Xerox sues Apple!!!
Chris Newbold
Apple's use of the Xerox-developed Star graphical user interface. I don't
have the newspaper article handy, but the suit filed last week (?) is very
similar to the one filed by Apple against Microsoft and HP Software (?) for
their Windows 2.03 and NewWave products.
Apple should have known better than to sue the one software company that
provides so much software for their machine. Did they think they could get
away with it without getting the attention of Xerox? Like the old saying goes,
people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
IMHO, I would like to see Apple get roasted by this lawsuit... Flames to
/dev/null, please.
--
>>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you *
University of Rochester * will screw it up." *
Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice."
ctne...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunet
Jeffrey M White
>Well, it has finally happend. Xerox is sueing Apple for $150million over
>Apple's use of the Xerox-developed Star graphical user interface. I don't
$150 million doesn't sound like a lot of money, considering Apple is a
billion dollar company (aren't they).
>IMHO, I would like to see Apple get roasted by this lawsuit... Flames to
>/dev/null, please.
I'm no legal expect, but I don't think Xerox has a very good case. For one
thing, why sue now? The Mac/Lisa interface has been out for almost 8 years,
with virtually no change. It's hardly like Apple all of a sudden came out
with an interface that looks like the Xerox one. Note that this case is
different from the Apple/Microsoft case, in which Apple and Microsoft already
had an agreement. Apple sued because they felt the changes MS made in version
2.0 of windows weren't part of their previous agreement.
Jeff White
University of Pennsylvania
je...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
Chris Newbold
>In article <45...@ur-cc.UUCP> ctne...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) writes:
>>IMHO, I would like to see Apple get roasted by this lawsuit... Flames to
>>/dev/null, please.
>
> I'm no legal expect, but I don't think Xerox has a very good case. For one
>thing, why sue now? The Mac/Lisa interface has been out for almost 8 years,
>with virtually no change. It's hardly like Apple all of a sudden came out
From what I remember of the article, Xerox has waited all of this time while
various "ambiguities" in the relevent laws have been ironed out in court
over the last several years.
Wayne Folta
"various "ambiguities" in the relevent laws have been ironed out in court
"over the last several years.
The Wall Street Journal article makes it clear (to me, anyhow) that Xerox will
have a tougher time against Apple than Apple will have against Microsoft:
For one thing, Xerox waited so many years to lay its claim to the technology
that Apple may be able to argue that Xerox lost its right to make that
claim. [A software lawyer] said he also thinks that Xerox didn't publish
its copyrights, which may mean it lost the right to enforce them. [The
lawyer sites an Intel case where Intel lost its copyrights even though it
published them, because it did not include a statement in a about them in
a few licenses.]
...
[According to an intellectual-property lawyer], Xerox waited so long to sue
that he doubts that it can win damages. But he said that the court might
agree to invalidate the Apple copyrights.
--
Wayne Folta (fo...@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)
MILLER TODD C
awarded patents on the Star operating environment. Patent infringements are
usually more easily proven than copyright ones.
Just a thought.
-Todd
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Todd Miller - mil...@tramp.Colorado.EDU |
| Meet the new boss, just the same as old boss - The Who |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Colin Sachs
> I'm no legal expect, but I don't think Xerox has a very good case. For one
> thing, why sue now? The Mac/Lisa interface has been out for almost 8 years,
> with virtually no change.
About two years ago (I think), Lotus thought about bringing suit against
a rival copycat spreadsheet company producers of TWIN. Well, Lotus dropped
that suit. The basis of the suit (from my recollection) was a "look and feel"
argument. That is, TWIN sufficiently looked like and responded like the
Lotus 1-2-3 package to be an infrigement of Lotus' copyright. But they
forgot about the granddaddy of all spreadsheets: minicalc (I think thats
the name). Anyway, this thing ran on CP/M systems and had rows and columns
and command keys, just like, you guessed it Lotus 1-2-3 before Lotus Corp
existed. I think the people at Lotus realized that the "look and feel" thing
would backfire (the makers of the first spreadsheet could sue them for
copywrite infrigment) if they went through with it.
> It's hardly like Apple all of a sudden came out
> with an interface that looks like the Xerox one.
No. But the fact remains that Xerox had the graphical interface and windows
concept long before the Apple Mac's even existed. And Apple did not
develope the concept independently.
> Note that this case is
> different from the Apple/Microsoft case, in which Apple and Microsoft already
> had an agreement. Apple sued because they felt the changes MS made in version
> 2.0 of windows weren't part of their previous agreement.
No. I think they sued because they felt that the changes MS made in v.2.0
of windows put that product and all PC machines in direct competition with
the Macintosh computers. Apple set themselves up for the suit from Xerox
by pushing their so-called proprietary rights to the graphic/windows
interface. Plain and simple.
--
Colin Sachs - csa...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
Biff Henderson
December 15, 1989, page D3.
Xerox Sues Apple Over Graphics Software
by Carla Lazzareschi
Times Staff Writer
Xerox slapped Apple Computer with a $150-million lawsuit on
Thursday, contending that Apple is illegally using the software
that created the revolutionary graphics display on its highly
popular Macintosh personal computer.
The suit, filed late Thursday in federal court in San
Francisco, is a bizarre turn in an already twisted tale
surrounding the visual display currently used in Apple's
Macintosh models. The display resembles a desk top and allows a
user to manipulate data and issue instructions by using a set of
pictures, or "icons."
The Macintosh display, which has become an industry
standard, is a key reason for the machine's popularity since its
introduction in early 1984. Last year, Apple sued two computer
industry heavyweights, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard, for
allegedly infringing on its copyrighted display.
However, Xerox claims in its suit that the Macintosh display
"stems from work originally done by Xerox" and has been used by
Apple without Xerox permission. The suit noted that the display
was first used by Apple in its now discontinued Lisa model
introduced in 1982, as well as in the Macintosh.
Xerox said it has held a copyright on the display, which it
first introduced on its now discontinued Star computer system,
since 1981.
A Xerox spokesman said the suit was filed now because recent
changes in software protection and intellectual property laws
make it easier to assert its position. He declined to specify
those changes.
An Apple spokeswoman said the company believes that the suit
is without merit and that Xerox is attempting to assert its right
to copyright an idea, rather than merely an expression of an
idea.
The spokeswoman said Apple has long acknowledged that its
display was inspired by work done by others in the computer
industry. But, she said, Apple claims that the display is its
own through its investment of "time, people and effort" to create
the software.
Xerox said in the suit that Apple's use of the display and
its licensing of it to other computer companies has allowed Apple
to "unjustly" receive royalties and fees of more than $100
million. The suit also asks for at least another $50 million
because Apple's actions constitute "unfair competition and unfair
business practices."
Xerox Chairman and Chief Executive David T. Kearns said
efforts to reach an amicable settlement, including a proposal for
Apple to license the involved software from Xerox, were rebuffed
after Xerox approached Apple last week with a proposal.
Lang Zerner
>The Wall Street Journal article makes it clear (to me, anyhow) that Xerox will
>have a tougher time against Apple than Apple will have against Microsoft:
>
> that he doubts that it can win damages. But he said that the court might
> agree to invalidate the Apple copyrights.
This is actually what I'd prefer to see. When I first heard about this story,
I wanted Xerox to win the settlement, because I feel Apple deserves it for
trying to perpetrate the myth of user-interface ownership. But then I realized
that the myth would be perpetrated even further if Xerox won. I'd be happy if
this were one of the cases that broke the camel's back, that the judge
determines that `this is getting ridiculous,' and declares that both litigants
lose. "Xerox: you lose because you don't own squat; Apple: you lose even more
because you don't own the interface you have attempted to monopolize lige a mad
dog for all these years. Now get the hell out of my courtroom, both of you!"
Aahhhh. :-)
--
Be seeing you...
--Lang Zerner
la...@asylum.sf.ca.us UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz ARPA:la...@athena.mit.edu
"...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"
Marco Papa
>The following article is from the Los Angeles Times, Friday,
>December 15, 1989, page D3.
>
>Xerox Sues Apple Over Graphics Software
>
> A Xerox spokesman said the suit was filed now because recent
>changes in software protection and intellectual property laws
>make it easier to assert its position. He declined to specify
>those changes.
Just a little clarification on this. The "recent changes" clearly
refer to the fact that earlier this year the US joined the Berne
Convention. The "MAJOR" item involved in this is that it is no
longer considered a requirement for copyright protection to put a copyright
notice (the little 'c' enclosed in a circle) to claim copyright protection,
as it was previously. Many lawyers have commented that if the Intel vs. NEC
lawsuit were to be tried today, Intel would win and not lose as it did
because it did not write proper copyright notices on its chips.
It is going to be fun to watch this thing (and the related Apple vs. MS/HP
lawsuit) unravel.
-- Marco
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[.signature under contruction]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
gft_r...@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows,
NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but
all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh).
Robert
============================================================================
= gft_r...@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to =
= * all my opinions are * compute" =
= * mine * -Kraftwerk =
============================================================================
Davin Yap
>OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows,
>NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but
>all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh).
I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent
Apple (<-- scumbags from hell).
--
Sharon Fisher
>
>OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows,
>NeXT Step, etc.? I mean, these may be different from Apple's interface, but
>all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh).
NeXT is already paying licensing fees to Xerox, and has been since
almost the very beginning.
Per Andersson
>gft_r...@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent
>Apple (<-- scumbags from hell).
>--
Considering many of us are using ethernet, which comes mostly from Xerox,
one might say this seems probable. And, quite frankly, Apple deserves it.
One wonders if the reason they haven't sued Atari and Commodore yet is that
they consider their offers not being office computer threats. What will then
happen when Apple again sells machines for home use ( some day ) ?
--
---
Per Andersson
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
per...@admin.kth.se, @nada.kth.se
KUO ANDY Y
>Apple (<-- scumbags from hell).
>--
This world is unfair!
Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for
- giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell?
- shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer?
- rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time?
It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus,
make things look good and friendly.
It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than
EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486).
It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the
manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at
the manual and learn things fast.
But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than
the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness?
What is the good judgement? Where are the users?
If Apple never had continued the work from the star project, will we
users see the windowing interface so early?
If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general*
users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS?
Wouldn't the Xmas be merrier if.....
Paul Eric Menchen
lots of stuff deleted
>
> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than
>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486).
>
Why not include the 80486. From what I here, the 68040 is plenty
faster. I don't remember the specifics - as a matter of fact I don't
think the specs are out but word is it's faster.
Paul Eric Menchen
meu...@grad1.cis.upenn.edu
David Elliott
> "Xerox: you lose because you don't own squat; Apple: you lose even more
>because you don't own the interface you have attempted to monopolize lige a mad
>dog for all these years. Now get the hell out of my courtroom, both of you!"
After which Xerox introduces a new computer system that is faster, cleaner,
easier to learn, more powerful for advanced users, and has better
programming support. Oh, and it has a Mac emulation mode so we can all
run our favorite software.
And the big news: They ship in quantity one month after the machine is
announced!
It could happen.
--
David Elliott
d...@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce | (408)944-4073
"As I never read this newsgroup or my email, please send replies via
carrier pigeon."
Lang Zerner
>In article <67...@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_r...@gsbacd.uchicago.mdu writes:
>>
>>OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows,
>>NeXT Step, etc.?
>
>almost the very beginning.
Sun also licenses from Xerox for their Sunview window system.
Will E Estes
< provides so much software for their machine. Did they think they could get
< away with it without getting the attention of Xerox? Like the old saying goe
s,
< people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Who's kidding whom here? Apple knows exactly what it's doing. It's an
old strategy from poker known as the bluff, and they do it to superb
advantage.
First off, obviously Apple stole Xerox's idea. Steve Jobs visited the
Star project in 1979 and was so impressed with the technology that he
started the Lisa project and the rest is history. I don't know what kind
of paperwork he signed, but assuming that nothing unusual was signed,
the theft of this idea is perfectly legal because you can't copyright
an idea, only its expression.
Second, obviously Microsoft stole Apple's idea. They saw the Mac early on
and instantly fell in love with it and realized they needed something
to compete with it in the MS-DOS world and they shamelessly cloned it.
But because they did not steal the expression of the idea, just the idea,
what they did is perfectly legal.
The issue of look and feel when you *identically* duplicate an
application aside, clearly there are major differences between the Star,
the Mac, and Windows. Clearly, each was developed from scratch and
required major innovation. Clearly, each stole from its predecessor
the basic concepts that make up the environment, but not the exact
expression of those concepts in the form of either code or even look
and feel.
Basically, what all of this comes down to, I think, is that Apple
does not want its healthy profit margins eroded by a clone industry.
Thus Apple has quite astutely used its legal department to intimidate
potential competitors. Apple must know that it cannot win the Microsoft
case, just as it knows that Xerox cannot win a copyright infringement
case against Apple. But it will fight to the end with sterness just
the way a good poker player carries out his bluff to the end. And
I'm sure that if someone tries to clone the Mac, Apple will sue again,
even if it loses the Microsoft case. Just the legal costs of fighting
this in court serve as an effective barrier to entry in Apple's market
segment.
Unfortunately, these lawsuits have very little to do with what is legally
just, and they have a lot to do with marketing strategy.
Will (sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Will)
Matthew T. Russotto
>In article <90...@asylum.SF.CA.US> la...@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) writes:
>> "Xerox: you lose because you don't own squat; Apple: you lose even more
>>because you don't own the interface you have attempted to monopolize lige a mad
>>dog for all these years. Now get the hell out of my courtroom, both of you!"
>
>After which Xerox introduces a new computer system that is faster, cleaner,
>easier to learn, more powerful for advanced users, and has better
>programming support. Oh, and it has a Mac emulation mode so we can all
>run our favorite software.
>
>And the big news: They ship in quantity one month after the machine is
>announced!
software, all of it bug free and with no arbitrary limitations and
a consistant user interface.
Followups to alt.fish.stories.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@eng.umd.edu russ...@wam.umd.edu
][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?
Rick Farris
> Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for
> - giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell?
> - shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer?
> - rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time?
Ha ha ha. If you want to talk about shameless, price a Mac II these
days.
> It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus,
> make things look good and friendly.
^^^^
They may make it *look* friendly, but to an experienced user, a @#$%@
pull down menu'ed interface is anything but friendly. Why should I
be saddled with something I don't want?
> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior
> than EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include
> 80486).
Ho ho ho, you're making my sides hurt... NuBus? Superior to
anything? Ha ha ha. And you're holding up AppleTalk as an example
of something good? Clearly you've never used any of this stuff.
> But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more*
Now the tears are really running out of my eyes. Apple hasn't
provided *more* of anything. In fact, all Apple has done is force
users to use its gui interface. That's pretty fascistic.
The PC world is very democratic. It allows the *user* to decide
whether he wants a gui or a text based system. It allows the user to
determine what sort of LAN he'd like. It allows the user to decide
what sort of display quality he'd like. Apple does none of the
above.
In fact, I'll go on record as stating that there is *far more*
graphics based software avaiable for the PC than there is for Apple.
There is far more *everything* available for the PC than for Apple.
