If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" wrote :
You could also sort of take it to a funny extreme: So who here has bought a Toyota Camry? Why did you pay so much for a Corolla? I had Corolla. So who here has bought a Toyota Corolla? Why did you pay so much for an Echo? well, where do the make those "Echo's" ? Korea ? 1992 Corolla I had was 'made in Japan', and that single handed make this car worth the money. Pozdrawiam. -- RusH // http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/ Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery. You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Tony Hill wrote :
The capitalist model of society tends to demonstrate that doing the most profitable thing often DOES result in the goods and services that optimally fulfill the consumer wants and needs, at least in the long run. you are talking Wallmart here, and what about the society ? society is definitelly _not_ only about consumer I'll be the first to say that capitalism, despite it's faults, has shown itself to be a reasonably successful economic model. Much more so than the alternatives at least! for whom ? corporations - yes, consumer - maybe/sometimes, average family - NO Pozdrawiam. -- RusH // http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/ Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery. You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
RusH wrote:
"Yousuf Khan" wrote : You could also sort of take it to a funny extreme: So who here has bought a Toyota Camry? Why did you pay so much for a Corolla? I had Corolla. So who here has bought a Toyota Corolla? Why did you pay so much for an Echo? well, where do the make those "Echo's" ? Korea ? 1992 Corolla I had was 'made in Japan', and that single handed make this car worth the money. I think they may call the Toyota Echos something different in your part of the world. I think they may call it the Platz in other parts of the world. See if these car looks familiar to you: Echo sedan: http://tinyurl.com/3bkm5 Echo hatchback: http://tinyurl.com/32ynw Yousuf Khan |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Nate Edel" wrote in message ... In comp.sys.intel tony wrote: I think it's socially irresponsible and greedy for giant companies to not offer commodity products at commodity prices. You know, if you were talking about the necessities of life, I'd agree with you. But when the issue is higher-end computer equipment -- not a necessity to begin with, and especially not a necessity with cheaper parts available from other brands and perfectly adequate -- I don't think it's socially irresponsible. Greedy, sure, but that's capitalism for you. "Greed for lack of a better word, is good" doncha know? Well, maybe not but it's the best economic driving force on a large scale that we've found. standardization. It's like: "we CAN build technology for a perfectly adequate PC for the masses that would cost less than $100, but we WON'T cuz we can continue to milk consumers for money with this system". But if it can be done, and Intel/ATI/whoever won't do it, Via will. Or any of the other Asian manufacturers, which can do it more cheaply than Intel anyway. Proprietary games, absent government monopoly protection or certain cases of infrastructure, eventually fail. Even Microsoft is seeing that, albeit slowly. Doing the right thing vs. doing the most profitable thing does not result in goods and services that optimally fulfill consumer wants and needs. Optimally fulfill consumer wants and needs is in the long run the most profitable thing to do. OTOH, doing so perfectly would require omniscience, so there's a lot of guesswork involved and companies f___ up sometimes. I find it hard to believe that all those engineers are really as dumb as the products their companies produce, rather their companies are playing dumb in order to milk the cash cow. My perspective is that for-profit companies produce for profit exclusively ("doing it for the money") RATHER THAN producing "the right thing" when they aren't forced to. It's like pulling teeth to get a phone company to give you just basic service, for example, and they try to hide the basic package and sell you another unnecessary feature-laden package. Examples abound: MS taking their sweet lil ol time to create an OS of appropriateness and quality is one, CD/DVD "standards" fiasco another. Cars probably don't have to be so proprietary and expensive either, greed makes them so. I think the solution might be to create not-for-profit-like companies to produce all the well-known and understood technologies for masses of consumers at true commodity prices. How novel: commodities at commodity prices! Buy only what you want and need rather than what is made available by money-only-driven companies. Tony |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony Hill" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:39:00 GMT, "tony" wrote: I think it's socially irresponsible and greedy for giant companies to not offer commodity products at commodity prices. Ditto for proprietary games played in the name of profit in place of standardization. It's like: "we CAN build technology for a perfectly adequate PC for the masses that would cost less than $100, but we WON'T cuz we can continue to milk consumers for money with this system". Doing the right thing vs. doing the most profitable thing does not result in goods and services that optimally fulfill consumer wants and needs. The capitalist model of society tends to demonstrate that doing the most profitable thing often DOES result in the goods and services that optimally fulfill the consumer wants and needs, at least in the long run. That's what they'd want you to believe anyway. I see mostly evidence that that is not true and that producing under that model is always a long and arduous process. Sure, it might seem like a good idea to make a $100 PC for the masses, but then there would be no incentive to push technology forward. That WOULD be pushing technology forward! But for the practical uses rather than just for the sake of technological "achievement". The quest for technology achievement and the marketing of MHz got us Prescott (another fiasco?). Argh. The $100 PC of yesterday would be no faster today. Creating low cost and practical products doesn't mean stagnating technology. So while we've paid more for PCs over the years, we've gotten more as a result. Doubtful, since the control of ideas was localized in very few companies. Who knows what might have been with widespread development. If companies had been producing nothing but $100 PCs for the past 15 years, we would have MUCH slower machines that what you could get for $100 (used) today. That's an unqualified and unprovable opinion. And that's not to say that we wouldn't have some better overall. For instance, better software! Many scenarios are possible. The current goal seems to be the prevention of commoditization (not good, but all that can be expected from money-first companies?). While a lot of people in this newsgroup (*cough* Keith *ahem*) have accused me of being some kind of pinko-commie, I'll be the first to say that capitalism, despite it's faults, has shown itself to be a reasonably successful economic model. Much more so than the alternatives at least! Without going off on that always controversial tangent, capitalism is just like one of those products that you're force to live with for lack of the better/right thing. It's so far off the mark it's not funny (it's the Windoze of economic paradigms). It succeeds because most people don't think about it, and hence are taken advantage of by it. (IMO). Tony |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 14 May 2004 17:21:21 +0000 (UTC), RusH
wrote: "Yousuf Khan" wrote : You could also sort of take it to a funny extreme: So who here has bought a Toyota Camry? Why did you pay so much for a Corolla? I had Corolla. So who here has bought a Toyota Corolla? Why did you pay so much for an Echo? well, where do the make those "Echo's" ? Korea ? Could be made damn near anywhere, depending on where you bought the car. I think in North America (the only place to use the "Echo" name AFAIK) they are produced in the US. FWIW in most of Europe the "Echo" is sold as the "Yaris", though I never saw any of the coupe or sedan versions of the Echo over there (the only Yaris' I saw were 3-door hatchbacks). 1992 Corolla I had was 'made in Japan', and that single handed make this car worth the money. For much of North America the Corollas are produced in Canada (Cambridge to be exact, I've driven past the plant on many occasions). I think they also have a plant or two down in California that also turns out Corollas. Not only does the place of manufacture vary depending on where you bought the car, but the specs vary a fair bit and even the names are sometimes different. For example, a European Corolla comes standard with a 1.4L engine, while in North America the only engine option available is a 1.8L i4. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Tony Hill ) wrote:
: : For much of North America the Corollas are produced in Canada : (Cambridge to be exact, I've driven past the plant on many occasions). : I think they also have a plant or two down in California that also : turns out Corollas. : http://www.nummi.com/ Welcome to NUMMI.com NUMMI now makes the Toyota Corolla, Toyota Tacoma, and Pontiac Vibe --Jerry Leslie Note: is invalid for email |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:55:44 -0700, (Nate Edel) wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Tony Hill wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:54:35 -0700, (Nate Edel) wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan wrote: You could also sort of take it to a funny extreme: So who here has bought a Toyota Camry? Why did you pay so much for a Corolla? Except, of course, that there are actual differences in the underlying car's dimensions. Unlike, notably, the older ES300 models which were pretty much exactly structurally and mechanically the same as the Camry V6 (although the interior trim was nicer, and IIRC, they were supposed to have more sound insulation.) I don't know the specifics of that situation, but it sounds like the Honda Civic vs. Acura EL series. Same engine, same chassis, same transmission... So why do people pay more for the Acura? There is no Acura EL here in the states, so I don't know. Some of the older Acuras were pretty redundant for the same reason, but the last couple of generations they've been a good bit more different. Much nicer engines and transmissions, for example. I have an Acura RSX, which has a chassis derived from the Civic (as the older Integra was), but a 5-speed automatic transmission rather than a 4, a 2L rather than the 1.7L engine and 30 more horsepower than the EX VTEC (can't remember what the Si makes) The current Civic Si(Si-R in Canada) has basically the same engine as your RSX - the new K-Series i-VTEC engine with chain driven camshafts. I expect Honda to gradually phase out the Civic SOHC engine in various markets as they feel the need and replace with the K-Series eventually. In some Asian markets there is a Thailand built Civic Coupe EX with the K-Series, IIRC. With Honda currently in deep sales caca, it may make sense to do the changeover sooner rather than later... the "need" is here.:-) Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:29:30 GMT, "tony"
wrote: "Tony Hill" wrote in message .. . The capitalist model of society tends to demonstrate that doing the most profitable thing often DOES result in the goods and services that optimally fulfill the consumer wants and needs, at least in the long run. That's what they'd want you to believe anyway. I see mostly evidence that that is not true and that producing under that model is always a long and arduous process. As far as turning innovation into useful product in a timely manner efficiently, no country in the world has come close to the U.S. capitalist model... if that's what you mean by "producing". Sure, it might seem like a good idea to make a $100 PC for the masses, but then there would be no incentive to push technology forward. That WOULD be pushing technology forward! But for the practical uses rather than just for the sake of technological "achievement". The quest for technology achievement and the marketing of MHz got us Prescott (another fiasco?). Argh. The $100 PC of yesterday would be no faster today. Creating low cost and practical products doesn't mean stagnating technology. Examples?? So while we've paid more for PCs over the years, we've gotten more as a result. Doubtful, since the control of ideas was localized in very few companies. Who knows what might have been with widespread development. You cannot produce the technology required unless you have the infrastructure and capital depth necessary for the implementation and marketing. The garage days were over the minute Jobs and Wozniak moved into a "building". Since then, umpteen large companies have tried to challenge to be the commodity microprocessor-based system supplier - most have failed.shrug While a lot of people in this newsgroup (*cough* Keith *ahem*) have accused me of being some kind of pinko-commie, I'll be the first to say that capitalism, despite it's faults, has shown itself to be a reasonably successful economic model. Much more so than the alternatives at least! Without going off on that always controversial tangent, capitalism is just like one of those products that you're force to live with for lack of the better/right thing. It's so far off the mark it's not funny (it's the Windoze of economic paradigms). It succeeds because most people don't think about it, and hence are taken advantage of by it. (IMO). Again, different "systems" have been tried - they don't work. If you expect an apparatchik in some govt. owned or sponsored institution to not behave like a capitalist, you are not paying attention. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P4C800E-D Intel RAID and Promise RAID | Clark Griswold | Asus Motherboards | 2 | January 31st 05 07:17 AM |
Intel Prescott CPU in a Nutshell | LuvrSmel | Overclocking | 1 | January 10th 05 03:23 PM |
Gigabyte GA-8IDML with mobile CPU? | Cuzman | Overclocking | 1 | December 8th 04 08:20 PM |
Intel vs. AMD: Best bang for buck, at the moment | Dave C. | Homebuilt PC's | 40 | September 27th 04 07:19 AM |
Real World Comparisons: AMD 3200 -vs- Intel 3.2. Your thoughts, experiences.... | Ted Grevers | General | 33 | February 6th 04 02:34 PM |