Re: A Tale of Two Apples

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

Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:

> In article bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major) writes...
> >In article <34413305.B66@library.ucla.edu>, pubpc1@library.ucla.edu wrote:
> >
> >> I have lost all faith in Apple Computers, Inc.
> >
> >(big fat snip)
> >
> >> [In response to Apple's anti-clone behavior, MacUser and Mac World
> >> have merged.  Apple II folks know full well what this means, and it
> >> happened to Amiga mags too.  Anyone remember InCider/A+?]
> >>
> >> -Scott G.
> >
> >Scott: although I agree with you that ACI has made many bad business
> >decisions both recently AND in the past, I refuse to "concede" to the other
> >side and be a slave of Microsoft et al.  Yes, to me, THAT is the worst of
> >two evils.
> 
>     I now use a "PC" in addition to my Apple II's, though I am certainly
> not a salve of Microsoft. There are many different software packages out
> there and software companies, if I don't like a Microsoft product, there
> are other choices.
> 
>     The ironic bit is with an Apple machine your above statement applies.
> Not about being a slave to Microsoft, but you are a slave to Apple as you
> are more or less forced to use their operating system, their hardware
> products (note System 8 looking for Apple firmware ID in CD-ROMs and
> hardrives, as well printers) and recently, their machine as they are
> slowly phasing out the clone market. I always think back to the famous
> "1984" Superbowl commercial and chuckle to myself, as the underlying
> message they were trying to get across is now totally reversed. :)

How so?  It's only totally reversed as Big Brother now applies to
Microsoft instead of IBM as it did in 1984.  As for myself and my own
personal preferences, I'll gladly be a "slave" (not really a good term)
to Apple than anyone else currently occupying the marketplace.  I am
using Apple systems *by choice*.  Also, I'm not necessarily forced to
use Apple's operating system.  BeOS will also run on my PowerMacintosh.
When and if that system ever gets more support and runs more items than
it does now, I will seriously consider trying it as I've thought it was
a neat OS from its very beginnings.

> 
> >I was forced to work on Wintel computers for over ten years in
> >a previous job, and would never even own one of my own choosing.  As badly
> >as the more recent Mac might be compromised, it's going to remain my system
> >of choice for what's out there right now in the marketplace.
> 
>     10 years ago is a long time in computer years. Back during 1987 I'm
> sure most offices would be running 8086 XT clones, or at best 286's or
> the very first 386 machines. Things have drastically changed since then
> (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).

You misread my statement.  I *didn't* say I used PCs ten years ago; I
said I used them consistently, every day, for over ten years in the
workplace (and this was up to and including 1995).  I still have to use
them once in a while at one of my employers as that office has both PCs
and Macs.  Things "haven't drastically changed" in the PC world from
where I sit; using Windows '95 is not my idea of an enjoyable time.
Microsoft's OS is as buggy as ever and the office constantly has
crashes, freezes, and "General Protection Fault" errors on both Win'95
and Win 3.1.