Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!csun!dlt
From: dlt@csun.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: IBM vs. Mac debate
Message-ID: <174@csun.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Apr-86 10:28:02 EST
Article-I.D.: csun.174
Posted: Wed Apr 23 10:28:02 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Apr-86 03:42:16 EST
References: <2515@sdcc6.UUCP> <1019@runx.OZ> <13351@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: California State University, Northridge
Lines: 55

> >
> >    As Macintosh evolves, Apple maintains an excellent upgrade program. This
> >    is an important consideration in business. Many companies choose IBM
> >    because they know that the IBM system will be supported for some time.
> >    When you bring up Macintosh, they ask "How long is it before they drop
> >    the product line and halt support?". In time, Apple's reputation
> >    will be such that this question wont be asked.
> >
> 
> Right, they will know all right. If the future is modelled on the past, it
> won't be good.
> 
> What I think that you don't understand is the concept of UPWARD COMPATIBILTY.
> Upward compatibility means that if I develop software today, I can run it 
> tomorrow.  It DOES NOT MEAN that you can spend more money and buy new goodies
> to attach to the old box.
> 
> One of IBM's real strengths in the business market is that application programs
> written 10 years ago still can be used today. They have achieved that through
> (a) stability in the software environment and (b) design consistency in the
> hardware environment. I know that you might find the idea of using 10 year old
> programs disgusting, but producton managers don't.  They get the job done.
> 
> For an example of a company that didn't do this, you have UNIVAC. At one time,
> they were a major player.
> 
> Larry Mazlack
>   UUCP		{tektronix,dual,sun,ihnp4,decvax}!ucbvax!ucbernie!mazlack
>   New style	mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu	
>   ARPA | CSNET	mazlack%ernie@berkeley.ARPA
>   BITNET   	mazlack@ucbernie.BITNET
>   telephone     (415) 528-0496
>   snail         CS Dept, 571 Evans, U. California, Berkeley, CA 94720

That certainly doesn't address the issue of progress.  As new and better ways
are developed to perform certain kinds of tasks, why should we continue working
with antiquated materials--particularly if the newer versions are labor
saving?  It is certainly true that some programs written 10 years ago are just
as viable today as then.  With the advent of the microprocessor and relatively
cheap computers that can sit on anyone's desk, the importance of providing
non-hackers with a standardized interface is really important.  Note also
that the tasks being performed on these micros are quite different than the
production programs of 10 years ago.  Where were the spreadsheet and word
processing programs 10 years ago?  If economics is the sole arbiter of
progress, there most likely won't be any.  
I think it ironic that on our campus, most offices and student labs are 
going IBM XTs--while a very large number of people would prefer the MAC.  
The major comment I hear against the Mac is its small screen size.  But who 
wants to SUFFER with Wordstar 2000 when they can use Word on the Mac?  What
is there these days on an IBM that isn't on the Mac and can't be done
easier on the Mac?  (Besides XTs are INCREDIBLY noisy!!!).

Dave Thompson
Cal State U., Northridge
ihnp4!csun!dlt