PC's (of an equivalent vintage) have always had better graphics and
much quicker operation than Apples.
Apples "graphic superiority" is a myth.
I hope Xerox sues them into the ground. What I expect is that Xerox
will prove prior art, recover court costs, and then release their
work into the public domain. It's my opinion that they're simply
trying to stop Apple from using Xerox's work to pursue its own
fascistic agenda.
Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793
rfa...@serene.uu.net ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757
Davin Yap
>>
>>I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent
>>Apple (<-- scumbags from hell).
>>--
k...@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) replies:
> This world is unfair!
>
>Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for
>- giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell?
>- shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer?
>- rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time?
Personally I don't have a problem with this - never had. I don't
mind DOS because I accept it as what it truly is: not much more
than a monitor (it ain't an OS if you can get at the hardware).
Then again, my first summer job was writing assembly language
programs for these things back in '85 (aside: I didn't even know
what assembly language was, when I got the job :-) and I can see
how people who can't intuit the innards of DOS/Unix might have
a problem.
>
> It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus,
>make things look good and friendly.
>
> It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the
>manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at
>the manual and learn things fast.
Granted. This is precisely what pisses me off about Apple: a
GUI is wonderful, "but you MUST buy one of OUR machines to use it.
If you buy someone elses machine we expect a small royalty
payment." On another note, I don't know how accurate this
(second-hand) information is, but I've been told that Apple
recently tried to organize a consortium of companies that would
agree to stop offering educational discounts! Sliiimmmeeeeyyyy!
>
> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than
>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486).
Sigh... There are far too many points to consider in that there
sentence of yours. Suffice to say, you haven't brought up any
supporting evidence for your conclusion, nor do I want to get
into a discussion (with you) about any of the above. There are
advantages and disadvantages on both sides. However, I
will go out on a limb and state, based on the contents of your
posting, that you aren't qualified to make such a statement.
Yes, I know them there's fightin' words, but I don't want to
argue. I won't reply - it's not worth it.
>
> But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than
>the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness?
>What is the good judgement? Where are the users?
>
> If Apple never had continued the work from the star project, will we
>users see the windowing interface so early?
Likely; the prices of workstations are dropping dramatically, to
the point where you could almost buy one as a home machine. As
evidenced by Apple NOT suing Sun/Apollo/X-Consortium, Apple was
not the only company taking *risks*(?). With the 'sparcintosh' on
the horizon, the beginning of the end of Apple (as we know it)
is nigh :-).
>
> If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general*
>users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS?
Sorry, I couldn't quite figure out your grammar, but I believe this
sentence amounts to whining. 'nuff said.
>
> Wouldn't the Xmas be merrier if.....
...people who owned Macs (because they couldn't figure out how to
use any other computer) weren't allowed on USENET :-). Yes.
Sorry ;^> I couldn't help myself!! If you're going to leave your
balls on the table, someone's bound to chop them off sooner or
later.
Davin
--
Roy M. Silvernail
| In article <1989Dec17.1...@me.toronto.edu> y...@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes:
| >gft_r...@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes:
| >
| >I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent
| >Apple (<-- scumbags from hell).
| >--
|
| Considering many of us are using ethernet, which comes mostly from Xerox,
| one might say this seems probable. And, quite frankly, Apple deserves it.
| One wonders if the reason they haven't sued Atari and Commodore yet is that
| they consider their offers not being office computer threats. What will then
| happen when Apple again sells machines for home use ( some day ) ?
I had wondered about Apple's reaction to Berkeley Softworks' version of
GEOS for the Apple //... I kept expecting a thunderous lawsuit, until it
occurred to me that Apple is unlikely to do anything that was contrary
to pumping up sales. Since GEOS was likely to boost the //e line, they
doubtless used that rationale to ignore it. (it would have been in
character, though, to have sued BS if an Apple version had never shown
up)
|
| --
| ---
| Per Andersson
| Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
| per...@admin.kth.se, @nada.kth.se
--
_ R_ o_ y _ M_ . _ S_ i_ l_ v_ e_ r_ n_ a_ i_ l | UUCP: uunet!comcon!roy | "No, I don't live in an igloo!"
[ah, but it's my account... of course I opine!] -Sourdough's riposte
SnailMail: P.O. Box 210856, Anchorage, Alaska, 99521-0856, U.S.A., Earth, etc.
Chris Newbold
>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486).
You picked the wrong news group to post this (comp.sys.ibm.pc). In who's
book? I think that you will find, oh, just a few people disagree with this
statement. SCSI is as slow as sh*t. The 68xxx is nice, but I'll take a
'386 or '486 any day of the week. My Compaq 386 eats Mac SE/30's for lunch.
Can you say "upgradable?" That's something that you can do with current
80xxx buses. Try doing that to a Mac without having to pay for an entire
new system board. Can you add the latest video technology to a Mac by dropping
a a board? No, you can even open the damn case without a proprietary tool!!!
Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac. That's
why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines.
I'll die before I use a Mac or any of it's related equipment. It's all junk.
> But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than
>the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness?
>What is the good judgement? Where are the users?
What the hell? Apple *STOLE* it's interface from Xerox. That's illegal.
You want fairness? Xerox should bust Apple on it's ass for trying to rip
off their work, sell it as their own, and then have the balls to sue someone
else over it. Judgement? Yeah, right...
> If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general*
>users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS?
What about UNIX? The interface is little friendlier than DOS, yet it is one
of the most powerful and widely used operating systems...
Brandon G. Lovested
> This world is unfair!
>
> Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for
> - giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell?
> - shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer?
> - rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time?
>
of a suit. If people need certain requirements, and an IBM product
doesn't have them, but still people buy it, then they are idiots. There
is no further issue.
IBM is in deep trouble as we speak. The Third Reich is crumbling...
> It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus,
> make things look good and friendly.
>
It depends on how well windows, etc. are used. Too much of that silly
business, and it loses its advantages.
> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than
> EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486).
>
680x0 superior to 80x86? In what ways, Mr. Computer Engineer?
In some ways, yes, in others, no. "fact"?
> It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the
> manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at
> the manual and learn things fast.
Yeah, like everytime the Mac says something like:
Macintosh cannot read this disk
________
| OK |
~~~~~~~~
Yeah, everybody knows just exactly was has gone wrong here, huh?
Remember, SE stands for System Error.
Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) are advantageous in many, but not all
aspects. Apple's implementation of GUI's is far, far from perfect.
> But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than
> the other impundent company is being "punished". What is fairness?
> What is the good judgement? Where are the users?
>
Apple sued Microsoft because of "Look and Feel" arguments. What's the diff?
Sauce for the goose.
> If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general*
> users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS?
DOS does "inhale with great force," but stating that the 680x0 is
superior is nonsense, and not open minded.
================================================================================
|
Brandon G. Lovested | "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped,
| indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered!
bran...@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM | My life is my own."
|
================================================================================
KUO ANDY Y
>I wrote:
>>Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for
>>- giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell?
>>- shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer?
>>- rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time?
>[lines deleted]
> Then again, my first summer job was writing assembly language
> programs for these things back in '85 (aside: I didn't even know
^^^^^^^^^^^
> what assembly language was, when I got the job :-) and I can see
> how people who can't intuit the innards of DOS/Unix might have
> a problem.
I believe we are at the end of the 80's and almost into the 90's :-).
Back in '85, people would "wow" at a application like MacPaint,
people would be happy if they can see a menu listing of commands.
But today, you will probably want to use some high level language
and make some library/toolbox calls to draw windows, control the mouse,
make the interface "standard".
Assembly language is fast and I have nothing against it, but it is
not practical to program a sophiscated application using it on today's
fast computers.
My main points are : The computer for the general users should not be
command driven.
The real use for computers when *everyone* can
use it as a source for information/communication,
just like a telephone.
To reduce the learning curve and be intuitive, standalized pull
down menus, mouse, window, dialogs is superior than purely command
driven.
I believe the netters will agree with me that the success of UNIX is
not because of its command driven interface. The power is in its system,
after so many fixes.
Here is the point again, why are people building XWindow, *View..etc on
it? If the innard of UNIX is so intuitive, why bother with these
windowing systems?
After one spend enought time with a system, something that's not
so intuitive will become *nature* to him. It is simply unfair
to say that system is "intuitive" to the *general users* when he
spend hours on it.
I probably really have not "intuite the innards of DOS", I think
these GUIs have spoiled me -- and after I have seen what people
are going through with the DOS.
KUO ANDY Y
>>manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at
>>the manual and learn things fast.
>
> Granted. This is precisely what pisses me off about Apple: a
> GUI is wonderful, "but you MUST buy one of OUR machines to use it.
> If you buy someone elses machine we expect a small royalty
> payment." On another note, I don't know how accurate this
> (second-hand) information is, but I've been told that Apple
> recently tried to organize a consortium of companies that would
> agree to stop offering educational discounts! Sliiimmmeeeeyyyy!
[flame on]
Maybe I should have sent this article via e-mail, but it is right
if someone says anything that he is not sure of. Spreading rumors
that one is not sure of only tells that he is irresponsible!
[flame off]
I am not an expert in the copy rights area. But moral tells me that
it is about intellectual property, it is private and the owner has the
right to decide whatever he wishes to do with it.
This is a free country. The issue is regarding the argument between
the owners on this "property". Even if you don't like it, too bad, you
can't intefere with it.
In other words, if Apple would price a Mac+ at the level of a Cray,
it is Apple's business, none of yours. And if you think Apple's is better,
you have to pay for the investment and the man power that Apple have
invested.
Then again, if you want to stick with your non-standard interface,
no one is preventing you from doing it :-)
Gary Kipnis
>In article <1989Dec17....@me.toronto.edu> y...@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes:
>> use any other computer) weren't allowed on USENET :-). Yes.
>
> By the way, just for the record, people don't always use Macs because
> they "couldn't figure out how to use any other". Some of us feel
> that the Mac lets us get more done in the same amount of time.
> And time is valuable to me.
Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc.
Do you call if faster clicking on the 'disk eject' icon and waiting forever
for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster clicking
the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. There
probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than
pc.
gary
KUO ANDY Y
>>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486).
>
> Sigh... There are far too many points to consider in that there
> sentence of yours. Suffice to say, you haven't brought up any
> supporting evidence for your conclusion, nor do I want to get
> into a discussion (with you) about any of the above. There are
> advantages and disadvantages on both sides.
I agree that there are trade-offs. And I did not reach these
conclusions all by myself. I will not want to argue with you either,
at least not before you do some researches yourself.
Just find some technical datas sheets, many of the magazines are also
good souces (some actually do the comparisons for you), walk that extra
mile will not hurt you.
> Likely; the prices of workstations are dropping dramatically, to
> the point where you could almost buy one as a home machine. As
> evidenced by Apple NOT suing Sun/Apollo/X-Consortium, Apple was
> not the only company taking *risks*(?). With the 'sparcintosh' on
> the horizon, the beginning of the end of Apple (as we know it)
> is nigh :-).
When the Macintosh interface became so successful, the companies
which follow it are not taking risks. As a matter of fact, a company
that does not give users GUI is taking risks because they are losing
their grounds :-)
Good idea, workstations as home machines. The price might be
right, but what about the networks? Every home equip with a
9600 baud modem doesn't sound too practicle to me, at least not
now.
You might haven't noticed, the SPARCstation has arrived, and it
has windowing system for it, not totally command driven :-) :-)
Question, what is the evidence that Apple will not sue these
other companies? :-)
KUO ANDY Y
>In article <14...@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, I wrote:
>> EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>680x0 superior to 80x86?
?????
>[...many lines deleted]
>> If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general*
>> users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS?
>DOS does "inhale with great force," but stating that the 680x0 is
>superior is nonsense, and not open minded. ^^^^^
Just for clarification. I haven't been reading too much about
the 80486 and it does looks pretty good, so I left it out. Please
open your eyes a little bit, don't mix thing together.
Also, the "80xxx" includes the 8088 and 8086. The 68xxx does not
include 68040 and not the 6800 series as they was never in the Mac.
Sorry about the confusion.
BTW, it won't be fair if you would try to compare a 68000 with
a 80386 just like it won't be fair to compare a 8088 with 68030 :-)
Paul Eric Menchen
couldn't.
In article <45...@ur-cc.UUCP> you write:
>In article <14...@boulder.Colorado.EDU> k...@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes:
>> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than
>>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486).
>
>You picked the wrong news group to post this (comp.sys.ibm.pc). In who's
>book?
I didn't originally post this, but it is in my book.
> I think that you will find, oh, just a few people disagree with this
>statement. SCSI is as slow as sh*t.
Why? How? You give no method for evaluation. SCSI is very fast in my
book. When originally conceived it could transfer a meg in a second.
It's faster now. How's that compare to an interface on an IBM? For
more specs on the SCSI interface, I would refer you to an article in
MacUser, mid 1988. I can give you the specifics (date, page numbers)
if you want. I think proof of the SCSI is the fact it has been
adopted by other computer makers.
>The 68xxx is nice, but I'll take a '386 or '486 any day of the week.
Why? My 68020 runs at 16MHz. I can buy a 68030 that runs at 32 for
under a thousand, and if I had the money I could buy one that runs at
50 MHz. Such a product is available today. Does anything approach
this on an IBM machine. By the way, the 68040 will run faster that the
'486, although I will admit it's not out yet, but since I can get a
'30 that runs faster, I guess you've already lost.
>My Compaq 386 eats Mac SE/30's for lunch.
I don't think the SE/30 is the greatest myself. Could you elaborate
on how how your Compaq eats it for lunch? Give me specifics so we can
really debate instead of listen to unsupported claims.
>Can you say "upgradable?"
Yes, that's why I bought a Mac II (further discussion on this note
will follow).
>That's something that you can do with current
>80xxx buses. Try doing that to a Mac without having to pay for an entire
>new system board.
OK, I will. I hopefully will put in a 68030 accelerator, which plugs
into the board, no replacement needed. Maybe if I wanted to lower my
standards I could buy a NuBus '386 board. Then I could do everything
you can do. Can you plug in a Mac 68030 board and run all my programs?
>Can you add the latest video technology to a Mac by dropping
>a a board?
Yes. I plan to upgrade to 256 colors over Christmas. Price is $49.
I'd like to plug in a 24 bit board, but I don't have $800 or so. Can
an IBM support 24 bit color? 19" Sony monitors with 24 bit color? Does
the IBM support the latest in video technology? What is the lastest.
Nothing I've seen on the IBM is the lastest. 32 bit Quickdraw on a
Sony 19" might be.
> No, you can even open the damn case without a proprietary tool!!!
Actually, I open mine with a screwdrive, phillips I think. After
removing the screw which is only a safety precaution, I hold two
latches and viola!
>Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac.
Please explain. I think I've explained above all the ways I can
customize my system. What can't I do? I can even make it IBM
compatible, hook up drive to read all formats of IBM disks (DaynaFile
makes the best drives for this purpose - they let you avoid dos by
presenting the disks in a Finder environment. A problem with IBM
customization follows below.
>That's why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines.
I think we need a little standardization. I spent hours configuring
Pagemaker to run on an IBM '386 this summer. We had to select mouse
types, this type, that type. The Mac standardizes some things and
makes other things easily changeable. Respond and I'll give specifics.
>I'll die before I use a Mac or any of it's related equipment. It's
>all junk.
You give absolutely no explanation here. I guess you'll die a life
that could have been so much better. How can yoy make comparisons with
a machine you've never used or plan to use?
>What the hell? Apple *STOLE* it's interface from Xerox. That's illegal.
>You want fairness? Xerox should bust Apple on it's ass for trying to rip
>off their work, sell it as their own, and then have the balls to sue someone
>else over it. Judgement? Yeah, right...
If you believe this, then you have to believe MicroSoft and HP stole
it as well, from whom we'll let the courts decide. I've written
enough for now and will let the lawyers have this one.
>
>> If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general*
>>users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS?
>
>What about UNIX? The interface is little friendlier than DOS, yet it is one
>of the most powerful and widely used operating systems...
Who said most used meant best? Buy the way, Macs can run UNIX too,
including X-Windows and everything else. Can your IBM do that?
>
>--
>>>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you *
>University of Rochester * will screw it up." *
>Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice."
>ctne...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunet
I've worked on Macs for a number of years, and bought a Mac II system
about a year and a half ago. Sure, I spent a little more than an IBM
system, but you can't say I spent more than an equivalent IBM system
because there isn't such a thing.
Also, I worked at a company that used IBMs this summer, so I have a
lot to base my decisions on. You've never touched a Mac and never
plan to do so. I like to keep an open mind, so I worked on IBMs for
more than three months. After this time, I respect and appreciate my
Mac even more. I worked for APS Communications Corp. putting together
a phonebook in Spanish in San Antonio, TX. We had three IBM machines,
two '386 and one '286, hooked up to an NEC Silentwriter PostScript
printer. We were using Aldus Pagemaker 3.0, a program I have used on
the Mac for about a year and half. While some of these may reflect
deficiencies of that program, I think they also offer insight to the
IBM platform.
Pagemaker was slooww. You give no benchmarks of basis of comparison.
I've used the same program on both machines and I can tell you it was
slower on the IBM. Pagemaker isn't the fastest on any machine (I think
Quark Xpress is better - Can you get that for an IBM?), but simply
changing pages was tedious onthe IBMs.
Features from the program were
missing on the IBM version. What happened to image control on
imported graphics? We could do some things, but nothing like on the
Mac (i.e. adjust contrast, give an arbitray grey-map, solarize). You
might say there are other programs that can do these things. You
might not. I don't now if they exist for the IBM. I know they do for
the Mac. My point is Pagemaker for the Mac has these feature, PM for
the IBM doesn't.
What happened to removing styles from the palette? We kept getting
errors. When we called tech support, they said once it was created,
it couldn't be removed. Aauggh.
What about not using a mouse? When we got out third machine, we
didn't get a mouse for a few days. PM was useless. On a Mac you can
use Easy Access (I think you hit the shift key five times) to let you
use the arrow keys instead of a mouse. On the IBM, nothing. We
called Aldus tech support on this one as well. "What can we do?"
"GET A MOUSE!" was their reply. So much for customization.
Printing was a pain. We couldn't network the machines easily like
Macs to one laser printer. Instead, we had to hook up an A/B/C/D box
and switch it whenever someone else had to print. This resulted in a
lot of "Are you done printing?" The printer wasn't smart enough
either to recognize what it was sent. A Mac laser printer can print
text when printing from MacWrite or printing program listings, or
PostScript when printing from PM or some other PostScript program. If
we wanted to change on the IBM, we had to maually change the printer
mode on the printer. When this wasn't done (and this did happen,
especially in the morning after the boss had it in Diablo mode for
printing out things late the night before (he had his own computer in
another room but couldn't network it to our laser printer - you could
with Macs)) we got pages of raw PostScript. We began to joke about
"Oh, how I love raw PostScript in the morning."
Colors were terrible, even with EGA. I guess you get 256 colors, but
out of a palette of how many? The Mac give you a choice of 16.7
million.
I have given straight comparisons, with data when appropriate and
available, from an experienced backround on both machines. When you
can do this same, I will continue this discussion.
Paul Eric Menchen
meu...@grad1.cis.upenn.edu
I am solely responsible for everything I've said,
although I'm sure there are thousands (more, actually)
of other Mac users (probably some IBM users as well)
who will agree with me.
Keith Gabryelski
>include 80486).
I dunno, have you seen the latest recalls of the 80486 and the many
notices of bug reports?
Follow-ups set to alt.religion.computers; possibly a better place
would be alt.flame.
Pax, Keith
--
a...@amix.commodore.com Keith Gabryelski ...!cbmvax!amix!ag
Robert K Shull
> (second-hand) information is, but I've been told that Apple
> recently tried to organize a consortium of companies that would
> agree to stop offering educational discounts! Sliiimmmeeeeyyyy!
Actually, they were leading a fight AGAINST an attempt to make educational
discounts ILLEGAL (led by some dealers who feel that educational discounts
are unfair competition).
>> Wouldn't the Xmas be merrier if.....
>
> ...people who owned Macs (because they couldn't figure out how to
> use any other computer) weren't allowed on USENET :-). Yes.
...people checked their facts first. Yes.
By the way, just for the record, people don't always use Macs because
they "couldn't figure out how to use any other". Some of us feel
that the Mac lets us get more done in the same amount of time.
And time is valuable to me.
> Sorry ;^> I couldn't help myself!! If you're going to leave your
> balls on the table, someone's bound to chop them off sooner or
know just how you feel.
> Davin
--
Robert K. Shull
r...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu chinet!uokmax!rob
Tony Jacobs
RED ALERT!
NETWORK CRAP FILTERS ENGAGING!
ALL CROSS-POSTING DISABLED!
INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION HAS CEASED, EVERYONE ^K IMMEDIATELY
AND ABANDON THE NET.
all further replys to this thread will be dealt with the most extreme fines and
punishments. all transmission costs and wasted time will be automatically
billed back to those who continue to add to this lack of intelligence.
signed
THE NET POLICE
-------------
they asked me to forward this announcement as they couldn't get through with
the biggest shovel they had! ;^)
Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-ja...@cs.utah.edu
Ian ROWLANDS
>
>Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc.
>Do you call if faster clicking on the 'disk eject' icon and waiting forever
>for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster clicking
>the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. There
>probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than
>pc.
Please, please,please STOP this cross-posting! If you want to score points
about PC being better than a Mac, don't post your article to an Amiga group.
I don't want to read your crap, and anyone who does can read the appropriate
group for it. DON'T just press 'f' or 'F' without checking the cross-posting
groups. I know it is harder, but if you did it you wouldn't see this type of
crap either.
This will be my last cross-posting to so many groups, and try to make sure
I don't read any similar articles (this and the one above!).
[Flame off]
If you want to flame me, go for it (see the address in the .sig). But
don't expect a nice reply.
Ian.
Ian Rowlands | "I don't want to be political, but you
Dept. of Electrical Engineering | can't trust the ALP!"
University of Melbourne | -Joh Bjelke-Petersen
Email :- ia...@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au | (Flames to ia...@uluru.ecr.mu.oz.au)
Jeff d'Arcy
> Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc.
The most obvious example is "train someone else to use it". My next example
would be writing a memo/resume/spec. that didn't look like I did it on a
cheap typewriter (multiple fonts/sizes, proportional spacing etc). I know
this is dependent on a LaserWriter and that you can also do it on a PC, but
you asked what an average person could do *faster* on a Mac.
> There
> probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than
> pc.
You seem to've missed the point here; the whole idea of the Mac is to get
away from *commands*. If you want to talk about which *activities* can be
performed faster on Macs, see the above.
Since I'm posting anyway, I'd like to add my two cents' worth about Xerox's
suit and Apple's corporate arrogance. It seems to me that the suit is an
attempt to prevent Apple from making money off of Xerox technology, not to
prevent Apple from *using* it or to make money for Xerox. In this I think
it's similar to Bucky Fuller's idea of patenting something and releasing
the patent into the public domain, preventing anyone from making money off
of his ideas.
I programmed Macs for 3-4 years, and I like the little buggers, but I've
always tried to recognize other machines' strengths. Since this has led
to my current involvement with UNIX I think I have some perspective on the
issue. Xerox did some *very* valuable and *expensive* work to determine
how user interfaces should work. Apple took the results of this work and
made it available to the public. Both companies deserve lots of credit.
Apple's insistence on "owning" the interface is absurd because not only
were they not its inventors, but it's not so much a new technology as it
is a new area of study. Anyone else could duplicate Xerox's experiments
with mice (n buttons), light pens, tablets, icons, windows, menus, etc.
and it would surprise nobody if they got the same results. With those
results in hand, they would logically come up with an interface basically
similar to Apple/Xerox. How, then, can either company own an interface
that's inevitable given the way human perceptions work?
Much as I like the Mac, its interface is not perfect. This is partly
because of developers who fail to appreciate the effort that went into
creating "the rules", but part is also inherent. Ever try to do pipes
on a Mac? How about real multitasking (MultiFinder doesn't help much
when you're trying to write network daemons and such)? If I could have
an interface as intuitive as the Mac's on a machine with a real OS I'd
be very happy. Fortunately my wait is getting shorter, mainly because
Apple is failing to maintain their chokehold on interface technology.
Jeff d'Arcy OS/Network Software Engineer jda...@encore.com
If Encore endorsed my opinions, they couldn't afford to pay me
i...@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk
> OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows,
> all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh).
>
>
Hopefully, it will mean the end of these `look and feel' lawsuits. After all,
everyone's been doing it to everyone else, it's about time Xerox got in on the
act.
By the way, Apple could easily win this by slapping an injunction on Xerox to
stop them using the `look and feel' of Apple lawyers :-)
Ian
Mark Storin
>In article <90...@asylum.SF.CA.US> sha...@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes:
>>In article <67...@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_r...@gsbacd.uchicago.mdu writes:
>>>
>>>OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows,
>>>NeXT Step, etc.?
>>
>>NeXT is already paying licensing fees to Xerox, and has been since
>>almost the very beginning.
>
>Sun also licenses from Xerox for their Sunview window system.
>
I am told AT&T also licenses from Xerox for Open Look. Looks like the
industry already recognizes Xerox as the defacto owners of the technology.
This, I would believe, could only help Xerox.
What I'd like to see is Xerox win just to put Apple in their place and then
turn around and grant licences for the technology at some rediculously low
price (to everyone but Apple that is :-).
--
Mark A. Storin
Lake Systems, Milw., WI
ma...@lakesys.lakesys.COM
Robert J Woodhead
>In article <14...@boulder.Colorado.EDU> k...@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes:
>> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than
>>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486).
>You picked the wrong news group to post this (comp.sys.ibm.pc). In who's
>book? I think that you will find, oh, just a few people disagree with this
>statement. SCSI is as slow as sh*t. The 68xxx is nice, but I'll take a
>'386 or '486 any day of the week. My Compaq 386 eats Mac SE/30's for lunch.
>Can you say "upgradable?" That's something that you can do with current
>80xxx buses. Try doing that to a Mac without having to pay for an entire
>new system board. Can you add the latest video technology to a Mac by dropping
>a a board? No, you can even open the damn case without a proprietary tool!!!
>Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac. That's
>why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines.
Talk about rampant misinformation from both sides. Just to let you know, the
SE/30 does have an expansion slot; and the whole Mac II family is just chock
full of them. SCSI isn't slow as shit. And remember on a Mac you get the
networking for the cost of a wire. Your Compaq 386 costs more than a SE/30,
and yes, it's faster. Big deal. Speed is important in only a subset of the
tasks computers are used for. You and I might need it for compiling or
3D modelling, but Joe-average-user doesn't care if it takes 1 second or 2
to recalculate his spreadsheet; he just wants to be able to use it without
spending 5 minutes figuring out each keypress.
>I'll die before I use a Mac or any of it's related equipment. It's all junk.
We won't weep for you. And please substantiate this slight on Apple Q&A.
>What the hell? Apple *STOLE* it's interface from Xerox. That's illegal.
Apple took the original ideas of the GUI developed at Xerox and radically
improved them, as anyone who has used the Xerox interface and the Mac can
tell you. In all honesty, Apple should be paying a license fee, same as
the rest. But let's be fair; Apple did more than any other company to
popularize and promote GUI's, and Macs are still the easiest to use machine
around; check out the statistics on training costs sometime. For all the
talk about User Interfaces, Apple was the first company to preach about
offering a consistant UI across all programs, and attempt to enforce it.
>What about UNIX? The interface is little friendlier than DOS, yet it is one
>of the most powerful and widely used operating systems...
Saying UNIX is friendlier than DOS is like saying STALIN was nicer than
HITLER. The above statement gets my vote for the most unintentionally
hilarious statement of the month on USENET.
Both of these guys don't know what the hell they are talking about. Lemme
set you straight.
Some people like Mac's, and some people like PC's. Mac people should use
Macs, and PC people should use PCs. And like other religious cults, they
should stop proselytizing. We have enough Jihads going on the world
already.
--
Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | tre...@biar.UUCP
Announcing TEMPORAL EXPRESS. For only $999,999.95 (per page), your message
will be carefully stored, then sent back in time as soon as technologically
possible. TEMEX - when it absolutely, postively has to be there yesterday!
Wm E Davidsen Jr
| Apple must know that it cannot win the Microsoft
| case, just as it knows that Xerox cannot win a copyright infringement
| case against Apple.
Xerox has a patent on some of the technology. This gives them the
chance to go after Apple two ways. As to Apple suing a clone maker is
they lose to Microsoft and/or Xerox, they have a good legal department,
and would have to be VERY careful about a suit. There is a legal action
for damages which can be brought in countersuit, based on the legal
principle that "you can be sued for harrasment if you file a suit which
you know has no legal merit."
Certainly having just had their copyrights declared invalid or
unenforcable would open them to such a suit. I would expect a suit on
much more narrow grounds.
--
bill davidsen (davi...@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called
'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see
that the world is flat!" - anon
Robert J Woodhead
>Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc.
>There probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a
>mac than pc.
Oh god this is just too easy. Gary you really are as bad, in your own way,
as a Mac zealot. Why watch the Comedy Channel when I can read your messages?
In answer to your question:
1) Launching a wordprocessor and reading in a document.
DOS <name of program> <name of document>
Mac <clickety click> (on document)
2) Deleting a file
DOS era <name of file>
Mac <click> ...drag... <kcilc> (thats releasing a press)
3) Selecting a word in a document.
DOS <lots of keys to move> <Ctrl-Alt-Fn-37>
Mac <clickety click>
4) Selecting a couple of sentences in the middle of a paragraph
DOS <lots of keys to move>
Function-Whatever
<lots more keys>
Function-Whatever
Mac <click> ...drag... <kcilc>
I'll give you this; you are much more entertaining than the Mac zealot you
are fighting with.
Stephen King
Any operation on a numeric array with more than 64k of data.
Steven R. Jacobs
> command driven.
> The real use for computers when *everyone* can
> use it as a source for information/communication,
> just like a telephone.
>
> To reduce the learning curve and be intuitive, standalized pull
> down menus, mouse, window, dialogs is superior than purely command
> driven.
Menus and mice are great when you are first learning to use a system, but
they get in the way of experienced users. An ideal system should not
_force_ the user to use a mouse/menu system, just as an ideal system
should not _force_ the user to type commands. An ideal system should
allow the user to use _either_ the mouse or the keyboard, based on the
preference of the user. Neither the Mac nor the PC are even close to
ideal in this regard. Apple had a great opportunity to make an ideal
system with the Mac, but they blew it by forcing the mouse on everyone.
Sure, lots of applications will give you a choice in many commands, but
this is not part of the standard interface -- you can't even start up
the application without using the mouse. This is a bug, not a feature.
It would have been better if everything could be done both ways.
> I believe the netters will agree with me that the success of UNIX is
> not because of its command driven interface. The power is in its system,
> after so many fixes.
> Here is the point again, why are people building XWindow, *View..etc on
> it? If the innard of UNIX is so intuitive, why bother with these
> windowing systems?
The point _isn't_ that mice/menus are bad. The point is that being
*forced* to use the mouse is bad. For many, it is much more efficient
to type in commands rather than drag the mouse through a bunch of
menus. For others, it is much easier to use the menus. The Mac
doesn't give the user much choice. If keyboards are so evil, then
why do so many Mac applications have keystroke "shortcuts" for most
of their commands? Again, giving the user a _choice_ is a better
solutions.
--
Steve Jacobs ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jac...@cs.utah.edu)
Daniel Poirot
>>
>>OK, if Xerox were to win, wouldn't they also claim copyright over Windows,
>>all seem to be similar to STAR (and to Macintosh).
>
>almost the very beginning.
As does IBM, HP and Microsoft...
Sean Malloy
>>Can you say "upgradable?"
>Yes, that's why I bought a Mac II (further discussion on this note
>will follow).
>>Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac.
>Please explain. I think I've explained above all the ways I can
>customize my system. What can't I do? I can even make it IBM
>compatible, hook up drive to read all formats of IBM disks (DaynaFile
>makes the best drives for this purpose - they let you avoid dos by
>presenting the disks in a Finder environment. A problem with IBM
>customization follows below.
You might want to pay a little closer attention to what the original
poster was writing. He was talking about the Macintosh, not the Mac
II. You know, the computer disguised as a toaster? They've managed to
cram a hard disk, more memory, and a second floppy drive inside them,
but that's about the limit of customization.
>>That's why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines.
>I think we need a little standardization. I spent hours configuring
>Pagemaker to run on an IBM '386 this summer. We had to select mouse
>types, this type, that type. The Mac standardizes some things and
>makes other things easily changeable. Respond and I'll give specifics.
A necessary consequence of having so much freedom in assembling an
80x86 system is that the software needs to be told what all the
different pieces are. When you limit yourself to the "any color you
want as long as it's black" design parameters of the Mac, you don't
need the customization.
< text deleted >
>Colors were terrible, even with EGA. I guess you get 256 colors, but
>out of a palette of how many? The Mac give you a choice of 16.7
>million.
Correction. The _Mac II_ gives you a choice of 16.7 million colors. A
_Mac Plus_ gives you any color you want to use from the set [white black].
With IBM's architecture, going from monochrome graphics to high-resolution
color graphics requires that you buy a new video card and monitor. With the
Macintosh architecture, going from monochrome graphics to
high-resolution color requires that you sell your Mac Plus and buy a
Mac II. An amazing cost differential.
>I have given straight comparisons, with data when appropriate and
>available, from an experienced backround on both machines. When you
>can do this same, I will continue this discussion.
By basing all of your counterexamples on the fact that _you_ own a Mac
II and ignoring all of the 'toaster' Macs that are out there, you are
essentially putting yourself in the same group as the twits who tell
people "Of course it won't run on an 8088. Buy a 386 machine." If
_everybody_ who owned a Mac had a Mac II, your arguments would be
valid; all of the people who don't own the top-of-the-line Mac systems
are obviously dust under your feet and their opinions are unimportant.
>I am solely responsible for everything I've said,
>although I'm sure there are thousands (more, actually)
>of other Mac users (probably some IBM users as well)
>who will agree with me.
Ha.
Sean Malloy | ". . . They always have an air
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | of cheap melodrama about them."
San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | "You will find, my dear, that
mal...@nprdc.navy.mil | _true_ melodrama _never_ comes
| cheap."
Wm E Davidsen Jr
| Why not include the 80486. From what I here, the 68040 is plenty
| faster. I don't remember the specifics - as a matter of fact I don't
| think the specs are out but word is it's faster.
I think it's early to say what the performance, cost, or reliability
of the 040 are. For that matter I don't think we really know what the
486 will be, other than a lot faster next year (supposedly the 50MHz
version will ship in 1990). Certainly the 486 seems a lot more developed
in terms of available machines which use it.
Does the 040 have the FPU built in? I'm told the memory manager is
there, but I have heard nothing reliable on the 040. And the leaked
performance figures have all been at 33 or 40MHz, so they are not only
possibly inaccurate, but need to be scaled somehow, too.
I doubt that either chip will push the other off the market, and I
would bet that the 486 will sell a lot more units because of the demand
for fast DOS machines. This will bring down the cost of manufacture,
although I wouldn't bet on either Intel or Motorola dropping prices a lot.
Note I haven't said one was better than the other...
Bill Gieske
> It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus,
> make things look good and friendly.
If you need a computer to hold your hand... If you're smart, all that shit
gets in the way.
> It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the
> manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at
> the manual and learn things fast.
I've never had to buy a book; the manual was MORE than enough.
> But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than
> the other impundent company is being "punished".
BULLSHIT! There is no risk in stealing ideas, other than in being caught.
And they bastardized the idea with things like single button mice, because
they deemed point-and-click eacy to market, especially when I didn't have to
decide which button to click. That gives you an idea of the intelligence
level they aimed for.
> If *some* people would not be so close minded...
I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems
hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things
need no defense - they stand on their own merits.
Wm E Davidsen Jr
| Good idea, workstations as home machines. The price might be
| right, but what about the networks? Every home equip with a
| 9600 baud modem doesn't sound too practicle to me, at least not
| now.
People have a strange idea of what's a workstation. A Sun2 or 3/50 is
a "workstation," but a 386 running SysV, with NFS and X-windows is
always called "a PC running UNIX." I think it's just name dropping,
myself. We have a few people here running SL/IP to home of 9600 baud
lines. They tell me that V.32 works better than proprietary modes, at
least those from Telebit and Vadic.
David Casseres
> What the hell? Apple *STOLE* it's interface from Xerox.
That, apparently, is for the courts to decide. You'd think that if this
was true, Xerox might have said something eight years ago, wouldn't you?
> That's illegal.
> You want fairness? Xerox should bust Apple on it's ass for trying to rip
> off their work, sell it as their own, and then have the balls to sue
> someone else over it.
As for "their work," the mouse and windows were invented by Doug
Englebart's group at SRI in the 60's, NOT by Xerox. Get a clue.
David Casseres
(Yes, I know I should shut up, but ...)
David Casseres
> Menus and mice are great when you are first learning to use a system, but
> they get in the way of experienced users.
Sorry, but this is an absurd statement. There are many thousands of
experienced users who are very happy with the Mac interface.
> ...An ideal system should
> allow the user to use _either_ the mouse or the keyboard, based on the
> preference of the user.
This may be so, but the expense of developing two user interfaces for one
system would be rather high. The real benefit of a type-in user interface
comes in being able to write a script of many commands to be executed as a
batch, and in applications where this makes sense, the application
developers have provided macro facilities that serve the purpose. For
programmers, Apple's own MPW offers a highly customizable interface that
give you just about as much type-in as you want, or as little. There is
no real need to provide something as specialized as a type-in interface at
the system level, forcing everyone to pay for it.
> Neither the Mac nor the PC are even close to
> ideal in this regard. Apple had a great opportunity to make an ideal
> system with the Mac, but they blew it by forcing the mouse on everyone.
There is nothing in the Mac that forces any application to use the mouse.
In the early days of the Mac, quite a few developers did quick ports of
their PC applications, with type-in interfaces, to the Mac. Guess what?
Nobody would buy them. SOMEBODY wants the mouse whole lot!
> Sure, lots of applications will give you a choice in many commands, but
> this is not part of the standard interface -- you can't even start up
> the application without using the mouse. This is a bug, not a feature.
No, friend, this is a feature that you don't like.
> If keyboards are so evil, then
> why do so many Mac applications have keystroke "shortcuts" for most
> of their commands?
Because that is a standard part of the Mac user interface.
> Again, giving the user a _choice_ is a better solution.
Talk to the application developers.
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
Sean Smith
>including X-Windows and everything else. Can your IBM do that?
Yep. If I had a 386. Will all Macs run UNIX?
> We were using Aldus Pagemaker 3.0, a program I have used on
>the Mac for about a year and half. While some of these may reflect
>deficiencies of that program, I think they also offer insight to the
>IBM platform.
Pagemaker on the PC is a dog. Desktop publishing of any sort shouldn't
be done on a PC. It isn't a good comparison - try Excel, which runs with
approximately the same interface on both the PC and Mac.
>We couldn't network the machines easily like
>Macs to one laser printer. Instead, we had to hook up an A/B/C/D box
>and switch it whenever someone else had to print. This resulted in a
>lot of "Are you done printing?" The printer wasn't smart enough
>either to recognize what it was sent. A Mac laser printer can print
>text when printing from MacWrite or printing program listings, or
>PostScript when printing from PM or some other PostScript program. If
Sure, they can be networked easily, but they are as slow as molasses
running uphill in January when the system's loaded. I know - I work in an
area where we have networks of both PC's and Macs. And the Macs are slower
by a long shot. Want to bring up Excel? Double click in the icon and wait
1 minute (literally - when the system's loaded down). On the PC network?
Type in EXCEL and wait about 20 seconds, if that. No matter if the system's
near full or what.
Which brings me to another point - GUI's. Personally, I hate 'em.
Which already makes me loathe the Mac, but not so *if I could ditch the GUI
for a command line environment*. That is one of my big gripes about the Mac -
it's nearly impossible to get a command line environment like DOS for a
*reasonable* price.
Sean
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Sean Smith - Damage Inc. "Let me tell you what you're trying |
| Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada to say..." 01SS...@AC.DAL.CA too |
| These ideas are mine...ALL MINE!!! *maniacal laughter* |
Roger R. Espinosa
>
> I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems
> hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things
> need no defense - they stand on their own merits.
Huh?
Funny, I've yet to meet an open-minded MS-DOS user. Or an open-minded
Apple // user. Or an open-minded Amiga user. Or an open-minded Macintosh
user.
Sorry, Bill, but my SE is exactly what I *want* in a computer. The menus
on the screen aren't a bloody hand to hold (geez), anymore than you MS-DOS
people have those idiotic keyboard reference cards ("What?" Bill says, "*I*
don't use keyboard reference cards...").
Yeah, what I think "stinks" is having to go through elaborate installation
mechanisms to get new software on the machine. "Stinks" is having different
graphics resolutions, none of which are compatible with the other (oh gee,
Bill, sorry that the Mac can do this...) "Stinks" is when the software/
hardware combination doesn't *help* at all to bring technology down from
the technical to a greater population.
I try to be open-minded. But I can't stand when some people are "hell bent"
on telling me that my "piece of shit" is just a toy ... when most of the
new software coming out for their "power machines" sure seems to resemble
the stuff that runs on mine...
Never mind. If you can't figure out that each computer has its strength
and there are very few "pieces of shit" out there (the only machine I'd
consider garbage is the TI 99/4A, and heck, *that* has devoted followers
still), then ... it's hopeless.
Roger
r...@ihlpn.ATT.COm
the Wizard of Speed and Time
comp.sys.amiga. Please? We already know the real answer anyways :-) :-)
--
Rich Carreiro - Most Biased Boston Celtics Fan! "So long, farewell, and may
ARPA: rlc...@space.mit.edu the forces of evil become
UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!space.mit.edu!rlcarr confused on the way to your
BITNET: rlc...@space.mit.edu door!" - George Carlin
Lumsdon
credit to Xerox. I know that some of the GUI vendors have purchased
licenses from Xerox for the icon & mouse concepts.
On a side note, IEEE Computer magazine had a fascinating article about
the Xerox Star machnie sometime during the past 8 months.
Go Xerox!
Taking a __long__ side trip, changes in patent laws have made is possible
to patent software under certain conditions. It goes something like....
you can patent the software that controls the flight path of a missile,
or controls a physical device that controls a process or device, but
you can't patent the software that controls a computer part or peripheral.
---
Esther Lumsdon
David Taylor Research Center
Annapolis Lab cm 301-267-3816 av 281-3816
Michael Thomas Niehaus
Absurd "macho he-man" statement #1 (talking about using the mouse and menus):
If you need a computer to hold your hand... If you're smart, all that shit
gets in the way.
This is not true. When you need power is when the mouse and menus become more
helpful. As a computer science major, I would be lost without using Think's C
with its multiple windows, integrated debugger, data-structure viewing, and
menus. The mouse saves much time. As a business management major, I also
work with lots of numbers and statistics. Sure, I can do a graph with Lotus
1-2-3, but I would much rather choose a menu item that lets me look at the
data in another way.
Definely true statement #1:
I've never had to buy a book; the manual was MORE than enough.
Unfortunately for many MS-DOS applications, the book is more than enough.
Kind of like having to check out the whole set of encyclopedias to read an
article on IBM. The information is there, just hard to get at. Why are
Word Perfect and Lotus books best sellers?
Humerous statement #1:
BULLSHIT! There is no risk in stealing ideas, other than in being caught.
I guess this means that if you don't get caught, everything is fine.
Humerous statement #2:
I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems
hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things
need no defense - they stand on their own merits.
I like to think that I am open-minded. I like Macintosh machines. I like
MS-DOS machines. I like VAX machines. I like Unix machines. Each has its
strong points. Each definitely has its weak points. But many people here
are shooting down the strong points of the computers as though they were weak
points. You have to make many considerations, not defenses.
* The Mac uses a mouse, and is consistent in the use of a mouse. This is
good.
* MS-DOS is a simple operating system. This is good, too. The trick is to
make the operating system more powerful without requiring a more-powered
user. Apple has done this with the Mac OS, and from what I have seen of
OS/2 so far, IBM is trying the same thing.
* Character-based systems are good. Say this in 5 years and watch yourself
get laughed out of the place. The flexibility is just not there.
* MS-DOS machines give you everything you need in one box. Sure, fine, great.
But so do Macs, Amiga, NeXTs, Suns, VAXen, and yes, even Apple IIs.
* The 80286/80386/80486 are all in the same league as the 68000/68020/68030.
Each will serve the purpose. So unless you are a processor designer, let's
stay away from this argument.
Press 'n' now if you can't take any more...
At least Mac users will try to carry on intelligent discussions without ranting
and raving.
-Michael
--
Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
Apple Student Rep ARPA: mith...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0...@applelink.apple.com)
Jeff d'Arcy
> I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems
> hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things
> need no defense - they stand on their own merits.
%sarcasm on
I have yet to meet an open-minded IBM PC user; if they were open-minded they
switched to the Mac or to UNIX.
%sarcasm off
Let's keep the stupid personal attacks out of this, eh? Your comments have
done very little to raise the discussion out the pseudo-religious muck.
Steven R. Jacobs
> In article <JACOBS.89D...@cmos.cs.utah.edu> jac...@cs.utah.edu
>(Steven R. Jacobs) writes:
>> Menus and mice are great when you are first learning to use a system, but
>> they get in the way of experienced users.
>
> Sorry, but this is an absurd statement. There are many thousands of
> experienced users who are very happy with the Mac interface.
"100,000 Mac users can't be wrong ..." Tell me about absurd. You entirely
missed my point. I'm not telling anybody not to use mice/menus etc. They
are great for doing many things, especially when learning to use a new
software package. All I'm saying is that mice/menus aren't the best way
to do _everything_, and there is a lot to be said for letting the user
decide when they are best.
I'm well aware that there are grundles of happy Mac'ers out there, but
there are also many thousands of Mac users that get tired of digging
through menus to do everything, when some simple typed commands would
perform the same operation on any system that had a little support for
typed commands.
> There is nothing in the Mac that forces any application to use the mouse.
> In the early days of the Mac, quite a few developers did quick ports of
> their PC applications, with type-in interfaces, to the Mac. Guess what?
> Nobody would buy them. SOMEBODY wants the mouse whole lot!
You are putting words in my mouth that I did not use. All I said was that
it is better to give the user a choice. All commands with no mouse support
is almost as bad as all mouse support with no support for commands.
>> Sure, lots of applications will give you a choice in many commands, but
>> this is not part of the standard interface -- you can't even start up
>> the application without using the mouse. This is a bug, not a feature.
>
> No, friend, this is a feature that you don't like.
I'm merely suggesting ways to improve on a good thing. After all,
progress is not made by people that are satified with the status quo.
>> Again, giving the user a _choice_ is a better solution.
>
> Talk to the application developers.
Why gripe to the application developers about a fundamental flaw in
the system? All of the serious applications that I've seen have much
better keyboard support than the Finder.
Lumsdon
I disagree thoroughly with the person posting from UC at Boulder about
Apple taking risks to develop the Mac and Lisa GUI. Apple built upon
work done by _lots_ of other people (not just Xerox). Apple took advantage
of the fact that legal protection of software hadn't kept up with the
economic value of software, and didn't license technology from anyone,
nor give them credit for their work.
Then, when law had changed to improve legal protection of software,
Apple sued companies who had used Apple's developments in a similar
manner to how Apple had used previous developments.
In my humble opinion,
1. Pepsi-style management has hurt Apple. The company was less litigous
before Sculley. Their approach to pricing their products hasn't changed.
2. Apple is being a baby. They're saying "I can use other people, but
they can't get away with using me." My response to them is boo hoo!
---------------
This part here is an aside.
A professor whom I like is friends with a longtime employee of Xerox,
who worked at PARC. Xerox's lawyers refused to let PARC staff attempt
to copyright any of their work because there just wasn't law to copyright
software back then.
Roy Smith
> hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things
> need no defense - they stand on their own merits.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everthing starts to look like
a nail. Obviously, the right solution is to have multiple tools for
multiple jobs. I've got a Sun workstation on my desk, and a Mac-IIcx on the
table next to my desk. I use one or the other depending on what task I have
to perform. For word processing, I use troff on the Sun. For drawing, I
use Dreams on the Mac. Even PCs have a place in life, and it's not in the
dumpster. They are all over the place here as dedicated lab equipment
controllers.
No, my Mac doesn't stink (either the IIcx I have at work or the Plus
I have at home). It may not be the last word in computers, but it certainly
doesn't stink.
--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
r...@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"My karma ran over my dogma"
Jerry Frain
>In article <14...@boulder.Colorado.EDU> k...@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes:
>> Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for
>> - giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell?
>> - shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer?
>> - rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time?
>Ha ha ha. If you want to talk about shameless, price a Mac II these
>days.
Price is relative. Apple simply sets the prices of their products
at what they think they can be sold for, and to turn the best profit.
This is a matter of simple business sense. I, for one, believe that
the Macintosh is overpriced, but let's not make more of an issue
out of it than what it really is.
>> It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus,
>> make things look good and friendly.
> ^^^^
>They may make it *look* friendly, but to an experienced user, a @#$%@
>pull down menu'ed interface is anything but friendly. Why should I
>be saddled with something I don't want?
I don't see your point. This also is not a complex issue -- if the
standard Mac interface does not please a user, that user is more than
entitled to change it, or not to use it all.
[ ... ]
>> But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more*
>Now the tears are really running out of my eyes. Apple hasn't
>provided *more* of anything. In fact, all Apple has done is force
>users to use its gui interface. That's pretty fascistic.
Apple has forced a standard interface across all of its Macintosh
products for a very good reason -- standardization. The "average"
PC user uses three applications regularly -- the "average" Mac
user uses eight. This is due to the fact that PC applications are
traditionally more difficult to learn and master than are the standard
Macintosh programs.
Simple matter of reducing the learning curve across different
applications, from different vendors. There's nothing wrong with
this concept. Perhaps there is something wrong with the way it
is enforced.
This interface, like everything else ever created by mankind, is not
for everyone. So be it.
>The PC world is very democratic. It allows the *user* to decide
>whether he wants a gui or a text based system. It allows the user to
>determine what sort of LAN he'd like. It allows the user to decide
>what sort of display quality he'd like. Apple does none of the
>above.
The Mac user also has the choice of creating/using a gui or
text-based interface. I believe that MPW is text-based, for example.
Most vendors are not in the habit of selling/supporting products
not made by that vendor; hence, IBM does not sell or support
STARLAN for their PS/2 line, and I am sure that AT&T does not
sell or support the token ring, either.
[ lot of stuff about IBM PC/compatibles having superior graphics to Macs
suppressed... ]
Well, most of this may be true, however, I have yet to find a general
purpose type word processor for the IBM PC/compatible which has WYSIWYG
features; hence, being able to *see* italics, etc. instead of simply
changing the colors of the text to represent different fonts.
Bah, I say to graphics! Show me something simple, something tangible
like the word processing capability I described above. The Mac has
had these capabilities since what? 1983? Something like that.
>I hope Xerox sues them into the ground. What I expect is that Xerox
>will prove prior art, recover court costs, and then release their
>work into the public domain.
Yeah, and I hope that FSF buys UNIX from AT&T and releases it to the
general public with a "copyleft," too.
But I bet it doesn't happen.
And, personally, I don't care much for this cross-posting stuff between
two rival groups such as c.s.ibm.pc and c.s.mac, since all it ever
accomplishes is flame wars of great magnitude, and waste a lot of
bucks by posting a lot of unecessary garbage to the net.
The net is supposed to be a place to share, learn, exchange information
in a productive way. Let's work to keep it that way.
--Jerry
[ insert standard disclaimer here ]
--
Jerry Frain -- Professional Student Kansas State University
Internet: j...@phobos.cis.ksu.edu Dept of Computing & Information Sciences
BITNET: MUSTANG@KSUVM Manhattan, Kansas
UUCP: ...!{rutgers|textbell}!ksuvax1!phobos.cis.ksu.edu!jxf
Richard Ewing
>In article <14...@boulder.Colorado.EDU> k...@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes:
>>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486).
>
>You picked the wrong news group to post this (comp.sys.ibm.pc). In who's
>book? I think that you will find, oh, just a few people disagree with this
>statement. SCSI is as slow as sh*t. The 68xxx is nice, but I'll take a
>'386 or '486 any day of the week. My Compaq 386 eats Mac SE/30's for lunch.
>Can you say "upgradable?" That's something that you can do with current
>80xxx buses. Try doing that to a Mac without having to pay for an entire
>new system board. Can you add the latest video technology to a Mac by dropping
>a a board? No, you can even open the damn case without a proprietary tool!!!
>why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines.
>
>
>>What is the good judgement? Where are the users?
>
>What the hell? Apple *STOLE* it's interface from Xerox. That's illegal.
>You want fairness? Xerox should bust Apple on it's ass for trying to rip
>>>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you *
>University of Rochester * will screw it up." *
All right, that's it. For get what I said about ending the ideological
BS. When a PC user says these things, this means *war*.
<Arnold Swartzeneggar Flame Thrower ON!>
SCSI may not be the fastest thing in world, but I sure like it when
its time to add additional hard drives...or scanners...or digitizers...
or tape drives...or CD ROMS....or...get the picture?
I won't even bother getting into a 68030 vs. 80386 war. Its pointless.
Both chips scream. I will say that I can get a 50 MHz accelerator
for my Mac II now.
Can you say "upgradable"? Apple probably is the most committed
company in the industry when it comes to upgrades. Does
Compaq really do upgrades on their machines? Outside of
the 486 power platform, does IBM really do upgrades. No. Most "upgrades"
are left to third parties, usually just fast microprocessor boards,
or crude memory boards that offer a bizarre standard known as LIM 4.0.
Bank switching...ugh!!!
Latest video technology? You call VGA and 8514/A the latest technology????
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Now that's really good! C'mon now. I can
get 24-bit truecolor cards that actually have an Apple defined
video standard behind them for under $1000! Get real on this subject.
All Mac II cases are very easy to open without sophisticated tools.
The Torx-15 screwdriver that you refer to open other Macs
is available at many hardware stores...we didn't invent this standard.
"Nothing comes standard on a 80xxx box". You get what you pay for.
Whew...calming down now...flame off.
--
__________________________________________________________________________
|Disclaimer: I run 125 INITs. Nothing I say can be seriously considered. |
| |
|Internet: REW...@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing |
|ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. |
|Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 |
|Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 |
|GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 |
|USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Robin D. Wilson/1000000
>>In article <1989Dec17....@me.toronto.edu> y...@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes:
>>> ...people who owned Macs (because they couldn't figure out how to
>>> use any other computer) weren't allowed on USENET :-). Yes.
>>
>> ...people checked their facts first. Yes.
>> By the way, just for the record, people don't always use Macs because
>> they "couldn't figure out how to use any other". Some of us feel
>> that the Mac lets us get more done in the same amount of time.
>> And time is valuable to me.
>
>Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc.
>for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster clicking
>the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. There
>pc.
>
There are NO single commands that work faster on a Mac, (or AMIGA since this
keeps showing up in comp.sys.amiga), but then if the computer is only used to
copy one file to another, what good is it. But,.. The Mac is undoubtably
faster on certain useful functions. Like:
You can learn any program faster with the Mac/Amiga than on the PeeCee. This
is because you have a consistant user interface on the mac/amiga. On the
PeeCee every program thinks it knows the best way to do something, and all of
the rest are just backwards and unfriendly. Consequently the user must read
the entire manual on every piece of software he buys to learn how to use the
program -- ie. the learning curve for a new piece of software is much steeper.
For example, when I first worked at Lockheed (in 1987) the R&D Division (where
I worked) bought PeeCees 5-to-1 over Macs. After several secretaries of the
Directors got Macs, the number quickly shifted in favor of the Macs. The
reason?? The people who owned Macs could learn how to put out a paper and
connect to the Vax, and manage their files, and whip up a budget, etc. in half
the time of the PeeCee users. My department was responsible for PeeCee and Mac
support, the lady that did this job was asked during a staff meeting by our
manager, "Why, if we have an equal number of Macs and PeeCees; does your weekly
status report never contain more than a few lines about what you did to help
the Mac users, while the remainder of your report fills volumes on what you did
to help PC users? Are you just not familiar with the Mac, or are you shorting
the Mac users in any way?" She responded, "No it's nothing like that. It's
just that the Mac users only ask for help setting their machines up --
you know; plugging it in. Once they get past that, they figure the rest out in
a few hours, and it is the same for every program they buy. On the other hand,
the PC users need me to help them everytime they buy some new software, because
they have to re-learn everything all over again."
You can print out a "HIGH-QUALITY" document faster on Mac. Desktop Publishing
is far and away superior on the Mac to anything offered on the PeeCee. It is
more powerful, faster, better looking, more flexible, and easier to use than
anything the PeeCee could probably EVER offer. In the same amount of time, an
experienced user on a Mac vs an equally experienced user on a PeeCee would
turn out a document an order of magnitude superior to the PeeCee user's
document.
You can diskcopy faster. It may sound simple, but it is invariabley true. It
is far faster to grab a disk with the mouse, and move it over to the disk that
you want it to copy onto; than it is to type diskcopy a: b: (or whatever).
This; of course, assumes an equal amount of bytes being copied.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|The views expressed herein, are the sole responsibility of the typist at hand|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|USNail: UUCP: |
|2323 Wells Branch Pkwy., #G107 cs.utexas.edu!romp!ibmchs!auschs\ |
|Austin, TX 78728 !sabre.austin.ibm.com!robin |
|Home: (512)251-6889 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<-MUST BE INCLUDED|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Tony Jacobs
>> It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus,
>> make things look good and friendly.
> ^^^^
>They may make it *look* friendly, but to an experienced user, a @#$%@
>pull down menu'ed interface is anything but friendly. Why should I
>be saddled with something I don't want?
>
Why are you straddled? There are utilities that will allow you to run
everything with the keyboard if you want, as well as everything from the
mouse as well. It's friendly because I can take a new application that I've
never seen before, never have read the manual, and very quickly I can figure
out how it works because it works very much like every other good Mac program.
>
>The PC world is very democratic. It allows the *user* to decide
>whether he wants a gui or a text based system. It allows the user to
>determine what sort of LAN he'd like. It allows the user to decide
>what sort of display quality he'd like. Apple does none of the
>above.
>
NONE OF THE ABOVE? I guess that makes you a democratic grandious generalizer.
The Mac has *LOTS* of choices of LANs connectability.
The Mac has lots of different size/shape/color/resolution displays to choose
from. Does the PC world have 32bit color to choose from? (Just asking)
>In fact, I'll go on record as stating that there is *far more*
>graphics based software avaiable for the PC than there is for Apple.
>There is far more *everything* available for the PC than for Apple.
>
BIG DEAL! You're not saying anything here. There's far more software which
means theres far more junk. Why don't you be so daring as to go on the record
as stating there is far more *High*Quality* graphics software or that the PC
software is of a *Higer*Quality* than the graphics software of the Mac.
I doubt the Desktop Publishing Software is better.
I doubt the Paint type programs are better.
I doubt the Illustration type programs are better.
I doubt the Presentation type programs are better.
I doubt the 3D Rendering type programs are better.
.
.
.
>PC's (of an equivalent vintage) have always had better graphics and
>much quicker operation than Apples.
>
You have any benchmarks to back that up?
Look the truth is that the PC is better in some things, the Mac in others.
Don't insult the intelligence and wast the time of the rest of us by trying
to make all these general sweeping claims. Especially without hardly any
examples or data to back it up.
Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-ja...@cs.utah.edu
Amanda Walker
Smith) writes:
> GUI's. Personally, I hate 'em.
> Which already makes me loathe the Mac, but not so *if I could ditch the GUI
> for a command line environment*.
