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.langz@asylum.SF.CA.US (Lang Zerner) (12/17/89)
In article <21301@mimsy.umd.edu> folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes: >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: > > [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. This is actually what I'd prefer to see. When I first heard about this story, I wanted Xerox to win the settlement, because I feel Apple deserves it for trying to perpetrate the myth of user-interface ownership. But then I realized that the myth would be perpetrated even further if Xerox won. I'd be happy if this were one of the cases that broke the camel's back, that the judge determines that `this is getting ridiculous,' and declares that both litigants lose. "Xerox: you lose because you don't own squat; Apple: you lose even more because you don't own the interface you have attempted to monopolize lige a mad dog for all these years. Now get the hell out of my courtroom, both of you!" Aahhhh. :-) -- 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!"
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 = ============================================================================
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.....
dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) (12/18/89)
In article <9073@asylum.SF.CA.US> langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) writes: > "Xerox: you lose because you don't own squat; Apple: you lose even more >because you don't own the interface you have attempted to monopolize lige a mad >dog for all these years. Now get the hell out of my courtroom, both of you!" After which Xerox introduces a new computer system that is faster, cleaner, easier to learn, more powerful for advanced users, and has better programming support. Oh, and it has a Mac emulation mode so we can all run our favorite software. And the big news: They ship in quantity one month after the machine is announced! It could happen. -- David Elliott dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce | (408)944-4073 "As I never read this newsgroup or my email, please send replies via carrier pigeon."
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)
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (12/18/89)
In article <1989Dec18.002600.13950@smsc.sony.com> dce@Sony.COM (David Elliott) writes: >In article <9073@asylum.SF.CA.US> langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) writes: >> "Xerox: you lose because you don't own squat; Apple: you lose even more >>because you don't own the interface you have attempted to monopolize lige a mad >>dog for all these years. Now get the hell out of my courtroom, both of you!" > >After which Xerox introduces a new computer system that is faster, cleaner, >easier to learn, more powerful for advanced users, and has better >programming support. Oh, and it has a Mac emulation mode so we can all >run our favorite software. > >And the big news: They ship in quantity one month after the machine is >announced! And not only that, it ships with a full set of Microsoft application software, all of it bug free and with no arbitrary limitations and a consistant user interface. Followups to alt.fish.stories. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?
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
ian@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk (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). > > Robert > Hopefully, it will mean the end of these `look and feel' lawsuits. After all, everyone's been doing it to everyone else, it's about time Xerox got in on the act. By the way, Apple could easily win this by slapping an injunction on Xerox to stop them using the `look and feel' of Apple lawyers :-) Ian
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
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!
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (12/19/89)
rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (the Wizard of Speed and Time) writes: >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 :-) :-) Yes, and I'm happy to report they are all saving up to buy Macs. ;^> Happy Non-denominational Gift-getting season to you all. -- 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
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
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (12/20/89)
werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: >In article <10673@encore.Encore.COM>, jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) writes: >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. Join the real world. Any real application program (as opposed to a utility such as COPY) has to have some sort of user interface, and the Mac defines one for you. Yes, you have to work a little harder to make your interface consistant with the User Interface Guidelines, but hey, you are getting paid to do so kiddo; your job is to provide a product that makes the user's life EASIER. As for heiroglyphics, lets talk about the UNIX or DOS ones. "edlin", "mv", "subst" "nlsfunc" "chcp" or the options to unix "find". Icons are easier to recognise; numerous perceptual studies have proved this. Listen, YOU may not like the Mac. Fine. Go play on your PC. But don't trash it by posting stupid, uninformed comments. The studies clearly show that it's easier to learn and use the Mac, and that the average Mac user uses many more programs than the average PC user. 99% of Mac people are USERS, only 1% programmers. As programmers, our jobs come down to giving the user what he/she/it wants. The Mac provides a framework for doing this; that is why it is successful. -- 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!
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
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
jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) (12/20/89)
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead): > werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: >>[...] jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) writes: >>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. For those who don't want to wade through Usenet's own version of a bibliographer's worst nightmare, I'd like to point out that I only *quoted* the above tripe (for purposes of rebuttal, at that). If you want to flame someone you should probably start with Mr. Werner, although at this point I'm not sure if *he* is the originator of the above statements either. :-)/2 Jeff d'Arcy OS/Network Software Engineer jdarcy@encore.com If Encore endorsed my opinions, they couldn't afford to pay me
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
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 | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
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 | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
jsp@key.COM (James Preston) (12/21/89)
In article <994@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: >As for heiroglyphics, lets talk about the UNIX or DOS ones. "edlin", "mv", >"subst" "nlsfunc" "chcp" or the options to unix "find". Icons are easier >to recognise; numerous perceptual studies have proved this. Be very, very careful of over-generalizations. Yes, studies may have shown that in _many_ cases, icons are easier to recognize, especially when pitted against typical unix over-abreviations. But take another look at a typical Mac paint program. Tell me that you knew immediately--without reading any documention and without any help from other mac users and without having seen any usage of any similar program before--that the little tipping can with the stuff pouring out of it was used to fill an area with a pattern. Tell me that replacing that cute little picture with the words "fill area" wouldn't be more straightforward. (This is probably not even the best example of "undecipherable icon whose meaning could be better conveyed with a couple of words", but it's all I can think of right now.) My point is only that, as with anything, icons can be overdone. Anytime you get so focused on ONE way of doing things, you risk overlooking that in some cases, another way might be better. --James Preston
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.
truesdel@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) (12/21/89)
jsp@key.COM (James Preston) writes: >Be very, very careful of over-generalizations. Right on! > But take another look at a typical >Mac paint program. Tell me that you knew immediately--without reading any >documention and without any help from other mac users and without having >seen any usage of any similar program before--that the little tipping can >with the stuff pouring out of it was used to fill an area with a pattern. >Tell me that replacing that cute little picture with the words "fill area" >wouldn't be more straightforward. (This is probably not even the best >example of "undecipherable icon whose meaning could be better conveyed >with a couple of words", but it's all I can think of right now.) Your example was not the best, but I get the point. But, referring to your example, I NEVER saw ANY manual for MacPaint EVER. If I was ever confused about the little tipping paint bucket, the confusion lasted a total of about 3 seconds. And the bucket has the SAME FUNCTION in EVERY SINGLE PAINT PROGRAM. That is a gain. But the real gain comes when you get used to using feature-laden programs. While the icon based interface may or may not be easier to decypher at first try, it is definitely easier to do a quick visual recognition (one level of abstraction) rather than the visual recognition, then the language processing (two levels of abstraction) necessary for text-based interfaces. And even in text-based systems, facility by advanced users is almost always by physical memory of where the keys are they are supposed to type, rather than the actual values of the keys. >My point is only that, as with anything, icons can be overdone. Anytime >you get so focused on ONE way of doing things, you risk overlooking that >in some cases, another way might be better. This is absolutely correct. There are many many desirable tools in several command line-based OSs that are sorely missed in the Mac OS. The Mac is poorer for lack of a text-based command input window, batch processing, aliases, pipes, etc. Presumably, System 7 will address some of these needs. Until then, I have to say that from my point of view (I come from an art background) the Mac, despite its glaring faults, is BY FAR more satisfying and fun to use. --scott CLAIMER: I speak for everybody! :-O -- Scott Truesdell
jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.c@canremote.uucp (jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.c) (12/21/89)
From: jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead): > werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: >>[...] jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) writes: >>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. For those who don't want to wade through Usenet's own version of a bibliographer's worst nightmare, I'd like to point out that I only *quoted* the above tripe (for purposes of rebuttal, at that). If you want to flame someone you should probably start with Mr. Werner, although at this point I'm not sure if *he* is the originator of the above statements either. :-)/2 Jeff d'Arcy OS/Network Software Engineer jdarcy@encore.com If Encore endorsed my opinions, they couldn't afford to pay me --- * Via MaSNet/HST96/HST144/V32 - UN Mac * Via Usenet Newsgroup comp.sys.mac
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 Mac * Via Usenet Newsgroup comp.sys.mac
