Re: A Tale of Two Apples

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

In article bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major) writes...
>In article <34413305.B66@library.ucla.edu>, pubpc1@library.ucla.edu wrote:
>
>> I have lost all faith in Apple Computers, Inc.
>
>(big fat snip)
>
>> [In response to Apple's anti-clone behavior, MacUser and Mac World
>> have merged.  Apple II folks know full well what this means, and it
>> happened to Amiga mags too.  Anyone remember InCider/A+?]
>>
>> -Scott G.
>
>Scott: although I agree with you that ACI has made many bad business
>decisions both recently AND in the past, I refuse to "concede" to the other
>side and be a slave of Microsoft et al.  Yes, to me, THAT is the worst of
>two evils.

    I now use a "PC" in addition to my Apple II's, though I am certainly
not a salve of Microsoft. There are many different software packages out
there and software companies, if I don't like a Microsoft product, there
are other choices.

    The ironic bit is with an Apple machine your above statement applies.
Not about being a slave to Microsoft, but you are a slave to Apple as you
are more or less forced to use their operating system, their hardware
products (note System 8 looking for Apple firmware ID in CD-ROMs and
hardrives, as well printers) and recently, their machine as they are
slowly phasing out the clone market. I always think back to the famous
"1984" Superbowl commercial and chuckle to myself, as the underlying
message they were trying to get across is now totally reversed. :)

>I was forced to work on Wintel computers for over ten years in
>a previous job, and would never even own one of my own choosing.  As badly
>as the more recent Mac might be compromised, it's going to remain my system
>of choice for what's out there right now in the marketplace.

    10 years ago is a long time in computer years. Back during 1987 I'm
sure most offices would be running 8086 XT clones, or at best 286's or
the very first 386 machines. Things have drastically changed since then
(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).

>And I'm not quite sure about the MacUser/MacWorld merging being any direct
>response to the anti-clone decision either--I believe that decision was
>made before the end of the summer.  I remember getting announcements in the
>mail about it *months* before the actual mag merger took place, which was
>its November '97 issue.

    I hadn't heard about this until now, but I have watched both Mac
publications downside from something that looked and felt like a phone
book, to something very similiar in page quantity to inCider in 1991.