 |
If Only...If only we could start again with a blank sheet of paper and design computers from scratch, without having to worry about compatibility with existing hardware and software. How would we do it better? |
AtheismPoliticsMemesMindMattersStringRandomInteractFeedbackLinksDebateHomeMicrosoft: Just Say No |
The floppy disk is dead. Many computers now come without them and only the fact that they are very cheap and handy for emergency booting ensures their place on modern systems. They are outclassed as storage, backup and software distribution media. Laser readable disks are obviously the way to go for data distribution and storage. A read-write format of DVD would be useful for all tasks, whether that is holding the operating system information, distributing software or backup of files. Simply having one such drive is however too limiting. A caddy of several disks feeding two separate read and write decks is the way to go. The two active read and write decks would be able to read and write simultaneously on both disks and all available formats from audio CD through to DVD. This would allow the system to copy, edit and back up in any way desired. Software could be distributed on read only format disks of either CD or DVD capacity depending on the requirements. The read-only data could then be copied onto a working disk, which could be written to but with individual files marked as read only just as they are on a hard drive. This disk could then be used to boot the system, using the hard disk only when higher speeds were necessary. A huge multimedia system could be backed up onto writeable DVD, or if you preferred, simultaneously on to two such disks for extra speed or security. Such disks are easy to store and hold the data much more safely than on floppy or hard disks or on tape. By having a caddy of several disks under the logic control of the operating system would allow the extra flexibility of handling multiple sources of data at the same time, for example playing DVD audio while using the latest encyclopaedia. Multiple high capacity drives would also allow you the power to create your own suites of data for reference, combining the material from more than one source. Another totally different idea to replace the bootable floppy disk is card memory. Load all your boot settings and operating system customized settings into removable memory cartridges such as the memory cards used by digital cameras. These could be electronic keys that could lock out access to your system or offer the equivalent of a dictionary-full of passwords to lock out access to sensitive encrypted parts of your hard drive. With such a system you could allow a technician to repair your computer and have access to all the main settings but to none of your application data files, or vice versa. If computers had an easily accessed chip slot in the front it might be possible to put operating systems into a chip that had both RAM and ROM in one unit. The main part of the OS, the kernel (whatever that is) and so on could be in ROM and then the users own configurations could be held in RAM. Such a unit need only be of a size similar to a pack of chewing gum. You could then switch your computer to another FLAVOUR of OS. What about the motherboard? If we could design a new standard machine we could get away from the Mac/PC split. Bang everybody's heads together and agree an open, better, common standard. I suggest two separate banks of memory, one bank to run the operating system and another to run the applications. This would then maybe limit the likes of Microsoft designing ever bigger operating systems. Consumer resistance to uprating OS memory would keep the pressure on software designers to cut their coat according to the cloth we users already have. There would probably be less resistance to increasing application memory if the consumers could see why it was required, which new functions needed the extra memory. At the moment Microsoft simply launches a new version of Windows and Office together and effectively demands we all quadruple our RAM; just to run the latest versions of the same old boring spreadsheets and word processors! I resent the constant drive to more and better hardware that is driven by software. In 1995 I was running a 4 Mb 486 computer. It handled full colour graphics well using Corel Draw 3 and Serif PagePlus 3. It did everything I needed it to do. It handled huge database files, the biggest spreadsheets I could write and as much graphics rich DTP and word processed output as I could design, I never filled my 170 Mb hard drive. Window 3.1 was great. I loved my computer. Windows 95 changed that. Suddenly 8 Mb was the smallest practical RAM size and if you didn't have a CD ROM you were nobody. I have no doubt that soon there will be a new operating system that will shake the standard specification up again and my Pentium 120 with 48Mb of RAM will seem as quaint as my first 086 twin floppy driven PC. But I will resist as long as I can. Even if that means using shareware browsers like Opera instead of the latest beast from Microsoft.
I often wonder why we bother to improve the hardware and software when we keep the same old lousy wetware. Our brains. They are fantastic technology but what do we use them for? The Internet now has full colour, sound and even full motion video. All of this is technically known as the intelligence we send over the carrier signals. But it is not very intelligent! The electromagnetic spectrum is now alive with billions of mindless mobile telephone calls while the satellite links and transoceanic cables are pulsing with advertisements for credit cards, astrology books and pornography sites. I sometimes think that the sooner Earth is invaded by an intelligent race the better for us all. Standards, PLEASE!I believe in a united world. A united world could have one government and a single language, which would obviously have to be a development of English, the most advanced, largest, richest and least fossilized language on the planet. That is for the middle distant future, but in the short term we could at least get a standard HTML agreed, is that too much to ask? Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer dominate the scene but they differ alarmingly. Neither is yet fully HTML 4 compliant. I am not a geek, I do not enjoy messing about with low level code. I just want to be able to use a web page development application that writes code that works with every computer that has a reasonably up to date browser installed. I will settle for it not working on old browsers because now there is very little little excuse for anybody to use an outdated browser, it is not as if they cost real money or have particularly high system requirements. That is all I want to be able to do. Why should it be so hard? Flat Rate Access
I now have my flatrate access via cable, just as I had envisioned when the cable was first layed. It has finally happened. I pay a flat rate monthly fee and I get 24 hour access at 1Mb/sec. I could take it up to 2Mb or more but that would cost more and I cannot see any reason to want to connect much faster, at least not enough to justify the expense. The extra speed compared to modems is very good, but not as important as having access at the same price no matter how much I use it. That is what makes the difference, that is what allows people to use the internet in a profoundly different way. Metered access is limited access, unmetered and unregulated access is the way to make the most of the interconnected world. If you don't yet have flat rate access please get it as soon as you can. Lobby for it, pay for it, get it. The future needs interconnectivity. |
© 1999 - 2008 by Martin Willett. |
mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited |