Tech journalism isn't much, granted, but it's bound to pay more than AI postings. There must be some other interests more worthy of your writing, music perhaps?
The skill is graphic design, music, videography, accounting, whatever - the same thing a skill has always been. The software is a tool.
Well said. The skill of executing on a craft has changed as it always changes when new tools and techniques are developed, but the fundamental skill remains domain specific and should remain domain specific. Better tools require less skill to use the tool, and leave more opportunity for the actual creative skill to be exercised.
Quote:
And while everything you said about car maintenance is well taken, GM still designs their engines to run for as long as possible out of tune on small amounts of dirty fluids, just because they know full well that people don't tune their engines, flush their radiators or change their oil as often as they should, but they also understand that blaming the consumer is a dangerous strategy.
And to sharpen the counter-point to the original argument: the need for drivers to have tire changing skills isn't a result of a deliberate design choice for that to be so, it is the lack of a better design alternative. Such alternatives now exist in the form of run-flat tires. Why develop those if the preferable alternative (to have drivers change their own tire) is already in place?
Quote:
In industrial design circles, the blinking 12:00 is universally - and, I believe, properly - considered to be a design failure. People set clocks all the time, when the interface to set them isn't some piece of crap designed by an intellectually lazy engineer.
Absolutely, and most decent modern VCRs will automatically set their clock based on a transmitted signal rather than requiring the user to set it at all.
The current state of commercial software is (in general) crap. It crashes far too often, it is too hard to use, it is too easy to mis-use, and it frequently gets in the way of doing actual work. This is not the fault of the user, and the user should not be expected to have to become expert in these hopelessly arcane and confused systems of excessive complexity. It is possible to design far superior software tools to what is usually delivered, but developers get away with (or are forced into) delivering what they do because of the kind of mindset advocated by MacVoyer, and short-sighted buying decisions made by people holding the purse strings but not using the product. The aggregate intellectual and economic cost of this kind of f#$%ing around is staggering, and to say that this is the way it should be is increadibly naive and short sighted. Product should be held to a higher standard, with quality emphasized over feature lists and flashy new baubles, but instead people gobble up the marketing pablum that they are fed rather than truly evaluating product on its practical merit. We are told what to believe, rather than making our own decisions based on real data.
Well said. The skill of executing on a craft has changed as it always changes when new tools and techniques are developed, but the fundamental skill remains domain specific and should remain domain specific. Better tools require less skill to use the tool, and leave more opportunity for the actual creative skill to be exercised.
This is totally at odds with reality. As tools get better they become more complex often demanding more of thier user. A perfect example is in the machining industry, many a machinest could not make the transistion from manual machinery to CNC machinery. The tools got a lot better but the demands on the user increased significantly.
It is very possible for a software package to offer all sorts of opportunity yet go wanting for usage because the user wasn't willing or capable of learning to access those opportunities.
Usually what happens is that when a software package removes skill from the equation you end up loosing the ability to exercise any skill at all. Going back to the machinest, what happens in many cases instead of a using and developing skills you end up with an operator. The skills development goes to the specialist who is again involved deeply in the machine and its software.
I can see where your argument is in fact the case, but I think in general the truth lies in an opposite direction.
Quote:
And to sharpen the counter-point to the original argument: the need for drivers to have tire changing skills isn't a result of a deliberate design choice for that to be so, it is the lack of a better design alternative. Such alternatives now exist in the form of run-flat tires. Why develop those if the preferable alternative (to have drivers change their own tire) is already in place?
There are actually good reasons for run flat tires to exist beyond the issue with the drivers changing the tire. One of these is safety. Another is the need to maintain functionality after having your tires shoot out.
Quote:
Absolutely, and most decent modern VCRs will automatically set their clock based on a transmitted signal rather than requiring the user to set it at all.
I turned that feature off also. What I would really love is for the manufactures to provide a way to turn off that light source and only that light source. Then I'd be happy.
Some times an assumption is made on the part of a manufacture that simply is at odds with the customer usage of the machine. Assuming that a person will want a extra feature is a mistake in design. I reject completely the idea that a bunch of buttons is the way to a consumers heart.
Quote:
The current state of commercial software is (in general) crap. It crashes far too often, it is too hard to use, it is too easy to mis-use, and it frequently gets in the way of doing actual work. This is not the fault of the user, and the user should not be expected to have to become expert in these hopelessly arcane and confused systems of excessive complexity.
Developing software is expensive, it is not to much to expect a little effort on the part of the user. If the extra intelligence in the software is trivial it would be better to design the user out of the equation altogether. When you are paying somebody to use software there must be an economic reason to do so.
Beyond that I agree with your comments. Much of the software out there sucks but nothing is perfect, not even that CNC mill mentioned above. That is what you are paying the human for, to interfaces and apply intelligent adjustment to the errors the machine produces.
Quote:
It is possible to design far superior software tools to what is usually delivered, but developers get away with (or are forced into) delivering what they do because of the kind of mindset advocated by MacVoyer, and short-sighted buying decisions made by people holding the purse strings but not using the product. The aggregate intellectual and economic cost of this kind of f#$%ing around is staggering, and to say that this is the way it should be is increadibly naive and short sighted.
Yep see this everyday at work. People in charge would rather see a whole corporation struggle than to admit that a decision they made years ago was pretty bad.
Quote:
Product should be held to a higher standard, with quality emphasized over feature lists and flashy new baubles, but instead people gobble up the marketing pablum that they are fed rather than truly evaluating product on its practical merit. We are told what to believe, rather than making our own decisions based on real data.
I've seen this to no end in the automation world. The worst thing in this field is that once something is implemented changes become next to impossible.
The eMac is an education machine and the whole appeal is it being a AIO. Apple may offer a eMac flat panel someday but I don't think right now. If Apple were offer a consumer headless, which I don't think they'll ever do, they'd need to really do it. Lower the price to $1,000 and offer a bundled 17" display at $1,299 or get a 20" display for less than $2,000. The current display pricing is a major problem, especially without a lower priced 17" display. Honestly the better option would be for Apple to allow the iMac's video card to be updated and keep chipping away at the price when possible. If they could bring each unit down by $100-$300 that would be nice. If the iMac's started at $1,000 and maybe stoped at $1,599 or $1,699 that would be good. Face it, Apple loves the AIO concept and the only time they've offered a headless consumer was the Cube and it was an untenable product. It was neat but ahead of its time and a deadend. I'm sure Apple learned a lot from it that went into the FP iMac and the G5 iMac. But why invest so much time and money in the AOL concept to give it up now? Jobs/Apple loves the "concept" computer for consumers. Even if Apple offered a headless they would need to put it into a "concept" cute package that would force some kind of trade off in terms of price or tech specs. Jobs has a certain feeling about tech and what consumers want or should want and he goes with that. They lucked out with the iPod and I'm sure hope to force the industry to follow them. Their desktop concepts may be out of step with the industry but they clearly don't care.
This is totally at odds with reality. As tools get better they become more complex often demanding more of thier user. A perfect example is in the machining industry, many a machinest could not make the transistion from manual machinery to CNC machinery. The tools got a lot better but the demands on the user increased significantly.
I've seen the situation you're talking about many times. However, I have also seen a new tool come along that does a better job of exposing the underlying creative skill while reducing or minimizing the skill required to manipulate the tool. Note that I'm not saying that a tool doesn't require skill to use, just that better tools let you work the problem instead of working the tool. Typically a task can be done multiple ways and people will use the method/tool that they have the skill for, but they all need the base skill to do the task -- i.e. no matter what tool you use to draw with, you need the underlying "drawing skill".
Quote:
Usually what happens is that when a software package removes skill from the equation you end up loosing the ability to exercise any skill at all. Going back to the machinest, what happens in many cases instead of a using and developing skills you end up with an operator. The skills development goes to the specialist who is again involved deeply in the machine and its software.
Yes, in the case of automation the need for the skill itself is computerized and that skill in the human is rendered redundant. That wasn't the case I was talking about, but I do agree that it happens often. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not.
Quote:
There are actually good reasons for run flat tires to exist beyond the issue with the drivers changing the tire. One of these is safety. Another is the need to maintain functionality after having your tires shoot out.
Right -- it often isn't safe for a car owner to get out and change his tire. Potentially due to the presence of high velocity projectiles.
Quote:
I turned that feature off also. What I would really love is for the manufactures to provide a way to turn off that light source and only that light source. Then I'd be happy.
Some times an assumption is made on the part of a manufacture that simply is at odds with the customer usage of the machine. Assuming that a person will want a extra feature is a mistake in design. I reject completely the idea that a bunch of buttons is the way to a consumers heart.
No argument there. I'm not claiming that most consumer electronic companies have any real UI design talent.
Quote:
Developing software is expensive, it is not to much to expect a little effort on the part of the user. If the extra intelligence in the software is trivial it would be better to design the user out of the equation altogether. When you are paying somebody to use software there must be an economic reason to do so.
But the economic reason is usually not to use the software. A goal of software developers is (or should be) to maximize their user's productivity. The user is always going to exert effort using the sofware, but as much of that effort as possible should go to completing the task, not struggling to use the software.
Quote:
Beyond that I agree with your comments. Much of the software out there sucks but nothing is perfect, not even that CNC mill mentioned above. That is what you are paying the human for, to interfaces and apply intelligent adjustment to the errors the machine produces.
I'm just advocating closer to perfect. Right now we're usually a long way off. And yes, companies pay humans for their intelligence... so why squander so much of that in struggling with the oddities of the tool? Its like giving somebody a broken hammer to work with -- you can still hammer things with it, but there is a lot of struggling and effort that goes into what should be a straightforward task. If by providing a proper hammer they could go from 100 to 10000 nails per day, wouldn't you buy the better hammer?
Quote:
I've seen this to no end in the automation world. The worst thing in this field is that once something is implemented changes become next to impossible.
Again, I consider that a different, albeit related, topic. I'm talking about tools that allow humans to leverage their creative skills, not tools that have or replace human skills. I'd argue that inflexible automation like you describe can be improved as well, but we're already WAAAAY off topic in this thread so we should probably give it back to the original discussion.
Well, although some of you guys seem to talk about computer ethics...
I'm sorry for the lengthy digression, but it goes to the philosophical underpinnings behind the eMac: That there is a lot to be said for a simple, self-contained, rugged machine that you just pick up, set down, and run. It's always 1984, and someone always has to argue the merits of the Mac. But, again, I apologize for the lengthy discursions.
The CRT is there for durability reasons (and sorry Matsu, but at this point I've heard that affirmed from too many educators to believe that it's just Apple spin), given that lab computers, and especially lab computers used by kids who are too young to be trusted with iBooks, have very hard lives. That fact that CRTs are sturdy and cheap certainly doesn't hurt.
Considering that the eMac is engineered for a fairly specific set of needs, I expect evolutionary change for a good long time. It'll go G5, eventually. But the basic idea, of a substantial, rugged, monolith with a CRT will carry on, and the current shape is close enough to ideal that there's not much to do with it. Any changes will be fairly minor (shorter-neck CRT, etc.). If the eMac jumps to a flat screen it'll probably be OLED, which, once they lick the issues it has with color decomposition, is also cheap and rugged.
Quote:
I hope this new eMac has larger CRT than current 17in. what about new 15 in. eMac for kids, and at least 20 in. for college students like me.
Apple's sales of the old 15" iMac dropped down into irrelevancy right before the eMac came out. I don't think there's much of anything there. a 20" eMac would be... substantial, and intruding pricewise into iMac territory.
Quote:
Well.. It's eMac, not iMac. So price issue is more important than simplicity and formfactor.
Not really. Because of the K-6 market it serves, eMac has to stay in the tradition of monolithic education AIOs that Apple has offered since the Performa era. Form factor really matters here, and simplicity is not optional in the consumer or edu markets generally.
Typically a task can be done multiple ways and people will use the method/tool that they have the skill for, but they all need the base skill to do the task -- i.e. no matter what tool you use to draw with, you need the underlying "drawing skill".
It is interesting with CAD that it is still faster for somebody to draw on paper than it is to use a CAD system. so apparently there is still work to be done with this software to expose that skill. CADs strength comes from the electronics state of the document.
Quote:
Right -- it often isn't safe for a car owner to get out and change his tire. Potentially due to the presence of high velocity projectiles.
One of the reasons I stay out of the city around here :0
Quote:
If by providing a proper hammer they could go from 100 to 10000 nails per day, wouldn't you buy the better hammer?
Interesting! With todays software it is like going from 100 to 101 nails a day except on some days it may be 60 nails a day. A good hammer gives one immediate benefits, software seldom does. In fact getting new software up and running is expensive. So you see I'm not really in disagreement with you.
Quote:
New eMacs anyone?
The eMac is an interesting subject. It is a machine that I at once admire and at the same time find hard to accept for my own usage. Here are some ideas which might improve the machine:
Processor upgrade >> While I don't see a 64 bit processor as an absolute requirement it does need a substantial upgrade to boost performance. I'm thinking Apple will wait on Motorola here, they should have their new processors out in time for the spring update the EMac goes through.
Memory >> More base meomory always helps but maximum addressable memory should be increased.
Compact Flash >> A compact flash reader or multicard reader accessible from the front.
At least one PCI-Express slot >> yes I want an expansion slot in this machine though that seems to break hearts. The idea is slots with a one or two lanes for lower speed devices not a graphics port. I only suggest PCI-Express as you might as well go with what is new, plus it saves power and space.
Wide Aspect Ratio >> This I'd love to see but I'm not sure how they would fit it into the case and remain attractive.
GPU >> While I have nothing against the soldered in graphics they really need to solder in something a bit better. It also should be a bit better than the 5200 they use everywhere else.
Giga E >> Why not give the machine this capability.
Audio >> Hopefully Apples new agreement with Apple will free them up to implement significant improvements to their audio hardware. Further I'd love to see an old fashion volumne knob on PC's.
Processor upgrade >> While I don't see a 64 bit processor as an absolute requirement it does need a substantial upgrade to boost performance. I'm thinking Apple will wait on Motorola here, they should have their new processors out in time for the spring update the EMac goes through.
Spring update? What about a fall upgrade? The thing is over 6 months old now and it was no great shakes when it came out.Why cant apple understand their market share is so small mainly because they try to push out of date hardware for caviar prices?
The biggest argument about the eMac (and I would suggest has been over looked here) is it's ability to run, edit and output video ? especially as DVD.
This is the sole reason why Apple should put a G5 in the eMac. Cheap video production in schools.
Limited local storage but enough to process several hours of capture. More powerful video for faster rendering but not huge (64MB). Usual Superdrive option. Ram is acknowleged to 2GB (via two slots). Nothing else needs to be added.
The only difference between it and the iMac is form factor for which a premium is charged.
Interesting! With todays software it is like going from 100 to 101 nails a day except on some days it may be 60 nails a day. A good hammer gives one immediate benefits, software seldom does. In fact getting new software up and running is expensive. So you see I'm not really in disagreement with you.
Ha! The last 3 updates to Office for Windows has been like going from 100 to 99, to 98, to 97... with a short side trip to 4 each time due to learning a new version of the interface and struggling with the configuration issues. But MS continues to sell it (to management/IT) on the basis that it can hammer any kind of nail (and screws too, but hammering screws is usually counter productive), meanwhile they make sure that no other hammer maker can stay in business. And DevStudio is extremely frustrating -- it lets you work in spurts of up to 1000, shows you how 10000 might be possible, but regularly trips you up so that you drop to less than 20 every so often... and then finally explodes so that you get a zero day at least once a month.
Anyhow, I dunno about you're notions about the eMac. I doubt we'll see anything better than a 5200 for the GPU... but I don't think that's the end of the world, either. For their target market the price point is far more important. The comment by bicubic about needing a G5 for doing video in schools is a good one too: iLife could be quite compelling to educators. Also, Apple probably needs something to use up their 1.6 GHz G5s. Amorph is probably right about the CRT which makes widescreen unlikely, I think. For the other stuff, if they go G5 they'll most likely use the same chipset as the new iMac in order to go for economies of scale. That new chipset might actually be cheaper than the old G4 one which is another motivation to go G5.
[B]The biggest argument about the eMac (and I would suggest has been over looked here) is it's ability to run, edit and output video ? especially as DVD.
This is the sole reason why Apple should put a G5 in the eMac. Cheap video production in schools.
It has been a long time since I was in school, the thought of video production seems a bit out of place.
The G5 certianly would be nice but my thought was that a G4 with integrated memory control would produce a very snappy and cheap eMac. This is what I though Apple might wait for as it seems possible that the chip will be available aboutthe time Apple gets ready for school sales in the late spring.
Quote:
Limited local storage but enough to process several hours of capture. More powerful video for faster rendering but not huge (64MB). Usual Superdrive option. Ram is acknowleged to 2GB (via two slots). Nothing else needs to be added.
About the only thing I would add is the highspeed networking. Well that and a built in card reader as I mentioned before. With GigaE becoming so cheap and the real advantages that server storage offer schools this would seem to be a no brainer.
On the other hand Apple seems to have castrated the iMac Ethernet so maybe this is an impossibility with the current management team at Apple.
I did have this wild idea flash through my head that Apple should come up with a USB expansion bay. A place where one can plug in the cardreader I could make use of or what ever one would desire. I really hate the dangle of USB cables especially for something that would not normally be moved around.
Quote:
The only difference between it and the iMac is form factor for which a premium is charged.
Well that is the way it was but it really doesn't have to be that way in the future. Sure Apple could completely recycle the iMac design into the eMac but that would really limit what they could do for their customers. I suspect that they could deliver an eMac with the same set of chips in the iMac with significant differences that would help maintain its attractivness to educators and the rest of the eMac base.
As the owner of 2 eMacs I am very interested in the next upgrade. As long at they get more powerful, I don't care what cpu they get. G4 or G5, either way is fine for me. I'm confident that Apple will do a nice job of reving them up. But on my wish list, I hope they make them more quiet! I would think that they have learned a lot about making quiet computers considering the new iMac. I will buy a new eMac if they are more powerful and more quiet than the current models.
I think a G5 1.6 eMac will land it right in-between the new iBooks and the iMac. Interesting about the front-side bus speed (though no surprise) and I would guess that Apple will choke the eMac right here. Similar to the pattern exhibited in the new G5 1.8 SP tower ? a discrete point of difference.
Well that's a nice clear illustration of the effects of memory bandwidth on system performance. Note that most tests experienced little or no degradation, while the media streaming intensive task experienced a hit directly proportional to the speed difference of the bus. That speed hit is the worst case, and less bandwidth bound tasks will experience less of a hit. Since there is probably a significant cost to the high speed bus in terms of components and heat generated, I think running at 1/3rd bus speed in their consumer level machines is a fine decision. Considering the cost savings the new PM1.8x1 makes a reasonable tradeoff as well, IMO. If you need the bandwidth, spend the money.
The eMac has constantly been underestimated as more than adequete "non-entry" Mac that could hold off G5s even right now. This AMUG review says it all.
The eMac has constantly been underestimated as more than adequete "non-entry" Mac that could hold off G5s even right now. This AMUG review says it all.
The emperor has no clothes. Sorry, those tests just don't fly. They seemed to have been cherry picked specifically to make the eMac look good. It does not matter how fast GB opens or imports a song to iTunes. What matters is how many midi tracks you can record before the eMac chokes. Does not system start up and shut down have more to do with what you have loaded in memory and processes working behind the scenes than anything else? Would not a PM have much more of that going on than a typical eMac? It seems unworthy to compare a dual PM to an eMac if all you are going to do is play a game on a low setting or view one Safari window or open and close a demanding app without actually using it or checking email or writing a letter to grandma. Obviously, if that is all you want to do, then it would be stupid to purchase a PM. It does not suggest the PM is a bad value or that the eMac is a good one. It does suggest that if one has little to no computing needs, an eMac is a smarter choice than a PM. Who didn't already know that?
Sorry, those tests just don't fly. They seemed to have been cherry picked specifically to make the eMac look good.
Well of course they are -- the point of the article was to show that the eMac is a capable computer and worth using if you don't need to do heavy lifting. This is true, and lots of people do just fine with an eMac... some better than with a PowerMac because they don't want to mess with more wires or such a large and noisy box.
Comments
Originally posted by Amorph
The skill is graphic design, music, videography, accounting, whatever - the same thing a skill has always been. The software is a tool.
Well said. The skill of executing on a craft has changed as it always changes when new tools and techniques are developed, but the fundamental skill remains domain specific and should remain domain specific. Better tools require less skill to use the tool, and leave more opportunity for the actual creative skill to be exercised.
And while everything you said about car maintenance is well taken, GM still designs their engines to run for as long as possible out of tune on small amounts of dirty fluids, just because they know full well that people don't tune their engines, flush their radiators or change their oil as often as they should, but they also understand that blaming the consumer is a dangerous strategy.
And to sharpen the counter-point to the original argument: the need for drivers to have tire changing skills isn't a result of a deliberate design choice for that to be so, it is the lack of a better design alternative. Such alternatives now exist in the form of run-flat tires. Why develop those if the preferable alternative (to have drivers change their own tire) is already in place?
In industrial design circles, the blinking 12:00 is universally - and, I believe, properly - considered to be a design failure. People set clocks all the time, when the interface to set them isn't some piece of crap designed by an intellectually lazy engineer.
Absolutely, and most decent modern VCRs will automatically set their clock based on a transmitted signal rather than requiring the user to set it at all.
The current state of commercial software is (in general) crap. It crashes far too often, it is too hard to use, it is too easy to mis-use, and it frequently gets in the way of doing actual work. This is not the fault of the user, and the user should not be expected to have to become expert in these hopelessly arcane and confused systems of excessive complexity. It is possible to design far superior software tools to what is usually delivered, but developers get away with (or are forced into) delivering what they do because of the kind of mindset advocated by MacVoyer, and short-sighted buying decisions made by people holding the purse strings but not using the product. The aggregate intellectual and economic cost of this kind of f#$%ing around is staggering, and to say that this is the way it should be is increadibly naive and short sighted. Product should be held to a higher standard, with quality emphasized over feature lists and flashy new baubles, but instead people gobble up the marketing pablum that they are fed rather than truly evaluating product on its practical merit. We are told what to believe, rather than making our own decisions based on real data.
Originally posted by Programmer
Well said. The skill of executing on a craft has changed as it always changes when new tools and techniques are developed, but the fundamental skill remains domain specific and should remain domain specific. Better tools require less skill to use the tool, and leave more opportunity for the actual creative skill to be exercised.
This is totally at odds with reality. As tools get better they become more complex often demanding more of thier user. A perfect example is in the machining industry, many a machinest could not make the transistion from manual machinery to CNC machinery. The tools got a lot better but the demands on the user increased significantly.
It is very possible for a software package to offer all sorts of opportunity yet go wanting for usage because the user wasn't willing or capable of learning to access those opportunities.
Usually what happens is that when a software package removes skill from the equation you end up loosing the ability to exercise any skill at all. Going back to the machinest, what happens in many cases instead of a using and developing skills you end up with an operator. The skills development goes to the specialist who is again involved deeply in the machine and its software.
I can see where your argument is in fact the case, but I think in general the truth lies in an opposite direction.
And to sharpen the counter-point to the original argument: the need for drivers to have tire changing skills isn't a result of a deliberate design choice for that to be so, it is the lack of a better design alternative. Such alternatives now exist in the form of run-flat tires. Why develop those if the preferable alternative (to have drivers change their own tire) is already in place?
There are actually good reasons for run flat tires to exist beyond the issue with the drivers changing the tire. One of these is safety. Another is the need to maintain functionality after having your tires shoot out.
Absolutely, and most decent modern VCRs will automatically set their clock based on a transmitted signal rather than requiring the user to set it at all.
I turned that feature off also. What I would really love is for the manufactures to provide a way to turn off that light source and only that light source. Then I'd be happy.
Some times an assumption is made on the part of a manufacture that simply is at odds with the customer usage of the machine. Assuming that a person will want a extra feature is a mistake in design. I reject completely the idea that a bunch of buttons is the way to a consumers heart.
The current state of commercial software is (in general) crap. It crashes far too often, it is too hard to use, it is too easy to mis-use, and it frequently gets in the way of doing actual work. This is not the fault of the user, and the user should not be expected to have to become expert in these hopelessly arcane and confused systems of excessive complexity.
Developing software is expensive, it is not to much to expect a little effort on the part of the user. If the extra intelligence in the software is trivial it would be better to design the user out of the equation altogether. When you are paying somebody to use software there must be an economic reason to do so.
Beyond that I agree with your comments. Much of the software out there sucks but nothing is perfect, not even that CNC mill mentioned above. That is what you are paying the human for, to interfaces and apply intelligent adjustment to the errors the machine produces.
It is possible to design far superior software tools to what is usually delivered, but developers get away with (or are forced into) delivering what they do because of the kind of mindset advocated by MacVoyer, and short-sighted buying decisions made by people holding the purse strings but not using the product. The aggregate intellectual and economic cost of this kind of f#$%ing around is staggering, and to say that this is the way it should be is increadibly naive and short sighted.
Yep see this everyday at work. People in charge would rather see a whole corporation struggle than to admit that a decision they made years ago was pretty bad.
Product should be held to a higher standard, with quality emphasized over feature lists and flashy new baubles, but instead people gobble up the marketing pablum that they are fed rather than truly evaluating product on its practical merit. We are told what to believe, rather than making our own decisions based on real data.
I've seen this to no end in the automation world. The worst thing in this field is that once something is implemented changes become next to impossible.
Dave
I hope this new eMac has larger CRT than current 17in.
what about new 15 in. eMac for kids, and at least 20 in. for college students like me.
I don't care whether it's LCD or CRT, but since cost of CRT seems cheaper, I would want CRT on eMac.
Well.. It's eMac, not iMac. So price issue is more important than simplicity and formfactor.
(although I really wanna see G5 eMac)
Originally posted by wizard69
This is totally at odds with reality. As tools get better they become more complex often demanding more of thier user. A perfect example is in the machining industry, many a machinest could not make the transistion from manual machinery to CNC machinery. The tools got a lot better but the demands on the user increased significantly.
I've seen the situation you're talking about many times. However, I have also seen a new tool come along that does a better job of exposing the underlying creative skill while reducing or minimizing the skill required to manipulate the tool. Note that I'm not saying that a tool doesn't require skill to use, just that better tools let you work the problem instead of working the tool. Typically a task can be done multiple ways and people will use the method/tool that they have the skill for, but they all need the base skill to do the task -- i.e. no matter what tool you use to draw with, you need the underlying "drawing skill".
Usually what happens is that when a software package removes skill from the equation you end up loosing the ability to exercise any skill at all. Going back to the machinest, what happens in many cases instead of a using and developing skills you end up with an operator. The skills development goes to the specialist who is again involved deeply in the machine and its software.
Yes, in the case of automation the need for the skill itself is computerized and that skill in the human is rendered redundant. That wasn't the case I was talking about, but I do agree that it happens often. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not.
There are actually good reasons for run flat tires to exist beyond the issue with the drivers changing the tire. One of these is safety. Another is the need to maintain functionality after having your tires shoot out.
Right -- it often isn't safe for a car owner to get out and change his tire. Potentially due to the presence of high velocity projectiles.
I turned that feature off also. What I would really love is for the manufactures to provide a way to turn off that light source and only that light source. Then I'd be happy.
Some times an assumption is made on the part of a manufacture that simply is at odds with the customer usage of the machine. Assuming that a person will want a extra feature is a mistake in design. I reject completely the idea that a bunch of buttons is the way to a consumers heart.
No argument there. I'm not claiming that most consumer electronic companies have any real UI design talent.
Developing software is expensive, it is not to much to expect a little effort on the part of the user. If the extra intelligence in the software is trivial it would be better to design the user out of the equation altogether. When you are paying somebody to use software there must be an economic reason to do so.
But the economic reason is usually not to use the software. A goal of software developers is (or should be) to maximize their user's productivity. The user is always going to exert effort using the sofware, but as much of that effort as possible should go to completing the task, not struggling to use the software.
Beyond that I agree with your comments. Much of the software out there sucks but nothing is perfect, not even that CNC mill mentioned above. That is what you are paying the human for, to interfaces and apply intelligent adjustment to the errors the machine produces.
I'm just advocating closer to perfect. Right now we're usually a long way off. And yes, companies pay humans for their intelligence... so why squander so much of that in struggling with the oddities of the tool? Its like giving somebody a broken hammer to work with -- you can still hammer things with it, but there is a lot of struggling and effort that goes into what should be a straightforward task. If by providing a proper hammer they could go from 100 to 10000 nails per day, wouldn't you buy the better hammer?
I've seen this to no end in the automation world. The worst thing in this field is that once something is implemented changes become next to impossible.
Again, I consider that a different, albeit related, topic. I'm talking about tools that allow humans to leverage their creative skills, not tools that have or replace human skills. I'd argue that inflexible automation like you describe can be improved as well, but we're already WAAAAY off topic in this thread so we should probably give it back to the original discussion.
New eMacs anyone?
Originally posted by uiuc
Well, although some of you guys seem to talk about computer ethics...
I'm sorry for the lengthy digression, but it goes to the philosophical underpinnings behind the eMac: That there is a lot to be said for a simple, self-contained, rugged machine that you just pick up, set down, and run. It's always 1984, and someone always has to argue the merits of the Mac. But, again, I apologize for the lengthy discursions.
The CRT is there for durability reasons (and sorry Matsu, but at this point I've heard that affirmed from too many educators to believe that it's just Apple spin), given that lab computers, and especially lab computers used by kids who are too young to be trusted with iBooks, have very hard lives. That fact that CRTs are sturdy and cheap certainly doesn't hurt.
Considering that the eMac is engineered for a fairly specific set of needs, I expect evolutionary change for a good long time. It'll go G5, eventually. But the basic idea, of a substantial, rugged, monolith with a CRT will carry on, and the current shape is close enough to ideal that there's not much to do with it. Any changes will be fairly minor (shorter-neck CRT, etc.). If the eMac jumps to a flat screen it'll probably be OLED, which, once they lick the issues it has with color decomposition, is also cheap and rugged.
I hope this new eMac has larger CRT than current 17in. what about new 15 in. eMac for kids, and at least 20 in. for college students like me.
Apple's sales of the old 15" iMac dropped down into irrelevancy right before the eMac came out. I don't think there's much of anything there. a 20" eMac would be... substantial, and intruding pricewise into iMac territory.
Well.. It's eMac, not iMac. So price issue is more important than simplicity and formfactor.
Not really. Because of the K-6 market it serves, eMac has to stay in the tradition of monolithic education AIOs that Apple has offered since the Performa era. Form factor really matters here, and simplicity is not optional in the consumer or edu markets generally.
Originally posted by Programmer
Typically a task can be done multiple ways and people will use the method/tool that they have the skill for, but they all need the base skill to do the task -- i.e. no matter what tool you use to draw with, you need the underlying "drawing skill".
It is interesting with CAD that it is still faster for somebody to draw on paper than it is to use a CAD system. so apparently there is still work to be done with this software to expose that skill. CADs strength comes from the electronics state of the document.
Right -- it often isn't safe for a car owner to get out and change his tire. Potentially due to the presence of high velocity projectiles.
One of the reasons I stay out of the city around here :0
If by providing a proper hammer they could go from 100 to 10000 nails per day, wouldn't you buy the better hammer?
Interesting! With todays software it is like going from 100 to 101 nails a day except on some days it may be 60 nails a day. A good hammer gives one immediate benefits, software seldom does. In fact getting new software up and running is expensive. So you see I'm not really in disagreement with you.
New eMacs anyone?
The eMac is an interesting subject. It is a machine that I at once admire and at the same time find hard to accept for my own usage. Here are some ideas which might improve the machine:
Processor upgrade >> While I don't see a 64 bit processor as an absolute requirement it does need a substantial upgrade to boost performance. I'm thinking Apple will wait on Motorola here, they should have their new processors out in time for the spring update the EMac goes through.
Memory >> More base meomory always helps but maximum addressable memory should be increased.
Compact Flash >> A compact flash reader or multicard reader accessible from the front.
At least one PCI-Express slot >> yes I want an expansion slot in this machine though that seems to break hearts. The idea is slots with a one or two lanes for lower speed devices not a graphics port. I only suggest PCI-Express as you might as well go with what is new, plus it saves power and space.
Wide Aspect Ratio >> This I'd love to see but I'm not sure how they would fit it into the case and remain attractive.
GPU >> While I have nothing against the soldered in graphics they really need to solder in something a bit better. It also should be a bit better than the 5200 they use everywhere else.
Giga E >> Why not give the machine this capability.
Audio >> Hopefully Apples new agreement with Apple will free them up to implement significant improvements to their audio hardware. Further I'd love to see an old fashion volumne knob on PC's.
dave
Originally posted by wizard69
Processor upgrade >> While I don't see a 64 bit processor as an absolute requirement it does need a substantial upgrade to boost performance. I'm thinking Apple will wait on Motorola here, they should have their new processors out in time for the spring update the EMac goes through.
Spring update? What about a fall upgrade? The thing is over 6 months old now and it was no great shakes when it came out.Why cant apple understand their market share is so small mainly because they try to push out of date hardware for caviar prices?
This is the sole reason why Apple should put a G5 in the eMac. Cheap video production in schools.
Limited local storage but enough to process several hours of capture. More powerful video for faster rendering but not huge (64MB). Usual Superdrive option. Ram is acknowleged to 2GB (via two slots). Nothing else needs to be added.
The only difference between it and the iMac is form factor for which a premium is charged.
Originally posted by wizard69
Interesting! With todays software it is like going from 100 to 101 nails a day except on some days it may be 60 nails a day. A good hammer gives one immediate benefits, software seldom does. In fact getting new software up and running is expensive. So you see I'm not really in disagreement with you.
Ha! The last 3 updates to Office for Windows has been like going from 100 to 99, to 98, to 97... with a short side trip to 4 each time due to learning a new version of the interface and struggling with the configuration issues. But MS continues to sell it (to management/IT) on the basis that it can hammer any kind of nail (and screws too, but hammering screws is usually counter productive), meanwhile they make sure that no other hammer maker can stay in business. And DevStudio is extremely frustrating -- it lets you work in spurts of up to 1000, shows you how 10000 might be possible, but regularly trips you up so that you drop to less than 20 every so often... and then finally explodes so that you get a zero day at least once a month.
Anyhow, I dunno about you're notions about the eMac. I doubt we'll see anything better than a 5200 for the GPU... but I don't think that's the end of the world, either. For their target market the price point is far more important. The comment by bicubic about needing a G5 for doing video in schools is a good one too: iLife could be quite compelling to educators. Also, Apple probably needs something to use up their 1.6 GHz G5s. Amorph is probably right about the CRT which makes widescreen unlikely, I think. For the other stuff, if they go G5 they'll most likely use the same chipset as the new iMac in order to go for economies of scale. That new chipset might actually be cheaper than the old G4 one which is another motivation to go G5.
Originally posted by bicubic
[B]The biggest argument about the eMac (and I would suggest has been over looked here) is it's ability to run, edit and output video ? especially as DVD.
This is the sole reason why Apple should put a G5 in the eMac. Cheap video production in schools.
It has been a long time since I was in school, the thought of video production seems a bit out of place.
The G5 certianly would be nice but my thought was that a G4 with integrated memory control would produce a very snappy and cheap eMac. This is what I though Apple might wait for as it seems possible that the chip will be available aboutthe time Apple gets ready for school sales in the late spring.
Limited local storage but enough to process several hours of capture. More powerful video for faster rendering but not huge (64MB). Usual Superdrive option. Ram is acknowleged to 2GB (via two slots). Nothing else needs to be added.
About the only thing I would add is the highspeed networking. Well that and a built in card reader as I mentioned before. With GigaE becoming so cheap and the real advantages that server storage offer schools this would seem to be a no brainer.
On the other hand Apple seems to have castrated the iMac Ethernet so maybe this is an impossibility with the current management team at Apple.
I did have this wild idea flash through my head that Apple should come up with a USB expansion bay. A place where one can plug in the cardreader I could make use of or what ever one would desire. I really hate the dangle of USB cables especially for something that would not normally be moved around.
The only difference between it and the iMac is form factor for which a premium is charged.
Well that is the way it was but it really doesn't have to be that way in the future. Sure Apple could completely recycle the iMac design into the eMac but that would really limit what they could do for their customers. I suspect that they could deliver an eMac with the same set of chips in the iMac with significant differences that would help maintain its attractivness to educators and the rest of the eMac base.
Dave
Pugman
Based on these results I don't think there is any option but to put a G5 in the new eMac.
http://www.macworld.com/2004/11/news...ench/index.php
I think a G5 1.6 eMac will land it right in-between the new iBooks and the iMac. Interesting about the front-side bus speed (though no surprise) and I would guess that Apple will choke the eMac right here. Similar to the pattern exhibited in the new G5 1.8 SP tower ? a discrete point of difference.
Now if only they would get on with it...
The eMac has constantly been underestimated as more than adequete "non-entry" Mac that could hold off G5s even right now. This AMUG review says it all.
http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/am...icles/emac125/
James Greenidge
Originally posted by jimwg
Greetings:
The eMac has constantly been underestimated as more than adequete "non-entry" Mac that could hold off G5s even right now. This AMUG review says it all.
http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/am...icles/emac125/
James Greenidge
The emperor has no clothes. Sorry, those tests just don't fly. They seemed to have been cherry picked specifically to make the eMac look good. It does not matter how fast GB opens or imports a song to iTunes. What matters is how many midi tracks you can record before the eMac chokes. Does not system start up and shut down have more to do with what you have loaded in memory and processes working behind the scenes than anything else? Would not a PM have much more of that going on than a typical eMac? It seems unworthy to compare a dual PM to an eMac if all you are going to do is play a game on a low setting or view one Safari window or open and close a demanding app without actually using it or checking email or writing a letter to grandma. Obviously, if that is all you want to do, then it would be stupid to purchase a PM. It does not suggest the PM is a bad value or that the eMac is a good one. It does suggest that if one has little to no computing needs, an eMac is a smarter choice than a PM. Who didn't already know that?
Originally posted by bicubic
... The eMac is in the coal face and I think people are sitting up and watching now. ...
"In the coal face"? English has some obscure idioms, but I've never seen that one before. Where does it come from?
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Sorry, those tests just don't fly. They seemed to have been cherry picked specifically to make the eMac look good.
Well of course they are -- the point of the article was to show that the eMac is a capable computer and worth using if you don't need to do heavy lifting. This is true, and lots of people do just fine with an eMac... some better than with a PowerMac because they don't want to mess with more wires or such a large and noisy box.