Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!csustan!polyslo!dorourke
From: dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David M. O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Re:IBM did it first
Message-ID: <2373@polyslo.UUCP>
Date: 10 May 88 16:50:34 GMT
References:  <5003@cup.portal.com> <23849@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <3080@pdn.UUCP> <2295@polyslo.UUCP> <3096
Reply-To: dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke)
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 102

In article <3096@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
>Contatct Don Hopkins, Heterogenous Systems Laboratory, University of
>Maryland, College Park, MD 20742  TN (301) 454 1516.
>
>Mr Hopkins gave a "work-in-progress talk" on pie menus at last summer's
>Usenix conference in Phoenix.

   Thank you for the information.

>My posting was a response to your blanket assumption that the Mac
>interface was The Last Word in windowing systems and that therefore
>the Apple lawsuit (if successful) necessarily impedes programmer
>productivity.  Bah, humbug!

  I don't remember ever supporting the Apple Lawsuit, or ever saying that
Apple's Windowing system was the Last Word in windowing systems.  I would
be intrested in any articles supporting Apple's lawsuit with my name on
them.
  As far as Apple's windowing system I still feel it is the most complete
implementation of a Windowing system for a Personal computer yet to be
released.  There ARE OTHER systems, but most fall short in some area that
Apple doesn't.  When a useable Sun Workstation drops to the price of a
Macintosh SE then I'll consider buying one.

>Let's compromise on this one:  what's better is a matter of individual
>taste, and the best system probably hasn't been invented yet.  Ok?

  I agree 100%, the best system will probably never be invented.  But I'm
looking forward to trying to build it.

>forward.  The Apple Mac is a prime example of what just one company was
>able to do by ignoring the IBM PC.  Sun is another good example.  Imagine what
>Compaq could do if they focused their talents at producing the best possible
>system, instead of the best possible clone!

  I already answered that I misinterpreted your original statment in another
posting.  Please accept my apologies for the original posting.  But I don't
appreciate being equated with the military of the USSR in your response.
  Although I'm a Mac person, I am open to new idea's.  I see them all the time
and spent some time working for <> triing to produce a
better product than Apple's, all the while realizing where and how Apple
screwed up, but also where they did a REAL nice job.
  I've seen better systems than the Macintosh, but I haven't seen any in a
package that Joe Blow can go out and buy without the following:

   1) Low interest Govt. Loan.
   2) Investment of 2 months before he can even figure out how to bring the
      system up.
   3) Another 3 months of configuration  {remember Joe Blow has to do other
      things besides computers to pay off the Govt. Loan}
   4) 2-4 Years while he goes and gets a degree in Computer Science so that
      he can realize how much better the system he purchased is than the
      Macintosh.

>Your unstated premise appears to be that standard systems (which are
>compatible with each other because of the standards) are less expensive
>than non-standard ones.  Perhaps, but I don't concede the point.

  I didn't say all systems would be cheaper.  But in the May 2nd issue of
Macintosh Today, even they admit that it's cheaper to buy an IBM clone and
use it as a fileserver for a Macintosh network.  I don't know how it is
in the rest of the country but in Southern California the competition is
fierce, and prices are sooooo cheap, less than $1700.00 with a 20 meg
harddrive, color screen, 80286, 640K, 1.2 meg floppy, and a printer.  And
that's out of a store, if you go mail order it gets even better as far as
the price goes.
  I think most people concede that cloning has made the PC cheaper.  But there
are clones that aren't cheaper. Compaq has never been cheaper, but it was
normally better than IBM.

>There are other ways to achieve compatibility than having everyone use
>the same CPU's, the same BIOS and the same operating system.  If the law
>better protected intellectual property rights, there would be more
>incentive to use these alternative compatibility techniques (and develop
>others).

  Sounds awfully close to supporting Apple's position in the Lawsuit, now
you're saying that we should support Apple, above you said that a Law
supporting intellectual property rights impededs the programmer, now you're
saying it's alright to thwart the programmer becasue it makes him do things
differently.
  I'm not supporting Apple's lawsuit, but I believe the thrust of their
argument is for legal precidence regarding "better protected intellectual
property rights".

  Thankyou for your comments.  But if I'm a Macintosh person, to what
computer do you associate your self with.

  Also if we choose to discuss this issue futher I'd recommend direct
e-mail, because the net's probably tired of hearing about it.


David M. O'Rourke

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| dorourke@polyslo | Disclaimer:  All opinions in this message are mine, but  |
|                  |              if you like them they can be yours too.     |
|                  |              Besides I'm just a student so what do I     |
|                  |              know!                                       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|    When you have to place a disclaimer in your mail you know it's a sign    |
| that there are TOO many Lawyer's.                                           |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++