Re: Amelio's ouster

[Toby Reiter <treiter@cs.oberlin.edu>]

On 16 Jul 1997, Mitchell Spector wrote:

> In article GUDATH@EZINFO.VMSMAIL.ETHZ.CH (Henrik 'Ratte' Gudat) writes...
> 
> >Let's do some Q&A:
> >
> >>     How about this instead: Can the Mac do wavetable music synthesis?
> >
> >Yes, Inside Macintosh: Sound, page 2-8
> 
>     That is a rather murky defination of "wavetable synthesis". Simply
> having a DAC does not make a music synthesizer, and if you want to see
> examples of how the term is loosely used, you can find references of
> the Macintosh Plus and Macintosh II as having wavetable synthesizers
> built-in (all they have is a crummy 4 voice DAC).

For what most people need, a Mac handles sound as well as a PC or better.
Those who really _need_ wavetable sound are either a) people who compose
electronic music or b) those searching for one more reason to convince
others why they should by a PC (even though siad user will NEVER need it). 
>     Have you ever heard a Roland Sound Canvas, Yamaha XG, AWE-32, 
> Gravis or several other wavetable boards with chorus and reverb
> effects?

No, and I'm not surprised that I haven't--seeing as how it's simply a
luxury for most users and just doesn't get used (except during show-off
mode).

> >> Can you do preemptive multitasking? Do you have multiple choices for
> >
> >No
Am I incorrect in thinking BeOS can do multitasking--I thought it could...
> >> OSes?
> >
> >Fortunately not, see below
> 
>     Being locked into one OS is a fortunate thing? Since when is lack of
> choice and freedom a good thing? (having an OS that doesn't even support
> true multitasking and forces you to do _everything_ with mouse, including
> something as simple as 'empty trash' with no keyboard shortcuts available,
> is not something I'd like to be stuck with 100% of the time).

Since when are Macs stuck in one OS? We can run a Mac form of Linux (don't
know the name) as well as a somewhat old port of Unix, AU/X (although I
don't know if it works on PPC processor), BeOS, any version of Apple
System Software for 68k, and with MacOS 8 a PPC-based multitasking OS. In
addition, PPC's can run Windows NT (without emulation or extra hardware)
and MS-DOS, MS-Windows, and MS-Windows 95 with proper hardware or
emulation software. Guess that means Macs can run as many OS's as a PC and
then some (granted some of them quicker than others).

>     The MacOS (and the Macintosh itself) don't let the user have control,
> the machine and software won't let you. It's like a parent who takes away
> potentially dangerous tools from a child so they won't get hurt, like a
> pair of metal scissors replaced with plastic ones. This is good as the
> child is young and still learning, but what about when they grow up?
> The Mac is the equivalent of giving a full-grown and mature adult a pair
> of plastic scissors to work with. I rather have the metal pair, which 
> while I could potentially get hurt with and does require care, gives me 
> the power to be more productive.

The fact is, most users never get past the child phase of computer use
(according to your definition) anyway.  Even those who have had years of
experience on whatever OS/platform they use will still identify files as
the icons they are moving around on their desktop rather than the bits
stored somewhere on their hard drive (I know I do).  And this isn't a bad
thing!  Since the most constructive work most people do nowadays is
within wysiwyg-type programs, more depends on the power of these programs
rather than the ability to tweak the OS--and these programs are available
for the Mac at prices and power rivaling PC software.  It doesn't matter
if PC's have a greater overall share of total software, the core software
for the average and high-end user is there.  And with uses of control
panels, extensions, etc. it is possible to configure a Mac to ones' own
tastes at least as well as a PC. (I don't think there's any configurable
feature in Windows which is not at least present or enhanced on the Mac).
Windows does not allow the user any more control than a Mac, and since a
shell OS does exist for the Mac (in the form of MacLinux), you can
theoretically have as much power as any PC text-based OS.
> 
> >> full-screen video on low-end models? (hint: processing speed). Can you
> >
> >Well, Mitchell, low-end Macs start where your high-end PCs end..
> 
>     Well, perhaps it's just me then, who finds a low-end P75 (or even my
> 15 MHz IIgs ;) more responsive and quicker than most high end PowerPC Macs.

Hmm...I haven't really found that to be true.  In my computer labs at
school, we have 90 and 166 MHz Dell computers running Windows NT. Right
across the row are ~20 MHz Macintosh IIsi's. Although applications open
and quit faster on the PC's, while in the applications, there is very
little difference in terms of speed of operation and ability to get work
finished quickly. High end Macs, are _extremely_ fast.

> >> exit your windowing/icon environment when it just gets in the way? Can
> >
> >Well, this is an embarassing feature. I would call it emergency exit. And I
> >surely wouldn't have mentioned it because you earlier stated that, not
> >quoting, "the PCs are no longer machines you have to throw obnoxious 
> >commands at".
> 
>     Game software is one case where a windows environment is completely out
> of place, and I don't recall having to type in obscure commands while in the
> middle of playing those games. :)
I've played games on a Mac where the computer emulates MS-DOS within the
the game (this is without extra software/hardware). It has great looking
graphics and speed. Whether other games could get the same treatment, I
don't know...

