shulman@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Jeff Shulman) (11/14/85)
Delphi Digest Thursday, 14 Nov 1985 Volume 1 : Issue 7
*** Special Issue: IBM PC vs Mac Debate ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the edited transcript of the debate held on 1985 October 26 in the
conference area of ICONtact (TM), the Macintosh Users' Group on Delphi, on the
topic "IBM PC vs. the Macintosh".
Copyright 1985 signalVideo, inc.
All rights reserved.
This transcript may be posted on any computer bulletin board that is accessible
to the public without charge, or on CompuServe, The Source, GEnie, Unison, BIX,
or The WELL, PROVIDED THAT this entire document is posted without change,
including this copyright notice and preface.
You may download this file for your personal use. You may quote small portions
of it for review or citation in another publication, provided proper credit is
given to ICONtact as the source of the material.
Before using this file in any other way, or distributing a copy on disk or
in print form, YOU MUST FIRST CONTACT me at the address below to obtain the
right to republish it. Inquiries from magazines and user group newsletters
are welcome!
Thank you,
Peter Olson, ICONtact SIG Manager
signalVideo, inc.
Post Office Box 167, New Town Branch
Boston, MA 02258
On Delphi: username PEABO
On CIS: ppn [76174,1670] (once in a while) :-)
A note on the editing: I have edited this transcript to correct spelling
errors, remove extraneous conference commands and talk from other groups
(as moderator, I was a member of all 4 conference groups at once), and in
some cases to rearrange text to clarify the discussion without changing
the intent of the statements.
- Peter Olson
ICONtact is a trademark of signalVideo, inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.ptr/Mod> ** New group name "DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC!" selected **
GROUP LIST: 17:52:36
1) DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC!
ptr/Mod, %Linda/Mac, -Chris/IBM, MOUSEKETEER, rob/ibm, takada/moderator,
*Cec/IBM, chip/Mac, bev/MAC
3) AUDIENCE (OK TO TALK HERE)
ptr/Mod, MOUSEKETEER
4) MAC TEAM PRIVATE
ptr/Mod, %Linda/Mac, chip/Mac, bev/MAC
5) IBM TEAM PRIVATE
ptr/Mod, -Chris/IBM, rob/ibm, *Cec/IBM
- idle
AVAILABLE LIST: () = in conf
(TAKADA), (BEVERLEYKANE), (MOUSEKETEER), (PEABO), (FRETWELL), (PUGDOG),
(NANOCHIP), (DEOGBURN), (LMJC)
------ [9 in this area]
.ptr/Mod> ok ... takada, you handle the moderator role now ... i am about to
start uploading the intro's
.ptr/Mod> is everyone ready to begin?
.*Cec/IBM> Go
.chip/Mac> ga
.-Chris/IBM> go
.%Linda/Mac> ga
.takada/mod> yes, go!
.ptr/Mod> ok ... here we go
.ptr/Mod> The Great Debate: IBM PC vs. the Macintosh!
.ptr/Mod>
.ptr/Mod> Sponsored jointly by the Japanese publisher Kodansha and ICONtact,
.ptr/Mod> the Macintosh Users' Group on Delphi.
.ptr/Mod>
.ptr/Mod> A portion of the debate will be translated into Japanese and used as
.ptr/Mod> part of a six page article on telecomputing by Masazumi Takada, whom
.ptr/Mod> I am about to introduce. Topics he has written about in previous
.ptr/Mod> months have included coverage of such things as COMDEX in Japan and
.ptr/Mod> MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface).
.ptr/Mod>
.ptr/Mod> I would now like to introduce the people who are participating in
.ptr/Mod> today's debate.
.ptr/Mod>
.=> Masazumi Takada Debate Sponsor
.=>
.=> I am a male Japanese, born in 1935 and brought up in Tokyo. I am a
.=> Senior Editor/News at Radio Japan (the overseas service of Japan
.=> Broadcasting Corp -- the nation-wide TV and radio network). Our service
.=> is similar to your Voice of America, but here, not state-run. I am
.=> also a writer of nonfiction. I have more than 20 books and translations
.=> published, including an introduction to on-line networking (the first
.=> book published on the subject for laymen readers in Japan). My micros
.=> are IBM-PC (which I use daily), Mac (128K), Tandy M-100, and others.
.=> My goal in life is to popularize telecommunications on the grassroots
.=> level to realize a Global Village.
.=>
.=> Chip Nicolais Macintosh Team.
.=>
.=> I'm a single male, 34 yrs old, a Maintenance Supervisor of Drycleaning
.=> & Laundry Equipment business owned/operated by my family. Most of my
.=> work entails Sales/Service & Installation of commercial laundries. I
.=> use MacDraw to prepare layout drawings of proposed laundry facilities
.=> and I use Microsoft File to keep track of all of my contract renewals
.=> and maintenance schedules. I am a graduate of RCA Technical Institute
.=> in Philadelphia, PA. I actually never followed up my training as a
.=> computer technichian. However, the introduction of the Macintosh piqued
.=> my curiosity and I would now like to learn 'C' Programming and 68000
.=> Assembly language.
.=>
.=> Robert Pataki IBM Team
.=>
.=> I am currently attending N.Y. Medical College. My interests lie in the
.=> area of computers in medicine ... education, application, etc. I am
.=> especially concerned with human factors engineering. Prior to entering
.=> medical school, I worked for IBM Yorktown Research for eight months.
.=> I received a BA from Columbia University, NYC, 1984. I am currently
.=> in medical school, doing part time consulting. My area is IBM equipment,
.=> as related to the office or professional. My future plans include creation
.=> of a software company for medical educational software. Current and
.=> future plans include working to educate the medical community to what
.=> computers can do and what is available.
.=>
.=> Beverley Kane Macintosh Team
.=>
.=> I'm over 30, a physician specializing in Sports Medicine. I got my Mac
.=> for finances, expert systems in Sports Medicine, & INSIDE MAC! I use
.=> MacWrite/Paint for letters and forms; Dollars and Sense for finances.
.=> This year, as medical director of the San Francisco Marathon, I used
.=> Overvue to deploy the 6-area medical team. I am also in process of
.=> compiling the data from our medical cards at the finish line, to be
.=> presented in October at a meeting of the International Marathon Medical
.=> Directors at the NY Marathon. I have also bought Experlisp with the
.=> thought of designing a modest expert system in Sports Medicine, and
.=> basically because I think AI is the most exciting thing in the world
.=> today.
.=>
.=> Chris DeOgburn IBM Team
.=>
.=> I have used IBM products from the beginning of my computer days; I use
.=> the PC and IBM Displaywriter at work, and have an IBM terminal at home.
.=> Recently a friend and I started a company to write software for the IBM
.=> PC, so I have had time to really analyze the thing. I am knowledgeable
.=> about several applications out for the PC, know 3 languages (BASIC, PASCAL,
.=> and COBOL, some C), and I understand most of the technical aspects of the
.=> machine (ie, chips used, etc). On Delphi, I am the Assistant Sysop in
.=> the GameSIG.
.=>
.=> Linda Custer Macintosh Team
.=>
.=> I'm in my mid-20's, a PhD candidate graduate student at UC Berkeley,
.=> studying biochemical engineering, in my third year (of about four).
.=> I use the Mac to analyze laboratory data with Excel and to prepare
.=> professional papers and funding sponsor reports using Microsoft Word.
.=> I also do a little programming using MacFORTH and MacPascal. I hope
.=> to learn C one of these days since it seems to be the fastest development
.=> system for the Mac to learn and use. I don't play many games, though.
.=> I mostly use the Macintosh for serious stuff. That alone keeps my
.=> Macintosh on eighteen hours a day! I grew up in Connecticut, and have
.=> been in the Bay Area two years, and I am very active in the Berkeley
.=> Macintosh Users' Group (BMUG). Once out of graduate school, I expect
.=> to work on process design and marketing for a pharmaceutical company.
.=>
.=> Cecil Fretwell IBM Team
.=>
.=> I have a PhD in Engineering and I have spent the last 25 years in the
.=> computer field. My first experience with microcomputers was in 1972-1975.
.=> In 1978, I started working again with micros by building my own INTEL
.=> 8085 system. In 1982, I became heavily involved with the Apple II series
.=> and became an established author and expert. In 1983, I also became
.=> involved in the use of IBM PCs with heavy emphasis on the PC AT beginning
.=> in January 1985. On Delphi, I am a Sysop for the Apple ][ SIG.
.=>
.=> Peter Olson Debate Moderator
.=>
.=> I have more than 20 years experience with computers, beginning with IBM
.=> mainframes, and progressing along with the rest of the computer industry
.=> though minicomputers and finally to micros and personal computers. I have
.=> been working for the last 9 years in data communications. I am a member of
.=> the Boston Computer Society Macintosh Users' Group and the BCS MacTechGrp.
.=> I am a proponent of electronic networking as a new communication medium for
.=> people, and I am the Manager of the Macintosh SIG on Delphi.
.=>
.ptr/Mod> This concludes the opening statement for tonight's debate.
.ptr/Mod> The debate will take place in 5 parts, with the following topics:
.ptr/Mod>
.ptr/Mod> Mac (or PC) and I.
.ptr/Mod>
.ptr/Mod> Why I choose PC (or Mac).
.ptr/Mod>
.ptr/Mod> Advantages and disadvantages.
.ptr/Mod>
.ptr/Mod> Prospects for the future.
.ptr/Mod>
.ptr/Mod> Thoughts and feelings about these two great institutions
.ptr/Mod> in modern tecnhological civilization.
.ptr/Mod>
.ptr/Mod> OK ... I will now flip a coin to pick which team begins first
.ptr/Mod> 1 = IBM, 2 = Mac
ROLL by .ptr/Mod> (1d2) 1/2
.ptr/Mod> IBM team goes first
.*Cec/IBM> Ready?
.ptr/Mod> Cec, you are team captain ... why don't you take the podium
.ptr/Mod> ga
.*Cec/IBM> Ok. In what you are to see on the first topic, I say Bob when
[Cec lost contact at this point because Uninet took his local
node out of service for maintenance. I guess Saturday afternoon
is considered a low use period!]
.ptr/Mod> I am declaring time out
[... more time passes]
.ptr/Mod> we will give cec a few more minutes to get signed back on
[... a brief huddle takes place in the IBM Team private conference]
.ptr/Mod> OK, the IBM team has suggested that we let the Mac team start first
.ptr/Mod> so ... Mac team, you are up
.ptr/Mod> the topic is Mac and I
.ptr/Mod> Linda, ga
.chip/Mac> ga
.Linda/Mac> Well, the first question goes to Bev?
.Linda/Mac> ok
.Linda/Mac> The Macintosh seemed the computer for me because I had work
.Linda/Mac> to get done. I didn't want to stay up late nights reading IBM PC
.Linda/Mac> owners' manuals.
.Linda/Mac> When I went to the computer store and walked up to a Macintosh,
.Linda/Mac> no one had to tell me what to do next. No DOS commands, no files
.Linda/Mac> that got lost because I typed the wrong word. I had my first
.Linda/Mac> letter out right away.
.Linda/Mac> I could relate to a screen that told me everything it
.Linda/Mac> could do and everything it couldn't. It let me see its choices.
.Linda/Mac> I decided right away that the Mac was a computer that
.Linda/Mac> could work for me instead of against me and fit in with my needs.
.Linda/Mac> done
.ptr/Mod> ok, IBM team has a counter-argument ... ga IBM
.rob/ibm> PC and I
.rob/ibm> I purchased a PC at school, after doing a lot of comparison
.rob/ibm> shopping. I believed I knew where the future was -- or at least my
.rob/ibm> future. I live in NY, at the time in Manhattan, but now in
.rob/ibm> Westchester, home of IBM, and I realized that my potential was
.rob/ibm> much greater in that direction too. True to my faith, I got a job
.rob/ibm> with IBM Research, doing work with the PC's and working with people
.rob/ibm> who work and develop software and applications for the PC. I was
.rob/ibm> attached to a very large network, and had access to lots of newly
.rob/ibm> developed software, and works in progress that colored my way of
.rob/ibm> seeing the field of computers. I could not only run software
.rob/ibm> placed in a library like here on Delphi, but communicate to the
.rob/ibm> developer in a way not possible elsewhere. IBM is a family,
.rob/ibm> strange as it may sound, and it provided an atmosphere not available
.rob/ibm> elsewhere. Now I use a PC in my school work, to type notes, and
.rob/ibm> keep my life organized. I do a little programming, mostly dBase
.rob/ibm> now for various departments at school, and I try to
.rob/ibm> promote the use of computers where I can. I am trying to interest
.rob/ibm> certain organizations into research money for some educational
.rob/ibm> development projects. I am simply amazed at not only the potential
.rob/ibm> of the IBM machines, but also the realized capabilites for
.rob/ibm> expansion, peripherals and software are limited only by the
.rob/ibm> imaginations.
.rob/ibm> did anything get through?
.rob/ibm> I only saw garbage on upload.
.ptr/Mod> rob, it is OK on the transcript
.ptr/Mod> ok, we have a few minutes left in this topic ... has anyone got a
rebuttal to any of these points?
.Linda/Mac> ?
.-Chris/IBM> !
.ptr/Mod> ga, linda
.Linda/Mac> ok
.Linda/Mac> Rob, you say "unlimited potential". Do you think
.Linda/Mac> there is an area where the IBM has potential but
.Linda/Mac> the Mac does not ... given the _current_ state of both machines?
.Linda/Mac> done
.ptr/Mod> <rob, ga ... chris after rob with a comment>
.rob/ibm> yes I do.
.rob/ibm> My PC has and has had 640K of mem since day one.
.rob/ibm> I could take it to 4M tomorrow if I wanted to.
.rob/ibm> I have the choice of several operating systems, including one or two
.rob/ibm> similar to what is offered on the MAC.
.rob/ibm> The list goes on, but time doesn't
.rob/ibm> ga
.bev/MAC> !
.-Chris/IBM> Ok, I will make this quick...
.-Chris/IBM> The MAC Team mentioned, not wanting to read long manuals
.-Chris/IBM> and I can agree on that point, but one thing, the MAC Manual is a
general overview of the machine, it doesn't tell you all the things you can
do.. that a programmer might need. Ga
.ptr/Mod> bev, ga
.bev/MAC> size is not the issue.
.bev/MAC> All the ROM or RAM will do no good if you can't get past the screen.
.bev/MAC> The MAC is an appliance, for ease, and has all the potential for
power users. ga
.rob/ibm> Most people have found a way to get past the screen.
.rob/ibm> I like being able to run a 500K program or a 2M spreadsheet.
.rob/ibm> ga
.bev/MAC> With a struggle! The mouse is much more anthropomorphic!
.ptr/Mod> linda would like to rebut chris ... ga, linda
.Linda/Mac> ok
.Linda/Mac> Anyway, just wanted to say that the IBM can _only_ address 640K
.Linda/Mac> of memory without bank switching. The Mac is easily
.Linda/Mac> uploaded to at least 2 meg, and potentially 16 meg.
.Linda/Mac> done
.ptr/Mod> ok
.ptr/Mod> we are running topics together a bit
.ptr/Mod> which may be unavoidable
.takada/mod> yes, unavoidable because mac/ibm and i and advantages are connected
in some way
.ptr/Mod> does either team have any more to say about why they selected their
machine ... or what they find if useful for?
.ptr/Mod> <open for ?>
.chip/Mac> !
.ptr/Mod> chip, ga
.chip/Mac> The Mac is the only one of the two machines that is *portable*
.chip/Mac> and may on this date be upgraded to 4Meg of RAM with a 20MEG Hard
Disk in a 20# 9" x 10" foot print
.chip/Mac> ga
.*Cec/IBM> ?
.ptr/Mod> cec, ga
.*Cec/IBM> First of all, lost my link so playing catch up
.*Cec/IBM> What does Chip mean by *portable*
.*Cec/IBM> ga
.chip/Mac> !
.Linda/Mac> ?
.ptr/Mod> ga chip
.ptr/Mod> <linda after chip>
.chip/Mac> It can easily be carried in a commercially available shoulder bag
.chip/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> cec, any further rebuttal on portability?
.ptr/Mod> ga, cec
.ptr/Mod> <linda after cec>
.*Cec/IBM> Ok. On the question of portability
.*Cec/IBM> It is not an issue to be able to carry PC on Shoulder
.*Cec/IBM> The real question is the power of the machine and not its physical
size!
.*Cec/IBM> ga
.Linda/Mac> ok
.Linda/Mac> I disagree. I carry my Mac home and to the office
.Linda/Mac> all the time, and feel that's important.
.Linda/Mac> Effectively makes the machine half price!
.Linda/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> any more comments on the first two topics?
.bev/MAC> ?
.ptr/Mod> ga bev
.bev/MAC> ok..
.bev/MAC> The power of the machine is evident in the way Microsoft made EXCEL,
the most powerful business application for the MAC
.bev/MAC> The MAC can be business and pleasure..
.bev/MAC> There is no pleasure in the IBM. ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ... last chance for rebut on first two topics ... IBM team?
.ptr/Mod> ga, rob
.rob/ibm> now I'm here
.rob/ibm> The PC can only address 640K? With proper adherence to the
.rob/ibm> Trilogy standard or to the AST standard that is up to 4M or higher.
.rob/ibm> The AT CAN address 16M whether you like it or not.
.rob/ibm> The 80386 chip which is out, but not in a machine yet, will raise
.rob/ibm> that to 4 Gigabyte of main memory and 64 terabyte of virtual memory.
.rob/ibm> (I believe I got that right)
.rob/ibm> Mass storage is no longer a problem. A commercial product can
.rob/ibm> take several smaller disks, and merge them logically into one large
.rob/ibm> logical unit. This "unlimited capacity" which I refer to,
.rob/ibm> is due to the extended memory capability, and the ability to
.rob/ibm> address that NOW and for a reasonable amount of money.
.rob/ibm> EXCEL is "the most powerful for the MAC". Not the MOST POWERFUL.
.rob/ibm> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> the moderator has a question
.takada/mod> go ahead, ptr
.ptr/Mod> it seemed to me that we were mixing topics one and two ... am i
correct or confused?
[as it happens, the teams were originally going to be made up of 4 on
each side, but there was a cancellation on the IBM side, and I had to
ask the alternate on the Mac team to retire to the audience. Unnoticed
by anyone at the time was the fact that he had been assigned the opening
statement for the Mac team for topic number 1, and so the Mac team started
the debate with topic number 2.]
.ptr/Mod> <comment freely please>
.chip/Mac> correct
.bev/MAC> Unavoidable, ptr.
.-Chris/IBM> Yeah we mixed them
.takada/mod> correct and we may be going on like this and skip the issue two...
if we all agree
.ptr/Mod> well, chip says he has more to say about topic two ... does the ibm
team also have more to say about topics 1 and 2?
.Linda/Mac> 1
.bev/MAC> yes
.chip/Mac> ptr> should we just give the two remaining speeches for them and
continue open discussion for first two topics?
.ptr/Mod> we have run 30 minutes so far since the mac team started talking
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> we will go to topic 3 and if we have time at the end, wrap up with
anything else that has been left unsaid
.ptr/Mod> ok ... topic 3 is
.ptr/Mod> Advantages and disadvantages.
.ptr/Mod> IBM team goes first
.ptr/Mod> ga
.*Cec/IBM> Ok...
.*Cec/IBM> Without question, IBM is the leader in the computer
.*Cec/IBM> industry. Therefore, one can almost always find a software
.*Cec/IBM> package to meet a company's immediate needs. Because the
.*Cec/IBM> larger majority of companies use IBM, one has very little
.*Cec/IBM> difficulty in obtaining software which is compatible with
.*Cec/IBM> mainframe software.
.*Cec/IBM> One also does not have to write their own software to
.*Cec/IBM> send or receive data with respect to the mainframe.
.*Cec/IBM> Commercial software is also available to make the PC look
.*Cec/IBM> like just another terminal to the mainframe. In summary,
.*Cec/IBM> one can perform work on the mainframe alone, on the PC
.*Cec/IBM> alone, or connect the two together to perform an integrated
.*Cec/IBM> task.
.*Cec/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> <ahem>
[a reference to the fact that Cec uploaded the text with no delay
at the end of the lines]
.Linda/Mac> ?
.ptr/Mod> I will pause while everyone has a chance to read that before it
scrolls off
.ptr/Mod> ga, linda
.Linda/Mac> ok
.Linda/Mac> You mention that IBM can connect to IBM mainframes.
.Linda/Mac> Only _upcoming_, and only at high cost.
.Linda/Mac> (unless you have a simple terminal program, which the Mac has too.
.Linda/Mac> IBM just mentioned that they've come up with a token system
.Linda/Mac> which costs $800 per machine and CANNOT connect to mainframes.
.Linda/Mac> Appletalk only costs $50 per machine, and is much less complex.
.Linda/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.-Chris/IBM> !
.ptr/Mod> the IBM team wishes to rebut the statement about the IBM token ring
system
.ptr/Mod> ga, cec
.*Cec/IBM> Ok. The token system only applies to a Local Area Network.
.*Cec/IBM> I am talking about a link to an IBM mainframe through a 3278
.*Cec/IBM> network.
.*Cec/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> ga, chris
.-Chris/IBM> Linda mentioned that it isn't easy to connect to an IBM
.-Chris/IBM> Mainframe unless you have the software, etc.,
.-Chris/IBM> it's very easy to connect, all you need is a 3270 terminal
.-Chris/IBM> Emulator, there are PD 3270 programs out. Furthermore, I am
.-Chris/IBM> able to emulate our Telecommunications software we use on
.-Chris/IBM> the IBM Mainframe at work on my PC. This allows me to make
.-Chris/IBM> modifications as well using the PC, so it is very practical.
.-Chris/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> the IBM team in their statement also commented on the widespread
availability of software on the IBM for nearly any application
.ptr/Mod> has the Mac team got a rebuttal to that?
.Linda/Mac> ?
.ptr/Mod> linda, ga
.bev/MAC> ?
.ptr/Mod> <bev after linda>
.Linda/Mac> What do you do on an IBM that you can't on a Mac?
.Linda/Mac> Mac software is higher quality, but there aren't a lot of
.Linda/Mac> repeats out there.
.Linda/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> ga, bev
.bev/MAC> ok
.bev/MAC> The article in July PC..
