Why does retrofuture technology look so comfy?

>>59097646
Because you're autistic.

>>59097646
Because it allows you to escape reality, where computer technology is taking over everything, and humans are becoming deprecated.

File: 1487949026543.jpg (90KB, 800x687px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 800x687px

>>59097692
Don't get cut on your edges.

>>59097646
i like the look but i never understood how anyone used anything in 70's/80's scifi. Even the dash in my 80's car sacrifices some readability to have flouroscan gauges.

Literally thousands of buttons all without so much as a label, symbol, or anything that can be seen as such. How would someone actually use this? It looks cool to have a wall of blinky flashy buttons, but how usable was any of it?

>>59097646
>no "apps"
>no touchscreens
>no ads
When this was designed nobody would have imagined what an actualy dystopic nightmare the real future of technology would turn out to be.
Even the low-life hi-tech cyberpunk was to optimistic in thinking that people would get more tech savvy instead of technology just dumbing down over the years.

File: serveimage.jpg (947KB, 1920x1153px) Image search: [Google]

947KB, 1920x1153px

>>59097987
>How would someone actually use this?
I use pic related everyday because I can.
Same with cars and planes, everything dont have to be labelled if you know your shit.

>>59097646
this is what deep space travel will look like. imagine how long it takes to go from A to B, by the time you return you're flying in an antique

File: IMG_20170224_214205.jpg (2MB, 2304x4096px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2304x4096px

Took today at a cinema museum

>>59101672
What museum, anon?

>>59097646
Because usually they show serious hardware, not apple toys.

You can see control panels like that even today, just not in retard proof consumer products, but, say, the cockpit of a plane.

>>59099237
>looks_good_man.jpg

File: dX2WR.jpg (171KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 900x675px

>>59097987
>Literally thousands of buttons all without so much as a label, symbol, or anything that can be seen as such. How would someone actually use this?

Yeah, how do people fly planes? They have a wall of blinky gauges and shit.

>>59101748
The vast majority of that is labeled, though cryptic to an amateur

>>59097987
Because that's the whole point, you're supposed to fill in the blanks in your head, or at least keep wondering about it. Sci-Fi aesthetics (at least what we now call "retrofuture") are supposed to be overwhelming in complexity to give the feeling of something beyond and futuristic. That's also why greebling was done on spaceship models, aside from the fact that it looks fucking cool.

Also,
>>59099237
>>59101711
>>59101748

You guys ever try a flight simulator in your fancy gaymen computers? Ever try to turn on a goddamn plane?

I used a huge checklist just to learn how to start the engines. It walked me through every subsystem. There were several steps just to run the goddamn aircraft self-check program. Gauges? They sense and measure every fucking metric you can possibly think of and yes they're all important. The list goes on and on. You better know what the fuck you're getting youraelf into or it ain't even taxing much less getting off the ground. And you know what it makes sense. So you're in the air and one of your engines explodes on fire, what you gonna do? You can't fuck around... Gotta cut the power to it and balance the thrust generated by each wing. You NEED that access.

I can never drive a car in peace again. Fuel sensor? Crappy ass measure that misreads in unspecified vendor-specific, undocumented ways. Problem? Idiot light lits up -- take it your mechanic faggot. Computer systems? It's either embedded and invisible with no way to know its working fine, or hidden behind vendor-specific interfaces you need to hack into. It's simply patronizing

>>59101748
They even label basic controls like props, throttle and mixture.

Only stopped short of writing "turn right" and "turn left" on the yoke.

>>59097646
Because it's the future we were promised, the future that never was.

>>59097646
Lots and lots of buttons

>>59097987
Old-school mainframes had such inputs, didn't they?

>>59103118
You're spot on with the car thing. I used to work on my '92 diesel with no problems, I knew what everything was. Nowadays there's tons of sensors that break more often then the system they're supposed to be monitoring, and there's no mechanism to report that back to the driver, it just gives the windows 10 "something went wrong" indicator.

Although most people nowadays don't give a shit how anything works. Including government.

Retro tech was usually modularized and built to be repaired. That's why its so comfy.

>>59101711
Control panels like that died in "serious hardware" for the most part by the mid '70s with the emergence of complex software and sane debugging.

>>59105413
He actually had a good point. A lot of instruments were crafted parts, moving away from it was a cost cutting measure.
Although arguably less working parts means less things can break so it's probably a good thing.
It looked cool seeing it all crammed in to a terminal though for shows or whatever.

>>59097646
Because they look like they aren't botnetted.

>>59105493
this

>>59105454
>A lot of instruments were crafted parts, moving away from it was a cost cutting measure.
That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, though. They were indeed a costly component that took up space, added complexity and added no benefit in the age of infinitely more convenient and usable glass teletypes and software debugging.

It was certainly cool to look at, but I couldn't help but shit on the person I replied to for coming off as obnoxiously smug about it despite probably not really understanding what the purpose of these things were and why they actually fell out of fashion (it wasn't the evil applel bogeyman)

>>59103272
They had switches for setting bits of registers and single-stepping through a program, but that was just at the operator's console, and mainly used for debugging; most of the time they were in batch mode processing punched cards or paper tape, or interacting with the user via a teletype.

>>59097646
Tactility.

File: pc98_1363805700512.gif (255KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 640x400px

Better question - why do people still use the word "comfy" which has literally zero meaning?

>>59099237
Oh for fuck's sake, a chicklet board for extreme hackers. This is the pinnacle of homosexuality.

I don't understand how none of you have spent 50 bucks for a scan tool to read a code and turn off your own idiot light. I do it while I'm driving.

>>59101683
A cinema one

>>59103118
>getting youraelf into or it ain't even taxing much less getting off the ground. And you know what it makes sense. So you're in the air and one of your engines explodes on fire, what you gonna do? You can't fuck around..

yeah, you're just adding ideology to "difficulty" of flying the plane.
you know why "flying" a small plane is "difficult" ?

because "small" manufacturers use tech that would deprecated in automotive sector 20 years ago (lol "this is how it always done") and they get fucking epilepsy when they hear about putting any electronics.
despite that fact that installing off the shelf HMI would remove mental load from pilot.

because it has a mechanical feel that guarantees it will peform exactly what you tell it to. rather than segfaulting cuz some pedo neckbeard wrote a hack patch

>>59107678
Why do you get so triggered by casual conversation on 4chan? Nobody cares what you think about the "meaning" of it. It just is.

>>59097646
Because its movies and its literally made to look comfy.

>>59107678

How can you say that?

Comfy is one of the most powerful words and represents equilibrium between physically and psychologically world.

File: fighter cockpits.png (3MB, 1990x629px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1990x629px

>>59101748
Touchscreens are the future

>>59097646
That just looks like something made in the 1970s

File: tesla-model3-11.jpg (154KB, 1612x1209px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1612x1209px

>>59110462

>>59110241
Flying a small aircraft is easy as shit though, you have to be literally braindead not to be able to learn it as a mechanical skill. The hard part is knowing how to avoid problems and fix them on the fly when they arise.
As far as using deprecated tech, the first plane I ever flew was a '67 Cessna 152 Commuter, and the thing had exactly 0 problems in the log for the whole time I was flying it. There's tons of older models still around because despite being built on what we'd consider deprecated, they were built well.

>>59110449
>bluescreen at 30,000 feet in the air

>>59097646
You are nostalgic for a future that never happened. Look up hauntology