Anyone else feel that now that technology has become so easy

It's because from about the mid-2000s (you could even argue the mid-90s) there has been very little genuine innovation, but because of attitudes like yours people think that "innovation" should be a non-stop process. So now we have releases that are pretty much rolling betas where they don't fix what they already have before moving on to something else, because new things are all that matters. It's far more boring to say "let's just improve what we have," but that's where we are right now. Unfortunately we have a shit-ton of "developers" to employ and so we have to endure trash before that bubble bursts.

>>59873599
It only looks easy on surface. Technology has gotten a lot more complex under the hood. Take smart phones for example. Sure on surface it looks like they are simple devices, normies use them without problems. But if you start dissecting your phone you will get overwhelmed by complexity very quickly. There is no way to understand what is going on in there, just one big SoC blob that you have no idea how it works, unless you are PhD EE and have read all the documentation of latest snapdragon including that of its CPU, GPU and DSP processors. It is same with software. Android source code is massive, have you tried compiling it? It will take few hours just to clone source repository and a few more to compile it. Now compare this to "hard to use by current standards" C64. Suddenly C64 is a lot more simpler compared to even basic android phone. You even get schematics and programming manual for it when you buy it. Noways it's impossible to know what is going on in all of your devices, it's all just to big and complex to comprehend, so you limit yourself to whatever has been made available to you. Only way today to experience joy with technology is to limit yourself to retro computers and microcontrollers.

>>59874393
This is why Terry made TempleOS (well, that and God telling him to), but that still fails somewhat because, as you say the C64 told you everything, and everything existed in the real-world. Now everything is being moved to the processor and while there is an obvious advantage to that as a user, as a hobbyist it's far less interesting. Convenient, yeah; better; almost certainly; more intersting, not so much.

I remember people talking about this on the BBS Documentary.

>>59873599
It's no more "easy and forgiving" than it was in 1997 or even 1987 depending on the hardware you use.

It's less interesting for other reasons; diminishing returns, poor design, lack of diversity and change. Computers have become nothing more than another appliance.

But you can still get your hands on all that weird, exciting shit of yesteryear for next to nothing. I wouldn't give up 2017 for anything, it may be less exciting but the "good old days" were a shit time to be a consumer.

File: 20120701-181136.jpg (342KB, 1371x1024px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1371x1024px

>>59874947
I don't see why it has to be a zero-sum game, all or nothing. I said this in a thread about old UIs, and it applies to the hardware itself as a structure rather than just as a design, and that is that we're at the point where we can do anything for almost nothing, but no one wants to consider that something is good for one thing, even if it excels at it. What I was talking about then was why we can't have an incredibly low-power laptop that essentially is only good for text, when buying that and a "real" computer is cheaper than a laptop that can do both.

There's no reason now that we can't have an intentionally limited platform that erases the flaws of the past while keeping what makes it worth remembering. A "modern" computer with these limitations could be made for nearly nothing and if the success of the Pi is anything to go by there are people interested in alternate platforms that aren't attempting to be a full desktop.

nope you just got old and gave up and think the problem is with tech and not yourself, fuck off thanks

>>59877375
>getting excited for 1% improvements on CPU and increased digital tracking

Why?

>>59873769
this guy knows
as an example: http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/

>>59878277
Holy shit

>>59878277
>>59878875
http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/

>7 fucking declarations
always makes me chuckle. that and:
>grotesque pile of shit

>>59878946
might as well go all the way with fonts and pictures

https://thebestmotherfucking.website/

>>59877497
>I only ignore what I want to and think a C2Q from 2008 is "just as good" as a modern i7
now the only thing you get excited for is that IRC circlejerk

File: failed_flying_machine.gif (627KB, 280x208px) Image search: [Google]

627KB, 280x208px

>>59873599
>You watch episodes of Computer Chronicles and it is so formless, so undecided, no one know what they were doing or what was going to happen. Now, everything is pre-written and those that are in their position will be in them forever.

It's the same for all fields of tech. Every industry has a wild west period, but then it matures and major leaps turn into small improvements over time. An example would be the early days of flight. A bunch of people trying to get in the air at any cost. Flying for more than 10 feet was a cause for celebration. Then more improvements were done throughout WW1 and WW2, then the jet age started and after that the industry mostly leveled off . Only minor improvements happened over time since then (Like better radar, autopilots, communications, etc.). We're still using 747s designed in 1969.

All in all, this industry, like all before it, has matured and we're not going to see major leaps in short periods of time, but rather small improvements over long periods.