> >> you pop in new CPU's or motherboards when you want to upgrade? 
> >
> >Yes, sir.
> 
>     How, if the port openings do not match on different cases? Besides
> which, I don't believe Apple sells motherboards and chips you can buy
> ans install yourself (you have to bring in your system to an authorized
> dealer and have them do the swap at a hefty cost, assuming there is a
> motherboard that can fit in your particular case). Isn't it also nice
> to know Apple will void your warranty if you attempt to install more
> memory or a hardrive yourself in your newly purchased Macintosh?

One of the things I have always admired about Macs is that they, in
addition to being great work machines, are also much more esthetically
pleasing, because they are designed for the motherboard, rather than the
ugly metallic slot jumble on the back of a PC.  Of course, aesthetic PC
cases also exist, but I would think these would be difficult to upgrade as
well. Most computer users do NOT upgrade their current box, because
*SURPRISE* the case is the least expensive component of a computer!  The
way I see it, if you buy a computer once every 2-3 years or so (which
seems to be the average for middle class computer lovers), the price of
that case will not compute in your decision. What will compute is a)
platform loyalty and b) usefulness of the computer to the price. And for
millions of users, Macs are more useful to the purchaser at the price they
are being sold. (p.s. the part about voiding the warranty by
self-enhancements annoys me too).

> >One last note about the variety of OSes. What you buy with a Mac is a 
> >complete solution, it's a hardware/software bundle that you either like 
> >as is or watch elsewhere for alternate offerings.
> 
>     Yes, it's about not having any choices.
Well, as I stated above, the Mac has at least as many options of OS's as
the PC (and even more under emulation). Since there are dozens of Apple
and Clone Macs to choose from, you can get the correct mix of hardware
and software to meet you needs, and then simply add the OS which you
prefer.

> >Same with interrupts and what else you have mentioned. It's not fear but the
> >pure lack of necessity for having to deal with your computer on such a level.
> >It's great when you can talk with your friends about the latest findings in
> >IRQ priorities, but I better get my work done. From the users point, it's
> >none of my business.
> 
>     Once again, no choices, not being able to configure and tweak the
> machine to your likings (the machine being in control rather than you).
> It also encourages the user to be ignorant and unaware of how things
> work, which may sound fine, but what happens when there is a problem
> and you don't know how to fix it?

I don't see what you mean by being able to tweak the machine on a PC in a
way you can't on a Mac.  For tweaking within graphical OS's, Macs can be
modified as much or more than a PC system, and for outside of a graphical
system, well then, you can choose another OS or it probably isn't
important. I would say most Window users are at least as ignorant about
how their machine work as any Mac user--Mac users who desire can and do
learn about how their computer works on a more detailed level, and use
this knowledge to better maintain/enhance their systems.  But even if the
Mac user is ignorant of how a Mac truly works, the likelihood that
problems which require this knowledge will occur is much lower for a Mac
user than a PC user (from my experience).

> >And that's the whole point. It doesn't count how much MHz you have in the 
> >box, how many keys on the keyboard and what bandwidth in the SCSI bus. 
> >It's how productive a machine makes you.
> 
>     I agree, and when you cannot do more than one task at a time (true
> multitasking) or the machine gets in the way of being productive because
> there are no short-cuts and only _one_ way to do things (which may be
> productive for one person, but not necessarily all people) is it not
> as productive as you may think.
Like I've said--multiple OS's on the Mac, easy configurabiltity means that
you can make the Mac fit the man. 
> >And that's why people are still using Apple II computers.
> 
>     No arguement there, when I need to type something up quickly or
> be productive, my Apple IIgs is still my computer of choice (ironically
> I'm using it right now to type on while debating features of the Mac
> and IBM ;). And of course, had Apple updated the IIgs, you can bet 
> I'd bet arguing the merits over running an Apple IIgs rather than the
> Mac or PC (which while I may have a preference for one over the other,
> I have no fondness for either when it really comes down to it).

I think I just basically have devotion to Apple computers or all sorts.
Our family currently owns 5 Apple computers in all, one IIgs and 4 Macs,
and I've used them all in the past and continue to use most of them now
(our Mac Classic II is resting for lack of desk space, and the Mac Plus is
being used at work by my mom). And I think this points out the most
obvious part of this argument--people have platform loyalty.  Even though
you've stated above that you do not truly like PC's or Macs, I believe I
would have a helluva hard time convincing you to like Macs no matter what
evidence I gave you, just as you would have a hard time convincing me
that PC's were a good computer.  And that is why all of us are in this
newsgroup (albeit off-topic)--because we have an affection (in some
instances addiction:) for a specific platform--the Apple II, and will not
be swayed from our love no matter how much someone should argue with us.
Essentially, this is the arguments of the ice creams--I say strawberry is
better, you say chocolate is better, but neither of us will ever convince
the other.

Here's to the death of an off-topic thread,
Toby Reiter