Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!ll-xn!cit-vax!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!labrea!rocky!ali
From: ali@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Ali Ozer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Macintosh II not Macintosh ][
Message-ID: <396@rocky.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Mon, 6-Jul-87 12:38:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocky.396
Posted: Mon Jul  6 12:38:45 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 7-Jul-87 06:23:19 EDT
References: <80@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu> <170009@acf3.NYU.EDU>
Reply-To: ali@rocky.UUCP (Ali Ozer)
Organization: Stanford University Computer Science Department
Lines: 22

In article <170009@acf3.NYU.EDU> David HM Spector writes:
>No "revolution", eh?  A Macintosh II may be comparable in "hardware" to a
>Sun3 ( I disagree, actually, a MacintoshII is a much better thought out piece
>of hardware), but a Sun3 is LIGHTYEARS behind a Macintosh, of any flavour, in
>terms of software engineering. 

An operating system that forces me to sit and "twiddle my thumbs"
(or anything equally silly, such as "look through the TV guide," 
"go bother the cat," "go get another can of pepsi," etc) while 
printing (or anything else you might want to do on your computer,
such as "compiling," "transferring a file," "ray tracing," etc)
just cannot be LIGHTYEARS ahead of Unix. At best it is five years
behind. 

>Despite all of this hype about Unix on 
>Macintosh most "real"(*) computer users have no use for Unix...

I am no fan of Unix but I prefer Unix over the Macintosh's OS any day.
Even if the Mac OS came wrapped in a 25 Mhz 68020 and the Unix on a 
wimpy 750. The multitasking Unix would still more productive. 

Ali Ozer, ali@rocky.stanford.edu