pulse system, and changing the whole thing to tone would be
> a costly thing.
>
> Basically, what mistakes did we do ??
> You may say, none of them were mistakes but a way to learn and
> correct ourselves.  I agree.  But if you could do it again, what
> wouldn't you repeat ??
>
> I am waiting for your responces.
>
>
> MAX at FAU
>

Definately done something about DOS and Intel based platform. Not to
say not to invent, but when IBM created it they had no intensions of
it surviving longer than any other fad (like the hula-hoop).  Just
think if Ken Olson had of marketed a REAL pc based on the PDP-11 chip.
I do not consider the rainbow, nor the Pro-3xx to be real contenders.

Having RCA put more money into creating Fast memory chips using the
SOS process and not worry about the heat and power.  Originally RCA
was so concerned over heat and power they made these devices with only
that in mind and they were very slow.  Furthermore, if the US as a
whole had of invested more in the memory process, maybe we would have
all the product and not Japan.

Get the major US TV vendors together to patent and sell a VCR, after all
RCA and the US created this media, we just never marketed it commercially.
Then get those same people together to create HDTV, which we should have
now.

Bypass running all this coax for TV cable and just put down fiber!

Oh, and on you original comment about the phone system, dial phones
date back to the early 1900's and their terminalogy still exists today,
even with all the equipment being produced being tone capable. After
all that noise you get when you first pick up the phone is still called a
DIAL-TONE !!


I can hardly wait for other responses!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry A. Suskind - Information Services    ||"After all, if it weren't for
E-Systems / Melpar Division                ||change, your job would largely
7700 Arlington Blvd, Falls Church, VA 22046||consist of making sure the
Internet: bsuskind@melpar.esys.com         ||corporate abacus rods were
Ma Bell: 703-560-5000                      ||adequately greased" John Cleese


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry A. Suskind - Information Services    ||"After all, if it weren't for
E-Systems / Melpar Division                ||change, your job would largely
7700 Arlington Blvd, Falls Church, VA 22046||consist of making sure the
Internet: bsuskind@melpar.esys.com         ||corporate abacus rods were
Ma Bell: 703-560-5000                      ||adequately greased" John Cleese

In <CnG1C5.78n@pts.mot.com> heda_mo@pts.mot.com  writes:

>I have an interesting technical/scientific question.  Please think carefully before answering it ::

>Suppose we were living in 1970 again, with all technical knowledge that we have today.
>What stages of progress would we / could we  skip ??

>For example, perhaps, we wouldn't make pulse-system telephones.  We would directly go to Tone phones, or Fiber Optics.    Making a pulse system, and changing the whole thing to tone would be a costly thing.


Excuse me? Pulse dialing has been in use since about 1910.




>Basically, what mistakes did we do ??
>You may say, none of them were mistakes but a way to learn and correct ourselves.  I agree.  But if you could do it again, what wouldn't you repeat ??

Forgetting to teach people to put in <CR> after typing 80 columns.

In article <CnHM06.I7t@eskimo.com>, witters@eskimo.com (John Witters) writes:
|> In article <CnG1C5.78n@pts.mot.com> heda_mo@pts.mot.com writes:
|> >
|> >I have an interesting technical/scientific question.  Please think carefully
|> > before answering it ::
|> >
|> >Suppose we were living in 1970 again, with all technical knowledge that we
|> >have today.
|> >What stages of progress would we / could we  skip ??
|> >
|> >Basically, what mistakes did we do ??
|>
|> The Intel 8086 and MS-DOS!
|>
|> >You may say, none of them were mistakes but a way to learn and correct
|> >ourselves.  I agree.  But if you could do it again, what wouldn't you repeat
|> >??
|>
|> Basically, the whole personal computer industry repeated the mistakes that
|> were made in the 1950s and 1960s.  I guess if we couldn't learn from the past,
|> we shouldn't expect to learn from the future either.  If we knew then what we
|> know now, Bill Gates would probably still be a billionaire from selling
|> MS-DOS.
|>
|> -John
|>

The point is that the 'mistakes' were all part of the development of technology
and in no way could be avoided without already have the technology that came as
a result of making these 'mistakes'. If it was Intel's processors which became
the 'industry standard' it would have someone elses perhaps running a different
OS, but probably not any different in operation and uses, the exception perhaps
being if Macs had taken off we would all have been using GUIs long before
Microsoft actually had this 'brilliant new' idea about using them.

BTW couldn't you find a more suitable groupp for this heda_mo@pts.mot.com ?


--
Nigel J. Andrews
Astronomical Instrumentation Group
Physics Department
University of Durham

|> Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!

OK, I've done that, when does the fun begin????