From: rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:55:55 GMT

johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>In article K5H@news.cso.uiuc.edu, rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar) writes:
>>
>>Just look at the title.

>I did, that's why Im following up.

>> Are they _so_ user friendly that an IBM user would be
>>able to use the "intuitive" interface instantly,

>Nope, nor can anyone else over this. Even the Macintosh UI
>takes a little learning. And it may take considerably unlearning,
>if you are used to straight DOS.

If you still have a steep learning curve, where's the advantage?

>> or the "inferior hacks" represented by OS/2 2.0 and 
>>Windows?

>Windows is clearly an inferior hack in many respects (but it
>can run DOS progs, which no Mac can do adequately). OS/2 has
>its good points and its bad points. Id like its multitasking
>and some of the WPS's features on my Mac, but not its hardware
>requirements or bugs or filesystem confusion (etc).

Windows was supposed to be an API that could cater to the wide variety
of hardware that is out in the IBM compatible market. If a pseudo-OS is
to run on such a wide spectrum of hardware, it naturally won't run _quite_
as well as something written for a specific piece of hardware (which I
feel that Microsoft has gotten around quite nicely with drivers). Apple
has it a lot easier since you don't have BIOS differences and such a wide
spectrum of manufacturers. Naturally you can write better programs when
you direct yourself to one specific piece of hardware (in terms of optimization)
especially. So as far as Windows being an inferior hack, compare the number
of systems it runs on (with plenty of hardware differences).

>> Is it so much easier to program than the "inferior hacks"?

>Its a great deal easier than Windows to program, mainly due
>to using a 32-bit address space; but OS/2 also does this and
>has some other points too. (but then I dont know much about
>OS/2 progging. So I cant say forsure)

You're right you can't say for sure. If you have a good compiler, it doesn't
make a difference - addressing is transparent to a high-level language
programmer (unless you _want_ to do it yourself). So I can say (having
programmed in all three, in two different languages) that there is almost
no advantage that any of them has over another.

>> Is it really that much faster?

>That depends. Its slower than DOS, anyway. Beyond that
>Your Milage May Vary. It tends to do graphics task quickly, but
>computation slowly.

So do Windows and OS/2 with _proper hardware_ - and computation is _much_
faster.

>> Are Macintoshes the future of computing? NOT!!

>Right. Macintoshes are the PRESENT of computing. It just
>took you PCheads a long time to figure it out. :)

Is that why Mac users use Word (haha) or WordPerfect (sound of laughter,
thump from rolling off of chair)? The Mac suffers from a serious lack
of software, and you call it the present????

>>The following lines address Windows because the bulk of their arguments
>>address it - OS/2 is not as well known (??) and is beneath recognition (???).

>OS/2 is not very relevant due to lack of usage, and lack of software.
>Its also a much harder thing to argue agains, as it has significant
>advantages.

Agreed.

>>Windows is slow, kludgy, and crash-prone.
>>- have you ever compared something like Mathematica 2.1 for Windows
>>- running on a 386/25 w/10MB and Mathematica 2.1 on a Mac IIsi with 10 MB?

>No, I haven't. How is this relevant? We were talking about windows,
>not Mathematica? 

We were talking about how Windows is _slow_. Which it isn't as far as
Mathematica is concerned. Or even Word (haha), but this is much less
noticeable. Note that the 386/25 I mentioned has an accelerated video
adapter, but by no means the fastest on the market.

>>- have you ever seen a Macintosh crash because of lack of heap space

>No, but I have seen spontaneously quit apps due to this. Apparently they
>didn't catch the memFullErr or the NULL Handle, and they didn't
>isntall a grow zone handler. Go figure.

So if I called a Mac buggy and error-prone, would I be justified?

>>The Macintosh OS is more user-friendly.
>>- have you ever tried getting help on _anything_?

>Turn on the balloon help and point at something. Yeah, I know,
>its a blasted noisy mode, but you imply that there is NO facility.
>Aint' so. It needs work tho. I feel Windows and OS/2 have better systems,
>tho quite differently oriented.

As far as I'm concerned, balloon help is worse than no help at all. If
you are trying to find help (esp. application specific), knowing that
the bar at the top of the window is the menu bar doesn't help you.

>The Macintosh was desigend not to need them however. I generally do not,
>for what that's worth. If the help system is an critical component
>of your system, there's something wrong.

The point is that you don't have to go through a dozen manuals to find
help - if you feel that the Macintosh was designed not to need them, tell
me how you write a program without "Inside the Macintosh" - any volume
at all, but especially VI.

>>The Macintosh GUI can do anything that a command-line interface can, so
>>you don't need one.
>>- have you ever tried writing a script file?

>No, but then you wouldn't use a CLI for this either- you'd
>use a blasted editor. There's no need to couple a scripting
>system to a CLI. Such things are availiable for the Mac, but are
>not standard (Alas).

The point being that they're not standard.

>>not because they make good computers (which they might or might not - it's
>>not the argument here)

>If not this, what?

I have nothing against Macintoshes. I'm perfectly at home with one, and it's
better than the PC for some purposes. I just don't agree that it's better
than the PC for everything, or even close to everything, which is what
the majority of Mac users (who I refer to as Mac bigots) seem to imply.
I respect the computer - not the bigots.

>> - it's because of the enormous number of bigots out there.

>We prefer the term "Mac Enthusiast" thank you. :)
>In any case, I suspect you are thinking of ANY Mac user as
>a "bigot" (otherwise your comment makes no sence). In that
>case, it applies to, well, anyone.

>>Considering when Windows NT and OS/2 x.0 come out on the Macintosh, and
>>(maybe) people start using them, they'll find out what they've been missing.

>Maybe you shouldn't assume we are as ignorant as you think. We know
>what we are missing, but think what we are getting is worth it. And we
>hope (and expect) to get these missing things in time.

I guess maybe you aren't as ignorant as I think. But some are - and
biased for no apparent reason.

>As far as I know, there are no plans to port NT or OS/2 to the MacOs. It
>sounds like a hell of a PR job to make that work anyway. But we'll see.

>Anyway, one of the Macintoshes biggest charms is that you do not need
>to think about such trivialities as what OS to use. You just get a
>computer. (Well, that was the origional idea. Now you get a computer,
>monitor, keyboard, etc.. Still, its better at this than the PC)
>A great many people do not really care about these techy issues.

But Apple is planning on _charging_ for the OS! So eventually you're
going to have to think about it.

>>If anyone has more gripes with the Mac, post away! And maybe even cross post
>>this to a Mac group :-)

>An excellent idea. You wont mind if I crosspost to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
>as it seems quite appropriate to me.

-- 
Ravikumar Venkateswar
rvenkate@uiuc.edu

A pun is a no' blessed form of whit.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy