Re: Computing Editorial (please read)

[Lee Hart <leeahart@earthlink.net>]

Charles Richmond wrote:
> Sometimes "status quo" machines can be re-targeted for different
> uses. There were people who were taking the $200 internet appliance
> comptuters and making them into *real* computers. That is, until
> the company figured out what is going on... and made the fix
> impossible.

Sometimes the company doesn't care if you buy their product to use for
something else (a sale is a sale, after all). Other times, they block
you because you are thwarting some byzantine marketing strategy (like
selling the computer at a loss so you'll buy their overpriced monthly
service). Then there are cases where the company shouldn't care, but is
justp plain paranoid (they must be trying to harm us by hacking into our
system).

> Things eventually get so easy that they are *not* worth doing
> anymore.

People are still writing books, painting pictures, and writing music
after thousands of years. They don't keep doing the same old thing; they
find new ways to express their creativity.

Same with computers. Do you think we've really reached the end of the
line on creativity? I don't think we've even scratched the surface yet.

Einstein was once asked how much he knew about physics. He answered that
he knew 1 or maybe 2% of it. "The size of our little world of knowledge
may seem vast, but it is nothing compared to the vastness of the
universe."

For example, analog computing has languished for decades. They could
always do simulations and solve complex differential equations far
faster than the best digital computers. Built with modern chips, analog
computers could put us an order of magnitude ahead for certain types of
problems.

Another: We have chosen the "god in a CPU" architecture for our PCs --
one supreme all-powerful all-knowing CPU that runs everything,
surrounded by much smaller CPUs that are total idiots in comparison.
Instead, what about architectures where there are large numbers of small
CPU, roughly equal in capability, networked together to form a powerful
system. Working examples of such systems can outperform supercomputers,
at far lower cost. They could readily be built with Z80-type SBCs by
hobbyiests.

There is a tremendous amount of new territory to explore. And, it is
more likely to be explored by hobbyists and experimenters, not by large
corporations who have largely dismantled their R&D efforts in favor of
profits this quarter.

> radios... automobiles... watches. All the "gee whiz" has gone out
> of owning a radio or a car or a watch. It is so easy to have one,
> and most people do *not* pay much attention to them anymore.

Most, yes. All; no! There are still huge numbers of people building
crystal radios; there is magic in pulling voices out of thin air. Ham
radio operators still build radios; only for amateur TV, or moonbounce,
or to communicate with their own satellites.

Car nuts abound. There are hundreds of kit cars on the market, and
millions of classic cars being restored and driven my people. I happen
to be an electric car nut; my hobby EVs outperform the auto company's
"we can't do it; it's too hard" offerings.

Clocks: There is a thriving market in people who build their own
grandfather's clocks. Electronic digital clock kits are still popular. 

Computers, which once had an absolutely tremendous hobbyist following,
now seem to have one of the smallest hobbyist and experimenter segments.

> mostly these inventors were *not* part of the main stream... and
> they were *not* plugged in to the "that's the way we've always
> done it" mentality. That's why the airplane had to be invented by
> bicycle mechanics.

Absolutely!!! Who do you think will invent the next generation of
computers. Microsoft? Intel? Not a chance! They will perpetuate the
status quo.

It is vital to have a strong hobby/experimenter segment, because that's
where the innovations will come from!

> If it were advertised correctly, perhaps there is a market for
> electronic kits... but on a much simpler scale than Heathkit.

There are lots of shoddy kits on the market. Often, they cost more than
the same item if bought assembled, the directions are lousy, and the
engineering is poor.

Heathkit really "took off" because they a) bought parts surplus, and so
could sell their kits for LESS than the assembled product, b) provided
excellent directions so anyone could build them, and c) made kits that
pushed the state of the art, and so performed BETTER than what you could
buy assembled.

> Something more on the order of magnitude of the old Radio Shack
> "Electronic Labs".

These are great for young kids. I started off on them. I have bought
them as gifts for friend's and relative's kids, and they enjoyed them,
too.

> In kit form, this might be a sellable item. The same could
> be said for building 8-bit microcomputers and microcontrollers.

But as far as I know, there are no kid's "Electronic Labs" kits with a
microcomputer. Hey, maybe that's the place to start!
-- 
Lee A. Hart                Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave. N.            Forget your perfect offering
Sartell, MN 56377 USA      There is a crack in everything
leeahart_at_earthlink.net  That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen