Subject: Re: HSM-Machining on the Internet

From: [email-masked] (Fitch R. Williams)
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 14:16:49 GMT

My impression of that article was that it was one paragraph
of substance carefully crammed into two pages of opinion.
It was dissapointing, especially since I found this great
news group only a few weeks ago.

I confess that I look forward to receiving HSM, Projects In
Metal, and Live Steam as much as I lookforward to PC
Magazine and PC Week  (lot of stuff from the latter two on
the net).  I enjoy them all.

I also have had considerable experience with computers - I
once (1989) managed the  design and installation of a
network for 1,000 users.   Since I have gone back to
electrical and systems engineering (thank goodness some one
feeds the engineers).  

When we put in that network we had a choice of using MACs or
PCs.  We could get 500 PCs on line with software for about
the price of getting 250 MACs on line with software.  It was
a clear no brainer which one to choose - any desktop
computer is better than no desk top computer!  By buying PCs
we had double the desktops wih computers.

To top it off, the PCs had more capability to run the SW we
needed and ran faster.

Apple didn't recognize the Intel machines as serious
competition for their better idea.  That is in short the
story of Apples reduction to a vestigial presence in the
desktop computer market.  I will be surprised if they stay
at all with out making such big changes you won't recognize
them as "Apple" anymore.

It is a perfect example of a company that believed they had
a better mousetrap ... so good it was immune to competition.
It wasn't.

Fitch

---

From: [email-masked] (Fitch R. Williams)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 06:20:40 GMT

[email-masked] wrote:

>In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Fitch R.
>Williams) writes:

>Keep your eye on Sun (Microstation fame) eating apples in the near future.

>Peter

Wouldn't surprise me at all.  They make some good stuff.
Although SUN has the honor of sending me the biggest box of
errata I've ever seen for a new set of manuals - it was like
two reams of paper two sided!

Talk about "work-in-progress".  But good workstations.  And
anyway, real Unix folks don't need no stinking manuals, and
type in the root while talking on the phone, etc.  I can
barely spell Unix.  (Thats uNiX Andy).

BTW There were two posts of mine that leaped out of my
computer onto the net.  This was one.  I was having some
problems a while ago, jumping back and forth between
netscape and Free Agent, and that one was left unsent in the
outbox.  I usually review and send them one at a time but
was trying to get them off before work (about 0515 AM - my
PC is still on daylight savings time) and used the group
send - so the two old ones went also.

Oh well ....

Fitch
But I stray off the path of swarf and purity ... again.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 9 Dec 1996 21:16:17 GMT

Peter

---

From: [email-masked] (Gavin Donahue)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:23:35 -0700

> barely spell Unix.  (Thats uNiX Andy).

Peter, Andy,

Did I stumble into alt.flame.os.war? Well since You started it...
I speak from experience on all three platforms. I currently own a Sun
Sparc, a pentium75 and Power Macintosh. The Sun is WAY too expensive to
upgrade and with all the system overhead is not all that fast and has an
incredibly steep learning curve with stacks of manuals that ultimately
tell you to "consult your system administrator². Gee that's me. Anybody
want to buy it real cheap! The pentium (and all wintel stuff) requires you
to learn a lot about the geekdom of dos and interrupts and
incompatibilities ad-nauseum. Another steep learning curve just to become
functional and the true cost of configuring it to be a full featured
machine are much higher than the out of the box cost of a Mac. But the
real cost is reduced productivity. Much like buying a cheap machine tool,
it's the cost of tooling and lost productivity, that's really significant.
My powermac is joy to use with software and hardware that lets you get
work done without the bull. Your assessment of the state of the platform
is based on cursory information and not accurate or up to date.
BTW it's Sun Microsystems, Microstation is from Bentley and it runs great
on my Mac.

>the price of getting 250 MACs on line with software.
>
Yeah, if all your doing is text editing and bookkeeping. If memory serves,
Macs from that era had (still do) built-in: Ethernet, full color support
with on the fly resolution and bit-depth switching, 16 bit audio, WYSIWYG
font and formatting,
Postscript (my service bureau still hates the PC crowd who come in with
their Word Docs and wonder why an image-setter won't handle them properly)
support, SCCI, multiple monitor support, "plug and play" everything, a
better interface than Sun's OpenLook (wintel stuff from that era was a
command line) . I could run-on more than that sentence but you get the
idea.

With PC's there is the administration and training and needless complexity
when performing simple tasks. Can you say drag and drop. 

I currently have: 2 monitors, 2 internal HD's, 2 external removable HDs,
CD-rom, postscript laser, ink jet, pen plotter, scanner with OCR that
works, digital camera, graphics tablet, cad tablet, fax/modem, and
hundreds of applications installed (several running in the background as I
type this) and I installed all of it without any help from tech-support
and only need the manuals for the more esoteric aspects of actually USING
the applications.

Apple may have it's faults and problems, but they are making important
progress that people on the outside aren't aware of and aren't likely to
uncover in PC-Week. I get stuff done on my Mac under deadline pressure,
and I haven't got time for tech-support. Merely copying the look of
Mercedes does not make a Granada perform like one. I'm so glad I bought
the Southbend instead of the "fill in your idea of a cheap imitation"!

FYI my background is in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science but
now I'm an Industrial Designer and specialize in human interface design.

My apologies for the rant but misconceptions are rampant and every now and
then I need to vent. I don't mean to discount the capabilities of PC's as
they are great machines for many things but don't assume market share and
herd instinct to be the only measure of success; particularly when
powerful unseen forces are presenting statistics designed to manipulate
rather than inform. The common perception is rarely accurate nor is the
lowest common denominator the best solution for an individual need. 

BTW the next time one of those nasty virii infects your PC seek out a Mac
to format clean floppies. I have a friend who admins a large PC network
and told me that he keeps an old Mac around just for the purpose.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jens)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:01:17 -0800

[email-masked] (Gavin Donahue) wrote:

>uncover in PC-Week.

And since people don't find out, Apple will go the same way that BETA
VCR's went  (Beta was technologically better than VHS))

>lowest common denominator the best solution for an individual need. 

True, but sometimes you got to go with the flow or you'll be extinct
by the time you get where you want to be.

>and told me that he keeps an old Mac around just for the purpose.

Contrary to popular opinion, Macs can be attacked by virii as well.
The one saving grace for Mac and virii is that since the Mac is too
expensive and the hackers that write virii are smart, they don't tend
to buy Macs ...
(and if you didn't like that cheap shot, you could also take it as
saying that since the VAST majority of PC's out there are IBM based,
that's where the VAST majority of virii will be .... )

Oh, btw, if you have a virus on a PC floppy, ANY other system will do
for formatting as long as that system supports PC formatting ... the
virus will be based on the IBM system and won't (generally) be able to
attack the alternate system.

And BTW, since I am ranting, it is generally held by Mac zealots that
IBM's crash and Mac's run solid ... let me assure you that Mac's crash
too !!!

I happen to like IBM but it all depends on what software one wants to
run. A computer is a door stop without software and if a killer app
comes along that is only available on Mac's and it is something I
needed, I wouldn't hesitate to switch (or more likely add) boxes ....
the box makes really no difference in the overall picture.

Regards

Jens

---

From: [email-masked] (Fitch R. Williams)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 02:30:27 GMT

[email-masked] (Gavin Donahue) wrote:

<snip>

>Did I stumble into alt.flame.os.war? 

No.

Fitch

---

From: [email-masked] (Gavin Donahue)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 14:34:04 -0700

> VCR's went  (Beta was technologically better than VHS))
That wouldn't have happened if:
1) BETA machines could play VHS tapes (Macs are very cross platform
enabled and the influence of the internet will drive a move toward open
standards)
2) Sony had licensed BETA to third parties (Several Mac clones are
available and more are on the way)
3) There were compelling niche markets (Macs excel in several key areas:
DTP, Multimedia, 3D etc.) 
4) BETA had a large installed base of loyal users.