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 Mac * Via Usenet Newsgroup comp.sys.mac
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
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. --
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 +
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 | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Sho Kuwamoto) (12/22/89)
In article <1328@key.COM> jsp@penguin.key.COM (James Preston) writes: >Tell me that you knew immediately--without reading any >documention and without any help from other mac users and without having >seen any usage of any similar program before--that the little tipping can >with the stuff pouring out of it was used to fill an area with a pattern. >Tell me that replacing that cute little picture with the words "fill area" >wouldn't be more straightforward. (This is probably not even the best >example of "undecipherable icon whose meaning could be better conveyed >with a couple of words", but it's all I can think of right now.) a) it makes internationalization harder when something like that is put into a program. b) it doesn't really matter too much whether or not you can tell what it does *before* you use it, as long as you can tell what it did after use. When you have a program like MacPaint which has a palette of tools, the program feels different than, say, a drawing program which uses a crosshair cursor all the time with a series of text menus to search through. c) once you know what all the tools do, it can be easier to distinguish between different icons than different blocks of a "couple of words." Besides, if they used words, it wouldn't look cutesy enough... The situation is getting a little better. There are lots of icons which don't neccessarily make sense at first. That's life. What's important is that for some people, it's easier to distinguish, say, icons for different types of documents than, say, filename extensions. Why do I say it's getting better? In the new finder, you will be able to get help on anything on the desktop. They should have come up with this a long time ago. -Sho -- sho@physics.purdue.edu
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.
jsp@key.COM (James Preston) (12/22/89)
In article <2590444E.22947@paris.ics.uci.edu> truesdel@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) writes: >Your example was not the best, but I get the point. But, referring to >your example, I NEVER saw ANY manual for MacPaint EVER. If I was ever >confused about the little tipping paint bucket, the confusion lasted a >total of about 3 seconds. And the bucket has the SAME FUNCTION in EVERY >SINGLE PAINT PROGRAM. That is a gain. But the real gain comes when you >get used to using feature-laden programs. While the icon based >interface may or may not be easier to decypher at first try, it is >definitely easier to do a quick visual recognition (one level of >abstraction) rather than the visual recognition, then the language >processing (two levels of abstraction) necessary for text-based >interfaces. I don't agree with this at all. In the first place that "levels of abstraction" stuff is just bunk. Are you actually saying that you personally can tell the difference in the time it takes you to recognize the meaning of a picture vs. the time it takes you to recognize the meaning of a word? In the second place, even if I grant you that, if I am presented with a picture whose meaning I can't decipher, it doesn't matter that it would have been quicker than a word; if I can't figure out what functionality it is supposed to represent, I'm stuck. So the paint bucket wasn't the best example; how about the dotted retangle? Or the lasso? Or a picture of a hand? Or an asterisk? Some of these I can look at and come up with a half a dozen possible meanings for. Others I can't even come up with one. The point is that icon-boosters like to go on and on about how much better pictures are for all the reasons that we've all heard. But I'm saying that there _are_ cases where a couple of words can be much more meaningful and more easily recognized than a picture. Yes it's true that once you learn what this things mean, you can remember them. But that argument applies to cryptic DOS commands too. And the argument that every paint program uses the same pictures says nothing about the usefullness of the pictures themselves.Every program uses the same pictures because Apple told them too. If Apple had decided to use the words "fill area" or "select region", it could have just as easily decreed that all programs use the same words. >Until then, I have to say that from my point of view (I come from an >art background) the Mac, despite its glaring faults, is BY FAR more >satisfying and fun to use. I agree absolutely, that's why I finally broke down and shelled out big bucks for one. But "best" does not mean "perfect, has no faults, and can't possibly be any better". It really bothers me that so many Mac aficionados apparently feel that _nothing_ on the Mac is less-than-optimal, and that any complaint or suggestion to change something amounts to sacrilege. --James Preston
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
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
mnkonar@gorby.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) (12/22/89)
