Conference 7.286::digital

    I think it is almost impossible, if not completely impossible, to put a
    value on owning a current day PC.  As a parent of two young children,
    ages 5 and 2, I would like to echo everything that has been said about
    educational software - especially for young children.  Just two
    examples: Creative Wonders entire Sesame Stree series and the Math
    Blaster series.  Of course, there are many others.  My kids love these
    programs and they learn a lot of stuff!  It is impossible to know now
    the long term scholastic benefits of starting them early.  And so what
    if they don't use the system every day?  They do use it on a regular
    basis, and I know it has been beneficial.  My two year old knows how to
    use the mouse, and can drive most of his programs by himself!  He knows
    shapes, colors, most of the alphabet, and can count to ten by himself! 
    Sure, my wife and I spend a lot of time with our kids, but the PC is a
    fantastic tool!
    
    And the technology is only going to get better moving forward.  Which
    gets at what an earlier noted indicated.  Perhaps Ken's statement was
    taken out of context.  It was certainly taken out of historical
    context.  Back in 1977, the state of the technology was pretty poor. 
    You had to buy a build-it-yourself Altair kit, and hope and pray you
    could put it together properly.  Even if you did, what was it good for
    other than doing simple arithmetic???  Perhaps Ken was reflecting on
    the current state of technology back in 1977.  A more relevant question
    for Ken would have been, "what is your vision of the future of
    computing?"

    
    
    	Since we are one of the MAJOR pioneers in networking, I don't
    	thinks it's fair to say he is wrong.  I didn't hear the statement
    	in context but he was probably referring to the fact that most 
    	people vastly underutilize the power they have on the home
    	desktop.  Like has been said before, a lot of folks use their
    	computer as not much more than a display station for interfacing
    	with the "net" or playing games.  More of a comunications and
    	entertainment entity than a computer.  And at what point does
    	a peice of home hardware become a "computer".  Is a VAXstation
    	4000 a computer? How about a VT100?  How about the 100 disc
    	programmable CD carousel in your living room?  
    
    	What will it be like when we are all cabled up? High speed
    	fiber-optics and all.  Will your set-top box be running Windows?
        I don't think so.
    
    	Don't sell him short,  people with vision often see well beyond
        tomorrow.
             

    I had a similar discussion with my in-laws (both around 60) over
    Christmas. They were asking us if they should buy a computer? When we
    talked it through I came to the conclusion that prior to the net, the
    answer was probably no. Before I had net access I mostly used my home
    PC for automating stuff I could do pretty much manually - tracking
    house contents for insurance, logging insurance policies, bank accounts
    etc, running my sad little statistical stuff on soccer and motor
    racing, plus business letters (and of course games like Bill Elliott's
    NASCAR Cahallenge - he always seems to win! and Microprose F1)
    
    However, now I can access the net, all sorts of basic data retrieval is
    available. In recent weeks I have used the net to contruct a holiday
    intinerary with flight times, check on local hotels, keep track of snow
    conditions prior to my ski-ing holiday, order products from my
    Barclaycard loyalty point scheme, scan the world for availability of
    first editions by an obscure Victorian author, check availability of
    public records in Scotland and it is starting to supplement if not
    replace my daily newspaper. This is on top of the fun stuff like
    checking on when John Fogerty's new album may appear, what's happening
    in Star Trek and how the England cricket team are doing on their
    overseas tour (badly!)
    
    So - we agreed at the end that a home PC used not to be a real money
    saver unless you, say, ran a small business or were devoted to Cross
    Stich (my mother in law) and wanted to scan loads of patterns. But
    increased access to the net (and ultimately access via the plain old TV
    maybe) would finally bring the benefits of computing to the person in
    the street as has been promised for so many years.
    
    All this of course from the perspective of no kids - that would change
    the whole ball game!!
    
    Paul

    re .26:
    
    	�I didn't hear the statement
    	�in context but he was probably referring to the fact that most 
    	�people vastly underutilize the power they have on the home
    	�desktop.
    
    As the quote is almost 20 years old (from year 1977, as mentioned in
    the earlier replies), very few people would have had any significant
    computing power on their home desktops... so I don't think that's what
    Ken meant.
    
    re .25:
    
    �Perhaps Ken was reflecting on
    �the current state of technology back in 1977.  A more relevant question
    �for Ken would have been, "what is your vision of the future of
    �computing?"
    
    I don't know the whole context either, but as the quote is from a
    speech he held at a convention of the World Future Society, one might
    think that it was at least implicitely about future visions...
    

>      <<< Note 5103.17 by LASSIE::TRAMP::GRADY "Squash that bug! (tm)" >>>
>
>|    <<< Note 5103.16 by STOWOA::ogodhcp-125-128-162.ogo.dec.com::nbufton >>>
>|              -< We have fewer entrepreneurs than we might think >-
>|
>|An entrepreneur is simply a "dreamer who does".  It's all about executing a 
>|vision.
>
>    I disagree, although of course I can't speak for Ken.  Something I've
>    read on the subject years ago has shaped my opinion in this:
>    
>    "the entrepreneur always searches for change, responds to it, and
>    exploits it as an opportunity."
>    
>    "Entrepreneurs innovate.  Innovation is the specific instrument of
>    entrepreneurship."
>    
>    "Systematic innovation therefore consists in the purposeful and
>    organized search for changes, and in the systematic analysis of the
>    opportunities such changes might offer for economic or social
>    innovation.
>    	As a rule, these are changes that have already occurred or are
>    under way.  The overwhelming majority of successful innovations exploit
>    change."
>...
>    He never mentions vision.

This is a limited, if not outright narrow, vision of "entrepreneurship."

An entrepreneur is "A person who organizes, operates, and assumes 
the risk for a business venture." (AHD online)
There's no need to mention WHY he does this or even HOW.
I like the "opportunist" description of practical entrepreneurship.
I think that's the dominant instantiation of entrepreneurs.
"Hey, I think this vacant building is a good site for a delicatessan.
I'll rent it and start one. And if that doesn't work, I can probably turn 
it into a shoe store."

Drucker's definition (above) is based on empty innovation,
"change for the sake of change" to turn a buck (with a nod towards
taking advantage of the opportunities of changes wrought by others).

There are rare entrpreneurs like Steve Jobs who have the vision
and the drive, skills, and charisma to make the changes happen that
will implement the vision.  These are the ones that make entrpreneurship
famous, those the delicatessan entrepreneurs of the world are what keep 
the world turning.

- tom]

    Sigh.  The Internet is a cesspool of misinformation, narrow sources,
    and disorganization.  While it may be occasionally useful, especially
    to a group of highly paid, highly educated elite, it is no replacement
    for a real library, despite the fact that it can be damned convienient
    to those who can afford it.  Maybe too convienient.
    
    Watch out for unintended consequences.  Just who's research is your
    child turning in at school?  His own?  Or a slightly modified research
    paper found at a web site?  I think it's important that children be
    computer literate, and it's the reason I hear cited most often for
    why friends (non-computer-industry-types) have bought one.  But it is
    a unfiltered, and narrow source of "information" - some real, some
    made up, but all with the same stamp of authority of being found on the
    internet.
    
    Hey.  I use the web.  I can write in HTML.  I love to surf over to the
    Disney page to see what the camera's in the park are showing.  And as a
    business tool - at least for the computer industry, the net is the best
    thing since sliced bread.
    
    It's also filled with the worst low-life scum, who you would call the
    cops if you saw in your yard, but who can talk to your child on the
    web.  And then there is alt.pictures.binaries.beastiality -- real
    cool stuff.  And then there are the racist animals who spew their
    graffiti thoughout the net.  Yeah, it's the real world.  But I would
    not want my 11 year out there without a guide.
    

    You can't be always be right !
    Even the smartest people / companies make errors... It's smart trial 
    and errors...  
    
    But you can be a winner in that game. Take (yes, my choice is 
    innocent) IBM: it's a graveyard ! Do you remember the S/1 Series, the
    5120, S/23, 5280 Data Entry, 8100, the Motorola Lab systems before
    their own RISC systems... IBM always markets many families... and the
    market decides ! As they market a lot of different series, they
    consolidate the bestseller lines and sell to the unlucky ones a port to 
    a new system (they are good in that business).
    
    NEVER do anything, if you want to avoid failures.
    
    After all, the market decides... and we still need good marketeers
    (people who can ask the others what they want).
         
    Products and companies are like species. Only the strongest and
    the one that best adapts survive.
    Hundreds years after Darwin's death, there is still plenty
    who do (or do not want) understand. 
                 

>"Hey, I think this vacant building is a good site for a delicatessan.
>I'll rent it and start one. And if that doesn't work, I can probably turn 
>it into a shoe store."

So?  The above is clearly the vision that the entrepreneur has for the 
vacant building.  Opportunistic is not the opposite of vision. 

(Why do people like to agree so violently in here?)

    I assume that when Ken used the word "computer" in this quote he hadn't
    a "multi-media information appliance" (ref. Bill Gates) in mind. The
    world didn't go with MDSDOS and QBASIC either.
    
    To use a "comput�r" to surf the net is a misuse of its name. ;-)
    
    Guenther

    I simply think there's a great deal of difference between having the
    ability to recognize the opportunities for the future that are
    available in the present, and the ability to predict the future without
    such supporting evidence.  
    
    I refer to the former as opportunism.  That is not to say that
    opportunism lacks vision - not at all.  But in the context of the time,
    in 1977 it was perfectly reasonable for Ken to make a statement like 
    the one quoted.  At that time, home computing did not represent a
    significant opportunity for the future, except perhaps as a hobby.
    Frankly, I think Ken's famous quote about Unix and Snake oil may yet
    come to fruition, if the projections about NT are halfway
    accurate...;-)
    
    I also tend to think Drucker has a lot of valuable and useful insight
    into Entrepreneurism, Innovation and Opportunism.
    
    Look at Edison.  He wasn't an inventor as much as an entrepreneur.  His
    'vision' was to recognize opportunities in the present for which he
    could produce a product that would make a buck.  Opportunistic
    profiteering at its best.  Same thing for Henry Ford.  Ford didn't
    invent anything, or see into the future - he just found a way of making
    more product, and thereby more profits, than anyone previously had.
    There have been lots of entrepreneurs - and none of them could reliably
    predict 20 or 30 years into the future to save their lives.
    
    The only Entrepreneurial oracle I can think of is Ellison (CEO of
    Oracle ;-) ) - and he may be nuts anyway. ;-)
    
    tim
    
    

 >  in 1977 it was perfectly reasonable for Ken to make a statement like 
 >  the one quoted.  At that time, home computing did not represent a
 >  significant opportunity for the future, except perhaps as a hobby.

In 1977 it would have been reasonable for anyone to make this comment - the 
Apple was nascent and the IBM PC was five years down the road.  I suspect 
that the quote was made in the 80's.

In the 80's, I had enough chips controlling things in my house (TVs, 
thermostats, stove, X-10 controllers, alarm system, answering machine, VCR, 
etc., etc.) that I cannot understand how one could not see the ultimate 
convergence as highly probable.  

Admittedly, in the 50's such projections would have been over the horizon 
and more in the realms of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells.

    Ken Olsen quote:
    
    How sad that such a visionary should be quoted out of context and be
    made to look foolish.
    
    My recollection of 1977 (first full year working)...
    
    Card readers still widespread
    Terminal (327x or VT) to host - no C/S
    DOS (VSE?) ran on a water-cooled mainframe
    Wang word processing was considered state of the art, cost nK$'s, & needed 
    a fork truck to move it
    PDP8 was still being manufactured in PR, with PDP11 ramping up
    RSX was still relatively young
    VMS was a laboratory infant
    Host power requirements were typically 220 & could heat a house
    WWW? - yeah, there was an internet (wasn't it ARPAnet?)
    
    The man was never big on PC's.  However, such an influence in our
    industry deserves to have such quotes framed in the context of their
    time.  Most computers in 1977, other than calculators (mine cost over
    $300 back then), wouldn't fit through a standard household door, let 
    alone be affordable or practical.
    
    BT

>                     At that time, home computing did not represent a
>    significant opportunity for the future, except perhaps as a hobby.

 much like today...maybe he was right after all!!

I can't remember the EXACT quote, but I believe Thomas Watson at one time said 
there would never be more than 5 computers in the entire world!

-mark

    I'm not sure about the snake oil - but does someone remember Ken's
    quote about UNIX and Russian trucks?
    

I knew if I looked a little harder I could find it.  Thank you altavista!

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
 --Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

and how about this one from chairman Bill

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
 --Bill Gates, 1981

-mark

>Most computers in 1977, other than calculators (mine cost over
>    $300 back then), wouldn't fit through a standard household door, let 
>    alone be affordable or practical.

There is a famous Ken story about his having manufacturing deliver a
computer (I think it was a PDP-11/34, but can't be sure) to his home.  When
he found that it wouldn't fit through the door into his house the result
was one of those famous packaging exercises he was so fond of.  Perhaps
someone else recalls the details better.

    My point is that Ken Olsen has made significant contributions to this
    industry.  He deserves his place in history as a leader, pioneer, and
    innovator.  He does not deserve the treatment he gets, and quotes such
    as the one which is the subject of this note do him a great injustice.

    
    
    	re .28
    
    		I don't think it was so much the level of technology
    	at the time the statement was made, but I read it as a comment
    	on human nature.  Here's an analogy.  A lot of guys own a nice
    	toolbox.  BUT how many of those tools actully get used?  How 
    	many of the tools NEVER get used?  The consumer market is a
    	very trendy place where the 'need' for something  is more 
    	perception than reality, where alot of folks don't want to
    	be left out of the latest and greatest offered for consumption.
    
    		It is obvious Ken and others missed a HUGE business
    	opportunity, but I feel the PC (as we know it today)  will 
    	be remembered as only a stepping stone towards something quite 
    	fantastik.  I'm not sure what that something will  be, yet.
    	Total integration?  It sounds too "total" to be plausible.
    
    		Nevertheless, the PC will probably lose the "p" and
    	every home will become just another node. Maybe by the year
    	2050 every new home built will have the home computer built
    	in as just another appliance.  The user-interface will most
    	certainly merge with the entertainment appliances of the
    	time.  Hmmm...

I bought a Machintosh/SE over a decade ago. The MAC worked well at home and I 
loved it at that time. Now, we can buy much cheaper IBM compatible with 
Windows95. The latest home PC such as Toshiba's Infinia 7200 has a integrated 
TV tuner, Radio, remort control, CD-ROM drive, voice mail and multimedia 
monitor, so you can enjoy those all-in-one futures at home. The PC's cost is
dramatically reduced recently and it seems really to be a commodity like phone.
And the lots person are having personal portable phone right now, so I think 
every one would be having each "Wireless" PC per person by year 2010 :)


	 Old one (1)   Current one (2)    (1)/(2)       Future one ?
         ----------    ---------------    -------       -------------
Cost 	 $4K           $2K                  0.5           $1K
CPU      68000         Pentium               ?            1GHz
Memory   1MB           16MB                 16           256MB
Disk     20MB          2.5GB               125           300GB


Hiromi 

    Re .42
    Very well said, thank you.
    Ken will always remain my favorite and I think I'm not the only one
    with that feeling.
    It was great to work for him, something I can't say about those who are
    in charge today.
    
    Frans
                    

    Re  .42
    
    Well done that man!
    
    Ken was an innovator, a visionay, and a people motivator the like of
    which we havn't seen since and will probably never see again.
    
    
    Guy
    

re Note 5103.45 by BIS1::GEERAERTS:

        Ken's vision during the last decade of his tenure was
        hindered by the vision (or lack thereof) of the people around
        him.  Some of those people are still running things. 
        Unfortunately, the one whose vision was sufficient to become
        the "ultimate entrepreneur" is not.

        Bob

>              <<< Note 5103.32 by STOWOA::16.123.40.54::nbufton >>>
>                               -< Vision thing >-
>
>>"Hey, I think this vacant building is a good site for a delicatessan.
>>I'll rent it and start one. And if that doesn't work, I can probably turn 
>>it into a shoe store."
>
>So?  The above is clearly the vision that the entrepreneur has for the 
>vacant building.  Opportunistic is not the opposite of vision. 

That's not what I meant by "vision."
The reply in .34 recognizes the distinction better.
Seeing an empty storefront and imagining a deli is not visionary.
Seeing a possibility that has never been met takes vision, like the
guy who opened the FIRST deli.
And the person who sees that there are twenty-some computers in your
house NOW (thermostats, microwaves, cordless and wired phones, TVs, VCRs,
stereos, security systems) and sees a comprehensible workable way to 
get them to work together, and builds a company and markets the solution -
he or she will be a visionary, whether that person is the one who makes
money from it or not.

focus on "comprehensible workable way" - the opportunity is clear,
but exploiting it isn't

And all by 2050?  Posh!  It's in the works now, and if it isn't 
common available by 2005, and routinely installed  by 2010 I'll be 
very surprised.

- tom]

I think the irony in Ken's statement is that it contradicts Ken's own
sucess with DEC.  In the days when computers were multi-million dollar
behemoths lurking in air conditioned computer rooms, he forsaw the need for
smaller cheaper "minicomputers", and first with the PDP-1, then the -8, the
-11, and the then-new VAX project, he made DEC from a rinky-dinky electronics
manufacturing firm into the second largest computer manufacturer.  He
was apparently so blinded by his success he couldn't see the same idea taken
the next step, computers even smaller, cheaper and more numerous so that
someday everyone could have one.

   Some additional thoughts, put forward in the "all in good fun" vein...

   I find it somewhat amusing, and somewhat irritating, that in 
   criticism of Ken's statement of some twenty years ago, NO ONE has 
   yet entered much of a reason that they NEED a computer in the home.

   No one on with a family member on a life-support system requiring 
   artificial intelligence software; no one needing voice-recognition
   software because they are unable to use their hands, etc.

   Look at what's typically been written:

 >My wife's primary use is the WWW.  

    Guess what ... you won't NEED a 'PC' to access the WWW.  WEBtv is
    already here, for about $300, and better non-PC WWW technology 
    appears to be coming down the road.  

>My 11 year old daughter ... does her school work on it (using Word), 
>>keeps her grade sheets on it (using Excel), and has found some amazing 
>information using AltaVista and Yahoo.

    Guess what ...she doesn't NEED a PC to keep track of her grades!

    She don't need a PC to do word-processing.   Her brain is probably
    where the quality comes from; she COULD use a pencil, typewriter,
    word-processer, PC, or whatever....but she doesn't NEED the PC.

    Guess what ... kid's can find amazing information wherever they look!
    There's amazing stuff in BOOKS, in the WOODS, in CLASSES at school,
    in MUSIC, in TALKING to adults, etc.!  "Finding amazing information" 
    is hardly a unique property of PC's!   Gosh, the TV is probably better
    at it than the Web!


    
>    	With a school age child at home and working parents, the computer
>    and internet access at home is vital.  I use altavista to find information
>    not readily available in the books I have at home.  Recently a parent
>    of a fourth grader told me she had to find a picture of a parrot's
>    skeleton for a report, and she told me how she spent expensive time down
>    at the library searching for it.  
    
     Excuse me ... the school asked the PARENTS to report on PARROTS?

     Or was the student supposed to do the report? 

     'Spending extensive time at the library' is probably an INTENDED
     part of the exercise, for the STUDENT (not MOM!) to LEARN ABOUT 
     the library!

     Having MOM or DAD due the research on a PC probably defeated the 
     lesson objective quite effectively! 


>Could we live without it?  Of course.  Could we also live without electricity,
>hot running water, and a house with a roof?  

    Wrong; in lots of places, basically you can't live very long without a 
    roof.   Adequate shelter from the weather is necessary to maintain life. 

    Many people will not live very long or very well without access to 
    any electricity, with transportation limited to animal/human power and 
    communication limited to voice-power, heating only from fires, etc.

    The PC is a whole lessor ballgame.  

>        A personal computer is a necessity for me and my household in the same
>    way that many other modern things are a necessity.  I expect such is the
>    case for most of the readers in this notes file.

     Ahhhh, here we have it, I think.   I "NEED" CONVENIENCES.

     I recall a friend telling me that Ken and his wife did not feel they 
     NEEDED a dishwasher, did not have one, and washed the dishes together 
     at home, after dinner.

     Just to think, all that time they spent sharing, talking, and working 
     together, doing something a machine could do, while they could have 
     each been ALONE WITH A PC!

   Perhaps it's just that Ken uderstands 'needs' far better than his critics.

    
    Ken took me down a peg or two the first time I had a conversation with
    him.  We were talking about the Internet, and I was saying how great it
    was, and what cool things I could do, and how it was indispensible for
    me to do my job... and he said (paraphrasing) "Your kind (meaning SW
    types I guess), always think you know the answers.  You think just because
    something is interesting to you, that everyone should use it.  How much
    time and money has been wasted by companies who are paying employees to
    play on the network, instead of doing actual work?  Does a secretary really
    need access to the internet?  How many people in a company actually do?"
    
    Ah.  I didn't have a really good answer.  It's like the "executive
    workstation" that we all thought was a great idea years ago... only
    executives preferred to keep their existing workstations - the intercom
    button to call their secretary.
    
    

    re .50
    
    I build QuickTime/VR panoramas of interesting places I've photographed
    with a 35mm SLR using my personal computer, & I put them on the Internet.
    It is not likely I would have even tried to do this before computers came 
    along to do the stitching. You need a computer to view these QTVRs, and to build them.
    Yes, I know there are panorama cameras, but they are not easy to deal
    with at 11000 feet in the freezing cold winds. The integration of computing 
    and photography seems like one of the key reasons for me to have a machine at home. 
    
       erik

I don't see this they the rest of you seem to. You are discussing
the actual statement. I'm thinking more along the lines of how
many failures do visionaries envision for every startling sucess?

If what I've read in various biographies is true some of the more
successful people in the world have had grand failures too. No one
bats 100%. 

So Ken made an error. If you've seen the list that statement often
goes around with, you can see that he isn't alone. The issue here
is having a vision and going for broke to make it come true. How
many of us have even done that once much less twice? liesl

re: .50
    
>>   I find it somewhat amusing, and somewhat irritating, that in 
>>   criticism of Ken's statement of some twenty years ago, NO ONE has 
>>   yet entered much of a reason that they NEED a computer in the home.

>>   No one on with a family member on a life-support system requiring 
>>    .
>>    .
    
    You're playing with the word "need".  I don't NEED a car, because I can
    bike to work no matter what the weather, and no matter how far.  I
    don't NEED a washer and dryer because I can spend all my free time in a
    laundramat with my son doing his homework on his knee.
    
    
>>    She don't need a PC to do word-processing.   Her brain is probably
>>    where the quality comes from; she COULD use a pencil, typewriter,
>>    word-processer, PC, or whatever....but she doesn't NEED the PC.

    Correct, but she's competing with a school full of other students who
    have computers at home (if she lives in the well-to-do suburbs like
    many of us do) and who can do their homework in less time using a word
    processor instead of rewriting and erasing holes in the paper (like I
    did in the old days).
        
>>     Excuse me ... the school asked the PARENTS to report on PARROTS?
>>     Or was the student supposed to do the report? 
>>     'Spending extensive time at the library' is probably an INTENDED
>>     part of the exercise, for the STUDENT (not MOM!) to LEARN ABOUT 
>>     the library!
>>     Having MOM or DAD due the research on a PC probably defeated the 
>>     lesson objective quite effectively! 

    The only valid part of your argument is over who should actually be
    doing the research, not how or where the research should be done.  I
    don't know where you live, but in our town there are no public busses
    (not that I'd let an elementary school student get on one alone
    anyway) and the library has limited hours.  Library research means the
    PARENTS drive their kids to Worcester on the weekend and sit there for
    the duration.  And what do you find when you get there??  Computers to
    help you do your research.
     

>>>  A personal computer is a necessity for me and my household in the same
>>>  way that many other modern things are a necessity.  I expect such is the
>>>  case for most of the readers in this notes file.

>>     Ahhhh, here we have it, I think.   I "NEED" CONVENIENCES.

    I think the original poster was clear in specifying "in the same way
    that many other modern things are a necessity".  He didn't claim that
    his PC provided life-support.  You've simply stated the obvious truth
    that anything which isn't needed to sustain life can be considered a
    convenience.
    
    Tony
    

RE: .50 -< I want, I want, I want, I want... >-

Since it was (primarily) my note that you quoted, I thought I would respond.

Are you familiar with Maslow, and his writings on hierarchy of needs?  He
made three points that I really like:

1) Needs have a hierarchy, with things like food and water at the lowest
   level, moving up through adequate shelter, through comfort, and finally
   up to what he calls self-actualization, which most people call happiness.

2) Until you have fully satisfied the needs at a lower level (such as food),
   you don't perceive the needs of the higher levels (ie, if you are starving,
   then the need for a fulfilling career to demonstrate your usefullness to
   society is something that you can't even conceive of).

3) But once you have satisfied the needs at the lower level, they become
   unimportant, and you feel the desperation to satisfy the needs at the
   higher level as strongly as you felt the desperation to satisfy the
   lower level needs before.

It is the third point that is in play here.  To a starving person, "needing"
a computer is ludicrous: it is so far outside their immediate need for food
as to be incomprehensible.  But I am going to assume that most of the people
who are writing in this notesfile are not starving, and in fact are pretty
far along in satisfying almost all of their basic needs.  Therefore, their
"need" for a computer is felt as strongly as the "need" of a starving person
for food.  Rightly or wrongly from a purely objective point, and however
much you may ridicule the "need" and state that a starving child in Bosnia
does not share it, Maslow's theory states that because the lower level needs
are satisfied, the higher level needs are now very strong.

