Re: FAO Rowland

Mandy <mandy2uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

Mandy <mandy2uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

Mandy <mandy2uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

fergus <ferguscapewrath@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mandy <mandy2uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]

That, by the way, is the stupid way of doing an OS upgrade. The
intelligent way is to say `No, we're not carrying all that obsolete
cruft over to the new generation OS, we're going to start with what
we've learnt since we designed that turkey and make this one a lot
better'. Which is what Apple did with MacOS X (other firms have
done similar; I just happen to know about Apple). You have the
problem of supporting legacy software, but the best way to do that
is to just run the old OS alongside the new one one way or another
- it works very well on Macs. Or it did up until they released the
x86 powered machines, which can run MacOS X applications written
for the old CPUs, but can't run the old `Classic' operating system
like this beastie can.


So why, if Mac bods sound so much better than MS, don't more people
use Macs? :o/

Apple has been one of the world's biggest PC firms since the 1970s
when it was the biggest for a while (Apple was the first firm to sell
a `modern PC' in quantity). There are more Apple laptops being sold
in the USA than laptops from any other single firm. I've recently
heard they've got 17% of the US laptop market - 1 in 6 laptops sold in
the USA are made by Apple. That's a huge chunk of the market for a
single firm, given the thousands of sources for PCs in the world.


Blimey! Was this before or after Microsoft came on the scene?

It's now.

Microsoft and Apple are about the same age. Apple began selling
computers; Microsoft began by selling a bad version of the Basic
programming language commonly used on old-tyme home computers (a lot of
people swear by MS Basic. Having used it and others, I swear *at* MS
Basic and I was doing that before IBM PCs came out or anyone had dreamt
of the Mac).

Lots of people use Macs. Apple has bigger sales than almost all other
PC firms. Don't forget that Apple is a hardware seller; MS makes its
money from flogging software, while Apple's software (and that
includes things like the iTunes music store) exists simply to sell
Apple hardware, which is where it makes its money.

When my memory is better can you let me know how to use a Mac please?
Where would I get a Mac laptop from online?

<http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/ukstore>

Although: the current range of Apple laptops is not as good as some.
It'd be as well to wait until they're selling laptops with real 24 bit
colour screens rather than the cheapo nonsense they're flogging at the
moment.

Apple has this problem: every now and then, its quality slips or they
make some kind of cockup. The MacBook Pro range at the moment is a
cockup 'cos of the cheapo screens. Oh, they're not all that bad (I've
used one, and the 16 bitness of the colour `for real' was only apparent
when watching one DVD and looking at the sky in some shots), but you're
not really getting what you're paying for.

And another thing: you know what to do with an MS Windoze PC, and your
other half knows how to look after one. Macs are different. If you
want to get one, you ought to sit down and make a list of what you want
to do with it, and then make sure that it's do-able. Whatever you want
to do *is* do-able, pretty much, but the big complaint about modern Macs
is that there aren't as many games for them. Ironic, really, since the
old complaint about Macs is that they were only any good as toys.

It'd help to ask on uk.comp.sys.mac for anything you want to know, and I
can give you pointers to all manner of good things - some of which I
consider to be essential additions to the OS and user interface.

None of it's *difficult*, but if you don't do your homework and put the
time in to do the needful, you can very easily find yourself a bit stuck
and that would be a shame if what you're stuck with is an expensive
shiny new laptop.

btw, Macs do have problems and do need looking after. Thing is, the
problems are less problematic, tend to be very easy to fix, and looking
after 'em is dead simple. Most problems can be fixed by running a
repair program - honest.

[snip]

The question you want to be asking is how come the MS-powered IBM PC
wiped out *ALL* the rest of the PC competition completely. Apple
survived and the Mac has thrived - but everyone else went to the wall.
Amiga, Archimedes, and all the rest - all of which were much better
value for money than any Mac or `IBM PC'; they've all gone.

Dumbo question again... what does IBM stand for?

International Business Machines. Back in the days of `big iron' (when
mainframe computers were the only serious computers in existence), IBM
was the most prominent supplier.

They still are a big name in computing - but they gave up on PCs some
time ago. These days, they sell mainframes, heavy-duty servers, and
things like that. Unlike most computer firms, IBM designs and makes its
own chips, computers, operating systems, and other software: if you buy
IBM, you get good quality kit and good quality service. Apple used to
use IBM-designed CPUs until recently - I've got four of 'em in this 'ere
Mac I'm using now.

IBM used to make very very good typewriters and punched card machinery.
Because they knew all about punched cards, they designed their computers
to work with 'em. The first computers used continuous punched paper
tape.

[snip]

So they bought IBM. It didn't hurt that Lotus copied the spread***
program idea from Visicalc which ran on the Apple ][. Despite the
high price of IBM PCs compared to the old Apple ][s, business people
preferred Lotus 1-2-3 on the IBM PC to Visicalc on the Apple ][
because IBM PCs looked more business-like. And Macs didn't get a
spread*** for quite some time. Mind you, they've got a blinder of a
spread*** now - just out, and it's from Apple and the first version
released is not a beta version, as you'd expect from (say) MS (or a
new version of a Mac operating system...)

I've never understood beta things... surely if the programme works well
enough to be released as a beta then it works well enough to be released
as a full version or have I got it completely wrong?

Umm. No. An alpha release is one that's not remotely finished yet. If
you've got an alpha release, parts of the program are simply missing,
and you *WILL* suffer from many bugs and crashes.

A beta release is one that's been through internal testing and is now
considered good enough for brave people to try out `for real'. They
often have known bugs (which you can find out about so you can avoid
'em) and always they have unknown bugs, which the testers (which is what
you are if you're running beta software) are expected to tell the
software developer about when they come across them.

The initial release of MacOS X was little better than beta quality - not
so much because of the bugs, as the fact that it was missing so many
things that people really, really wanted. It's why Apple made very
little noise about it and offered anyone who'd bought it a free copy of
the second release (10.1). Apple has no conscience, but does know how
to please people and understands when it needs to do so.

Anyway, once the firm has one `type of computer', the people who look
after computers want to stick with that one type. They also don't
want computers that are easy to use and don't go wrong, because that
way they're out of a job. So lots of company computer technicians and
managers are very hostile towards Macs in particular, deriding them as
toys, and `no good at text', and things like that. `Oh, you can't get
software for them'. It's quite astonishing how violent their opinions
got at times - until you consider that they had to keep Macs out or
their careers would be threatened[1].

If it were me running a business I'd want something that was reliable
(which it sounds like Macs are) so that my employees were happy to use
them and could get more work done instead of waiting around for Tech
Support to turn up and fix the problem!

Well, yes, but that sort of thing doesn't seem to come into the picture.
The purchasing of PCs is rarely driven by rational decision making
processes.

Mind you, there is the issue that if you've got Windoze PCs fully
integrated into your firm's operations, you can't just replace 'em with
Linux or Macs because you'll be using software that relies on
Windoze-only stuff built into the OS.

And even if that's not a problem, you've still got to buy lots of new
software if you switch between platforms - whereas a new version of
Windoze will run most of your old software without the need to buy new
licences.

Of course, home users can do a lot with the software Apple supplies on
the machine, and there's an awful lot of shareware out there. Not so
much freeware of the easy-to-use kind, mind.

Oh yeah, and the old-tyme computer types didn't even trust computers
with monitors - they were used to the old mainframe/minicomputer type
that wanted punched cards and ran batch jobs overnight[2]. IBM PCs
fitted their idea of what a PC ought to be and worked the way they
thought - while Macs were just too much for 'em because anyone could
use a Mac and that mouse is just a toy, as are the graphics. Back
then, if a Mac had a feature or ability that an IBM PC did not, it was
used as proof that the Mac was a useless toy.

Really. Seems incredible, doesn't it?

It does indeed!

The old time anti-Mac brigade used to point to the fact that Macs could
do graphics and sound as a reason why they were crap. So crap that, for
example, Macs had two serial ports as standard. Serial ports were an
optional extra on IBM PCs. Mac serial ports ran 50 times faster (yes,
fifty) and could do networking too. And IBM PCs used the obsolete
RS232C standard, while even BBC Micros had moved on to the replacement
standard (which unfortunately never really caught on, 'cos IBM had gone
for RS232C which was, as I say, obsolete in 1981).

(although to be utterly honest, I should point out that you needed to
add an external clock to get the full speed out of the serial ports;
without the bolt-on goodie, you only got 12.5 times the speed)

I recall reading benchmark tests of the original IBM PC in a computer
magazine. It was slower than the BBC Micro - the 4.77MHz, 16 bit IBM
machine was slaughtered by Acorn's 2MHz 8 bit offering. Mind you, the
IBM PC did come with the ability to use a lot more RAM than the Beeb.

I developed my dislike of IBM PCs 2 or 3 years before Macs were
released, and 8 or 9 years before I got my hands on a Mac personally.

Of course, IBM PCs got pretty much all Mac features eventually - just
implemented in a more shoddy way, and by then, all these features were
considered essential by IBM-type PC buyers.

Once the companies started to get IBM PCs (and clones) everywhere, the
next thing is that people who learnt to use them at work thought `I
could do with some of that at home' and bought what they were used to
- the fact that the software at work would run on the PC at home was
of course a trivial consideration because no-one would ever pinch
anything from work, would they? Especially not when you can get the
installer discs back in their box in the office before anyone's
noticed they've gone.

Blimey!

Everyone and his dog nicked a copy of Win 3 when it came out. That's
how MS got market share - they made it easy for people to acquire the
software without paying, so that everyone started using it, and they
gradually turned the screws as people got more and more locked in to MS
Windoze. It's a bit like a heroin dealer giving you a free bit of smack
to start you off on the path to utter ruin, with much the same effect if
you ask me.

Microsoft has recently admitted that even now it doesn't want to make
software piracy impossible, because allowing people to pirate software
has always been part of their strategy: Windoze 3 was *very* easy to
pirate when it was new. That meant that `everyone' with a PC got
Windoze - pretty much wiping out the market for IBM's far superior
OS/2 (a much, much better Windows-type operating system for IBM PCs).
And it goes on like that.

If they brought the prices of the OSs down to an affordable price maybe
they would get more money!

Oh no! People feel they must buy it. They get the sales regardless -
what other OS can you buy? FWIW, Windoze is quite cheap to buy if
you're building PCs. But the `installed when bought' versions don't
come with installer discs, do they? So if something goes wrong, you
can't just re-install the OS yourself but instead have to pay someone to
do it or buy a new copy of an OS that you've already paid for.

It's a rotten trick, but people fall for it. I've been in touch with a
lass who has bought two new versions of Win XP over a period of time
just to keep her PC operational. Gawd knows exactly what was going on,
mind.

MS pulled other dirty tricks - for example, IBM-type PCs could run all
sorts of operating systems, and MS-DOS was meant to run on all sorts
of computers. Now, if you wanted to sell a computer with MS-DOS on
it, you could either stop selling computers with any other operating
system on it and get MS-DOS from MS at a low price; or you'd have to
pay a higher price if you wanted your firm to sell computers with any
other OS. This dodgy contract stuff by MS was stopped eventually as
being criminal, but by that time it was too late and the competition
had died out (MS did other equally criminal things to wipe out other
areas of competition).

It doesn't sound like Microsoft have got a conscience! :o(

They're in business to make money. Apple has no conscience either, but
they've got a better idea of what makes people *really* irritated, and
they're quite good at staying the right side of the line most of the
time.

And if you want to know how much respect MS has for its paying
customers, consider this:

The recent problem with Microsoft (or is it Windoze?) Genuine
Advantage that pulled the plug on legitimate Vista users had no effect
on the pirated copies - it's possible (with the right software, don't
ask me where to get it, I have no idea) to crowbar a pirate copy of
Vista into running, and of course it's not reporting to MS so can't be
disabled by `Microsoft Genuine Advantage' - so all the legal users got
screwed, while the illegal users were laughing. `Microsoft Genuine
Advantage' might be an advantage for Microsoft, but it's Bad News for
legit users. You'd have to be a right mug to buy Vista, I reckon.

I didn't have a choice... it came on the new computer! :o\

[snip]

You could have bought a different computer, you know.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
.