In article <1331@key.COM> jsp@penguin.key.COM (James Preston) writes: >In article <2590444E.22947@paris.ics.uci.edu> truesdel@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) writes: [discussion about textual representations vs. iconic ones deleted; the example being discussed is the Paint Bucket icon vs. "Fill Area." The claim is that an iconic representation requires one level of abstraction and that text requires two ] > >I don't agree with this at all. In the first place that "levels of >abstraction" stuff is just bunk. Are you actually saying that you personally >can tell the difference in the time it takes you to recognize the meaning >of a picture vs. the time it takes you to recognize the meaning of a word? >In the second place, even if I grant you that, if I am presented with a >picture whose meaning I can't decipher, it doesn't matter that it would have >been quicker than a word; if I can't figure out what functionality it is >supposed to represent, I'm stuck. No, you're dumb. Try it out and see what it does. You can always "Undo" your last action (if the program was written according to Apple's UI guidlines). > So the paint bucket wasn't the best >example; how about the dotted retangle? Or the lasso? Or a picture of a >hand? Or an asterisk? Some of these I can look at and come up with a half >a dozen possible meanings for. Others I can't even come up with one. The >point is that icon-boosters like to go on and on about how much better >pictures are for all the reasons that we've all heard. But I'm saying that >there _are_ cases where a couple of words can be much more meaningful and >more easily recognized than a picture. Yes it's true that once you learn >what this things mean, you can remember them. But that argument applies >to cryptic DOS commands too. Except that the iconic interface gives you a see and remember interface. If you can't remember what that DOS command is for that thing you want to do your're dead. (Plastic do-hickey cheat sheets do not constitute a see and remember interface). ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)
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 \\/// ______________________________________________ ///\\\
sharon@asylum.SF.CA.US (Sharon Fisher) (12/22/89)
In article <2590444E.22947@paris.ics.uci.edu> truesdel@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) writes: >jsp@key.COM (James Preston) writes: >> But take another look at a typical >>Mac paint program. Tell me that you knew immediately--without reading any >>documention and without any help from other mac users and without having >>seen any usage of any similar program before--that the little tipping can >>with the stuff pouring out of it was used to fill an area with a pattern. >>Tell me that replacing that cute little picture with the words "fill area" >>wouldn't be more straightforward. (This is probably not even the best >>example of "undecipherable icon whose meaning could be better conveyed >>with a couple of words", but it's all I can think of right now.) > >Your example was not the best, but I get the point. But, referring to >your example, I NEVER saw ANY manual for MacPaint EVER. If I was ever >confused about the little tipping paint bucket, the confusion lasted a >total of about 3 seconds. And the bucket has the SAME FUNCTION in EVERY >SINGLE PAINT PROGRAM. That is a gain. But the real gain comes when you >get used to using feature-laden programs. While the icon based >interface may or may not be easier to decypher at first try, it is >definitely easier to do a quick visual recognition (one level of >abstraction) rather than the visual recognition, then the language >processing (two levels of abstraction) necessary for text-based >interfaces. I'm with John. Early in the Mac's life, I tried to use MacPaint and some sort of graphing program. I gave up, almost in tears, after a couple of hours. (And I was hardly a computer neophyte at the time.) Since then, somebody sat down with me for an hour or so and showed me how to use word processing programs, enough so I could pretty much deal with it when I had to use a Mac for a week. But there were still times when I simply could not figure out what combination of icons, menus, and mouse-clicking I was supposed to use to perform a specific function. I get really annoyed at people who insist that the Mac is *always* easier to use for *all* people. It isn't the case, and being told that alienates the people for whom it isn't true -- or, worse still, makes them feel stupid.
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 | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
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."
freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) (12/23/89)
truesdel@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) writes: >jsp@key.COM (James Preston) writes: >>But take another look at a typical >>Mac paint program. Tell me that you knew immediately--without reading any >>documention and without any help from other mac users and without having >>seen any usage of any similar program before--that the little tipping can >>with the stuff pouring out of it was used to fill an area with a pattern. >>Tell me that replacing that cute little picture with the words "fill area" >>wouldn't be more straightforward. > >Your example was not the best, but I get the point. But, referring to >your example, I NEVER saw ANY manual for MacPaint EVER. *I* did! It is in the "Goodies" menu, under the item "Introduction". At the left hand side of the paint bucket there is the explanation: area fill -> -- Freek "the Pistol Major" Wiedijk Path: uunet!fwi.uva.nl!freek #P:+/ = #+/P?*+/ = i<<*+/P?*+/ = +/i<<**P?*+/ = +/(i<<*P?)*+/ = +/+/(i<<*P?)**
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 | +--------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------------+
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
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (12/26/89)
/* Written 9:59 am Dec 23, 1989 by jerry@polygen.uucp in comp.sys.mac */ >>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... > >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.... > >Are you sure you're talking 'low-end' here? An 8086 clone with a hard >disk will go for under $800. "This is a joke. Buying a 8086-based PC at this point is the biggest waste of money imaginable, considering that Microsoft's new OS/2 releases will require at least an 80286 to be used to their full potential...." I don't even agree with the above two statements (the only thing a Mac will forfeit is virtual memory), but it's fun to parody people in this newgroup from time to time....
