Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sdccs6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ir44
From: ir44@sdccs6.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Well written Macintosh overview
Message-ID: <1349@sdccs6.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Apr-84 15:49:12 EST
Article-I.D.: sdccs6.1349
Posted: Sun Apr 15 15:49:12 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Apr-84 06:50:34 EST
References: <12177@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Computer Center
Lines: 51

True, the article on Macintosh is well written but not
balanced and covers little new ground compared with previous
discussions on the net. I'm one of those mentioned who tried
the Mac with great interest and reacted negatively. It is
set up to appeal to the very large market of novices who are
not at ease in slamming a keyboard. For me, and I'm a user,
not a tech type, the mouse seemed more of an encumbrance
rather than a facilitator except in Macpaint. The approach 
seemed gimmicky, designed to impress the computer-wary that
all you need to know is where to point. Pointing to a
pictograph seems to me regressive. Novices drawn in by such
devices will find, as soon as they want to do anything
serious with their computer, that there is far more to learn
than they ever suspected. For real word processing, the
built in stuff on ROM will soon be left behind for one of
the usual packages. One used to using a good terminal will 
feel constrained by a 9" screen. Having windows is also
somewhat a gimmick when they are too small to hold enough to
be useful for many serious uses such as writing a new draft
from a previous draft, independently scrollable. The article
does not mention the limitation from lack of true
multitasking- more and more used in sophisticated packages.
Lack of color is mentioned but passed over though its use 
seems to be increasingly important in consumer software.
It's lack, though I am not much interested in color myself,
may severely limit the Mac's appeal for a computer that is
so graphically oriented that it runs in a constant graphic 
mode. The author did point out the limitations in treating
text (invariably) as a graphic.
   I'm not particularly interested in defending the IBM PC--
I don't own one (yet). It is a puzzlement that the company
that gave us the Selectric typewriters, should produce two
keyboards that have evoked such critical derision. But IBM's
conservative design produces a micro that is fairly easily 
expandable and upgradable. It is evolving as various more
powerful and special purpose boards become available. If I
were a PC user, I would feel reasonably reassured against
quick obsolescence or getting left out of the next major 
improvement in the PC-- e.g., an x286 based upgrade and a
move to Unix. Can an IBM XT owner, for example, expect to be
able to upgrade to the next level of PC development? 

   The things I've mentioned that do not enthrall me about
   the Mac, may be part of a correct marketing strategy and
   certainly, the price is right. What would one design in 
   a micro if the goal were not sales in the millions of
   units? 

				Ted Schwartz, Anthro UCSD