The best thing to do would be to eliminate computers from the classroom altogether and then bring them back ONLY in relevant areas -- digital arts classes, web/library kiosks, maybe, just maybe, some science/computer classes. Students should be writing out their reports/labs by hand pretty much up untill their last year anyway. Technology remains more of a distraction than a help.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, I think you're taking this issue to the extreme when you say this. I strongly disagree with your reproach. Computers are the best things to have in a classroom, particularly for science and computer science classes. I work at an IT department at a private college (will be a junior this fall, majoring in CS), and know that computers in a classroom is a very good thing. You gotta remember, we're in the internet age, you can't just leave other people behind and leave them writing their papers on paper, they're going to have to learn sometime. I took a marketing class a few years ago and my professor was surprised to see we didn't have our laptops with us to take notes on. Computers should not be taken out of a classroom, they're a student's best friend for either taking notes or conducting research. Teachers here often don't have many problems or complaints with their computers regarding updates and so fourth, and if they want help, we'll do it for them, no problem. We have liasons in IT for those scenarios. I'll grant that we do have those few idiots in schools who don't get a clue about technology, but it takes time to learn these things, you need to take the leap and learn. When I see people who don't want to learn new things such as how to use a computer, I totally understand why our nation is not ranked first in the world in tests, exams, etc. You can't be close-minded about these things.
If anything, leave the computers in the classrooms. Computers are an advantage for virtually every subject in school, why would you want to leave the students at a disadvantage?
I apologize for the bickering, but that's just my 2 cents.
There's something to be said for using the tools of the times, yes, but learning involves training/encouraging thought, not neccessarily mastering easily outmoded tools. Even if man is the tool maker, foundations, in my estimation, involve a different training.
Does a grade-schooler "need" to do research on the web? No, if they go all the way through to doctoral programs, they won't need to do so. Simple knowledge of library catologues will do the trick.
Is technology irrelevant? No, but it does not replace the foundations of any discipline. Children really need to know how to read and write, and computer screens will NOT help them in most cases, not more than books and pencils.
Science? We try to force the computer to replace a ton of hands on experimentation that it simply shouldn't have to do. Grade eight students aren't modelling nuclear explosions, they don't need cheesy computer simulations to show them changes of state, or chemical properties, there are hundreds of safe experiments that can be done to demonstrate the information presented in a textbook. If a computer is a around to show them a simulation of fetal development, or the center of the sun, or a distant astronomical formation, then that's a great addition, but it doesn't replace the value of knowing something with concretely, not just in the mind. The mind, in turn, is a better way of knowing than the screen, which too often gives the mind an excuse to rest.
With a computer screen, we can all pretend to be DaVinci, but we really can't be like him, unless we train our instruments -- our senses and our minds -- to the utmost precision.
Computers can aid that, but used haphazardly, as compensation for bodies and books, they hinder it.
Just one decent anthology to take children through grade school would add more to their understanding of language than any computer.
Computers where applicable, not everywhere, and certainly not in every classroom.
Does a grade-schooler "need" to do research on the web? No, if they go all the way through to doctoral programs, they won't need to do so. Simple knowledge of library catologues will do the trick.
This is the single most deluded statement I have ever read on the internet. And that's saying something.
This is the single most deluded statement I have ever read on the internet. And that's saying something.
Agreed. Now if that one library in your neighborhood housed thousands and thousands of virtually every book on any given subject and was made avialable instantly for free and did not need to be returned in 10 days, then yes, the internet is useless.
Does a grade-schooler "need" to do research on the web? No, if they go all the way through to doctoral programs, they won't need to do so. Simple knowledge of library catologues will do the trick.
In elementary school, I remember using both the internet and the library for doing research. It's always nice to have an alternative, and when children learn to use computers and the internet, they become better with it, and become more efficient with their studies. I don't see how this is an issue when computers have made it more fun and easier for children to learn certain subjects, and when they wish to get into it hardcore, they can do so with hands-on material in middle school and up. Library catologues take too long unless it's done on a computer via internet or software they may provide. And why not reserve the book/material at the same time? Using tools of the time will brighten the minds of the future, to only further the development of the human race, not using tools we used back in the day.
Quote:
Is technology irrelevant? No, but it does not replace the foundations of any discipline. Children really need to know how to read and write, and computer screens will NOT help them in most cases, not more than books and pencils.
I don't mean to be taking sides here or confront your thoughts in a hostile manner, but this just simply isn't true. Learning to read and write on the computer is becomming more accessible on the internet and popular as days go by. You'll see more people ordering world books or encyclopedias on CD-ROM than in hard cover. Examples of this kind of behavior goes on and on.
Quote:
Science? We try to force the computer to replace a ton of hands on experimentation that it simply shouldn't have to do. Grade eight students aren't modelling nuclear explosions, they don't need cheesy computer simulations to show them changes of state, or chemical properties, there are hundreds of safe experiments that can be done to demonstrate the information presented in a textbook. If a computer is a around to show them a simulation of fetal development, or the center of the sun, or a distant astronomical formation, then that's a great addition, but it doesn't replace the value of knowing something with concretely, not just in the mind. The mind, in turn, is a better way of knowing than the screen, which too often gives the mind an excuse to rest.
I agree, knowing these things hands-on is different than learning it on a machine, but most of the concepts they're learning cannot be learned hands-on (nuclear explosions, center of the sun, the planetary system and its properties, etc.), and thus must be provided on a machine. You can look at a computer as a teacher's aid, providing limitless amounts of information by expert scientists or researchers or even the teachers themselves. I had it in middle school and helped me tremendously with things I didn't understand. If anything, it should be mandatory for schools to provide computers to youngsters, it can benefit them greatly in the learning process. It can show them how to perform certain hands-on experiments when a computer is unnecessary for certain projects, too, even though teachers are there for that anyway. My point is, computers are a huge benefit in the science subject, no doubt about it in my mind. I can't stress this enough.
Quote:
Computers where applicable, not everywhere, and certainly not in every classroom.
Not everywhere, yes, but where it might benefit, definitely so.
I suspect the G4 is too expensive for a cheap, low-end box with razor-thin margins. Furthermore, Apple needs something that will scale with the rest of the lineup. It won't do to have a sub-$1000 box if it's at 1.6 GHz while the rest of the lineup is at 3 GHz.
The only way I see a low-end box like this happening is if Apple can get IBM to make them a G3 + Altivec + RIO (or some other high-bandwidth FSB that supports DDR). This way the econoMac could scale well without heavy R&D--just replace the CPU with a faster one now and then, and up the memory speed with GHz boosts. Or even better--Apple could drop a supposedly cheaper PPC 970 in this low end box
A G4-based low-end box introduces all sorts of problems with obsolescence that shouldn't plague a new model. Within a year, a G4 box with SDR and 166 MHz FSB will be horribly antiquated next to the PPC 970 based Macs (and some would argue such technology is already antiquated). In a box with little to no upgrade/expandability options, such tech will be a deal-breaker. And this will be doubly frustrating to Apple and Mac users alike, because it will not be Apple that determines the specs on this low end box, but Moto. Do we really want Moto dictating the specs on such an important product for Apple?
What I'm saying is that a low-end headless Mac is only a possibility IF this fabled G3+SIMD+RIO is for real, or if Apple has the guts to design the box around a PPC 970. And why not? It's the perfect chip for a low end box--Apple can neuter the memory architecture and STILL get bitchin' performance out of it. It's got plenty of headroom, so Apple can crank the high end up to 1.8-2.2 GHz, while leaving the low end at 1.0-1.2 GHz.
Forget about the G4, it's a dead horse that's only good for kicking.
I suspect the G4 is too expensive for a cheap, low-end box with razor-thin margins. Furthermore, Apple needs something that will scale with the rest of the lineup. It won't do to have a sub-$1000 box if it's at 1.6 GHz while the rest of the lineup is at 3 GHz.
The 7457 won't be.
Quote:
The only way I see a low-end box like this happening is if Apple can get IBM to make them a G3 + Altivec + RIO (or some other high-bandwidth FSB that supports DDR). This way the econoMac could scale well without heavy R&D--just replace the CPU with a faster one now and then, and up the memory speed with GHz boosts. Or even better--Apple could drop a supposedly cheaper PPC 970 in this low end box
Those would work, but I don't think we have a timeline on that sort of G4ish G3. Actually, we don't really even know if the SIMD engine in the "G3+SIMD" will be VMX, or a subset of VMX, or something totally different.
We also don't know how cheap the 970 will be, but I don't think it'll be in the price range for this machine for, oh, another year or two.
The 233MHz G3 in the original iMac reportedly cost Apple $25 a pop. That is the price point you want to hit if you're making a bargain box. After all, what does it take to run a spreadsheet, really?
Learning to read and write on the computer is becomming more accessible on the internet and popular as days go by. You'll see more people ordering world books or encyclopedias on CD-ROM than in hard cover. Examples of this kind of behavior goes on and on.
I guess you learning to read and write in on the computer too, huh?
Matsu is right, computers are just another tool. Sometimes they are appropriate as an educational tool, but most of the time they play a supplementary role, just as books should play a supplementary role to classroom discussion.
Don't forget, television and radio were marketed as "educational" devices too. Statements like "the Internet is a magical place where you can access over 1,000 books in a touch of a button, that you never have return!" smacks of the type of technological fetishization that forced computers into classrooms.
Do YOU want people who have no background in education (IT monkeys) making decisions on what tools your child learns with? How would you like an IT monkey choosing what textbooks your child uses?
I won't go into detail here, but my sister's (private) high school, influenced by board members who were higher-ups at Compaq (now fired) were responsible for the most inept technology roll-out in history. IT'S IN THE IMPLEMENTATION, STUPID!
I guess you learning to read and write in on the computer too, huh?
Is this a question or an insult? I was merely stating that as a child in elementary school, using computers was apart of advancing our reading comprehension skills, and I remember it making the whole learning process alot more fun.
Quote:
Matsu is right, computers are just another tool. Sometimes they are appropriate as an educational tool, but most of the time they play a supplementary role, just as books should play a supplementary role to classroom discussion.
Not entirely accurate, but somewhat true. I believe Matsu wasn't giving enough credit to computers than he should have regarding how much computers have (and still has) played a role in the classroom in terms of helping students learn particular subjects (from science to literature).
Quote:
Don't forget, television and radio were marketed as "educational" devices too. Statements like "the Internet is a magical place where you can access over 1,000 books in a touch of a button, that you never have return!" smacks of the type of technological fetishization that forced computers into classrooms.
Computers are more broad than television and radio, my friend, in terms of providing education, and not just the internet is used for providing that education (software, presentations, video, etc.). I was homeschooled during my high school years, and I used my computer for about 90% of the material I studied and learned, and did very well on my ACT.
Quote:
Do YOU want people who have no background in education (IT monkeys) making decisions on what tools your child learns with? How would you like an IT monkey choosing what textbooks your child uses?
I'm not sure where this is going, but the teachers or school system can select the textbooks and tools themselves (I believe that's the current system we have now in the country), maybe providing it on CD-ROM.
Quote:
I won't go into detail here, but my sister's (private) high school, influenced by board members who were higher-ups at Compaq (now fired) were responsible for the most inept technology roll-out in history. IT'S IN THE IMPLEMENTATION, STUPID!
Compaq. Need I say more? I would say this is more at fault with the people who used to be at Compaq, not the actual computer systems they got. Getting the right tools for the education requires alot of research and funding. Sounds to me like they didn't do a good job of it.
Won't be what? A dog? A slow, underperforming CPU that defies Moore's Law over and over ad infinitum? We already know Moto cannot scale their desktop CPUs, what will it take to convince Apple of this?
I fail to understand why this so-called 7457 will be any different from any other G4. Choked by ancient FSB technology, with virtually no scaling in MHz possible, and expensive. Constant supply problems leading to delays everytime Powermacs using new CPUs are introduced.
What sort of fab is Moto going to use with this dog? 180 nm? 130 nm? The rest of the industry is moving on to 90 nm and Moto is piddling along with old, dirty fabs using 20th century technology.
Ensign pulver, keyboard, kid red. Your comments betray a basic ignorance about the real state of technology in the classroom. machines are mostly expensive "carrots" to reward students with a little time away from study.
Go on, craft your doctoral thesis with references gleaned exclusively from the web.
The web and electronic library catalogues are hardly the same thing. The web is useful, but not essential and at the elementary/HS levels, the quagmire of misinformation is best avoided altogether.
A computer is not irrelevant, but the current uses are, and IT people know next to nothing about the actual "use" to which most "classroom" computers are subjected. They're time fillers for frazzled teachers. They are not working, at all, but, needless to say, there's a big industry invested in telling us all that they are.
Which is why I say, pull out ALL the computers in the classroom, and put them back in capacities where they make sense, with teachers who understand their application within a given subject.
Why do so many people, so thoroughly "trained" on various computer systems, still have so many problems? The answer is that they lack more essential skills that precede computer use.
Does the computer make anyone a better reader/writer? NO. They read more, write more, maybe... but they're not "better" Trust me, reading even my beautiful AI prose is no replacement for a well chosen anthology when it comes to really learning a language. When I sit down to write something seriously, after polluting myself around the web, I have to re-adjust my register, take a few minutes to start thinking in an active voice again, manage my hypo/para-taxis... the web makes you dumb, don't doubt it.
... excellent dissertation on computers in the classroom...
Well said, Matsu, but you didn't go far enough. The media makes you dumb. TV, advertising, movies, flashy magazines, flashy toys made out of cheap plastic, etc. Everything in our consumer society panders to the dumb because being dumb is easier than being smart and people in general are fundamentally lazy. I look at today's youth and I really have to wonder about our future.
As to computers in school and as an education tool: for me the web offers a place to look and see what papers or articles are available on a subject I'm investigating. It is quite remakable for that. However, I find few documents of interest that are directly viewable on the Web. I do find the references and then can locate where they are available and the reference numbers needed for ordering them (NTIS, USGS, etc). I just wish the Universities would open their library catalogues for public viewing.
As to search engines, they suck. I'll typically have to look through 25 pages (with google set to 100 items per page) or more to find just a couple of references. After that it's off to the Library for further research.
"man apple... you suck why can't you make a sucky computer that I can afford"
I used to help tutor HS kids... in the ghetto of dallas, even tho our computers were quite old and decrepid, we used them extensively, in fact part of everything. After school i taught them photoshop, HTML, and all sorts of fun stuff they loved it. Computers gave them the confidence and success they needed to get out of south dallas and get into the world and make a difference. It was one of my most satisfying jobs ever you know, if this graphic design crap keeps annoying me.. I will go back and become a teacher... the most under appreciated job in the history of the modern age... back on topic.
Computers are cool, Apple computers are cooler. Honestly whats marketshare mean when the buying cycles are much higher for windows than PC but all the accredited statisical information is based over 2 year periods? Your dealing with bean counters people as long as its a computer in front of kids who cares... I honestly think they should switch to an all linux or free computer for dirt dirt cheap and teach them the hard way about the web, once they get it say here's the keys to how to do it in style now help make the world around me more beautiful than it already is...
LOL. This thread has gone so far OT as to be in General Discussion now!
Excellent points by all, too. Very interesting reading. Everyone needs to keep an open mind about all this, and read and understand each others posts.
For all the 'pro-computer' people (sorry, don't know how else to say it): keep in mind all that has been accomplished without computers in schools - Einstein never had one, nor Shakespear, nor Da Vinci. Much can and has been done without computers, it depends only on the person using the tool to determine its usefulness.
For all the 'no-computer' people: look how useful and informative the net is (and thus, computers). This discussion is quite interesting, and I for one am learning a lot. It depends only on the person using the tool to determine its usefulness, but certainly no tool at all is not a good thing?
Well said, Matsu, but you didn't go far enough. The media makes you dumb. TV, advertising, movies, flashy magazines, flashy toys made out of cheap plastic, etc. Everything in our consumer society panders to the dumb because being dumb is easier than being smart and people in general are fundamentally lazy. I look at today's youth and I really have to wonder about our future.
Well said.
Actually, I look at today's adults and wonder about our present.
All educational value of computers aside, most apps that college students need training on for the "real world" are not available on Macs or Linux, which is why we always use Windows. Macs are also more difficult to manage in a large Windows environment, although Apple is working hard to correct this. If you are a pre-OSX Mac admin and want to switch to OSX, you pretty much need to dive into Unix to really keep a level of support equal to what MS provides - until the number of apps running on OSX improves and admins becase UNIX familiar or Apple's admin tools (& documentation) improve, expect the shift to MS in education to continue.
That said, I have been lobbying for a headless Mac for two years and will not build another Mac lab until I get one.
I agree, but my question is,"For the MPC7457 to have any kind of competitive performance(re: read 200MHz FSB here) wouldn't it still require copious amounts of L3 DDRsram, thus kind of negating the reduced cost of the cpu alone???
Comments
Originally posted by Matsu
The best thing to do would be to eliminate computers from the classroom altogether and then bring them back ONLY in relevant areas -- digital arts classes, web/library kiosks, maybe, just maybe, some science/computer classes. Students should be writing out their reports/labs by hand pretty much up untill their last year anyway. Technology remains more of a distraction than a help.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, I think you're taking this issue to the extreme when you say this. I strongly disagree with your reproach. Computers are the best things to have in a classroom, particularly for science and computer science classes. I work at an IT department at a private college (will be a junior this fall, majoring in CS), and know that computers in a classroom is a very good thing. You gotta remember, we're in the internet age, you can't just leave other people behind and leave them writing their papers on paper, they're going to have to learn sometime. I took a marketing class a few years ago and my professor was surprised to see we didn't have our laptops with us to take notes on. Computers should not be taken out of a classroom, they're a student's best friend for either taking notes or conducting research. Teachers here often don't have many problems or complaints with their computers regarding updates and so fourth, and if they want help, we'll do it for them, no problem. We have liasons in IT for those scenarios. I'll grant that we do have those few idiots in schools who don't get a clue about technology, but it takes time to learn these things, you need to take the leap and learn. When I see people who don't want to learn new things such as how to use a computer, I totally understand why our nation is not ranked first in the world in tests, exams, etc. You can't be close-minded about these things.
If anything, leave the computers in the classrooms. Computers are an advantage for virtually every subject in school, why would you want to leave the students at a disadvantage?
I apologize for the bickering, but that's just my 2 cents.
Does a grade-schooler "need" to do research on the web? No, if they go all the way through to doctoral programs, they won't need to do so. Simple knowledge of library catologues will do the trick.
Is technology irrelevant? No, but it does not replace the foundations of any discipline. Children really need to know how to read and write, and computer screens will NOT help them in most cases, not more than books and pencils.
Science? We try to force the computer to replace a ton of hands on experimentation that it simply shouldn't have to do. Grade eight students aren't modelling nuclear explosions, they don't need cheesy computer simulations to show them changes of state, or chemical properties, there are hundreds of safe experiments that can be done to demonstrate the information presented in a textbook. If a computer is a around to show them a simulation of fetal development, or the center of the sun, or a distant astronomical formation, then that's a great addition, but it doesn't replace the value of knowing something with concretely, not just in the mind. The mind, in turn, is a better way of knowing than the screen, which too often gives the mind an excuse to rest.
With a computer screen, we can all pretend to be DaVinci, but we really can't be like him, unless we train our instruments -- our senses and our minds -- to the utmost precision.
Computers can aid that, but used haphazardly, as compensation for bodies and books, they hinder it.
Just one decent anthology to take children through grade school would add more to their understanding of language than any computer.
Computers where applicable, not everywhere, and certainly not in every classroom.
Originally posted by Matsu
Does a grade-schooler "need" to do research on the web? No, if they go all the way through to doctoral programs, they won't need to do so. Simple knowledge of library catologues will do the trick.
This is the single most deluded statement I have ever read on the internet. And that's saying something.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
This is the single most deluded statement I have ever read on the internet. And that's saying something.
Agreed. Now if that one library in your neighborhood housed thousands and thousands of virtually every book on any given subject and was made avialable instantly for free and did not need to be returned in 10 days, then yes, the internet is useless.
No, if they go all the way through to doctoral programs, they won't need to do so. Simple knowledge of library catologues will do the trick.
ridiculous.
Does a grade-schooler "need" to do research on the web? No, if they go all the way through to doctoral programs, they won't need to do so. Simple knowledge of library catologues will do the trick.
