I'm sorry for the very blunt, poorly worded title, but I'm a little pressed for time.

There seem to be some very passionate arguments about the future of computers, etc. in our daily lives, these arguments can also be summed up as "Apple vs Microsoft/Linux", because there are some very obvious design philosophy differences between the two that can lead to some very passionate debates.

Apple, on one hand of things, seems to view computers as consumer electronics. Devices that are not really meant to be messed with internally, so much as used and enjoyed the way they were intended to be used and enjoyed (This is not much different than: iPods, Game Consoles, VCRs, DVD players, etc.).

On the other end of the spectrum we seem to have the "Car" philosophy, that the computer is a tool produced by a series of parts working together to do something. So, the "PC" OS design philosophy encourages you to tinker, enhance performance, change out pieces, and in other words "Trick out your ride". "Oh man, that's a GREAT new graphics card! I'll go plot $700 on it!" You get the idea.

So, I think one of the major questions in both preventing, and understanding, these rather heated debates is trying to understand the opposing side's point of view where computers are concerned.

Obviously, if a person believes that a computer is consumer electronics in the traditional sense they don't have an urge to tinker with it, but rather to just use it. To this kind of person, not only is the 'ability' (read: pseudo requirement) to switch parts over time not desirable, it can be detrimental.

On the other hand, if someone believes that a PC is more similar to a car in design philosophy, being locked out of the box DESPITE gains in performance, stability, and usefulness, are a detriment and may be seen as a 'loss of rights'.

So, the question posed is pretty simple, which camp do you come from? Would you rather unpack a new computer, plug it in, and instantly start using it? Or do you prefer to unpack it, and start getting under the hood to find out what's it has in there?

I think the information that you volunteer in this thread might be beneficial to any understandings in later arguments/debates about these design philosophies (or in Apple vs. Linux/Microsoft)

I used to have an Apple //e many years ago, and I was a big fan of Apple. The //e came with the schematics for the motherboard in the user's manual. How's that for open? Can you imagine seeing a schematic when you open a box now?

When Apple went to the Mac, they lost me. Too closed.

Some people like their computers to be 'gizmos', like their cell phone. They don't want to mess with it, they just want to USE it. This is computer as means of enjoying hobbies (such as music) and doing work.

Other people like to program and reconfigure their computers. This is more of computer-as-hobby, even if we also use it to accomplish tasks. To me, half the fun of a computer is the computer itself. Many people consider that aspect a terrible chore.

I don't see any loss of rights. You make your choice when you choose what kind of system you get. Obviously if people seek to limit choices in order to coral everyone into the USER position, then that's denial of freedom.

From a business perspective, I think there are businesses that like to keep their customers USERS (and I would actually put Microsoft in the same boat with Apple on this). There are also businesses that excel at providing wide varieties of choices.

People often whine about Windows (or sometimes Apple) but continue using it regardless of the nasty things Microsoft does. That's just lazy. Change the channel or quit your complaining. You do have choices - no one if forcing you to line Bill Gates pockets so he can further hamper computing freedom.

computers should be costomisoble, otherwise i would refuse to use them.

Interesting topic, but possibly some oversimplified assumptions. E.g. Macs are more closed. In some or many ways they're more open than Windows PCs. At least I can go to a command line, get some text-based POSIX-compliant/Open Source software and run it. You can dig pretty deep into the system if you want. I only used a Mac recently for a few months, so this is a shallow impression, but my strong impression nevertheless.

I generally think we err in two different directions when looking at PCs (including Macs) vs. devices/appliances. Most people want PCs that are more flexible than they need. Most device builders cripple the devices to be less flexible than many people would like. Please understand that I'm generalizing about the majority of users, not power users.

The vast majority of people use PCs as virtual appliances. They crank up a few applications like a web browser, email reader, word processor, etc. and rarely do anything else. Web-based applications get better and better. Many needs would be (mostly) satisfied by a browsing appliance. It should be cheaper to build such a device, and be easier to use.

Our MP3 players, cameras, smart picture frames, etc. are generally embedded computers with firmware and software written to provide the limited functionality envisioned by marketing departments and design engineers. Despite it running on software code you almost never can write your own code or load programs written by others. It saves on support costs, avoids copyright violations, and generally maintains a monopoly on the device's guts. You'll have to buy the next generation to get more features. If you could load your own software you might keep and enjoy the device longer, but less profitably for the manufacturer.

I just don't get why we don't see other models beyond the overly flexible and complex PC and the underly flexible and crippled iPod-like thingies. What do you think?

I tinker. It's what I do. I don't think I could stop myself if I tried.

I used to consider them a car - and I built my own. Now I'll just buy them like consumer electronics. Hell, you can buy a computer these days for not much more than what people used to pay at one time for a cassette Walkman.

Well I have never bought a new PC. A few second hand ones in the beginning but it has been many years of "upgrading"

About a month back I set my self a mission, to see if I could make a working PC from all of the old parts I have cluttering my house. I was ultimately unsuccessful because for the last few years I have been giving away the old kit to the guys in the clan that can make use of them... Not something you can do with an iMac. A full on Apple/Mac then maybe but not the iMac.

The iMac is more like a laptop rather than a traditional desktop computer. So if the iMac is like a laptop it's still not a VCR, it's a home computer just not a PC... Remember before the IBM/PC and it's clones became the default standard. We all used different hardware that was incompatible with each other. It's just that the only one that is still out there in the wild is Apple. What happened to Atari, Amiga, Sinclare, Commodore?!? They all died off, only Apple survived.

i consider my computer like a car, i also consider them like different makes of car,
linux is an aston, vista is a 4 litre skoda, uses lots of fuel but still slow and prone to breaking down.

If I bought a car, I'd expect to drive it straight off the forecourt and make it home without needing to get under the hood. And I've had VCRs in pieces many times. But then I know more about electronics than I do about cars TBH though, even cars these days seem to me to be becoming less user serviceable. Mostly things fall into 2 categories when they stop working - they are either so cheap that you throw them away and buy a new one, or so expensive that you send them away under warranty.

The interesting thing about cars is that you have to learn a lot to use them. They are definitely NOT intuitive to a complete novice. It seems quite odd to me that we expect computers to be completely intuitive to someone with no knowledge or training. The price of that is complexity and dragging down the skilled user. Complexity always has a price in reliability and stability. Simple implementations are more reliable because of having fewer gears to jam, but they ask the user to turn a few knobs and learn a few skills.

Why do we expect PCs to do everything without input and cars to only do what they are told? A car is more like a lever that allows a skilled person to go faster and travel farther. Levers are better than automatons for most tasks, because they amplify people's skills, rather than squelching them.

Maybe there is an element of people wrongly expecting computers to be intelligent. I don't think that people who understand computers expect them to do anything of their own volition. They are good at automation, when given correct instructions - but many people expand that into conceiving that the computer actually thinks for itself (because they have no understanding).

i love tinkering with stuff, so i would have to go for the car...

i have also modified my vcr (ipod) by installing ipodlinux and rockbox on it

i think its a good idea to give options, have the same product avayable with the appleos and rockbox/ipodlinux, so people can choose

Quit trying to be reasonable! ;-) There's only allowed to be one winner per product category. Didn't you know that?! I started out joking, but that's kinda how it really is with many technology product categories.

One point to mention... My car is like a VCR! I drive it, and put fuel in that is about it. The only reason I would ever lift the bonnet (hood for our American cousins) is to fill the washer bottle... I remember when cars were simple enough to repair myself but they haven't been that way for some years.



Ford Focus, C-Max, Zetec Climate, 1.6 16Valve Variable Valve timing. 115BHP and yes it's quick Not bad for a normal Euro family car.