[comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc] A sad day...

mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu (MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) (03/08/91)

I just read that thing about the case between Apple and Microsoft.

Man... it's a damn pathetic day when you can't put a window on top of another
without getting slapped with a suit.  What's so proprietary about overlapping
windows?  What the hell else are you going to do with them?

And icons??  Big deal!  How else are you going to graphically represent files?

I hope the hell Apple doesn't win this.  Who uses Macs anyway??  {:-<
People that are afraid of computers!!

Damn liberal judges!!

MC"B!"L - KB5III

pissed

PS-You know Apple is losing business to a superior product when they start
   suing people!

johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) (03/08/91)

In article <13151@helios.TAMU.EDU>, mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu 
(MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) writes...
>I just read that thing about the case between Apple and Microsoft.
>I hope the hell Apple doesn't win this.  Who uses Macs anyway??  {:-<
>People that are afraid of computers!!

Who uses Windows?  People who are afraid of Macintoshes? 

>PS-You know Apple is losing business to a superior product when they start
>   suing people!

Last time I checked, Apple had a 1-3 month backlog of orders across
its product line.  Sounds like they are doing just fine.  Frankly,
I can't understand why Microsoft expects to use Apple-developed ideas
without paying for them.  When I want to use DOS on a Mac, the cost
of the SoftPC emulator includes LICENSE fees for Microsoft.

If you are looking for a villain in this situation, look carefully at
Microsoft.  On the strength of a positively TRIVIAL OS -- MS-DOS, 
they've extorted tribute from most of the PC-using world.  

Think about it for a minute.  

Mac OS is bundled with all Macs and upgrades are distributed for free.  
Since it's introduction in late '83 it has (arguably, for this newsgroup) 
been refined to a much greater extent than was DOS as it transitioned 
from 2.0 to 3.3 or 4.0.  I can understand and sympathize with those
who want to run WINDOWS on a PC -- they have been been forced to pay
for upgrades to an OS that still doesn't provide reasonable support
for RAM upgrades or decently sized hard disk volumes.

The programming effort that led to the Mac OS cost alot of money 
that was rolled into the cost of every Mac.  It can be argued (weakly) 
that Mac OS was based on the Xerox Star interface (Apple PAID to use it),
but WINDOWS is inarguably based on the Macintosh OS.

Why should Apple give it away?  I gladly paid a premium to use a 
machine with a well-designed operating system.  Why should my
dollars support Windows?  

Why the hell haven't PC-users gotten together and demanded more
DOS from Microsoft for your money?  After you've invested blood,
sweat and tears in all the add-in boards and "hidden costs"
required to make a PC work like a Mac, why are you complaining
to Apple instead of IBM?

-- Bill Johnston (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949 

allender@cs.uiuc.edu (Mark Allender) (03/08/91)

In article <46878@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:

> The programming effort that led to the Mac OS cost alot of money 
> that was rolled into the cost of every Mac.  It can be argued (weakly) 
> that Mac OS was based on the Xerox Star interface (Apple PAID to use it),
> but WINDOWS is inarguably based on the Macintosh OS.

HUH??  I don't think that the connection between Star and the Mac is weak at
all.  I don't believe that it is any more weak than between Mac and Windows.
A windowing environment is a fairly intuitive kind of idea.  Icons...the same
can be said.  Star has these.  So apple paid for it.  Big deal.  Then maybe
MicroSoft should be paying money to Xerox.


> Why should Apple give it away?  I gladly paid a premium to use a 
> machine with a well-designed operating system.  Why should my
> dollars support Windows?

An idea is not given away.  Ideas come from many different places.  The idea
of using windows in an OS, as stated earlier, is intuitive at the least (IMHO).
These "look and feel" lawsuits are going to set a dangerous precendence.

> Why the hell haven't PC-users gotten together and demanded more
> DOS from Microsoft for your money?  After you've invested blood,
> sweat and tears in all the add-in boards and "hidden costs"
> required to make a PC work like a Mac, why are you complaining
> to Apple instead of IBM?

I have NEVER wanted my PC to work like a Mac.  I actually cringe at the thought.
If I did, then I would have bought a Mac.  If I invest my money into an operating
system, and a computer, and a vendor brings forth a windowing environment, then
I will damn well use it.  I can see where Apple comes of saying that microsoft
copied the "idea" from them.  But, again, this is a dangerous precedent.  Let's
say Apple wins the case in the long run.  I will bet that you will see a host of
lawsuits following in which Company A says, "We had idea X, and used it in our
system, and then Company B copied it."  The sanctity of the software world is now
in jepordy.  No one will be able to write anything without having to check first
whether or not someone else had the same idea.  Can Origin systems say, "Well,
the Ultima series are adventure games, and Sierra's King Quest series is a spinoff
of our ideas, so we are going to sue them."  (Maybe not a great example, but the
underlying theme is the same.)  There will be no more original software.  One of the
things that I have always felt good about being in the software industry is the
fact that I can write software that takes someone elses idea and improves on it.

At least in my world of being, people are usually glad when I send them a fix or
upgrade to their program.  This is an integral part of the software engineering
world.  That is what makes it unique.  We all learn.  Admitadly, we are now talking
about millions of dollars instead of a mere program, but the ideas apply.  People
will still by Macs if apple loses.  People will still buy PC's if Apple wins.  Then
why should the people who want to buy PC's be denied the same user interface that
the Mac has when the interface idea of windows is a good one:  good for development,
good for productivity, and good for the software environment in general.

I feel this is a case of lawyers trying to make more money (and even Apple trying
to make more money).  This is way to dangerous of a precendent.  I shudder to think
of consequences if Apple wins....

> 
> -- Bill Johnston (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu)
> -- 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949 


-- 
-Mark Allender
-University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
-Conversation Builder Project
-allender@cs.uiuc.edu

woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (03/08/91)

In article <13151@helios.TAMU.EDU> mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu (MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) writes:
>I just read that thing about the case between Apple and Microsoft.
>
>Man... it's a damn pathetic day when you can't put a window on top of another
>without getting slapped with a suit.  What's so proprietary about overlapping
>windows?  What the hell else are you going to do with them?
>
>And icons??  Big deal!  How else are you going to graphically represent files?

	If you think that's silly, how about the suit AT&T has against MIT
over X?  (For saving the bitmap of an obscured window for fast refreshing...)
Or how about the patient (recently upheld in England) concerning alpha
channels?  Or what about 'XOR' cursors?

	*Sigh*  Fundamentally it is not Apple's fault; it is the fault of the
court system to allow such absurdist suits to happen in the first place.  Apple
is only behaving as a corporation using any and all techniques at it's
disposal to dominate the market.  (Somebody give me a count here; how many
law suits has Microsoft filed in the last 10 years against other, smaller,
companies over improper use of propriatary information?  I seem to remember
a couple...)

	However, Apple should never have launched the lawsuit in the first
place, but should instead have settled out of court.  Or (better yet) never
filed suit in the first place.

>I hope the hell Apple doesn't win this.  Who uses Macs anyway??  {:-<
>People that are afraid of computers!!

	Inflamatory statements will not help the issue, which is a court
system who allows overlapping windows, 'XOR' cursors, alpha channels, bitmap
backstore, and other clearly software techniques to be patiented, copyrighted,
and protected, explicitly outside of the relm of protection that patients,
copyrights, and the such are supposed to protect!

	After all, fundamentally a user interface is a graphical 'language'
the user uses to talk to a computer, and languages are NOT copyrightable.
And software (the codified expression of a method or procedure in a language
which can be executed by a machine) is NOT patientable.  (Copyrights explicitly
omit languages; patients omit codified procedures or algorithms.)

>Damn liberal judges!!

	No, the right statement is "Damn stupid lawyers!"  Most lawyers who
work with suits having to do with computer science are NOT REQUIRED to have
any formal training in computer science.  (Unlike lawyers for architectual
engineering mishaps, who are required to have FORMAL TRAINING in architectual
engineering!)

>PS-You know Apple is losing business to a superior product when they start
>   suing people!

	Uh, by the way:  Apple is gaining ground against IBM PC compatables.
But Apple is still worried about Windows 3.0, as can be found from Apple's
comments to it's developers.  (I am a Macintosh software developer, as well
as a Windows software developer, BTW.)


						-- Bill

-- 
	William Edward Woody		   | Disclamer:
USNAIL	P.O.Box 50986; Pasadena, CA 91115  |
EMAIL	woody@tybalt.caltech.edu	   | The useful stuff in this message
ICBM	34 08' 44''N x 118 08' 41''W	   | was only line noise. 

sigma@jec302.its.rpi.edu (Kevin J Martin) (03/08/91)

johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>In article <13151@helios.TAMU.EDU>, mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu 
>(MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) writes...
>>I just read that thing about the case between Apple and Microsoft.
>>I hope the hell Apple doesn't win this.  Who uses Macs anyway??  {:-<
>>People that are afraid of computers!!
>
>Who uses Windows?  People who are afraid of Macintoshes? 

[rabid Microsoft flamage deleted]

I could see your flame war and raise you several nasty insults, but none of
that alt.religion.computers stuff is relevant to the issue at hand - namely
that most big software companies have more lawyers than programmers!  In
this case, Apple is a particular villain.  Shortcomings in MSDOS are not
relevant.  Shortcomings in Apple service or pricing are not relevant.  What
IS relevant is that a few years after stupid cases like this get started,
some befuddled computer-ignorant tribunal sequestered in some mouldy hall
of "justice" somewhere will end up DECIDING on issues they know nothing
about - issues which were only issues because some lawyer saw a chance to
make a buck!

And whether or not the case ever gets decided, and no matter what the
outcome eventually is, in the meantime legal expenses drive up the costs at
these major software companies (and prices go up, of course, or service and
quality goes down), and small developers may be abandoning projects for
fear of getting slammed in the courts.

Now, is this a nightmare or what?!  Join the League.  Could someone post
that address again?

-- 
Kevin Martin
sigma@rpi.edu

vcl@mimas.UUCP (Victor C. Limary) (03/08/91)

johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:

> In article <13151@helios.TAMU.EDU>, mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu 
> (MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) writes...
> >I just read that thing about the case between Apple and Microsoft.
> >I hope the hell Apple doesn't win this.  Who uses Macs anyway??  {:-<
> >People that are afraid of computers!!
> 
> Who uses Windows?  People who are afraid of Macintoshes? 
> 
> >PS-You know Apple is losing business to a superior product when they start
> >   suing people!
> 
> Last time I checked, Apple had a 1-3 month backlog of orders across
> its product line.  Sounds like they are doing just fine.  Frankly,
> I can't understand why Microsoft expects to use Apple-developed ideas
> without paying for them.  When I want to use DOS on a Mac, the cost
> of the SoftPC emulator includes LICENSE fees for Microsoft.

Then why doesn't Apple sue Berkely Software(?), the people who make 
GeoWorks?  It has a "Mac look-and-feel".  Unless they licensed the rights 
from Apple, I think that Apple doesn't care because people aren't buying 
GeoWorks instead of their overprice Macs.

       _______
      /       \
     |  O   O  |         Victor Limary
    <|    <    |>        mimas!vcl@bbx.basis.com
     |  _____  |
      \   U   /
       "-----"

kirsch@ux.acs.umn.edu (Dave Kirsch) (03/08/91)

>
>Who uses Windows?  People who are afraid of Macintoshes? 

  Oh Geez, I see we could have another worthless flame war on our hands. I 
think we should clarify some things before nasty words start to fly. 

>Last time I checked, Apple had a 1-3 month backlog of orders across
>its product line.  Sounds like they are doing just fine.  Frankly,
>I can't understand why Microsoft expects to use Apple-developed ideas
>without paying for them.  When I want to use DOS on a Mac, the cost
>of the SoftPC emulator includes LICENSE fees for Microsoft.

  Perhaps you could enlighten us with the Apple-developed ideas that Microsoft
is using without payment? I think a lot of people would be interested in 
specifics.  

  I just went checking into Macs at our bookstore the other day, and
the only one I can't get right away is a Classic, which I wouldn't buy anyway
now that System 7 is coming along. The beta of System 7 I've run on a Mac 
IICi is very nice, but it's ssllooww.
 
>If you are looking for a villain in this situation, look carefully at
>Microsoft.  On the strength of a positively TRIVIAL OS -- MS-DOS, 
>they've extorted tribute from most of the PC-using world.  

  Yes, MS-DOS (or PC-DOS) is really nothing more than a program loader - but 
it DOES have a large installed base and it IS based on an open system. I use
Macs and PCs every day running everything from DOS to Windows to OS/2 to 
System 6.X.X and a beta release of System 7; each have their strengths and 
weaknesses. (Heck, UNIX also does a wonderful job, but it sure ain't for 
everyone!) 
 
>Mac OS is bundled with all Macs and upgrades are distributed for free.  
>Since it's introduction in late '83 it has (arguably, for this newsgroup) 
>been refined to a much greater extent than was DOS as it transitioned 
>from 2.0 to 3.3 or 4.0.  I can understand and sympathize with those
>who want to run WINDOWS on a PC -- they have been been forced to pay
>for upgrades to an OS that still doesn't provide reasonable support
>for RAM upgrades or decently sized hard disk volumes.

  The Mac OS has been refined more than Windows, no doubt. However, System 
7 will run you (at last check) $50. Without high profit margins, Apple will 
now pass OS costs on to their users. As for running an OS with decent RAM and 
HD support on a PC, OS/2 does just fine. Windows just adds a kludge on top 
of DOS; it's no world-killer system, but it DOES work. 

>The programming effort that led to the Mac OS cost alot of money 
>that was rolled into the cost of every Mac.  It can be argued (weakly) 
>that Mac OS was based on the Xerox Star interface (Apple PAID to use it),
>but WINDOWS is inarguably based on the Macintosh OS.

  How is Windows inarguably based on the Mac OS? And why is it weakly argued 
that the Mac OS was based on the Xerox Star interface? All indications I've 
seen claim there is more of a link between the Mac and Star interfaces, rather
than the Mac and Windows. Yes, Apple paid to use the Star interface. Microsoft
also PAID to use the Mac interface when developing windows. In each case, 
certain parts of the interface were defined; it's the parts that weren't 
defined that are causing the problems. 
 
>Why should Apple give it away?  I gladly paid a premium to use a 
>machine with a well-designed operating system.  Why should my
>dollars support Windows?  
>
>Why the hell haven't PC-users gotten together and demanded more
>DOS from Microsoft for your money?  After you've invested blood,
>sweat and tears in all the add-in boards and "hidden costs"
>required to make a PC work like a Mac, why are you complaining
>to Apple instead of IBM?

  I think you should clarify all the assertions you're making; your post 
reeks of a Pro-Mac/Anti-Windows bias. I respect the Mac for what it is; a 
wonderful machine for doing Desktop Publishing and design work. Perhaps you 
should give Windows credit for what it is; an affordable graphic interface 
for users that have decided to buy into an open system. There are trade-offs;
Windows isn't as refined as a Mac, and has to go through kludges to accomplish
some of its neat tricks. It DOES allow support for uncountable graphic 
displays, input devices, output devices (printers/plotters/etc.). I find that
Windows is a good alternative for people who are willing to invest a little 
time to learn about their system, and don't want to fork out the extra $$ 
for a proprietary system. I like OS/2 better than anything, but obviously 
Windows and the Mac are more profitable platforms if you want to 'go where 
the money is'. 

  I'll hop off the soapbox now. I just hope we can clarify the fact that each
system works for certain people, and has its own inherent strengths and 
weaknesses. To each his own. 

Dave Kirsch 
kirsch@ux.acs.umn.edu 

pschwart@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Paul Schwartz) (03/08/91)

In article <46878@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
> 
> The programming effort that led to the Mac OS cost alot of money 
> that was rolled into the cost of every Mac.  It can be argued (weakly) 
> that Mac OS was based on the Xerox Star interface (Apple PAID to use it),
                                                           ^^^^ 
> but WINDOWS is inarguably based on the Macintosh OS.     ????

    Since when did Apple pay for the Star interface???  In Steve Job's biography
he said the Mac interface was completely changed after a visit to PARC.  AND,
last year Xerox decided to sue Apple for swiping the interface, but the statue
of limitations had expired or some other legal nonsense.  So get off you high
horse, Apple is no holier than Microsoft.

    						- Z -

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  PauL M SchwartZ              |   There are many causes worth dying for,    | 
|  PSCHWART@macc.wisc.edu       |         but none worth killing for.         |
|  PSCHWART@wiscmacc.BitNet     |                             - Ghandi        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster) (03/09/91)

In article <46878@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu 

Bill Johnston writes:

   If you are looking for a villain in this situation, look carefully at
   Microsoft.  On the strength of a positively TRIVIAL OS -- MS-DOS, 
   they've extorted tribute from most of the PC-using world.  

As a newcomer to DOS, but not to computers, I'm amazed that DOS has never been
adapted to the current generation of processors.  DOS itself, in its original
version, is just a warmed-over CP/M, making the transition from 8 to 16 bits.
The main CP/M applications, Wordstar and dBASE, were released in DOS versions
within weeks (it seemed at the time); someone had a program that simply rewrote
8080 code as 8086 code.  These programs were of course later optimized for the
new processor and environment, and many other programs were published that were
designed for DOS from the start.  But when the 286 and 386 came out, no
comparable transition took place.  Every other OS that I know has had to adapt
to new hardware, especially bigger address spaces.  It's all in a day's work.
Why hasn't DOS done this?  Because it had an installed base?  That didn't deter
the creators of other operating systems; people adapt.  Other obvious
improvements that should have been made were multitasking and longer file names.
As several people have said here, Windows is just a big kluge to solve problems
that shouldn't be there in the first place.  The copyright issue is another
issue (in which I agree with the critics of Apple).

Christopher Brewster
Cray Research Inc.
612: 683-5759
cb@timbuk.cray.com

roger@wrq.com (Roger Fulton) (03/09/91)

[I've never flamed a spelling error before, but this is just too much.]

In article <1991Mar8.030208.9017@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes:
...
>Or how about the patient (recently upheld in England) concerning alpha
                  ^^^^^^^
...
>backstore, and other clearly software techniques to be patiented, copyrighted,
                                                        ^^^^^^^    
>and protected, explicitly outside of the relm of protection that patients,
                                                                  ^^^^^^^
...
>which can be executed by a machine) is NOT patientable.  (Copyrights explicitly
                                            ^^^^^^^ 
...
>omit languages; patients omit codified procedures or algorithms.)
                 ^^^^^^^






















		 .
-- 
Roger Fulton
roger@wrq.com

jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) (03/09/91)

From article <46878@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, by johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston):
> that was rolled into the cost of every Mac.  It can be argued (weakly) 
> that Mac OS was based on the Xerox Star interface (Apple PAID to use it),
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Then why has Xerox sued apple for the derivitive use of their (Xerox's)
interface?

john gay.

woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (03/09/91)

In article <1991Mar8.224947.9610@digi.lonestar.org> jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) writes:
>From article <46878@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, by johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston):
>> that was rolled into the cost of every Mac.  It can be argued (weakly) 
>> that Mac OS was based on the Xerox Star interface (Apple PAID to use it),
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Then why has Xerox sued apple for the derivitive use of their (Xerox's)
>interface?

Xerox DID, but the suit was thrown out for technical reasons.  Xerox is going
to refile, last I heard...

						-- Bill

-- 
	William Edward Woody		   | Disclamer:
USNAIL	P.O.Box 50986; Pasadena, CA 91115  |
EMAIL	woody@tybalt.caltech.edu	   | The useful stuff in this message
ICBM	34 08' 44''N x 118 08' 41''W	   | was only line noise. 

david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) (03/09/91)

In article <1991Mar8.224947.9610@digi.lonestar.org> jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) writes:
>From article <46878@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, by johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston):
>> that was rolled into the cost of every Mac.  It can be argued (weakly) 
>> that Mac OS was based on the Xerox Star interface (Apple PAID to use it),
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Then why has Xerox sued apple for the derivitive use of their (Xerox's)
>interface?
>
>john gay.

Wait, wait, wait...  Wasnt it Xerox that came up with the COPIER?!?!?!

					- David K
-- 
David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us            | do {
1135 Fairfax, Denver CO  80220  (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) |    . . .
This is my system so I can say any damn thing I want! |    } while( jones);

jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (John H. Kim) (03/09/91)

>In article <1991Mar8.224947.9610@digi.lonestar.org> jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) writes:
>>From article <46878@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, by johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston):
>>> that was rolled into the cost of every Mac.  It can be argued (weakly) 
>>> that Mac OS was based on the Xerox Star interface (Apple PAID to use it),
>>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Then why has Xerox sued apple for the derivitive use of their (Xerox's)
>>interface?

... and so on and so on ...

OK.  So what can WE do to tell all these lawyers to go to h*ll with
their lawsuits?  Consumer purchasing power is out because most people
buy computers based on what the computer offers, not what the company
is litigating over.  Have the lawyers protected themselves with so
much legal red tape that we're helpless, or is there something we can
do to have our opinions heard?

mal6315@isc.rit.edu (M.A. Lecher ) (03/09/91)

In article <46878@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>In article <13151@helios.TAMU.EDU>, mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu 
>(MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) writes...
>
>I can't understand why Microsoft expects to use Apple-developed ideas
>without paying for them.  When I want to use DOS on a Mac, the cost
>of the SoftPC emulator includes LICENSE fees for Microsoft.

  Come one! There's a small difference here.. DOS is an OS... Windows are
  a CONCEPT. So DOS is like building a new invention. That should be 
  protected.. But if we begin suing for CONCEPTS, where do we go? And
  if APPLE is doing so well, why did it need to even BOTHER with a
  lawsuit?

>If you are looking for a villain in this situation, look carefully at
>Microsoft.  On the strength of a positively TRIVIAL OS -- MS-DOS, 
>they've extorted tribute from most of the PC-using world.  

  Could you please explain your criteria for a TRIVIAL OS? MS-DOS started
  out as a trivial OS, yes, but was developed over the years.. If we want to
  look at a TRIVIAL OS, uh let us take a look at the first APPLE OS (or lack
  of same). I think MS-DOS should sue APPLE for developing a better OS when
  they first developed the MAC...

>Why should Apple give it away?  I gladly paid a premium to use a 
>machine with a well-designed operating system.  Why should my
>dollars support Windows?  

  Maybe so that everybody can have this (as I'm sure you argree) 
  EXCELLENT interface?? By APPLE suing overt this, perhaps MS-DOS will
  simply drop it. Your dollars are therefore dooming half of the computer
  world to what is an inferior user interface.

>
>Why the hell haven't PC-users gotten together and demanded more
>DOS from Microsoft for your money?  After you've invested blood,
>sweat and tears in all the add-in boards and "hidden costs"
>required to make a PC work like a Mac, why are you complaining
>to Apple instead of IBM?

  Maybe they like what they have?
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
mattl@nick.csh.rit.edu ! Swapping memory to disk is virtually indespensible..
mal6315@ultb.rit.edu   ! ------------------------------------------------------
mal6315@RITVAX         ! new book: "#define art of C programming..."

lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) (03/10/91)

In article <13151@helios.TAMU.EDU> mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu (MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) writes:
>I just read that thing about the case between Apple and Microsoft.
>
>Man... it's a damn pathetic day when you can't put a window on top of another
>without getting slapped with a suit.  What's so proprietary about overlapping
>windows?  What the hell else are you going to do with them?
>
>And icons??  Big deal!  How else are you going to graphically represent files?
>
>I hope the hell Apple doesn't win this.  Who uses Macs anyway??  {:-<
>People that are afraid of computers!!
>

	No, people who like using microprocessors without segmentation.
People who are tired of lousy 16-bit SVGA and want 24-bit.  People who like
to pay less than $50/meg for 80ns SIMMS.  People who liek doing more than
Windows will do even now.


Bryon Lape

loel@bluemoon.uucp (Loel Larzelere) (03/10/91)

sigma@jec302.its.rpi.edu (Kevin J Martin) writes:

>johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>>In article <13151@helios.TAMU.EDU>, mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu 
>>(MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) writes...
>>>I just read that thing about the case between Apple and Microsoft.
>>>I hope the hell Apple doesn't win this.  Who uses Macs anyway??  {:-<
>>>People that are afraid of computers!!
>>
>>Who uses Windows?  People who are afraid of Macintoshes? 

>[rabid Microsoft flamage deleted]

>I could see your flame war and raise you several nasty insults, but none of
>that alt.religion.computers stuff is relevant to the issue at hand - namely
>that most big software companies have more lawyers than programmers!  In
>this case, Apple is a particular villain.  Shortcomings in MSDOS are not
>relevant.  Shortcomings in Apple service or pricing are not relevant.  What

<severl lines of attorney flaming omitted>

Yeah, the inhernat shortcomings of DOS and Apple's outrageous MAC
pricing ARE relavent.  DOS is the better OS, but has a piss-poor
interface.  Apple/MAC has a great interface, a relatively slow porcessor
that tends to foster fat slow running programs and a pricing policy
that only a Pentagon purchasing agent could love.

>about - issues which were only issues because some lawyer saw a chance to
>make a buck!

And what is so wrong with lawyers making a buck.  When I get through law
school (after I get done with a degree in computer science) i hope that
I can make a buck.  Or maybe I should set up shop, mail my advice
all over the map, and hope to make a living off donations that come in?

>And whether or not the case ever gets decided, and no matter what the
>outcome eventually is, in the meantime legal expenses drive up the costs at
>these major software companies (and prices go up, of course, or service and
>quality goes down), and small developers may be abandoning projects for
>fear of getting slammed in the courts.

What started all of this was Lotus' "Look and Feel" suit against FoxBase.
Lotus just could never figure out how to not copy protect their stuff, and
rather than try and make a better product, spent most of their time trying
to sell the world on the blessings of copy protection.  (At least in the
DOS world -- I'm told that the UNIX version of Lotus 1-2-3 makes the DOS
version and Quattro-Pro look sick.)
-- 
Loel H. Larzelere -- Send mail to:  loel@blugoose

"Anything worth doing is worth doing for money"

bgeer@javelin.es.com (Bob Geer) (03/10/91)

>In article <46878@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu 
>Bill Johnston writes:
>   If you are looking for a villain in this situation, look carefully at
>   Microsoft.  On the strength of a positively TRIVIAL OS -- MS-DOS, 
>   they've extorted tribute from most of the PC-using world.  

Having been around perhaps a little longer than you have, or perhaps
been a little more observant than you have, let me belaboredly point
out that there was RTMS (Intel's original real-time x86 OS?), CP/M-86,
MP/M-86, Concurrent CP/M-86, QNX, XENIX, PCIX, OS/2, & lots of other
OS's for PCClones.  If you want to find villians, look at the folks
who didn't buy these other OS's, not a software company who DID NOT
sue any of these folks (such as Apple has).  The buying public has &
has had alternatives to MSDOS, so by what stretch of the imagination
do you use the word "extortion"?  Many of the listed OS's are
certainly non-trivial...why haven't they flourished -- maybe the
buying public is satisfied with easy to install & maintain MSDOS.

Oh, come to think of it, IBM had a choice of OS's when it introduced
the IBM-PC & they chose to support MS-DOS...so let's not forget their
complicity in this villainy.  But then, IBM did foster PCIX years ago
& OS/2 more recently, so their villainy isn't so clear, either.

What fun...

-- 
<> Bob `Bear' Geer <>               bgeer@javelin.sim.es.com              <>
<>      Alta-holic <>   speaking only for myself, one of my many tricks   <>
<> Salt Lake City, <>    "We must strive to be more than we are, Lal."    <>
<>          Ootah  <>           -- Cmdr. Data, learning schmaltz          <>

johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) (03/11/91)

In a moment of weakness, I jumped on a Mac flame that has turned
into a bandwidth-waster.  My apologies to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc readers.

-- Bill Johnston (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949 

sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (03/11/91)

   Well, it's all very well to flame lawyers and even slippery-brained
developers who  borrow freely (insert your own philosophy here). But
few of either of these species do this unless someone pays them for it.

  Does anyone recall whether Apple filed this suit before or after Jobs
left Apple ? If you look into the history of this conflict and the
agreement between Microsoft and Apple that covered Windows version 1.x
and Apple claims does *not* cover the changes in 2.x and later versions,
you may find that there is also a major component of ego, of which the
(then) protagonists (Jobs and Gates) are both well known to have a healthy
supply.

plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim) (03/11/91)

Let's have some fun ....


John Dvorak in one issue of PC Magazine last year wrote:

"Japan produces more engineers per capita than any other civilized nation
 in the world. USA on the other hand produces more lawyers than is
 civilized for any nation in the world."   :-).

*He attributed the disability of USA to compete with the Japanese to the
 fact that USA is spending too much time screwing around with lawsuits
 than producing really useful products. Somehow, I agree with that to a
 certain extent.


I am a long time PC user who just got a MAC recently (because someone
flock it off cheap). Just figured out how to select and use Multi-Finder
last night after getting instruction from a MAC expert. He is a MAC
dealer and he told me that most of the time, Finder is recommended for
a customer instead of Multi-Finder. Why ? Because Multi-Finder is too
confusing. (ps. For the uninitiated, in Finder you can only run one
program at one time, if you want to do something else, you have to quit
the program to start up that something else. In Multi-Finder, you can
do what MS Windows had been doing since version 1.03 --- ie. run
multiple programs and switch among them at will).

Personally, I like MS Windows more than Multi-Finder because in MS Windows,
each program has its own menu bar. In Multi-Finder, when you switch
program, the menu bar on top changes. This is perhaps what makes the
use of Multi-Finder more confusing ??? This is just personal opinion, but
does this means that someone could sue Apple if they decided later down
the road that each program in the MAC should have its own menu bar :-) ??

Anyway ....., I was just told that Apple stole the idea for Multi-Finder
from a guy who wrote SWITCHER. Back in the days when Finder can only
run one program at a time, some guy wrote a SWITCHER program to flip
among multiple programs which is what the Multi-Finder is doing now.
And the flipping is done by clicking an icon sitting in the top right
hand corner of the screen (the same one is found in the Multi-Finder).

.... and come to think of it, all these are not too unlike what the
program SIDEKICK (an MS-DOS context switching desktop management
program from BORLAND INTERNATIONAL) does.  So, who is copying who ?  :-(
Should BORLAND sue Apple ?  ;-).



Regards,     . .. ... .- -> -->## Life is fast enough as it is ........
Peter Lim.                     ## .... DON'T PUSH IT !!          >>>-------,
                               ########################################### :
E-mail:  plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM     Snail-mail:  Hewlett Packard Singapore,    :
Tel:     (065)-279-2289                      (ICDS, ICS)                   |
Telnet:        520-2289                      1150 Depot Road,           __\@/__
                                             Singapore   0410.           SPLAT !

#include <standard_disclaimer.hpp>

stone@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Glenn Stone) (03/11/91)

In article <18053@milton.u.washington.edu> roger@wrq.com (Roger Fulton) writes:
>[I've never flamed a spelling error before, but this is just too much.]
>
>In article <1991Mar8.030208.9017@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes:
>...
>>Or how about the patient (recently upheld in England) concerning alpha
>                  ^^^^^^^
>...
>>backstore, and other clearly software techniques to be patiented, copyrighted
>                                                        ^^^^^^^    
>>and protected, explicitly outside of the relm of protection that patients,
>                                                                  ^^^^^^^
>...
>>which can be executed by a machine) is NOT patientable.
...
>-- 
>Roger Fulton
>roger@wrq.com


You must learn to be patent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Glenn Davis Stone                BITNET stone@cunixc
  Columbia University            INTERNET stone@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (03/12/91)

In article <11132@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (John H.
Kim) writes:
>OK.  So what can WE do to tell all these lawyers to go to h*ll with
>their lawsuits?  Consumer purchasing power is out because most people
>buy computers based on what the computer offers, not what the company
>is litigating over.  Have the lawyers protected themselves with so
>much legal red tape that we're helpless, or is there something we can
>do to have our opinions heard?

There are two things you can do in a common law jurisdiction:
      a) Hire your own lawyer and have him seek amicus curiae status
	 in the court cases of interest.  Unfortunately, most of us
	 can't afford that.
      b) Lobby your politicians.  In Canada, this will cost you an
	 enveloppe and a piece of paper (no stamp).  Elsewhere, you
	 might have to pay for postage.

     It comes down to this: your typical politician is a sub-imbecile
who only understands letters, phone calls and lobbyists.  You can't blame
companies for attempting to maximize their revenues in whatever way possible.
You can blame your legislators for not fixing laws which are clearly not
having their intended effects.
				   
				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca

akcs.gregc@vpnet.chi.il.us (*Greg*) (03/12/91)

[Flame ON!]

Considering all this "tough talk" from both sides.  All I can say is; "Mac
stole Xerox Star"..  In my view.  So, now that Mac will lose business in the
future because of Windows, tell Mac to remember Xerox!  And tell Mac to
remember reasonable prices!

I can get an PC 20 MHz 386 for around $2000.00 that would do the job.  I can
also expand on this PC hardware wise-to my hearts content.  While a Mac IIcx
would cost me $4000.00 or more.  And if I have to do DTP as a living, add
another $4000.00.  (Saving money is important here).

Everybody knows that IBM is a business machine.  The PC world is going
places because it's doing alot more than Macs.  Mac is now infiltrating
Educational markets to beat PC's in the future.  So the "kids" of today will
remember "Macs" tomorrow.  Macs do a nice job.  There is alot you can say
about a Mac.  But at what price.  PC's have evolved much faster than Macs. 
Unix was around far longer than Mac OS.  Even Ms DOS was around a LONG time.
CP/M is going way back and since then, the struggle has accompished a bunch
of speedy multitasking systems.  Such as OS/2 and Unix.  I've got more
alternatives with the PC and it costs much less!

So, with this view, I hope Mac doesn't beat Microsoft.  The Mac is still
slow in it's Operating System.  You'd have to buy a $6000.00 - $15,000
dollar machine to do the same performance as PC hardware.  I can get a fast
33MHz 386 that will intergrate software and hardware for $4000.00.  And this
will blow the doors off comparable Macs.  With the newest Macs, 
it's different.  They
are fast enough.  But again, at what price.  And how much storage can you
fit in em?  The choice is clear.

I hope that Mac will lose it's pants.

[Flame off]
____
\GC/  Greg Clawson
 \/   Chicago IL. - The heart of America

gumby@cs.mcgill.ca (Phil PRANNO) (03/12/91)

In article <1991Mar10.043404.25950@cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>In article <13151@helios.TAMU.EDU> mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu (MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) writes:
>>I just read that thing about the case between Apple and Microsoft.
>>
>>Man... it's a damn pathetic day when you can't put a window on top of another
>>without getting slapped with a suit.  What's so proprietary about overlapping
>>windows?  What the hell else are you going to do with them?
>>
>>And icons??  Big deal!  How else are you going to graphically represent files?
>>
>>I hope the hell Apple doesn't win this.  Who uses Macs anyway??  {:-<
>>People that are afraid of computers!!
>>
>
>	No, people who like using microprocessors without segmentation.
>People who are tired of lousy 16-bit SVGA and want 24-bit.  People who like
>to pay less than $50/meg for 80ns SIMMS.  People who liek doing more than
>Windows will do even now.
>
>
>Bryon Lape

Some more Mac-bashing:


Most (if not ALL) people who own Macs NOW originally bought it because of
its ease of use... come on, face it.

I'm almost certain that when you were shopping for your first Mac, your first
question was certainly NOT "Does the CPU use a segmented architecture?".

Yeah, yeah, there are more powerful Macs now, but none of them even
compare to a well-equiped fast 386 or 486. 

Therefore, your statements above seem (to me anyways) quite strange. If
you want power, get a NeXT.

IBM has withstood the clone-ing of their machines (without lawsuits).
We'll see how well Apple does...

For the price of a Mac, you can get a NeXTStation (68040 - UNIX based)
which is light years ahead of the Mac in ease of use and functionality...


-- 
* Phil Pranno              |                 |  /\  Shred your      *
* gumby@cs.mcgill.ca       | "I feel a song  |  | \    head 'till   *
* gumby@emf1.lan.mcgill.ca |   coming on."   | _\__\__,   your dead *

shane@inferno.peri.com (Shane Bouslough) (03/12/91)

> johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
> 
>> In article <13151@helios.TAMU.EDU>, mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu 
>> (MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) writes...
>> >I just read that thing about the case between Apple and Microsoft.
>> >I hope the hell Apple doesn't win this.  Who uses Macs anyway??  {:-<
>> >People that are afraid of computers!!
>> 
>> Who uses Windows?  People who are afraid of Macintoshes? 
>> 
>> >PS-You know Apple is losing business to a superior product when they start
>> >   suing people!
>> 
>> Last time I checked, Apple had a 1-3 month backlog of orders across
>> its product line.  Sounds like they are doing just fine.  Frankly,
>> I can't understand why Microsoft expects to use Apple-developed ideas
>> without paying for them.  When I want to use DOS on a Mac, the cost
>> of the SoftPC emulator includes LICENSE fees for Microsoft.

Here we go again... *Apple-developed ideas* ??? I think Xerox at PARC
would have a few things to say about that. As for the Apple backlog,
you don't think that the new *low priced* classic line which was
introduced in response to sluggish sales had anything to do with that,
do you?

-- 
Shane Bouslough    |  ...!rutgers!mcdhup!inferno!shane
Periphonics Corp.  |  516-467-0500
4000 Veterans Hwy. |  "I'm sure it's a hardware problem or a software problem"
Bohemia, NY 11716  |                                              - K. Rivalsi

campbell@dev8n.mdcbbs.com (Tim Campbell) (03/13/91)

>>I hope the hell Apple doesn't win this.  Who uses Macs anyway??  {:-<
>>People that are afraid of computers!!
>>
> 
> 	No, people who like using microprocessors without segmentation.
> People who are tired of lousy 16-bit SVGA and want 24-bit.  People who like
> to pay less than $50/meg for 80ns SIMMS.  People who liek doing more than
> Windows will do even now.
> 
> 
> Bryon Lape
-- 
This is probably not a real strong argument in favor of Macs.... after all,
24-bit megapel displays are certainly NOT standard on your typical Mac - and 
in fairness, they are available on PCs - the use of the hardware is highly 
dependent on the needs of the purchaser.  I haven't noticed a high resolution
graphics display controller with a geometry generator optimized toward 
3-D vector performance available on a Mac either - but that doesn't stop 
anyone from making nice presentation graphics on it.
As for "doing more than Windows will do" - this is a pretty vague statement.
I'm confident that there are more specialized hardware options and software
programs available for PC's then there are for Macs.  This is simply the
nature of the "open-ness" of the architecture.  So what exactly is it
that you can "do more" of?

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	  In real life:  Tim Campbell - Electronic Data Systems Corp.
     Usenet:  campbell@dev8.mdcbbs.com   @ McDonnell Douglas M&E - Cypress, CA
       also:  tcampbel@einstein.eds.com  @ EDS - Troy, MI
 CompuServe:  71631,654	 	         Prodigy:  MPTX77A
 P.S.  If anyone asks, just remember, you never saw any of this -- in fact, I 
       wasn't even here.

ap@deimos.caltech.edu (Alain Picard) (03/13/91)

In article <1991Mar12.051514.2655@cs.mcgill.ca>, gumby@cs.mcgill.ca (Phil PRANNO) writes...
> 
>Some more Mac-bashing:
> 
> 
>Most (if not ALL) people who own Macs NOW originally bought it because of
>its ease of use... come on, face it.
> 
> 
>Yeah, yeah, there are more powerful Macs now, but none of them even
>compare to a well-equiped fast 386 or 486. 
> 

Very strange comments.  Why do you say Mac's don't compare to 386 or 486?
It depends what you want to USE it for, doesn't it?

When I want power, I use our CONVEX. (wish I had a Cray)

When I do image processing, or run TeX, I use a SUN.

When I want a to use a nice word processor to make viewgraphs,
I use MS-Word on the Mac. It does EXACTLY what I want. Why is a 386 better?

At home, I own a plain old XT clone, as it was cheap! I use it as
a smart terminal to phone in.

All these computers are satisfactory, i.e. they get the job done.
Mac bashing is just plain silly.  People use it, not because they're
scared of computers (I ASSURE you computers don't scare me :-)

This gross simplification is something that Mac-haters love to promulgate,
"people buy Mac's 'cause you don't need to be smart to use one."
This seems like prejudice, no?  I mean, buying a computer because it's
easy to use IS a smart thing, it seems to me.


						Alain Picard

I don't work for Convex
I don't work for Sun
I don't work for Apple...
etc.

mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu (MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) (03/14/91)

In article <1991Mar9.150523.8719@isc.rit.edu> mal6315@isc.rit.edu (M.A. Lecher ) writes:
>In article <46878@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>>In article <13151@helios.TAMU.EDU>, mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu 
>>(MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) writes...
>>
>>I can't understand why Microsoft expects to use Apple-developed ideas
>>without paying for them.  When I want to use DOS on a Mac, the cost
>>of the SoftPC emulator includes LICENSE fees for Microsoft.
>
>  Come one! There's a small difference here.. DOS is an OS... Windows are
>  a CONCEPT. So DOS is like building a new invention. That should be 
>  protected.. But if we begin suing for CONCEPTS, where do we go? And
>  if APPLE is doing so well, why did it need to even BOTHER with a
>  lawsuit?

Okay, dammit, people... please be careful how you do your reposts.  I am the
guy who originally posted "A sad day..." bitching ABOUT Apple... not supporting
them.  Someone has associated MY name with the above "Apple-developed ideas"
blather which I did NOT post.  Please make sure you are cutting out the right
lines in the future and we will all be much happier!

Mark C. "Bro!" Lowe - KB5III
 
PS- I also originally contended that those who feel the need to sue are those
    who are falling behind in the market place.

kmcvay@oneb.UUCP (Ken McVay) (03/14/91)

>GeoWorks?  It has a "Mac look-and-feel".  Unless they licensed the rights 
>from Apple, I think that Apple doesn't care because people aren't buying 
>GeoWorks instead of their overprice Macs.

Speaking simply as a "user", this whole issue seems childish, although
I can readily understand the financial side of it. How far will we go 
with "look and feel" crap before we wake up?

My RCA TV has the l&f of all other tv's
My Chrysler has the l&f of a Model T Ford
My Eltech 9870 has the l&f of an IBM PC, which has the l&f of my 
venerable Osborne-1, which........margarine has the l&f of butter,
which has the l&f of pork fat.

So what? How many different formats can you produce for a spreadsheet
and still HAVE a spreadsheet?

It seems to me that Lotus, which, when introduced, had little to offer
but misleading advertising (ever try using 2000 lines on a 256k PC?)
and underpowered software, has decided that legal harrassment is
preferable to r&d... Perhaps the folks who bought Sorcim (SuperCalc)
should sue Lotus for stealing THEIR l&f...sheesh.

Let'em stand or fall in the marketplace by the quality (or, in the case
of Loutus, lack of same) of the application's performance...

[This message has the Look and Feel of all UseNet messages - anyone
wanna sue me?]


-- 
Support a Marine in the Gulf! Send your mail| ANY MARINE                    |
via saudinet@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca, and use the | H&S Co.Maint.Plt.2nd. LAI Btn.|
address on the right to reach our 'adopted' | (Deployed)                    |   
unit. (Email me for instructions reaching others)| FPO NY NY 09502-0204     |

mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu (Don McGregor) (03/15/91)

akcs.gregc@vpnet.chi.il.us (*Greg*) writes:
>[Flame ON!]
>
>I can get an PC 20 MHz 386 for around $2000.00 that would do the job.  I can
>also expand on this PC hardware wise-to my hearts content.  While a Mac IIcx
>would cost me $4000.00 or more.  And if I have to do DTP as a living, add
>another $4000.00.  (Saving money is important here).
>
 Or a 20 MHz '030 Mac si for $3,000.  Or an LC for $2,000.  Or a Classic 
 for $1,100.  Mac prices have come down a lot recently.  The Mac is likely
 to have a faster percieved response time in a lot of graphic applications 
 using comparable hardware.  Try to run say, ToolBook on a 10 MHz 286 with
 1 MB of memory. (Tell your roomie what you're going to do beforehand
 so they won't send out a search party).  Hypercard runs just fine with 
 1 MB on a Classic/SE class machine.  No color on that model Mac, but they 
 do comparable jobs.

>are fast enough.  But again, at what price.  And how much storage can you
>fit in em?  The choice is clear.
>
  Hmm.  Each Mac has a SCSI connector.  Daisy chain a few drives and you
  can have quite a lot of storage.  Along with HFS, a fine file system
  that handles large volumes  rather nicely.

Don McGregor             | "I too seek the light, so long as it tastes  
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu|  great and is not too filling."

mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (03/17/91)

In article <27dc15b6-a2e.5comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc-1@vpnet.chi.il.us>
akcs.gregc@vpnet.chi.il.us (*Greg*) writes:
>[Flame ON!]
>You'd have to buy a $6000.00 - $15,000
>dollar machine to do the same performance as PC hardware.  I can get a fast
>33MHz 386 that will intergrate software and hardware for $4000.00.  And this
>will blow the doors off comparable Macs.  With the newest Macs, 
>it's different.  They
>are fast enough.  But again, at what price.  And how much storage can you
>fit in em?  The choice is clear.

     When quoting hardware prices, you should try to be fair.  Sure, a Mac is
more expensive (usually) than a similarly equipped neighbourhood computer
store PC.  But how does a Mac compare to an equivalently equipped Compaq?
Last I looked, the answer was "very favorably".  (By the way, I'm not even
sure that your idea of Mac pricing is accurate, but then I'm not in the market
right now, so I couldn't say for sure.  Apple's pricing has improved
considerably in the last year, largely as a result of market pressure.)  The
point is that large companies have overhead that smaller companies don't.
Mac pricing is very competitive for a machine in that class made by a
company of Apple's size, especially when you consider that the windowing
interface and things like Hypercard come with the machine rather than having
to be bought separately.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca

ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) (03/17/91)

From article <1991Mar16.221739.21956@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, by mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel):
> In article <27dc15b6-a2e.5comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc-1@vpnet.chi.il.us>
> akcs.gregc@vpnet.chi.il.us (*Greg*) writes:
>>[Flame ON!]
>>You'd have to buy a $6000.00 - $15,000
>>dollar machine to do the same performance as PC hardware.  I can get a fast
>>33MHz 386 that will intergrate software and hardware for $4000.00.  And this
>>will blow the doors off comparable Macs.  With the newest Macs, 
>>it's different.  They
>>are fast enough.  But again, at what price.  And how much storage can you
>>fit in em?  The choice is clear.
> 
>      When quoting hardware prices, you should try to be fair.  Sure, a Mac is
> more expensive (usually) than a similarly equipped neighbourhood computer
> store PC.  But how does a Mac compare to an equivalently equipped Compaq?
> Last I looked, the answer was "very favorably".  (By the way, I'm not even
> sure that your idea of Mac pricing is accurate, but then I'm not in the market
> right now, so I couldn't say for sure.  Apple's pricing has improved
> considerably in the last year, largely as a result of market pressure.)  The
> point is that large companies have overhead that smaller companies don't.
> Mac pricing is very competitive for a machine in that class made by a
> company of Apple's size, especially when you consider that the windowing
> interface and things like Hypercard come with the machine rather than having
> to be bought separately.

Who buys Compaq, (any more)... 

mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu (MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) (03/18/91)

In article <1991Mar16.221739.21956@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>In article <27dc15b6-a2e.5comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc-1@vpnet.chi.il.us>
>akcs.gregc@vpnet.chi.il.us (*Greg*) writes:
>>You'd have to buy a $6000.00 - $15,000
>>dollar machine to do the same performance as PC hardware.  I can get a fast

>     When quoting hardware prices, you should try to be fair.  Sure, a Mac is
>more expensive (usually) than a similarly equipped neighbourhood computer
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>store PC.  But how does a Mac compare to an equivalently equipped Compaq?
 ^^^^^^^^
>Last I looked, the answer was "very favorably".  (By the way, I'm not even

Precisely the point!  We don't HAVE to buy Compaq!  Show me a Mac clone that
you can go out and throw together yourself for a couple thousand bucks.  The
main problem here is the proprietary thing.  As has been mentioned before,
clones have not killed IBM.  Perhaps it has lit a fire under their ass to
produce better machines (some would argue that it hasn't worked :-)

I have to admit that I have fun messing around on a Mac from time to time,
but I can never really take them seriously.  I didn't mean to start this
flame war.  It has been more restrained than many in the past, though.
When I said "people who are afraid of computers," I really meant that people
who doubt their ability to learn something new will gravitate towards the
"easy" solution.  I think it will hurt them in the future when perhaps they
will not have their little pictures and mice.  Then... the FEAR comes into
play here.  "Oh my god, this isn't a Mac.  What do I do?"  They are looking
at C:\> of course!  :-)

You also mentioned being out of the market for some time.  I can assure you,
the Mac prices are still outlandish.  And yes, so are the Compaq and IBM
prices.  But, as you said, I can go to Johnny's Rice Box and pick and choose
and put together a top-of-the-line system "REAL REAL CHEAP."  :-)

This has been interesting, if not religious.  :-)

Mark C. "Bro!" Lowe - KB5III

jerry@TALOS.UUCP (Jerry Gitomer) (03/19/91)

mcl9337@aim1.tamu.edu (MARK CHRISTOPHER LOWE) writes:

|In article <1991Mar16.221739.21956@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca| mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
||In article <27dc15b6-a2e.5comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc-1@vpnet.chi.il.us|
||akcs.gregc@vpnet.chi.il.us (*Greg*) writes:
|||You'd have to buy a $6000.00 - $15,000
|||dollar machine to do the same performance as PC hardware.  I can get a fast

||     When quoting hardware prices, you should try to be fair.  Sure, a Mac is
||more expensive (usually) than a similarly equipped neighbourhood computer
|                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
||store PC.  But how does a Mac compare to an equivalently equipped Compaq?
| ^^^^^^^^
||Last I looked, the answer was "very favorably".  (By the way, I'm not even

|Precisely the point!  We don't HAVE to buy Compaq!  Show me a Mac clone that
|you can go out and throw together yourself for a couple thousand bucks.  The
|main problem here is the proprietary thing. 

	[ user interface related material deleted for clarity]

|You also mentioned being out of the market for some time.  I can assure you,
|the Mac prices are still outlandish.  And yes, so are the Compaq and IBM
|prices.  But, as you said, I can go to Johnny's Rice Box and pick and choose
|and put together a top-of-the-line system "REAL REAL CHEAP."  :-)

	In the case of IBM, Compaq, and the MAC you are
	paying to hardware functionality, increased
	reliability over "Johnnys Rice Box", and your share
	of the engineering costs that were needed to develop
	a viable system and persuade software developers to
	write/port products to your box.

	In the case of "Johnny's Rice Box" you are paying
	for hardware functionality, a better price
	performance ratio, and, in all probability, you are
	*NOT* paying your share of the royalties that IBM is
	entitled to, but unable to collect, in compensation
	for their original development costs.  

			Jerry

-- 
Jerry Gitomer at National Political Resources Inc, Alexandria, VA USA
I am apolitical, have no resources, and speak only for myself.
Ma Bell (703)683-9090      (UUCP:  ...{uupsi,vrdxhq}!pbs!npri6!jerry 

ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (03/19/91)

*>> The programming effort that led to the Mac OS cost alot of money 
*>> that was rolled into the cost of every Mac.  It can be argued (weakly) 
*>> that Mac OS was based on the Xerox Star interface (Apple PAID to use it),
*>> but WINDOWS is inarguably based on the Macintosh OS.

Oh they did, did they? Thats news...

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                        | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS               !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sal@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Marcos Salganicoff) (03/19/91)

Turning this into a mac vs. pc war is silly. The fact is that it's
fairly obvious that a lot of systems have used overlapping windows for
a while, the only reason Xerox didn't win in its suit against apple is
because of statute of limitation type arguments. And now apple is
turning around and suing microsoft, fairly hypocritical I'd say. I
wouldn't weep too much for microsoft, I'd bet that they move more
applications for the mac and ibm-pc than anyone else. But anyhow, I'm
not down on apple, the problem is with the nebulous definition of
"look and feel". Why for example does X-windows use overlapping
windows, yet there is no copyright problem vis-a-vis apple? Does
anyone actually know a definition for "look and feel"? In the mean-time
we're all screwed because products are designed to interact  in sub-optimal
ways to avoid infringement litagation. 
We are the losers until this "look and feel" is clarified. Apple and
Microsoft win. The  GNU  manifesto is sounding more and more reasonable.

-Marcos



General Robotics and Active Sensory Perception Lab
UPENN
Philadelphia, PA (USA)

jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) (03/19/91)

In article <448@oneb.UUCP> kmcvay@oneb.UUCP (Ken McVay) writes:

>>GeoWorks?  It has a "Mac look-and-feel".  Unless they licensed the rights 
>>from Apple, I think that Apple doesn't care because people aren't buying 
>>GeoWorks instead of their overprice Macs.
>
>Speaking simply as a "user", this whole issue seems childish, although
>I can readily understand the financial side of it. How far will we go 
>with "look and feel" crap before we wake up?
>
>My RCA TV has the l&f of all other tv's
>My Chrysler has the l&f of a Model T Ford
>My Eltech 9870 has the l&f of an IBM PC, which has the l&f of my 
>venerable Osborne-1, which........margarine has the l&f of butter,
>which has the l&f of pork fat.
>

These are all physical objects -- hard capital.  A piece of software
is *intellectual* property.  It costs you very little to steal
intellectual property, as opposed to physical property.