In elementary school, I remember using both the internet and the library for doing research. It's always nice to have an alternative, and when children learn to use computers and the internet, they become better with it, and become more efficient with their studies. I don't see how this is an issue when computers have made it more fun and easier for children to learn certain subjects, and when they wish to get into it hardcore, they can do so with hands-on material in middle school and up. Library catologues take too long unless it's done on a computer via internet or software they may provide. And why not reserve the book/material at the same time? Using tools of the time will brighten the minds of the future, to only further the development of the human race, not using tools we used back in the day.
Is technology irrelevant? No, but it does not replace the foundations of any discipline. Children really need to know how to read and write, and computer screens will NOT help them in most cases, not more than books and pencils.
I don't mean to be taking sides here or confront your thoughts in a hostile manner, but this just simply isn't true. Learning to read and write on the computer is becomming more accessible on the internet and popular as days go by. You'll see more people ordering world books or encyclopedias on CD-ROM than in hard cover. Examples of this kind of behavior goes on and on.
Science? We try to force the computer to replace a ton of hands on experimentation that it simply shouldn't have to do. Grade eight students aren't modelling nuclear explosions, they don't need cheesy computer simulations to show them changes of state, or chemical properties, there are hundreds of safe experiments that can be done to demonstrate the information presented in a textbook. If a computer is a around to show them a simulation of fetal development, or the center of the sun, or a distant astronomical formation, then that's a great addition, but it doesn't replace the value of knowing something with concretely, not just in the mind. The mind, in turn, is a better way of knowing than the screen, which too often gives the mind an excuse to rest.
I agree, knowing these things hands-on is different than learning it on a machine, but most of the concepts they're learning cannot be learned hands-on (nuclear explosions, center of the sun, the planetary system and its properties, etc.), and thus must be provided on a machine. You can look at a computer as a teacher's aid, providing limitless amounts of information by expert scientists or researchers or even the teachers themselves. I had it in middle school and helped me tremendously with things I didn't understand. If anything, it should be mandatory for schools to provide computers to youngsters, it can benefit them greatly in the learning process. It can show them how to perform certain hands-on experiments when a computer is unnecessary for certain projects, too, even though teachers are there for that anyway. My point is, computers are a huge benefit in the science subject, no doubt about it in my mind. I can't stress this enough.
Computers where applicable, not everywhere, and certainly not in every classroom.
Not everywhere, yes, but where it might benefit, definitely so.
The only way I see a low-end box like this happening is if Apple can get IBM to make them a G3 + Altivec + RIO (or some other high-bandwidth FSB that supports DDR). This way the econoMac could scale well without heavy R&D--just replace the CPU with a faster one now and then, and up the memory speed with GHz boosts. Or even better--Apple could drop a supposedly cheaper PPC 970 in this low end box
A G4-based low-end box introduces all sorts of problems with obsolescence that shouldn't plague a new model. Within a year, a G4 box with SDR and 166 MHz FSB will be horribly antiquated next to the PPC 970 based Macs (and some would argue such technology is already antiquated). In a box with little to no upgrade/expandability options, such tech will be a deal-breaker. And this will be doubly frustrating to Apple and Mac users alike, because it will not be Apple that determines the specs on this low end box, but Moto. Do we really want Moto dictating the specs on such an important product for Apple?
What I'm saying is that a low-end headless Mac is only a possibility IF this fabled G3+SIMD+RIO is for real, or if Apple has the guts to design the box around a PPC 970. And why not? It's the perfect chip for a low end box--Apple can neuter the memory architecture and STILL get bitchin' performance out of it. It's got plenty of headroom, so Apple can crank the high end up to 1.8-2.2 GHz, while leaving the low end at 1.0-1.2 GHz.
Forget about the G4, it's a dead horse that's only good for kicking.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
I suspect the G4 is too expensive for a cheap, low-end box with razor-thin margins. Furthermore, Apple needs something that will scale with the rest of the lineup. It won't do to have a sub-$1000 box if it's at 1.6 GHz while the rest of the lineup is at 3 GHz.
The 7457 won't be.
The only way I see a low-end box like this happening is if Apple can get IBM to make them a G3 + Altivec + RIO (or some other high-bandwidth FSB that supports DDR). This way the econoMac could scale well without heavy R&D--just replace the CPU with a faster one now and then, and up the memory speed with GHz boosts. Or even better--Apple could drop a supposedly cheaper PPC 970 in this low end box
Those would work, but I don't think we have a timeline on that sort of G4ish G3. Actually, we don't really even know if the SIMD engine in the "G3+SIMD" will be VMX, or a subset of VMX, or something totally different.
We also don't know how cheap the 970 will be, but I don't think it'll be in the price range for this machine for, oh, another year or two.
The 233MHz G3 in the original iMac reportedly cost Apple $25 a pop. That is the price point you want to hit if you're making a bargain box. After all, what does it take to run a spreadsheet, really?
Originally posted by SoopaDrive
Learning to read and write on the computer is becomming more accessible on the internet and popular as days go by. You'll see more people ordering world books or encyclopedias on CD-ROM than in hard cover. Examples of this kind of behavior goes on and on.
I guess you learning to read and write in on the computer too, huh?
Matsu is right, computers are just another tool. Sometimes they are appropriate as an educational tool, but most of the time they play a supplementary role, just as books should play a supplementary role to classroom discussion.
Don't forget, television and radio were marketed as "educational" devices too. Statements like "the Internet is a magical place where you can access over 1,000 books in a touch of a button, that you never have return!" smacks of the type of technological fetishization that forced computers into classrooms.
Do YOU want people who have no background in education (IT monkeys) making decisions on what tools your child learns with? How would you like an IT monkey choosing what textbooks your child uses?
I won't go into detail here, but my sister's (private) high school, influenced by board members who were higher-ups at Compaq (now fired) were responsible for the most inept technology roll-out in history. IT'S IN THE IMPLEMENTATION, STUPID!
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
I guess you learning to read and write in on the computer too, huh?
Is this a question or an insult? I was merely stating that as a child in elementary school, using computers was apart of advancing our reading comprehension skills, and I remember it making the whole learning process alot more fun.
Matsu is right, computers are just another tool. Sometimes they are appropriate as an educational tool, but most of the time they play a supplementary role, just as books should play a supplementary role to classroom discussion.
Not entirely accurate, but somewhat true. I believe Matsu wasn't giving enough credit to computers than he should have regarding how much computers have (and still has) played a role in the classroom in terms of helping students learn particular subjects (from science to literature).
Don't forget, television and radio were marketed as "educational" devices too. Statements like "the Internet is a magical place where you can access over 1,000 books in a touch of a button, that you never have return!" smacks of the type of technological fetishization that forced computers into classrooms.
Computers are more broad than television and radio, my friend, in terms of providing education, and not just the internet is used for providing that education (software, presentations, video, etc.). I was homeschooled during my high school years, and I used my computer for about 90% of the material I studied and learned, and did very well on my ACT.
Do YOU want people who have no background in education (IT monkeys) making decisions on what tools your child learns with? How would you like an IT monkey choosing what textbooks your child uses?
I'm not sure where this is going, but the teachers or school system can select the textbooks and tools themselves (I believe that's the current system we have now in the country), maybe providing it on CD-ROM.
I won't go into detail here, but my sister's (private) high school, influenced by board members who were higher-ups at Compaq (now fired) were responsible for the most inept technology roll-out in history. IT'S IN THE IMPLEMENTATION, STUPID!
Compaq. Need I say more? I would say this is more at fault with the people who used to be at Compaq, not the actual computer systems they got. Getting the right tools for the education requires alot of research and funding. Sounds to me like they didn't do a good job of it.
Originally posted by Amorph
The 7457 won't be.
Won't be what? A dog? A slow, underperforming CPU that defies Moore's Law over and over ad infinitum? We already know Moto cannot scale their desktop CPUs, what will it take to convince Apple of this?
I fail to understand why this so-called 7457 will be any different from any other G4. Choked by ancient FSB technology, with virtually no scaling in MHz possible, and expensive. Constant supply problems leading to delays everytime Powermacs using new CPUs are introduced.
What sort of fab is Moto going to use with this dog? 180 nm? 130 nm? The rest of the industry is moving on to 90 nm and Moto is piddling along with old, dirty fabs using 20th century technology.
Go on, craft your doctoral thesis with references gleaned exclusively from the web.
The web and electronic library catalogues are hardly the same thing. The web is useful, but not essential and at the elementary/HS levels, the quagmire of misinformation is best avoided altogether.
A computer is not irrelevant, but the current uses are, and IT people know next to nothing about the actual "use" to which most "classroom" computers are subjected. They're time fillers for frazzled teachers. They are not working, at all, but, needless to say, there's a big industry invested in telling us all that they are.
Which is why I say, pull out ALL the computers in the classroom, and put them back in capacities where they make sense, with teachers who understand their application within a given subject.
Why do so many people, so thoroughly "trained" on various computer systems, still have so many problems? The answer is that they lack more essential skills that precede computer use.
Does the computer make anyone a better reader/writer? NO. They read more, write more, maybe... but they're not "better" Trust me, reading even my beautiful AI prose is no replacement for a well chosen anthology when it comes to really learning a language. When I sit down to write something seriously, after polluting myself around the web, I have to re-adjust my register, take a few minutes to start thinking in an active voice again, manage my hypo/para-taxis... the web makes you dumb, don't doubt it.
Originally posted by Matsu
... excellent dissertation on computers in the classroom...
Well said, Matsu, but you didn't go far enough. The media makes you dumb. TV, advertising, movies, flashy magazines, flashy toys made out of cheap plastic, etc. Everything in our consumer society panders to the dumb because being dumb is easier than being smart and people in general are fundamentally lazy. I look at today's youth and I really have to wonder about our future.
As to computers in school and as an education tool: for me the web offers a place to look and see what papers or articles are available on a subject I'm investigating. It is quite remakable for that. However, I find few documents of interest that are directly viewable on the Web. I do find the references and then can locate where they are available and the reference numbers needed for ordering them (NTIS, USGS, etc). I just wish the Universities would open their library catalogues for public viewing.
As to search engines, they suck. I'll typically have to look through 25 pages (with google set to 100 items per page) or more to find just a couple of references. After that it's off to the Library for further research.
"man apple... you suck why can't you make a sucky computer that I can afford"
I used to help tutor HS kids... in the ghetto of dallas, even tho our computers were quite old and decrepid, we used them extensively, in fact part of everything. After school i taught them photoshop, HTML, and all sorts of fun stuff they loved it. Computers gave them the confidence and success they needed to get out of south dallas and get into the world and make a difference. It was one of my most satisfying jobs ever you know, if this graphic design crap keeps annoying me.. I will go back and become a teacher... the most under appreciated job in the history of the modern age... back on topic.
Computers are cool, Apple computers are cooler. Honestly whats marketshare mean when the buying cycles are much higher for windows than PC but all the accredited statisical information is based over 2 year periods? Your dealing with bean counters people as long as its a computer in front of kids who cares... I honestly think they should switch to an all linux or free computer for dirt dirt cheap and teach them the hard way about the web, once they get it say here's the keys to how to do it in style now help make the world around me more beautiful than it already is...
Excellent points by all, too. Very interesting reading. Everyone needs to keep an open mind about all this, and read and understand each others posts.
For all the 'pro-computer' people (sorry, don't know how else to say it): keep in mind all that has been accomplished without computers in schools - Einstein never had one, nor Shakespear, nor Da Vinci. Much can and has been done without computers, it depends only on the person using the tool to determine its usefulness.
For all the 'no-computer' people: look how useful and informative the net is (and thus, computers). This discussion is quite interesting, and I for one am learning a lot. It depends only on the person using the tool to determine its usefulness, but certainly no tool at all is not a good thing?
Carry on...
Originally posted by Programmer
Well said, Matsu, but you didn't go far enough. The media makes you dumb. TV, advertising, movies, flashy magazines, flashy toys made out of cheap plastic, etc. Everything in our consumer society panders to the dumb because being dumb is easier than being smart and people in general are fundamentally lazy. I look at today's youth and I really have to wonder about our future.
Well said.
Actually, I look at today's adults and wonder about our present.
That said, I have been lobbying for a headless Mac for two years and will not build another Mac lab until I get one.
Damn you Matsu!
Originally posted by Amorph
The 7457 won't be.
I agree, but my question is,"For the MPC7457 to have any kind of competitive performance(re: read 200MHz FSB here) wouldn't it still require copious amounts of L3 DDRsram, thus kind of negating the reduced cost of the cpu alone???
I'm constantly in a state of complete confusion.