One thing about Windows, or PM, or even X is that there's a command line
interface sitting down there somewhere underneath everything (at least
conceptually). There isn't on a Mac. When you're using menus & windows,
you *are* talking to the OS. The reason command-line evironments like MPW
are add-ons is that they are sitting on top of the GUI, not the other
way around.
To each their own, I guess.
Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation
--
Mark Wilkins
>In article <18...@netnews.upenn.edu> meu...@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes:
>>>Can you say "upgradable?"
>>Yes, that's why I bought a Mac II (further discussion on this note
>>will follow).
>
>>>Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac.
>>Please explain. I think I've explained above all the ways I can
>>customize my system. What can't I do? I can even make it IBM
>>compatible, hook up drive to read all formats of IBM disks (DaynaFile
>>makes the best drives for this purpose - they let you avoid dos by
>>presenting the disks in a Finder environment. A problem with IBM
>>customization follows below.
>
>You might want to pay a little closer attention to what the original
>poster was writing. He was talking about the Macintosh, not the Mac
>II. You know, the computer disguised as a toaster? They've managed to
>cram a hard disk, more memory, and a second floppy drive inside them,
>but that's about the limit of customization.
The current standard for the "toaster Mac" is a Macintosh SE. An SE has
an internal slot, and there are several products available which will add
more expansion slots.
But you know what? I've never, EVER seen an SE which had even that slot
filled! Almost every peripheral I've ever seen on an SE has been quite
adequately handled by the serial port.
If you should ever actually WANT an ethernet connection or perhaps an
accelerator board or more serial ports or something, you just plug it in or
have your dealer do so. But so few SE owners take advantage of even this
that I suspect there is not much demand for the type of expansion which
you're talking about.
Also, the only example the original poster mentioned was the DaynaFile
system for reading IBM disks, which works just as well on a Plus as on a II,
I believe. And even if not, I have seen competing products which serve the
same function.
-- Mark Wilkins
wil...@jarthur.claremont.edu
gft_r...@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
>In article <25...@draken.nada.kth.se|, per...@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson) writes:
>| In article <1989Dec17.1...@me.toronto.edu> y...@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes:
>| >gft_r...@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes:
>| >
>| >I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent
>| >Apple (<-- scumbags from hell).
It seems that the "quote" notations got mixed up. It appears from the above
that I said Apple was "scumbags from hell". I never did. ('Cause I don't
think it).
Robert
============================================================================
= gft_r...@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to =
= * all my opinions are * compute" =
= * mine * -Kraftwerk =
============================================================================
gft_r...@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
>In article <91...@asylum.SF.CA.US> la...@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) writes:
>>In article <90...@asylum.SF.CA.US> sha...@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher) writes:
>>>>
[next, sun, etc. liscensing from Xerox]
But if Apple has to liscense, then it's liscense to to MicroSoft is invalid,
and Windows is also in trouble, no?
>What I'd like to see is Xerox win just to put Apple in their place and then
>turn around and grant licences for the technology at some rediculously low
>price (to everyone but Apple that is :-).
I don't think you can charge different liscensing fees purely for spite. BTW,
I never knew that so many Macintosh users were so spiteful. I guess you learn
something new every day.
plo...@levers.enet.dec.com
>> allow the user to use _either_ the mouse or the keyboard, based on the
>> preference of the user.
>
>This may be so, but the expense of developing two user interfaces for one
>system would be rather high. The real benefit of a type-in user interface
>comes in being able to write a script of many commands to be executed as a
>batch, and in applications where this makes sense, the application
>developers have provided macro facilities that serve the purpose. For
>programmers, Apple's own MPW offers a highly customizable interface that
>give you just about as much type-in as you want, or as little. There is
>no real need to provide something as specialized as a type-in interface at
>the system level, forcing everyone to pay for it.
>
Point of fact, since we're getting all this GUI war stuff in
comp.sys.amiga... _Every_ Amiga, from Day 1, has shipped with two user
interfaces, the desktop-ish Workbench and the line-oriented CLI. There
are some differences requiring programs to know which UI invoked them,
but the startup code is pretty much pro forma. With the next version of
the operating system, AmigaDOS 1.4 (shipping RSN), rumor has it that the
two interfaces will be brought closer together with default file icons
and text-oriented Workbench file list options, the latter similar to
Microsoft Windows.
So Amiga says "yes" to both camps. Now can you move the debate
out of the Amiga newsgroup?
Wes Plouff
--
Wes Plouff, Digital Equipment Corp, Littleton, Mass.
plouff%levers....@decwrl.dec.com
Networking bibliography: _Islands in the Net_, by Bruce Sterling
_The Matrix_, by John S. Quarterman
gft_r...@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
> ??????????????????????????????
>> (second-hand) information is, but I've been told that Apple
> ?????????????
>> recently tried to organize a consortium of companies that would
>> agree to stop offering educational discounts! Sliiimmmeeeeyyyy!
>
>[flame on]
>
> Maybe I should have sent this article via e-mail, but it is right
>if someone says anything that he is not sure of. Spreading rumors
>that one is not sure of only tells that he is irresponsible!
Hear hear! I heartily agree. Flames are one thing (will system 7.0 have
memory protection, does Apple charge too much. etc.), but all this spite and
hate is just sick.
BTW, it is APPLE DEALERS who are suing APPLE to stop educational discounts.
AGAIN: Apple wants educational discounts (it's in their interests too); others
are trying to stop them from keeping them.
Robert Menke
> recently tried to organize a consortium of companies that would
> agree to stop offering educational discounts! Sliiimmmeeeeyyyy!
Actually, it was a group of computer sellers, not Apple, who tried to pass
legeslation to outlaw computer discounts. A representative from Apple even
posted on this newsgroup asking us to write letters to the congressmen, etc.
"Collision imminent...." | Robert Menke
"Energize the force fields!" | r...@OCF.berkeley.edu
"What force fields?" | Robert...@bmug.fidonet.org
TEAM CS -- Making Tomorrow's Mistakes Today!
Steven Winikoff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Winikoff s...@maxwell.concordia.ca
Software Analyst
Concordia University Computer Centre voice: (514) 848-7619
Montreal, Quebec, Canada (10:00-18:00 EST)
The Polymath
The way I see it, Apple can't win. If Xerox wins, they're out big bucks
and lose the copyrights to their interface. If Xerox loses, the legal
concept of a "look and feel" copyright is seriously weakened, if not
outright invalidated, and Apple will have a h*ll of a time suing anyone
else.
About time, too.
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, holl...@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimis non
Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, x2483
Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun | philabs | psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
Sean Malloy
>Latest video technology? You call VGA and 8514/A the latest technology????
>BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Now that's really good! C'mon now. I can
>get 24-bit truecolor cards that actually have an Apple defined
>video standard behind them for under $1000! Get real on this subject.
VGA or 8514/A will satisfy about 75-80% of the people who aren't after
absolute top-of-the-line graphics capability. For those that are,
there are a number of graphics cards that make VGA look like CGA used
to. Targa boards, Number Nine's graphics cards, and so on. Most of
them have been around for several years, and the high-end graphics
software as well, with improvements appearing as the high end hardware
improves.
Once the third-party developers decided that IBM wasn't going where
the market existed, they struck out on their own and built their own
video hardware; IBM hasn't been on the cutting edge of graphics
technology for years. IBM has a track record of bringing out graphics
hardware that dies in the market -- the PGA controller was the last
one, and the 8514/A looks to be the next one. Pointing out IBM's
developments as a subject of ridicule simply shows that you don't pay
attention to the industry, and have inadvertantly or deliberately
committed a straw man fallacy in your argument.
Sean Malloy | "The Crystal Wind is the
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | Storm, and the Storm is Data,
San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | and the Data is Life."
mal...@nprdc.navy.mil | -- _Emerald Eyes_, D.K. Moran
James McCartney
> BULLSHIT!
> shit doesn't stink.
Real intelligent language, dude. Convinces me. Yup.
--- James McCartney
Chris Newbold
>BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Now that's really good! C'mon now. I can
>get 24-bit truecolor cards that actually have an Apple defined
>video standard behind them for under $1000! Get real on this subject.
I never said that the VGA was the latest video technology. I can get the same
kind of equipment you boast about for my PC.
>All Mac II cases are very easy to open without sophisticated tools.
>The Torx-15 screwdriver that you refer to open other Macs
>is available at many hardware stores...we didn't invent this standard.
I know Mac IIs are easily opened (also note that I never mentioned the II in
my posting). The tool I was referring to was not a Torx screwdriver, but the
"MacCracker" that is necessary to seperate the two halves of the case.
--
>>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you *
University of Rochester * will screw it up." *
Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice."
ctne...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunet
Todd Hooper
> In article <14...@boulder.Colorado.EDU> k...@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes:
>
>>
>> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than
>>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486).
>>
> faster. I don't remember the specifics - as a matter of fact I don't
> think the specs are out but word is it's faster.
Talking of the 68040, does anyone have any technical specs on hand for it?
What's the deal with Motorola? Are they actually shipping 68040 chips
yet? I remember Intel had beaten them with the 486 chip coming out before
the 68040, but obviously Intel must have rushed it through, what with the
486 chip having bugs in it.....
More specific to Macs, how do people see the 68040 fitting into new models
of Macintoshes? Will we see one next year?
(More idle speculation to follow........)
--
Todd Hooper Computing Centre
Curtin University of Technology
PSImail: psi%050529452300070::CHOOPER Western Australia
ACSnet : CHO...@acad.cut.oz
Bitnet : CHOOPER%acad.curtin.edu.au%munna...@cunyvm.bitnet
UUCP : {enea,mcvax,uunet,ubc-cs,ukc}!munnari!acad.curtin.edu.au!CHOOPER
Jim Mackraz
)Definely true statement #1:
)
) I've never had to buy a book; the manual was MORE than enough.
)
)Unfortunately for many MS-DOS applications, the book is more than enough.
)Kind of like having to check out the whole set of encyclopedias to read an
)article on IBM. The information is there, just hard to get at. Why are
)Word Perfect and Lotus books best sellers?
Because they serve as manuals to people who pirate the programs.
I can't figure out what you were trying to say there, but I'm
pretty sure you missed this point.
)At least Mac users will try to carry on intelligent discussions without ranting
)and raving.
Not clear.
)Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
)Apple Student Rep ARPA: mith...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
)Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0...@applelink.apple.com
jimm
--
-------------------------------------------------- - opinions by me
"This voice console is a *must*. I press Execute.
`Hello, I know that you've been feeling tired.
I bring you love and deeper understanding.' " -lyrics by Kate Bush
Murat N. Konar
>I hope Xerox sues them [Apple] into the ground. What I expect is that Xerox
>will prove prior art, recover court costs, and then release their
>trying to stop Apple from using Xerox's work to pursue its own
>fascistic agenda.
Whew. Just as I was begining to feel mainstream, a breath of hot air. How
refreshing. It's nice to see that there are still some lunkheads who feel that
MS-DOS is actually really neat. (I'm doing my own superiority dance now.)
I hear that some people actually like RPN calculators too.
____________________________________________________________________
Have a day. :^|
Murat N. Konar Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN
mnk...@SRC.honeywell.com (internet) {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!mnkonar(UUCP)
Richard Schaut
and I've never used a Mac for theese applications. If there is someone
who knows better, please give us some info. Personally, I think blaming
the hardware manufacturers for the decisions that software publishers
have made is silly.
In article <1989Dec18....@hellgate.utah.edu> t-ja...@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) writes:
| BIG DEAL! You're not saying anything here. There's far more software which
| means theres far more junk. Why don't you be so daring as to go on the record
| as stating there is far more *High*Quality* graphics software or that the PC
| software is of a *Higer*Quality* than the graphics software of the Mac.
| I doubt the Desktop Publishing Software is better.
As far as I know, Quark Xpress is still strictly Mac, but nearly all
others have been ported to the PC's. I expect the writers to port it
to Windows. They would be stupid not to.
| I doubt the Paint type programs are better.
| I doubt the Illustration type programs are better.
Both CorelDRAW and the MicroGrafx line are some of the hottest programs
in this category.
| I doubt the Presentation type programs are better.
I'm not sure what you mean by "presentation" type programs, but I've put
together some prety darn nice looking stuff with Excel and Windows. I
also haven't had to break my neck in doing so.
| I doubt the 3D Rendering type programs are better.
Let's see: Autocad, Cadvance, Design CAD 3D, and now Generic CAD. That's
a fairly impressive lineup of software. In fact, the one graphics area
where the IBM has been ahead of the Mac (as far as I've read) is in CAD.
But then, there are others that have been far ahead of both systems for
a long time in this area.
--
Rick
"Any questions? Any answers? Anyone care for a mint?" -- Rita Rudner
Murat N. Konar
>
>> That's illegal.
>> You want fairness? Xerox should bust Apple on it's ass for trying to rip
>> someone else over it.
You know you guys, it's not like Apple denies using the work done at Xerox
and other places as the basis of their interface design. Look at their
interface guidlines book (at the bookstore, you don't have to buy it) and
read the introduction (or preface; I can't remember exactly), and it states
plainly that Apple's desktop interface has its roots in work done at Xerox.
No lie. Go read the article in Byte magazine where they interview the designers
of the Lisa. Larry Tesler (now VP of Advanced Technology at Apple, also an
alumnus of Xerox PARC) says that the idea of the desktop metaphor came from
the Xerox STAR. No kidding.
Other Xerox alumnus now at Apple include (off the top of my head):
Alan Kay - Now an Apple fellow. I believe he was head of the Learning Research
group at Xerox PARC. That group brought Smalltalk into the world. He also
champions his concept of personal computing, the Dynabook. Johnny come lately's
will recognize this as Sculley's information navigator.
Ted Kaehler - worked on Hypercard. I'm sure he has done other things too but
I can't remember.
Glenn Clapp
People use what works, and what they like. If you like what you are using,
and it does "everything" YOU want it to do, then it's the perfect system
for you. Nuff said, the rest just doesn't matter. Now, on with the flame.
In article <1989Dec18....@hellgate.utah.edu> t-ja...@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) writes:
>In article <12...@serene.UUCP> rfa...@serene.UU.NET (Rick Farris) writes:
>> [... some stuff...]
> [... some other stuff...]
>>The PC world is very democratic. It allows the *user* to decide
>>whether he wants a gui or a text based system. It allows the user to
>>determine what sort of LAN he'd like. It allows the user to decide
>>what sort of display quality he'd like. Apple does none of the
>>above.
>>
>NONE OF THE ABOVE? I guess that makes you a democratic grandious generalizer.
>The Mac has *LOTS* of choices of LANs connectability.
>The Mac has lots of different size/shape/color/resolution displays to choose
>from. Does the PC world have 32bit color to choose from? (Just asking)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You bet it does, and has had since time began. Ever heard of TARGA or
Vista boards (and these are middle of the road products too).
>
>>In fact, I'll go on record as stating that there is *far more*
>>graphics based software avaiable for the PC than there is for Apple.
>>There is far more *everything* available for the PC than for Apple.
