What da hell has technology really done?

[Nuc]

I believe raw speed is very useful in todays computers. If you look at some of the complex calculations that has to be run for neutronics (e.g. nuclear reactors) what used to take a month or more to calculate, now takes weeks. This saves companies tons of money which in the long run lowers the cost of your electricity bill (or lines the pockets of the companies execs.)

This type of computing is common when it comes to complex computing in science and engineering backgrounds.

Anyways that's my 2 cents. Other than this I wish computers were never invented. I waste to much damn time on this thing! If it were a windows machine then I wouldn't use it nearly as much...

Nuc

edit: As far as personal computing. Gaming is a big deal now which requires a lot of processing power.

 

[IJ Reilly]

So far people have only skimmed the surface here as to what has caused or stopped our progress. Most people blame Microsoft, fair enough but what about government interference, patents copyrights and proper funding?

Forget computing what about my moonbase? Why are we still living on one planet or one intersteller body? Why haven't we gone "out there".

I think what it boils down to is lack of competition (a strike against MS) and the fact the public by and large are really more interested in porno and video websites.

What about it? Nobody blamed Microsoft but me, and no one seemed interested in even discussing that theory.

 

[CrackedButter]

What about it? Nobody blamed Microsoft but me, and no one seemed interested in even discussing that theory.

I meant people blame Microsoft for the state of computing in a general sense. What about what? I don't understand what you're asking me.

 

[gekko513]

I agree with Frogurt, even though all those things were possible ten years ago for a select few, they weren't within reach of the average person like they are now.

An interesting question, though, is if there are things that are now possible for a select few, that we will see in mainstream use in ten years.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I meant people blame Microsoft for the state of computing in a general sense. What about what? I don't understand what you're asking me.

You asked "what about my moonbase?" A great rhetorical question. I didn't know you had one. So what about it?

Meanwhile, I don't honestly believe that most people tend to blame Microsoft for the state of computing. In fact, the vast majority of people view Microsoft as the be-all and end-all of computing. If they didn't, then the vast majority of people would not be using their products. I don't think many people appreciate the negative impacts of Microsoft's monopolistic domination of computing. More often than not, they actually view Microsoft's creation of de-facto "standards" as a good thing. They're dead wrong, but this is the conventional wisdom.

 

[EricChunky]

I believe raw speed is very useful in todays computers. If you look at some of the complex calculations that has to be run for neutronics (e.g. nuclear reactors) what used to take a month or more to calculate, now takes weeks. This saves companies tons of money which in the long run lowers the cost of your electricity bill (or lines the pockets of the companies execs.)

This type of computing is common when it comes to complex computing in science and engineering backgrounds.

Anyways that's my 2 cents. Other than this I wish computers were never invented. I waste to much damn time on this thing! If it were a windows machine then I wouldn't use it nearly as much...

Nuc

edit: As far as personal computing. Gaming is a big deal now which requires a lot of processing power.

Raw speed is important = True
Raw speed is important and only concern for personal computing = false

Our industry gives the latter a postive answer tho. Thats the problem.

For games, do you think an XBox / PS2 which has a lot less processing power are doing game badly (campared with PC?) I dont.

 

[EricChunky]

What about it? Nobody blamed Microsoft but me, and no one seemed interested in even discussing that theory.

If you bring it on and giv it some length, i mite find something very useful.

I thought about microsoft, but don't really know how to criticize it (relating to the current situation) systematically.

 

[cait-sith]

These things are EXACTLY the same as she was doing 10 years ago, with
Office 97 and a Pentumn II IBM x21. Technology developed, true; Ram
and hard rive size got bumped, true; CPU speed followed the Morse Law,
true; but the interaction between human and computer, the experience,
does not really improved that much.

Do you mean Moore's Law?

 

[cait-sith]

Please consider that faster hardware means less development time. The faster your machines can run, the sloppier you can be when coding. This means companies can develop the same functionality for cheaper. Hence why software quality appears to be decreasing with time.

