Autor: Przemysław Pawełczyk (warpman_at_friko5.onet.pl)
Data: Thu 03 Dec 1998 - 12:05:29 MET
Hi,
Po przeczytaniu tego tekstu poniżej, scyzoryki same będą się Wam
otwierały w szufladach, już na myśl. że ktoś chciałby Wam zaproponować
Maca.
Wiedziałem, że śmierdzi z tamtej strony ostatnio, po tym jak p. Jobs
wziął szmal z łapki p.Gatesa, by ratować skórę Apple, która na własne
życzenie chyliła się ku upadkowi (i tak padnie), ale nie do końca, nie
śledząc dokładnie wszystkich ciekawostek ze świata Makówek. Ale to co
przeczytałem w tym tekście, przerosło moje najczarniejsze myśli i
poczucie dobrego smaku.
To, że Apple sprzedał się (bo musiał?), było oczywiste.
To, że Apple w chamski sposób udupił firmy, które klonowały Maki i ich
system operacyjny, było oczywiste.
To, że Apple kłamał chwaląc się szybkością procesora PowerPC w swoich
reklamach było oczywiste (za długo żyję w świecie PC).
To, że wyrosła kasta ponadprzeciętniaków, wierząca święcie w swoje
"pochodzenie", też było do przewidzenia.
Ale to, że Apple będzie działał aż tak złośliwie w stosunku do swoich
poprzednich sprzymierzeńców ("kloniarzy", bo Oni byli sprzymierzeńcami,
tylko p. Jobs jest ślepy), nie przyszłoby mi do głowy NIGDY.
Cóż, niedaleko pada Jabłko od jabłoni (Microsoft). Albo więcej, uczeń
prześcignął Mistrza, gdyż nawet Microsoft utrudniając życie IBMowi i
jego Win-OS (zmieniając co chwilę biblioteki), nie posunął się do
takiego działania jak Apple.
Ta firma dla mnie już nie istnieje.
Tekst pochodzi z TechWeb News z 2 grudnia b.r.
pOS/2drawiam,
Warpman
=== The Scoop ===============================
Correcting MacMisinformation
By Fred Langa
Due to a huge number of incendiary posts, many clarifying notes about
last weekĺs column,"Appleĺs Heavy Hand," got lost in the sauce. Here
are answers to some of your questions:
A record number of people wrote about my last column Apple's Heavy
Hand. The column was about a number of Appleĺs practices and policies
that I found deeply troubling -- deceptive ads, a renewed anti-clone
policy, etc.
Much of the e-mail and posts were from Mac fans who felt I had unfairly
maligned Apple or the Mac or Mac users. Some of the posted replies were
cogent, thoughtful, and asked good questions or raised good points.
Alas, hundreds and hundreds of e-mail and posts were just plain silly,
scatological or obscene diatribes and personal attacks against me for
saying something negative about Apple.
With the enormous volume of posts, some answers to the good questions
got lost in the rubble. Please let me correct that here.
"What deceptive advertising?" I said that Appleĺs ads about the speed
of the G3 and iMac were intentionally deceptive (though legal), and I
stand by that statement 100 percent. But large numbers of people wrote
to tell me that Appleĺs claims were proven by the BYTE Magazine
"BYTEmark" tests, which Apple cited in the fine print at the bottom of
its ads. (The irony in this is that I was the editor in chief of BYTE
for four years. I know what the misquoted benchmarks do and do not do.)
Apple used the BYTEmark tests to create the impression that the G3, in
general, and the iMac, in particular, are as fast or faster than
top-of-the-line Pentium IIs. Steve Jobs also reinforced this with
comments he made at the iMac rollout; he was quoted as saying the
233-MHz iMac would outperform a 400-MHz Pentium II.
The one test where the G3 did actually beat Pentiums was BYTEĺs
low-level CPU integer benchmark. In that one part of the multi-part
chip-level tests, the G3 was faster.
Note that I said, "chip-level." The BTYEmark test in question is a CPU
test, not a system test. CPU tests are academically interesting as long
as you realize that a CPU by itself is nothing; the only thing that
matters in the real world is how the overall hardware and software
perform running real applications.
Numerous third-party real-world applications tests (NSTL, ZD Labs, PC
Worldů) show the G3 systems running real-world applications generally
lag behind similarly-clocked Pentiums. There are some areas where a G3
Mac has a slight speed edge, but overall, Macs tend to be a bit slower
than similarly clocked Pentiums.
So, Apple took a small, almost meaningless sub-test and used it to
create the impression that G3s and iMacs have an inherent speed
advantage over high-end Pentium II boxes. That Apple wildly succeeded
in fooling many people is evidenced in last weekĺs posts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
The reality is that all companies make mistakes. It's not right to
treat Apple as a sacred cow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
But itĺs just not true. The ads clearly were deceptive.
"Fredĺs in Bill Gatesĺ back pocket. Heĺs just a shill for Microsoft."
If you check the TechWeb and CMPnet's archives, you'll see that Iĺve
criticized Microsoft far more than I have any other company. In fact,
by amusing coincidence, I wrote the current Windows Magazine cover
story called "Win98 Bugs and Fixes."
But some Mac users equate saying anything negative about Apple with
being blindly pro-Microsoft --- even in the face of overwhelming
evidence to the contrary. Thatĺs too bad because it shuts off debate.
The reality is that all companies make mistakes. It's not right to
treat Apple as a sacred cow. When it fouls up, it deserves criticism --
same as Microsoft, Sun, IBM, or anyone else.
"How does Apple pander to Ĺugly emotionsĺ?" I've only critiqued Apple a
handful of times over many years, but each time Iĺve gotten amazingly
virulent responses from the Mac community. As mentioned above, after
the last column, I got e-mail-bombed (hundreds of duplicate, obscene
letters intended to disrupt my e-mail service); and the public-posting
area was flooded with writings of incredible hatred and rage.
In marked contrast, despite my frequent criticizing of Microsoft, not
once, ever, has even the most rabid Windows fan called me an "Apple
shill" or claimed that Iĺm "in Steve Jobsĺ back pocket." Iĺve also
never -- not even once -- received a hate-filled, obscene note from a
Windows fan as a result of my criticizing Microsoft.
Why is this? Why is it that, unlike users of most other product, some
Mac users behave so poorly? Why do some Mac users fail to follow the
basic rules of civilized discourse and debate when the subject is Apple
or the Mac?
I believe Apple itself is partly to blame. Itĺs fostered some of these
very bad attitudes among its customers with 10 years of ads telling its
customers not that their computers are better, but that they as people
are better: They're smarter, more creative, more independent -- they
"think different." The implication in the ads is that if you use a Mac,
youĺll be like Einstein, Picasso, or John Lennon.
While you might discount as hype any advertising message that claims
"you're different; you're better; the normal rules don't apply to you,"
some significant number of Mac users seem to have taken it quite
literally. If this sounds far-fetched, look at last weekĺs posts:
Youĺll see Apple customers believing and behaving as if they're somehow
better then the rest of the world, and that the normal rules don't
apply to them.
Itĺs astonishing: Youĺll see posts filled with utmost arrogance;
statements alleging that Mac users are somehow personally superior to
users of other operating systems; and more. Many, many of the posts
reacted to my critique of Apple as if I somehow were directly attacking
them, the Mac users. One user spelled it out in a heated message where
he said that criticizing Apple was the same as criticizing his Mac,
which was the same as criticizing a family member. (I am not making
this up.)
This level of fervor almost sounds funny when reported as I just did.
But I got more than 500 of the most obscene, disgusting, hate-filled
e-mail you can imagine from these same fanatics, and I assure you itĺs
not humorous at all.
Although anyone who sends e-mail-bombs or posts a scatological, obscene
note in a forum is responsible for his own actions, I do believe the
Apple "you are superior, you are different, you are better" ads have a
lot to do with cultivating and pandering to these ugly emotions.
"Youĺre insulting to Mac users." I draw a huge distinction between
ordinary Mac users who elect to use their Macs for good reason, and the
Mac fanatics who posted the hate-filled, obscene, offensive flames in
last weekĺs discussion.
These latter are people who apparently cannot tell where their
computers end and their own egos begin. They regard any criticism of
their choice of computing platform as if it were a personal attack on
them, and respond with a personal attack of their own.
Itĺs silly and more than a little sad. Computers are supposed to be
tools; theyĺre not extensions of our persons any more than a hammer or
a paintbrush is an extension of ourselves.
As products created by human organizations, all OSes and all hardware
contains flaws. Rational people accept that and can discuss the flaws
and strengths of their computers and operating systems in a rational
manner. But some significant chunk of the Mac user base cannot.
Those are the people I have an issue with, not the rational Mac users.
"Tell me one thing Microsoft innovated." How about a successful GUI on
ubiquitous, low-cost, non-proprietary hardware?
"How can you say OS 8.5 plays catch-up to Windows?" Itĺs no secret the
Mac OS stagnated for many years as Apple foundered. (One example: Until
Mac OS 8.5 the Mac Open and Save dialogs hadnĺt significantly changed
in years.) In updating the look and feel of the OS, Apple employed many
of the features and functions in 8.0 and 8.5 that previously had been
available in Windows 3.x, Windows 95, and Windows 98.
For example, the ability to alter the menu bar's type, size, and color;
the look of windows, scroll bars, and icons; sounds and animations;
anti-aliased text; etc.; all have been part of Windows for years. Other
things such as built in system- and Internet searches debuted in
Windows 95; and local full-text indexing appeared via free add-on in
Windows shortly thereafter. "Live scrolling" and the resizing "thumb"
have been in Windows for quite awhile, as have "command-tab" switching
between apps, an icon-based palette of running apps, and drag-and-drop
printing. Even under the covers, the Mac is playing catch-up in some
areas. For example, a Mac now can reliably retain a TCP/IP address
across reboots, and finally show up properly in DHCP lists; Windows has
done this for years. Thereĺs more, but you get the idea.
Thereĺs no shame in borrowing a good idea. I donĺt know why some Mac
users have such a hard time with it. Itĺs especially baffling in light
of the fact that all the most important, core elements of today's GUIs
(windows, icons, mice, pointers, WYSIWYG text, etc) actually originated
at Xerox in the Alto, which predated the Mac by fully 10 years; Apple
borrowed these ideas, and built on them.
When the Mac appeared, Apple did add many refinements and also did a
great job of packaging them. (We'll charitably ignore the Lisa). The
volume of Mac sales did change the face of computing, and thatĺs
something for which we all owe Apple a debt of gratitude.
Later, various versions of Windows obviously borrowed many features
from both Xerox and Apple.
And today: Mac OS 8.5 borrows a number of refinements that appeared
first in more recent versions of Windows. So? Whatĺs to freak out
about?
Neither Gates nor Jobs is a dummy; they each know a good thing when
they see it, and they're not ashamed to borrow ("steal" is the word
many Mac people use) a good idea. All companies crib from each other.
Why is it so hard for some Mac users to accept this?
"Your article is based on opinion." Yes, exactly right. It was an
opinion column. It was clearly labeled as "opinion" in its header, and
it resided in the "opinion" section of TechWeb. It was not a review or
a news story, and it wasnĺt presented as such.
"Your entire [Apple is anti-clone/OS 8.5 upgrade bug] case rests on
1,000 reports of damaged hard drives." Not exactly. Apple did
effectively kill off its system cloners; and it does maintain an "Apple
only" support policy. Apple is demonstrably very clone-hostile.
Be that as it may, the Mac OS 8.5 upgrade-bug situation was less clear
when the column in question was written (almost three weeks ago). At
the time, the upgrade problems on clones were being reported in ways
very similar to mine in online forums and in places like the Boston
Globe's technology section. Even a very positive review of Mac OS 8.5
in Federal Computer Week said "Several bugs have been reported ... ."
The most fearful has been the hard drive Ĺkiss of deathĺ bug.
Apparently, users with clone-based Mac OS-based systems have
experienced hard-disk data loss after upgrading to Mac OS 8.5."
My column suggested two ways to view these upgrade problems. One of
them, which I clearly labeled as an uncharitable view (not as a proven
fact), was to see it as an anti-clone sin or commission or omission by
Apple.
I certainly wasnĺt alone in this speculation. For example, a
well-known, nationally-prominent Mac columnist (to whom I promised
anonymity, so he wouldn't get flamed by the fanatics) confided to me at
the time that he thought the upgrade bugs were indeed a ploy by Apple
to create fear among users about using third-party upgrades in Macs.
But since then, the reports did top out and were not as widespread as
they looked like they would be three weeks ago. Iĺm now perfectly
willing to concede -- and am greatly relieved -- that the upgrade bug
was just that: a bug.
That, of course, changes nothing about Appleĺs overall hostility to
clones, but it does put the upgrade problems in a very different light.
And Iĺm very, very glad it does.
(Fred Langa is a senior consulting editor and columnist for Windows
Magazine.)
-- Przemysław Pawełczyk (Warpman) Freelance journalist Phone: +48 12 642-13-00; Email: warpman_at_friko5.onet.pl Snail mail: Os. Centrum B 1/89, 31-927 Kraków, Poland ====== OS/2 WARP 4ever: http://friko5.onet.pl/kr/warpman/
To archiwum zostało wygenerowane przez hypermail 2.1.7 : Tue 18 May 2004 - 15:19:28 MET DST