Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/05/03/19:03:37
*COMPUTERS* are stable. (Don't tell me the CPU's burn out, because
that means there is insufficient cooling; it's like forgetting to
include a way to switch an oven off).
The word "appliances" refers to a very general class of objects.
They all have their defects (toasters can set fire to objects, older
refrigerators gave off CFC's, etc.; in fact, in contrast computers
aren't as dangerous as some appliances (for the normal user a hair
dryer is more dangerous; unless the monitor happens to fall on your
head)).
Computers are therefore stable in your () definition of 'stable'.
It is very easy to explain how the CPU works, but not at a very
technical level (the reason for this is found in a career book, i.e.
you actually have to study for it), and so that argument is invalid.
There is no need at all for experts to get a system running. How
difficult it is depends on what you are using (if you want to compare
to an automobile, then compare a car with manual shifts and one with
automatic). DOS is considerably more difficult to understand in terms
of Win '95, whilst UNIX is even worse.
I also don't know of many cars which run for years on end without ever
requiring a service (comparing a mechanic to a computer repair person
is impossible - they are in entirely different fields; for example:
there are no moving parts in a computer).
As a final word, computers are as complex as you make them; they do
not need millions of lines of code to run (in fact millions of lines
of code CAN'T run on computers; execution is CPU specific/dependent).
Computers are vastly different from other appliances: do you often
compare your blender to the TV?
>
> Problem is, the ordinary user dosen't even know what a line of code
> is. Do you know all about how your car works (if the answer is yes,
> remember than most people don't). They have a basic idea, but they
> don't know the details. Same for computers. Try to explain the
> complexity of how a CPU works to you mom. Unless she's very technically
> apt, and I mean VERY, she won't have a clue. That's the way it is for
> most people.
>
> Computers ARE appliances, they SHOULD be as stable as my toaster. The
> argument is valid.
>
> Gary Flynn wrote:
> >
> > Judson McClendon wrote:
> >
> > > Frank, has it occurred to you that it is a disadvantage when you have
> > > to have experts around just to keep your system running? Stable means
> > > stable. You do not have to have a mechanic on your payroll to keep
> > > your automobile running.
> >
> > You do if you have a fleet of them.
> >
> > > You do not need an electrical engineer on
> > > your payroll to keep your stereo and TV working. Computers are sold
> > > to the general public at Sears and Wal-Mart. If they are appliances,
> > > then they should be as stable as appliances. If not, they shouldn't
> > > be sold as such.
> >
> > So complain to Sears and Wal-Mart and the computer marketing folks.
> >
> > IMHO, most of what they tell people they say because thats what people
> > want to hear. If people haven't learned by now that a device with
> > a million lines of code in thousands of separate files isn't complex,
> > they never will.
> >
> > Also, the marketers tend to give people what they ask for. You want
> > lots of capabilities and choices? Good, that means lots of decisions
> > for you to make...hopefully good ones.
- Raw text -