From: emg@Metaphor.COM (Mike Greenawalt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: What's Easier To Use (read "better")
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:26:56 GMT
Reply-To: emg@Metaphor.COM (Mike Greenawalt)
Organization: m4

I am not going to make a direct response or argument to anything specific that
has previously been said in this thread, but I do have some thoughts to offer
that I have not yet seen mentioned.

I have owned and used a Macintosh since 1984.  I also use Unix (Sun), and 
because of my work, Intel-based PCs.  But on the PCs, I use OS/2, not 
DOS/Windows.

It is true that now Intel-based PCs support software that gives a reasonable
GUI.  But I am struck by the fact that in 1984 I was using an 8MHz 68000 
machine with 512K of memory and it offered a smooth-running consistent and
eminently usable graphic interface.  One could get real work done with it.  
With my IIsi (20MHz 68030) that I have now, I still have that same 
smooth-running consistent graphic interface -- with improvements -- and with 
color, and I can easily get even more real work done.  Much of the software 
that ran under the first system on that early Mac still runs on System 7!  
Apple has offered us Mac users real continued compatibility while growing
and enhancing the system software.

With OS/2 I have run it on 386SX, 386DX, 486SX, and 486DX machines at speeds
ranging from 16MHz to 50MHz.  To me, one just simply does not get acceptable
smoothness of operation on these machines until you get into the 486 processors
running at 33MHz and above.  And you have to have 8MB or more of RAM to get
that!

But no matter what, the smoothness of operation and the graphic quality of 
OS/2 (introduced in 1992) are not the equal of what the Mac has had since
1984.  And I won't even mention the configuration nightmares or the horde of
applications and/or system software components that have not been converted
to the GUI.

To me the better Mac GUI and ability to get work done is worth the extra $$.

But the Mac is not perfect.  It really could use a CLI (and the utility 
programs behind it) to do some things.  GUIs are painful to perform many
repetitive operations.  For operations relating to management of large 
file structures and munging many large files, one cannot beat Unix.  

One good idea that Windows and OS/2 have that I wish the Mac would adopt is
placing the menus of the application in the application window.  Having to 
reach up to the menu bar on the Mac in some applications can get to be a 
real pain.

Finally, in the discussions there have been statements made such as "If you
are going to spend that much anyway, you might as well buy a Unix box."
I'll be the last one to knock using Unix, particularly in a networked work
environment.  But to have a Unix box as a home system, for instance, instead
of a PC has a problem, I think.  Unix software applications -- because Unix
boxes are powerful and are often shared among users -- have pretty high
pricetags.  The hardware may be comparable in price, but I bet a home user
trying to equip himself with a Unix box and a good word processor and a 
spreadsheet and a drawing program would likely find the cost prohibitive.


-- 
+---------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Mike Greenawalt           | emg@metaphor.com                           |
|  These opinions are my own, and certainly do not represent any         |
|  point of view of my employer.                                         |
+---------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy