Re: PLEASE STOP THE MAC AND MICROSOFT MESSAGES

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

In article shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford) writes...

>Mitchell Spector (spec@vax2.concordia.ca) wrote:
>
>:     I'd have to disagree, something like the iMac has no place being
>: discussed on comp.sys.apple2. The exception, of course, is if you were
>: discussing how to share files between it and an Apple II (not a good
>: example here, since the iMac lacks a floppy drive), network it or
>: similar. To be fair, starting up a thread about the PC _without_ it
>: relating back to the Apple II in some way is equally as out of place.
>: We're all guilty of occasionally getting onto tangents when talking
>: about Apple II's, but that is not quite the same as starting new
>: threads about _completely unrelated topics_ that have nothing to do
>: with the Apple II (i.e. the Macintosh).
>
>Discussing current company happenings is at least as topical and useful as

    How so? Current company happenings are about a computer system
that is completely foreign to the Apple II. Granted the Macintosh
shares same traits in common: It is produced by the same company
(the rainbow Apple logo on the front of Apple II's certainly makes
that apparent) and in the case of the Apple IIgs, they share many
similar hardware components (i.e. ADB bus, Z8530 SCC for serial
and AppleTalk, floppy drives) and similar types of software
(i.e. a Finder application, Toolbox in firmware for a Mac-like
OS and software, etc).

    Alright, perhaps at least the IIGS is not so foreign, but the
fact remains they are completely *incompatible* computer systems.
Can I run Macintosh software on a IIgs? No. Can the Macintosh run
Apple IIgs software? No. (Nevermind software emulators, for very
obvious reasons). Can I plug Macintosh slot cards into the IIGS,
or plug IIGS slot cards into the Macintosh? No. (Nevermind things
like floppy and SCSI drives, or modems and keyboards, that too
for obvious reasons). If you argue "Yes" to any of these because
of software emulators or generic computer peripherals, you open
the door to just about every other computer system out there!

>the rounds of woe-is-us-Apple-rooked-us-II-owners rigmarole that
>start up every so often.

    Those discussions have very little productive value, I'll
admit that, but at least they're on topic. Like it or not, it
is the history of the Apple II (or at very least, II users'
perspectives on how things unfolded at Apple over the years
concerning the *Apple II*. Regardless of whether people agree
or not on that history, it _is_ discussing the Apple II). As
to how useful dredging up the past is over and over and over
again, that is another story. :)

>And talking about PCs isn't the same as talking about any
>Apple product you care to name here since Apple doesn't make PCs.

    Yes, but the PC and Macintosh are as equally incompatible
and unrelated to the Apple II. Simply because the Apple makes
the Macintosh, does not mean it is part of the Apple II family
line. How about this... What if tomorrow Apple produced Intel
PC clones with the Apple name and logo on the case. Would it
then be out of place to discuss Apple made PC's on csa2? It
sure would be, because despite being manufactured by Apple,
it would be a PC clone and _not_ an Apple II.

    This group is for discussing a particular line of computer,
not the company that was responsible for it (you can discuss the
company in direct relation to the computer, but just talking
about the company in general and what it does today is not
keeping on topic). Pretend this group were "rec.bose.speakers",
where we all discuss stereo speakers made by Bose Corporation.
Now, let's say one day Bose starting making frozen microwave
dinners. Would it make sense if suddenly in the middle of
discussing sound equipment, people started jumping in the group
and began talking about food? (And they would rationalize
this being on topic, because Bose the company was the common
factor in both). Okay, this is an extreme example since both
the Apple II and Macintosh are computers, but that is about
all they really have in common for what matters most.

>Suppose someone were to mention that Apple has had consecutive quarters
>in the black and its stock value is up 230%. Is that only of interest to
>Mac users?

    Absolutely, it _is_ only of interest to Mac users. I would be
quite interested to hear how Apple Computer has any bearing on
those of us who still use and own Apple II's (not every Apple II
owner is automatically also a Mac owner/user--I'm certainly not).

    If Apple's market share climbed from a dismal 3% up to a strong
45%, what does that do for the Apple II? Answer: Nothing. Switching
to the flip-side, say Apple Computer goes bankrupt or is bought out
in the near future. What affect does this have on Apple II users?
Answer: Again nothing, since they no longer manufacture that line
of computer, no longer produce software for it and certainly no
longer support it. What exactly would we *as Apple II users* lose
here? In the worst case scenario, maybe online resources like the
Apple Tech Info Library, Apple II tech notes and System Software?
(which incidentally, is all backed up outside of Apple's site and
available through other sources).

    I know your probably going to say if Apple were to disappear
Microsoft will dominate and make computing miserable, there will
be no new ideas in the industry, blah, blah, blah, etc. However,
that is something that affects Macintosh and PC users, Apple II
users live in a pretty isolated world outside of that. Do really
diehard Apple II users really care about Microsoft? Do they care
about Apple, Intel, Motorola and all that?

>:     Apple Computer has absolutely nothing to do the Apple II these
>: days (as far as current products and news coming out of them today),
>: and the Macintosh certainly has no more relevence to the Apple II
>: than a PC does (sure the Mac can read ProDOS floppies and do Apple-
>: Talk, but so can my PC under the right circumstances). I like talking
>: about Apple's history, and to some point I even have an interest
>: in old 68K Mac's and their history, but when I start a new message
>: thread, I make sure it is Apple II related (I am guilty of getting
>: onto tangents though, but always get back on track). This group is
>: comp.sys.*apple2*, not comp.sys.apple. It's not just my opinion that
>: posts should be focused on the Apple II, it is just common sense.
>: Incidentally, I think discussing Apple's past is on topic, at least
>: as long as it's during the time the Apple II was still in the
>: picture (we're going on 5 years now that the Apple II has been out
>: of the picture at Apple Computer).
>
>Funny your mentioning five years. My most recent Apple products (Q840av
>and Pbook 165) are five years old now. But I read comp.sys.mac groups
>just like anyone with a brand spanking new Apple box.

    That's neat and I guess something you can be proud of (I'm not a
fan of replacing my computer ever couple of months to stay "current"
either) but your Quadra and Powerbook are off-topic for this group.
I can understand wanting to bring them up though--as a Pentium user
there's lots of cool stuff I do with the machine that I'd like to
share with the people on comp.sys.apple2, but I'd imagine very few
want to hear about MPEG-3 sound compression, Photoshop, Windows 95,
Voodoo 3Dfx graphic cards, or the latest software emulator. :) Some
probably would want to, but there are dozens of groups for that (of
course it would be a different group of people than those I've come
to know on comp.sys.apple2).

    I sometimes wish there were a "comp.sys.users.apple2.ibmpc"
(or in your case, "comp.sys.users.apple2.mac", though I guess it
can be easier to try to blend Mac's and Apple II's rather than
with PC's, because of the company they share in common).

>You're one of the people here who remains civilized when presenting an
>opposing point of view, which makes it much more pleasant to have a discus-
>sion.

    Thanks for the kind words. I get quickly turned off and eventually
ignore people who have to resort to name-calling and insults when they
disagree with what the other person thinks (it is one thing for someone
to be stubborn or close minded on their point of view, it is entirely
another thing to resort to verbal abuse and attacks). You just lose all
your creditability in that case, which means the discussion ends and
fighting replaces it. Anyhow, I don't see why discussions taking place
on a video screen should be treated any differently than if you were
standing in front of the person live.

>I still think Apple's present as well as its past are topical in groups
>which are devoted to Apple products.

    But the whole point is this group isn't simply devoted to all
Apple products in general. It is devoted to a one *single* Apple
product -- the Apple II computer. To be what you describe above,
it would have to be "comp.sys.apple.computers".

>I might mention that I've never seen anyone in any comp.sys.mac group go
>off when Apple II questions show up there. The bottom line is no one has
>to read stuff they don't want to.

    How often do Apple II messages stray into comp.sys.mac.*?
I would imagine someone who manages to post to groups that have
the word "mac" in there, seeking Apple II advise, to be pretty
careless (or just too lazy to see if an "apple2" group exists;
and makes a rash assumption that none exists and the Macintosh
group, as an Apple related product, is close enough).

    One important difference is there are *dozens* of Macintosh
discussion groups yet only *one* Apple II discussion group (I'm
ignoring csa2.users/comm/gno/programmers/marketplace). Also keep
in mind the Macintosh is currently supported and produced, while
the Apple II is not. And finally add the fact the Apple II was
abandoned because Apple choose the Macintosh over it, and it
doesn't take much to see why people on this group get grumpy
when Mac questions stray into here.

>Kill files and the like are there to prevent it. I've been using the
>kill thread feature a lot lately myself.

    I don't like to use the 'kill' feature in my newsreader
since bad threads often get back onto topic (even interesting
topics) without people changing the thread name. I've even
seen highly technical discussions under the most unlikely
message threads.

    Anyhow, considering how much junk there has been in this
newsgroup the past couple of years, I'm more tempted to just
unsubscribe to this group altogether (ironically, after all
this talk about whether Mac posts belong on csa2, it is not
Mac discussion that I consider the "junk", it is the fighting
and insults getting hurled back and forth. Mac stuff is just
noise within that junk).

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca