Glens Falls (NY) Online Book Discussion Group discussion
Topics Other Than Bks-Pics-TV.
>
Computer Woes
date
newest »
newest »
They're not a mature product yet, for starters. The technology is really in its infancy. We're still playing with what they can do.But how could you possibly think they would work properly? The public has been sold on the idea that "it will be fixed in the next release" & we let them get away with it!!! What incentive does that give the manufacturer to ever get it right?
Rather than get them right, they keep adding more bells & whistles to both hardware & software without ever stopping to fix the underlying issues. They're Rube Goldberg contraptions that has been 'improved' by dozens RG wannabes & now they're approaching the complexity of the human brain, which we don't understand either.
No, the amazing thing is they work correctly as often as they do.
Thanks, Jim, for replying. I guess I never thought of computers being in their infancy.May I ask what underlying issues are being ignored?
Mary, I've already mentioned the big one - software doesn't work as advertised or completely. That includes operating systems. Rather than being rebuilt from the ground up to address the issues, a patch is laid on top. Linux does this the least, Microsoft the most. It's not fiscally feasible either for the manufacturer or the user. Look at the issues we're facing trying to go to Windows 7 from XP. That's a major re-write & it's costing companies a LOT of money to upgrade software to run on the new OS.Hardware is as bad. In my experience, about one in fifty computers (air number average, it varies a lot) has a major defect due to the way it is constructed. They don't make chips that work completely - they make them to work statistically, with lots of redundancy & find paths that check out properly - most don't. If enough do, the chip is used. This used to be the difference between the DX & SX Intel CPU's. The SX was basically a crippled DX chip - the math coprocessor didn't work - but the rest did, so it was sold as a working CPU at a cheaper price.
The upshot of all the above is they keep making things smaller, faster & more power efficient without concentrating on reliability as much as they should, IMO.
Everything that goes into a computer is still evolving at an extraordinary rate. Some pieces are really lagging; portable power supplies, interfaces, standards & especially the users' expectations. You'll note that I didn't say security because you can't even begin to address that properly when you don't have any standards to work off of.
User expectations are especially interesting since it drives the rest. We're both old enough to remember a time when no one thought they would own a computer & couldn't imagine what they would do with one if they had it. Now I can wear a watch or drive a car with more computing power in it than the computers that were used to put a man on the moon. Talk about a change in expectations!
And they keep changing. We don't really know what we want because a lot of it hasn't been imagined yet. Just when we think we know what we want, new stuff comes along. Often the marketplace drives us into using things we really don't think we want or need & then we find it's tough to live without.
The first home computers were often just for word processing. Remember when manual typewriters evolved to electric ones, then got some memory (28 characters?) & then we could keep whole documents. Then we could talk to others through private BBS's & swap files - very few & slowly. And now look at where we are just 25 years later (air average). That's roughly one generation from no computer to socially networked computers. Who'd of thunk it?!!!
Think about color TV, microwaves, VHS/DVD, cell phones, digitized picture & music - how have they driven our 'needs'? I used to be quite happy with a B&W 13" TV with 2 or 3 channels that were on 18 hours a day with no ability to prerecord shows. Actually, from when I was 9 - 13, we didn't even have a TV. I don't recall that it was a real hardship. I doubt most kids that age would agree today.
Can you imagine not having a microwave now? !!!
I read an article the other day about the "tween" generation, defined as 30 to 60 & social networking. Older than 60 folks just don't get (use or want to use) social networking sites like Facebook while under 30 folks can't live without them. Those of us in the tweens can take or leave them. Of course, it was a general observation & therefore open to plenty of exceptions, but it was interesting & made some good points about our evolving society & expectations.
Gack! This turned into a book. Sorry. It's near & dear to my heart...
Jim wrote: "... Think about color TV, microwaves, VHS/DVD, cell phones, digitized picture & music - how have they driven our 'needs'? I used to be quite happy with a B&W 13" TV with 2 or 3 channels that were on 18 hours a day with no ability to prerecord shows. Actually, from when I was 9 - 13, we didn't even have a TV. I don't recall that it was a real hardship. I doubt most kids that age would agree today.Can you imagine not having a microwave now? !!! ..."
Thanks for the comments, Jim.
Interesting observation, about how our needs change!
Thank you, Jim. I found your comments fascinating, also.I don't watch TV much--but my DVD player is used a lot. And for single people who prefer not to cook, a microwave is essential.
But, well we can wish can't we. I sure wish some really smart computer company would start working on reliability a bit more....
Thank you both. I muse about this fairly often since my office is a server room & I live on a farm, often doing colonial age wood & metal working as a hobby. When I compare my work life now to my home life 50 years ago, the differences are almost inconceivable.I think reliability is always balanced against dollars & the stability of a product. You pay a premium for it, especially when something is new & changing. People don't want to pay for that now. They want cheap since they'll be getting a new one shortly.
Mary JL wrote: " ... I sure wish some really smart computer company would start working on reliability a bit more.... ..."Mary, it's either that, or marry a computer expert! LOL As for me, I depend mostly on our tech-oriented sons and sometimes my husband who can help a bit.
It's really unbelievable how stressful things can get when computers go wrong.
