Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!eos!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!jessica.stanford.edu!aaron From: aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Rumor -> Loss of Mac's 20% advantage over Windows 3.0 Message-ID: <1990Jun27.180718.3155@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 27 Jun 90 18:07:18 GMT References: <40218215MES@MSU> <42382@apple.Apple.COM> <42383@apple.Apple.COM> Sender: Aaron Wallace Organization: Academic Information Resources Lines: 63 In article <42383@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (That's MR. Idiot to you) writes: >My feeling is even simpler. Even if Microsoft CAN clean up Windows and make >is Just As Good as, say, System 5.0 (remember that? Long, long ago?) it'll >be a long time before they could even come close to the functionality and >power of system 6.0 -- and by the time they do, where do you think Apple >software will be? As I remember it, System 6.0's main claim to fame was multitasking, which Windows 1.03 had back in 1985. Okay, it also had background printing (DOS had it since 1984). This isn't to claim that Windows was "ahead" of the Mac System, but wholesale generalizations that the Mac is way ahead of Windows in every conceivable (albeit unmentioned) way are useless to anyone trying to decide what machine to use. By the way, I've used System 6 since it first was released to us users for final beta testing. What exactly is this "functionality and power"? And how is it so superior to Windows? Enquiring minds want to know... >It's kind of funny to listen to folks warn us how close Windows is. It may >be getting Mac-like -- but at best, it's Mac-like in the way early versions >of the Mac were (and I don't even give it that, personally). And the pundits It's also funny that the only thing that most Windows-bashers have to say about Windows is that it isn't Mac-like. I mean, what a revelation... No one (outside of Apple?!) claims Windows is trying to be a Mac. It has certain aspects of the Mac interface, but so do most popular GUIs today-- and so did the ones that preceeded the Mac. Windows exists to allow PC users to use graphical software--like what the Mac has. If people want a Mac (and are independently wealthy) they'll buy one. Comparing the Mac to Windows, especially with the bias that the Mac is the Way It Should Be, is misleading. People used to the Mac will find Windows to be different, confusing, and will probably not like it too much. I'm more used to Windows (although I'm typing this between crashes on a IIfx) and find many aspects of the Mac interface different, confusing, and at times limited. Computers are like cars--personal and (esp. w/Macs--I know, wait for October :)) ex- pensive. People get defensive when they have a lot of $$$ tied up in equipment (or work for the company)... >keep thinking that if Microsoft runs as fast as it can, it can beat us to >the finish line. As though Apple were standing still or something... Why would Microsoft want to "beat" Apple to any finish line? Microsoft makes software, Apple, computers. Microsoft sells a lot of Mac software, and unless you think this is only to provide a good beta-testing arena or help fund Windows development, Microsoft has no reason to "beat" Apple. I've never understood why so many Mac users are anti-Windows. I would think that, if Windows provides a much larger user base than the Mac ever could, then Mac software developers would benefit from being able to sell stuff to Windows users as well. Perhaps this is why Microsoft is doing so well in the Mac world... >Maybe, if they're lucky, I'll see them in my rear view mirror sooner or >later. Maybe. We might've found a blind spot in your mirror here--it's usually just next to your car, a few yards back... Happens usually when getting passed. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) >Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] Aaron Wallace