"Tom" == Tom Zerucha <tz(_at_)execpc(_dot_)com> writes:
Tom> On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 11:22:37AM -0700, hal(_at_)finney(_dot_)org wrote:
balance sheet > > value of 1.6 G bytes > ($200 IBM 20Gb drive,
y2k) $12 > > value of 50 hours programming > ($100 per hour, y2k)
$5000 > > net gain (loss) to society > from the Zimm Buddism >
("every byte is sacred"): ($4988) > > The 2nd millenium is over.
Save programmers, not bytes.
This is a misleading comparsion. There are circumstances where
bytes can be extremely costly, such as in the new wave of wireless
devices, smart
Tom> You miss the biggest point.
Tom> Value of 50 hours programming - $5000.
Tom> value of 0.6 Mb (I assume this is the number) - $12 PER DRIVE.
Um, no.
Right now drives are about $10 per GB. So 0.6 MB cost less than a
penny. It takes nearly a million drives to break even.
Not only that, but the cost of extra programming is not just time
spent, but also quality reduced, which can be a lot more expensive.
In fact, if it introduces just one more bug that causes 1% of the
users $1 worth of extra hassle, you've already paid for the extra
bits.
paul