How to win at the PC battle of wits

Press, 12 March 1985, Page 28

How to win at the PC battle of wits

An English author called Stephen Potter invented the technique of “gamesmanship.” Put simply, the idea is to manoeuvre yourself into a winning situation even though your talents and expertise do not remotely entitle you to such a position. This techinque can be used in many walks of life — but in the world of personal computers it has now reached the level of a true art form.

My first introduction to this important new art form came at a show three years ago when Harry Harper of Zofarry Enterprises was discussing with me the problems of 80-column, boards, of which he knows more than somewhat and I, at the time, knew very little. So I asked him a simple question, “Surely this is a case of Ocean’s Razor?” Which put me one ahead. Standing nearby was Graeme Philipson, a journalist. He quickly riposted, “But surely the Boke of Occam’s philosophy is fourteenth century and therefore has no direct application to this present day computer problem?” Score unevened.

Note the intelligent use of the word “direct” which covers him if his answer is a load of old cobblers.” Which is was. But then so was my question. The total lack of relevancy is not important. What it important is that we established we were serious players in the game of computer gamespersonship. To score in this game, you need to become an expert at the double-reverse-gotcha, a conversational gambit sadly no longer as evident as it once was in our way of life.

The following are examples of Computer Speak and the situations in which they can be used. Realise that these are examples for absolute beginners. They will get you to a level equivalent of a

blue belt in judo. To get to the exalted grades of black belt, more extensive study will be required. It is not important thatyou understand the answer to the question that you ask — indeed at times, it can be a positive disadvantage. Concentrate on the questions. What is important is that you ask the question in a low serious voice and then lean slightly forward to listen to the answer. This gives a totally misleading air of importance to the conversation and earns you a large number of Brownie points.

Scenario 1. You are looking at a word-processing program and the sales person says that a dictionary will be available “in the third quarter of this year.” Computer people do not talk in months, they talk in quarters. Software deliveries being what they are, it is far safer. The correct double - reverse - gotcha response to this statement is, “Do you mean real soon now?”

“Real soon now” was coined by Jerry Pournelle, who is probably the most widely read columnist in “Byte” which is, for my money, the best computer magazine in the world. Real soon now means that, while you are willing to allow that the program will eventually appear, you are not sanguine that it will be in the

third quarter of this year. Or next. Scenario 2. You are considering buying a personal computer. You need to use it for mathematics, and if you don’t know I will tell you, the standard microprocessor on a PC has trouble in dealing with certain aspects of mathematics at speed. Most manufacturers get around this problem by offering a second microprocessor which just specialises in handling the numbers. In PCs this is the 8087 chip as against the standard 8086 or 8088. So far no problem. Now you ask, “Is it dyadic?” The answer, this time, is inevitably “no” because dyadic means that the chips can act together simultaneously under one control as in the new IBM mainframe “Sierra.” Personal computers do not act in the same way, in tandem. As an opening gambit the use of the word “dyadic” can only be compared to the Ruy Lopez or the Queen’s Gambit, Declined. Scenario 3. A salesperson throws a quotation at you from a work on computing by a leader in the industry. You answer clearly and firmly. “But surely that was only in the spurious third edition?” And carry on speaking as if you both agreed on the point and found it not worthy of further discussion.

Scenario 4. Again you are weighing up the advantages of a word-processing program. Try to get a puzzled look on your face and then earnestly inquire. “But where is the soft hyphenation subroutine?” This

leaves you one ahead and there is no legitimate response possible because, as I write this, there is no word-processing program on the market with a softhyphenation sub-routine although Microsoft will have one out in six months or real soon now. Scenario 5. You are thinking of using your computing for communications. Which is only right and proper. When the salesperson states that the modem is 300 baud or even better, 1200 baud, ask very quietly, “Wouldn’t it be more correct to say bits per second?” Indeed it would. But somehow baud sounds better than bits per second and the industry hangs on to it. Even when it is technically incorrect. Scenario 6.You are looking at a laser printer — the latest and best in printing technology. Ask “When do you think they will stop using a rotating mirror and switch to holographic techniques?” This last scenario gives the full fine flavour of the game.

The question is perfectly genuine even though you understand it only as .through a glass darkly. You will know that you have won a victory when the salesperson’s eyes glaze over and you hear the phrase. “I think you had better speak to one of our technical people.” When you hear that you know that you have won game, set and match in this electronics test of wits. Now you are ready to move on to better things.