This is tight

[Exophase]

Oh, well if you are just talking about the acronym, it's just because of that stupid ad campaign that mac has.

It's really more because that has been the convention for the last nearly 30 years.

I thought you were talking about people thinking that the only "real" computers are ones that run windows, which makes sense to me from the perspective of someone who has to work with windows computers all the time and doesn't care to look into other computers that he doesn't need to use.

Now THAT perspective is silly.

 

[crade]

It's really more because that has been the convention for the last nearly 30 years.

Nah, they used to call them "IBM PCs" which was correct. I never heard anyone use the term PC to distinguish between mac and windows until that ad campaign.

Now THAT perspective is silly.

Just realistic. You already have to work with windows, computers aren't particularly important to you, so sure you are aware that other types of computers exist, they may even be superiour but who cares? They are dead to you since you aren't looking to make a statement or find the best possible computer, you just want to do your work, surf the web, whatever on something familiar without having to spend more effort than is needed. Things that do that are computers. Things that don't, aren't.


Toshiba HD discs may be a perfectly valid media for movies, but if I've got a blueray player and a shelf full of bluerays, they may has well be coasters to me.

 

[sebt3]

Nah, they used to call them "IBM PCs" which was correct. I never heard anyone use the term PC to distinguish between mac and windows until that ad campaign.

EDIT: I have to learn to read....

 

[Exophase]

Nah, they used to call them "IBM PCs" which was correct. I never heard anyone use the term PC to distinguish between mac and windows until that ad campaign.

Was used all the time. Even the term "IBM compatible" fell out of favor years before those ads.

 

[crade]

I know the term was used all the time, I just always thought it grouped macs and windows boxes together. I might be the only one who thought that for all I know though, no one I knew ever talked about macs at all until they adopted unix as their OS.

 

[Prometheus]

If you only have time to get to know one OS, learn the one people use most so you can get a job. Makes sense to me.

What makes more sense to me, and what was taught when I was a small child (about five years old), is that you're better off knowing key parts of how computers work (it need not be excessively technical - it didn't take much time), instead of how one particular piece of software works, so that you can transplant those skills to any machine you happen to need to use. That way you're never left confused when circumstances leave you needing to use something other than what you normally do, when software evolves, or, indeed, if you would just prefer to use something else.


It's served me well since the days of machines that simply dropped you to a BASIC prompt on power-up, at least. :lol:

 

[crade]

It's served me well since the days of machines that simply dropped you to a BASIC prompt on power-up, at least. :lol:

So if you sat down at a machine that dropped you to a lisp prompt on powerup instead of a basic prompt, you wouldn't have any learning curve because you know how computers work in general?

 

[Prometheus]

That's not what I said. There would of course be a learning curve, but a bit of common sense would probably get one started. That's all it is, really; Common sense, and not locking one's self into one particular operating system's way of thinking - that's all I was referring to.

 

[Tickles]

At least if someone knows Windows they know something. A couple of years ago I was tasked with training a new employee on the computer system at work. First step was teaching them how to use a mouse. It was a long week.

 

[Prometheus]

I guess my gripe is with the mindset where some insist they've "learned" Windows, and then freak out completely when they have to use an identical application (and by this I mean, same software, same version, and everything) on a Macintosh or on some Linux distribution or other. :lol: It's kind of scary how there seems to be a block between applying the same abilities on one OS and applying them on another, just because the other is "not what they learned"...


Anyway, I blather. Sounds like that was a fun time, Tickles.

 

[crade]

At least if someone knows Windows they know something. A couple of years ago I was tasked with training a new employee on the computer system at work. First step was teaching them how to use a mouse. It was a long week.

A couple years ago? I just spent over an hour trying to help a poor user work around a bug in my software that requires them typing two words (with correct case) at a parameter prompt. It was so painful, and worse since it's my own fault. What makes it even more painful is that the fix takes 2 seconds, and the deployment of the fix probably at least 2 weeks of straight fighting with their company's IT department.


Edit: which brings me to another reason I would like a portable x86 machine.. since my users will always be using windows, it is nice to at least have a vmware image with it installed to test on

 

[WizardStan]

Analogy-ing Prometheus' point, it's like people today are learning how to drive their specific model of car, but fumble and forget the rules of the road if the shifter is suddenly in a different place.


Learn the basics, the general location of the lights, the wipers, the shifter, the gas and brake, and you can sit yourself into almost any automatic transmission automobile.

 

[crade]

Yes, it would be like that if the interface to cars weren't well standardized and there were countless actions it could perform instead of like 5.

 

[WizardStan]

Yes, it would be like that if the interface to cars weren't well standardized and there were countless actions it could perform instead of like 5.

