Re: What's the Big Deal with Firefox?

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In a world of 1+ Gig processors, 512 Mb of RAM and standard 120 Gb 
>>>>> drives, the disk and memory footprint differences are not 
>>>>> functionally significant.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense! Or at least it's been my experience that people who think 
>>>> in such a way are of two varieties: Either they don't use their 
>>>> computer for much or they are constantly complaining how slow their 
>>>> computers are and/or rebooting.
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>
>> OK, I give up. There's a 3rd category I guess - those who don't 
>> understand it! ;-)
>
> Or perhaps, those who don't sweat the small stuff.  I suspect that is 
> us old guys who are so conscious of ram and cpu/disk space usage, from 
> the old kilobyte/megahertz days.

Nah it's not necessarily not sweating the small stuff. It's seeing and 
sensing a real problem and fixing it. You don't know how many times a 
friend of mine will be contemplating getting a new PC because his isn't 
working quite as quick as it used to, or they will stop using something 
just because "it's broke" or "my computer's too old to do that anymore" 
- ridiculous reasons if you ask me. Usually after just a cursory 
examination of the computer I'll find tons of stuff in the start up 
folder/registry, drivers, services, etc, etc. - tons of unnecessary and 
unused stuff strewn upon the unsuspecting and unconcerned user (hey I 
have tons of space, speedy CPU, large disk drive) bringing an otherwise 
speedy and useful machine to it's knees!

It's exactly that attitude (Hey I got a quick machine) that the folks at 
Intel and MS are banking on. Intel was actually looking for uses for 
their CPUs to waste processing time 'cause the average CPU is way faster 
than the needs of the typical user.
-- 
After eating, do amphibians need to wait an hour before getting OUT of 
the water?