Hey, this one's actually pretty good. I'll respond directly
then...
"Day Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issue really is over _content_. The mobility of palmtops
> or laptops does not nearly effect the globe as much as just
> an available pc of any kind, at any location by anyone,
> whether they actually had the money to buy the hardware or
> not.
Although I agree _content_ is critical, the importance of
_access_ shouldn't be overlooked. I may write the most compelling
novel of our day, but if nobody sees it, it's impact is marginal.
I posted some info last year on transcoding technologies that can
transform graphic and font laden content into forms that present
fairly well on the simplest of devices. Tell web page developers
and the clients that hire them that they can't use graphics,
color or fonts and they'll laugh at you (try it sometime). Tell
them that by conforming to some basic guidelines, they can
develop one set of content that'll get the word out to uses of
everything from high-end desktops to cell phones, and they may
listen.
> That is the next quantum leap this whole planet will
> make. as he said as well, but now quoted before:
> "one zealot can incite not just a beer hall in Munich, but
> the whole country."
He did say Satellite TV, but yeah the ability to receive and SEND
information is key. Arthur C. Clarke long ago wrote
(paraphrasing) that the best cure for despots was to make sure
their subjects had access to information. He envisioned small,
solar powered radios that could be dropped by the thousands to
relay outside news from ALL sides of the fence, then allow the
individuals to decide "the truth".
But Day (seriously now), doesn't all this argue AGAINST your
original point that technology isn't increasing productivity,
even in recent years? How much more efficient is it for you to
post your musings in this format than mimeographing a newsletter
not all that many years ago? Was your reach nearly as far? Was
your ability to be heard nearly as cost-effective? How then is
that not a measure of "productivity"?
> Will it matter if the zealot uses the latest 2gig palmtop
> with whiz bang full motion graphics, or will it be more
> important as to what he has to say, and whether than can be
> said more effectively with text like this. Depends on his
> information. If he can line out the fundamentals of modern
> economies and explain what they will do in time for his
> followers to benefit financially, all the smoke and mirrors
> of all the geeks on Madison avenue will not be able to keep
> up. If he has the answers he can put them in ascii.
He also has to get the message out though. That won't be done
with 1982 technology. He (or she) may COMPOSE that information on
a TTY terminal, but it won't make it's way to the masses on paper
tape. For that terminal to be useful, it must connect to
something, and that something must have global reach. Web and
mail servers are run by the multitasking, multiuser operating
systems you decry. The DNS and routing that allows you to send a
message to one address and have it dissementated to thousands,
likely uses the same "glitzy" and complex technologies. Yeah,
some content sucks, but it travels over the same networks as the
important stuff, be they TV, radio or data networks.
> If he dont, then he needs full motion video.
And back to content for a moment, what if not all of the same
masses speak the same language, or are even literate? "Glitzy"
graphics and video have their place, especially when talking
about "_access_".
> We all pick up on different things. Maybe his close is apt:
> " Open standardsa and evolution change will be important.
> IBM's 1987 PS/2 MCA was technically superior to the Compaq
> -led standard, But EISA was good enough, and it was backward
> compatable. Great design is cool, but so is affordable pricing
> and openness, which is why Apple is doomed to be a 5% player.
> As the PC completes its first tow decades and move on, I hope
> the industry opts to spend less time thinking about processor
> MIPS, hard drive capacity, and screen resolution and more time
> on ease of use. For all the usability labs that sprung up and
> gave us color-coded connectors, setup posters, and on-screen
> wizards, the PC remains a frustratingly complex device. That
> was, and remains our biggest challenge: making technology
> accessible."
Which again speaks to those things you have so often denounced in
this forum: Open systems running on powerful operating systems on
capable hardware. The PRICE of that power has dropped, so it's
now available to the masses. But that doesn't mean it's all
running on low-end DOS PCs.
> The only reason hard drive capacity and screen resolution are
> important is for graphic and moving images.
Which are absolutely critical for "messages" of the sort being
tossed about in this thread. I could read about the WTC collapse
and try to imagine it. Or I could watch the video in disbelief as
it occurred in real-time, as could millions of others who neither
speak nor read my language. I think the impact of the latter was
much greater.
> Color coding and
> wizards go all the way back to the CGA, and color coded data
> fields on spreadsheets had an enormous impact for the same
> reason. It is why the pos is red. These conventions are not
> built overnite, 'red ink' goes back centuries. The usability
> that the GUI ads dont pan out all that well, which is why it
> is still a bitch to do the 3-up mail merge.
Mail-merge itself is a tedious process. That really doesn't have
anything to do with the interface. But it is interesting that
today I can do tedious mail-merge on a system that cost a few
hundred bucks new, as opposed to the thousands I would've paid
back in 1982. Not to mention that I can continue working while my
mail-merge job prints (presumably it's large, or I wouldn't be
doing mail-merge.) Hmmm... isn't "productivity" often measured in
bang-for-the-buck?
> There's still several billion people on this planet, and what
> they will do with the first access they will get, mostly in
> email like this, remains to be seen. But when the open source
> global network emerges we will have a lot more data to deal
with,
> with more real content in ASCII than in GUI.
I don't know about that. Until now, yes, the third world
countries have had to do with cast-off hardware and make-do
software from wealthier countries. But efforts in India to
provide MODERN inexpensive, yet capable hardware and software to
their citizens was noted in this list not too long ago. Many have
HAD to do with less, but it doesn't mean that they don't deserve
to have access (there's the operative word -- access) to the full
range of options available to those of us in richer environments.
I reject the notion that ASCII and old systems are "good enough
for the natives." The problem isn't the lack of old hardware, the
problem is lack of access to capable systems and connectivity.
Ask those folks who you're considering sticking with 1980's
technologies what they think before you decide ASCII is
sufficient.
I agree with the widely held sentiment that inexpensive yet
capable hardware and software do not require high-horsepower CPUs
or video. It's amazing what's being done on "minimal" systems
running from RAM and flash memory today. These may have the same
raw capacity ("minimal resources") as an older PC, but they're
not the same thing.
> It is not exactly an issue of operating system, but if you dont
> have anything, and then have dos, that is way ahead of anything
> in terms of impact you will get after you've had simple text
modes.
> Which any old x86 can do.
Sure. And a month old newspaper is better than none. But there's
that "good enough" slant again.
It's easy enough to stand on the shoulders of giants, bragging
how a 1982 PC can generate text just as well as any modern
system. Let's face it, input technologies haven't changed THAT
much. But it's a bit smug to overlook the fact that the only
reason that text is so readily available to the world at large is
because of technologies that didn't exist when that PC was new.
Yes, TODAY a 1982-vintage PC can send e-mail just as well as a
high-end desktop. But it moves over the same infrastructure
(_access_) as the message generated on the high-end system. Back
when that PC was new, you maybe got the word out to a few hundred
BBS users who happened to be on the same (limited) network.
Today, it goes out to potentially millions, many using disparate
systems and underlying technologies. Translation software readily
converts it to languages (and graphically-rendered, non-ASCII
fonts) that you may not even know of. Your "productivity" has
been increased a thousand-fold by complex systems and
technologies you never see, nor consider. That doesn't mean that
the 1982 PC made it all possible. Your message may be important.
Your ability to deliver that message is directly impacted by the
increases in productivity offered by today's systems and
networks.
> Speaking of which, I'm still working on it, and gotta get back
to
> the color text mode ebook setup. See ya later.
Just curious: Did you ever check out any of the ANSI links I
pointed you at? It looks like 90% of what you're after exists
today. Good luck with it!
- Bob
(And now back to our regularly scheduled programmer)
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
