I'm sure you realize that you're not like "everyman" in this context. You
decline to use anything current, you don't like to use 20-year old, well
established widely accepted simulators, and, in fact, don't like simulators at
all ... you're different from me, and from many others. I wouldn't say that's
a bad thing. It's a big wide world.
However, what I'm trying to get at is that if these off-the-beaten-path
systems were able to meet the needs of the average user, a user who's very
different from you, and, in fact very much different from either of us,
wouldn't those people buy them? Instead, they want the computer system that's
only slightly more than a toaster. It makes toast ... well, not quite ... it
runs Windows and MSOffice, and maybe a few other things ...
I know things would be better if people would just listen to me ... I know
things would be better if only ... but that that's not the way things are.
Things could and should be different, but they aren't. That's where I live.
You see things from where things should be, while I see things, or try to,
from where they are.
Things that aren't don't pay your bills or mine.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard_at_p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
> > 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.
>
> Well, maybe you do. I certainly don't expect to use a computer (or for
> that matter any other tool) without spending some time learning how to
> use it properly
>
>
> > 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.
>
> No it isn't, or at least it shouldn't be.
>
> A TV set is designed to receive, demodulate, and display various RF
> signals transmitted in accordance with a well-known specification. And
> most people use it to do just that. In other words the manufacturer knows
> exactly what it's going to be used for and can design it so it can do
> that limited task in a simple-to-use way [1].
>
> But a computer is one of the most versatile machines you'll ever come
> across. The mnnufacturer can't know every possible way it can be used.
> OK, maybe the manufactuer thought it might be used for word processing,
> or as a terminal emulator, or... But I'll bet they didn't think of using
> it to cross-develop code for an obsolete minicomputer, or to print
> barcodes for a 20-year-old HP calculator or to run a cable tester, or...
> (to name a few things my PCs often get used for).
>
> Now, you might be happy with a computer than can run one of a number of
> ready-written programs. I most certainly am not. A computer is there to
> solve _my_ problems. And only I know what those problems really are, so I
> expect to be able to program my computer to help solve them. Sometimes a
> standard program will do what I want. Most of the time it won't.
>
> And, FWIW, learning to use the computer (as in learning how to enter and
> compile a program, learning how to navigate the filesystem, heck, even
> learning the programming language) is trivial compared to actually
> solving the problem in most cases. But that's still not a reason to pick
> a machine that makes life difficult...
>
> [1] I will ignore the red herring that when I buy a TV set, I generally
> intend to modify it into something else (poor-man's-spectrum-analyser,
> etc).
>
> -tony
>
>
Received on Mon May 06 2002 - 22:47:23 BST