Re: A Tale of Two Apples

[bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major)]

Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:

> In article bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major) writes...
> 
> >Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> In article bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major) writes...
> >>
> >> >Naming examples of software would be meaningless to you because the
> >> >titles I am referring to are developed for a particular line of business
> >> >and not available to the general public.
> >>
> >>     Well you've just made my point, the incompatible software titles are
> >> some rare and obscure business programs (furthermore, your saying they
> >> were not even available to the public!). How about naming some software
> >> titles the general public as access to that will not function at all?
> >
> >I didn't know the profession of real estate was "rare and obscure".
> >These are programs that were once used by hundreds of thousands of
> >offices all over the country.
> 
>     Your not making sense, you claimed this software is not available
> to the general public, so I assumed you were talking about a custom
> written piece of software created for a _single_ business firm made
> to fit _their_ system. Now your saying it is available to hundreds of
> thousands for offices? Something that widely available sounds like
> software available to the general public.

By "general public" I mean that *any* joe user can walk into a software
store and buy the software--or order it.  That's not the case here.
Specialized real estate software is *not* available in software stores
and can only be ordered directly through a manufacturer.

> 
> >They are titles I have first hand experience and use with.
> 
>     Very well, if you have first hand experience with this software,
> what exactly makes it not compatible with a moderm PC? Your being
> rather vage and giving me very little information about this.

It just refuses to run, period.  I'm not in front of that particular PC
(or at the office for that matter) at the moment so I am unable to tell
you verbatim what it says on the screen once you start the software.

> >To which I say "so what?"  Anyway, my point was that you don't want
> >people ragging on the IIgs; by the same token, I don't see why the Mac
> >has to be ragged on.
> 
>     Nope. If someone comes trolling on this group and says "The IIgs
> sucks, get a real computer like my <insert brand here>!" I will just
> ignore them and think very little of that person. Though what does
> tick me off is when someone comes in this group and starts posting
> misinformation, claiming it is fact when it is blatantly not (even
> after several people have informed them they're incorrect).

I don't know what you are getting at here, except that you seem to be
harkening back to the memory question and exactly how much of it the GS
shipped with.  That is NOT disputable; it is a known fact exactly how
much memory the early GS shipped with.  Now, whether it was enough
memory to do what a certain person needed is a whole different ballgame,
and a question I've tried to keep separate, but you insist on lumping it
in altogether.

> >It also leads to lots of problems, of which I have first hand
> >experience.  Not all no-name parts will work with each other or with the
> >motherboard.  There is a generic PC in our office that will not use its
> >sound card, for instance.  Both the machine and the card have been
> >checked and there is nothing wrong with either.  Nonetheless, the
> >computer never makes a sound or uses the card in any way.  No technician
> >can explain what's wrong.  And this is not the only example of why a
> >machine made up of generic parts is not the best idea in the world.
> 
>     Obviously the people in your office are very inexperienced and
> lack any basic trouble-shooting skills. If the card and computer
> have been tested and verified as working, then it is a simple matter
> of something being misconfigured. If your interested in getting the
> sound card working, mail me and I can probably help you out.

What the computer level troubleshooting experience is in my particular
office is not your concern (or business for that matter).  However, we
were told at an official repair facility by two different supposedly
competent professionals who do nothing but repair components and systems
*all day long* that there was nothing wrong--and they checked the
configuration, etc. as well, not just the components themselves.

> 
>     I guess you would rather be stuck with whatever sound capabilities
> Apple provided your computer with (in most cases just a simple DAC)
> rather than wavetable synthesis boards you can purchase for the PC.

Sounds that eminate from PCs have not impressed me at all, regardless of
whatever boards you can put in them or whatever speakers are added.  In
addition, for PCs, multimedia was an afterthought at best and not as
integrated as on the Macintosh.

>     Correction, several million were made. Every Macintosh shipped
> from 1988 until sometime in 1993 had a Sony SuperDrive mechanism
> installed inside the case. The reason it was difficult finding one
> is you have to find someone with a dead Macintosh who can spare it
> (or a rare case where you'd have two internal SuperDrives in a Mac
> SE or II and they now only require one drive). Spares were also
> made by Apple as dealer replacements of course. What is less common
> are external SuperDrives, though they were simply the same mechanism
> installed in a plastic case.

I seem to remember a post by David Empson (I believe) that mentioned how
hard the *cards* were to get for a Superdrive.  I never said the
Superdrive itself was rare, only the card that the gs needs for it.

-- 
--bj   Auto reply doesn't work; remove "black" to reply.  
Proud owner/user of Apple Computers since 1984.   
"None of my computer systems do Windows."