Chad A. Fernandez wrote:
> >> Microsoft's planned obsolescence is just plain morally wrong.
> >I have worked on mechanical and electrical technology since 1951 (9
> >years old). And only in the PC computer industry has the idea of a
> >"moral obligation" required by a manufacturer to make their new
> >products work with older parts been put forward just because
> >someone is trying to keep an old clunker working.
>
>I understand you and your friends postions on planned obsolescence. I think
>the reason why the computer industry is considered to be morally in error is
>because the computer industry moves so much more quickly than other
>industries. Example: Many people wouldn't mind owning an 89 Mustang GT, but
>that same person wouldn't want the 286-12 or 386-16 that was available at
>that time.
But standard parts are so much better, and that's where I think the "error"
here is. That's the main problem, and the fact that people can't afford to
buy new computers every other year (a car people can understand the reason
to buy a new one after 10-20 years). It will also help prevent exploting
the resources if we can reuse things/parts.
For instance: When my grandmothers coffe machine descieded to stop working
(after 10-20 years or so) there wasn't any point in trying to fix it (it
wasn't that good after all). Still parts of it got in handy, the power
cable is for instance the standard computer power cable so I could reuse
that (not that I catually need it at the moment since I managed to get a
hold of some 20 spare cables a few years back).
Just because errors have been made earlier on in ex. the car industry
doesn't make it right to keep doing it. We must learn from our misstakes.
//Bernie
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
