Re: uninstallation

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

In reply to Steve Cohen's message sent 1/24/98 8:07 PM:

>And I still say that a lot of the reason that it's easier for Macintosh to 
>achieve
>this is that they are not hobbled by having to support "generic" peripherals.
>Macintosh is not an open standard.  It's a proprietary standard that is 
>selling
>hardware at a markup.  If you want to pay that extra, fine.  But there is 
>a reason
>Macintosh lost battle after battle if not the war, and it's not that the vast
>majority of
>businesses and individuals are a bunch of sheep.  It's that the equipment was
>cheaper.

I find a few inaccuracies and unsustained assertions in this statement. 
The Macintosh supports "generic" peripherals, insofar as I understand 
what is being suggested. Scanners, printers, drives, etc. all can be 
connected -- they don't have to be manufactured by Apple, or even blessed 
by Apple. In any event, the hardware issue is not pertinent to question 
of the removal of applications, which is the subject at hand. If you have 
any information to the contrary, please be forthcoming. 

Nearly everyone seems to harbor some theory as to why Apple "lost" the 
war, but to even express the question in these terms is to support the 
theory that only one company can prevail industry-wide. According to this 
yarn, minority products are, by definition, "losers" and should be 
disregarded. If that is the case, then perhaps we all ought to abandon 
this discussion immediately, declare Microsoft the fee simple owner of 
the technology universe, and go home to our wives and families.

Also, I will observe with the utmost respect that anyone who says that 
there must be a reason why Apple is where it is today probably does not 
actually know the reason. "Expensive hardware" is an oversimplification.

>What I'm saying is that I'm sure there must be a better way to manage all the
>complexity of the PC-clone marketplace than what Microsoft has set out.  I 
>don't
>know what it is.  But since the Apple Macintosh is not an open standard 
>either, I'm
>not sure it's relevant to the discussion.
>
I imagine nobody here wishes to get into a full-on discussion about what 
constitutes "open" as opposed to "closed" standards. I agree -- it is not 
relevant.

>By all means, use what you prefer.  But I will admit that I get 
>exasperated by
>people who say they use Macintosh as a status symbol that sets them above 
>the herd
>of PC users.  The issue is how to stop Microsoft from building a monopoly. 
> Telling
>everyone to buy a Mac instead ain't gonna get it done.

"Status symbol?" Honestly, this is much too old a war-horse to be trotted 
out here.

When exactly did suggesting that people who are fearful of a Microsoft 
hegemony, or don't care for their products, =actually buy a product from 
a competitor= become unwise advice? Isn't this is the very essence of 
informed consumer behavior?

   Mitch Stone
+---
   The idea that people know what they want is wrong.
          -- Laura Jennings, Vice President, Microsoft Network
   
   Boycott Microsoft ** http://www.vcnet.com/bms