[net.micro.mac] IBM vs. Mac debate

ir462@sdcc6.UUCP (ir462) (04/09/86)

The various postings about the relative value of IBMs and Macs have
aroused me to post my own undying words on the topic.

The folks who say that IBM provides better support and upgrade paths are
right, sort of.  When you are a $60 billion company whose mere entry
into a market (e.g. personal computers) can legitimate that market for
the entire Fortune 1000 community, its pretty easy to plan on providing
support.  I think the example of the PCjr makes clear the possibility
that a complete sales failure by the PC might have led to IBM dropping
the line.  However, probably the only way that the PC could have bombed
would have been if it had been horrible (as opposed to its actual
mediocrity) or if the concept of personal computing was as flawed as the
concept of home computing (in which case Apple would be out of business
too).

I don't think that it was likely that any of the small PC companies
could establish themselves with a reputation for service even close to
that of IBM.  The highly competitive PC market did not generate the kind
of capital necessary or, in its early days, attract the kind of users who were
interested in footing the bill for service.  In many ways, Apple is
providing support and upgrade paths for discontinued machines,
particularly the Lisa/XL.  If you allow IBM the PCjr, I think Apple is
allowed the ///.  Also, IBM's reputation for good service has been built
over about 50 years of manufacturing business equipment and about 30
years for computers specifically.  I believe that in 30 years Apple will
also have a strong track record.  I am particularly impressed by their
commitment to supporting the programming interface.

In summary, while I think the Mac superior to the PC and at least the
equal of the AT, I can understand why a business user would prefer the
IBM.  The fact that his preference may be more cultural than because of
actual machine superiority is irritating.  The fact that IBM may occupy
its dominant market position because of monopolistic practices 20 years
ago is more irritating.  The fact that IBM dominates the PC market
primarily because of its reputation is even more irritating.  Enough
said.

Ethan Munson
UCSD CS undergradute
sdcsvax!sdcc6!ir462

baron@runx.UUCP (04/16/86)

In messgage <2515@sdcc6.UUCP>, ir462@sdcc6.UUCP (Ethan Munson) states :-

>   In summary, while I think the Mac superior to the PC and at least the
>   equal of the AT, I can understand why a business user would prefer the
>   IBM.  The fact that his preference may be more cultural than because of
>   actual machine superiority is irritating.  The fact that IBM may occupy
>   its dominant market position because of monopolistic practices 20 years
>   ago is more irritating.  The fact that IBM dominates the PC market
>   primarily because of its reputation is even more irritating.  Enough
>   said.

>   Ethan Munson
>   UCSD CS undergradute
>   sdcsvax!sdcc6!ir462

    I couldn't agree with you more, but the question arises of what you do
    with your machine. If your answer is programming, then obviously, the
    Mac would appeal to you. The Mac is a powerful PC with a wide variety
    of programming languages for it, like other PCs. However, the most
    powerful aspect of Macintosh is the User Interface, and the guidelines
    in Inside Macintosh. These guidelines to programmers are the edge over
    IBM et al , no-one has come up with a competing idea.

    People will find as the Macintosh family grows into the 90's, that the
    user interface has not radically changed but the power of Macintosh has
    steadily increased, whilst retaining a significant degree of upward
    compatability.

    As Macintosh evolves, Apple maintains an excellent upgrade program. This
    is an important consideration in business. Many companies choose IBM
    because they know that the IBM system will be supported for some time.
    When you bring up Macintosh, they ask "How long is it before they drop
    the product line and halt support?". In time, Apple's reputation
    will be such that this question wont be asked.

    Apple is doing very well for a 10-year old computer company, and it's
    current policies ensure its success thru the 1990's.

    The most irritating thing with IBM is that people buy IBM PC's, buy them
    because of the reputation in a different market, rather than reading,
    listening, and talking about it before buying.

    Another thing in IBM's favour is the good deal of intimidation laymen
    feel when they look around for a personal computer system. Some tend
    shy away from Macintosh because of the huge volumes of misinformation
    many dealers give to prospective buyers.

    Jason Haines


/* Jason Haines
 * ElecEng Undergraduate
 * 73 Davidson Avenue
 * Concord NSW 2137
 * AUSTRALIA
 * 
 * STD:  (02) 73-4444
 * ISD: +61 2 73-4444
 * ACSnet: baron@runx
 * CSNET:  baron@runx.oz
 * ARPA:   baron%runx.oz@seismo.css.gov
 * JANET:  runx.oz!baron@ukc
 * UUCP:   {enea,hplabs,mcvax,prlb2,seismo,ubc-vision,ukc}!munnari!runx.oz!baron
 */

mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu (Lawrence J. Mazlack) (04/23/86)

>
>    As Macintosh evolves, Apple maintains an excellent upgrade program. This
>    is an important consideration in business. Many companies choose IBM
>    because they know that the IBM system will be supported for some time.
>    When you bring up Macintosh, they ask "How long is it before they drop
>    the product line and halt support?". In time, Apple's reputation
>    will be such that this question wont be asked.
>

Right, they will know all right. If the future is modelled on the past, it
won't be good.

What I think that you don't understand is the concept of UPWARD COMPATIBILTY.
Upward compatibility means that if I develop software today, I can run it 
tomorrow.  It DOES NOT MEAN that you can spend more money and buy new goodies
to attach to the old box.

One of IBM's real strengths in the business market is that application programs
written 10 years ago still can be used today. They have achieved that through
(a) stability in the software environment and (b) design consistency in the
hardware environment. I know that you might find the idea of using 10 year old
programs disgusting, but producton managers don't.  They get the job done.

For an example of a company that didn't do this, you have UNIVAC. At one time,
they were a major player.

Larry Mazlack
  UUCP		{tektronix,dual,sun,ihnp4,decvax}!ucbvax!ucbernie!mazlack
  New style	mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu	
  ARPA | CSNET	mazlack%ernie@berkeley.ARPA
  BITNET   	mazlack@ucbernie.BITNET
  telephone     (415) 528-0496
  snail         CS Dept, 571 Evans, U. California, Berkeley, CA 94720

oster@ucblapis.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (04/23/86)

In article <13351@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Lawrence J. Mazlack) writes:
>One of IBM's real strengths in the business market is that application programs
>written 10 years ago still can be used today. They have achieved that through
>(a) stability in the software environment and (b) design consistency in the
>hardware environment. I know that you might find the idea of using 10 year old
>programs disgusting, but producton managers don't.  They get the job done.

This is simply not true.  The last software company I was with had a
product that ran on the IBM PC.  We had to re-write it to make it run on
the PC-XT also, when it came out.  We re-wrote it a second time when the
PC-jr. came out.  We had to re-write it a third time when the AT came out.
IBM could stand to learn from the clone makers about how to make
compatibles.  By comparison, our version of that same program for the 128k
Mac ran completely without problems on a 512k mac, a 1Meg Lisa-Mac-XL, and
the new MacPlus.  Sure, application programs written ten years ago can
stil be used today - just use ten year old hardware to run them. IBM has a
good reputation with their mainframes, but micros aren't their main
business.

Now, on the subject of hardware upgrades:  IBM replaced for free the lousy
original keyboard (with keys with bad feel that looked like Chiclets) with
a new lousy keyboard (the keys looked normal but still had a bad feel.)

By comparison, Apple for free replaced my twin double sided 5 inch 800k Lisa
twiggy drives with one 400k sony drive.  (They let me keep the old drives,
and the old driver roms, and I can re-install the old drives and read my
old twiggy disks whenever I want,  But nobody makes floppies to fit them
anymore.)

I am writing this on a Lisa running MacWorks.  The PCjr is gathering dust -
it is too small and slow to run modern PC software.
--- David Phillip Oster		-- "The goal of Computer Science is to
Arpa: oster@lapis.berkeley.edu  -- build something that will last at
Uucp: ucbvax!ucblapis!oster     -- least until we've finished building it."

dlt@csun.UUCP (04/23/86)

> >
> >    As Macintosh evolves, Apple maintains an excellent upgrade program. This
> >    is an important consideration in business. Many companies choose IBM
> >    because they know that the IBM system will be supported for some time.
> >    When you bring up Macintosh, they ask "How long is it before they drop
> >    the product line and halt support?". In time, Apple's reputation
> >    will be such that this question wont be asked.
> >
> 
> Right, they will know all right. If the future is modelled on the past, it
> won't be good.
> 
> What I think that you don't understand is the concept of UPWARD COMPATIBILTY.
> Upward compatibility means that if I develop software today, I can run it 
> tomorrow.  It DOES NOT MEAN that you can spend more money and buy new goodies
> to attach to the old box.
> 
> One of IBM's real strengths in the business market is that application programs
> written 10 years ago still can be used today. They have achieved that through
> (a) stability in the software environment and (b) design consistency in the
> hardware environment. I know that you might find the idea of using 10 year old
> programs disgusting, but producton managers don't.  They get the job done.
> 
> For an example of a company that didn't do this, you have UNIVAC. At one time,
> they were a major player.
> 
> Larry Mazlack
>   UUCP		{tektronix,dual,sun,ihnp4,decvax}!ucbvax!ucbernie!mazlack
>   New style	mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu	
>   ARPA | CSNET	mazlack%ernie@berkeley.ARPA
>   BITNET   	mazlack@ucbernie.BITNET
>   telephone     (415) 528-0496
>   snail         CS Dept, 571 Evans, U. California, Berkeley, CA 94720

