Ben:
I don't disagree with anything you say - about today. What I'm talking
about is what the Macintosh began and represented. To claim that the IBM
clones do anything a Mac does, and better, represents the state of
evolution reached and ignores the 13 years which have elapsed.
The principal reason for the success of the PC lies in the nature of
business. Purchasers and managers are older and in the early '80s were
computer illiterate. They understood three things I,B,M. They bought what
they understood. The rest is history.
When I stated that all computers today are Mac clones, I meant that the
ultimate functionality - the way the normal user accesses and works with
the machine - is based on Mac concepts of user simplicity. This was never
a quality of PC technology. One only has to look at the instruction
manuals accompanying similar applications from the two companies to note
the incredible disparity in size and simplicity/complexity of operation.
Incidentally, I have owned and worked with personal computers since 1978
when I purchased my first. As for Coleco and Atari, they never came close
to Apple in market share in Canada - primarily because of the school
program.
The basic difference is that the first PCs were little more than toys and
required programming skills as a necessity. The Mac liberated people from
this drudgery and made the computer a truly useful device - not a plaything
for a small segment of the population cursed with abstract sequential
learning styles.
BTW, I bought my first Mac in April of 1984. It was among the first
machines received here. I have subsequently owned that 128k, a 512,
Classic, SE30 and now use an LCIII with 150 meg hard drive and 36 megs of
ram. While I realize that this hardly makes a ripple in today's overheated
memory/speed gran prix, it is more than enough for any purpose I have need
of.
Unfortunately, trying to convice a person who believes that modern
computers make all other things laughably obsolete is a bit like trying to
convince a young person driving a new Honda Accord that our old MGs have
merit. It's exactly the same thing. The worship of greater memory, faster
speed, more capability is exactly like the push for more power, safer
structures, more gadgets and greater homogeneity in our modern cars. It's
a great pity that modern young people are forced to re-live the bad-old
days of planned obsolescence which occurred in the '50s. It is certainly
true that each generation is forced to commit the errors of the previous
one. Oh well, it's your money.
John McEwen
>>I realize that you haven't the advantages of an historical viewpoint,
>>however there are some things you should know about Apple, and specifically
>>Macintosh computers.
>
>Well, since I have been involved with computers since 1983, I think I do
>share some benefit from the historical viewpoint.
>
>>1. Apple created the first really effective and widespread personal
>computer.
>
>That's a dubious claim. The Apple I was a failure. The Apple II, The
>Commodore 64, and the Atari 400/800 series all had nice market shares.
>Atari was killed by Coleco in the mid-80s, so C64 and Apple were left
>duking it out. You may be suprised to note that software development still
>continues for the C64s (albeit mostly in the hacker underground) while most
>Apples get sold in garage sales.
>
>The only thing that Apple had going for them in the early days was that
>they had a program in which schools and educational institutions could buy
>them nearly at cost. Apple's educational program, while helping them, also
>killed them, as no active support was done to make them marketable to a
>wide audience. This is evident in that only "special" groups use the Mac -
>publishers, graphic artists, and some schools. My college recently upgraded
>their Apples and older PCs to Pentiums, and no one really misses those old
>Apples.
>
>>2. Macintosh redefined the entire computer world.
>
>How? By stealing the GUI from Xerox? By using a mouse? Yes, Apple took
>things from the research lab and put them in homes. However, Apple hasn't
>done much beyond that. It's the continuing development of a platform -any
>platform- that ensures it's success. More software vendors develop for PCs
>than they do for Mac. In my area, very few people (including myself)
>service Macintosh computers. Parts all have to be ordered mail-order, as
>well as most of the software.
>
>>3. Macintoshes were developed for people who have lives.
>
>Again, a subjective statement. You can say that about anything. Toyota was
>designed for people who have lives - people who don't like to tinker with
>their cars like we do with our LBCs.
>
>>4. Macintosh defined user-friendly.
>
>Hah! Nothing "user-friendly" about AppleTalk networks, getting Apples to
>run as web servers, getting software for it, support, service, etc.
>
>>5. Modern PCs, in all of their iterations, are all Macintosh clones when
>>defined by functionality.
>
>Right. You may think that because Windows 95 looks vaugely like a Mac
>desktop that the machine is a clone. Fortunately, that's not the case. Most
>PCs are made of modular parts - say for example my network card shorted or
>became inoperable, well, all I have to do is pull it out and replace it
>with another one. Same with any other component in my system. With a mac,
>most everything is encapsulated on the system board. If something gues bad,
>you have to pull the board, send it back to Apple for service, and basicly
>suck wind for a week (at least) whilest they ship it back to you. Yeah - a
>user friendly computer, so friendly, you can't use it!
>
>Both a Mac and a PC can send email just the same. They can write to
>floppies the same way. You can publish HTML the same way. If you look from
>an application standpoint, yes, they do similar things. I could easly say
>that MacOS 8 is a clone of Win95, or even OS/2!
>
>>6. A very tiny portion of the world's computer users gives a damn about
>>how or why computers work. For the remainder, see point 3.
>
>I build and service computers for a living. If that means that I have no
>life, well then, so be it. I'm sure that my girlfriend would disagree! =)
>Seriously, I am paid to know how things work, and I know how a Mac and a PC
>work. I am stating that the Mac, from a hardware standpoint, is an inferior
>machine. From a software side, it's more subjective. If you like the look
>and feel of Mac, then great - use Mac. Me, I hate it. I like having at
>least two buttons on my mouse!
>
>I'm paid to sell, support, and service both. I don't sell Mac unless
>someone specificaly askes for it.
>
>
>
>BEN RUSET
>-----------------------------------------------------
>89 Mercury Cougar
>78 MGB Roadster
>-----------------------------------------------------
>Crossroads - http://www.monmouth.com/~bruset
>Safety Fast! - http://www.infi-pos.com/~oasis
|