From: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh advocacy (really!)
Reply-To: mmunson@animal.es.com (Mark Munson)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:14:46 GMT

In article: <Bwyn6F.F9D@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> Bob Fahey responds:

MM> Having a cheap program is of little value if it produces low quality output
MM> and wastes your time.  High end Mac applications can charge more because
MM> they offer more value.

BF> Who ever said cheap programs produce cheap output? Well, this may be the case
BF> on a mac, but it isn't the status quo for amiga. Commercial software does
BF> NOT have to be overpriced to function well.  [rest deleted to save space]

You're using ESP again.  I didn't say that programs had to be expensive
to be good.  Can't you read?

MM> If you can't affort it, then you'll have to settle for an Amiga.

BF> Cut the "holier-than-thou" crap, please. Here you are blatently saying that
BF> the Amiga is inferior. Yet, a few lines down, you say "I'm not trying to
BF> supress the amiga". Bullsh*t. It's one thing to advocate a computer, but
BF> you're looking to start a flame war which I refuse to take part in.

The Mac offers more, and they can charge more for it.  If you don't have
the funds, you'll have to look at an Amiga (or an inexpensive PC clone).
The Amiga is great for many video intensive uses and I would advocate it
for user who are interested in these areas.  Happy now?

MM> I haven't even mentioned Maple before.  Where did you get the idea that I
MM> like Mathematica over Maple?  Try reading my post instead of using ESP (or
MM> whatever it is you do that gives you these interesting assumptions).

BF> Where did I get that idea? Well, in your post about the software packages
BF> available on the mac, you failed to mention maple. If you liked maple more
BF> than mathematica, you would have mentioned it. There. That's my secret to
BF> ESP. No candles, no seances, no hokus-pokus. ;-)

I could have mentioned Expressionist, Maple, and some others, but I happen
to know that Mathematica is the most widely known application in this
field.  I also told you in the post that the list wasn't complete, and that
there were many other applications that I just didn't have time to list.

For the record, I like Maple's interface a little bit better than Mathematica's.
Your assertion that this would cause me to mention Maple over or instead of
Mathematica is incorrect.  STOP reading things into my posts that aren't
there, and try READING the actual content.


MM> Sure, the Mac was in this boat back in '84, but within a year, Major
MM> applications had come out for the Mac (i.e. Excel, Word, MacProject, etc.).

BF> Thankyou for making my previous point clear. Major applications aren't
BF> necessarily all written by microsoft, you know. It really only offers
BF> a security to the mac market, because you can sway soon-to-be IBM owners
BF> by telling them: "But look! you can run those programs on our machine too!"
BF> So? Does it make those mac programs better than the IBM programs? No. They're
BF> fundementally the same program.


You'll notice that the large majority of Mac applications that I mentioned
in a comparison list weren't written by MicroSoft (althogh some were).  But
when you claim that a Mac version of a title, that is also found on the PC,
is fundamentally the same, you are incorrect.

The Mac version of Word was substantially better than the PC counterpart 
for many years.  Mainstay PC programs like Lotus 123 and WordPerfect 
failed when they were ported to the Mac.  It wasn't until 123 and WP were
substantially rewritten and improved that they were able to stay in the
Mac market.

MM> And if this weren't enough, the Amiga is poorly crafted.  The Amiga has a
MM> lot of good components, but they are all housed in a flimsy case that
MM> doesn't fit together well.  The keyboard feels cheap, and the mouse is even
MM> cheaper.  This  type of quality gives the Amiga a bad rap, and it seems to
MM> be indicative of the overall system quality.  Poor quality keeps serious
MM> users away, which it too bad, since the Amiga needs more market acceptance
MM> before good applications will show up for it.

BF> Ok, here we have another load of bull. What amigas have you used? A 6-year
BF> old A1000? What case doesn't fit together well? A500? A600? A1000? A1200?
BF> A2000? A2500? A3000? A3000T? A4000? You are putting the low and high end
BF> machines in the same class. [rest of paragraph deleted for space]

Now that you mention it, the 1000 did have a really cheap plastic case.  In
fact, the keyboard and mouse were really cheap feeling also.  But let's look
at the 3000 for a more current example.  The case is an improvement over the
1000, but the plastic front panel doesn't fit the case well.  The drive
ports on the front of the case don't fit standard 5.25" mechanisms well.
As a result, the machine has a poorly crafted look.

BTW: Mac II keyboards are an option.  You are free to purchase any third
party keyboard or input pointing device that makes you happy.  If you
feel that the mouse is unresponsive, the control panel will let you change
the speed and click-rate parameters to suit you preferences.


Bob:  I think I'm going to give up on your posts.  I'm tired of trying
to communicate with someone who can't hold his end of a discussion.  You
keep trying to put words in my mouth, or distort my meaning.  When
you can read English and respond intelligently, we'll talk.

Until then, later!

[MGM]