5 ms·

Impractical isn't the right word. The Voyager 1 spacecraft is still working, and it's practical.

colejohnson66 6y ago
It’s impractical in that it doesn’t make much sense to use them from a “productivity” standpoint. I’m not going to code up my website on an original Macintosh. They only really make sense from a historical standpoint (but productivity in the form of making videos about them does exist). The Voyager 1 is still practical because it would take too long to get something that’s better that it to where it is.
- ryanmercer 6y ago
  >I’m not going to code up my website on an original Macintosh. Yet people still make games, and hardware, for cold hard cash for vintage systems like the Commodore and Atari computer lines. For example https://atariage.com/store/ https://atariage.com/store/ is full of newer titles and in the various forums you can find all sorts of modern hardware and titles being discussed, and sold, for various vintage systems https://atariage.com/forums/ https://atariage.com/forums/ Some of us find these machines very practical, some are even still being used in commercial settings. At some point I recall one of the people being interviewed on ANTIC The Atari 8-bit Podcast ( https://ataripodcast.libsyn.com/ https://ataripodcast.libsyn.com/ ) mentioning they either recently stop using, or were still using, an Atari computer in a commercial setting because if it isn't broke, don't fix it. I mean, people even still make peripherals for these vintage machines. I had a brand-spanking-new-from-the-factory joystick show up just this past week for my Atari machines from https://retroradionics.co.uk/ https://retroradionics.co.uk/ Sure, you might not create a flashy website for a client, or some machine learning, design the next app to IPO at a billion for, or develop the next social media platform on one but they absolutely still have a practical, functional, use for many users.
- someperson 6y ago
  > it doesn’t make much sense to use them from a “productivity” standpoint One famous example is George R.R. Martin writing Game of Thrones using WordStar 4.0 on a computer running MSDOS.
  - qayxc 6y ago
    He could've just as well used a typewriter - literally just writing doesn't require a computer at all. Writers in particular don't have to care about words-per-minute or error correction, grammar or style (there's lectors for that anyway) and they don't do serial letters or mail merge either. There's no good metric for measuring "productivity" for writers with respect to the tools used.
    - selfhoster11 6y ago
      Error correction and ease of duplication of the entire manuscript can be make or break.
      - qayxc 6y ago
        That's why I explicitly wrote electronic typewriter. Electronic office typewriters did have interfaces for monitors and some came with integrated digital storage (e.g. disks) and had a similar feature set to that of early word processing programs.
        selfhoster11 6y ago
        I think a distinction needs to be made between electric typewriters (basically electrified mechanical typewriters to not tire out the fingers) and electronic typewriters (more advanced devices, usually with a buffer to correct typos before they are committed to paper, might have spell check or other intelligence, sometimes feature a full-blown built-in display). The latter are basically computers, but they are self-contained with regards to the peripherals and printing. On the other hand, a DOS operating environment, while slightly more complex, is far easier to integrate into a modern workflow. The environment can be emulated (= easier to lug around a 4MB DOS disk image than a 20kg chunky suitcase, easy to use modern peripherals like 4K screens, KVM switches/Alt+Tab, and WiFi printers), data backup is very straightforward (vs a machine-specific process or paper photocopy), and the data is far easier to convert to modern formats for incorporation into modern workflows (US ASCII + Markdown can be turned to PDF, HTML, ODT, or kept as is). If I had to incur the complexity cost of a more advanced platform, a DOS editor would be preferable over an electronic typewriter.
- ArcticCelt 6y ago
  C64, Apple II and others can still be enjoyable for retrogaming. So maybe not productive but still practical.
- dasyatidprime 6y ago
  It's worth remembering that a large amount of the reason that's impractical is because society shifts to expect the new thing. In turn, part of the reason society gets to expect the new thing much more instantly nowadays is because past new things started including “always the newest by default”, so it became an active choice to want to keep anything around or not instantly change your behavior to match. I'm not sure how much of this is ‘actual’ values versus power conflicts versus broken equilibria though I know at least one influence was the rolling infosecpocalypse. There's a post elsewhere on “The Amish, and Strategic Norms around Technology” which has some not-bad short description of ways this isn't universal, and potential for application to current-day (potentially America-centric, etc.) society, without going into too much depth: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/36Dhz325MZNq3Cs6B/the-amish-and-strategic-norms-around-technology https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/36Dhz325MZNq3Cs6B/the-amish-...
- wtetzner 6y ago
  > It’s impractical in that it doesn’t make much sense to use them from a “productivity” standpoint. I think it depends on what you're trying to do. If you're creating pixel art for a game, working on a "retro" computer might be more practical. E.g., if the software you're using does everything you need, you get some nice benefits like fast startup time, often lower latency feedback, not having to worry about automatic updates rebooting your machine while you're working on something, having a machine that's much easier to understand/modify to your needs, etc. It may not be practical to have a "retro" computer as your only computer, but for certain tasks I can see them being more practical than a modern computer. And it's honestly kinda sad that modern computers provide such a subpar experience in a lot of areas.

