This being Slashdot, anything that is remotely pro-Microsoft MUST be viewed with suspicion, even if the author of the article does not work for Microsoft. Yawn.... are you trolling, or stupid, or both? The post you replied to gave a pretty good justification for not taking *either* article at face value.
Regardless of which threading model is better, the articles are contridictory, yet written just 16 months apart, with large parts similar and the author failing to acknowledge, let alone explain, his change of mind. In that light, they smack of a lame and insincere attempt to get attention.
Errors installing, or first run of, Windows 95B or 95C on fast systems.
The following errors may occur when installing Microsoft Windows 95 (OSR1 or OSR2) on any computer with a AMD K6-2 (350MHz or faster), Intel Pentium III (1-GHz or faster) or a Intel Pentium 4 (any).
Device IOS failed to initialize. Windows Protection Error. You must reboot your computer.
Windows Protection Error. You must reboot your computer.
While initializing device IOS: Windows protection error.
Microsoft have supplied a patch that corrects this problem (Q192841). Microsoft says this patch applies to AMD K6-2 processors but it also applies to other chips such as the Intel Pentium III (1-GHz or faster) and all Pentium 4 processors.
Note: This fix applies only to Windows 95B & C (OEM 2.x)
Note: The fix does not correct the problem for the retail version of Windows 95.
Note: This does not apply to Win98, 98SE, or Me which come already fixed.
The patch does have an inbuilt uninstall feature.
I found out the hard way that Windows 95 wouldn't run on a p4 2.0, even in safe mode. "Funny"? It's not funny, and I had similar problems getting W95 or W98 (I forget which) running on a P4 1.8MHz; it had to be patched.
Then this appears to be reasonable behaviour (since it's not removing anything that the user already has a right to, although take that with a pinch of IANAL (TM) brand salt).
I'd suggest that the author(s) were foolish not to make this clear from the start, instead of making vague threats that may have been intended to frighten pirates, but are likely to cause even more damage to their reputation.
If you put in a pirated key (or perhaps just an invalid one), the program will work fine, say it's registered, but you'll find you're getting a lot of inexplicable write errors and burning a lot of useless coasters. That's stupid. For one thing, it's possible to enter a key wrongly. For another, even if the user has intentionally pirated the software, they're still going to bitch about the reliability of the program. That's not good for its reputation.
Of course, to salvage their reputation, they could publicise their scheme and hope that enough people hear about it to realise that the problems are due to pirate copies. But then why bother keeping the scheme secret in the first place?
Which I agree with entirely; my criticism was of the assumption that the guy had made some specific Slashdot-style moralistic argument, when in fact there was no indication of any such thing.
So you're saying that you don't think he cares about getting justice. You believe that he acting out of pure spite? In his view, this probably *is* just; I'm saying that the projected self-justification given by the original poster isn't necessarily what he actually thought. If someone was vandalising my house, I might feel that it was just- or at least practical- to break the guy's f*****g arm. Whether this is actually right is another issue.
if anything an application gains a larger user base through piracy since those who pirate software aren't the people who would buy the program anyway I'm not convinced that this is axiomatic.
It would seem more effective to figure out how to lock the pirate's computer down and extort them out of say, a thousand dollars, before returning complete control to them. Legally risky. A less risky (but quite evil) scheme would be to let the user of a pirated piece of software think that it was working and use it for a while..... Just long enough to let them lock themselves in. Now they have a lot of data that only works with the pirated program and... Oh no! It doesn't work any more!
"I'm very sorry sir, it appears you're using an invalid or incorrect key. Yeah, it's okay, don't worry, probably just a minor typo when you were installing the program... if you enter the supplied key again, it should work fine."
"You've misplaced the printed [or emailed] key we supplied you with?.... okay, hang on... if you can just let me know which key you're using at present and some proof of purchase we should have that fixed in a couple of minutes."
Fine if you're a real customer, plenty of leeway if an honest mistake's been made (or you got sold a dodgy copy through no fault of your own), but they still have you by the balls if you're intentionally running a pirate copy.
he is equating piracy with destroying people's information. Actually, I don't see where he said any of that. I think you're assuming his motives/thought-processes to be those of a self-justifying Slashdot user; but there's no indication of this.
It's just as likely that he doesn't give a toss about anyone that copies/steals his work, assumes they don't give a toss about him and (a) Wants to get his own back and harm them as much as possible, and (b) Discourage such behaviour in the future.
