For a technical writer, people are often surprised to find me something of a Luddite. After the gee-whiz at the novelty of some new product, I invariably ask the question few seem to ever consider; what use is it? Or more specifically, what use is it to me?

I don't think Microsoft have ever gotten over their consternation when I asked that very question of Office 2000. At least they've never invited me to another product launch. (A profound relief, actually. Death by PowerPoint's bad enough without adding a bunch of hyperventilating marketroids into the equation.)

I posed the what-use-is-it? question in relation to that part of the office suite I use most often. It may come as a surprise but I use word processors to... um... process words. And that's it. I don't care about groupware, animated help tools or poncey interface changes. Yes, yes, very nice, but do they make the writing any easier, the spelling any spellier or the grammar any better good? The answer was "No". Does it enhance that most primary of interfaces, the one between my brain and the keyboard? No, again. Then what was the point, I asked, of spending hundreds of upgrade dollars to go precisely nowhere?

It's a question I still ask. And not just about office suites. (Especially not about office suites now that you can get everything you'll ever want for free!)

Don't get me wrong. I love novelty and new toys. I have a great time showing off XGL, the 3-D Linux interface that way out aero's Vista's Aero, and I think SuperKaramba's super-fun - and useful - but at the end of the day my real computing needs-list features neither.

That's why I still run an ancient P-III laptop. I'm not a road warrior; I use it rarely, and when I'm on the move I really only need it for three things; word processing, internet access and emails - applications that are largely processor-independent. (I've yet to find any computer that struggles to keep up with my typing speed, and a quad-CPU server tied to a dial-up line is still only going to suck down data at 56K.)

Yes, a top-of-the-line Thinkpad or Vaio would be nice, but when I factor the thousands they cost against the actual extra utility they offer over my ancient Dell - slightly faster start-up and... um... slightly faster shut-down... maybe - I find myself baulking at the waste.

There are even some advantages to older technology. I get no covetous glances when I open my laptop in an airport lounge, the odd bump or knock doesn't send my heart surging into overdrive, and I can wander off and grab a coffee without having to worry about chaining the thing up with a hundred miles of piano wire. And because its "old" I'm always careful to back-up important stuff.

We tend to forget that - the gaming sector aside - computers and software are simply tools, and that 99% of us only require a certain level of functionality. There are only a limited number of good hammer designs. Sure you could paint it in pretty colours, add a USB port and a fit an MP3 player in the handle, but what use is any of that to someone who only wants to pound nails?

Have a merry (and consumption-lite) Christmas!

Posted by Geoff Palmer at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments ( 0 )

If I missed it, you may have done too. Browsing the website of our very own non-profit consumer watchdog the Consumer's Institute I came across this news item dated 24 November;

Consumers' Institute has lodged complaints with the Commerce Commission and Advertising Standards Authority over Xtra's Go Large broadband plan advertising "unlimited Internet usage at maximum download speeds." Xtra's Go Large plan is subject to what it calls a "Fair Use Policy" and "Traffic Management." Look up these conditions on Xtra's website and you'll have to read down six paragraphs to get to the real content of the Fair Use Policy. It says: "If in a single day you use more than 700MB of data during the peak hours of 4pm to 12am (midnight) then we'll get in touch with some advice on how to reduce your usage." Why consumers should have to reduce their usage on an unlimited usage plan is unclear - unless it isn't unlimited. [my italics]

But wait, there's more!

Because of Xtra's traffic management, we believe the claim of "maximum download speeds" is also false and misleading as the speed is being manipulated. Peer-to-peer users won't experience speeds "as fast as your phone line allows." They will experience speeds as fast as Xtra's manipulation allows. [my italics]

Given the number of complaints we've had on Press F1, this very blog and also in this month's print mag, I'm surprised the CI's complaints haven't had more publicity.

But then again, perhaps not. Telecom dominate our media with serious dosh being spent in both print and on television, and a large slice of this year's budget went into promoting "Max" broadband . You don't have to look far to see who's behind some of our top-rating current affairs shows. It's not about buying silence of course, but it is about pedalling influence. Are news outlets more or less likely to give prominence to stories that could cost them big dollars? How vigorously is a newsdesk likely to pursue an investigative story that could cost them a series sponsorship?

Posted by Geoff Palmer at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Comments ( 7 )

I sometimes wonder if the answer to internet woes is to keep dummies off it. There are precedents. We demand drivers be licensed before venturing onto our roads, so why not some sort of basic competency test before letting them near the internet? There'd be sections on the basic staple of computer magazines since the year dot – installing anti-virus software, why you need a firewall, keeping your system up to date, etc. – but the biggest part would be the one on common sense. And that's where most people would fail.

Think about it. The reason we all get so much spam is because a handful of idiots respond to it. Getting ten hits per million messages for fake Viagra pills makes it a viable business. If no one responded the spammers would give up. (There's a double irony here in that much of this spam comes from then idiots' PCs themselves. Because they're too stupid to secure their systems in the first place, they get hooked into vast spam-flinging botnets and pollute everybody's bandwidth.)

What about so-called 419 scams? Seemingly rational and intelligent people will send off their life savings to a Mr Milton Oobongtawa in Nigeria because he promised to send them money. Can you figure this out? You receive a message from a total stranger saying that he or she has "acquired" a vast sum of money through cleverness, cunning and stealth, but those attributes didn't quite extend to putting it somewhere they could actually get their hands on it.  And that's why they're making this personal appeal to you, total stranger – sorry, "Dear Friend" at email address "Undisclosed Recipients" – they need your money to get it.

There was a case a couple of years ago where one Brit parted with £300,000 before he called in the cops. £300,000! That's worthy an life-long internet ban in my book.

(But seriously, I really have got $40 million in a bank account I can't access. Send me money, and if I can get hold of it I'll give you 10%. Honest. So what if the bank account belongs to Bill Gates? Just send me money. Please.)

Adding anti-scamming features to web browsers isn't the solution because they'll always be one step behind the bad guys. In fact they put me in mind of that Jerry Seinfeld line about crash helmet laws; "Why do we need laws to protect the brains of people too dumb to realise they should wear a helmet in the first place?" An internet idiocy test is the only real solution.

Posted by Geoff Palmer at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Comments ( 11 )