>
> > It's less to do with how good the computers are and more to do with
> > how competent the user is at maintaining a healthy system
> and knowing
> > how to achieve the required result.
>
> Thank dog someone has finally said it!
>
That's just a variant of "blame the user for the programmers' failure". I
know that everytime we think we've made something idiot-proof they bring out
a better idiot, BUT, most people are not like us and they don't want to have
to nurture their pc like a rare orchid, or know all sorts of stuff to make
it work.
The designers of these things have a responsibility to make them work in
their target environment - the normal home that's full of normal people -
and they are failing miserably in this. People have become so used to the
idea of PCs as mysteriously unfathomable things that are prone to apparently
random failures that destroy all their data, that people believe it's
inevitable. But it isn't. It is possible to design systems that switch on
quickly, protect your documents, pictures, music, video, games and so on,
make the technicalities invisible to the average end user, prevent virus
attacks, recover invisibly if they do succeed. It's the manufacturers and
designers who have failed to do this, not the end users.
Apple try to fool people into thinking their products are like this ("it
just works"), but evidently this is not the case. They're no better, and no
worse, than Microsoft, Linux etc.
I don't have to know anything about electronics to have a TV, stereo or
radio, a gas boiler, a washing machine etc. The same should apply to home
computers, which are for most people nowadays just another appliance.
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