It’s impractical in that it doesn’t make much sense to use them from a “productivity” standpoint. I’m not going to code up my website on an original Macintosh. They only really make sense from a historical standpoint (but productivity in the form of making videos about them does exist). The Voyager 1 is still practical because it would take too long to get something that’s better that it to where it is.

ryanmercer 6y ago
>I’m not going to code up my website on an original Macintosh. Yet people still make games, and hardware, for cold hard cash for vintage systems like the Commodore and Atari computer lines. For example https://atariage.com/store/ https://atariage.com/store/ is full of newer titles and in the various forums you can find all sorts of modern hardware and titles being discussed, and sold, for various vintage systems https://atariage.com/forums/ https://atariage.com/forums/ Some of us find these machines very practical, some are even still being used in commercial settings. At some point I recall one of the people being interviewed on ANTIC The Atari 8-bit Podcast ( https://ataripodcast.libsyn.com/ https://ataripodcast.libsyn.com/ ) mentioning they either recently stop using, or were still using, an Atari computer in a commercial setting because if it isn't broke, don't fix it. I mean, people even still make peripherals for these vintage machines. I had a brand-spanking-new-from-the-factory joystick show up just this past week for my Atari machines from https://retroradionics.co.uk/ https://retroradionics.co.uk/ Sure, you might not create a flashy website for a client, or some machine learning, design the next app to IPO at a billion for, or develop the next social media platform on one but they absolutely still have a practical, functional, use for many users.
someperson 6y ago
> it doesn’t make much sense to use them from a “productivity” standpoint One famous example is George R.R. Martin writing Game of Thrones using WordStar 4.0 on a computer running MSDOS.
- qayxc 6y ago
  He could've just as well used a typewriter - literally just writing doesn't require a computer at all. Writers in particular don't have to care about words-per-minute or error correction, grammar or style (there's lectors for that anyway) and they don't do serial letters or mail merge either. There's no good metric for measuring "productivity" for writers with respect to the tools used.
  - selfhoster11 6y ago
    Error correction and ease of duplication of the entire manuscript can be make or break.
    - qayxc 6y ago
      That's why I explicitly wrote electronic typewriter. Electronic office typewriters did have interfaces for monitors and some came with integrated digital storage (e.g. disks) and had a similar feature set to that of early word processing programs.
      - selfhoster11 6y ago
        I think a distinction needs to be made between electric typewriters (basically electrified mechanical typewriters to not tire out the fingers) and electronic typewriters (more advanced devices, usually with a buffer to correct typos before they are committed to paper, might have spell check or other intelligence, sometimes feature a full-blown built-in display). The latter are basically computers, but they are self-contained with regards to the peripherals and printing. On the other hand, a DOS operating environment, while slightly more complex, is far easier to integrate into a modern workflow. The environment can be emulated (= easier to lug around a 4MB DOS disk image than a 20kg chunky suitcase, easy to use modern peripherals like 4K screens, KVM switches/Alt+Tab, and WiFi printers), data backup is very straightforward (vs a machine-specific process or paper photocopy), and the data is far easier to convert to modern formats for incorporation into modern workflows (US ASCII + Markdown can be turned to PDF, HTML, ODT, or kept as is). If I had to incur the complexity cost of a more advanced platform, a DOS editor would be preferable over an electronic typewriter.
ArcticCelt 6y ago
C64, Apple II and others can still be enjoyable for retrogaming. So maybe not productive but still practical.
dasyatidprime 6y ago
It's worth remembering that a large amount of the reason that's impractical is because society shifts to expect the new thing. In turn, part of the reason society gets to expect the new thing much more instantly nowadays is because past new things started including “always the newest by default”, so it became an active choice to want to keep anything around or not instantly change your behavior to match. I'm not sure how much of this is ‘actual’ values versus power conflicts versus broken equilibria though I know at least one influence was the rolling infosecpocalypse. There's a post elsewhere on “The Amish, and Strategic Norms around Technology” which has some not-bad short description of ways this isn't universal, and potential for application to current-day (potentially America-centric, etc.) society, without going into too much depth: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/36Dhz325MZNq3Cs6B/the-amish-and-strategic-norms-around-technology https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/36Dhz325MZNq3Cs6B/the-amish-...
wtetzner 6y ago
> It’s impractical in that it doesn’t make much sense to use them from a “productivity” standpoint. I think it depends on what you're trying to do. If you're creating pixel art for a game, working on a "retro" computer might be more practical. E.g., if the software you're using does everything you need, you get some nice benefits like fast startup time, often lower latency feedback, not having to worry about automatic updates rebooting your machine while you're working on something, having a machine that's much easier to understand/modify to your needs, etc. It may not be practical to have a "retro" computer as your only computer, but for certain tasks I can see them being more practical than a modern computer. And it's honestly kinda sad that modern computers provide such a subpar experience in a lot of areas.