Craig Reucassel Quotes

PCs don't suck. They're inadequate.

Computers double their performance every month.

People who are more than casually interested in computers should have at least some idea of what the underlying hardware is like. Otherwise the programs they write will be pretty weird.

The definition of an 'operating system' is bound to evolve with customer demands and technological possibilities.

There is no neat distinction between operating system software and the software that runs on top of it.

If you could utilize the resources of the end users' computers, you could do things much more efficiently.

I'm a physicist, and we have something called Moore's Law, which says computer power doubles every 18 months. So every Christmas, we more or less assume that our toys and appliances are more or less twice as powerful as the previous Christmas.

Our lives sometimes depend on computers performing as predicted.

If I was designing a web site for elementary school children, I might have a much higher percentage of older computers with outdated browsers since keeping up with browser and hardware technology has not traditionally been a strong point of most elementary schools.

To me, it looks more or less like the hardware designers have run out of ideas and that they're trying to pass the blame for the future demise of Moore's Law to the software writers by giving us machines that work faster only on a few key benchmarks!

I'm a Windows guy. I have been for many, many years. I play games, and it's where games run, baby.

The form of computers has never been important, with speed and performance being the only things that mattered.

People tend to look at processing power as how to gauge a piece of hardware is powerful for us.

Modern civilization is highly computerrorized.

The Analytical Engine has no pretentions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform. It can follow analysis, but it had no power of anticipating any analytical relations or truths.

I see the Mac being a key part of Apple for the long term, and I see growth in the Mac for the long term.

Microprocessors were instantly attractive to us because you could build something for a fraction of the cost of conventional electronics. That's essentially what we did with the Traf-O-Data computer - only it was too narrow and challenging an area to try to build a service business in.

For many years, even as users became more sophisticated, personal computers took too much effort to use without problem-solving, keeping alive the yearning for greater simplicity. Microsoft's dominant Windows platform, in particular, was a home for all manner of bugs and problems that required IT people to straighten out.

Everyone talks about how much data's in the world. Except, actually, 80% of it is pretty blind to computers. I mean, it can store it. But if it's a movie, a poem, a song, it doesn't know what it's actually saying or doing.

Any version of Windows is going to have lots of great new things that people use and things that are tough.

There's no magic line between an application and an operating system that some bureaucrat in Washington should draw.

Until computers and robots make quantum advances, they basically remain adding machines: capable only of doing things in which all the variables are controlled and predictable.

Now that we've got computers, you can pump up anything that anybody ever uttered.

We try to continually push ourselves to do more and more, not just on the hardware side but also in terms of developers' tools so they can take advantage of the hardware that's there, in the best way.

Computers in general, and software in particular, are much more difficult than other kinds of technology for most people to grok, and they overwhelm us with a sense of mystery.