Slashdot Mirror
People Feel Loyalty To Computers
stoobthealien writes "According to BBC News researchers have discovered that people have loyalty to specific computers because of a tendancy to associate "human attributes to them" - and I thought it was just me that speaks to my PC...."
In a college computer lab, all of the terminals in a group are supposed to be identical and interchangable. However, it seems like users are building up a trust relationship with the computer they've used sucessfully before rather than wanting to take the chance with a computer they haven't met yet. It's almost as if users are presuming that most unfamiliar computers will fail on them...
I go much further than that! I name ALL my computers, even the XT in the closet.
I know, I'm a nerd.
"Black holes are where God divided by zero." - Steve Wright
I'd also like to see what would happen if one night the computer room was rearraged quietly. Would people go looking for their "favorite" machine, or just use the one that had inherited the favorite's location?
Rather than seen as a preference for a particular computer, maybe the selection is being made based on the seating location in the room and the computer just happens to be there. Sounds like we need some controls.
Habits are simply economically efficiently ways of doing things. For example, taking a certain route to work everyday means you don't have to figure out how to get to work each day. You save time and brain power.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that has certain places I prefer to sit. I'm comfortable with the view, etc, that they provide. Computers are simply an extension of that.
However, I am loathe to give it up because that's the machine that I played and beat Dark Forces on when I was in graduate school. (After my qualifying exams, I went home and played DF for about 4 days straight. Ah--those were the days!)
Craig Steffen
http://www.craigsteffen.net
Of course, not everything was replaced at the same time, but rather a gradual process of upgrades over the years. So, is it really the same computer I started with?
Your computer is not the only one that has undergone a "gradual process of upgrades" over time. Your body is not the same one you had a few years ago, or even a few hours ago for that matter... And don't forget the rather fickle and ever-changing mind, too.
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
This is very true. In fact, you will upset students if you disrupt the seating after the first couple of weeks. In philosophy of religion some of us decided to sit in other peoples seats about halfway through the course in an attempt to modify the dynamics of discussion. People were clearly uncomfortable, so uncomfortable in fact, that some of the group gave up after a couple of days. Perhaps they were uncomfortable not being in their own seats, who knows.
I visited my public library just yesterday. And I can assure you that there is plenty of bunk there too.
As many have pointed out, loyalty to a computer is, for the most part, based on conditions other than the computer itself.
Where I work, there are patrons who frequent a particular machine (#12) because it has exhibited features that the other machines don't seem to have. It played streaming audio when the other machines didn't. It was more stable and it was also in the back row. So that's stability, features, and location.
On the other hand, when I teach at the same place, I encourage people to name their computers. With beginners who are intimidated by machines, I always felt it was better if the machines had a name (other than their numbers). In the end, I suppose that could promote loyalty as it's easier to come back to a named machine than not.
Those habits have been very usefull outside the lab and at other jobs but mostly when dealing with my parents. They have several computers and sometimes I have to troubleshoot over the phone. As they sometimes forget they switched locations of a coutple of computers since last I was there, it is VERY handy that I've gotten them to refer to computers by name (in this case we're using a Norse God Pantheon naming scheme, not Rocky).
Little Brother, watching the watchers
I tended to favour certain machines in a computer lab - although I haven't been in one for a while since I finished uni.
I like the machines close to the end of an aisle that give me the best overall view of the room; i hate sitting with my back to the door or the rest of the room. It's not a matter of which machine is better because they're (idiot proof, but only the idiots can break them) all the same.
They may just find that users were gravitating to machines based on personal preference; some users like to have their back to the rest of the room to avoid other distractions, some like to be near the door.
I drink to make other people interesting!
This happened in our first computer labs. They were actually converted chemistry rooms - everything was removed except the slatted glass windows which meant one side of the room was colder than the other. In the beginning, the machines were identical (monitors, keyboards, base-units.
From time to time the technicians would swap machines around, and nobody really noticed. Users really preferred to sit at the front of the labs next to the door so they could reach the printers quickly. As a consequence the bad keyboards (sticky keys), used to get bubble sorted to the back of the lab. These were eventually replaced with the quietkey keyboards.
The most popular machines were those that were closest to the radiators, at the front of the room and quietkey keyboards. The most unpopular machines were those that were closest to the windows and/or had bad keyboards.
I have a feeling that they'd just do the same thing they did originally - find a computer that works without problems and stick with it. My experience (at univerisities in both the UK and US) is that hardware can drive choice. Floppy drives and audio jacks don't hold up well to abuse, and are the first to go. Some machines have network problems, and some (depending on security) may have different programs or even personal files. Additionally, most computer labs tend to run Windows, which gradually begins to fail depending on its use.
I actually recall a library at a UK university which had two computers with 1024x768 resolution and high color quality, while the rest (about 25) were at lower resolutions and lower color settings. I was working on graphics at the time, so you can guess how useful most of the computers were. I'd sit down at a random computer and check email and read news until someone got off of one of the good PCs. There were a few terminals which consistantly crashed, and I simply wouldn't use.
Simply put, it's a matter of trust and reputation - if a computer works well consistantly, I stick with it. The odds of finding another "good" one is unfortunately low.
G
But once a company tries to leverage it's market by playing on the established loyalty (i.e. coaxing Commodore 64 users to all gewt Amigas or long time mac OS Mac users to all switch to OS X) they may hurt their reputation even worse, as a loyal customer scorned they are in a good position to voice their opinions.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
that's the great thing about being the system administrator in charge; you get to name the servers whatever you want.
as an example, at my old firm, our main ldap/smb, ypserv and nfs server i named 'MOTHER', from the main computer in the original Alien movie. how appropriate too, that IBM Netfinity system really took care of our developers. Mother had an uptime of 378 days when our company decided to move our office. the new office was 20 miles away, and we contemplated keeping the machine on during the move as to not lose the uptime (we had a decent UPS).
in the end, we decided to shut her down during the transfer. as of today, she has 286 days. what a machine!
it appears that many sysadmins adopts some sort of naming theme, like calling each system after the name of a jet, or after southpark characters. i don't like this idea; each system really has it's own function and it should be aptly named in this regard.
boy, Mother sure was a good system. i really miss her.
I don't know. The more flawed the system, the more I find myself nostalgicaly cherishing it for its flaws, in the way one looks back in foolish nostalgia on what were at the time the most irritating aspects of a relationship.
For example, I think I have more affection for my TI 99/4A (why else would I regularly take pictures of it) than for any other system, all the more so due to its terrible system architecture (16-bit CPU with everything but 256 bytes of CPU RAM on an 8-bit bus), and due to the irritation of trying to get games running off of what is sometimes an infuriating cart+casette combo.
You really value and develop a relationship with your system when it takes genuine effort to get the bloody software working (e.g., off of casettes, and sometimes having to type it out manually in line number BASIC).
In college a roommate and I performed an exorcism on a new Compaq computer his parents sent up for him. After formatting it and cleanly installing Windows 98, we loaded Half-Life onto it since that was the all-the-rage FPS on the dorm network at the time. I'd run it dozens of times without incident and blasted away at the hallmates for hours. But this other buddy of ours, Rob, couldn't run it. If he clicked the icon, the computer would bluescreen. Reboot, he tries to run it again...bluescreen. Eventually we just either let him play from MY computer, or have me run HL (click the icon) before turning over the controls. I think he and that machine must have been enemies in a past life or something.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
This is not entirely far fetched. The time, money, and actual love that goes into the average computer users (not to mention the avid or pro computer users) computer is astounding. I've upgraded my computer so much, but one or two pieces at a time, since 100mhz was the best intel could offer. The computer has never lost it's feel, because it's me in the driver's seat. The article doesn't even touch on the most intrinsic aspect of a computer! Most people tailor their computers to be exactly what they want, start up with exactly the right programs, and play the "just right" music. If we didn't feel loyalty to our computers in general, one might say we were a cold race..
As far as loyalty for a brand, that could be seen as well, but I see brand loyalty brighten and fade along with the president's approval rating. It's fickle. Just as an example I've moved loyalty from one graphics card manufacturer to the next over the years, neither one can keep making "great" cards, for some reason they are all doomed to be taken over by a start up it seems. It wasn't long ago ATI was the "kiddie" version and 3DFX had a corner on the market.
But for arguments sake, lets just read the brands i have slathered on my monitor in the form of stickers, case badges and markings of my own:
ATARI
Abit
Antec
Zalman
Needless to say i've got some "loyalty" to a few brands.
"You don't know how something works unless you can explain it to a five-year-old."
I was in a talk a couple of years ago and the speaker was Jim Gray (winner of the turing award in 1998) and he also said something along these lines... as a researcher, you have a clear picture of what you are doing if you can easily explain your research to your partner (assuming of course that your partner is not in your field and assuming that he/she understands your explanation).
The article claims that we have a certain 'loyalty' to a given computer when given the choice. What they seem to neglect is the placement of the computer... I know I always pick a computer in the corner of the room so I can see everyone around me--yes, I am paranoid. And if a corner computer isn't open I pick one next to a cute girl, so if she needs help, I'm right there ready to be of assistance. In all my classes, I sit in the same seat everyday... it's not because I am loyal to my chair, it's just easier to have a certain place that you always sit. The same goes for bars and cafeterias... people tend to sit in the same spot. Humans are territorial, and this is just one way in which we exhibit that tendency. So basically... the article makes a good point, but neglects perhaps some very important variables...
At Caltech, we have sit-down dinners that are waited by students. Recently thought, Dining Services introduced the possibility of eating elsewhere once a week so often fewer people come to dinners. As a result, on these nights of low attendance, we pick a couple of tables to not set. It is really much fun to watch the people who always sit at these tables go "Ah! My seat!? Where do I sit?" On the other hand, it easier to wait if you know where everyone is sitting because you don't need to wonder where to find someone.
A relevant quote on the subject:
Jokes always seem funnier to me when I don't get them at first reading -- yeah, I actually did have to look up "Stockholm Syndrome."
Reading the experience of Prof. Sundar, in my opinion, what he has found is that people like habits. People like to shop at the same places, use the same brands of products, watch the same tv channels,... so why not use the same computer?! Computers aren't much different from any other tool... At least so far as they don't talk... :-p