From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: RE-MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:31:30 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <ajross.714945490@husc9> ajross@husc9.harvard.edu (Andrew Ross) writes:
>fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
>
>>Why do you think this sort of upgrade is "unsupported", btw?
>
>I was actually refering to the System 7 upgrade.  The finder went through
>some major changes (to say the least); and yet apple seems to feel that
>handing it free to someone with only online docs is an acceptable means of
>distributing an OS.  

If you want the paper documentation, fine, you buy it.

My wife switched to System 7, she has yet to look at any paper.  (It
was *really* painless for her: I installed it one weekend while she
was out of the house.)  She could have done it herself, she's done
upgrades on her machine in the past.  No need to read manuals after
the first time, though.

I, unfortunately am a different story.  I write manuals, I want to
read them: I payed for the upgrade-with-manuals.

The point being that you have a choice.

>This is another matter of taste, but I WANT printed
>documentation for my software.  

You and me both...

>You can't take online stuff to read in
>bed, you can't flip through it thinking "I know it was on a page that
>looked like..." (no text-based search algorithm is ever going to beat a
>brain's patter-matching skills).  You can't grab it off the shelf to look
>up something without interupting what you're doing; etc...   Printing it
>out is probably going to cost you more than the printed doc's in the first
>place.  If online documentation is enough for you, that's perfectly O.K.,

It isn't for me, not even hypertext on CD or whatever.  But it is for
some -  probably a lot of - people

>I'm afraid I'm not entirely satisfied with Apple's policy here.

Apple doesn't say you can't have documentation.  They just say if you want
it, you have to pay for it.  (Paper ain't cheap, friend, in spite of what
I tell my kids when they try to use that for an excuse for not doing
their math homework correctly.  Hang around the technical book business
for a while.)

>>>If having only two programs simplifies training and support costs while
>>>minimizing productivity losses (yes, it can be done), then YES, it is an
>>>advantage.  I've seen more toy software bought (but never used) than I'd
>>>like to remember; for BOTH PC's and Mac's.  In my experience, the ONLY
>>>people who like trying  out new software are the ones who generally know
>>>what they are doing (and would have no trouble learning PC software).
>
>>On the other hand, if you need the functionality of some third (or 15th)
>>software package, it's a real advantage to know before you get it that
>>a large part of its function is already part of your knowledge base, and
>>that what's new is going to appear in a form that you're already somewhat
>>familiar with.
>
>This is over-rated.  

For a technical user, maybe it is.  Most computers users have limited
technical background.  Studies in various corporations with large numbers
of more-or-less naive computer users disagree with you.

>In my experience, Mac software is no more consistent
>than most windows software; and truly eggregious packages exist on both
>ends 

Certainly true.  (Software that follows Apple's guidelines doesn't
normally fall into that camp though.)

>(someday someone has to explain Apple File Exchange to me...).  

Huh?  AFE doesn't even need manual pages dedicated to it...just experiment
a bit.

>In any case, learning the interface for a DOS program is never more than a
>few hours (even for truly byzantine programs, like Wordperfect).

A few hours here, a few hours there,...now which keystroke sequence does
which in which program.  It can get out of hand.

>You may find things are changing.  Go to a software dealer and take a look
>at Ami Pro 3.0 (from lotus).  I've seen it, and am convinced it's THE best
>word processor yet conceived of.  Try it yourself.  I don't actually use
>it yet but, wallet willing, will soon.

It's ok.  I still like FrameMaker better, and what FM won't do, I'll get
by on with QuarkXPress...crummy support though they offer.

>>>Multiple screen support and Quicktime are the only
>>>REAL advantages a Mac has (I can feel the heat already).  There are catch
>>>phrases and buzzwords aplenty, (ease of use!  Fast SCSI drives! Consistant
>>>interface! Fully integrated hardware!) but none of them boil down into a
>>>"You can do this on a mac but not on a pc" sentence.  
>
>>Maybe, but they might not be worth doing on a PC.
>
>Um... What exactly does this mean?  It is PRECISELY this sort of
>unsupported rhetoric that I was referring to above.  

The cost of doing those things might not be worth the expense and time
of setting up, learning, and debugging to get it to work (and what will
the new hardware/software that I might need to get it up and running
do to my existing software?

Past experience hasn't been encouraging.

>ANYTHING you do on ANY computer is worth doing if it works.  

I might be able to develop the needed software/hardware to support
doing 24-bit graphics on an Apple //gs...but it wouldn't be worth
the time, effort, and expense.  Not to me, anyway.  My children are
growing up, and I wouldn't want to miss any grandchildren that might
come along.  :}

>Are you going to tell all the
>Scientists out there who are still formatting there papers in TeX that
>it's not worth doing because Pagemaker is here?  Please, If you have a
>point to make, make it.  This means nothing.

If they want to do it that way, fine.  (There are things you can do in
TeX that you can't do, or can't do with a reasonable amount of effort
in PageMaker.

People are still using troff for writing papers and books, so?  I've
got better things to do with my time (why should I be the front-end
for some formatting software?)

>Fair enough.  Again, this is out of my league.  (By the way, what exactly
>IS Macintax).

It's a package to help you do state and federal income taxes without
tearing out your hair.  Sort of a spreadsheet for taxes, but the
output looks like a government tax form(s) and you can send it in.

I'll have to say that it worked a lot better before ChipSoft took over
the product.  Maybe next year will be better.



--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc