rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) (12/18/89)
In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: > 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? Ha ha ha. If you want to talk about shameless, price a Mac II these days. > It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, > make things look good and friendly. ^^^^ They may make it *look* friendly, but to an experienced user, a @#$%@ pull down menu'ed interface is anything but friendly. Why should I be saddled with something I don't want? > 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). Ho ho ho, you're making my sides hurt... NuBus? Superior to anything? Ha ha ha. And you're holding up AppleTalk as an example of something good? Clearly you've never used any of this stuff. > But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* Now the tears are really running out of my eyes. Apple hasn't provided *more* of anything. In fact, all Apple has done is force users to use its gui interface. That's pretty fascistic. The PC world is very democratic. It allows the *user* to decide whether he wants a gui or a text based system. It allows the user to determine what sort of LAN he'd like. It allows the user to decide what sort of display quality he'd like. Apple does none of the above. In fact, I'll go on record as stating that there is *far more* graphics based software avaiable for the PC than there is for Apple. There is far more *everything* available for the PC than for Apple. PC's (of an equivalent vintage) have always had better graphics and much quicker operation than Apples. Apples "graphic superiority" is a myth. I hope Xerox sues them into the ground. What I expect is that Xerox will prove prior art, recover court costs, and then release their work into the public domain. It's my opinion that they're simply trying to stop Apple from using Xerox's work to pursue its own fascistic agenda. Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@serene.uu.net ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757
jxf@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Jerry Frain) (12/19/89)
In article <1210@serene.UUCP> rfarris@serene.UU.NET (Rick Farris) writes: >In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: >> 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? >Ha ha ha. If you want to talk about shameless, price a Mac II these >days. Price is relative. Apple simply sets the prices of their products at what they think they can be sold for, and to turn the best profit. This is a matter of simple business sense. I, for one, believe that the Macintosh is overpriced, but let's not make more of an issue out of it than what it really is. >> It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, >> make things look good and friendly. > ^^^^ >They may make it *look* friendly, but to an experienced user, a @#$%@ >pull down menu'ed interface is anything but friendly. Why should I >be saddled with something I don't want? I don't see your point. This also is not a complex issue -- if the standard Mac interface does not please a user, that user is more than entitled to change it, or not to use it all. [ ... ] >> But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* >Now the tears are really running out of my eyes. Apple hasn't >provided *more* of anything. In fact, all Apple has done is force >users to use its gui interface. That's pretty fascistic. Apple has forced a standard interface across all of its Macintosh products for a very good reason -- standardization. The "average" PC user uses three applications regularly -- the "average" Mac user uses eight. This is due to the fact that PC applications are traditionally more difficult to learn and master than are the standard Macintosh programs. Simple matter of reducing the learning curve across different applications, from different vendors. There's nothing wrong with this concept. Perhaps there is something wrong with the way it is enforced. This interface, like everything else ever created by mankind, is not for everyone. So be it. >The PC world is very democratic. It allows the *user* to decide >whether he wants a gui or a text based system. It allows the user to >determine what sort of LAN he'd like. It allows the user to decide >what sort of display quality he'd like. Apple does none of the >above. The Mac user also has the choice of creating/using a gui or text-based interface. I believe that MPW is text-based, for example. Most vendors are not in the habit of selling/supporting products not made by that vendor; hence, IBM does not sell or support STARLAN for their PS/2 line, and I am sure that AT&T does not sell or support the token ring, either. [ lot of stuff about IBM PC/compatibles having superior graphics to Macs suppressed... ] Well, most of this may be true, however, I have yet to find a general purpose type word processor for the IBM PC/compatible which has WYSIWYG features; hence, being able to *see* italics, etc. instead of simply changing the colors of the text to represent different fonts. Bah, I say to graphics! Show me something simple, something tangible like the word processing capability I described above. The Mac has had these capabilities since what? 1983? Something like that. >I hope Xerox sues them into the ground. What I expect is that Xerox >will prove prior art, recover court costs, and then release their >work into the public domain. Yeah, and I hope that FSF buys UNIX from AT&T and releases it to the general public with a "copyleft," too. But I bet it doesn't happen. And, personally, I don't care much for this cross-posting stuff between two rival groups such as c.s.ibm.pc and c.s.mac, since all it ever accomplishes is flame wars of great magnitude, and waste a lot of bucks by posting a lot of unecessary garbage to the net. The net is supposed to be a place to share, learn, exchange information in a productive way. Let's work to keep it that way. --Jerry [ insert standard disclaimer here ] -- Jerry Frain -- Professional Student Kansas State University Internet: jxf@phobos.cis.ksu.edu Dept of Computing & Information Sciences BITNET: MUSTANG@KSUVM Manhattan, Kansas UUCP: ...!{rutgers|textbell}!ksuvax1!phobos.cis.ksu.edu!jxf
t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) (12/19/89)
In article <1210@serene.UUCP> rfarris@serene.UU.NET (Rick Farris) writes: >> It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, >> make things look good and friendly. > ^^^^ >They may make it *look* friendly, but to an experienced user, a @#$%@ >pull down menu'ed interface is anything but friendly. Why should I >be saddled with something I don't want? > Why are you straddled? There are utilities that will allow you to run everything with the keyboard if you want, as well as everything from the mouse as well. It's friendly because I can take a new application that I've never seen before, never have read the manual, and very quickly I can figure out how it works because it works very much like every other good Mac program. > >The PC world is very democratic. It allows the *user* to decide >whether he wants a gui or a text based system. It allows the user to >determine what sort of LAN he'd like. It allows the user to decide >what sort of display quality he'd like. Apple does none of the >above. > NONE OF THE ABOVE? I guess that makes you a democratic grandious generalizer. The Mac has *LOTS* of choices of LANs connectability. The Mac has lots of different size/shape/color/resolution displays to choose from. Does the PC world have 32bit color to choose from? (Just asking) >In fact, I'll go on record as stating that there is *far more* >graphics based software avaiable for the PC than there is for Apple. >There is far more *everything* available for the PC than for Apple. > BIG DEAL! You're not saying anything here. There's far more software which means theres far more junk. Why don't you be so daring as to go on the record as stating there is far more *High*Quality* graphics software or that the PC software is of a *Higer*Quality* than the graphics software of the Mac. I doubt the Desktop Publishing Software is better. I doubt the Paint type programs are better. I doubt the Illustration type programs are better. I doubt the Presentation type programs are better. I doubt the 3D Rendering type programs are better. . . . >PC's (of an equivalent vintage) have always had better graphics and >much quicker operation than Apples. > You have any benchmarks to back that up? Look the truth is that the PC is better in some things, the Mac in others. Don't insult the intelligence and wast the time of the rest of us by trying to make all these general sweeping claims. Especially without hardly any examples or data to back it up. Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu
mnkonar@gorby.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) (12/19/89)
In article <1210@serene.UUCP> rfarris@serene.UU.NET (Rick Farris) writes: [stuff about PC machine's superiority over Macs, among other things...] >I hope Xerox sues them [Apple] into the ground. What I expect is that Xerox >will prove prior art, recover court costs, and then release their >work into the public domain. It's my opinion that they're simply >trying to stop Apple from using Xerox's work to pursue its own >fascistic agenda. Whew. Just as I was begining to feel mainstream, a breath of hot air. How refreshing. It's nice to see that there are still some lunkheads who feel that MS-DOS is actually really neat. (I'm doing my own superiority dance now.) I hear that some people actually like RPN calculators too. ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)
schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Richard Schaut) (12/19/89)
This isn't a flame. I'm more concerned about some valid comparisons, and I've never used a Mac for theese applications. If there is someone who knows better, please give us some info. Personally, I think blaming the hardware manufacturers for the decisions that software publishers have made is silly. In article <1989Dec18.142406.5066@hellgate.utah.edu> t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) writes: | BIG DEAL! You're not saying anything here. There's far more software which | means theres far more junk. Why don't you be so daring as to go on the record | as stating there is far more *High*Quality* graphics software or that the PC | software is of a *Higer*Quality* than the graphics software of the Mac. | I doubt the Desktop Publishing Software is better. As far as I know, Quark Xpress is still strictly Mac, but nearly all others have been ported to the PC's. I expect the writers to port it to Windows. They would be stupid not to. | I doubt the Paint type programs are better. | I doubt the Illustration type programs are better. Both CorelDRAW and the MicroGrafx line are some of the hottest programs in this category. | I doubt the Presentation type programs are better. I'm not sure what you mean by "presentation" type programs, but I've put together some prety darn nice looking stuff with Excel and Windows. I also haven't had to break my neck in doing so. | I doubt the 3D Rendering type programs are better. Let's see: Autocad, Cadvance, Design CAD 3D, and now Generic CAD. That's a fairly impressive lineup of software. In fact, the one graphics area where the IBM has been ahead of the Mac (as far as I've read) is in CAD. But then, there are others that have been far ahead of both systems for a long time in this area. -- Rick "Any questions? Any answers? Anyone care for a mint?" -- Rita Rudner
u-gclapp%ug.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Glenn Clapp) (12/19/89)
First, my bits o' stuff: People use what works, and what they like. If you like what you are using, and it does "everything" YOU want it to do, then it's the perfect system for you. Nuff said, the rest just doesn't matter. Now, on with the flame. In article <1989Dec18.142406.5066@hellgate.utah.edu> t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) writes: >In article <1210@serene.UUCP> rfarris@serene.UU.NET (Rick Farris) writes: >> [... some stuff...] > [... some other stuff...] >>The PC world is very democratic. It allows the *user* to decide >>whether he wants a gui or a text based system. It allows the user to >>determine what sort of LAN he'd like. It allows the user to decide >>what sort of display quality he'd like. Apple does none of the >>above. >> >NONE OF THE ABOVE? I guess that makes you a democratic grandious generalizer. >The Mac has *LOTS* of choices of LANs connectability. >The Mac has lots of different size/shape/color/resolution displays to choose >from. Does the PC world have 32bit color to choose from? (Just asking) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You bet it does, and has had since time began. Ever heard of TARGA or Vista boards (and these are middle of the road products too). > >>In fact, I'll go on record as stating that there is *far more* >>graphics based software avaiable for the PC than there is for Apple. >>There is far more *everything* available for the PC than for Apple. >> >BIG DEAL! You're not saying anything here. There's far more software which >means theres far more junk. Why don't you be so daring as to go on the record >as stating there is far more *High*Quality* graphics software or that the PC >software is of a *Higer*Quality* than the graphics software of the Mac. >I doubt the Desktop Publishing Software is better. >I doubt the Paint type programs are better. >I doubt the Illustration type programs are better. >I doubt the Presentation type programs are better. >I doubt the 3D Rendering type programs are better. >. Now we're splitting hairs. The issue isn't quality OR quantity, but choice. A large volume of choices makes software cheaper. For example, AutoCAD, the final (first?) word in CAD software has cut its prices drastically since its introduction simply due to competition, and the choices are staggering. A PC user has a *greater chance* of finding the_just_right_application, but the Mac user has greater conformity to standards. All a matter of prefferences, choices, and price. >>PC's (of an equivalent vintage) have always had better graphics and >>much quicker operation than Apples. >> >You have any benchmarks to back that up? > I do, just check the year end issues of Byte and PC Magazine (a month or so ago) for benchmarks (Byte is the better choice). Macs fall short at about middle-of-the-road for PC's. >Look the truth is that the PC is better in some things, the Mac in others. >Don't insult the intelligence and wast the time of the rest of us by trying >to make all these general sweeping claims. Especially without hardly any >examples or data to back it up. That's the first bit of truth I've heard in all this babble, but it goes further than that. It's not really an issue of what does what better than what, but what works for YOU, and what do YOU like. :-) Glenn
u-gclapp%ug.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Glenn Clapp) (12/19/89)
In article <50942@srcsip.UUCP> mnkonar@gorby.UUCP (Murat N. Konar) writes: >Whew. Just as I was begining to feel mainstream, a breath of hot air. How >refreshing. It's nice to see that there are still some lunkheads who feel that >MS-DOS is actually really neat. (I'm doing my own superiority dance now.) >I hear that some people actually like RPN calculators too. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Good God! They SAID the dark ages were over. What else is there? Algebraic? Well, to each his own especially if one has a strange (probally sexual) affinity for pushing buttons. Have a day yourself. -Glenn
ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) (12/19/89)
In article <1989Dec18.191117.18483@hellgate.utah.edu> u-gclapp%ug.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Glenn Clapp) writes: >That's the first bit of truth I've heard in all this babble, but it >goes further than that. It's not really an issue of what does what >better than what, but what works for YOU, and what do YOU like. :-) After starting this (almost) net-wide flame war by simply posting what I thought was a rather interesting news article, and after admittadly doing my share of flaming, this is the first bit of truth I've read. It looks and sounds like a great argument stopper, but it's the truth. Back to the regularly scheduled flame war... *THE IBM STANDARD RULES!!!* -- >>>> 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
kellow@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (John Kellow) (12/19/89)
I've sat back and watched a lot of these flame wars on Computer A vs. Computer B and now I think I'll add my $0.02 worth in the IBM vs. Mac war. Let me preface this by saying that I use both and I think they've both got their good and bad points. I've used all sorts of computers - my first basic course in high school started out on teletype machines and we thought it was a major technological innovation when we got a TRS-80 Model I. We could actually edit lines of our programs and save them on audio tape instead of paper tape! I remember when the Mac first came out, someone down the hall from me got one and everbody was fascinated by it. I though it was a nice idea but it had a long way to go to catch up to PC's. It didn't have any hard disk options, no letter quality printers, a tiny screen, no math co-processor, no expansion slots, etc. Well, now I think that the Mac has not only caught up to the PC but surpassed it in functionality. I say functionality because its true that a PC system could easily beat Mac on factors like price and raw processing power, but I don't think thats a good way to judge a computer. Its true that you could probably do just about anything on a PC that you could do on a Mac, but things just seem to work better on a Mac and I think thats why a lot of people like Macs. After using a color Mac II, DOS and windows on a PC seems like a gigantic hack. Mac users don't mess around with Config or Autoexec files, everythings done through the chooser and control panel. You want to add memory to a Mac? Just order some SIMMS mail order and pop them in. Current prices are as low as $79/Mb. Mac users don't have to worry about all this expanded/extended/640K/LIM4.0/EMM.SYS driver crap. Its pretty common around here to have 5Mb or more in a Mac, and virtual memory is already a reality. All Macs come with networking built in. Its certainly not high performance but it gets the job done - and everybody has it. Sure you could configure a DOS system that could run rings around a Mac and you can install a network that can blow appletalk away, but overall I think Mac users are getting more out of their Macs than DOS users are getting from their PC's. I think the biggest problem in the PC world has been compatibility - PC makers have made too big a deal out of it. So IBM is now selling OS/2 that finally takes advantage of the features of the 80286 - just when did they start selling AT's - 1984? The 80486 is already here. DOS is just being pushed beyond its limits. There comes a time when you just have to make a break with the past. Where would the Mac be today if Apple only shipped system updates that could still run on the 128K Mac? If your computer fills a need for you today then it can still fulfill the same need 10 or 20 years from now. Its like driving an old car - it may not get you there in style but it gets you there. Instead of waiting so long and going overboard with OS/2, why didn't IBM come out with a new OS when the AT came out? Forget Presentation Manager, virtual memory, multitasking, etc. Just a simple operating system that could run in protected mode, access 8Mb of memory (or whatever the 286 lets you have), with an improved file system would be a big step ahead of DOS. I don't know, maybe that wouldn't be so simple to create, but I think it seems ridiculous to be running a 33Mhz 80386 in 8086 real mode. I think there's just too much un-tapped potential in the PC world. Apple set an excellent example of what Mac programs could and should be by bundling Macpaint and Macwrite with the original Macs. What kind of example did IBM set? Displaywrite? Edlin? The original PCs came with fancy keyboards with lots of function keys but does DOS even use most of these keys? (I know about DOS4, CED, etc. - I'm just talking DOS 1.x, 2.x,3.x) No. The original display adapters could display text in multiple attributes. Does DOS even come with a command to set the prompt color? Oh sure, you could install ANSI.SYS and put escape codes in your prompt. But why can't you just type prompt=red, screen=blue, etc.? DOS could at least print the error messages in bold text. What you've basically got is an operating system that could run from a teletype hooked up to the serial port. That seems to be the intention of the CTTY command. It was probably all a marketing idea "Our customers have a large investment in teletype equipment so we should make our new computers compatible with this existing base of equipment." Why didn't they just call it the IBM-IKS (Intelligent Keypunch Station)? I can imagine the advertisements - "Now you can turn any teletype device into an intelligent keypunch station with the new IBM-IKS!" Edlin seems perfect for operators entering data into disk files instead of onto punch cards. Why couldn't IBM at least have added a screen editor to their original PC-DOS? Did they plan on selling systems without display adapters? I think its this "we can't make a break with the past" attitude thats held the PC world back. Clone makers want to make a new bus standard, just slap on more address lines. Gee, I can keep my $99 half-card internal 1200 baud modem when I upgrade to a new $7000 486 EISA system. If people want to keep using their old cards why can't they just keep using their old computers. Why does OS/2 have to be able to run DOS programs? I don't see why you couldn't just boot your computer with DOS if you want to run DOS programs and boot it with OS/2 if you want to run OS/2 programs. I think DOS is just trying to be too many things to too many people. If IBM had only taken a little more initiative with the PC and had a little more foresight instead of just introducing slightly improved versions of the same old crap, then I don't think the Macintosh would have become as successful as it has. I don't see why apple doesn't just port its Mac OS to the 80386! I just think its time DOS was given a decent burial. Well this turned out longer than I thought and I've probably only succeeded in adding more fuel to the fire, so flame away. I'm not really anti-PC, just pro Mac. John Kellow kellow@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu
malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) (12/19/89)
In article <50942@srcsip.UUCP> mnkonar@gorby.UUCP (Murat N. Konar) writes: >I hear that some people actually like RPN calculators too. Instead of 99.9% of the rest of the calculators, which use a bastard combination of algebraic and RPN? All of the puffery that TI used to blather about how with their calculators you could enter the computation "exactly as it is written". Ha. Example: (5 + (4 x sin(30))) x 4 Entered on an 'AOS' TI calculator: ( 5 + ( 4 * 30 \__ All of the single-operand instructions like the SIN / trig and hyperbolic functions, the log functions, ) and even something as mundane as the change sign ) key use RPN. x 4 = Some of us just prefer a consistent user interface for our calculators. All of the RPN functions work the same way; 'algebraic' calculators use RPN where it was too hard to implement algebraic entry correctly. Sean Malloy | Now I lay me down to sleep Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | I hear the sirens in the street San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | All my dreams are made of chrome malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | I have no way to get back home | -- Tom Waits
schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Richard Schaut) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec18.210455.29522@deimos.cis.ksu.edu> jxf@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Jerry Frain) writes: | [ lot of stuff about IBM PC/compatibles having superior graphics to Macs | suppressed... ] | | Well, most of this may be true, however, I have yet to find a general | purpose type word processor for the IBM PC/compatible which has WYSIWYG | features; hence, being able to *see* italics, etc. instead of simply | changing the colors of the text to represent different fonts. | | Bah, I say to graphics! Show me something simple, something tangible | like the word processing capability I described above. The Mac has | had these capabilities since what? 1983? Something like that. Let's see, MicroSoft Word has been around since '82, and has had true WYSIWYG since the first release. If you want to put the Mac up against the PC in word processing, the Mac loses on all fronts. In fact, the Mac loses in all general business applications, and that gap is going to widen over the next year or so. -- Rick "Any questions? Any answers? Anyone care for a mint?" -- Rita Rudner
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) (12/20/89)
For the PC users out there that say that 32 bit color exists for the platform, well I agree. Everybody knows that the Targa boards came out on the PC before the Mac. My point was that there are *no standards* for doing 32 bit work on a PC and still be compatible across the board with the zillion appilcations that you already run. The 32-bit Color Quickdraw standard created by Apple was invented for a reason: to create a standard that would be a logical extension of the existing video model without obsoleting it, and to give the third party board makers a model which to design by. That way, when SuperMac introduced the 32-bit version of PixelPaint, they didn't have to worry about whether their board only worked on SuperMac's 24 bit card. It would work on *any* card from any vendor. That's the kind of video standards that the industry needs. Not different video modes that completely render null and void the last standard. The PC world has gone from MDA to CGA to EGA to MCGA to VGA to 8514/A with Hercules (a few varieties) and Super VGA just to cload the issue. And good video products have to backwards emulate most of those just to be competetive. The Mac world works stricly by bit depths so we can work in 1 bit, 2bits, 4 bits, 8 bits, 16 bits, or 24 bits, and all user selectable from the control panel. Just to illustrate how flexible this is, just last week, I was in a demo in which I had three monitors on a Mac IIx. The first was an AppleColor Monitor driven by a RasterOps 264 card ($995) at 640x480 pixels. The second was a Radius 19 inch Trinitron Monitor being driven by a Radius 32 bit Truecolor card, and accompanying graphics accelerator. This monitor was 1180x850 pixels. The last screen was an ordinary Mitsubishi 19inch multisync monitor being driven by a TrueVision 4M (Targa board to you PC guys). I ran this display at 640x480, even though I experimented with higher resolutions (up to 1024x780) being the demo. Not only did three different video cards from three different vendors work on three different monitors in the same Mac, but because of the virtual desktop between them, I could drag a window from one monitor to another as if they were all one display. I could drag a Wingz spreadsheet to encompass the space of all three monitors, and have it act properly. I could run all three boards in the 24 bit mode, or I could have 1 in 24 bit, one in 8 bit, and the last in grayscale or monochrome, and the system (not the application software) would take care of any color mapping as objects moved from one screen to another *automatically*. If I wanted to change the physical arrangement that the monitors were perceived to the user, no problem, just select the control panel and drag the screen around until they are how you like them. Its that easy! The way it should be. And no obsolescence! Can you do that on a PC anything? -- __________________________________________________________________________ |Disclaimer: I run 125 INITs. Nothing I say can be seriously considered. | | | |Internet: REWING@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing | |ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. | |Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 | |Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 | |GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 | |USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek...) (12/20/89)
In article <4120@puff.cs.wisc.edu> schaut@cat9.CS.WISC.EDU (Richard Schaut) writes: >In article <1989Dec18.210455.29522@deimos.cis.ksu.edu> jxf@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Jerry Frain) writes: >Let's see, MicroSoft Word has been around since '82, and has had true >WYSIWYG since the first release. If you want to put the Mac up against >the PC in word processing, the Mac loses on all fronts. In fact, the >Mac loses in all general business applications, and that gap is going >to widen over the next year or so. Ha. Ha ha. Hah hah hah. BWAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a GOOOOOOD one! Haven't laughed so hard since I first saw BLAZING SADDLES! Know of any other good ones? Or did you send all your good stuff to Letterman? -- Roger Tang, Member Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club American Flag Disposal Unit #3245, Chonk Moonhunters chapter gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu
mnkonar@manyjars.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) (12/20/89)
In article <5134@skinner.nprdc.arpa> malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes: >In article <50942@srcsip.UUCP> mnkonar@gorby.UUCP (Murat N. Konar) writes: >>I hear that some people actually like RPN calculators too. > >Instead of 99.9% of the rest of the calculators, which use a bastard >combination of algebraic and RPN? All of the puffery that TI used to >blather about how with their calculators you could enter the >computation "exactly as it is written". Ha. Example: [deleted cuz it doesn't matter] Oh Geez! I don't want to start a flame war over RPN vs. Algebraic OK? I was only trying to point out the stupidity of extended battles over such technology by people (like us programmers) who really don't matter (unlike users; note that the groups are not mutually exclusive). Sheesh, so emotional. By the way, Vacuum tubes really suck. Transistors are the only way to go. Also, manual transmissions are really sick. Auto- matics are more advanced. Oh, and anyone who still listens to AM radio should be wearing bearskins and have one eyebrow. I listen to FM (highbrow). Pespi is better than Coke anyday. McDonalds has better burgers than Burger King. Chevys eat Fords for breakfast. And of course: PC's suck. ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)
mnkonar@manyjars.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Murat N. Konar) (12/20/89)
I almost forgot:
C is for weenies. Pascal is cool.
Red M&Ms taste better than yellow ones.
[just in case: :)]
____________________________________________________________________
Have a day. :^|
Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN
mnkonar@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)george@swbatl.UUCP (6544) (12/20/89)
Wow. I guess I should read the subject lines more carefully. I've missed the whole war because I thought it said: Subject: PC's are democratic; Mac's are *FANTASTIC* Sure, it didn't seem to make sense, but it seemed to be stating the obvious as far as Macs are concerned, so I ignored it. ;-) BTW, the apostrophe made it even more confusing, but I'll heed my .signature and ignore that. ;-) again -- / George D. Nincehelser \ uunet!swbatl!george \ / / Southwestern Bell Telephone \ Phone: (314) 235-6544 \ / / / Advanced Technology Laboratory \ Fax: (314) 235-5797 \ / / / /\ 1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63301 \ de asini umbra disceptare \
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (12/21/89)
Why should a user be able to use his old 8-bit boards in his new $7000 EISA system? Try because if he couldn't move over the old boards to the new system, he couldn't afford the upgrade! I've got an XT clone at home and at work we have everything from IBM PCs up thru 30 MHz 386s. Have you got any idea of the kind of price difference you'd be talking about if we couldn't keep "old" boards when we upgrade a machine? We actually figured it out as part of a proposal to eliminate all the PCs and XTs. The upgrades cost 1/2 as much if we move just the display, display adapter and hard drive over. True the hard drive with slow the performance, but we can replace it later. For a small increase in price we can replace the HD controller, and get a major improvement cheaply. The same goes for my home system. I've pretty much maxed out the XT design. But when I upgrade, I can do it a piece at a time. If I had to replace everything, I *could not* afford to upgrade! Money is the reason for maintaining downward compatibility. And it is valid. On the hardware end of things, I don't see it as causing any noticeable problems. Software is a different matter. But then yopu've been able to buy multiple OSes for the 80x86 machines ever since they were introduced (the original PC had UCSD p-system, CP/86 and PC-DOS as the options). Now there are a wide variety of choices. -- 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
peters@sahiways.gov.au (12/21/89)
>> 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? > > Ha ha ha. If you want to talk about shameless, price a Mac II these > days. Score: DOS=1, MAC=1 Everybody should know by now that the main reason there are more DOS machines out there than Macs is because there isn't any real Mac clones / compatibles. Not one. The XT became the majority standard ONLY because every man and his dog were building them and selling them to people who thought they knew what they wanted. >> It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus, >> make things look good and friendly. > ^^^^ > They may make it *look* friendly, but to an experienced user, a @#$%@ > pull down menu'ed interface is anything but friendly. Why should I > be saddled with something I don't want? > Score: DOS=2, MAC=2 The aim of any user interface is to be totally transparent; in no way should it inhibit the user from getting the best out of his computing equipment. A CLI is anything but friendly, but it _is_ completely open-ended, unlike the majority of WIMPS-style GUIs. Because of this, the Macintosh GUI provides more transparency than all CLIs, but at the cost of inflexibility as the user becomes more proficient and demanding of his equipment. >> 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). > > Ho ho ho, you're making my sides hurt... NuBus? Superior