ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) (12/16/89)
Well, it has finally happend. Xerox is sueing Apple for $150million over
Apple's use of the Xerox-developed Star graphical user interface. I don't
have the newspaper article handy, but the suit filed last week (?) is very
similar to the one filed by Apple against Microsoft and HP Software (?) for
their Windows 2.03 and NewWave products.
Apple should have known better than to sue the one software company that
provides so much software for their machine. Did they think they could get
away with it without getting the attention of Xerox? Like the old saying goes,
people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
IMHO, I would like to see Apple get roasted by this lawsuit... Flames to
/dev/null, please.
--
>>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you *
University of Rochester * will screw it up." *
Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice."
ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunetjeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeffrey M White) (12/16/89)
In article <4540@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: >Well, it has finally happend. Xerox is sueing Apple for $150million over >Apple's use of the Xerox-developed Star graphical user interface. I don't $150 million doesn't sound like a lot of money, considering Apple is a billion dollar company (aren't they). >IMHO, I would like to see Apple get roasted by this lawsuit... Flames to >/dev/null, please. I'm no legal expect, but I don't think Xerox has a very good case. For one thing, why sue now? The Mac/Lisa interface has been out for almost 8 years, with virtually no change. It's hardly like Apple all of a sudden came out with an interface that looks like the Xerox one. Note that this case is different from the Apple/Microsoft case, in which Apple and Microsoft already had an agreement. Apple sued because they felt the changes MS made in version 2.0 of windows weren't part of their previous agreement. Jeff White University of Pennsylvania jeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) (12/16/89)
In article <18158@netnews.upenn.edu> jeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Jeffrey M White) writes: >In article <4540@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: >>IMHO, I would like to see Apple get roasted by this lawsuit... Flames to >>/dev/null, please. > > I'm no legal expect, but I don't think Xerox has a very good case. For one >thing, why sue now? The Mac/Lisa interface has been out for almost 8 years, >with virtually no change. It's hardly like Apple all of a sudden came out From what I remember of the article, Xerox has waited all of this time while various "ambiguities" in the relevent laws have been ironed out in court over the last several years. -- >>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you * University of Rochester * will screw it up." * Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice." ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunet
folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (12/16/89)
"From what I remember of the article, Xerox has waited all of this time while "various "ambiguities" in the relevent laws have been ironed out in court "over the last several years. The Wall Street Journal article makes it clear (to me, anyhow) that Xerox will have a tougher time against Apple than Apple will have against Microsoft: For one thing, Xerox waited so many years to lay its claim to the technology that Apple may be able to argue that Xerox lost its right to make that claim. [A software lawyer] said he also thinks that Xerox didn't publish its copyrights, which may mean it lost the right to enforce them. [The lawyer sites an Intel case where Intel lost its copyrights even though it published them, because it did not include a statement in a about them in a few licenses.] ... [According to an intellectual-property lawyer], Xerox waited so long to sue that he doubts that it can win damages. But he said that the court might agree to invalidate the Apple copyrights. -- Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)
millert@tramp.Colorado.EDU (MILLER TODD C) (12/16/89)
One reason Xerox is sueing Apple _now_ may be that Xerox was (fairly) recently
awarded patents on the Star operating environment. Patent infringements are
usually more easily proven than copyright ones.
Just a thought.
-Todd
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Todd Miller - millert@tramp.Colorado.EDU |
| Meet the new boss, just the same as old boss - The Who |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+csachs@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Colin Sachs) (12/16/89)
(Jeffrey M White) writes: [In reply to (Chris Newbold) re:Xerox suit) > I'm no legal expect, but I don't think Xerox has a very good case. For one > thing, why sue now? The Mac/Lisa interface has been out for almost 8 years, > with virtually no change. About two years ago (I think), Lotus thought about bringing suit against a rival copycat spreadsheet company producers of TWIN. Well, Lotus dropped that suit. The basis of the suit (from my recollection) was a "look and feel" argument. That is, TWIN sufficiently looked like and responded like the Lotus 1-2-3 package to be an infrigement of Lotus' copyright. But they forgot about the granddaddy of all spreadsheets: minicalc (I think thats the name). Anyway, this thing ran on CP/M systems and had rows and columns and command keys, just like, you guessed it Lotus 1-2-3 before Lotus Corp existed. I think the people at Lotus realized that the "look and feel" thing would backfire (the makers of the first spreadsheet could sue them for copywrite infrigment) if they went through with it. > It's hardly like Apple all of a sudden came out > with an interface that looks like the Xerox one. No. But the fact remains that Xerox had the graphical interface and windows concept long before the Apple Mac's even existed. And Apple did not develope the concept independently. > Note that this case is > different from the Apple/Microsoft case, in which Apple and Microsoft already > had an agreement. Apple sued because they felt the changes MS made in version > 2.0 of windows weren't part of their previous agreement. No. I think they sued because they felt that the changes MS made in v.2.0 of windows put that product and all PC machines in direct competition with the Macintosh computers. Apple set themselves up for the suit from Xerox by pushing their so-called proprietary rights to the graphic/windows interface. Plain and simple. -- Colin Sachs - csachs@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
eickmeye@girtab.usc.edu (Biff Henderson) (12/16/89)
The following article is from the Los Angeles Times, Friday,
December 15, 1989, page D3.
Xerox Sues Apple Over Graphics Software
by Carla Lazzareschi
Times Staff Writer
Xerox slapped Apple Computer with a $150-million lawsuit on
Thursday, contending that Apple is illegally using the software
that created the revolutionary graphics display on its highly
popular Macintosh personal computer.
The suit, filed late Thursday in federal court in San
Francisco, is a bizarre turn in an already twisted tale
surrounding the visual display currently used in Apple's
Macintosh models. The display resembles a desk top and allows a
user to manipulate data and issue instructions by using a set of
pictures, or "icons."
The Macintosh display, which has become an industry
standard, is a key reason for the machine's popularity since its
introduction in early 1984. Last year, Apple sued two computer
industry heavyweights, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard, for
allegedly infringing on its copyrighted display.
However, Xerox claims in its suit that the Macintosh display
"stems from work originally done by Xerox" and has been used by
Apple without Xerox permission. The suit noted that the display
was first used by Apple in its now discontinued Lisa model
introduced in 1982, as well as in the Macintosh.
Xerox said it has held a copyright on the display, which it
first introduced on its now discontinued Star computer system,
since 1981.
A Xerox spokesman said the suit was filed now because recent
changes in software protection and intellectual property laws
make it easier to assert its position. He declined to specify
those changes.
An Apple spokeswoman said the company believes that the suit
is without merit and that Xerox is attempting to assert its right
to copyright an idea, rather than merely an expression of an
idea.
The spokeswoman said Apple has long acknowledged that its
display was inspired by work done by others in the computer
industry. But, she said, Apple claims that the display is its
own through its investment of "time, people and effort" to create
the software.
Xerox said in the suit that Apple's use of the display and
its licensing of it to other computer companies has allowed Apple
to "unjustly" receive royalties and fees of more than $100
million. The suit also asks for at least another $50 million
because Apple's actions constitute "unfair competition and unfair
business practices."
Xerox Chairman and Chief Executive David T. Kearns said
efforts to reach an amicable settlement, including a proposal for
Apple to license the involved software from Xerox, were rebuffed
after Xerox approached Apple last week with a proposal.ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) (12/17/89)
In article <7066@chaph.usc.edu> eickmeye@girtab.usc.edu (Biff Henderson) writes: >The following article is from the Los Angeles Times, Friday, >December 15, 1989, page D3. > > An Apple spokeswoman said the company believes that the suit >is without merit and that Xerox is attempting to assert its right >to copyright an idea, rather than merely an expression of an >idea. And Apple hasn't tried to "copyright" an idea by suing anyone who comes near their coveted little user-interface? Come on.... -- >>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you * University of Rochester * will screw it up." * Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice." ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunet
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (12/17/89)
In article <7066@chaph.usc.edu> eickmeye@girtab.usc.edu (Biff Henderson) writes: >The following article is from the Los Angeles Times, Friday, >December 15, 1989, page D3. > >Xerox Sues Apple Over Graphics Software [...] > > A Xerox spokesman said the suit was filed now because recent ^^^^^^ >changes in software protection and intellectual property laws ^^^^^^^ >make it easier to assert its position. He declined to specify >those changes. Just a little clarification on this. The "recent changes" clearly refer to the fact that earlier this year the US joined the Berne Convention. The "MAJOR" item involved in this is that it is no longer considered a requirement for copyright protection to put a copyright notice (the little 'c' enclosed in a circle) to claim copyright protection, as it was previously. Many lawyers have commented that if the Intel vs. NEC lawsuit were to be tried today, Intel would win and not lose as it did because it did not write proper copyright notices on its chips. It is going to be fun to watch this thing (and the related Apple vs. MS/HP lawsuit) unravel. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= [.signature under contruction] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (12/17/89)
OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh). Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) (12/17/89)
Well, if we joined the Berne convention, and you no longer have to "publish" a copyright notice, then does that automatcially retroactively change everything in the past? I mean, can you legally claim something that only now valid? And by joining the convention, does this directly affect US law, or is a treaty, which must be ratified, and even still has grey areas? Questionbs, questions, questions... -- __________________________________________________________________________ |Disclaimer: Segmentation Fault: Core Dumped. | | | |Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing | |ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. | |Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 | |Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 | |GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 | |USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) (12/18/89)
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, >NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but >all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh). I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). --
sharon@asylum.SF.CA.US (Sharon Fisher) (12/18/89)
In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > >OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, >NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but >all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh). NeXT is already paying licensing fees to Xerox, and has been since almost the very beginning.
perand@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson) (12/18/89)
In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > >I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent >Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). >-- Considering many of us are using ethernet, which comes mostly from Xerox, one might say this seems probable. And, quite frankly, Apple deserves it. One wonders if the reason they haven't sued Atari and Commodore yet is that they consider their offers not being office computer threats. What will then happen when Apple again sells machines for home use ( some day ) ? -- --- Per Andersson Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden perand@admin.kth.se, @nada.kth.se
kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) (12/18/89)
In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: > >I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent >Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). >-- This world is unfair! Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for - giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell? - shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer? - rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time? It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, make things look good and friendly. It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at the manual and learn things fast. But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness? What is the good judgement? Where are the users? If Apple never had continued the work from the star project, will we users see the windowing interface so early? If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS? Wouldn't the Xmas be merrier if.....
langz@asylum.SF.CA.US (Lang Zerner) (12/18/89)
In article <9097@asylum.SF.CA.US> sharon@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes: >In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.mdu writes: >> >>OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, >>NeXT Step, etc.? > >NeXT is already paying licensing fees to Xerox, and has been since >almost the very beginning. Sun also licenses from Xerox for their Sunview window system. -- Be seeing you... --Lang Zerner langz@asylum.sf.ca.us UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz ARPA:langz@athena.mit.edu "...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"
Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) (12/18/89)
< Apple should have known better than to sue the one software company that < provides so much software for their machine. Did they think they could get < away with it without getting the attention of Xerox? Like the old saying goe s, < people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Who's kidding whom here? Apple knows exactly what it's doing. It's an old strategy from poker known as the bluff, and they do it to superb advantage. First off, obviously Apple stole Xerox's idea. Steve Jobs visited the Star project in 1979 and was so impressed with the technology that he started the Lisa project and the rest is history. I don't know what kind of paperwork he signed, but assuming that nothing unusual was signed, the theft of this idea is perfectly legal because you can't copyright an idea, only its expression. Second, obviously Microsoft stole Apple's idea. They saw the Mac early on and instantly fell in love with it and realized they needed something to compete with it in the MS-DOS world and they shamelessly cloned it. But because they did not steal the expression of the idea, just the idea, what they did is perfectly legal. The issue of look and feel when you *identically* duplicate an application aside, clearly there are major differences between the Star, the Mac, and Windows. Clearly, each was developed from scratch and required major innovation. Clearly, each stole from its predecessor the basic concepts that make up the environment, but not the exact expression of those concepts in the form of either code or even look and feel. Basically, what all of this comes down to, I think, is that Apple does not want its healthy profit margins eroded by a clone industry. Thus Apple has quite astutely used its legal department to intimidate potential competitors. Apple must know that it cannot win the Microsoft case, just as it knows that Xerox cannot win a copyright infringement case against Apple. But it will fight to the end with sterness just the way a good poker player carries out his bluff to the end. And I'm sure that if someone tries to clone the Mac, Apple will sue again, even if it loses the Microsoft case. Just the legal costs of fighting this in court serve as an effective barrier to entry in Apple's market segment. Unfortunately, these lawsuits have very little to do with what is legally just, and they have a lot to do with marketing strategy. Will (sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Will)
yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) (12/18/89)
>In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> I write: >> >>I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent >>Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). >>-- kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) replies: > This world is unfair! > >Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for >- giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell? >- shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer? >- rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time? Personally I don't have a problem with this - never had. I don't mind DOS because I accept it as what it truly is: not much more than a monitor (it ain't an OS if you can get at the hardware). Then again, my first summer job was writing assembly language programs for these things back in '85 (aside: I didn't even know what assembly language was, when I got the job :-) and I can see how people who can't intuit the innards of DOS/Unix might have a problem. > > It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, >make things look good and friendly. > > It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the >manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at >the manual and learn things fast. Granted. This is precisely what pisses me off about Apple: a GUI is wonderful, "but you MUST buy one of OUR machines to use it. If you buy someone elses machine we expect a small royalty payment." On another note, I don't know how accurate this (second-hand) information is, but I've been told that Apple recently tried to organize a consortium of companies that would agree to stop offering educational discounts! Sliiimmmeeeeyyyy! > > It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than >EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). Sigh... There are far too many points to consider in that there sentence of yours. Suffice to say, you haven't brought up any supporting evidence for your conclusion, nor do I want to get into a discussion (with you) about any of the above. There are advantages and disadvantages on both sides. However, I will go out on a limb and state, based on the contents of your posting, that you aren't qualified to make such a statement. Yes, I know them there's fightin' words, but I don't want to argue. I won't reply - it's not worth it. > > But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than >the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness? >What is the good judgement? Where are the users? > > If Apple never had continued the work from the star project, will we >users see the windowing interface so early? Likely; the prices of workstations are dropping dramatically, to the point where you could almost buy one as a home machine. As evidenced by Apple NOT suing Sun/Apollo/X-Consortium, Apple was not the only company taking *risks*(?). With the 'sparcintosh' on the horizon, the beginning of the end of Apple (as we know it) is nigh :-). > > If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* >users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS? Sorry, I couldn't quite figure out your grammar, but I believe this sentence amounts to whining. 'nuff said. > > Wouldn't the Xmas be merrier if..... ...people who owned Macs (because they couldn't figure out how to use any other computer) weren't allowed on USENET :-). Yes. Sorry ;^> I couldn't help myself!! If you're going to leave your balls on the table, someone's bound to chop them off sooner or later. Davin --
roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) (12/18/89)
In article <2555@draken.nada.kth.se|, perand@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson) writes: | In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: | >gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: | > | >I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent | >Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). | >-- | | Considering many of us are using ethernet, which comes mostly from Xerox, | one might say this seems probable. And, quite frankly, Apple deserves it. | One wonders if the reason they haven't sued Atari and Commodore yet is that | they consider their offers not being office computer threats. What will then | happen when Apple again sells machines for home use ( some day ) ? I had wondered about Apple's reaction to Berkeley Softworks' version of GEOS for the Apple //... I kept expecting a thunderous lawsuit, until it occurred to me that Apple is unlikely to do anything that was contrary to pumping up sales. Since GEOS was likely to boost the //e line, they doubtless used that rationale to ignore it. (it would have been in character, though, to have sued BS if an Apple version had never shown up) | | -- | --- | Per Andersson | Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden | perand@admin.kth.se, @nada.kth.se -- _R_o_y _M_. _S_i_l_v_e_r_n_a_i_l | UUCP: uunet!comcon!roy | "No, I don't live in an igloo!" [ah, but it's my account... of course I opine!] -Sourdough's riposte SnailMail: P.O. Box 210856, Anchorage, Alaska, 99521-0856, U.S.A., Earth, etc.
ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) (12/18/89)
In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: > It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than >EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). You picked the wrong news group to post this (comp.sys.ibm.pc). In who's book? I think that you will find, oh, just a few people disagree with this statement. SCSI is as slow as sh*t. The 68xxx is nice, but I'll take a '386 or '486 any day of the week. My Compaq 386 eats Mac SE/30's for lunch. Can you say "upgradable?" That's something that you can do with current 80xxx buses. Try doing that to a Mac without having to pay for an entire new system board. Can you add the latest video technology to a Mac by dropping a a board? No, you can even open the damn case without a proprietary tool!!! Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac. That's why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines. I'll die before I use a Mac or any of it's related equipment. It's all junk. > But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than >the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness? >What is the good judgement? Where are the users? What the hell? Apple *STOLE* it's interface from Xerox. That's illegal. You want fairness? Xerox should bust Apple on it's ass for trying to rip off their work, sell it as their own, and then have the balls to sue someone else over it. Judgement? Yeah, right... > If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* >users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS? What about UNIX? The interface is little friendlier than DOS, yet it is one of the most powerful and widely used operating systems... -- >>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you * University of Rochester * will screw it up." * Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice." ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunet
brandonl@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM (Brandon G. Lovested) (12/18/89)
In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: > This world is unfair! > > Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for > - giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell? > - shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer? > - rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time? > IBM may have thoroughly unremarkable products, but that is not the basis of a suit. If people need certain requirements, and an IBM product doesn't have them, but still people buy it, then they are idiots. There is no further issue. IBM is in deep trouble as we speak. The Third Reich is crumbling... > It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, > make things look good and friendly. > It depends on how well windows, etc. are used. Too much of that silly business, and it loses its advantages. > It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than > EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). > 680x0 superior to 80x86? In what ways, Mr. Computer Engineer? In some ways, yes, in others, no. "fact"? > It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the > manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at > the manual and learn things fast. Yeah, like everytime the Mac says something like: Macintosh cannot read this disk ________ | OK | ~~~~~~~~ Yeah, everybody knows just exactly was has gone wrong here, huh? Remember, SE stands for System Error. Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) are advantageous in many, but not all aspects. Apple's implementation of GUI's is far, far from perfect. > But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than > the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness? > What is the good judgement? Where are the users? > Apple sued Microsoft because of "Look and Feel" arguments. What's the diff? Sauce for the goose. > If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* > users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS? DOS does "inhale with great force," but stating that the 680x0 is superior is nonsense, and not open minded. ================================================================================ | Brandon G. Lovested | "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, | indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! brandonl@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM | My life is my own." | ================================================================================
kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis) (12/18/89)
In article <1989Dec18.040441.30118@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) writes: >In article <1989Dec17.223025.6618@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >> ...people who owned Macs (because they couldn't figure out how to >> use any other computer) weren't allowed on USENET :-). Yes. > > ...people checked their facts first. Yes. > By the way, just for the record, people don't always use Macs because > they "couldn't figure out how to use any other". Some of us feel > that the Mac lets us get more done in the same amount of time. > And time is valuable to me. Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. Do you call if faster clicking on the 'disk eject' icon and waiting forever for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster clicking the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. There probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than pc. gary
kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) (12/18/89)
In article <1989Dec17.223025.6618@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >> >> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than >>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). > > Sigh... There are far too many points to consider in that there > sentence of yours. Suffice to say, you haven't brought up any > supporting evidence for your conclusion, nor do I want to get > into a discussion (with you) about any of the above. There are > advantages and disadvantages on both sides. >[lines deleted] I agree that there are trade-offs. And I did not reach these conclusions all by myself. I will not want to argue with you either, at least not before you do some researches yourself. Just find some technical datas sheets, many of the magazines are also good souces (some actually do the comparisons for you), walk that extra mile will not hurt you. > Likely; the prices of workstations are dropping dramatically, to > the point where you could almost buy one as a home machine. As > evidenced by Apple NOT suing Sun/Apollo/X-Consortium, Apple was > not the only company taking *risks*(?). With the 'sparcintosh' on > the horizon, the beginning of the end of Apple (as we know it) > is nigh :-). When the Macintosh interface became so successful, the companies which follow it are not taking risks. As a matter of fact, a company that does not give users GUI is taking risks because they are losing their grounds :-) Good idea, workstations as home machines. The price might be right, but what about the networks? Every home equip with a 9600 baud modem doesn't sound too practicle to me, at least not now. You might haven't noticed, the SPARCstation has arrived, and it has windowing system for it, not totally command driven :-) :-) Question, what is the evidence that Apple will not sue these other companies? :-)
t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) (12/18/89)
RED ALERT! NETWORK CRAP FILTERS ENGAGING! ALL CROSS-POSTING DISABLED! INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION HAS CEASED, EVERYONE ^K IMMEDIATELY AND ABANDON THE NET. all further replys to this thread will be dealt with the most extreme fines and punishments. all transmission costs and wasted time will be automatically billed back to those who continue to add to this lack of intelligence. signed THE NET POLICE ------------- they asked me to forward this announcement as they couldn't get through with the biggest shovel they had! ;^) Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu
ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Ian ROWLANDS) (12/18/89)
In article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Gary Kipnis) writes: > >Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. >Do you call if faster clicking on the 'disk eject' icon and waiting forever >for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster clicking >the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. There >probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than >pc. Please, please,please STOP this cross-posting! If you want to score points about PC being better than a Mac, don't post your article to an Amiga group. I don't want to read your crap, and anyone who does can read the appropriate group for it. DON'T just press 'f' or 'F' without checking the cross-posting groups. I know it is harder, but if you did it you wouldn't see this type of crap either. This will be my last cross-posting to so many groups, and try to make sure I don't read any similar articles (this and the one above!). [Flame off] If you want to flame me, go for it (see the address in the .sig). But don't expect a nice reply. Ian. Ian Rowlands | "I don't want to be political, but you Dept. of Electrical Engineering | can't trust the ALP!" University of Melbourne | -Joh Bjelke-Petersen Email :- ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au | (Flames to ianr@uluru.ecr.mu.oz.au)
jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) (12/18/89)
kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis): > Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. The most obvious example is "train someone else to use it". My next example would be writing a memo/resume/spec. that didn't look like I did it on a cheap typewriter (multiple fonts/sizes, proportional spacing etc). I know this is dependent on a LaserWriter and that you can also do it on a PC, but you asked what an average person could do *faster* on a Mac. > There > probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than > pc. You seem to've missed the point here; the whole idea of the Mac is to get away from *commands*. If you want to talk about which *activities* can be performed faster on Macs, see the above. Since I'm posting anyway, I'd like to add my two cents' worth about Xerox's suit and Apple's corporate arrogance. It seems to me that the suit is an attempt to prevent Apple from making money off of Xerox technology, not to prevent Apple from *using* it or to make money for Xerox. In this I think it's similar to Bucky Fuller's idea of patenting something and releasing the patent into the public domain, preventing anyone from making money off of his ideas. I programmed Macs for 3-4 years, and I like the little buggers, but I've always tried to recognize other machines' strengths. Since this has led to my current involvement with UNIX I think I have some perspective on the issue. Xerox did some *very* valuable and *expensive* work to determine how user interfaces should work. Apple took the results of this work and made it available to the public. Both companies deserve lots of credit. Apple's insistence on "owning" the interface is absurd because not only were they not its inventors, but it's not so much a new technology as it is a new area of study. Anyone else could duplicate Xerox's experiments with mice (n buttons), light pens, tablets, icons, windows, menus, etc. and it would surprise nobody if they got the same results. With those results in hand, they would logically come up with an interface basically similar to Apple/Xerox. How, then, can either company own an interface that's inevitable given the way human perceptions work? Much as I like the Mac, its interface is not perfect. This is partly because of developers who fail to appreciate the effort that went into creating "the rules", but part is also inherent. Ever try to do pipes on a Mac? How about real multitasking (MultiFinder doesn't help much when you're trying to write network daemons and such)? If I could have an interface as intuitive as the Mac's on a machine with a real OS I'd be very happy. Fortunately my wait is getting shorter, mainly because Apple is failing to maintain their chokehold on interface technology. Jeff d'Arcy OS/Network Software Engineer jdarcy@encore.com If Encore endorsed my opinions, they couldn't afford to pay me
mark@lakesys.lakesys.com (Mark Storin) (12/18/89)
In article <9105@asylum.SF.CA.US> langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) writes: >In article <9097@asylum.SF.CA.US> sharon@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes: >>In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.mdu writes: >>> >>>OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, >>>NeXT Step, etc.? >> >>NeXT is already paying licensing fees to Xerox, and has been since >>almost the very beginning. > >Sun also licenses from Xerox for their Sunview window system. > I am told AT&T also licenses from Xerox for Open Look. Looks like the industry already recognizes Xerox as the defacto owners of the technology. This, I would believe, could only help Xerox. What I'd like to see is Xerox win just to put Apple in their place and then turn around and grant licences for the technology at some rediculously low price (to everyone but Apple that is :-). -- Mark A. Storin Lake Systems, Milw., WI mark@lakesys.lakesys.COM
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (12/18/89)
ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: >In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: >> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than >>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). >You picked the wrong news group to post this (comp.sys.ibm.pc). In who's >book? I think that you will find, oh, just a few people disagree with this >statement. SCSI is as slow as sh*t. The 68xxx is nice, but I'll take a >'386 or '486 any day of the week. My Compaq 386 eats Mac SE/30's for lunch. >Can you say "upgradable?" That's something that you can do with current >80xxx buses. Try doing that to a Mac without having to pay for an entire >new system board. Can you add the latest video technology to a Mac by dropping >a a board? No, you can even open the damn case without a proprietary tool!!! >Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac. That's >why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines. Talk about rampant misinformation from both sides. Just to let you know, the SE/30 does have an expansion slot; and the whole Mac II family is just chock full of them. SCSI isn't slow as shit. And remember on a Mac you get the networking for the cost of a wire. Your Compaq 386 costs more than a SE/30, and yes, it's faster. Big deal. Speed is important in only a subset of the tasks computers are used for. You and I might need it for compiling or 3D modelling, but Joe-average-user doesn't care if it takes 1 second or 2 to recalculate his spreadsheet; he just wants to be able to use it without spending 5 minutes figuring out each keypress. >I'll die before I use a Mac or any of it's related equipment. It's all junk. We won't weep for you. And please substantiate this slight on Apple Q&A. >What the hell? Apple *STOLE* it's interface from Xerox. That's illegal. Apple took the original ideas of the GUI developed at Xerox and radically improved them, as anyone who has used the Xerox interface and the Mac can tell you. In all honesty, Apple should be paying a license fee, same as the rest. But let's be fair; Apple did more than any other company to popularize and promote GUI's, and Macs are still the easiest to use machine around; check out the statistics on training costs sometime. For all the talk about User Interfaces, Apple was the first company to preach about offering a consistant UI across all programs, and attempt to enforce it. >What about UNIX? The interface is little friendlier than DOS, yet it is one >of the most powerful and widely used operating systems... Saying UNIX is friendlier than DOS is like saying STALIN was nicer than HITLER. The above statement gets my vote for the most unintentionally hilarious statement of the month on USENET. Both of these guys don't know what the hell they are talking about. Lemme set you straight. Some people like Mac's, and some people like PC's. Mac people should use Macs, and PC people should use PCs. And like other religious cults, they should stop proselytizing. We have enough Jihads going on the world already. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP Announcing TEMPORAL EXPRESS. For only $999,999.95 (per page), your message will be carefully stored, then sent back in time as soon as technologically possible. TEMEX - when it absolutely, postively has to be there yesterday!
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/18/89)
In article <25153@cup.portal.com> Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes: | Apple must know that it cannot win the Microsoft | case, just as it knows that Xerox cannot win a copyright infringement | case against Apple. Xerox has a patent on some of the technology. This gives them the chance to go after Apple two ways. As to Apple suing a clone maker is they lose to Microsoft and/or Xerox, they have a good legal department, and would have to be VERY careful about a suit. There is a legal action for damages which can be brought in countersuit, based on the legal principle that "you can be sued for harrasment if you file a suit which you know has no legal merit." Certainly having just had their copyrights declared invalid or unenforcable would open them to such a suit. I would expect a suit on much more narrow grounds. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (12/18/89)
kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis) writes: >Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. >There probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a >mac than pc. Oh god this is just too easy. Gary you really are as bad, in your own way, as a Mac zealot. Why watch the Comedy Channel when I can read your messages? In answer to your question: 1) Launching a wordprocessor and reading in a document. DOS <name of program> <name of document> Mac <clickety click> (on document) 2) Deleting a file DOS era <name of file> Mac <click> ...drag... <kcilc> (thats releasing a press) 3) Selecting a word in a document. DOS <lots of keys to move> <Ctrl-Alt-Fn-37> Mac <clickety click> 4) Selecting a couple of sentences in the middle of a paragraph DOS <lots of keys to move> Function-Whatever <lots more keys> Function-Whatever Mac <click> ...drag... <kcilc> I'll give you this; you are much more entertaining than the Mac zealot you are fighting with. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP Announcing TEMPORAL EXPRESS. For only $999,999.95 (per page), your message will be carefully stored, then sent back in time as soon as technologically possible. TEMEX - when it absolutely, postively has to be there yesterday!
king@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Stephen King) (12/18/89)
In article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Gary Kipnis) writes: >Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. Any operation on a numeric array with more than 64k of data.
nasa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Daniel Poirot) (12/18/89)
In article <9097@asylum.SF.CA.US> sharon@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes: >In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >> >>OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, >>NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but >>all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh). > >NeXT is already paying licensing fees to Xerox, and has been since >almost the very beginning. As does IBM, HP and Microsoft...
wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske) (12/18/89)
In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: > It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, > make things look good and friendly. If you need a computer to hold your hand... If you're smart, all that shit gets in the way. > It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the > manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at > the manual and learn things fast. I've never had to buy a book; the manual was MORE than enough. > But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than > the other impundent company is being "punished". BULLSHIT! There is no risk in stealing ideas, other than in being caught. And they bastardized the idea with things like single button mice, because they deemed point-and-click eacy to market, especially when I didn't have to decide which button to click. That gives you an idea of the intelligence level they aimed for. > If *some* people would not be so close minded... I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things need no defense - they stand on their own merits.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/19/89)
In article <14971@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: | Good idea, workstations as home machines. The price might be | right, but what about the networks? Every home equip with a | 9600 baud modem doesn't sound too practicle to me, at least not | now. People have a strange idea of what's a workstation. A Sun2 or 3/50 is a "workstation," but a 386 running SysV, with NFS and X-windows is always called "a PC running UNIX." I think it's just name dropping, myself. We have a few people here running SL/IP to home of 9600 baud lines. They tell me that V.32 works better than proprietary modes, at least those from Telebit and Vadic. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (12/19/89)
In article <4574@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: > What the hell? Apple *STOLE* it's interface from Xerox. That, apparently, is for the courts to decide. You'd think that if this was true, Xerox might have said something eight years ago, wouldn't you? > That's illegal. > You want fairness? Xerox should bust Apple on it's ass for trying to rip > off their work, sell it as their own, and then have the balls to sue > someone else over it. As for "their work," the mouse and windows were invented by Doug Englebart's group at SRI in the 60's, NOT by Xerox. Get a clue. David Casseres (Yes, I know I should shut up, but ...)
macduff@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Roger R. Espinosa) (12/19/89)
In article <7777@cbnewsm.ATT.COM>, wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske) writes: > > I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems > hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things > need no defense - they stand on their own merits. Huh? Funny, I've yet to meet an open-minded MS-DOS user. Or an open-minded Apple // user. Or an open-minded Amiga user. Or an open-minded Macintosh user. Sorry, Bill, but my SE is exactly what I *want* in a computer. The menus on the screen aren't a bloody hand to hold (geez), anymore than you MS-DOS people have those idiotic keyboard reference cards ("What?" Bill says, "*I* don't use keyboard reference cards..."). Yeah, what I think "stinks" is having to go through elaborate installation mechanisms to get new software on the machine. "Stinks" is having different graphics resolutions, none of which are compatible with the other (oh gee, Bill, sorry that the Mac can do this...) "Stinks" is when the software/ hardware combination doesn't *help* at all to bring technology down from the technical to a greater population. I try to be open-minded. But I can't stand when some people are "hell bent" on telling me that my "piece of shit" is just a toy ... when most of the new software coming out for their "power machines" sure seems to resemble the stuff that runs on mine... Never mind. If you can't figure out that each computer has its strength and there are very few "pieces of shit" out there (the only machine I'd consider garbage is the TI 99/4A, and heck, *that* has devoted followers still), then ... it's hopeless. Roger rre@ihlpn.ATT.COm
rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (the Wizard of Speed and Time) (12/19/89)
Could y'all kindly keep the "Mac is God/IBM rules" war out of comp.sys.amiga. Please? We already know the real answer anyways :-) :-) -- Rich Carreiro - Most Biased Boston Celtics Fan! "So long, farewell, and may ARPA: rlcarr@space.mit.edu the forces of evil become UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!space.mit.edu!rlcarr confused on the way to your BITNET: rlcarr@space.mit.edu door!" - George Carlin
lumsdon@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Lumsdon) (12/19/89)
I saw somewhere in one of Commodore's Amiga manuals, a statement giving credit to Xerox. I know that some of the GUI vendors have purchased licenses from Xerox for the icon & mouse concepts. On a side note, IEEE Computer magazine had a fascinating article about the Xerox Star machnie sometime during the past 8 months. Go Xerox! Taking a __long__ side trip, changes in patent laws have made is possible to patent software under certain conditions. It goes something like.... you can patent the software that controls the flight path of a missile, or controls a physical device that controls a process or device, but you can't patent the software that controls a computer part or peripheral. --- Esther Lumsdon David Taylor Research Center Annapolis Lab cm 301-267-3816 av 281-3816
mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (12/19/89)
Absurd "macho he-man" statement #1 (talking about using the mouse and menus):
If you need a computer to hold your hand... If you're smart, all that shit
gets in the way.
This is not true. When you need power is when the mouse and menus become more
helpful. As a computer science major, I would be lost without using Think's C
with its multiple windows, integrated debugger, data-structure viewing, and
menus. The mouse saves much time. As a business management major, I also
work with lots of numbers and statistics. Sure, I can do a graph with Lotus
1-2-3, but I would much rather choose a menu item that lets me look at the
data in another way.
Definely true statement #1:
I've never had to buy a book; the manual was MORE than enough.
Unfortunately for many MS-DOS applications, the book is more than enough.
Kind of like having to check out the whole set of encyclopedias to read an
article on IBM. The information is there, just hard to get at. Why are
Word Perfect and Lotus books best sellers?
Humerous statement #1:
BULLSHIT! There is no risk in stealing ideas, other than in being caught.
I guess this means that if you don't get caught, everything is fine.
Humerous statement #2:
I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems
hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things
need no defense - they stand on their own merits.
I like to think that I am open-minded. I like Macintosh machines. I like
MS-DOS machines. I like VAX machines. I like Unix machines. Each has its
strong points. Each definitely has its weak points. But many people here
are shooting down the strong points of the computers as though they were weak
points. You have to make many considerations, not defenses.
* The Mac uses a mouse, and is consistent in the use of a mouse. This is
good.
* MS-DOS is a simple operating system. This is good, too. The trick is to
make the operating system more powerful without requiring a more-powered
user. Apple has done this with the Mac OS, and from what I have seen of
OS/2 so far, IBM is trying the same thing.
* Character-based systems are good. Say this in 5 years and watch yourself
get laughed out of the place. The flexibility is just not there.
* MS-DOS machines give you everything you need in one box. Sure, fine, great.
But so do Macs, Amiga, NeXTs, Suns, VAXen, and yes, even Apple IIs.
* The 80286/80386/80486 are all in the same league as the 68000/68020/68030.
Each will serve the purpose. So unless you are a processor designer, let's
stay away from this argument.
Press 'n' now if you can't take any more...
At least Mac users will try to carry on intelligent discussions without ranting
and raving.
-Michael
--
Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) (12/19/89)
From article <7777@cbnewsm.ATT.COM>, by wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske): > I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems > hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things > need no defense - they stand on their own merits. %sarcasm on I have yet to meet an open-minded IBM PC user; if they were open-minded they switched to the Mac or to UNIX. %sarcasm off Let's keep the stupid personal attacks out of this, eh? Your comments have done very little to raise the discussion out the pseudo-religious muck. Jeff d'Arcy OS/Network Software Engineer jdarcy@encore.com If Encore endorsed my opinions, they couldn't afford to pay me
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (12/19/89)
> I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems > hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things > need no defense - they stand on their own merits. If the only tool you have is a hammer, everthing starts to look like a nail. Obviously, the right solution is to have multiple tools for multiple jobs. I've got a Sun workstation on my desk, and a Mac-IIcx on the table next to my desk. I use one or the other depending on what task I have to perform. For word processing, I use troff on the Sun. For drawing, I use Dreams on the Mac. Even PCs have a place in life, and it's not in the dumpster. They are all over the place here as dedicated lab equipment controllers. No, my Mac doesn't stink (either the IIcx I have at work or the Plus I have at home). It may not be the last word in computers, but it certainly doesn't stink. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma"
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) (12/19/89)
In article <4574@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: >In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: >> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than >>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). > >You picked the wrong news group to post this (comp.sys.ibm.pc). In who's >book? I think that you will find, oh, just a few people disagree with this >statement. SCSI is as slow as sh*t. The 68xxx is nice, but I'll take a >'386 or '486 any day of the week. My Compaq 386 eats Mac SE/30's for lunch. >Can you say "upgradable?" That's something that you can do with current >80xxx buses. Try doing that to a Mac without having to pay for an entire >new system board. Can you add the latest video technology to a Mac by dropping >a a board? No, you can even open the damn case without a proprietary tool!!! >Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac. That's >why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines. > >I'll die before I use a Mac or any of it's related equipment. It's all junk. > >> But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than >>the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness? >>What is the good judgement? Where are the users? > >What the hell? Apple *STOLE* it's interface from Xerox. That's illegal. >You want fairness? Xerox should bust Apple on it's ass for trying to rip >-- >>>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you * >University of Rochester * will screw it up." * All right, that's it. For get what I said about ending the ideological BS. When a PC user says these things, this means *war*. <Arnold Swartzeneggar Flame Thrower ON!> SCSI may not be the fastest thing in world, but I sure like it when its time to add additional hard drives...or scanners...or digitizers... or tape drives...or CD ROMS....or...get the picture? I won't even bother getting into a 68030 vs. 80386 war. Its pointless. Both chips scream. I will say that I can get a 50 MHz accelerator for my Mac II now. Can you say "upgradable"? Apple probably is the most committed company in the industry when it comes to upgrades. Does Compaq really do upgrades on their machines? Outside of the 486 power platform, does IBM really do upgrades. No. Most "upgrades" are left to third parties, usually just fast microprocessor boards, or crude memory boards that offer a bizarre standard known as LIM 4.0. Bank switching...ugh!!! Latest video technology? You call VGA and 8514/A the latest technology???? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Now that's really good! C'mon now. I can get 24-bit truecolor cards that actually have an Apple defined video standard behind them for under $1000! Get real on this subject. All Mac II cases are very easy to open without sophisticated tools. The Torx-15 screwdriver that you refer to open other Macs is available at many hardware stores...we didn't invent this standard. "Nothing comes standard on a 80xxx box". You get what you pay for. Whew...calming down now...flame off. -- __________________________________________________________________________ |Disclaimer: I run 125 INITs. Nothing I say can be seriously considered. | | | |Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing | |ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. | |Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 | |Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 | |GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 | |USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
robin@sabre.uucp (Robin D. Wilson/1000000) (12/19/89)
In article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Gary Kipnis) writes: >In article <1989Dec18.040441.30118@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K Shull) writes: >>In article <1989Dec17.223025.6618@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >>> ...people who owned Macs (because they couldn't figure out how to >>> use any other computer) weren't allowed on USENET :-). Yes. >> >> ...people checked their facts first. Yes. >> By the way, just for the record, people don't always use Macs because >> they "couldn't figure out how to use any other". Some of us feel >> that the Mac lets us get more done in the same amount of time. >> And time is valuable to me. > >Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. >Do you call if faster clicking on the 'disk eject' icon and waiting forever >for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster clicking >the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. There >probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than >pc. > >gary There are NO single commands that work faster on a Mac, (or AMIGA since this keeps showing up in comp.sys.amiga), but then if the computer is only used to copy one file to another, what good is it. But,.. The Mac is undoubtably faster on certain useful functions. Like: You can learn any program faster with the Mac/Amiga than on the PeeCee. This is because you have a consistant user interface on the mac/amiga. On the PeeCee every program thinks it knows the best way to do something, and all of the rest are just backwards and unfriendly. Consequently the user must read the entire manual on every piece of software he buys to learn how to use the program -- ie. the learning curve for a new piece of software is much steeper. For example, when I first worked at Lockheed (in 1987) the R&D Division (where I worked) bought PeeCees 5-to-1 over Macs. After several secretaries of the Directors got Macs, the number quickly shifted in favor of the Macs. The reason?? The people who owned Macs could learn how to put out a paper and connect to the Vax, and manage their files, and whip up a budget, etc. in half the time of the PeeCee users. My department was responsible for PeeCee and Mac support, the lady that did this job was asked during a staff meeting by our manager, "Why, if we have an equal number of Macs and PeeCees; does your weekly status report never contain more than a few lines about what you did to help the Mac users, while the remainder of your report fills volumes on what you did to help PC users? Are you just not familiar with the Mac, or are you shorting the Mac users in any way?" She responded, "No it's nothing like that. It's just that the Mac users only ask for help setting their machines up -- you know; plugging it in. Once they get past that, they figure the rest out in a few hours, and it is the same for every program they buy. On the other hand, the PC users need me to help them everytime they buy some new software, because they have to re-learn everything all over again." You can print out a "HIGH-QUALITY" document faster on Mac. Desktop Publishing is far and away superior on the Mac to anything offered on the PeeCee. It is more powerful, faster, better looking, more flexible, and easier to use than anything the PeeCee could probably EVER offer. In the same amount of time, an experienced user on a Mac vs an equally experienced user on a PeeCee would turn out a document an order of magnitude superior to the PeeCee user's document. You can diskcopy faster. It may sound simple, but it is invariabley true. It is far faster to grab a disk with the mouse, and move it over to the disk that you want it to copy onto; than it is to type diskcopy a: b: (or whatever). This; of course, assumes an equal amount of bytes being copied. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |The views expressed herein, are the sole responsibility of the typist at hand| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |USNail: UUCP: | |2323 Wells Branch Pkwy., #G107 cs.utexas.edu!romp!ibmchs!auschs\ | |Austin, TX 78728 !sabre.austin.ibm.com!robin | |Home: (512)251-6889 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<-MUST BE INCLUDED| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (12/19/89)
In article <183@comcon.UUCP>, roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) writes... >In article <2555@draken.nada.kth.se|, perand@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson) writes: >| In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >| >gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >| > >| >I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent >| >Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). It seems that the "quote" notations got mixed up. It appears from the above that I said Apple was "scumbags from hell". I never did. ('Cause I don't think it). Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (12/19/89)
In article <1439@lakesys.lakesys.com>, mark@lakesys.lakesys.com (Mark Storin) writes... >In article <9105@asylum.SF.CA.US> langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) writes: >>In article <9097@asylum.SF.CA.US> sharon@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes: >>>In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.mdu writes: >>>> [next, sun, etc. liscensing from Xerox] But if Apple has to liscense, then it's liscense to to MicroSoft is invalid, and Windows is also in trouble, no? >What I'd like to see is Xerox win just to put Apple in their place and then >turn around and grant licences for the technology at some rediculously low >price (to everyone but Apple that is :-). I don't think you can charge different liscensing fees purely for spite. BTW, I never knew that so many Macintosh users were so spiteful. I guess you learn something new every day. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
rgm@sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU (Robert Menke) (12/19/89)
In article <1989Dec17.223025.6618@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: > ...but I've been told that Apple > recently tried to organize a consortium of companies that would > agree to stop offering educational discounts! Sliiimmmeeeeyyyy! Actually, it was a group of computer sellers, not Apple, who tried to pass legeslation to outlaw computer discounts. A representative from Apple even posted on this newsgroup asking us to write letters to the congressmen, etc. "Collision imminent...." | Robert Menke "Energize the force fields!" | rgm@OCF.berkeley.edu "What force fields?" | Robert.Menke@bmug.fidonet.org TEAM CS -- Making Tomorrow's Mistakes Today!
