Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:40210 comp.sys.mac:44573
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!deimos!phobos.cis.ksu.edu!jxf
From: jxf@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Jerry Frain)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: PC's are democratic; Mac's are fascistic
Message-ID: <1989Dec18.210455.29522@deimos.cis.ksu.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 89 21:04:55 GMT
References: <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1210@serene.UUCP>
Sender: news@deimos.cis.ksu.edu (USENET News Admin)
Reply-To: jxf@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Jerry Frain)
Organization: Kansas State University, Dept of Computing & Information Sciences
Lines: 104

In article <1210@serene.UUCP> rfarris@serene.UU.NET (Rick Farris) writes:
>In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes:

>> Why hasn't anyone sue the big blue for
>> - giving user the *ugly*, *unfriendly* text based interface from hell?
>> - shamelessly cheat the users for a actually not so good computer?
>> - rudely made many users' life miserable and waster users' time?

>Ha ha ha.  If you want to talk about shameless, price a Mac II these
>days. 

Price is relative.  Apple simply sets the prices of their products 
at what they think they can be sold for, and to turn the best profit.

This is a matter of simple business sense.  I, for one, believe that
the Macintosh is overpriced, but let's not make more of an issue
out of it than what it really is.

>>   It is a fact that the standard interface of windows, pull down menus,
>> make things look good and friendly.
>              ^^^^
>They may make it *look* friendly, but to an experienced user, a @#$%@
>pull down menu'ed interface is anything but friendly.  Why should I
>be saddled with something I don't want?

I don't see your point.  This also is not a complex issue -- if the
standard Mac interface does not please a user, that user is more than
entitled to change it, or not to use it all.

[ ... ]

>>   But the company that took the *risk* to provide the user *more*

>Now the tears are really running out of my eyes.  Apple hasn't
>provided *more* of anything.  In fact, all Apple has done is force
>users to use its gui interface.  That's pretty fascistic.  

Apple has forced a standard interface across all of its Macintosh
products for a very good reason -- standardization.  The "average"
PC user uses three applications regularly -- the "average" Mac
user uses eight.  This is due to the fact that PC applications are
traditionally more difficult to learn and master than are the standard
Macintosh programs.

Simple matter of reducing the learning curve across different
applications, from different vendors.  There's nothing wrong with
this concept.  Perhaps there is something wrong with the way it
is enforced.

This interface, like everything else ever created by mankind, is not
for everyone.  So be it.

>The PC world is very democratic.  It allows the *user* to decide
>whether he wants a gui or a text based system.  It allows the user to
>determine what sort of LAN he'd like.  It allows the user to decide
>what sort of display quality he'd like.  Apple does none of the
>above. 

The Mac user also has the choice of creating/using a gui or
text-based interface.  I believe that MPW is text-based, for example.

Most vendors are not in the habit of selling/supporting products
not made by that vendor; hence, IBM does not sell or support
STARLAN for their PS/2 line, and I am sure that AT&T does not
sell or support the token ring, either.

[ lot of stuff about IBM PC/compatibles having superior graphics to Macs
  suppressed... ]

Well, most of this may be true, however, I have yet to find a general
purpose type word processor for the IBM PC/compatible which has WYSIWYG
features; hence, being able to *see* italics, etc. instead of simply
changing the colors of the text to represent different fonts.

Bah, I say to graphics!  Show me something simple, something tangible
like the word processing capability I described above.  The Mac has
had these capabilities since what?  1983?  Something like that.

>I hope Xerox sues them into the ground.  What I expect is that Xerox
>will prove prior art, recover court costs, and then release their
>work into the public domain.

Yeah, and I hope that FSF buys UNIX from AT&T and releases it to the
general public with a "copyleft," too.

But I bet it doesn't happen.

And, personally, I don't care much for this cross-posting stuff between
two rival groups such as c.s.ibm.pc and c.s.mac, since all it ever 
accomplishes is flame wars of great magnitude, and waste a lot of
bucks by posting a lot of unecessary garbage to the net.

The net is supposed to be a place to share, learn, exchange information
in a productive way.  Let's work to keep it that way.

  --Jerry

[ insert standard disclaimer here ]

--
Jerry Frain -- Professional Student           Kansas State University
Internet: jxf@phobos.cis.ksu.edu      Dept of Computing & Information Sciences
BITNET: MUSTANG@KSUVM                            Manhattan, Kansas
UUCP: ...!{rutgers|textbell}!ksuvax1!phobos.cis.ksu.edu!jxf