In principle, I am against golf as a sport. I appreciate the amount
of work that golfers put in to hone their skills, and I am not
suggesting that golf is not a real sport. My complaint is more with the
nature of golf.
Golf is a high maintenance game. A golf course takes up an enormous
amount of physical space. In many areas, the most expensive part of the
golf club is the acreage. In Japan, the rates to play are ridiculous
due to the price of land. For a quick comparison, the few acres of land
on which the Emperor's palace sits in central Tokyo is worth
considerably more than the land value of the entire state of
California. If you've ever tried to rent a house in San Francisco
you'll understand what I'm getting at.
The next issue is water. Keeping those greens green takes a
tremendous amount of water. Sprinklers are almost always going,
including the hottest parts of the hottest days in summer. Most places
in the world suffer from a lack of potable water, yet it is poured all
over the ground to make a nicer surface to hit a tiny ball from. Sure,
most golf courses have their own pumps, but that is still water in the
ground that could be used for other purposes. Believe me, this isn't as
stupid as it sounds. In California, there is a high amount of pollution
exacerbated by the lack of flowing water to carry pollutants out of the
area and into a larger area (i.e., the Pacific Ocean) where it would be
diluted considerably to below dangerous concentrations.
You know, computers are a lot like golf. They tend to use up
a lot of resources for something that most people do not need and are
frequently used as nothing but status symbols.
How many readers here actually push the limits of their
less-than-3-year-old computers? I bet 90% of those people have
broadband Internet access. My reasoning is such: The biggest motivator
for faster computers is the Internet. Most computer users on dialup
find that the bottleneck is the modem, not the computer. As people seem
to want more and more bloated, pretty Web pages instead of simple
concise pages of information, they need a fast computer that can
process Java and Flash on the web. My mother uses a 7100/80, and it does everything
she needs it to. Naturally, she doesn't use the Web very much, just to
occasionally book plane tickets or check MedLine for research papers. I
would say she would be an average computer user. Add in some heavy Web
work and some instant messengers - and suddenly it can't keep up.
Do you ever talk with your coworkers about your computer? Since
you're reading Low End Mac, it seems likely. Does someone come in and
brag about their 1.7 GHz Pentium 4? Do you tell them about the
Megahertz Myth to explain that your 500 MHz iMac or G4 really isn't
that much slower? Let me tell you about the Marketing Myth.
- Part one: Word processing requires an SE/30 or better.
- Part two: Plain text email requires an SE/30 or better.
- Part three: HTML email is useless and a waste of bandwidth
- Part four: Fast Web browsing requires a fast connection, not a fast
computer.
- Part five: Loading a page of HTML with a few small images to
clarify points is just as fast on a 7100 as a dual 800 MHz G4.
- Part six: Flash and Java are useless. They're marketing toys to
look pretty.
- Part seven: Looking at a 30 second Flash clip still takes 30
seconds on a dual 800 MHz G4.
Why do we need computers with massive heat sinks, fans, and water
cooling? Why do we need computers that draw 300 watts an hour. Remember
how your Mom told you to turn off lights when you weren't in the room?
Your computer is like five light bulbs! That's without the monitor,
printer, scanner and external drives. In addition, when we surplus our
old computers and buy new ones, we're polluting even more by
manufacturing things we don't really need. If you ever visit a computer
manufacturing plant you will usually see a sign on the main door
like:
- The state of California has determined that this facility contains
substances shown to cause cancer.
Obviously it may be a little different, especially if you don't live
in California. In any case, is this what we want to be promoting? When
we upgrade a computer that's perfectly good for our current needs,
we're causing exposure to carcinogens just to prove that we can piss
higher than our workmates?
Perhaps we're getting a little overzealous with the power of
computing? Why not concentrate on efficiency, price, and consistency.
There is a simple reason - it doesn't sell. It's been shown that car
engines could be made much more efficient and that clothes could be
made to last ten times longer. However, that lessens the amount of
money we spend and the amount of money corporate America makes. So go
ahead, throw your money and the world's environment at overpaid lackies
seated in $1,800 leather chairs just to prove that you're better than
your neighbor.
Andrew W. Hill (a.k.a. Aqua)
has been using Macintosh computers since 1987 and maintains that the
Mac SE is the perfect
Macintosh, superior to all - including the
Color Classic. He is on the
verge of being evicted from the family home due to its infestation of
Macs (last count: about 50). Andrew is attempting to pay his way
through college at UC Santa Cruz with freelance web design and Mac tech
support.
Share your perspective on the Mac by emailing with "My Turn" as your subject.
