3 ms·

Computers are fundamentally different from things like the iPad. The iPad is a console, not a computer. It is heavily restricted in what you can do with it. Ye

by api 17y ago

Computers are fundamentally different from things like the iPad. The iPad is a console, not a computer. It is heavily restricted in what you can do with it. Yes, computers are progressing a little more slowly in a sense. This isn't a bad thing. You shouldn't have to buy a new one every two years. But they're still different.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
garret 17y ago
> It is heavily restricted in what you can do with it. And that's what makes it more useful to more people.
- api 17y ago
  That's because operating systems are fundamentally broken in terms of how they handle application installing, application uninstalling, etc. OSX's .app drag-and-drop is the closest to the right answer. Linux's package management is a working but hugely complex solution to a problem that should be entirely sidestepped. Windows is totally broken. Each app should live in its own world. Management of libraries and support infrastructure should also be neatly modular. An app should not have an "installer" and should not be allowed to mess with the OS.
  - contextfree 17y ago
    Which is easy on any modern OS (including Windows) ... provided the app doesn't need to interact with others (by giving them a way to handle its file format, for example). At which point it you have the same problems which need to be dealt with one way or another.
tvon 17y ago
Consoles are what people seem to want. "Just works" is more appealing than "can work".
- gloob 17y ago
  Until you want to do something that "Just Can't Be Done", which is where the strengths of having a general-purpose computer that acts like a general-purpose computer come into play.
  - tvon 17y ago
    True, but I think it's a matter of the paths of least resistance. Let's say there's a 80/20 split, between what is really easy or quick or fun --some subjective measure of "better"-- to do on the console vs what you need a general purpose computer for. At some point, the console is going to win out and those 20 percent items, and tasks that you'd need a general purpose computer for are going to somehow change. Either you'll find another way to accomplish the same general task or tools for the console will arrive that are "good enough". So the question would be, does the console do enough of what people generally do to change the things they rely on a general purpose computer for? Granted, the successful consoles I can think of are all TV related, and the TV has key advantages over general purpose computers for those consoles (bigger screen, setup to be watched instead of worked on, better sound, etc).

by api 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

garret 17y ago

> It is heavily restricted in what you can do with it. And that's what makes it more useful to more people.

api 17y ago
That's because operating systems are fundamentally broken in terms of how they handle application installing, application uninstalling, etc. OSX's .app drag-and-drop is the closest to the right answer. Linux's package management is a working but hugely complex solution to a problem that should be entirely sidestepped. Windows is totally broken. Each app should live in its own world. Management of libraries and support infrastructure should also be neatly modular. An app should not have an "installer" and should not be allowed to mess with the OS.
- contextfree 17y ago
  Which is easy on any modern OS (including Windows) ... provided the app doesn't need to interact with others (by giving them a way to handle its file format, for example). At which point it you have the same problems which need to be dealt with one way or another.

tvon 17y ago

Consoles are what people seem to want. "Just works" is more appealing than "can work".

gloob 17y ago
Until you want to do something that "Just Can't Be Done", which is where the strengths of having a general-purpose computer that acts like a general-purpose computer come into play.
- tvon 17y ago
  True, but I think it's a matter of the paths of least resistance. Let's say there's a 80/20 split, between what is really easy or quick or fun --some subjective measure of "better"-- to do on the console vs what you need a general purpose computer for. At some point, the console is going to win out and those 20 percent items, and tasks that you'd need a general purpose computer for are going to somehow change. Either you'll find another way to accomplish the same general task or tools for the console will arrive that are "good enough". So the question would be, does the console do enough of what people generally do to change the things they rely on a general purpose computer for? Granted, the successful consoles I can think of are all TV related, and the TV has key advantages over general purpose computers for those consoles (bigger screen, setup to be watched instead of worked on, better sound, etc).