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
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
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 ******/
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 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+mitchell@cbmvax.commodore.com (Fred Mitchell - PA) (01/09/90)
In article <89122504042939@masnet.uucp> rg@uunet!unhd@canremote.uucp (rg@uunet!unhd) writes: >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). Thank you. I generally avoid posting on alternate computer newsgroups, because of the danger of being flamed to a crisp! (It happened once, and I have the 3rd degree burns to show for it! :-) I have used many computers, including IBM, Mac, and Atari ST. Needless to say, after comparing them all, I am a Amiga Devotee to the nth degree! :-) But there are valid reasons, as you will soon see. >Some GUI's work well. But, whenever I have to use one that is poorly >designed, I start to miss VM/CMS :-) My speciality is GUI's. I'm currently in the process of writing complicated software for the Amiga that makes heavy reliance on GUI. >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". Agreed. The entire icon should be a selection area. >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. That depends on the application, and the design. Generally, a small command set is desirable, but not always possible. Also, if the application is a Word Processer, there should be many keyboard equivalents. If its a 3-D modeler, keyboard equivalents would also be desirable, but more so commands should be "grouped" (e.g. in requesters, or 'dialog boxes' in the Mac world) in such a way to make it *appear* that there is only a small (or modest) command set, even if there are many. It's not easy to do this, since there must also be a self-consistent 'flow', or 'gestalt' to the overall design. This is art, folks! >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 great thing that I love the most about the Amiga is that it gives you a CHOICE- you can pop up as many CLI's as you like (and they all multitask!) -OR- you can use the iconic interface (Workbench). I find myself using them both simultaneously, for certain tasks are better suited to one or the other. Obviously, IBM is a kludge from the start (and IBM wanted it that way, for fear of losing out on their mainframes!) >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. Here again, the Amiga gives you a choice. You can even change the Object-Tool association with ease. Also, the assoication is looser on the Amiga than it is on the Mac. And with multiple-selection, you can override the association. For instance, what if I wanted to use word-processor B on files created by word-processer A. All I have to do is 'shift-click' word-processor B and the files, then doubble-click at the end. Viola! The wp comes up with all my selected files! >Comments welcome (especially from Amigoids, since I've never used >one). -Roger You should really seek out your local Amiga dealer and check out the Amiga. The Mac is interesting from the standpoint of some of the software it has- but the OS is seriously lacking. Lots of great tools, sure- but in a poor, non-multasking environment. (No, cooperative multitasking is not TRUE multitasking, as all us software engineers know [watch me get flamed on that one!]) I feel that if Apple were to totally RE-WRITE the OS from scratch, they can have a respectable system. Of course, that would mean compatibility problems(!). Since I wrote a multitasking system 10 years ago (when I was 19!!!), I fail to see why Mac and IBM (especially IBM!!!!!!! Shameless) could not have produced MUCH better systems. And before anyone starts griping about memory limitations of the early 80's, I did my system on Data General's MicroNova hardware, which had only 64K of total addressability back then. The 4X was especially fun to work on, too. It had something like 256K of memory, with a MMU to map it in <=64K chunks. No flames, please- only constructive criticism. But I'll still keep my CO2 canister handy (or my laser :-). And now, to disapear back into obscurity :-) >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 -Mitchell mitchell@cbmvax.UUCP "An Apple a day helps keep the Doctor Employed." - Atreides
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! |