In comp.os.linux.advocacy, The Lone Ranger1
<Lone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:03:43 -0400
<5cGdnf3VBoC2fDjVnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> AZ Nomad wrote:
> AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:37:28 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Let's look at that, shall we? You can plug in your own numbers, but I
>>> think you will find that Microsoft "spam-bots" is costing us a lot
>>> more than you might think.
>>
>>> Figure that each PC user spends 1 hour per day sorting out the spam,
>>> at even $10 per hour, times 1 billion users, that's $10 billion. Most
>>> PC using professionals make more like $20 to $40 per hour, and actual
>>> costs are closer to $50-60 per hour. So maybe an average of $50 per
>>> hour or it's equvalent, for $50 billion.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Not only that, but probably half of all PCs purchased are purchased
>> because the previous PC was so infested with malware, that repairing
>> it would cost half as much as a new PC. Factor the cost of replacing
>> PCs every 2-3 years instead of every 5-6 years.
>>
>> I've been seeing 6 month vista machines that are already unuseable due
>> to millions of temp files piling up and the idiot OS trying to catalog
>> all of them for DRM and desktop search. Just keep on replacing them!
>
>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:37:28 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Let's look at that, shall we? You can plug in your own numbers, but I
>>> think you will find that Microsoft "spam-bots" is costing us a lot
>>> more than you might think.
>>
>>> Figure that each PC user spends 1 hour per day sorting out the spam,
>>> at even $10 per hour, times 1 billion users, that's $10 billion. Most
>>> PC using professionals make more like $20 to $40 per hour, and actual
>>> costs are closer to $50-60 per hour. So maybe an average of $50 per
>>> hour or it's equvalent, for $50 billion.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Not only that, but probably half of all PCs purchased are purchased
>> because the previous PC was so infested with malware, that repairing
>> it would cost half as much as a new PC. Factor the cost of replacing
>> PCs every 2-3 years instead of every 5-6 years.
>
> How stupid is that, that someone would not just flatten the HD and just
> reinstall everything. But instead they would go out and buy a new
> computer every two or three years is totally ridiculous, for the reasons
> you stating is BS.
Have you forgotten Moore's law? That new computer is more
than double the size (RAM, disk space, graphics capability)
of the old one, very roughly speaking.
I'll admit to some curiosity as to exactly how well Moore's
law holds up, actually, but considering that the original
PC-XT [*] in the early 1980's was 4.77 MHz with 128 kB of RAM
(expandable to 640kB), an 8-bit buss, a display of 640x200
"monochrome", and maybe 10 MB in storage space, one can
compute without difficulty the doubling rate.
The 5160 (IBM's official number for this beast) was released
March 8, 1983. It is now August 15, 2008; for simplicity I'll
pick a low end Inspiron 530s (Dell desktop unit). Doubling
rate is log(2)*9292/log(final/initial) -- roughly, the time it
took to double capacity/capability, in days (since
1983-03-08 + 9292 days = 2008-08-15). Note that 18 months is
about 547 days.
Category 1983-03-08 2008-08-15 Doubling Rate (days)
CPU 8088 Celeron 440 -
CPU clock 4.77 MHz 2.00 GHz 1066.6
Initial RAM 128 kB 1 GB 718.55
Maximum RAM 640 kB 4 GB 736.9
FSB speed 4.77 MHz? 800 MHz 1257.4
HD size 10MB 250 GB 636
HD disc speed 3600 rpm 7200 rpm 9292
HD Transfer Rate 5.0 Mb/s 3.0 Gb/s 1006.85
Video bits 640x200x1 3 Gb 640
(128kb)
card bus speed 8x4.77 MHz 32x133 Mhz 1366.21
affordability
(in 1970 $) $7832 $659.98 2603.61
A better comparison might be with a desktop unit costing
$18,000; the 5160 initially cost $8000, and there's been
a smidge of inflation since then. The CPI for March 83
is 97.9, and the CPI for July 2008 is 220.0 [all items,
all areas]. For its part Dell offers the 530s at $299.99,
sans monitor, which screws up the affordability comparison
a bit.
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=48
http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/inspndt_530s?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
Of course, it is far from clear that one should purchase
a replacement unit just because the old one's infested
with junkware. But there's more to it, obviously, than that.
[rest snipped]
[*] the 5150 was even dinkier at 64 kB RAM, but didn't
include a hard drive.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Does anyone else remember the 1802?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
