From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: RE-MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:08:19 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <714823281.F00001@blkcat.UUCP>, Kaz.Karl@f1138.n261.z1.fidonet.org (Kaz Karl) writes:
> Oh, be real...Perhaps you can buy an si for $2500, but that clunky machine is
> the equivilant of the 396SX I just got for a client for six hundred new.

Odd. The IIsi can do many things that are impossible for that 386sx machine
to do at all. How can it be that the 386sx is an equivalent?

>..and Mac charges for it's >own< OS software, if you want a legitamate copy.

Patently false. There are no prohibitions on copying the Macintosh OS software
for use on Macs. You don't have to buy anything.

> ..and OS/2 is actully cheaper.

Again false. Since the Mac OS is free, how can OS/2 be cheaper? Will IBM pay
me to take it? (not that I, nor anyone would want it....)

>     As for DOS users only having two useful programs...even if that poll was
> accurate(it certainly doesn't typify any of my clients/friends), 

Any survey, no matter what the nature, is subject to a certain level of 
inaccuracy. However, the information in question -- that DOS users *USE*
an average of around 2 applications, and that Mac users *USE* an average
of around 4 application has never been rebuffed. It is merely an observation.
Since your client/friends use a bunch more applications, it would seem there
are a lot more DOS users who use 1 or zero applications....

Why this is so is subject to speculation. Only to be determined by a further
survey.

> the implication
> that this was because of the difficulty of installation causing DOS users to
> fail to purchase more software is just silly speculation.

I believe the survey's analysis didn't point the finger at installation 
problems (although this is definitely a Macintosh advantage), but to the
difficulties of training users on multiple applications. 

Since applications on the Mac have universal similarities, there's more
learning transfer from one program to the next. Hence, it is easier to
learn (and hence USE) more applications.

..There's nothing to
> demonstrate that this isn't actually voluntary and to the user's advantage...

Explain to me how it is advantageous to the user to run fewer applications.

>     Nothing bugs me more than this sillyness of trying to believe one's own
> machine is the best at everything...You'd better face the facts: DOS machines
> have some serious advantages over Macs.

CAUTION! This razor cuts both ways. If you want to walk down this path, you
had better be prepared to realise that Macs have some serious advantages over
DOS! Your opening comment on the quality of the IIsi does not bode well for
your survival.

>..like the limitations the Mac resources
> set on application design allow DOS programs to be more vertical, that is, 
> they
> can be designed to be the >best< at what they do, not crippled by being
> universally recognisable.

I have two problems understanding this statement. First of all, as a Mac
application designer, I don't experience any design limitations on Mac
resources. Indeed, I find the Human Interface Guidelines to be a helpful
addition to the process, not a hinderance.

Second, I don't see how having common user interface elements would necessarily
cripple an application. I can't even grant you that on a theoretical basis.
Could you give me a concrete example?

> ..you can't buy accounting or database software for the
> Mac that is anything better than middle-of the road on a DOS machine.

Baloney.

There's nothing for PCs that comes anywhere near the power of 4D, and it has
been around forever. Macs have universal compatability with SQL through the
DAL and DAM -- something PCs don't have.

As for accounting, there's tons of Mac accounting software! Since I don't
do accounting, I'm not that familiar with specific packages. I do recall 
flipping past a dozen different accounting packages in a recent mail 
order catalog. It does exist.

> ..I should know, I work with both.

Methinks some aspects of your education are lacking. I work on both, too.

> ..And take BBSs...there's absolutely nothing for the GUI
> forced on Mac designers to do.

There are GUI (I hate that term. On the Mac, we always called it a UI, never
a GUI) BBSs in existance. One of the best is TeleFinder, which, oddly enough,
works much like the Finder.

One problem with GUI BBSs is they require specialized software on both
ends of the connection. Since BBSs largely want to appeal to the widest
audience, this can be a restrictive requirement. So, the majority of BBSs
are character terminal applications. In that case, why waste a Mac as a
BBS?

> ..it just wastes power that could be used to
> process the character chains that are all even boards with GUI emulating
> clientware use...

I think you mean the same as my "why waste a mac" comment above.

>      And even on the GUI is better end...Amiga has a much better interface 
> than Mac, 

NOT!

(sorry, I coun't resist)

Ahem. What specifically makes you think the Amiga UI is better than the Mac
UI? The marketplace would tend to disagree with you.

> and handles Multimedia in a way that makes Quicktime even more of a
> pathetic embarrasement than it already is.

The Amiga handled Multimedia better? In what way? The Amiga does have a leg
up on NTSC video handling, but not all video is NTSC, nor is Multimedia
confined to video! 

In what way is QuickTime an embarrasement? Perhaps you are not impressed
by tiny little pictures on the screens of Macs. But that isn't all there is
to QuickTime! There's at least two different parts that are equally important:

* Component Manager - allows users to plug-in specialized multimedia hardware
  and have it work with all QuickTime applications automatically. So if you
  have hardware to do full-screen video, you can use it just as easily as
  with the tiny, disk to screen stuff.

* Data Standards - regardless of your hardware, QuickTime defines data 
  standards for storing multimedia information, so various applications can
  use real-time data. This is directly in line with the use of a standard
  picture format for still images (PICT) This way, QuickTime applications
  can trade information even if they have never been used together before.

> ..but of course Amiga users are just
> as rediculous about claiming their machines are the be-all and end-all as Mac
> users, and they are dying from lack of third party support...

If Amiga machines are so great, why is there no third party support. The
Mac doesn't have this problem.

> Give-take...each has it's strengths and weaknesses.

I've seen you take. Let's see you give. What are the strengths of the Mac,
as you see them?

> ..and face it, Mac is still in second...and this is from someone using a ci...

In second in regards to sales -- perhaps. In regards to technology and ease
of use and interoperability -- no way.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.