[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Amelio's ouster
In article <28JUL199704094966@vax2.concordia.ca>, spec@vax2.concordia.ca
(Mitchell Spector) wrote:
>In article Geoff Kaiser <SuperKais@MacConnect.com> writes...
>
>>Mitchell Spector wrote:
>>...Nothing to add? Hmmm, let's see, with my 7600 I've got a printer,
>>scanner, modem, ethernet port, two monitors, S-video in/out, RCA-jack
>>line in/out, zip drive, external hard drive...does this mean I've got a
>>closed system? Wow. I didn't know that. I guess I'll have to get a
>>PC... :-)
>
> Nothing to add inside. Those are all external devices, and in most
>cases just simple accessories that would be just as plug and play to a
>PC (SCSI hardrive, SCSI Iomega Zip, SCSI scanner, serial modem, etc).
>Mac's have always been designed with the closed system concept, Apple
>even boosts about buyers not having to ever pop open the lid because
>they ship them with everything you want built-in (or so they claim at
>Apple)...
You're living in the past; Macs can except internal IDE hard drives,
internal Zip drives, CD-ROMs, and DAT backup drives; also, current Macs from
Apple all have a "technical specifications" booklet that shows you exactly
how to install RAM, VRAM, and cache chips. Mitchell, I'd hardly call this a
closed system. Stop talking about Apple circa 1985...
> ...You can make it a DOS box, Windows box, OS/2
>Box, Linux Box, etc, etc. If anything, you can call a Mac a "MacOS PC"
>because that is what your locked into (and running emulators on top of
>it aren't new operating system choices).
Since when? Tell that to my coworkers, who all see my files, e-mail, and
network drive as any other Windows entity on our network; By the way,
Virtual PC, which is what I use, is only a hardware emulator. I can run ANY
of the PC OSes you mentioned right off the computer store shelf without any
software modification. The software is not emulated whatsoever. And besides,
I mentioned in a previous post that there are PCI cards for Macs with
Pentium or AMD chips that bypass any emulation. I think it's great having it
all on one machine; it can be incredibly convenient, especially for me, a
web designer...
> Hmm, I just read about System 8.0. Doesn't sound very impressive to
>me, most of the changes sound cosmetic and an attempt to borrow several
>ideas from Windows 95 (i.e. pop-up menus when you control-click, not
>having to press and hold down mouse button in menus, etc. Which I feel
>is okay, unlike Mac users who scream everytime someone "steals" ideas
>from MacOS. Still, I find it kind of funny that while most Mac owners
>yell how horrid Windows is, they'll be getting bits of it thrown at them
>with the next Mac OS update :).
Yeah, whatever. As long as I don't get bits and pieces like INIs, DLLs and
IRQs thrown at me, I'll be happy. :)
Besides, alot of PC advocates will crucify Apple no matter what they do,
whether they add "Windows" features or whether they don't. They can't win,
in those folks' eyes. BTW, I think sticky menus first appeared on the Xerox
Alto....I'm objective enough to see the things that didn't originate at
Apple, but I'm also objective enough to see the things Win95 "stole" from
other OSes, like NeXTSTEP and OS/2.
>
> If I were a Mac owner, I'd be pretty disappointed over the fact it
>still does not support true multitasking, just improved cooperative.
I really don't lose much sleep over it. Rhapsody will have it anyway....
>Also, it is funny that Apple _still_ checks to see if you have Apple
>bought hardrives and CD-ROM drives, and no drivers listed for non-
>Apple brand printers or monitors (I would have thought that practice
>was given up long ago, apparently not).
Yes, that is a bummer sometimes.
> If anything, I find the PC more like the Apple II.
Yes it is, mostly in it's complexity. I like the IIgs, but it's still pretty
modal; you can't run DOS 3.3, Pascal, ProDOS 8 & 16, GS/OS software all in
the same environment. At least Win95 and OS/2 have DOS windows. I'd be nice
if the IIgs could run it all at once. I really feel that's partly why Apple
tried to start clean with the Lisa and then with the Mac; tying the multiple
OSes from the II line to them would have been pointless, like creating a
"III gs" or something. The Apple II line simply got too bloated and complex
with all those different OSes.
It too is not a
>replacement or a next-step up in evolution, but it has a similar feel
>in the way you can tinker with it, open it up and modify to your hearts
>content (the Mac feels more like an appliance, you just use it, you
>don't mess around with it).
Right there you've summed up the whole II line and the Mac line; that's
basically what it's all about. The II came from the hobbyist computer
movement. The Mac came from a different angle. My point in this thread,
though, is that the Mac has come a VERY long way since its Jef Raskin/Steve
Jobs-directed appliance roots...I don't see any reason why one can't like
both. I find the whole history of PCs fascinating. I think Altairs are as
interesting as Amigas; Apple IIs as interesting as Ataris. But in this day
and age, I find that I just get my work done more quickly on a Mac.
Geoff Kaiser