[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Anticipating the future


First, let me tell you how to defrost a refrigerator (and then about ice
age of computers). Put a stool or chair of appropriate height in front of
the open door, and on the stool a little $9 electric fan. Leave the fan
running for about 15 minutes, then come back and knock off the big hunks
of ice, accumulated in the last 6 months (yes, I defrosted twice a year
when I was feeling domestic, otherwise once a year), and empty the pan of
melted water. In another 15 minutes come back & empty the water again,
odds are the thing is now entirely defrosted.

As for auto-defrost, the first freestanding freezer I bought was
auto-defrost. One day the heater cooked the entire contents. Oh the
ice cream mixed up with the bloody hamburger. Fortunately, it came with an
insurance policy. I collected for value of food lost, but not the
clean-up. About 4 months later it did the same thing again. I pulled the
plug and used it for a closet.

Now about hardware & software & golden ages: I'm not a computer person --
as stated in P-F, I am Analog Woman in Digital Hell, but as someone
explained to me, early software was very tightly designed because the
state-of-the-art Mac Plus (for instance) came originally with -- I believe
it was TWO megabytes of RAM. It was a big deal and very expensive to add
another 2 MB (programs operated by swapping floppies). Very primitive of
course, but the programs (when they weren't crashing) were VERY easy to
use and learn. New software is "over-engineered" because they CAN,
everyone has a zillion gigabytes, so not only is there no need to design
carefully, they can throw in everything including the kitchen sink.

Thus the program becomes unwieldy and huge -- and harder to use and learn.
The everyday workhorse items that you use all the time tend to be harder
to get to because they have so many more items to put on the menu, actual
functions are now at least one step removed.

And I also stay with MSW 5.1 (living in fear that the floppies will die)
because I heard reports about 6. They're trying to make Microsoft Word do
the work of a page-layout program -- which it never will -- but everything
else is compromised in the attempt.  I would like the, what do you call
it, "magnetic lasso?" of photoshop 6, but suspect the cost (and I don't
mean money) is too great. Sure I liked new features when I went from 3 to
4 -- but the program was also harder to use, and again some simple
operations took 3 clicks instead of one.

I admit, I'd much rather defrost a refrigerator than swap floppies today,
and the multitasking is great, I also like being able to run photoshop & a
few others in the "background" so I don't have to load them to see an
image. Which is to say, there are compensations... but ... well, let me
quote Michael Dertousos, head of MIT's computer lab from my article on the
topic in P-F #1:

"People should revolt...take up arms... The machines are in charge,
forcing you to do what they want, not what you want. [New computers] have
too many features, too few of which are the ones the user wants at any
given moment [and manufacturers put enormous effort into] trivial
improvements in appearance or presentation." Etc. etc. And that was 1997.

Since I am now (still) stuck in scanner hell, I do not see it getting any
better.  Keith takes a step in the right direction by building his own
computer. Congratulations Keith.... I envy you. But the hardware is only
part of it. Also, my brain is only just so good at multi-tasking. If I had
to do that, I wouldn't have had the gray cells to learn other useful
things, like gum printing.

We have, incidentally, already passed the golden age of appliances. The
vacuum cleaner & blender, for instance, also the electric clock, were
better 50 years ago -- they lasted longer and worked better. If they broke
or a motor burned out you went to Artcraft on 42nd Street & got them
repaired. Now they last a few years & you throw them out... like
computers. (Wouldn't be *quite* so bad if they were biodegradable --
because of course we're running out of landfill.)

As for computers being less -- or more -- hassle in the future. Dan, I
rarely bet less than a millions dollars, but.... wanna bet?

Judy

 On Wed, 8 Mar
2000 FDanB@aol.com wrote: > 
> Hi Judy,
> 
> I couldn't disagree more. In just 15 years I've seen my own desktop grow 
> from the original 128 Mac (with no hard drive) to machines that 
> communicate with the world, print my postage, edit my photographs, manage 
> my finances (not a big job unfortunately), let me publish books, make my 
> negatives, etc. Part of the "problem" with today's computers is that 
> we're assigning to them so many more tasks than we could have even 
> IMAGINED just a few years ago.
> 
> It's easy to understand the fear that "the industry" will try to maintain 
> the current momentum of change, upgrades and obsolescence that plagues 
> our digital lives. But there is nothing "golden" about this age of 
> computers...except the income figures of some of the giants behind the 
> mess. But time and progress will take care of that; history is too rich 
> with examples to believe the status quo will prevail. Maybe a better 
> product comparison (better than refrigerators anyway, since you seem to 
> have a way with them, though it's hard to imagine you really MISS 
> defrosting with pans of hot water and an ice pick) would be the 
> automobile. (Now please don't launch into some stereotypical New Yorker 
> rant about not needing or liking cars. Ha!) Ever notice how few cars you 
> see broken down along the road compared to 20 years ago? It's because 
> this is another product that's near maturity. On the down side, the 
> romanticism of the auto has diminished. As a youth, I'd wait anxiously 
> for the new models each fall, eager to first spy the taller fin or new 
> retractable hard-top. Kids today don't share that same anticipation for 
> the wind-tunnel designed clones that all ride and perform superbly, but 
> similarly. You just watch: computers will take the same path. 
> 
> While writing this, my wife, Jill, is making Bromoils that she contact 
> printed from desktop digital negatives (using Epson Glossy Film)! She's 
> thrilled to find a way to use "flawed" (but wonderful) negatives to make 
> prints that finally capture the mood and tones she always envisioned for 
> her images. This certainly isn't to say that if the Mac hiccoughs and 
> says it can't see the printer that there isn't an element of frustration. 
> But heck, going into the darkroom to find your Dektol looking like 
> day-old coffee isn't a thrill either!
> 
> To suggest that computers will be more hassle in the future is something 
> I wouldn't have anticipated coming from you Judy, You're usually so on 
> target with your observations. :-)
> 
> Dan 
> 
> www.danburkholder.com
>