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. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++