Re: PC or Mac?

["Byron Q. Desnoyers Winmill" <byron@b60z27hbb464i.ab.hsia.telus.net>]

Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> The digital divide is more cultural than economic.  Anyone can get a
> ~166MHz Pentium PC with OS and leftover apps, a modem, and a monitor
> for less than $50 in any city.

In these parts a 15" monitor would be about CAN$50 and obtaining
inexpensive, legal software is quite difficult.  Even if you could
get that CAN$75 computer, you are still left with the psychological
barrier and technical problems.

This psychological barrier is not all that different from the one
acting against the Apple II, it is mainly a difference in degree.
 
> "classic" platforms move more into the realm of the hobbyist and
> collector [...] I realize that this doesn't solve the problem of
> someone who wants to use 1980's technology (alone) in a 21st
> century world

This is not about using 1980s technology in the 21st century.  It
is about using a tools which are suitable to the task, and not
having the market driving your decisions.  If you insist upon
using a car analogy: is it impossible for you to use our streets
and highways with a 1960's car?  Some automobile enthusiasts still
use those.  What about a 1970's or 1980's car?  Many less wealthy
individuals still use those.  Indeed, the so called high speed
providers really don't want you unless you are using a 1995, or
later, computer.

An Apple II is not the Difference Engine, it is a sophisticated
digital computer.  If you are not interested in streaming audio and
video, or if you are not interested in high resolution graphics,
and so forth, I do not see why you should be restricted from using
it this day in age.  As it stands today, I cannot even check postal
rates because Canada Post insists upon using JavaScript to link
their various pages.  As it stands today, navigating through many
sites is difficult because descriptions are not attached to images
and because hundreds of tiny images are used to space everything
"just so."

Even if the entertainment markets (music, television, etc.) are
driven by upgrades, you can still use twenty year old televisions
and radios to access modern entertainment.  Even CDs have been
around for well over a decade, without forced upgrades to your CD
player.  This is not the forced upgrade cycle of the computer
industry.

> It's much harder to base the continued existence of a market on
> a continuous series of breakthroughs than on continuous evolutionary
> improvement.

Okay, so maybe I am being unrealistic in a couple of respects.  Yet I
am still going to insist that backwards compatibility should be the
norm.  If there is a compelling reason for people to upgrade, people
will.  If somebody does not have a compelling reason to upgrade, then
they are not left with an all-or-nothing option.

We all know that the Apple II can go online.  The IIgs can do it in
a fancy way, while the 8 bit machines are limited to shell accounts.
If you are only interested in communicating textual information,
this should be okay.

Now the vast majority want more.  Most will want graphics, very many
will want audio streaming, and many will want video streaming.  All
of these things can be provided by the online world.  I'm not arguing
against progress, I am simply arguing that the choice should be in
the consumers hands and not the hands of industry.

Byron.