Is new really improved?
Lately, I’ve gotten to thinking about why it is that we don’t seem to plan on much of anything lasting these days. I’ve entertained the idea of purchasing an iPod, but my computers, being more than a couple of years old, are almost too antique to make it work, although I think that I may have found a way. I’m perfectly happy with my ancient computers. I don’t need to check e-mail any faster. I am, however, rather fond of my DSL connection. DSL is a wonderful way to download. I guess I’m just not in enough of a hurry. Of course, what do I know. Most of my disposable income is absorbed by my library. If books aren’t old fashioned, I don’t know what is. (The process for producing them, however, has become much more high tech.) It also doesn’t help that I tend to be a fan of function before form.
When I finally get my web site up and running, I want it to be simple so that as many systems, no matter how old, as possible can access it. Writing it in a universal language will mean that cell phones and other handheld devices I’ve probably never heard of will be able to use it as well. Flexibility strikes me as a good idea. The easier the better seems to be a popular opinion.
I would think that it would be in the interest of companies that make snazzy little gizmos like the iPod to make them work with as many systems as possible. Actually, I am kind of surprised at Apple. Several years ago, it was much easier to get a Mac to read a PC file than the reverse. Maybe it was because the company still felt like an underdog. Now that it is a more serious contender in the cutthroat market of home and business computing there doesn’t seem to be a need to be as flexible.
Why do we let Microsoft and Intel convince us that every year or so we need a bigger better faster more computer? More power. More speed. So that we can play more versions of solitaire? Do we really get any more work done? Do we really have more time to spend on the things that are really important in this life, whatever we have decided those things might be? I have my doubts.
Why is new so often considered synonymous with better?
If someone hadn’t stolen my car, I would most likely still be driving it, hopefully for another couple of years. As far as I was concerned, there was nothing terribly wrong with the old car. Don’t get me wrong, I love my new car. It’s very snazzy and probably suits me better than the old car, and with its airbags and anti-lock brakes, it’s probably a lot safer, especially out here where people drive with reckless abandon or downright inattention or both.
Clothes are the same way. Every year, there’s a new style that everyone just has to have. Make that every season. What I find amusing is how often the "new" style is just a reworking of something from a previous decade.
Everything has to be new and improved. What’s really wrong with old and inferior? Haven’t we learned anything from the debacle of New Coke?
Today’s rant has been brought to you by the friendly folks at Underwood Typewriter and Luddites Anonymous.
When I finally get my web site up and running, I want it to be simple so that as many systems, no matter how old, as possible can access it. Writing it in a universal language will mean that cell phones and other handheld devices I’ve probably never heard of will be able to use it as well. Flexibility strikes me as a good idea. The easier the better seems to be a popular opinion.
I would think that it would be in the interest of companies that make snazzy little gizmos like the iPod to make them work with as many systems as possible. Actually, I am kind of surprised at Apple. Several years ago, it was much easier to get a Mac to read a PC file than the reverse. Maybe it was because the company still felt like an underdog. Now that it is a more serious contender in the cutthroat market of home and business computing there doesn’t seem to be a need to be as flexible.
Why do we let Microsoft and Intel convince us that every year or so we need a bigger better faster more computer? More power. More speed. So that we can play more versions of solitaire? Do we really get any more work done? Do we really have more time to spend on the things that are really important in this life, whatever we have decided those things might be? I have my doubts.
Why is new so often considered synonymous with better?
If someone hadn’t stolen my car, I would most likely still be driving it, hopefully for another couple of years. As far as I was concerned, there was nothing terribly wrong with the old car. Don’t get me wrong, I love my new car. It’s very snazzy and probably suits me better than the old car, and with its airbags and anti-lock brakes, it’s probably a lot safer, especially out here where people drive with reckless abandon or downright inattention or both.
Clothes are the same way. Every year, there’s a new style that everyone just has to have. Make that every season. What I find amusing is how often the "new" style is just a reworking of something from a previous decade.
Everything has to be new and improved. What’s really wrong with old and inferior? Haven’t we learned anything from the debacle of New Coke?
Today’s rant has been brought to you by the friendly folks at Underwood Typewriter and Luddites Anonymous.
posted by minervasowl | 11:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home