Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (
More info?)
"ggull" <ggullSPAM@NOTrcn.com> wrote in message
news:u%23djvZb8EHA.3908@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> This sounds like an early version of the safety provision that the car
> has
> to be in Park or Neutral before the engine will start. That's pretty
> common
> now, but if a note to this effect was simply buried in the fine print
> of a
> 1000 shop page manual (not included) for one of the first cars to have
> that
> precaution, then the Rambler folk (Dodge, wasn't it?) were not doing
> their
> job of highlighting major changes for the purchaser. Didn't he get a
> test
> drive before purchase? What about the dealer/seller who failed to
> mention
> this?
>
> If it was not a safety feature to force you to have the car in
> park/neutral,
> i.e. if they simply made you put the ignition key in then press a
> button to
> start rather than turn the key like I presume most cars did at the
> time, it
> was a stupid feature and deserved to follow the passenger pigeon into
> oblivion, which it seems to have done.
>
> I and Lois G are not complaining about genuine new technology (e.g. an
> interlock to prevent your grandfather starting the Rambler and
> immediately
> running your childhood self over because it was in reverse). We are
> complaining about capricious twiddling with the user interfaces for
> the same
> technology, e.g. if the Rambler were done that way just to be cool.
>
> After some years of such capricious twiddling, auto makers have
> settled down
> to doing most major functions in two or three ways (e.g. lights are on
> a
> control onthe steeering column, or, less and less commonly, a pull
> switch on
> the dash) and many in just one. Some rental agencies put a card
> summarizing
> these differences in their cars, and it's not big. I can jump in
> pretty
> much any standard sedan at the rental agency, and in two or three
> minutes
> familiarize myself with the needed controls to get to the hotel at 2
> in the
> morning.
>
> Of course operating systems are more complex (in terms of user
> interface)
> than automobiles. But this should be an argument against, not an
> excuse
> for, twiddling just 'cause.
>
>
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>> Yeah! Right!
>>
>> And I remember when my Grandfather broke off the ignition key in his
> Rambler
>> because he didn't read that the car had a PUSH BUTTON transmission
>> and you
>> had to push one of the buttons to start the engine!
>>
>> You have to learn and re-educate yourself to the technology!
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban
>>
>> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard
>>
>> If you knew as much as you thought you know,
>> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>>
>>
>> "ggull" <ggullSPAM@NOTrcn.com> wrote in message
>> news:uXdcJf27EHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> > Ah, but that's the difference -- when a new gadget, say a satellite
>> > tracking
>> > system, is put in a fancy new car, the steering wheel still turns
>> > left
> and
>> > right the way it used to, you don't have to relearn how to open and
> close
>> > the door, etc. You generally have to only learn to use the ADDED
>> > capabilities .. even if you have remote entry, you can choose not
>> > to use
>> > it
>> > and use the key. The problem, as Lois G. points out, is that one
>> > has to
>> > relearn to drive from the very basics with each new updated
>> > operating
>> > system. All of sudden the gear shift has moved behind the driver's
>> > seat
>> > and
>> > it's a rotary dial instead of a stick, and you have to hold in the
>> > cigarette
>> > lighter before it works. The real problem is that this stuff is
>> > all
>> > designed by people whose very lives revolve around computers, and
>> > specifically Windows, using state of the art hardware, and unlike
>> > auto
>> > manufacturers no one seems to have checked in with ordinary
> drivers/users
>> > (as opposed to racing buffs or heads of corporate systems
>> > departments).
>> >
>> > There is also the problem that it takes education and expertise to
>> > do
>> > simple
>> > things simply and to stay out of trouble, although things are
>> > getting
>> > somewhat better -- e.g., computers ship with the system settings
>> > wide
> open
>> > to vulnarabilites, and to make them secure the user has to restrict
>> > browser
>> > and email settings (or get other software), install virus and
>> > firewall,
>> > etc.
>> > Rationally, the DEFAULT would be for secure systems, allowing the
>> > user
> to
>> > open them up for specific purposes as they gain an idea of what
>> > they're
>> > doing and (hopefully) the dangers involved.
>> >
>> > "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote ..
>> >> When new gadgets, accessories and luxuries are added to an
>> >> automobile
> do
>> > you
>> >> not have to re-educate yourself in their correct and proper usage?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Lois G." <legalois10pounds@erols.com> wrote ...
>> >> > Strictly a rhetorical question, I guess....
>> >> >
>> >> > Maybe I'm in the minority, but I can't help but feel that things
> should
>> >> > have gotten easier with the evolvement of computers, rather than
>> >> > the
>> > other
>> >> > way around.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not new to computers, just new to XP. I mistakenly thought
>> >> > I'd be
>> > able
>> >> > to hook up and go, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Here we
>> >> > have
> a
>> >> > whole host of newsgroups dealing with every specific issue, and
>> >> > web
>> > sites
>> >> > devoted to fixes, tweaks, upgrades, etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > We have to re-educate ourselves, ask questions and read volumes
>> >> > just
> to
>> > be
>> >> > able to perform 'simpl' tasks on our computers.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
And over how many years has it taken for the auto makers to "settle
down" into a standard with which you finally trained yourself to be
accustomed? And how long do operating systems, especially "toy" or
end-user oriented operating systems, like Windows, get to "settle down"?
