Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nwgw.infi.net!news.infi.net!usenet From: brennanw@richmond.infi.net Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.acorn.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.machten,comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.user-friendly Subject: Re: FIVE GOOD REASONS WHY IBM'S ARE BETTER THAN MACS Date: 11 Apr 1996 05:26:31 GMT Organization: InfiNet Lines: 212 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <4ki567$r3s@nw002.infi.net> References: <Cyclone-0504961737500001@dial24.trip.net> <31664662.1081143@153.2.170.10> <dke-0604960729360001@adnline68.adnc.com> <31678d59.1170056@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <31685e02.5498255@news.earthlink.net> <4kabef$lfg@acmez.gatech.edu> <3169647e.2324874@news.earthlink.net> <4kc7m3$b7o@acmez.gatech.edu> <4kcmkl$i7q@nw002.infi.net> <dke-0904961801340001@adnline329.adnc.com> Reply-To: brennanw@richmond.infi.net NNTP-Posting-Host: h-aachen.dc.infi.net X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.2.5 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:20927 comp.os.msdos.misc:52956 comp.os.os2.advocacy:191306 comp.sys.acorn.advocacy:7738 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:98153 comp.sys.next.advocacy:34585 comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy:2321 comp.unix.advocacy:18627 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:16952 comp.unix.bsd.misc:672 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2851 comp.unix.machten:2149 comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit:617 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:9155 comp.unix.shell:31406 comp.unix.solaris:65411 comp.unix.user-friendly:3553 In <dke-0904961801340001@adnline329.adnc.com>, dke@adnc.com (David K. Every) writes: >In article <4kcmkl$i7q@nw002.infi.net>, brennanw@richmond.infi.net wrote: > >> I run OS/2 on a Pentium at home. I use Mac OS (System 7.3 at the moment) >> on a PowerPC 610 at work. > >A 610 is a 68040 (actually an LC040) equivelent to a 486 sx. So you >probably misquoted the model. Yes, sorry. I meant a 6100. >> I'm not going to bother telling you the >> performance difference between the two, because it's not fair: the PPC is >> only running at 60 mHz, so the Pentium runs little and big circles around >> it all day long, RISC or not. But I am going to tell you the most >> frustrating thing about this damn computer: >> >> It keeps crashing. > >Then just like windows or any other OS - you likely have it configured >wrong (or are running crappy software). Macs are more stable than PC >running windoze (95 or 3.1) if you are seeing otherwise - then get your >system fixed. Hmmm. I was just informed by the president of my company (the Mac Guru of our department) that the problem was probably the System 7.3 patch we installed on it over the network. Apparently, every non-PCI mac in our office is having instability problems. If this is the case, I may have to rethink, reword, and perhaps even (ugh) apologize for some of my complaints. I do hate the taste of steel toe boot. >> I have to keep re-allocating memory to applications. > >Why the hell do you do that? I've had people that didn't know how (or need >to) for YEARS! I have to do it about once every 6 months. I don't know why. I don't understand how a mac works. Two days ago I was complaining to our Mac Guru that my disk seemed to be swapping fairly heavily for small, relatively simple tasks. He informed me that Macs don't have swap files, proceeded to tell me what was going on, and described what sounded like a swap file to me, but who knows... >>I can only run two at >> a time, and that's only if I keep one hidden while I use the other. Run >> FrameMaker and MS Word at the same time? HAH! > >Well there is likely your problem. MS programs. They are shit written by a >shit company. They are pigs, and you MUST keep up with the latest updates >to keep them stable. Yeah. We are in total agreement here. I keep trying to get my office to switch to wordperfect, since it seems like they took time to actually try and write a mac program. MS Word for mac is one of the slowest, lousiest word processors I've ever used. And tables can only have 32 columns! >> I admit, it's easy to >> network a mac, but this means nothing if you can't get your work done >> because the thing keeps locking up. > >Like I said - get your system set-up right and you will not have that >problem. If OS/2 was locking up on you, would you blame IBM - or try to >fix the problem?!?! This was about the point in your post that I felt the heat rising up into my face. Looking at it from that point, I guess I was overracting - basically, taking out my frustration on you Mac users. My apologies. I still have some fundamental problems with some of the choices Apple made in their GUI, though, and I'll get to those in a bit. >> I prefer OS/2. I prefer OS/2 because, although it's more difficult to >> learn, you don't have to dig as deep to configure it. > >Yep, those control panels are sure burried (under the apple menu). Whew' >those can throw you for a loop. I'm not talking about "where can you find them." I'm talking about "what can you do with them?" The problem with MacOS is that you can't do a whole lot, really. Changing the color of a frame doesn't actually change the color - it simply changes the highlights of a frame. Changing the font affects only the icon fonts - nothing else. Most of the rest of the controls are "On" and "off" settings with little gradations or "tweaking" allowed. >> I like more than one mouse button, > >$39 on a Mac if its that big a deal. I've noticed most Mac users don't care much for extra mouse buttons, but its just one of those things you get so used to that you notice its absence. >>I like the fact that I can click on a menu and see the list >> drop down WITHOUT KEEPING THE MOUSE BUTTON PRESSED IN, > >An Init if its a big deal. (Popup Folder is one). I find the two cognitive >steps slow me down over the one quick mac select-release movement... but >thats personal preference. The problem with the select-release movement is when you're trying to navigate through nested folders... if you slip up once, boom, you're back at the beginning. What is an "init"? I know, my ignorance is shining through... >> and most of all I like multitasking and crash protection. > >I've heard good things about OS/2. However Macs have both - just OS/2's is >a little more sophisticated. It is my understanding that MacOS will be cooperatively multitasking until Copeland (which I'm very curious about, BTW - looks interesting). As far as crash protection goes, I'm afraid I've seen little of it. When my machine locks up, it needs to be reset. >> I like being >> able to run windows apps in their own session to keep them from dragging >> the rest of my system down if they lock up. > >Now there's a plus. Me too... I use SoftWindoze. > >> I like getting on the internet >> using a rock solid platform with a strong TCPIP connection. > >Macs pretty good - great since OT1.1... but there are some bad Apps on the >Mac. Like internet exploder. Again, I've had a few posts saying "what do you mean, Mac internet is weak?" All I can say is our setup must be screwy, because email is spotty, web crawling is unreliable. >> And I like >> being able to leave my computer on all week without having to worry about >> the screen locking up. > >Screens don't lock up... computers do... but suffice it to say I run a >server at work that crashes about once every 3-months - with a heavy Mac >load - and I suspect that is because of a Beta of the CD-Rom caching >software I've been running. Now realistically I can bring my system down >more than that - but I'm a developer... for clients I installed Macs for >they were suprised after 2 years when the guy had his first freeze. "The >mouse is broken". So Macs can certainly be stable - more likely it has to >do with your usage/configuration/applications... and I can get any system >to be moody. Ok, screens don't lock up. You know what I mean. :-) >> Hey, my computer rarely breaks too. What a conicidence. The only time >> it's hosed is when I'm messing around with it. And as far as I'm >> concerned, that's my fault, not the computers. I like to tinker and to >> tweak: the Mac seems to say "don't touch, leave me alone, mind your own >> business, stop thinking." > >Funny... people I've talked to always say "that's easy"... especially when >they know on a PC they'd have to go into Autoexec.bat, Config.sys, >Win.ini, or RegFile to do the same thing.... but hey, to each his own. Actually, I was responding to someone who was talking about how reliable his hardware was. The only time my hardware messes up is when I do something stupid, illustrated in the following conversation: Me: (To myself). Gee. I wonder what happens if I take all of these jumpers and move them to the right... Computer: (Crash). Me: (To myself). Oh. In defense of Config.sys, it's a little thick but it puts everything at startup right there in front of you to mess around with. Get a good book on whatever OS you're using with it and you can have a lot of fun. >I do wish you would give Macs the same consideration you give your PC. >When your computer broke you blamed yourself for the config... yet you >tinker with the Apps sizes on the Mac and then blame it for crashing?!?! Again, you have a good point. Apparently I was not thinking very clearly when I posted last time. Upsetting, but there you go. I'll try to control my gut reactions in the future. :) Christopher B. Wright (brennanw@richmond.infi.net) Team OS/2 +--------------------------------------------------- +"We are all born originals - why is it so many of us die copies?" +(Edward Young) +--------------------------------------------------- +It's a shame politicians don't eat their young - if they did, the +gene pool would be a lot cleaner. +---------------------------------------------------