Flamebait? Odd "Nazi" comment aside, this is broadly sound.
I'm no rabid anti-copyrightist and I can understand the guy's frustration and desire to do something about piracy. However, his actions strike me as both ethically and legally dubious. Whether it's it's morally acceptable to damage someone's computer even if they pirate your software is one thing. Legality is another kettle of fish. There are issues as to whether he made the program's behaviour clear in the EULA, and even if he had whether this would make his actions acceptable.
Even if it were, this guy had better hope that his protection scheme doesn't go wrong and delete stuff when someone types in a key incorrectly (or types it in correctly and the program messes up anyway). We all know the BS some software goes through when it decides that what are supposedly legal keys are actually illegal; does anyone want to take that risk? What is his legal exposure if someone inadvertantly buys a copy with pirated keys from a dubious source?
Their responsibility? IANAL, but I wouldn't want to risk that line in a court of law.
He says that
I don't know if this is going to become Display Eater policy. If this level of piracy continues, development will stop. Someone else replies
Please stop writing code. You'll do the Mac community a huge favor by never showing your face here again. And I have to say that this pretty much sums it up.
So if someone makes up defamatory things about Fuzzy, that person has opened himself up to punishment. Only for what he's said, and no more. If someone thinks what he's said is bad, then they're entitled to dislike or hate him on the basis of that, but not on the basis of something he hasn't done.
Implying that it's valid for someone to throw false accusations at someone else because that person originally did or said something bad is the thin end of the wedge, and has massive potential to act as leverage for abuses of the justice system.
If the thing the person did/said in the first place is that bad, it shouldn't be necessary to lie about other stuff to make them look worse. If it's not, then there's no case for exaggerating the heinousness of his crimes. Either way, what you say isn't acceptable.
IANAL, but isn't the problem with the RIAA cases that the connection was unsecured wireless and thus open to abuse by countless neighbours and people just passing? Whereas in this case unless they can clearly demonstrate that the computer was hacked, or the connection abused, then there may be issues of liability related to the fact that the person who did it must have been an employee of the company?
Arresting 14 year olds and prosecuting them as producers of child porn and possibly forcing them to register as sex offenders because they willingly exchanged photos of themselves enjoying those pleasures most 14 year olds are just beginning to discover is as great a perversion of humanity I agree completely with you on this specific point. Apart from the fact that the law is supposed to be there to protect children/adolescents of that age, the fact that (if this is the case I think you meant) they were prosecuted as adults adds a more surreal and messed-up twist.
As for the rest of what you said... it's a can of worms.
Here's an idea.. define child pornography. Cuz I guarantee whatever you might think it is, in this country it's that and a lot more. That's a good question. Pornography is notoriously hard to define in general, although I'm sure that there are cases we'd both agree were unacceptable if they involved children. I don't intend defending the particular prosecutions you mentioned, as I don't know enough about the details of the cases to judge.
You tell me what's more damaging: a little girl enjoying herself being a "star" while modeling entirely age appropriate clothes with her parents full knowledge and consent, I don't know if you were discussing a specific case here, so I'll treat it as a general scenario. Parental consent doesn't always imply that something is okay; for example, they could be the ones involved in the abuse. If that were the case, I'm sure they could convince her that whatever act she was doing had something to do with being a "star".
Or maybe not. Unless I knew the ins and outs, and both sides of such a case, it would be stupid for me to judge it.
or an overzealous district attorney knocking on the door and telling her how what she's doing is somehow shameful and if she doesn't stop she might not get to live with mommy and daddy anymore? Is this a specific case you have in mind, or did you just choose this as an example? If it's the latter, then it sounds like a loaded example; happy families vs. rabid attorney bursting in and blaming the girl (not the parents) for the behaviour.
Also, as I've never been a victim of such abuse, I'm not going to play "guess how people feel about it". Therefore, I can't really judge how victims of genuine "manipulative" abuse might feel when they grow older and realise what's been done to them, just recognise that some people consider this an issue.
Like watching reruns of Miami Vice "supports" murder and drug abuse? Like watching The Sopranos "supports" organized crime? Miami Vice was fictitious. Had it consisted of real-life murders, carried out with the purpose of including them on the programme, and with the perpetrators being paid (with the implication that they would likely profit by doing the same in the future), I might agree with you. It didn't.
