Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:51716 comp.sys.amiga:53198
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!sapphire!matt
From: matt@sapphire.jpl.nasa.gov (matt of ASTD)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga mentality
Message-ID: <3229@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Date: 29 Mar 90 22:53:20 GMT
References: <29Mar1990202523130@BLEKUL11.BITNET>
Sender: news@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
Reply-To: matt@sapphire.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (matt of ASTD)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 77

In article <29Mar1990202523130@BLEKUL11.BITNET> GHGAQBA@BLEKUL11.BITNET writes:
>Let me start off by an example: we had to write a paper for a
>university project, and we always gathered at the place of an amiga user.
>The paper involved mixing graphics and text. Prowrite was considered being too
>slow and having too poor font resolution to print on a 24-pin printer. So the
>amiga user reverted to this: all text was typed in an editor !!!, every
>paragraph was typed on one continuous horizontal line. After that,
>the text was transported to a (very powerful) DTP program, which uses
>vector-fonts for hires printer output.
>Another Amiga user claimed he would use the same procedure for writing
>his thesis.
>
>I think this example gives a pretty good idea of the mentality of an Amiga
>user: unprofessionalism. No PC or Mac user would ever think of using an
>editor for word processing.

I believe that you are over-generalizing here.  Just because a couple of
people do really strange things to write papers does not mean that all
Amiga users do this.

>If you program the Mac, you have to obey very strickt rules on interfacing
>to the user.
>As a consequence , Mac programmers  will hardly ever 'hack' or program directly
>to the hardware. Amiga programmers will say 'that's no fun'. What
>are we concerned about: fun or hardware independant software ?

There is a lot of consistency between Amiga programs.  For instance,
IFF files are standard.

>When you criticize an Amiga, you often get a reply like this:
>   * when you use the Flicker Fixer , you get a nice picture
>   * Workbench 1.4 will fix that...
>   * the new chip set will fix that ...
>   ....
>
>Well, I've never even seen a flicker fixer live, so I certainly don't know
>anybody who uses one. And I have no time for vapourware-talk.

So why bring it up if you don't know what you're talking about.

>Finally: Amiga users only seem to feel 'good' about their computer if they can
>put another computer down. Mac users don't have this urge, because the don't
>need to. Is it perhaps because Amiga users have a bit of an
>inferiority complex ?

Another extreme over-generalization.  By the way, I've meet many Mac users
who consisten put down the Amiga (i.e. all those who ignorantly claim that
the Amiga is only a game machine).  You must not be a real Mac user because
you obviously had the the urge to put down the Amiga AND EVERY AMIGA USER
IN THE UNIVERSE.  

>I think the Amiga is great for some purposes. I just can't stand to hear
>people who have no professional intentions, put down a professional computer.

Poor baby.  Why don't you stop reading this news group.

>It would be the same for criticizing a formula 1 car for being too expensive,
>and saying that one should better buy a nice family car to drive to work.We're
>talking different catagories here.

Anyone who buys a formula 1 car to drive to work I will criticize.
I think you are intelligent enough to understand the analogy.

>A lot of the money you pay for a Mac covers professional support by dealers.

...and Apple profit.

>Amigas are sold in super-markets.

This one sentance does two things:
	(1) It shows you do not know what you are talking about.  You sound like
       a Mac user taking a cheap shot at Amigas, thus you have no credibility.
   (2) You prove to me that you are a jerk.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Presley
send email to (presley.cs.ucla.edu)