[Sca-cooks] OT OT OT Apple Computers, was: [SCA-Cooks} recognition

[Sue Clemenger]

Uhm, well, my first experience with them was oooh, maybe 15 years ago,
when I was forced to take an "Intro to Computers" class as part of my
teacher training.  Since most of the school districts at the time were
using Apples, that's what we had to learn.  Ugh.  I found them so overly
user-friendly as to be _stupid_.
My work with computers has pretty much been with non-Apple computers,
especially in my current job, where I use WindowsNT, and all sorts of
windows-related programs.  So I'm sure a lot of my comfort level with
Windows applications is because I'm familiar with them.  Also, while I
understand that Apple computers are great for different kinds of
graphics things, those aren't things I need to deal with at work. I'm
primarily involved [at the moment] with converting clients' data sets
from numerous old systems such as VAX, AIX, SCO-UNIX, HP-UNIX, and DOS
to our current release.  To say I loathe having to work with vi editing
is an understatement......
Different people have different uses for computers, Master A.  I, for
one, have absolutely no use for some nasty-colored one-piece jobbie that
doesn't even have a disk drive for me to copy data onto, either at home
or at work.... I've got some very specific skills with our company's
software, and have never had the time or interest to become some sort of
hardware or programming fanatic (although I'm working on learning some
basic programming stuff, just for the mental heck of it).  A computer
snob I am not--I use what works for me.  I'm sure that's true of a lot
of us, whether or not we understand that "GUI" means "graphic-user
interface" or not.
--Maire

Philip & Susan Troy wrote:
> <much snippage>
> Sue Clemenger wrote:
>
> > Oh, lord no...apple computers...blech, ptui.....
>
> So what exactly is the problem with Apple computers? Discounting non-Mac
> prototypes such as the Apple II and the Lisa, could it be their
> consistent habit (for going on seventeen years) of releasing OS's
> critically adjudged superior to their major competition, generally a
> year or so before said competition comes out with an inferior version
> [critically adjudged] of that same OS? Could it be that it has taken
> Apple sixteen of those seventeen years to finally come up with an OS
> that is simply a GUI sitting on top of a command-line-based OS, instead
> of a stand-alone OS, only to have their major competition come out with
> a critically adjudged inferior version of even that, and a year later,
> as well? And this after just recently finally breaking free of their old
> GUI-on-top-of-command-line format?