Actually, I was trying to draw an analogy earlier to computers, but somehow that did not seem to be coming across very well.
The PC market stabilized into the 286, 386, 486, and Pentium. A stage at a time. But each stage did not emerge in subsequent yearly turn arounds, sometimes it took a lot longer. And often one could be happy with whatever stage one had for some time. The underlying technology of the 486, for instance, the assembly language instruction set, was the same although different versions of 486's -- some may have had faster CPUs and more memory, etc. but the underlying technology was/is the same. That was my point about technology stabilizing. All I said before is that one could buy a digital camera, when the technology stabilizes, that one could be satisfied with for 6-8 years. Not forever. Maybe eight is high. Hard to tell right now. I have had all of the stages of computers mentioned above. I literally forget how long I used the 286 before I moved up to a 386. That lasted less than two years, but I had an upgradable motherboard so I switched to 486 easily. And that lasted about five to six years before I moved up again. There *is* faster turn around on digital/computers, but one doesn't have to assume one won't be satisfied for a while. One doesn't have to assume that just because the bells and whistles may be upgraded every six months that one can't be satisfied with what one has for a reasonable length of time. I think the trick with digital cameras may be figuring out when some of the technology has stabilized, when the basic underlying technology is remaining the same, despite the fact that the bells and whistles are changing. However, too many people also treat newer technology as disposable. It's not *just* that companies try planned obsolescence. Developments actually do come quicker, and people want the latest and consider what they have junk if it isn't the latest. If it still works and it still does what you basically need, it's not junk. Most modern stuff is built well enough to last a lot longer, a lot longer, than it ends up being used. And treating newer technology as disposable tends to devalue it. IMHO, it's pretty d_mn impressive. Or I wouldn't be here on the Internet, the pdml in particular, chatting with you and others. Hehehe. <soapbox> Doe aka Marnie </soapbox> In a message dated 1/20/2003 4:40:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > If you did that you still would not have a computer. <grin> > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:53 PM > Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!) > > > > In a message dated 1/20/2003 1:24:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > My point was that digital cameras at current seem too follow computers > in planned obsolescence. Hence, I find it likely > > > that consumers will treat them similarly. > > > > > > P�l > > > > Evolving technology means they are continually developing new and better > technology. IMHO, it is really much too soon to jump to the conclusion they > are following the path of planned obsolescence. Sometimes a new technology > just evolves so quickly the turn around time is very rapid. Turn around > being when the next thing issues from R&R. Which is why it is a good idea to > wait a while with a really new technology -- wait until new > developments > come at a bit of a slower pace. > > > > Doe aka Marnie > >
