There is an interdependency between any system and the environment in which that system operates. While many would regard this conclusion as obvious, it is all too often obscured when we look at the history of computing.
Even considering biological evolution, there is no uniform march forward with new species reliably replacing older species. Some species die. New species emerge. Some species survive countless years. Cockroaches, horseshoe crabs, and tube worms live for millions of years as other species die. In addition, some species change so much that their ancestors would be almost unrecognizable today, eohippus, for example.
It might be more productive to think of species as fi tting into a niche and surviving if their niche endures and if they face “manageable” competition or predation in that niche. This is very different from a “conventional” view of evolution, which sees life as becoming ever more “advanced” and “adapted.” We could call this view the niche view and contrast it with the unidirectional view , that is, more advanced species uniformly replace less advanced ones.
We can look at the history of computing in a similar way. Conventional wisdom sees computing as “unidirectional,” that is, with each new “generation” the previous generation of computing is swept away, like an extinct species. Applying this viewpoint to hardware platforms, we could conclude that the mainframe was supplanted by the minicomputer; the minicomputer was supplanted by the personal computer in its various forms; and the personal computer will be supplanted by the smaller connected computers or mobile phones. This is a unidirectional view of evolution of hardware.
[MK] Sloane
