Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!crash!pro-houston.cts.com!jabernathy
From: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Brand Label Rags
Message-ID: <1904@crash.cts.com>
Date: 21 Mar 90 11:16:04 GMT
Sender: news@crash.cts.com
Lines: 66

In-Reply-To: message from toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu


Todd P. Whitesel, and numerous others, write:

> We think our Mac's are swell, and if you savage Apple II users try to
> suggest otherwise, we're gonna tell.

The first point to swallow is that this is the premier discussion area for the
Apple II computer. If you don't understand that, or like it, go someplace else
to hang out.

The second point is that y'all are attacking over a lot of issues that nobody
questions -- that nobody has questioned, if you'll reread the posts you
responded to much too quickly.

I use the Macintosh every day; I use the Apple II every day; I use the IBM
every day; and two or three mainframes. What I find is that the Macintosh has
convinced a whole bunch of marginally computer literate people that they're
going to become eloquent and artistic as soon as they get one of these
machines. The reality is that it still takes innate talent and several years
worth of study to become artistic, and most of these people don't even need to
worry about eloquent. Eloquent is out of reach for them, Mac or no.

A Mac is a tool that can let you do top-quality graphic design. I've used it
to help create award-winning page designs. But unless you have a very
sophisticated Macintosh, you do not have the power to do a capable job with
the other more mundane aspects of computing. It isn't good at math -- like it
or not. Yes, you can spend $1200 for a math coprocessor, but I spent $229 for
a IIGS math coprocessor that runs faster. Yes, you can do sound, but I do
better sounds with a IIGS with no enhancement board. Yes, you can do graphics,
but you'd better plan for grey-scale, and you'd better plan for a half-dozen
possible screen resolutions, since somebody neglected the programmer in this
all-important subject area.

I think somebody even went on the attack over the Mac user interface. Yep,
it's easy, and nope, the Mac didn't pioneer it. If you'll read your
newspaper's business page, you'll discover that that interface likely came
from Xerox, as attested to by a pending lawsuit.

There's nothing better than a Macintosh for publishing. And there's nothing
better than a IIGs for low-cost, general-interest computing. History may not
agree, since Apple isn't showing signs of being able to support -- gasp -- a
fragmented product line (anybody heard from AMC or Coca-Cola on this subject
lately?), but that will never change the facts.

One last thing. I didn't mean any insults with the bit about an
unsophisticated user base being unable to optimize the situation. What I meant
by that was that more established computers such as the Apple II enjoy the
presence of a number of highly sophisticated assembly language programmers who
regularly get more from the platform than it was actually meant to deliver.

Some kid at Apple was telling me recently how he'd grown up with the
Macintosh. He went on to reveal an abyssmal lack of knowledge in his purported
field of excellence -- telecommunications -- and it really got me to thinking.
What is this Macintosh? The USA Today of technology? "We're gonna give you
just enough information and power so that you can be ignorant about
everything. And we'll package it real well, so you can look good in your
facade of knowledge."

Please, no more mail on this subject. You either understand or you disagree.


UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy          | AOL: JOEA17
ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil | Clever comment
INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com        | goes here.