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