Wirt writes:

> A great many of the most devout fans of the Macintosh on this list (and
> almost all of them are very good friends) see the Macintosh's survival
> as a paradigm (using the word correctly to mean "model") for the continued
> survival and prosperity of the HP3000.

While I believe there are many parallels between the Mac and the e3000,
I won't make any such correlation regarding "survival," other than noting
the Mac (and Apple) nearly died, and HP seemingly tried to kill off the
(non-e)3000 before its resurgence.


> There's some obvious validity to that view, but it's one that I've never
> strongly subscribed to. In all of the ways that matter, Bill Gates' PC
> is more like the HP3000 in its near-absolute committment to forward
> compatibility.

I sure hope the parallels between Bill Gates' PC and the e3000 are minimal.
Things like rewriting the macro facility in Excel (twice!) are not at all
appreciated.  I have neither the time nor the energy to waste learning
something, only to heave it all out the window for the next release.

In fact, I see more parallels between Bill Gates' PC and IBM mainframes.
The machines require more people, with more in-depth knowledge of the OS,
to support than does the competition.

Even using the things is too darned picky.  For example, IBMs required
specifying not just which disks to use and how much space, but some other
config that I've long ago forgotten.  Similarly, the text-to-speech
facility on Windows 95 allowed changing several behind-the-scenes
settings, including the pronunciation guide for a given word.

Config settings end up being like moving parts:  the more there are,
the greater the opportunity for something to break.


Then, regarding the forthcoming Mac OS X, we see
> October 16, 2000
>
> New Economy: Apple Dances With Nemesis Microsoft
> By JOHN MARKOFF
...
> It is almost as if you can hear Lex, the young hacker in the movie
> "Jurassic Park," delightedly exclaim: "This is Unix. I know this stuff!"
>
> And that should be cause for concern.

Hogwash.

Mac OS X ("ten") is built on the Mach kernel and BSD UNIX, but the
user need never see a shell prompt.  This foundation provides for
many of the modern OS underpinnings that have caused the Mac to fall
behind in this area.

The difficulty will be in refining the user interface.  The "classic"
Mac OS has had well over a decade of refinement, so that long-time users
can work quickly with ease, while new users can learn at their own pace.

Mac OS X, while based on NeXTStep, has some user interface quirks that
are to be expected when trying to blend two separate (if similar) ideas.
These will take time to iron out.  Early adopters will feel the wounds.

> The fact that Mac users will be asked to move into the future by stepping
> into the past underscores the largest difficulty for Mr. Jobs, since he
> returned to run Apple Computer in 1997.

Stepping into the past my bottom.

It's UNIX (though with a twist, of course).  With all the hype surrounding
Linux, how much has been accompanied by, "I dunno; they're stepping into
the past."


On the topic of computers (Apple or otherwise) in education, though,
there was a fascinating interview with Steve Jobs back in 1996.  The
comments he made then, for those who have not seen them, are revealing.

To the question of

   Could technology help by improving education?

Mr. Jobs responded:

   I used to think that technology could help education. I've
   probably spearheaded giving away more computer equipment to
   schools than anybody else on the planet. But I've had to come
   to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that
   technology can hope to solve. What's wrong with education
   cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will
   make a dent.
   ...
   You're not going to solve the [education]
   problems by putting all knowledge onto CD-ROMs. We can put a
   Web site in every school - none of this is bad. It's bad only if it
   lulls us into thinking we're doing something to solve the problem
   with education.

   Lincoln did not have a Web site at the log cabin where his
   parents home-schooled him, and he turned out pretty
   interesting. Historical precedent shows that we can turn out
   amazing human beings without technology. Precedent also
   shows that we can turn out very uninteresting human beings
   with technology.

   It's not as simple as you think when you're in your 20s - that
   technology's going to change the world. In some ways it will, in
   some ways it won't.

The full interview is at:

   http://www.wired.com/wired/archive//4.02/jobs.html

--Glenn, who really isn't looking for a war