That certainly doesn't address the issue of progress.  As new and better ways
are developed to perform certain kinds of tasks, why should we continue working
with antiquated materials--particularly if the newer versions are labor
saving?  It is certainly true that some programs written 10 years ago are just
as viable today as then.  With the advent of the microprocessor and relatively
cheap computers that can sit on anyone's desk, the importance of providing
non-hackers with a standardized interface is really important.  Note also
that the tasks being performed on these micros are quite different than the
production programs of 10 years ago.  Where were the spreadsheet and word
processing programs 10 years ago?  If economics is the sole arbiter of
progress, there most likely won't be any.  
I think it ironic that on our campus, most offices and student labs are 
going IBM XTs--while a very large number of people would prefer the MAC.  
The major comment I hear against the Mac is its small screen size.  But who 
wants to SUFFER with Wordstar 2000 when they can use Word on the Mac?  What
is there these days on an IBM that isn't on the Mac and can't be done
easier on the Mac?  (Besides XTs are INCREDIBLY noisy!!!).

Dave Thompson
Cal State U., Northridge
ihnp4!csun!dlt

espen@well.UUCP (Peter Espen) (04/24/86)

> Right, they will know all right. If the future is modelled on the past, it
> won't be good.
> 
> What I think that you don't understand is the concept of UPWARD COMPATIBILTY.
> Upward compatibility means that if I develop software today, I can run it 
> tomorrow.  It DOES NOT MEAN that you can spend more money and buy new goodies
> to attach to the old box.
> Larry Mazlack
>

	Here is a great reply that I pulled off a local BBS. It was written
by an un-named third party.......

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
 Just a few points to spur your memory:
  
  Disk drives:  Do you remember that the original IBM PC came out with
  single-sided diskette drives (holding a vast 160Kbytes per diskette), and
  that as soon as double-sided ones came out (less than a year later, as I
  recall) the singles were instantly worthless? Did IBM offer an upgrade (as
  Apple does on its internal drive, at least)?  I have a pile of them in a
  back room of my shop.  They're yours if you want 'em.  So now we have a
  double-sided "standard" that allows a puny 360K per diskette, though
  current technology permits drives with up to 5 times the storage to be very
  affordable.  Now the PC AT (of which I'll say more in a moment) has a 1.2
  Mbyte drive, a big improvement.  Does anyone distribute software on such
  diskettes?  Does anyone carry data from place to place on such diskettes? 
  Does anyone use them for anything?  Do they even work reliably reading and
  writing good old 360K diskettes?  No:  PC diskette storage won't get any
  better until IBM bites the bullet and comes out with, you guessed it,
  3-1/2" double-sided drives storing 800Kbytes, sometime Real Soon Now.
  
  Memory and processors:  Do you have an IBM PC with 640Kbytes of memory on
  your desk? I do.  Do you wish you could have more?  Have you read the
  articles in PC Week about all the squabbling over competing "extended
  memory" formats?  Have you looked at how those boards work to see what
  dreadful, bug-engendering kluges they are?  Have you sighed realizing that
  any program wishng to take advantage of such memory has to be upgraded and
  redistributed?  IBM's "power" machine is the AT, which doesn't even have
  the same processor as those 5 million regular PCs out there, but still
  can't handle any more memory without being incompatible.  Even in crippled
  (8086 emulation) mode, it's still easy to write a program that runs fine on
  a PC and blows up on an AT.  Most popular programs did, until they were
  upgraded by their manufacturers.  It's IBM-compatible, though, by
  definition if by nothing else.
  
  Operating systems:  Do you remember DOS 1.1?  Do you remember spending a
  lot of time switching diskettes from 8-sector unlabelled DOS 1.1 format to
  9-sector labelled DOS 2.0 format?  And then to 2.1 again a few months
  later?  Do you remember waiting for your favorite compiler to work under
  DOS 2.1 (not to mention supporting 8086 "large model" and floating point)? 
  I do.  Does good old WordStar support DOS 2.1 pathnames even now in 1986? 
  Meanwhile, many manufacturers still distribute software on single-sided
  8-sector unlabelled diskettes.
  
  Display hardware, etc.:  When I sit down with a new piece of IBM PC
  software I try to figure out if it will run on my PC at all by looking at
  the "hardware requirements" section of the manual, if there is one.  Then I
  look through the "foolproof" installation batch file to see what ghastly
  things it wants to do to my disk directories to install itself.  Then I
  configure it for the type of monitor and display adapter I have, then for
  the type of printer I have.  Then I come back the next day and, assuming
  all of the above works, I start to learn to use the program.  (I couldn't
  use a very expensive program I was supposed to demo today, because it
  insisted that I have a Hercules card.)
				  When I sit down with a new piece of
  Mac software, I stick it in the drive and start working, probably without
  looking at the manual.
  

merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (04/25/86)

> >
> >    As Macintosh evolves, Apple maintains an excellent upgrade program. This
> >    is an important consideration in business. Many companies choose IBM
> >    because they know that the IBM system will be supported for some time.
> >    When you bring up Macintosh, they ask "How long is it before they drop
> >    the product line and halt support?". In time, Apple's reputation
> >    will be such that this question wont be asked.
> >
> 
> What I think that you don't understand is the concept of UPWARD COMPATIBILTY.
> Upward compatibility means that if I develop software today, I can run it 
> tomorrow.  It DOES NOT MEAN that you can spend more money and buy new goodies
> to attach to the old box.
> 
> One of IBM's real strengths in the business market is that application programs
> written 10 years ago still can be used today. They have achieved that through
> (a) stability in the software environment and (b) design consistency in the
> hardware environment. I know that you might find the idea of using 10 year old
> programs disgusting, but producton managers don't.  They get the job done.
> 
> Larry Mazlack

Oh, definitely.  If a large corporation goes out an spends lots of money for
lots of PCs, they don't want to have spend lots more money in two years to
make them continue to be supported.  There's a guy around here with a 128K
Mac.  He plans to upgrade "someday" but doesn't see alot of need.  Why?
He uses the old MacWrite and has for a few years.  He writes fairly short
papers and finds it great.  Why spend this money for an upgrade he doesn't
need.

Hell, look at the Apple II.  There's a fantastic example.  Can you say
ancient?  Can you say slow?  Sure you can.  But people swear by them.

That's what I always tell people.  Any computer that does what you want it
to do is a good computer.  I was talking to a professor a few months ago
who just recently got into personal computers.  He used to do all his
computations by hand.  He was telling me that his PCClone was amazing in
that it did this very complex calculation in about 20 minutes.

I was shocked!  I was telling him that he should have done that kind of
work on a more advanced machine.  He looked at me and said, "Peter, I'm
used to this calculation taking days of work.  The fact that it does this
in 20 minutes is amazing.  I don't need it to be any faster."

When all is said and done, it just doesn't matter.  Now, we all have our
little favourites, but it just doesn't matter.
--
"Say goodbye to the family,                   Peter Merchant
 Say goodbye to the friends."

ngg@bridge2 (05/02/86)

> 	Here is a great reply that I pulled off a local BBS. It was written
> by an un-named third party.......
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Just a few points to spur your memory:
>   
>   Disk drives:  Do you remember that the original IBM PC came out with
>   single-sided diskette drives (holding a vast 160Kbytes per diskette), and
>   that as soon as double-sided ones came out (less than a year later, as I
>   recall) the singles were instantly worthless? Did IBM offer an upgrade (as
>   Apple does on its internal drive, at least)?  I have a pile of them in a
>   back room of my shop.  They're yours if you want 'em.  So now we have a
>   double-sided "standard" that allows a puny 360K per diskette, though
>   current technology permits drives with up to 5 times the storage to be very
>   affordable.  Now the PC AT (of which I'll say more in a moment) has a 1.2
>   Mbyte drive, a big improvement.  Does anyone distribute software on such
>   diskettes?  Does anyone carry data from place to place on such diskettes? 
>   Does anyone use them for anything?  Do they even work reliably reading and
>   writing good old 360K diskettes?  No:  PC diskette storage won't get any
>   better until IBM bites the bullet and comes out with, you guessed it,
>   3-1/2" double-sided drives storing 800Kbytes, sometime Real Soon Now.
>   
>   Memory and processors:  Do you have an IBM PC with 640Kbytes of memory on
>   your desk? I do.  Do you wish you could have more?  Have you read the
>   articles in PC Week about all the squabbling over competing "extended
>   memory" formats?  Have you looked at how those boards work to see what
>   dreadful, bug-engendering kluges they are?  Have you sighed realizing that
>   any program wishng to take advantage of such memory has to be upgraded and
>   redistributed?  IBM's "power" machine is the AT, which doesn't even have
>   the same processor as those 5 million regular PCs out there, but still
>   can't handle any more memory without being incompatible.  Even in crippled
>   (8086 emulation) mode, it's still easy to write a program that runs fine on
>   a PC and blows up on an AT.  Most popular programs did, until they were
>   upgraded by their manufacturers.  It's IBM-compatible, though, by
>   definition if by nothing else.
>   
>   Operating systems:  Do you remember DOS 1.1?  Do you remember spending a
>   lot of time switching diskettes from 8-sector unlabelled DOS 1.1 format to
>   9-sector labelled DOS 2.0 format?  And then to 2.1 again a few months
>   later?  Do you remember waiting for your favorite compiler to work under
>   DOS 2.1 (not to mention supporting 8086 "large model" and floating point)? 
>   I do.  Does good old WordStar support DOS 2.1 pathnames even now in 1986? 
>   Meanwhile, many manufacturers still distribute software on single-sided
>   8-sector unlabelled diskettes.
>   
>   Display hardware, etc.:  When I sit down with a new piece of IBM PC
>   software I try to figure out if it will run on my PC at all by looking at
>   the "hardware requirements" section of the manual, if there is one.  Then I
>   look through the "foolproof" installation batch file to see what ghastly
>   things it wants to do to my disk directories to install itself.  Then I
>   configure it for the type of monitor and display adapter I have, then for
>   the type of printer I have.  Then I come back the next day and, assuming
>   all of the above works, I start to learn to use the program.  (I couldn't
>   use a very expensive program I was supposed to demo today, because it
>   insisted that I have a Hercules card.)
>   When I sit down with a new piece of
>   Mac software, I stick it in the drive and start working, probably without
>   looking at the manual.
>   
This is about one of the best arguements in the debate that I have read. Its
amazing some of the crazy little things that the Mac has had to overcome in 
the road to where its at. All those issues that are stated above were 
espoused somewhere, by some writer. The Mac's operating system is one of the
simplest to learn, because with rare exception you will find almost every major
program has the basic functions of file management and printing are exactly orr
Software package handles file managment and printing functions in nearly the
exact same way. And as technology continues to advance more equipment and 
software will become rapidly obsolete. And its been proven a million times that 
in the long run man will always look for the easy way to do something and that
is what the Mac Excels at, "easy to USE"

			Norm Goodger
			Bridge Communications
			!bridge2!ngg

akk2@ur-tut.UUCP (A Kacker) (05/03/86)

In article <178@bridge2.UUCP> ngg@bridge2.UUCP (Norman Goodger) writes:
>> 	Here is a great reply that I pulled off a local BBS. It was written
>> by an un-named third party.......
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  Just a few points to spur your memory:
>>   Display hardware, etc.:  When I sit down with a new piece of IBM PC
>>   software I try to figure out if it will run on my PC at all by looking at
>>   the "hardware requirements" section of the manual, if there is one.  Then I
>>   look through the "foolproof" installation batch file to see what ghastly
>>   Mac software, I stick it in the drive and start working, probably without
>>   looking at the manual.
>>   
>This is about one of the best arguements in the debate that I have read. Its
>amazing some of the crazy little things that the Mac has had to overcome in 
>the road to where its at. All those issues that are stated above were 
>espoused somewhere, by some writer. The Mac's operating system is one of the
>simplest to learn, because with rare exception you will find almost every major
>program has the basic functions of file management and printing are exactly orr
>Software package handles file managment and printing functions in nearly the
>exact same way. And as technology continues to advance more equipment and 
>software will become rapidly obsolete. And its been proven a million times that 
>in the long run man will always look for the easy way to do something and that
>is what the Mac Excels at, "easy to USE"
>
>			Norm Goodger

Is it really ? I personally would not mind going through the motions of
having to configure the software to my system, especially since I CAN CHOOSE
what add-ons I want and not have to live with someone else's decision.
What is Mac other than being a CUTE!! machine good for drawing pretty pictures
in MacPaint ? A puny screen, B&W at that ! One built-in disk drive, no eject
button.Get your disk stuck? Use a MacTool ( straightened paper clip) to get
it out.At least IBM put an eject button on its PC Convertible.

Word processors ? MacWrite and MS Word ? You got to be kidding!
Want to see the whole page while typing ? Move the window right and left,
a very inefficient way of doing things.

Want to write a quick and dirty application for your own use ? Sit down with
MacGuts revealed or some such thing and learn how to draw those stupid icons.
Dialog boxes, Alert boxes and all that crap.

No option of using a command line interface instead of moving the mouse
around icons. If I want to delete a file, I would like to say DELETE filename
instead of moving the picture into the trash.

Well at least someone designed a machine that any idiot could learn to use;
thats all who'll stay with the mac though.

Well thats enough for one session. No I have no ties with IBM... I wish I did
though :-).

A.Kacker... seismo!rochester!ur-tut!akk2

ir462@sdcc6.UUCP (ir462) (05/06/86)

This posting really offended me initially as I don't enjoy being
labelled an idiot.  I do feel that this is excessively vitriolic but
also quite flawed.  Here's my blow-by-blow thoughts:
> 
> Is it really ? I personally would not mind going through the motions of
> having to configure the software to my system, especially since I CAN CHOOSE
> what add-ons I want and not have to live with someone else's decision.
> What is Mac other than being a CUTE!! machine good for drawing pretty pictures
> in MacPaint ? A puny screen, B&W at that ! One built-in disk drive, no eject
> button.Get your disk stuck? Use a MacTool ( straightened paper clip) to get
> it out.At least IBM put an eject button on its PC Convertible.
This is all stuff that has been beat to death before.  The IBM is in an
awkward, ugly, oversized, not even close to portable box.  I can't see
why it matters whether the second disk drive is "internal" or not.  In
fact, I could complain loudly about the waste of space in the IBM
chassis for single-drive systems or even half-height double-sided
drives.  Ultimately, it's probably a matter of taste anyway.
> 
> Word processors ? MacWrite and MS Word ? You got to be kidding!
> Want to see the whole page while typing ? Move the window right and left,
> a very inefficient way of doing things.
You know, you can't see the whole page on an IBM either.  You also can't
see how your proportional spacing will really look.  Mr. Kacker probably
considers the wide variety of fonts available as a gimmick, but he may
not have seen any advertising brochures produced using Macs and
Laserwriters.  The What You See Is What You Get word processing/graphics
interface has been largely responsible for the desktop publishing trend
that gets so much press lately.
> 
> Want to write a quick and dirty application for your own use ? Sit down with
> MacGuts revealed or some such thing and learn how to draw those stupid icons.
> Dialog boxes, Alert boxes and all that crap.
If you want a quick and dirty application on the Mac, you write one.  It
will look quick and dirty but it will run.  The Mac development
languages do not require the use of all OS features.
> 
> No option of using a command line interface instead of moving the mouse
> around icons. If I want to delete a file, I would like to say DELETE filename
> instead of moving the picture into the trash.
Why? Moving it to the trash makes sense too.  I like the trash can
better, fewer keystrokes and less typos.  By the way, did you know that
human-computer interaction research shows the mouse to be the fastest
and most accurate pointing system for computer editing.  This was relative to a
joystick (I think) and arrow keys and something else I can't remember
(see _The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction_ by Card, Moran, and
Newell).
> 
> Well at least someone designed a machine that any idiot could learn to use;
> thats all who'll stay with the mac though.
I feel angry when I read this.  I have heard from others who I trust
(but I don't know the original source) that IBM users use about 1.5
different software applications regularly where Mac users average about 5
applications.  By that standard it would appear that Mac users are more
adept with their machines.
> 
> Well thats enough for one session. No I have no ties with IBM... I wish I did
> though :-).
> 
> A.Kacker... seismo!rochester!ur-tut!akk2

Obviously, Mr. Kacker and I disagree.  He probably wouldn't like to
write code in Smalltalk either.  I, frankly, don't find his objections
well thought out.  They seem to me to revolve around the theme of the
Mac being so simple to use it is offensive.  One could say the same
thing about electronic ignition in automobiles.

Ethan Munson
UCSD CS undergraduate
sdcsvax!sdcc6!ir462

hpb@cernvax.UUCP (hpb) (05/07/86)

In article <303@ur-tut.UUCP> akk2@ur-tut.UUCP (A Kacker) writes:
--- A series of quotes from the ongoing debate, ending with:
>>That is what the Mac Excels at, "easy to USE"
>>
>>			Norm Goodger
--- And then:
>
>Is it really ? I personally would not mind going through the motions of
>having to configure the software to my system, especially since I CAN CHOOSE
>what add-ons I want and not have to live with someone else's decision.

There is nothing inherent in the Mac that forces it to restrict a user
to a certain configuration. Although it demands more of an effort from
the software designer, he/she can readily write applications that allow
users to "configure" their system in a specific way or to operate in
different ***modes*** (oh how I hate that word) of "user friendliness".
The Mac was designed around some basic common sense principles, one of
them being that a user must be able to leave his/her system on a two
week vacation without having spend a day relearning his/her latest
"configuration" upon returning.

>What is Mac other than being a CUTE!! machine good for drawing pretty pictures
>in MacPaint ? A puny screen, B&W at that ! One built-in disk drive, no eject
>button.Get your disk stuck? Use a MacTool ( straightened paper clip) to get
>it out.At least IBM put an eject button on its PC Convertible.

One pretty picture can replace 1000 words as the saying goes. If you try
reading some IBM documentation you might sometimes whish there were
a few more "pretty pictures".
One built in disk drive and the option of "building in" 20Mbytes of
hard disk storage capacity.
I've had my mac for two years (+) and only twice have I had to eject
the disk using the "MacTool-trick". An option is always to hit the
reset button (debugger switch) and hold down the mouse button. This
does tend to have an adverse effect on the status of your current
working environment though. :-)
>
>Word processors ? MacWrite and MS Word ? You got to be kidding!
>Want to see the whole page while typing ? Move the window right and left,
>a very inefficient way of doing things.

IBM - Want to see an illustration or special type-face while you are
typing? Can't do it.
I agree though. The screen is too small, but I can put up with that
until Jonathon comes along.
>
>Want to write a quick and dirty application for your own use ? Sit down with
>MacGuts revealed or some such thing and learn how to draw those stupid icons.
>Dialog boxes, Alert boxes and all that crap.
>
"MacGuts revealed" - I like that! Otherwise though I would like to point
out to you that there are plenty of environments that allow you to
program "quick and dirty" applications on the Macintosh without dealing
with what you so eloquently refer to as "all that crap" or the Macintosh
environment.  I am not saying that these are ideal systems, but they
let you do a fair amount of work without dealing with the specifics of
Macintosh. What Apple has done with the Mac is to place the responibility
of creating easily usable and universally integratable applications on
the developers. That costs in time and effort and causes the learning
curve to be slow and sometimes painful. Once one reaches a certain level
of proficiency though great powers are bestowed upon one. The end
user is the one to benefit. That's the way it should be!

>No option of using a command line interface instead of moving the mouse
>around icons. If I want to delete a file, I would like to say DELETE filename
>instead of moving the picture into the trash.

There are a number of (desk) accessories that allow you to delete and
rename files by selecting them through a standard file selection interface.
This can be done whether one is on the desktop or in an application.

>Well at least someone designed a machine that any idiot could learn to use;
>thats all who'll stay with the mac though.

So I guess I'm an idiot in your (IBM) world. It's fun though!
>
>Well thats enough for one session. No I have no ties with IBM... I wish I did
>though :-).
>
>A.Kacker... seismo!rochester!ur-tut!akk2

Hans Peter Brondmo
PS CO, CERN CH-1211
Geneva 23, Switzerland

My use of this network and my statements on it, should not be taken to mean
that CERN agrees with the ideas I express.
I think some individuals might though seeing that there are close to 200
Macs on the cite.

@hpislx.UUCP (05/07/86)

This message is empty.

rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (05/09/86)

Remember, ANYTHING IBM produces IS IBM compatible. :-)  The fact that
later versions aren't the same as the is irrelevent :-).

When IBM comes out with UNIX, or the RT, it will be IBM-compatible :-).

Furthermore, if applications don't work on the new box, the programs
are simply "not IBM compatible" :-).  Unless IBM wrote the program,
in which case, it is a "feature" :-).

Remember when the IBM-PeeCee came out?  I remember their generous
offer to provide money, marketing support, and other nice things.
Of course, there were four "cute" requirements.

1:  It had to use all the special "features" of the PC (virtually
guarenteeing incompatibility because MS-DOS only standardised "text
only" things.  You had to jump into the BIOS, manipulate hardware,
and do other "nasty" things to get graphics and other "features".

2:  It had to original (supposedly to keep people from just
"dressing up" CP/M programs.

3:  You could call ABASIC rom routines, but you could not copy
any part of that rom.  You were encouraged to use the Assembler/Linker
on the early systems.

4: IBM would tell you practically anything you wanted to know
about where to call BIOS, ABASIC, and other ROM routines as well
as the hardware addresses, but you automatically acknowleged IBM's
rights to any such information.

If you did all this, IBM would make sure that your special products
showed up on the dealers' shelves, got "freebee publicity" and
lot's of other benifits.

What are the "Torture tests" for IBM compatibility?
What are the "Most popular" programs for the PC?
Which programs seem to be available for IBM's next product
even BEFORE it is released?
Which programs seem to take months to get ported to "Almost
Compatibles"?

In an effort to make "compatibles" more compatible (And gain
support for CP/M-86), DRI produced a version of GKS, VDI, and
finally GEM.  Each level made "incompatibles" compatible with
the DRI standard, using "vectors" into the graphics routines
and drivers supplied by the manufacturer. GKS was included in
the CP/M 3.0 versions for both '80, and '86 lines.  In about
1982.

Even before GKS was in the stores, Microsoft and IBM both announced
"Super-Duper Whiz-bang Windows Packages".  Want to know why it took
three years to "finally get them to market"?  Because when DRI first
annouced and released their GKS, these products didn't even exist!

Another interesting thing is that all of the "Torture test" makers
never even attempted to investigate the DRI packages.  It wasn't
until "GEM" vs. Mac, that anyone even considered DRI a threat.

If IBM/Microsoft/Lotus/... continue on their current pattern,
it will only be a matter of time before the consumer figures
out that IBM is "bundling" third party products.

Now we come to the Mac.  When it came out:
Developers had to get a LISA to write products for it.
They had to spend a lot of time learning "object oriented" techniques.
They were encouraged to use "lineA" vectors (illegal instructions).
They were discouraged from using conventional structures such as
    directories, files, text.
Instead, they were encouraged to use "resources" containing "objects"
    and "groups".
They were discouraged from using languages like 'C'.
They were encouraged to depend on the Mac ROM's, using the
"Standard Interface".

Result:
Even simple software cannot be written for the Mac and get the
   kind of recognition it might deserve.
Macs can store data on other machines, and read it back, but the
    "Host" can do very little with the data itself.
Few Mac applications can even even deal with input from non-Mac
    sources.
Mac supporters can't believe it would even be possible to come up
    with anything else as good.
Even PD software is Non-Mac or Mac-Only.

So here we see a hot debate over which is better, the IBM or the MAC.

We won't discuss those "new kids" which are incredibly flexible,
have tried to follow what few standards there are in the "PC with
Graphics" arena, published books including everything up to and
even including schematics, "contribute" software, and effectively
"open their doors" to just about everybody (including non-owners),
encourage dealers to carry even "trivial" products, and have
practically twisted arms to make developement tools available
as soon as possible.  The fact that both can already run
1000's of titles (mostly PD, but then again how many of Macs
titles are in that catagory) isn't important.  The fact that
not only can you run these titles, but can afford more of them
has never been an issue with Apple or IBM.

True, I can't get 1-2-3 or Jazz or Excel on an Amiga or an ST,
but I can get VIP for 1/4 the price.

While Ford, GM, and Chrysler fought for market in the "Big Cars",
Datsun, Volkwagon, and Toyota almost bankrupted them by capturing
70% of the market with "economy cars".  The big car market didn't
vanish completely, but it will never be what it once was.

While IBM and MAC fight for the market in "expensive computers",
and complain about the "slump" in computer sales, the ST and
Amiga will capture >50% of the "units sold" (read IBM/Macs not sold)
with "economy computers".

Does this mean that "expensive computers" are better than "economy
computers", for some things no.  But for most uses, yes.  IBM
will stay in the game by virtue of it's name (like Chrysler did).
Macs better learn to use "unleaded gas" and fast.  Mac doesn't have
"government subsidies" to bail it out.

mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (05/16/86)

In article <534@sdcc13.UUCP> 76645668@sdcc13.UUCP ({|lit}) writes:
>I've got a little something to add to this ongoing talk, which I'm
>surprised nobody else brought up:  MicroSoft Windows.
>
>Topview is not considered to be very good by people who have
>reviewed it either.  It has but one redeeming feature: it was

	I've seen it. It sucks. It's character-based, if I remember
correctly, so that windows can only occupy sections of the screen
based on the 80 char x 24 line character screen, rather than being
pixel based. And it's sllllloooowwwwwww.

>[MS windows] run on top of the normal MS DOS, and gives you
>most of the functions of MS DOS, but in a windowed environment.
>It is a complete operating system, just like the Mac's.

	This is contradictory. It is not a complete operating
system - it resides on top of DOS, providing an interface layer
between DOS and the application, but DOS is still there.

>
>First, Windows starts out with two strikes against it.  It must run
>on a machine which may have no pointing device (mouse or other
>non-keyboard input).  Second, it must create windows on a screen
>which wasn;t designed for it, doesn't have the resolution required,
>and has round pixels.

	And the windows are tiled (not overlapping). Yuck.



--MKR

hugo@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu (Peter Su) (05/20/86)

In article <856@mmm.UUCP> mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes:
>
>	And the windows are tiled (not overlapping). Yuck.


Like, what's wrong with tiled windows?  One of the most awful things about
mac is the fact that you have to keep dragging the  bloody windows around
before you can see ANYTHING at all in ANY OF THEM.  Now, if the mac had a
real screen...like 1024x1024...well..

Pete
-- 
ARPA: hugo@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa      BELL:412-681-7431
UUCP: ...!{ucbvax,ihnp4,cmucspt}!hugo@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa
USPS: 5170 Beeler St., Pittsburgh PA 15213

Funny Quote: "Everyone is trying, to get to a bar,
	      the name of the bar, the bar is called Heaven."
	         - Talking Heads

mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (05/28/86)

In article <297@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu> hugo@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu.UUCP (Peter Su) writes:
>In article <856@mmm.UUCP> mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes:
>>
>>	And the windows are tiled (not overlapping). Yuck.
>
>
>Like, what's wrong with tiled windows?  One of the most awful things about
>mac is the fact that you have to keep dragging the  bloody windows around
>before you can see ANYTHING at all in ANY OF THEM.  Now, if the mac had a
>real screen...like 1024x1024...well..
>
>Pete

	On the mac, if you want tiled windows, you can have them. Tiled
windows are a brain-damaged limitation of Apple's more general scheme.

	--MKR