|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |