Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:25:40 -0400
From: Steve Smith <sgs at aginc.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Netiquette
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:
>
> "Michael Walsh" <MJW at mail.press.jhu.edu> wrote:
>
> > In the April issue of Asimovs (http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0204/Ref.html)
> > Silverbob writes:
> > "... I am writing this right now on a quite functional 1991 computer
> > ... The word-processing program I use is the same one I've been using
> > since 1982, ... so old that it's incompatible with any program used
> > by anybody else.  Which is all okay by me: my professional needs are
> > met, I have lost the desire to master a lot of complex new gadgetary
> > skills, and so be it."
>
> Good for him.  Why should anyone be forced to keep buying new things
> and learning new skills if they don't provide any actual improvement
> in doing the task?  It's not as if his typing speed would be any
> faster if he replaced his 5 MHz PC with a 500 MHz PC.  Indeed, it
> would be slower until he fully learned the gratuitous incompatibilies
> in word processor commands, keyboard layout, etc.
>
> I'm all for true progress, but not for random incompatible changes.

One of the curiosities of the computer biz is that the old machines
still do exactly the same thing they always did.  Only thing that
changes is our expectations and the stuff that other people are using.

One of the first programs I bought when I got my first IBM-PC was
Borland's Sprint word processor.  It did essentially everything I'd ever
want a word processor to do.  Only thing I miss is having it flag
spelling errors as I type.  The spellchecker itself, however, is
actually better than Word's or WordPerfect's.

For a bit of nostalgia, see
http://www.bricklin.com/history/vcexecutable.htm
This lets you download a copy of the first IBM-PC version of Visicalc.
It's under 28K.

> Ted White <tedwhite at compusnet.com> wrote:
>
> > In this modern era of publishing, working on an incompatible system
> > means he has to turn in *paper copy* rather than a floppy or an
> > emailed file.  I bet that goes over big with his publishers --
> > someone has to *retype* his mss, with the opportunity to introduce
> > many new typos and errors....
>
> Not if his publishers have any sense.  If they don't have a system on
> hand which can read and convert his diskettes, they certainly know of
> a nearby firm which specializes in converting "obsolete" formats.

Actually, I've herd that one of the problems that the library types have
is with old digital formats and media.  How long will 8" floppy disks
*really* last?  Perhaps more importantly, how long will the drives
themselves last?  Magnetic tape is an even bigger problem, and I've
heard that the "expected" lifetime of a normal (aluminum coated) CD is
only about 10 years.  (CD-R recordable CDs have a much longer expected
life -- 100-150 years.)

--
Steve Smith                                           sgs at aginc.net
Agincourt Computing                            http://www.aginc.net
"Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."