> I guess I'm not arguing the definition of the word as much as I'm > arguing about the perceived utility of a so-called 'obsolete' piece of > equipment. Like something obsolete was a bad thing. It isn't. > Something being obsolete does not mean it's usefulness is somehow been > compromised and it's no longer what you thought it was... > It still is, but if you now think it's not as good as youo once > _thought_ it was, then the ad guys have done their job, and you'll be > hankering for the newer model.
Well, that's what I'm saying where digital is concerned. The technology is massively better now than it was five years ago, and I don't think anybody who was pleased with their new digital camera five years ago is still happily using it today. If there's an exception, he or she is in a tiny, tiny minority. Sometimes, the fact that something is the best available for its price in its time doesn't mean that everybody wouldn't use something better if and when it becomes available. --Mike
