🚀 go-pugleaf

This posting really offended me initially as I don't enjoy being
labelled an idiot.  I do feel that this is excessively vitriolic but
also quite flawed.  Here's my blow-by-blow thoughts:
> 
> Is it really ? I personally would not mind going through the motions of
> having to configure the software to my system, especially since I CAN CHOOSE
> what add-ons I want and not have to live with someone else's decision.
> What is Mac other than being a CUTE!! machine good for drawing pretty pictures
> in MacPaint ? A puny screen, B&W at that ! One built-in disk drive, no eject
> button.Get your disk stuck? Use a MacTool ( straightened paper clip) to get
> it out.At least IBM put an eject button on its PC Convertible.
This is all stuff that has been beat to death before.  The IBM is in an
awkward, ugly, oversized, not even close to portable box.  I can't see
why it matters whether the second disk drive is "internal" or not.  In
fact, I could complain loudly about the waste of space in the IBM
chassis for single-drive systems or even half-height double-sided
drives.  Ultimately, it's probably a matter of taste anyway.
> 
> Word processors ? MacWrite and MS Word ? You got to be kidding!
> Want to see the whole page while typing ? Move the window right and left,
> a very inefficient way of doing things.
You know, you can't see the whole page on an IBM either.  You also can't
see how your proportional spacing will really look.  Mr. Kacker probably
considers the wide variety of fonts available as a gimmick, but he may
not have seen any advertising brochures produced using Macs and
Laserwriters.  The What You See Is What You Get word processing/graphics
interface has been largely responsible for the desktop publishing trend
that gets so much press lately.
> 
> Want to write a quick and dirty application for your own use ? Sit down with
> MacGuts revealed or some such thing and learn how to draw those stupid icons.
> Dialog boxes, Alert boxes and all that crap.
If you want a quick and dirty application on the Mac, you write one.  It
will look quick and dirty but it will run.  The Mac development
languages do not require the use of all OS features.
> 
> No option of using a command line interface instead of moving the mouse
> around icons. If I want to delete a file, I would like to say DELETE filename
> instead of moving the picture into the trash.
Why? Moving it to the trash makes sense too.  I like the trash can
better, fewer keystrokes and less typos.  By the way, did you know that
human-computer interaction research shows the mouse to be the fastest
and most accurate pointing system for computer editing.  This was relative to a
joystick (I think) and arrow keys and something else I can't remember
(see _The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction_ by Card, Moran, and
Newell).
> 
> Well at least someone designed a machine that any idiot could learn to use;
> thats all who'll stay with the mac though.
I feel angry when I read this.  I have heard from others who I trust
(but I don't know the original source) that IBM users use about 1.5
different software applications regularly where Mac users average about 5
applications.  By that standard it would appear that Mac users are more
adept with their machines.
> 
> Well thats enough for one session. No I have no ties with IBM... I wish I did
> though :-).
> 
> A.Kacker... seismo!rochester!ur-tut!akk2

Obviously, Mr. Kacker and I disagree.  He probably wouldn't like to
write code in Smalltalk either.  I, frankly, don't find his objections
well thought out.  They seem to me to revolve around the theme of the
Mac being so simple to use it is offensive.  One could say the same
thing about electronic ignition in automobiles.

Ethan Munson
UCSD CS undergraduate
sdcsvax!sdcc6!ir462