Gadgets Versus Computers

Not too long ago, Craig Barrett of Intel derided MIT's OLPC, the "$100 Laptop" as a "gadget" and went on to say that "gadgets" weren't overly successful. That is certainly pause for wonder, and completely inaccurate. Gadgets, in actuality, are wildly successful. In fact, many are basically handheld computers with more power than systems that were in vogue just a few years ago (an, in fact, are still in use in many areas). But let's look at definitions.

WordNet (http://wordnet.princeton.edu) defines "gadget" as...
"appliance: a device or control that is very useful for a particular job."

Whereas Wikipedia defines computer as...
"...a device or machine for making calculations or controlling operations that are expressible in numerical or logical terms. Computers are made from components that perform simple well-defined functions. The complex interactions of these components endow computers with the ability to process information. If correctly configured (usually by programming) a computer can be made to represent some aspect of a problem or part of a system."

That said, computers are, in essence, gadgets. So, Intel makes CPU's for most "gadgets" that we call "computers". Really, this is a case of semantics, and in actuality Mr. Barrett was drawing attention to the fact that the OLPC is not a computer in the early 21st century Western definition of the word. When we think of computers today, most of us think of the Windows XP (or Vista or any number of alternative operating systems) machine that we have sitting on our desk or that we lug from place to place (perhaps "lug" isn't a good term, either; early "luggable" computers were beast that frequently topped 20kg). In addition to doing complex calculations (which is what computers were truly designed to do), we use them for word processing, graphics, entertainment, communication and data storage. These functions were once handled by a variety of items but can now be handled by a single device. Believe it or not, home computers have been capable of these functions pretty much since the beginning. Even machines from the mid 1980's are capable of these. Let's look at one such computer, the Apple Macintosh Plus from 1987 -

Processor - Motorola 68000 8 MHz
RAM - 1 to 4 MB
Storage - 800 KB Floppy (Options - Internal and external), external SCSI
Display - 512 x 342, 9" black & white, 2-bit
Ports - 2 RS-422 serial mini DIN-8 for printer and modem

Admittedly, by today's standards, not impressive. However, it can still do many functions that modern computers are capable of (including accessing the Internet, albeit in text only form). It just isn't as modern. The games will be simplistic, you may be able to play CD's with the right software and an external CD drive and, if using only floppies, you'll have limited storage abilities. Still, it is, in a sense, modern, and is definitely a computer. Now, compare this to a "gadget" I have hanging on my belt right now, my Palm IIIxe -

Processor - Motorola Dragonball EZ 16 MHZ
RAM - 8 MB
Storage - 8 MB (same as above)
Display - 160 x 160, 4" black & white, 2-bit (actually, 4-bit grayscale)
Ports - RS-232 compatible serial (proprietary configuration) & IrDA
In many ways, it is the equal of the Mac Plus, though only considered a "gadget". When hooked up to my GoType keyboard, it is even closer still to being a "computer", and not a "gadget".

Again, admittedly, this is all semantics. But, just as a 1918 Ford Model-T is still as much a car as a 2006 Chevy Corvette Z06, my Palm IIIxe is every bit a computer, just not a very sophisticated one.