Re: Apple Computer, What Are You Up To?

[Randy Shackelford <shack@onyx.southwind.net>]

Mike Kent <Mkent01@galileo.cris.com> wrote:

:> : But why do you think this is an either/or decision?  What I think
:> : Supertimer is trying to say -- and what I know I am -- is that maintaining
:> : backwards compatibility allows users to upgrade at their own pace and
:> : their own budget, not Apple's.

:> While forcing needless complexity on everyone? And, as has been pointed out,
:> you can use SCSI cards, USB to serial converters, and ethernet to localtalk
:> converters to get the same thing.

: Who's talking about forcing needless complexity on everyone here?  I'm
: talking about taking my existing peripherals and plugging them into my new
: CPU exactly the way they were plugged into my old one.  You're talking
: about my having to buy -- at an additional expense -- "SCSI cards, USB to
: serial converters, and ethernet to localtalk converters to get the same
: thing."  Sounds like Apple is the one forcing needless complexity on
: everyone with its lack of upgrade policy.

I somehow doubt you're a prospective customer for a new Apple product judging
from that kinda talk.

The all encompassing support is why trying to get Windows to work with new h
ardware is such a nightmare. When you attempt to support every conceivable 
connector, protocol, and bus ever designed, you're asking for it. 

It seems funny how people talk about Windows boxes, which need expansion cards
for SCSI, ethernet, audio and video, yada yada without batting an eyelash but
think it's such a chore to add a card to get SCSI in a G3, or an adaptor to 
get from built in ethernet to localtalk. That's assuming there's even a need
to connect anything in such a way.
-- 
Offsite mail to this host gets nuked.