hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (04/28/91)
In article <1991Apr18.171854.13367@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.c altech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >Harry, you're thinking like an MBA. Computers can do more than suckle from >hard disks if people would get smart and put REAL utilities in ROM. I'm sorry, Todd, but even if we had 'real utilities' in ROM (whatever those might be), they still won't help me from retrieving my precious data from the hard drive (or floppy drive for that matter), if those functions fail. It has nothing to do with people getting 'smart' and such, but rather with looking at the computer as a tool in a *realistic* fashion. Any *useable* (#) computer is a symbiosis of storage and processing. When either fails, the computer ceises to be a functioning tool and becomes, for all practical purposes, useless. Sure, you could hack into your modem with applesoft to connect to your work computer - only to be lost because you need VT-100 emulation. Sure, you could type in a quick word processor i basic - only to find yourself not being able to save it. Sure, you could use it as a make-shift calculator - only to find that the pocket one does the job much better. Remember, computers are not designed for hackers (as you probably are) who can make dow ith minimum equipment. 98% of the people out there are computer morons, and/or they use the machine as a tool, not as a passion. When parts break that are essential, the tool stops being useful and becomes wasteful. So, do me a favor, and don't try to create arguments for the sake of arguing, but give reality some leeway in this as well. Harry (#) useable refers to a device that permits the processing of a specific task in a productive manner. Having to kludge around to get it to work is NOT productive in any way! uucp : ucrmath!alchemy!hzink | Financial Independence *CAN* be Yours! INET : hzink@alchemy.uucp | 24hr Taped Information Hotline (714) 276-2020 -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Wesley: "Captain, this doesn't look like the holodeck to me." Worf: "Ready to cycle airlock, Captain." Picard: "Make it so."
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (04/29/91)
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes: >I'm sorry, Todd, but even if we had 'real utilities' in ROM (whatever those >might be), they still won't help me from retrieving my precious data from the >hard drive (or floppy drive for that matter), if those functions fail. Well, a simple disk recoverer would be a good one to slap in ROM. I am not claiming that you would be able to continue ALL of your work (come on!), but it is better to be able to continue SOME of it with the aid of the computer than NONE of it. > It has nothing to do with people getting 'smart' and such, but rather with >looking at the computer as a tool in a *realistic* fashion. Looking at the computer as a realistic tool IS the 'getting smart' I am talking about. The idea is to reduce dependency on disk drives, so the machine boots right away and installs updates and extensions as the drives spin up (if they are even there). If you are using a laptop exclusively as a terminal, with no charging power available, there is no point having the hard drive spinning. They do have low power modes, but you still have the current surge as the drive starts up, and spins up when it is woken. I admit this is a pretty rare example, so here's a better one: if your HD system software is corrupted, and you have no fresh copies or other bootables, you're just as screwed -- unless you have a functional version of the O/S available from somewhere else (like ROM) and can hold down option or something to prevent it from mounting volumes so you can selectively install things until you find the culprit. Try to do this on today's boot-only machines without a working system disk and you are in deep trouble. I configure my HD to boot ProDOS 8 first, with a single return booting GS/OS, for exactly this reason -- when testing things like INITs and drivers it has proven to be invaluable. >Any *useable* (#) computer is a symbiosis of storage and processing. When >either fails, the computer ceises to be a functioning tool and becomes, for all >practical purposes, useless. >(#) useable refers to a device that permits the processing of a specific task >in a productive manner. Having to kludge around to get it to work is NOT >productive in any way! [ examples of AppleSoft as inadequate for many useful diskless tasks deleted] I agree with your definition of usable, however I disagree that permanent (e.g. disk) storage is a requirement given that definition. RAM and ROM are both storage mechanisms, they just aren't both nonvolatile and writable -- your examples all assume the use of AppleSoft, which is never what I suggested. What I was getting at was the idea of putting small useful stuff in ROM, like vt100 emulators, usable text editors, decent calculator and graphing functions, like notepads, alarm clocks, printing capability, and so on. >Remember, computers are not designed for hackers (as you probably are) who can >make dow ith minimum equipment. 98% of the people out there are computer >morons, and/or they use the machine as a tool, not as a passion. When parts >break that are essential, the tool stops being useful and becomes wasteful. Dammit, my whole point is that computers should be designed so normal people can also make due with minimal equipment!! The whole system (not just the hardware and software, but the way they affect how people use computers) would have to be a lot more robust than it is now, and I don't think the industry has addressed this adequately yet. >So, do me a favor, and don't try to create arguments for the sake of arguing, >but give reality some leeway in this as well. I am!! You're just assuming I mean AppleSoft, which I am most certainly NOT although a beginners' language system (hypertalk has been suggested) would be another good thing to ROMify. What I want in ROM is a stable version of the O/S kernel, drivers for the built in hardware including RAMdisk, plenty of useful programs in a ROMdisk, and so on. The GS is halfway there, and could easily move to this type of scheme although it would be simpler if GS/OS (and operating systems in general) were as easily patchable as the toolbox. (Yes, I know that's a radical suggestion for today's O/S's. It isn't necessary for this to work, but it would be aesthetically nice.) Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
sk2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Seth D. Kadesh) (04/29/91)
Seth has fun quoting everyone: toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: > hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes: > > >I'm sorry, Todd, but even if we had 'real utilities' in ROM (whatever those > >might be), they still won't help me from retrieving my precious data from the > >hard drive (or floppy drive for that matter), if those functions fail. > > Well, a simple disk recoverer would be a good one to slap in ROM. I am not > claiming that you would be able to continue ALL of your work (come on!), but > it is better to be able to continue SOME of it with the aid of the computer > than NONE of it. > > > It has nothing to do with people getting 'smart' and such, but rather with > >looking at the computer as a tool in a *realistic* fashion. > > Looking at the computer as a realistic tool IS the 'getting smart' I am talking > about. The idea is to reduce dependency on disk drives, so the machine boots > right away and installs updates and extensions as the drives spin up (if they > are even there). > > If you are using a laptop exclusively as a terminal, with no charging power > available, there is no point having the hard drive spinning. They do have > low power modes, but you still have the current surge as the drive starts up, > and spins up when it is woken. [some stuff] > What I was getting at was the idea of putting small useful stuff in ROM, > like vt100 emulators, usable text editors, decent calculator and graphing > functions, like notepads, alarm clocks, printing capability, and so on. Anyone out there remember a "revolutionary" (my word) device called the Swyftcard? It was an expansion card that contained a basic Appleworks type program in ROM - a word processor (with an amazing search algorithm), a terminal emulator [note: I could be remembering this stuff incorrectly - it's been a couple of years] It was designed by one of the guys who worked on the Macintosh, but left early on in the development for some reason... [my memory is truly failing me at the moment, and I hesitate to say something totally inaccurate] The point being that this Swyftcard is exactly what Todd is talking about. Well, maybe not exactly.... It didn't catch on, as far as I can tell. Hmmm. That sounds like an argument against it. [bear with me - it's 3 am, and I have to microcode a subset of the Sparc architecture by tomorrow] > > >Remember, computers are not designed for hackers (as you probably are) who ca\ > n > >make dow ith minimum equipment. 98% of the people out there are computer > >morons, and/or they use the machine as a tool, not as a passion. When parts > >break that are essential, the tool stops being useful and becomes wasteful. > > Dammit, my whole point is that computers should be designed so normal people > can also make due with minimal equipment!! The whole system (not just the > hardware and software, but the way they affect how people use computers) > would have to be a lot more robust than it is now, and I don't think the > industry has addressed this adequately yet. > > >So, do me a favor, and don't try to create arguments for the sake of arguing, > >but give reality some leeway in this as well. Hey now. Let's not be nasty. Todd's made a good point, and I happen to agree with him. Ok. I obviously can't be coherent. I just tried (unsuccesfully) to say why I agree with Todd. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow... -seth tHe mAd ScienTisT, and other carnations ----------------------- sk2f@andrew.cmu.edu | everything seems so easy this way but I'm going under tmSatCMU@DRYCAS.BITNET| fast, I'm slipping away, am I so crazy? - Marillion
cshum@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Chung H. Shum) (04/30/91)
In article <Ec6w9me00WB9IDKXZ0@andrew.cmu.edu> sk2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Seth D. Kadesh) writes: >Anyone out there remember a "revolutionary" (my word) device called >the Swyftcard? It was an expansion card that contained a basic >Appleworks type program in ROM - a word processor (with an amazing >search algorithm), a terminal emulator [note: I could be remembering >this stuff incorrectly - it's been a couple of years] Yeah, I remember this thing... they also had a disk-based version called Swyftdisk. >It was designed by one of the guys who worked on the Macintosh, but >left early on in the development for some reason... I think his name was Jeff Raskin (I remember the old ads in A+ with Raskin and Woz where Woz says "if I had thought of it, I would have built it in myself" or something like that). He later went on to design a dedicated word processor for Canon (I think) called the Cat (not sure about that either) that used the "leap" key things that Swyftcard used. >[my memory is truly failing me at the moment, and I hesitate to say >something totally inaccurate] > >The point being that this Swyftcard is exactly what Todd is talking >about. Well, maybe not exactly.... >It didn't catch on, as far as I can tell. Maybe because AppleWorks came out soon after it? cshum@ocf.berkeley.edu "My name is Wu-lung Chen, but my friends just call me Wu-lung Chen."
