🚀 go-pugleaf

>
>Who uses Windows?  People who are afraid of Macintoshes? 

  Oh Geez, I see we could have another worthless flame war on our hands. I 
think we should clarify some things before nasty words start to fly. 

>Last time I checked, Apple had a 1-3 month backlog of orders across
>its product line.  Sounds like they are doing just fine.  Frankly,
>I can't understand why Microsoft expects to use Apple-developed ideas
>without paying for them.  When I want to use DOS on a Mac, the cost
>of the SoftPC emulator includes LICENSE fees for Microsoft.

  Perhaps you could enlighten us with the Apple-developed ideas that Microsoft
is using without payment? I think a lot of people would be interested in 
specifics.  

  I just went checking into Macs at our bookstore the other day, and
the only one I can't get right away is a Classic, which I wouldn't buy anyway
now that System 7 is coming along. The beta of System 7 I've run on a Mac 
IICi is very nice, but it's ssllooww.
 
>If you are looking for a villain in this situation, look carefully at
>Microsoft.  On the strength of a positively TRIVIAL OS -- MS-DOS, 
>they've extorted tribute from most of the PC-using world.  

  Yes, MS-DOS (or PC-DOS) is really nothing more than a program loader - but 
it DOES have a large installed base and it IS based on an open system. I use
Macs and PCs every day running everything from DOS to Windows to OS/2 to 
System 6.X.X and a beta release of System 7; each have their strengths and 
weaknesses. (Heck, UNIX also does a wonderful job, but it sure ain't for 
everyone!) 
 
>Mac OS is bundled with all Macs and upgrades are distributed for free.  
>Since it's introduction in late '83 it has (arguably, for this newsgroup) 
>been refined to a much greater extent than was DOS as it transitioned 
>from 2.0 to 3.3 or 4.0.  I can understand and sympathize with those
>who want to run WINDOWS on a PC -- they have been been forced to pay
>for upgrades to an OS that still doesn't provide reasonable support
>for RAM upgrades or decently sized hard disk volumes.

  The Mac OS has been refined more than Windows, no doubt. However, System 
7 will run you (at last check) $50. Without high profit margins, Apple will 
now pass OS costs on to their users. As for running an OS with decent RAM and 
HD support on a PC, OS/2 does just fine. Windows just adds a kludge on top 
of DOS; it's no world-killer system, but it DOES work. 

>The programming effort that led to the Mac OS cost alot of money 
>that was rolled into the cost of every Mac.  It can be argued (weakly) 
>that Mac OS was based on the Xerox Star interface (Apple PAID to use it),
>but WINDOWS is inarguably based on the Macintosh OS.

  How is Windows inarguably based on the Mac OS? And why is it weakly argued 
that the Mac OS was based on the Xerox Star interface? All indications I've 
seen claim there is more of a link between the Mac and Star interfaces, rather
than the Mac and Windows. Yes, Apple paid to use the Star interface. Microsoft
also PAID to use the Mac interface when developing windows. In each case, 
certain parts of the interface were defined; it's the parts that weren't 
defined that are causing the problems. 
 
>Why should Apple give it away?  I gladly paid a premium to use a 
>machine with a well-designed operating system.  Why should my
>dollars support Windows?  
>
>Why the hell haven't PC-users gotten together and demanded more
>DOS from Microsoft for your money?  After you've invested blood,
>sweat and tears in all the add-in boards and "hidden costs"
>required to make a PC work like a Mac, why are you complaining
>to Apple instead of IBM?

  I think you should clarify all the assertions you're making; your post 
reeks of a Pro-Mac/Anti-Windows bias. I respect the Mac for what it is; a 
wonderful machine for doing Desktop Publishing and design work. Perhaps you 
should give Windows credit for what it is; an affordable graphic interface 
for users that have decided to buy into an open system. There are trade-offs;
Windows isn't as refined as a Mac, and has to go through kludges to accomplish
some of its neat tricks. It DOES allow support for uncountable graphic 
displays, input devices, output devices (printers/plotters/etc.). I find that
Windows is a good alternative for people who are willing to invest a little 
time to learn about their system, and don't want to fork out the extra $$ 
for a proprietary system. I like OS/2 better than anything, but obviously 
Windows and the Mac are more profitable platforms if you want to 'go where 
the money is'. 

  I'll hop off the soapbox now. I just hope we can clarify the fact that each
system works for certain people, and has its own inherent strengths and 
weaknesses. To each his own. 

Dave Kirsch 
kirsch@ux.acs.umn.edu