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (12/19/89)
In article <4540@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: }IMHO, I would like to see Apple get roasted by this lawsuit... The way I see it, Apple can't win. If Xerox wins, they're out big bucks and lose the copyrights to their interface. If Xerox loses, the legal concept of a "look and feel" copyright is seriously weakened, if not outright invalidated, and Apple will have a h*ll of a time suing anyone else. About time, too. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimis non Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun | philabs | psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
ron@woan.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan) (12/19/89)
I can't believe this came from anyone at IBM, much less on the same token ring! In article <2878@d75.UUCP>, robin@sabre.uucp (Robin D. Wilson/1000000) writes: > You can learn any program faster with the Mac/Amiga than on the > PeeCee. This is because you have a consistant user interface on the > mac/amiga. True to a certain degree, but is quickly changing as software manufacturers port to Windows or OS/2 environments. Even so, the majority of good (commercial) programs out there come with online help and tutorials these days. I can't even remember the last time I had to read a manual except for language compilers. > You can print out a "HIGH-QUALITY" document faster on Mac. Desktop > Publishing is far and away superior on the Mac to anything offered > on the PeeCee. It is more powerful, faster, better looking, more > flexible, and easier to use than anything the PeeCee could probably > EVER offer. In the same amount of time, an experienced user on a > Mac vs an equally experienced user on a PeeCee would turn out a > document an order of magnitude superior to the PeeCee user's > document. I don't see Interleaf or Frame for the Macintosh for the power publishers. As for ease, Pagemaker on the PC is virtually identical to Pagemaker for the Mac. > You can diskcopy faster. It may sound simple, but it is invariabley > true. It is far faster to grab a disk with the mouse, and move it > over to the disk that you want it to copy onto; than it is to type > diskcopy a: b: (or whatever). This; of course, assumes an equal > amount of bytes being copied. How often do you use diskcopy anyways. What really disturbs me about the Mac is the absence of some way to bypass the stupid traversal through folders (directories) by clicking. That is something that wastes a lot more time, more often than typing "diskcopy a: b:." On the pc (as in UNIX) you can just give the entire path specification which isn't all that difficult with Anarkey or some other filename completion utility (ala csh in UNIX). For novices there is always the graphical point and shoot interfaces provided with Windows, Norton Commander, Desqview, etc... The name of the game in MSDOS and the PC world is choice. You aren't glued to any one frozen standard or held at the mercy of one supplier. Just try to add color to a non-Mac II or find low-cost fax boards or even add a joystick. Give me an "open" system anyday, even if the learning curve is a little greater. Personally I think MSDOS is fine as a monitor, but give me UNIX for an operating system anyday! Ron +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan (IBM VNET)WOAN AT AUSTIN, (AUSTIN)ron@woan.austin.ibm.com + + outside of IBM @cs.utexas.edu:ibmchs!auschs!woan.austin.ibm.com!ron + + last resort woan@peyote.cactus.org +
malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) (12/19/89)
In article <37366@apple.Apple.COM> rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) writes: >Latest video technology? You call VGA and 8514/A the latest technology???? >BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Now that's really good! C'mon now. I can >get 24-bit truecolor cards that actually have an Apple defined >video standard behind them for under $1000! Get real on this subject. VGA or 8514/A will satisfy about 75-80% of the people who aren't after absolute top-of-the-line graphics capability. For those that are, there are a number of graphics cards that make VGA look like CGA used to. Targa boards, Number Nine's graphics cards, and so on. Most of them have been around for several years, and the high-end graphics software as well, with improvements appearing as the high end hardware improves. Once the third-party developers decided that IBM wasn't going where the market existed, they struck out on their own and built their own video hardware; IBM hasn't been on the cutting edge of graphics technology for years. IBM has a track record of bringing out graphics hardware that dies in the market -- the PGA controller was the last one, and the 8514/A looks to be the next one. Pointing out IBM's developments as a subject of ridicule simply shows that you don't pay attention to the industry, and have inadvertantly or deliberately committed a straw man fallacy in your argument. Sean Malloy | "The Crystal Wind is the Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | Storm, and the Storm is Data, San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | and the Data is Life." malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | -- _Emerald Eyes_, D.K. Moran
james@utastro.UUCP (James McCartney) (12/19/89)
In article <7777@cbnewsm.ATT.COM>, wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske) writes: > shit > BULLSHIT! > shit doesn't stink. Real intelligent language, dude. Convinces me. Yup. --- James McCartney
ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) (12/19/89)
In article <37366@apple.Apple.COM> rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) writes: >Latest video technology? You call VGA and 8514/A the latest technology???? >BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Now that's really good! C'mon now. I can >get 24-bit truecolor cards that actually have an Apple defined >video standard behind them for under $1000! Get real on this subject. I never said that the VGA was the latest video technology. I can get the same kind of equipment you boast about for my PC. >All Mac II cases are very easy to open without sophisticated tools. >The Torx-15 screwdriver that you refer to open other Macs >is available at many hardware stores...we didn't invent this standard. I know Mac IIs are easily opened (also note that I never mentioned the II in my posting). The tool I was referring to was not a Torx screwdriver, but the "MacCracker" that is necessary to seperate the two halves of the case. -- >>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you * University of Rochester * will screw it up." * Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice." ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunet
jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (12/19/89)
In article <10457@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes:
)Definely true statement #1:
)
) I've never had to buy a book; the manual was MORE than enough.
)
)Unfortunately for many MS-DOS applications, the book is more than enough.
)Kind of like having to check out the whole set of encyclopedias to read an
)article on IBM. The information is there, just hard to get at. Why are
)Word Perfect and Lotus books best sellers?
Because they serve as manuals to people who pirate the programs.
I can't figure out what you were trying to say there, but I'm
pretty sure you missed this point.
)At least Mac users will try to carry on intelligent discussions without ranting
)and raving.
Not clear.
)Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
)Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
)Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com
jimm
--
-------------------------------------------------- - opinions by me
"This voice console is a *must*. I press Execute.
`Hello, I know that you've been feeling tired.
I bring you love and deeper understanding.' " -lyrics by Kate Bushmnkonar@gorby.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) (12/19/89)
>In article <4574@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris >Newbold) writes: >> What the hell? Apple *STOLE* it's interface from Xerox. > >> That's illegal. >> You want fairness? Xerox should bust Apple on it's ass for trying to rip >> off their work, sell it as their own, and then have the balls to sue >> someone else over it. You know you guys, it's not like Apple denies using the work done at Xerox and other places as the basis of their interface design. Look at their interface guidlines book (at the bookstore, you don't have to buy it) and read the introduction (or preface; I can't remember exactly), and it states plainly that Apple's desktop interface has its roots in work done at Xerox. No lie. Go read the article in Byte magazine where they interview the designers of the Lisa. Larry Tesler (now VP of Advanced Technology at Apple, also an alumnus of Xerox PARC) says that the idea of the desktop metaphor came from the Xerox STAR. No kidding. Other Xerox alumnus now at Apple include (off the top of my head): Alan Kay - Now an Apple fellow. I believe he was head of the Learning Research group at Xerox PARC. That group brought Smalltalk into the world. He also champions his concept of personal computing, the Dynabook. Johnny come lately's will recognize this as Sculley's information navigator. Ted Kaehler - worked on Hypercard. I'm sure he has done other things too but I can't remember. ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)
mfi@serc.cis.ufl.edu (Mark Interrante) (12/19/89)
In article <50944@srcsip.UUCP> mnkonar@gorby.UUCP (Murat N. Konar) writes: > >You know you guys, it's not like Apple denies using the work done at Xerox >and other places as the basis of their interface design. Look at their >interface guidlines book (at the bookstore, you don't have to buy it) and >read the introduction (or preface; I can't remember exactly), and it states >plainly that Apple's desktop interface has its roots in work done at Xerox. >No lie. Apple Interface guidlines page 123 "The apple employees who created the apple desktop interface had been involved in, or were influenced by important research at several institutions of the last 20 years. In the late 60's the augmentation research project at SRI made important contributions. ... The argumentation approach led to hardware innovations the principle example of which is the mouse... Important work at Xerox PARC... In the 1970s PARC provided the first explicit expression of the computer desktop. PARCS desktop featured windows that overlap, much like overlapping pieces of paper on a real desktop. ICONS typically representing familiar objects appeared on the desktop to provide direct and visible access to files, operations, and so on. Bit mapped graphics enabled users to directly combone text and graphics. At apple in the late 70's and early 80's the lisa computer carried the work further. A range of features now familiar oin the apple desktop interface- including menubar, one-button mouse, dialog boxes, the clipboard,and trashcan- were introduced with the lisa..." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Interrante Software Engineering Research Center mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu CIS Department, University of Florida 32611 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Imagine what it would be like if TV actually were good. It would be the end of everything we know." Marvin Minsky
werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) (12/19/89)
In article <10673@encore.Encore.COM>, jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) writes: > kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis): > > Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. > > you asked what an average person could do *faster* on a Mac. > > > There > > probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than > > pc. > > You seem to've missed the point here; the whole idea of the Mac is to get > away from *commands*. If you want to talk about which *activities* can be > performed faster on Macs, see the above. > OK, there are a variety of everyday "activities" that take much longer to accomplish on the Mac than on the PC. I curse the Macintosh far more than I curse the PC. For the PC, you complain mostly about it doesn't do. For the Mac, I complain mostly about what it does do. I liked the Mac at first, now I absolutely loath and despise it. Let's face it: a command line is easier to write programs for, takes up less memory (that's why IBM liked it) and once you know the secret (ah, there's the rub), is much more efficient than heiroglyphics, which is what icons really are. more effici -- Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go) werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "Morphology is part science and part 'Ipse Dixit.' "
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (12/19/89)
I vowed I was going to get out of the flame war, but this one I just can't resist. Remind me to make a new year's resolution not to be snide, ok? [BTW everyone, check the newsgroups line for comp.sys.amiga and spare them] wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske) writes: >If you need a computer to hold your hand... If you're smart, all that shit >gets in the way. Gee, and I thought that the whole idea of computers was to make life easier for their users. Silly me! I guess those of us who do not have your massive intellect shouldn't be allowed to use anything more complicated than a toaster. >I've never had to buy a book; the manual was MORE than enough. Aren't you special. >BULLSHIT! There is no risk in stealing ideas, other than in being caught. >And they bastardized the idea with things like single button mice, because >they deemed point-and-click eacy to market, especially when I didn't have to >decide which button to click. That gives you an idea of the intelligence >level they aimed for. Yeah, they wanted to make it easy for average people who were scared of computers to use them. Why, those dirty Commies from Cupertino! >I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems >hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things >need no defense - they stand on their own merits. If you pile up enough shit, and bake it long enough, it stands up too. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP Announcing TEMPORAL EXPRESS. For only $999,999.95 (per page), your message will be carefully stored, then sent back in time as soon as technologically possible. TEMEX - when it absolutely, postively has to be there yesterday!
barmar@Think.COM (12/19/89)
In article <6785@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >In article <183@comcon.UUCP>, roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) writes... > >>In article <2555@draken.nada.kth.se|, perand@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson) writes: >>| In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >>| >gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >>| > >>| >I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent >>| >Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). > >It seems that the "quote" notations got mixed up. It appears from the above >that I said Apple was "scumbags from hell". No, it appears that Davin Yap said it. Anything with the same line prefix was written by the same person; therefore, the words "scumbags from hell" were written by the same person who wrote "gft_robert writes:". The words "So and so writes:" are normally indented one level less than the quote to which it refers. Whatever it is you wrote was edited out (in which case, the attribution should have been removed). Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
csachs@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Colin Sachs) (12/19/89)
> Could y'all kindly keep the "Mac is God/IBM rules" war out of > comp.sys.amiga. Please?... Could this thread just be dropped from comp.sys.ibm.pc as well... like move it to alt.flame or something... -- Colin Sachs - csachs@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu For this I left friends, family, and fresh lobster? What am I? Nuts???
krb20699@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (12/19/89)
It all boils down to Apple wanting the most profit it can get from it's
excellent graphics interface (=suing potential competitors.) This, if I am
not mistaken, is what Xerox wants to do. I don't know much about the Star
system, or the Berne convention, but it seems Xerox is trying to be a hero
by suing Apple in exchange for what it's done in the courtroom. Do two
wrongs (according to at least one person here, defending a company's copyright
makes that company "scumbags from hell." Applicable to Xerox, don't you
think?) make a right? Xerox is doing the same thing Apple has done. What's
the damn difference? It may be a picky thing for Apple to do, but the inter-
face is so easily copiable (OS/2, Windows, etc.) that the lawsuits seem to
be at _least_ partially justified.
Personally, I doubt Xerox was hurt a bit by the mac. If they were, they
would have said something before 8 years had past and the Mac had become a
majority of Apple's sales. The Berne convention doesn't seem to be enough
of a change to warrant $150 million in damages, especially in court, with all
the other questions to boot. If they wanted to wait this long so that Apple,
in possibly losing its copyright, would fall harder as the saying goes, I
can't help but see Xerox in a lower position than the coveted "scumbags from
hell."
It may seem that Apple is doing unjust, picky, whatever you want to call
the lawsuits it's filed, but why does John-not-Apple-Doe come out the hero?
If Apple did do something it shouldn't have, fine, let it come out in the
court proceedings w/ evidence. I don't like seeing personal opinions being
construed as the reason for $150 million in damages, especially when they're
so different from person to person (Apple-hater to Apple-lover, e.g..)
>In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes:
>>gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent
>>Apple (<-- scumbags from hell).
>>--
>
>Considering many of us are using ethernet, which comes mostly from Xerox,
>one might say this seems probable. And, quite frankly, Apple deserves it.
>One wonders if the reason they haven't sued Atari and Commodore yet is that
>they consider their offers not being office computer threats. What will then
>happen when Apple again sells machines for home use ( some day ) ?
>
>--
>---
>Per Andersson
>Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
>perand@admin.kth.se, @nada.kth.se
Doesn't the Apple II line constitute a computer for home use? If so,
then what has happened? The Mac+ is pretty cheap nowadays. It's already
going out to the K-12 market, if I hear right...
>One reason Xerox is sueing Apple now may be that Xerox was (fairly) recently
>awarded patents on the Star operating environment. Patent infringements are
>usually more easily proven than copyright ones.
>
> Just a thought.
>
>| Todd Miller - millert@tramp.Colorado.EDU
Wouldn't a recent patent be a bit worthless in court, considering when
Apple created the Mac, it wan't infringing in a patent? Why would the Mac
interface be damaging Xerox _only_ after they get a patent? I can see Apple
loosing copyright rights (I'm no lawyer) but $150 million? "Just a thought."
>IMHO, I would like to see Apple get roasted by this lawsuit... Flames to
>/dev/null, please.
>
>--
>>>> Chris Newbold <<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you *
>University of Rochester * will screw it up." *
>Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice."
Don't you think we have the right to argue your opinion?
Sorry for the length, I caught this article late.
InterNet -> krb20699@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | Ken Brownfield
=---------------------------------------------+ Rural Route 4, Box 152
PLATO -> ken brownfield/unialum/cerl | Champaign, IL, 61820
-> brownfield/dialup/cerl |(home) (217) 643-7504
=---------------------------------------------+------------------------------=davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/19/89)
In article <37366@apple.Apple.COM> rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) writes: | Can you say "upgradable"? Apple probably is the most committed | company in the industry when it comes to upgrades. Excuse me? Is this the same Apple which sold Macs for four years which don't have any slots for upgrade? The ones you can convert to color by buying a whole new machine? Is this the Apple who will only sell you a UNIX version on a hard disk which is too small to *run* UNIX beyond the "Hello, world!" stage? Apple has a number of useful features, but they have resisted making their machines expandable as long as they could. Was this to prevent third parties from offering better and less costly options? Can you doubt it? Apple has a firm committment to PROFIT, and makes IBM look positively benevolent by comparison. Maybe Apple is an IBM public relations operation. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
fry@brauer.harvard.edu (Zippy) (12/19/89)
In article <7777@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske) writes: >In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: >> It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, >> make things look good and friendly. > >If you need a computer to hold your hand... If you're smart, all that shit >gets in the way. What kind of intelligence is it that is proud of being able to use a command line interface rather than a graphic-based one? Do you seriously consider this some sort of badge of honor? How threatened you must feel by those that can use both... > >> It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the >> manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at >> the manual and learn things fast. > >I've never had to buy a book; the manual was MORE than enough. My, you ARE smart... >> But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than >> the other impundent company is being "punished". > >BULLSHIT! There is no risk in stealing ideas, other than in being caught. >And they bastardized the idea with things like single button mice, because >they deemed point-and-click eacy to market, especially when I didn't have to >decide which button to click. That gives you an idea of the intelligence >level they aimed for. Perhaps your own company, the phone company, should have aimed for telephone systems that used 39 wires connected to switch boxes in every home. That way only intelligent people could use phones, and you'd feel much better. > >> If *some* people would not be so close minded... > >I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems >hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things >need no defense - they stand on their own merits. Then what are you defending and why? -------- Please ask yourself a question: if the Mac interface is so bad, insulting and inefficient, why is everyone falling all over themselves to make a functional copy for their systems? Somebody must be buying it. Thank you for a most insulting and immature posting... David Fry fry@huma1.harvard.EDU Department of Mathematics fry@huma1.bitnet Harvard University ...!harvard!huma1!fry Cambridge, MA 02138
BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz (12/19/89)
Hey!!! Don't forget that Apple are still in the courts over the stupid mistake of suing the Beatles company Apple for the use of their trade name. (The name Apple was licenced by the computer company FROM the Beatles company, and as it turns out, the licence had lapsed and was being used without authorisation.) As I understand it, the suit is for $10,000,000 +. They really need to BOMB someone in their legal dept!!
malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) (12/20/89)
In article <111700188@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> krb20699@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >>One reason Xerox is sueing Apple now may be that Xerox was (fairly) recently >>awarded patents on the Star operating environment. Patent infringements are >>usually more easily proven than copyright ones. > > Wouldn't a recent patent be a bit worthless in court, considering when >Apple created the Mac, it wan't infringing in a patent? Why would the Mac >interface be damaging Xerox _only_ after they get a patent? I can see Apple >loosing copyright rights (I'm no lawyer) but $150 million? "Just a thought." Are you aware of how _long_ it can take to get a patent issued? Have you ever noticed little inscriptions on products that say "Patent Pending"? Xerox recently received the patent; nothing I've seen on the net has yet provided _any_ information about when the patent application was _filed_. If Apple brought out the Mac and Lisa _before_ the patent was filed, Xerox can't sue for patent infringement. If the Mac and Lisa came out _after_ the patent application was filed they are wide open for a suit, and since Apple has admitted that they took inspiration from the Xerox Star interface, they've shot themselves in the foot going into a patent infringement suit. Sean Malloy | ". . . They always have an air Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | of cheap melodrama about them." San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | "You will find, my dear, that malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | _true_ melodrama _never_ comes | cheap."
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (12/20/89)
In article <4540@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: >IMHO, I would like to see Apple get roasted by this lawsuit... Flames to >/dev/null, please. I doubt seriosly that Apple will even skip a beat over this, its too little to late...Xerox had 10 years to think this over...what a waste of time and money... -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
unhd (Roger Gonzalez ) (12/20/89)
Totally aside from the Mac/IBM debating, I'm curious about how people feel about GUI designs in general (you too, Amigoids). Some GUI's work well. But, whenever I have to use one that is poorly designed, I start to miss VM/CMS :-) Some comments: Don't design the GUI so that the user needs pixel-precision to do things! After my morning gallon of coffee, the last thing I want to do is line things up to pixels. I like objects that recognize themselves as wholes, and especially auto-caddish features like "attach to endpoint". In one of my user interface design books (I'll look up the specifics if anyone is curious) numerous studies were cited in which menu driven and iconic interfaces were proven to be effective methods for (a) novices and (b) small command sets, especially hierarchical command sets. They were shown to be more of an annoyance in large command sets and with experienced users. On a Mac, if I create a bunch of files (say 30) that all contain the string "foobar" in their name, can I delete "??foobar.*" without pointing at every blinking file? I've never figured out how. The Mac methodology seems to be "I am an object, and am associated with the tool that created me. I won't let you use the wrong tool, so don't worry." PC's look at it notably differently. They say "There are objects, and there are tools. Use any tool you want on any object. It's up to you to figure out the right tool for the job." I prefer the latter schema, because it is inherently more powerful. More dangerous, but more powerful. In addition, I think its closer to the way that people think. I may be wrong about this whole section, but whenever I've tried to look at or otherwise hack into things at a low level, things complained noisily because I wasn't using the proper applications. Comments welcome (especially from Amigoids, since I've never used one). -Roger -- UUCP: ..!uunet!unhd!rg | USPS: Marine Systems Engineering Laboratory BITNET: r_gonzalez at unhh | University of New Hampshire PHONE: (603) 862-4600 | 242 SERB FAX: (603) 862-4399 | Durham, NH 03824-3525
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/20/89)
In article <5136@skinner.nprdc.arpa> malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes: | If Apple brought out the Mac and Lisa | _before_ the patent was filed, Xerox can't sue for patent | infringement. True, but not complete. Xerox may be able to (a) get some of Apples copyrights and/or patents disallowed, and (b) sue for any royalties which Apple has been collecting from other vendors. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (12/20/89)
People have railed against Apple for two reasons. Some don't believe in the concept of ownership of interface design, and as such they should be almost as angry at Xerox as at Apple. Others have been particularly bothered by the fact that Apple has been doing these lawsuits when everybody has known for a long time that they got most of their ideas from the Xero Alto & Star. So if you are an FSF type, you should be bothered by this suit, not pleased. If you just want to see the good guys win, this suit should please you. Xerox has, for a long time, poured tons of copier profits into pure research at Parc, and it isn't fair that other companies should take all the good ideas and make all the money from them. True, Xerox should have been doing something with those ideas, too. But to have Apple make a variety of effectively minor improvements and run around suing people for stealing "their" ideas has bothered a lot of people. Like it says in the FASS theatre programs, "You can't tape record this performance, because it is copyrighted by the people we stole it from." -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
rht@smsdpg.uu.net (Randy Thompson) (12/20/89)
Reading all this stuff really makes me chuckle. As a user of minis and
micros using DOS, OS/2, *nix as well as the MacOS, I cant believe that
so many would be so involved in their "own" architecture and OS that they
cant admit that there are other valid ways of doing things. A GUI
(Graphical User Interface) is well suited to doing some things, just as
a command driven interface is suited to doing other things. A GUI is more
cumbersome at some things that are easy in a command driven one, as a
command driven interface is more cumbersome at doing some things that are
a piece of cake under a GUI.
Whats the big deal? Use what works for you!
_________________________________________________________________________
Randy Thompson | rht@smsdpg.UUCP -- Office
SMS Data Products Group, Inc. | rht%tailchasr@smsdpg.UUCP -- mac@home
703/648-9400 |
_________________________________________________________________________
* Constructive criticism is always appreciated *
Send Flames to: Trash%tailchasr@smsdpg.UUCP
_________________________________________________________________________cswarren@enzyme.berkeley.edu (Warren Gish;133 Barker;x3-9219) (12/20/89)
In article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Gary Kipnis) writes: >Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. Okay, here's an easy one... Name a file "numerical recipes". It takes a LOT longer to do this under DOS. Call me when you're done. ;^) Warren X (padding for the linecount police) X X X
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (12/20/89)
in article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis) says: > Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.amiga:48425 comp.sys.ibm.pc:44674 comp.sys.mac:47930 > Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. Please multiply these two matrices: long A[70000][50],B[50][70000]; Any vanilla Mac with enough memory can do this more efficiently than any PC you can buy for the same price. Others can take it from there. > There probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac > than pc. There probably is, but who's talking about _single_ commands anyway. If you're not running OS/2 on your PC machine, there are MANY things a Mac can do better than a PC (the current Mac OS and OS/2 each support the same amount of memory). I'm using a different 680x0 based computer, but the same rules apply. I regularly use a DTP program that's almost 400K in size. I often fire up the companion drawing program, another 270K, while the DTP program is still running. Both programs, a drawing, and the 100 page manual I'm working on is all in real memory. You could simulate this on a PC by swapping to disk or bank-switching memory, but there's no way this is going to be as fast under MS-DOS as it would be on my Amiga or a Mac under Multifinder. And I have about 10-15 other smaller things running in the background most of the time. OS/2 could probably do the same things, though it would take significantly more memory, it's less efficient, and it's limited to 16 megs of address space. > gary -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
jsp@key.COM (James Preston) (12/20/89)
In article <4543@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: >From what I remember of the article, Xerox has waited all of this time while >various "ambiguities" in the relevent laws have been ironed out in court >over the last several years. I.e. Xerox has been watching while Apple diligently built the scaffolding, tied the noose, stuck their head into it, and tightened the knot. Now Xerox is just asking the court to let _them_ pull the lever. Sounds fair to me. --James Preston
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Christopher Silverberg) (12/20/89)
In article <4574@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: >You picked the wrong news group to post this (comp.sys.ibm.pc). In who's >book? I think that you will find, oh, just a few people disagree with this >statement. SCSI is as slow as sh*t. The 68xxx is nice, but I'll take a >'386 or '486 any day of the week. My Compaq 386 eats Mac SE/30's for lunch. >Can you say "upgradable?" That's something that you can do with current >80xxx buses. Try doing that to a Mac without having to pay for an entire >new system board. Can you add the latest vid. technology to a Mac by dropping >a a board? No, you can even open the damn case without a proprietary tool!!! >Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac. That's >why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines. I HAD to reply to this one... it's pretty OBVIOUS that this person hasn't seen much more than pictures of a Macintosh, or he wouldn't have said some of the weird things. Lets take this apart... "SCSI is as slow as sh*t"... oh, do you have a better method? what, serial??? "The 68xxx is nice, but I'll take a '386 or '486 and day" -- your loss, not ours... "Can you say "upgradable?" (saying) upgradable... but if you had a Mac IIci, you can't get too much better in computers, or certainly not from an ibm clone. "Can you add the latest video technology to a Mac by dropping a(sic) a board?" yup... have you ever seen Mac graphics? I would have one of those Supermac monitors if i could... anyway, VGA is quite behind the capabilities offered by the mac, so far... "Can you say "customization?"" Hahah... this is the best one... the Mac is customizable from TOP to BOTTOM... i have more flexibility than i can keep track of... ibm clones have a long way to catch up to mac customization. -- ============================================================================== (.) (.) | Chris Silverberg, WPI Box 719 | BBS Sysop: Main Street U.S.A u | USENET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu | 2400 baud - (508) 832-7725 \___/ | BITNET: macman@wpi.bitnet | Fido: 322/575 - Second Sight BBS
kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (12/20/89)
>2) Deleting a file > DOS era <name of file> > Mac <click> ...drag... <kcilc> (thats releasing a press) And if you want to delete a file three directories down the tree, but want to keep working in the directory you're in, you get to click on three folders, then drag the file icon to the trashcan, then click back up three times. In DOS, you just specify the pathname: Bzzt, wrong answer. Yes, you have to open up the three subdirectories. However, you certainly don't have to close them to resume work in the current window. This assumes that you make a habit of bad techniques such as specifying pathnames rather than using CD. Easy way to lose files accidentally. And of course, Unix does it better because you don't have to hunt for the \ key. >3) Selecting a word in a document. > DOS <lots of keys to move> <Ctrl-Alt-Fn-37> > Mac <clickety click> You are picking out a single type of WP program and attempting to tar all DOS WP programs by denigrating it against the Mac. Straw Man fallacy. Your arguments are invalid. Oh, really? How many sites are using MSWord or MSWrite? In all my secretarial work, I have found exactly *one* site that does not use WordPerfect, which is probably what he was alluding to. (That one site was a non-profit organization whose PCs were government-granted and MS-Windows was given as a gift/donation.) And WordPerfect isn't exactly user-friendly- if you don't have a function key template, forget it. It would be foolish to dismiss the most popular PC word processor as a Straw Man, don't you think? -- Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu> "Famous? I'm not famous. People come up to me after a show and say 'Hey, Steve!'" -Jon Anderson
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (12/20/89)
In article <3450@husc6.harvard.edu> fry@brauer.harvard.edu (Zippy) writes: >In article <7777@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> wg@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske) writes: >>In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: >>> If *some* people would not be so close minded... >> >>I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems >>hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things >>need no defense - they stand on their own merits. > >Then what are you defending and why? This is a GREAT argument (the Bill Argument... :-) No matter what, you lose. If you don't argue the merits of whatever you're defending, then you have to accept the argument that it's junk. If you do defend it, however, it must be junk because it can't stand on it's own merits. Thank you for a particularly amusing concept. -- ________Robert J. Granvin________ INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org ____National Computer Systems____ BITNET: rjg%sialis.mn.org@nic.mr.net __National Information Services__ UUCP: ...amdahl!bungia!sialis!rjg "Go ahead... be naughty. Save Santa the trip."
johna@van-bc.UUCP (John Altstadt) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec19.193744.6301@uunet!unhd> rg@unhd.UUCP (Roger Gonzalez ) writes: > ... >Comments welcome (especially from Amigoids, since I've never used one). >-Roger I've never used an Amigoid either... Sorry Roger, I just couldn't resist the straight line, especially since you were steering the discussion back to something intelligent. John -- johna@wimsey.bc.ca || ...!ubc-cs!van-bc!johna || ...!uunet!van-bc!johna
gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek...) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec19.193744.6301@uunet!unhd> rg@unhd.UUCP (Roger Gonzalez ) writes: >Totally aside from the Mac/IBM debating, I'm curious about how people >feel about GUI designs in general (you too, Amigoids). >Don't design the GUI so that the user needs pixel-precision to do things! >After my morning gallon of coffee, the last thing I want to do is line things >up to pixels. I like objects that recognize themselves as wholes, and >especially auto-caddish features like "attach to endpoint". > >The Mac methodology seems to be "I am an object, and am associated with the >tool that created me. I won't let you use the wrong tool, so don't worry." >PC's look at it notably differently. They say "There are objects, and there >are tools. Use any tool you want on any object. It's up to you to figure >out the right tool for the job." I prefer the latter schema, because it >is inherently more powerful. More dangerous, but more powerful. In addition, >I think its closer to the way that people think. I may be wrong about this No flames, but I think you are. See, what schema is more USEFUL to a particular individual (NOT more powerful; that's a BIG difference) depends on the situation the individual sees him/herself in. Now I'll bashfully beat my own drum and say that I was involved in a minor study or two ialong these lines, but I think the principle is valid. The way people think depends on how they're viewing the situation. For a LOT of people, they'll WANT the constraints the Mac interface imposes---they don't care what kind of power is available to them, they just want to do the single specific thing they NEED to do RIGHT NOW. Learning the internal logic of a program to do that single specific thing won't appeal to them if they don't want to take a whole lot of time. On the other hand, folks who see themselves USING the program and see the current task as a steppingstone for further activities won't mind going through the steps and the hassles of a PC-type interface. They DO end up doing (usually) more powerful things, but I think there are more people in the former camp than at the latter. -- Roger Tang, Member Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club American Flag Disposal Unit #3245, Chonk Moonhunters chapter gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu
slimer@trsvax.UUCP (12/20/89)
I've been sitting here reading this vast amount of information presented as arguements for both Apple and Xerox. What I cannot understand is those people who begin to make personal attacks on others. I do not need to quote those people as most of you have been reading this will surely note who they are. As many of you net.readers know, it is possible for people to be wrong. Many of the people in this thread do not know the laws related to copyrights and patents. Before making comments and replys to this thread, you should brush up on this information so you do not look like a fool. If you get your PC Week papers out, you'll find several articles on this subject telling why it took 8 years. The amount of time between release and filed suit should not matter. What Xerox needed was more leveraging power, so they waited their time for all the good legal stuff to float to the top. They grabbed it all, and now they are going to court. This may be a simple case and it may not be a simple case, but in any event Apple is wasting everyones time by filing all these suits to protect their profit margins. Xerox is NOT jumping on Apples band wagon; However, they are in this mess to simply show that Apple did not develop the technology they claim to have developed. What Xerox wants is for Apple to stop whining around about it all and face up to the fact that they stole this information from them. What Apple wants is for everyone to quit cloning their trade secrets and biting into their profit. Wake up Apple, if it's good enough for the PC, it's good enough for an Apple. I do not want, nor will I get envolved in, a flame war. Those people who get their net.feelings hurt by remarks made on this subject need to net.growup. This is a forum to express information, quit taking it so damn personal. **************************************************************************** * Thank You, texbell!rwsys!slimer * * Bill "Get your VAX straight!" - ComputerWorld * * George W. Pogue, 1300 Two Tandy, Fort Worth, TX. 76102 (817) 390-2871 * ****************************************************************************
dave@micropen (David F. Carlson) (12/20/89)
In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu>, gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > > OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, > NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but > all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh). > > Robert > Except Apple WON'T license an idea that isn't theirs, whereas Xerox WILL license an idea that is clearly theirs. To Apple: What goes around, comes around. -- David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc. micropen!dave@ee.rochester.edu "The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (12/21/89)
In article <10457@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: > > The 80286/80386/80486 are all in the same league as the 68000/68020/68030. > Each will serve the purpose. So unless you are a processor designer, let's ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > stay away from this argument. > ABSOLUTELY!!! I can't stand it when people turn a software argument into a processor/hardware argument. I can't stand it when people worship Motorola for creating the 68000 and bash on Intel for making the 80286. The arguments make it sound like Intel chips are INCAPABLE of running something like MacOS. This is BULLSHIT! EACH PROCESSOR WILL SERVE THE PURPOSE! > >At least Mac users will try to carry on intelligent discussions without ranting >and raving. > I wouldn't make any generalizations here. Mac users, just like PC users, are a large and varied bunch. Personally, I like both systems, but PC's seem to make more sense to me, as I can easily buy a UNIX-capable PC with SuperVGA graphics (640x480x256), a 25MHz processor, and a big disk for less than $3K. That's less than the base price of a B/W MacToaster WITHOUT A KEYBOARD! I've got to admit, those IIx's with the 24-bit color cards are nice, but what's with the stratospheric pricing? > > >-Michael > >-- >Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas >Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu >Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com) --- +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ | | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | | Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | | | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
sc@qmet.UUCP (Steve Croft) (12/21/89)
In article <9106@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > in article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis) says: >> Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. > Please multiply these two matrices: > long A[70000][50],B[50][70000]; > Any vanilla Mac with enough memory can do this more efficiently than any PC you > can buy for the same price. Others can take it from there. Excuse me, but wouldn't two matrices of this size require about 28 Meg (70000 x 50 x 2 x 4 = 28000000) I believe this is beyond the address space of a "vanilla" (68000) Mac, n'est pas :) -- ****************************************************************************** * If what I say is not correct, * Steve Croft, Qualimetrics, Inc. * * then it's not what I meant! * (ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!qmet!sc) * ******************************************************************************
gdavis@primate.wisc.edu (Gary Davis) (12/21/89)
From article <1989Dec19.193744.6301@uunet!unhd>, by rg@uunet!unhd (Roger Gonzalez ): > > On a Mac, if I create a bunch of files (say 30) that all contain the > string "foobar" in their name, can I delete "??foobar.*" without pointing > at every blinking file? I've never figured out how. > You can't in the Finder, though you could in the various command-line Finder substitutes available, and I think maybe in the new version of the DA DiskTop. I'm not sure the situation need ever arise. When I make a bunch of related files, I just put them all in a new folder, which I can delete or copy with a single sweep of the mouse. This is easier to do if you're running under MultiFinder, so that you can easily go to the Finder to create a new folder, or if you're using one of the utilities like Boomerang which lets you create folders from within the file save dialog of programs. With the Finder you can use the various sorting options to make it easily to quickly delete all files of a certain type or date. > The Mac methodology seems to be "I am an object, and am associated with the > tool that created me. I won't let you use the wrong tool, so don't worry." > PC's look at it notably differently. They say "There are objects, and there > are tools. Use any tool you want on any object. It's up to you to figure > out the right tool for the job." I prefer the latter schema, because it > is inherently more powerful. More dangerous, but more powerful. In addition, Actually the Mac doesn;t say "I won't let you use the wrong tool," rather it says "I'll get you the tool this object was created with if you want me too." It also says, "If you want to use any tool on any object, go right ahead. Just use ResEdit or any number of other utilities or DAs to change the file type." Of course the tool may not know what to do with the object and may even crash, but then it'sa up to you to pick a tool that can do something reasonable. It's actually not even that dangerous if you just use a text editor on the object. Many of them will let you open any file regardless of type. Since the Mac tends to have a few standard formats for objects, a wide variety of tools can often be applied to a particular object without having to pull any tricks. For instance, I can create a graph in a graphing program, then paste it into essentially any drawing program to modify it in any way I want. I can paste it through a succession of programs if I want in order to do several different kinds of things to it. Gary Davis
robin@sabre.uucp (Robin D. Wilson/1000000) (12/21/89)
In article <5116@blake.acs.washington.edu> gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek...) writes: >In article <1989Dec19.193744.6301@uunet!unhd> rg@unhd.UUCP (Roger Gonzalez ) writes: >>The Mac methodology seems to be "I am an object, and am associated with the >>tool that created me. I won't let you use the wrong tool, so don't worry." >>PC's look at it notably differently. They say "There are objects, and there >>are tools. Use any tool you want on any object. It's up to you to figure >>out the right tool for the job." I prefer the latter schema, because it >>is inherently more powerful. More dangerous, but more powerful. In addition, >>I think its closer to the way that people think. I may be wrong about this >[Stuff deleted about how most people want to getthe job done now, so GUI's are > more useful to them.] > On the other hand, folks who see themselves USING the program and see >the current task as a steppingstone for further activities won't mind going >through the steps and the hassles of a PC-type interface. They DO end up >doing (usually) more powerful things, but I think there are more people in >the former camp than at the latter. Actually, MOST good Mac / Amiga / GUI programs are at least as powerful, and usually moreso than their MSDOS / PC-type interface counterparts. The difference is in the ease of getting to that particular advanced function at any given moment. The GUI's have a much quicker learning curve, so in the beginning the user can get to the advanced features faster (he doesn't have to read as many pages in the manual). Later, this time is reduced because the PC-user has begun to learn more about his/her software, and can figure out how to accomplish several tasks with one extended command; however, the Mac / Amiga / GUI user in the same time period has learned the shortcuts available to him/her during the same time period -- which are probably not as individually powerful as the extend commands of the PC-type interface, but collectively are equal or more powerful; they just take longer to enact. Clearly, the best solution is to offer either 1: both interfaces like on the Amiga -- which even though it is more inconsistant in the GUI than a Mac, it is far more consistant than any MSDOS / PC-type counterpart. Or, 2: allow for more command combination in the GUI, and more customizable Menus/commands. Many Mac / Amiga / Xwindows / GUIs offer some degree of user customization, but the true power of the GUI will be limited until complete user customization can be implemented. This will require programmers to overcome the problem of "too much customization", where users customize themselves out of being able to use new software, because they have to customize it to their set-up before they can use it, and to customize it they have to spend hours with the manual. Finally, we must ask ourselves, what are computers good for? Are they intended for programmers, and sysadmin types -- who need to know how to take it apart and put it back together -- or are they intended for business people, students housewives and secretaries? If we choose the first proposition computers will die off eventually, because people will one-day realize that building a machine thats only purpose is to build a newer and better version of itself still gives you a net result of 1 useless machine (even though it may be better, stronger faster, than ever before it is still around to build a new version of itself). One the other hand, the computer is really intended to be used by everyone but "computer people". In this respect, it must be useful from the outset. If I buy a T.V. and have to go to school to learn how to turn it on, and then change channels, and then adjust the volume, etc. I will not find it effort worth the rewards. The same applies to productivity enhancing devices such as computers. If it takes me a month of intensive study to learn how to use it, I could have done 1 month's worth of real work instead. I think??... ;-) +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |The views expressed herein, are the sole responsibility of the typist at hand| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |USNail: UUCP: | |2323 Wells Branch Pkwy., #G107 cs.utexas.edu!romp!ibmchs!auschs\ | |Austin, TX 78728 !sabre.austin.ibm.com!robin | |Home: (512)251-6889 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<-MUST BE INCLUDED| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (12/21/89)
BTW, folks, it's not some bunch of idealistic "open systems" folks at Xerox who are behind all this, attacking the "evil corporate giant" Apple. Nope. According to today's New York Times, "Both former and current Xerox executives said the company's decision to sue Apple can be attributed almost entirely to the arrival of William C. Lowe, a former executive of IBM, who joined Xerox last year." So, as I see it, it's one company attacking another, not some epic battle between good guys and bad guys. (There's nothing wrong with the guy coming from IBM; I just mean to imply that this is a business decision in all likelihood, not some altruistic crusade). BTW, I'm rooting for Apple, it if makes any difference. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (12/21/89)
In article <37366@apple.Apple.COM> rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) writes: > >I won't even bother getting into a 68030 vs. 80386 war. Its pointless. >Both chips scream. I will say that I can get a 50 MHz accelerator >for my Mac II now. > OH YEAH. I've seen this upgrade advertized. For the same price, you could alternatively get a second computer system. Hmmm... Which do you prefer -- 50MHz or true multiprocessing? The point is that in relatively NO TIME FLAT, Intel will have a 50MHz 486, and then Motorola will no doubt have a 75MHz 68040. Who cares? These things are meaningless. MHz has become a commodity. The latest PCWeek disclosed Intel's plans to release a 250MHz 80786 by the turn of the century. Should I throw out my 8MHz AT now? > >Latest video technology? You call VGA and 8514/A the latest technology???? >BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Now that's really good! C'mon now. I can >get 24-bit truecolor cards that actually have an Apple defined >video standard behind them for under $1000! Get real on this subject. > VGA and 8514/A are standards available to the masses. If you need it, you can get truecolor and 4Kx4K resolution and God-knows-what-else for the PC as well. You get real. There isn't one area of expandability where a Mac has more options than a PC. And if you start quoting prices, let's talk about base prices for Macs, to which you have to add for the keyboard, of course. > >Whew...calming down now...flame off. > My sentiments, exactly. --- +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ | | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | | Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | | | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
rob@prism.TMC.COM (12/21/89)
>Please multiply these two matrices: >long A[70000][50],B[50][70000]; >Any vanilla Mac with enough memory can do this more efficiently than any PC >you can buy for the same price. Others can take it from there. Well, it could be argued that, since accomodating these arrays would require 28Mb of memory (which is beyond the reach of the 8086 or the 68000), no low-end machine is going to handle this too well...:-) I know, I know... In general, the point is well taken. Pre-386 PCs are saddled with the old Intel memory architecture, which is a real hinderance in some cases. And many 386's are used simply as fast 8088s or 80286s, which is unfortunate. The key word here is 'vanilla'. A low-cost Mac could do this more easily than a low-cost PC (by 'low-cost', I mean under about $2500), but the higher end Macs compete with 386 and 486 machines that can handle this easily. >I regularly use a DTP program that's almost 400K in size. I often fire up >the companion drawing program, another 270K, while the DTP program is still >running. Both programs, a drawing, and the 100 page manual I'm working on is >all in real memory. You could simulate this on a PC by swapping to disk or >bank-switching memory, but there's no way this is going to be as fast under >MS-DOS as it would be on my Amiga or a Mac under Multifinder. Again, on a 386 machine, this can be done without difficulty and at fairly low cost, requiring neither disk swapping nor bank switching. Doing it on a 286 or 8088 machine does require some smoke-and-mirrors from the programmer (usually involving bank switching memory), but lots of older machines are used like this, and doing this on an older Mac would be no picnic, either. There's a common mistake being made here, which is to compare late model Macs with older DOS machines. (Both camps are guilty of this; lots of the 'The Mac is a toy' criticism from the DOS side comes from impressions of the early Macs.) This is one of those debates where it could reasonably be said that 'everybody's right'. It's clear that each side is learning from the other. In recent years, PC's have been moving toward graphical interfaces, while Apple has opened up the Mac and made it more powerful. In the long run, this is a rivalry from which everyone probably stands to gain.
aperez@caribe.uucp (Arturo Perez x6739) (12/21/89)
From article <37366@apple.Apple.COM>, by rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing): > In article <4574@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes: >>In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: >>> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than >>>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). >> >>... I think that you will find, oh, just a few people disagree with this >>statement. SCSI is as slow as sh*t. The 68xxx is nice, but I'll take a >>'386 or '486 any day of the week. My Compaq 386 eats Mac SE/30's for lunch. >>Can you say "upgradable?" That's something that you can do with current >>80xxx buses. Try doing that to a Mac without having to pay for an entire >>new system board. Can you add the latest video technology to a Mac by dropping >>a a board? No, you can even open the damn case without a proprietary tool!!! >>Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac. That's >>why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines. This kills me about PC lovers. "Nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines." First off, we're talking ISA; there's no such thing as a 80xxx bus. People have used 80xxx chips in parallel processors; you don't think that they used ISA for that, do you? (Why don't they call it PC-bus?) It IS nice that as an DOS machine owner I may have a choice as to what video technology, disk drive technology, printer technology, et nausea to use. But it is HORRIBLE that I have to configure every piece of software I buy in order to tell it "Yes, I'm using this kind of printer, that kind of...." As a DOS user (e.g. accountant who wants to use a spreadsheet, secretary who wants to use WordPerfect), I don't want to know about that stuff. Give me something I can plug in and start working. You're telling me that people who get frustrated with the number of cables on their audio/video systems can deal with the problems of configuring a PC with all the additional hardware and software needed TODAY in order to get work done? It always seems to me like buying an automobile and then needing to decide what kind of steering device, acceleration device, etc I want on it (sort of like the turn of the century). Oh, and BTW, you can upgrade it by replacing the engine! I agree with the Apple ad that said "comparing the Mac to the other machines isn't fair; people LIKE using the Mac." Emphasis on the word "USING." >> >>I'll die before I use a Mac or any of it's related equipment. It's all junk. >> > <Arnold Swartzeneggar Flame Thrower ON!> > > SCSI may not be the fastest thing in world, but I sure like it when > its time to add additional hard drives...or scanners...or digitizers... > or tape drives...or CD ROMS....or...get the picture? Workstations are starting to use SCSI. My Sun 3/50 uses it to talk to the disk drives. Lots of SCSI devices out there. > > Can you say "upgradable"? Apple probably is the most committed > company in the industry when it comes to upgrades. Apple does charge quite a bit for the privilege, don't you think? Although I must admit that for a top of the line Compaq file server we're talking $25,000 while I can't imagine any Apple machine costing that much. What are typical costs for upgrading a 80286 machine to a 80386? > Does > Compaq really do upgrades on their machines? Outside of > the 486 power platform, does IBM really do upgrades. No. Most "upgrades" > are left to third parties, usually just fast microprocessor boards, > or crude memory boards that offer a bizarre standard known as LIM 4.0. > Bank switching...ugh!!! That's the greatest weakness of the original PC design. What genius created the 640KB memory limitation. After all, the chip could address more than that! > > Latest video technology? You call VGA and 8514/A the latest technology???? > BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Now that's really good! C'mon now. I can > get 24-bit truecolor cards that actually have an Apple defined > video standard behind them for under $1000! Get real on this subject. Also, ever notice that PC software always list 50 things on the box: "This software runs with VGA, EGA, CGA, and Hercules video card and contains both 5 1/4 in and 3 1/2 inch floppies." (and usually a lot more; look like ingredient lists!). Mac software says: "Runs on Macintosh." > "Nothing comes standard on a 80xxx box". You get what you pay for. > I'm afraid I have to agree with that. To "build" a DOS machine equivalent to a Macintosh costs about the same (and usually more). I say build because that's certainly what it seems like. I once had a discussion with a customer support guy who loved IBM-PC's because "You can do anything with 'em." After a few hours of discussion, it seemed that you could, but it takes a DOS expert to set the PC up to be useable by a mere mortal. For a Mac, you turn it on, drag some icons to the system folder and you're done. Let 'er rip! Arturo Perez ComputerVision, a division of Prime aperez@cvbnet.prime.com Too much information, like a bullet through my brain -- The Police
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (12/21/89)
In article <33269@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kipnis@janus.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Gary Kipnis) writes: > >Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc. >Do you call if faster clicking on the 'disk eject' icon and waiting forever >for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster clicking >the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. There >probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than >pc. > >gary I can double-click on a document which opens the application and opens the document ready for whatever processing the application does. I can use command keys to intiate actions in single strokes that depending on the PC interface, usually requires several keystrokes (arrow keys) to locate the command and execute it there are probably others as well that the interface on the Macintosh allows that speed up certain operations on the Mac over its PC counterparts. And perhaps some vice-versa, though I think this rare.. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (12/21/89)
In article <9106@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > >If you're not running OS/2 on your PC machine, there are MANY things a Mac can >do better than a PC (the current Mac OS and OS/2 each support the same amount >of memory). > You fail to mention, however, that the current MacOS is a far cry from the functionality offered by the current OS/2 (1.2). The latter is a real OS, while MacOS is more like MS-DOS with menus and big filenames (which are unreadable after you do a "Clean Up Window" by the way). I don't see the point of all these arguments, comparing the latest version of Mac system software against some old version of DOS. If we're talking about native operating systems, why not compare MacOS to OS/2? I strongly suspect that the discussion would have been over dozens of articles ago. > >OS/2 could probably do the >same things, though it would take significantly more memory, it's less efficient, > Take away the DOS compatibility box from OS/2, and it doesn't require any more memory than the upcoming MacOS 7.0 -- 2MB. Less efficient? Let's have some proof, eh? > >and it's limited to 16 megs of address space. > Yep, that's a processor limitation. However, OS/2 programs have access to 1GB of virtual space. Why don't you call me when you upgrade your 68000-based Amiga beyond 16MB of physical RAM and an operating system with true memory management and protection. >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > Too much of everything is just enough --- +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ | | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | | Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | | | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) (12/21/89)
< Certainly having just had their copyrights declared invalid or < unenforcable would open [Apple] to such a suit. I would expect a suit on < much more narrow grounds. But when you have 500 million+ in cash sitting in the bank, the prospect of losing some of that seems a lot less frightening than the thought of allowing other companies to compete in your narrow market segment. Just by going through the process of suing other companies that try to clone their technology and losing those lawsuits, Apple effectively creates a multi-million dollar legal barrier to entry in their market.
unhd) (12/21/89)
From: rg@uunet!unhd (Roger Gonzalez ) Subj: Xerox sues Apple!!! (GUI Design) Orga: Marine Systems Engineering Lab Totally aside from the Mac/IBM debating, I'm curious about how people feel about GUI designs in general (you too, Amigoids). Some GUI's work well. But, whenever I have to use one that is poorly designed, I start to miss VM/CMS :-) Some comments: Don't design the GUI so that the user needs pixel-precision to do things! After my morning gallon of coffee, the last thing I want to do is line things up to pixels. I like objects that recognize themselves as wholes, and especially auto-caddish features like "attach to endpoint". In one of my user interface design books (I'll look up the specifics if anyone is curious) numerous studies were cited in which menu driven and iconic interfaces were proven to be effective methods for (a) novices and (b) small command sets, especially hierarchical command sets. They were shown to be more of an annoyance in large command sets and with experienced users. On a Mac, if I create a bunch of files (say 30) that all contain the string "foobar" in their name, can I delete "??foobar.*" without pointing at every blinking file? I've never figured out how. The Mac methodology seems to be "I am an object, and am associated with the tool that created me. I won't let you use the wrong tool, so don't worry." PC's look at it notably differently. They say "There are objects, and there are tools. Use any tool you want on any object. It's up to you to figure out the right tool for the job." I prefer the latter schema, because it is inherently more powerful. More dangerous, but more powerful. In addition, I think its closer to the way that people think. I may be wrong about this whole section, but whenever I've tried to look at or otherwise hack into things at a low level, things complained noisily because I wasn't using the proper applications. Comments welcome (especially from Amigoids, since I've never used one). -Roger -- UUCP: ..!uunet!unhd!rg | USPS: Marine Systems Engineering Laboratory BITNET: r_gonzalez at unhh | University of New Hampshire PHONE: (603) 862-4600 | 242 SERB FAX: (603) 862-4399 | Durham, NH 03824-3525 --- * Via MaSNet/HST96/HST144/V32 - UN IBM PC * Via Usenet Newsgroup comp.sys.ibm.pc
kudla@pawl.rpi.edu@canremote.uucp (kudla@pawl.rpi.edu) (12/21/89)
From: kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) Orga: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY >2) Deleting a file > DOS era <name of file> > Mac <click> ...drag... <kcilc> (thats releasing a press) And if you want to delete a file three directories down the tree, but want to keep working in the directory you're in, you get to click on three folders, then drag the file icon to the trashcan, then click back up three times. In DOS, you just specify the pathname: Bzzt, wrong answer. Yes, you have to open up the three subdirectories. However, you certainly don't have to close them to resume work in the current window. This assumes that you make a habit of bad techniques such as specifying pathnames rather than using CD. Easy way to lose files accidentally. And of course, Unix does it better because you don't have to hunt for the \ key. >3) Selecting a word in a document. > DOS <lots of keys to move> <Ctrl-Alt-Fn-37> > Mac <clickety click> You are picking out a single type of WP program and attempting to tar all DOS WP programs by denigrating it against the Mac. Straw Man fallacy. Your arguments are invalid. Oh, really? How many sites are using MSWord or MSWrite? In all my secretarial work, I have found exactly *one* site that does not use WordPerfect, which is probably what he was alluding to. (That one site was a non-profit organization whose PCs were government-granted and MS-Windows was given as a gift/donation.) And WordPerfect isn't exactly user-friendly- if you don't have a function key template, forget it. It would be foolish to dismiss the most popular PC word processor as a Straw Man, don't you think? -- Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu> "Famous? I'm not famous. People come up to me after a show and say 'Hey, Steve!'" -Jon Anderson --- * Via MaSNet/HST96/HST144/V32 - UN IBM PC * Via Usenet Newsgroup comp.sys.ibm.pc
chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett) (12/21/89)
In article <6767@tank.uchicago.edu>, gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows, > NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but > all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh). > > Robert Actually, one comment I read was to the effect that the reason for the Xerox suit against Apple was that Xerox had started licensing the interface and intended to "take control" of it, similar to the way they have structured the ethernet business. They have already licensed Sun and HP (and I believe NeXT, though I'm not sure about this one). Charles
t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) (12/21/89)
In article <625@bogart.UUCP> jerry@bogart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: (a bunch of junk deleted) >the PC as well. You get real. There isn't one area of expandability >where a Mac has more options than a PC. ... Oh, can the PC expand to two monitors and have contiguous workspace that is user configurable?? Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (12/21/89)
krb20699@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >>One reason Xerox is sueing Apple now may be that Xerox was (fairly) recently >>awarded patents on the Star operating environment. Patent infringements are >>usually more easily proven than copyright ones. > Wouldn't a recent patent be a bit worthless in court, considering when >Apple created the Mac, it wan't infringing in a patent? Why would the Mac >interface be damaging Xerox _only_ after they get a patent? I can see Apple >loosing copyright rights (I'm no lawyer) but $150 million? "Just a thought." As I recall, with a patent what counts is not when you were awarded the patent but when you *filed* for it. It isn't uncommon for a patent to take years to be awarded. If you were violating it after the filing but before the award, too bad. You are in just as much trouble as someone whose violation occured *after* the award. Another cute detail about patents. It doesn't matter if you arrived at the design independently. I.E. Phoenix -style "clean room coding" is not a defense against a patent violation. If you use the patented idea you must pay what the patent holder asks you to. BTW, someone commented that they thought it wasn't legal to charge different compabies different royalty fees. I believe that this is not the case. And it is far from unheard of for the winner in a case like this to slap a prevent punitive licensing agreement on the loser. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (12/21/89)
[I should know better, but it's been along night...] In article <627@bogart.UUCP>, jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) writes: > You fail to mention, however, that the current MacOS is a far cry from the > functionality offered by the current OS/2 (1.2). The latter is a real OS, > while MacOS is more like MS-DOS with menus and big filenames (which are > unreadable after you do a "Clean Up Window" by the way). Have you used a Mac lately? OS/2 plus PM is the first PC system software that even comes close to providing the richness that the Macintosh OS has had for years (and most of it from the beginning). Little things like: - Asynchronous I/O - Dynamically loadable device drivers & code segments - Device-independent graphics And there are things that OS/2 *still* doesn't have: - Built-in networking (specifically, printer sharing and file server client software as part of the OS, not an extra-cost add on) - A Resource Manager - A published, stable set of human interface guidelines - Standardized interface to non-roman writing systems - 32-bit color graphics support - HyperCard and so on. > If we're talking about native operating systems, why not compare MacOS > to OS/2? The OS where windows are an extra? Or network support? Sure, why not? > Take away the DOS compatibility box from OS/2, and it doesn't require > any more memory than the upcoming MacOS 7.0 -- 2MB. I thought we weren't comparing 7.0 to OS/2. But hey, if you insist: - Remote database access (SQL) - Outline Fonts - Paged Virtual Memory on hardware that will support it - Foreign File System Manager - Comprehensive audio & MIDI support - B*-tree manager - High-speed file system searching - Communications Toolbox - Inter Application Communication Just because it doesn't look like OS/2 doesn't mean it's a toy. Sigh. This is getting worse than the NeXT flamewar. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation Purveyors of fine Macintosh and PC networking software worldwide. --
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (12/21/89)
In article <206900150@prism>, rob@prism.TMC.COM wrote: > The key word here is 'vanilla'. A low-cost Mac could do this more easily >than a low-cost PC (by 'low-cost', I mean under about $2500), but the higher >end Macs compete with 386 and 486 machines that can handle this easily. Given the recent dramatic drops in prices of PC-compatibles, you can now buy a 386SX machine with a hard disk and 1M RAM for $1400. Upgrading to 8M will set you back another $700 or so, but you'll still have a machine that can store 8M arrays in a linear address space for well under $2500. -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46 FAX: available on request Disclaimer? I claimed something? "How to Prove It" by Dana Angluin 13. proof by reference to inaccessible literature: The author cites a simple corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately circulated memoir of the Slovenian Philological Society, 1883.
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (12/21/89)
In article <1160@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: > > I can double-click on a document which opens the application and opens > the document ready for whatever processing the application does. I can > use command keys to intiate actions in single strokes that depending > on the PC interface, usually requires several keystrokes (arrow keys) > to locate the command and execute it there are probably others as well > that the interface on the Macintosh allows that speed up certain > operations on the Mac over its PC counterparts. And perhaps some vice-versa, > though I think this rare.. > Why do all the articles from Mac users sound like they were posted in 1984? Why can't you guys accept the fact that there are things like Microsoft Windows and OS/2 Presentation Manager -- a real GUI to which most applications have been ported or are about to be ported?. With OS/2 you also get a real operating system, something available only to the highest-end Macs (A/UX or whatever -- BTW, does A/UX have the Mac interface?). Anyway, why can't you people see that the PC world has already evolved beyond plain MSDOS, and is changing rapidly? >-- >Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 > --- +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ | | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | | Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | | | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
ron@woan.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan) (12/21/89)
In article <1989Dec21.010731.5240@hellgate.utah.edu>, t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) writes: > Oh, can the PC expand to two monitors and have contiguous workspace that > is user configurable?? Run AIX/PS2 or the Interactive Unix with X-Windows and stuff 4 monitors and run them all under X. Try that with a stock Mac or price that with a Mac II. Remember a VGA, 25 MHz '386 with a 150MB Harddrive will run you under $3500. Add another K for a Weitek floating point and you have got yourself a mighty nice little workstation. OK, add another K for a base UNIX OS, too. Still compare that to the 7 or 8K for a MAC II with A/UX, and you'd still have a few thousand left over for that 330MB SCSI hard drive. Ron +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan (IBM VNET)WOAN AT AUSTIN, (AUSTIN)ron@woan.austin.ibm.com + + outside of IBM @cs.utexas.edu:ibmchs!auschs!woan.austin.ibm.com!ron + + last resort woan@peyote.cactus.org +
wayne.ho@f526.n250.z1.fidonet.org (wayne ho) (12/21/89)
> MS-Windows was given as a gift/donation.) And WordPerfect > isn't > exactly user-friendly- if you don't have a function key > template, This may change. If you've seen WordPerfect 5.1, this offers mouse support, etc. I'm not sure exactly what it is like, as I have not used it, but I believe you have a choice to use the menus, etc. or the function keys for experienced WordPerfect users. Wayne --- ConfMail V3.31 * Origin: MeTaStAsIo'S -`Not ready error reading drive A' (416)487-9093 (1:250/526)
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (12/22/89)
In article t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) writes: >In article jerry@bogart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: > >>the PC as well. You get real. There isn't one area of expandability >>where a Mac has more options than a PC. ... > >Oh, can the PC expand to two monitors and have contiguous workspace that >is user configurable?? > Gosh, I knew I should have made myself absolutely clear... I guess I was talking about USEFUL and SENSIBLE expandability options. Sorry, I'll try to be more clear next time. Thanks for the correction. >Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu --- +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ | | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | | Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | | | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
meyer@s.cs.uiuc.edu (12/22/89)
To all those engaged in the flame wars: (MAC vs PC) a little sniping from the
audience...
First, the current incarnations of both types of machines suck. But then, I
believe that the perfect machine won't be created for a long while yet. And
both machines have their merits.
And both types copied their interfaces, MAC fro Xerox and the IBM PC's from
CP/M and Unix. Litigation such as what we now see is a direct consequence
of over-staffed legal departments!
Regarding which system is better, (GUI or NON-GUI) the GUI is definitely
the best route, for_most_ tasks. (There are always exceptions...) However,
the QUI must _NOT_ depend on the pointing device (aka mouse). A user who
prefers a command-line interface should not be forced to use a pointing device
and pull-down menus.
And Microsoft Windows, which I use extensively, is not just a knockoff of the
MAC GUI. Granted, it is modeled after it, but Windows, too, adds a great
deal of functionality to an existing scheme. The graphics handling
similarities may be lacking in Windows, but other aspects of the interface have
been improved or added. An minor example is the ability to click on the scroll
bar to simulate a <PgUp> or <PgDn>. Also, the Key Accelerators (Hot Keys) are
implemented on a wider scale in the Windows interface than in a MAC.
(point PC+Windows)
On the other hand, the MAC has a much more flexible file naming system. Enough
said.
(point MAC)
Windows, however, is definitely a DOG at performance. But I've been told that
the MAC _DEDICATES_ CPU cycles to the display, whether needed or not.
Microsoft's scheme only uses the CPU when needed.
(point Microsoft for Ingenuity, deduct 1 for execution of the idea.)
(deduct 1 from MAC for waste, ... point Motorola for speed to waste.)
So, in the end it's a tied ballgame. Enough said.
Don Meyer | "If indeed there exists Artificial Intelligence,
dlmeyer@uiuc.edu | Then there must also exist
| Artificial Stupidity!"- Anon.kasdan@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John Kasdan) (12/22/89)
In article <25227@cup.portal.com> Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes: > > > ....... Just >by going through the process of suing other companies that try to clone >their technology and losing those lawsuits, Apple effectively creates a >multi-million dollar legal barrier to entry in their market. This is a commonly heard argument. But 17 USC (the copyright law) provides for my favorite oxymoron, reasonable attorney's fees, to the prevailing party in an infringement action. Thus, if the case is really clearcut, there should be no problem getting legal representation on contingency. In fact, I could make some suggestions myself :-) (Smiley face added in consideration of rules of professional conduct.) In fact, Osborne did not faint and go away when 1-2-3 went after VP Planner. I would be interested in hearing reliable stories of _any_ cases where the threat of suit drove off anyone except a pure rip-off. _________________ /KAS John Kasdan internet: kasdan@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu Columbia University, bitnet: kasdan@cunixC.cc.columbia.edu School of Law uucp: 435 West 116th St. {rutgers,seismo,topaz}!columbia!cunixd!kasdan New York, NY 10027 _________________ "Life is like an analogy", anonymous project leader.
rsutc@fornax.UUCP (Rick Sutcliffe) (12/22/89)
These kinds of responses contribute nothing to a rational discussion. Please save them for a less public place. Rick Sutcliffe
warren@.cs.pdx.edu (Warren Harrison) (12/22/89)
In article <206900150@prism> rob@prism.TMC.COM writes: > > The key word here is 'vanilla'. A low-cost Mac could do this more easily >than a low-cost PC (by 'low-cost', I mean under about $2500), but the higher >end Macs compete with 386 and 486 machines that can handle this easily. > I don't know what 386s are going for where you're at, but some of the local (ie, NOT mail order) clone builders around here have 386 boxes going for well under $2,000 ... naturally that's with only 1M RAM and a 20M Hard Drive, but adding a few more megs of RAM still puts these boxes well below the cost of any comparable Mac. (Don't get me wrong ... I love my Mac ... I also love my Sun and my 286, but if we take money into account the MS-DOS machines will win every time in my book) Warren ========================================================================== Warren Harrison warren@cs.pdx.edu Department of Computer Science 503/725-3108 Portland State University
shedevil@portia.Stanford.EDU (Anne Prisk) (12/22/89)
Wouldn't they use their own in-house counsel, which would make the contingency aspect irrelevant? (Although they certainly could still calculate reasonable fees).
ho@fergvax.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) (12/22/89)
From article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, by kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y): > In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >> >>I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent >>Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). >>-- > > This world is unfair! > > Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for > - giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell? > - shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer? > - rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time? ( [sic]s mercifully omitted, due to the benevolence of the season) The unfriendly text interface was around long before Big Blue got into micros. Apple is as good at overpricing as IBM (possibly even better, since there are no Mac clones). And the command-line interface does have its advantages, sometimes. Read my lips: BOTH THE MAC AND UNIX-STYLE INTERFACES HAVE THEIR PROPER USES, IMPROPER USES, ADVANTAGES, AND DISADVANTAGES. Neither you nor I is qualified to say which is "better" for everyone. > It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, > make things look good and friendly. > It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than > {...} > It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the > {...} It is a fact that opinions can't be facts. Get your facts straight. > If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* You're as closed-minded as anyone I've heard in a long time. > Wouldn't the Xmas be merrier if..... ... bigoted people like yourself kept your views in alt.flame. Either that, or in comp.sys.mac where everyone will agree with you wholeheartedly. I agree that for the majority of applications, the Mac is viable (and in many cases, such as word processing and desktop publishing, vastly superior). I don't agree that I can push my views on everyone, and force EVERYONE to use the computers I like to use. May Santa leave a lump of coal in your your SuperDrive. Hmph. --- ... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu USnail: 115 Nebraska Union BITnet: cosx001@UNLCDC3 Lincoln, NE 68588-0461
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) (12/22/89)
In article <1193@awdprime.UUCP> @cs.utexas.edu:ibmchs!auschs!woan.austin.ibm.com!ron writes: >In article <1989Dec21.010731.5240@hellgate.utah.edu>, >t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) writes: >> Oh, can the PC expand to two monitors and have contiguous workspace that >> is user configurable?? > >Run AIX/PS2 or the Interactive Unix with X-Windows and stuff 4 >monitors and run them all under X. Try that with a stock Mac or price >that with a Mac II. Remember a VGA, 25 MHz '386 with a 150MB Harddrive >will run you under $3500. Add another K for a Weitek floating point >and you have got yourself a mighty nice little workstation. OK, add >another K for a base UNIX OS, too. Still compare that to the 7 or 8K >for a MAC II with A/UX, and you'd still have a few thousand left over >for that 330MB SCSI hard drive. > > Ron > >+-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ >+------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ >+ Ronald S. Woan (IBM VNET)WOAN AT AUSTIN, (AUSTIN)ron@woan.austin.ibm.com + >+ outside of IBM @cs.utexas.edu:ibmchs!auschs!woan.austin.ibm.com!ron + >+ last resort woan@peyote.cactus.org + I think you've greatly missed the point here. I can put multiple monitors on any Mac II or SE/30 class machine, and third parties have even figured out ways to do it with the SE and the original Mac Plus! You talk about running 4 monitors on a PS/2 running AIX (UNIX!) and X-Windows(!!!) just to accomplish the same thing. Then you talk about getting a computer with a 25 MHz processor, VGA, and a 150 meg hard disk. Well, I dunno if you've priced IBM hardware lately, but if you can get a Model 70 with decent memory and all those things for $3500 dollars, I wanna know the dealer. Of course, you haven't mentioned about where you are getting the monitors from. And I guess you can run AIX on a clone, although I'm not sure who's doing it. And besides, its AIX!!!! Not DOS! Not Windows! Not OS/2!!! Not anything close to what normal people use! -- __________________________________________________________________________ |Disclaimer: I run 125 INITs. Nothing I say can be seriously considered. | | | |Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing | |ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. | |Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 | |Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 | |GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 | |USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
admiral@m-5.Sun.COM (Michael Limprecht SUN Microsystems Mt. View Ca.) (12/22/89)
In article <624@bogart.UUCP>, jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) writes: > In article <10457@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: > > I wouldn't make any generalizations here. Mac users, just like PC users, are > a large and varied bunch. Personally, I like both systems, but PC's seem to > make more sense to me, as I can easily buy a UNIX-capable PC with SuperVGA > graphics (640x480x256), a 25MHz processor, and a big disk for less than $3K. > That's less than the base price of a B/W MacToaster WITHOUT A KEYBOARD! I've > got to admit, those IIx's with the 24-bit color cards are nice, but what's > with the stratospheric pricing? > When your the only one who makes the machine you can charge whatever you want. Can you say GOUGE.... I knew you could. P.S. That may change soon as more and more machines have a windows interface and can match or meet the Mac's speed. Which shouldn't be hard. -Mick
LadyHawke@cup.portal.com (Classic - Concepts) (12/22/89)
> Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a > pc. Do you call if faster clicking on the 'disk eject' icon and waiting > forever for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster > clicking the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. > There ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a > mac than pc. gary In 1986 I had to teach word-processing on a short-term 'crisis' basis to a group of highly educated professionals with minimal acquaintance with computers. This group of professionals had to each submit a specialized resume for an important grant application. The deadline was VERY tight. The office had 1 Macintosh and 5 or 6 IBM-compatibles. MacWrite was available on the Macintosh and Word Perfect and Wordstar and a couple of text editors were available on the IBM-compats. I asked them which computers they wanted to use. One chose the Mac. The rest chose the IBM-compats because they had a little experience with them. None of them had done any word processing prior to this, but they were familiar with the concepts of word-processing and they were fast learners. I started the first person on the Mac (10 minutes instruction-max) and then, in turn worked with each of the people on the IBM-compats. After about 2 hours I returned to help the person on the Mac. She needed a little help with naming the file and operating the printer, but otherwise had managed to figure out most of the menu commands, including cutting and pasting. I spent the rest of the day trying to get the others going on the other machines. The function keys, keyboard commands and cut and paste methods were difficult for all of them to master under time pressure. They weren't getting very far except when I was standing over their shoulders giving individual help and pointing out where to find things in the manuals. When they found out the first person was done, they started, on their own initiative, to line up to use the Mac. Only one person completed a resume on an IBM-compatible. (For your information, I was very fluent in both WordStar and Word Perfect at the time, so I don't think my instruction was at fault.) In other words, I think your criteria for identifying 'speed' and ease of use make about as much sense as identifying birds by counting their legs. \_ )\_ _/ `/)\_ __ // __ _____________________________________________ `\\)\_ / '~// /// Julie Petersen (LadyHawke@cup.portal.com `\\//\\/|'//' /// Classic_-_Concepts@cup.portal.com) (\/Yyyy/' __ /// (Now if they'd had an Amiga, they could /Yyyy/' \\\ /// have used graphic OR text OR both interfaces.) //\\ LadyHawke \\/// ______________________________________________ ///\\\
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (12/22/89)
[and I've tried so hard to stay out of this... :-) ] jerry@hepburn.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >>Oh, can the PC expand to two monitors and have contiguous workspace that >>is user configurable?? >Gosh, I knew I should have made myself absolutely clear... >I guess I was talking about USEFUL and SENSIBLE expandability options. >Sorry, I'll try to be more clear next time. Thanks for the correction. You've obviously not ever used a system that allowed you to use two screens effectivly. It's very nice to debug on one screen and run your code on the other, just as much as simply having the extra screen real-estate. the Mac's treatment of multiple screens and the ease with which the user can configure a multi-screen system is truely one of the nicer things about a macintosh. You could've very easily picked some of the expanssion options that are truely debatable for usefullness, but saying the ability to configure a multi-screen system is not a USEFUL system just shows how closed minded and un-imformed you really are. -- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|///////////////////////////////////////// David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu | Graduating in March of 1990, with a BS in Computer Science & need a Job. | |_____________________________________________________________________________|
witting@topaz.rutgers.edu (Paul K Willing) (12/22/89)
Sorry if Im a bit late in roasting this kentucky fried nitwit... In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: > In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: > > > >I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent > >Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). > >-- > > This world is unfair! > > Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for > - giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell? Anybody who knew PC's at the time would have had no trouble moving from then standard CPM to Dos, and was pretty good interface for its day. Its ugliness comes from the need to graft features never aticipated onto the old interface. And for a real taste of unfriendly try Prime. Icon based interfaces can never replace text based ones. Its like replacing ehglish with sign language. Sure you can get by with it, but its hardly as good. > - shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer? Shamelessly cheat?!?! I could by two or three machines for the cost of one mac plus. I do not consider a mac plus a good computer, either! > - rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time? Im not even going to bother with this one... > It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, > make things look good and friendly. Opinion, not fact. But I do agree, especially where novices are concerned. For a power user, someone doing more than writing an occaisional report, They become decicedly unfriendly > It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than > EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). Not fact opinion. This one is not even a good one. > It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the > manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at > the manual and learn things fast. Have you even tried? > But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than > the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness? > What is the good judgement? Where are the users? No more risk than does any computer company when introducing a new machine. The point is, Apple sued Microsoft (Of IBM fame) for its graphical interface for the IBM. Zerox is making its point that it had introduced the concept first. > If Apple never had continued the work from the star project, will we > users see the windowing interface so early? > > If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* > users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS? Were Apple not so concerned about making money, maybe some of us users could AFFORD to own macs... Fact is, DOS machines outnumber Macs by insane numbers. My opinion is your a little yuppy in training who never got past the simple Name printing program... :} +I have lived with a computer since the days of 48k Apple II's and CPM monsters, I remember IBM's PC first release, the Lisa, The mac. My roomate bought one of the first Amigas. I also want a Mac IIcx 4/80. send donations to: 142 Weston DR Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Graphiti on the wall of civil rights organization in the sixties "There is a town in Mississippi named Liberty There is a Department in Washington called Justice" A more socially aware sort of .sig witting@topaz.rutgers.edu
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (12/22/89)
In article <1649@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: > >And there are things that OS/2 *still* doesn't have: > > - Built-in networking (specifically, printer sharing and file server client > software as part of the OS, not an extra-cost add on) > ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > [OS/2] >The OS where windows are an extra? Or network support? Sure, why not? > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh, no, let's talk about the Mac, where the f***ing keyboard is an extra- cost add on. Actually, the whole damn system is an extra-cost add on. Just look at Mac pricing. FYI, windows are not an extra under OS/2. And you're listing things that OS/2 "*STILL* doesn't have"? Consider that OS/2 is in its second release, while there's been a new release of MacOS every twenty minutes since 1984. Yeah, I know that MacOS has plenty of nice features. But there's no real operating system at the heart of the Mac. As long as that's true, the Mac is not a powerful platform. > >I thought we weren't comparing 7.0 to OS/2. But hey, if you insist: > > - Remote database access (SQL) > - Outline Fonts > - Paged Virtual Memory on hardware that will support it > - High-speed file system searching > - Communications Toolbox > - Inter Application Communication > [blah blah blah blah blah] Let's not make it sound like OS/2 doesn't have most of these things. Besides, comparing a real operating system with virtual memory, memory protection, and true multitasking to MacOS is a waste of time. And OS/2 does all of this on truly inexpensive 286 hardware. So let's bury this thread now. No, wait: Inter Application Communication in MacOS 7.0 and NOT in OS/2? This has got to be a joke. > >Amanda Walker >InterCon Systems Corporation >Purveyors of fine Macintosh and PC networking software worldwide. --- +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ | | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | | Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | | | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
ron@woan.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan/999999) (12/23/89)
In article <37474@apple.Apple.COM>, rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) writes: > I think you've greatly missed the point here. I can put multiple monitors > on any Mac II or SE/30 class machine, You can also have multiple monitors with any IBM PC. I have a monochrome and EGA monitor attached to mine running PCDOS3.3 for debugging graphical applications. Through third party hardware, you can have even more sophisticated setups. > You talk about running 4 monitors on a PS/2 running AIX (UNIX!) and > X-Windows(!!!) just to accomplish the same thing. Hardly the same thing! You accomplish that plus you get a low-end workstation to boot. > Then you talk about getting a computer with a 25 MHz processor, VGA, > and a 150 meg hard disk. Well, I dunno if you've priced IBM > hardware lately, but if you can get a Model 70 with decent memory > and all those things for $3500 dollars, That's the beauty of it; you don't need to buy genuine IBM hardware. In the MSDOS world we have a wide variety of sources. I don't remember what prices I quoted last time, but paging through Computer Shopper, you can easily put together a machine matching those specs at $3500. Monitors are relatively cheap until you go above 14" anyways. > And I guess you can run AIX on a clone, although I'm not sure who's > doing it. And besides, its AIX!!!! Not DOS! Not Windows! Not > OS/2!!! Not anything close to what normal people use! Tell that to the thousands of Xenix, SCO, Interactive, Bell Tech., AIX users out there! OK it's not the norm, but PC clones give you great flexibility at the minimum price. +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan (IBM VNET)WOAN AT AUSTIN, (AUSTIN)ron@woan.austin.ibm.com + + outside of IBM @cs.utexas.edu:ibmchs!auschs!woan.austin.ibm.com!ron + + last resort woan@peyote.cactus.org +
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) (12/23/89)
In article <629@hepburn.UUCP> jerry@hepburn.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >In article <1160@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: >> >> I can double-click on a document which opens the application and opens >> the document ready for whatever processing the application does. I can >> use command keys to intiate actions in single strokes that depending >> on the PC interface, usually requires several keystrokes (arrow keys) >> to locate the command and execute it there are probably others as well >> that the interface on the Macintosh allows that speed up certain >> operations on the Mac over its PC counterparts. And perhaps some vice-versa, >> though I think this rare.. >> > >Why do all the articles from Mac users sound like they were posted >in 1984? Why can't you guys accept the fact that there are things like >Microsoft Windows and OS/2 Presentation Manager -- a real GUI to which >most applications have been ported or are about to be ported?. With OS/2 >you also get a real operating system, something available only to the >highest-end Macs (A/UX or whatever -- BTW, does A/UX have the Mac interface?). >Anyway, why can't you people see that the PC world has already evolved >beyond plain MSDOS, and is changing rapidly? > >>-- >>Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 >> >--- >+--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ >| | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | >| Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | >| | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | >+--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ Sure, I'll admit that Windows and OS/2 w/PM exists. However, I think you're very wrong about the number of applications available for them. Windows are quite a few, but nowhere near a decent ratio to standard DOS applications, and as for the number of OS/2 applications out there, don't make me laugh. They just don't exist. Why? BEcuase there's been no demand, especially since OS/2 really isn't finished enough to be pratical for the common user. Also, don't beleive the myth that OS/2 will magically begin to work inside of 2 megs of memory. The sucker is just too big, and contains too much compiled code to be practical anywhere inside of 4 megs. Oh sure, you may be able to get it up and running in three megs. But what can you do with it? Run Sidekick? I will agree that OS/2 is very robust on paper. But since when is Windows running under DOS a "real operation system", by your standards? And why isn't the Mac? And just what is the Windows' user's upgrade path? -- __________________________________________________________________________ |Disclaimer: I run 125 INITs. Nothing I say can be seriously considered. | | | |Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing | |ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. | |Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 | |Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 | |GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 | |USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
jbeard@ntvax.uucp (Jeff Beardsley) (12/23/89)
In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: >In article <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes: >> >>I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent >>Apple (<-- scumbags from hell). >>-- > > This world is unfair! > >Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for >- giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell? >- shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer? >- rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time? At the time, DOS was NOT the (*ugly*, *unfriendly*) interface from hell, it was actually a step foreward in usability (look at the APPLE user interface from that time, IT SUCKed). IBM was merely continuing in the same vein EVERYBODY ELSE was using, and adding a little of UNIX to make it more useable. > It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, >make things look good and friendly. Agreed, but your grammar stinks. > It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than >EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). 1) Ok, but NuBus, SCSI, etc are NEWER. It is also true that outdoing the *PAST* is *ALOT* easier that outdoing the *FUTURE*. 2) Your Grammar still sucks. > It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the >manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at >the manual and learn things fast. Same argument as above, but I must admit your grammar is a little better. > But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than >the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness? >What is the good judgement? Where are the users? What risk? If it is *OBVIOUS* that the window interface is so much better than the command line, than *EVERYBODY* who saw the thing would say "wow, I really need that". No Risk Involved. Apple merely took the Idea they got from Xerox, and marketed it. Xerox had no qualms about it, so Apple marketed it as THEIR OWN. No Arguments yet from Xerox, but Now Apple sues MicroSoft for getting too close to their adopted baby, and XEROX Sues them for being such weenies about the whole thing. POETIC JUCTICE! > If Apple never had continued the work from the star project, will we >users see the windowing interface so early? No Argument, BUT they should not try to stifle everybody else, LIKE THEY ARE DOING. (Looks like you went back to 3rd grade in this part) > If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* >users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS? If *some* people were not so close minded, and payed more attention to the facts (as well as to their bad grammar), the *rest* of the general populace could get on with life. I Wish XEROX Good luck in punishing Apple. -- ----- <Jeff Beardsley> --------------------- <jbeard@dept.csci.unt.edu> ----- Any similarity between my opinions and the opinion of any other person, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) (12/23/89)
In article <630@hepburn.UUCP> jerry@hepburn.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >In article t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) writes: >>In article jerry@bogart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >> >>>the PC as well. You get real. There isn't one area of expandability >>>where a Mac has more options than a PC. ... >> >>Oh, can the PC expand to two monitors and have contiguous workspace that >>is user configurable?? >> > >Gosh, I knew I should have made myself absolutely clear... >I guess I was talking about USEFUL and SENSIBLE expandability options. >Sorry, I'll try to be more clear next time. Thanks for the correction. > >>Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu >--- >+--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ >| | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | >| Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | >| | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | >+--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ Dear Jerry - You have obviously never seen or used the virtual monitor aspect of the Macintosh family or you would not make the comment that you just made. Every time that I have shown virtual monitor to IBM folks at a trade show, they have been blown away. The ability to be running from two to six monitors as a single virtual monitor, is a fantastic aid. Of course, it is one of those things that if you have never experienced, may seem not useful and sensible. But I could never think of giving up my Macintosh II with an RGB Monitor and a Monochrome Monitor running as a single virtual screen. I believe that you were talking about the Macintosh users writing message that sounded like they were written in 1984. Perhaps, you need to catch up with what has happened in the Macintosh world since 1984 and the base that we have built for expansion into the 1990s. For example, I can purchase a Macintosh Plus with a hard disk for around $1,500 out the door from any number of dealers. That is comparable to any number of low end PC clones (and I do not, as many people have said need to buy a keyboard for that system). -- Jordan Mattson UUCP: jordan@apple.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. CSNET: jordan@apple.CSNET Development Tools Product Management AppleLink: Mattson1 20525 Mariani Avenue, MS 27S Cupertino, CA 95014 408-974-4601 "Joy is the serious business of heaven." C.S. Lewis
t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) (12/23/89)
In article <630@hepburn.UUCP> jerry@hepburn.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >In article t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) writes: >>In article jerry@bogart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >> >>>the PC as well. You get real. There isn't one area of expandability >>>where a Mac has more options than a PC. ... >> >>Oh, can the PC expand to two monitors and have contiguous workspace that >>is user configurable?? >> > >Gosh, I knew I should have made myself absolutely clear... Oh come on now, if your going to stick your overstating foot in your mouth then your going to have to taste it. The thing that bugs me the most about these flame wars is that too many people make these kind of statements that assume they have all knowledge. By saying that there isn't *one* area of expandability where a Mac has more options, or by the one statement that someone made that there isn't *one* command that the Mac can do faster, is just begging for flamage. Perhaps that's what they want, perhaps they were just being sloppy in their selection of words. If people are going to participate in these kinds of wars they they are going to have to either be careful with the language they use or put up with the replys they get. Now back to the story line. >I guess I was talking about USEFUL and SENSIBLE expandability options. >Sorry, I'll try to be more clear next time. Thanks for the correction. > Hey, maybe it's not USEFUL or SENSIBLE to you, *SO*WHAT*. There are people who use these capabilities and have extremely sensible uses for them. Just because those uses don't fit into your little world. The real point I was trying to make is that there very well may be areas of expandability that the Mac has *MORE* options than the PC. Here's some possiblities for some others: (Notice I said "possible", I don't have all knowledge and I don't know a great deal about what's available for the PC, so the following is just a guess) -- Stereo sound digitization & playback. (Now I know ther'll be those who say yeah I can put in a card - but can any and every application expect to be able to use sound and use it the same way and have it work?) -- Memory expansion. I'm talking about being able to stick in large amounts of memory and be able to use it for things other than a ram disk. Big as on the order of 2 Gig! Can the PC use that memory without the application being specifically written to use it? -- 24/32 bit color boards. I'll bet that any application written for the PC will have to be specifically written for a 24/32 bit color board, whereas the a Mac application would work with any of the number of boards available. Mind you the Mac application still has to be written to use the color but it doesn't have to be written for the color board. Your point about there being *MORE* options doesn't mean much anyway. It's not how many options you have, it's the quality of the options (and to many, cost.) We're all trying to do some work on computers (well, some have fun too) and my belief is that every tool has it's place. Use the tool that works the best and don't try to tell me that your tool is the best for everything. Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu
malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) (12/23/89)
In article <629@hepburn.UUCP> jerry@hepburn.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >In article <1160@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: >> I can double-click on a document which opens the application and opens >> the document ready for whatever processing the application does. >Why do all the articles from Mac users sound like they were posted >in 1984? More to the point, why must I always use the application I created the document with when I want to do something to the document? For example, on my PC using Logitech's Point editor and LaserGo's GoScript PostScript interpreter, I can create a PostScript file that I will be including as a graphic in MS Word and test its appearance: pt <filename> gs <filename> (repeat as necessary to get the output correct) And with CED, the repeat consists of <uparrow><uparrow><return> (to get back into Point) and <dnarrow> (to run GoScript). If I double-click on the document with the Mac interface, I'll always wind up in the text editor. There must be some way to drag a file into an application other than the one the file was created in, but it's certainly not going to be as convenient as it is on the PC. The double-click 'launch the application with this file' is only a timesaver when you're never going to use the file with any other application. Sean Malloy | ". . . They always have an air Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | of cheap melodrama about them." San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | "You will find, my dear, that malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | _true_ melodrama _never_ comes | cheap."
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (12/23/89)
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) writes: > > You've obviously not ever used a system that allowed you to use two screens >effectivly. It's very nice to debug on one screen and run your code on the >other, just as much as simply having the extra screen real-estate. > This is possible on a PC. Take a look at CodeView, the standard Microsoft debugger. What I meant was that using a second screen as real estate for your GUI is useless. That's what the discussion was about. > > the Mac's treatment of multiple screens and the ease with which the user >can configure a multi-screen system is truely one of the nicer things about >a macintosh. > OK. Enough said about this. I'm sure that the Mac manages multiple screens in a much cleaner way than the PC. I still believe that stacking 8 monitors on your desktop is not the best solution for a workstation-type display. > >David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu > --- +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ | | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | | Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | | | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (12/23/89)
jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) writes: > >Dear Jerry - > You have obviously never seen or used the virtual monitor aspect >of the Macintosh family or you would not make the comment that you >just made. > You're wrong. I've seen it. I stand by my opinion. > > For example, I can purchase a Macintosh Plus with a hard disk for >around $1,500 out the door from any number of dealers. That is comparable >to any number of low end PC clones (and I do not, as many people have said >need to buy a keyboard for that system). > This is a joke. Buying a 68000-based Mac at this point is the biggest waste of money imaginable, considering that Apple's new System releases will require at least a 68020 to be used to their full potential. And considering its ridiculous little screen, you'll have to use the Mac's "totally awesome and radical" virtual monitor capabilities just to make it into a useable system. Are you sure you're talking 'low-end' here? An 8086 clone with a hard disk will go for under $800. --- +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+ | | Polygen Corporation | UUCP: | | Jerry J. Shekhel | Waltham, MA 02254 | {princeton, mit-eddie, | | | (617) 890-2888 | bu, sunne}!polygen!jerry | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
ksand@appleoz.oz.au (Kent Sandvik) (12/24/89)
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes in article <1930@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>:
Is this the Apple who will only sell you a UNIX version on a hard
disk which is too small to *run* UNIX beyond the "Hello, world!" stage?
...weird, I am using one of those Apple UNIX versions on a hard disk just
now when I am typing this entry on USENET. It must be a bizarre dream I
have....
Apple has a number of useful features, but they have resisted making
their machines expandable as long as they could. Was this to prevent
third parties from offering better and less costly options? Can you
doubt it?
...I really think I am dreaming, that Ethernet card I have in my Mac
is just an illusion, as the serial port card... A bus is a bus, what
would you need to expand really?
Apple has a firm committment to PROFIT, and makes IBM look positively
benevolent by comparison. Maybe Apple is an IBM public relations
operation.
I don't know of any computer companies on this Earth that does not want
to make profit in the long run. At least we at Apple try to change the
view of computers as complicated tools that require specialists in order
to work. If we make profit with this view, it will gain all the
computer users in the long run (because IBM and others have to look at
user friendliness as well, as they have done...).
Regards,
/Kent
--
Kent Sandvik -- ksand@appleoz.oz.AU | Apple Australia DTS Ph: +61 2 452 82 93
{uunet,mcvax}!munnari!appleoz.oz!ksand | AppleLink: AUSTAUX, Discl: All comments mine
(or ksand@apple.com if nothing else works) leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (12/24/89)
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) writes: >In article <1193@awdprime.UUCP> @cs.utexas.edu:ibmchs!auschs!woan.austin.ibm.com!ron writes: >>In article <1989Dec21.010731.5240@hellgate.utah.edu>, >>t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) writes: >>> Oh, can the PC expand to two monitors and have contiguous workspace that >>> is user configurable?? I've *got* two monitors on my XT clone. And I've got several applications that right out of the box will work with the combo. Most applications don't care which monitor I run them on, but the ones I mention will use *both* at the same time (text on one and graphics on the other for the spreadsheets, source on one, output on the other for the compilers and debugger). Hercules Graphics Card Plus an a VGA card. It works. There are things that are no doubt easier on the Mac. But pay attention here... EVEN IF I HAD WANTED ONE, THERE IS NO WAY i COULD HAVE AFFORDED A MAC!!! The largest single expenditure on this system was when I bought the VGA card an monitor (used). $600. My system isn't top-of the line, but I didn't have to get a loan to buy it. The Mac will be the "computer for the rest of us" the day you can buy a usable (however crippled) system *that is expandable* for under $500. I can put together a usable system for that. I wouldn't recommend it, but I could. 2 floppies, 8088, CGA with composite output (so you can use a TV for a monitor), 640k of RAM. That's how I started (in the IBM world, I already had several 8-bit computers). Such a system can be *incrementally* upgraded all the way to a 486... (yes, you'd probably replace the case at some point... so?) This doesn't make the PC "better", it makes it more accessible. Maybe the Mac would benefit from some clones? -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short
keithd@gryphon.COM (Keith Doyle) (12/24/89)
In article <627@bogart.UUCP> jerry@bogart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >Yep, that's a processor limitation. However, OS/2 programs have access to >1GB of virtual space. Why don't you call me when you upgrade your 68000-based >Amiga beyond 16MB of physical RAM and an operating system with true >memory management and protection. From another angle, why do you think it has taken so long for Windows and OS/2 to make it to the marketplace? Something wrong with Microsoft? No, simply because there are a hell of a lot of snags in developing complex programs in '86 family machine language. Several more than the equivalent developments in the 68K family. Note that Unix was available on the '86 family relatively promptly, also note that Unix was already designed, and most of it is written in 'C', not machine language. Keith Doyle keithd@gryphon.COM gryphon!keithd gryphon!keithd@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (12/27/89)
In article <635@taylor.UUCP>, jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) writes: > debugger. What I meant was that using a second screen as real estate for > your GUI is useless. That's what the discussion was about. Useless? It's convenient enough when the application you're working on happens to use the entire screen of the machine you're writing for. The second monitor beign used to run the debugger while the first is running the application sounds pretty good to me... > OK. Enough said about this. I'm sure that the Mac manages multiple screens > in a much cleaner way than the PC. I still believe that stacking 8 monitors > on your desktop is not the best solution for a workstation-type display. Certainly not on *my* desk...but two would be nice. ------------ "...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_ 275d
rjd@cs.brown.edu (Rob Demillo) (12/27/89)
In article <111700188@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu| krb20699@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: | | It all boils down to Apple wanting the most profit it can get from it's |excellent graphics interface (=suing potential competitors.) This, if I am |not mistaken, is what Xerox wants to do. I don't know much about the Star |system, or the Berne convention, but it seems Xerox is trying to be a hero |by suing Apple in exchange for what it's done in the courtroom. Do two |wrongs (according to at least one person here, defending a company's copyright |makes that company "scumbags from hell." Applicable to Xerox, don't you |think?) make a right? Xerox is doing the same thing Apple has done. What's |the damn difference? It may be a picky thing for Apple to do, but the inter- |face is so easily copiable (OS/2, Windows, etc.) that the lawsuits seem to |be at _least_ partially justified. | | ....[more defending Mac's right for sueing...] Normally I don;t get involved in this kind of a flame war, but... None of what you have said is (unfortunately) the issue. For years apple has kept its battalion of lawyers busy suing Mom & Pop companies out of business. None of these cases made it to court because the smaller companies couldn't hire the lawyer-power to defend themselves. Apple claimed moral victories, and smugly went on its way... Last year, it decided to throw its weight around a little more and tried to sue Microsoft and HP...now its playing with the big boys... Microsoft, more than a little upset that Apple was playing word games with a legal contract that they had with Apple, countersued. Along about the same time, Apple increased its Mac prices 42% *across the board.* Coincidence? Now, what is Apple sueing everyone about? The "look and feel" of an operating system. No lawyer I know (and I've talked about this with several) would take this seriously. It akin to Ford suing GM because GM's cars looked and felt like Ford cars. (They each had a steering wheel, they each had 4 tires, etc) And what was the "look and feel" they were protecting? The Mac OS, which has its dubious roots in the Xerox Star system. (The Mac's "founding father" brazenly went into Xerox Palo Alto and hired its programmers on the spot. Admitedly, nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't go trying to claim that the "look and feel" was mine, when it clearly sprung from another source.) Now Xerox wants to recoup the losses from some of its Star system using Apple's disgusting practice of sicing lawyers on a company... ...and you expect *me* to feel pity for Apple? Like its the good guy in all of this? I'll tell ya...I love computers, I really do. In my job(s), I've had to develop expertise on quite a few diverse and esoteric platforms: Suns, Apollos, VAXens, DecStations, IBM PCs, Macs, Atari's, Amigas, UNIVAC's, IBM Mainframes, PDP's, homebrewed hardware, Harris, etc. I also have (understandable) had to master a variety of operating systems: UNIX, VMS, VM/CMS, Vulcan, GEM, DOS, OS/2, etc. And you know what, out of all those, there are only two computer combinations that I refuse to work on...don't even list them on my resume anymore because I want nothing to do with them: IBM VM/CMS - because although the hardware is ok, the operating system is braindead Any Apple product - The hardware is ok, and the OS is just ok...but the policies of the Apple Corporation are so warped and so perverted, that I cannot, will not, bring myself to support their products. Apple has to change corporate hands and policies before I begin to suggest to any of my employers, colleagues, or clients to use Apple products. And you know what? I'm not alone.... - Rob DeMillo | Internet: rjd@brown.cs.edu Brown University | BITnet: DEMILLO%BRNPSG.SPAN@STAR.STANFORD.EDU Planetary Science Group | Reality: 401-273-0804 (home) "I say you *are* the Messiah, Lord! And I ought to know, I've followed a few!"
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (12/27/89)
< statement. SCSI is as slow as sh*t. The 68xxx is nice, but I'll take a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ But it's faster than ESDI and ST-506, which is all that matters for personal computers. Maybe you just don't use the right SCSI chips? Try an NCR 53C700, for example. Tim Smith
madd@world.std.com (jim frost) (12/27/89)
ron@woan.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan) writes: >In article <1989Dec21.010731.5240@hellgate.utah.edu>, >t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) writes: >> Oh, can the PC expand to two monitors and have contiguous workspace that >> is user configurable?? >Run AIX/PS2 or the Interactive Unix with X-Windows and stuff 4 >monitors and run them all under X. Try that with a stock Mac or price >that with a Mac II. Neither system can do so contiguously. The ISC X11 requires a different server for each display and you must toggle between virtual consoles to switch the mouse control. This is simple and effective, but not contiguous. I believe the AIX system works similarly, although I cannot confirm this. At any rate, it is impossible to handle X11 displays of differing visuals contiguously (doesn't look like anyone even gave a thought to trying) and I have yet to see an X11 server by any vendor on any machine handle identical visuals contiguously with the exception of properly allowing mouse movement between them. Most newer Macs are substantially superior to PCs with regards to display options, especially large high-resolution displays. There are almost no color PC displays of better than 1k by 1k resolution (there are a couple but they're VERY expensive and they have no standard) and no popular X servers which support those which exist. Given that PCs have historically been very text-oriented and Macs very graphics-oriented, I'm not surprised that the Mac wins over the PC in this respect. jim frost jimf@saber.com
bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) (12/28/89)
In article <624@bogart.UUCP>, jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) writes: > In article <10457@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: > > > > The 80286/80386/80486 are all in the same league as the 68000/68020/68030. > > Each will serve the purpose. So unless you are a processor designer, let's > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > stay away from this argument. > > > > ABSOLUTELY!!! I can't stand it when people turn a software argument into > a processor/hardware argument. I can't stand it when people worship > Motorola for creating the 68000 and bash on Intel for making the 80286. The > arguments make it sound like Intel chips are INCAPABLE of running something > like MacOS. This is BULLSHIT! EACH PROCESSOR WILL SERVE THE PURPOSE! I think anyone who looks at the two processor families objectively will have to agree that the 68000 family is a better architecture. It's certainly not perfect (maybe it should be more RISC-like, maybe it shouldn't have the two different types of registers, etc), but it is certainly better than the 80x86 family (8 equally inconvenient registers), though 80386 is a significant improvement (still a somewhat warped architecture, though). The 68k has always had a linear address space, which can be a great help compared to the 80x86's 64k segments (I'm not sure that segmented architectures are always bad, but the segments need to be at least 16M before they are large enough that you aren't always tripping over them ... even then, some applications may be awkward on a segmented machine). Arguments about processor speed tend to be arguments about levels of semiconductor technology, not arguments about processor architecture. There's a big difference (although there can be some differences in how efficiently a particular architecture can be implemented). On the other hand, this certainly doesn't mean that all software for the 68k is great or that all software for the 80x86 is bad. It also doesn't mean that the decision to build the PC on the 80x86 was bad at the time - the 68k had hardly any support chips when the PC was originally built; and it doesn't mean that there aren't some nice things about the PC's layout. What microprocessor programming I do is mostly on PC's rather than on Mac's (most of my work is on minicomputers), but so far as I'm concerned this is a purely mercenary viewpoint: around here it's what pays. Period. Both systems have good and bad points, *taken as a whole*. Bruce C. Wright
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (12/28/89)
In article <3368@rti.UUCP> bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes: | I think anyone who looks at the two processor families objectively will | have to agree that the 68000 family is a better architecture. That's what starts flame wars, the implicit assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with you is not objective. | It's | certainly not perfect (maybe it should be more RISC-like, maybe it | shouldn't have the two different types of registers, etc), the NS32000 is an example of one set of registers. And they are really interchangable. | but it is | certainly better than the 80x86 family (8 equally inconvenient registers), At one time I posted a routine to take the integer square root of the stack pointer, as a demo that the registers are more general than is commonly thought. I make no claims that this is useful for anything. | though 80386 is a significant improvement (still a somewhat warped | architecture, though). The 68k has always had a linear address space, | which can be a great help compared to the 80x86's 64k segments The 386 and 486 have 2 GB segments (yes GB not MB). | (I'm not | sure that segmented architectures are always bad, but the segments need | to be at least 16M before they are large enough that you aren't always | tripping over them ... even then, some applications may be awkward on a | segmented machine). Some applications are difficult on a linear machine without memory mapping, since having separate text and data space requires some kind of control, such as segments or memory management. | Arguments about processor speed tend to be arguments | about levels of semiconductor technology, not arguments about processor | architecture. There's a big difference (although there can be some | differences in how efficiently a particular architecture can be | implemented). Generally true, although I'm sure someone will take exception. The hidden advantage of the Intel instruction set is that many of the instructions are single byte, thus reducing memory size (minor benefit) and allowing a greater number of instructions to be fetched per unit time given a limited memory bandwidth. This makes a difference in performance at the low end, with slow memory. I am NOT proposing any Intel or other CPU as "better" in some way than another, just adding a few observations. Since I was a user of the 68000 and 68010 I will let someone who is a hardware heavy explain all the things which were done wrong in the first cut of the 68000. Siffice it to say there were a LOT of fixes in the 68010. Not that there weren't bugs in the 8086, etc, or the early NS16000 line (the 32000 used to be called the 16000, to confuse the innocent). I'm sure someone can remember the things which were said about the Z8000, too, but that was never a large production chip. -- bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX davidsen@sixhub.uucp ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (12/29/89)
I have slightly rearranged the order several quotes in order to make a common comment on them. This was done to make the reply smaller and easier to understand. No intent to take anything out of context. In article <3371@rti.UUCP> bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes: | It's awfully annoying that you can't, for example, use AX as an index | register, or that you can't multiply into the DI register on most of the | 80x86 family. I know you can do it on the 80386 (more on this below), | but the point is that there are so many special purpose registers on most | of the family (like the way SI, DI, and CX cooperate to perform "string" | operations ... with no good way to substitute any other registers for any | part of the operation). This makes it difficult to perform intelligent | register optimization, whether you are writing in assembler or writing a | code generator for a compiler. He also writes: | On the other hand, you generally have to have more instructions on an | Intel instruction set to accomplish anything - because things never seem | to be in the "right" registers. Even on the 80386, instructions that use | EAX as an index register take more space than the equivalent instruction | to use EBX as an index register (for example). This might be OK if the | Intel architecture were a RISC architecture (at least at current levels | of semiconductor technology, it is easier [=cheaper] to build a RISC | machine at a given level of performance than a CISC), but unfortunately | the Intel architecture (especially the 80386) is firmly on the CISC side. | If nothing else, it would really get in the way of a RISC to have to | decode variable-length register fields in instructions. I can't find any fault with any othe this. It is certainly true that writing optimal code for the Intel processors is somewhat more difficult than writing optimal code for the 68k, primarily because the Intel family provides "one best way to do it" in terms of code size and speed, and any other way is larger, slower, or both. This requires greater care in order to insure that the right registers are free. If optimal code is generated the Intel code is frequently smaller in terms of bytes that the 68k code to produce the same results. This is not a claim that the code is "faster or better than" the 68k code, just smaller. | > The 386 and 486 have 2 GB segments (yes GB not MB). | | This is obvious even to low intelligence. You said that, I didn't. | > Some applications are difficult on a linear machine without memory | > mapping, since having separate text and data space requires some kind of | > control, such as segments or memory management. | | This is not a segmentation question - it has nothing to do with that issue. | For example, consider the PDP-11 and VAX architectures, which have no | segments anywhere in sight and which manage this sort of thing very well. | What you are talking about is a memory mapping/paging/virtual memory | function (which are more closely related to each other than any of them | is to segmentation); Sorry I didn't make that clear, that's not what I meant. I was speaking about "separate i and d space," having the text (code) and data addresses under separate segments. This allows (a) several processes to share a single text segment in a multitasking o/s, and (b) allows the write protexted text segment to be overwritten rather than swapped, if the o/s does swapping. In point of fact some PDP-11's did have separate i&d space, but I can't remember which. The last time I ran UNIX on an 11 was V6, if that gives you a clue. | Look, I really can't say I "hate" the Intel architecture, it's just an | ugly architecture that is unnecessarily hard to write for. I've long | since lost track of how much code I've written for it, but it's many tens | of thousands of lines of code (probably well over 100k lines) - in a | variety of languages and operating systems. I'm also enough of a computer | junkie that I'd probably get a kick out of programming ANY machine, no | matter HOW ugly. I just don't do a great deal with it right at the moment: | minicomputers pay better. If that situation changes I may very well do a | lot more programming on them. As computer architectures go, it's still an | ugly architecture. If challenge = fun, the Intel 8085 (with 10 extra instructions aimed at stack oriented languages), the 80186 (with builtin serial and interrupt capability, and the GE/Honeywell 6000 36 bit machines (with 6, 9, and any multiple of 36 bit stacks) take the cake. For ease of programming the NS32000 is the favorite I've used so far, since the registers are about as general purpose as possible and the string instructions allow lots of diddling. That doesn't say much about the 'goodness' of these, just the fun factor. For commercial programming give me C anytime, and I don't CARE what the CPU might be. -- bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX davidsen@sixhub.uucp ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon
aland@infmx.UUCP (Dr. Scump) (12/29/89)
In article <37474@apple.Apple.COM> rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) writes: >In article <1193@awdprime.UUCP> @cs.utexas.edu:ibmchs!auschs!woan.austin.ibm.com!ron writes: >>In article <1989Dec21.010731.5240@hellgate.utah.edu>, >>t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) writes: >>> Oh, can the PC expand to two monitors and have contiguous workspace that >>> is user configurable?? >> >>Run AIX/PS2 or the Interactive Unix with X-Windows and stuff 4 >>monitors and run them all under X. Try that with a stock Mac or price >>that with a Mac II. Remember a VGA, 25 MHz '386 with a 150MB Harddrive >>... Ron > >I think you've greatly missed the point here. I can put multiple monitors >on any Mac II or SE/30 class machine, and third parties have even >figured out ways to do it with the SE and the original Mac Plus! (BTW, multiple monitors != multiuser) Big deal. Any PC can do the same (well, XT or higher at least) -- it may or may not be useful depending on whether you have software that makes use of both monitors. For example, I have a mono and an EGA on my Zenith AT at home, and I can use the Informix-4GL interactive debugger on both screens at once (I use the mono for the debugger screen and the EGA for the application screen). There are other debugger-type apps that do the same. No problem. (By the way, who said the Mac Plus was the "original"? Ever hear of the Mac 512K? The Plus was once the top-of-the-line!) >You talk about running 4 monitors on a PS/2 running AIX (UNIX!) and >X-Windows(!!!) just to accomplish the same thing. Then you talk about >getting a computer with a 25 MHz processor, VGA, and a 150 meg hard >disk. Well, I dunno if you've priced IBM hardware lately, but if >you can get a Model 70 with decent memory and all those things >for $3500 dollars, I wanna know the dealer. Of course, you haven't >mentioned about where you are getting the monitors from. And >I guess you can run AIX on a clone, although I'm not sure who's doing it. >And besides, its AIX!!!! Not DOS! Not Windows! Not OS/2!!! Not >anything close to what normal people use! Easy, easy. Try decaf. :-] Anyway, there are lots of versions of UNIX for 386s (even 286s) that don't *require* special hardware. You can easily run Interactive 386/ix (arguably the most robust 386 UNIX for generic boxes) with a 386 with VGA, etc. for $3500. Other versions like ESIX would be even cheaper. Then, you get a true *multiuser* system. How many simultaneous users can you run on the Mac? >|Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing | -- Alan S. Denney @ Informix Software, Inc. "We're homeward bound {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland ('tis a damn fine sound!) -------------------------------------------- with a good ship, taut & free Disclaimer: These opinions are mine alone. We don't give a damn, If I am caught or killed, the secretary when we drink our rum will disavow any knowledge of my actions. with the girls of old Maui."
emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson) (12/30/89)
In article <332@sixhub.UUCP>, davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > [much deleted] > The hidden advantage of the Intel instruction set is that many of the > instructions are single byte, thus reducing memory size (minor benefit) > and allowing a greater number of instructions to be fetched per unit > time given a limited memory bandwidth. This makes a difference in > performance at the low end, with slow memory. > Well that used to be true when 8 bit bus machines ruled, but these days 16 and 32 bit busses are rapidly replacing them. Bear in mind that the 68008 was actually a cut-down 16/32 bit processor, not really an 8 bit predecessor of the 68000, so 16 bit opcodes are more 'natural' for this range. 8 bit opcodes would actually be wasteful on the 68000 and 68010, and the 68020 had to implement some *really neat* circuitry to allow random 8 bit data fetches on a 32 bit data bus without slowing the processor to shift it into place. 8 bit opcodes would have absolutely *NO* advantage whatsoever unless you shackled the '020 to an 8 bit bus, and this is usually only done for 'bootstrapping'. Perhaps someone in the know can tell us how the '486 compares with the '020s dynamic bus sizing? > I am NOT proposing any Intel or other CPU as "better" in some way > than another, just adding a few observations. Ditto. I cut my teeth on the SC/MP, hacked the 6502 and Z80, and *loved* the 68k, but nowadays I need the portability of C. I'd probably have hacked '86 assembler if it were not for those disgusting segments. Yuk! OK, yes, I admit it, I do have a preference, and it is heavily biased, but '86 looks too much like a step backwards. It's bad enough having to use 'far' in C to make some progs run on a PC. I would hope that this botch will soon disappear from all PC C compilers, then perhaps we can pretend that our machines are perfect, no matter what the processor... Just MHO, the world would be a dull place if we all agreed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ static char disclaimer[] = { "These are MY opinions. My employers don't have the collective IQ to form an opinion of their own, that's what they hired me for!" } ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (01/01/90)
In article <5216@skinner.nprdc.arpa> malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes: >More to the point, why must I always use the application I created the >document with when I want to do something to the document? For >example, on my PC using Logitech's Point editor and LaserGo's GoScript >PostScript interpreter, I can create a PostScript file that I will be >And with CED, the repeat consists of <uparrow><uparrow><return> (to >get back into Point) and <dnarrow> (to run GoScript). >If I double-click on the document with the Mac interface, I'll always >wind up in the text editor. There must be some way to drag a file into >an application other than the one the file was created in, but it's >certainly not going to be as convenient as it is on the PC. The >double-click 'launch the application with this file' is only a >timesaver when you're never going to use the file with any other >application. > Sean, you do have alternatives to double-clicking to open a certain application with the Mac. If you select the file and the application and then use the open menu item in the finder, that application will open the file as long as the selected application can read that file type. Also there is a new INIT called Handoff that allows you to select the application that will open at particular document type. And of course you can always open the specific application and use its open menu. Another thing that I can do on a mac with software that supports multiple documents is to select multiple documents in the finder and open them all at the same time, and I can also select multiple documents in the finder and select print and print any number of documents..I don't know of any PC application that does the that...course you never know.. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (01/03/90)
In article <636@taylor.UUCP> jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) writes: > This is a joke. Buying a 68000-based Mac at this point is the biggest > waste of money imaginable, considering that Apple's new System releases > will require at least a 68020 to be used to their full potential. And > considering its ridiculous little screen, you'll have to use the Mac's > "totally awesome and radical" virtual monitor capabilities just to make > it into a useable system. I think we can end this whole pointless flame-war right here. I merely point out that I, an Experiened User, am not able to do all the things I like to do, exactly the way I prefer to do them, on a PC/compatible. That is total scientific PROOF that the PC, its compatibles, MS-DOS, CPM, OS/2, Windows, X-Windows, etc. etc. are ***TOTALLY USELESS AND A COMMUNIST PLOT TO RIP OFF EXPERIENCED USERS!!!!!!*** I thank you all for your kind attention. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!
ralph@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Ralph Brandi) (01/04/90)
In article <5959@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: >is total scientific PROOF that the PC, its compatibles, MS-DOS, CPM, OS/2, >Windows, X-Windows, etc. etc. are ***TOTALLY USELESS AND A COMMUNIST PLOT >TO RIP OFF EXPERIENCED USERS!!!!!!*** Where do you find communists these days? >I thank you all for your kind attention. Our pleasure. Really. -- Ralph Brandi ralph@lzfme.att.com att!lzfme!ralph Work flows toward the competent until they are submerged.
woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) (01/04/90)
In article <3147@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ralph@lzfme.ATT.COM (Ralph Brandi) writes: >>Windows, X-Windows, etc. etc. are ***TOTALLY USELESS AND A COMMUNIST PLOT >>TO RIP OFF EXPERIENCED USERS!!!!!!*** > >Where do you find communists these days? > i believe the United States still has an active communist party... :-) :-) /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (01/05/90)
In article <5911@eos.UUCP> woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes: >In article <3147@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ralph@lzfme.ATT.COM (Ralph Brandi) writes: >>Where do you find communists these days? >i believe the United States still has an active communist party... >:-) :-) This is a bit far afield, but for what it's worth the US communist party is in quite a shambles right now. Traditionally they have gotten most of their budget from the Soviet Union as opposed to US contributors. Gorby has cut them off, and they have shut down most of their operations. The last I heard from them was after the Tienamen Square massacre. The only person that National Public Radio could find to defend the massacre was the head of the US communist party ... he seemed quite adamant and sincere, even when the moderator pointed out that he probably wasn't making any friends by his position ... -- --------| Whether you can believe it or not, the universe is Alien | laughing behind your back. - Deteriorata --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
rcbaem@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (Ernst <pooh> Mulder) (01/08/90)
In article <5959@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: > >I think we can end this whole pointless flame-war right here. I merely >point out that I, an Experiened User, am not able to do all the things I >like to do, exactly the way I prefer to do them, on a PC/compatible. okay, that's what I tought. I'm both an IBM PC/AT and an Apple Macintosh user, and programmer. I truely dislike the PC except for some very few abilities. I like the Mac because its interface is (albeit not completely consistent) so simple to use. > That >is total scientific PROOF that the PC, its compatibles, MS-DOS, CPM, OS/2, >Windows, X-Windows, etc. etc. are ***TOTALLY USELESS AND A COMMUNIST PLOT >TO RIP OFF EXPERIENCED USERS!!!!!!*** > >I thank you all for your kind attention. > >David Casseres > >Exclaimer: Hey! BUT what I really hate is all this 'everything that's bad is caused by communists' business. Come on, bach to the sixties huh? Ernst. >
jbeard@ntvax.uucp (Jeff Beardsley) (01/09/90)
In article <5959@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: >I think we can end this whole pointless flame-war right here. I merely >point out that I, an Experiened User, am not able to do all the things I >like to do, exactly the way I prefer to do them, on a PC/compatible. That >is total scientific PROOF that the PC, its compatibles, MS-DOS, CPM, OS/2, >Windows, X-Windows, etc. etc. are ***TOTALLY USELESS AND A COMMUNIST PLOT >TO RIP OFF EXPERIENCED USERS!!!!!!*** I agree that this is *proof* of something. It is scientific proof that idiots who are too STUPID to be CAPABLE of using the PC are Able (barely) to use the Mac. -- ----- <Jeff Beardsley> --------------------- <jbeard@dept.csci.unt.edu> ----- Any similarity between my opinions and the opinion of any other person, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
ar4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) (01/09/90)
Pardon me if I happened to skip this simple observation. When I got back from
vacation I saw a back-log of 1500 messages. Hit the 'c' key without a flinch...
"Xerox suing Apple...
imagine that, Xerox actually suing anyone for copying something"
-- from a Cincinnati BBS
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Piper Keairnes | ar4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu | General Consultant |
| (317) 495-4273 | Macintosh Enthusiast | Purdue Univ. Computing Center |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (01/10/90)
In article <1990Jan8.202118.16386@ntvax.uucp>, jbeard@ntvax.uucp (Jeff Beardsley) writes: > In article <5959@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: > >I think we can end this whole pointless flame-war right here. I merely > >point out that I, an Experiened User, am not able to do all the things I > >like to do, exactly the way I prefer to do them, on a PC/compatible. That > >is total scientific PROOF that the PC, its compatibles, MS-DOS, CPM, OS/2, > >Windows, X-Windows, etc. etc. are ***TOTALLY USELESS AND A COMMUNIST PLOT > >TO RIP OFF EXPERIENCED USERS!!!!!!*** > > I agree that this is *proof* of something. It is scientific proof that > idiots who are too STUPID to be CAPABLE of using the PC are Able (barely) > to use the Mac. No, Jeff. It's merely an indication that some people are sufficiently numb that they can't feel their leg being pulled by both hands and a small pickup truck. Write when your leg begins to show some sensation again. :} ------------ "...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_ 275d
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (01/12/90)
jbeard@ntvax.UUCP (Jeff Beardsley) writes: >idiots who are too STUPID to be CAPABLE of using the PC are Able (barely) >to use the Mac. Hmmm. So is Seymour Cray an "idiot ... too STUPID to be CAPABLE of using the PC"? It seems that I recall his reason for using the Mac was that he'd rather spend his time using his tools than figuring out how to use them (or words to that effect). (Sorry for the name dropping, but I really resent being called an idiot because I prefer the Mac's interface, and Mr. Cray is a nice example of a non-idiot who uses the Mac.) -- Geoff Allen \ WINCO doesn't believe in Macs, {uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff \ so of course these are my views. ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff \
jimvons@ashtate (Jim von Schmacht) (01/13/90)
In article <1054@pmafire.UUCP> geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) writes: >Hmmm. So is Seymour Cray an "idiot ... too STUPID to be CAPABLE of >using the PC"? It seems that I recall his reason for using the Mac was >that he'd rather spend his time using his tools than figuring out how to >use them (or words to that effect). As an aside, when told that Apple was using a Cray to design the next generation of Macintoshes Seymour replied 'That is interesting, I am using a Macintosh to design the next generation of Crayes' -- Thank you, Seymour! -- Jim von Schmacht Member, Project Test Staff Ashton Tate Corporation Disclaimer: Standard Issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It isn't the years - it's the mileage" -Indiana Jones
lennox@paris.sw.stratus.com (Craig Scott Lennox) (01/23/90)
In article <3147@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ralph@lzfme.ATT.COM (Ralph Brandi) writes: > >Where do you find communists these days? > In American universities, of course! -- | Craig Scott Lennox -- Stratus Computer - Marlborough, MA | | Dyslexic Existentialism: "Is there a dog?" | | Find out what I really said -- send for your free decoder ring! |