OF COURSE I don't *need* a PC.  My family existed quite nicely without one
before we got it, and we have existed quite nicely (minus some serious and
loud complaints, mostly from my wife :^)) when it has broken.

But for the same reason I bought a microwave oven, for the same reason I
got cable TV, for the same reason I am putting money away for my kid's
college education, I bought a PC.  It makes my life easier, it provides a
service which I enjoy, and I believe it is necessary to prepare my kids
for the life that I hope they will have.  If I thought that my children 
would spend all their adult life satisfying their lowest level needs (ie, 
be homeless and spend their time searching for food), then I would be
doing different things.  But I don't think that, so I have a PC at home.

>>Could we live without it?  Of course.  Could we also live without electricity,
>>hot running water, and a house with a roof?  
>
>    Wrong; in lots of places, basically you can't live very long without a 
>    roof.   Adequate shelter from the weather is necessary to maintain life. 

Yes, but we live in South Florida.  Hurricane Andrew demonstrated to a lot
of people that they can in fact live without all of the things I mentioned
(which is why I picked those examples, since 10's of thousands of people
lived without those specific things for about 2 weeks after their homes were
destroyed by Andrew about 4 years ago). :-(

>    Many people will not live very long or very well without access to 
>    any electricity, with transportation limited to animal/human power and 
>    communication limited to voice-power, heating only from fires, etc.
>
>    The PC is a whole lessor ballgame.  

But according to Maslow's theory, the level of need is the same, even 
though in objective fact the actual requirement to sustain life is less.
But let me guess: you don't camp out in tents with campfires as your only
source of heat/light/cooking as a primary hobby... :-)

As for as the original topic is concerned, I rank Ken Olsen among my personal
heroes, and treasure the few times I was able to talk with him.  He achieved
what every engineer dreams of, and so few accomplish: realizing his ideas, 
changing the world with those ideas, and making himself a few bucks in the 
process.  He wasn't perfect, and he failed to foresee a significant factor
in his own future, but so what?  If we are so much smarter than he is, why
haven't we started and built a $14B company?  Maybe because we aren't that
much smarter than he is?

-- Ken Moreau

    As almost always, Ken M. has put my ideas perfectly. I hope that
    doesn't make you feel too uncomfortable Ken. 
    
    As one who way-too-often speaks before actually thinking of all the
    horriable ramifications of what I'm saying I can understand what KO was
    getting at with all the embarrassing quotes that are attibuted to him.
    I've always enjoyed bad predictions. One that I recall is that in the
    late 80's.
    Nintendo produced more computer cycles than any other computer company!
    I heard someone say that Nintendo's were going to be the computers of
    the future with all sorts of applications that were then running on
    mainframes. Similarly in 1976 a fellow showed me a microprocessor
    (which was used to power a lunchbox sized box autodialing device) an
    told me that field service was going to be gone in 5 years because
    these things are so simple to troubleshoot. Though I should have gotten
    the hint long ago, I have been hearing that repairing computers is such
    a simple thing to do now that the; VAX 8600, VAX 9000, VAX 6000  and Alpha
    every model pick one, have like only one cpu module the company doesn't 
    need serious field service engineers they could get away with handing
    modules to customers so they could replace it themselves. 
    
    
    Fred

re .50  

funny the reactions you can get to a note that's 
"all in good fun"...  :^)

that being said, let me just add  "bravo!"   in general,
i think people today "need" an awful lot more than
is necessary...  it's a wise person who carefully considers
what is really "needed"...

interesting thoughts on Maslow's theory too...  and while
you make an interesting point, the needs are not the same...
Maslow used a pyramid as a model for the hierarchy of needs...
the basic food and shelter needs never go away, and all the
other "needs" in the hierarchy are dependent on satisfying them...
an event like hurricane Andrew recalibrates that need
hierarchy pretty quickly and effectively!

self actualization may be the top of the pyramid, but god 
help us all on the day we need a computer to get there!   :^)

			da ve

A nice big chunk of our problem in the marketplace is that we believe 
that we can force the customer to buy what he 'really' needs. Not 
what he 'thinks' he needs. Not what he wants. What we know he needs. 

He doesn't really need a PC. He doesn't need an operating system 
other than VMS. He doesn't need whatever we, in our infinite wisdom, 
have decreed to be the best whatever. We're baffled that the customer 
can be so obtuse.

Automobile companies are not the least bit fazed that their customers 
don't need rear deck spoilers. They want 'em, they get 'em.

A large part of marketing is creating a need where none existed 
before. Ask Bill Gates. 

Jay

    .58
    
    Horsefeathers.
    
    

I happen to agree with with .58 emphatically.

So .59, would you care to elaborate on your comment?

You know, I was a customer for many years, and .59 is just
the attitude that made me cringe when ever I had to pick up
the phone and call DEC.  DEC sucked when it came to doing 
business.  Most arrogant bunch of jackasses in the world.

Unfortunatly for me, they were the only option for a long time.

Unfortunatly for DIGITAL, they are not the only option any longer.

