Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: ElPolloDiabl on November 03, 2010, 05:40:10 PM
-
Should a computer be a scientific machine that requires some learning and tinkering or should it be a dumbed down appliance that operates by a easy button pushes? Or something in between?
-
I know where you're going with this. Personally, I believe both. Very much like an auto when you think about it. If you do not understand the "basics" of such a machine and how to take care of it, you'll end up ruining it. Take 'most' women and how they treat cars for example. I'm sorry, but they're quite hard on 'em! Mainstream women and PeeCee computing is another great example. MOST women I've ever known working with computers do not know a LOT of things that would help them maintain better PC health throughout the years. Like small children, I see a lot of them double-clicking when they're not supposed to (which can crash a Windoze system quite easily), removing disks from drives before the little light goes out, referring to the entire computer system as a "hard drive", accepting and downloading attachments which are more than likely viruses - all that good stuff. And yeah, if lifelong observations like this make me a "sexist pig", well... OINK?! lmao
So... unless computing is going to be "perfected" as much as it can be (some of these latest Apple products are trying to be an appliance), then I think there should be better education about the usage of them all around. Like we had in the 70's and 80's.
A computer that behaves and is solid as an appliance - great. No reason for computing to be any more complex than it needs to be for carrying out a particular task or two. Just be sure the consumer purchasing it knows exactly what it's capable of and doesn't ask much more of it than that.
-
People should be required to enter their programs using the switches on the front panels. Using this newfangled ASCII makes them soft headed.
(http://webpages.charter.net/thecomputercollection/pdp11/pdp1120.jpg)
-
I have to go with other here.
It should be an appliance until you need to do something more advanced, then it should allow obvious ways for you to dig deeper.
Otherwise you're making it too hard on the new users and too restrictive for advanced users.
-
People should be required to enter their programs using the switches on the front panels. Using this newfangled ASCII makes them soft headed.
(http://webpages.charter.net/thecomputercollection/pdp11/pdp1120.jpg)
I always thought the IMSAI was prettier, and the switch groupings more logical.
(http://www.vintage-computer.com/images/imsai8080on.jpg)
-
Bytes! lol :roflmao:
How long would it take to put in a text adventure?
-
I think that both types of computer have their place. I have an iPod Touch which would come under the "appliance" heading, and it is much more convenient for some things than a traditional desktop PC. On the other hand, for anything more than having a quick look at things on the internet and checking e-mails, I prefer the flexibility of a full-blown PC, where I can use whatever software I want and where I can configure things to my own liking.
-
A computer isn't an appliance. An appliance by definition is good for one type of task. "Learning to use a computer" isn't one type of task. Having said that, most appliances need instructions or guidance for first-time users.
People should expect to have to learn to use a computer, but software developers should try to make their software as intuitive to use as possible. That is partly a case of laying out the interface in a certain fashion so that features are in expected/sensible places, also ensuring that software updating is easy, but also that the software should try to follow as many 'accepted norms' of interface design for the platform in question.
-
I say "other" for this reason...
If popular computers like the Windows PC can be just simple button pushes, that's fine.... as long as there's an alternative that requires learning. Take just one or other and people lose out.
Having said that, of course, there's no OS yet close to being simple enough for Joe Public. Windows and MacOS both try but both are still far too complicated when something goes wrong. Plus a simple OS for everyone should be secure enough that the user can't do anything stupid like download viruses which spam the rest of us.
-
I have to go with other here.
It should be an appliance until you need to do something more advanced, then it should allow obvious ways for you to dig deeper.
Otherwise you're making it too hard on the new users and too restrictive for advanced users.
I REALLY like this answer. I sold PCs back when they ran soley on DOS and expecting the average user to memorize multiple CLI commands really held back adoption by the general public. I remember when my firm obtained beta copies of Windows 3.0 (all earlier versions of Windows being really lame) I'd I remember thinking "Well this sucks a lot less. The average person could probably adopt this a lot easier".
I wholly agree with Heiroglyph, the system should be easy to use Like an appliance. I guess the best term is that most operations should be intuitive. That actions should seem natural and interfaces uniform.
But under this layer an OS should still have all the capablities that allow more experienced user to get everything they can out of their system.
Believe it or not, I do feel that this is being accomplished on newer OS.
Even though I have never coached her, my 73 year old mother has had no problem figuring out how to use her Windows7 based computers.
Not only has she figured out how to use her computers, but her last two purchases were on her own (a laptop and a netbook).
She completes contiuing education courses required to maintain her nursing license, pays her bills, and buy merchandise on line.
Not to underestimate her intellengce (my mother is remarkable - she still works two to three days a week in the local hospital's OR), but I don't think she would have been able to adopt to an earlier, harder to learn OS.
-
To me, a computer is a tool. And, tools need some learning and experience to be good at using them.
I really think too many people have computers that don't really want or need them. My parents don't care about computing. They want to be able to access a few websites, email, and do some simple photo editing. And that is pretty much it. An appliance for them would probably be a good thing. I'll probably steer them in that direction on their next upgrade. Things like netbooks, iPads, and the like are getting popular for a reason. They're easy to use appliances. Appliances certainly have a place in computing, and it's a rather large one.
But, for what I like doing, I still want a general-use tool. I like tinkering and making things. I want to be able to load whatever I want, not just an approved sub-set of applications. I want the freedom to make the system do whatever the heck I want it to. And I understand that to really acheive that, it's going to have to be a more complex system, so I'm good with having a computer that takes a while to learn.
So, in short, I think there's plenty of room for computers as tools, as well as computers as appliances. It doesn't need to be an either/or thing.
-
I dunno. While I lament the fact that UI design is getting more dumbed-down and fewer people are bothering to learn about how their computers actually work, I don't think that simple "appliance" computing is necessarily a bad thing. Simple software for common tasks (email, text editing, etc.) is definitely okay by me; the problem is more in the mindset of the people who don't bother to try and understand their machine.
-
I can't stand the dumbing down of personal computers, which is exactly why I want information appliances to succeed and replace them for the average consumer.
A decade from now, personal computers will once again just be for us geeks, and everyone else can have their 'curated computing' devices, and we'll all be happy.
-
I don't understand why so many of you think that an easy to learn interface can't be combined with a very powerful OS.
To this day, I think Ubuntu is one of the best Linux distros, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to users that are unfamiliar with Linux.
-
I like it when human tasks are dumbed down to: Push the button get the food reward. :)
-
I don't understand why so many of you think that an easy to learn interface can't be combined with a very powerful OS.
To this day, I think Ubuntu is one of the best Linux distros, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to users that are unfamiliar with Linux.
No complaints here. I had my qualms about installing it originally given that I was already used to Fedora at the time but it turned out to be fine. The fact I haven't actually felt any need to upgrade to 10 yet must say something about the usability of 8.10 ;)
-
[attach]951[/attach]
The idea of thinking machines makes me worried somehow... :evil:
-
But i think the idea of having a girlfriend that doesn't think is appealing to me very much! All i have to do is push the right buttons... :roflmao:
-
"Gentoo for you, Ubuntu for your grandma! Hahaha!"
-
I have to go with other here.
It should be an appliance until you need to do something more advanced, then it should allow obvious ways for you to dig deeper.
Otherwise you're making it too hard on the new users and too restrictive for advanced users.
I agree with that line of thinking, There is no reason why a computer can't be produced that will allow those who don't want to learn anything about them and just want to point and click and at the same time have the scope for those that do want to learn, expand or tinker. :)
-
We went through a lot of this while creating TriCaster and TriCaster TCXD300/850.
I think we're getting really close to the right balance of simple and powerful for this type of device.
On TCXD, the default actions are good for most uses, but there is a "gear" icon on anything that you can dig into and tweak.
Clicking the gear you get a window showing the most likely tab of information by default and other tabs with other tweakable sections.
New users quickly learn that gears mean options for that item, so they can usually infer where to find more advanced features as they need them because they are always in context.
The new user isn't inundated with options, preferences and menus, but the advanced user can easily get to a lot more powerful tools that we would otherwise have needed to remove to appeal to the huge "ease of use" demographic.
I'm pretty proud of how it turned out :D
-
As far as easy to use and powerful go, I've had experience with lots of OS' and GUIs in the past, but I am relatively new to AmigaOS and MorphOS. I found Amiga (and Amiga like) OS' both easy to figure out and that they offered a lot of power.
I especially like the incredibly fast boot time of MorphOS and the fact that processor intensive tasks (like video) seem to run better under MorphOS than OSX.
-
I have to go with other here.
It should be an appliance until you need to do something more advanced, then it should allow obvious ways for you to dig deeper.
Otherwise you're making it too hard on the new users and too restrictive for advanced users.
/thread
-
A bit of both.
Something that requires learning, is always a good thing. It's a shame it's not often seen that way in 'this day and age'.
Steve
-
I don't understand why so many of you think that an easy to learn interface can't be combined with a very powerful OS.
To this day, I think Ubuntu is one of the best Linux distros, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to users that are unfamiliar with Linux.
Sorry, but I just cannot agree with this about Ubuntu.
-
I personally think that computers are now really nothing more than appliances.
In the 'good old' days they were great fun to tinker with and hack and improve upon. I think they've reached a level where 99% of people just want a device that will allow them to browse the web, look at photos, watch videos, etc...
So it doesn't really matter whether you use a windows/mac/linux box - they all do the same thing.
Now, back in the 1980s things were different - it was a brave new world, much more fun and much more true innovation happening. We've reached a plateau now.
Mike.
-
The question makes no sense. Half of my appliences ARE computers. My microwave, TV, oven, refridgerator, washer, dryer... Heck, even some of my lights are computers.
The computer that is an "appliance" is here, and has been for a long time. Asking if we should have computer that are not appliences that are appliences just doesn't make sense.
It is it's complexity of use and variability of function that leads to people calling it a 'computer'. If it only did one thing, it would be referred to by it's function.
