v125lqbx@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Brian T McColpin) (03/12/91)
In article <4210.27db9aac@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes... > >To the market the A500 and classic is geared to, speed is not an issue, >only ease of use and marketbility. The Classic is ideal for education due >to the fact that it is compact and very easy to network. > >Logically, to the new computer user, could you really recommend an Amiga >500 over a Mac Classic? (especially a computer neophyte?) Yes. Conditionally: A friend (computer neophyte) asked me to recommend a computer for word processing, playing games, and "maybe" learning some programming. I ended up giving him a rundown of the various advantages (as best I could determine) of the IBM PC, the Mac, and the Amiga. He decided he wanted an Amiga. He liked it so much that I bought one too. :-) Then another friend did. Another will soon. They're all -really- happy with their choice. Yes, I'd recommend it to a neophyte, if (s)he has the desire to get over the learning curve and use the real power of the machine.
walter@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Walter Lawlor) (03/13/91)
Guys, not to try to hurt anyones feelings here, but is anyone else as sick of Amiga vs Mac postings here? I mean really, I think the topic has been pretty well argued to death, now can we let it die completely? (If I'm the only one who feels like this, then go ahead and continue! ;-) Walter walter@garfield.cs.mun.ca
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (03/14/91)
In article <1131@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>, dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) writes: > In article <4210.27db9aac@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: >>To the market the A500 and classic is geared to, speed is not an issue, > > Bull. Speed is *always* an issue. Period. That is why reseach money is > constantly being spent on hardware and algorithm development. Motorola could > probably sell the 68040 for an order of magnatude (or more!) less if anyone > wanted a 1Mhz 68040. But people buying a Classic or A500 are not going to be doing to much CPU extensive tasks. The user will probably use his computer more for wordprocessing or telecommunicating than anything else. Most people I know haven't begun to use all the power in a 4.77MHz originaly PC, let alone all the power in a 7MHz 68000. > If someone tells you the speed of his computer is not an issue, he is either > such a neophyte user that he has yet to tax the CPU of his computer, or he > is lying. The wonderful thing about computers is that they give you the > ability to do amazing things. The other side of the coin is thatthey also > reveal to you the things you could do if you had just a few more megs of ram, > or a slightly faster CPU. Of course I would love to have 16MHz 68000 and 4 megs in my ST, but I can't afford it right now that I'm still in colege. (Well, I would really love to have a 32MHz 68030 with 8 megs of RAM in my ST, but I REALLY can't afford that right now!!! :*) >>only ease of use and marketbility. The Classic is ideal for education due >>to the fact that it is compact and very easy to network. >> >>Logically, to the new computer user, could you really recommend an Amiga >>500 over a Mac Classic? (especially a computer neophyte?) > > Certainly. Workbench on the Amiga is every bit as easy(*) to use as > the Maciintosh. What do you tell that new user when he comes to you with his Excel worksheet and asks you how he can use it in his Amiga? The only people I would recommend something other than a Mac or IBM clone are people that use computers a lot, and can figure out how to get things done. Unfortunately, these people already know what they want, so they don't even ask others. Many of my fellow students are realizing that they need a computer for college, but the business majors already realize that they need an IBM clone, the non-tech majors (English, Music) see the Mac in plentiful quantities and realize thats the computer thats easy enough for them. It's a sad fact. Hell I'd rather see the world full of Amigas and Ataris too, but I really don't see that happening. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins Question for IBM Users: rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET |||| Power Without How DO you move/copy a rc1dsanu@miamiu.BITNET / || \ The Price!! Subdirectory? R.COLLINS1 on GEnie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (03/14/91)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Amiga vs. Mac Summary: Expires: References: <4210.27db9aac@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> <1131@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> <4232.27de369d@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: The Internet Keywords: In article <4232.27de369d@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: >In article <1131@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>, dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) writes: >> In article <4210.27db9aac@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: >>>To the market the A500 and classic is geared to, speed is not an issue, >> >> Bull. Speed is *always* an issue. Period. That is why reseach money is >> constantly being spent on hardware and algorithm development. Motorola could >> probably sell the 68040 for an order of magnatude (or more!) less if anyone >> wanted a 1Mhz 68040. > >But people buying a Classic or A500 are not going to be doing to much CPU >extensive tasks. The user will probably use his computer more for >wordprocessing or telecommunicating than anything else. Most people I know >haven't begun to use all the power in a 4.77MHz originaly PC, let alone all >the power in a 7MHz 68000. The speed we were refering to was AppleTalk, and the speed of Mac screen redraws. Sure Speed is not an issue when you are running programs that don't need speed, but what about GUI's like Xwindows, or something that takes lots of screen redraws? PC's have a fast text mode, but try running windows on anything less than a 25mhz 386! The price you pay for a GUI is speed, and since the Mac DEMANDS a GUI and won't let you use a shell, speed is an issue. >> If someone tells you the speed of his computer is not an issue, he is either >> such a neophyte user that he has yet to tax the CPU of his computer, or he >> is lying. The wonderful thing about computers is that they give you the >> ability to do amazing things. The other side of the coin is thatthey also >> reveal to you the things you could do if you had just a few more megs of ram, >> or a slightly faster CPU. > >Of course I would love to have 16MHz 68000 and 4 megs in my ST, but I can't >afford it right now that I'm still in colege. (Well, I would really love to >have a 32MHz 68030 with 8 megs of RAM in my ST, but I REALLY can't afford >that right now!!! :*) > >>>only ease of use and marketbility. The Classic is ideal for education due >>>to the fact that it is compact and very easy to network. >>> >>>Logically, to the new computer user, could you really recommend an Amiga >>>500 over a Mac Classic? (especially a computer neophyte?) >> >> Certainly. Workbench on the Amiga is every bit as easy(*) to use as >> the Maciintosh. > >What do you tell that new user when he comes to you with his Excel >worksheet and asks you how he can use it in his Amiga? Why would he have an Excel worksheet when he hasn't even bought a computer yet? That's like saying 'An Amiga user comes to a Mac user with his proprietary Video Toaster format file with ultra secret specifications and asks how the Mac can process the file.' >The only people I would recommend something other than a Mac or IBM clone >are people that use computers a lot, and can figure out how to get things >done. Unfortunately, these people already know what they want, so they >don't even ask others. 2 million Amigas have been bought, most of them A500 by teenagers and kids. From what I've seen on local BBSes, most of them have figured out quite easily how to do their school reports and homework on the Amiga. The IBM is HARDER to use than a Mac or Amiga, it doesn't have a GUI. From what I've seen, most firms HIRE a consultant, and send the employees to be TRAINED to use a single piece of software like Lotus. In fact, they teach classes on 'How to use AutoCad, Lotus, Dbase, etc' at my local college. I think it's total bullsh*t that the Mac and IBM are the only computers that are easy to use. I Found MS-DOS very awkward, and Mac very restricting. In fact, I get very annoyed whenever I use the Mac, because I naturally like to do powerful things in shells, like find | grep | sed | cat. Regardless of what people think, a totally 100% iconic interface gets in the way. >Many of my fellow students are realizing that they need a computer for >college, but the business majors already realize that they need an IBM >clone, the non-tech majors (English, Music) see the Mac in plentiful >quantities and realize thats the computer thats easy enough for them. The reason they see it this way is simple: _advertising_ Mac's aren't any easier to use than GEOS running on a Commodore 64, or CP/M running on a Kaypro. I see no difference between lauching a program by typing its name or clicking on a picture. >It's a sad fact. Hell I'd rather see the world full of Amigas and Ataris >too, but I really don't see that happening. Welp, IBM has the business market, but that's it. Add up the number of Commodore 64's, Nitendo's, Segas, Amiga's, Ataris, Spectrums, and Coco's in America and Europe, and they probably outnumber IBM and Mac'sused in the home. Sorry, but Macs are WAY too expensive for the home. I recently saw a press release today, that Apple slashed the prices on the Mac IIfx from $10,000 to $9100. Wow, I'm impressed, it still costs more than any personal computer. Hell, I can buy a NeXT, 33mhz Amiga, 25mhz 486, Atari, or SparcStation cheaper than that. It only comes with 4mb of ram, and a 40mb HD. The cheapest version is $6k Mac IIfx with only a floppy drive. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Ryan 'Gozar' Collins Question for IBM Users: rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET > |||| Power Without How DO you move/copy a rc1dsanu@miamiu.BITNET > / || \ The Price!! Subdirectory? R.COLLINS1 on GEnie >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cpmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matthew W Crowd) (03/14/91)
>From what I've seen, most firms HIRE a consultant, and send the employees >to be TRAINED to use a single piece of software like Lotus. In fact, they >teach classes on 'How to use AutoCad, Lotus, Dbase, etc' at my local college. > Have you ever seen AutoCAD ? Lotus ? DBase ? These are real programs that have *POWER*, real business power. Courses are a very effective way of getting the most out of a business software package. Matt Crowd.
jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (03/14/91)
In article <1991Mar13.223831.870@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In fact, I get very annoyed whenever I use the Mac, because I naturally >like to do powerful things in shells, like find | grep | sed | cat. >Regardless of what people think, a totally 100% iconic interface gets in >the way. You are a power-user. Most people are not. Nor do they wish to be. Apple sells a powerful command-line environment called MPW which does all that find | grep | sed | cat stuff. I use it all the time when I'm programming. It's targeted at power-user/techie types who want/need/are interested in that kind of terse power. The main group of people to whom Apple markets the Macintosh are intelligent people who have things they want to do and who would be helped to do these things better if they had a computer that didn't force them to learn so many computer-specific concepts about which they could care less. Notice the key word "force". Nothing about the Mac prevents you from learning and using power-user tricks, command lines, etc. The advantage is that absent all of that you can still get incredible amounts of useful stuff accomplished. The Amiga is a wonderful machine. Its operating system is a work of art. Its expansion bus architecture is the fastest of any personal computer. Etc. Ms. non-techie-but-expert-in-her-own-non-computer-related-field doesn't CARE about any of that. She just wants to get her work done in the areas that are important to her, rather than to the computer. These concerns matter, and addressing them is what Apple has chosen to emphasize. To Apple, the human-interface is really the most important part of a computer system. If you keep this fact in mind, it makes most of what the company does a lot more understandable. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900
blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) (03/14/91)
>Have you ever seen AutoCAD ? Lotus ? DBase ? > >These are real programs that have *POWER*, real business power. > >Courses are a very effective way of getting the most out of a business >software package. > Gotta disagree here. Power is being able to do the stuff Dbase, Lotus, and Autocad do without taking a class. I've seen all three done by non computer literate people do just this (on Macs) with Filemake Pro, Excel, and Claris CAD. Corey
roddi@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Roddi Walker) (03/14/91)
In <4232.27de369d@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: >But people buying a Classic or A500 are not going to be doing to much CPU >extensive tasks. Rubbish. This is like saying "No-one with a 68000/XT has a C compiler because they don't do any demanding work on their machine". If a person writes a C program, the ARE interested in getting it to run FAST - either from an efficient algorithm or fast hardware - or, optimally, BOTH. >The user will probably use his computer more for >wordprocessing or telecommunicating than anything else. Most people I know >haven't begun to use all the power in a 4.77MHz originaly PC, let alone all >the power in a 7MHz 68000. DTP programs are painful to use on a 68000, and probably fatal on a 4.77 PC (which can't even use a harddrive, if memory serves). I'd say the vast majority of home computer users do eventually end up delving into the guts of their machine, at least in a software sense. When you write a program, you are normally concerned about it running too slow rather than too fast. Saying people don't use their machine for more than WP and telecommunication is ridiculous - both applications run quite well on a 1 MB system with floppy drives - ask youself, "How many users out there have a harddrive on their Amiga/XT/AT/ST/Mac Plus" - why would they need a HD if all they do is the odd bit of WP etc. I've got a 68000 A2000 with 5MB RAM and a 40MB Quantum (fast drive, BTW). Admittedly, 5MB is overkill for a home user - I could live with 3 :-) (only because the Amiga is efficient with its memory). >> If someone tells you the speed of his computer is not an issue, he is either >> such a neophyte user that he has yet to tax the CPU of his computer, or he >> is lying. The wonderful thing about computers is that they give you the >> ability to do amazing things. The other side of the coin is thatthey also >> reveal to you the things you could do if you had just a few more megs of ram, >> or a slightly faster CPU. sounds reasonable. >Of course I would love to have 16MHz 68000 and 4 megs in my ST, but I can't >afford it right now that I'm still in colege. (Well, I would really love to >have a 32MHz 68030 with 8 megs of RAM in my ST, but I REALLY can't afford >that right now!!! :*) Why? An 8 MHz ST is quite capable of running a respectable WP and a good telecom program. >The only people I would recommend something other than a Mac or IBM clone >are people that use computers a lot, and can figure out how to get things >done. Unfortunately, these people already know what they want, so they >don't even ask others. This is true, unfortunately. A lot of people are only interested in running the big packages - Word etc. But for dBase, Lotus, Windows (if you wanna run Word on an IBM) you NEED a fast cpu. Roddi (who doesn't OFTEN indulge in flaming people :-)
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (03/14/91)
In article <1991Mar14.004546.18206@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matthew W Crowd) writes: >>From what I've seen, most firms HIRE a consultant, and send the employees >>to be TRAINED to use a single piece of software like Lotus. In fact, they >>teach classes on 'How to use AutoCad, Lotus, Dbase, etc' at my local college. >> > >Have you ever seen AutoCAD ? Lotus ? DBase ? > >These are real programs that have *POWER*, real business power. > >Courses are a very effective way of getting the most out of a business >software package. > >Matt Crowd. Exactly my point. Just because somethingis powerful doesn't mean it is easy to use. By far the most powerful software has a steep learning curve. Just look at TeX. It's very powerful, yet it's hard to learn. The Mac is perceived to be powerful. I disagree. It's interface just gets in the way. It insults me. Hell, why don't they just start making computers thatinfants can use with little smily faces, colorful wheels, and pacifiers. When I use a Mac, it makes me feel like the software is constraining me, like someone is grbabing your hands guiding you saying 'Look, you've got to do it MY WAY.' Just check out a quote from this months BYTE article on Mac business software: A good deal of ink has been spilled in the past year about whether the Macintosh is really a business computer. Complaints about its software standards, operating-system proclivities, and networking prowess have showered in, mostly from the usual suspects. Mac detractors complained ad nauseam about its graphical user interface getting in the way of power users. [...] (of course, the article had some nice things to say about the Mac, that I don't agree with..heh, of course I'm only going to use text that supports my point. :-) )
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (03/14/91)
In article <1991Mar12.211946.25123@garfield.cs.mun.ca> walter@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Walter Lawlor) writes: >[Why not give it a rest?] > >(If I'm the only one who feels like this, then go ahead and continue! ;-) Actually, all it really takes is 2 people unwilling to take it to e-mail for it to continue. Then, someone posts something really outragous, and a bunch more people feel obliged to jump all over this "misinformation", and the war flames up again. Probably, this sort of thing only dies when enough people start ignoring the thread (ie, putting it in the moral equivalent of their kill files). -- Dave Schaumann | dave@cs.arizona.edu | Short .sig's rule!
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/15/91)
In article <4232.27de369d@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: >In article <1131@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>, dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) writes: >> In article <4210.27db9aac@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: >>>To the market the A500 and classic is geared to, speed is not an issue, >> Bull. Speed is *always* an issue. Period. That is why reseach money is >> constantly being spent on hardware and algorithm development. Motorola could >> probably sell the 68040 for an order of magnatude (or more!) less if anyone >> wanted a 1Mhz 68040. >But people buying a Classic or A500 are not going to be doing to much CPU >extensive tasks. Speed is always an issue to SOME people. From the manufacturer's point of view, that's important, since many folks are buying now and thinking about the future. You will ultimately spend more money on the software than the hardware and knowing that some 25MHz 68030 or whatever system is available makes the choice of a 7MHz 68000 system that much more attractive. Many people are far more concerned with price over power -- not everyone can afford the cost of a compact car for their computer system. >> If someone tells you the speed of his computer is not an issue, he is >> either such a neophyte user that he has yet to tax the CPU of his computer, >> or he is lying. Or he/she has other concerns that override that of speed. Like the cost factor that I mentioned. Not everyone will tax the speed of their system -- my Mom, for instance, is perfectly happy doing wordprocessing and filing on her C128, even though there are much faster computers around. >Of course I would love to have 16MHz 68000 and 4 megs in my ST, but I can't >afford it right now that I'm still in college. No joke. And to tell you the truth, I would have swam through beer with my mouth shut for something as powerful as an ST or A500 back when I was in college. I had an Exidy Sorcerer, with 60x30 character screen, 2.5MHz Z-80 with 32K of DRAM. The only available wordprocessor for it was primitive when compared to what we could use for free on the school's DEC-20s (Scribe, and a laser printing, back in '79). The main problem was that no one made an intelligent terminal emulator for the Exidy, and the dumb one was too dumb to run Emacs. So what I would up with as a game machine (I wrote all the games before starting college). Cheap computers today have reached a critical point, where the machine stops behaving like a toy and starts to behave like a computer. Even if it's too slow for every task, it is still far more capable than what most folks had 10 years ago, it's "over the hump", so to speak. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (03/19/91)
In article <1991Mar14.013927.26548@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >Notice the key word "force". Nothing about the Mac prevents you from learning >and using power-user tricks, command lines, etc. The advantage is that absent >all of that you can still get incredible amounts of useful stuff >accomplished. Except that many things are just not possible. On the Mac, CLI oriented utilities are in a worse state than Amiga WorkBench supporting software was when the Amiga first came out, since keyboard operated programs are not what the mac is aimed at. >Ms. non-techie-but-expert-in-her-own-non-computer-related-field doesn't CARE >about any of that. She just wants to get her work done in the areas that are >important to her, rather than to the computer. These concerns matter, and >addressing them is what Apple has chosen to emphasize. >To Apple, the human-interface is really the most important part of a computer >system. If you keep this fact in mind, it makes most of what the company does >a lot more understandable. I agree. But that does not make a Mac any easier to use, or more friendly than an Amiga. In fact, the only "good" thing about the Mac OS is that from the beginning "most" Mac programs tended to work the same and look the same. At the time that was very unusual. When the Amiga first came out, people seemed to feel they had to create their own gadget imagery, their own way of doing things, and so early aps didn't look as good as similar Mac aps. But over the past few years I have noticed that most programs on the Amiga look and work the same, just as you would expect. And with AmigaDOS 2.0, they look and work even better, without having to change any programs at all. Think of how hard it would be to update the Mac OS in a compatible way. I would be willing to bet Apple will NEVER change the OS again in the way they did to add the window shrink gadget, as every program would have to be recompiled to work with it, or at least support it. There are other nice things about the Mac OS, like the growing bar when you are copying files to indicate how much you have copied, but these are more "feeping creaturisms" than true features, and while pretty do not actually make it any "easier" to use the system. Dave
laird@think.com (Laird Popkin) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar19.031537.17575@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: >In article <1991Mar14.013927.26548@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >>Notice the key word "force". Nothing about the Mac prevents you from learning >>and using power-user tricks, command lines, etc. The advantage is that absent >>all of that you can still get incredible amounts of useful stuff >>accomplished. > Except that many things are just not possible. On the Mac, CLI >oriented utilities are in a worse state than Amiga WorkBench supporting >software was when the Amiga first came out, since keyboard operated programs >are not what the mac is aimed at. You're kidding, right? I can run the MPW shell in a window (or a couple of windows) on my Mac, and have access to all sorts of tools. Most of the typical unix tools have been ported to MPW, and they work just fine. But 99% of all Mac owners never use a command line because they never have to! The greatest thing about WB2.0 is that it _finally_ makes WB usable to the point where you don't have to drop into the CLI all the time to get things done. >>Ms. non-techie-but-expert-in-her-own-non-computer-related-field doesn't CARE >>about any of that. She just wants to get her work done in the areas that are >>important to her, rather than to the computer. These concerns matter, and >>addressing them is what Apple has chosen to emphasize. >>To Apple, the human-interface is really the most important part of a computer >>system. If you keep this fact in mind, it makes most of what the company does >>a lot more understandable. > I agree. But that does not make a Mac any easier to use, or more >friendly than an Amiga. In fact, the only "good" thing about the Mac OS is >that from the beginning "most" Mac programs tended to work the same and look >the same. At the time that was very unusual. When the Amiga first came out, >people seemed to feel they had to create their own gadget imagery, their own >way of doing things, and so early aps didn't look as good as similar Mac aps. >But over the past few years I have noticed that most programs on the Amiga >look and work the same, just as you would expect. And with AmigaDOS 2.0, >they look and work even better, without having to change any programs at all. >Think of how hard it would be to update the Mac OS in a compatible way. > I would be willing to bet Apple will NEVER change the OS again in the >way they did to add the window shrink gadget, as every program would have to >be recompiled to work with it, or at least support it. > There are other nice things about the Mac OS, like the growing bar >when you are copying files to indicate how much you have copied, but these >are more "feeping creaturisms" than true features, and while pretty do not >actually make it any "easier" to use the system. Actually, things like that are far _more_ tweekable on the Mac than the Amiga. I have all sorts of INITs and CDEV's installed that give me, for example, 3-D color scroll bars and windows which then appear in all my applications. And if I want to, I could write my own window and scroll bar handlers and plug them in. And your example of the zoom box is a bad one, actually, since that's supported in the OS, not the applications. Note that through all of this, it's the _user_ who has control over the scroll bars, windows, and so on, as opposed to the programmer. Speaking as a user and a programmer, that's where the control belongs. Aside from that, the point remains that Apple regards the clarity of the user interface as being extremely important, and encourages their developers to do likewise. And Mac owners simply will not accept applications with awful interfaces, because they went out of their way to buy a Mac. And the vast majority of Amiga software would simple not be acceptable on the Mac, because of the amazing inconsistencies. The difference is that Apple had a vision of how they could put _users_ in control of the computers, and implemented everything based on that. C= had a box with a lot of nifty features. That's why the Amiga has _always_ had better "features" than the Mac, but the Mac has always been "better done" from the user's point of view. > Dave - Laird (internet: laird@think.com) P.S. Don't get the wrong idea -- I own an A2000 and use it all the time. But that's because of the amazing coolness of the original chips, not C=. Lemmings is so much fun...
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (04/05/91)
In article <1991Mar29.215008.9634@Think.COM> laird@think.com (Laird Popkin) writes: >You're kidding, right? I can run the MPW shell in a window (or a couple of >windows) on my Mac, and have access to all sorts of tools. Most of the >typical unix tools have been ported to MPW, and they work just fine. But >99% of all Mac owners never use a command line because they never have to! >The greatest thing about WB2.0 is that it _finally_ makes WB usable to the >point where you don't have to drop into the CLI all the time to get things >done. 1) Is MPW shell produced by Apple and distributed as part of the OS? There have been WorkBench enhancers for the Amiga for years, I don't include them because they don't come with every machine and aren't support by C=. Is MPW Shell? >> I would be willing to bet Apple will NEVER change the OS again in the >>way they did to add the window shrink gadget, as every program would have to >>be recompiled to work with it, or at least support it. >Actually, things like that are far _more_ tweekable on the Mac than the >Amiga. I have all sorts of INITs and CDEV's installed that give me, for >example, 3-D color scroll bars and windows which then appear in all my >applications. And if I want to, I could write my own window and scroll bar These can be done more easily on the Amiga, but this is not what I was saying. None of these actually ADD a feature to all Mac applications, just change the way that the ones that are there work. That is a big difference. >handlers and plug them in. And your example of the zoom box is a bad one, >actually, since that's supported in the OS, not the applications. Note That's the point I was making! It would be virtually impossible to add more NEW features like the zoom box without breaking/being useless in most applications due to the way that the Mac does it's windowing. I don't care if you can make your window to back gadget look like a grape (that can be done on the Amiga too), I'm talking about adding a NEW gadget to the gadget types, that will be useable by ALL applications with no code changes. >that through all of this, it's the _user_ who has control over the scroll >bars, windows, and so on, as opposed to the programmer. Speaking as a user >and a programmer, that's where the control belongs. So where did I say otherwise? I don't care if you make your scroll bars look like rolling papyrus or a spreading deck of cards. I was talking about the ability to add new classes of gadgets at the OS level without any application code changes. >The difference is that Apple had a vision of how they could put _users_ in >control of the computers, and implemented everything based on that. C= had >a box with a lot of nifty features. That's why the Amiga has _always_ had >better "features" than the Mac, but the Mac has always been "better done" >from the user's point of view. Until 2.0. And I disagree that the Mac has always been "better done" from the user's point of view. *I* am a user too, you know, and I would never settle for a computer that gave me LESS power than the wimpy and disgusting MS-DOS world. Dave