David Murray wrote:
> I find jesus X's attitude to be offensive!
Then you're reacting emotionally rather than taking a logical approach. I tried
NOT to offend, but present a vewipoint.
> Sure my computer is not the highest-spec'd machiene around today - I
> know that - but it's not that far off! The fastest/newest CPUs are only
> 2 times faster than my CPU, the amount of RAM that I have is more than
> adequate to record and edit large audio files AND it's not yet two years
> old. Mozilla cannot run within 32megs - which was the standard amount of
> RAM not even two years ago. This inability of Mozilla is it's singularly
> biggest fault!
I agree that optimizations need to be made, we all know that. But to what level
should we drop to support wise? How slow a machine do we really need to code
for? If we want to code for slow Pentiums with 32MB of RAM, why not 486's with
16? I just think it's time to cut loose the stragglers, as is always done after
a period of time. Would you try to run office 2000 with 32MB of RAM?
> I have no intention of upgrading my computer unless I have a NEED to do
> so - and reading email *hardly* counts as a NEED to spend another $2500
> on a computer!
Very understandable, which is why I mentioned that it's not needed. Sometimes a
mere hundred dollars helps things.
> I expect this memory usage issue to be resolved, and to be resolved with
> little fuss on the part of the bloat-merchants(!) if they want people to
> take their software seriously.
This is the very attitude I'm against. I comes across as, "I'm using and old
machine, and I demand that you cater to me, even though I'm in a small
minority."
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
web [ http://www.burntelectrons.com/ ] [ Updated: December 2, 2000 ]
tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
warning [ Or you can bring her down and do her like Delia got done. ]