I have also noted--when I have posted in the Goodreads Feedback group--that many many problems seems to be connected with Internet Explorer. Since IE is a very common browser, why is this ocurring?I keep getting application hang. I have been told--I surely hope--that getting an updated version of IE--should solve that problem.
I think my real frustration is not the the hard working staff of GR, doing the best they can, but with Microsoft, who I think is ripping people off big time.
Years ago I used IE, but now I use Mozilla Firefox as my browser.
Is Mozilla Firefox a program you buy once? Or is it like certain security programs, when you purchase it for X number of years?With all due respect, Joy, my point is IE SHOULD work. Microsft is selling all these computers and software. Your buy a computer with Windows on it--it is going to have IE. That's my point--Microsoft is ripping people off by selling them a product that does NOT work.
No doubt, I will probably buy a different browser ASAP and Firefox has been recommended--but MIcrosoft is still rippng off those who buy their software.
Mary, I don't know the answer to your question. As I've mentioned, I depend on my sons to take care of things on my computer. I simply use the programs. :)I agree with you that IE should work correctly.
Jim wrote: "I read an article the other day about the "tween" generation, defined as 30 to 60 & social networking. Older than 60 folks just don't get (use or want to use) social networking sites like Facebook while under 30 folks can't live without them. Those of us in the tweens can take or leave them. Of course, it was a general observation & therefore open to plenty of exceptions, but it was interesting & made some good points about our evolving society & expectations.Thank you for that! For as long as that 'tween' has been around I thought it was for pre-teen, like 11-12 years old. Though it probably wouldn't have killed me if I'd never figured it out. I can say that now, when I'm no longer working. But if I was in the workplace people kind of assume you should be up on this type stuff. They also assume everyone's a sports fan, but I survived that ok by mostly nodding and uh-huh-ing.
Concerning the "older than 60" crowd, there are some of us who started using online bulletin boards, online groups, and online newsgroups back in the 1990s. I started taking part in online group conversations back in 1995 and continued for many years. In fact, I moderated several groups at different times and was a Special Contributor to Prodigy* Bulletin Boards before the World Wide Web (The Internet) was easily available to lay people. We didn't call it social networking, but that's what it was. So by now, for me the novelty of it all has passed. That's why I'm not so interested in Facebook or Twitter. I still "talk" occasionally to old newsgroup friends at a senior newsgroup. That's enough for me.*Here's a Wiki link with info re the Prodigy Online Service:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodigy_...
Excerpts:
"The company claimed it was the first consumer online service..."
"By 1990 it was the second-largest online service provider, with 465,000 subscribers trailing only CompuServe's 600,000. At first its headquarters were in White Plains, New York..."
Earl, I agree about the sports. I usually wind up looking at them blankly when they mention teams & ask what sport it is. That usually makes them look at me like I have a second head, but they decide I'm not worth talking to about sports, which is precisely what I want.Joy, I'm with you on the other social networking sites. I refuse to Twitter. I don't use chat services, either.
Prodigy makes & made a lot of claims. I was never thrilled with them or Compuserve. I preferred GEnie until we finally got a local ISP dialup & then I gave up on all of them. GEnie was sold off to a horrible company who wrecked it, anyway.
Earl and Jim, count me in, too, as being another guy who's not obsessed with sports! I can get into playing sports, mind you --I just never understood the intense fascination with watching other people play. (Though I sometimes say that if they'd ever televise Quidditch on TV, I'd probably watch.... :-))I'm proudly Twitter-free, too! And while I love Goodreads, it's really the only "social network" that interests me.
Earl, I think "tweens" can refer to the 11-12 age crowd, too. The term has more than one application.
About sports, I recently watched a DVD of the film "Invictus". I hadn't realized it would spend so much time showing action shots of the game of rugby. Although I understood the tie-in between the game and the politics of Nelson Mandela, I wasn't really interested in watching the game itself. So the movie was a bit of a disappointment, even though I like Morgan Freeman.The movie was based on the book, Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Made a Nation by John Carlin.
Below is a link to the Netflix description:
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Invictus...
Sorry for straying so far off topic, but that's the way conversations sometimes go.
Jim wrote: "... I agree about the sports. I usually wind up looking at them blankly when they mention teams & ask what sport it is. ..."LOL, Jim. Perfect comeback! :)
My eyes glaze over at the mention of sports teams.
I do sometimes get the horse racing bug, I must admit. Watching Zenyatta & Rachel Alexander run was a treat, so I suppose I should be a bit more thrilled when someone talks about the stars in other sports, but they mostly seem like overpaid jerks, from the little I hear. Way over paid. Very big jerks. But it is understandable, in a way. Any one single minded enough to make the very top of their sport doesn't seem to have much time or ability to become well rounded. They've got to have a huge ego & be very competitive. They're young, too. Add all this together with a ton of money & almost universal, unreasoning adulation... Well, it's hard to imagine them not being insufferable.
But I am seriously puzzled about why we have so much trouble with computers. All of us , I mean, not just me.
Even here on GR with our wonderful staff--and I do mean wonderful--there are always computer bugs for them to work on. For example, they had a lot of trouble recently with "object error" popping up. They said it seemed to be connected to some ads.
It is fixed now--thanks. But, where do these problems keep coming from? We've had PCs for a long time now--why are they not more reliable?
Any imput from you computer savvy ones would be appreciated.