Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"dale90045" <e1-pdsq-qn36-6kgw@e...> wrote:

> The computer industry loves product upgrades. If you don't 
>upgrade, then using the computer gets more and more difficult. 
>You eventually want new capabilities, but your old system can't 
>do them. You'll be happier in the long run if you resign to 
>upgrading your hardware every three years. Yes, you can hold 
>out longer, but three years is the point of diminishing returns. 
>Too much aggravation after that. Things move fast these 
>days.

This all depends on what one truly wants to do, as opposed to 
what "the industry" thinks you should wan t and have by now. 
Their business, principally, is getting more and more product out 
the door.

Being on the percieved "bleeding edge" too often involves 
bloodletting of one's own; anyone who has ever reached a point 
of having their working system doing damn near everything they 
need, only to have things fall apart by acquiescing to urges from 
others to "get with it" knows what I'm talking about.

My theory about the "three-year" cycle goes something like this: 
by the time a given pieve of hardware or software (more often the 
latter) has reached a high level of refinement, and a given 
comfort level among its users, it becomes time, from the 
business sensibility of the manufacturer, to pull the plug on said 
product and start the cycle over again. From a business 
standpoint, it's sheer genius; from and end-user perspective, it 
too often leaves a good deal to be desired.  On occasion, it 
makes *good* sense to upgrade, but never blindly, or just for the 
sake of something being "the very latest".

"Promise perfection, but keep it just out of reach". It works for Bill 
Gates, and possibly for Epson...

- Barrett (who only recently moved to OS 9, and is "studying" X)