From: dtaylor@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Douglas Taylor)
Subject: Re: YA Mac horror story
Summary: It HAS to be a neurosis... 
Keywords: Where would I be without IBM? 
Organization: Florida State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 11:29:29 GMT

In article <kfNAq3u00VqJ0_SUkW@andrew.cmu.edu> cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
>Well, where should I start?  I guess that dreadful day when my prof told

 Perhaps over in cmp.sys.festering.OS2?  ANywhere but here, I would presume...

>
>Well, I decided I'd see what software this Mac had, so I started looking
>around.  Of course, I couldn't quit Genie Pascal because of low memory,
>so I was using a crippled Mac.  I loaded up MacWrite II.  Pretty cool,
>pretty neat.  I closed that window.  I then loaded up Mathematica. 
>Pretty cool, pretty neat.  I closed that window.  Because I'm so lucky

 What is this?  You can't quit a program because of low memory, but you can
	browse and load MacWRite and Mathematica?  Gee, must be a typo...

>with Macs, I started looking around again, and all of a sudden, the
>system locked up.  Why?  Well, I was closing only the document, not the
>whole app.  But wait, most other systems close the app when you close
>the document, so why not the Mac?  I mean, it makes sense; if I'm not
>gonna work on Document X which uses MacWrite II, why should Macwrite II
>be loaded in the system?  

 Because on civilized machines, like the Mac (and, my favorite cousin, the 
	Amiga), people like to work on multiple documents, and also like
	quick access to their word-processor; I would HATE to have to load
	my word processor every time I accidentally shut down to many files;
	but you are using an IBM, so you obviously like adversity...

>The stupid cluster people disabled cntrl-openapple-reset, so I had to
>turn it off and on.  No big deal, but why they did it is still beyond me.

 To keep IBM morons from accidentally resetting the machine?

>So, now I'm up and running again.  The stupid cluster people left
>virtual memory off: how stupid.  So, I up it to 10 megs, so I can run
>the God forbidden Pascal Genie.  I goto chooser and find the right
>server.  Log in, and now, all of a sudden, the system locks up.  No cute
>little watch cursor.  What's going on?  Oh, there it is, two small
>arrows up in the corner, a place not normally looked at.  Network access
>I guess.  Okay, I have my system again.  I double click on the new
>volume (very nice implementation!  In fact, that's what OS/2 does too). 
>Okay, I traverse the server till I get to my class section.  Wow, Mac's
>built in network is slower than my NFS connection across the country;
>hmmm.  After 1 minute of no usage time, I get to use the system again. 
>Wow, the file I need is 512k.  Should I do it?  Ahh, I guess there's no
>other way.  After a 2 minute file transfer of only 512k, it returns
>control too me.  I note that I could have made the same file transfer
>over FTP at a little over 1.3E3 bytes per second on my "horrible OS/2
>PC."  
>I ftp everything to my computer, so I can do my work on my system
>instead.  So, I ftp to my ftp server on my computer.  I transfer
>everything, again noting that transfer rates were only about 8k per
>second.  I attribute that to the Mac of course.  I also try transferring
>something from my computer to the Mac.  I then realize that Macs have a
>limit of 32 characters on filenames.  Much smaller than 256.
>
>Jeez, what a relief to get out of there.
>
>Carl Jabido
>
>ps- that was mostly true.  the exaggerated parts weren't exaggerated
>that much, at least no more than 10%.  BTW, I'm not that stupid, I'm
>just making obvious remarks.  Just to piss off some Mac owners.  I had
>to wake you up to the fact that Macs aren't the ultimate computer. 
>There are some nice things about the system.  Generally however, I don't
>like it.  It may be easy to use, in fact, I'll personally vouch for the
>fact that it's probably the easiest computer to use to date.

 You must be stupid - first, you make obviously uneducated statements con-
	cerning the Mac; then, you decide to slam the operators at the lab for
	taking steps to prevent morons from accidentally resetting the machines;
	next, you post this feces on here "Just to piss off some Mac owners."
	Take a look at the newsgroup title - mac.advocacy; seems to me like
	you can't read... hence, I guess, the need for the Mac's graphics?

 Maybe I am just slow, but I don't understand IBM users problems; they fester
	over into other computers advocacy groups (and I've ONLY seen them in
	advocacy, never anything more technical...), and shout and scream how
	wonderful their outdated, archaically designed machines are better,
	faster, and just more benificent to use... it just seems to me that 
	maybe they are feeling insecure... anyone agree?

--- 
/==========================================================================\
| L. Douglas Taylor | dtaylor@garnet.acns.fsu.edu |  A Cynic Seeking Hope  |
|-------------------------------------------------|     and Redemption.    |
| It is not the burdens of today that drive a man |                        |
| to madness, but the regrets of yeserday, and    | May Joy and Innocence  |
| the fear of tomorrow - so let us live this life |       Prevail...       |
| laughing more, crying less - savoring the days! |                        |
\==========================================================================/
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy