Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!tektronix!cae780!leadsv!pyramid!voder!kontron!optilink!cramer
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: The GNU Manifesto
Message-ID: <1888@optilink.UUCP>
Date: 27 Jan 88 17:03:15 GMT
References: <9591@tekecs.TEK.COM> <328@splut.UUCP> <3144@briar.Philips.Com> <610@gethen.UUCP> <12256@orchid.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 58

> In article <610@gethen.UUCP>, farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes:
> > In article <2228@gryphon.CTS.COM> tsmith@gryphon.CTS.COM (Tim Smith) writes:
> > [on the IBM PC]
> > >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
> 
> Fact zero: there are more people doing X on ibm PCs than on any
> other system available. So fact one almost follows naturally.
> 
> > or PC clones than any other system available.  Fact two:  there are more,
> we don't need quantity, we need quality.

The original claim was that useful work isn't done on PCs; hence quantity
is an issue.

> > 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
> 
> Most PCers doing word processing use Wordstar and Wordperfect.
> No-one would put up with that sort of trash on a Mac.
> (though some seem to put up with on the Atari ST, I don't know why).
> 
> > for flexibility and price.  I've done word processing tasks on many
> Any 68000 personal computer beats an AT class machine for price.

The Atari ST is definitely cheaper than the AT clones -- but what I've
seen of Atari quality makes me suspect this isn't an "apples to apples"
comparision.

Macs are definitely more expensive than AT clones.

> > machines; for all-round flexibility, I'll take the PC over anything
> > else I've ever used.
> 
> Any word processor on the Mac/Amiga/I'm_not_sure_about_the_ST
> is easier to use and more powerful that comparible PC products.
> (you even get WYSIWYG, not 80 column by 25 row tty emulation).

I'm currently producing documents on both the Mac with Microsoft Word,
and on the PC with Microsoft Word.  The Mac version is definitely nicer
to use (WYSIWYG), but there's definitely a price you pay -- the Mac is
slower than a comparable AT because of WYSIWYG.  But you know, I find
that I seldom need the WYSIWYG features on the Mac for pure text.  
(Merging text and drawings it is very nice).  On the AT, Word does a
fine job -- and if you are using style sheets, you seldom care what
the output will EXACTLY look like.

Of course, when Microsoft finally gets Word running under Windows,
the whole discussion will evaporate.  (Windows Write is to real word
processing as MacWrite was to real word processing).

Clayton E. Cramer