dve@zooid (Sysot) (03/30/91)
dve@zooid (Sysot) writes: > JEB107@psuvm.psu.edu (Jonathan Baker) writes: > > > Pardon me for asking this, but.... > > > > Is all this Apple <--> IBM bashing really necessary? > > > > I had assumed, for a while, that most of the people who participate in > > these discussions are professional, or semi-professional computer > > literate people. However, from the amount of anit-computer system > > mail out there, I guess I would be mistaken. > > > I agree.. each computer has it's own strength. I don't agree with several > points; one being that the PC applications are more powerful than the Mac > ones, for the most part they are identical in features, especially the day > to day (read: important) applications like word processors and spreadsheets. > However, the Mac is easier to set up, all-around "friendlier", and it has > led in many arenas. > > However, I still prefer the PC to the Macintosh. For one thing, I like the > fact that the PC is an open machine, and that many people have "cloned" it, > yielding better prices and fast-marching technology. Of course it has the > disadvantage of making standards harder to set in the market, but personally > I find it much easier and cheaper to repair a PC than a Mac. It's true that > the Mac is advanced in ways such as the interface and the file system, but > these advantages are mainly due to the fact that Apple was given the chance > to sit back and watch the PC for a while and see what happened to it. The > PC, as far as I have always been told, was never intended to be a > mass-market machine. However, it is now, but because all new systems must be > at least a little backwards-compatible, things move slowly. However, the > Macintosh is losing it's advantage. Used to be you could pick up any Mac and > know any program would work on it. Now you are starting to see cpu, memory, > coprocessor, video, etc requirements. Used to be there were no problems with > expansion because there WAS no expansion. Now you have to worry about which > Mac Bus you are supporting, etc. Now System 7 is due and it will make many > Macintoshes out there obsolete. System 7 is an attempt by Apple to steal > some of the fire that Windows 3 and the promise of OS/2. The Mac operating > system is obviously better in many ways to the PC, but many of the new > features promised for system 7 are already present in Windows 3 and OS/2. > > The most important thing of all, of course, is user satisfaction. The Mac > inspires satisfaction, but the differences between Windows 3 and the Mac > system are fading quickly. As many have noticed Word/Mac and Word/Win, > Excel, Pagemaker, etc are identical on both machines. Of course, the PC > machine is still harder to set up, but many PC suppliers are starting to > ship their machines fully configured with Windows so all you have to do is > unpack it and plug it in.. just like the Mac. There will always be little > problems with the PC running Windows.. because Windows, unfortunately, is a > environment pasted on top of an indecent one, but to the end user these > differences don't really matter in the end. The important thing is that, > from my experience, people usually don't much enjoy using DOS based > programs. They do, however, enjoy using Windows based applications AND Mac > based applications. If, from some of the predictions I have seen, 1/3 of the > PC users switch to Windows, then that is more than the total of Mac systems > out there, and the momentum that is built up by then will keep building up. > Already PC magazines that, in their editorials and columns seem to be > ANTI-Windows are full of nifty new Windows-based programs and hardware that > is made to work best with Windows. > > > ZOOiD BBS - 416/322-7876 ZOOiD BBS - 416/322-7876
psheerin@zanzibar.saigon.com (Peter K. Sheerin) (04/03/91)
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: > > Windows *can* do it the Mac way--why Microsoft didn't choose to add the > functionality is beyond me. I put it in an editor I'm working on and it > took about 10-20 lines of simple code. You basically get the handle of the > previous instance and send it a message with the file to be opened. > > Seems to work fine for me--throw the file at the program, and if it > wants to hand it over to a previous instance, it can. If it wants to keep > it to itself, no problem either. In my editor either behavior can be > defined; you can also have a dialog box ask what to do with the file. > And none of it involves any hacks as described below; it's all simple IPC. > > >Actually, the way the Mac actually implements the equivalent functions > >is gross: it involves faking out a *dialog box call* after searching > >down the application's menu for the File:Open item. On the other hand, > >at least there *is* a standard call to get a file on the Mac. > > Aaron Wallace This sounds great, Aaron, and from the other program of yours I've seen (sounder), I can't wait 'till it's done! Funny, I just bounced that very same question off the author of WinEdit and Winbatch, hoping he might be able to do that in Winedit. It's on the wish list, but he claims that it would require winbatch to do a lot of mucking around with windows. Now I know better, thanks. I tried it on my own with winbatch, passing parameters, and such, but for some reason, it tried to open a dos window!.... Too bad, as it would be nice to accomplish this by faking menu picks to *any* program.Perhaps you could find a way? Or better yet, how about something to allow one to double click on a file that has no association, and choose what program to start it with. I'm not sure if that would be possible, but sure would be nice.