Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!csustan!polyslo!dorourke From: dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Re:IBM did it first Message-ID: <2373@polyslo.UUCP> Date: 10 May 88 16:50:34 GMT References: <5003@cup.portal.com> <23849@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <3080@pdn.UUCP> <2295@polyslo.UUCP> <3096 Reply-To: dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo Lines: 102 In article <3096@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes: >Contatct Don Hopkins, Heterogenous Systems Laboratory, University of >Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 TN (301) 454 1516. > >Mr Hopkins gave a "work-in-progress talk" on pie menus at last summer's >Usenix conference in Phoenix. Thank you for the information. >My posting was a response to your blanket assumption that the Mac >interface was The Last Word in windowing systems and that therefore >the Apple lawsuit (if successful) necessarily impedes programmer >productivity. Bah, humbug! I don't remember ever supporting the Apple Lawsuit, or ever saying that Apple's Windowing system was the Last Word in windowing systems. I would be intrested in any articles supporting Apple's lawsuit with my name on them. As far as Apple's windowing system I still feel it is the most complete implementation of a Windowing system for a Personal computer yet to be released. There ARE OTHER systems, but most fall short in some area that Apple doesn't. When a useable Sun Workstation drops to the price of a Macintosh SE then I'll consider buying one. >Let's compromise on this one: what's better is a matter of individual >taste, and the best system probably hasn't been invented yet. Ok? I agree 100%, the best system will probably never be invented. But I'm looking forward to trying to build it. >forward. The Apple Mac is a prime example of what just one company was >able to do by ignoring the IBM PC. Sun is another good example. Imagine what >Compaq could do if they focused their talents at producing the best possible >system, instead of the best possible clone! I already answered that I misinterpreted your original statment in another posting. Please accept my apologies for the original posting. But I don't appreciate being equated with the military of the USSR in your response. Although I'm a Mac person, I am open to new idea's. I see them all the time and spent some time working for <> triing to produce a better product than Apple's, all the while realizing where and how Apple screwed up, but also where they did a REAL nice job. I've seen better systems than the Macintosh, but I haven't seen any in a package that Joe Blow can go out and buy without the following: 1) Low interest Govt. Loan. 2) Investment of 2 months before he can even figure out how to bring the system up. 3) Another 3 months of configuration {remember Joe Blow has to do other things besides computers to pay off the Govt. Loan} 4) 2-4 Years while he goes and gets a degree in Computer Science so that he can realize how much better the system he purchased is than the Macintosh. >Your unstated premise appears to be that standard systems (which are >compatible with each other because of the standards) are less expensive >than non-standard ones. Perhaps, but I don't concede the point. I didn't say all systems would be cheaper. But in the May 2nd issue of Macintosh Today, even they admit that it's cheaper to buy an IBM clone and use it as a fileserver for a Macintosh network. I don't know how it is in the rest of the country but in Southern California the competition is fierce, and prices are sooooo cheap, less than $1700.00 with a 20 meg harddrive, color screen, 80286, 640K, 1.2 meg floppy, and a printer. And that's out of a store, if you go mail order it gets even better as far as the price goes. I think most people concede that cloning has made the PC cheaper. But there are clones that aren't cheaper. Compaq has never been cheaper, but it was normally better than IBM. >There are other ways to achieve compatibility than having everyone use >the same CPU's, the same BIOS and the same operating system. If the law >better protected intellectual property rights, there would be more >incentive to use these alternative compatibility techniques (and develop >others). Sounds awfully close to supporting Apple's position in the Lawsuit, now you're saying that we should support Apple, above you said that a Law supporting intellectual property rights impededs the programmer, now you're saying it's alright to thwart the programmer becasue it makes him do things differently. I'm not supporting Apple's lawsuit, but I believe the thrust of their argument is for legal precidence regarding "better protected intellectual property rights". Thankyou for your comments. But if I'm a Macintosh person, to what computer do you associate your self with. Also if we choose to discuss this issue futher I'd recommend direct e-mail, because the net's probably tired of hearing about it. David M. O'Rourke +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | dorourke@polyslo | Disclaimer: All opinions in this message are mine, but | | | if you like them they can be yours too. | | | Besides I'm just a student so what do I | | | know! | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | When you have to place a disclaimer in your mail you know it's a sign | | that there are TOO many Lawyer's. | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++