Re: A Tale of Two Apples

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

In article bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major) writes...

>Matt Portune <mportune@telerama.com> wrote:
>
>> Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>> > (come to think of it, they've drastically changed from maybe 3-4 years
>> > ago. During the era of Windows 3.1 and DOS, AdLib, MCGA and 386's, I
>> > would completely agree the Macintosh was a preferrable system, most
>> > especially for it's GUI and ease of use then).
>>
>> Hey Mitch,
>>       I couldn't have said it better myself.  Apple sat back and let
>> a technically inferior platform innovate right past them.
>
>Innovate????  Microsoft doesn't know HOW to innovate.  It only copies
>features that others have already done and then calls it its own work.

    That may be true, there are many features in Windows 95 which were
copied or borrowed from the Macintosh. Though you know what? I really
do not care who copied what, it works quite well. Nevermind the fact
that they went _several steps further_ and added features that are not
at all found in the Macintosh OS (it is funny should should mention
copying though, notice how Apple has went and started copying features
from Windows 95 in System 8? Notice the pop up menus, the task bar,
the locked-down menus with a mouse click?). Who is copying who now?
Does it really matter where ideas come from at this point?

    You know, I find it rather tiresome how you keep associating
Microsoft with IBM. That is such a "follow the crowd" cliche; do
not touch the PC as it has been poisoned by the evil Microsoft.
Ever read the children's fable of the fox and the grapes? It is
also interesting how Matt never mentionned Microsoft above, when
he was referring to PC machines, yet you automatically starting
chatting about Microsoft. Where does that come from? If you are
really so fearful of Microsoft, maybe you should examine the deal
and investment Apple made with Microsoft.

>>For me, using
>> MacOS these days is torture.  My mind goes numb waiting for the machine to
>> catch up with me.  That's no way to compute.
>
>You must be using a very old Mac.  The CPU speed buster model is now up
>to 300 megahertz.  Even in Aug. '96 you could get a Mac that was over
>100 megahertz.

    It goes beyond just plain megahertz, it is the way the hardware and
especially the way the software works that make the machine slower than
its PC counterpart. As I mentioned in a previous post, all that speed
and power is being bogged down in because of the Macintosh part.

    Hmmm. "Microsoft!", "they copied us!" and "My megahertz are bigger
than your megahertz!". This all sounds very familiar, and the same old
arguments that keep getting recycled over and over all around the net,
that have nothing very solid about them. More like empty and meaningless
propaganda from Apple Computer and loyal Mac fans. <yawn>

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca