Multi-tasking is overrated, if you ask me. At least, as a blanket answer to efficiency. Sometimes, it's just better to sit, staring at your computer, than to try to do three things at once.
The other day, for instance, I was trying to do a universal find/replace in one file, while editing a series of other files, while downloading another data file to a program. Guess what happened? (Do you really need the grisly details?) You got it. The find/replace kept bombing out, the data download failed twice and I almost ended up editing my way out of a good deal of content.
In short, nothing was accomplished, after working for almost an hour. In fact, had I lost that content, not only would I have wasted an hour, but I would have lost the time it took to replace the content (not to mention the time I'd spent inputting it to begin with)! Finally, I slowed myself down, chose one task at a time and proceeded forward, slow but steady. Isn't that what wins the race?
Of course, I'm not saying multi-tasking is a complete fraud. But, looking back, I realize I should have chosen the tasks that I multi-ed more wisely. Oh, sure. If I had a computer comparable to the FBI's (okay-- the CIA's), the work I chose might have gone smoothly. But I KNOW my computers limitations. So that was just stupid.
When I did revise my chores, I still managed to create NEW content while doing the other three chores, thus succeeding in my multi-tasking efforts, slower, but much steadier than before. I guess it just goes to show you: give a monkey a typewriter and even IT can find the Pentagon with enough time. (oooh. Am I gonna be on somebody's list now that I've mentioned not one, but three different government entitites?-- how thrilling!)--mo
|
