Re: Amelio's ouster

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

In article Geoff Kaiser <SuperKais@MacConnect.com> writes...

>Mitchell Spector wrote:
>
>>     The only advantage I would give the Mac is "plug 'n play",
>> though not because the system is better designed, but due to the
>> fact there is relatively nothing to add, they're closed systems.
>> What does a Mac owner usually add? An external SCSI device, one
>> or more new ADB devices, a modem? ..."
>
>Nothing to add? Hmmm, let's see, with my 7600 I've got a printer,
>scanner, modem, ethernet port, two monitors, S-video in/out, RCA-jack
>line in/out, zip drive, external hard drive...does this mean I've got a
>closed system? Wow. I didn't know that. I guess I'll have to get a
>PC...  :-)

    Nothing to add inside. Those are all external devices, and in most
cases just simple accessories that would be just as plug and play to a
PC (SCSI hardrive, SCSI Iomega Zip, SCSI scanner, serial modem, etc).
Mac's have always been designed with the closed system concept, Apple
even boosts about buyers not having to ever pop open the lid because
they ship them with everything you want built-in (or so they claim at
Apple). The mere fact that Apple _voids_ your warranty if you open your
new Mac and try and install a hardrive or more SIMM memory, doesn't say
a whole lot about them being opened systems.

>> >SoftWindows for the PPC is not like GuS or UAE (Amiga emulator).  It is
>> >much more optimized.  This emulation is more like the emulation the PPC
>> >uses to run 68K Mac software, and it is good.  So good, in fact, that
>> >for day to day tasks, you can use a fast PowerMac to do PC tasks...
>>
>>     Yes, but can you delete every trace of Mac System 7.5.6 and work
>> totally with SoftWindows as your operating system? On the PC, I can
>> completely rid myself of MS-DOS and Windows if I so desired, and some
>> people do in fact.
>
>Are they that bad? :)   Why would someone choose to use a Windows PC and
>then strip Windows off of it? (I know, I know, Linux n' stuff...)

    There is no such thing as a "Windows PC", _you_ decide whether you
want it to be that or not. You can make it a DOS box, Windows box, OS/2
Box, Linux Box, etc, etc. If anything, you can call a Mac a "MacOS PC"
because that is what your locked into (and running emulators on top of
it aren't new operating system choices).

>But seriously, a company called Lismore has a Pentium emulator ('Blue
>Label') coming out by the end of the summer that will boot a Mac machine
>up into Windows, instead of the Mac OS. Similar to what you can do with
>MkLinux or BeOS.

    If you are so inclined to emulate a Pentium and run Windows, why not
just purchase the real thing? :) What about operating systems that are
native to the 68K or PPC processor beside MacOS?

>> ...I think people should use whatever is more comfortable and have a
>> preference for. Just be sure and try both (getting a good taste and
>> feel of each system) so you don't judge a system without even
>> knowning what it's about. You may end up short changing yourself.
>
>Speaking of "not knowing what it's about", there is no System 7.5.6.
>There's Mac OS 7.5.5 (last year) and Mac OS 7.6 and 7.6.1 (this year).

    That was a typo, I know that System 7.5.5 was the final release that
supported all Macs, and that 7.6 was the first to drop support for 68000,
68020 and some 68030's that were not full 32-bit. I can understand how a
mistake like that is annoying though, such as when people state there is
System 6.0.2 or 6.1 for the IIgs (when of course it is 6.0.1). :)

>I agree that one should use what works for them. If Windows is better
>for you, than use it, etc. etc. At work I use both on my Mac, so I feel
>I know the ins & outs of both. Personally, I can't wait for Mac OS 8
>this week. Definitely an improvement. More reasons to love Apple's OS.

    Hmm, I just read about System 8.0. Doesn't sound very impressive to
me, most of the changes sound cosmetic and an attempt to borrow several
ideas from Windows 95 (i.e. pop-up menus when you control-click, not
having to press and hold down mouse button in menus, etc. Which I feel
is okay, unlike Mac users who scream everytime someone "steals" ideas
from MacOS. Still, I find it kind of funny that while most Mac owners
yell how horrid Windows is, they'll be getting bits of it thrown at them
with the next Mac OS update :).

    If I were a Mac owner, I'd be pretty disappointed over the fact it
still does not support true multitasking, just improved cooperative.
Also, it is funny that Apple _still_ checks to see if you have Apple
bought hardrives and CD-ROM drives, and no drivers listed for non-
Apple brand printers or monitors (I would have thought that practice
was given up long ago, apparently not).

>And as a last-minute effort to keep in line with the newsgroup: if the
>IIgs was still active and was keeping up with the times, I'd use it. It
>all comes down to what you like, and I probably would use Macs and IIgs
>machines, since they each have their fortes that the other can't match.
>I think they're both cool.

    The Apple IIgs was and is cool. The Macintosh however, is not my
idea of a decent replacement for it, nor will it ever be. Some people
just think anything with a rainbow colored Apple logo on it is as good
as any other product Apple made. The Mac may be cool in it's own way,
but it ended the evolution of the Apple II and I don't consider it for
a second, something for users to have moved onto as a transition (when
Apple killed the II line). It doesn't work as a next-step up, it is
taking a whole new and different path (as much as a difference as
moving from an Apple II to an Amiga).

    If anything, I find the PC more like the Apple II. It too is not a
replacement or a next-step up in evolution, but it has a similar feel
in the way you can tinker with it, open it up and modify to your hearts
content (the Mac feels more like an appliance, you just use it, you
don't mess around with it).

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca