Six years... It is history...

[TheBigBasicQ]

the best age is yet to come. we don't see large scale integration today. but in a few years time we will see it

If you are referring to integrated circuits, LSI or Large Scale Integration happened in the 1970s, and VSLI or Very Large Scale Integration began in the 1980s.

So, I don't understand what you mean when you say "we don't see LSI today." Maybe we haven't reached its full capacity.
*****

lol, no. I wasnt talking about electronics . I was talking about "integrating" services using IT.

[Moneo]

.....lol, no. I wasnt talking about electronics . I was talking about "integrating" services using IT.

Kindly expand a little on what you mean by integrating services.
*****

[DrV]

Do you mean like a "the toaster is on the Internet and I can turn it off from the built-in terminal on the back seat of my car" kind of thing? Otherwise, I'm not so sure what you mean either.

[anarky]

Yeah, time flies... Feels like yesterday I rejoiced on how I could now play all the new games on my dads newly bought 400mhz... Now I can hardly seem to play HL1 on it

To a relief one prediction still not came true: The 3.5" FDD is still in most of the computers no matter how hard they wanted to bring it down!

It's not in any new computers sold here - you have to buy it seperatly.

PC's are sold with floppies here. also by default, a DVD ROM/CDRW.
Also sold with minimum of 256MB RAM. And the old CRT monitors. But you can of course get bigger and better!

I priced the powerhouse system of my design: in excess of $10k...

Ouch.

Anyway, the golden age of IT is yet to come. We as programmers are really on the forefront of something huge. I can sense it. In the end, M$ will get it right and release an OS that does what the user wants, not what IT wants to do.

>anarky

[Spotted Cheetah]

What the heck is wrong with "2000 - 2003" Just because nobody voted it yet... I just guess that 10 years later we would have the same results: After 2013 there are votes, before 2000 there are votes, but not between... Sigh...

[Torahteen]

I chose 2003 and up because I've only been alive since 1990 :wink: . I only really cared about computers between 1999 and now, but it was in the last few years that things really started getting good. My opinion.

[Spotted Cheetah]

It would be good if really... But what is so good now? The games? The operating systems? Or what? - just wondering being a little left out from modern technology...

For me this all seems to get too awfully "nice". Companies doing things to break smaller ones: just take a look at WinXP. That graphical mess can not be reproducated too easily and people going fooled after that... The same in games: Show up tons of 3D, huge explosions, blood, or 200mph speed and the game is sold. Without 3D it is better to pick up the sign "I will program for food" and go out to the street hoping you will get your food... So again: better age? - rather sad and horrible...

[Dr_Davenstein]

Just remember... Only the strong survive.

[Spotted Cheetah]

Back to the subject.

February, 1998

Netscape released as open source. Probably the start of an interesting race between the two browsers?

1.5 million bits per second Network access developed by Compaq + Intel + Microsoft + ect. on usual telephone lines. Continous Network access not needing reconnection.

Pentium II arrived! The highest speed is 333MHz, that CPU cost $722 (of course on 1998's prices).


My P233MHz was got on October, 1997 for at about $600 on 1997's prices. It contained 32Mb memory, 4Mb S3 video card, 3.1Gb HDD, some sound card to what i can not remember, a CD - ROM and a 3.5" Floppy drive. Now after more than 7 years this computer worth at about $0... (Although most of the hardwares replaced).

[Moneo]

......
Anyway, the golden age of IT is yet to come. We as programmers are really on the forefront of something huge. I can sense it. In the end, M$ will get it right and release an OS that does what the user wants, not what IT wants to do.
>anarky

I'm not sure what you mean. When you say: "not what IT wants to do", do you mean:-
1) The IT organization in Microsoft itself?
or
2) The IT organizations in companies developing software to run under Microsoft operating systems?

In either case, I think that Microsoft has been developing operating systems according to their marketing studies, that is, producing what sells more and keeps the competition away. These marketing requirements are more focused on what they determine the majority of users want and will buy.

The requirements of hundreds of millions of end-users differs, and has considerably more weight, than the thousands of IT organizations that want to develop application software for their companies.

So, in conclusion, I think you're right, the new OS's will be what the end-user wants --- just like it's always been with Microsoft.
*****