One of these days, what I would like to do is make some sort of super-virus. Something that is ridiculously infectious, multi-vector, polymorphic, all the tricks. I'm a pretty good programmer, I'm sure I could come up with something pretty good. You may be a good programmer, but- assuming you meant even half of what you said- you're clearly not a very smart person overall. What sort of person would announce their intent to do this on a public website?
And you're even more stupid if you're relying on posting as an AC to protect your identity.
So, watch out for this virus, if I ever do make it. I might call it "Ashcroft"... In Soviet America, Ashcroft calls *you*!!!!..... most likely to say "You're busted, dumbass" (*1).
Which will be shortly after they subpoena Slashdot and track you down via your IP... assuming Slashdot would want to protect the identity of someone who wrote such a virus anyway.
destroying an otherwise harmless old man's life just because he had some fricking images on his HD. Uh, no. From one of the articles: "After reading the judge's electronic diary, he concluded it showed an apparent plot to sexually exploit young boys at a private health club.".
You *might* just about have been able to put forward a plausible argument regarding the level of damage caused by someone who solely looks at photos. And that only stands up in the absence of *any* any form of payment- or even other forms of encouragement- to others who *create* such material. But neither applies to the "harmless old man" you describe.
I don't know how Americans can keep a straight face when we say we favour free speech on one hand, but on the other we can talk about "illegal pornography" (Disclaimer: I am not an American). Are you talking about hardcore pornography between consenting adults (which I have nothing against) or child pornography? If the latter, are you claiming that "free speech" should extend towards material whose consumption supports the molestation of children? Seriously?
It's the pure fucking principle. No, it's pure fucking stupidity.
(*1) Yeah, I know it's out-of-date and improbable. But I couldn't resist, sorry:-)
True, but it helped Jan Pinkava get a job at Pixar. Of course, I wasn't criticising the programme itself; on the contrary, in the context of its time it would have been an excellent window for talent in a society with far fewer multimedia outlets than exist today. Getting on TV was a big deal at that time. (Yes, I'm old enough- just- to consciously remember what it was like with only three TV channels and no breakfast television. Let alone the Internet...).
But even traditional stop-frame animation on a budget can be done *far* more cheaply than would have been possible then. And the outlets for displaying such animation are far greater than would have been the case back then. My point is that whilst there is nothing particularly wrong with your idea to revive Screen Test, the main reason you gave (a window for students to display their talent) seems somewhat reminiscent of a pre-digital, pre-Internet era.
Yes, you did mention it, but it seems you glossed over the idea that for decades we had it easy with exponential increases in CPU speed, Didn't consider it in depth? Correct. Glossed over it? No. That would imply I was trying to cover up the problem, which I don't believe I was.
and it did eventually come to an abrupt end. Only if you consider computer "speeds" solely in terms of clock speed.
Multiple cores just doesn't make up for the loss of CPU increases. I agree totally, but IMHO your implication that things haven't changed at all in the past five years by focusing on clock speed as a metric is misleading to the point of being incorrect.
If there was a 10GHz machine available would you not be inclined to upgrade? Not if that chip retained the basic architecture of (say) an 8088. The performance would likely be quite awful compared to a modern PC chip, even at such a high clock speed.
My inclination is to believe that the vast distances and problems with near light speed travel aren't going to be overcome by stuff like practical wormholes. The wormholes idea was just a plucked-out-of-the-air example (and quite a lazy one) of how one *might* get around the speed of light and so on without "cheating". It wasn't meant as a proposed solution.
The BBC don't do ads. They've never done ads. They never will do ads. The BBC *do* show ads on their stations outside the UK (which is fair enough, as they're not funded by the license fee), and at one stage they had an advertising-funded website, beeb.com (not to be confused with the bbc.co.uk website which it was later folded back into).
If they brought it up to date, they could have students from the animation colleges, and viewers sending it their own animation work. Or they could just post it on YouTube.
Let's not get too nostalgic here. The early 80s was before digital, before cheap PCs, let alone those with multimedia capability. Doing stuff with film and the like would have been *expensive*, and then you were relying on getting your short film shown briefly on TV.
See The Free Lunch Is Over [...] Now we have to focus on parallelizing our software I know, which is why I mentioned parallel programming already... I'm also well aware that some algorithms and techniques have inherent limits to the amount of parallelisation that can be done on them.
So, it depends how you define "speed" and "power" though.
I'd say it compares pretty well, given its age. I'd say the same too, else I'd have upgraded to a machine with a new CPU long ago (to be fair, lots else has been upgraded, so it's not quite the "same" machine, but the CPU certainly is). My point was that my current machine is still a lot slower than one I could buy today.
The Wikipedia entry is interesting, BTW. The question still remains as to what the evolutionary/technological curve would look like for a race that had got far enough to make progress towards the stars.
Dude, have you priced RAM for a mac? It's 2x-3x as much if you purchase it through Apple. Same memory you can get for 1/3rd the price anywhere else. The Apple memory is more expensive because they pay Steve Jobs to bless each module. You can use them to ward off Steve Ballmer, you know...
I think with $40 million in cash (at Apple) or whatever it is they have on the books $40 million doesn't sound like *that* much for a company of Apple's size...
I agree, but so are your thoughts on technological progress. Who's to say that technology will continue to expand at an exponential pace until some singularity/God-like being results? That's not guaranteed, of course, but I believe that if the current technological curve comes to a permanent end it'll more likely be due to some disaster- either one that sets us back countless millenia, or one that spells the end of the human race, if not life on earth (the latter IMHO isn't possible with our current technology, even nuclear weapons, but in 50-100 years time, who knows?).
The other possibility is a glitch in the curve, that sets us back (e.g. nuclear war), but ultimately doesn't stop the trend. But generally, the rule seems to be that technology begets technology. I can't see it smoothly levelling off; maybe this *is* present-day-centric, who knows?
Look at computer speeds. They were getting exponentially faster up until about 5 years ago, when they came to an abrupt end. Do you mean processing power, or clock speed? Clock speed was never a straightforward indication of processing power, although for a given architecture, generally a faster clock means more powerful. This was a simple way for Intel market chips to the public. However, it was still a problem comparing Intel and AMDs chips a few years back (AMD's chips had a slower clock speed, but comparable processing power to Intel's, which is why they didn't market them using their raw clock speed). Now that designers are focusing on methods other than raw clock speed to improve performance, even Intel knows that it cannot market in this manner any more.
Just because designers have had to focus on other ways of improving a chip's performance, doesn't mean that progress has come to "an abrupt end". My current PC (1.8GHz P4, 4 1/2 years old) has served me well given its age, but it's certainly not comparable to the machines on sale at present, regardless of its clock speed.
What may be more of a challenge is coding with parallel processors/cores in mind.
And for all our computing power, has our software matched the exponential pace? Your question raises an interesting point which I had intended to mention in my original post, before I got absorbed in the implications of my main argument and forgot about it. Namely, the question of how powerful a run-of-the-mill modern PC would be if our software was able to use it at anything like "full" efficiency. Having thought about this, I've come to the conclusion that it wouldn't be as great a leap as I thought; much of the inefficiency of modern software is in (e.g.) the interface and graphics. Computationally expensive routines in today's software will still likely have been optimised. They'll still run up against mathematical algorithmic limits inherent in their design, so although we may boost their speed by a factor of maybe 4 or 16x, I doubt we'd get miracles.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of which threading model is better, the articles are contridictory, yet written just 16 months apart, with large parts similar and the author failing to acknowledge, let alone explain, his change of mind. In that light, they smack of a lame and insincere attempt to get attention.
Here's the information, the message rings a bell, so I'm 99.9% sure this is the problem I had even though it was over 4 years ago:-
(from this website)
Errors installing, or first run of, Windows 95B or 95C on fast systems.
The following errors may occur when installing Microsoft Windows 95 (OSR1 or OSR2) on any computer with a AMD K6-2 (350MHz or faster), Intel Pentium III (1-GHz or faster) or a Intel Pentium 4 (any).
Device IOS failed to initialize. Windows Protection Error. You must reboot your computer.
Windows Protection Error. You must reboot your computer.
While initializing device IOS: Windows protection error.
Microsoft have supplied a patch that corrects this problem (Q192841). Microsoft says this patch applies to AMD K6-2 processors but it also applies to other chips such as the Intel Pentium III (1-GHz or faster) and all Pentium 4 processors.
Note: This fix applies only to Windows 95B & C (OEM 2.x)
Note: The fix does not correct the problem for the retail version of Windows 95.
Note: This does not apply to Win98, 98SE, or Me which come already fixed.
