|
Thinking Big:
The Toyota Computer
OK, I have a bold new idea for
home computers:
|
A computer that
works reliably and does what you want it to do.
|
How's that for thinking outside
the box?
Why do computers freeze up on
you? Why do they crash and
destroy all your data? Is it not possible to design a stable
computer? Why are they so vulnerable to malware? Why do little $15 fans burn out and cause a $500+ computer
to heat up and die? Are these problems formally insoluble, like
squaring the circle?
Why are all home computers made
for geeks? Why can't there be a computer for people who never want
to look under the hood?
It's not recommended, but you can
run a Toyota for 70,000 miles without changing the oil. Why can't
there be a computer like that?
Why does every computer have a
thousand features you don't want, but the applications you actually
use don't really work quite right?
10% of the programs do 90% of the
work, and 10% of the programs cause 90% of the trouble. (This is one
of the basic laws of life). Couldn't we just get rid of the useless
90% and as much of the problem 10% as possible, and get ourselves an
actual functioning computer? (Yeah, there's some overlap. You
wouldn't be getting rid of 100% of the programs. Nice try, though.)
Why can't everything be
compatible, so that you can just buy things and plug them in? Why
are we always having to make phone calls to our geek friends about
everything?
Sure, along with fewer problems
we'd be getting less computer per dollar. That's a tradeoff I'd gladly make.
We need to demand less.
|
Update: I had
another teentsie little crash, and then afterwards
had an internet discussion about my "Toyota computer"
concept (which has been upgraded to the "Maytag
computer" concept.)
A few observations:
1. My geek theory is correct.
Computer users delight in explaining the clever methods
they use to get around problems that bother other
people. I call this the "British Sports Car" factor.
They also have nothing but contempt for people who just
want to use a computer, without working on it or
understanding it.
2. Computer people are
fatalistically passive about robustness deficiencies --
the famous can-do attitude is completely absent. This is
probably because robustness is usually hardware-related,
and thus not sexy.
3. Against the naysayers, I think
that if you listed the ten major causes of computer
crashes, failures, and data loss, and then worked on
them one at a time, you could easily produce a computer
ten times more robust than the ones we have now. They
might cost a little bit more, but they'd be worth it.
4. Planned obsolescence is a big
factor, so nothing's going to improve.
The discussion thread I hijacked |
|
I am emersonj at gmail dot com.
Original materials copyright John J
Emerson
Return to
Idiocentrism
jjmrsnx |