Klarinet Archive - Posting 000845.txt from 1999/11

From: Roger Shilcock <roger.shilcock@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] Dichotomitis (rant)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 04:17:15 -0500

I have a 13-year-old game on this Win95 machine which still works well. -
Whether it would work under Win2000, nobody seems to know.
It's the sheer *arrogance* of Microsoft which annoys me. Consumers would
like all kinds of things which they haven't thought of which they don't
bother to provide. For a very big instance, WordPerfect for DOS 5.1, which
we still use here, has infinitely variable line spacing and built-in
support for most foreign languages one could imagine. If Word has these
in *any* version, they're impossible to find. Hence, if we get our
computers "upgraded" so they can't run this prog., we will be unable to
construct the mult-lingual documents we produce now.
Yours,
Roger Shilcock

On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 LeliaLoban@-----.com wrote:

> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:25:48 EST
> From: LeliaLoban@-----.com
> Reply-To: klarinet@-----.org
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: [kl] Dichotomitis (rant)
>
>
> Kevin Fay wrote,
> >Most people buy Microsoft software for the same reason that most advanced
> clarinet players buy a Buffet R-13. Can you buy a better clarinet? Perhaps.
> You can certainly spend a whole lot more -- but the R13 seems to work pretty
> darned OK by the vast majority of professional clarinet players
> here in the U.S. >
>
> Mark Charette wrote,
> >>Software & computers are just tools, and like any artisan you try & pick
> the ones that will most likely solve a problem with the least amount of
> hassle. Until your customer insists that they know better than you ...>>
>
> Funny thing about that: My clarinets and my computers all work "pretty darned
> OK" right now, but one significant difference to me is that my clarinets will
> still work pretty darned OK on New Year's Day. My computers won't. I'm not
> blaming you guys for Borg policies I know you didn't mastermind -- but it's
> high time the consumer rebelled against the Collective.
>
> The computer has devolved from a promising tool into a *crappy* tool.
> Contrast the long-term performance of any major brand of computer with the
> long-term performance of any major brand of clarinet, including an
> inexpensive student clarinet. Would anybody put up with a clarinet that only
> lasted two years?
>
> I'm using my husband's geriatric (1998) laptop right now. Apparently there's
> a Y2K fix available for Windows 95, if he can ever gets around to looking for
> it, and if he can figure out how to implement the 1,475 (give or take a few
> hundred) easy instructions conveniently written in Propellerbeaniespeak. But
> I feel the footsteps of the TEOCAWKI monster shake the earth: Thump. Thump.
> Thump. It's coming this way. It's coming to get my desktop computer, a
> 486, such a fossil (4 whole years old!) that it uses Windows 3.1 and hasn't
> even got a modem. The fossil works fine for the word processing and CAD for
> which I need it. Too bad, because the TEOCAWKI monster plans to eat its guts
> for New Year's breakfast. I can either scrap it and replace it or scrap it
> and not replace it. Whoa, great choice. Not.
>
> According to an article by Rajiv Chandrasekaran on page 1 of the "Business"
> section of the Thursday, Nov. 18 issue of _The Washington Post_ (available
> online at www.washingtonpost.com), businesses and government agencies in the
> United States are already committed to spending more than US$100 billion on
> Y2K fixes. For comparison, we spent US$15.5 billion on the 1992 Hurricane
> Andrew, the most costly natural disaster ever to hit the U.S.A. So now the
> Borg are waiting for everybody to finish those obligatory Y2K fixes they've
> trapped us into, and as soon as we've paid for all that, they'll go,
> "RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!", break out "improved" hardware and Windows 2000, and
> make the new computer obsolete, too. In 2001, they'll do it to us again, and
> we're such damned sheep that we'll probably let them.
>
> When will the consumer get mad as hell and not take it any more? I wish I
> could celebrate New Year's by heaving my old computer out my upstairs office
> window onto the concrete driveway at midnight and then *not* replacing the
> stupid machine. I don't plan to mark the Millennium with any other
> rollicking celebrations, because my husband has to stay alert and sober for
> work. He's on duty from December 31 through New Year's. Guess why.
>
> I wish I could revert to using my electronic typewriter, for which I can
> still buy parts and ribbons because the Borg can't see typewriters. I play a
> 1937 Bb clarinet and saxes made in the 1920s. My stove is a 1947 double oven
> range that's more energy-efficient than new ones, thanks to the massive
> construction. I never learned to drive a car. Somehow I survive in this
> technology-deprived manner because for these tasks, the old tools are *good*
> tools. But I can't survive without the !=#$%^&*! computer because my editors
> want my articles on diskettes.
>
> Now, I'm not a Luddite. IMHO, lots of recent technology is demonstrably
> better than vintage technology. The flush toilet, for instance, strikes me
> as a genuine upgrade from an outhouse. And in theory, I *like* computers,
> don't get me wrong. I bought my first computer, the original 64K IBM-PC,
> back in 1982. Back then, I could upgrade by adding something new to the old
> machine. That was a good tool, IMHO: not mature technology, but something
> new that evolved in ways that made sense -- until the Collective figured out
> it could force us to toss the whole system and start over every two years by
> making the new "improvements" incompatible with the old "improvements".
> Today I like reading the klarinet list, communicating with interesting people
> all over the world and all the rest of the goodies the Internet makes
> possible. But I've *had it* with being a willing victim, addicted to
> upgrades.
>
> What's going on with computers right now is planned obsolescence of the most
> cynical, manipulative kind. I want a tool that works for a reasonable amount
> of time until it breaks down for reasonable reasons. Two years to
> obsolescence means a criminal waste of natural resources expended in
> manufacturing this garbage and then turning it right around as another
> contribution to the solid waste disposal problem. I want the Borg to quit
> jerking the public around. For the price of replacing my computer, I could
> have bought a first-rate, used R-13.
>
> Lelia
> Unworthy of assimilation.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
> Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
> Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
> Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org