From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Subject: Re: Games on consoles
Originator: torrie@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:54:54 GMT

philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:

>>  I'm not sure you understand what you think computers SHOULD be used for.
                 ^^^
  Actually, that was meant to be "I", which puts quite a different slant
on the flammability of this sentence.  I see you were rightly indignant
below. 

>Did I say anything about what they should be used for?

  Perhaps not, although the implication may have been there.
Do you want to suggest what they could be used for (and you
don't have to take an immediate term view of things)?

>I've beeen at this for longer than your
>age. 

  Since I don't know what your experience is (and what your previous
observations have been), I don't see how this is relevant.  I respect
seniority when that person has proven themselves to be "correct" in
hindsight on a number of issues.  But you can easily get people with
40-50 years experience who I would never take any advice from.

>As far as ISDN goes, we are years away from that. This isn't the
>pie in the sky Mac/NeXT group. Come down to reality. ISDN is going to take
>a long time to get into the homes of the world. A few test sites in the US
>does not the world make.

  I don't recall saying anything about ISDN.  All I said was that the
greatest potential for home computer use will come when the nation is
wired up for high-speed data communications.  Actually, I'll add to that
and say we also need more development on how content-based information
will be charged for.  $100/hr connect time for something like Dialog
(or whatever the rate is) is not going to make it in the home.
  The potential though is great.  These technologies will make it
possible for each home to have their own customised electronic
newspaper delivered every morning; or online access to an
encyclopaedia for children; or interactive television etc etc.

>>  Or a slide rule, or an abacus, or pencil and paper.  Gee, I wonder
>>why people don't think these are such good ideas (hint: there's this
>>thing called TIME.  It translates to money).  That's why lots of people
>>pay accountants to do their taxes.

>People do think pencil,paper, calculators are good things.

  For LIMITED tasks.  If a better tool is available, then use it.
I wouldn't turn on my computer to add a column of numbers, but if
I wanted to look at how the response of a circuit varies with
frequency, I'm not going to get out my pencil and paper (and tables), 
and try plotting the response curve.
  People used to do that.  They also used to spend 70 years of their
life calculating pi to a hundred of so decimal places (I switch to
Mathematica and have it in under a second).
  A computer is clearly a superior tool, even for the average household, 
to categorise, file and search financial records.  If it comes to the
end of the year, and I want to find out how much I wrote a cheque for
to pay for that new racing bike, I don't have to go searching through
piles and piles of paper; I press Cmd-F, type Bike, and it's there
in an instant.
  If I suddenly find a payment which I didn't include in my
totals, I don't have to go back and rewrite out the entire page, 
I just insert a new record, and the totals are updated automatically.

>I don't pay
>accountants to do anything. Perhaps your tax system is more complicated
>or the yuppies in California have to figure out how to deduct their latest
>fads.

  Well, the tax system here IS complicated (at least compared to what
I'm used to).  There seem to be numerous grandfather clauses.  I also
think that anyone with a house mortgage can make use of what-if type
scenarios that computers make possible to decide when's the best
time to pay off more principal.
  I don't pay any accountant - but I would consider it if I didn't
have my computer system set up to handle my investments.  It's a
cost-benefit of how much time you spend "doing your accounts", versus
how much the accountant charges (once again, my time is worth money, 
probably not as much as the accountant charges, but it's not $0/hr 
either).

>>>to me is the Amiga. The Mac and PC worlds will force you into a 2cond
>>>mortgage with their upgrades every 3 months.
>>                                    ^^^^^^^^
>>  Just a slight exaggeration, Philip?  

>Perhaps. I was not referring to hardware. I was talking about software.

  I realise that.  First off, I haven't heard of a company which
releases new software every 3 months, and then charges you for it.
Most of these 3 month type releases are maintenance upgrades, 
which from most firms means you just ring them up and
they'll send you the disk.
  Secondly, this comes back to the question of who's forcing you
to upgrade.   If your software works fine and does everything you
need it to do, then why do you need to upgrade?  An institution
I wrote a database package for back in 1986 is still running
exactly the same software (Omnis V3 - the current version is V7), 
on the same system software (V3.2 - current is 7.0.1) on the
same hardware (Mac Plus + 20MB SCSI disk).  They haven't 
upgraded any part of their system, so the world hasn't
forced them into a second mortgage at all.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu 
Embrace rationalism, reject superstition.           Break away from the past.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy