Linked by David Adams on Wed 24th May 2006 04:08 UTC
Editorial It's conventional wisdom that computers need to be "easier to use." But do they? More reliable, yes. Easier to troubleshoot, yes. But now that so many people use computers so much, I think there's something to be said for making them less easy-to-use and less intuitive.
Permalink for comment 127513
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I agree.. to an extent.
by naelurec on Wed 24th May 2006 16:22 UTC
Member since:

The author makes a good point that the the full capability of a computer is not realized and as a result, productivity suffers.

Ultimately, I believe this comes down to personal desire to achieve higher levels of proficiency and productivity. Perhaps this requires a shift in mindset. Many computer user activities are highly repetetive. If users could recognize this behavior, they might start to look for solutions (shortcuts, macros, regular expressions, scripting, etc..). Though I don't see this happening. Without a solid knowledge of how an operating system functions, ascertaining these more-advanced skillsets is difficult or even impossible.

As far as reliability of the PC, computer hardware and software can be quite reliable. Server-grade hardware with built-in redundancy running a solid OS can provide many years of reliable service. I know of systems that fit in this category that have been running 24 hours a day for 7+ years and they are still operational with minimal maintenace issues.

The problem is very few people want to pay for this level of reliability. Low cost and familiarity are higher priority. I believe priorities are significantly different when buying a computer vs a car. I can go on about how *generally* people will not attempt to fix their cars nor have the local kid in the neighborhood attempt to fix it. Essentially they get what they pay for (in terms of both monetary investment and time investment).

Reply Score: 3