to > anything? Ha ha ha. And you're holding up AppleTalk as an example > of something good? Clearly you've never used any of this stuff. Score: DOS=3, MAC=3 Every method of interconnecting pieces of computing equipment has its pros and cons. NuBus is a very interesting bus system, but Apple butchered it; it shouldn't be called NuBus. And Apple's laughable efforts regarding bus standardisation is pitiful; every new machine has a new bus! MCA also has it's problems, having to be tweaked every time something is changed on it. A good NuBus setup is auto-configuring (the NeXT box excels here). The XT/AT/EISA bus systems are so fraught with dangers they have to me maintained by master technicians to ensure continued reliable operation! SCSI vs. ESDI ... ESDI can run _heaps_ faster than SCSI, but gains it's speed by losing 'intelligence'. Apple's idea of installing network hardware in every machine is applaudable, but having an upper limit of 234 kbits/sec is little more than a joke as to make it totally unusable. >> But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* > > Now the tears are really running out of my eyes. Apple hasn't > provided *more* of anything. In fact, all Apple has done is force > users to use its gui interface. That's pretty fascistic. Score: DOS=4, MAC=4 Being forced to use a GUI - or any single type of interface for that matter - can be considered fascistic. Apple's GUI provides more than one way to perform a task (something Windows tries - and fails - to do), which is good. > The PC world is very democratic. It allows the *user* to decide > whether he wants a gui or a text based system. It allows the user to > determine what sort of LAN he'd like. It allows the user to decide > what sort of display quality he'd like. Apple does none of the > above. Score: DOS=5, MAC=5 Being democratic in the computing environment is not necessarily a good thing! Too much choice causes chaos when people attempt to connect computers together, or even to exchange data; conversely, not enough choice is bad. Apple and the related third-party developers _do_ allow Mac users to make choices, but not as many. However, there is one rule which applies here: MACINTOSH USERS EXPECT BETTER. Simple, but the truth. All display / LAN / interface choices (with very few exceptions) are of higher quality and have greater standardisation than the equivalent DOS market products. > In fact, I'll go on record as stating that there is *far more* > graphics based software avaiable for the PC than there is for Apple. > There is far more *everything* available for the PC than for Apple. > > PC's (of an equivalent vintage) have always had better graphics and > much quicker operation than Apples. OF course there is more graphics s'ware for DOS than Mac; there is more of everything (and lots of unique) for DOS. But! Look at the ratios; out of all Mac software, more is graphically oriented than the same in the DOS world. As far as speed goes, Apple made a good choice in using the 68000 family, but could have made things better by not having so much interface overhead being placed on the processor. > Apples "graphic superiority" is a myth. No myth. It _is_ graphically superior to most, if not all, CLI based machines, purely because it is graphics based. Natural, I suppose, because man as a collective whole is visually oriented. Apple have some nice ideas, but they are very stubborn to boot. I work with DOS machines (a gaggle of PS/2's) and I own a Mac. I'm proficient on both; I use whichever machine is most suitable for the task at hand. Simple enough, I think. Score: DOS=6, MAC=6. End of match, tied game. Geoff Peters User Support, Department of Road Transport SA
bill@polygen.uucp (Bill Poitras) (12/21/89)
In article <5098@blake.acs.washington.edu> gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek...) writes: >In article <4120@puff.cs.wisc.edu> schaut@cat9.CS.WISC.EDU (Richard Schaut) writes: >>In article <1989Dec18.210455.29522@deimos.cis.ksu.edu> jxf@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Jerry Frain) writes: >>the PC in word processing, the Mac loses on all fronts. In fact, the >>Mac loses in all general business applications, and that gap is going >>to widen over the next year or so. > > Ha. Ha ha. Hah hah hah. BWAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA! > >Roger Tang, Member >Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club >American Flag Disposal Unit #3245, Chonk Moonhunters chapter >gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu You think that's funny when he says it don't you. Well how about when an article in PC Week says the EXACT same thing.. that the mac is losing in business applications, and will continue to lose into the nineties. For all of you people who ask - "Where is your proof!" Look in PC Week December 11, 1989 Vol. 6 No. 49, on page 11 in the right column. William Zachmann has an small article on how small the Mac market is becoming. I know that he is not the beat all expert, but he is not the type to make idle statements without some basis in fact. I just guess that its the PC world will have the last laugh when eventually, you can ask a business man if his office uses Macs and says "A what?". +-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+ | Bill Poitras | Polygen Corporation | {princeton mit-eddie | | (bill) | Waltham, MA USA | bu sunne}!polygen!bill | | | | bill@polygen.com | +-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
slowe@blake.acs.washington.edu (Josten Lowe) (12/22/89)
I am interested in finding out about a product called a Buffalo
Box SL 256. I have a need to share peripheral devices with
multiple computers and this is the product that a local company
recommended. I would be interested in getting a response to any
of the following questions.
Has anyone used one of these?
Are they worth the service that they provide?
Where is an inexpensive place to get them and how much should
they cost?
Does the 256 K spooler really free up the computer to continue
working faster than simply hooking up to a printer?
Any other comments?
Thank you for your help.
steve lowejmann@bigbootay (Jim Mann) (12/22/89)
There is one place that, despite the wider range of choices available in the PC world, I can get a better, cheaper product for the MAC: word processing. The PC has at least two very good higher-end word processors: Word and Word Perfect, both of which sell for about $225 from most mail order sources. However, there is no really good package in the $100 range on the PC. There is on the MAC: WriteNow. WriteNow is very easy to use yet very powerful. It can handle letters, reports and so forth with no trouble. (The only reason to use Word (which is harder to use and more expensive) is when you need its style-sheet capabilities.)
rewing@Apple.COM (Richard Ewing) (12/23/89)
In article <628@fred.UUCP> bill@fred.UUCP (Bill Poitras) writes: >In article <5098@blake.acs.washington.edu> gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek...) writes: >>In article <4120@puff.cs.wisc.edu> schaut@cat9.CS.WISC.EDU (Richard Schaut) writes: >>>In article <1989Dec18.210455.29522@deimos.cis.ksu.edu> jxf@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Jerry Frain) writes: >>>the PC in word processing, the Mac loses on all fronts. In fact, the >>>Mac loses in all general business applications, and that gap is going >>>to widen over the next year or so. >> >> Ha. Ha ha. Hah hah hah. BWAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA! >> >>Roger Tang, Member >>Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club >>American Flag Disposal Unit #3245, Chonk Moonhunters chapter >>gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu >You think that's funny when he says it don't you. Well how about when an >article in PC Week says the EXACT same thing.. that the mac is losing in >business applications, and will continue to lose into the nineties. For all of >you people who ask - "Where is your proof!" Look in PC Week December 11, 1989 >Vol. 6 No. 49, on page 11 in the right column. William Zachmann has an >small article on how small the Mac market is becoming. I know that he is not >the beat all expert, but he is not the type to make idle statements without >some basis in fact. I just guess that its the PC world will have the last >laugh when eventually, you can ask a business man if his office uses Macs and >says "A what?". > > >+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+ >| Bill Poitras | Polygen Corporation | {princeton mit-eddie | >| (bill) | Waltham, MA USA | bu sunne}!polygen!bill | >| | | bill@polygen.com | >+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+ Your statement about that PC Week magazine quote is quite interesting. In fact, the quote itself is so interesting, we discovered that IBM is using it in competitive analysis presentations to its costomers. What amused us more was that IBM gave no credit to the source of the quote, I am led to believe that PC Week and Mr. Zachmann are not the most impartial people in the world. I'd like you to say the same thing to our National Account Execs, whose business with big companies grew dramtically last year. Here in Atlanta, we have Coca-Cola, Georgia Power (on every top execs desk), Southern Company, BellSouth, Turner Broadcasting, C & S Bank, and a myriad of others. If you think that the Mac market is shrinking down the tubes because an editor of a PC magazine said so, then you'll probably believe that Noreiaga still has control of Panama from his radio broadcats. Get the facts. -- __________________________________________________________________________ |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 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
gdavis@primate.wisc.edu (Gary Davis) (12/23/89)
From article <628@fred.UUCP>, by bill@polygen.uucp (Bill Poitras): Stuff deleted > article in PC Week says the EXACT same thing.. that the mac is losing in > business applications, and will continue to lose into the nineties. For all of > you people who ask - "Where is your proof!" Look in PC Week December 11, 1989 > Vol. 6 No. 49, on page 11 in the right column. William Zachmann has an > small article on how small the Mac market is becoming. I know that he is not > the beat all expert, but he is not the type to make idle statements without > some basis in fact. I just guess that its the PC world will have the last An interesting idea of what constitutes proof. It might be amusing, even if tedious, to compile a list of predictions made by computer columnists over the last several years and compare it with the eventuated realities. I remember reading a few years back a respected (and reviled) computer columnist who claimed that all development of software on the Mac had ceased and that it had been switched over to the Atari ST instead. It's amazing to see how much resentment towards the Mac still throbs in the breasts of so many. The Mac's continued and increasing success, coupled with movement of the IBM world to Mac-like systems, may be exciting even higher dudgeon. Not that we Mac lovers are without resentments :-) Gary Davis