.bev/MAC> pretty much proved that the MAC equals or betters the IBM
.bev/MAC> for ALL common applications, and is surprisingly fast too! ga
.ptr/Mod> IBM team, comments?
.chip/Mac> !
.bev/MAC> ?
.*Cec/IBM> ?
.ptr/Mod> ga Chris
.-Chris/IBM> !
.ptr/Mod> <cec after Chris>
.bev/MAC> !
.-Chris/IBM> Forget who asked, but can you run CICS, CMOS, Shadow II (All
.-Chris/IBM> telecommunications software) on the MAC?
.-Chris/IBM> these are all products for the IBM Mainframe
.-Chris/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> Chris ...
.ptr/Mod> you mentioned mainframe products, why?
.-Chris/IBM> because it's possible to use them on the PC and I was asked what
products won't work on the MAC that will work on the PC.
.takada/mod> we have to limit our discussion within the frame of personal
computers
.ptr/Mod> I agree ... most people do not associate PC/370 when they think of
IBM PC ... they think of the IBM PC or the PC XT
.-Chris/IBM> ok, I will retract it, I got carried away when the topic of
connecting to the IBM Mainframe was brought up.
.ptr/Mod> ok ... any more comments from the IBM team before the Mac team makes
its statement about advantages?
.*Cec/IBM> ?
.-Chris/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> cec, ga
.bev/MAC> !
.*Cec/IBM> Ok. Takada has made a point.
.*Cec/IBM> The question is, what does one regard as a personal computer?
.*Cec/IBM> If personal computer is for home use, that is one issue.
.*Cec/IBM> If personal computer is for people use at work, that is
.*Cec/IBM> another issue. I read personal computer as applying in
.*Cec/IBM> both cases.
.*Cec/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> bev, short comment?
.bev/MAC> ok
.bev/MAC> A **PERSONAL** computer addresses not the most hi-tech or esoteric
.bev/MAC> use but the use that the MOST people can get out of it. That's the
.bev/MAC> MAC. ga
.ptr/Mod> ga, rob ... last rebuttal!!
.takada/mod> ?
.ptr/Mod> <takada after rob>
.rob/ibm> THE most serious disadvantage of the MAC is peripherals! The small
.rob/ibm> foot print becomes a disaster if you try to expand. The PC naturally
.rob/ibm> accepts expansion, as it was designed to. The MAC "Claims" to know
.rob/ibm> what people want;
.rob/ibm> the early ads said "We spent 1000's of hours teaching a computer chip
.rob/ibm> about people". It didn't teach it that people are different, have
.rob/ibm> different needs,and need different things. NO ADAPTABILITY TO THE
.rob/ibm> INDIVIDUAL AND INDIVIDUAL NEEDS!
.rob/ibm> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> ga, takada
.takada/mod> re: personal computers, we can mean here, MAC and PC,
.takada/mod> go ahead.
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> Mac team will now make a statement about the advantages of the Mac
.ptr/Mod> ga, linda
.Linda/Mac> ok
.Linda/Mac> The following was the opening statement I prepared
.Linda/Mac> about the advantages of the Mac
.Linda/Mac> The most obvious advantage of the Macintosh is its approach
.Linda/Mac> to dealing with the integration of text and graphics. Besides
.Linda/Mac> being simply machines to perform calculations and digest
.Linda/Mac> financial data, computers can be useful in performing many
.Linda/Mac> tasks. Since the introduction of the Macintosh Personal
.Linda/Mac> Computer, we have changed and dramatically increased the types
.Linda/Mac> of concepts and problems for which computers are useful.
.Linda/Mac> Hidden within the rich read-only memory of the Macintosh are
.Linda/Mac> tools which allow programmers to make the computer seem to
.Linda/Mac> respond to _us_.
.Linda/Mac> The Macintosh, in short, has taken the computer out of the
.Linda/Mac> realm of numbercrunching without sacrificing speed when
.Linda/Mac> numbercrunching when required. It has put the computer into
.Linda/Mac> the hands of people creative in other ways.
.Linda/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ... rebuttal from the IBM team?
.ptr/Mod> ga, rob
.rob/ibm> change is only expected. The PC changed the world by making
.rob/ibm> computers a household item. Many other programs now integrate text
.rob/ibm> and graphics. Lotus did long before the MAC. The MAC simply
.rob/ibm> borrowed a lot of concepts about ICONS from another computer.
.rob/ibm> Also, the PC AT is MUCH faster than a MAC.
.rob/ibm> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ... comments?
.ptr/Mod> ga, cec
.*Cec/IBM> Ok. There is no debating the MAC has good Graphics and text.
.*Cec/IBM> I can do the same thing on a PC using the GEM desktop operating
.*Cec/IBM> system. Can the Mac combine the text and graphics into a
.*Cec/IBM> realistic business application?
.*Cec/IBM> ga
.bev/MAC> !
.ptr/Mod> ga, bev
.bev/MAC> ok
.bev/MAC> The GEM!--talk about borrowing)
.bev/MAC> The GEM can only penetrate skin deep into an application.
.bev/MAC> After that it's all a fake--nowhere to go but back to commands!
.bev/MAC> ga
.*Cec/IBM> !
.ptr/Mod> ga, cec
.*Cec/IBM> GEM does not go skin deep. I can go from GEM to an application
.*Cec/IBM> program say written in COBOL. Using BAT files, I can control
.*Cec/IBM> the system in any way I like. I can fire off a lot of
.*Cec/IBM> applications, then return to the GEM mode very easily.
.*Cec/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> ga, linda
.Linda/Mac> ok
.Linda/Mac> First ... you have to WRITE BAT files; not just point and click.
.Linda/Mac> Have you actually USED EXCEL yet and seen how you can develop a
.Linda/Mac> macro without knowing ANY command language at all?
.Linda/Mac> Second, what do you mean by a real business application?
.Linda/Mac> EXCEL will blow 1-2-3 or Symphony out of the water with its ease of
.Linda/Mac> use and power.
.Linda/Mac> EXCEL is not only easier, but it is far more powerful than 1-2-3.
.Linda/Mac> And, the Mac also has plenty of dedicated accounting programs.
.Linda/Mac> They work, and they don't take a Ph.D. to operate.
.Linda/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> ga, Chris
.-Chris/IBM> I'am glad Linda brought up the Mouse...
.-Chris/IBM> that alone could fill up the book on Disadvantages..
.-Chris/IBM> Number one you need a surface area to work that thing, second you
.-Chris/IBM> need to buy sandpaper or a mat so the thing can roll, otherwise it
.-Chris/IBM> won't roll right, third...
.bev/MAC> !
.-Chris/IBM> who wants to roll a mouse around, it means you have to clear your
.-Chris/IBM> desk so if you're working on EXCEL for example..
.chip/Mac> !
.bev/MAC> !!
.-Chris/IBM> you must move all your papers away clear of the mouse. Most
.-Chris/IBM> business Indivuals aren't interested in rolling a mouse around,
.-Chris/IBM> I could go on and on.
.-Chris/IBM> done
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> ga, bev
.bev/MAC> You can roll the mouse very well on the external drive!
.bev/MAC> Besides-- even with mouse, the Mac takes up less room!
.bev/MAC> ga
.-Chris/IBM> !
.ptr/Mod> chip, quick comment, then Chris
.chip/Mac> ok
.-Chris/IBM> Not much space on the Disk drive to roam around on, end up
.-Chris/IBM> falling off!
.-Chris/IBM> ga
.chip/Mac> I find the biggest advantage of the mouse is for software that you
.chip/Mac> haven't used in a while, with the mouse, instead of going thru the
.chip/Mac> manual for an hour or so you can click your way thru the program
.chip/Mac> until you get re-acclimated to it.
.chip/Mac> ga
.chip/Mac> ?
.ptr/Mod> ok ... rob, ga
.bev/MAC> ?
.rob/ibm> Ok, i have two parts.
.bev/MAC> ?
.rob/ibm> I will send the first part, pause to let you read it, and send the
second part.
.rob/ibm> ok
.rob/ibm> The MAC has a very good software front end. It allows integration
.rob/ibm> of programs written to interact with that front end. The PC did not
.rob/ibm> have a front end similar to the MAC. Therefore, there is no
.rob/ibm> software for it. When you are talking about how
.rob/ibm> MAC is, you are really talking about software. I have bought, and
.rob/ibm> written software that makes my PC as friendly as a MAC. I don't want
.rob/ibm> pull down windows. They are nice. Like in framework, but they get
.rob/ibm> in the way of "linear thinking" such as in "getting the
.rob/ibm> job done". For doing "things" like housekeeping, menus are nice.
.rob/ibm> Everything is in front of you, and laid out. BUT it is hard to go
.rob/ibm> from one chore to the next with a COMMAND. The PC hardware will
.rob/ibm> allow for a front end like the MAC. And it has been shown that
.rob/ibm> these "add on" front ends will run faster than on the MAC
.rob/ibm> It is not the MAC, as a machine that is so good. It is the software
.rob/ibm> front end that is what people like. Software can be written. People
.rob/ibm> are writing for the IBM. BUT a good machine is hard to make.
.rob/ibm> People CAN'T make their own machines. Making a new machine
.rob/ibm> takes more than the average person or even fairly large company can
.rob/ibm> do. Software can be written to take advantage of a good machine.
.rob/ibm> Now, what I am saying, is that the MAC is limited hardware wise.
.rob/ibm> The glitzy front end obscures that for most.
.rob/ibm> IBM is UNLIMITED hardware wise. What is needed is software.
.rob/ibm> I have seen amazing things done on a TRS model 100 portable.
.rob/ibm> The machine is basic, it is the software that excels. If you
.rob/ibm> take a machine that is hardware excellent, like the PC, to which
.rob/ibm> everyone and their brother is trying to connect anything they can
.rob/ibm> think of, all that is needed is software. Like a good book,
.rob/ibm> software takes time, but it will come.
.rob/ibm> ok, ready to take the flack
.ptr/Mod> ok ... please raise your hands now to rebut rob's statement
.ptr/Mod> or any more comments on mouse chauvinism
.bev/MAC> !
.Linda/Mac> ?
.bev/MAC> !
.chip/Mac> !
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> ga, bev
.bev/MAC> ok...
.bev/MAC> The point about the MOUSE and SOFTWARE is that all software
.bev/MAC> virtually maintains the MAC user interface.
.bev/MAC> What good are 1,000 IBM software writers
.bev/MAC> writing l,000 different sets of commands?
.bev/MAC> ga
.ptr/Mod> ga, linda
.Linda/Mac> ok
.Linda/Mac> The IBM team was mentioning the software aspect of the Mac
.Linda/Mac> I discussed that briefly earlier. While it is true that the IBM
.Linda/Mac> can EMULATE a Mac, but the hardware on the IBM doesn't support
.Linda/Mac> doing Quickdraw operations at any reasonable speed. Fact is,
.Linda/Mac> if things were easy to do on an IBM, Microsoft would already have
.Linda/Mac> WINDOWS out the door months ago. The mac was designed from the
.Linda/Mac> bottom up to handle "Mac-like" software, and it does it
.Linda/Mac> consistently. Try to run Symphony the same way you use Wordstar.
.Linda/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> ga, chip
.chip/Mac> ok
.chip/Mac> It is also true that the only real improvements that IBM has made..
.chip/Mac> in the recent past to the PCs front end have been to *MIMICK* the
.chip/Mac> macintosh. If it wasn't for the Mac, IBM would still be sitting on
.chip/Mac> their duffs... and they don't even do a very clean job of mimicking
.chip/Mac> it, because the IBM is not designed to be a Mac, such as the three
.chip/Mac> button mouse, what are the three buttons for....Yes, No and...Maybe?
.chip/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> ga, rob
.rob/ibm>
.rob/ibm> The good is, that 1000 programmers each have their own ideas. There
.rob/ibm> are 1000 programmers for the IBM. How many for the MAC?
.rob/ibm> Software stores have 10x as much for the PC as for the MAC.
.rob/ibm> The problem with windows is that IBM and Microsoft were hammering out
.rob/ibm> a standard. Also, IBM changed the chip and has an 80386 in the works,
.rob/ibm> so that had to be taken into account. Flexibility. IBM is flexible.
.rob/ibm> Maybe too flexible. BUT, their PC division is in better shape than
.rob/ibm> Apple's. As for "mimicking" the MAC. The Mac borrowed from someone
.rob/ibm> else. People want pull down windows and Icons, IBM will give it to
.rob/ibm> them... BUT IBM won't take away a "direct" capability either.
.rob/ibm> IBM's only "real" improvements haven't been to imitate the MAC,
.rob/ibm> but expand the software and options
.rob/ibm> New machines, "Personally developed software" (Much of which I used
.rob/ibm> while at IBM under an "Internal Use Only Label")
.rob/ibm> I can say that the MAC "Borrowed from the IBM" under those conditions.
.rob/ibm> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ... the floor is open for comments
.ptr/Mod> ga, chip
.chip/Mac> The Mac is not limited to software which is in the Finder tradition
.chip/Mac> it can also be programmed to run as a UNIX terminal such as the
.chip/Mac> "Z" editor that is used in Aztec C to mimick 'vi' from UNIX, but
.chip/Mac> that is not its purpose. it does what it does well, because it
.chip/Mac> was designed from the ground up to be a friendly, usable machine.
.chip/Mac> ga
.*Cec/IBM> ?
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> Takada must leave soon ... but we will continue
.ptr/Mod> Mas, have you got any parting words for us?
.ptr/Mod> ga, Mas
.takada/mod> yes, i hate to leave a french leave. but i must work as a sunday
day news editor. i will read the rest by transcripts
.bev/MAC> Thank you, Mas
.Linda/Mac> Bye, Mas. Thanks.
.-Chris/IBM> Yes Thanks Mas !!
.*Cec/IBM> Thanks Mas
.takada/mod> thanks for everything, and i will email you later. sorry for
interruption. and sayonara for now from tokyo japan
.takada/mod> bye
.chip/Mac> Nite mas, sayonara
.bev/MAC> goodnight.
.ptr/Mod> thank you mas, good day
.ptr/Mod> ok, ga, cec
.*Cec/IBM> Sorry about line problems in Iowa. I saw MAC referred to as user
.*Cec/IBM> friendly and then all of a sudden UNIX and C cropped up. I don't
.*Cec/IBM> find that any different than my BAT file comments and GEM.
.*Cec/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> comments from the Mac team?
.chip/Mac> !
.ptr/Mod> ga, chip
.chip/Mac> The point was in response to rob's implication that the Mac was
.chip/Mac> limited to its "front end".
.chip/Mac> (excuse me too, I got dumped twice by Uninet and am a little lost
.chip/Mac> here) but game....ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> <conferring with the debate teams>
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> to keep the flow proceeding ... we will continue to topic 4
.ptr/Mod> and later during the wrapup, come back to any further comments about
advantages/disadvantages
.ptr/Mod> since we are now 2 hours into the debate!
.ptr/Mod> so ...
.ptr/Mod> the next topic is
.ptr/Mod> Prospects for the future
.ptr/Mod> Mac team first ... ga, Mac team
.bev/MAC> ok...
.bev/MAC> (This is extemporaneous, so bear with me... my upload isn't working).
.bev/MAC> The Dream Machine of the Future will be a direct descendent of the
.bev/MAC> Mac. (read Ashley Montague "The Ascent of MAC")
.bev/MAC> The key in standards will be the Human Factors consideration
.bev/MAC> engineering.
.bev/MAC> Those who can't or won't type, like executives, children, and some
.bev/MAC> professionals, will not tolerate memorizing more commands for
.bev/MAC> applications yet to come.
.bev/MAC> By the l990's, the major use of computers will be in expert systems.
.bev/MAC> Both the ready made applications and the user defined systems will NOT
.bev/MAC> be possible with long command sets! What Alan Kay calls the "user
.bev/MAC> illusion" will have to be very easy to imagine/accomplish in expert
.bev/MAC> systems, with graphic and motor control (finger pointing) or voice
.bev/MAC> control of icons. ga
.*Cec/IBM> ?
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> IBM team rebuts ... ga,cec
.*Cec/IBM> Ok. All that kinda rolled off my screen. First the 1990 comment
.*Cec/IBM> This smacks of the UNIVAC people in the 40s saying only 5 such
.*Cec/IBM> machines would be needed for the rest of time. We will never
.*Cec/IBM> get out of the world of ready made applications and the user
.*Cec/IBM> defined systems. Next comment. The MAC may be nice for executives
.*Cec/IBM> (blessed are they who run around in circles) and children. These
.*Cec/IBM> people represent only a small percentage of the people who will
.*Cec/IBM> continue to use computers!>
.*Cec/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> IBM team continues to rebut?
.ptr/Mod> ga, chris
.-Chris/IBM> A continuation of what Cec has already said.
.-Chris/IBM> Most executives don't have time to wait for a ICON or Window to be
.-Chris/IBM> drawn-up on the screen to do what they want, when typing in a
.-Chris/IBM> command makes the process faster. Same as most people don't use
.-Chris/IBM> the Menus here on DELPHI, but rather use the command prompt.
.-Chris/IBM> Also Somebody asked what the 3 buttons on the IBM Mouse (or whoever
.-Chris/IBM> makes it) are for. Good Question, I don't use the mouse. Let me
.-Chris/IBM> ask the MAC team this tho: is a Yes 1 click, No 2 clicks,
.-Chris/IBM> Maybe 3 clicks?
.-Chris/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> ga, rob (last IBM rebut)
.rob/ibm> Future....
.rob/ibm> The PC already has fancy dedicated keyboards. Mice, light pens,
.rob/ibm> tactile feedback, touch screens, etc.
.rob/ibm> I am waiting for a control helmet like on "Blue Thunder" so we
.rob/ibm> can control our PC the way we do fighter planes
.rob/ibm> The PC has already been shown to excell in AI, and expert systems.
.rob/ibm> 15 GOOD AI development tools exist
.rob/ibm> Video cameras, analog input, laser disks for image/data storage
.rob/ibm> and similar technologies will raise the limits of the PC to
.rob/ibm> heights I can't even imagine.
.rob/ibm> The speed of PC is fast, and getting faster. The 80386 will put
.rob/ibm> the capacity of a mainframe on your desk. In fact, the 80386 will
.rob/ibm> PC will be BIGGER than a mainframe since most mainframes do not
.rob/ibm> have 16M of ram per processing chip.
.rob/ibm> As technology advances, and more people use it, more ideas will
.rob/ibm> arise, and more people will jump in to fill the gap.
.rob/ibm> The MAC is a Machine looking for a Job. It was a "Let me get
.rob/ibm> one up on IBM" gamble, and it really hasn't paid off. Apple
.rob/ibm> has tried to compete with IBM on IBM's turf, rather than creating
.rob/ibm> markets specifically for their machines the way CRAY, Digital,
.rob/ibm> and Tandy do.
.rob/ibm> Apple wil probable come around to the IBM standard the way IBM
.rob/ibm> has adopted Microsoft and other vendors in their future plans.
.ptr/Mod> ga, linda
.Linda/Mac> ok
.Linda/Mac> Starting from the most recent comments and working backwards...
.Linda/Mac> The 68020 (future Mac processor) will also put the power of a
.Linda/Mac> mainframe on your desk. The 68000 is already close.
.Linda/Mac> You can't tell me that IBM has anything proprietary they
.Linda/Mac> are buying from chip manufacturers that the Mac doesn't or can't
.Linda/Mac> eventually add.
.Linda/Mac> A computer is a computer is a computer when it comes down to bits
.Linda/Mac> and bytes.
.*Cec/IBM> ?
.Linda/Mac> Next, to answer the mouse question, one click means yes, two mean
.Linda/Mac> even a stronger next, and three mean "all the way". I for one
.Linda/Mac> never want to say "no" or "maybe" to MY computer!
.Linda/Mac> Hold a sec...
.Linda/Mac> Looking back at old comments...
.Linda/Mac> back
.Linda/Mac> And lastly, the Mac has the capacity (and EXCEL and WORD already
.Linda/Mac> take advantage) to make menu options available without the mouse,
.Linda/Mac> using the control key. (By the way, cursor movement can also be
.Linda/Mac> controlled from the keyboard if the program allows for it.)
.Linda/Mac> You aren't required to use the Mac in one mode only. Desk
.Linda/Mac> accessories for the Mac already allow launching programs very
.Linda/Mac> quickly from other programs, and programs like Switcher (and
.Linda/Mac> probably even more truly multitaksing programs) allow you to work
.Linda/Mac> in many programs at once.
.Linda/Mac> In short...
.Linda/Mac> I thought when I bought my Mac that I'd get sick of the finder
.Linda/Mac> quickly, but now I find that it is SO simple that it is a CLASSIC
.Linda/Mac> that will endure.
.Linda/Mac> Question
.Linda/Mac> for the IBM team...
.Linda/Mac> how much have you people actually USED a Mac and how much of what
.Linda/Mac> you say comes from 'what you've heard' and the "stereotype" of the
.Linda/Mac> cute but weak Mac?
.Linda/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.bev/MAC> ?
.ptr/Mod> chip, ga
.chip/Mac> Ok
.chip/Mac> Like it or not, the Mac is the first PC that is truly dedicated to
.chip/Mac> what the future holds in the way of computers. As the 'Baggage' for
.chip/Mac> the Menu and Icon driven systems gets 'cheaper' to carry (as speed
.chip/Mac> increases) there will be a major movement to this type of system
.chip/Mac> since an Icon driven enviroment does not have restrictions of
.chip/Mac> language or *age*. The age restriction I know for a personal fact to
.chip/Mac> not be a factor because my four and five year old nephews are
.chip/Mac> constantly asking if they can come to my house and play with my
.chip/Mac> 'ca'puter ... this is what the future is really about
.chip/Mac> removing all the barriers that keeps people intimated by foreign
.chip/Mac> machinery.
.chip/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> bev, ga
.bev/MAC> Two main points...
.bev/MAC> One: to the extent that computers in the future will have to be
.bev/MAC> multinational, ICONS and not language commnads will take precedence.
.bev/MAC> Two:
.bev/MAC> Where do innovations come from? Look at the history of how the MAC vs.
.bev/MAC> the IBM was developed: Andy Hertzfeld and Wozniak vs. who for the
.bev/MAC> IBM??? Mac type people respond quickly and fluidly to demands for
.bev/MAC> change. IBM represents all that is stodgy, monolithic, conservative
.bev/MAC> and tentative about American (esp corporate) culture.
.bev/MAC> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ... second round rebuts from IBM team ... ga
.ptr/Mod> ga, rob
.rob/ibm> OK, this is also in two parts. I will again pause after the first
one.
.rob/ibm> I make two distinct points, I hope.
.rob/ibm> Evolution, change, and survival.
.rob/ibm> The MAC was designed to be ONE thing. EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE.
.rob/ibm> The PC was designed to be many things. EVERYTHING. Now
.rob/ibm> and in the future.
.rob/ibm> The MAC must CHANGE to survive. The PC must only EVOLVE.
.rob/ibm> The MAC is a dedicated machine. It made a point. A strong one.
.rob/ibm> But so did the dinosaurs. They became the dominant life form,
.rob/ibm> started a trend in evolution, but died off.
.rob/ibm> They might have been the most sucessful higher life form ever,
.rob/ibm> but they didn't make it.
.rob/ibm> The MAC is no where nearly as sucessful, but it started a trend.
.rob/ibm> It too will die off, leaving only its legacy. It was poorly
.rob/ibm> adapted to survival when the going got tough. The dinosaurs
.rob/ibm> couldn't adapt to the changing climate, and neither will the
.rob/ibm> MAC. It will succumb to the fact that it is not as adaptable to
.rob/ibm> the changing climate in PC's as the The PC is. (Maybe it is
.rob/ibm> Apple that is not responsive, any way, the MAC will be a casualty.)
.rob/ibm> IBM adapted to the changing needs by creating the BOCA division.
.rob/ibm> It was a rengade in the company, but necessary.
.rob/ibm> That is my point. Apple can buy 3rd party, and upgrade.
.rob/ibm> But for Apple to add it, the MAC is no longer a MAC.
.rob/ibm> The 8088,80288 and 80388 are supersets of one another.
.rob/ibm> NOT NEW CHIPS!
.rob/ibm> Apple can buy, and grow, but they must play ball with the
.rob/ibm> rest. It is no longer possible to do what apple wants and
.rob/ibm> COMPETE AGAINST IBM, you compete WITH them.
.rob/ibm> The MAC has a lot of POTENTIAL. None of it is realized. No vendors
.rob/ibm> support it all. The PC is all there. Vendors are doing things with
.rob/ibm> a PC that the PC isn't supposed to do!!! The heck with what it
.rob/ibm> is supposed to do, do it anyway!
.rob/ibm> Also, the 80386, the new generation does not slow down in
.rob/ibm> multiasking mode, since it is all HARDWARE.
.rob/ibm> The MAC begins to crawl. The AT slows down too, but not as slow
.rob/ibm> as a MAC.
.rob/ibm> The PC's also have REAL expandability, not LOGICAL or whatever
.rob/ibm> term Apple uses to describe sticking wires, cables, boosters,
.rob/ibm> etc into the back of the MAC and sticking stuff next to it...etc.
.rob/ibm> I think I'm done.
.*Cec/IBM> ?
.ptr/Mod> ga, cec
.*Cec/IBM> Ok. Show me a hard disk on the MAC. Show me the ability to
.*Cec/IBM> expand hardware. Show me the ability to support Fourth Generation
.*Cec/IBM> Languages (4GL) on the MAC. All of this is going to take
.*Cec/IBM> the ability to expand a system. In my opinion, the MAC is box
.*Cec/IBM> limited in that it has reached its physical limit to add things.
.*Cec/IBM> I keep hearing about EXCEL and WORD on the MAC. Show me database
.*Cec/IBM> management systems such as ORACLE or INFORMIX.
.*Cec/IBM> Icons, big deal. They are on the PC if that is what turns you
.*Cec/IBM> On. etc. etc. etc.
.*Cec/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> any other rebuttal from the IBM team?
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> we will move on the topic five, and once again, any unsatisfied urge
to rebut the rebuttals to the rebuttals can be held until after this last
formal topic
.ptr/Mod> the topic is "Thoughts and feelings about these two great institutions
in modern technological times"
.ptr/Mod> IBM team goes first ... ga, IBM
.*Cec/IBM> Ok. Our stuff is in three parts. Peter tell me ga after each part
.*Cec/IBM> so the MAC side can read it. Part 1 follows
.*Cec/IBM> We interpret the two great institutions as being IBM
.*Cec/IBM> and Apple Computer. The wide acceptance of the Apple line
.*Cec/IBM> of computers does not have to be debated, and let's face
.*Cec/IBM> it, the wider acceptance of the IBM line of computers is
.*Cec/IBM> often attributed to the fact that the box is labeled IBM.
.*Cec/IBM> This speaks well for IBM in its continuing commitment to
.*Cec/IBM> provide state of the art equipment compatible with the
.*Cec/IBM> needs of the user industry. The prospects for IBM are
.*Cec/IBM> limited only by the market.That was the first part.
.*Cec/IBM> Tell me when to ga Peter
.ptr/Mod> ga, cec
.*Cec/IBM> We do have some concerns about Apple Computer because
.*Cec/IBM> they have not learned to compete in a rapidly growing
.*Cec/IBM> industry. This is evidenced by the ever decreasing number
.*Cec/IBM> of articles on Apple computers in major magazines such as
.*Cec/IBM> Datamation, InfoWorld, etc. Apple tends toward trendy
.*Cec/IBM> hardware and software which is many times ahead of its time
.*Cec/IBM> and, therefore, the user world is reluctant to commit
.*Cec/IBM> themselves to something like the LISA until someone else
.*Cec/IBM> takes a chance and becomes the guinea pig.
.*Cec/IBM> We agree that APPLE made important inroads at a time
.*Cec/IBM> when such things were needed. They pioneered open
.*Cec/IBM> architecture which gave them a large penetration, then
.*Cec/IBM> closed the architecture on the MAC. They should have
.*Cec/IBM> directed their efforts into creating a mainstream
.*Cec/IBM> machine.
.*Cec/IBM> One more part
.ptr/Mod> ga,cec
.bev/MAC> !
.*Cec/IBM> The key to success for any company is its sales force.
.*Cec/IBM> Until Apple Computer develops a sales force beyond the
.*Cec/IBM> computer store level, it can not hope to fully compete with
.*Cec/IBM> IBM who also uses computer stores, but more importantly,
.*Cec/IBM> uses its own internal sales force when it comes to selling
.*Cec/IBM> to large corporations.
.*Cec/IBM> Done, GA
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> rebuttal from the Mac team
.Linda/Mac> !
.ptr/Mod> ga, bev
.bev/MAC> In the first place..
.bev/MAC> One reason why businesses lean to IBM is the fear of new things and
.bev/MAC> the fear to experiment. Once they realize computing will be here to
.bev/MAC> stay, they will lean toward what most employees want--ease of use,
.bev/MAC> This is happening in the financial district of San Francisco
.bev/MAC> putting their MACS out in the front windown (PAC TEL, for one) while
.bev/MAC> IBM recedes into the corner for lack of popularity.
.bev/MAC> The reality is also that many offices have a mixture of machines
.bev/MAC> and an odd synthesis of some MAC stations and some IBM stations.
.bev/MAC> (parenthetically, there have been no eye/vision problems with the MAC!
.bev/MAC> No one can look at the IBM screen 8 hrs/day.)
.bev/MAC> Apple is moving ahead with sales, because people LIKE them not
.bev/MAC> because they have to react w/ economic fear or fear of conformance.
.bev/MAC> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> ga, linda
.Linda/Mac> ok
.Linda/Mac> Apple found that people interacting with computers
.Linda/Mac> is a much more delicate thing than just "interacting with a
.Linda/Mac> box". They had trouble INITIALLY using their sales force to
.Linda/Mac> penetrate the Fortune 500 because the IBM had a couple of years
.Linda/Mac> head-start. However, have you noticed what's happening lately?
.Linda/Mac> I know the IBM people won't want to hear this, but the Mac has
.Linda/Mac> been the best selling computer for about eight weeks in a row now.
.Linda/Mac> People are beginning to get just ONE in the office, and then
.Linda/Mac> no one else wants to use their IBM anymore. Even though they've
.Linda/Mac> learned the IBM the hard way already.
.Linda/Mac> It is important to look at what people WANT and what they ARE GIVEN.
.Linda/Mac> The computer industry has ballooned to the point where purchasing
.Linda/Mac> departments of companies are having trouble
.Linda/Mac> keeping up with what's new. They only got to know the IBM
.Linda/Mac> a little while ago (even two or three years is just a little
.Linda/Mac> while ago), and they're only now seeing what the Mac
.Linda/Mac> can do. Apple's sales have turned around; IBM's haven't
.Linda/Mac> Apple IS being innovative, and you'll see that in January.
.Linda/Mac> There are already a few VERY GOOD hard disks for the Mac, although
.Linda/Mac> they are expensive, and the Apple HD20 out in a few months in
.Linda/Mac> realistic quantities, will make the Mac even more convenient
.Linda/Mac> to use with truly hierarchical files. Again, I ask the IBM team
.Linda/Mac> directly. I've used WORDSTAR and WORD and DOS and PCBASIC.
.Linda/Mac> (or BasicA)) quite a bit before getting my Mac.
.Linda/Mac> Have you used Excel for a day or more? Have you used FileVision?
.Linda/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> any more rebuttal from the mac team?
.ptr/Mod> ga, chip
.*Cec/IBM> ?
.*Cec/IBM> ?
.ptr/Mod> sorry for the delay
.ptr/Mod> well, chip is making a great speech in group 4 .... wish you could see
it <grin>
.chip/Mac> am I 'here now?
.chip/Mac> should I start again?
.-Chris/IBM> Please do
.chip/Mac> <sorry>
.-Chris/IBM> we didn't see what you said
.ptr/Mod> ok, care to try again, chip?
.chip/Mac> OK, <grin>
.chip/Mac> Hee hee, boy that has to be the best screwup of the day <blush>
.chip/Mac> Ok
.chip/Mac> The question was of the future, and I must agree with the IBM team's
.chip/Mac> assessment that the Apple line has beeen too innovative for its own
.chip/Mac> good at times, but it is this kind of innovation that has gotten the
.chip/Mac> computer industry off its duff and made great advances for the good
.chip/Mac> of all of us. The recent changes that have come about at Apple will
.chip/Mac> make it a better company to serve the consumer of the future.
.chip/Mac> Certainly, Apple will never be as big as IBM, or do we even *want*
.chip/Mac> it to be as big as IBM. No, for then it will lose the foresight that
.chip/Mac> has made it the great company that it is today, a leader of
.chip/Mac> innovative designs, with the consumer the first concern.
.chip/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> IBM team is on again ... who goes first?
.*Cec/IBM> Go rob
.rob/ibm> set five
.rob/ibm> Thoughts about these institutions.
.rob/ibm> The IBM EGA makes the PC a thing of beauty.
.rob/ibm> As enhanced software capabilities
.rob/ibm> arrive, a PC will be there to meet the challenge and exceed.
.rob/ibm> There are MANY harddisks for the PC's, and the capacity gets
.rob/ibm> larger each time. Like I said, you can now meld several smaller
.rob/ibm> disks into one large one, too.
.rob/ibm> I never said the Apple was too innovative. I said it broke new
.rob/ibm> ground. Not that that ground NEEDED to be broken, it just did.
.rob/ibm> Had apple used a little more common sense, and created a real
.rob/ibm> innovative machine, such as an IBM standard Apple, with more power
.rob/ibm> and features for the money, with the MAC front end, it would be a
.rob/ibm> winner
.rob/ibm> Apple is not too innovative for its own good. It was the wrong
.rob/ibm> innovation for Apple's good.
.rob/ibm> Innovation is finding a need and filling it OR creating a need and
.rob/ibm> then filling it. Apple created a need, and is letting IBM go and
.rob/ibm> fill it. That is bad business
.rob/ibm> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ... more rebuttal? (IBM side rebuts)
.ptr/Mod> ok, IBM side declines further rebuttal
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> i would like now to continue the debate more informally
.ptr/Mod> I want each side to pose a short question
.ptr/Mod> several sentences will do
.ptr/Mod> and have the other side rebut
.ptr/Mod> then the other sides poses a question
.ptr/Mod> and the first side rebuts
.ptr/Mod> no restriction on topics
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
ROLL by .ptr/Mod> (1d2) 1/2
.ptr/Mod> IBM gets first crack again ... ga, IBM
GROUP LIST: 21:17:35
1) DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC!
ptr/Mod, -Chris/IBM, rob/ibm, bev/MAC, Linda/Mac, MOUSEKETEER, chip/Mac,
*Cec/IBM, mark/mac
3) AUDIENCE (OK TO TALK HERE)
ptr/Mod, MOUSEKETEER, SMC
4) MAC TEAM PRIVATE
ptr/Mod, bev/MAC, Linda/Mac, chip/Mac
5) IBM TEAM PRIVATE
ptr/Mod, rob/ibm, *Cec/IBM, -Chris/IBM
- idle
AVAILABLE LIST: () = in conf
(FRETWELL), (SMC), (BEVERLEYKANE), (MOUSEKETEER), (PEABO), (NANOCHIP),
(PUGDOG), (MFISCHER), (DEOGBURN), (LMJC)
------ [10 in this area]
.ptr/Mod> a slight delay, while the IBM side thinks
.ptr/Mod> ga, rob
.rob/ibm> We have heard glorious, passionate ravings from your side over the
.rob/ibm> beauty of the MAC.
.rob/ibm> Now, come down from the clouds a little, and give us a realistic,
.rob/ibm> user's view of the shortcomings of the machine.
.rob/ibm> I don't want to put ideas in your head, but an example would be
.rob/ibm> the one internal drive, large operating system, etc.
.rob/ibm> and maybe even a lack of the wide variety of programs as on the IBM,
.rob/ibm> I would like a fair critique.
.rob/ibm> ga
.chip/Mac> !
.Linda/Mac> ?
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> (rob that was a little longer that I am looking for, but OK ...)
.ptr/Mod> ga, chip
.chip/Mac> Certainly the Mac should have been readily expandable, but this
.chip/Mac> fact has not prevented it from greatly increasing in power, it has
.chip/Mac> slowed the process down somewhat though, and narrowed the
.chip/Mac> opportunities available to the owner for methods to expand it, but
.chip/Mac> this 'problem' will be fully addressed in January, when the
.chip/Mac> Multi Mac is made available
.chip/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> (try to keep both questions and aswers brief, folks ... this is
blitzkrieg debating we are into now)
.ptr/Mod> Mac team has a question, ga Mac team
.Linda/Mac> ok
.Linda/Mac> Would you ever consider showing your IBM to your boy/girl friend on
your first date?
.Linda/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok, rebutal from the IBM team?
.-Chris/IBM> !
.ptr/Mod> ga, chris
.-Chris/IBM> well not sure why you asked, but if we happened to be at work
.-Chris/IBM> where my IBM PC is, Yes I would.
.-Chris/IBM> most say it looks better and more powerful than the Owl does.
.-Chris/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> pause for a second ... people on both teams have had some net trouble
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> IBM team, pose a question when ready
.*CEC/IBM> Go guys
.bev/MAC> ?
.rob/ibm> If you have compared an MAC resolution to an IBM EGA, would you still
buy a MAC?
.rob/ibm> I don't see color on a MAC, but I hear about it ... MAYBE.
.rob/ibm> ga
.bev/MAC> !
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> rebuttal from mac team
.Linda/Mac> ?
.ptr/Mod> ga, linda
.Linda/Mac> ok
.Linda/Mac> Many people with whom I've conversed tell me that they like a B&W
.Linda/Mac> screen better, at least at times.
.chip/Mac> !
.bev/MAC> ?
.Linda/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> IBM team
.ptr/Mod> <lets quit with the ? and ! please>
.rob/ibm> Most pick B&W cause of resolution.
.rob/ibm> After an EGA, I never want to see B&W again!
.chip/Mac> What *is* an EGA?
.rob/ibm> Its only sour grapes and insufficient tech that keep people in B&W
.Linda/Mac> ?
.rob/ibm> (And I PREFER B&W photos to color...well, noone's perfect)
.*CEC/IBM> EGA stands for Enhanced Graphics Adapter. special monitor card for
IBM
.chip/Mac> Thanks CEC
.ptr/Mod> ok ... IBM team ... you have the floor to make another point
.chip/Mac> Question, mostly a curiousity...
.chip/Mac> <sorry>
.*CEC/IBM> What is your question chip?
.chip/Mac> What is the youngest person anyone on the IBM team has seen operate
(game or otherwise) an IBM PC?
.rob/ibm> do you wish the mac was in a bigger box, with more real expansion, and
didn't look so much like an owl?
.-Chris/IBM> I have indeed. The youngest I have seen were 4th Graders at the
.-Chris/IBM> local Elementary School Nearby us. The School purchased the PC's
.-Chris/IBM> over the summer and has a computer program for 4th-6th graders.
.-Chris/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> chip, ga
.chip/Mac> Thank you, I was curious, as my one nephew was 4 yrs, one month when
he was playing games and doing macPaint graphics on this.
.-Chris/IBM> well personally I don't want anyone touching my machine.
.chip/Mac> I've heard of younger too, it is the Icons and the pull down menus.
they take right to it.
.-Chris/IBM> thanks
.chip/Mac> thank you.
.-Chris/IBM> who's leaving?
.rob/ibm> I have to go.
.-Chris/IBM> Bye Rob, thanks for your help
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.bev/MAC> Bye Rob.
.rob/ibm> I have midterms next week, and this has been going on since about 5
.chip/Mac> Nite ROB!
.chip/Mac> See ya in ArtPro!
.rob/ibm> I hope cec will be able to stay on.
.ptr/Mod> i'm gonna call a pause again for a minute
.ptr/Mod> Cec is having lots of uninet trouuble
.rob/ibm> PTR, if anythink I uploaded didn't make it, I can send it to you in
the mail.
.chip/Mac> Cec> I came in thru Tymnet!
.ptr/Mod> ok rob
.rob/ibm> just give me a note, and I'll send my sends...
.chip/Mac> and I am *here*
.rob/ibm> good night all, sorry, but this was a lot of fun.
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> does anyone have any objection to opening the discussion to the
audience?
.-Chris/IBM> no
.Linda/Mac> no
.bev/MAC> Ga audience.
.ptr/Mod> ok ... everyone type /ex until you get back to the CONFERENCE> prompt,
then type /J 1
.ptr/Mod> ** No group password **
.ptr/Mod> ** Group is not Quiet **
** chip/Mac just joined DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC! (9 members now) **
MOUSEKETEER> - signed off -
** MOUSEKETEER just joined DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC! (9 members now) **
** bev/MAC just joined DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC! (10 members now) **
.bev/MAC> Hello everyone!
.mark/mac> - signed off -
SMC> hello
.Linda/Mac> Hey, guys, we still want our MAC forum, private, don't we?
.chip/Mac> AWRIIGGGGGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!
** mark/mac just joined DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC! (10 members now) **
.*CEC/IBM> Am I back in again
MOUSEKETEER> Hey, nice debate!
.*CEC/IBM> - signed off -
.bev/MAC> We still have /4, Linda
** *CEC/IBM just joined DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC! (10 members now) **
.Linda/Mac> Why do I have to exit 4?
.chip/Mac> Linda Ok good idea
.Linda/Mac> I still want a MAC place.
.bev/MAC> You can go back w/ the passrd.
.*CEC/IBM> Is this debate finished
.Linda/Mac> Yeah, but why exit in the first place?
.bev/MAC> Cec> No, the audience is joining in!
SMC> no now you have to face the real people
.ptr/Mod> hold on a sec
.Linda/Mac> Yes, but we can still discuss things behind the scenes as we're
answering the audience.
.bev/MAC> There are only 10 people in CO, including us.
.rob/ibm> - signed off -
.bev/MAC> Hi Mark!
MOUSEKETEER> he got away!
SMC> they all seem to be leaving
.mark/mac> I'm here..
.-Chris/IBM>
.bev/MAC> Before the vote?!?
.*CEC/IBM> Thanks chip. I have had problems
SMC> the IBM guys at least
MOUSEKETEER> question for the IBM side.
.bev/MAC> Hi Steve, BTW.
.-Chris/IBM> go
.ptr/Mod> <bangs gavel>
SMC> about time!!
MOUSEKETEER> (ouch...just had gavel hit my head!)
.ptr/Mod> i would like people to leave the groups MAC PRIVATE and IBM PRIVATE
.Linda/Mac> Why?????
.bev/MAC> ok.
.bev/MAC> We can still send....
.Linda/Mac> < not trying to be stubborn ... >
.-Chris/IBM> I thought we all just did that and decided to go back <Sigh>
.bev/MAC> We really don't need it.
.*CEC/IBM>
.bev/MAC> (looking to ptr)
.*CEC/IBM> So now what Peter?
.chip/Mac> <grin> hi peter
.Linda/Mac> Still don't understand why.
.ptr/Mod> thanks ...
.Linda/Mac> Any time.
.ptr/Mod> now there are no more 4) and 5) cluttering the transcript
.*CEC/IBM> I take it the debate as been reduced to a free for all
.ptr/Mod> ok ... let's have an ordinary formal CO
.*CEC/IBM> Go
MOUSEKETEER> or Enlarged to a free for all, depends.
.ptr/Mod> The floor is open to comments and questions. type a ? to raise your
hand
.chip/Mac> Yea, since about 6 oclock <grin>
GROUP LIST: 21:52:03
1) DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC!
ptr/Mod, -Chris/IBM, Linda/Mac, SMC, chip/Mac, MOUSEKETEER, bev/MAC,
mark/mac, *CEC/IBM
- idle
AVAILABLE LIST: () = in conf
(SMC), (BEVERLEYKANE), (MOUSEKETEER), (PEABO), (NANOCHIP), RICKLEPAGE,
(FRETWELL), (MFISCHER), (DEOGBURN), (LMJC)
------ [10 in this area]
.*CEC/IBM> ?
.ptr/Mod> ga, cec
.*CEC/IBM> Despite all my problems, the debate has really been fun. Comments
from others?
.*CEC/IBM> ga
.chip/Mac> !
.ptr/Mod> ga, chip
.chip/Mac> I think it would have been much more so if it had gone off
.chip/Mac> as originally planned, but I think everyone deserves a lot of credit
for sticking with it!
.bev/MAC> ?
.ptr/Mod> <bev after chip>
.chip/Mac> ga
.ptr/Mod> ga, bev
.bev/MAC> ok...
.bev/MAC> I propose a toast to ALL us early adapters.
.bev/MAC> After all there are really just 2 kinds of people:
.bev/MAC> Those who like ANY kind of computer and those who don't (yet).
.bev/MAC> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> actually Gerry Weinberg says that one a bit differently.
.ptr/Mod> he says ... there are just two kinds of people,
.ptr/Mod> those who divide people into two kinds and those who do not.
.ptr/Mod> <floor open for questions and comments>
.*CEC/IBM> ?
.ptr/Mod> ga, cec
.*CEC/IBM> I like Bev's comment about 2 types of people. The kind who
.*CEC/IBM> like computers and the kind that don't. Let's face it,
.*CEC/IBM> Throw all of the micros in a sack. Grab the first
.*CEC/IBM> one and you got a good computer.
.*CEC/IBM> ga
.chip/Mac> !
.bev/MAC> !
.ptr/Mod> chip, ga
SMC> ?
.mark/mac> - signed off -
.ptr/Mod> <bev after chip, steve after bev>
.chip/Mac> Lets face it also, today's micro is tomorrow's landfill
.chip/Mac> ga
.bev/MAC> ok
.ptr/Mod> ga bev
.bev/MAC> Last one to pass the Turing test is a rotten egg!
.bev/MAC> ga
.ptr/Mod> steve?
SMC>
MOUSEKETEER> ?
SMC> ~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~~
.ptr/Mod> <not sure whether steve is gonna ask anything>
SMC> - signed off -
.ptr/Mod> ok, alf, ga
MOUSEKETEER> The loyal audience would like to thank ALL debators (specially the
winning Mac Team (grin)) for their effort! Nice job to all here.
.bev/MAC> (beaming w/ pride)
.*CEC/IBM> ?
.ptr/Mod> ga cec
.*CEC/IBM> At the risk of ruining the IBM side of the debate, I am an
.*CEC/IBM> Apple fan all the way. When it comes to a personal computer
.*CEC/IBM> in the sense of a home computer, it is great.
.*CEC/IBM> Believe it or not, the IBM team used an Apple IIe
.*CEC/IBM> to join the debate. Namely me.
.*CEC/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> <floor is open, comments, metacomments, any loose ends from the
debate>
.chip/Mac> !
.*CEC/IBM> ?
.ptr/Mod> ga chip
.ptr/Mod> <cec after chip>
.chip/Mac> Nobody seemed to mention, since I didn't get a chance to upload
.chip/Mac> my speech that the Mac is the only one of the two that displays
.chip/Mac> fonts on screen in any form or shape, and prints out *exactly* what
.chip/Mac> is represented ont he screen, I don't believe the PC can do that
.chip/Mac> ... can it?
.Linda/Mac> Sorry, folks; gotta run!!! Bye, bye.
.chip/Mac> nite Linda!!!
.ptr/Mod> bye linda
.Linda/Mac> It's been fun.
.-Chris/IBM> Bye Linda
.Linda/Mac> Hope we won <supergrin>
.bev/MAC> bye linda!
.Linda/Mac> - signed off -
.-Chris/IBM> !
.ptr/Mod> chris, reply to chip?
.-Chris/IBM> yes
.ptr/Mod> ga
.*CEC/IBM> Me or Chris?
.ptr/Mod> chris
.ptr/Mod> <cec with question from before, after chris replies>
.-Chris/IBM> Chip, I think the PC can, but I don't dabble much with Graphics
with my PC or any machine.
.-Chris/IBM> ga
.bev/MAC> ?
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> ga cec
MOUSEKETEER> ?
.chip/Mac> ptr> you use a PC, can it?
.ptr/Mod> <i'll get to that after cec>
.chip/Mac> <sorry>
.*CEC/IBM> Chip, your point about the printing what you see is well taken.
.*CEC/IBM> One of the problems I have had with the PC is marrying
.*CEC/IBM> it to the various printers. I am not a MAC expert
.*CEC/IBM> however, if you hook a "foreign" printer to the MAC
.*CEC/IBM> I have a feeling you will have the same problems.
.*CEC/IBM> Printers on any Personal Computer are a big problem.
.*CEC/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> yes ...
.ptr/Mod> the mac works best with 2 printers:
.ptr/Mod> the imagewriter and the laserwriter
.*CEC/IBM> !
.ptr/Mod> other printers can be made to function more or less well, often less
.ptr/Mod> the IBM PC does have programs like Fancy Fonts ... and for example I
have a program I wrote for MS-DOS that sets digital type ... even does Braille
cells,
.ptr/Mod> but you don't get to compose on the screen ... you feed it WordStar
files
.ptr/Mod> ga, bev (I think)
.*CEC/IBM> Me?
.ptr/Mod> bev
.ptr/Mod> <then alf, then cec>
.ptr/Mod> bev, are you there?
.ptr/Mod> alf, your turn, i guess
.-Chris/IBM> Well I must go Folks, my Cold is winning the Chris Vs. Chris'
Cold debate here. I really enjoyed and Thank Peter and all of you for a good
Debate!
.ptr/Mod> ok, chris ... goodnight
.*CEC/IBM> Thanks Chris. Enjoyed it
.chip/Mac> Nite Chris !!!
.-Chris/IBM> G'Nite
.bev/MAC> ?
.-Chris/IBM> - signed off -
.ptr/Mod> bev, you had your hand up before ... ask away
MOUSEKETEER> Ok (night, chris). Not to get too heavy (you all look tired). One
thing that still bugs me about IBM . . .
.bev/MAC> Well, I wanted to ask a procedural question before everyone leaves..
MOUSEKETEER> (I can wait to finish)
.ptr/Mod> ga bev
.bev/MAC> What is the feeling about how this gets publicized in terms of what
any of us writes about it? E.g...
.bev/MAC> The tiny SF Apple Core wants an article, but what about other
publications?
.bev/MAC> ga
.ptr/Mod> ok ...
.ptr/Mod> the SIG has the rights to an official edited transcript
.ptr/Mod> and that will be published in various places
.ptr/Mod> takada has the right to write an article using an excerpt from the
debate
.ptr/Mod> and i see no reason why any of us shouldn't have that same right
.ptr/Mod> especially since everyone here participated and ought to be entitled
to talk about the experience
.ptr/Mod> i will be happy to give people rights to publish the edited transcript
.ptr/Mod> there have already been requests from BMUG and Draco-Net for that
.ptr/Mod> but I would rather not see other "official transcripts" in their
entirety
.ptr/Mod> unless someone thinks that I have not edited it fairly
.ptr/Mod> any comments??
.ptr/Mod> ga
.*CEC/IBM> ?
.bev/MAC> ?
.ptr/Mod> cec, ga
.chip/Mac> ?
** RWPHILLIPS just joined DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC! (6 members now) **
.bev/MAC> Hi RWP
.ptr/Mod> hi rwp
.*CEC/IBM> Bear with me. I would really like to see the results of this
.*CEC/IBM> debate published.
.*CEC/IBM> However, who among us wants to take the time to edit
.*CEC/IBM> the log and produce a good article.
.*CEC/IBM> Let's face it. There are two standards. the IBM standard
.*CEC/IBM> and the other standard. I really would like for apple
.*CEC/IBM> to get its fair shake in the world.
.*CEC/IBM> It would be nice for the six of us to coauthor an article
.*CEC/IBM> for U.S. consumption.
.*CEC/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> cec ... a very good idea ...
.bev/MAC> !
.ptr/Mod> ga, bev
.ptr/Mod> <chip after bev>
.bev/MAC> Excellent idea!..
.bev/MAC> I WOULD like to a synthesis/consensus dwell a little bit more on the
.bev/MAC> future of computing.
.bev/MAC> Also: It's okay with me if people write articles on their own, too. I
.bev/MAC> will probably do one for the Cider press, if no has objections.
.bev/MAC> Do we need something in writing?
.bev/MAC> ga
.ptr/Mod> well, if it is based on an excerpt, no ... if it republishes a
.ptr/Mod> substantial part of the transcript ... yes.
.ptr/Mod> it is the same issue that Takada faces,
.ptr/Mod> his interest in this is to write an article (actually two now) about
how people are using electronic networking,
.ptr/Mod> and this debate is a vehicle for him to do that.
.ptr/Mod> ga chip
RWPHILLIPS> - signed off -
.chip/Mac> I was wondering what to do with my litte speech on 'Why I bought Mac"
.chip/Mac> I never uploaded i ... want it now?
.ptr/Mod> i would like to hear it
.*CEC/IBM> I am interested
.ptr/Mod> ga chip
.chip/Mac> OK, here it comes, just a sec
.chip/Mac> When IBM introduced its PC I studied DOS a bit, eyed the miracle
.chip/Mac> "Learn the IBM PC in Three Days" ads (three days?!), and gave up
.chip/Mac> thoughts of owning a PC. I'd wait patiently for technology to
.chip/Mac> catch up with *me*...Arrive the Mac. I did graphics and word
.chip/Mac> processing in the showroom! The Icon driven environment was quite
.chip/Mac> easy to grasp, yet impossible to forget. With a common command set
.chip/Mac> for every application, my Mac fast became 'transparent', as the task
.chip/Mac> at hand became the primary focus. The incredibly crisp graphics,
.chip/Mac> faithful representation of fonts, along with "what you see is what
.chip/Mac> you get" printing provided features which I had only dreamed of in
.chip/Mac> a workstation. Of course, the ability to move data between
.chip/Mac> differing applications was long overdue in a PC.
.chip/Mac> And, lest we forget, there was the 68000 <grin>. I was sold.
.chip/Mac> ga
.*CEC/IBM> !
.ptr/Mod> ga cec
.*CEC/IBM> Anyone interested in why I bought an Apple II for home?
.*CEC/IBM> ga
.ptr/Mod> sure
.bev/MAC> yeah
.chip/Mac> you bet
.ptr/Mod> <alf, say No!>
MOUSEKETEER> Well, SORT OF.
.*CEC/IBM> First of all, I work for a large corporation.
.*CEC/IBM> If it is not painted blue, don't buy it.
.*CEC/IBM> I work for John Deere, the big green tractor maker.
.*CEC/IBM> I bought the Apple just to get away from being
.*CEC/IBM> overwhelmed by IBM at work.
.*CEC/IBM> by the way, IBM stands for Industry's Biggest Mistake,
.*CEC/IBM> depending on your view point.
.*CEC/IBM> I like Apple becaue it gets me away from work and
.*CEC/IBM> I can dig into its internals. do that with IBM.
.*CEC/IBM> ga
MOUSEKETEER> (Probably the only thing that's kept you sane, Cec.).
.bev/MAC> !
.ptr/Mod> ga bev
.bev/MAC> IBM = I'm Behind Macintosh
.*CEC/IBM> Bev, I love it
.ptr/Mod> at one time, employees of the Apple Mac factory wore IBM t-shirts
.ptr/Mod> (I Build Macintoshes)
.bev/MAC> (tee hee)
.chip/Mac> <laughing>
.*CEC/IBM> Love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.ptr/Mod> on the other hand, that same factory contains machine tools that have
had their IBM logos replaced by Apple ones
.*CEC/IBM> !
.ptr/Mod> ga cec
.*CEC/IBM> Anyone ever read book called "Colossus in Transition" by Sobel.
.*CEC/IBM> It is a good book about IBM and how they operate.
.*CEC/IBM> ga
.ptr> <I'm getting out of the moderator business ... this is a quiet enough CO
now>
.ptr> ga anyone
.*CEC/IBM> Peter, you have done a fantastic job tonight!
.chip/Mac> <clap> <clap><clap> <clap><clap> <clap><clap> <clap>
.ptr> well, i had a lot of fun ... now i know something about running a debate
<grin>
.*CEC/IBM> And more <clap>
.bev/MAC> Yay ptr!
.ptr> <and my clock says 480 minutes logged in ... some of you got turfed, so
yours didn't run up so high>
MOUSEKETEER> (Well, I had a stinging question for the IBM side, but Cec is to
nice...I'll save it for a little newsletter I know of.
.chip/Mac> Mousey > not even a hint?
.*CEC/IBM> Don't be afraid Mouseketeer. I am only 49!
.*CEC/IBM> Pleas Mouseketeer!
.chip/Mac> yeth
.bev/MAC> Pretty please!
MOUSEKETEER> Cheeze! All I need is a Heart Attack prospect on my conscience.
.*CEC/IBM> Pretty please Mouseketeer
.bev/MAC> We're all no-codes here (do not rususcitate)
.chip/Mac> <clap> <clap>
MOUSEKETEER> (laughing). You all did a very nice job. Congratulations.
.*CEC/IBM> Don't cop out on me Mouseketter. What is your stinging question?
<grin>
.ptr> alf ... next time i will be sure to select an audience moderator too,
instead of leaving it up to chance
MOUSEKETEER> (he he)
.*CEC/IBM> Coward
MOUSEKETEER> Well, I worked cheap!
** SMC just joined DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC! (6 members now) **
.ptr> rehi steve
.bev/MAC> Hi Steve!
SMC> sorry got dumped
.chip/Mac> Meeska> 'cmon ask it!
SMC> any IBM people still here
.chip/Mac> Hi steve
.*CEC/IBM> I am waiting
.bev/MAC> All of us and none of us.
.chip/Mac> me too
.*CEC/IBM> You got one IBM, SMC
.bev/MAC> And two HAL'S ANGELS
SMC> ok, why didn't anyone mention that the IBM has been out for more than two
yers longer than the mac and thus has a far more mature place in the market.
.ptr> you notice that the opposite is true of the graphic interface,
.ptr> where apple has the 2 year lead over ibm
.ptr> alfonso, i think you better ask your question
MOUSEKETEER> Ok. Since IBM and Apple have a general parity in computer
sales,
MOUSEKETEER> why do the innovations come only from Apple? (though I know part
of the answer)
MOUSEKETEER> what is IBM returning to personal (business or home) computing???
MOUSEKETEER> ga
.ptr> well ...
SMC> In right IBM make very good working class computers but that isn't going to
do in the next few years
.*CEC/IBM> ?
.ptr> for one thing, IBM doesn't have to do it
.ptr> and for another thing, if IBM had invented the Mac, they would have had a
tough time making people believe it was a serious business machine
.ptr> cec, ga
.*CEC/IBM> For one thing, the PC is not painted blue.
.*CEC/IBM> All IBM has to do is walk into a large company and say "Here I am"
.*CEC/IBM> Apple took a chance and IBM copied the idea and
.*CEC/IBM> stood behind their name. I could tell you a lot of
.*CEC/IBM> war stories trying to get the PC AT up and running
.*CEC/IBM> at work.
.*CEC/IBM> ga
MOUSEKETEER> ?
.ptr> ga anyone ... i have had enough ? and ! tonight!
.*CEC/IBM> so this is a free for all?
.bev/MAC> - signed off -
MOUSEKETEER> OK, but if IBM could convince people that the PC works well enough
for business, the Mac would have been a breeze for them. Do they just stop,
then.
MOUSEKETEER> ?
.ptr> well, lets say, no central moderator ... if someone says ga, say ok
SMC> - signed off -
.ptr> and take the floor
.ptr> ga
.*CEC/IBM> True about the MAC. But work for a large company which has IBM.
.*CEC/IBM> If it is not blue don't by it. I rest my case.
.ptr> alf ...
.ptr> i don't think so ... IBM mainframe users are accustomed to even more rigid
command level interfaces than MS-DOS
.ptr> ga
MOUSEKETEER> So what is IBM contributing to the future of personal
computing...more PC stuff (ugh).
.*CEC/IBM> Yes. alf
.ptr> they will work with Windows
.ptr> and GEM
.ptr> and gradually move their customer base into the 21st century
.*CEC/IBM> GEM is not an IBM product. Windows is supposed to be sanctioned by
IBM
MOUSEKETEER> (Not sure you call GEM a contribution to the future, but OK).
.*CEC/IBM> GEM makes the PC look like a MAC
.*CEC/IBM> Try working with TOPVIEW some time.!!!!
.ptr> no thanks
.chip/Mac> ptr> 'gradually' <grin> thats an understatement.
** bev/MAC just joined DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC! (5 members now) **
.bev/MAC> rehi
MOUSEKETEER> rehi bev.
.*CEC/IBM> Peter. No thanks on TOPVIEW?
.chip/Mac> rehi Bev
.*CEC/IBM> rehi rehi rehi Bev
.ptr> no thanks on topview!
MOUSEKETEER> I mean, the Apple II begat the PC, Mac begat Windows, etc. Does
IBM not have any ideas of its own.
.ptr> yes ... System/38
.*CEC/IBM> Ugh on the 38
MOUSEKETEER> (laughing)
.*CEC/IBM> Bev, I have this pain in my sitter after tonight. Any cure?
.bev/MAC> CEC--you want an on-line diagnosis?
.*CEC/IBM> Join me in Waterloo, Iowa, Bev. My wife doesn't care
.bev/MAC> Actually, CEC, if we do it on-line...
.bev/MAC> Mas can write another article about teleconferencing.
.*CEC/IBM> Bev. It is called a pain in my brains
.*CEC/IBM> Bev. After all, I have a PHD which means I can pile it higher and
deeper
.*CEC/IBM> And the chatter after a formal debate. There is probably more meat
in this free for all
** SMC just joined DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC! (6 members now) **
.ptr> cec, that's why i like free for alls ... you get a little confusion, but
you avoid the monolithic speeches
.*Cec/APPLE> Bev, you is doctor right?
.bev/MAC> CEC> right.
.*Cec/APPLE> About my migraines
.bev/MAC> And tomorrow I get to scrape up the bodies at the NY Marathon finish
line!
.bev/MAC> What is your Pretty High Degree in CEC?
.*Cec/APPLE> My degrees are in Engineering.
.*Cec/APPLE> Hey People, Iowa won today. Go Iowa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.*Cec/APPLE> I am an Iowa Graduate. Didn't go to MOO-U at AMES!!!!
.*Cec/APPLE> Did I go ROCO?
SMC> no i see you
.chip/Mac> I read you cec
.ptr> cec, ROCO doesn't happen anymore, remember?
.*Cec/APPLE> Thank the powers to be. It has been a rough two months
SMC> happened to linda once today
.ptr> are you sure it was ROCO?
SMC> that's what she said....
.ptr> well, i need an exact diagnosis ... the symptoms of ROCO are unimpeded
output, and all input ignored
.*Cec/APPLE> Maybe I can start a trend. My better half (War Department) (BOSS)
says I should quit.
.*Cec/APPLE> Been married for 26 years and always get in last word.
.*Cec/APPLE> That last word is Yes Dear!!!!!!!!!!!
.ptr> <grin>
.*Cec/APPLE> A good debate people. Enjoyed it despite UNINET problems
MOUSEKETEER> Night Cec (if I understand you correctly).
SMC> for a minute or two she couldn't type in anythin
.*Cec/APPLE> Nite all
.ptr> but she still got output just fine?
SMC> here?
.ptr> night cec
SMC> bye
.*Cec/APPLE> - signed off -
/w
GROUP LIST: 22:50:51
1) DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC!
ptr, chip/Mac, MOUSEKETEER, bev/MAC, SMC
- idle
*Cec/APPLE
AVAILABLE LIST: () = in conf
(BEVERLEYKANE), (MOUSEKETEER), (PEABO), (SMC), (NANOCHIP), (FRETWELL)
------ [6 in this area]
.chip/Mac>
SMC> peter and murky do you have your BMUG newsletter yet
SMC> yes
.ptr> not me yet ... but my PO is not open on saturday
MOUSEKETEER> No, steve, mine's coming with the soundboard Fed.Ex monday.
.bev/MAC> Gee, I should have taken them back for everyone!
SMC> oh.....
SMC> You know murky, I found your bio very interesting
MOUSEKETEER> My bio? (Haven't sent one out in many months).
SMC> the one on the debate
.bev/MAC> Steve, Sam was stoked with the disks, but they don't have labels!
.bev/MAC> disks w/o labels!
SMC> stoked?
.bev/MAC> Chip: The Marathon gets over around 3, by the time the last body falls
across the finish line.
.bev/MAC> Steve> Hawaiian word for ....... very glad to have them.
MOUSEKETEER> Oh, yeah. Didn't know it was up still.
SMC> oh,
.bev/MAC> Anyway, all I need to go back to Marathon central. Thanks for a great
experience! We' ll have to have a cast party soon!
.ptr> yeah
SMC> you mean coast party
GROUP LIST: 22:55:36
1) DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC!
ptr, chip/Mac, MOUSEKETEER, bev/MAC, SMC
- idle
AVAILABLE LIST: () = in conf
(BEVERLEYKANE), (MOUSEKETEER), (PEABO), (SMC), (NANOCHIP)
------ [5 in this area]
MOUSEKETEER> Night Bev. A very nice job, really!
.chip/Mac> Nite Bev!
.ptr> night bev
.bev/MAC> Thanks Mousy! Thanks for your /sends & cheers! Night everyone!
.bev/MAC> - signed off -
MOUSEKETEER> Peter, were you suggesting before that my audience moderating was
below par?????? (smile)
.ptr> no ... suggesting that i hadn't thought of the need for an audience
moderator
.chip/Mac> - signed off -
SMC> really.
SMC> well it looks like everyone is going see you later it has been fun...
SMC> - signed off -
.ptr> ok steve ... see you
MOUSEKETEER> Well, OK.
GROUP LIST: 22:57:45
1) DEBATE: IBM PC VS. THE MAC!
ptr, MOUSEKETEER
- idle
bev/MAC, chip/Mac
AVAILABLE LIST: () = in conf
(BEVERLEYKANE), (MOUSEKETEER), (PEABO), SMC, (NANOCHIP)
------ [5 in this area]
MOUSEKETEER> Peter, you about ready to go wash out your eyes, or something?
.ptr> actually i just ordered a pizza, and i'll have to go get it in 5 minutes
... will be back in another 5 or so if people want to keep chatting
.ptr> let me can the /log and undo the group name
/nolog
-------------------------------------------------------------
This is the end of the transcript.
------------------------------
End of Delphi Digest
********************