["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2005-11-01, Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes:

Never could have happened. Apple is too obsessed with everything being
'their way' to live with someone else's perceived design flaws.

That is my impression, also. Worse yet, the "Apple way" isn't
necessarily the best way from a technical standpoint--it's just
Apple's way. If everything they did was unquestionably superior to
everyone else's way of doing things, they might have something, but
that's not the case. And even if it were, most people don't care much
about computers, and given a choice between a $500 machine that gets
the job done and a $1500 machine that is "technically superior,"
they'll buy the $500 machine.

Or they'll buy a $1500 "PC" that's probably technically superior to the apple.

Apple do use quality parts in their machines, but quality PC parts, and
complete systems, are available too.

What I find fascinating is the espoused notion that Microsoft, a handful of
boys with absolutely nothing, no 'business reputation', no history of
development, no demonstrated DOS, and nothing else in the field, somehow
'took advantage' of and 'screwed' poor old IBM.

Most of the peole saying this can't remember anything earlier than
about 1992 or so. At the time that Microsoft was dealing with IBM, of
course, _Microsoft_ was the underdog, and IBM was the Great Satan. In
those days, it was fashionable for angry young men to hate IBM and
root for Microsoft.

??? back in 92 I was dissapointed by the lack of quality in microsoft
products proactically everything they did seemed incomplete.

In 93 when the first "distribution" of linux came out I scored a copy of a
friend ("Soft Landing System" - 20 5.25" floppies) and installed it on my
4 meg 25Mhz 386DX

I could compile the kernel, format a floppy, play tetris for terminals,
and download stuff using kermit (or a modified version of DSZRZ) all at
once.


Bye.
Jasen