The patch does have an inbuilt uninstall feature.
Then this appears to be reasonable behaviour (since it's not removing anything that the user already has a right to, although take that with a pinch of IANAL (TM) brand salt).
I'd suggest that the author(s) were foolish not to make this clear from the start, instead of making vague threats that may have been intended to frighten pirates, but are likely to cause even more damage to their reputation.
Of course, to salvage their reputation, they could publicise their scheme and hope that enough people hear about it to realise that the problems are due to pirate copies. But then why bother keeping the scheme secret in the first place?
Which I agree with entirely; my criticism was of the assumption that the guy had made some specific Slashdot-style moralistic argument, when in fact there was no indication of any such thing.
"I'm very sorry sir, it appears you're using an invalid or incorrect key. Yeah, it's okay, don't worry, probably just a minor typo when you were installing the program... if you enter the supplied key again, it should work fine."
"You've misplaced the printed [or emailed] key we supplied you with?.... okay, hang on... if you can just let me know which key you're using at present and some proof of purchase we should have that fixed in a couple of minutes."
Fine if you're a real customer, plenty of leeway if an honest mistake's been made (or you got sold a dodgy copy through no fault of your own), but they still have you by the balls if you're intentionally running a pirate copy.
It's just as likely that he doesn't give a toss about anyone that copies/steals his work, assumes they don't give a toss about him and (a) Wants to get his own back and harm them as much as possible, and (b) Discourage such behaviour in the future.
I'm no rabid anti-copyrightist and I can understand the guy's frustration and desire to do something about piracy. However, his actions strike me as both ethically and legally dubious. Whether it's it's morally acceptable to damage someone's computer even if they pirate your software is one thing. Legality is another kettle of fish. There are issues as to whether he made the program's behaviour clear in the EULA, and even if he had whether this would make his actions acceptable.
Even if it were, this guy had better hope that his protection scheme doesn't go wrong and delete stuff when someone types in a key incorrectly (or types it in correctly and the program messes up anyway). We all know the BS some software goes through when it decides that what are supposedly legal keys are actually illegal; does anyone want to take that risk? What is his legal exposure if someone inadvertantly buys a copy with pirated keys from a dubious source?
Their responsibility? IANAL, but I wouldn't want to risk that line in a court of law.
He says that I don't know if this is going to become Display Eater policy. If this level of piracy continues, development will stop. Someone else replies Please stop writing code. You'll do the Mac community a huge favor by never showing your face here again. And I have to say that this pretty much sums it up.
Wikipedia doesn't *require* an email account at all.
Implying that it's valid for someone to throw false accusations at someone else because that person originally did or said something bad is the thin end of the wedge, and has massive potential to act as leverage for abuses of the justice system.
If the thing the person did/said in the first place is that bad, it shouldn't be necessary to lie about other stuff to make them look worse. If it's not, then there's no case for exaggerating the heinousness of his crimes. Either way, what you say isn't acceptable.
IANAL, but isn't the problem with the RIAA cases that the connection was unsecured wireless and thus open to abuse by countless neighbours and people just passing? Whereas in this case unless they can clearly demonstrate that the computer was hacked, or the connection abused, then there may be issues of liability related to the fact that the person who did it must have been an employee of the company?
As for the rest of what you said... it's a can of worms.
Or maybe not. Unless I knew the ins and outs, and both sides of such a case, it would be stupid for me to judge it. or an overzealous district attorney knocking on the door and telling her how what she's doing is somehow shameful and if she doesn't stop she might not get to live with mommy and daddy anymore? Is this a specific case you have in mind, or did you just choose this as an example? If it's the latter, then it sounds like a loaded example; happy families vs. rabid attorney bursting in and blaming the girl (not the parents) for the behaviour.
Also, as I've never been a victim of such abuse, I'm not going to play "guess how people feel about it". Therefore, I can't really judge how victims of genuine "manipulative" abuse might feel when they grow older and realise what's been done to them, just recognise that some people consider this an issue. Like watching reruns of Miami Vice "supports" murder and drug abuse? Like watching The Sopranos "supports" organized crime? Miami Vice was fictitious. Had it consisted of real-life murders, carried out with the purpose of including them on the programme, and with the perpetrators being paid (with the implication that they would likely profit by doing the same in the future), I might agree with you. It didn't.
And you're even more stupid if you're relying on posting as an AC to protect your identity. So, watch out for this virus, if I ever do make it. I might call it "Ashcroft"
Which will be shortly after they subpoena Slashdot and track you down via your IP... assuming Slashdot would want to protect the identity of someone who wrote such a virus anyway. destroying an otherwise harmless old man's life just because he had some fricking images on his HD. Uh, no. From one of the articles: "After reading the judge's electronic diary, he concluded it showed an apparent plot to sexually exploit young boys at a private health club.".
You *might* just about have been able to put forward a plausible argument regarding the level of damage caused by someone who solely looks at photos. And that only stands up in the absence of *any* any form of payment- or even other forms of encouragement- to others who *create* such material. But neither applies to the "harmless old man" you describe. I don't know how Americans can keep a straight face when we say we favour free speech on one hand, but on the other we can talk about "illegal pornography" (Disclaimer: I am not an American). Are you talking about hardcore pornography between consenting adults (which I have nothing against) or child pornography? If the latter, are you claiming that "free speech" should extend towards material whose consumption supports the molestation of children? Seriously? It's the pure fucking principle. No, it's pure fucking stupidity.
(*1) Yeah, I know it's out-of-date and improbable. But I couldn't resist, sorry
But even traditional stop-frame animation on a budget can be done *far* more cheaply than would have been possible then. And the outlets for displaying such animation are far greater than would have been the case back then. My point is that whilst there is nothing particularly wrong with your idea to revive Screen Test, the main reason you gave (a window for students to display their talent) seems somewhat reminiscent of a pre-digital, pre-Internet era.
People often accuse Americans of not getting irony. But the best example of not-getting-irony is Alanis Morisette's "Ironic", and she's Canadian.
And isn't that ironic? Don't you think?
It's like raaaaaiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnn on your wedding day....
Well, except that rain on your wedding day isn't ironic, but I think that was my point. Anyway, we can blame Canada for that too.
Let's not get too nostalgic here. The early 80s was before digital, before cheap PCs, let alone those with multimedia capability. Doing stuff with film and the like would have been *expensive*, and then you were relying on getting your short film shown briefly on TV.
So, it depends how you define "speed" and "power" though. I'd say it compares pretty well, given its age. I'd say the same too, else I'd have upgraded to a machine with a new CPU long ago (to be fair, lots else has been upgraded, so it's not quite the "same" machine, but the CPU certainly is). My point was that my current machine is still a lot slower than one I could buy today.
The Wikipedia entry is interesting, BTW. The question still remains as to what the evolutionary/technological curve would look like for a race that had got far enough to make progress towards the stars.
The other possibility is a glitch in the curve, that sets us back (e.g. nuclear war), but ultimately doesn't stop the trend. But generally, the rule seems to be that technology begets technology. I can't see it smoothly levelling off; maybe this *is* present-day-centric, who knows? Look at computer speeds. They were getting exponentially faster up until about 5 years ago, when they came to an abrupt end. Do you mean processing power, or clock speed? Clock speed was never a straightforward indication of processing power, although for a given architecture, generally a faster clock means more powerful. This was a simple way for Intel market chips to the public. However, it was still a problem comparing Intel and AMDs chips a few years back (AMD's chips had a slower clock speed, but comparable processing power to Intel's, which is why they didn't market them using their raw clock speed). Now that designers are focusing on methods other than raw clock speed to improve performance, even Intel knows that it cannot market in this manner any more.
Just because designers have had to focus on other ways of improving a chip's performance, doesn't mean that progress has come to "an abrupt end". My current PC (1.8GHz P4, 4 1/2 years old) has served me well given its age, but it's certainly not comparable to the machines on sale at present, regardless of its clock speed.
What may be more of a challenge is coding with parallel processors/cores in mind.
And for all our computing power, has our software matched the exponential pace? Your question raises an interesting point which I had intended to mention in my original post, before I got absorbed in the implications of my main argument and forgot about it. Namely, the question of how powerful a run-of-the-mill modern PC would be if our software was able to use it at anything like "full" efficiency. Having thought about this, I've come to the conclusion that it wouldn't be as great a leap as I thought; much of the inefficiency of modern software is in (e.g.) the interface and graphics. Computationally expensive routines in today's software will still likely have been optimised. They'll still run up against mathematical algorithmic limits inherent in their design, so although we may boost their speed by a factor of maybe 4 or 16x, I doubt we'd get miracles.