From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: RE-MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Date: 27 Aug 1992 17:40:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

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?

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.)

>>>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.


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