>> of whether you actually use AOL at all.
> 
>   Why is that strange? That's how modern ADSL and other similar fixed-fee
> internet connections work. It doesn't matter if you download and upload at
> full rate 24/7, or you don't use the connection at all, you still have to
> pay the monthly fee.
> 
>   (Ok, some ISPs may limit your monthly bandwidth, but others don't.)

Most systems that I have seen either charge you X per minute you're 
online, X per unit of data downloaded/uploaded, or X per month. AOL are 
charging you X per month + Y per minute + BT are charging you Z per 
minute as well.

No number they're No.1? :-/

>> - This thing works with Windows 3.1? o_O
>> - 486 DX or higher??
> 
>   Why is that strange?

It isn't, rationally - it's just amusing! :-D

I wonder - at what point will obsolete computer hardware become valuable 
antiques?

>> - Even back then, Windows 3.1 only requires 8MB RAM, but already Win95 
>> requires *twice as much*! (And *triple* the HD space...)
> 
>   Actually Windows 3.1 could run in much less, and Win95 could run with
> 4 MB (I have direct experience of this).

Right. So it's the AOL client that's requiring all this then? [I just 
remembered: IT'S AOL!!] Nothing new there then! ;-)

>> - [Even back then, I already had a machine that happily displays 256 
>> colours at resolutions more than a tad above 640x480, has a full 
>> premptive multitasking OS with sophisticated GUI, and needs only 2MB of 
>> RAM to do its job - HD optional.]
> 
>   Most unix machines did that in the 70's.

Most Unix machines [as I understand it] cost more than my house in the 
70's. ;-) Not that this really negates the point you were making...

10 years ago, so much was possible with so little hardware. Kinda makes 
you feel sad...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message