Slashdot Mirror


Ten Technologies That Refuse to Die

kudyadi writes "Technology Review has an interesting article on, as the title suggests, ten technologies that we continue using despite advances made in the same. The best example is that of analog watches, "Compared to today's digital timepieces, old-fashioned, sweep-hand watches are pathetic one-trick ponies. Digital-watch wearers can check temperature, altitude, and the time in Tokyo, play tunes and games, and send messages. Can wristwatch videoconferencing, Web surfing, and tarot readings be far off? But what digital watches can't do, according to sweep-hand proponents, is display the time and context as elegantly and intuitively as an analog model."" Interesting counterpoint to this post from a few years back about technologies that didn't manage to hang on. And Bruce Sterling has a short list of ones he'd like to see go away, too ;)

25 of 1,381 comments (clear)

  1. Tech #11 That Refuses To Die by sulli · · Score: 5, Funny

    *BSD

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  2. Fortran is # 10 by tcopeland · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Forty-seven years after IBM unleashed it, Fortran (formula translation), the original "high-level" programming language, would seem to be the infotech equivalent of cuneiform. But it's still widely used, especially in scientific computing.


    No need to throw the Fortran libraries away, though, just wrap them in a higher level language. Chances are it'll be fast enough, and it'll almost certainly be a lot easier to use.
    1. Re:Fortran is # 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fortran isn't really as outdated as the article makes out. For a start, it's not quite the same as the IBM language from the 60's - recently we've had the Fortran 90 and Fortran 95 revisions, and I believe there was even a Fotrtran 2003 revision.

      The reason that Fortran is still popular in the scientific community is that it's pretty well optimised for the kind of tasks that you're likely to be doing. For example, Fortran has complex numbers as a basic data type. It's also simpler than C based languages for working with multidimensional arrays - no need to futz about with arrays of pointers or whatever, just declare a (resizable, if desired) multidimensional array. In general, the builtin functions are designed to work well on parallel architectures, so writing good parallel code isn't (quite) so much hard work.

      Basically, Fortran is still used because it's well adapted for the job it's doing. The fact that it isn't used in application programming is because it sucks for that purpose.

  3. quote by trickycamel · · Score: 5, Funny

    My favorite quote from the article:

    "And you needn't worry about your system going obsolete if it already is."

    How true...

    --
    Sig? What sig?
  4. Some are, some aren't by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful
    His list has one point I'd argue: typewriters. They'll die with the current crop of older adults that still use them. (I'm 42 and haven't touched one in probably 17 years.) Offices used to keep them around, even after entering "the computer age", but if you walk into any small business now, you'll find the token typewriter stuffed in a closet, no longer even usable.

    Yes, there are some people who use them, but there are fewer and fewer forms to fill out these days that aren't automated.

    --
    John
  5. Obligatory Adams by Mateito · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun.

    Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

    This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.

    And so the problem remained; lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches."

  6. Kind of obvious but... by nil5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some of us forget that "new" is not necessarily "better".

  7. KISS - keep it simple stupid by Dethboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is just like over complicated phones. All I need it to do is keep time. Why does every device have to do 11,274 different things?

    I've had countless digital watches, most are in the garbage. I also have one or two 'analog' watches that I simply wind up and they work. No batteries, no looking for the manual to figure out how to set the time in Tokyo, no calibrating altitude and temp.

  8. Analog watches are better when you're counting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My mother's a nurse, and she told me once that she MUST have an analog watch with a second hand when counting somebody's pulse. I tried it once, and she's right - you just can't count both pulses and seconds if you're looking at a digital display.

    I think what's happening here is that with the analog watch, you use the "number" part of your brain to count the pulses, while you use the visual part of your brain to see when your 60 seconds is up (by looking for the position of the second hand).

    With a digital seconds readout, you end up using the "number" part of your brain for both tasks, and you get screwed up.

  9. Re:With respect to dot matrix printers... by schoolsucks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree. At work we use a dot matrix printer to print shipping forms that have to be signed. It just prints on one, and using carbon paper, it makes 2 other copies. The benefit of this comes when you sign the top copy and all 3 have the signature on them. With laser printer and making seperate copies, we had to sign 3 papers. So signing 100 copies would become signing 300 copies.

  10. "Sweep Hand" Watches Rule by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As Douglas Adams pointed out:
    Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun.

    Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

    The reason watches with moving hands are so successful is that same reason that even in modern glass cockpit aircraft the "old style" mechanical displays are rendered on screen: they are extremely fast and easy to read. The actual guts of the watch are irrelevant (purely mechanical all the way to purely electronic), but the display is the thing you are going to interact with every day.

    And an important aspect of moving hands is that they convey information in their movement: in a cockpit the altimeter can be "read" very quickly to show whether the aircraft is ascending or descending. On a watch I can get an approximate time (it's almost 4:30pm) in a glance. Yet another example is a digital vs. analog scuba diving pressure gauge: the position of the mechanical arm can be understood very fast without worrying about the exact number of PSI left.

    John.

    1. Re:"Sweep Hand" Watches Rule by frodoze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a watch with hands shows present, past and future time in once glance, if you have to meet someone in 25mins one look at the dial and you can see where the minute hand needs to be in that time, and as you get closer to the meeting time you know without having to think about how much time you have left, with a digital watch it only show the "now" time so you need to add that 25 minutes to what ever time is being shown on the display.

      a few years ago a well know car maker brought out a digital only speedo in some of their models, the following year they went back to a pointer indication or a combination moving scale with digital display, why? because people didn't like the digital only display, when people look at a number, it takes a moment for that number to register in the brain and figure out what it means, with hands it takes less effort to work out the time

      an analogue display is always faster in a glance in this respect

  11. Toilet Paper by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bidets are a 19th century innovation, and here we are (in America at least) cleaning our nether regions with paper. How barbaric!

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Toilet Paper by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Most of the rest of the world doesn't eat a Triple Decker Bacon Burrito with Cheese (and a Diet Coke) for lunch every day. Any bidet capable of cleaning up the aftermath of the average American diet would be more powerful than I'd want close to my rear. Heck, I imagine we'd buy Charmin With Oxy-Clean if it were available.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re:Toilet Paper by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
      > They make the "Baby Wipes" in "Adult" packaging now, so you don't ahve a big, smiling cartoon baby grinning at you when cleaning up.

      I always wondered why the fuck there are pictures of babies on toilet paper. Or names likeAngel Soft.

      "Hi! Our toilet paper is soft! In fact, it's so soft that we've named it Angel Soft! Because every time you take a dump, we want you feel like you've just ripped a wing off the back of one of God's celestial servants, so that you could smear your shit all over it!"

      If we ever need more evidence that marketing executives deserve to go to Hell, that seals it.

  12. Re:Old-fashioned watches by Country_hacker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Point the hour hand in the direction of the sun (Keeping it horizontal of course), and the point between the hour hand and 12 will be South. For you "Below the belt" /.rs (South of the equator ;-) it'll be pointing North.

    Cheers!
    --RjS

    --
    Never give any object more potential energy than you want it to have.
  13. Re:Snob by Sabu+mark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What next. I should get my wife cubic zirconium because it looks the same as a diamond but is much cheaper because it was made with "technology".

    No, you should get your wife another kind of gem, one whose price and supply aren't controlled by the same international monopoly that has brainwashed her into desiring a diamond an order of magnitude over other stones that you can buy without being gouged as much.

    --

    What Would Jesus Do
    (for a Klondike bar)?
  14. Floppy Drives by Sergeant+Beavis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He most certainly should have included old floppy drives. I no longer order a floppy drive when buying new PCs or Laptops for my company, but you can still get them if you want. USB keys are just too dang handy and hold alot more data. I'm amazed that the ole 3.5 disk is still around. At least that is better than the super old 8 inch disks I used so long ago.

    --
    There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
  15. Re:With respect to dot matrix printers... by biz0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I definitely agree with the main point of the parent poster. Older technology sometimes just downright works better.

    Case in point: New cell phones vs Old cell phones.

    New cell phones have mostly all had software problems of sorts, with laggy displays, crashing software (damnit I have to reboot my phone AGAIN), etc, etc. Older cell phones weren't so reliant on the 'cruft' that makes up new cell phone software, and generally worked a LOT smoother, and FAR less buggily.

    Example: I have a Motorolla T720 color screen phone, which IMHO, really bites ass. The thing drops calls, I get a black screen of death pretty much every few days (which requires me to completely remove the battery to drain the power), the display is soooo laggy its not even funny, plus many other small software bugs I am sure I can't recall of the top of my head.

    I would LOVE to get my old StarTac back...man that thing was rock solid! I even accidentally ran it through a FULL wash cycle in the washer and all I had to do was replace the battery. It also has/had none of the drawbacks I listed for the T720. Operation was as smooth as it could be IMO.

    Here's a vote for old technology when it works well.

    --
    /* sig */
  16. Re:I agree, mod parent up! by Golias · · Score: 5, Funny
    That may be what your watch is for, but I have not worn a dedicated timepiece of any sort for more than 10 years. I realized it's silly to carry a clock around on your wrist in an age when we are surrounded by clocks everywhere we go. Even as a type this, a clock ticks away on the corner of my laptop screen, and another is in eyeshot just a few inches away from it. When I get in my car, there are two on the dashboard, and several are visible during my commute.

    These days, I have usually two devices on my person, a cell phone and an MP3 player, which have built-on clocks. Even on the rare occasion when I'm in a place where there are no clocks (such as a casino or shopping mall), and have none with me by pure accident of fate, I'm surrounded by people not only carry clocks around on their wrists, but actually derive pleasure from the brief moment of human contact they experience when I say "excuse me, but do you have the time?"

    Strapping something to my wrist which only tells time would be a waste of five seconds each morning. I'm happier without one more item to worry about breaking or losing.

    I look forward to the day when my phone, MP3 player, watch, GPS, daily planner, and sunglasses are all one small, light, rugged device.

    Besides, it's a myth that timekeeping is what analog watches are for. They are worn as jewelry for men. It's a vain, metrosexual affectation to wear a gold watch. There's your real reason.

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  17. Re:#1 : Slashdot by B'Trey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But what digital watches can't do, according to sweep-hand proponents, is display the time and context as elegantly and intuitively as an analog model

    How on earth can you describe an analog watch as more intuitive than a digital watch? More elegant, certainly. But intuitive? A digital watch shows the numbers. If you can read them, you can tell the time. An analog watch uses one set of numbers (or positions, as many don't even have actual numerals on the face) for two different things. You have to learn what each hand means, and what each position means in the context of each hand. Once you learn it, it becomes straightforward and easy, but it's definitely the opposite of intuitive.

    --

    "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

  18. Re:Macintosh (refuses to die) by dasmegabyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In a world where Ford has lived to be a hundred years old, I think the lesson here is that if you don't mess up your finances, make a halfway decent product, devote equal time to listening to your customers, engineers and marketeers, you can survive even if you don't rule the market.

    It's companies that consider success being number one, and anything less failure, that don't survive.

    --
    Hey freaks: now you're ju
  19. Analog vs. Digital Watches by seeks2know · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm a west coast guy, it's late in the day, so nobody will read this anyway, but...

    I've read all of the analog vs. digital debate. It's great to see such spirited debate over these simple devices.

    This is the way I see it:

    Analog watches prevail because the user interface is better. The time can be read and comprehended more quickly.

    Digital watches provide extraneous data. Knowing that the time is 5:13:47 PM adds no value. We really just need to know it's about a quarter past 5pm.

    The technology of how the information gets displayed is unimportant. The analog display could be electronically instead of mechanically driven. All I care about is the results.

    My watch needs to show me the time in an analog fashion (until something better comes along), look good and last for a long time.

    So here is my takeaway:

    As we techies develop our software, we need to remember that our user does not care about what goes on under the hood, as long as the program delivers the right results. And the most important part of the results is the user interface.

    The user interface does not necessarily need to be sexy. It just needs to serve the need.

    And overfeatured is just as bad as underfeatured.

    Usability is the key.

    For what it's worth...

  20. The REAL reason I wear an analog watch: Cultural by yohohogreengiant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It really all depends on what you grew up with, and where. Analog more closely represents the "real world". The earth spins, and the shadow of your sundial spins around with it. It's cyclic as well, showing the whole period of sweep for 12 hours.

    Digital watches always scream the same time: It's always NOW. NOW, NOW, NOW. There is no sense of future or past inherent in the digital watch. For people who grew up in a time when past events and future possibilities were important enough to receive attention whenever consulting the current time, the digital watch is lacking.

    Finally, as an oceangoing navigator, there is something very basic about the analog chronometer that is completely lacking with those little LCD's. 12 Goes into 360 just fine, which can be handy when thinking in terms of time being relative to a circle on the globe. It just isn't as apparent on the digital watch. There are a bunch of short-cuts when figuring out position that just isn't suited for digital. Also, a wind-up chronometer is somewhat less likely to suffer EMP from close lightning.

  21. Re:The REAL reason I wear an analog watch: Cultura by fingusernames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly. I race... I just cannot get into the Tack Tick. There's something about the fluid compass, the motion corresponding with the boat, and the quick and easy ability to figure out tacks and course changes.

    I also race cars sometimes... there's a reason analog instruments are preferred. A *very* quick glance down instantly tells you what you need to know, almost without taking your eyes off the track. A pressure driven analog oil gauge can tell you information about the condition of your engine from the motion of the needle, something you wouldn't get from a digital instrument.

    There are lots of times that analog is superior.

    Larry