Denys <[log in to unmask]> wrote on Saturday:
 
> Every time I speak with,  hear from or read anything from an Apple
> supporter, I am always struck by the violence of their beliefs.
 
The word is "passion," not "violence." Being that you have a long
association with the HP3000, I would have expected you to recognize that.
I fear that the bulk of your time of late has been spent with the PC.
(When was the last time you heard someone -- preferably someone NOT in
the computer business -- speak with passion about their PC?)
 
> They always say some of the following phrases, almost like a mantra:
>
> 1-  Apple invented everything.
Certainly not. But I submit that they were the first to market with many
things, some of which are still not available elsewhere. (One of these is
WorldScript, which enables a single page of a document to contain
multiple languages that are written natively in different directions,
e.g., English and Chinese.)
 
> 2-  Microsoft copied everything from Apple.
Certainly not. (The Mac has no C: drive.)
 
As a small aside, I can remember when I really *enjoyed* using Microsoft
products for the Mac! If you think Apple has an attitude, consider
Microsoft's response to the myriad of complaints they received about MS
Office 4.2 (in which they released Word 6).
 
] (a table shows that a typical hard drive on a 1992 Mac IIci was 80 MB,
]  and 170 MB on a 1994 PowerMac 6100. A "typical" installation of Office 3.0
]  took 28 MB on the IIci and 37 MB on the 6100. As a percentage, this works
]  out to 35% on the IIci and 21.8% on the 6100.)
]
] On a typical install, Office 4.2 actually takes up less space
] (as a % of hard drive) than Office 3.0.
 
Talk about gall! Since when did I give Microsoft a PERCENTAGE of my hard
drive?! Never mind that their "typical" installation of Office 4.2 did NOT
include the same "Save As" filters as did 3.0; you had to install them
explicitly if you wanted to save a document in the old format (in case,
say, you wanted to send it to someone who had not yet "upgraded" to the
new version of Office).
 
> 3-  Apple could have taken over the world, but they just did not
> license the rights.
No (but some good marketing and forecasting sure would help).
 
> 4-  Macs could do everything that Windoze 95 now can, and this in 1984.
I think it's closer to 1987 ;) though aliases (similar to W95
"shortcuts") didn't come along until System 7. (With regret, I do not
know when that was released, but I suspect it was around 1990.)
 
The above is true only of the user interface and of "plug and play."
Saying that Macs can do "everything" that W95 can begs the definition of
"everything."
 
> 5-  Macs are so superior to PCs that anyone looking at a PC is either too
> stupid too live or can t tell a good thing from junk.
Certainly not. I submit, though, that the average consumer has been
deceived regarding a PC's relative "ease of use" and, just as important,
"ease of troubleshooting." The latter is particularly important when
there is no (or little) available support.
 
> 6-  Apple has nothing to learn from Microsoft or anyone else for
> that matter.
Apple has come a long way, but still has much to learn. I truly believe
they are in good hands with Dr. Amelio at the helm.
 
> 7-  Why does a PC mouse have more than one button, ugh!
Surely, before W95, you must have wondered the same thing! Truthfully,
over the last 10 years (not counting W95), how often have you used more
than a single button?
 
[snip]
> I think Apple plainly indicated they were arrogant beyond belief when
> they sued HP and Microsoft over the look and feel of the GUI, and this
> after they had taken it from XEROX. They lost and they were pissed!
> They still are.
 
I wish they had not brought that suit, using the money instead for R&D or
other, more worthwhile pursuits. Certainly, they had more grounds than
did Lotus against Borland. As for taking the look and feel from Xerox,
information from two of the original Macintosh architects clearly refute
this. If it matters to you, try
 
<http://wais.sensei.com.au/archives/macarc/macway/9604/0056.html>
 
> If Macs are so superior to PCs, Apple should find another way of
> getting the point across instead of stridently insulting 94%+ of the
> population. Every time a Mac user makes a derogatory comment about PCs
> or PC users, it just underlines the VIA running rampant in the Mac world
> and it turns more and more people off.
 
While bad certainly does not justify bad, I submit that there are PC
users who make similar derogatory remarks about Macs (e.g., "MacInToys")
and Mac users. As for Apple's marketing, well, I think they could use as
much help as HP.
 
> Blaming customers for wanting a different model of Macs than what Apple
> thought should sell, is bad craziness and an insult to the customers. Yet
> that is what Apple contends, along with many of its supporters.
 
Perhaps this is why Power Computing, the first licensed Mac clone vendor,
is doing so well. They are more than happy to configure a machine the way
a customer desires. Apple has some great machines, but there are some
turkeys in there also.
 
[snip]
> I read what the new CEO, Dr. Amelio has to say, and it is still arrogant.
 
I have no idea what you read, but certainly I would be interested in
seeing this. (If you're referring to the MagLite analogy, you may have
read the poor spin that some publications put on some comments that were
taken out of context. For the original article that mentioned the MagLite
(which still does not *quote* Dr. Amelio), check
 
<http://wais.sensei.com.au/archives/macway/9603-4/0296.html> .)
 
[snip]
> I have received some hate mail from other vociferous Apple users,
> and they say nastier things.
 
