From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Games on consoles
Date: 29 Jul 92 09:40:19 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <1992Jul29.075030.13453@utstat.uucp>, philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
> In article <192372@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov> pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
> 
> Most people make very little use of a computer's capabilities. Of course 
> programmers are an exception, but they are small in number. As far as I can
> tell Communications, Word Processing, Speadsheets, Painting at an elementary
> level and playing games is what most people use their PC's for. Of course
> you have the CAD people, etc...But that's not the home market.

There's a bit of a contradiction here.  If people do all the things you list
above, then IMHO they are using their computer's capabilities pretty well.
What other things should users be doing with their PCs?

>>If you're saying that many people don't use a computer productively, I can't
>>argue with that.  But if you're saying that computers really don't/can't do
>>much for people, I can and will argue with that.
> 
> I'm saying both. There are been virtually no increase in productivity, even
> in business, even though there are millions of computers out there.

From my personal viewpoint, both at home and at work, the computer has been
an effective productivity enhancement.  I worked for several years as a sec-
retary (that's how I put myself through school).  I've used ordinary type-
writers, memory typewriters, and computers.  After having used a good word
processor, you'd never get me go back to the days of typewriters and I suspect
that nearly 100% of secretaries out there would agree with me.  A good word
processor can cut a secretary's workload by as much as 30-40%.

At home, I could maintain my financial records, budgets, etc., by hand.  I
could also use paper and pencil instead of a word processor.  But the com-
puter record-keeping is faster, takes less space, makes it easier to main-
tain and retrieve data, and allows me to track more data than would otherwise
be possible.  I also type much faster than I can write with paper and pencil.

As for business use of computers, one study I've read presents a convincing
case that business productivity has not increased because businesses are
now tracking and dealing with a lot more data than was possible before.

Your other point seems to be that many people, as well as businesses, do
not use their computers effectively and I can't argue with that one.  I know
some people who use their computer as a glorified game console; I know others
whose computers are gathering dust.

> Well I've purchased several PC games over the past little while. Most have 
> been worthless. Lemmings is a good example. It's pathetic on the PC. Much
> better on CDTV and the SNES. Mixed up Fairy Tales is good as is KQ5 on
> CD-ROM (which will move to the game CD-ROM players in the fall).

How about the new sports games, e.g., the new golf, baseball, and football
games?  The new games from Lucas, e.g., Indiana Jones, Monkey Island, and
their new flight/combat simulators?  How about the Wing Commander series?
The Falcon series?  How about the new games from Sierra, e.g., Dagger of
Amon-Ra, Robin Hood, KQ5, Heart of China, Willie Beamish?  Have you seen
Links 386 with SVGA support?  How about the new games in the Ultima series?
If you think the new crop of PC games is worthless, then you haven't been
looking very hard (or we have greatly differing definitions of "worthless").

> It's very rare that I find any PC software that
> doesn't have a nicer approach elsewhere. The PC is full of useless
> utilities. One is forever buying this, that, etc...just to gain a few
> extra bytes, tune up Windows, etc...

Strange, I'm not "forever buying this, that".  If you want to run MS-DOS,
you need a memory manager and a basic utility program such as Norton Utilities
or PC Tools.  That's really about it.  If you don't like the "useless
utilities", don't buy them.

As for PC software, let me list some programs and you tell me where I can
find the "nicer approach", please:  Microsoft Excel 4.0, Microsoft Word for
Windows 2.0, Ami Pro 3.0, Lotus 1-2-3 for Windows, Corel Draw 3.0, Micrografx
Designer, Lotus Freelance, Harvard Graphics, FoxPro, Quattro Pro, Paradox,
Alpha IV, Stanford Graphics, Norton Desktop, Ventura Publisher.  This is just
the stuff I'm familiar with and use--it doesn't even cover the communications,
statistical analysis, desktop publishing, project management, and any number
of other specialized software packages available on the PC.

> The only platform that you've mentioned that is appealing
> to me is the Amiga. The Mac and PC worlds will force you into a 2cond
> mortgage with their upgrades every 3 months.

Odd.  I purchased my computer four years ago and the only upgrades I've done
have been to add additional memory and additional hard drive space.  The cost
was not nearly enough to force me into a second mortgage.  This is a bizarre
argument.  If I had purchased the Amiga, I'd probably have upgraded the
memory and hard drive space on that machine as well.

> There are more people who use games they don't pay for than those that do.
> EA, Lucas, Sierra, etc...are all porting their programs over to game 
> consoles.

Yes, because money can be made--why shouldn't they?  Are they doing it solely
because people don't buy games on PC platforms?  I don't think so.  As for
your statement that there are more people who use games they don't pay for
than those that do, may I have your reference for this, please?

> The number one reason for people owning PC's at home is to play games, unless
> they are running a business. That is not nonsense. It's what every poll I've
> seen on the subject says. Games and eduware. that's it.

We seem to be looking at different polls.  The polls I've seen in PC Magazine,
PC/Computing, and Byte Magazine don't cite games as the number one reason for
people owning home computers.  It is definitely a factor, but not the number
one factor.  Other factors include: word processing, home finances, com-
patibility with computers at work, communications (both national BBSs and
work), record keeping, database management, etc., (not necessarily in that
order).

> Games will continue to come out
> for the PC due to its numbers. But I highly doubt these will be high quality
> games, except possibly for MPC's (and there are few of those).

We obviously have different ideas on what constitutes high quality.  I predict
that games will continue to come out for the PC and they will continue to be
high quality--and in fact will become even higher quality as SVGA becomes a
standard.

> In any case,if you enjoy you games on the PC don't worry, you'll see more of
> the same. Wonder when you'll get to see lot's of Window's commercial games.

By the end of this year, or haven't you been noticing the increasing number
of Windows games available?  I think DOS games will continue to outnumber
Windows games for quite a while, though, because of the inherent limitations
of the Windows environment.  It's the same reason many Amiga games bypass the
O/S--to get greater speed and control.

> I was referring to the Amiga and copy protection. Copy protection still
> exist on the PC.

Nor did I say that it didn't.  I said that it had all but disappeared from
productivity software (which is true), and that it had disappeared from many
games as well (which is also true).

> There's nothing startling about the statement that few people actually use
> their own money to buy software. It's not an innovative statement. It's
> well known.

I'm sorry, but I find it startling.  I certainly use my own money to buy
software as do the people I know.  I admit that anecdotal evidence such as
this isn't worth much, but I suspect that your evidence is equally anecdotal.
If not, please cite the source so I can check it out.

>>Finally, "junk"?  How much software have you investigated/purchased in the
>>past year?  Give me some evidence; provide some examples, please.
> 
> What do you want? Receipts? I can assure you that I have access to virtually
> any PC program I care to try. Most aren't worth the money.

No, I don't want receipts.  I would like a list of software that you consider
"junk" and reasons why you consider it junk.  I'm certainly not going to make
an issue of whether you've bought it or only evaluated it.  I just want to
know your reasons for considering software to be junk.  Incidentally, not
being worth the money is a far cry from being "junk".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------