Brad

    Sure.  On which level?
    
    .58 really says nothing about listening to the customer, and working
    with them to solve their business problem.  .58 says we're a
    supermarket, and we simply should stock whatever the customers are
    demanding this week.  It's just another whine from someone pissed about
    the fact we haven't killed VMS, and we might actually have the audacity
    to recommend a VMS solution to a customer.
    
    Well, we were not a PC company.  Our money came from (and still comes
    from) selling servers.  After listening to the customer, we should
    recommend what we believe best solves the customers problem.  If it
    involves PCs, then great - we should have referred him to a PC vendor
    (before we became a "PC" company).  If the customer does not take our
    recommendation, sell him what he wants if we have it, or refer him to
    a vendor who will - knowing that it may not solve his problem, but in
    the end, the customer is always right.
    
    As to VMS.  Well, 10 years ago DEC was the VMS company.  It's what we
    were, what we sold, what we understood.  It made gobs of money, and we
    knew how to sell it.  UNIX and PCs didn't much make sense in that
    product mix - so comming to us and expecting us to push a PC solution
    would have been a rediculous idea.  Of course we would have tried to
    sell you VMS - it was what we sold.
    
    And in fact, we changed the face of the company - we now sell PC's,
    Unix, NT, and all kinds of things.  Of course, we no longer have a
    focus, are marginally profitable on shrinking revenue, have half the
    employee population, no longer have complete solutions,or  well staffed
    sales, support, or engineering oranizations.  From the #2 computer
    company, to one where most of the employees are hoping that Compaq buys
    us out.  But yes, you can now come and pick from a menu of any
    hardware you want, we probably don't have the resources to figure out
    if it solves your problem.  And don't hold your breath to get things
    fixed if they break.  Heck, unless your in the top 1000 companies don;t
    even try to buy it from us.
    
    You can't be all things to all customers.  When we were all things to
    VMS customers, we were the best.  We tried to be all things to all
    customers, and what are we now?
    
    

    BTW - customers didn't demand spoilers on their cars, it was some moron
    in marketing.  Heck, if american cars had been built for their
    customers - the Japaneese car market would never have been created.
    
    

Heck,

If Digital, and Wang, and Data General, and Prime, and Burroughs had built
computers for their customers - Compaq, Packard Bell, G2K, etc. would never
have been created.

$.02
gc

re .61:
>.58 really says nothing about listening to the customer, and working
>with them to solve their business problem.  .58 says we're a
>supermarket, and we simply should stock whatever the customers are
>demanding this week.

If we are going to stock what they are demanding, don't we have to listen
to thier demands?

I guess the point of .58 is what you want it to be.  You feel it has nothing 
to do with listening to customers, I interpreted it to be all about listening
to customers.

And I really don't disagree with the bulk of what is written in .61.

I'm a VMS advocate.

I actually believe that if we can keep VMS proud, it has a long future ahead 
of it as the premiere server OS.  Of course we did a good job killing it a 
while back, I just hope we can recover from it. 

    
    It's also the wrong thread for this rathole.
    
    

    .59
    Do horses really have feathers where you are?? Can they fly ? Is this a
    New England unique type of thing. Since someone up there hired a group
    of monkeys to do our marketing should we expect flying horses to appear
    somewhere? Shouldn't we all get hats with washable tops and VERY WIDE
    brims, I mean nature and flying horses mixed with gravity and all....

    <--- RE: .68
    
    >Do horses really have feathers where you are?? Can they fly ? Is this a
    >New England unique type of thing. Since someone up there hired a group
    >of monkeys to do our marketing should we expect flying horses to appear
    >somewhere? Shouldn't we all get hats with washable tops and VERY WIDE
    >brims, I mean nature and flying horses mixed with gravity and all....
    
    Find yourself a Webster's dictionary and look up the word horsefeathers.
    It's slang for "nonsense".
    There's nothing "New England" in a current sense of this slang term.
    It may however date back to old English country riding vernacular,
    and was brought over to this country during the colonial period.
    People will use "horsepucky" instead of saying "horses__t", (you can
    fill in the blanks I'm sure).
    
    Bob

    
>    My point is that Ken Olsen has made significant contributions to this
>    industry.  He deserves his place in history as a leader, pioneer, and
>    innovator.  He does not deserve the treatment he gets, and quotes such
>    as the one which is the subject of this note do him a great injustice.
    
    But I think his place in history is exactly why the quote appears.  If I
    had made the statement no one would care in any way shape or form.  It
    is an example where a brillant man missed the boat in his sphere of
    influence.
    
    Greg
    

    .69
    
    Horsefeathers are the long hairs just above the hoof on Shire horses.
    They are close to the muck so they get very dirty with you-know-what.

    re .70 and others. The boat may have been missed. But look at the
    year the quote was made. At the time it might have been relevant.
    
    The vision then, may not have been the scaled down models that are
    in many homes today.
    
    Bob
    

    It amazes me how often so many people are quick to take the easy way
    out.
    
    It is easy to criticize.  It is much harder to engage in a serious
    search for the truth.
    
    I truly hope that as historians look back on this industry that they
    evaluate Ken Olsen in a truly objective manner, as objective as humanly
    possible.
    
