Ah, we've been spoiled by fast hardware doing
pretty much nothing.
For text-mode data entry and POS and such, you don't need much CPU
power (or memory, for that matter).
"Wordstar on an 4.077 MHz 8088 could keep up with my typing; WinWord
under Windoze on a 300 MHz PII can't." --Seth Breidbart
(That it cites a PII-300 as the "modern" machine gives some idea how
old the quote is.)
Does generalization always win out over
specialization?
In computers, it does seem to go that way. "Every program grows until
it is able to read mail." I suspect it's largely due to Moore's Law:
hardware has gotten so incredibly faster that it's now not only
feasible but economic to put a general-purpose computer running a
general-purpose OS into mobile phone.
We tend to not notice it, because we've gotten so used to it. But
computers have grown more powerful to an extent that is completely
unmatched in any other field of human endeavour I can think of. If
athletes' performance had increased correspondingly, track-&-field
would be dealing with severe relativistic effects. If workers' wealth
production had kept that sort of pace, we'd all be working five or ten
seconds a year and still living like J. Paul Getty.
If a factory turning out, say, cheap kids' toys produced one defective
product per billion, that would be unbelievably good. A computer that
mis-executed one instruction per billion wouldn't even last long enough
to finish booting.
Should my subcompact car also serve as a 10-ton dump
truck?
If it could be made to with as little effort as a modern computer can
be made to do "anything"? Then, hell yes!
/~\ 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