Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Aug 2012 11:10 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 533042
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-04-18
Dude, you're comparing apples to oranges here. This is 1982 we're talking about. A 68k and 256k of memory was pretty huge back then, as vaette noted, same CPU and twice the memory as the Mac that was released a year later. It's like saying a PC with a Core i5 and 16GB of memory is a low-spec dumb terminal by today's standards.
That being said, whether something is a dumb terminal or not depends mostly on the ability to run application software on the machine itself, not by the grunt in its hardware.