24 Apr
2012
24 Apr
'12
5:28 a.m.
Tony Duell and <unknown> wrote:
By the same token, your evidence is anecdotal to me. You have not
provided (for perfectly valdi reasons) any hard data, and certainly
not
any hard data that I can verify. OK, I haven't either.
But I ahve to say that while you may not beleive what I see, I
certainly
do. I know what components I rpelace...
Now this is getting silly. There is no point in trying to say that what
Tony is seeing is wrong: unless he is psychotic he is actually observing
something that really has happened to him. And all that "I have this
fancy job in industry and I have signed lots of NDAs, so I am important,
while Tony is just a geek living with his parents" is a) rude and
patronising and b) hiding behind these NDAs you claim to have signed. So
go out and find publically available research reports or whatever on the
Internet to prove your point, instead of trying to impress us with smoke
and mirrors.
However I think <unknown> is probably right in one respect about modern
computers being more reliable: considering the complexity of a modern
$500 PC, it is probably much more reliable than anything made in the
'70s *at a corresponding price for the period*, i e today's cheap junk
is more reliable thatn cheap junk from the '70s and '80s. OTOH Tony is
also right that old computers were/are at least as reliable: they were
better made than today's cheap junk.
/Jonas
How coome
2 of use here (at least) seem to have contradictory =
findings?
Because it's anecdotal. BTW here's the definition:
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on
personal accounts rather than facts or research Fine. There's lots of things that I've
started to say on this list
to =
deal with an
argument and couldn't because it would violate various NDA's that I
have =
to
live under (I kinda like my job). Arguments on this (and other
fora) =
while
fun aren't worth sacrificing my livelihood.
I'm sorry if you can't/won't understand how large companies work and
the
restrictions that are put on employees and the products (though some
=
have
I mosster certainly understnad that (having signed a fair few NDAs in
my
time too, and yes, I do honour them). And that's the 'valid reasons'
I
mentioend.
But to be fair, if I can't verify the data, why on earth should _I_
beleive it? You could be telling me anything.
-tony