As well, consider that the people programming computers and designing hardware are themselves "techies" and are not typically fine-tuned into how your average joe thinks about using technology. It takes a special knowledge of what can be done with computers and how it can be done in order to program them. Some problems simply can not be solved with 'better hardware' or 'better software'. I noticed someone mentioned perfect text-to-speech in this thread -- this is a prime example. It's not that we don't have the CPU power to do this, it's that we don't have a mathematical model to do it. Don't blame the engineers, blame the mathematicians.

 

[MisterMe]

What about it? Nobody blamed Microsoft but me, and no one seemed interested in even discussing that theory.

Microsoft has a significant role to play in this sad turn of events. So too does IBM. However, to quote Pogo:

We have met the enemy and he is us.

The slowdown in technology benefits did not start 10 years ago--or even 20 years ago. IMHO, it began in 1981 with the introduction of the IBM PC. Between the introduction of the personal computer in 1975 and IBM's entry in 1981, the technology advanced and the benefits accrued at a staggering pace. We had many operating systems and processors to choose from. The Radio Shack TRS-80 Model 12 was the most popular UNIX computer in the world. National Semiconductor produced the NS320xx family of processors, which was effectively a VAX-on-a-chip. There are so many other examples. And if you wanted standard hardware, you bought a system based on the S-100 bus.

With the introduction of the IBM PC, the industry switched from trying to develop the best computer to developing the computer most compatible with the IBM-PC. By 1987, this new paradigm toppled IBM from its position hardware dominance and would eventually put Microsoft in its monopoly software position.

Copying machine-based research continues to play a significant role in computer development. Microsoft, the dominant player in the industry, wants to copy anything that it feels might be successful. Linux copies Unix. Opensource application developers want to copy Microsoft, Apple, and anyone else who wants to get paid.

Without question, there have been some significant advances over the last 10 years. However, there have been fewer advances than expected from an industry using its imagination rather than its copying machines.

 

[IJ Reilly]

With the introduction of the IBM PC, the industry switched from trying to develop the best computer to developing the computer most compatible with the IBM-PC. By 1987, this new paradigm toppled IBM from its position hardware dominance and would eventually put Microsoft in its monopoly software position.

This is true, but of course it was all a terrible accident. The point I'd add is that we were led to believe, and are still being led to believe, that it was a good thing.

 

[Frogurt]

Actually, what is amazing is that you weren't aware that most of this stuff existed 10 years ago.
What has advanced in 10 years is not the technology, but the acceptance... actually, the dependance, on that technology.
What is scary is that people (like you from what I see here) honestly believe that the only way to do anything is with a brand new, top of the line system from today. I can do more things with my computer (the newest of which is from 2000) than most people can do with their new computers today.
The only advance that I see that was worth the wait is the availability of information. When I was growing up, if something major happened, you heard about it on TV/radio or you went to the library to research it. And while the web requires a certain amount of filtering of the information, it is still far better than what life was like before it.
more than 10 years old!

I could counter a number of your points in response to my questions (ie while jpeg and e-mail existed, you still had to develope your film which usually takes at least an hour) but the whole point is that many of these things might have existed in small controlled enviroments they were not in mass use. Just like electronic paper exists now, but is not used by the public at large. Non-affordable existence and wide use are two different things. They became affordable and in use because of advances in technology. Things don't all of a sudden become cheap and distributed, they have to be developed. The OP wants a light affordable tablet PC which will do only a few tasks. One could be made, but the cost of making exactly what he wants will be higher than the market will accept and few will buy it. So nobody makes it currently, but technology will improve, costs will go down and he will get what he wants.

The OP is complaining that technology in our daily lives hasn't changed in ten years, but it has. Maybe not in the ways he wants, but it has. To imagine that ten years will yield science fiction like changes is off base. The automobile has been around for over 100 years. We are still using the same basic controlls we did over 70 years ago. The airplane has also been around for over 100 years, where is my personal flying machine?

And btw, I use a five year old computer (which isn't fast enought to decode iTunes movies) and I know how much I am capable of doing with it. I also know what I am not.
EDIT: PS - most of your (and the other responders) answers are apple to oranges comparisons. For example, a handheld TV receiving broadcasts which are decided for you is not the same as choosing your own content. If I were to apply the same logic to the OPs request I would say what he wants does exist. We call them a pad of paper, a book and a pencil.