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.
|
|
