🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <danpop.807225941@rscernix> Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:


>In <ericb.450.301CECDB@psu.edu> ericb@psu.edu (Eric Bennett) writes:

>>In article <danpop.807144468@rscernix> Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
>>>Pretty good for running X.  My notebook has 8 megs too and has been 
>>>running X for the last two years without any problems.
>>
>>Certainly not the 4 meg machine.  The guy with 8 does have X installed, but he 
>>can't run more than one or two X programs without bogging down with swapping.

>If those two X programs are emacs and xv, I can believe this :-)
>If they're xclock and xload, I don't :-)

Well, xclock was also running but I'm not counting it.  One of the programs 
was Netscape; I don't remember what the other was.

>>>Someone who can't be bothered to read a manual won't become self-sufficient
>>>on any system, including a Mac (have you noticed that all Mac software
>>>comes with manuals?).
>>
>>But I think you can get away with reading a lot less on the Mac.

>Why?  Is Word for Mac more intuitively to use than Word for Windows?
>How about Excel or Netscape?

The comparison was Mac vs. Unix.  In any case, part of the argument has to do 
with consistency among applications.  Try switching from Win Word to Win 
WordPerfect, and try switching from Mac Word to Mac WordPerfect.  In which 
case are you able to use the same keys for saving your work?  Okay, this is 
partly cheating because the wacky key commands in WordPerfect for Windows are 
the exception not the rule, but now try cutting & pasting on a Mac.  Always 
the same keys.  Last time I pressed control-c to copy text in Microsoft's very 
own Windows FTP program, I found out that control-c quits the program; 
Microsoft doesn't use consistent key commands within its own software!

>>>The difference is that you can't fix a problem on your friend's Mac 
>>>without being physically in front of its screen and keyboard.  A modem
>>>connection doesn't help at all for this task.
>>
>>Well, I *could* get some help from a modem connection--Peter Lewis's FTPd 
>>would let me poke around with his system configurations and launch or kill 
>>processes, for example, but to actually _use_ the system I'd need Timbuktu, 
>>which would probably be unpleasant over a 14.4 modem.

>Provided that Peter Lewis's FTPd and Timbuktu are already installed on
>his Mac, not very likely for Joe Mac User's Mac.

But likely if I'm fixing my dad's Mac, and that was the original scenario.  
Also likely if I'm administering a group of Macs remotely; do you think that I 
will have root privileges on Joe Unix User's box?

>>In any case, I haven't yet encountered a Mac problem I couldn't solve by 
>>talking my dad through it on the phone, which is probably better than fixing 
>>it myself because he'll be able to deal with the problem (or so I hope :) the 
>>next time it surfaces.

>Don't be so sure.  In my experience, Joe Mac User is very proud of his
>computer illiteracy (isn't this the main selling point of the Mac's?)
>and tries very hard to preserve his status quo.  

Well, Mac users do seems to pride themselves on not reading manuals (I include 
myself in this group :), but I don't think Mac users are "proud" to be 
computer-illiterate.  More accurate might be "happy to be able to use a 
computer productivly without being computer-savvy."

>This is aggravated by the
>fact that one specific problem doesn't tend to repeat very often, so that
>the user who doesn't understand what's happening can use his memory to
>remember the meaningless (for him) sequence of actions that has to be
>performed in order to fix it.

It's not meaningless if you give a full explanation of what the purpose of 
each step is (unless the explanation is way over the person's head, but it's 
usually possible to find some analogy to explain it reasonably well).

-Ericb@psu.edu