Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Were Developments In Technology More Exciting 30 Years Ago?
dryriver writes: We live in a time where mainstream media, websites, blogs, social media accounts, your barely computer literate next door neighbor and so forth frequently rave about the "innovation" that is happening everywhere. But as someone who experienced developments in technology back in the 1980s and 1990s, in computing in particular, I cannot shake the feeling that, somehow, the "deep nerds" who were innovating back then did it better and with more heartfelt passion than I can feel today. Of course, tech from 30 years ago seems a bit primitive compared to today -- computer gear is faster and sleeker nowadays. But it seems that the core techniques and core concepts used in much of what is called "innovation" today were invented for the first time one-after-the-other back then, and going back as far as the 1950s maybe. I get the impression that much of what makes billions in profits today and wows everyone is mere improvements on what was actually invented and trail blazed for the first time, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more decades ago. Is there much genuine "inventing" and "innovating" going on today, or are tech companies essentially repackaging the R&D and knowhow that was brought into the world decades ago by long-forgotten deep nerds into sleeker, sexier 21st century tech gadgets? Is Alexa, Siri, the Xbox, Oculus Rift or iPhone truly what could be considered "amazing technology," or should we have bigger and badder tech and innovation in the year 2018?
Up until this point, I had to suffer with b&w on my friend's TRS-80. I guess that was 36 years ago, still things were revolutionary up until about 2000. Everything since has been copies and copies of copies. No TV -> 40x40 black and white @ 16fps is a much bigger jump than 300x500->8k retina resolution in 3D at 120Hz.
I guess to answer the question more correctly, 30 years ago being 1988, the high tech nerdy stuff was OS/2, windows 2 and MINIX, the roton, and the DC-x. Now we have spaceX doing this, but the first time is always the best. GPS is about the last truely innovative technology that I can recall
Using Internet and overlapping networks, thousands of men and women in 17 countries swap recipes and woodworking tips, debate politics, religion and antique cars, form friendships and even fall in love. But the networks that link tens of thousands of computers 24 hours a day also allowed the computer virus to spread much more rapidly, and with far greater potential for damage, than any previous electronic invader. That frightens many network visionaries, who dream of a "worldnet" with ever more extensive connections and ever fewer barriers to the exchange of knowledge. "The Internet is a community far more than a network of computers and cables," Stoll said. "When your neighbors become paranoid of one another, they no longer cooperate, they no longer share things with each other. It takes only a very, very few vandals to ... destroy the trust that glues our community together."
Good thing THAT never happened!
This question reminds me a lot of people who say "Music was so much better in the 1990s" or "Comic books are garbage now but they are so innovative in the 70s". Basically these people were more passionate about their hobbies (music, comics, computers, or whatever) when they were young than they are today. Therefore, anything going on "back in the day" was - almost by definition - so much more amazing than the pedestrian stuff we have today.
I would say the idea that there were more exciting developments 30 years ago is ludicrous. In the last few years we have virtually the whole of human knowledge at our fingertips, we've had a huge resurgence of neural nets, we have rockets that can land themselves (!), actually useful brain-machine interface (for example deep-brain stimulation for epilepsy), self-driving cars, actually cool VR, electronic communications becoming ubiquitous, cheap single board computers that even a child can use (e.g. Raspberry-Pi), electric vehicles becoming mainstream, a technology for currency that is actually threatening to upset the applecart, and on and on and on.
I was a teenager in the late 80s and early 90s and was deeply passionate about technology. I was excited about the Amiga, Unix, and C++. Those days have NOTHING on today.
I'm about 20 years older than that. Still, when I got into computing as a professional in my 20s I was excited by those things (Amiga, Unix, C++) and also some more academic things - AI and functional programming. I was also excited by "Client/Server" and networks. Now, all of the things which I was excited by as cutting edge have been through two transitions: one, to commercial acceptance and required knowledge for programmers; and, then two, ubiquity and invisibility. Meanwhile, some very smart people and aggressive startups have put all of these in the hands of everyone from teenagers to grandmas. Back in the 80's we may have dreamed of everyone having a computer and being connected, but we did not envisage how it would be. We probably thought of some giant international connection of PCs with people chatting through text consoles. We did not envisage the www, with all the world's news and knowledge being crowd sourced, we didn't envisage facebook/instragram/twitter with ordinary people compulsively getting their latest info from each other, and we didn't envisage smart phones. WRT smartphones, that was Steve Jobs, and Steve Jobs only. Microsoft and Blackberry had 10+ years leap on them, but never understood the possibilities, nor did anyone else.
One common trend I've seen with programmers is that we dismiss the latest developments. In my time, we've dismissed the GUI ("I get more done throught the command line"). Then we dismissed the GUI with colors. Then we dismissed the web (yes - I heard that!). Then we dismissed smart phones. Then we dismissed facebook. etc. If it were up to us, we'd still be using mainframes with text consoles. Which was the state of technology when I arrived in 1980. Undoubtedly, that would have been rejected by the luddites from 30 years before then.
Good question! My answer is, as someone who was already a professional programmer 30 years ago, an emphatic NO!
(I still love the Amiga, though!)
I'm a software visionary. I don't code.
Yeah, they did. Read "The Age of the Pussyfoot" by Frederik Pohl, first published (serial form) in 1966 and then re-released in book form in 1969. Not only did he come very close to imagining what we have now, he imagined things we don't yet have, but probably will eventually.
There's a lot of great SF out there; I'd be really careful about presuming someone didn't think of our current tech in one form or another, cosmetic differences aside.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
When I read the article, the first thing I thought of was a singular event that defined for me the transition between hands-on and brains-in enthusiasm for new technology versus passive disinterest or boredom with new technology. Byte magazine. For those who never had the opportunity to read it, it was hard core nerd stuff, printed from 1975 to 1998. In those burgeoning early days of IC's and PC's, it was a great way to learn about digital and computer technologies. It was not a technical journal. It was a general interest magazine, but Byte stories got in-depth on processor architectures, fab methods, system building, application programming, peripheral interfacing, and so on. It was a great way to stay informed about what was then a genuinely innovative and exhilarating set of new technologies. Remember, this was the era of Space Invaders, Pac Man, Tron, Tandy, Commodore, Lotus, VisiCalc, and early PC-Mac. Then, in the early 1990's, the internet started to gain traction. General public enthusiasm bloomed with the dot-com era of the later decade, but in the early decade, the days of Netscape and Mosaic, Byte saw the future and decided to shift the magazine's focus. It went all in on the internet, changing name to byte.com.
I remember reading the first new edition, where the publisher explained the shift in focus. However, instead of adhering to their admired focus on technology reporting, they reported on where the internet could take you. Imagine a world class automobile magazine that was exalted for its in-depth articles on engine design, torque and hp, engine machining, carburetor specs and tuning, tire manufacture, highway engineering, and traffic control systems. Then suddenly in the 1960's, suburban shopping malls start popping up, so Auto Magazine then switches its entire format to describing what you can buy in the stores at the mall, which of course the car will take you to. It reports solely on where and how to go to the mall to buy shoes and clothes for a Sunday jaunt, or tires or a battery at Sears Auto, or fuses at Radio Shack. You could even buy other stuff at the Mall. Wow! That is what Byte became, a guide to online places and experiences. Bye bye Byte.
It is easy to get beguiled by something solely because it is new. Back then, the internet was new, and it was exciting. But the underlying technology per se was perhaps too arcane or unseen for most people to care. The applied internet was what caught attention, those things that ordinary people could do with it, but not the physical infrastructure underneath. Even for the hobbyist or hacker, you couldn't just tap into an internet trunk on your own, so the technology itself became less tangible.
It depends on how you define technology. Wireless is a great new technology that has radically altered how we do things. But, "wireless" is just radio, telephone, and pc all comingled, and each of those are old technologies. Are iterative improvements or logical machine hookups the same as fundamental new technologies? It does seem that a lot of the new technologies of the past 30 years are iterative extensions or market driven mashups of prior genuinely novel advancements.