So I take it you'll be complaining to the car makers when they change a
whole bunch of stuff in the new all-electric cars, too, until whatever
period you deem is sufficient for them to "settle down" (but mostly for
you to train).
If anything, computers should be teaching you to adapt. You don't want
to adapt. Adapting takes work and time. Computers are not appliances.
Hardware and software for computers is not like hardware for plumbing
where once you figure out how to cut, clean, and solder or glue (for
plastic) then you have very little to learn thereafter because the
technology doesn't change. Part of the *technology* of computers is
SOFTware.
Also, for end-user oriented operating systems, especially those geared
to *consumers* rather than enthusiasts or administrators willing to
adapt and train, they need some continued marketability and
profitability. Once they become staid, sales drop. Look at VCRs. Once
they peak at what functionality they provided then eventually the market
saturates (since only some of the population is going to get a VCR and
eventually almost all of those have a VCR). So how do they sell more
VCRs when they all must provide the same basic functionality for
compatibility? Add features! An OS, or any product, that doesn't
sustain marketability will die, and then you'll complain that it
disappeared when it became cheap (to get and to learn). Microsoft is
into COMMERCIALware. That's the market type they choose to get involved
in. If you want to get into open-sourced and cheap operating systems
that YOU can tailor the way you want to run (and keep them tailored that
way) then go right ahead. Distributing public or open software is how
THOSE authors choose to distribute their product. However, I really
doubt Linux or other open-source operating systems are really
deliberately stagnating themselves for lazy users.
How long are "personal" operating systems allowed to mature? How long
before they are no longer allowed to adopt from mainframes? How long
before no one wants any new *major* features? How long did it take for
you to grow up until you no longer needed any training (in other
attributes of your life than computers) so you could quiesce into being
lazy, comfortable, stagnant, and happy?
It's impossible to analyze an industry, especially computers, when you
view it through a tiny pinhole in the wall. You see your use of your
computer, not what is happening across the entire industry of computers
(and I only see a tiny part). I've been an alpha test for over a decade
in software and a technician on them for a decade before that. Yeah,
I'm used to change because that is the nature of the computer industry.
It isn't ditch digging whose technology hasn't changed much in
centuries. If you get involved in an industry whose nature is change
and continual evolution then learn to adapt. I'm sure doctors also have
to keep up to date and have to keep learning new stuff and techniques;
otherwise, we'd still be using leeches, hacking off wounded legs, and
seeing Joan Rivers for how she really would look.
There used to be LOTS of backyard mechanics working on their cars to fix
and customize them. That's waned. Why? Because it is a lot harder to
work on engines, pollution systems, and all the subsystems within a car
because they've become a lot more complicated. You used to just need a
timing light, a new set of spark plugs and gap tool, and maybe a new
distributor rotor to time your car. Not anymore. It now takes a lot
more learning to maintain your car yourself, so the folks that chose to
stagnate based on the old technology gave up on maintaining their cars,
and those too lazy or too busy for other life choices relinquish that
chore to someone else. I don't see you announcing your willingness to
let a professional handle your wants for tweaking and maintaining and
repairing your computer, yet you probably take your car to a shop to
replace the oil, set timing, replace the shocks, align the wheels, and
fix the body damage. Your time is too valuable to waste doing that
stuff so you exchange your time (in the form of money) to have someone
else do it and do it right. However, most computer users are peculiar
consumers in believing they have the mental wherewithal to be computer
experts (picture the car mechanic all greased up who strolls into the
surgery room to start replacing a heart just because he knows how to use
a knife). Just because a computer can be put into your hands doesn't
mean it should. I can put a shotgun into the hands of a toddler (which
isn't necessarily measured by age), and the same for a computer. You're
the consumer that wants computers to stabilize so they can be considered
appliances, yet do you actually go repairing your dishwasher, fridge, or
television when it breaks or even modify them to tweak them how you want
them behave on any particular day? If you don't want to learn and
continually train on the use of computers to play your game, just get a
GameBoy with its fixed features and interface. That GameBoy will work
the same way until the day you trash it. There are intelligent
typewriters with limited functionality and fixed interface that will let
you do word processing. There are appliances available if all you want
is a fix feature set and unchanging user interface rather than a
GENERAL-purpose computer.
If you don't want to learn a new OS or a new application then don't get
that new OS or new application. It is likely you don't _need_ the new
stuff but rather you _want_ the new stuff (the same reason most
consumers buy new cars). I still have an old Intel 486 running Windows
95 and some ancient version of WordPerfect on it that I still use. It
doesn't boot quick but that's not a problem because it's left powered on
all the time. The cursor doesn't move any slower when typing in a
document on that old machine compared to my new one and there is little
difference in paging speed for the size documents that I write at home.
There is no real need for the latest hardware and software to perform
the task, but most consumers don't base their purchasing decisions based
on just the requirements of the task.
Burn and learn. Learn or stagnate. Stagnate and die. If tomorrow is
just like today, you're dead. ;-)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram