From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: RE-MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:15:44 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <STDKAP1.92Aug28131344@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu> stdkap1@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu (Dietrich Kappe) writes:

>My sympathies are with the Mac, but I'm openwinded enough to realize that
>things are changing in a big way in the PC world, changing in ways
>that impact the Mac community in nontrivial ways.

Yes, things are changing, to the extent that we know have Windows
and OS/2, so that everytime a requirement comes up for the Mac the
"experts" can say "well, everyone knows that PCs are cheaper, and
we have Windows (or OS2) now, which makes it just like the Mac."


>1) The IBM compatible 286, 386, and 486 machines have no built in 640k
>limit. That is a limitation of DOS (Disk Operating System), 

Wrong.  That's what the "PC World"-type magazines would like 
you to believe, but this limit is not specific to DOS.  Many
programs, such as VP-Windows, that do not run under DOS still
have problems with it.  PC experts said that this limitation 
would go away in Windows.  It didn't.  They said it would go 
away in Windows 3.0.  It didn't.  They said it would go away 
in Windows 3.1.  It didn't.  Now they're saying it will go
away if I switch to OS2.   Well, I don't believe them anymore.
There's an old expression, "Fool me once, shame on thee.  Fool
me twice, shame on me."  


>2) OS/2 provides virtual memory, a gui, a cli, and much much more.
>Much of it is still buggy and slow, but it is a very usable system,
>perhaps somewhat more complex (but also more flexible) than the MacOS.

I consider the CLI to be a bug, not a feature.  If the GUI is so great, 
why do you need a CLI?  But I've seen the OS2 GUI, and I'm not impressed.
By and large, it's still the same as Windows.  Menues and dialogs still
use the same crappy-looking font, which looks like it was drawn by a
second-grader.  Buttons still have an unfinished look to them.  Windows
have a few extra controls added, but their function does not seem to be
any more intuitive than the "bar" icon that contains the window menu
in MS Windows.  And, of course, applications are no more consistent
in their use of the interface than Windows applications because most
programs running under OS2 *are* Windows applications.  


>In conclusion, I don't necessarily disagree that the Mac is superior
>to the PC running a real OS, but I do disagree with your attack dog
>style of arguing that point. And I find your arguments laughable.

Perhaps you'll change your mind when it's announced that the Center 
for Population Economics is getting rid of those SparcStations for
moving around your 6 gigaByte databases because the experts decided
that PCs, or Commodore 64s, are cheaper.


>If you do use PC's so much, and you can handle the bile rising above
>your eyeballs, investigate OS/2 2.0, maybe even buy it for your PC.

How many times must I repeat myself?  Again, I don't have the power
to make decisions like that.  The people who do are not only PC-biased
but Windows-biased as well and have already said that they don't want
to support machines running OS2.  Even if I wanted OS2, I would have
no more chance of getting than I would of getting a Mac.

>Heck, get Xwindows on it, throw in some fancy networking. I hope your
>PC computing get more pleasant as a result. 

Again, why don't you read what I have written?  As I have stated
over and over again, I already have X-Windows and some fancy
networking hardware (including a multimillion-dollar state-of-
the-art fiber-optic network).  I haven't noticed any pleasantness
as a result.  However, since you say you don't even use PCs, how
can you be so sure that all the claims that you take at face
value are really true?





Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc