[geeks] RE: [the processor speed wars...]

[joshua d boyd]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:55:55PM -0400, dave at cca.org wrote:
> Theoretically, I would say a 20 Mhz 386 is enough for normal PC
> home/office use.  However, there's this thing called "windows". Each
> new version needs next year's processor in order to give you the feel
> of 386 performance.

The question is, what is home/office use?  Is it running a spreadsheat and
word processing?  Then, a 386 should be fast enough (although I'd prefer a
PCI system be used, like maybe a 486/66).  With a decent video card (a
Riva128 might count, a TNT certainly would), a 386 level chip should be
able to do everything that Word does just fine.  Wysiwyg accomplished by
fonts mapped to polys.  Spell checking and grammer checking as low
priority background threads, etc.

However, what if home office use includes downloading pictures from a
digital camera and printing them out (something my dad does many pages
worth of each day for his inspecting business).  I don't think a 20mhz 386
cuts it anymore.  A 486/33 probably would, except USB would be nice, and
USB would suck over ISA, meaning a PCI 486/66 would be needed.

Now, these are decent and usefull tasks.  But, why not try and push on
with what a computer can do?  For instance, MP3 playback is nifty.  That
requires at least a P75. 

People keep trying to introduce 3D to business users, but I just don't see
that taking off any time soon.  Voice recognition is growing
rapidly.  That requires at least some sort of P2, faster if you also want
to play MP3s at the same time.

Now, what I want to know is will people find a way to make video
processing a helpful part of home office use?  How could the computer
watching you help you work better? 

-- 
Joshua D. Boyd