🚀 go-pugleaf

On one hand, I like to think of myself as mature, reasonable, etc.  On
the other hand, I completely disagree with all these people who say,
"children, children, let's not fight about which machine is better."
Give me blood, I say.

So I guess I have to justify this.  First, my position.  I, for one,
will prboably end up on the mac side of the war.  I look at these guys
who say, "I have a mac now, but I wish I had a NeXT," and suspect that
in 9 cases out of 10, they don't know what they are talking about.

This is one of the benefits of this flame war: it provides
information.  Certain issues -- such as whether the MS-DOS command
line interface is better than the Mac's graphical user interface --
have already been chewed over so much that we are all sick and tired
of it.  In either case, both machines are now fairly well known, and
most people have a good idea of the differences between the two
machines.  People are less aware of the differences betweeen the NeXT
and the mac.

Jobs has done a good job of creating a mystique to go along with his
machine.  You get people like me drooling over it before it was
released.  There are a lot of neat features, and the graphics arts
people must ahve been working overtime.  It's built on UNIX, and seems
easier to program.  Etc., etc.  A flame war like this can point out
the realistic deficiencies of the NeXT system.  Even the most die-hard
NeXT machine fans must realize that the machine is not right for
everyone.

Another reason why I feel this flame war is more productive than a
typical religious war is this: in this case, we are looking at two
machines which are more similar than they are different.  Sure, you
can buy Windows for your PC, but the philosophy of IBM PC's is
substantially different from the philosphy of the Mac or the NeXT.
They target different areas, approach things in a different way, etc.,
but it's my contention that the two systems are similar enough to make
the argument that much more interesting.  An acid test?

After going through a round of these arguments, can you think of ways
in which your current computer system could be improved?

Well, in my case, I can imagine how the mac could be changed after
looking at the NeXT box.  I can't speak for others, but I hope that
the NeXT machine isn't so vastly superior to the mac in all areas that
there is no point in looking to the mac for guidance in certain areas.
Granted, the two cases are slightly different, the most important
factor being that the NeXT machine was designed after the mac.  Still,
if there is some basis for arugument, I must belive that some of the
input must have been constructive.  And I don't mean a rehash of the
old, "no software, problems with distribution, no third party
hardware, no vertical market applications," stuff.  

So, while some of the arguemnt is futile, I find a lot of it
intriguing.  What are the points that people find annoying about the
"other" system?  What do users lust after in the "other" system?

-Sho
--
sho@risc.com  <<-- right now, I'm gettting payed to write this tripe.
                   is it any wonder it's so long?