In Hindsight... Infamous Tech Predictions and Quotes

I don't think the organizers of this page were able to read and understand the quote of mine that they posted. Yikes!

That quote is about human beings and how they react to what's around them vs to "what's new?". It will remain true as long we are still being born with the same kind of brains that we've had for several hundred thousand years.
 

Julio Franco

Posts: 8,809   +1,715
Staff member
I don't think the organizers of this page were able to read and understand the quote of mine that they posted. Yikes!

That quote is about human beings and how they react to what's around them vs to "what's new?". It will remain true as long we are still being born with the same kind of brains that we've had for several hundred thousand years.
Hi Alan, we meant to use your words as an inspirational quote (that's the reason we put it on top) among others that are mostly ironic. We do get it, and it's a beautiful quote, but "in hindsight," it can easily be misinterpreted standing next to the other quotations, so we've removed it. Thanks for your comment, we stand corrected.
 

Alfatawi Mendel

Posts: 147   +233
The quote was something like, "No one will ever need more than 640k of memory", and has always been attributed to Gates. Those who say otherwise point to the lack of 'proof', as though there had to be a recording device of some kind, especially for someone as profound whenever he opens his mouth, and the acceptance of his own denial that he said it. The fact is that Gates was working with IBM about as closely as any software guy can work with a hardware manufacturer that had no idea what Bill's plans were for the os. Is it more likely that he gave them the go-ahead with the follow-up quote, or that IBM took the reigns of the hardware design away from the os designer and set that limit themselves? Gates' oses have always been a factor in the hardware design of the pc, and that's unfortunate. Whether Gates' denial or the memory limitation set by IBM were pulled out of either of their asses is still debatable.
The quote was something like, "No one will ever need more than 640k of memory", and has always been attributed to Gates. Those who say otherwise point to the lack of 'proof', as though there had to be a recording device of some kind, especially for someone as profound whenever he opens his mouth, and the acceptance of his own denial that he said it. The fact is that Gates was working with IBM about as closely as any software guy can work with a hardware manufacturer that had no idea what Bill's plans were for the os. Is it more likely that he gave them the go-ahead with the follow-up quote, or that IBM took the reigns of the hardware design away from the os designer and set that limit themselves? Gates' oses have always been a factor in the hardware design of the pc, and that's unfortunate. Whether Gates' denial or the memory limitation set by IBM were pulled out of either of their asses is still debatable.
Whether he said it or not is a moot point. What he and MS did for more than a decade was to introduce artificial limitations to file systems and memory allocation. It also indicates the idiocy of the "Market" that has made the most insecure and unreliable operating system, the best selling.
The REALLY clever men of the generation of Einsein, Bohr etc would be spinning in their graves to see the resultsof the modern day worship of the Market .
 
Linux's biggest problem isnt the lack of applications. It already has the apps for 99% of consumers.

Linux's 3 big problems are

1: public image. People think linux is all command line. Despite the likes of mint and ubuntu being able to do most stuff without terminal, people still think linux is some black box with no rules.

2: lack of user friendliness. Part of the reason #1 exists is that it it still partially true. You have to put in PPA's off of google, through terminal, to get the latest video drivers (and dont get me started on the dismal quality of old intel video drivers or AMD drivers for anything that isnt GCN 1.4). New hardware still needs fussing with terminal to make some oddball hardware work properly. Mounting a secondary drive for data storage, navigating the file system, restoring after a bad update, all these things are far more user friendly on windows then they are on linux. The issue is linux is geared to professional use, and as a result it has never truly caught on with end users.

3: fragmentation. The fragmentation of different drivers, kernels, software, PACKAGE MANAGERS (seriously why does linux need 6 different package managers that all do the same thing but use different commands?) ece. This fragmentation makes linux slow to adopt some new changes, like how long it took to get openGL 4 support on intel hardware, getting newer drivers out, the arguing of what will replace X11, ece. Arguable a lot of this wouldnt be an issue if, say, debian was the core of every distro. But linux doesnt work that way. so you end up with tons of distros all doing the same work at the same time, but for different distros, resulting in lots of wasted time making the same fix over and over again.

This is something MS got right. It's closed source, single player nature allowed MS to rapidly adapt to changing requirements and to keep it's OS consistent with itself. Which they miraculously screwed up with 8, and made worse with 10.
What consistence do you mean with MS OS? The consistent that it slows down the whole system even if not doing serious computing jobs? Than there is definitely a consistency there.

I am working since 15 years on Linux and every time I have to work on a Windows machine it's like a pain in the a...it seems like I am working with a toy machine.

But I give you a point about the image of Linux: People who are not familiar with it, still think that you have to be a programmer to use Linux...those times are over and the distros are always better and better.
The friendliness: Microsoft is one of the biggest IT companies on earth and has thousands of employees. Linux is totally different...people contribute to the project when they have time (and the will). So one can not expect that every hardware driver is available for the newest hardware. Additionally, and this is a big problem is that hardware manufacturer focus on Windows systems and build the drivers for it. So often, linux has to do the extra job to implement a driver on its own...
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,804   +2,156
TechSpot Elite
Here's one from me:

"Quantum entanglement is the key to instantaneous long-range interstellar communication between any two points in the universe."
- Me, 2020
 
Last edited:
Hi Alan, we meant to use your words as an inspirational quote (that's the reason we put it on top) among others that are mostly ironic. We do get it, and it's a beautiful quote, but "in hindsight," it can easily be misinterpreted standing next to the other quotations, so we've removed it. Thanks for your comment, we stand corrected.
You put a lot of work into gathering many quotes -- I think it would be great if you separated them into categories. For example, some of Doug Engelbart's were great then and even greater today. The Ken Olsen quote about personal computing was dumb then (it was in the early 80s) and really dumb now.

This is what I'd suggest, and if you tell the readers in the beginning what you are doing, they can glean enlightenment from each of the categories.
 

Markoni35

Posts: 1,314   +531
Some of those are very true. For example, this one from Elon Musk:

“AI doesn’t have to be evil to destroy humanity – if AI has a goal and humanity just happens to come in the way, it will destroy humanity as a matter of course without even thinking about it, no hard feelings.”

Of course, we'll set the rules for the machines. But those rules will become more and more complex, we'll be adding special cases so we can outperform competitors. In the end, the rules will be either too complex for us to understand (so the AI will destroy us on technicality, much like lawyers release murderers) or maybe humans will become so stupid they won't even care about the rules, in which case we deserve to be exterminated.