    For those of you that do not have the intellectual capacity to
    understand, you have my sympathy.

    <--- RE: .73
    
    Exactly my sentiments, concise, and directly to the crux.
    
    Everything else said to the contrary isn't cognizant of
    the true context of the statements being debated here.
    For those who wish to have a better contextual peception
    of Ken, I'd suggest reading the biography book the Ultimate 
    Entrepreneur written about Ken.
    
    
    Bob

    
    
    
    
    
    Ken is in good company.
    /Richard (and it's Friday)
    
The following is from the business section of The Kansas City Star,
Jan 17, 1995:

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
         - Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless
           march of science, 1949

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
         - Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked
with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a
fad that won't last out the year."
         - The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957

"But what ... is it good for?"
         - Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968,
           commenting on the microchip.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
         - Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of
           Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

"Where a calculator like the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and
weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes
and perhaps weigh 1 1/2 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, ca. 1947


 - ---------------

 From: bellcore!Eng.Sun.COM!Daniel.Steinberg (Daniel Steinberg)
[Excerpt from Seybold Digital Media, quoted from an Internet message]


        Danny Hillis, founder of Thinking Machines, had the following
        comment:

        I went to my first computer conference at the New York Hilton
        about 20 years ago. When somebody there predicted the market
        for microprocessors would eventually be in the millions,
        someone else said, "Where are they all going to go? It's not
        like you need a computer in every doorknob!"

        Years later, I went back to the same hotel. I noticed the room
        keys had been replaced by electronic cards you slide into slots
        in the doors.

        There was a computer in every doorknob.

 - ------- End of Forwarded Message

And you can see a computer on your credit card soon... 

I also remember the Terminater II movie and embeded cpu in his brain...

Hiromi

    re .76: Most here in Europe have them already...
    

     <<< Note 5103.77 by BHAJEE::JAERVINEN "Ora, the Old Rural Amateur" >>>

    re .76: Most here in Europe have them already...
    

    <<<< .73
    
    I hope that wasn't directed at me :*(. My note was not meant to 
    criticize Ken Olsen or anyone else. I was thinking out loud, that the 
    times might have dictated his thoughts.
    
    Bob

    re .78: �-< A computer chip in the brain?! >-
    
    No (unfortunately..??). I was referring to the first sentence.
    

    Anyone that would judge a man on one statement is an idiot. Taking a
    company from nothing to $14,000,000,000 in about 30 years shows a
    little more about the man than one statement he may have made. 
    
    He may be more of a visionary than we realize." In the future people
    WON'T have computers is their home. The computer will just be a utility
    that you hook up like electricity or telephone." If I am right, Ken will
    have been right back then.
    
                            Stephen D. James
                            (Steve J.)
    P.S. I signed my legal name so that if I ever become famous you can
    have the exact quote to laugh at me in the future.
    

    re .81  
    
    yup, that's it. These pcs are a load of crud. Roll on the network
    computer linked up to a powerful neighbourhood server. That is what Ken
    meant. He did not say, you won't need a computer, he said you won't
    need one IN YOUR HOME, and he was right.
    
    Regarding the assesment of Ken, he was a brilliant engineer, but maybe
    not such a great judge of people. I still cannot understand how he got
    the sack or what those who sacked him were thinking of. Looking at what
    has happened since, it was not a great decision. The funny thing is
    though, Digital abandonned his business model before he left, by buying
    other companies, for example. But that is probably something history
    will have to try and sort out. Those who know the answers won't be
    telling. 

    <---- RE: .79
    
    > I hope that wasn't directed at me :*(. My note was not meant to
    >criticize Ken Olsen or anyone else. I was thinking out loud, that the
    >times might have dictated his thoughts.
         
    Bob, I don't think so. At least in my agreement with .73 I certainly
    didn't take it that way, nor were my comments directed your way.
    You're on the right side of the issue. :-)
    
    Bob :-)

Something happened when I typed the note title.  I could have sworn I put a
smiley face 8^) in it.  It was not meant to be a criticism of anyone.

	mikeP

>    <---- RE: .79
>    
>    > I hope that wasn't directed at me :*(. My note was not meant to
>    >criticize Ken Olsen or anyone else. I was thinking out loud, that the
>    >times might have dictated his thoughts.
>         
>    Bob, I don't think so. At least in my agreement with .73 I certainly
>    didn't take it that way, nor were my comments directed your way.
>    You're on the right side of the issue. :-)

    I for one thank Ken Olsen for being at DEC for most of my 18 years not
    any one else running this company known as digital.  His visions as to
    what the computer world should look like in the past and now are what
    made DEC, not digital, what it once was. A great company and a world
    leading company.  The only digital vision now is to fill the fat cats
    pockets with money. Dollar signs are the only vision now. Ken Olsen had
    visions that included DEC's workers, DEC's customers and DEC's
    stock holders.  Ken Olsen did not bring DEC to it's knees like the people
    running digital have done the past few years with his visions.  Ken
    Olsen did not just think of the color green like is being done now.

    It's been an interesting string so far.
    
    Arthur C Clark once wrote that if a famous scientist says that
    something is possible, he is almost certainly correct. If he says that
    something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong (not an exact
    quote!). It just depends on the time scale...
    
    I guess this applies outside the science domain.