bmattock
Veteran
Mark Twain was rather loquacious, was he not? Perhaps he exempted himself.
As it turns out, it was my wedding anniversary until about 8 minutes ago. Happily married, thanks.
"Everything New Sucks"
- Thread starter wgerrard
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 129
- Views 10K
Mark Twain was rather loquacious, was he not? Perhaps he exempted himself.
As it turns out, it was my wedding anniversary until about 8 minutes ago. Happily married, thanks.
semordnilap
Well-known
Frankly, I think the title of this thread is hilarious. That's why I clicked... still chuckling.
I really like this routine, too. As an aside, Louis CK is an RF shooter, actually. I'm sure this link has been here before, but just in case...
http://www.louisck.net/2009/03/uso-blog-baghdad-day-day-one-p.html
I really like this routine, too. As an aside, Louis CK is an RF shooter, actually. I'm sure this link has been here before, but just in case...
http://www.louisck.net/2009/03/uso-blog-baghdad-day-day-one-p.html
sanmich
Veteran
I actually thought about all this modernity thing today:
I don't naturally like new things and hate the gadget frenzy most paople around me are in, BUT:
1- GPS...What a life saver this thing is for a guy like me that needs a map to navigate in his own house (and it ain't that large)
2- Skype and the likes: lately, I have renewed contact with an uncle of mines that I enjoy talking to imensely from time to time. In '72... I guess we would have to exchange a couple of polite letters per year , written small on lighter air paper,to pretend staying in touch.
3- Electrics on cars. Well, I can hate it like everyone else when something goes wrong, but you won't find me driving my kids in a car without ABS. In '72? no belts in the rear seats, and obvioulsy no kids seats...I still wonder how I survived that.
But technology has its ways around:
Thanks to a troubleshooting question-answer on the web, today, I solved in five minutes a problem in one of the electric doors of my car, that would have cost me in the 250$ marks.
Also, I think the sum of knowledge available through the web has no comparison with what was available through books. Remember? when only paper was available? when only a paid person would lay his/her knowledge on paper for publication and you where limited, for advices, to your immediate neighbour or the guy at the shop?
I don't naturally like new things and hate the gadget frenzy most paople around me are in, BUT:
1- GPS...What a life saver this thing is for a guy like me that needs a map to navigate in his own house (and it ain't that large)
2- Skype and the likes: lately, I have renewed contact with an uncle of mines that I enjoy talking to imensely from time to time. In '72... I guess we would have to exchange a couple of polite letters per year , written small on lighter air paper,to pretend staying in touch.
3- Electrics on cars. Well, I can hate it like everyone else when something goes wrong, but you won't find me driving my kids in a car without ABS. In '72? no belts in the rear seats, and obvioulsy no kids seats...I still wonder how I survived that.
But technology has its ways around:
Thanks to a troubleshooting question-answer on the web, today, I solved in five minutes a problem in one of the electric doors of my car, that would have cost me in the 250$ marks.
Also, I think the sum of knowledge available through the web has no comparison with what was available through books. Remember? when only paper was available? when only a paid person would lay his/her knowledge on paper for publication and you where limited, for advices, to your immediate neighbour or the guy at the shop?
nzeeman
Well-known
i think it is good for RFF to have links to others sites (of course as long as they are part of discussion) - that way RFF appear in search engines in higher places when searching for rockwell and other stuff we are linking here...
Frontman
Well-known
I think KR has a point. Newer isn't necessarily better, we all know that to be true. There was a time when products were built to last, when quality was more of a selling point than convenience. Nowadays products are specifically designed to become obsolete after 3 to 5 years, which forces us to buy new ones.
I used to buy new car every 2 years. Why? Because I wanted the newest thing. I saw the commercials, read the magazines, and believed the marketing hype. As a result I've owned lots of cars, and wasted a lot of money.
But now, when I think of it, my favorite car was an old 1972 Chevrolet Blazer which I bought for $700 from a high school auto shop. I drove this thing all over the western states in my rodeo days, and shared the back with many a cowgirl 😉 I remember one particular January night when I shared it with Miss Temecula Rodeo and Miss Perris Valley Rodeo at the same time... (I hope their fathers aren't members here). I wish I still had that Blazer, but at least I still have the memories.
Other than the PC and the internet I'm using, there isn't much else "modern" that I use or need. My television is unplugged (and has been for weeks) as I never watch it. My digital cameras and camcorder seldom see any use any more (I'm shooting about 5 rolls of film a week), and since I sold my last car, I've been commuting by bicycle or on foot. My main camera now happened to be born on the same year I was, no wonder we get along so well.
On the other hand, my GF was born in 1978, but I don't think the "before 1972" rule applies to women, does it?
I used to buy new car every 2 years. Why? Because I wanted the newest thing. I saw the commercials, read the magazines, and believed the marketing hype. As a result I've owned lots of cars, and wasted a lot of money.
But now, when I think of it, my favorite car was an old 1972 Chevrolet Blazer which I bought for $700 from a high school auto shop. I drove this thing all over the western states in my rodeo days, and shared the back with many a cowgirl 😉 I remember one particular January night when I shared it with Miss Temecula Rodeo and Miss Perris Valley Rodeo at the same time... (I hope their fathers aren't members here). I wish I still had that Blazer, but at least I still have the memories.
Other than the PC and the internet I'm using, there isn't much else "modern" that I use or need. My television is unplugged (and has been for weeks) as I never watch it. My digital cameras and camcorder seldom see any use any more (I'm shooting about 5 rolls of film a week), and since I sold my last car, I've been commuting by bicycle or on foot. My main camera now happened to be born on the same year I was, no wonder we get along so well.
On the other hand, my GF was born in 1978, but I don't think the "before 1972" rule applies to women, does it?
micromontenegro
Well-known
That is because it is too new already. If you had a 1971 IIa like me, you would not miss any innovation. A would have proper hinges, plus metal dash and non-sychro gearbox, as the birmabright gods intented. 😀
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
Speaking of of old VW's... I have a memory from the '70's of a friend's VW pickup truck that had an actual gas heater. I.e, flames fueled by gasoline. I was scared to ride in the thing.
Anyone remember that, or am I nuts?
btgc
Veteran
I owned 1980's VW GTI Cabrio with 1.6L/110HP engine. It were kind of primitive compared to Japanase cars of era, short base and simple suspension made it not very comfortable, though it were real fun to drive it. Vroooom, and I got some sights in rear mirror.
I could replace air filter and spark plugs myself. Today, what you can do without dealer? Not even replace light bulb, in some cases.
I could replace air filter and spark plugs myself. Today, what you can do without dealer? Not even replace light bulb, in some cases.
Jamie123
Veteran
If I ever break up with my girlfriend, I'm sure her new boyfriend will suck.
...let's just hope then that my new girlfriend will, too.
...let's just hope then that my new girlfriend will, too.
Sparrow
Veteran
I realised the world had gone quite mad when they included submenu in the Oxford English dictionary
nonot
Well-known
Everything new doesn't suck, people's new attitudes towards what they buy is what sucks.
There are still products designed, built and intended to last a lifetime. They are made by people willing to stand behind them as well, the problem is though that people aren't willing to purchase them across the board because they happen to cost more money than the cheaper alternative.
Take for instance all the users on this board who've purchased some incarnation of the Leica M based on it's craftsmanship, but who can't justify spending money on one pair of shoes that will last them years when they can get 10 pair for a little more. I'm not vilifying anyone's purchasing decisions, just the rationale that quality doesn't exist because it's not 1902 anymore.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The real problem is that the manufacturers of quality goods are sometimes driven out of business because people think (wrongly) that the product "isn't worth it" because price expectations have been set by junk. Others 'de-spec' in order to stay in business and keep their prices down.
What astonishes me is the things on which some people want to save comparatively tiny amounts of money. Returning to the Land Rover, a Girling brake master cyinder is £24 and a Chinese knock-off is £8.50. Sure, the Chinese knock-off might be OK. But do I want to find out, and maybe risk my life, for a bit over £15?
Cheers,
R.
bmattock
Veteran
People often say that like it's a bad thing. Some products are designed to last - generally products that have reached their optimum design and whose manufacturers are no longer competing with others on the basis of innovation. A mechanical wristwatch, perhaps. A book.
Consumers drive innovation with their demands for faster, smaller, cheaper. Manufacturers attempt to serve that demand. With product cycles that often last six months or less, it means products designed to last would be not just difficult, but stupid. Who wants a 2 megapixel digital camera built to last 10 years? Who would pay for such a thing? Well, besides Leica users.
My first 8086 XT computer was built to last by IBM. I'm sure it would still be going strong if I wanted it anymore. Out it went, years ago, after I could no longer upgrade it due to technology changes that I wanted. Now I am satisfied to pay LESS for technology that is NOT designed to last, because I won't want it in a couple years. If it lasts until then, I'm pleased. Why would I pay more for a product that will outlive its usefulness to me?
Like you, I have 'favorite' vehicles from times past. A 1948 Willys CJ2A Jeep, a 1969 Dodge Charger, a 1986 Toyota pickup truck.
However, none of them have the impact safety of my 2005 Kia Sorento. I know the Kia isn't built to last twenty years, but if I do the PM on it, it should last ten. And in ten years, I'll want a safer car that gets better mileage too.
As I noted, I also like innovations like ABS brakes and I'm looking forward to innovations to come.
For those who can do it or choose to do it, I think that's great. Nothing wrong with making lifestyle choices of that sort. I'd say that choices like that are good for YOU. Not necessarily good for everyone. I know you didn't say it, but many people who choose to uncomplicated their lifestyles seem to be of the opinion that it's actually what the world needs, not just themselves. They get a trifle evangelical about it. Makes me itchy.
I make my living from technology. I love it. If I want something built to last, I'll pick up one of my old film cameras or wind up my wall clock or my wrist watch.
The complaint that things today are not built to last doesn't hold much water for me. Of course they're not. Who would want them to, for the most part?
nonot
Well-known
Right, as I said it's their attitude towards the act of buying which is the issue.
The concept that these companies are not out there is perpetuated through advertising (or lack of), but many of the companies that make truly high quality products have realized that there is a small market for it and have kept their business models necessarily scaleable, investing in the company, product and their workers instead of the ad game. The reason they haven't gone off looking for corporate investors and worldwide distribution is because they have realized that that is one of the main causes for diminished quality.
My company has handled design and advertising a few of the offending companies in the past, and it goes so deep that the people working for them truly believe that there are performance benefits to things like replacing the footbed of a running shoe with cardboard rather than leather.
But to your point about the Land Rover brakes, I can't imagine someone purchasing a vehicle that expensive and then nitpicking a few dollars on brakes, but then there's obviously a market for them. That being said, are you absolutely sure that the Land Rover branded part isn't just a re-branded Chinese knockoff?
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Sure, it's called a "Standheizung" in German and is invariably made by a company named Webasto.
I like the 1972 cutoff. I just checked -- yep, that's when the Linn LP12 came out. Of course I'm too cheap to own one when a Thorens 150 will do 🙂
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Call me stubborn, but I like old retro junk. Perhaps I dislike new stuff because I like the old and familure.
I like tube stereo because I could build a better high-fi than I could afford. I like I can fix it myself, I like it is like me simple, but most of all I like the sound stage and the live quality, but many modern CD's sound harsh because of the resolving power of my system.
My car is a Jeep 1984 Scrambler with a half cab, ZZ3 Chevy crate motor 350 HP- 440 foot pound torque, NV 4500 tranny, with a Ford nine inch rear with Lincoln Continental disc brakes. Not a practical car, but with the bumpers I made when I worked for an aerospace company your car is my airbag. Today this truck is in storage and I bike, walk and take the subway. I'd have to spend a lot of money to have a new ride as fun to drive.
I really appreciate the guys that shoot digital, especially because I suck at new things. I appreciate what I have and expect to continue to have fun with my cool old junk. My friends make fun of me because I shoot film. They laugh harder when I say I'm shooting B&W. For a long time they made fun of me because I didn't have a cell phone.
Calzone
I like tube stereo because I could build a better high-fi than I could afford. I like I can fix it myself, I like it is like me simple, but most of all I like the sound stage and the live quality, but many modern CD's sound harsh because of the resolving power of my system.
My car is a Jeep 1984 Scrambler with a half cab, ZZ3 Chevy crate motor 350 HP- 440 foot pound torque, NV 4500 tranny, with a Ford nine inch rear with Lincoln Continental disc brakes. Not a practical car, but with the bumpers I made when I worked for an aerospace company your car is my airbag. Today this truck is in storage and I bike, walk and take the subway. I'd have to spend a lot of money to have a new ride as fun to drive.
I really appreciate the guys that shoot digital, especially because I suck at new things. I appreciate what I have and expect to continue to have fun with my cool old junk. My friends make fun of me because I shoot film. They laugh harder when I say I'm shooting B&W. For a long time they made fun of me because I didn't have a cell phone.
Calzone
bmattock
Veteran
I don't see why anyone has to choose one or the other. I built my own tube amp too. 6T9 compactron tubes. I like vinyl records. I use film; I develop my own B&W and scan the results. I hack lenses.
I also write perl code on my Linux-OS computer to assist me with organizing, uploading, and modifying my digital (and scanned film) images. I love old cars, but I drive a new one, and with air bags and crumple zones, etc, it's thousands of times more survivable in an accident than old steel, no matter how stoutly built. I love live music, but I have no problem listening to MP3's on my iPod.
I'm not into isms. I just do what I want. Old, new, I refuse to draw lines in the sand and refuse something old or something on some general principle. If I like it, I do it; if not, then not.
New threads suck.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Dual circuit brakes on both mine. But legislature is different here. Servo however would be nice. Then again my upper arms are impressive.
flyalf
Well-known
New cars are better. My best car is always the new one. But then again, I driver French made cars that are built to comfortably transport humans. I also know that in 5 years Asian will have copied the French innovations, and in 15 years the German. I dont know much about US cars except that one have the mass equivalent to 100 Asian cars and use petrol faster than countries can be "liberated" (sorry for political voice).
As to cameras, all new really suck (with possible exception of D leica M). The worst are the compacts, why no vendor has not yet made a digital Minox GT, Nikon TI or similar really beats me. DLSRs also suck - big time. To switch from a Nikon F4 to a D700 was really downhill.
I really believe Ken R has put his finger in the eye of the industry.
Edit: The only "new" great camera is the Epson RD-1. But this was to good for the majority (and to expensive).
As to cameras, all new really suck (with possible exception of D leica M). The worst are the compacts, why no vendor has not yet made a digital Minox GT, Nikon TI or similar really beats me. DLSRs also suck - big time. To switch from a Nikon F4 to a D700 was really downhill.
I really believe Ken R has put his finger in the eye of the industry.
Edit: The only "new" great camera is the Epson RD-1. But this was to good for the majority (and to expensive).
Last edited:
