Having written programs for x86 machines since DOS 3 was the hot ticket, I
think you have a slanted view.

What is perceived as "bloat" by the public is a combination of two factors:
increased packaged data and the overhead required for proper structure. When
I started it was considered pretentious to refer to an accomplished
programmer as a "software engineer," whereas that is the minimum expected of
any modern programmer; the senior programmers are "software architects." (I
am neither, since it was only a sideline for me and I couldn't ride the
rocket. I am still a "cowboy coder" who can knock out small applications and
utilities without making a big mess of it.)

Did you ever see a DOS machine run on a network? It was ugly - surely you
recall the "share" TSR to make files multi-accessible. There were email
readers in the DOS days, but do you recall a web browser?

The good old days were good mainly because we know everything came out okay.
However, in this case, we can go back. You can still load DOS on any modern
Windows capable box. Go for it and let us know how it works out.

Mike

America, and indeed the world, pursue what is seen to be cutting edge
technology
just like codfish rush to bite an unbaited hook.  Have things REALLY
improved
by quantum steps?

Software capabilities are not so greatly changed, and the chip technology -
though greatly evolved - has developed solely to service the software
which, indeed, has become bloated and glitchy.

You could run word processors, databases,  spreadsheets, games, etc even on
the old
black and white Z80 machines.  One company where I used to work ran the
whole operation
with two 10 megabyte harddrives and a Z80 network system.

Personal computers today do little that the old ones wouldn't do in some
form or
the other.  Nor do they always do the job so terribly much quicker or
better,
although the microprocessors grunt along at multigigahertz speeds.  We
garbage
mongers that feed the data into them are, oft as not, the limiting factor.

Mainframes had somewhat different requirements.  They didnt have to cater to
the
executive gamer showoff computer-illiterate.

Wow, have you told Intel, AMD, HDD manufacturers, etc., etc.?

That quote from Billy-Bob has nothing to do with advances
in design utilizing differing technologies. That only has
to do with capacity - he was basing his opinion because
of the current state of capacity. The technology hasnt
changed in computers, but the capacity of devices has,
such as faster CPUs (with increasing cache size), higher-
capacity drives, more RAM, and so on.

Higher capacity is required because of bloated operating
systems and the bloated software written by lazy programmers.

The basic design of the computer is still the same: to
move 0's and 1's around the bus to peripherals, all
controlled by various chipsets.

Ya, so was the horse and buggy, the bicycle, etc.

This reminds me of Bill Gates comment a few decades ago that
no one should ever need more than 64k of RAM on his/her
computer.

What you quote is incredibly short-sighted. It demonstrates
a lack of willingness to do any kind of investigation of why
fly-by-wire was considered. In short, these are the words
not of an engineer, scientist, or technical person but a
ninny, and a ninny tired of having more demanded of him for
his labors, at that.

He's happy with the status quo. Others are not. He should
get out of the business or certainly never enter it.

    This concern has been answered eloquently by a contributor to
these newsgroups a few years ago.  Sorry I can't name the author, but
that person hit the nail squarely on the head with these words:

    ".........more importantly than that, you've got to have the
insight and wisdom to know when something has been developed to the
point where further development amounts to pointless engineering
masturbation.

    "The hydraulic brake system is a textbook model of development
to perfection. So was the hydromechanical automatic transmission --
computerisation of the automatic transmission has taken away
three-for-one in durability, dependability and cost of repair what
little it has given us. We know how to make steering systems that work
and essentially never give trouble. There is, therefore, no valid
reason for steer-by-wire."

Hi there.

I have been looking at the new Honda Civic, it's pretty sweet, and the
welds and everything are as nice as anything I have ever seen. I just
have a question about the "Drive by wire" system that they are supposed
to have.

What happens if the Engine dies on you? In my current car, my timing
chip went once and the engine went out. I had enough steering control
left, even without power steering, to pull my car over before it came
to a stop. If the drive by wire system has no "real" or active
connection, how can it work if the engine or electronics quit on you?
Are there any backups built into the system in case any of that stuff
happens? And what if your battery dies and you need to push the car?
Can you turn the steering wheel to adjust your wheels when you push the
car?

Much thanks, sorry to bother.

David