-
The question makes no sense. Half of my appliences ARE computers. My microwave, TV, oven, refridgerator, washer, dryer... Heck, even some of my lights are computers.
The computer that is an "appliance" is here, and has been for a long time. Asking if we should have computer that are not appliences that are appliences just doesn't make sense.
It is it's complexity of use and variability of function that leads to people calling it a 'computer'. If it only did one thing, it would be referred to by it's function.
The original computer was a person. What you are referring to is 'smart' appliances.
Too define computer: archetypical box plus monitor and keyboard in the era of 1980 to 1999. Requires knowledge of the OS to do anything other than the most basic functions.
-
I REALLY like this answer. I sold PCs back when they ran soley on DOS and expecting the average user to memorize multiple CLI commands really held back adoption by the general public. I remember when my firm obtained beta copies of Windows 3.0 (all earlier versions of Windows being really lame) I'd I remember thinking "Well this sucks a lot less. The average person could probably adopt this a lot easier".
I wholly agree with Heiroglyph, the system should be easy to use Like an appliance. I guess the best term is that most operations should be intuitive. That actions should seem natural and interfaces uniform.
But under this layer an OS should still have all the capablities that allow more experienced user to get everything they can out of their system.
Believe it or not, I do feel that this is being accomplished on newer OS.
Even though I have never coached her, my 73 year old mother has had no problem figuring out how to use her Windows7 based computers.
Not only has she figured out how to use her computers, but her last two purchases were on her own (a laptop and a netbook).
She completes contiuing education courses required to maintain her nursing license, pays her bills, and buy merchandise on line.
Not to underestimate her intellengce (my mother is remarkable - she still works two to three days a week in the local hospital's OR), but I don't think she would have been able to adopt to an earlier, harder to learn OS.
Hear, hear Heiroglyph! (hey, that'd make a catchy cheer...) :hammer:
-
You think you are arguing against me, but in fact, you help make my point. You describe what I said was required for the population to call it a computer, and then say that it is a computer, and you say that if it isn't that, it is a 'smart' appliance.
So, by definition, a computer cannot be an appliance, because as soon as it is, it isn't a computer. If it can be, then they are all over.
We have computing devices that run from incredibly simple clocks to mainframes, and everything in between. There is a point in the shades of gray that we draw a line and say that anything on one side of it is a "computer", and anything on the other is an "appliance".
Is a laptop running an ARM processor with a display screen and keypad a computer? What about a cell phone that is running an ARM processor with a display screen and no keypad? What about a desk phone running an ARM processor with a display screen and a keypad?
-
The poll could have used a few more choices. I went with 'Other'.
My view is that 'Personal Computers' are meant to be, and in the 21st century should be appliances. Something for the masses.
Though a computer, something more like a 'Workstation' is something aimed at the developers, be it applications, CAD/CAM industrial uses, or professional content creation. After all, somebody has to design and build the Personal Computer, the applications, and the content consumed by the masses.
In reality, most computers (Workstations) outside the corporate landscape, spend a majority of their time performing Personal Computer tasks.
-
It really depends on how you define appliance. One of the most common definitions is "The act of applying; application; An implement, an instrument or apparatus designed (or at least used) as a means to a specific end (often specified);"
For most people then a computer is an appliance and has been for more than a decade. It's a device that accesses the internet or does word processing or spreadsheets. It's not a general purpose device, you can't open a sardine tin with it, it won't physically take you places.
I know this flies in the face of aOS 4.x but it has a purpose beyond loading your favourite GUI. In fact most people don't even have a favourite GUI, they just want to read Facebook, or type a paper. Computers exist to do something with. Organise your photos, find information, etc. Computers are the dam most useful appliance I've ever seen. The are a means to an end, not the end itself.
-
The OS should never hinder what you are trying to do, simple as that really.
But it should also be a tool you can do advanced things with and not over simplified and isolate the user from its functionality.
'other'
-
The problem is that making things easy for the average person usually translates to obfuscating and hiding things that are very useful to someone who is technically savvy.
That could be anything from hiding file extensions to locking the user out of admin level privileges.
There is no one size fits all approach that makes sense anymore. The average user wants something that they can't mess up, which means those who want to tinker and customize have to circumvent the protections that are there to keep the average user out of trouble.
Personal computers as they exist today are perfect for what I want to do with them, but they have never been ideal for the average consumer. Since the early nineties, people have been fooled by the computer industry into buying personal workstations that have far more complexity and versatility than they actually need, both in terms of hardware and software.
-
Unfortunately every OS will hinder you somewhere. Actually I take that back, Unix systems don't hinder. A fellow in my office wanted to uninstall something and his Linux box asked him whether he wanted to uninstall the dependencies. He said yes and it promptly remove X and much of the rest of his system....
Sometimes a little hindering might be good ;)
The OS should never hinder what you are trying to do, simple as that really.
But it should also be a tool you can do advanced things with and not over simplified and isolate the user from its functionality.
'other'