THROOP@GRIN1.BITNET ("Throop,Henry B") (05/07/91)
> Seth has fun quoting everyone: > toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: > hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes: > > >I'm sorry, Todd, but even if we had 'real utilities' in ROM (whatever those > >might be), they still won't help me from retrieving my precious data from the > >hard drive (or floppy drive for that matter), if those functions fail. > > Well, a simple disk recoverer would be a good one to slap in ROM. I am not > claiming that you would be able to continue ALL of your work (come on!), but > it is better to be able to continue SOME of it with the aid of the computer > than NONE of it. > > > It has nothing to do with people getting 'smart' and such, but rather with > >looking at the computer as a tool in a *realistic* fashion. > > Looking at the computer as a realistic tool IS the 'getting smart' I am talking > about. The idea is to reduce dependency on disk drives, so the machine boots > right away and installs updates and extensions as the drives spin up (if they > are even there). > > If you are using a laptop exclusively as a terminal, with no charging power > available, there is no point having the hard drive spinning. They do have > low power modes, but you still have the current surge as the drive starts up, > and spins up when it is woken. >[some stuff] >> What I was getting at was the idea of putting small useful stuff in ROM, >> like vt100 emulators, usable text editors, decent calculator and graphing >> functions, like notepads, alarm clocks, printing capability, and so on. > Anyone out there remember a "revolutionary" (my word) device called > the Swyftcard? It was an expansion card that contained a basic > Appleworks type program in ROM - a word processor (with an amazing > search algorithm), a terminal emulator [note: I could be remembering > this stuff incorrectly - it's been a couple of years] > It was designed by one of the guys who worked on the Macintosh, but > left early on in the development for some reason... > [my memory is truly failing me at the moment, and I hesitate to say > something totally inaccurate] > The point being that this Swyftcard is exactly what Todd is talking > about. Well, maybe not exactly.... Jef Raskin was the designer of the Swyftcard, back in 1984 or so. When at Apple, he was also the original designer of the Mac. He had envisioned it as an elegant, easy to use, fast, powerful. When Jobs stopped yelling at Raskin for wasting his time on such an idiotic idea and took it over for himself (Jobs), Raskin says it lost all its original elagance - couldn't do _anything_ worthwile with the original 128K Mac, too many bells and whistles, and 'slow as molasses' (Jef's description). He got disgusted with the whole thing and threatened to leave Apple, Apple said to 'wait a wekk and we'll make you an offer you can't refuse,' he waited, they made an offer, and he refused. He left and formed Information Appliance, which made the Swyftcard and later Swyftdisk (just a disk) which were basically what Raskin had envisioned in the first place. The basic idea here was elegance - turn on your computer, start typing without waiting for anything, stick in a disk (doesn't matter if it's formatted or not), and hit a key to save everything. Hey, the whole system only had something like 5 commands (load, save, print...). The user should not have to know anything about it; the computer should be treated just as any other appliance in your basic household. I don't know how much I agree with this philosophy. Although of course there is a place for such simplicity, I think this may be just going a bit _too_ far, and really limiting for a lot of people. I don't think Raskin envisioned the system as being suitable for everybody - there's still a place for people who use computers and don't have a problem with them as they are currently, but the Swyftcard was for 'normal' people who didn't want to know anything about how it all worked. To a large extent, the Mac has filled this spot, with the interface making it more accessible than the older-style MS-DOS or II command line. However, there is still a world of difference between the complexity of the Mac's interface and that of the Swyftcard. Also, the Mac has lost much of its elegance and simplicity by now, compared with both the original 128K Mac and with the current offerings of Amiga/ST/PC windowing-based systems. > I don't think it caught on too well. > Hmmm. That sounds like an argument against it. But he did get Woz to pose for the ads and say something like 'If I had thought of the Swyftcard in 1977, I would have built it in.' :-) >> >Remember, computers are not designed for hackers (as you probably are) who >> can >> >make dow ith minimum equipment. 98% of the people out there are computer >> >morons, and/or they use the machine as a tool, not as a passion. When parts >> >break that are essential, the tool stops being useful and becomes wasteful. >> >> Dammit, my whole point is that computers should be designed so normal people >> can also make due with minimal equipment!! The whole system (not just the >> hardware and software, but the way they affect how people use computers) >> would have to be a lot more robust than it is now, and I don't think the >> industry has addressed this adequately yet. >Todd's made a good point, and I happen to agree with him. I don't know. Ideas are nice, but I don't really see how something like this could fly. The percentage of the computer-using population is steadily growing, and I think most of them can pretty much understand what's going on. Incidently, there is a fantastically hilarious interview with Jef Raskin in _Programmers at Work_, Microsoft/Tempus Press. This book also has interviews with a bunch of other important people (Gary Kildall, Dan Bricklin + the other VisiCalc guy, Andy Hertzfield, Jaron Lanier, etc, though no Woz or even Jobs...) >-seth tHe mAd ScienTisT, and other carnations >sk2f@andrew.cmu.edu | everything seems so easy this way but I'm going under Henry -- Henry Throop THROOP@GRIN1.BITNET throoph@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
rhyde@musial.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (05/09/91)
>>> But he did get Woz to pose for the ads....
'course, Woz was posing for just about anyone back then :-).