ditzel@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (02/01/84)
After having seen the Mac being used by someone who had no familiarity
with the machine (and was doing quite well at demoing its simplicity and
capabilities). After reading the InfoWorld article...which among other
things stated that:
*Microsoft's Multiplan (available next month) runs twice as
fast on the Mac as it does on the IBM PC,
*MacIntosh Basic runs ten times faster than Microsoft Basic on
the IBM PC and is incrementally compiled,
(additionally Basic users will be able to run subroutines
concurrently),
*Mac's speed is so fast that it can generate graphics on the
screen at an incredible rate, painting the entire screen in less
than a second.
I can't really believe that anyone can still believe that Mac is aimed
at the PCjr. I also can't believe that anyone looking for a computer
would choose an IBM PC which looks downright primitive in comparison.
It still early...but my impression is that Apple and Microsoft have
created magic.
preece@uicsl.UUCP (02/10/84)
#R:ssc-vax:-79500:uicsl:7000050:000:1079 uicsl!preece Feb 9 10:04:00 1984 I can't really believe that anyone can still believe that Mac is aimed at the PCjr. I also can't believe that anyone looking for a computer would choose an IBM PC which looks downright primitive in comparison. It still early...but my impression is that Apple and Microsoft have created magic. ---------- Well, the IBM may look primitive, but it is still closer to compatibility with the rest of the world than the ever idiosyncratic Apple. I object on principle to buying a machine that is all of a piece and supplied from a single source. I hope it develops the kind of aftermarket the Apple II has, but it doesn't seem as likely. Those neatly integrated features make it much harder to bring in outside packages and one really has the feeling that the top people at Apple, if you could get real candor, would say "But why would anyone want something other than the stuff we're putting together?" On the other hand, if I could get one at the discount the University Consortium is getting, they could have my check right now... scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (02/10/84)
> Those neatly integrated features make it much harder to bring in > outside packages and one really has the feeling that the top people > at Apple, if you could get real candor, would say "But why would anyone > want something other than the stuff we're putting together?" Well, with the Mac Apple is making more of an effort to enlist outside software companies than they did with the Lisa. Obviously, they want the outside companies to give their products a Mac/Lisa-style user interface (for instance, a WordStar for the Mac/Lisa which showed boldfaced text as ^Bfoobar^B and which made no use of the mouse or the pull-down menus would be too silly for words). Frankly, given a choice between a well-integrated package and one that had more "features" but had a user interface designed for the lowest-common-denominator system, I'd be sorely tempted to choose the former. The integrated user interface is not a low-value frill; it has considerable worth which may outweigh the costs of making it harder to bring in outside packages. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy