22 Apr
2012
22 Apr
'12
2:39 p.m.
[...] I relaised you can't really compare like
with like. Thew old
computers that I (and others here) run are oftne very expensive
manchiens (when new), as opposed to the <$500 stuff that most people
have today. It can't be fair to compare the build and reliabiltiy of
those.
I'd say, yes and no.
Take, for exmaple, one of my SS20s. A modern machine built with the
same kind of engineering care and attention that went into that SS20
quite possibly _would_ be the more reliable of the two - I have no real
basis for comparison there.
But when compared in terms of what's common - what my employer put on
employees' desks at work back 20, 30 years ago, versus what my employer
puts on employees' desks at work today (or, in my case, would if I
didn't bring in my own machine for the purpose)...then today's machines
are crap. Same if the comparison is based on looking at shelves in a
(then-)typical computer store.
Each basis for comparison has a place, and I get the feeling at least
part of the disagreement here is disagreeing over which one is more
appropriate.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B