It’s impractical in that it doesn’t make much sense to use them from a “productivity” standpoint. I’m not going to code up my website on an original Macintosh. They only really make sense from a historical standpoint (but productivity in the form of making videos about them does exist).
The Voyager 1 is still practical because it would take too long to get something that’s better that it to where it is.
He could've just as well used a typewriter - literally just writing doesn't require a computer at all. Writers in particular don't have to care about words-per-minute or error correction, grammar or style (there's lectors for that anyway) and they don't do serial letters or mail merge either.
There's no good metric for measuring "productivity" for writers with respect to the tools used.
> He could've just as well used a typewriter - literally just writing doesn't require a computer at all.
That's completely silly and strange.
One thing about retrocomputing that is hinted at in the article, and is genuinely interesting, is that people used to pay as much as you might pay for a car to get a computer that could, for example, run WordStar. For those who write for a living, the productivity boost over something like an electric typewriter was that big.
I'm not trying to be offensive, but I am guessing you've either never written much with an electric typewriter, such that you would be capable of making the comparison to writing (and more importantly - revising and editing!) with a word processor, or you've never written much period.
> I'm not trying to be offensive, but I am guessing you've either never written much with an electric typewriter, such that you would be capable of making the comparison to writing (and more importantly - revising and editing!) with a word processor, or you've never written much period.
Right back at you - in fact electronic typewriters came with a similar feature set to that of early word processing programs (of the 8-bit era): from monitor connections to integrated digital storage to the ability to run programs.
Modern electronic typewriters have error correction buffers, too.
Some authors (and that's who we're talking about here!) prefer typewriters for other reasons, too: seeing their work directly on paper and not having to worry about any kind of leaks (unless someone breaks into their house).
With authors in particular, what matters just as much - if not more - than just typing their work down, is making notes and keeping track of story arcs, characters, world-building, etc.
A word processing program doesn't help with that and this requires either specialised software or a different workflow altogether that doesn't benefit from traditional word processing functionality anyway.
I actually used some of the hardware you must be referring to. I never found any of it to be very good at all, and I grew up with access to both 8-bit (and later, 16-bit and 32-bit) computers and a few electronic typewriters. (contrariwise, I do have fond memories of the IBM Selectric, as does anyone who learned to touch type on one, I'm sure)
But I am utterly interested in what typewriter model you'd nominate as equal to the DOS + WordStar/Word/Sprint + PC combo of its era! If it's hardware you used and liked for some reason, that'd be something to hear about... not a lot of people reminisce about that hardware. (because it was horrible... ahem)
That's why I explicitly wrote electronic typewriter.
Electronic office typewriters did have interfaces for monitors and some came with integrated digital storage (e.g. disks) and had a similar feature set to that of early word processing programs.
I think a distinction needs to be made between electric typewriters (basically electrified mechanical typewriters to not tire out the fingers) and electronic typewriters (more advanced devices, usually with a buffer to correct typos before they are committed to paper, might have spell check or other intelligence, sometimes feature a full-blown built-in display). The latter are basically computers, but they are self-contained with regards to the peripherals and printing.
On the other hand, a DOS operating environment, while slightly more complex, is far easier to integrate into a modern workflow. The environment can be emulated (= easier to lug around a 4MB DOS disk image than a 20kg chunky suitcase, easy to use modern peripherals like 4K screens, KVM switches/Alt+Tab, and WiFi printers), data backup is very straightforward (vs a machine-specific process or paper photocopy), and the data is far easier to convert to modern formats for incorporation into modern workflows (US ASCII + Markdown can be turned to PDF, HTML, ODT, or kept as is).
If I had to incur the complexity cost of a more advanced platform, a DOS editor would be preferable over an electronic typewriter.
Do you think, perhaps, if he switched to some modern novel writing software, with character and plot tracking, that he might actually finish the "Song of Ice and Fire" series in this lifetime?
>I’m not going to code up my website on an original Macintosh.
Yet people still make games, and hardware, for cold hard cash for vintage systems like the Commodore and Atari computer lines.
For example https://atariage.com/store/ is full of newer titles and in the various forums you can find all sorts of modern hardware and titles being discussed, and sold, for various vintage systems https://atariage.com/forums/
Some of us find these machines very practical, some are even still being used in commercial settings. At some point I recall one of the people being interviewed on ANTIC The Atari 8-bit Podcast ( https://ataripodcast.libsyn.com/ ) mentioning they either recently stop using, or were still using, an Atari computer in a commercial setting because if it isn't broke, don't fix it.
I mean, people even still make peripherals for these vintage machines. I had a brand-spanking-new-from-the-factory joystick show up just this past week for my Atari machines from https://retroradionics.co.uk/
Sure, you might not create a flashy website for a client, or some machine learning, design the next app to IPO at a billion for, or develop the next social media platform on one but they absolutely still have a practical, functional, use for many users.
> It’s impractical in that it doesn’t make much sense to use them from a “productivity” standpoint.
I think it depends on what you're trying to do. If you're creating pixel art for a game, working on a "retro" computer might be more practical. E.g., if the software you're using does everything you need, you get some nice benefits like fast startup time, often lower latency feedback, not having to worry about automatic updates rebooting your machine while you're working on something, having a machine that's much easier to understand/modify to your needs, etc.
It may not be practical to have a "retro" computer as your only computer, but for certain tasks I can see them being more practical than a modern computer. And it's honestly kinda sad that modern computers provide such a subpar experience in a lot of areas.
It's worth remembering that a large amount of the reason that's impractical is because society shifts to expect the new thing. In turn, part of the reason society gets to expect the new thing much more instantly nowadays is because past new things started including “always the newest by default”, so it became an active choice to want to keep anything around or not instantly change your behavior to match. I'm not sure how much of this is ‘actual’ values versus power conflicts versus broken equilibria though I know at least one influence was the rolling infosecpocalypse.
There's a post elsewhere on “The Amish, and Strategic Norms around Technology” which has some not-bad short description of ways this isn't universal, and potential for application to current-day (potentially America-centric, etc.) society, without going into too much depth: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/36Dhz325MZNq3Cs6B/the-amish-...
The Voyager 1 is still practical because it would take too long to get something that’s better that it to where it is.