Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!mpip
From: mpip@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Robert Annechiarico)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Low Productivity of Knowledge Workers
Message-ID: <3326@ur-cc.UUCP>
Date: 14 Oct 89 05:09:56 GMT
References: <9676@venera.isi.edu> <189@crucible.UUCP> <291@voa3.UUCP> <7971@microsoft.UUCP> <6441@ficc.uu.net> <9605@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Reply-To: mpip@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Robert Annechiarico)
Organization: University of Rochester
Lines: 27

In article <9605@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> phil@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Phil Meyer) writes:
- It has been shown by several studies, (the most recent I
- have seen is one produced by the American Bar association) that basically
- there are only four applications in use on Pee Cees.
- 	1.	Word Processing
- 	2.	Spread Sheats
- 	3.	Database Products
- 	4.	Desk-top publishing (which I consider an evolution of W.P.)
- I admit a great number of specialized applications exist, and this is an old
- topic.  I simply wish to demonstrate that 'Personal Computing' may in fact
- be counter productive.  The experiences that I have had would bear this out.
- The most intellegent systems managers out there are interested in functionality
- and not personal preference.  Give your users the right tools.  Don't let
- them choose their own, and bicker over the merits of each.  Most good managers
- listen to the needs of the whole, and then dictate policy.

This astonishing, authoritarian attitude is itself a good explanation of
why so many choose personal computers.

Incidentally, you, or the lawyers, left statistical programs off the list.
Only "specialized applications"?  So much for omniscience.

Eric Carleen
University of Rochester Medical Center
(716)-275-5391
Bitnet: heartedc@uorhbv
Internet: mpip@uhura.cc.rochester.edu