From: sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:53:19 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <BxqFzA.L9s@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma V
enkateswar) writes:
>sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:
>
>>In article <BxJ22p.K4I@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma
 V
>>enkateswar) writes:
>>>
>
>stuff deleted.
>
>>Windows is often considered slow, there can be no arguement about that.
>>Everyone has their own personal opinions about just how slow it is, but it
>>isn't uncommon for people to claim this.  Win3.1 is less crash prone, but I
>>would still claim that it crashes pretty easily.  Though, not much easier than
>>the MacOS.
>
>But it's not that bad on fast hardware. And a Mac isn't an SR71 Blackbird
>either. And it would help if it was really an OS :->

The quadras are pretty good.  I've no complaints about their speed.  Any
system though is fast when you throw enough iron at it though.  That doesn't
mean that the system is particularly fast.
>
>>>
>>>- have you ever seen a Macintosh crash because of lack of heap space
>>>- (nicely demonstrated on 3MB machines with a screen saver, left to
>>>- (themselves for about 50 minutes.
>>>
>>No, but that doesn't mean that it can't happen.  Sounds to me though like
>>whoever programmed your screen saver was a bone headed moron.
>
>This particular screen saver was commercial, and I don't know, but
>I don't believe that they would have done that if they could have avoided
>it. It's the sort of thing that I would feel would drive a company out
>of business.

Just because it is commercial doesn't mean that it is good.  Some of my
favorite programs on the mac happen to be shareware.  I have left screen
savers go for the better part of the day and had no problems.  (FYI I use
M0IRE most of the time)  And besides that, if a company depends soley on a
faulty screen saver, then they deserve to go out of business.
>
>>>The Macintosh OS is more user-friendly.
>>>- have you ever tried getting help on _anything_?
>
>>Bubble help is availlable under system 7.  Admittedly, it is drool proof help,
>>but it does give help on *everything* whether you want it or not.  Also a
>>number of the better programs do have online help availlable.
>
>As you put it, bubble help is drool proof. And if they do have online help,
>I guess it isn't a disadvantage to the Mac OS. But I haven't seen any, and
>I do use a Mac.

The help isn't in the OS, it is the apps themselves.  They really should
come out with something a bit more adult though.
>
>>>
>>>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?
>
>>I think apple just released their version of a scripting language and there
>>have been third party scriping languages availlable for a while.
>
>But it isn't standard.

True, but it is availlable.  Hopefully apple's scripting language will solve
this.
>
>stuff deleted
>
>>>there. Eventually, though, they can't win. With cables costing more than
>>>$50 vs. $5, with top-of-the-line computers having more than a 50% price
>>>difference, what corporate customer is going to stick after a few years.
>>>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.
>>>
>>The same could be said about the core users of any operating system.  I know
>>some people, (even a few who inhabit these groups) who think that Windows is
>>god's gift to computers.  Mac hardware is admititly vastly overpriced, but
>>that doesn't prevent you from using third party stuff for periferals and hard
>>drives and such.  On most counts though you are right.  I've noticed that a
>>large chunk of mac users have never used a CLI for any length of time and it
>>is a tendancy of people to think that their system is the best when they have
>>never used anything else.  I started with computers, on a Mac, but fortunately
>>I had reason to use CLI based machines as well and never really fell into that
>>trap.  On the other hand, people who like just CLI based machines are
>>generally decieving themselves into thinking that GUI's are for wimps only.
>>In any case blind devotion to any particular system, is foolish.
>
>Agreed. And it's only the blindly devoted ones that I'm complaining about.
>But I haven't seen any blind followers of Windows, OS/2, or MSDOS. All
>the users of these OS/APIs acknowledge the disadvantages of their respective
>systems, and don't put forth the fact that they're advantages. (the Mac's
>lack of a CLI for example)
>
If you haven't seen them then you should look a little harder.  They are
there, they just tend to not be as noticable because they are a little more
mainstream.

>>Stacy John Behrens
>--
>Ravikumar Venkateswar
>rvenkate@uiuc.edu
>
>A pun is a no' blessed form of whit.
>
-- 
Stacy John Behrens
*===)-------------