How can we cope with the continuous influx of new software and hardware that drains our pockets? (Eddy Gugliotta, Venezuela)
Answer - If a new computer or a software upgrade costs more than it's worth to you, don't buy it. After all, you don't have to upgrade. Software will run forever and computer hardware will work as long as it is kept in good repair.
Upgrading is often smart because the quality of your tools - whether shovels, snow skis or software - can have a big impact on your effectiveness and enjoyment. Upgrades can be worthwhile. Right now Microsoft is investing heavily to suggest that people upgrade their operating systems, but the world won't end for people who don't.
I frequently hear from people who are resentful, or at least a little dismayed, by the fast pace at which computer hardware and software improve. Keeping up is expensive, they complain.
"When, if ever, do you think we will find the optimum home computer system?" asked Nik Howarth of the United Kingdom. "Or will we have to carry on with the upgrading of our PCs?"
It's true that dramatic innovations in computer hardware come at a furious rate and software companies keep pace. But consumers don't have to upgrade to better products just because they are available.
You may choose to upgrade if you discover that new equipment or software is a lot more pleasant to use or lets you get more done in a day or solves problems. But nothing, except the benefits of new tools, compels you to buy them.
It's understandable to be shocked by how rapidly computers go out of date. Cars, televisions, stereos and other expensive items don't improve nearly so fast.
If you stop and think about it, you realize that the rate of innovation in the personal computer industry is great for consumers. Every couple of years work gets easier because tools are so much better. What's wrong with that?
Hardware and software companies strive to create products so attractive that consumers buy them even though they may already have similar, older products. This makes the upgrade business a powerful force for innovation.
At Microsoft, for example, we knew we had to make Windows 95 dramatically better than Windows 3.1 or we wouldn't get people to upgrade. We recognize that one of our toughest competitors is often the previous version of a product - in this case, the old version of Windows.
I don't think the upgrade cycle is going to change dramatically anytime soon. Five years from now, you'll still want the latest tools because they will do so much more for you.
Question - Why is it that you fly in coach class? (Somelameraol.com)
Answer- It sets a good example. It costs less money. You get there just as fast as flying first-class.And my body fits. If I were really wide or really tall, I might view the issue differently.
Because I travel about 14 weeks out of each year, airlines sometimes bump me up to first class even though I have a coach ticket. I don't resist when this happens.
Sometimes when I've been seated by an airline in the first-class section I wander back to coach to see if I can find a whole row free. If you lie across several seats on a long night flight, coach is wonderful - much better than first class.
Question - The ability to transmit and receive large quantities of data at almost zero marginal cost has important ecological ramifications. Do you see information technology having a positive impact on the use of scarce natural resources, given the current global ecological crisis? (Matthew Bilder, New York. A similar question was asked by Peter Wansch, Austria.)
Answer - In a sense, a computer is a reusable resource. Drawing information from a network and displaying it on a screen - especially a flat-panel screen such as one used in a notebook computer - uses a lot less energy than printing and distributing paper.
This benefit will grow because there is a strong effort under way to make computers more energy-efficient, through both hardware and software refinements.
Until now computers have driven paper usage up because they have been used mostly for finding information that is then printed. But as screens improve, and as interactive documents gain importance, information will be viewed on screen more and more and printed less and less.
An early example of this is found in software documentation, which is increasingly electronic rather than printed. More than 40 percent of the copies of Microsoft Office are sold without manuals. Even as Microsoft's business has grown, we've been able to cut the amount of paper we use.
Eliminating manuals cuts bulk, which cuts the costs and environmental impacts of transporting products. Nicholas Negroponte, in his new book "Being Digital," points out that the movement of digital information can involve the passage of bits of information - 1s and 0s - through cables or the airwaves rather than the transport of atoms from place to place.
"The information superhighway is about the global movements of weightless bits at the speed of light . . . Until then you will have to rely on FedEx, bicycles and sneakers to get your atoms from one place to another," Negroponte wrote.
It's not just products that will be shipped less and less as networking becomes pervasive. People won't have to transport themselves so often. They will travel less often to attend meetings or to shop, which is good for the environment.
The ability to plan better, to share information more and to collaborate better, allows more efficient use of resources. This will become an important factor.
Information technology is not a panacea. Its benefits don't excuse us from being vigilant about preserving the environment. But the Information Age should be a source of optimism for those concerned about the future of our natural world.
Question - I am 12 years old. I love programming and everything related to computing. When did you start developing software? (Claudio J. Alvarez, Chile)
Answer - I started when I was 13. Not many teenagers were programming back then, which made me unusual. But you are younger than I was when I started. I envy you for getting to start at an earlier age, and with far better machines, than I had.