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!hobyah.cc.uq.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!stjohn19.stjohn.uq.edu.au!user From: s341797@student.uq.edu.au (Andrew Wright) Newsgroups: alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc,alt.binaries.warez.mac,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,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 (only five?) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 22:41:46 +1000 Organization: University of Queensland Lines: 182 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <s341797-2104962241460001@stjohn19.stjohn.uq.edu.au> References: <Cyclone-0504961737500001@dial24.trip.net> <31678d59.1170056@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <4k8hkj$o0u@cloner3.netcom.com> <sonikd-0804960027040001@cmh-p062.infinet.com> <avi-0904962303220001@cyber128.cyberspc.mb.ca> <316c1d48.41833268@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <John_Warwick-1004962314430001@news.mindlink.net> <4kq463$7a4@informer1.cis.mcmaster.ca> <Pine.A32.3.91.960417014401.76675F-100000@green.weeg.uiowa.edu> <chrisc-1904961301260001@ppp-69.cet.com> <4lccdm$8pf@janis.virago.org.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: stjohn19.stjohn.uq.edu.au Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc:35074 alt.binaries.warez.mac:3380 comp.os.linux.advocacy:46646 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:124744 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:22724 comp.os.msdos.misc:53816 comp.os.os2.advocacy:195570 comp.sys.acorn.advocacy:8638 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:101169 comp.sys.next.advocacy:34961 comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy:3009 comp.unix.advocacy:19855 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17868 comp.unix.bsd.misc:800 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3252 comp.unix.machten:2304 comp.unix.pc-clo ne.16bit:707 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:9265 comp.unix.shell:31888 comp.unix.solaris:66665 comp.unix.user-friendly:3638 In article <4lccdm$8pf@janis.virago.org.au>, r.polanskis@nepean.uws.edu.au,grove@zeta.org.au wrote: > Hello, > I don't normally participate in advocacy wars, but: funny, nor do I, but i just _couldn't_ let this one go! well, there's a first time for everythingŠ > 1: I support an office split with 50/50 PCs and Macs. > It would appear that both PCs and Macs have their place, but, > when it comes to support, the Mac is a NIGHTMARE. about, what is the actual figure - about 1/5 or so of the times the PCs need supportŠ > Reason: It is a BLACK BOX. You cannot reconfigure a driver to get around > a defective piece of hardware, nor can you enter the system in > the same way as you can a PC if the software configuration is > wrong or broken. If you want to make a system disk on a PC, > to bypass the C: drive the function is supported no matter what > PC you use. On a Mac you must have the OS available (not always > possible) and then if you do have a boot disk, there is no > guarantee it will work anyway because it may not be the same > architecture as the Mac you are trying to rescue. > You might need to have Norton handy, which costs - and even then > it is not always handy either... for heaven's sake. just create a boot disk with the latest system (7.5.3). It will boot everything from a Plus to a 9500 > If you have a hardware failure on a Mac, it's off to the repair > shop, with all your work, and your files and maybe it just > happens to be your office too. Macs are expensive to repair > because the parts have to come from a PROPRIETRY SOURCE, and parts > are not always available. Through this time, you are without a > machine, maybe for WEEKS. my advice: find a better repair shop. (of course, the hardware failures you mention occur about 1/10th as often as PCs) > A PC however can have the offending component removed and > replaced in a few hours and you are back on line. Discounting head > crashes of course which can affect any machine. > > Hardware wise the Macintrash is a real bother - especially when > it is a mission critical situation. Oh please. Mission Critical apps are what the Mac thrives on. Why do something like 25% of Web servers run on Mac? Simplicity, Security, Ease of Use, and Stability (not to mention blazing Speed) > 2: Mac Users are the first to put their hands up for help when > problems strike. > > Reason: > Macs do not teach people about computers. Macs do not teach people > good computing practices as a side effect. > > People on a PC learn Disk Management and the importance of > correct file naming techniques and formats, as it is important to > the architecture of the MSDOS O/S. > > Consequently, it is far easier to demonstrate the benefits and > theory of MIME file naming conventions to a PC user as they already > are familiar with file extension, for example. > Macs do not teach Disk Management as the user is free to stuff > files and "folders" where they like, without regard for any kind > of hierarchical structure. The Finder does it all for them, and > many Mac users don't even know how to use that... > > Macs do not teach good file management standards - You may make a > file any arbitrary length (up to 32 chars) and it may include > spaces or other non standard character types. > This wreaks havoc with UNIX and MSDOS O/S as they cannot support > this witchery without great pain. While Mac users pat themselves > on the back for the "friendly" file conventions - any kind of > interoperability with other systems is precluded. Examples include > PC/Unix users having to deal with Binhex, or truncated file names > with missing extensions (or too many extensions) which spoils > registration/association info databases - such as found in MSWindows. Oh, God! Even Windoze has finally realised that 8.3 filenames are basically useless! (Of course, it has gone to the other ridiculous extreme - 256 characters, and in typical Microsloth fashion filenames can't contain many non-alphabetic characters, and the OS grinds to a halt if you try to use them. Unlike, may I say, the Mac, where the only illegal character is a colon (:) and if you type one in a filename ANYWHERE it is automatically replaced with a dash (-). Those 3 char extensions are a NIGHTMARE! What if an unsuspecting user renames a file (of course, is very difficult under Windoze - not like Mac - just click on name and type new one!) and forgets to put the extension on? BANG! suddenly nothing can recognise it! (even the app that created the doc!) um...so spaces in filenames are witchery? hmmm...sounds like a throwback to Apple II days (when did they come out - around 1977?) perhaps the rest of the computing world should get itself into the '90s... > The result is that PC users struggle to load files received in > email attachments that have no standard extension that either > they or their system can identify meaning that the use of helper > programs to do autoloading of files is prevented. > > The other spinoff to this is that the mac users themselves are > oblivious to the fact they are causing problems - and too > shortsighted to anticipate the existence of other Systems. > Mac Users do not know how to spell PORTABILITY or INTEROPERABILITY. > The training of Mac Users in these and the above concepts is > thwarted because of the laxness the Mac O/S allows in file/disk > management strategies. no, Macintosh is more compatible. It is the only machine which can read PC, Mac and Unix files, disks etc. Just because the Mac is light-years ahead of the other systems doesn't mean you can blame it when the brain-dead OS's are left behind. Mac users are not dumb or lazy - they just function more naturally. (ie, when you want two words in a filename, you type a space - is that difficult?) > Macs are *not* contrary to popular belief more sophisticated for > this reason. The structures used are PROPRIETRY and therefore not > allowed to be released to other O/Ss. > > Apart from file and Disk management issues - which seem to be > very common calls for help I receive when a Mac user misplaces a > file, or a PC user receives a Mac attachment with a mangled > filename, the very abstraction of the Mac O/S itself often hinders > both the user and the sysop who looks after the machine. oh, please. When i want to find a file on the Mac i type Command-F and it finds anything, anywhere. I can't even _find_ a find file under Windoze! (and yes, despite what you say, when you have more than a couple of networked drives a Find Finle doohickey is _very_ necessary) > This is true because the GUI of the Mac is *not* intuitive as we > are lead to believe - and the single button mouse and combination of > accelerator keys is not very clear to the average user. > Many of the combinations are non standard even across Windows and > Mac software of the same type (eg. Word processors) let me get this straight - you can't work out how to click ONE button? how do you survive with 2 or 3? accelerator keys? I am a very experienced Mac user and have never come across those. If you mean Command keys, well, have you ever actually _use_ a Mac? There is not one application i have come across (and believe me, i have seen a lot) that doesn't use O for Open, N for New, P for Print, X, C and V for Cut, Copy and Paste, A for All (most word processors, anyway), Z for Undo, and Q for Quit!!! That is non-standard?? Please note that in older MS apps the cut, copy and paste keys are some ridiculous combination of alt or cntl and the delete and copy keys on extended keyboards, but in more recent varieties they use cntl X, C and V!!!! HAH! talk about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery! > This abstraction is also apparent if trying to diagnose a Mac error: > Where is the mac equivalent of "Doctor Watson" or Truss? > > I could go on - but i won't. I think I have made my point, but the Mac is > *not* suited to the Mission Critical or heavy usage office environment. > (Neither is the PC, but it *is* a little better). > > > > While I support macs and Pc's and consider myself proficient in > both (Windows has it's problems too - *I KNOW*) - at both the > Hardware and software levels, My preferred Operating Systems at > home? : > > SPARC Solaris and Linux. > My home is Apple free and Microsoft free. > > Rachel > (who uses a UNIX system to relax at home after fixing all those > "friendly" GUI systems) oh, please. > Never Trust a Computer that Smiles at You. Or a Unix head who makes posts like these. Regards, Andrew Wright. e-mail: s341797@student.uq.edu.au