Re: What if...

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Phoenyx writes ...
> 
> Somehow, I doubt we will see a simple home oriented computer. The
> powers that be have already decided that our home computers should
> handle all our communication.
> 
> Sometimes, I think the computer companies miss the point. It is
> possible to create a simple system with enough power to satisfy
> the needs of the home user. It could still have easy to use web
> access and enough power to run the basic desktop apps.
> 
> But that's too easy. And how would the R&D for the big computers
> get funded if the masses started using a simpler device?
 ....


     It is probably fair to say that most users-- home, business, education,
...-- want a computer that is simple to use. You may do lots of complex
stuff; but, the machine itself should not get in the way.

     At the same time, the home user wants the highest performance machine
he/she can afford. You need lots of RAM plus good speed, graphics, and sound
capabilities to get the most from new entertainment releases. And, you need
lots of HD capacity to save MP3's, pics, etc. you download.

     The home user market for entertainment and net applications is the
driving force behind computing technological innovation. So, while the home
user would like (very much) to have a computer that is simple to use, this
user is not going to trade away high performance + hassles for low
preformance + simplicity.

     Most current computer R&D is being done by chip makers (e.g. Intel, AMD,
TI, ...) and peripheral card makers (like Diamond and Creative). Motherboard
makers continue to tweak their designs for new features and more speed; but,
the basic platform design remains.

     For now, a serious platform morph is blocked by the success of the
current platform. Which is to say that those most able to make big changes
have the best reasons to avoid them. Even Apple has become comfortable with
its role as a pseudo-PC manufacturer.

     A remaining option is a user-designed and promoted computer. It might
begin as a new Apple II-- much improved over the current IIgs but still not a
super-threat to PC. We could attract Apple users and, perhaps, users from
other 65xxx machines.

     One big difference between a new user-designed computer and modestly
revolutionary machines like iMac is that there would be no concerns about
limiting performance to preserve some higher priced product line. Even
better, it would be purposefully not-PC and not hobbled by the weaknesses of
the PC platform. The way would be open to rapid upgrades to achieve both
simplicity and high performance and, eventually, to attract users from PC.



Rubywand