Re: OS For IIGS

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article @vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Tilghman Lesher) writes...

>KCUF airmaster (airmaster@KCUF.org) wrote:
>: The Mac is just an art-deco paperweight.
>
>If this is true, then a Windoze machine is a waste of the metal
>of which it is made.
>
>I currently work on computer sales at a major American university.
>The computers, in terms of functionality, go like this:  UNIX, Mac,
>Windoze.  In that order, from top to bottom.  When UNIX crashes (well,
>actually, it hasn't yet).  When the Mac crashes, we reboot.  When
>the Windoze machine crashes, we get a technician from service to spend
>three hours trying to even _diagnose_ the problem.  And the Windoze
>machines

    This is yet another example of a completely incompetent technician,
much like the example giving a few weeks back where a so-called support
technician could not get a sound card to work, at all, in a PC running
in a company office. Considering the qualifications required to be a
"technician" today, and the numerous of people I've dealt with who have
been given this title, I often don't except much from them. Years ago
if someone was a "technician" it actually meant something, these days
(except in rare cases, as there _are_ the odd experienced and fairly
knowledable technicians out there) it doesn't mean a whole lot.

    I run Windows 95 and it is extremely stable and I'm not at all
an isolated case. I find it uncanny how all these troubled PC systems
given as an example are always in an office setting (as well as the
opinions on PC's being based on the same, "I use a PC in the office
all day and it is terrible..."). Are there office gremblins at play
here, or do people out there just associate the computer they use at
work (as opposed to the one used at home in a relaxed and comfortable
enviroment) as something not very enjoyable and stressful? :)

>And strangely enough, prices for the Macs which are functionally
>equivalent to a Windoze machine are actually LOWER than the Windoze
>machines.

    How about some pricing examples? That is just blantently false,
especially considering the monopoly Apple Computer has on the Mac
hardware market (there's a sprinkling of clone companies, but they're
being stamped out by Apple so there is less competition and they can
justify higher prices for Macs). I'm talking about generic clones,
not brand-name clones like Compaq, Dell or IBM which generally ARE
expensive. Besides which, a generic clone does not mean lesser quality,
especially when _you_ hand pick _each_ part that goes in and assemble
it yourself (no soldering, I'm just talking about snapping and
screwing things in). Apple still charges more for their hardware 
than what is available in the PC world, and don't even get me started
on the cost of servicing and replacement parts for Apple hardware.

>From my experience, it is pretty clear that the people who
>continue to buy Windoze machines are either forced to by their superiors
>or else they are mentally incompetant.

    So, I am mentally incompetant, am I? It's interesting that I find
people who continue to buy Macintosh systems are those whose judgement
has been clouded by propaganda spread and nourished by Apple Computer.
The Macintosh crowd doesn't look at the machine so much as they do to
the philosophy behind it. Apple has convinced Macintosh users they are
special people and creative individuals, they are the non-conformist
who doesn't want to follow the rest of the crowd. They've also created
a feeling of a sense of family between users (or should I say cult ;)
that makes you feel you belong to something good; you are making a bold
statement buying a Mac (much like people who fall for TV advertising
that has them believe they're "hip, young, cool" if you they drink a
certain brand of soft-drink or drive a certain kind of car).

    Proof of some of that? The fact they you (and just about any other
avid Mac user) feel so strongly about the machine you'll claim people
who choose the "other" machine are mentally flawed. In some regilions
people believe followers of other faiths will be cast into a so-called
hell simply for following the wrong faith/god. I often feel Macintosh
users have been so propagandized they are as emotional about their
machines as strong followers of any regilion. Gosh, the "Macintosh"
practically is a regilion with people taking such blind leaps of
faith, unquestionable devotion and belief in Apple and their products.
I think some of it has even rubbed off on us Apple II users and maybe
part of the reason we still so strongly cling to and stand up for our
machines today. When you critize the Macintosh you are fundmentally
critizing the user's beliefs, and the user themself.

>Now, a PC _can_ run Unix (such as FreeBSD), but those cases are the
>_only_ times that the PC can be considered to be superior to the Mac.
>Windows 95 is painfully incompetant when compared to MacOS.

    Remove the emotion and look at facts. As much as many of us have
a strong dislike for Microsoft, it is the MacOS that is painfully
incompetent and inferior to Windows 95. Bare in mind I am not saying
that as an opinion, but on strong logic and fact. There are dozens of
things Windows 95 has that are completely lacking in MacOS, or
similiar features that are executed in a much better and efficent 
way. Multitasking is just one of many examples.

    As for hardware, that is also far ahead of the Macintosh. The
PowerPC RISC processor being a notiable exception, however, as I
have stated many times in the past, it is terribly under used on
the Macintosh (almost very much like when the Apple IIgs was first
introduced and there was little to no software that took advantage
of its processor. People were using mostly 8-bit applicatins then).
Perhaps that will change, but that will still only be one step
towards the many required to catch up to the PC technologically. 

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca