Re: A Tale of Two Apples

[bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major)]

> Matt Portune <mportune@telerama.com> wrote:
> 
> > Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
> > > (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).
> > 
> > Hey Mitch, 
> >       I couldn't have said it better myself.  Apple sat back and let
> > a technically inferior platform innovate right past them.  
> 

B.J. Major <bjblackbear@ibm.net> wrote:

> Innovate????  Microsoft doesn't know HOW to innovate.  It only copies
> features that others have already done and then calls it its own work.
> 
> >For me, using
> > MacOS these days is torture.  My mind goes numb waiting for the machine to
> > catch up with me.  That's no way to compute. 
> 
> You must be using a very old Mac.  The CPU speed buster model is now up
> to 300 megahertz.  Even in Aug. '96 you could get a Mac that was over
> 100 megahertz.

A P.S. to what I responded to above.  This guy says a 300 megahertz Mac
is way too slow for him.  Yet somehow he manages to use an Apple II and
the CPU speed of *that* computer is *not* too slow for him.  Figure the
logic of that one out for yourself.  Very confusing.

Today's free hint:  it's *not* always a good idea to send someone you
don't already know a private email of your newsgroup reply to their
post.  You bet I'll think twice before doing it again.  Some people are
*very* rude....

-- 
--bj   Auto reply will not work; remove "black" to reply
Proud owner/user of Apple Computers since 1984  
Barbie & Ken doll fan since 1961