Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:41457 comp.sys.mac:45674
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!levels!sahiways!peters
From: peters@sahiways.gov.au
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: PC's are democratic; Mac's are fascistic
Message-ID: <858@sahiways.gov.au>
Date: 21 Dec 89 10:43:00 GMT
References: <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1210@serene.UUCP>
Organization: DEPARTMENT of ROAD TRANSPORT
Lines: 125

>> 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. 

Score: DOS=1, MAC=1

Everybody should know by now that the main reason there are more DOS machines
out there than Macs is because there isn't any real Mac clones / compatibles.
Not one.  The XT became the majority standard ONLY because every man and his
dog were building them and selling them to people who thought they knew what
they wanted.
 
>>   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?
> 

Score: DOS=2, MAC=2

The aim of any user interface is to be totally transparent; in no way should it
inhibit the user from getting the best out of his computing equipment.  A CLI
is anything but friendly, but it _is_ completely open-ended, unlike the
majority of WIMPS-style GUIs.  Because of this, the Macintosh GUI provides more
transparency than all CLIs, but at the cost of inflexibility as the user
becomes more proficient and demanding of his equipment.

>>   It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior
>> than EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include
>> 80486).
> 
> Ho ho ho, you're making my sides hurt...  NuBus?  Superior to
> anything?  Ha ha ha.  And you're holding up AppleTalk as an example
> of something good?  Clearly you've never used any of this stuff.

Score: DOS=3, MAC=3

Every method of interconnecting pieces of computing equipment has its pros and
cons.  NuBus is a very interesting bus system, but Apple butchered it; it
shouldn't be called NuBus.  And Apple's laughable efforts regarding bus
standardisation is pitiful; every new machine has a new bus!  MCA also has it's
problems, having to be tweaked every time something is changed on it.  A good
NuBus setup is auto-configuring (the NeXT box excels here).  The XT/AT/EISA
bus systems are so fraught with dangers they have to me maintained by master
technicians to ensure continued reliable operation!

SCSI vs. ESDI ... ESDI can run _heaps_ faster than SCSI, but gains it's speed
by losing 'intelligence'.

Apple's idea of installing network hardware in every machine is applaudable,
but having an upper limit of 234 kbits/sec is little more than a joke as to
make it totally unusable.

>>   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.  

Score: DOS=4, MAC=4

Being forced to use a GUI - or any single type of interface for that matter -
can be considered fascistic.  Apple's GUI provides more than one way to perform
a task (something Windows tries - and fails - to do), which is good.

> 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. 

Score: DOS=5, MAC=5

Being democratic in the computing environment is not necessarily a good thing!
Too much choice causes chaos when people attempt to connect computers together,
or even to exchange data; conversely, not enough choice is bad.  Apple and the
related third-party developers _do_ allow Mac users to make choices, but not
as many.  However, there is one rule which applies here:

MACINTOSH USERS EXPECT BETTER.

Simple, but the truth.  All display / LAN / interface choices (with very few
exceptions) are of higher quality and have greater standardisation than the
equivalent DOS market products.

> In fact, I'll go on record as stating that there is *far more*
> graphics based software avaiable for the PC than there is for Apple.
> There is far more *everything* available for the PC than for Apple.
> 
> PC's (of an equivalent vintage) have always had better graphics and
> much quicker operation than Apples.

OF course there is more graphics s'ware for DOS than Mac; there is more of
everything (and lots of unique) for DOS.  But!  Look at the ratios; out of all
Mac software, more is graphically oriented than the same in the DOS world.

As far as speed goes, Apple made a good choice in using the 68000 family, but
could have made things better by not having so much interface overhead being
placed on the processor.

> Apples "graphic superiority" is a myth.

No myth.  It _is_ graphically superior to most, if not all, CLI based machines,
purely because it is graphics based.  Natural, I suppose, because man as a
collective whole is visually oriented.


Apple have some nice ideas, but they are very stubborn to boot.

I work with DOS machines (a gaggle of PS/2's) and I own a Mac.  I'm proficient
on both; I use whichever machine is most suitable for the task at hand.

Simple enough, I think.

Score: DOS=6, MAC=6.  End of match, tied game.


Geoff Peters
User Support, Department of Road Transport SA