From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:12:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov16.081241.14842
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <1992Nov16.080705.9395@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
>Although your post strikes me as complete garbage in general, I have
>to comment on one or two bits of it.
>
>>production. Given Apples litiganous attitude, the strangle hold
>>they place on development by attempting to completely control it, a
>
>Apple does seem overly litiganous (did you spell that correctly?).
>This should not be a significant problem to their developers, however.
>Apple has only tried to sue those who are copycatting their work on other 
>platforms, in actuality, or just in spirit.

I hope you have been following the non-sense over Apple, Microsoft,
and HP with regards to the GUI suit in court. I found it amusing
that Apple argued over a trashcan icon as intellectual property.
Freudian Slip ? Probably not. But in reality XEROX PARC layed the
ground work for what Jobs did with the Mac, and according to
someone I know that was at Murray Hill not long ago, AT&T actually
owns the patents relative to what XEROX did. His words, not mine.

>
>Apple does not, however, try to place a "strangle hold" on development.
>They do try to _encourage_ developers to follow their technical and user
>interface guidelines.  The first protects the developers from having to
>rewrite their program at the next update of the OS.  The second helps to
>keep the Mac's level of consistancy as high as it is.  Developers ARE
>free to write whatever sort of program they want, however they want to
>write it.  The Mac user community does tend to be vicious with respect to
>user-vicious software, however.
>
>>less than desirable set of tools and development environment as
>>compared to the PC and UNIX bases, it is absolutely cost
>
>The Mac does not have the full set of UNIX tools ported to the Mac OS.
>A/UX does have the majority of UNIX programming tools available.  Not
>many Mac developers use A/UX, however.  Why?  Because the Mac does have
>very nice development systems that run under the Mac OS.  Think C is
>VERY nice, well integrated, and easy to use.  Comparable to Borland C/C++
>from what I understand, with only part of C++, at present.  MPW is huge,
>but does allow scripting, complex make files, project management, multi-
>language programs, etc, etc.  MacApp provides a very thorough, deep, solid
>application framework for the Mac.  This doesn't sound like an undesirable
>set of development tools to me.  (I personally find them easier to use
>than anything on the PC or UNIX).
>

Maybe so, but I think the posting by Brian Sturgil will be of
interest to you.

>>ineffective to develop software for the Macintoy, unless your whole
>>process is geared to support that environment alone. Much of the
>
>How is it that Framemaker, WingZ, Mathematica, Matlab, etc. all exist
>and are supported on the Mac if what you say is true?  How about
>AutoCAD (though this hacked port is not a gleaming example)?  How about
>Ashlar Vellum (which LATER expanded to the PC)?  You point is dead.
>
>Jess Holle

These products come from companies that have the funding to support
the development of Mac software. If I'm not mistaken, Framemaker
made their money elsewhere before porting to the Mac, along with
Informix, Wolfram ? (Mathematica), and AutoDesk. With other income
streams to support them, yes they could absorb the cost of Mac
development. Many other smaller shops can not and don't, because
they can not recover in sales what they spent to develop.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy