Help me convince Apple to wake up

monsieur HAINEUX

unread,

Jun 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/15/95

to

conn...@cleo.bc.edu (Brian Connors) wrote:
| Apple will, IMHO, probably survive the Win95 onslaught, but not everyone
| agrees. Copland will be a great thing...in 1996. OpenDoc blows OLE away.
| But Win95 is expected to take the world by storm and something must be
| done.

It's nice that so many people care so much. I'm sure the Macintosh Clan
plans some major anti-Windows campaigning, but remember the facts:

Windows 95 is a coalescing of window-system technology that Macintosh has
had for ages. In many ways, Windows is finally catching up to Macintosh
human interface technology. But it will still be behind in hardware and
software integration, hardware and software standardization, software
compatibility, and raw power.

And as soon as Microsoft does ship Windows, there will be newer technology
from Apple. More and more futuristic technology, that Windows won't have
for years. Macintosh will soon be (once again) way ahead of the Microsoft
"standard." Macintosh is NOT standing still.

But more important than any of that is the application development impact.

Simply put:

Windows 95 will break many apps,
and they'll break again when the next Windows rolls,
and break again when Windows finally gets rid of DOS and get a "real"
32 bit environment,
and break again when Intel finally decides to get off its butt and do
RISC computing.
(These are hurdles that Macintosh has already passed -- without breaking
many apps.)

Windows may increase its marketshare slightly, but that's not going to
stop Macintosh from being the better platform to develop for.

With Macintosh, the apps you write now stay running for longer.

And they keep getting faster and faster.

More and more "PC" developers are supporting Macintosh. They're finding it
faster and easier than Windows development.

And more profitable.

My wish for Apple is that they make it perfectly clear to developers that
this is what's REALLY up.

bill coderre
mr HEINOUS

Brian Connors

unread,

Jun 15, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/15/95

to

To all Mac users:

Apple will, IMHO, probably survive the Win95 onslaught, but not everyone
agrees. Copland will be a great thing...in 1996. OpenDoc blows OLE away.
But Win95 is expected to take the world by storm and something must be
done.

If you really want Apple to survive, please send your opinions of what to
do to Apple. Mine are

-Promote the hell out of the new PowerMacs.
-Promote things that Win95 comes up short in:
-Graphics support: QuickDraw GX is superior to anything Win95 has.
-groupware support: PowerTalk is standard. Exchange will be optional.
-ease of use: Almost isn't good enough. Clone or not, buy the real thing.
-PowerPC is significantly faster than x86. Where do Apple ads mention this?
-Quality is more important than quantity. It doesn't matter which has
more apps, it only matters that the apps are there are good. And they
are.
-Plug-and-play is old news.
-Networking: OpenTransport looks very good. Promoting AppleTalk is a
liability now.
-The important thing: innovation. Rumor has it that Apple isn't working
on anything new at the moment. Well, it doesn't appear Microsoft is doing
much innovative on its own... Apple, get the jump on them.

I could use a proper address to send this note to Apple.

If you care, do it now. I disagree with those who think it's over for
Apple, and I don't want to have to change my mind.

Wake up, Apple!

Brian Connors
Boston College

Marcel Watson

unread,

Jun 16, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/16/95

to

> Windows 95 is a coalescing of window-system technology that Macintosh has
> had for ages. In many ways, Windows is finally catching up to Macintosh
> human interface technology. But it will still be behind in hardware and
> software integration, hardware and software standardization, software
> compatibility, and raw power.
>
> And as soon as Microsoft does ship Windows, there will be newer technology
> from Apple. More and more futuristic technology, that Windows won't have
> for years. Macintosh will soon be (once again) way ahead of the Microsoft
> "standard." Macintosh is NOT standing still.

The current MAC OS is far ahead of Windows 3.1 and yet more PCs are sold
than MACs. It isn't a matter of which system is better but which system
has the better marketing.

> Windows may increase its marketshare slightly, but that's not going to
> stop Macintosh from being the better platform to develop for.
>
> With Macintosh, the apps you write now stay running for longer.
>
> And they keep getting faster and faster.
>
> More and more "PC" developers are supporting Macintosh. They're finding it
> faster and easier than Windows development.

Hope this happens soon. Currently My biggest problem is that alot of the
software is not available for the MAC (I support a large Company and most
the the third party software are only for the PC)

KevinK

unread,

Jun 16, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/16/95

to

In article <connorbd-150...@sf06.bc.edu>, conn...@cleo.bc.edu
(Brian Connors) wrote:

> To all Mac users:
>
> Apple will, IMHO, probably survive the Win95 onslaught, but not everyone
> agrees. Copland will be a great thing...in 1996. OpenDoc blows OLE away.
> But Win95 is expected to take the world by storm and something must be
> done.

I have been a Mac owner since the original 128K version came out. Apple
had a good thing going, but did not capitalize on it for the long term. I
think it is too little too late.

It does not matter if Copeland will be better. By that time Windows 95
will be even more firmly entrenched. It does not matter if OpenDoc is
better. Microsoft will promote OLE, but if/when OpenDoc becomes the
standard, Microsoft will be there too. Microsoft may already believe that
is where the standard is heading, but it makes sense for them to give
their best effort with the here-today technology and slow the momentum of
OpenDoc.

I am not sure, but I think IBM is working on PowerPC processors that run
X86 code. If that is the case, then Windows 95 will probably be able to
run on PowerPC machines. Windows NT already can run on PowerPC's. A
company could have one set of software that runs on both Pentium/P6's and
PowerPC's by running Windows NT. OS/2 Warp is even more of a bet than the
Mac OS.

Remember Amiga? That is where it looks like Apple is heading unfortunately.

Apple must realize its survival is in danger and pull *all* stops.
Possibly making a deal with IBM that all CHRP machines from IBM and Apple
will come with both OS/2 Warp and the Mac OS pre-installed.

I will be buying a computer within the next few months. It would not make
sense for me to buy a Mac because it does not run a lot of the software
that I need to use. Visual Basic does not and will not run on a Mac!
That is an extremely important development tool for the future. Microsoft
Access does not run on a Mac! It is a powerful relational database
integrated with other Microsoft products. Microsoft Word runs better on
my work PC than my Mac! Yes, Bill Gates wants people to switch to
Windows... Macs are STILL way too expensive. With PC's, hard drives >1G
have been common for a while at price points where Macs are less than half
of that. The Macs only recently have had 4X CD ROMS. Mac prices have not
kept pace with falling Pentium system prices.

I think Mac market share will shrink rather than grow. Individuals and
businesses will switch to Windows or OS/2 from the Mac platform.
Publishing companies that need power may not switch if the PowerPC has raw
processing speed advantages.

Those are just my ramblings. I want Apple to succeed, but also resent the
way the way the company has treated its customers by price-gauging all
these years. I think competition is needed, and would hate to see
Microsoft kill gobble up more market share.

WAKE UP APPLE! This is one person who would like to see you succeed that
is switching for practical reasons.

--
Successful living is like playing a violin -- it must be practiced daily.

Vareck Bostrom

unread,

Jun 16, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/16/95

to

In article <connorbd-150...@sf06.bc.edu>, conn...@cleo.bc.edu
(Brian Connors) wrote:

> -Promote the hell out of the new PowerMacs.
> -Promote things that Win95 comes up short in:
> -Graphics support: QuickDraw GX is superior to anything Win95 has.
> -groupware support: PowerTalk is standard. Exchange will be optional.
> -ease of use: Almost isn't good enough. Clone or not, buy the real thing.
> -PowerPC is significantly faster than x86. Where do Apple ads
mention this?

PowerPC is not significantly faster than x86. It's unclear that it's even
as fast as x86 currently.

When this PowerPC thing started, apple did have an advantage, the
80 MHz PPC601 was quite a bit faster than the 66 MHz intel Pentium.
However, the 90 MHz Pentium was released and became available shortly
afterwords and is about the same speed as the 80 MHz PPC601 in integer.
As we stand now, the fastest commonly available macs are 110 MHz
PPC601s (right?) and the fastest available PCs are 120 MHz Pentiums -
close enough of a tossup. Of course, that's high end.

Low End PCs are Pentium-75s nowadays, which are slightly faster than
the low end mac (6100/66) - and less expensive (depending on configuration)
to boot.

In the next several months we'll be faced with new high-end stuff from
Intel in the form of P6-133s, pentium 180s, 150s, and 133s while the
new low end pentium 90s drop to extremely low prices.

Apple needs to come up with something like a Power Macintosh 6100
with a 100 MHz PowerPC 601 and L2 and price it very well, even less than
the current 6100/66s.

Most important is the interface speed. My DX4-100 feels much faster
in the interface than my Power Mac 8100/80AV (partly because of the AV
card, I'm sure) - but when I windowshade a window, the text in other
windows below that one shouldn't take any time at all to redraw and
appear - but it does. Shrinking apps under windows on the DX4 (a
much slower CPU, though with a Stealth 64 video card) - the windows
below appear instantly. This is just one little thing that make
PCs SEEM much faster than Macs.

A friend was over playing with photoshop 3.0 on my 8100 and commented
, "you know, I think this is slower than Photoshop on my pentium (a P5-90)"
I proposed a side by side test, and in most everything we did on a
15 mb image the power mac was faster - got the job done first, BUT even
I thought the pentium would win after playing with it for a little bit -
everything SEEMED faster, even though when it got down to the "how long
do we have to watch the aplying filter bar cross the screen" the mac was
faster.

Mac people will tell you it's not the speed of the computer that sells it,
it's the ease of use. That may or may not be true, but part of ease of use
is not feeling like your windows are stuck in molassas when your using the
user interface.

> Wake up, Apple!

Yes.

Peter Moller

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

bos...@kira.peak.org (Vareck Bostrom) writes:
>PowerPC is not significantly faster than x86. It's unclear that it's even
>as fast as x86 currently.

>afterwords and is about the same speed as the 80 MHz PPC601 in integer.
^^^^^^^^
I agree pretty much with what you write: Apple needs to wake up. All this
talk about PPC "blowing Pentium out of the waters" is smoke. PPC is faster
and probably will continue to be faster, but not *that* much faster. I
think one very important issue here is: the Wintel folks are about to
become proud of their platform. Everyone and their neighbour knows that
wintel people always have envied the Mac-platform for its ease of use and
good integration. Even when they claimed that Windows 3.1 was just about as
good as the Mac, they knew they were lying; it was whishful thinking. But
with Windows 95, they will finally feel they are no longer the little brother,
they will feel they have finally outgrown the MacUI and that will make them
really proud. THAT is what Apple has to deal with. It doesn't help that the
Mac still is better: the momentum is on the Wintel side and that's the issue.
Remember back in the good 'ol days when all innovation took place on the Mac
and the programs were ported to Windows *after* the had appeared on the Mac?
Well, today it's the other way around.

Back to the integer thing above: why is integer the only performance Wintel
folks are talking about????? I *can't* understand it. I know that they talk
about it because FP used to be expensive, if available, so programmers had
to adapt their programs to integer, but that's no more the fact. Everyone
talks about 3D, sound, images etc. These kinds of data requires *floating
point*!! Converting FP data to integer is like crossing the river for water;
it's stupid. The future will be *both* integer and FP, so stop quoting only
SpecInt figures!!!

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter....@dna.lth.se, System Wet-Nurse @ DNA & LUDAT
Department of Computer Science, Lund Institute of Technology
Box 118, S-221 00 LUND, Sweden, tfn +46 -46 10 41 56, fax +46 -46 13 10 21

Mahesh Sooriarachchi

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

In article <3rta0t$4...@homer.alpha.net> harp...@earth.execpc.com (harper21) writes:
>In article <rainbow-1606...@oasis.msn.fullfeed.com>
>rai...@msn.fullfeed.com (KevinK) writes:

>I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you (maybe it's just wishfull
>thinking), I think that apple-compatable computers will double market
>share in the next year. Windows 95 was a total blunder. I think that
>apple needs to be doing the same things that IBM is doing. How about
>some hostile takeovers? OS2 is the wildcard, it looks really good, I
>don't like it compared to the mac though. Conclusion: As long as the
>Macs are still around, I'm not buying a PC. Everyone, try and
>encourage your friends to buy Macs.
>Sean/

I have to agree with you sean. I believe that the Mac licensing will
definitely increase the share of the Mac market. If you look at the
facts from the SPC, the mac has about 25% of the software market, even
though the mac hardware market is about 10% Why? because the MacOS runs
on even the humble 68000 built 10 years ago, while the windos cant run
tolerably on a 386dx. Whenn the windos95 comes out you will need at least
a 486dx to run it tolerably.

When you say the Mac has 10% market share and peecees 90%, this 90%
market share dosen't belong to you at all. From what I can remember
(dont quote me on the figures) windos has about 40-50, dos some 25-35
percent or so. So when you look at the software figures, the gap isnt
as bad as it seems. After all, its the software market that matters to a
software company, not just the hardware side. Though a dos program can
be run under window, if you write a windos app you are effectivly
reducing your market share to that of windos. Since the programming
paradim for dos and wiindos is fundamentally different, and due to the
shrinking dos market, it makes it more attractive to develop for the Mac
since both Mac and windos share an event-driven graphical environment,
where you can share code more easily.

For the sake of the argument, if windos had 40% market share and the Mac had
25% I would want to have a Mac version of the software as well, just
because the Mac's leser support calls would itself make up for the fewer
sales. In addition to that, microsloppy controls most major applications
on the windos side, which means your market share will shrink even more.

Take a look what happened when windos first came out. Every one was
calling the Mac killer is here. Since, the release of windows, Mac sales
actually grew, the prices of the Mac dropped, and the MacOS got a hell of
a lot better. We are going to see this again with Copland and Mac licensing.
What people dont realize is that Mac is not just an interface, like
windos 95. There is a lot of other cool stuff under the hood,
AppleScript, AppleEvents, QuickDraw3D, GX, PowerTalk, the list goes on
and on... And with the introduction of Copland, it will get a hell of a
lot better.

I have an OpenDoc developer cd, and it beats the hell out of
microsloppy's ole, technology wise, interface wise and usability wise.
There is no question about the superiority or the success of OpenDoc over
ole. OpenDoc is cross-platform from the ground up, so the developers
(like me :) ) can write to one API and have it implemented on a bunch of
platforms (MacOS, windos, OS/2, unix) with very little change. That
plus, If you write to OpenDoc, it will automatically be ole compatible.
So the issue of ole is a non issue. This means more software for the
Mac. If I developed for windos with OpenDoc, I would be prety stupid to
give up the other platforms I get for almost nothing.

In the next few years you can expect more people to jump on the CHRP
platform and I think we are going see a good battle between wintel's
broken processors and the cool PPCs. Apple and IBM shares between them
about 20% of the market, thats a lot folks. If they can sign in one
other big player like Compaq or at least a bunch of small time players,
we'll be rolling!

Put all this awsome stuff on native PPC and clone it, and have it run on
any CHRP machine too. Now thats real cool power!

Macs are still a very cool place to be. A few months back I was asked to
develop for windos and I almost quit my job. We settled the matter and I
dont touch the peecees anymore. What I found out in my quest for a new
job when I was looking, was that if you keep yourself up-to-date, there are
lots of people who wants to grab you. If I have to develop for a peecee,
I can do it right on my Macintosh with CodeWarror's cross-compiler. Dont
buy into microsloppy and wintel sob's Fear Uncertainity and Doubt (FUD)
factors and give up on the Mac to switch to a lesser (looser) platform.
Macintosh still a very, very cool place to be - try your best to kick the
bastards out of the water.

Mahesh Soori.

My openions are mine, not of my employer.

Adam Lang

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

Vareck Bostrom, bos...@kira.peak.org writes:
>PowerPC is not significantly faster than x86. It's unclear that it's even
>as fast as x86 currently.
>

>When this PowerPC thing started, apple did have an advantage, the
>80 MHz PPC601 was quite a bit faster than the 66 MHz intel Pentium.
>However, the 90 MHz Pentium was released and became available shortly

>afterwords and is about the same speed as the 80 MHz PPC601 in integer.

>As we stand now, the fastest commonly available macs are 110 MHz
>PPC601s (right?) and the fastest available PCs are 120 MHz Pentiums -
>close enough of a tossup. Of course, that's high end.

Well, actually, as of this coming monday the fastest available Macs are
the PPC 604 based 9500/120 and 9500/132. They sell for LESS than the
8100/110 (and I have this straight from a price book: PSU already has
the 9500 series on its price list, and it costs less than the 8100/110
does on the same price list). The processor is more than 50% faster
than the 601 at an equivalent clock speed, plus the redesigned SCSI
hardware, the PCI video card (which is cheap and required), the 512k
level 2 cache, and dozens of other interesting archetectural redesigns
put them at, and I quote from a pre-release review, 'approximately double
the speed of a PowerMac running a 601 chip at an equivalent clock rate.'
In addition, they can hold up to 768 megs of RAM (sheesh!) and address
disk volumes of up to three terrabytes in size, they have six PCI slots,
and they should be MORE readily available than the 8100/110 or 100 (well,
the 120 mhz version should... Motorola is still having trouble producing
enough of the higher-speed 604 chips.)

Add to that the fact that the planned upgrade path is a PDS card that
installs a 150 mHz 604 chip (reports that this will parallel-process with
the onboard CPU are rife but are unconfirmed) and you've got quite a
machine on your hands...

>Low End PCs are Pentium-75s nowadays, which are slightly faster than
>the low end mac (6100/66) - and less expensive (depending on configuration)
>to boot.

Two words: Performa 5200. 66 mhz PowerPC system, COMPLETE (monitor,
keyboard, modem, bundled software, etc), 8/700, is... god, I can't
remember. I *think* it's under $1700, and it MAY be under $1600.
Now, that's educational, but these days the educational prices on
most things aren't much different than the discount house prices, and
I'm sure the clones will be even cheaper...

>In the next several months we'll be faced with new high-end stuff from
>Intel in the form of P6-133s, pentium 180s, 150s, and 133s while the
>new low end pentium 90s drop to extremely low prices.

In the next few months? Last I heard the P6 chips weren't coming out until
first quarter next year at the EARLIEST... has this changed?

>Apple needs to come up with something like a Power Macintosh 6100
>with a 100 MHz PowerPC 601 and L2 and price it very well, even less than
>the current 6100/66s.

In August: PowerMac 7200/90, PCI bus machine, 601 processor. The price
listed is speculative, to say the least... it says $1600. I'd guess that
it's lower than that, but I can't say for sure.

Of course, that's when the PowerMac 8500/120 comes out, too. For a bit
more than $3000, you get a 120 mHz 604 PCI-bus machine with reworked video
editing capibilities and... (blatherblatherblather)... (drooldrooldrool :)

Oh well. Look, the moral of the story is, read MacWeek, and don't say
'Macs WERE ahead, but now PCs are again'. It's a leapfrog thing...
PCs get ahead for a little while, Macs pass them, then PCs pass them back,
and etc.

--Adam Lang

Paradox

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

In article <connorbd-150...@sf06.bc.edu>, conn...@cleo.bc.edu
(Brian Connors) wrote:
>

> To all Mac users:

>
> But Win95 is expected to take the world by storm and something must be
> done.
>

Look man, go back to Apple ans ask them this:

Before Windows became a standard on the PC, Apple had a version of System
7 working on a 386 running under N-DOS. Why didn't they release it?

If they can't help themselves, it's not up to us to get them out of
trouble. We're paying high enough already to support their marketing
mistakes.

Peter

Paradox
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The paradox about paradoxes is that |
| "They themselves are not paradoxical." - John Berndt |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

KevinK

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

In article <3rtafb$d...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>, Adam Lang <tha...@cs.pdx.edu> wrote:

> KevinK, rai...@msn.fullfeed.com writes:

> >Visual Basic does not and will not run on a Mac!
> >That is an extremely important development tool for the future.
>

> Well, actually, so far as I can determine, the only thing that makes it
> 'important' is the fact that Microsoft makes it. If you're looking for
> an easy-to-use and intelligent development envorionment, there are several
> out there for the Mac that are much better designed (and FASTER!) than
> Visual Basic. However, you're not looking for a good product, you're
> looking for a Microsoft product.

Visual Basic has gotten very good reviews, and a lot of companies are
using it to create client/server apps. I think it is very powerful, and
Visual Basic for Applications will integrate MS Office products. There
are a lot of companies that sell add-ons to Visual Basic making it even
more powerful. Because it is somewhat of a standard, and inexpensive, it
is very portable. And of course, runs on PC's which are everywhere.
Someone who develops using Visual Basic does not have to develop for a
niche market.

On the PC, there are other very powerful tools of course. Borland's
Delphi. Sybase's PowerBuilder, Gupta, IBM's Visual Age/Smalltalk. How
many of these run on the Mac platform? And of those that do (are there
any?), how many months after they were available for the PC platform were
they available for the Mac?

What does the Mac have? And if you develop on it, do you need to run your
app on only Macs (about 10% market share...)? It seems that a lot of the
development tools are first written for PC's and then (maybe) months later
a Mac version might come out.

> >Microsoft Access does not run on a Mac! It is a powerful relational
database
> >integrated with other Microsoft products.
>

> Microsoft Access is in fact a joke. Microsoft does not intend to support
> it
> for more than another year or two. It was an attempt to compete with
> FoxBase
> at its own game, and Microsoft LOST. So they bought FoxBase and have
> pulled
> most of their programmers off of Access. In other words, you won't be
> hearing
> much about Microsoft Access any more.

Oh really? Microsoft Access is an integral part of MS Office
Professional. It is not a joke... it is very powerful. I am a database
analyst, and I find it is a very good relational database. Visual Basic
for Applications will be integrated into MS Access within 6 weeks after
the release of Windows 95. Can you see the synnergy there? Visual Basic,
MS Office Pro, and Visual Basic for Applications...

I read trade publications all the time, and have never heard any mention
that Microsoft does not intend to support Access in the future. Where did
you get this information? Microsoft also has SQL Server 6.0, a more
robust database trying to compete with the likes of Sybase, Oracle, and
Ingres.

> >Microsoft Word runs better on my work PC than my Mac!
>

> And your work PC is a Pentium or high-end 486, of course, since it's a work
> machine. And your Mac is a 68030 machine, or you wouldn't be buying a new
> computer anytime soon. Mac Word 5.1, so far as I can determine, runs
> better
> than any version of WinWord as yet.

My work PC is a 25 Mhz 486. My home PC is a 16 Mhz 68030. Even
accounting for the difference in processor speed, my mac is painfully slow
while my 486 zips along. If I would stay with the mac, I would definitely
get WordPerfect 3.1 because I hear it is pretty good and much faster.

> >Yes, Bill Gates wants people to switch to Windows... Macs are STILL way too
> >expensive. With PC's, hard drives >1G have been common for a while at price
> >points where Macs are less than half of that. The Macs only recently have
> >had 4X CD ROMS. Mac prices have not kept pace with falling Pentium system
> >prices.
>

> This discussion has been done to death. The upshot is that if you want to
> get a system from a maker that noone's ever heard of before, you can do it
> cheaper for the PC. And you can buy a Hundai for considerably less than
> a Saab.

Compaq, Hewlett Packard, and IBM (finally) all offer quality systems for
less than the price of Macs. Gateway 2000, Micron, Dell are companies
that most PC users have heard of and are pretty good. I bought a new
Nissan Sentra which is considerably less than a Saab, and am pretty happy
with it :)

Obviously this discussion is not dead, because we are debating it now!

> >I think Mac market share will shrink rather than grow. Individuals and
> >businesses will switch to Windows or OS/2 from the Mac platform.
> >Publishing companies that need power may not switch if the PowerPC has raw
> >processing speed advantages.
>

> I think that unless you're a clairvoyant or an industry expert you should
> refrain from making predictions, especially when you're criticizing the
> parts of the Mac that are its STRENGTHS (better software, etc.) and not
> its weaknesses.

Anyone can predict, and often industry experts predict different outcomes
and they are not all right, and often people who are not "experts" can
predict better. I think it is fun to predict. One thing is for
certain... predicting definitely has a high margin for error. I learned
that when I got into the stock market.

As far as the Mac strengths, I don't see where the software is better. I
use both a PC and Mac, and the *software* is equal or better on the PC.
And certainly a lot more variety. The software common to both the PC and
Mac usually comes out later for the Mac. These are not predictions, they
are facts.

Provide some examples of better software, and maybe I will see your
point. If you do, at least show that you have some knowledge about what
is available for the PC so that we know you are making a valid comparison.

The strength of the Mac is in its *operating system*. But for me, the
operating system is a means to run *software*. The software is where I
get the value out of my computer. And the Mac software is limited or
niche. That is okay I guess if you only use it in your isolated home
environment, but if you want to use it in business and share data with the
rest of the world, the PC has more of a presence.

I hope I am wrong and Apple sticks around and increases market share and
attracts developers. It is fun to watch if nothing else. I am not
attached to my Mac or any other machine. I simply buy and use what makes
the most sense and gives me the most power, standardization, and
flexibility at the time.

Akira

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

In article <rainbow-1606...@oasis.msn.fullfeed.com> rai...@msn.fullfeed.com (KevinK) writes:

>It does not matter if Copeland will be better. By that time Windows 95
>will be even more firmly entrenched. It does not matter if OpenDoc is
>better.

I couldn't disagree more. Having spent the past week having to get used
to a new 486 at work (which is so much slower than my Performa 636 it's
scary) I have learned to hate Windows in a very brief space of time.
It's not an OS, it's a shell, but they bill it as an OS; why are people
dumb enough to believe them? It's counter-intuitive, clunky, slows the
system to even more of a crawl than it's already at...it surprises me
that there are so many Windows users. I hadn't had a great deal of
exposure to the IBM world up to now, but I figured Windows, notoriously
buggy though it was, would at least have to perform reasonably well for
MicroSloth to be so powerful. Such is not the case...

The problem is that Apple doesn't know how yo advertise -- for that
matter, Apple doesn't know TO advertise. If they learned how to promote
this whole silly thing would finally be over...

>Remember Amiga? That is where it looks like Apple is heading unfortunately.

Amiga was micromanaged into the ground. Apple was moving in that
direction, then they got wise and fired Scully, no matter what the press
releases said. Don't write it off yet.

>Apple must realize its survival is in danger and pull *all* stops.

No doubt!

>Visual Basic does not and will not run on a Mac!
>That is an extremely important development tool for the future.

Funny you should say that, because I saw it in STORES for the Mac before
the PC...granted, I wasn't looking to hard for PC products at the time,
but...*shrug* If you're talking about performance, that depends on what
sort of system you try to run the software on. Case in point: no matter
what software I run, my Performa 636 with a majorly loaded System folder
runs faster than any of the 486s in my house, or any of those I've
encountered at work, or any of those I've encountered in my college, or...

>Microsoft
>Access does not run on a Mac! It is a powerful relational database
>integrated with other Microsoft products.

*snort* Thank GOD for that! Compared to FileMaker Pro, Access is a
worthless product. FM Pro is faster, has just as many features, and is
IMHO easier to learn how to use as far as database creation is
concerned. What Claris needs to do is push their Windows version of FM
Pro as hard as MS pushes Access; it integrates just as well with any
other Windows program as Access, better in come cases.

>Microsoft Word runs better on
>my work PC than my Mac!

Then you've got a very poor Mac, my friend...I've seen Word 6 run on all
variety of 486s and it ain't pretty...

>Macs are STILL way too expensive.

READ SOME ADDS, WILL YOU!!! My Performa 636 with student discount ($1800
for LC040, 66/33 mHz, x2 CD internal, 250 MB HD, 14" color monitor) was
comperable in price to my father's employee's discount on my sister's
Aptiva, and I got a much faster computer. Then again, she uses Windows,
so that could be part of it...she also got a bunch of CD-ROMs that I
missed out on, aimed at 6-10 year olds. The CD-ROMs I got were aimed at
college students...*shrug* You be the judge.

>With PC's, hard drives >1G
>have been common for a while at price points where Macs are less than half
>of that.

Nothing personal, but I'll believe it when I see your data. I'd almost
be willing to believe you on "name brand" hard drives, but SCSI is a
universal standard and a SCSI drive is a SCSI drive, whether you're
running it on an IBM or a Mac.

>The Macs only recently have had 4X CD ROMS.

THIS IS A BLATENT LIE!!!!! Macs have had 4xCD-ROMs since they were
invented. Universal standard, remember? Hardware is hardware.

>I think Mac market share will shrink rather than grow.

Then explain to me why:
Macs outsold ALL the other computer manufacturers last year
PowerPC represents the most rapidly growing home PC market share
Proportionately, there are more PowerPCs than Pentiums in the workplace

I agree with you, Apple isn't out of the woods yet. But the picture
isn't as bleak as you paint it. It's sort of like the Internet -- people
have been predicting that both would collapse since 1987.

Look where we are now.

Regards,

Rich
--
Rich "Akira" Pizor, pi...@lclark.edu | "Why would you want to be a Barbie
Lewis and Clark College | when you could be a Picasso or
LC Box 663 | something?"
Portland, OR 97219 | -- Siouxsie Sioux in concert

KevinK

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

In article <watsonm-1606...@dip048.pixi.com>, wat...@pixi.com
(Marcel Watson) wrote:

> > And as soon as Microsoft does ship Windows, there will be newer technology
> > from Apple. More and more futuristic technology, that Windows won't have
> > for years. Macintosh will soon be (once again) way ahead of the Microsoft
> > "standard." Macintosh is NOT standing still.
>
> The current MAC OS is far ahead of Windows 3.1 and yet more PCs are sold
> than MACs. It isn't a matter of which system is better but which system
> has the better marketing.

... and applications and installed base and confidence of businesses. Now
that operating systems are all GUI, it seems that the differences between
them are not all that great. Sure, the next Mac OS may be better, but how
much better. As long as it is easy to launch applications, etc, it seems
that the *applications* are the most important thing.

Richard Wesley

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

In article <rainbow-1606...@oasis.msn.fullfeed.com>
rai...@msn.fullfeed.com (KevinK) writes:

> I will be buying a computer within the next few months. It would not make
> sense for me to buy a Mac because it does not run a lot of the software

> that I need to use. Visual Basic does not and will not run on a Mac!
> That is an extremely important development tool for the future. Microsoft

> Access does not run on a Mac! It is a powerful relational database

I beg your pardon? It was running on it two years ago. As for its power, it
is pretty unreliable and slow compared to other WinTel databases.

> integrated with other Microsoft products. Microsoft Word runs better on
> my work PC than my Mac! Yes, Bill Gates wants people to switch to

It doesn't work too well under Windows from what I hear (I have friends who
make Word add-ons for a living)

> Windows... Macs are STILL way too expensive. With PC's, hard drives >1G

> have been common for a while at price points where Macs are less than half

> of that. The Macs only recently have had 4X CD ROMS. Mac prices have not

"Recently" meaning "only for a year and a half"?

> kept pace with falling Pentium system prices.

Down the street from me they are selling P75 systems for about $1500. From the
back of the latest issue of MacUser, I see a P601/66 Mac for $1585. The Mac
system has a specfp rating comparable to a P90. Seems pretty comperable to me
(and I haven't dragged in the support costs yet, although I grant that most
people don't consider that...) Not to mention that Apple is going to ship the
Tsunami (P604/132) in a month or so.

Apple does in fact appear to have figured out that it has to compete, so most
price/performance claims (inclusing mine) are likely to change before this
thread get anywhere...

- rmgw

http://www.halcyon.com/hawkfish/Resume.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wesley hawk...@punchdeck.com | "Oh boy! Did you forget the plot
Punch Deck Consulting pnch...@aol.com | _again_?"
Macintosh Software Development | - Rocket J. Squirrel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bryan Cowan

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

IMHO, Apple is the computer world's equivalent of Chrysler-everybody keeps
predicting they will collapse, and lo and behold they come right back as
strong as ever. Somebody pointed out to me that a $8 billion company
doesn't disappear overnight, and I think they're right. It doesn't seem
that Apple is in imminent danger of collapse; they still have ample
opportunity to save themselves.

Bryan Cowan loqu...@aimnet.com San Francisco, United States

Help! Help! We're being held prisoner in a system software factory! -found
in the bootup scripts for my Mac, attributed to *The Blue Meanies*

harper21

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

If I were you I would be more worried about Microsoft than Apple.
Actually, I would be most worried about intel, it seems to me that ibm
and motorola have a definate advantage in speed and definatly in price.
But if I were microsoft I would be very worried about ibm. Ibm is
really making great strides with os/2 and just stole the network
advantage out from under microsofts nose. My accelerated LC beat the
crap out of my dad's work 486 in a test that we ran it through.
Although it was hardly a formal test and they were home written
programs, (mine could have been better) but the LC beat the PC in the
test by 200%.
Sean/

harper21

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

In article <rainbow-1606...@oasis.msn.fullfeed.com>
rai...@msn.fullfeed.com (KevinK) writes:

> I have been a Mac owner since the original 128K version came out. Apple
> had a good thing going, but did not capitalize on it for the long term. I
> think it is too little too late.
>

> It does not matter if Copeland will be better. By that time Windows 95
> will be even more firmly entrenched. It does not matter if OpenDoc is

> better. Microsoft will promote OLE, but if/when OpenDoc becomes the
> standard, Microsoft will be there too. Microsoft may already believe that
> is where the standard is heading, but it makes sense for them to give
> their best effort with the here-today technology and slow the momentum of
> OpenDoc.
>
> I am not sure, but I think IBM is working on PowerPC processors that run
> X86 code. If that is the case, then Windows 95 will probably be able to
> run on PowerPC machines. Windows NT already can run on PowerPC's. A
> company could have one set of software that runs on both Pentium/P6's and
> PowerPC's by running Windows NT. OS/2 Warp is even more of a bet than the
> Mac OS.
>

> Remember Amiga? That is where it looks like Apple is heading unfortunately.
>

> Apple must realize its survival is in danger and pull *all* stops.

> Possibly making a deal with IBM that all CHRP machines from IBM and Apple
> will come with both OS/2 Warp and the Mac OS pre-installed.
>

> I will be buying a computer within the next few months. It would not make
> sense for me to buy a Mac because it does not run a lot of the software

> that I need to use. Visual Basic does not and will not run on a Mac!
> That is an extremely important development tool for the future. Microsoft

> Access does not run on a Mac! It is a powerful relational database

> integrated with other Microsoft products. Microsoft Word runs better on
> my work PC than my Mac! Yes, Bill Gates wants people to switch to

> Windows... Macs are STILL way too expensive. With PC's, hard drives >1G

> have been common for a while at price points where Macs are less than half

> of that. The Macs only recently have had 4X CD ROMS. Mac prices have not

> kept pace with falling Pentium system prices.
>

> I think Mac market share will shrink rather than grow. Individuals and
> businesses will switch to Windows or OS/2 from the Mac platform.
> Publishing companies that need power may not switch if the PowerPC has raw
> processing speed advantages.
>

> Those are just my ramblings. I want Apple to succeed, but also resent the
> way the way the company has treated its customers by price-gauging all
> these years. I think competition is needed, and would hate to see
> Microsoft kill gobble up more market share.
>
> WAKE UP APPLE! This is one person who would like to see you succeed that
> is switching for practical reasons.
>

> --
> Successful living is like playing a violin -- it must be practiced daily.

Adam Lang

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

KevinK, rai...@msn.fullfeed.com writes:
>I will be buying a computer within the next few months. It would not make
>sense for me to buy a Mac because it does not run a lot of the software
>that I need to use. Visual Basic does not and will not run on a Mac!
>That is an extremely important development tool for the future.

Well, actually, so far as I can determine, the only thing that makes it

'important' is the fact that Microsoft makes it. If you're looking for
an easy-to-use and intelligent development envorionment, there are several
out there for the Mac that are much better designed (and FASTER!) than
Visual Basic. However, you're not looking for a good product, you're
looking for a Microsoft product.

>Microsoft Access does not run on a Mac! It is a powerful relational database

>integrated with other Microsoft products.

Microsoft Access is in fact a joke. Microsoft does not intend to support

it
for more than another year or two. It was an attempt to compete with
FoxBase
at its own game, and Microsoft LOST. So they bought FoxBase and have
pulled
most of their programmers off of Access. In other words, you won't be
hearing
much about Microsoft Access any more.

>Microsoft Word runs better on my work PC than my Mac!

And your work PC is a Pentium or high-end 486, of course, since it's a work

machine. And your Mac is a 68030 machine, or you wouldn't be buying a new
computer anytime soon. Mac Word 5.1, so far as I can determine, runs
better
than any version of WinWord as yet.

>Yes, Bill Gates wants people to switch to Windows... Macs are STILL way too

>expensive. With PC's, hard drives >1G have been common for a while at price
>points where Macs are less than half of that. The Macs only recently have
>had 4X CD ROMS. Mac prices have not kept pace with falling Pentium system
>prices.

This discussion has been done to death. The upshot is that if you want to

get a system from a maker that noone's ever heard of before, you can do it
cheaper for the PC. And you can buy a Hundai for considerably less than
a Saab.

>I think Mac market share will shrink rather than grow. Individuals and

>businesses will switch to Windows or OS/2 from the Mac platform.
>Publishing companies that need power may not switch if the PowerPC has raw
>processing speed advantages.

I think that unless you're a clairvoyant or an industry expert you should

refrain from making predictions, especially when you're criticizing the
parts of the Mac that are its STRENGTHS (better software, etc.) and not
its weaknesses.

--Adam Lang

Chad Irby

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

Vareck Bostrom (bos...@kira.peak.org) wrote:

: As we stand now, the fastest commonly available macs are 110 MHz

: PPC601s (right?) and the fastest available PCs are 120 MHz Pentiums -
: close enough of a tossup. Of course, that's high end.

Well, as of Monday the 19th, the fastest Macs will be the PPC 604
machines with PCI. One model is "only" running at 120 MHz, and should be
at least 50% faster than the fastest currently (or soon) available Pentiums.

Of course, there will soon be multiprocessor Macs available with up to
four processors running in an asymmetric multiprocessing mode...
--

Chad Irby / My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@gate.net / for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."

Mike Schwartz

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

->I wish apple would stop dicking around. I think apple should realize
->that the best way to get developers to support new technologies is to to
->place them in the hands of users. The way to do that, make the System
->7.5 update $50 instead of $100. They would probably even make more money.
->--
->__________________________________________________________________________
->Erik A. Speckman Seattle, Washington Good Brain Doesn't Suck
->espe...@reed.edu espe...@halcyon.com
-> "The kids of today should defend themselves against the 70's"

I'd have to agree with the last part, $100 is a ridiculous amount of money
to charge for a system upgrade that doesn't even have that many advantages
over the previous version. I still haven't, and don't plan on, getting
it. There's no point, for Apple Guide, QuickDraw GX (and then be forced to
go and get new printer drivers, apps, tons more RAM, etc., just to use it)
and a few other things.

--
Michael Schwartz
ru...@wimsey.com

"In cyberspace, nobody knows you're canadian, eh?"
---------
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part. Copyright (c), Michael Schwartz, 1995.
License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms. Please send notices of violation to Postm...@microsoft.com and ru...@wimsey.com.
Portions of this .sig licencsed from Joe Ragosta (doc...@interramp.com)

Marcel Watson

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

In article <rainbow-1706...@oasis.msn.fullfeed.com>,
rai...@msn.fullfeed.com (KevinK) wrote:

> > The current MAC OS is far ahead of Windows 3.1 and yet more PCs are sold
> > than MACs. It isn't a matter of which system is better but which system
> > has the better marketing.
>
> ... and applications and installed base and confidence of businesses. Now
> that operating systems are all GUI, it seems that the differences between
> them are not all that great. Sure, the next Mac OS may be better, but how
> much better. As long as it is easy to launch applications, etc, it seems
> that the *applications* are the most important thing.

Yes applications are the key. What would you do if you were Bill
Gates? Develop high quality software for the Mac so people will move to
the Mac and Windows/PC sales drop. I purchased my only Microsoft software
three years ago (QuickBASIC for the Mac) the support for that product was
so bad that I haven't bought another Microsoft product.

Gregory G Greene

unread,

Jun 17, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/17/95

to

'>bos...@kira.peak.org (Vareck Bostrom) writes:
'>Most important is the interface speed. My DX4-100 feels much faster

'>in the interface than my Power Mac 8100/80AV (partly because of the AV
'>card, I'm sure) - but when I windowshade a window, the text in other
'>windows below that one shouldn't take any time at all to redraw and
'>appear - but it does. Shrinking apps under windows on the DX4 (a
'>much slower CPU, though with a Stealth 64 video card) - the windows
'>below appear instantly. This is just one little thing that make
'>PCs SEEM much faster than Macs.

I agree completely. It's one of the reasons why I was so
disappointed with using a 8100/100 (64meg ram, 4meg VRAM). God the
GUI is bog slow, and my point of comparison is one notch lower then
yours. I currently use a 486/66 with ATI GPT.

Greg Greene
g...@kepler.unh.edu

KevinK

unread,

Jun 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/18/95

to

I posted a few days ago predicting doom for Apple and advocating the PC.
Since then I have changed my mind a little.

In my original post I said that Apple has had 2X CD ROMS included with its
computers for a long time while many PC's have had 4X's included. People
have pointed out that Apple has had 4X's as standard.

When I compared the speed of my LCII vs. a 486 running Word 6.0, instead
of taking into account just processor speed someone pointed out that the
processor itself makes a difference. The 68030 is more equivalent to a
386.

Regarding hard drives, it seemed to me when I read ads that much larger
ones are included on PC's compared to Macs at the same price points.

And I was surprised that MS Access was not considered by some to be a good
database compared to FileMaker Pro. The reason I like Access is because
it is relational and seems to me to be very powerful. I do not know if
FileMaker pro is relational... can someone fill me in?

And I was very surprised that some people said that Visual Basic has been
out for a few years on the Mac! I recently saw in PC Week that Microsoft
said it would not release a Visual Basic for the Mac. If there is a
Visual Basic for the Mac, I want to buy it! Where can I get it? Excel
for the Mac has Visual Basic *for Applications* (VBA), but that is a
subset of Visual Basic.

This is where I am at now...

I am a mainframe programmer who runs the risk of becoming a dinosaur if I
do not update my skills. I want to learn client/server and learn skills
that will pay off for me in my career.

If I buy a PC, I will be assured that for now anyway I can run the
software that most businesses will use. Visual Basic, PowerBuilder, MS
Access, Windows 95, Borland's Delphi, etc...

If someone would release a PowerPC with a processor that also runs X86
code then maybe I could have the benefits of both worlds.

There has been a lot of good discussion in this thread. If nothing else,
it is fun to try to predict what will happen in this very interesting
industry.

Rich Love

unread,

Jun 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/18/95

to

In Article <rainbow-1806...@oasis.msn.fullfeed.com>,

rai...@msn.fullfeed.com (KevinK) wrote:
>Regarding hard drives, it seemed to me when I read ads that much larger
>ones are included on PC's compared to Macs at the same price points.

I just purchased a 1 gig internal drive from APS for $350.00 for my
PowerMac. I'd say that's a pretty good price.

>And I was surprised that MS Access was not considered by some to be a good
>database compared to FileMaker Pro. The reason I like Access is because
>it is relational and seems to me to be very powerful. I do not know if
>FileMaker pro is relational... can someone fill me in?

I've been using Filemaker Pro for years to run a small business. It
currently uses lookup tables and is not Relational. A relational version is
coming out this year.

>And I was very surprised that some people said that Visual Basic has been
>out for a few years on the Mac! I recently saw in PC Week that Microsoft
>said it would not release a Visual Basic for the Mac. If there is a
>Visual Basic for the Mac, I want to buy it! Where can I get it? Excel
>for the Mac has Visual Basic *for Applications* (VBA), but that is a
>subset of Visual Basic.

You are right. Visual Basic is not available on the Mac except from within
apps like Excel. Try FutureBASIC for the Mac.

One more note: I sense the beginning of an uprising of Mac users. They are
fed up with ignorance in the PC world about Macs. There is a great article
in the Seattle Times today (Sunday 6/18/95) that is pro-Mac and deals with a
lot of the misconceptions and untruths regarding Mac vs Windows.
It's about time!

Rich Love - Carnation Software, Inc.
Terminal emulation for Macintosh.
Visit our home page at:
http://www.webcom.com/~carn/carnation/HT.Carn.Home.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard S Sucgang

unread,

Jun 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/18/95

to

Please trim your headers for this thread to just comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Thanks.
http://www.columbia.edu/~rs54
v1.3 new pls come visit

Alex Curylo

unread,

Jun 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/18/95

to

In article <rainbow-1806...@oasis.msn.fullfeed.com>
rai...@msn.fullfeed.com (KevinK) writes:

> If someone would release a PowerPC with a processor that also runs X86
> code then maybe I could have the benefits of both worlds.

Er, have you heard the term "6100 DOS Compatible"? If not, visit your
friendly neighborhood dealer.

I'd wait and get, say, a 8500/120 with a Pentium PCI card. That should
be enough of a computer to satisfy pretty much anybody for at least six
months.

Alex Curylo first....@mindlink.bc.ca (604)451-5323, fax -1359
*** First Ascent: Mac programming, UP paragliders, indie CDs ***

KevinK

unread,

Jun 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/18/95

to

In article <richlove.1...@192.100.81.105>, rich...@netcom.com
(Rich Love) wrote:

> One more note: I sense the beginning of an uprising of Mac users. They are
> fed up with ignorance in the PC world about Macs. There is a great article
> in the Seattle Times today (Sunday 6/18/95) that is pro-Mac and deals with a
> lot of the misconceptions and untruths regarding Mac vs Windows.
> It's about time!

I hope there is an uprising of Mac users, and that the press picks up on
it. When Apple demonstrated Copland a while back, the PC Week article was
buried near the back.

If you were Apple and responsible for the marketing/advertising plan, what
would you do. How would you open the minds' of Windows users or potential
buyers of PC's with Windows 95? I think it would have to be a direct
comparison campaign... Any other armchair marketing planners care to
share their opinions?

I think I am going to hold off for a while and see what happens when
Windows 95 comes out. I can use my work PC to learn Microsoft Access
after hours and on weekends, and learn Visual Basic for Applications on MS
Excel on my Mac. I also want to learn C/C++ and could get started on that
with CodeWarrier. My LC++ should be able to get me by for a while yet.

And, if I do switch to the PC because the software I need to update my
skills and be marketable in my career runs on the PC, at least I can still
be a Mac advocate. My credibility advocating the Mac platform will be
higher as a Pentium / P6 owner touting the advantages of the Mac, because
I could put aside my emotional vested interest (in the PC that I would
own).

<sigh> As I said, I have been a Mac owner since the original 128K. Back
then, people asked me "why in the world would you ever want to use a
mouse?". When I talked about cut and paste, it fell on deaf ears. It
seems that from the beginning, many people just closed their minds on
Apple. I don't know why.

Again, this is a good thread with good discussion.

Kevin

Ghazanfar Ali Khan

unread,

Jun 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/18/95

to

In article <rainbow-1706...@oasis.msn.fullfeed.com>,
rai...@msn.fullfeed.com (KevinK) wrote:

> On the PC, there are other very powerful tools of course. Borland's
> Delphi. Sybase's PowerBuilder, Gupta, IBM's Visual Age/Smalltalk. How
> many of these run on the Mac platform? And of those that do (are there
> any?), how many months after they were available for the PC platform were
> they available for the Mac?

PowerBuilder is going to be available for Mac (it is in beta 7 right now).
There is the Visualworks if you like smalltalk (available for Mac/PC/Unix).
There is Oracle Power Objects available for both Mac and PC's. Oracle forms
for Windows and Macintosh. FoxPro for Mac and Windows (and this one is
from MS, your darling). You are so high on MS Access, ask yourself this -
why is MS coming out with Visual FoxPro??? Which area is covered by MS
Acess and not by Visual FoxPro?? Anyway this is a small sampling of
croos-platform tools availabe that you don't seem to know about. (We have
a huge custom built
application on Oracle Forms 4.0 coming online July 1, running on Macs/Windows
so this is not just theory).

>
> What does the Mac have? And if you develop on it, do you need to run your
> app on only Macs (about 10% market share...)? It seems that a lot of the
> development tools are first written for PC's and then (maybe) months later
> a Mac version might come out.

You are confused by numbers. Macs have a close to 25% s/w market share as
opposed to 50% of windows.

Chad Irby

unread,

Jun 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/18/95

to

Dave Glue (dav...@interlog.com) wrote:
: ci...@news.gate.net (Chad Irby) wrote:

: >Of course, there will soon be multiprocessor Macs available with up to

: >four processors running in an asymmetric multiprocessing mode...

: And of course, with each app having to be specifically written to take
: advantage of multiple CPU's.
: The Mac OS cannot take advantage of extra processors. Only Windows
: NT's Power PC port currently can. Any apps have to have special
: modifications to make them "multiple processor-aware" under the
: current Mac OS.

Up to a certain point, you're correct. Right now, the only way to have
a program take advantage of multiple PPCs is to write some custom code to
access the extra processors.

Apple *did*, however, announce an add-on to the system software that will
let programs take advantage of extra processors. It's been shown at a
couple of trade shows, and should be available when Apple sells the first
multiprocessor Macs.

Of course, the first programs that will take advantage of extra
processors will probably be image-processing programs, and since most of
the better ones use things like Photoshop's filters and other plug-ins,
it will be a matter of dropping a couple of files into the "Filters"
folder of those apps.

Don't forget- due to the Mac's use of extensions for adding to the system
software, it will be relatively easy to add that to the software.

There has also been some discussion of making the add-in board a
self-contained symmetric multiprocessor on its own, acting as a single
chip with a lot more power... something that the PPC chip is more suited
for than the x86 chips.

monsieur HAINEUX

unread,

Jun 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/18/95

to

| KevinK, rai...@msn.fullfeed.com writes:
| >Microsoft Word runs better on my work PC than my Mac!

It oughta. Word is a Windows program ported to Mac.

They ported half of Windows to the Mac to make it run, rather than
"bothering" to use the Mac Toolbox. What they do use of the Toolbox, they
patch like crazy, causing all manner of compatibility problems. Then they
say to Apple, "hey, our crufty patches don't work any more. Your OS is
broken. Fix it."

Dump Microsoft. It's only because Apple tries really hard that their
crappy code runs at all.

BTW, WriteNow 4.0 is now $30 with free fonts and spellchecker/thesaurus.
It's ten times as fast as word, consumes less than a tenth of the space,
and costs one tenth the price.

Erik A. Speckman

unread,

Jun 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/18/95

to

In article <bc-150695...@mac905.kip.apple.com>,
monsieur HAINEUX <b...@wetware.com> wrote:
>
>Windows 95 is a coalescing of window-system technology that Macintosh has
>had for ages. In many ways, Windows is finally catching up to Macintosh
>human interface technology. But it will still be behind in hardware and
>software integration, hardware and software standardization, software
>compatibility, and raw power.

And yet it still outsells the Mac.

>And as soon as Microsoft does ship Windows, there will be newer technology
>from Apple. More and more futuristic technology, that Windows won't have
>for years. Macintosh will soon be (once again) way ahead of the Microsoft
>"standard." Macintosh is NOT standing still.

Well, if you consider 12 months soon.

>But more important than any of that is the application development impact.
>Simply put:
>
>Windows 95 will break many apps,
> and they'll break again when the next Windows rolls,
> and break again when Windows finally gets rid of DOS and get a "real"
>32 bit environment,

Yeah, whatever, and Mac system updates never break things. WIn95 will
support alot of old device drivers, something copland won't do at all.

> and break again when Intel finally decides to get off its butt and do
>RISC computing.
>(These are hurdles that Macintosh has already passed -- without breaking
>many apps.)

Intel will provide transparent emulation in hardware.

>Windows may increase its marketshare slightly, but that's not going to
>stop Macintosh from being the better platform to develop for.

>With Macintosh, the apps you write now stay running for longer.

And we know what a strong incentive that is for developers in a software
market that is increacingly dependant on yearly upgrades.

>And they keep getting faster and faster.

>More and more "PC" developers are supporting Macintosh. They're finding it
>faster and easier than Windows development.

And more mac developers are supporting the PC. Can you explain why?

>And more profitable.

>My wish for Apple is that they make it perfectly clear to developers that
>this is what's REALLY up.

I wish apple would stop dicking around. I think apple should realize

that the best way to get developers to support new technologies is to to

place them in the hands of users. The way to do that, make the System

7.5 update $50 instead of $100. They would probably even make more money.
--

__________________________________________________________________________

Erik A. Speckman Seattle, Washington Good Brain Doesn't Suck

espe...@reed.edu espe...@halcyon.com

Erik A. Speckman

unread,

Jun 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/18/95

to

In article <sooriDA...@netcom.com>,

Mahesh Sooriarachchi <so...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3rta0t$4...@homer.alpha.net> harp...@earth.execpc.com (harper21) writes:
>>In article <rainbow-1606...@oasis.msn.fullfeed.com>
>>rai...@msn.fullfeed.com (KevinK) writes:
>
>>I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you (maybe it's just wishfull
>>thinking), I think that apple-compatable computers will double market
>>share in the next year. Windows 95 was a total blunder. I think that
>>apple needs to be doing the same things that IBM is doing. How about
>>some hostile takeovers?

Windows 95, a total blunder? It will sell obscenely well, it will
probably sell into more of the installed base than System 7.5 has.

As for hostile takeovers, I think apple would be better off spending the
money on Copland development so it will be ready in time and increacing
their manufacturing capacity to cat down on the chronic order backlogs,
or is apple ready to leave the hardware business before the clone makers
have enough capacity on-line.

>I have to agree with you sean. I believe that the Mac licensing will
>definitely increase the share of the Mac market. If you look at the
>facts from the SPC, the mac has about 25% of the software market, even
>though the mac hardware market is about 10% Why? because the MacOS runs
>on even the humble 68000 built 10 years ago, while the windos cant run
>tolerably on a 386dx. Whenn the windos95 comes out you will need at least
>a 486dx to run it tolerably.

This is just plain silly. Old machines don't account for the software
sales delta, todays shipping applications run like shit on older
machines, especially the 68000 machines. Same goes for System 7.5 if you
include those undersupported features like QDGX and PowerTalk that people
have been citing as advantages over the current version of Windows. Oh
wait, I don't think either of those even run on the 68000.

>When you say the Mac has 10% market share and peecees 90%, this 90%
>market share dosen't belong to you at all. From what I can remember
>(dont quote me on the figures) windos has about 40-50, dos some 25-35
>percent or so. So when you look at the software figures, the gap isnt
>as bad as it seems. After all, its the software market that matters to a
>software company, not just the hardware side. Though a dos program can
>be run under window, if you write a windos app you are effectivly
>reducing your market share to that of windos. Since the programming
>paradim for dos and wiindos is fundamentally different, and due to the
>shrinking dos market, it makes it more attractive to develop for the Mac
>since both Mac and windos share an event-driven graphical environment,
>where you can share code more easily.

>For the sake of the argument, if windos had 40% market share and the Mac had
>25% I would want to have a Mac version of the software as well, just
>because the Mac's leser support calls would itself make up for the fewer
>sales. In addition to that, microsloppy controls most major applications
>on the windos side, which means your market share will shrink even more.

This is shakey, for one think MS also controls most major applications on
the Mac side.

>In the next few years you can expect more people to jump on the CHRP
>platform and I think we are going see a good battle between wintel's
>broken processors and the cool PPCs. Apple and IBM shares between them
>about 20% of the market, thats a lot folks. If they can sign in one
>other big player like Compaq or at least a bunch of small time players,
>we'll be rolling!

I think between them, Apple and IBM control over 20% of the market, the
thing you ignore is that IBM isn't 100% behind the PowerPC. Even if they
were, there is no guarante that IBMs market share would follow them if
they killed their x86 applications.

As for drafting PC clone makers, I think apple should go after Micron.
Micron has their own DRAM and SRAM fabs, which lets them undercut other
clone makers.

>Put all this awsome stuff on native PPC and clone it, and have it run on
>any CHRP machine too. Now thats real cool power!

When apple finally delivers a CHRP OS, that is at least a year away.

[deleted]

>If I have to develop for a peecee,
>I can do it right on my Macintosh with CodeWarror's cross-compiler.

What will you use for debugging?

harper21

unread,

Jun 18, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/18/95

to

In article <3rvtr5$g...@remus.reed.edu>

espe...@reed.edu (Erik A. Speckman) writes:

> This is shakey, for one think MS also controls most major applications on
> the Mac side.

MY BUTT! You are a windows bigot and you shouldn't be here. Windows
95 was almost a YEAR LATE!

>I think between them, Apple and IBM control over 20% of the market, the
>thing you ignore is that IBM isn't 100% behind the PowerPC. Even if they
>were, there is no guarante that IBMs market share would follow them if
>they killed their x86 applications.

You mean except for manufacturing them?

>If I have to develop for a peecee,
>I can do it right on my Macintosh with CodeWarror's cross-compiler.

Why bother developing for a crappy platform?

Bruce Hoult

unread,

Jun 19, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/19/95

to

rai...@msn.fullfeed.com (KevinK) writes:
> I posted a few days ago predicting doom for Apple and advocating the PC.
> Since then I have changed my mind a little.
>
> In my original post I said that Apple has had 2X CD ROMS included with its
> computers for a long time while many PC's have had 4X's included. People
> have pointed out that Apple has had 4X's as standard.

The machines being released today have 4x CDROMS. Previous Apple CDROMS
have been 2x ones, though a) 3c and 4x have been available from 3rd party
vendors for Macs, and b) Apple's 2x drives have time and again proven faster
in real-world applications than many 3x and 4x drives (better seek times, I
guess)

> When I compared the speed of my LCII vs. a 486 running Word 6.0, instead
> of taking into account just processor speed someone pointed out that the
> processor itself makes a difference. The 68030 is more equivalent to a
> 386.

An LCII is equivalent to about a 25 MHz 386sx in processor speed,

> Regarding hard drives, it seemed to me when I read ads that much larger
> ones are included on PC's compared to Macs at the same price points.

Probably true. The Mac OS and programs (except ported Microsoft ones)
don't take as much disk space as equivalent MSDOS or Windows ones, so you
don't need as big a disk.

> . or
> go whole-hog for ClarisWorks 4.0 ... it's supposed to kick some major
> Gatesbutt, I've heard ...

It does!
Sean/

Erik A. Speckman

unread,

Jun 19, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/19/95

to

This is shakey, for one think MS also controls most major applications on
the Mac side.

>In the next few years you can expect more people to jump on the CHRP

>platform and I think we are going see a good battle between wintel's
>broken processors and the cool PPCs. Apple and IBM shares between them
>about 20% of the market, thats a lot folks. If they can sign in one
>other big player like Compaq or at least a bunch of small time players,
>we'll be rolling!

I think between them, Apple and IBM control over 20% of the market, the

thing you ignore is that IBM isn't 100% behind the PowerPC. Even if they

were, there is no guarantee that IBMs market share would follow them if
they killed their x86 machines.

As for drafting PC clone makers, I think apple should go after Micron.
Micron has their own DRAM and SRAM fabs, which lets them undercut other
clone makers.

>Put all this awsome stuff on native PPC and clone it, and have it run on
>any CHRP machine too. Now thats real cool power!

When apple finally delivers a CHRP OS, that is at least a year away.

[deleted]

>If I have to develop for a peecee,
>I can do it right on my Macintosh with CodeWarror's cross-compiler.

What will you use for debugging?

Nick Porcino

unread,

Jun 19, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/19/95

to

I guess you guys haven't noticed that the 7.5.1 upgrade is glued to the
front of both MacWorld and MacUser this month, and is therefore only a few
bucks with a magazine tossed in for free.

---------------------------

In article <rudys-17069...@pm014.bby.wis.net>, ru...@wimsey.com
(Mike Schwartz) wrote:

>->I wish apple would stop dicking around. I think apple should realize
>->that the best way to get developers to support new technologies is to to
>->place them in the hands of users. The way to do that, make the System
>->7.5 update $50 instead of $100. They would probably even make more money.
>->--
>->__________________________________________________________________________
>->Erik A. Speckman Seattle, Washington Good Brain Doesn't Suck
>->espe...@reed.edu espe...@halcyon.com
>-> "The kids of today should defend themselves against the 70's"
>
>I'd have to agree with the last part, $100 is a ridiculous amount of money
>to charge for a system upgrade that doesn't even have that many advantages
>over the previous version. I still haven't, and don't plan on, getting
>it. There's no point, for Apple Guide, QuickDraw GX (and then be forced to
>go and get new printer drivers, apps, tons more RAM, etc., just to use it)
>and a few other things.
>
>--
>Michael Schwartz
>ru...@wimsey.com
>
> "In cyberspace, nobody knows you're canadian, eh?"
>---------

> Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any

form, in whole or in part. Copyright (c), Michael Schwartz, 1995.

> License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1000.
Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms. Please

ALEXANDER, DYLAN FLYNN

unread,

Jun 19, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/19/95

to

In article <nporcino-190...@204.239.240.138>, npor...@sol.uvic.ca (Nick Porcino) writes...

}
}I guess you guys haven't noticed that the 7.5.1 upgrade is glued to the
}front of both MacWorld and MacUser this month, and is therefore only a few
}bucks with a magazine tossed in for free.

[deleted "7.5 isn't worth $99]

You moron. 7.5.1 only works if you *already have 7.5*. You still have
to shell out the full $99 if you want it.

Dylan

Don McKenzie

unread,

Jun 19, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/19/95

to

In article <rainbow-1806...@oasis.msn.fullfeed.com>,

rai...@msn.fullfeed.com (KevinK) wrote:

> If you were Apple and responsible for the marketing/advertising plan, what
> would you do. How would you open the minds' of Windows users or potential
> buyers of PC's with Windows 95? I think it would have to be a direct
> comparison campaign... Any other armchair marketing planners care to
> share their opinions?
>

I have been an advertising-agency principal for many years on
both coasts. For a good part of this period, Apple has been an
innovative and persuasive advertiser. I haven't recently kept
track of Apple but I judge from this and related threads that
their ads are getting or have been lousy. I know it changed
ad agencies a while back but their longtime ad writer moved to the
new agency with the account. He may not have fit in or maybe was
bounced, not unusual in the ad biz. I know from experience that
the best way to influence an advertiser that his ads stink is to
bombard ã not the ad director who'll likely hide your complaint ã
but top marketing and sales guys, with a cc to the ad director.
It'll help if you *don't* offer amateur ad suggestions. I'm an
old pro copywriter/market strategist, and I wouldn't. Unless, of
course, I was pitching the account:-) But then I would have studied
and researched all pertinent info. Don McKenzie

Ted Woodward

unread,

Jun 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/20/95

to

In article <19JUN199...@vms2.tamu.edu>,

Hey, Captain Clueless, the original poster said that the "System 7.5 Update"
was $100. The 7.5 update is 7.5.1.

Now, I think he meant 7.5, not 7.5.1, but you can't rely on everyone
being as swift as you...

Ted

monsieur HAINEUX

unread,

Jun 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/20/95

to

It's actually only "very good." It does not have the same ease of doing outlines that Wyrd does. I suspect other functionality is not as streamlined either.

It does have all the "power features" *I* use, which is not to say it matches Wyrd feature for feature.

It runs way faster and is way smaller and cheaper. (The overall installed size of Wyrd I think is 60MB, the total install of ClarisWorks is <20MB (with clipart libraries). The application size and footprints are similarly comparable.)

Plus you get a free Spreadsheet, Paint program, Draw program, and Terminal program. And a "better than OLE" integration of the parts. All tables are spreadsheets, so when you open a table, the editor switches around to be a spreadsheet editor. Rocket science at last!

But here's the KICKER: *********************************LOOK**************
If you open a Wyrd file with CWorks, it remembers that it was a Wyrd file and has the option of saving it back out as a Wyrd file. I will figure out how to get MacEasyOpen to force Wyrd files to be opened by CWorks, then I will never have to think about it again! This feature alone is worth it. It makes switching apps totally painless.

It means that you can use CWorks even in a hostile "Wyrd-only" environment.
********************************************************LOOK**************

bc

Tristan Spronken

unread,

Jun 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/20/95

to

Apple (IMHO) is finally waking up and smelling the coffee. They have realized
that a good percentage of the home market is driven by games. As such they
have started advertizing in game magazines, made 4x CD-ROMs standard, etc...
In addition with the advent of the PPC chip game programmers have taken notice.
This bodes well for Apple because the home market is the next big frontier
for computer manufacturers. With Apple leading the sales of "multimedia"
(I can't stand that word) equiped computers, the future doesn't look so grim
for the Mac.

Some people are finally starting to see through the M$ smoke-screen. I have
convinced my friends to make their next computer purchases Macs (Pretty good
for someone who doesn't yet own a Mac - I wan't a Nitro :) ). Apple is doing
well, I just hope that they don't get complacent.

Tristan Spronken

monsieur HAINEUX

unread,

Jun 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/20/95

to

| In article <3s20gn$u...@steel.interlog.com>, dav...@interlog.com (Dave
| Glue) wrote:

| > The Mac OS cannot take advantage of extra processors. Only Windows
| > NT's Power PC port currently can. Any apps have to have special
| > modifications to make them "multiple processor-aware" under the
| > current Mac OS.

I saw yesterday a Windows NT machine (dual P5's) running a
multi-processor, threaded version of Adobe Photoshop. It performed nicely.
So I don't know if the statement is accurate.

Of course, the single 604 Tsunami machine running standard Photoshop was
TWICE AS FAST.

And the two were equally equipped and priced the same.

doc...@interramp.com (Joe Ragosta) wrote:
| Apple is licensing software from Daystar which allows the OS to take
| advantage of multiple processors without recompiling. These machines are
| supposed to be out this fall.
| One was demo'ed last spring and showed very efficient scaling (i.e. 4
| processors were very close to four times the speed of a single processor).

The cute part is that NT is terrible at scaling. Two processors is the
point of diminshing returns, more than that doesn't speed things up a bit.
Urk. Scuttle is that Microsoft said, "that's not our market, we're not
going to fix it."

Uhh, ok.

bc

Joe Ragosta

unread,

Jun 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/20/95

to

In article <3s4m27$1o...@hopi.gate.net>, ci...@news.gate.net (Chad Irby) wrote:

> Joe Ragosta (doc...@interramp.com) wrote:
> : In article <3s20gn$u...@steel.interlog.com>, dav...@interlog.com (Dave

> : Glue) wrote:
> : > ci...@news.gate.net (Chad Irby) wrote:
> : > >Vareck Bostrom (bos...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
>
>
> Hey, Joe- that post's attributions were all screwed up. I didn't say
> what you said I said...

Sorry. I usually try to be careful. I guess I missed one.

--
Regards, Joe Ragosta -- 100% Chemical and proud of it.

Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form,
in whole or in part. Copyright, Joseph Ragosta, 1995. License to distribute

this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without permission
constitutes an agreement to these terms. Please send notices of violation

to doc...@interramp.com and Postm...@microsoft.com

Joe Ragosta

unread,

Jun 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/20/95

to

In article <nporcino-190...@204.239.240.138>,
npor...@sol.uvic.ca (Nick Porcino) wrote:

> I guess you guys haven't noticed that the 7.5.1 upgrade is glued to the
> front of both MacWorld and MacUser this month, and is therefore only a few
> bucks with a magazine tossed in for free.

What difference does it make? I downloaded the 7.5.1 updater for free from
the Apple server.

Loren Petrich

unread,

Jun 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/20/95

to

In article <docjoe-1906...@ip146.wilmington.de.interramp.com>,

Joe Ragosta <doc...@interramp.com> wrote:
>Apple is licensing software from Daystar which allows the OS to take
>advantage of multiple processors without recompiling. These machines are
>supposed to be out this fall.

Actually, the only multiprocessing supported now is asymmetric, in
particular, a kind where one processor is the "master" and the others are
the "slaves". This is because the MacOS still cannot support preemptive
multitasking (a kind of virtual multiprocessing :-). However, if one wants
to do a lot of number-crunching, then that is perfectly OK. System 8
[Copland], due out next year, will be partially preemptive, which means
that setting up multiprocessing will be a lot easier. Only System 9
[Gershwin] will be able to support fully symmetric multiprocessing.

--
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
Visit ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich
Or ftp to ftp.netcom.com, then go to /pub/pe/petrich

Patrick Tufts

unread,

Jun 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/20/95

to

ci...@news.gate.net (Chad Irby) writes:
>Vareck Bostrom (bos...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
>: As we stand now, the fastest commonly available macs are 110 MHz
>: PPC601s (right?) and the fastest available PCs are 120 MHz Pentiums -
>: close enough of a tossup. Of course, that's high end.

I've got a vacuum tube that can switch at 10 GHz. When will Intel and
Apple WAKE UP and address this SHORTFALL in SWITCHING SPEEDS?

Followups set appopriately.

--Pat "clock speed wars: periodicity, 1.5 hours"

KevinK

unread,

Jun 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/20/95

to

In article <bc-200695...@mac709.kip.apple.com>, b...@wetware.com
(monsieur HAINEUX) wrote:

> harp...@earth.execpc.com (harper21) wrote:
> | In article <3s2u68$1...@portal.gmu.edu>
> | kkru...@osf1.gmu.edu (Karl A Krueger) writes:
> | > go whole-hog for ClarisWorks 4.0 ... it's supposed to kick some major
> | > Gatesbutt, I've heard ...
> | It does!
> | Sean/
>
> It's actually only "very good." It does not have the same ease of doing
outlines that Wyrd does. I suspect other functionality is not as
streamlined either.

...

> It means that you can use CWorks even in a hostile "Wyrd-only" environment.
> ********************************************************LOOK**************
>
> bc

What does it do with the Wyrd outlines? If it handles them well, then I
could stay with the mac a while longer... Almost all my work is organized
in outline mode, and I wonder how ClarisWorks 4.0 even opens Wyrd
outlines...

--
Successful living is like playing a violin -- it must be practiced daily.

Keith Veitch

unread,

Jun 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/20/95

to

In article <3s6ohn$1c...@jeckle.cs.utexas.edu>, t...@cs.utexas.edu (Ted
Woodward) wrote:

>In article <19JUN199...@vms2.tamu.edu>,
>ALEXANDER, DYLAN FLYNN <dfa...@vms2.tamu.edu> wrote:

>>In article <nporcino-190...@204.239.240.138>,
npor...@sol.uvic.ca (Nick Porcino) writes...

>
>>}I guess you guys haven't noticed that the 7.5.1 upgrade is glued to the
>>}front of both MacWorld and MacUser this month, and is therefore only a few
>>}bucks with a magazine tossed in for free.
>
>>

>>[deleted "7.5 isn't worth $99]
>
>>You moron. 7.5.1 only works if you *already have 7.5*. You still have
>>to shell out the full $99 if you want it.
>
>Hey, Captain Clueless, the original poster said that the "System 7.5 Update"
>was $100. The 7.5 update is 7.5.1.
>
>Now, I think he meant 7.5, not 7.5.1, but you can't rely on everyone
>being as swift as you...

Thinking of 7.5 on the cheap: Has anyone tried downloading the System 7.5
Network access disk (7.5NAD) and the 7.5.1 update disks, then loading 7.5
NAD onto the hard disk and running the updater ? I didŠŠŠŠ it worked !!!

Cheers,

Keith.

Doug Bonar

unread,

Jun 20, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/20/95

to

I shouldn't really post this here since it is getting away from
the newsgroups purpose, but the question did come to mind.

In article <bc-180695...@mac828.kip.apple.com> b...@wetware.com (monsieur HAINEUX) writes:

> BTW, WriteNow 4.0 is now $30 with free fonts and spellchecker/thesaurus.
> It's ten times as fast as word, consumes less than a tenth of the space,
> and costs one tenth the price.

So, can WriteNow 4.0 read Word 6.0 files? Whether or not
I wish to run Word, it seems like enough others do that I run into
Word files fairly often. So it seems to to really gain a good
market share, any word processor (Mac or IBM) must be able to
make sense of Word files.

Doug

Chris Patten

unread,

Jun 21, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/21/95

to

In article <3ru0ie$23...@seminole.gate.net>, ci...@news.gate.net (Chad
Irby) wrote:

> Vareck Bostrom (bos...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
>
> : As we stand now, the fastest commonly available macs are 110 MHz
> : PPC601s (right?) and the fastest available PCs are 120 MHz Pentiums -
> : close enough of a tossup. Of course, that's high end.
>

> Well, as of Monday the 19th, the fastest Macs will be the PPC 604
> machines with PCI. One model is "only" running at 120 MHz, and should be
> at least 50% faster than the fastest currently (or soon) available Pentiums.

>
> Of course, there will soon be multiprocessor Macs available with up to
> four processors running in an asymmetric multiprocessing mode...

> --
>
> Chad Irby / My greatest fear: that future generations will,
> ci...@gate.net / for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."

...of course, you *COULD* buy a Mac clone with dual 604's at 120mhz...
(doesn't Radius offers those NOW?)

SSSSSSSSSSSMOKIN'!!

--
Chris Patten
Ottawa, Canada

e-mail: pat...@achilles.net

Gene Couch

unread,

Jun 22, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/22/95

to

In article <bc-180695...@mac828.kip.apple.com>, b...@wetware.com
(monsieur HAINEUX) wrote:

>
> BTW, WriteNow 4.0 is now $30 with free fonts and spellchecker/thesaurus.
> It's ten times as fast as word, consumes less than a tenth of the space,
> and costs one tenth the price.

Does it import/export Word 6 documents cleanly? The only way I'm able to
survive as a lonely Mac in a business world full of Intel's is to
seamlessly
interact with other departments who pretty much use word 6, excel 5, etc.

If I keep forwarding memo's and proposals and documentation and tell them,
don't worry, it's in WriteNow 4.0 format, I'm not gonna be here long.

I would welcome some way to get out from under Word 6. It just kills
my 6100. Gotta have that portability so would like to here what else
is less resource-intensive and yet lets me fit in.

Gene

Kevin Pan

unread,

Jun 23, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/23/95

to

*** SUCCESS NO. 1 : APPLE'S LICENSING PROGRAM WILL SUCCEED.....

I believe Apple's licensing program, if done right, will help make Macintoshes increases the impact on the market and gain a greater market share. What Apple got to do is really get the big ones - like Compaq, IBM, Acer, etc... - fast.

* PLAYING WITH BRANDS
Especially IBM --- Anybody who does not know well enough about the computer industry still call those Intel-boxes PCs "IBM compatibles computers". We all know that's wrong - they are Microsoft compatible computers and not IBM compatibles!!! Those machines do not have anything to do with anything made from IBM!!! And then soon in the future, when IBM releases a machine that runs the Macintosh OS, those first-time buyers would get an IBM but running the Mac OS without even knowing it! What's more, if IBM bundles OS/2 Warp for PowerPC together with it, then the whole new market of first-time consumers could completely bypass the Microsoft Windows platform!

Macintosh evangelists listen... when an IBM Macintosh (nice term, isn't it) is made available on the market, sell it to anyone who tells you they want to get an "IBM-Compatible Computer". Use sales phrases such as "This is an IBM computer, and IBM has chosen the Mac OS because it is the most advanced and the best consumer-geared software married to its hardware. And there's also OS/2 Warp to run all your DOS and Windows programs in case if you need to. You actually getting an IBM, a Macintosh, and a Microsoft Windows computer. But I believe when you get this computer, you'll be running the Mac OS 90% all the time....."

And, for Apple's part, the company will really have to exploit its CREATIVITY and INNOVATION skills and work in great COOPERATION with IBM (and other companies) to success with this marketing scheme.

This in not limited to just computers labeled the letters 'IBM'. The other traditionally known IBM compatibles like Compaq, Acer, Dell, etc will also help play this marketing game. The introduction of Macintosh OS-liscensed computers will redefine "brands" for any newcomer to the computer world. And this will be so in many parts of the world.

* PIPPIN WILL SUCCEED
Pippin will be made available by end of this year for less than US$500 first in the Japanese market. If it markets well, then Apple will bring this machine to the rest of the world. In case if you do not know what Pippin is, it's a game designed to run the Mac OS (a mini version, I think) to play all Mac CD-ROMs. It will be a serious contender for Nintendo, Sega, etc which games are boring and mainly simply cartoonistic. Japanese are really crazy about games, and also erotic games. Given the fact that the Mac is already the most favored computer in Japan and a large collection of CD-ROM titles, Japanese would flock to spend $500 to get this box to run their games and pornography CD titles.

By mid 1996, for sure Pippin (or other brands) will be available throughout the world. Later by end of 1996, this gadget may not be simply a CD-ROM machine, it will also be an 'Intenet In a Box' (know CyberDog??) and works with the telephone. Apple will soon set the standard and be the market leader of the marriage of the computer, television, telephone and Internet. Or, "TeleComPhoneNet". Apple will definite be the first company to get here first!

* APPLE, GET NEC TO MAKE MACS FAST!!!
Apple has got to work hard to get NEC manufacture Mac OS machines fast. You see, NEC was the market leader (about 40%) before Apple delivered the Japanese version of the Mac OS (KanjiTalk and Japanese Language Kit) and Apple snatched considerable market from it. Look at this point, Japanese are very loyal creatures and most would prefer to buy a local brand over a U.S. model. The reason so many chose the Mac is because of its superiority, however. The Mac OS has already become the favorite platform in Japan today. If NEC manufactures Macs, Japanese consumers would flock to get it - the get a Japanese local brand which makes them feel loyal to their country and also the superior Mac OS that they come to love, the Microsoft Windows platform will then be thrown into the dust and flushed through the drain!! "MICROSOFT KILLED IN JAPAN"... Make history, Apple!

*** SUCCESS NO. 2 : SUPERIORITY OF CORE OS TECHNOLOGIES
QuickTime VR, QuickTime Conferencing, OpenDoc, QuickDraw 3D, QuickDraw GX, PowerPC RISC performance, Active Assistance, Speech Recognition (Apple got to brush up on this!), WorldScript... Apple will still be the leader with all these technologies. Play the cards right - especially with OpenDoc. The Copland so-called "User Experience" by Apple, which I prefer to call "The Graphical Multi-User Interface" will be light years ahead of Windows 95, which is a static environment. Ha ha ha!

Further improvement of Active Assistance technology married with Speech Recognition/Text-To-Speech Technologies in System 8.5 or Gershwin will make the "User Experience" essentially be renamed to "Artificial Intelligence Assisted User Communication Interface". Guess what company will be there first?? I can see the future now!

*** FAILURE NO. 1 : APPLE SHIPS SYSTEM 8 AFTER A LONG PERIOD ELAPSED AFTER WINDOWS 95

"The date is December 31, 1995. Apple Computer, Inc. today announced that the shipment of Copland or System 8 will be delayed for a further 6 months. The company cites reasons, .................... The next generation will not be available until end 1996."

THIS IS A REAL NIGHTMARE! THIS IS A REAL NIGHTMARE!

Have you read the latest copy of MacWorld? If not, pick up a copy. It says "Copland still 18 months away from its ship date.." MY GOD, MY GOD, the last time I heard was 12 months away and now its 18 months away.

I understand that this may not be helped and the above scenario might actually happen. But WAKE UP, Apple!!! THE LONGER THE AVAILABILITY OF COPLAND IS DELAYED, THE LESS SIGNIFICANT THE IMPACT WILL BE WHEN IT REACHES THE MARKET. WAKE UP, APPLE!!! Copland is advanced. Copland is powerful. But if Apple gives the market too much time to experience Windows 95, Copland will loose its significance in consumer's consciousness. Consumers would get used to the new Windows and that segment of the market will be conquered by Microsoft - a locked segment of the market that Copland (or Apple) would not be able to touch. History then repeats itself. Macintosh remains the more superior platform for loyalists but Windows will be the more popular platform.

Imagine this, Windows 95 will be launched on August 24, 1995. And what about Copland? Mid to End-96? How many months in between and how many things can happen between?

My dear Apple, Copland is the most most important card you are playing. Do whatever it is to get it on the market as soon as possible. If the delay is because of compatibility testing on third-party machines, release a version for the Apple Macs first and then another 3 to 6 months later for the Mac compatibles. We will be happy. This strategy will strike Microsoft harder.

*** FAILURE NO. 2 : APPLE EXPELS GENIUSES TO MICROSOFT

When I surfed Claris Web site and browsed through the Employment Opportunities, I could not believe that job offers requires applicants to possess a BS in Computer Science or kinda degree. This is ridiculous!!!

I then went to Microsoft's site to search for some hopes in the computer industry. There there is: it states "Qualifications should include a sharp mind full of good ideas on where we can make a difference with NetWare and Unix connectivity" and " Qualifications include: strong user interface design skills, strong market judgment skills, spec writing skills, experience working with development teams, ability to rapidly understand technologies, and the drive to follow through". Though Microsoft seldom asks for a degree for its jobs, but when it does, it uses the word "preferred" instead of "required" which is used by Claris.

These things that Claris is doing shuts the door totally closed for geniuses. Geniuses are pushed to Microsoft. You don't need a university degree to engineer a piece of software. You need a "sharp mind full of good ideas". If the reverse is true, all shareware authors are junk!

Will Apple (and Claris), WAKE UP?

*** FAILURE NO. 3 : NO SIGNIFICANT ADVANCEMENT IN IMPLEMENTABLE TECHNOLOGIES YET

What's so great deal about all those advanced technologies like QuickTime VR, QuickDraw GX, PowerPC RISC, etc. Take the PowerPC RISC for example, until today, there is not a killer app that can only be created on the Macintosh and not on the PC. In fact, there is nothing available today that can run only on the Mac and not on the PC. In fact, when you open a multimedia magazine, there are actually more multimedia productions tools (both hardware and software) made for Windows. Where is Apple's lead today? How will Apple revert to the days when it was the leader in desktop publishing and scientific applications. Remember the days when QuarkXPress, PhotoShop, etc, etc were only available for the Mac and can no way be ported to Windows??

WAKE UP, Apple! No use boosting about all these technologies. Play the cards right and get developers to exploit these futuristic technologies in the Mac version of their software. Make sure that when a user chooses a Windows version over a Mac version, he knows he is sacrificing performance and features because simply they cannot be exploited in that platform.

Scott Elyard

unread,

Jun 23, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/23/95

to

In article <3s4utj$b...@remus.reed.edu> Erik A. Speckman,
espe...@reed.edu writes:
[...after much attributions, I cut to the bone marrow, leaving a swath of
paper towels in my wake...]

>>>share in the next year. Windows 95 was a total blunder. I think that
>>>apple needs to be doing the same things that IBM is doing. How about
>>>some hostile takeovers?
>
>Windows 95, a total blunder? It will sell obscenely well, it will
>probably sell into more of the installed base than System 7.5 has.

1. It hasn't even been realeased yet. It has to be sold commercially
before success or failure is feasible.

2. Erik is completely correct. From my experience, most people who use
7.5 use it because it arrived on their new machines.

>As for hostile takeovers, I think apple would be better off spending the
>money on Copland development so it will be ready in time and increacing
>their manufacturing capacity to cat down on the chronic order backlogs,
>or is apple ready to leave the hardware business before the clone makers
>have enough capacity on-line.

Yes. But how likely is this first point? Apple's a company after all,
and companies seem to do that sort of thing nowadays.

[...]

>
>This is just plain silly. Old machines don't account for the software
>sales delta, todays shipping applications run like shit on older
>machines, especially the 68000 machines. Same goes for System 7.5 if you
>include those undersupported features like QDGX and PowerTalk that people
>have been citing as advantages over the current version of Windows. Oh
>wait, I don't think either of those even run on the 68000.

Possibly not, but it's arguable to be functional you don't need them.
You're not looking to be cutting edge, obviously, since your hardware is
underpowered now to begin with, but if all you need is something that
*runs*, then it will work if you can live without the doo-dads.

[...nonstatistics snipped...I've lost attribution, but it's not the
person I'm responding to...]

>
>This is shakey, for one think MS also controls most major applications on
>the Mac side.

More than just shakey, it's plain useless. And: MS doesn't control most
major apps on the Mac side. Aldus, Adobe, and now I would say Macromedia
do. MS has a fairly large portion, but certainly not most.

[...good points snipped...]

>>If I have to develop for a peecee,
>>I can do it right on my Macintosh with CodeWarror's cross-compiler.
>
>What will you use for debugging?

Raid.

>__________________________________________________________________________
>Erik A. Speckman Seattle, Washington Good Brain Doesn't Suck
>espe...@reed.edu espe...@halcyon.com

Scott Elyard

Jens Alfke

unread,

Jun 23, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/23/95

to

In article <28863...@hoult.actrix.gen.nz>, Br...@hoult.actrix.gen.nz
(Bruce Hoult) wrote:

>There has never been MS
> Visual Basic on the Mac. OTOH, "Future Basic" is quite good, and many of the
> ideas in Visual Basic were taken from Hypercard.

Also, FaceSpan is pretty reasonable competition for Visual Basic. It's an
application builder that uses AppleScript (or any other OSA scripting
language, in the new version) as its scripting language. It doesn't
support the variety of plug-in controls that VB does, but it's a lot
better at communicating with other applications.

Jens Alfke_________OpenDoc Geometer_____...@powertalk.apple.com
OpenDoc info: FTP to CILabs.org

LLAMA: NO FEAR OF SPIKES

Mark Rogowsky

unread,

Jun 23, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/23/95

to

In article <3sf5mk$m...@news.alaska.edu>, Scott Elyard

<fn...@vms.aurora.alaska.edu> wrote:
> >This is shakey, for one think MS also controls most major applications on
> >the Mac side.
>

> More than just shakey, it's plain useless. And: MS doesn't control most
> major apps on the Mac side. Aldus, Adobe, and now I would say Macromedia
> do. MS has a fairly large portion, but certainly not most.
>

Number 1 Mac word processor: Microsoft Word, 50-60% market share
Number 1 Mac spreadsheet: Microsoft Excel, 100% market share
Number 1 Mac presentation program: Microsoft PowerPoint, 30-40%? market share

I'd say Microsoft controls most major applications on the Mac side. Given
that the unit sales of word processors are 10x-20x those of graphics were
like that peddled by Adobe (there is no Aldus anymore) and Macromedia.
Microsoft ships more boxes of Mac software in a week than Macromedia ships
in a year. And that's no knock on Macromedia.

mark

Dave Glue

unread,

Jun 25, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/25/95

to

Kevin Pan <hpke...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:

>*** FAILURE NO. 3 : NO SIGNIFICANT ADVANCEMENT IN IMPLEMENTABLE

>What's so great deal about all those advanced technologies like QuickTime VR,
>QuickDraw GX,
> PowerPC RISC, etc. Take the PowerPC RISC for example, until today, there is
> not a killer app that can only be created on the Macintosh and not on the PC.
> In fact, there is nothing available today that can run only on the Mac and not
> on the PC. In fact, when you open a multimedia magazine, there are actually
> more multimedia productions tools (both hardware and software) made for
>Windows. Where is Apple's lead today? How will Apple revert to the days when
> it was the leader in desktop publishing and scientific applications. Remember
>the days when QuarkXPress, PhotoShop, etc, etc were only available for the
>Mac and can no way be ported to Windows??

>WAKE UP, Apple! No use boosting about all these technologies. Play the cards
>right and get developers to exploit these futuristic technologies in the Mac version
>of their software. Make sure that when a user chooses a Windows version over a
>Mac version, he knows he is sacrificing performance and features because simply
> they cannot be exploited in that platform.

Just a note on this: Quicktime 3D, VR and GX have Windows versions
scheduled. So this "platform only" situation will likely never happen
again- the Windows market is just too large, and developers are in it
for the $$$. Even Apple recognizes this.

Overall, a fair assesment of what Apple can/might expect in the coming
year. The multi-processor API from Daystar, exploting 4 604's in
tandem is a great trump card for them- prepress houses will love these
machines, NT does not currently work well over 2 processors, and the
P6 will cost twice as much as a 604 as well. This is a BIG advantage,
at least to keep Apple's hold in the niche markets.

The only thing I disagree with is Pippin. It was a ridiculous idea,
and compared to the 3DO M2/Playstation/Ultra 64, it is laughable in
terms of entertainment performance. I see another CDI- it's cost is
close enough that a full-fledged Power Mac might actually be _cheaper_
after you add in all the "options" for a Pippin, and these multimedia
boxes with fuzzy distinctions between entertainment and computing
devices usually have not fared well in the marketplace- especially
when they're around $500.

Dave Glue

unread,

Jun 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/26/95

to

b...@wetware.com (monsieur HAINEUX) wrote:

>I saw yesterday a Windows NT machine (dual P5's) running a
>multi-processor, threaded version of Adobe Photoshop. It performed nicely.
>So I don't know if the statement is accurate.

You "saw" it. So how do you know it was using both processors?

>Of course, the single 604 Tsunami machine running standard Photoshop was
>TWICE AS FAST.

Granted, Photostop is the most popular image editing software on Macs,
so I can understand the comparison. But on Intel boxes, it is also
one of the SLOWEST, by far. Mac users whine when Microsoft software
is included in the benchmarks, fine. Then perhaps Intel users should
be able to complain about the speed of Photoshop on their platform?
Perhaps Adobe wants to destroy the Intel image-editing market!

Come on folks, let the conspiracies fly!

>And the two were equally equipped and priced the same.

A dual P90 system will cost you less than a 9500 right now. When the
clones come out from Power and the like, perhaps not.

>The cute part is that NT is terrible at scaling. Two processors is the
>point of diminshing returns, more than that doesn't speed things up a bit.
>Urk. Scuttle is that Microsoft said, "that's not our market, we're not
>going to fix it."

True. NT's multi-processor support is not impressive. But I was not
aware of this "quote" from a Microsoft rep. Care to be a bit more
accurate?

Wayne Bostow

unread,

Jun 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/26/95

to

>"It makes no difference which of the two operating is better. As long as
the user so much as *THINKS* they're running as well as a Mac, they won't
buy the Mac."

Well, this is still wrong. Very often, and due to many circumstances the
user does not make this decision. Also, it only matters what the person
who does make the decision thinks at exactly the time he makes the
decision. If fact that's still not right. Nobody gets fired for buying
Microsoft.

--
__________________________________________________________
Wayne Bostow "The HangulMan"
10558 Alcott, Houston, TX 77043 ph. (713)468-6546
wbo...@hounix.org

Willie Abrams

unread,

Jun 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/26/95

to

In article <rogo-23069...@mrogowsky-170.stanford.edu>,
ro...@cindy.stanford.edu (Mark Rogowsky) wrote:

>Number 1 Mac presentation program: Microsoft PowerPoint, 30-40%? market share

Actually, I think number 1 here is Adobe Persuasion...

W.
--
Willie Abrams, willie...@uokhsc.edu, http://chinook.uokhsc.edu/willie/

"Are there examples where IBM has been nimble in software?" - Bill Gates in PCWeek

Steve Meloan

unread,

Jun 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/27/95

to

>"It makes no difference which of the two operating is better. As long >as
>the user so much as *THINKS* they're running as well as a Mac, they >won't
>buy the Mac."

Unfortunately, I think it's even sadder than that. On the one hand, there's a real image problem with Apple that they just don't se=
em able or willing to address. I have many friends who have recently purchased PC's. Most are not computer-saavy, and simply want =
something easy to set up and use, mainly for word processing - perfect candidates for a Mac. Unfortunately, friends in the business=
world convince them that the Mac is not "powerful" enough, and that there's not enough software out there. Ultimately, they end up=
with Windows. Not knowing enough, they never even realize what they're missing. Apple needs to somehow hammer home the fact that =
the Mac is still way easier to use than Windows. IF you're not computer saavy, you still need someone's help to set up a Windows PC=
Not true with a Mac.

Now, the other important point, is that the truly computer saavy types don't really care how user unfriendly Windows/DOS is. Never =
did, never will. I know, I'm a programmer. The people I work around enjoy nothing more than cozying up for the weekend with a 600 =
page Microsoft manual. Give them a plug-and-play Mac, and they'd be truly disappointed. That's the dirty little secret about the c=
omputer field. Most of the people developing the stuff don't see user-friendliness as a plus.

Markus Gail

unread,

Jun 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/27/95

to

Mark Rogowsky (ro...@cindy.stanford.edu) wrote:
: In article <3sf5mk$m...@news.alaska.edu>, Scott Elyard

: <fn...@vms.aurora.alaska.edu> wrote:
: > >This is shakey, for one think MS also controls most major applications on
: > >the Mac side.

[...]
: Number 1 Mac word processor: Microsoft Word, 50-60% market share

: Number 1 Mac spreadsheet: Microsoft Excel, 100% market share

: Number 1 Mac presentation program: Microsoft PowerPoint, 30-40%? market share

Since I don't have any M$ products, I am not so sure if you really will
experience what I tell you here. But just try this:

* Get ResEdit.
* Open a M$ application.
* Open the "CODE" resource.
* Pretty small, isn't it?
* Now look out for a "pcod" resource.
* Rather large, isn't it?`

Well, any proper Mac application has its code in the "CODE" resource.
Native or optimized applications have a "cfrg" Resource and store their
code in their data fork. However, M$ applications don't. Their code is
stored in the "pcod" resource (capital letters, maybe) and is /Windows/*
code. The stuff in the "CODE" resource is something like an interpreter
(!)** which interprets the "pseudo code" ("pcod" resource) when the
application is running. I think, M$ Word 4.0 was M$' last application to
be properly written. Anyway, it's not a miracle that M$ applications are
so painfully slow on the Macintosh platform. However, it /is/ a miracle
that so many people are ready to buy M$ applications. :-(

FYIO.

Bye,
Markus
_______________
*) They use their bl**** M$ Cross Compiler for this job, BTW.
**) I think it should also be o.k. if you'd call it "emulation" in this case.

Jens Alfke

unread,

Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95

to

In article <nporcino-190...@204.239.240.138>,
npor...@sol.uvic.ca (Nick Porcino) wrote:

> I guess you guys haven't noticed that the 7.5.1 upgrade is glued to the
> front of both MacWorld and MacUser this month, and is therefore only a few
> bucks with a magazine tossed in for free.

Sure, but you have to be running 7.5 first before you can upgrade to 7.5.1.

(Actually, from all I hear 7.5 is selling damn well despite people's
bitching about the price. And don't forget that it comes with every new
Mac sold, which further increases the market share, esp. among people
who've just bought a Mac and are ready to go out and buy the 3rd party
software they need.)

Michael D. Crawford

unread,

Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95

to

It is often said that there is no software out there for the Mac. This is
not really true, as one can quickly see by browsing through any of the Mac
mail order catalogs - any application that any ordinary user will want is
available, and a tremendous number of very specialized applications are
available as well. It is only in the extremely narrow fields, such as
data reduction of Ronchi test data for telescope makers, that one sees
applications that are only available on the PC.

Unfortunately, the naive computer user does not know this. Go into a
software store at your nearest mall. If there is any software at all, it
is on a small shelf near the back, making it appear that there is either
no software, or that what software exists has a very limited selection.

I have a copy of The Menu Book software catalog, which lists almost all of
the titles as of 1989 (it's no longer published :-(). The Mac volume is
about an inch thick, and the product descriptions are in small type and
typically three column inches each - so there are lots of published
products.

A couple of my products (Toner Tuner and Working Watermarker) were hot
sellers at Egghead Software. We were very pleased to be getting frequent
reorders from Egghead, something we had not seen for many years in the Mac
market. Then the reorders stopped, because Egghead decided to stop
selling Mac software entirely. We were unable to convince Egghead to keep
selling our product, even though they profited from it, because Egghead
did not feel it was worth their while.

Working Software responded by shipping Windows versions. I wavered around
for a while wondering whether to learn Windows programming, and decided
that life was too short to fix Microsoft's broken OS. There will always
be jobs for a good programmer - one doesn't have to follow the herd. Now
I'm fixing Apple's.

Although software is readily available through the catalogs, and
convenient to the user, there is a real problem for the developer.
Catalog advertising is _extremely_ expensive. To get a product into
distribution, and the catalogs, you must first pay a $10,000 "market
development fee" to a distributor. Then you must give the distributor a
very low wholesale price, so the catalog will still get a markup and
appear to be giving a good discount off the SRP. Then you must pay around
$5000 per month for a 3 inch by 3 inch ad in the catalog - you don't get
ad space for free! It is quite possible, and I have experienced this, to
move hundreds or even thousands of a $50 SRP product each month, and still
not make rent or payroll.

--
Mike Crawford, Cybernetic Entomologist, Apple Computer, Inc.
Business: Mike_C...@QuickMail.Apple.Com
Pleasure: craw...@scruznet.com
Thinking: craw...@maxwell.ucsc.edu <- Finger here for PGP key

Michael David Scott

unread,

Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95

to

Kevin Pan (hpke...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:

: * PIPPIN WILL SUCCEED

: Pippin will be made available by end of this year for less than US$500 first in the Japanese market. If it markets well, then Apple will bring this machine to the rest of the world. In case if you do not know what Pippin is, it's a game designed to run the Mac OS (a mini version, I think) to play all Mac CD-ROMs. It will be a serious contender for Nintendo, Sega, etc which games are boring and mainly simply cartoonistic. Japanese are really crazy about games, and also erotic games. Given the fact that th
e Mac is already the most favored computer in Japan and a large collection of CD-ROM titles, Japanese would flock to spend $500 to get this box to run their games and pornography CD titles.

Pippin will not run all Mac CD's. All Pippin CD's should be able to run
on the Mac but the vice versa is not necessarily true. Mac CD's will
have to be modified in some way. The way things are going at Apple with
this project, it will be a wonder if it comes out before Copland.

qwe...@wpi.edu

Adam S Potolsky

unread,

Jun 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/28/95

to

Sorry to dig this up from the deep deep recesses of this thread, but I felt
it needed response:

KevinK (rai...@msn.fullfeed.com) wrote:
<snip>
: What does the Mac have? And if you develop on it, do you need to run your
: app on only Macs (about 10% market share...)? It seems that a lot of the
: development tools are first written for PC's and then (maybe) months later
: a Mac version might come out.

Metrowerks CodeWarrior. With it I can compile NATIVE apps for the following
Operating systems: MacOS (68k, PPC), Dos 6.x (x86 w/pentium opt), and
Windoz (x86 w/pent.). What can do that on the PC?

: As far as the Mac strengths, I don't see where the software is better. I
: use both a PC and Mac, and the *software* is equal or better on the PC.
: And certainly a lot more variety. The software common to both the PC and
: Mac usually comes out later for the Mac. These are not predictions, they
: are facts.
:
: Provide some examples of better software, and maybe I will see your
: point. If you do, at least show that you have some knowledge about what
: is available for the PC so that we know you are making a valid comparison.

Marathon. Where is Marathon on the PC? Betcha I get a newer/better version
of Claris Corp programs on my MAC B4 my PC. On the PC, I had about 6
million choices of communications software, none of which came close to
ZTerm, which is shareware for the Mac. It is true that the PC world has
more software, but as I understand it, 25% of the software market is
macintosh, but only 10% of the hardware... interesting...

: The strength of the Mac is in its *operating system*. But for me, the
: operating system is a means to run *software*. The software is where I
: get the value out of my computer. And the Mac software is limited or
: niche. That is okay I guess if you only use it in your isolated home
: environment, but if you want to use it in business and share data with the
: rest of the world, the PC has more of a presence.

Umm, can your PC read my mac disks? My Mac can read your PC disks... Can
you buy a $500 card to plug into you PC to run mac apps native? I can buy a
$500 card to run PC aps native on my mac... I purchased a Mac 4 years ago
that still today runs at more then adequate speeds. Betcha the 386sx25's
that were the mainstay of the market then are pretty dawg slow now...

that's my 2 cents. If you feel the need to flame this letter instead of an
intelligent response, don't waste our precious bandwidth.
-a
--
-a

Erik A. Speckman

unread,

Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95

to

In article <Mike_Crawford-2...@mac981.kip.apple.com>,

Michael D. Crawford <Mike_C...@QuickMail.Apple.Com> wrote:
>
>Although software is readily available through the catalogs, and
>convenient to the user, there is a real problem for the developer.
>Catalog advertising is _extremely_ expensive. To get a product into
>distribution, and the catalogs, you must first pay a $10,000 "market
>development fee" to a distributor. Then you must give the distributor a
>very low wholesale price, so the catalog will still get a markup and
>appear to be giving a good discount off the SRP. Then you must pay around
>$5000 per month for a 3 inch by 3 inch ad in the catalog - you don't get
>ad space for free! It is quite possible, and I have experienced this, to
>move hundreds or even thousands of a $50 SRP product each month, and still
>not make rent or payroll.

This is exactly the kind of thing the WWW is good for. A small developer
can put up a Web site to advertise their products for a relatively small
amount of money. If small developers band togeather and cross reference
each-others product pages then they can build the critical mass needed to
attract widespread attention.

Apple might even get into the act and help underwrite it with equipment
and maybe some design help to come up with a coherent look for the thing.
--

__________________________________________________________________________
Erik A. Speckman Seattle, Washington Good Brain Doesn't Suck
espe...@reed.edu espe...@halcyon.com

"The kids of today should defend themselves against the 70's"

eduardo cao

unread,

Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95

to

Wayne Bostow (wbo...@hounix.org) wrote:

: decision. If fact that's still not right. Nobody gets fired for buying
: Microsoft.

Nobody get fired for buying Mac's either. But of corse if you want job
security buy a PC put MS Windows in it and trust me you will always be
needed not liked but needed.:-)

Matthew Justin Fago

unread,

Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95

to

In article <bostrov-1606...@bronte.peak.org>,
Vareck Bostrom <bos...@kira.peak.org> wrote:
>In article <connorbd-150...@sf06.bc.edu>, conn...@cleo.bc.edu
>(Brian Connors) wrote:
>
>> -Promote the hell out of the new PowerMacs.
>> -Promote things that Win95 comes up short in:
>> -Graphics support: QuickDraw GX is superior to anything Win95 has.
>> -groupware support: PowerTalk is standard. Exchange will be optional.
>> -ease of use: Almost isn't good enough. Clone or not, buy the real thing.
>> -PowerPC is significantly faster than x86. Where do Apple ads
>mention this?
>
>PowerPC is not significantly faster than x86. It's unclear that it's even
>as fast as x86 currently.
>
>When this PowerPC thing started, apple did have an advantage, the
>80 MHz PPC601 was quite a bit faster than the 66 MHz intel Pentium.
>However, the 90 MHz Pentium was released and became available shortly
>afterwords and is about the same speed as the 80 MHz PPC601 in integer.

>As we stand now, the fastest commonly available macs are 110 MHz
>PPC601s (right?) and the fastest available PCs are 120 MHz Pentiums -
>close enough of a tossup. Of course, that's high end.
>

>Low End PCs are Pentium-75s nowadays, which are slightly faster than
>the low end mac (6100/66) - and less expensive (depending on configuration)
>to boot.
>
>In the next several months we'll be faced with new high-end stuff from
>Intel in the form of P6-133s, pentium 180s, 150s, and 133s while the
>new low end pentium 90s drop to extremely low prices.
>
>Apple needs to come up with something like a Power Macintosh 6100
>with a 100 MHz PowerPC 601 and L2 and price it very well, even less than
>the current 6100/66s.

I do agree that Apple needs to "wake up." However, I must mention the fact
that Apple reportedly has little trouble selling the computers it makes.
I think the problem may lie in the fact that Apple may be trying to
maximize profit (like a normal company) as opposed to maximizing _market_
_share_. The two are not always identical. Thus it may not make sense
for Apple to match Microsoft and Intel in advertising $$.

I'm not an MBA or Marketing genius. Hopefully Apple knows what it's doing --
but I'm beginning to wonder.

**Great Idea of the day**

I think that it is vital that Apple includes a CD with every macintosh
that contains software showing the user "just how cool their new computer is."
The little demos such as QD3D and Graphing Calculator are a (small) beginning
(the software ads/demos do not count) -- but I think that it should be a
(an) interactive demo of the entire environment stressing ease of use,
reliability, unique features (including Cyberdog when available etc.). Given
a few months (?) a couple of software engineers could create a very impressive
presentation that could be added on to when new features are developed.

It wouldn't hurt to do a mass mailing to companies and Windows users either.

Some companies do this (SGI and the juggling animation complete with "real
balls."), while others have TV ads approximating the same thing.

Apple is a great company, but I'm beginning to suspect that they hired
some marketers from Commodore (who'd have advertised sushi as "cold dead
fish").

Just a humble suggestion from one Macintosh user.

Matt Fago

fa...@engin.umich.edu

Loren Petrich

unread,

Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95

to

In article <1995Jun27.1...@genesis.tg.sub.org>,
Markus Gail <mar...@genesis.tg.sub.org> wrote:

>Since I don't have any M$ products, I am not so sure if you really will
>experience what I tell you here. But just try this:

>* Get ResEdit.
>* Open a M$ application.
>* Open the "CODE" resource.
>* Pretty small, isn't it?
>* Now look out for a "pcod" resource.
>* Rather large, isn't it?`

Sizes:

Microsoft Word 5.1a

CODE:
0 -- 24
1 -- 1690
PCOD:
0 -- 85718
2 -- 753756

Microsoft Excel 4.0

CODE:
0 -- 24
1 -- 1504
1000 ["XLCallVer"] -- 38
1510 ["OSL code"] -- 15058
4000 ["Excel4"] -- 84
4001 ["Excel4v"] -- 92

PCOD:
0 -- 86280
2 -- 1460068

And these are the last good ones, especially Word :-)

Steve Meloan

unread,

Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95

to

>"It makes no difference which of the two operating is better. As long >as
>the user so much as *THINKS* they're running as well as a Mac, they >won't
>buy the Mac."

Unfortunately, I think it's even sadder than that. On the one hand, there's a real image problem with Apple that they just don't se=
em able or willing to address. I have many friends who have recently purchased PC's. Most are not computer-saavy, and simply want =
something easy to set up and use, mainly for word processing - perfect candidates for a Mac. Unfortunately, friends in the business=
world convince them that the Mac is not "powerful" enough, and that there's not enough software out there. Ultimately, they end up=
with Windows. Not knowing enough, they never even realize what they're missing. Apple needs to somehow hammer home the fact that =
the Mac is still way easier to use than Windows. IF you're not computer saavy, you still need someone's help to set up a Windows PC=
Not true with a Mac.

Also, I'm amazed they never seized upon the fact that the original "Intel Inside" floating space chip ads were made on a Mac. What =
a statement that would've made! Unfortunately, I think we're all preaching to the converted.

Paul K Witting

unread,

Jun 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/29/95

to

In article <willie-abrams-2...@157.142.192.43>,
willie...@uokhsc.edu (Willie Abrams) wrote:

> In article <rogo-23069...@mrogowsky-170.stanford.edu>,
> ro...@cindy.stanford.edu (Mark Rogowsky) wrote:

> >Number 1 Mac presentation program: Microsoft PowerPoint, 30-40%? market share

> Actually, I think number 1 here is Adobe Persuasion...

unread,

Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95

to

In article <3svee5$t...@remus.reed.edu>, espe...@reed.edu (Erik A.

Speckman) wrote:
> This is exactly the kind of thing the WWW is good for. A small developer
> can put up a Web site to advertise their products for a relatively small
> amount of money.

At MacHack, the tools developers asked to have Apple provide a Web page
listing all of the development products, giving links to the publisher's
homepage. Some of the folks from Apple were pretty positive in their
response to this. I'd like to see it.

You can find out about the products I wrote at Working Software at:

http://www.working.com

Dave Glue

unread,

Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95

to

Steve Meloan <mel...@aimnet.com> wrote:

> Apple needs to somehow hammer home the fact that =
>the Mac is still way easier to use than Windows.
> IF you're not computer saavy, you still need someone's help to set up a Windows PC=
> Not true with a Mac.

The problem is, Microsoft will now claim that "plug and play" and
"easy installation" is their concept with Windows 95. And it will
work. Not necessarily because evereyone believes it, but because it
is such a huge leap over the old DOS/Windows/IRQ/DMA shuffle. The
argument that Mac's are vastly easier to use than PC's has roughly 2
months left in it. The argument might still be made, but the two are
a _lot_ closer with Win 95. Apple should stick to pushing to power
and speed issue with the 604 Macs, as the "plug and play" advantage
isn't going to hold much water for very long.

Michael David Scott

unread,

Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95

to

As long as Apple continues to make ths OS, they'll be able to have
control of the hardware vendors. I think the clone market is just Apple's
way of dealing with hardware shortages. For example, PC makers have to
make sure their machines run MS-Dos and Windoze. Apple will have the same kind
of OS rule but will make hardware as well. They are also teaming up with
clone makers and endorsing and using technology from those comapnies as
well. Whatever hardware Apple makes, the MacOS will support and therefore
the clone makers will have to follow suit or else they will have incompatible
machines. I think it is a goof idea.

qwe...@wpi.edu

Wayne Bostow

unread,

Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95

to

>Does it import/export Word 6 documents cleanly? [WN 4.0]

The filters for WriteNow, as well as Nisus and Word Perfect can
only be described as hit or miss. Most people are in your situation
and I cannot understand why these companies will not wake up. Tech
Support for filters from all companies I have dealt with is zero.
Bug reports are met with a polite "go to hell" if responded to at
all. That said, you can always move TEXT files, and if it's mainly
letters and such, you *probably* would still save time to use Write
Now over Word. If you send something to IBM, make sure to check it
there yourself, or for CYA, move it to Word on your Mac first, then
send the final out of Word.

--

__________________________________________________________
Wayne Bostow "The HangulMan"

Markus Gail

unread,

Jun 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM6/30/95

to

Loren Petrich (pet...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <1995Jun27.1...@genesis.tg.sub.org>,
: Markus Gail <mar...@genesis.tg.sub.org> wrote:

: Sizes:

: Microsoft Word 5.1a

: Microsoft Excel 4.0

unread,

Jul 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/2/95

to

In article <1995Jun30....@genesis.tg.sub.org>,
Markus Gail <mar...@genesis.tg.sub.org> wrote:
>Loren Petrich (pet...@netcom.com) wrote:
[Pseudocode size:]
[Word 5: 0.8 megabytes]
[Excel 4: 1.5 megabytes]

>: And these are the last good ones, especially Word :-)

>So, if you buy Word you actually get a Windows word processor with built-in
>Softwindows for free! Isn't that great value for money? ;-)

There is one down side to Word 6: That built-in SoftWindoze can't
be used for anything else, so one has to get a separate SoftWindoze just
to run some other Windoze app.

Lawson English

unread,

Jul 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/2/95

to

Loren Petrich (pet...@netcom.com) wrote:
[snipt]
: There is one down side to Word 6: That built-in SoftWindoze can't

: be used for anything else, so one has to get a separate SoftWindoze just
: to run some other Windoze app.

Amazingly enough, only one copy of OLE for the Mac is required to run any
and all MS OLE-requiring applications.

Obviously, someone at Microsoft Quality Control was asleep on the job and
let that one through...

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
eng...@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
/ / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Williams

unread,

Jul 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/2/95

to

Can someone explain the "(partly because of the AV card, I'm sure)" statement. And surely one thing
that _is_ native is quickdraw?

----------------------------------------
Mark Williams<Ma...@streetly.demon.co.uk>

S0KU...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu

unread,

Jul 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/3/95

to

In article <AC1B8D70...@pamolo.internet-eireann.ie>

pam...@internet-eireann.ie (Paolo G. Cordone) writes:

>
>In article <bostrov-1606...@bronte.peak.org>,
>bos...@kira.peak.org (Vareck Bostrom) wrote:
>
>> Most important is the interface speed. My DX4-100 feels much faster
>> in the interface than my Power Mac 8100/80AV (partly because of the AV
>> card, I'm sure) - but when I windowshade a window, the text in other
>> windows below that one shouldn't take any time at all to redraw and
>> appear - but it does. Shrinking apps under windows on the DX4 (a
>> much slower CPU, though with a Stealth 64 video card) - the windows
>> below appear instantly. This is just one little thing that make
>> PCs SEEM much faster than Macs.
>
>Are you not being a bit unfair with your comparison? You know very well
>that the current MacOS is not PowerMac native, so any comparison in this
>matter is not going to be representative.
>Whenever we'll get a fully native Macintosh operating system, then we will
>be able to compare such things in an appropriate way.
>

>Paolo
>

Unfortunately, there are absolutely no Windows programs in the market which
are optimized for Pentium. I am not sure which perform worse, not-native OS or
not-native apps.

But anyway, we will not get a fullly native OS for a while. Even MacOS 8 will
not be fully native. Sad, isnt it?

Soichiro Kuwahara

Alan Dail

unread,

Jul 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/3/95

to

In article <173D085AS8...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>,
S0KU...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu wrote:

:
: But anyway, we will not get a fullly native OS for a while. Even MacOS 8 will

:not be fully native. Sad, isnt it?

:
My understanding is that the only things that will not be native with
Copland are things that are specific to running 68k programs. Under
Copland, if you have a PowerMac native app, it should never be able to
make any calls that end up being emulated.

Alan

--
Quote of the year: "I'm Back" - Michael Jordan - March 18, 1995
+Alan Dail - Developer--+--/-\--+-"The journey is the reward" - S.Jobs--+
|804/867-7202 | \_/ | "The best way to predict the future |
|AppleLink: AlanDail | j-+-{ | is to invent it" - Alan Kay |
|Internet ad...@infi.net| -|- | "Hate is not a family value" - Anon |
+-----------------------+---V---+"Race,in the space I mark Human"-Prince+

Markus Gail

unread,

Jul 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/3/95

to

Loren Petrich (pet...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <1995Jun30....@genesis.tg.sub.org>,

: Markus Gail <mar...@genesis.tg.sub.org> wrote:
: >Loren Petrich (pet...@netcom.com) wrote:
: [Pseudocode size:]
: [Word 5: 0.8 megabytes]
: [Excel 4: 1.5 megabytes]

: >: And these are the last good ones, especially Word :-)

: >So, if you buy Word you actually get a Windows word processor with built-in
: >Softwindows for free! Isn't that great value for money? ;-)

: There is one down side to Word 6: That built-in SoftWindoze can't

: be used for anything else, so one has to get a separate SoftWindoze just
: to run some other Windoze app.

Didn't you see that ";-)"? -- I don't think that this emulating
/interpreting stuff is good for anything! And I don't have a
trace of pity with someone who buys such a XXXXX XXXXXXXX! Ahem. Excuse my
French. :-) Those people get what they deserve! This whole bit garbage is
so quick and dirty, so hard-heartedly implemented. My tears get bitter
when I look a this interface, these menus, they're like carbuncles
in a good friend's face and I feel sick, awfully sick, about my
powerlessness. I cry out with anger about this chuzpe. GOD, WHAT HAVE THEY
DONE TO US!!!

I feel much better now...

Bye,
Markus

Matthew Inger

unread,

Jul 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/5/95

to

S0KU...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu wrote:
: In article <AC1B8D70...@pamolo.internet-eireann.ie>

:
: But anyway, we will not get a fullly native OS for a while. Even MacOS 8 will
: not be fully native. Sad, isnt it?
:

: Soichiro Kuwahara

Say what? I'm not so sure about this.
Apple hasn't decided whether or not they are going to even offer
Copland for for 68K machines. Not to mention that why should they bother
to anyway? The performa's are the last 68K line that apple produces
and those are going to be scratched soon too. Why offer a new operating
system for an obsolete CPU (let's ask microsoft this one.)

--
Matt Inger
umi...@mcs.drexel.edu
min...@philly.nosc.mil
http://www.mcs.drexel.edu/~uminger/
"Remember when you were young? You shone like the sun."

Richard Wesley

unread,

Jul 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/5/95

to

S0KU...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu wrote:
[<snip>]

> But anyway, we will not get a fullly native OS for a while. Even MacOS 8 will
>not be fully native. Sad, isnt it?

I believe that this is simply because the Mixed Mode Manager assumes that TB
callbacks are 68K code. The emulated stuff in Copeland is under 5% and I bet
this is why. Given this design, the OS will NEVER be 100% native(!) but it
will be close enough (callbacks are not usually performance bottlenecks).

- rmgw

http://www.punchdeck.com/hawkfish/Resume.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wesley hawk...@punchdeck.com | "'Hand it round first, and cut it
Punch Deck Consulting pnch...@aol.com | afterwards.'" - Lewis Carroll,
Macintosh Software Development | "Through the Looking Glass"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Crawford

unread,

Jul 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/5/95

to

I'm going to try an experiment. You might like to try it too. Get
version 1.0 of some of the Mac programs that ran on the 128k or 512k -
Word 1, MacWrite 1, Excel 1 and so on, and get a 128k or 512k Mac. Then
get currently shipping versions of the same products. Create simple
documents that are the equivalent in each program - say a text document
with some simple formatting, and make a version of the document that is the
native format for each program.

Run the 1.0 versions on system 1.0 on a 128k. Run the n.0 (where n >> 1) on
a current low or midrange Mac - I have a 605 at home, so that's what I'll
use. Do some simple timings of the sort of things that matter to a user
in terms of response time - opening a document, updating a window, scrolling
a window, doing a font change and so on.

I bet you'll be impressed by the results, considering how much faster the
raw hardware is now than it was then.

The word processing engine used by MacWrite 1.0 is a package called CoreEdit,
written in 68k assembly. CoreEdit was sold on its own, and was used in
QuickLetter, which I used to work on. All the basic stuff that MacWrite did
in the way of handling formatted text was implemented in 8k of code.

Food for thought.

See

http://www.scruznet.comp/~crawford/Computers/life.html

Cheers,

--
Mike Crawford
craw...@scruznet.com <-- note change of address.
craw...@maxwell.ucsc.edu <-- Finger Me here for PGP Public Key
http://www.scruznet.com/~crawford/ (under construction; foundation poured.)

Chris Krueger

unread,

Jul 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/5/95

to

In article <1995Jul3.1...@genesis.tg.sub.org>,
mar...@genesis.tg.sub.org (Markus Gail) wrote:

> Didn't you see that ";-)"? -- I don't think that this emulating
> /interpreting stuff is good for anything! And I don't have a
> trace of pity with someone who buys such a XXXXX XXXXXXXX! Ahem. Excuse my
> French. :-) Those people get what they deserve! This whole bit garbage is
> so quick and dirty, so hard-heartedly implemented. My tears get bitter
> when I look a this interface, these menus, they're like carbuncles
> in a good friend's face and I feel sick, awfully sick, about my
> powerlessness. I cry out with anger about this chuzpe. GOD, WHAT HAVE THEY
> DONE TO US!!!

That's why we don't buy them! It's too bad everyone doesn't have the
benefit of using these programs at least once before buying them!

--
Chris Kreuger
akru...@madison.k12.wi.us

Matt A. Welter 4-6106

unread,

Jul 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/5/95

to

In article <1995Jul5.1...@mcs.drexel.edu> umi...@mcs.drexel.edu (Matthew Inger) writes:
>
>Say what? I'm not so sure about this.
>Apple hasn't decided whether or not they are going to even offer
>Copland for for 68K machines. Not to mention that why should they bother
>to anyway? The performa's are the last 68K line that apple produces
>and those are going to be scratched soon too. Why offer a new operating
>system for an obsolete CPU (let's ask microsoft this one.)
>
>--
>Matt Inger

Probably because there is still a large installed base of 68Ks. If you come out
with a new OS that they can't use, and a lot of the software becomes useable
only with the new OS, then interest in owning a Mac will dwindle. A few years
from now, enough people will probably own PowerMacs to do this. For now,
you can't alienate us 68K owners.

-Matt

Christopher C. Wood

unread,

Jul 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM7/6/95

to

In article <1995Jul5.1...@mr.med.ge.com>, wel...@mr.med.ge.com (Matt A. Welter 4-6106) writes:

[ Why bring out a 68K version of Copland? ]

|> Probably because there is still a large installed base of 68Ks. If
|> you come out with a new OS that they can't use, and a lot of the
|> software becomes useable only with the new OS, then interest in
|> owning a Mac will dwindle.

No. As long as the new OS is backward compatible with the old, the
owner of a 68K mac can go out and buy a new machine; all of that
owner's old 68K software and data files will still be usable on the
new machine, and more of that person's skills with the OS will be
transferable to the new Mac OS than if that person had jumped to another
OS. In fact, I did exactly this when I replaced my Mac SE with a
PowerMac.

Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com Chris...@aol.com