Re: Observation about group

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

Hilary M. Turner wrote:

>With all that has been said so far I would like to add my 2 bits.  hehe
>
>    first bit: the programs have only gotten much (huge) bigger. They are
>loaded with so much unnecessary code and graphics it takes the Ghz just to
>handle the stuff.
>
>    Second bit: Most importantly! The Computer is so dumb that it has to be
>told how to do everything every step of the way (programming) and without a
>well written program the computer is just a lot of electrons running around
>in circules. Which by the way seems to be what the latest and geatest seem to
>do with all that power.
>
>    So in conclusion if the computer does what you need it to do and does it
>well then what more do you need.

Hilary, we are in agreement.

That's exactly what I said, though some seem not to have read it
carefully.

If you have what you need, and you enjoy it, keep using it!
But don't put down those whose needs drive them to faster,
more capacious platforms.

If you don't need multi-megapixels, so be it.  I do, and so do most
other digital photography enthusiasts.  Video doesn't need the pixels,
but it sure needs the speed, if you actually want to maintain you train
of thought while editing.

The hardware capability has increased exponentially, but I did slip
a decimal point--the compound annual growth rate is about 60%, so
the increase is a factor of 100, not 1000, in ten years.  My error.
But we have had twenty years, so the cumulative growth is now
a factor of 10,000, or four orders of magnitude.

The software improvement rate has been much less.  Many
software houses see the hardware improvement rate as a license,
even a mandate, to consume all the available resources, whether
value is delivered or not.  Time-to-market urgency and comsumer
"featurism" has led to the demise of software craftsmanship (in the
sense of efficient use of resources).  "Bloatware" is now the rule.

But this is a result of a failure of our imaginations.  That, and the
large "step" needed to get to the "next big improvement" in user
interfaces.  I think the right direction is going to be conversational
interfaces, but we have a long way to go to get speech recognition
and understanding to the place where mere mortals will be happy
with it.

-michael

 Email:  mjmahon@aol.com
 Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/