Old cars: you could fix it yourself. Modern cars: rarely need fixing; also much more efficient. I know which I prefer.
It's fine if you want to turn over your vehicle every three years.
'Modern' cars are not fixable - even the specialists tear our their hair on some cases and give up completely.
Classics are rising steeply in value for people who want to own and understand a piece of machinery for its own sake. Much of modern automotive history will disappear into the maw of the crusher because irreplaceable, irrepairable parts render them useless.
more like eight years, which is not a bad deal.
That really has nothing to do with what is being discussed though. The reliability and efficiency of modern cars are consequences of advances in technology and engineering, not user interface redesign.
In other words, just like modern cars, it's not as necessary to pay attention to the innards for continued operation.
I believe hiding implementation details is part of this trend to reduce complexity (which is good) but also to wrestle control away from the user (which is bad).
I did this just last week with a fresh Windows 7 installation because the drivers for the Ethernet adapter had to be manually installed...
I am joining many people here, who prefer having configurable tools. I do not want to configure 'IRQ' on any tool I use, but if it will misfunction, I will search for it and find out what IRQ means and how I adjust it to my needs. Worse, is being unable to change 'IRQ' when you need to, because people in charge decided it draws 95% customers away, and you are being in a 5% boat.
Actually, yes, it is relevant.
A large chunk of the reason behind the efficiency in particular of newer cars is the addition of those opaque black boxes. Being able to have the car's engine directly tune things according to complicated algorithms, instead of power-hungry mechanical controls, etc, etc.
I was commenting on the black boxes, not the software contained within.
There have been two steps forward. Simultaneously released alongside, but not dependent on, one step backward.
So why do people defend the step backward under the guise of the steps forward.