Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!awessels
From: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: How do we change the scheduler? (Was Re: Multitasking at ho
Message-ID: <42735@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 18 Jan 91 16:39:54 GMT
Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp
Reply-To: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 46
Originator: awessels@huey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1991Jan18.085624.7710@portia.Stanford.EDU> bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) writes:
>I've been a Mac consultant for two years, so I can't claim to have the same
>level of expertise as you; but to be honest, and not to be caustic, this is
>a cheesecake job.  Perhaps this is saying a lot, if simplicity is what you
>need in a computer.  But I'll be damned if I consider the Macintosh a
>*serious*
>productive computer, in the sense that it doesn't provide a useful
>*integrated*
>work environment.  It is ideal for people who don't normally use computers,

Could you define this, please?  One of the strong points of the Mac is supposed
to be its level of inter-application integration.  If you think the Mac is all
that simple, try playing around with ResEdit for a while.

Supporting Macs isn't as tough as say, supporting IBMs or Amigas.  However,
supporting the typical Mac user CAN be more difficult because that Mac user
expects to be able to run more programs than the typical IBM user.  I wonder 
what the profile of the typical Amiga user IS. 

>or for those who are entranced by Apple's marketing barrage and cannot make
>valued comparisons of *all* computer architectures and software design
>schemes.

You can't just compare architectures and software design and choose the best
machine.  You also have to consider what software is available for the machine,
your current installed base, and even the kinds of computers potential hirees
are likely to be familiar with.


>I agree.
>Like, perhaps, a $1000 Macintosh Classic?  C'mon; good business, perhaps, but
>I see it more as highway robbery.  That damn thing can't do anything but look
>good on a desk (and that's subject to opinion).

What can't you do on a Classic?  Please be specific.  (I already know about
its lack of color, thanks.)  Oh, and that price should be closer to $1300 for
the 2 meg RAM, 40 meg HD configuration.

>Just an extremely informed dope here, making a value judgement on what I KNOW
>the Mac can't do, that the Amiga can.  Not that I don't enjoy my job; I mean,
>didn't Sun Tzu once say "Know your enemy." ;-) ;-) ;-)

The question isn't whether the machine can do what you are used to doing on 
your machine (do you have the equivalent of ResEdit on the Amiga?), but how
suitable the machine is for a broad range  of tasks, OR whether it is best
suited for a particular set of tasks.