>So what? How many different formats can you produce for a spreadsheet
>and still HAVE a spreadsheet?

Different formats; different programs.  You won't get sued if you have
a different format.  However, steal someone's user interface, then you
might...

Theft is theft.  There are intellectual property rights, and that is
what this is all about.

>Let'em stand or fall in the marketplace by the quality (or, in the case
>of Loutus, lack of same) of the application's performance...


So, what you're advocating is this: let no one reap the benefits of
R&D.  Just sit back until someone else comes out with a great idea,
then clone it and reap the benefits.  Well, that's great... but who's
going to eat the R&D in the first place, if they don't get the reap
the benefits?

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Sullivan		| Senior Systems Programmer
jas@venera.isi.edu		| Information Sciences Institute
jas@isi.edu                    	| University of Southern California

jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) (03/20/91)

In article <17205@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes:
>In article <448@oneb.UUCP> kmcvay@oneb.UUCP (Ken McVay) writes:
>
>>>GeoWorks?  It has a "Mac look-and-feel".  Unless they licensed the rights 
>>>from Apple, I think that Apple doesn't care because people aren't buying 
>>>GeoWorks instead of their overprice Macs.
>>
>>Speaking simply as a "user", this whole issue seems childish, although
>>I can readily understand the financial side of it. How far will we go 
>>with "look and feel" crap before we wake up?
>
>These are all physical objects -- hard capital.  A piece of software
>is *intellectual* property.  It costs you very little to steal
>intellectual property, as opposed to physical property.
>
[...]
>
>So, what you're advocating is this: let no one reap the benefits of
>R&D.  Just sit back until someone else comes out with a great idea,
>then clone it and reap the benefits.  Well, that's great... but who's
>going to eat the R&D in the first place, if they don't get the reap
>the benefits?
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jeffrey A. Sullivan		| Senior Systems Programmer
>jas@venera.isi.edu		| Information Sciences Institute
>jas@isi.edu                    	| University of Southern California

I think you're missing the main point...copying (cloning) an exact copy of
a software package is wrong and should be punishable by law, the same way 
as duplicating a manuscript and selling it as your own. This is known as
copyright infringement. Where the problem occurs is in the issuance of
PATENTS for software...Patents were originally designed to protect 
unique designs of PHYSICAL PROPERTY. They are currently being applied
to INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY which, as you mentioned, is totally different
than physical property. These patents are being applied to algorithms
and concepts such as backing stores and XOR cursor placement, which are
closer to integration techniques than to cars or physical inventions.

What this means is that the consumer/user is forced to use non-optimal
software because the programmer is not allowed to use ALL the tools at his
disposal because of the possibility of patent infringement. Using XOR for
cursor placement is a BASIC technique in graphics programming, and mentioned
in several text books, but you're not allowed to use it because some company
owns the patent. 

This whole situation is analogous to a mathematician not being allowed to
use a certain technique/algorithm to solve a problem because some company
owns a patent on that technique (intellectual property). Enough patents, 
and the mathematician can't do anything without having to pay royalties
out the ass. Just how much research would get done in this situation???

Speaking of R&D (and footing the bill for R&D) Apple, Microsoft, etc.
do alot of software development, but produce very little research.
They basically build on the work of others (Universities and basic 
research facilities) and then apply for patents to keep others from using
these same techniques. what this does is to keep the original researcher
from using his or her own techniques.

The use of patents for intelletual property is stupid at best and at worse 
can halt virtually any research. Initially its just an inconvieniance, very
quickly it becomes an insurmountable hurdle as more and more tools are taken
away from the researcher. If the techniques used in a software package can
be patented, then why not any other bit of intellectual property? say an
integration technique, or engineering methodology, or a design procedure...
whats the dividing line?

Think about it some more, and you'll figure out WHY American companies have
such trouble competing in the world marketplace, they are too involved
with litigation, and not involved enough with R&D.

John Burton
(gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov)

Of course my views don't reflect those of my employer...

sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (04/02/91)

In article <1991Mar20.135141.25296@news.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes:
>In article <17205@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes:
>>In article <448@oneb.UUCP> kmcvay@oneb.UUCP (Ken McVay) writes:
>>
>>>>GeoWorks?  It has a "Mac look-and-feel".  Unless they licensed the rights 
>>>>from Apple, I think that Apple doesn't care because people aren't buying 
>>>>GeoWorks instead of their overprice Macs.
>>>
>>>Speaking simply as a "user", this whole issue seems childish, although
>>>I can readily understand the financial side of it. How far will we go 
>>>with "look and feel" crap before we wake up?
>>
>>These are all physical objects -- hard capital.  A piece of software
>>is *intellectual* property.  It costs you very little to steal
>>intellectual property, as opposed to physical property.
>>
>[...]
>>
>>So, what you're advocating is this: let no one reap the benefits of
>>R&D.  Just sit back until someone else comes out with a great idea,
>>then clone it and reap the benefits.  Well, that's great... but who's
>>going to eat the R&D in the first place, if they don't get the reap
>>the benefits?
>>
>>--
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Jeffrey A. Sullivan		| Senior Systems Programmer
>>jas@venera.isi.edu		| Information Sciences Institute
>>jas@isi.edu                    	| University of Southern California
>
>I think you're missing the main point...copying (cloning) an exact copy of
>a software package is wrong and should be punishable by law, the same way 
>as duplicating a manuscript and selling it as your own. This is known as
>copyright infringement. Where the problem occurs is in the issuance of
>PATENTS for software...Patents were originally designed to protect 
>unique designs of PHYSICAL PROPERTY. They are currently being applied
>to INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY which, as you mentioned, is totally different
>than physical property. These patents are being applied to algorithms
>and concepts such as backing stores and XOR cursor placement, which are
>closer to integration techniques than to cars or physical inventions.
>
>What this means is that the consumer/user is forced to use non-optimal
>software because the programmer is not allowed to use ALL the tools at his
>disposal because of the possibility of patent infringement. Using XOR for
>cursor placement is a BASIC technique in graphics programming, and mentioned
>in several text books, but you're not allowed to use it because some company
>owns the patent. 
>
>This whole situation is analogous to a mathematician not being allowed to
>use a certain technique/algorithm to solve a problem because some company
>owns a patent on that technique (intellectual property). Enough patents, 
>and the mathematician can't do anything without having to pay royalties
>out the ass. Just how much research would get done in this situation???
>
>Speaking of R&D (and footing the bill for R&D) Apple, Microsoft, etc.
>do alot of software development, but produce very little research.
>They basically build on the work of others (Universities and basic 
>research facilities) and then apply for patents to keep others from using
>these same techniques. what this does is to keep the original researcher
>from using his or her own techniques.
>
>The use of patents for intelletual property is stupid at best and at worse 
>can halt virtually any research. Initially its just an inconvieniance, very
>quickly it becomes an insurmountable hurdle as more and more tools are taken
>away from the researcher. If the techniques used in a software package can
>be patented, then why not any other bit of intellectual property? say an
>integration technique, or engineering methodology, or a design procedure...
>whats the dividing line?
>
>Think about it some more, and you'll figure out WHY American companies have
>such trouble competing in the world marketplace, they are too involved
>with litigation, and not involved enough with R&D.
>
>John Burton
>(gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov)
>
>Of course my views don't reflect those of my employer...


  Your analogy is a little weak. Strictly speaking you are not prohibited
from *using* the patented device, you are prohibited from benefitting from
it monetarily without the permission of the inventor, who, presumably, would
like to share in the benefits/profits received from the use of the product of
his/her 'sweat'. I don't see why the tangibility of the invention should make
any difference to this concept, though it is admittedly more difficult to
enforce. The principle is that protection encourages innovation since developer
will be guaranteed compensation for his/her efforts and not ripped off by
parasites. That's not to say that some things in the software world ought not
to be granted invention status and given patents based upon the principles of
patentability.