>>
>BIG DEAL! You're not saying anything here. There's far more software which
>means theres far more junk. Why don't you be so daring as to go on the record
>as stating there is far more *High*Quality* graphics software or that the PC
>software is of a *Higer*Quality* than the graphics software of the Mac.
>I doubt the Desktop Publishing Software is better.
>I doubt the Paint type programs are better.
>I doubt the Illustration type programs are better.
>I doubt the Presentation type programs are better.
>I doubt the 3D Rendering type programs are better.
>.
Now we're splitting hairs. The issue isn't quality OR quantity, but choice.
A large volume of choices makes software cheaper. For example, AutoCAD, the
final (first?) word in CAD software has cut its prices drastically since
its introduction simply due to competition, and the choices are staggering.
A PC user has a *greater chance* of finding the_just_right_application,
but the Mac user has greater conformity to standards. All a matter
of prefferences, choices, and price.
>>PC's (of an equivalent vintage) have always had better graphics and
>>much quicker operation than Apples.
>>
>You have any benchmarks to back that up?
>
I do, just check the year end issues of Byte and PC Magazine (a month
or so ago) for benchmarks (Byte is the better choice). Macs fall
short at about middle-of-the-road for PC's.
>Look the truth is that the PC is better in some things, the Mac in others.
>Don't insult the intelligence and wast the time of the rest of us by trying
>to make all these general sweeping claims. Especially without hardly any
>examples or data to back it up.
That's the first bit of truth I've heard in all this babble, but it
goes further than that. It's not really an issue of what does what
better than what, but what works for YOU, and what do YOU like. :-)
Glenn
Glenn Clapp
>Whew. Just as I was begining to feel mainstream, a breath of hot air. How
>refreshing. It's nice to see that there are still some lunkheads who feel that
>MS-DOS is actually really neat. (I'm doing my own superiority dance now.)
>I hear that some people actually like RPN calculators too.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good God! They SAID the dark ages were over. What else is there? Algebraic?
Well, to each his own especially if one has a strange (probally sexual)
affinity for pushing buttons.
Have a day yourself.
-Glenn
Mark Interrante
>
>and other places as the basis of their interface design. Look at their
>interface guidlines book (at the bookstore, you don't have to buy it) and
>read the introduction (or preface; I can't remember exactly), and it states
>plainly that Apple's desktop interface has its roots in work done at Xerox.
>No lie.
Apple Interface guidlines page 123
"The apple employees who created the apple desktop interface had been
involved in, or were influenced by important research at several
institutions of the last 20 years.
In the late 60's the augmentation research project at SRI made
important contributions. ...
The argumentation approach led to hardware innovations the principle
example of which is the mouse...
Important work at Xerox PARC... In the 1970s PARC provided the first
explicit expression of the computer desktop. PARCS desktop featured
windows that overlap, much like overlapping pieces of paper on a real
desktop. ICONS typically representing familiar objects appeared on the
desktop to provide direct and visible access to files, operations, and
so on. Bit mapped graphics enabled users to directly combone text and
graphics.
At apple in the late 70's and early 80's the lisa computer carried the
work further. A range of features now familiar oin the apple desktop
interface- including menubar, one-button mouse, dialog boxes, the
clipboard,and trashcan- were introduced with the lisa..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Interrante Software Engineering Research Center
m...@beach.cis.ufl.edu CIS Department, University of Florida 32611
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Imagine what it would be like if TV actually were good. It would be the end
of everything we know." Marvin Minsky
Chris Newbold
>That's the first bit of truth I've heard in all this babble, but it
>goes further than that. It's not really an issue of what does what
>better than what, but what works for YOU, and what do YOU like. :-)
After starting this (almost) net-wide flame war by simply posting what I thought
was a rather interesting news article, and after admittadly doing my share of
flaming, this is the first bit of truth I've read. It looks and sounds like a
great argument stopper, but it's the truth.
Back to the regularly scheduled flame war...
*THE IBM STANDARD RULES!!!*
Craig Werner
> kip...@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Kipnis):
> > Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc.
>
>
> > There
> > probably ISN'T a single command that you can perform faster with a mac than
> > pc.
>
> away from *commands*. If you want to talk about which *activities* can be
> performed faster on Macs, see the above.
>
OK, there are a variety of everyday "activities" that take much
longer to accomplish on the Mac than on the PC. I curse the Macintosh
far more than I curse the PC. For the PC, you complain mostly about it
doesn't do. For the Mac, I complain mostly about what it does do. I
liked the Mac at first, now I absolutely loath and despise it. Let's
face it: a command line is easier to write programs for, takes up less
memory (that's why IBM liked it) and once you know the secret (ah,
there's the rub), is much more efficient than heiroglyphics, which is
what icons really are.
more effici
--
Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go)
wer...@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine
(1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
"Morphology is part science and part 'Ipse Dixit.' "
Robert J Woodhead
resist. Remind me to make a new year's resolution not to be snide, ok?
[BTW everyone, check the newsgroups line for comp.sys.amiga and spare them]
w...@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (Bill Gieske) writes:
>If you need a computer to hold your hand... If you're smart, all that shit
>gets in the way.
Gee, and I thought that the whole idea of computers was
to make life easier for their users. Silly me! I guess
those of us who do not have your massive intellect shouldn't
be allowed to use anything more complicated than a toaster.
>I've never had to buy a book; the manual was MORE than enough.
Aren't you special.
>BULLSHIT! There is no risk in stealing ideas, other than in being caught.
>And they bastardized the idea with things like single button mice, because
>they deemed point-and-click eacy to market, especially when I didn't have to
>decide which button to click. That gives you an idea of the intelligence
>level they aimed for.
Yeah, they wanted to make it easy for average people
who were scared of computers to use them. Why, those
dirty Commies from Cupertino!
>I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems
>hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things
>need no defense - they stand on their own merits.
If you pile up enough shit, and bake it long enough, it
stands up too.
--
Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | tre...@biar.UUCP
Announcing TEMPORAL EXPRESS. For only $999,999.95 (per page), your message
will be carefully stored, then sent back in time as soon as technologically
possible. TEMEX - when it absolutely, postively has to be there yesterday!
Robert J Woodhead
>Could y'all kindly keep the "Mac is God/IBM rules" war out of
>comp.sys.amiga. Please? We already know the real answer anyways :-) :-)
Yes, and I'm happy to report they are all saving
up to buy Macs.
;^>
Happy Non-denominational Gift-getting season to you all.
bar...@think.com
>In article <1...@comcon.UUCP>, r...@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) writes...
>
>>In article <25...@draken.nada.kth.se|, per...@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson) writes:
>>| In article <1989Dec17.1...@me.toronto.edu> y...@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) writes:
>>| >gft_r...@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes:
>>| >
>>| >I wouldn't be surprised if all they were after is to punish impudent
>>| >Apple (<-- scumbags from hell).
>
>It seems that the "quote" notations got mixed up. It appears from the above
>that I said Apple was "scumbags from hell".
No, it appears that Davin Yap said it. Anything with the same line prefix
was written by the same person; therefore, the words "scumbags from hell"
were written by the same person who wrote "gft_robert writes:". The words
"So and so writes:" are normally indented one level less than the quote to
which it refers. Whatever it is you wrote was edited out (in which case,
the attribution should have been removed).
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.
bar...@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
John Kellow
I've sat back and watched a lot of these flame wars on Computer A vs.
Computer B and now I think I'll add my $0.02 worth in the IBM vs. Mac
war. Let me preface this by saying that I use both and I think they've
both got their good and bad points.
I've used all sorts of computers - my first basic course in high school
started out on teletype machines and we thought it was a major technological
innovation when we got a TRS-80 Model I. We could actually edit lines of
our programs and save them on audio tape instead of paper tape! I
remember when the Mac first came out, someone down the hall from me got
one and everbody was fascinated by it. I though it was a nice idea but
it had a long way to go to catch up to PC's. It didn't have any hard disk
options, no letter quality printers, a tiny screen, no math co-processor,
no expansion slots, etc. Well, now I think that the Mac has not only
caught up to the PC but surpassed it in functionality. I say functionality
because its true that a PC system could easily beat Mac on factors like price
and raw processing power, but I don't think thats a good way to judge
a computer.
Its true that you could probably do just about anything on a PC that
you could do on a Mac, but things just seem to work better on a Mac
and I think thats why a lot of people like Macs. After using a color
Mac II, DOS and windows on a PC seems like a gigantic hack. Mac users
don't mess around with Config or Autoexec files, everythings done
through the chooser and control panel. You want to add memory to a
Mac? Just order some SIMMS mail order and pop them in. Current prices
are as low as $79/Mb. Mac users don't have to worry about all this
expanded/extended/640K/LIM4.0/EMM.SYS driver crap. Its pretty common
around here to have 5Mb or more in a Mac, and virtual memory is
already a reality. All Macs come with networking built in. Its
certainly not high performance but it gets the job done - and
everybody has it. Sure you could configure a DOS system that could
run rings around a Mac and you can install a network that can blow
appletalk away, but overall I think Mac users are getting more out of
their Macs than DOS users are getting from their PC's.
I think the biggest problem in the PC world has been compatibility -
PC makers have made too big a deal out of it. So IBM is now selling
OS/2 that finally takes advantage of the features of the 80286 - just
when did they start selling AT's - 1984? The 80486 is already here.
DOS is just being pushed beyond its limits. There comes a time when
you just have to make a break with the past. Where would the Mac be
today if Apple only shipped system updates that could still run on the
128K Mac? If your computer fills a need for you today then it can
still fulfill the same need 10 or 20 years from now. Its like driving
an old car - it may not get you there in style but it gets you there.
Instead of waiting so long and going overboard with OS/2, why didn't
IBM come out with a new OS when the AT came out? Forget Presentation
Manager, virtual memory, multitasking, etc. Just a simple operating
system that could run in protected mode, access 8Mb of memory (or
whatever the 286 lets you have), with an improved file system would be
a big step ahead of DOS. I don't know, maybe that wouldn't be so
simple to create, but I think it seems ridiculous to be running a
33Mhz 80386 in 8086 real mode. I think there's just too much
un-tapped potential in the PC world.
Apple set an excellent example of what Mac programs could and should be
by bundling Macpaint and Macwrite with the original Macs. What kind of
example did IBM set? Displaywrite? Edlin? The original PCs came with fancy
keyboards with lots of function keys but does DOS even use most of these
keys? (I know about DOS4, CED, etc. - I'm just talking DOS 1.x, 2.x,3.x) No.
The original display adapters could display text in multiple attributes.
Does DOS even come with a command to set the prompt color? Oh sure, you
could install ANSI.SYS and put escape codes in your prompt. But why
can't you just type prompt=red, screen=blue, etc.? DOS could at least
print the error messages in bold text. What you've basically got is
an operating system that could run from a teletype hooked up to the serial
port. That seems to be the intention of the CTTY command. It was
probably all a marketing idea "Our customers have a large investment in
teletype equipment so we should make our new computers compatible with
this existing base of equipment." Why didn't they just call it the
IBM-IKS (Intelligent Keypunch Station)? I can imagine the advertisements -
"Now you can turn any teletype device into an intelligent keypunch station
with the new IBM-IKS!" Edlin seems perfect for operators entering data
into disk files instead of onto punch cards. Why couldn't IBM at least
have added a screen editor to their original PC-DOS? Did they plan on
selling systems without display adapters? I think its this "we can't make
a break with the past" attitude thats held the PC world back. Clone makers
want to make a new bus standard, just slap on more address lines. Gee, I
can keep my $99 half-card internal 1200 baud modem when I upgrade to a new
$7000 486 EISA system. If people want to keep using their old cards why
can't they just keep using their old computers. Why does OS/2 have to be
able to run DOS programs? I don't see why you couldn't just boot your
computer with DOS if you want to run DOS programs and boot it with OS/2 if
you want to run OS/2 programs. I think DOS is just trying to be too
many things to too many people. If IBM had only taken a little more initiative
with the PC and had a little more foresight instead of just introducing
slightly improved versions of the same old crap, then I don't think the
Macintosh would have become as successful as it has. I don't see why
apple doesn't just port its Mac OS to the 80386! I just think its time
DOS was given a decent burial.
Well this turned out longer than I thought and I've probably only
succeeded in adding more fuel to the fire, so flame away. I'm not
really anti-PC, just pro Mac.
John Kellow
kel...@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu
Wayne Wood
>
>I've worked on Macs for a number of years, and bought a Mac II system
>about a year and a half ago. Sure, I spent a little more than an IBM
>system, but you can't say I spent more than an equivalent IBM system
>because there isn't such a thing.
>
you mean you spent *ALOT* more than for an IBM.
>Also, I worked at a company that used IBMs this summer, so I have a
>lot to base my decisions on. You've never touched a Mac and never
>plan to do so. I like to keep an open mind, so I worked on IBMs for
>more than three months. After this time, I respect and appreciate my
>Mac even more. I worked for APS Communications Corp. putting together
>a phonebook in Spanish in San Antonio, TX. We had three IBM machines,
>two '386 and one '286, hooked up to an NEC Silentwriter PostScript
>printer. We were using Aldus Pagemaker 3.0, a program I have used on
>the Mac for about a year and half. While some of these may reflect
>deficiencies of that program, I think they also offer insight to the
>IBM platform.
>
[ bunch of user garbage deleted ]
>I have given straight comparisons, with data when appropriate and
>available, from an experienced backround on both machines. When you
>can do this same, I will continue this discussion.
>
>Paul Eric Menchen
>meu...@grad1.cis.upenn.edu
>
>I am solely responsible for everything I've said,
>although I'm sure there are thousands (more, actually)
>of other Mac users (probably some IBM users as well)
>who will agree with me.
well, let me pick up the thread here...
i worked on the MACINTRASH, *NIX workstations, CP/M MICROS and all flavors
of IBM PCs/XTs/ATs/386s.
Have you ever programmed on one of those pieces of shit? That GUI you're so
damned proud of is a nuisance. When i want to grab a port, or read a file,
i don't want to have to wade through cartoons to get to it. i don't want
the machine to tell me i can't access a file because it wasn't created by the
application... i want the goddamn file! i don't normally put up with that
behavior from humans and i'll be damned if i'll put up with it from a machine!
it took me three months to create an application on a MACII that only took
me two weeks to create on a *NIX machine. Productivity? BULLSHIT!
the mac does do things well, but as a programming environment it sucks.
i transferred away from the job that required me to use the FRANKINTOSH
and now i get to program on a computer... i hope to never have to work
on one of those bastard mutant offspring of an etch-a-sketch [tm] and
a typewriter again.
remember, if you make something idiot-proof, then idots will use it!
/*** woody ****************************************************************
*** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... ***
*** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd ***
****** wo...@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
Joel Swan
:In article <14...@boulder.Colorado.EDU> k...@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes:
:> command driven.
:
:Menus and mice are great when you are first learning to use a system, but
:they get in the way of experienced users. An ideal system should not
:_force_ the user to use a mouse/menu system, just as an ideal system
:should not _force_ the user to type commands. An ideal system should
:allow the user to use _either_ the mouse or the keyboard, based on the
:ideal in this regard. .....
Hmm. Sounds like an Amiga to me. Now's the time to take a closer look.
:
:--
:Steve Jacobs ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jac...@cs.utah.edu)
Joel Swan
pet...@sahiways.gov.au
> Please give a single example of what you can do faster on a mac than on a pc.
> for the machine to eject your floppy. Do you call if faster clicking
> the mouse ten times just to get from one directory to another. There
> pc.
Ouch.
What this Gary doesn't seem to realise (and I _won't_ get nasty and say things
viz. levels of intelligence) is that most people prefer a GUI over a CLI
because there is more often than not more than one way of accomplishing a task.
The (now looking rather dated) Macintosh GUI was developed with this in mind,
and it also appears / appeared polished due to the presence of a graphic
designer on the original design team. Can't say the same for most other GUIs.
Also, the Mac's system architecture allows users to tweak the GUI to their
liking by adding INITs and the like. No other GUI can do this so easily and
transparently.
The clincher about which is faster (GUI vs. CLI) shouldn't be based upon a
task-by-task rating, but on an overall view. The Mac is 'faster' than a CLI
based machine because of a strong adherence to interface guidlines across
almost all applications; learn one application thoroughly and you've learned
how to run 90% of all other applications just as thoroughly. Productivity is
therefore increased, hence the 'faster' claim.
I own a Mac. I'm an Apple techie. I also work with IBM's, VAXes and (ecch)
Wangs. I'm also a full IBM tech, Compaq tech and Toshiba tech. I've been Prez
of a Mac user group, and Vice Prez of a local DOS user group. I like to think
I know what I'm talking about; at least I keep an open mind.
I've spent about 80% of my logged computer time on machines with a CLI, but I
bought a Mac. Why? Because I'm more productive with one.
Geoff Peters
Wm E Davidsen Jr
| Can you say "upgradable"? Apple probably is the most committed
| company in the industry when it comes to upgrades.
Excuse me? Is this the same Apple which sold Macs for four years which
don't have any slots for upgrade? The ones you can convert to color by
buying a whole new machine?
Is this the Apple who will only sell you a UNIX version on a hard
disk which is too small to *run* UNIX beyond the "Hello, world!" stage?
Apple has a number of useful features, but they have resisted making
their machines expandable as long as they could. Was this to prevent
third parties from offering better and less costly options? Can you
doubt it?
Apple has a firm committment to PROFIT, and makes IBM look positively
benevolent by comparison. Maybe Apple is an IBM public relations
operation.
--
bill davidsen (davi...@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called
'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see
that the world is flat!" - anon
Zippy
>In article <14...@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, k...@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes:
>> It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus,
>> make things look good and friendly.
>
>If you need a computer to hold your hand... If you're smart, all that shit
>gets in the way.
What kind of intelligence is it that is proud of being able to
use a command line interface rather than a graphic-based one?
Do you seriously consider this some sort of badge of honor?
How threatened you must feel by those that can use both...
>
>> It is a fact that a user would need to buy a book other than just the
>> manual for a DOS software, while Mac users don't even have to look at
>> the manual and learn things fast.
>
>I've never had to buy a book; the manual was MORE than enough.
My, you ARE smart...
>> But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more* than
>> the other impundent company is being "punished".
>
>BULLSHIT! There is no risk in stealing ideas, other than in being caught.
>And they bastardized the idea with things like single button mice, because
>they deemed point-and-click eacy to market, especially when I didn't have to
>decide which button to click. That gives you an idea of the intelligence
>level they aimed for.
Perhaps your own company, the phone company, should have aimed for
telephone systems that used 39 wires connected to switch boxes
in every home. That way only intelligent people could use
phones, and you'd feel much better.
>
>> If *some* people would not be so close minded...
>
>I have YET to meet an open-minded Apple owner. Every one I've met seems
>hell-bent on convincing me their piece of shit doesn't stink. Great things
>need no defense - they stand on their own merits.
Then what are you defending and why?
--------
Please ask yourself a question: if the Mac interface is so
bad, insulting and inefficient, why is everyone falling all
over themselves to make a functional copy for their systems?
Somebody must be buying it.
Thank you for a most insulting and immature posting...
David Fry f...@huma1.harvard.EDU
Department of Mathematics f...@huma1.bitnet
Harvard University ...!harvard!huma1!fry
Cambridge, MA 02138
Jeff d'Arcy
> Have you ever programmed on one of those pieces of shit? That GUI you're so
> damned proud of is a nuisance.
If you're not willing to work a little harder to make the users' lives a
little easier (a net gain in the long run), you're a pretty fucking lousy
engineer (please note that this is a conditional statement). I'm tired
of the "technological" priesthood" who want technology for themselves and
don't give a shit about bringing it to the rest of the world.
Sorry for the profanity, but my patience is running *very* thin.
Jeff d'Arcy OS/Network Software Engineer jda...@encore.com
If Encore endorsed my opinions, they couldn't afford to pay me
Doug McDonald
>What kind of intelligence is it that is proud of being able to
>use a command line interface rather than a graphic-based one?
>Do you seriously consider this some sort of badge of honor?
>How threatened you must feel by those that can use both...
>
I'm not threatened - I use both.
As to the answer to the first question, we are here getting dowm to the
heart of the Mac-toaster-all_menu system and the Unix/MS-DOS command
driven system. (Note that one could patch a command line into the MAC
to remedy its shortcomings). The kind of intelligence that is less
useful on a Mac is the ability to solve complicated problems by
combining pieces of a solution, being able to see how to do a
given task by working with convenient pre-existing things. It is the
same kind of task that high schoolers learn (well, I did) in
geometry (proving theorems), that freshmen learn in calculus
class (doing a complicated integral by various tricks) and that I
do in my business, solving problems in theoretical physics. The MAC-type
interface limits the interconnectivity of different programs. Now,
of course, you can use the clipboard to move certain limited sets
of data between programs. But you can't do it very generally.
Consider the Unix model of "filter" programs: programs that operate
on ascii data and manipulate it in various ways. This is very powerful,
even with only the supplied programs, and grows infinitely powerful
asymptotically as one writes new filters. On Unix you can do this from
the command line, on MS-DOS you may be able to, or may need a batch file.
The MAC doesn't HAVE a command line or batch files. This is its biggest
failing - you can't (short of finding one for it) automate things.
Everything has to be done from the keyboard (unless you write your
own programs, which is VERY un-MACish). You will note that essentially
EVERY MS-DOS computer comes with a programming language (a powerful
if disgusting one) built in, and most Unix boxes also do.
Writing programs for the MAC (or other similar system, such as
Microsoft Windows) is tough. Sufficiently tough to make the MAC
not the machine of choice for doing serious calculations. I have
written one program for the MAC, just to see how to do it, and
several for Microsoft Windows (because I needed programs that will
multitask properly and also for them the mouse/menu interface was right)
(one of these programs is proving quite popular, it is a Windows
previewer for TeX) - and it is justifyable only is special cases.
The philosophy of the Mac is that it is the world's most powerful
appliance. There is no philosophy for a PC - it is just there.
The Mac way has been grafted onto the PC, because it is better for
certain things, no doubt about that. It is better as an appliance.
But the Mac (normal user interface) has never been extended beyond
its limited way as a standard feature (i.e. one that comes standard
or is sold in every software store in the land for $99).
Consider this: if the Mac is the greatest, why does Steve Jobs
sell a Unix box? The NeXt gives you the union of both schools,
right out of the carton. The NeXt shows great promise. Whatever promise
the Mac ever had, has already been achieved. Short of becoming
another NeXt, it is a dead end. Microsoft Windows and OS/2-PM
and Unix/X offer the same thing for the PC hardware, a bit less
elegantly, much cheaper.
I amd not claiming that NeXts or PC's or Unixes are the "greatest",
I am simply flaming the MAC for being limited.
Doug McDonald
Sean Malloy
Instead of 99.9% of the rest of the calculators, which use a bastard
combination of algebraic and RPN? All of the puffery that TI used to
blather about how with their calculators you could enter the
computation "exactly as it is written". Ha. Example:
(5 + (4 x sin(30))) x 4
Entered on an 'AOS' TI calculator:
(
5
+
(
4
*
30 \__ All of the single-operand instructions like the
SIN / trig and hyperbolic functions, the log functions,
) and even something as mundane as the change sign
) key use RPN.
x
4
=
Some of us just prefer a consistent user interface for our
calculators. All of the RPN functions work the same way; 'algebraic'
calculators use RPN where it was too hard to implement algebraic entry
correctly.
Sean Malloy | Now I lay me down to sleep
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | I hear the sirens in the street
San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | All my dreams are made of chrome
mal...@nprdc.navy.mil | I have no way to get back home
| -- Tom Waits
osm...@ut-emx.uucp
>I'm tired
>of the "technological" priesthood" who want technology for themselves and
>don't give a shit about bringing it to the rest of the world.
>Jeff d'Arcy
Damn straight. I think if Jobs made *any* contribution to the computing
world, the concept of the "toaster" computer was it. "The computer for the
rest of us." Granted, he built in some technical limitations (small memory,
no slots, etc.) that were suboptimal, but what the heck: a Porsche with a
plastic dashboard instead of a wooden one is still a Porsche.
I'm a case in point. I majored in liberal arts (English, Philosophy,
Psychology, Education) all the way through 250+ hours of college/graduate
school. I don't know SH*T about computers *or* programming. Then along came
the Mac, which provided me with a productivity tool of staggering technical
sophistication, and I didn't have to spend a month memorizing commands like
"CP/:D1.whoopee.%\\kipperedherring" just to start something up. No, just point
at the little icon and <click> and presto, an entire document was left/right
justified in 3 seconds, or a font was changed, or a picture pasted into
the middle of a page.
I remember using a PC-AT for a project about 3 years ago. I eagerly booted
the thing up, then spent an entire afternoon poring through an 8 inch stack
of manuals. My prof asked how I was doing, and I said, "gee, I think I'll be
able to get started by tomorrow!"
In contrast, I've seen secretaries who have NEVER used a computer before
take a Mac out of the box, boot up MacWrite, and start cranking out
beautifully formatted correspondence in less than an hour. Try THAT with
your typical "mess-dos" machine.
I was amused when, in a local bookstore, I saw a HUGE book on "Using Micro-
soft Windows." It must have been 3 inches thick. Imagine a 1200-page book
on "using Macintosh windows." Gaaaaaaaaahhhhhh.....
I'm on my second Mac now, an SE with 4 megs RAM and a 40meg external HD. By
carefully setting up a work environment with tools like OnCue, Multi-
Finder, and Macromaker, I've created a personal workstation with power that
existed only in science fiction novels a few years ago. By God, I'm PROUD
of this thing! (pats Mac, tear rolls down cheek)
And yes, after all this time, let's have some dialogue on IBM vs. Mac, as
long as it's sensible and realistic, and not meaningless jaw-wagging like
Woody's (sorry, Woody). I'm sorry if it bothers all you "engineers" that want
to sit here and talk about nubuses and stack heaps (whatever those are).
I've learned some interesting things, and have been exposed to some valid
viewpoints, while reading this discussion. If you don't like it, you know
where the "K" key is.
Ron Morgan
osm...@emx.utexas.edu
Richard Schaut
| [ lot of stuff about IBM PC/compatibles having superior graphics to Macs
| suppressed... ]
|
| Well, most of this may be true, however, I have yet to find a general
| purpose type word processor for the IBM PC/compatible which has WYSIWYG
| features; hence, being able to *see* italics, etc. instead of simply
| changing the colors of the text to represent different fonts.
|
| Bah, I say to graphics! Show me something simple, something tangible
| like the word processing capability I described above. The Mac has
| had these capabilities since what? 1983? Something like that.
Let's see, MicroSoft Word has been around since '82, and has had true
WYSIWYG since the first release. If you want to put the Mac up against
the PC in word processing, the Mac loses on all fronts. In fact, the
Mac loses in all general business applications, and that gap is going
to widen over the next year or so.
Richard Ewing
well I agree. Everybody knows that the Targa boards came out on the PC
before the Mac. My point was that there are *no standards* for doing
32 bit work on a PC and still be compatible across the board with
the zillion appilcations that you already run. The 32-bit Color Quickdraw
standard created by Apple was invented for a reason: to create a standard
that would be a logical extension of the existing video model without
obsoleting it, and to give the third party board makers a model which
to design by. That way, when SuperMac introduced the 32-bit version
of PixelPaint, they didn't have to worry about whether their board
only worked on SuperMac's 24 bit card. It would work on
*any* card from any vendor. That's the kind of video standards
that the industry needs. Not different video modes that completely
render null and void the last standard. The PC world has gone
from MDA to CGA to EGA to MCGA to VGA to 8514/A with Hercules (a few
varieties) and Super VGA just to cload the issue. And good video
products have to backwards emulate most of those just to be competetive.
The Mac world works stricly by bit depths so we can work in 1 bit, 2bits,
4 bits, 8 bits, 16 bits, or 24 bits, and all user selectable from
the control panel.
Just to illustrate how flexible this is, just last week, I was in a demo
in which I had three monitors on a Mac IIx. The first was an
AppleColor Monitor driven by a RasterOps 264 card ($995) at 640x480 pixels.
The second was a Radius 19 inch Trinitron Monitor being driven by a
Radius 32 bit Truecolor card, and accompanying graphics accelerator.
This monitor was 1180x850 pixels. The last screen was an ordinary
Mitsubishi 19inch multisync monitor being driven by a TrueVision 4M
(Targa board to you PC guys). I ran this display at 640x480, even though
I experimented with higher resolutions (up to 1024x780) being the demo.
Not only did three different video cards from three different vendors
work on three different monitors in the same Mac, but because
of the virtual desktop between them, I could drag a window from one
monitor to another as if they were all one display. I could drag
a Wingz spreadsheet to encompass the space of all three monitors, and
have it act properly. I could run all three boards in the 24 bit mode,
or I could have 1 in 24 bit, one in 8 bit, and the last in grayscale
or monochrome, and the system (not the application software) would
take care of any color mapping as objects moved from one screen
to another *automatically*. If I wanted to change the physical
arrangement that the monitors were perceived to the user, no problem, just
select the control panel and drag the screen around until they are
how you like them. Its that easy! The way it should be. And
no obsolescence! Can you do that on a PC anything?
--
__________________________________________________________________________
|Disclaimer: I run 125 INITs. Nothing I say can be seriously considered. |
| |
|Internet: REW...@APPLE.COM-----------------------Rick Ewing |
|ApplelinkPE & MacNet Soon!------------------Apple Computer, Inc. |
|Applelink: EWING--------------------100 Ashford Center North, Suite 100 |
|Compu$erve: [76474,1732]--------------------Atlanta, GA 30338 |
|GENIE: R.EWING1--------------------------TalkNet: (404) 393-9358 |
|USENET: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!rewing |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just another theatre geek...
Ha. Ha ha. Hah hah hah. BWAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's a GOOOOOOD one! Haven't laughed so hard since I first
saw BLAZING SADDLES!
Know of any other good ones? Or did you send all your good
stuff to Letterman?
--
Roger Tang, Member
Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club
American Flag Disposal Unit #3245, Chonk Moonhunters chapter
gwan...@blake.acs.washington.edu