Re: All this fuss about Backward Compatibility

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

hochstrasse@ubaclu.unibas.ch (Urs Hochstrasser) wrote:
>In article <5NOV199618044800@vax2.concordia.ca>, spec@vax2.concordia.ca
>(Mitchell Spector) wrote:
>>  Rarely, if ever, will a Mac owner point out limitations, shortcomings
>> or flaws in the Macintosh.
>Why should we? We know about them, so why mention them? :-)
>Of course the Mac [PowerBook 160] isn't perfect:
>- OS uses a lot more RAM (but offers more possibilities like QuickTime)
>- OS is getting more and more clumsy. Perhaps I use too many Inits
>- Perhaps I'm short of arguments against the Mac because there are not
>  so many... :-)

No pre-emtive multitasking, only a rudimentary sound chip, no color graphics
(in that model), no slots, better value available in PC portables (Mac
emulators are available, but only to System 7.1).

It is a decent machine, but not much fun.


>> They're very quick to point the finger at other 
>> systems (ie, PCs, Apple II's, Amigas) and pick out their limitations
>
>Well, anyway, for me the two systems (Mac and GS) are similar enough that
>it was logical for me to choose a Mac and no other platform. My personal
>encounters with MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 made clear that these systems
>wouldn't be fun for me. I don't know the Amiga too well but having been a
>user of Commodore machines (PET/CBM) before, I didn't expect much of that
>machine.
>
>Food for discussion... :-)

The Amiga?  Cool machine.  Later models feel like a next generation IIGS.
Sure, the sound isn't as good as a IIGS and the GUI is not as good as the
one used in the IIGS or the Mac, but the motion graphics is stunning.
It has spawned demos and a hackerish atmosphere, much like the IIGS has.

If not the IIGS, I'd rather have an Amiga than the Mac.  Sometimes, even
PCs seem more flexible than the Mac.  You can't touch the hardware much
in a Mac.