In-Reply-To: <31babcdd.2698178@news.lth.se>
Message-ID: 
References: <4nlkll$ptm@news.sdsmt.edu> <4nr8ar$6s3@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <31a34d9a.1588703@news.wisenet.com>  <4oj06f$rv4@newsflash.concordia.ca> <31ae8d97.94537852@news.alt.net> <4p1ovm$kcf@monet.ICSI.Net>  <31babcdd.2698178@news.lth.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Sun, 9 Jun 1996, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Jun 1996 10:33:19 -0500, cd000163@interramp.com (Bart
> Benne) wrote:
> 
> >
> >> 
> >> If Macs is so great then why isn't Computer Shopper and computer shows
> >flooded 
> >> with mac hardware and software???

Bottom line.  Mac tried to be the "Rolls Royce" of computers.
Unfortunately it ended up more like Chrysler (in need of a bail-out).

They started with a closed system, kept a monopoly control of hardware and
software, and targeted the Marketing department and the Executives.  The
result was that the Marketing Department had artwork they couldn't deliver
to other users (dumb PC-Clone users), and the Executive couldn't even get
e-mail from his own middle managers.

Eventually, Microsoft torpedoed the Executive market with Microsoft
Project, and Adobe defected to the Microsoft camp (due to some substantial
"investments" from Microsoft board members and the adoption of "True Type"
fonts for Windows.

Isn't it interesting that Microsoft is now caught in the same trap.  NT
and 95 are both stalled because there is not a bridge to the "Peones".

> >> my 2 cents
> >> 
> >> ~Cobalt
> >
> >Well number one co, Macintosh is currently catering specifically to
> >specialized markets such as art, printing, and multimedia.  The
> >specialized markets are filled with professionals... you know, the experts
> >in the field? The ones that know what they're doing and what they're
> >talking about?

Just another version of the "Cocaine Mentality".  If you could get the
same effect from a $2 bottle you got at the local grocery store, you would
still buy the "Coke" for $100/gram.  Because you can't impress a woman
at a bar by waving a bottle of "Primatine" at her.  Try 10 deep hits of
the latter.

> >   Macintosh ain't going anywhere but up.

It's so far down, estimates are as low as a LOSS of $14/share.

> >   A billion dollars in cash reserves.

It's in HOCK to the tune of $600 Million.

> >   The government (US) has speant millions getting the Macintosh OS into
> >schools across the country, nearly a billion dollars a year in sales, and
> >still one of the recognizable logos on the face of the earth. Much better
> >than a lined half-tone font--pppllleeeaaassse.

Most of these systems were "Donated" or sold at near cost.  Many schools
are "Stuck" with Apple II's because they can't get upgrade software from
their "Apple Sofware Vendor".

> >   The corporate schills at IBM wouldn't know an original idea if it bit
> >them on the ass.  That's why we have Ross Perot AND Apple.  

They don't need original ideas.  They buy them, or lease consultants to
inspire them.  OS/2 looks good (if it just didn't crash and loose it's
desktop so often, at least warp makes it recoverable).  AIX looks even
better (although the boys at Big Blue need to learn the word
COMPATIBILITY).

> >   It's my opinion that all IBM caters to now are standard form-producing
> >businesses and the masses that ALSO wouldn't know a brilliant original
> >idea when it stares them in the face.

Since about 85% of business is based on getting "my form to talk to your
form".  It's probably not so terrible.  The real challenge is getting the
forms to fill themselves out.

Good graphics is just bait to get them to look around, kick the tires, and
"FILL OUT THE FORM".  Buy the car, write the check, authorize the Visa
Card....

> >   Why are Macs more expensive? You get what you pay for...

I can pay $85,000 for a Porsche.  In the U.S., it won't get me there any
faster than my Protoge, it will raise my insurance, and it will cost more
to repair.  Will a Mac get me laid?

> >   Bill Gates is one of the smartest men in America... he knew that
> >everyone who bought an IBM/compatible really wanted a Macintosh. Windows
> >'95 = Macintosh '89.

Actually, when Window's 3.0 came out, the biggest threat in the corporate
market was the SUN Sparkstation IPC.  A "stripped" Windows box would run
about $4000, an IPC ran about $5000.  That little extra got you standards,
access to the mainframe, the vax, and any Unix box, internet e-mail, and
even "intranet".  It also got you a system that didn't hang in the middle
of a 25,000 row spreadsheet.  Finally, Unix programmers were expensive,
but they could produce miracles in very little time.

> >   Don't flame me... these are my opinions and not expressed out of
> >hostility or wrath.  Personally, I feel that everyone should chose an OS
> >system and drop the damn subject. This is alt.warez.mac and not the place
> >for egghead discussions. The jolly roger flies here, and debating with a
> >pirate can be hazardous to your health...

I deleted that group from my distribution.  Do we really need to spam the
entire netnews community with our fantasies and foibles.

> When it comes to this discussion many mac users use that old argument
> "Windows 95 equals Macintosh 89". I haven't seen MacOS from 1989, but

I have.  It wasn't bad.  It had a great little "Killer App" called
MacProject.  It would let you plan fairly complex projects with some
accuracy.  Of course, you could assign 5 "Rex Ballard's" to a project and
it wouldn't even beep.  You also couldn't get data off the darn box.  We
had fast postscript printers, but it insisted on speaking only appletalk
to a doggy slow printer.  It also took 20 minutes to save a 1 meg file to
the hard drive.  I couldn't even read e-mail while I waited for the
printer to finish it's job.  I actually had 3 desks that year.  One with
the Mac, one with the PC, and one with Unix.  I had to pull myself away
from Unix to get back to the next "hurry up and wait" step on the other
two platforms.

> I doubt that it was better then than it is now, so I suppose either it
> is a writing failure (can you say like that?) and you mean 99, or even
> 2089. Seriously, I have some friends that have macintoshes, and when
> they look at my computer, running Win95, their first impression is
> that "You immediately see that we are dealing with a new generation
> OS:es here", and that it is way better than MacOS in terms of
> multitasking and more. 

Yes, someday, it will be almost as powerful as Linux was, back in 1993.

> I admit it is rather big and needs lots of
> memory, but what OS doesn't (and then I don't mean text based OS:es
> like DOS or some unixes (sp?),

I run a great little X11/R6 Linux system, complete with office automation
package, web server and browser, more development languages than I can
count, and some pretty decent performance.  It's running on a 386SX/16
with 6 Meg and a 16 meg swap file.  I might want to get a graphics
accelerator and a 486/DX2, next time I have $100 burning a hole in my
pocket.

> nor do I mean poor old MacOS), WinNT
> and OS/2 Warp are both bigger than Win95 (and better I must say) and

That's like saying a Ford Bronco is bigger than a Chevette.  Windows 95 at
least provides you with the software equivalence of 4 wheels instead of 2
(preemptive multithreading, busy/wait multitasking, TCP/IP and Sockets
(you can "brute force" IPC, if you are willing to forfeit all security.

> though not having first hand experience of Linux (or any other Unix)
> and X, I have heard that they consume a hole lot of disk space and
> memory they too.

I can fit Linux, 8000 applications, 100 programming languages,
documentation, graphics systems, and contributed software in about 500
meg.  That is about enough for "Office" under 95.  I can go with a
"stripped down" version that fit's in less than 100 Meg.  Did I forget to
mention that includes unlimited user server capabilities as well?
I can even use NFS, SMB or IPX.

> So we'll see when MacOS steps into its next
> generation (8.0, isn't it) if it has grown a mature OS by then. I'm
> not saying that an OS has to be big to be good, but sadly it seems to

UNIX has been "Maturing" for 28 years now.  It just seems to improve with
age.  Now we have the "Linux" flavor.  Not bad for a $20 operating system.

> be that way. By the way, I had my signature way before writing this
> letter, so don't think I picked it up just because you mentioned it.


	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard





From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue Jul  2 19:55:04 1996
Status: O
X-Status: 
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy