"nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> He also estimated that half
>> > a megabyte of RAM would be enough for everyone. Either he's a fool, or he
>> > thinks wishfully.
>>
>> You're obviously the fool here. The 1/2 megabyte of RAM limit (640k)
>> was imposed by the hardware design of the original PC. It had
>> absolutely nothing to do with Gates.
>>
>> You ought to try posting facts instead of lies sometime.
>
> Roy never said that Gates was responsible for the 640K limit, just
> that he predicted it would be enough. He's not lying about that. If
> you want to say that Gates' error in this case was no worse that that
> of Intel, then that's agreed. In any case Roy's main point is that
> Gates has often been wrong in his predictions about the future of
> computing, and in this he is correct. Just to add another example,
> there is Microsoft's miserable experience with security, all because
> they never foresaw the security implications of having their OS
> attached to the internet. Microsoft's "chief software architect" has
> been brilliant at marketing and screwing the competition, but
> technically mediocre.
>
Stop press : man is wrong about the future of a new technology.
Wow.
Let it go.
--
Corrupt, adj.:
In politics, holding an office of trust or profit.
|
|
