Re: All this fuss about Backward Compatibility

[shack@frii.com (Randy Shackelford)]

Mitchell Spector (spec@vax2.concordia.ca) wrote:
: In article nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates) writes...

: >   But, this whole discussion has been between a few Mac advocates who
: >seem to believe that Apple can do no wrong in whatever it does
: >(without accepting the very real shortcomings in the systems, but even
: >reject Mac clones because 'the cases look ugly' and other gunk), and
: >those of us who point out that Apple has made a *lot* of boneheaded
: >moves over the years, in addition to producing some real nice
: >machines.

No duh, Apple has made mistakes. Having the first real IIgs operating
system bearing system software version 4.0 is way up there.

As far as looks go, if you're happy with cheesy, flung together looking
boxes, more power to you. I've seen people talk of taking their IIgs' guts
out of their svelte platinum boxes and putting 'em in some butt ugly clone
box. I don't give a piss. I think you should show the same courtesy for anyone
who happens to care what their equipment looks like. I'm in the market for 
a used Q840AV and just about the first thing I ask a seller is if the box has
any scratches, dents, or discoloration. That's important to me. If you're 
content with crappy looking equipment on your desk, go right ahead and stack
up all the crappy looking stuff you can fit. Just don't criticize others who 
want more.

: >   Nothing's perfect in this world, especially when marketing and
: >personality forces are involved. Being realistic about the faults of
: >systems, admitting them, and encouraging them to do better next time
: >is a good first step.

:     I agree. Looking over this debate, and many countless others I've 
: personally had in past, it's interesting to note one thing:  Rarely,
: if ever, will a Mac owner point out limitations, shortcomings or flaws
: in the Macintosh. They're very quick to point the finger at other 
: systems (ie, PCs, Apple II's, Amigas) and pick out their limitations
: and faults, but never their own systems. I generally get the impression
: that Mac users, believe the "Macintosh", is the perfect piece of hardware
: running perfect software; that it stands for the true meaning and sense 
: of _perfection_ in the computer world. How far from the truth that is! :/

I'm smart enough to know a limitation when I see one. For instance, it sucks
that I'd have to go clear up to 68 mb in my Q700 if I want to move up from 20
mb. I'm looking for a more flexible box, with more speed while I'm at it, since
I'm not gonna fork over the $ for 16 mb 30 pin SIMMs. That would be dumb now.

:     Interestingly, I once asked an entire group of loyal Macintosh
: owners to list me limitations of their machines. I basically said,
: what would you like to see changed, if you could magically do so. 
: I only got one response, and that was that Apple doesn't spend enough 
: on advertising the Macintosh. They honestly couldn't think of anything 
: else, all seriously believed there was nothing that needed change. 
: And obviously, that one "flaw" pointed out, doesn't even relate to the 
: Mac's hardware or software, it's something external to the issue (Apple
: Computer's marketing execs).

I'd make sure I asked computer savvy people, not clueless types. Anyone who
knows what they're doing knows that there is no perfect box.
--
Randy Shackelford                                 
shack@frii.com