Monday, February 11, 2002
Why do we put up with unreliable Computers?
Posted by Tycho Morgan in "ARTICLE" @ 09:29 PM
http://home.post-dispatch.com/channel/pdweb.nsf/text/86256A0E0068FE5086256B5D003DB47D
Dan Gillmore, noted technology pundit, writes, among other things, a syndicated column that our local paper picks up every Monday in the “Business Plus” section. This week’s column was, as the title suggests about the reliability of our modern computing systems. His prime example: a botched promotional gesture involving a wireless network, AvantGo software, and a few iPaq Pocket PCs.
“No one pointed fingers, at least not officially. Compaq may have been least blameworthy. The key software was from Microsoft, whose Pocket PC operating system powers the iPaq, and Hayward, Calif.-based AvantGo, which supplied a program to synchronize the devices with the central server computers. The Accenture consulting firm was the "systems integrator," responsible for putting it all together.”
“But Compaq's nameplate was on the iPaqs. So the company that helped create the personal-computer industry, and which has won deserved praise for the iPaq in other contexts, wound up with a public relations black eye.”
I think he’s got it right. Pocket PCs—and lots of other devices—are really great on paper assuming they work right, the thing is once you get them into the field they don’t always function exactly the intend for them to work. This inherently buggy nature of modern computing technology is unavoidable, and it’s something that is in desperate need of being fixed. I’d say get something 100% right before you work on making it 200% better. For example, ActiveSync, truly mobile input, and connection settings...need I go on?
This isn’t to say that I think the Pocket PC is a flawed idea, or that I think we should all go back to paper because it’s less buggy, I’m merely saying that as users of modern computing technology, we put up with a lot of reliability-challenged devices.
Dan Gillmore, noted technology pundit, writes, among other things, a syndicated column that our local paper picks up every Monday in the “Business Plus” section. This week’s column was, as the title suggests about the reliability of our modern computing systems. His prime example: a botched promotional gesture involving a wireless network, AvantGo software, and a few iPaq Pocket PCs.
“No one pointed fingers, at least not officially. Compaq may have been least blameworthy. The key software was from Microsoft, whose Pocket PC operating system powers the iPaq, and Hayward, Calif.-based AvantGo, which supplied a program to synchronize the devices with the central server computers. The Accenture consulting firm was the "systems integrator," responsible for putting it all together.”
“But Compaq's nameplate was on the iPaqs. So the company that helped create the personal-computer industry, and which has won deserved praise for the iPaq in other contexts, wound up with a public relations black eye.”
I think he’s got it right. Pocket PCs—and lots of other devices—are really great on paper assuming they work right, the thing is once you get them into the field they don’t always function exactly the intend for them to work. This inherently buggy nature of modern computing technology is unavoidable, and it’s something that is in desperate need of being fixed. I’d say get something 100% right before you work on making it 200% better. For example, ActiveSync, truly mobile input, and connection settings...need I go on?
This isn’t to say that I think the Pocket PC is a flawed idea, or that I think we should all go back to paper because it’s less buggy, I’m merely saying that as users of modern computing technology, we put up with a lot of reliability-challenged devices.
