The amiga did a lot with relatively few transistors. But, it was all hacks that would not have scaled very well with more transistors. Recall that the amiga couldn't run doom worth hoot, because the CPU wasn't that powerful. But it did great mario 3 clones, etc. By the time of the 386/486 the amiga was firmly behind the curve. It may have been the first affordable multimedia machine but to expand the architecture in a serious way they would have had to more or less start from scratch. So if the amiga was still around, I doubt anything would be different at all - it would just be another nameplate on top of the x86 (ahem, amd64) hardware we all know and love/hate/does it matter any more??

Primary source:

The Future Was Here: The Commodore Amiga

(a really fantastic book, BTW.

True, but not really. My pc is still mostly hardware compatible with that 386x25mhz.

if I wanted to type on a laptop keyboard I'd buy a laptop. A thinkpad - a Real Man's keyboard. Not that amazon shit. Meanwhile I use a dell desktop keyboard from the 2015 erra. Works great. Cost me zero (extra). That and the Dell Ultrasharp monitor are the only dell products I own and perhaps the only one's worth owning too?

That would be nice, for sure. But now we are talking and even *smaller* (heh) market.

I love the repairability more than anything else - so much less waste. But at this price the specs are pretty low. I'd happily pay more for a top-tier phone I could keep for 3-4 years, replacing the battery as it wears out, etc. Also, man, it's thick. I have an old LG stylo 3 which is equally repairable - screws and some snaps hold it together and it's only 7mm think, not 10. I can't help but think that if LG or Moto made this phone, but with the same goals it would be a lot nicer, and probably cheaper too. Sigh. I wish I could vote with my dollars on this one, but the fairphone 3 is just too far away from what I want, even if it has a lot going for it.

Agree completely. Cylance is completely junk for small executables, and they have zero interest in fixing it.

I don't agree that there's too much sodium. And while my opinion isn't worth much, the current science on the topic suggests that sodium is mostly harmless (and certainly has little effect on blood pressure). Your Dr. probably doesn't agree, but Dr.s are often pretty far behind the state of the art. Do a pubmed search and come to your own conclusion though.

The example of 10,000 steps being too much for some people seems like a silly criticism. It's like saying just because some people are missing a finger, (5-fingered) gloves are bad.

Not to say that research isn't needed, just that decrying something for not being a universal solution is pretty weak.

For about a decade most nutritional science has agreed that there is no real harm to consuming the amount of salt that is common in the western diet. Of course most doctors don't read science journals and thus continue to tell people to reduce salt intake. Personally I'd be much more afraid of what this might do to my taste buds then I would be concerned about consuming the salt that makes the food taste good.

Remember Fallout 1? Fallout 2? Heck, I'm just guessing here, but Fallout 3?

Why mess with a successful formula.

The abstracts are always available, and nearly universally include the author's email address. I've yet to meet a scientist who wasn't enthusiastic to email a copy of their article to me. And I've had plenty of requests for my own papers that I've responded to, usually within hours or minutes. I don't think that the amount of delay incurred materially slows down the pace of scientific research. Frankly, I've got a pile of papers on my desk I'm meaning to read, all of which are days old, if not older. While this method of dissemination may be slightly annoying, it works very well for modern papers. Something published decades ago can be a lot harder to find via email, but generally it's a lot more useful to read current research than older results.

True, but the mac interface sucked. W95 was much nicer than any of the OS7/8/9 competitors. 2nd mover advantage, and all that. Not that it always works that way - nextstep was a nicer OS IMHO than OSX.

Let's see any citations for this load of BS, otherwise you are just making things up.

Most people I knew found the GUI much nicer to use. Since we were out in the country, none of us had networking for the first couple years of W95, but we all upgraded. So I strongly doubt your claims.

Windows 95 had hardware drivers. Dos was just used for booting. Not at all fair to call it a DOS shell.