> by the time you get where you want to be.
Are we mice(or lemmings--I couldn't resist :) or men? If and when a
superior solution, for me, comes along I'll gladly adopt it. Meanwhile,
Macs and PC's
both benefit from the competition. Apple is a driving force for open
standards and cross-platform computing, unlike the wintel crowd who are
intent on owning the technology that will give them a monopoly. Do you
think that you would be using as good a machine as you do if not for apple
pushing the envelope? 
> expensive
Not anymore! You haven't been listening

> and the hackers that write virii are smart, they don't tend
> to buy Macs ...
>
Ahh, the criminal mind. I thought they wrote them because their platform
was so boring they had nothing better to do.

> that's where the VAST majority of virii will be .... )
It has much more to do with the disk/file, I/O, and API differences. Macs
can be attacked but the consequences aren't as severe (no data loss) so It
isn't as much fun for the would-be sabatour
> IBM's crash and Mac's run solid ... let me assure you that Mac's crash
Oh Yeah!  :(
> the box makes really no difference in the overall picture.
I couldn't agree more, I have a PC and a Sun but I use the Mac for almost
everything because I like better.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 13 Dec 1996 16:39:54 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked] (Gavin Donahue) writes:

I promised myself I would never get into another Mac/PC war but I cannot
let these slide by.

>enabled and the influence of the internet will drive a move toward open

Why would you want to increasae complexity to display an inferior
format???

>available and more are on the way)

Too little too late. Apple have only *just* realized the sense of this.
They bagan about 3-4 years back with very strict controls over structure
and pricing. That is why the first non-apple clones was almost more
expensive thanthe real things. Don't waste my time with that red herring!.

>DTP, Multimedia, 3D etc.) 

So do PCs. Check out Ziff Davis publishing and ask what they produce over
90% of their publications on. Aint Macs. But then what would ZD know
anyway? While you are at it, ask IDG, the largest publisher of computer
mags in the world, same answer. Ask people who *know* and they opt forthe
best bang for the buck. Ask the arty esoterica and they will opt for the
highest price believing it is better. Duh!

>4) BETA had a large installed base of loyal users.

Now for the ducks in the barrel. Let me get this right. You are saying
that Macs would have been more successful if more people paid more money
just so Apple could stay in business. Get real sonny!

Peter
10-4, over and out!

---

From: [email-masked] (Gavin Donahue)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 14:19:09 -0700

Oh Yeah!  :(

---

From: [email-masked] (Gavin Donahue)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 01:23:46 -0700

> >Did I stumble into alt.flame.os.war? 

Sorry, I'll be good ;)

---

From: Suzette Perry <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 01:58:44 -0500

[email-masked] wrote:
 Macs would have been more successful if more people paid more money
> just so Apple could stay in business.

Peter,

I think, just maybe, if you look, real hard, you'll find that Apple was
successful enough and made lots of money. Apple had the elite machine
for many years, they lead the way in personal computers and now the lack
of a patent is finally paying off in the long run for IBM and clones.
This is economics and each company will play it's role which just leaves
us with the aftermath. But I think we can all appreciate the fact that
we are online with many different computers and learning much.

Brian Perry

owner of two Mac's

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Kantarjiev)
Date: 14 Dec 1996 01:13:17 GMT

> 4) BETA had a large installed base of loyal users.

5) Sony hadn't refused to license the BETA format to producers of porn
and soft-porn videos. The VHS folks did, and *that* is the reason that
VHS machines dominated the market.

---

From: [email-masked] (Fitch R. Williams)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 01:00:53 GMT

>Sorry, I'll be good ;)

Me too. :-)

Fitch

---

From: [email-masked] (Fitch R. Williams)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 01:22:06 GMT

Suzette Perry <[email-masked]> wrote:

<snip>

>But I think we can all appreciate the fact that

Roger that.

Fitch