OSNews

To the contrary, the computer industry is stuck in a permanent state of stagnation. Technical innovation, yes, but still the same paper-based paradigms that fail to take full advantage of the computer's capabilities. I think that the Kindle is a perfect example.

Computers aren't unique in this trend, and any information technology borrows heavily from its preceding technology in the beginning. The fonts for the printing press in the West were basically replicas of cursive handwriting until Aldus, and if you read Plato you'll see plenty of issues with the invention of writing, introduced to Athens right around the time of Socrates. In general, everyone thinks about the development of computers purely in terms of their engineering, but rarely do we hear their historical context.

C'mon and downvote this, baby (for my Kindle comment)!

I disagree completely, we are so far apart in our mindsets that a further exchange of ideas is not possible, nor is the effort worthwhile; there is too much future to invent!

The science has certainly progressed. Hardware has become exponentially more powerful. Research in programming languages and algorithms has grown by leaps and bounds. Yet the interactive and conceptual models that we use today are still fundamentally identical to those developed at Xerox PARC and introduced with the original Macintosh in 1984.

Applications are still massive walled gardens that operate on isolated documents. We're still stuck digging through dozens, hundreds or thousands of menus and submenus to access features. Data is still stored as untyped, unstructured buckets of bits that carry a single piece of metadata and are presented in a hierarchical folder structure that is the direct analog of a physical filing cabinet.

That was the paradigm that was introduced with the original Macintosh, and 26 years later, even with all the staggering advances in technology, nothing has changed.

I call that stagnation and I also find it patently absurd.

The science has certainly progressed. Hardware has become exponentially more powerful. Research in engine efficiency and safety has grown by leaps and bounds. Yet the interactive and conceptual models that we use today are still fundamentally identical to those developed at Cadillac and introduced with the Cadillac Type 53 in 1916 [1].

Cars are still massive dangerous objects operated by flawed humans. We're still stuck taking expensive driving lessons, learning hundreds of road signs, traffic controller signals, and what not. Cars still operate as individual, unlinked objects, even thougn roads have clogged up and are infinitely more busy than they were in 1916.

That was the paradigm that was introduced with the Type 53, and 94 years later, even with all the staggering advances in technology, nothing has changed.

I call that stagnation and I also find it patently absurd.

[1] http://tviv.org/Top_Gear/Season_10_Episode_8#Search_for_the_Modern_...