Hi Mark,
No apology needed.
I agree that some things (like the steam hoist you mentioned)
become obsolete and outlive their usefulness. However, some
things don't become obsolete - they are just "improved upon"
by new models with bells and whistles, but remain 100% capable
and functional. Cameras are such an item. However, there are
enough techno-weenies (and I don't mean that to be derogatory)
who feel that these bells and whistles are important
features. While they are nice, and some, perhaps, are even
truly useful as opposed to being just marketing tools, the
old, durable camera will still take pictures that are just as
good, and, sometimes, even better (not to say that the new
cameras may, in some instances, take a better picture than an
older camera). IOW, if the results obtained by using a new or
an older item are essentially indistinguishable, then I don't
see how the older camera becomes obsolete.
My 1964 Cadillac convertible and my 1972 Mercedes will get me
across the country just as easily (and, arguably, more
comfortably) as any new car. In fact, I prefer the Mercedes
to a new BMW that I've been using because it offers better
visibility, is more spacious, and the seats are more
comfortable. Both cars are comparable models and offer the
same set of features, although the BMW is a computer
controlled car.
Now, when the BMW acts up it has to go into the shop, get
hooked up to another computer, and then have modules
replaced. When the Mercedes acts up I pull it into my garage
and can fix it myself if I so desire.
While the BMW has a better quality radio (that has to be
programmed and needs its own operating manual in order to work
and be understood), has a few cup holders, has climate control
(instead of air conditioning), a better cruise control, and
few other actual bells and whistles, and an admittedly neat
sun roof, does it make the Mercedes obsolete?
Mark Cassino wrote:
>
> I apologize for coming on so strong at that point - somewhere I slipped
> past ranting into raving... But the point remains that technology moves
> on, so why invest the energy and resources to build something to last 50
> years, when it will be obsolete in 10?
>
> A few weeks ago I spent some time among the ruins of 19th century mining
> operations in Michigan's upper peninsula. The folks then build their
> buildings and machinery to last forever - and they did a good job. But
> advances in technology rendered the mines obsolete within 50 years. It's
> real impressive to look at 170 year old steam hoist encased in a poured
> concrete building with windows made of quartz, and realize it sat
> unattended for over a century and is still basically functional. But it
> also was a big waste of effort and resources to build it to last so long.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It matters little how much equipment we use; it
matters much that we be masters of all we do use." - Sam Abell
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
