From: ajross@husc9.harvard.edu (Andrew Ross)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: RE-MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:58:10 GMT

fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:

>In article <ajross.714890195@husc10> ajross@husc10.harvard.edu (Andrew Ross) writes:
>>
>>Please tone down the language, you are impressing no one.  For myself (a
>>dumb PC jock), I don't consider an unsupported, undocumented copy of an OS
>>legitimate; legal perhaps, but not legitimate. 

>OK, just in case you didn't know, every Mac comes with (paper manuals)
>documentation for the MacOS included in the box along with the diskettes.
>(That ought to be legitimate by your definition.)  Upgrades, as described
>by others, range from free to minimal cost (charge for dealer's time), to
>the cost of a full with-new-manuals package.

>Why pay for all the paper when the differences between, say, 6.0.2 and
>6.0.5 are such that most users would never notice the difference unless
>it's something like fewer crashes or things go faster.  (Any significant
>added functions would be documented in the upgrade in a README type of
>file.  Seems legitimate to me.

>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.  This is another matter of taste, but I WANT printed
documentation for my software.  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.,
I'm afraid I'm not entirely satisfied with Apple's policy here.

>>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.  In my experience, Mac software is no more consistent
than most windows software; and truly eggregious packages exist on both
ends (someday someone has to explain Apple File Exchange to me...).  In
any case, learning the interface for a DOS program is never more than a
few hours (even for truly byzantine programs, like Wordperfect).

>>Obviously.  But (and oooh, am I gonna catch flames for this one) unless
>>your needs include NEEDING more than one screen and/or having a
>>requirement for nifty movies in the OS, I'd be willing to bet that a PC
>>will fulfill them.  

>Not for me.  I don't (yet) need either feature (but the need may eventually
>arrive), but what I do, writing books, hasn't in the past been anywhere
>near as well done on PC systems than on the Mac.

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.

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

>>I know nothing of accounting software.  I will add, though, that I have
>>never heard of Macintax.  I have heard of other packages, such as Quicken
>>and Microsoft Money.  As an uninformed user, I would therefore have to
>>conclude that Macintax is not a leading product.  

>Well, other than the fact that Macintax is not an accounting package...
>you can update you internal database: Macintax is a leading product of
>its type.  And now it's finally available on PC's.

>Note also that Quicken was originally implemented on the Apple// (I was
>one of the original beta testers...roughly back before wheels became
>round.)

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

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

>The Amiga has a lot of neat features...but its GUI is really quite
>ugly.

That wasn't my post, and I've never used an Amiga for anything productive;
but It's never looked all that ugly to me.  For that matter, I rather like
the windows interface (although I will admit to using Norton Desktop
instead of the program/file managers).

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

Andy Ross
ajross@husc.harvard.edu
                                               Just another dumb PC jock...
Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.misc:15576 comp.sys.mac.programmer:14646 comp.sys.mac.system:11365