🚀 go-pugleaf

cha...@engin.umich.edu (Chae Hon An) writes:
>In article <1994Oct25.0...@pimacc.pima.edu>,
> <ppug...@pimacc.pima.edu> wrote:
>>In article <Cy6wC...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, ceba...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Casey Barton) writes:
>>> <ppug...@pimacc.pima.edu> wrote:
>>>>In article <38ep3g$5...@adam.cc.sunysb.edu>, fw...@cs.sunysb.edu (.) writes:
>>>>> I was watching some show called 'The computer man' and they had an origin 
>	[snip snip]
>>I think it's somewhat pretentious for Origin to think that a game company
>>will drive the industry. But whatever happens, they can always say that it
>>wouldn't have been any different anyways & who can say for sure that it's
>>not true?

	Erm... which century are you living in?  Didn't you know that this is
EXACTLY what Origin and someone else has been doing ever since WC?


>	On the contrary.  I think you are too hastily discounting the 
>effects the game companies have had (and continue to have) on the 
>computer hardware industry.  The so-called serious computer professionals 
>who actually _needs_ faster video, greater number crunching power, more 
>storage (app servers, CAD designers, computer graphic artists) are 
>rather limited in number and probably could not have popularized the 
>advances in technology to you and me.  Without gaming industry, the 
>average game machine of today (486/66, 8 meg RAM, some sort of local bus 
>video, ideally. proabbaly more like 486/33 or below) would be esoteric 
>"power" machines as obscure to you and me as high powered Silicon 
>Graphic's Mips powered workstation.  In short, the gaming industry 
>probably did all of us a favor, as far as making high performance 
>machines more popular and accesible.  Not bad for "pretentious" game 
>companies.
>			--Chae

	Ok, except for the "someone else" I mentioned earlier: MICROSOFT
with its WINDOZE!!!!!!

	Tell me I'm wrong here. :-(

						- Falcon