Backward Compatibility and the Archive Problem

This leads to the increasingly important concept of backward compatibility. As Paul Lehrman puts it, “In 2050, which are you more likely going to be able to pick up and read? A hard-bound book printed on paper in 1827 or a single-sided 400K floppy disk with a MacWrite file last modified in 1985?” The answer is already obvious, sadly enough – just try it! Although computers desperately need and will probably soon absolutely require backward compatibility, as yet they don’t have it.

There’s nothing more terrifying than needing, really needing to get a data file from, say, 1988. Perhaps a tax return that you did using some software that you tried and didn’t really like so you never used it again. Good luck booting that sucker! Even fairly benign stuff like early Axle can be scary.

At present, viable long-term storage and recovery of your cyber-work is very shaky. Disturbing questions abound, like do you have to keep one working version of every magnetic and optical storage medium you’ve ever loaded stuff onto? Do you have to keep one copy of every operating system version? Do you have to keep one version of each CPU you’ve ever used?

As the upgrade cycle gets shorter and shorter, the backward compatibility problem obviously becomes more acute. Unfortunately, when we get to the point where it begins to work to our advantage, where you can’t read the memo your boss sent you yesterday and the IRS can’t cash your EFT because of intervening software upgrades, well, probably the problem will either get fixed pronto or else free enterprise will crumble. Future Shock Meets Hierarchical Man!

The Learning Problem and the Usage Problem

To learn is to get confused for a while! It follows that if you are constantly learning you are probably constantly confused (anyway, you should be!)!! Now this is OK, but there’s more to life. At some point, you’ve got to get out of the ozone and actually do something, unless you’re gonna be a monk or philosopher or something.

Now if you own a computer with, say, twelve separate pieces of software and you upgrade each one and the computer twice a year and it takes, say, twenty-four hours of work to really master each upgrade, then you’ve got twenty-six upgrades times twenty-four hours each for some six-hundred plus hours (that’s almost sixteen out of fifty-two 40-hour weeks!) each year devoted just to learning/confusion about computers! That doesn’t include the really fun stuff, like French Lessons, your SCUBA classes, remedial algebra at the local community college and, most important of all, your Golden Ears drills! Dare we mention practicing your instrument?

Learning in these quantities doesn’t leave a lot of time to actually do anything!

Meanwhile, aside from the fact that about a third of your working time is going to be spent learning/being confused about computer upgrades, you can only use any given piece of software about, say, 8% of the remaining time, or one day in twelve (once every two and a half weeks) on average, which comes out to about one day in eighteen overall!. It’s hard to maintain your chops if you aren’t doing it every day. Rust sets in fast in cyberspace, just like in music. So, you’ll never have enough hands-on time to really keep your chops up on all your software.

The Way Us Users See It

When people buy this stuff, mostly they buy it to do something, like record music, or do taxes. Most of us aren’t computer hobbyists who do it simply because it is really cool and fun to do. We read the ads and want to believe them, such as ads in the first few pages of a recent MacWorld (I’m not making these up) saying, “Many people strive for perfect harmony in their lives. Would you settle for perfect harmony in your Mac?” “Hallelujah! Love It! Easy! Super-quick.” “Introducing _____ for Macintosh. You’ll wonder how you ever faxed without it.” “Introducing _____. It can upgrade your career.”

Hey, dunno about you, but I’d buy this stuff – I’d settle for a little harmony, lovable, easy super-quick stuff, being able to fax from the Mac without feeling like somebody just died in my brain, getting my career upgraded, etc. These sales messages really do speak to our needs. We assume, when we buy the stuff, that the products will, at least to some extent, address those needs as well. This might not be entirely realistic.