Skip to main content

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

I really wish companies selling technology-based household appliances would adopt the above motto.

For some time I've fancied a DAB clock radio for my bedside. I've put off buying one for years because none seemed to have a design that came close to what I need: a clear display and simple alarm operation. Now I've been given one and, sadly, it's even worse than I'd expected. As a radio, it's great - good sound quality and much better reception than I've ever had on FM; as a bedside alarm clock it's almost useless.

So what are the problems? First, the display. Why does apparently no-one make a DAB clock radio with an LED display? This is fairly obviously the only kind suitable for bedside clocks. It's easy to see in the dark, even by short-sighted people like me, and it doesn't keep you awake by casting its light across the room. Every DAB clock radio I've seen (including the one I've got) seems to have an LCD display. This needs a backlight to be seen in the dark. Even on the dimmest setting, it's like having a light on in the room; regardless of the backlight setting, without glasses it's impossible to read unless I put my face right against it.

Then there's the alarm. My twenty year old FM radio with LED display has a simple slide switch to select between alarm off, buzzer and radio. I hold down a button to set the alarm and then press one button for hours and another for minutes. The new DAB clock radio has four alarms that can be set only when the radio is off; then I have to set them with a complex series of button presses (hold ALARM for 3 seconds, use up and down keys and then use ALARM again within a couple of seconds). Once an alarm is active, the display doesn't show this unless it's set to "small text" - then I can't see the time from bed. This means I can't set it with any confidence that it will go off at the right time. I need a reliable alarm clock so, reluctantly, I will have to give it back and revert to my old one.

I can think of other examples where things worked perfectly well until the powers that be decided they needed "upgrading" and, in the process, spoiled them. Microsoft is particularly prone to this. In versions of its Word software up to 95, bulleted and numbered lists worked perfectly. In Word 97, for some bizarre reason they decided to store the information for these in each PC's registry instead of the logical location, the document template: in every version since, creating a bulleted or numbered list using anything other than Microsoft's default settings has been a complete nightmare. Then there's Windows itself. XP was a rather bloated but still usable OS that was "upgraded" to Windows Vista, which offers no major improvements and slows down a dual core PC with 3 or 4GB of RAM to the extent that it runs like a dog with three legs.

What do you think? Have you any other examples of technology that has been "upgraded" and now doesn't work as well as it used to?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

New Who

The name at the top of the bookmakers' lists this summer for the next Doctor Who was Peter Capaldi. I was interested to see the list but pooh-poohed this, as it seemed the production team were set on casting only young actors - I think it was even said at one point that only someone in their 20s could keep up with the pace of production. I was delighted to hear back in August that the rumours were, in fact, true. The choice pleased me for two reasons - firstly, as a long-term fan of the programme (except for the awful period in the 1980s when the production went badly astray) I wanted to see a Doctor with the authority that only an older man could have; secondly, I knew Peter back in the 1970s as a fellow fan - we're the same age and I've followed his career since the 1980s. I had met Jon Pertwee a couple of times, during the making of Death to the Daleks and Planet of the spiders , and got to know Peter through the Jon Pertwee fan club (started by an old school friend, ...

Who can do better...?

With the announcement that the new Doctor Who is definitely to start this Easter, I thought it was time to express my hope that Steven Moffat will give us a better programme than Russell T Davies did. Don't get me wrong - I am grateful to RTD for reviving the programme after a long hiatus, and letting us see brilliant stories like The empty child/The Doctor dances, Human nature/The family of blood, Blink and Silence in the library/Forest of the dead. It's no coincidence that none of these were written by RTD - he just isn't a very good writer and, with his light entertainment propensities threatening to kill the show in the same way as the appalling 80s version, his departure in January was long overdue. The "Christmas Specials" in particular seemed to be pandering shamelessly to the lowest common denominator. Do we really need to have it hammered home that it's Christmas with references to the season or snow every few minutes? In The runaway bride we ha...

Buckets of blood

Sadly, I think a lack of imagination has meant a serious drop in standards and attitudes in "horror" films. I do love old horror/fantasy films (Terence Fisher's expression was “adult fairy tales”) but want to be uplifted – film should be an emotional experience, but not one that makes you want to slash your wrists. I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the films covered and praised in podcast s and on line ( Night of the Demon, The Devil Rides Out, The Wicker Man etc) are retrospective, and more than thirty years old. Just to establish where I'm coming from, can I say that I really liked Witchfinder General, Hellraiser and Candyman , all of which were gruesome films. One of my favourite horror films is Brian DePalma's Carrie , because it's psychological horror. What distinguishes all of these from lesser films is character and plot. I actually read a review of Carrie on IMDB where the (amateur) reviewer rubbished it because there wasn...