I am sorry that you receive personal insults from the Mac faithful. It
could be (and I'm just guessing here) that just as you felt PC users feel
personally maligned where their platform is maligned (see your #5,
above), there are some Mac users who also take it personally when their
beloved Mac is maligned. Again, I am sorry that you receive hate mail
because of this.
 
[snip]
> If the Mac can
> connect to IMAGE/SQL through ODBC, then please answer the questions, post
> some information about it, mention a web site with the information, do the
> tests, share the results, tell us!  If the Mac cannot connect to IMAGE/SQL
> for client server applications, then just say so, and don t bring the Mac
> subject back up until it does.
 
I have searched high and low, and found web pages that seemed to indicate
ODBC support from the Mac to Image/SQL, but I have found no definite
solution. There are multiple solutions when connecting the Mac to Oracle,
Informix, or Sybase, but nothing from the Mac to Image/SQL.
 
I have the ODBC for Macintosh SDK (developed by Visigenic Software, Inc.,
415-286-1900), and would love to provide a free solution for the Mac/HP
community, but fear development of such is currently far beyond my know-how.
 
Is it true that most users connecting to Image/SQL through ODBC do so
with an HP driver? While I recognize that other companies provide ODBC
connectivity to Image/SQL (for a price), it is certainly more difficult
when one does not have support.
 
> Wirt s posting about how an Apple plotter works well on an Apple computer
> versus how difficult it was for a user to connect an IR device to a PC, was
> just plain misguided.  From his note, one gets the feeling that since Macs
> cannot connect to IMAGE/SQL then client server is misguided and doomed to
> failure.  Maybe so, but it really sounds like sour grapes to me: "Macs
> can t do it, but it doesn t matter, it s a stupid idea anyway."
 
I don't know how you came to this conclusion from Wirt's post. (Of
course, he could have compared IR installation to IR installation; it
just happened that the article he found talked about a scanner.) I'll not
belabour the point of the articles.
 
[snip]
> If the Mac clique has a problem with this, then it s too damn
> bad. It is not my fault Macs are not useful with HP 3000s. If this
> statement is wrong, then show me and others how you can connect to
> IMAGE/SQL or ALLBASE/SQL.
 
I see. Thus, before ODBC, *no* machines were useful with HP3000s.
 
[snip]
> As HP 3000 users and proponents we must guard ourselves from the Apple
> Syndrome.  When we compare the HP 3000 to UNIX, we have a tendency to get
> downright nasty and Appleish.  It happens to me as well.
 
It happens to you?? Then perhaps I can be forgiven if I was able to hold
these feelings at bay for 12 years while I was told by PC users (who had
never used a Mac) that DOS, then Windows 2.x, then Windows 3.x, then
Windows 95, was so superior.
 
> I do what I can within my modest means by promoting IMAGE/SQL at various
> users groups, answering what questions I can on this list and supporting a
> web site with HP 3000 information with more to come.  There are others web
> sites replete with HP 3000 information such as  Robelle, Adager, Allegro and
> 3K Associates, to name a few.  This is how it should be done.  Spread
> positive information and share it with everyone, and be of good cheer..
 
And for this, we applaud all of you. We know it takes much time and
energy to give of yourselves so freely.
 
[snip]
> The rep said, hey, SCSI is SCSI, it makes no difference. I replied,
> "Are you calling my dear friends Wirt and Bruce, liars? They tell me
> and the world, Apple works superbly because it is NOT an open system.
> Apple sets its own standards and they are fully integrated. This disc
> drive cannot possibly work on an antiquated Wintel machine, take it away,
> you pompous twit!" So I mail-ordered an antiquated, Wintel-compatible
> HP3725S 2.14gb SCSI disc drive.
 
This is interesting on a number of counts.
 
The most interesting part (to me) is that you ended up with an HP SCSI
drive. I believe it was in this very forum that I read where HP's SCSI is
just a bit different, given the problems many have had using non-HP SCSI
drives with their 3000s.
 
Other than that, why wouldn't SCSI be SCSI? And what in the world says
that not opening your machine to the world means you can't also use
standard components? Never mind that Macs have been using SCSI for years
while PC's used MFM and IDE. Surely you know that current PowerMacs use
Intel's PCI bus. With regret, there are also some Macs that now use IDE
drives (a mistake, IMHO).
 
 
With regard to Apple's current leadership, may I humbly suggest reading
Dr. Amelio's book "Profit From Experience," co-authored with William
Simon. It describes in detail how Dr. Amelio -- a Ph.D. Physicist by
degree, and an alumnus of Bell Labs -- was able to transform both
Fairchild Instruments and National Semiconductor from failing companies
to well-regarded, profitable leaders.
 
It should be very interesting next Monday, when Dr. Amelio addresses
Apple's WorldWide Developers Conference and details his plans for Apple.
For information on the conference as it happens -- as well as events
leading up to it -- check <http://wwdc.apple.com/webcast/>.
 
--Glenn Cole
  Software al dente, Inc.
  [log in to unmask]
 
 
P.S. From a link on the Webcast page:
 
   "I wish I were still a developer," says Steve Wozniak, co-founder of
   Apple Computer, "but I'm a teacher these days. I think writing
   computer software is one of the hardest things in the world and you
   can only do it so long in life."
 
And they say football players have it tough! ;)