Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!uwvax!gumby!austin
From: austin@gumby.cs.wisc.edu (Glenn Austin)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: The GNU Manifesto
Summary: could have fooled me...
Message-ID: <1298@gumby.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 88 16:52:57 GMT
References: <9591@tekecs.TEK.COM> <328@splut.UUCP> <3144@briar.Philips.Com> <610@gethen.UUCP>
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 76

>>But suffice it to say the the keyboard, the display hardware, and the
>>WP software available are, to put it succinctly, miserable. This is not
>>an idiosyncratic, cranky opinion. It is one shared by many, many people who
>>have had to use this piece of sh*t to do word-processing.
> 
> No, it's an idiosyncratic, cranky opinion.  Fact one:  there are, without
> significant doubt, more people doing word processing, by far, on IBM PCs
> or PC clones than any other system available.  

I, being a humble being, would not dare to dispute the accuraccy of your
fact, seeing as it's probably true.  Yet, I fail to see how this supports
your argument.  For instance, I can with some certainty, state that most
adults in the United States drink alcohol instead of certain other beverages
for recreation.  I cannot say that, therefore, alchol is better, something 
that I am sure most of you will agree is not true...  (That doesn't stop 
one from consuming it however, as most of us well know)  

>                                          Fact two:  there are more,
> and better, word processing packages available for the PC than for any
> other large-market computer system.  While there may well be better
> systems available for some specialty machines, nothing matches the PC
> for flexibility and price.  I've done word processing tasks on many
> machines; for all-round flexibility, I'll take the PC over anything
> else I've ever used.

I work in an enviroment that is virtually overwhelmed with the presence
of IBM PCs.  fortunately, we do not have to rely upon them, as we also
have other machines.  It is my job to help people that come into my lab
use the machine of their choice with software and peripherals.  In terms
of comparative returns for money spent on hardware, and in terms of
efficeincy for the users of my lab, the IBM PC is a dismal failure.  
Superficially, the machine has some advantages.  The software is relatively
straight-forward, the features broad, the interface, if not pleasant, at 
least not cumbersome.  Indeed, I have dozens of people come in a week, with
Superficially, the machine has some advantages.  The software is relatively
straight forward, and the interface is, If not pleasant, at least bearable.  
projects ranging from one page resumes to 500 page Phd thesis's come through
my lab, and most of them are competantly produced and entered.  Perhaps one
time in ten things will work smoothly, their file will print, and they will
go their merry way, unknowing that they have narrowly escaped the IBM pit.
for the other nine tenths, however, it is a different story.  Their document
can be printed, but it yeilds different margins than those set so clearly
in the software, the software is uncapable of laser-printing, the footnotes
don't print, underlining, italics, boldfacing doesn't work.  And heaven
forbid, the want to use a nice typestyle, something proportianally spaced!
No, if an IBM PC user (though not an expert, I admit) wishes to to print
his document, he is doomed to courier 12-point 10-pitch.
In all fairness, other machines in our lab have the same problem.  I can
state, with total conviction, that for every problem they have, the IBM
PCs have three, that for every 5 promblems we solve with the other machines
we solve one with the IBM PC.  At that for every hour we spend on a problem
on a non IBM, we spend 2 on an IBM.  
Take for instance, the two most popular machines we have for the sort of 
work we do.  The IBM PC and the Apple Macintosh.  I often find that it is 
less time consumig to train a person to use the Macintosh and have them
retype their resume, than it is to solve the near insolvable problems
presented by something as simple as a font change on an Laser printer witha
IBM.  
People leave the lab with mixed feelings, some wish to remain with the
IBM or clone that they have already purchased, but are deathly afraid that
the next time they need something printed they will have the same problems
all over again.  Others are glad that tehy don't own an IBM.  and still others
actually tell me that they have decided to pay a typist the next time they
need something done, simply to save themselves the pain.

No, The IBM is unfortunately a common machine, one that is around and has to be
dealt with, yet I would by no means call it the better alternatative, and I
would by no means allow myself to be swayed by the thought that just because
the IBM PC happens to be used by more people, it is a better machine.

				  Mr. X. The X-traordinary!
				  austin@gumby.cs.wisc.edu

Go ahead!! flame me!  I'm wearing IBA! (not a computer joke, don't worry.)

Disclaimer: The above stuff doesn't have anything to do with my employers