APPLEVISION Monitor

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Mon May 6 16:08:02 2002

I'm listening ... but I don't seem to hear anything that addresses the
question. Clearly there's a market for systems that don't require a lot of
specialized vocabulary. I barely can communicate with the Mac-types,. to say
nothing of the *nix types. Surely there's a way around that.

more below

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "James B. DiGriz" <jbdigriz_at_dragonsweb.org>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor


> Richard Erlacher wrote:
> > The line of reasoning you present is what's called a "red herring." If
you'd
> > attended your "critical thinking" classes as an undergarduate, if you're
that
> > far along, you'd know that. It's a device used to throw someone off the
> > trail, in this case, the trail of the underlying logic. What people
should do
> > and what they, in fact, DO are quite apart from one another.
> >
> > The fact is we DO expect to operate a computer without having to enroll in
a
> > defensive computing class, though I think it might be warranted just the
same.
> >
> > The fact is that if one attempts to operate a motor vehicle without proper
> > qualifications, people and property could be damaged, injured, or even
killed.
> > The consequences of failing to drive your PC or Mac correctly are not
quite so
> > severe.
> >
> > People also expect to get work out of their microwave oven or TV set as
soon
> > as they turn it on. Why not the computer? It's not sacred. It's just an
> > appliance.
> >
> > Dick
> >
>
> Dick, I could make the same claim about the "computer-as-appliance"
> argument (which isn't relevant to me or just about anyone else here),
> but that's not even necessary. Your statement about Unix (or Linux) is
> just plain false for modern instances.

I don't know what you mean by a modern instance, but I'm willing to believe
that it's possible to install 'em without too much effort. I've done that
with Linux from time to time, but never had any useable outcome in the wake of
the effort, so it's all back in the box. The effort of wading through the
conflicting documentation and still finding the purportedly installed features
weren't present and functional with no way of figuring out what the problem
was because of the doc-shortfalls, was too much work. It was easier to do
with NT.

> Anyone who can install Windows
> out of the box can just as easily install Solaris or Redhat or OS/X or
> whatever and go straight to work on spreadsheets, documents, databases,
> or whatever with as much ease, if not more, as with Windows.
>
Perhaps, but at what cost? (retail prices, since not everybody wants to go
dumpster diving for hardware/software?)
>
> I don't know where you got this idea, but it's exactly the disinfo that
> Redmond was peddling a couple of years ago.
>
Well, I'd be last to deny that Windows is a pain in the glueteus maximus, but
if there were anything better, or even remotely comparable, for the "typical"
home user, don't you think someone would think to mention it?
>
The experience I've had with the Macintosh (spelled this way so's not to p*ss
somebody off, even though the grocer spells it the way I do) suggests that the
appliance approach is a valid and desirable goal. Do you suppose the newer
Mac's are more like the PC's in the respect that there's more fiddling to do
in order to give the guys who wouldn't otherwise know what to do something to
work on? I know lots of *nix guys like to type a couple of lines of cryptic
stuff before their computer allows access to a resource that would be
point-n-click accessible under Windows.
Received on Mon May 06 2002 - 16:08:02 BST