[863] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
PDA Furor?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ernest Perez)
Thu Jul 30 12:30:34 1992
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:19:20 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
From: Ernest Perez <EPEREZ%UTDALLAS.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Thought that PACS-Lers might be interested in another view about the PDA
technology which has raised such hoopla on PACS-L of late. There have been
multiple messages which celebrate the possibility of the PDA, the Newton, or
some descendant, as an extension of the researcher and of the future OPAC.
This other opinion comes from InfoWorld columnist Steve Gibson, certainly not
a technophobe, since he is himself a successful and respected software
developer.
His July 27, Tech Talk column (P.34) headline is... "PDAs: killer breakthrough
technology or the next hula hoop?" The headline telegraphs his opinion, so
it's no surprise when you read comments such as:
"...I believe the only thing Apple has done is to design a
next-generation killer toy for bored yuppies."
"Today this PDA technology is nothing more than a non-existent far-out
vapor concept designed around vapor technology running vapor software for
a vapor market."
"Some say the whold PDA strategy, built around the product code named
Newton, is little more than Apple's desperate grasp in reaction to the
loss of the personal computer marketplace. The company certainly startled
most observers by marrying IBM, following the adage, 'If you can't beat
'em, join 'em.' Sure. Except that the relationship is like catching a
ride on the Titanic. It is big and slow -- now watch it sink."
Gibson's certainly not shy about his opinions. His July 13 column also
predicted the ultimate success of the Intel-fueled personal computer in
total domination of the microcomputer marketplace. That Tech Talk headline,
"Darwinism will make dinosaurs of all platforms except the PC." He wasn't
talking about user interface or architecture, etc., but about evolutionary
survival of the strongest competitor (with 586 and 686 chips to shortly
triumph over the 68000 chip workstations). Interesting column.
His reasoning sounded pragmatic. But whatever comes of his predictions, my own
concerns about PDAs are that they are just a bit too tiny and too cute to
be of any effective value.
Yeah, they're neat. I'd love one, maybe. But on second thought.... Even
laptops feature keyboards and manual operability, easy hookup to your desktop
or home printers, etc. And keyboards let you do realistic things like enter
text efficiently (I don't know about you, but my keyboarding speed is
magnitudes superior to my writing speed. And magnitudes of less effort, also.)
Yeah, we can wander about a library or other facility, with our electronic or
infra umbelical "trailing" behind. I gather that there's some kind of
advantage to this scenario, though I'm not quite sure what it is. As opposed
to, say, stopping by a conveniently placed campus net terminal tucked here &
there in the stacks, to check upon what needs checking, or do what needs
doing. Hmmm...and no personal capital investment needed! Better yet, how about
a docking cable for my laptop....
I would much rather sit and use an ergonomically-sized keyboard of some type
for "serious stuff", when I sit down to "singletask" and pay attention to
what I'm doing. Come on, now, how many people do you see carrying those tiny
single column photocopiers, recently mentioned in a Praise the PDA message. Or
even carrying calculators around in the supermarket, to keep a running total
of purchases. Does that give you an idea of reality marketplace check for
tiny, cute, doodads? Maybe it just ain't worth the effort to 1) produce little
coils of skinny pretend-photocopy, or 2) know how much you're going to spend,
which you'll know anyway, in a minute. (or will you then feel more secure in
arguing with supermarket manager about the barcode scanner cash register?)
I am totally in favor of automated aids for humanity. Whether it be in
calculating, text manipulation, information retrieval, or whatever. The
computers help us do things we couldn't do before, whether because of the
speed of processing, the dexterity in handling enormous amounts of data, or
the pea-brained brainless defined manipulation to get things just how The
Master (me) wants them. I mean, That's What Computers Are For.
But I do fear there is an inclination for early adopters to grasp at
sometimes questionable benefits. For example, does one really need DTP
capability and 237 fonts on one's personal wordprocessor? (Especially, if as
the _Academic Computing_ article of a year or two ago concluded, emphasis upon
textual graphics and appearance corresponded to significantly lower levels of
writing quality and spelling.) And n-dimensional spreadsheets? When the rest
of us have to pay for development and marketing of what is then really niche
software?
Do we think that Brand X OPAC vendor is really going to sink hard development
bucks into communications links with some specific vendor's PDA product
interface? Anytime soon? In that case, I'd like to show you this bridge I have
that will connect Tandy Color Computers and CPM machines to your OPAC. We
can't even decide yet what we even want OPAC systems to **DO**, q.v., the
ongoing CRL OPAC study.
I'd welcome comments. I'm not particularly negative about information
technology and automation, given my field of specialization. But I do
sometimes wonder about the need for cost-effectiveness considerations, and
for reality checks.
..............................
Ernest Perez, Ph.D
Access Information Associates
2183 Buckingham, Suite 106
Richardson TX 75081
214-530-4800
INTERNET: eperez@utdallas.edu
BITNET: eperez@utdallas
..............................
The Librarian's Creed - "We have not succeeded in answering all your
questions. Indeed, we sometimes feel we have not completely answered any of
them. The answers we have given only serve to raise a whole set of new
questions. In some ways we feel that you are as confused as ever, but we
believe you are confused on a much higher level and about more important
things ."