I've seen ignitions in two different places, some requiring key to be in a specific orientation and others not having a "key" at all; three completely different styles of shifter; wipers on the the left, wipers on right, wipers on the column; hazards as a button, hazards as a switch; high beams on the steering wheel, high beams on the floor; then there's cruise control, radio, thermostat... Trust me, a car has enough functions that are far from "standard" that the analogy is sound. Basically the only things guaranteed to be the same between two cars is the gas, break, and steering wheel, and even those have variations.


Meanwhile, there are people that have no problems going file->open in Word, but have to be told repeatedly how to perform the exact same operation in Wordperfect.

 

[Tickles]

[...]


Basically the only things guaranteed to be the same between two cars is the gas, break, and steering wheel, and even those have variations.


[...]

Like not even being on the right side of the car?

 

[crade]

I've seen ignitions in two different places, some requiring key to be in a specific orientation and others not having a "key" at all; three completely different styles of shifter; wipers on the the left, wipers on right, wipers on the column; hazards as a button, hazards as a switch; high beams on the steering wheel, high beams on the floor; then there's cruise control, radio, thermostat... Trust me, a car has enough functions that are far from "standard" that the analogy is sound. Basically the only things guaranteed to be the same between two cars is the gas, break, and steering wheel, and even those have variations.


Meanwhile, there are people that have no problems going file->open in Word, but have to be told repeatedly how to perform the exact same operation in Wordperfect.

yeah, I guess.. I guess those minor little differences are immediately obvious to me in a car, and anything that isn't obvious is standardized. I can sit down and immediately see where the ignition is, and such, whereas I can't really sit down at an irix machine an immediately see how I would set up the network interface and get the intenet operational, let alone open my programming project and get to work.

 

[WizardStan]

yeah, I guess.. I guess those minor little differences are immediately obvious to me in a car, and anything that isn't obvious is standardized. I can sit down and immediately see where the ignition is, and such, whereas I can't really sit down at an irix machine an immediately see how I would set up the network interface and get the intenet operational, let alone open my programming project and get to work.

Setting up an internet connection or writing your own programs are definitely more advanced topics, along the lines of changing your own oil, or tuning your spark plugs. Useful skills that anyone can learn, but not exactly the kinds of things that would stop you from getting behind the wheel of an unfamiliar vehicle.


When I made the analogy, I was talking about basic things: opening and saving documents (heck, just getting some people to open menus sometimes), starting an application, browsing the web, playing videos. These are basic tasks that are more or less the same no matter which system you use, they just sometimes look a little different. They may not be exactly the same as they're familiar with, so some people just can't do it because they were taught on their very specific system and weren't introduced to the idea that sometimes the ignition is on the column and sometimes it is on the dash beside it. Understand?

 

[crade]

Well, computers interface with phones, cameras, mp3 players, they open proprietary documents, run custom applications, play games you can say everything is an advanced topic, but the fact is there is a ton of things that any given user might want to do with their computer, and a lot of them are not immediately obvious how to do them if you are looking at a brand new operating system. If everything is already set up, maintained entirely by someone else, and the only thing they ever have to do is use a web browser, then sure, should be no problem.

 

[WizardStan]

I think you are closer to understanding the point, but still not there. You're still making a computer out to be more complicated then it has to be.


There are some very basic things about computing that are universal across all platforms except for a few minor details, but because many users have learned how to do something in such a narrow frame, they can't comprehend how to apply it when that frame changes.


The example again, I have instructed people who are perfectly used to clicking File->Open to load a document in one program ask how to perform the same task in a new program despite the fact that it is the exact same process of clicking File->Open. These are not stupid people, they were simply trained poorly, taught to use one system in a specific way but not given a general understanding of what it is doing. I believe that is what Prometheus was arguing in favour of: instead of teaching people how to open a document in Word, teach them to find the menu bar, and look over the options for the one that looks like it will open a file.


When being taught to drive, the instruction is to hold the key in the right hand, look for the key hole, put the key in the hole: nice and generic. In computing terms, they're being taught to hold the key at a specific angle and height in order to find that exact key hole without being taught what it should look like or what to do if it isn't in that exact same spot.

 

[crade]

Don't get me wrong, it frustrates the hell out of me when my wife reboots my system that is sitting with firefox open so she can open the same thing on on windows. I was thinking about people looking to buy a general purpose computer, not just use one for one or two specific tasks that the compute is already primed for.


I don't subscribe to the mindset, I spend days getting the same stuff to work over and over in Windows, Linux, Solaris, AIX, whatever. I just think I understand where people are coming from. There are definite benefits to standardization.