Originally posted by adamzion
Ah, I ain't impressed. Give MS enough time, and they'll produce an OS which will run on a PC which has a 100 GHz CPU and 4 of those 4 GB RAM chips like Win 3.1 did on a 386SX-25 with 4 MB.
You <b>know</b> it's true,
MS, et al already had software that will bring new hardware to its knees. This was even true before Windows 3.1. MS had artifical intelligence for DOS that would place suggestions on the command line as you typed in C:\ prompt commands. It worked much like Netscape 4.x browser's URL entry. However PC hardware was not up to the task - so the artifical intelligence was never implemented in DOS.
The concept of Windoze was due to PC video hardware that was not up to the task of graphical interface demands made by Windows. It is also why Intel finally got pissted at the memory industry and promoted Rambus. It is also why Intel, Compaq, Cisco, and Microsoft all but sued the Telcos for impeding the installation of xDSL. It is why Microsoft sued US West for refusing to provide ISDN. Hardware is always behind what the current software demands are.
Which returns to the question of who is leading the charge in memory development these days.
