Steve Lamb wrote: > No, it isn't. It is the simple fact that any operation where one could >end up with a completely non-fuctional computer at the end isn't for new >users. It simply is not because new users are too apt to make mistakes to end >up non-functional and not have a clue on how to get out of it. > > It's like saying that engine replacement isn't for an untrained, >unskilled, no manual reading "mechanic". > > > I'm not sure I'd use automobile repair as an analogy. I'm fairly well convinced that auto manufacturers intentionally make cars much more complicated and hard to work on than is necessary, because they're designing for the manufacturer's benefit, not for the consumer's benefit. (A car that's hard to keep on the road for more than ten or 15 years will result in another car sold in that time. More inflow of cash to the manufacturer. Not to mention the exhorbitant repair prices at the dealership for replacing a belt or a front indicator light, etc, which could be designed to be done by any greasemonkey with a rusty pocket knife and 5 minutes worth of spare time, IF cars were designed for the consumer rather than the seller.)
Continuing your analogy, I want auto manufacturers and software manufacturers to design for the consumer's benefit, rather than the manufacturer's benefit. Although this is what I want, I don't expect it from auto manufacturers, nor do I expect it from software manufacturer's just out to scratch their own itch. Shame. -- Kent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
