Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Which is more important: the gadget, or the software and apps that runs it?

<< < (2/13) > >>

Renegade:
What is more important?

The stone, or the Thinker? The stone, or David? Venus de Milo?

Iron? Or the Eiffel Tower?

Canvas? Or Sunflowers? Mona Lisa? A Starry Night?

Windows? Or Guitar & Drum Trainer? :D (Ok, maybe it's not really good example there, but I had to get in some kind of humor for those that get it. :) )

The medium/platform isn't as important as "what you can do", which is entirely dependent on the software running on the platform. So, while "Windows" may not be the most important, and GDT isn't either, the fact that you can learn to play cool new music definitely is much cooler if that's what you want to do.

It's what you can "do" that's the important thing.

I see platforms as unmoulded clay, waiting for an artist to come along and paint something wonderful on it.

Different platforms, in the painting analogy, are just oil paints and water colors. They're different. Oh, and then there's edible finger paint / Mac. :P

phitsc:
Definitely the gadget!

Most of the time, I'm not actually using any apps. My gadgets just lie here around me. I look at the little cuties and I'm happy. The apps just suck. They don't do anything useful. They freeze my gadget or crash. They look ugly. They suck the precious juice out of my gadgets; even when I'm not actually using them! Then I need to put my lovely gadgets on a leash, and they don't like that. Some of the apps also make my adorable gadgets angry (I know that, because they get so hot).

I really think me and my gadgets would be better off without these stupid apps 8)

Edvard:
@Renegade
Try running Windows 7 on a Pentium II and get back to me. :P

I see everyone's point, the quality of the software available is a prime consideration when adopting any platform.
It's just that if your hardware isn't there, all the zippy software in the world is not going to help.
You're not going to paint the Mona Lisa on a paper towel.

Renegade:
@Renegade
Try running Windows 7 on a Pentium II and get back to me. :P
-Edvard (May 26, 2011, 04:40 AM)
--- End quote ---

The way I see it is... Try building a Pentium II out of Jell-O. :)

Windows 7 is meant to run on a PII in the same way a PII is meant to be built out of Jell-O. Or perhaps Flintstone chewable multivitamins.

You're not going to paint the Mona Lisa on a paper towel.
-Edvard (May 26, 2011, 04:40 AM)
--- End quote ---

Which seems to me to be saying that paper towels aren't prerequisites for great paintings. Or, that you need the proper prerequisites to be met.

I simply see good hardware as a prerequisite. That doesn't diminish the value of the hardware, because without it you're screwed. But what I'm really interested in is getting things done, and the software is the primary enabler.

40hz:
To me, an app is just another device built with software rather than hardware.

Many people talk about virtualization as something new. But we've been doing it ever since the first program was written to emulate the function of a purely electronic or mechanical device. Word-processing programs were probably the first 'virtual device' products the public became generally aware of. Much to the chagrin of Wang and IBM as they watched their lucrative Wang Office and DisplayWriter businesses get devoured by programs like PC-Write, Scriptsit,  and (ultimately) WordPecfect.

But none of that would have been possible if personal computers weren't around to run these programs first.

So which is more important - the device or the apps it runs?

Since it's a synergistic relationship, my answer would have be a simple "yes."  :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page