Re: To Upgrade or Not. What's the difference?

On May 4, 12:14 am, John Cartmell <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1178232752.573963.17...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ams

<a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If it's missing a function it's a bit less general purpose though isn't it.

Not unless you have a valid comparator.

If a machine is more restricted (if it does less) by definition it is
less general purpose. That which is general purpose does more (I
really can't believe I am typing this drivel).


Why would anyone want something that's more nobbled or limited than
something else?

Because the something else is a later version of the same machine to which you
could upgrade anyway - even if you didn't expect to use the 'missing' bit.


Or you could opt for a completely different and more expandible
machine that does more now.... and skip the whole "same machine you
could upgrade anyway" step.

Of course the discussion might be valid if anyone could think of a computer
that was complete* on the absolute terms demanded here.

I, like most people, like the computer(s) I use to be less incomplete
- a fault I know but there you have it.


--
John Cartmell j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820


Regards

Annraoi

.