Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 00:12:48 +0100 (CET) From: Nils Holland <nils@tisys.org> To: David Johnson <djohnson@acuson.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NatWest? no thanks Message-ID: <20011102235559.N291-100000@howie.ncptiddische.net> In-Reply-To: <3BE31FCD.C94F5CBD@acuson.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, David Johnson wrote: > A general purpose appliance has a features/benefits list that no > specific purpose appliance can even approach. That makes them very > attractive. But it doesn't make them easier to use. That's the point. We're probably now way off the topic and deep in the field of philosophy or something, but generally I guess many people are using their computersl, which are general purpose devices, just like they were speficifc purpose devices. That's surely a matter of knowledge, some people just don't take the time to learn what their computers can in fact do. As an example, my mother owns a Windows machine, and she basically only used it for writing letters in Word. She didn't even know that other things could be done with the machine. But when I took some time to show her what she actually *can* do with her computer, she was rather amazed and found the machine "greater than she thought it were". > My "premise" wasn't that general purpose computing devices are wrong. > Only that they are harder to use. If you want to make computers easier > you have to either educate the user or make them specialized. Yes, I can generally agree to that point, since there's not much that can be said about it. While I really wouldn't want to use a specific device for any specific task, it is a fact that such devices would be easier to use. I guess, however, that nobody would find them attractive for a longer period of time. > General purpose devices are cheaper than a multitude of special purpose > devices, so it only makes sense to buy them when you have more than one > function to perform at a station. But that still doesn't make them > easier to use. Hmm, that depends, as I shall explain below. > I would have to disagree. In order to learn how to operate such a > vehicle to its fullest, you will have to learn how to drive, how to sail > and how to fly. That's at least three times the learning at the minimum. Actually, if you really only want to drive, you will be better of with an ordinary car. But if you want to drive, sail and fly, a device that can do all of that would be better. Learning driving, sailing and flying on different devices or on one device that can do it all will probably not be much of a difference. I guess most folks are doing (or would like to do) many things on their computer, and therefore the combined approach is better suited. However, you are of course right when you say that such a general approach is harder to use. > Of course you could always get that vehicle and *only* drive it. That's > what many people do with their computers. They learn how to use Word, > then use Word for ALL of their tasks even if it isn't appropriate. I've > seen presentations made in Word, emails sent in Word, and even > spreadsheets sent in word. Well, I've seen games written in VBA in Microsoft Excel ;-) However, what you mentioned about Word is another issue: As Microsoft figured out that there are no more actually useful features they could put into Word (or any of their other software), they started adding stuff that actually belongs somewhere else. I haven't been an active Windows user for years (in fact, I never really have been), but when I see Office 97, 2000 and XP on the machines of other people, I wonder if only *one* actually useful new feature has been added between these releases... Greetings Nils Nils Holland Ti Systems - FreeBSD in Tiddische, Germany http://www.tisys.org * nils@tisys.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011102235559.N291-100000>