| From: | Starrngr@***.com Starrngr@***.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Headware Memory |
| Date: | Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:05:35 EST |
> Sorry, here you're just plain wrong. Early computers actually ran in
> analog. With the crash of '29 and the complete re-think of technology
> who's to say what 'modern' computers work in. For all we know it could be
> some sort of bizarre hybrid or it could be Base 10. It's a fictional
> world, they can use fictional technology.
>
I will conceed the fact that Pascal's differential comptuter was in fact an
analog device, but it never worked for much. And most of the machines you
seem to be refering to were basicly specialized caluclators, not true
multifunction computers like sit on your desk. The first example of THAT (a
computing machine you could actualy program) was Multivac, and it was digital.
Leaving history aside and looking back to the future, to get back on track
here, Lets just start of by saying I dont agree with your reasoning, K? The
reason is to this stage, transistor like devices form 99.9% of all computing
power. These devices work in a binary state, either something is on or off.
To come up with something totaly different would require such a totaly new
technology they would have described it in their books, saying "THIS is what
made the Matrix possible" sort of thing.
To develop a device that works with anything other than a binary signal
increases the complexity of the device a thousand fold. I postulate that even
if such a device could be brought to market, it would have flopped, because
the existing technology could do it just as fast, for less money and in less
cost in power, space, and weight. Simply put, anything other than a binary
system would never have caught on because a system that uses anything other
than a binary signal requires so much more attendant infrastructure that it
could not compete.
