knauer@sunc5 (Rob Knauerhase) (10/02/90)
Well, I hope everyone isn't sick of my ramblings by now, but let me add a couple more (short) comments: In article <13992@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <181@alchemy.UUCP> bbs@alchemy.UUCP (BBS Administration) writes: >>I ... want to ... obtain an understanding of why the Mac is such a hated >>machine by people who are fans of the Apple II. > >Here are what I think are the main reasons: > 1. The Macintosh is perceived as aimed at "appliance users" > rather than hobbyists and other do-it-yourselfers. This is partly true from simple conceit. Apple first billed the Mac as "The computer for the rest of us" which hackers quickly dubbed "The computer for the rest of them." Another valid reason is that the Mac does too much hand-holding -- if I want to quit, I don't want to have to click a zillion boxes saying to save/not save each window, then click to confirm that I'm quitting, etc. This is IMHO a drawback of most window systems. > 2. Programming the Macintosh for simple applications is much > harder than programming the Apple II in AppleSoft BASIC. This > of course is also an argument against the IIGS's desktop > environment. B.S. Although there is a sentimental fondness for AppleSoft, I think you'll find most people who desire to program appreciate C/Pascal and Toolboxes. > 3. Macintoshes were not expandable until recently, while all > Apple IIs except the //c (and //c+) supported add-on peripherals, > simple controls via the game-port connector, etc. > 4. Macintoshes did not provide color displays until recently. These two reasons mask the overall technical inferiority of the early Macs. [That was ill-phrased. How about "waste of technical potential"?] I wouldn't trade my GS (or possibly even my //e) for a Mac Plus or Mac SE. Simply put, for the first many years of Macintosh, I could do as much or more on my II as on those Macs. Now that they have real speed, memory, display sizes, etc., I could be quite happy with a Mac IIfx. I still hate using little Macs in labs, though. > 5. Macintoshes were targeted at business applications rather > than personal computing. This isn't now that big a deal, except as it influenced Mac pricing. People kidded me for getting a $3000 Apple II+ system when I could have gotten a $1500 Commodore Pet or $1500 TRS-80; perhaps the difference was worth it and perhaps it wasn't. But the Mac is overpriced even by Apple's standards; for a business that may be OK but I didn't have $10,000 for a Lisa then, nor do I have $10,000 for a IIfx now... > 6. Apple's emphasis on the Macintosh at the expense of the > Apple II line crippled commercial support for the Apple IIs that > people had purchased. This is definitely true of Claris, which took millions of dollars of AppleWorks profits (it outsold Lotus 1-2-3 for several months, remember?) and put it into R&D for Macintosh software. I'll reserve judgement on whether Apple has let II-line hardware suffer from spending cash on Mac or from mismanagement. [Of course, I'm sure if people disagree with any of this they'll speak up soon enough...] Rob +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Robert C. Knauerhase | | knauer@cs.uiuc.edu | U of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign| | rck@ces.cwru.edu,knauer@cwru.bitnet | Case Western Reserve University | | knauer@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov | NASA Lewis Research Center | +----------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | "Computers are different from telephones. Computers do not ring." | | -- A. Tanenbaum, "Computer Networks", p. 32 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+