A Few Little Tiny (Longwinded) Words.
By Eric W. Schwartz
This is one of those sections which is not particularly glamourous, or even pretty, but hopefully will prove worthwhile to those who think they have an interest in what I have to say (I may change that belief). There ain't a whole lot here right now, but there should be more and more over time. I would ask all you folks who read this stuff to remember that the things stated here are primarily opinions and observations, no matter how much I try to pass them off as fact. Please direct all contesting E-mail and flames out your rear (what did you EAT!?).
CONTENT WARNING: For you folks of sensitive disposition, and parents who actually try to keep their children's Internet activities in check instead of expecting the government to do it for them, it's only fair to warn you there may be some questionable content or language in this part of the site. I say this because I have no censors other than myself, and if I think something should be said, Ah'm a-gonna say it. While many will find my ramblings here quite tame, there will always be people who think every four letter word (like 'Math', 'Boat', and 'Mork') should be banned from all media, and this warning is for those types (Not YOU, right?)
Click here to return to the E.S. Productions main page
updates coming
The Win/Tel PC
* - Why is the Windows PC the dominant platform on the market? Because everybody buys them. Why does everybody buy them? Because all the software is written for it. Why is all the software written for it? Because it's the dominant platform. Before this sounds too much like a catch-22, lemme take another approach. It all boils down to this: The market and software developers favor the PC because everybody buys them. Everybody buys them because nearly everybody they know has them, and they don't want to be different. As much as they want to tell you about their alleged superiority, they really bought a PC-compatible to be conservative.
It goes even farther than that, however. Everybody buys PCs because everybody has PCs. Before everybody had PCs, people bought PCs because that's what they used at work. The companies all bought PCs because they wanted something that was "IBM compatible", and before then, only IBM equipment would do. They did that because they trusted the name. After all, they did such a nice job on all those typewriters.
What does this mean? It means the PC compatible is based almost entirely on conservativism. You buy a PC because you're a big wuss who can't stand even the vague possibility of having a computer that won't be the heaviest cat on the block, and you put up with huge inefficiencies and an infuriating OS written by a world domination consortium just for the privilege of knowing most of your friends can identify with your problems with the umpty-umpth level of Doom/Quake/Heretic/Dark Forces/whatever, - AND that you didn't rock the boat.
The one thing that doesn't fit in with the ultra-Limbaugh nature of the PC and its owners, is that they spend money on their computers like some kind of liberal. Their computer demand a new add-on, which requires a group of add-ons to balance out the first one, and they actually give in. I've seen this happen even in folks who switched from another platform that they refused to spend money on as if their wallet was wedged between their butt-cheeks. I have two theories on this phenomenon, but I'll hold off on the first one because I have no proof Microsoft and other manufacturers are putting subliminal "BUY" text in the OS. The second theory fits with the conservativism a bit better, in that everybody has to buy the new stuff to be equal to or better than everybody else, and there's nothing a conservative likes more than to be better than every- body else, or at least think they are.
I hope the Win/Tel PC does not become a monopoly of sorts, because so few original ideas and innovations came from the PC camp. Almost all of them come from Apple and Amiga, and if they get killed off, We'll have no sources for anything good, and the PC will stagnate as Bill Gates tries to buy a controlling interest in the known universe. You probably think I'm kidding, but just you wait. You'll all have to kiss his ring and praise his Windows to get that bugfix that lets you reclaim your lost life, and I'll just have fun independently.
The Mac:
Respect where respect is due - while Apple may not have actually invented the modern Graphic User Interface Operating System, they might as well have - at least for the mass market. The Macintosh was originally sloganed "The Computer for the Rest of Us", meaning us dumbasses too lazy or too stupid to type shell commands or write a BASIC program - a staple from the days when the C64 and the Atari 800 ruled the earth. Starting out, the Mac was rather unpopular except among the technophiles who actually order things from the 'Sharper Image' catalog. Luckily, the Mac fell into a new field called Desktop Publishing and rode it to true success. One big upper about Apple and the Mac is they are full of innovation and interesting approaches to computing even today, when conservative PC mentality dominates. The 'rest of us' attitude has sparked easy-to-use software, Internet access, networking, and a whole bunch of good stuff. The bad side, and it wouldn't be my column if there weren't a bad side, comes from the sensibility that Macs MUST be easy to use. This isn't a problem in itself, but it becomes one once the user begins to advance. One magazine (Okay, an Amiga maga- zine) related the MAC to a flashy bike with training wheels that can't be taken off; Great for starting out, but a hassle once you've learned to ride. For as much as we all like our windows and icons, It becomes quickly apparent that it's not the most efficient way to do your drudgework - shuffling your files around the way you want them. That's when you discover the Mac doesn't offer a Command Line Interface or dedicated file manager program. In fact, It doesn't offer much beyond what the system expects you'll probably be needing, almost as if your Mom was inside your computer. It babies you through the desicion making process and slows down your work.
" How can I do (Insert action here)?"
"You can't, the software doesn't do it."
"Well, How am I supposed to (Insert desired end result)?"
"You're not supposed to want to. There's something wrong with you."
That's why I like Amigas. You may not have the same ease of use, or the same feature set, but there is a sense of freedom, and I know there's more than one solution to a given problem. I haven't been as hard on the Mac as the PC, but that's because it doesn't deserve the bash as much. After all, Macs arent trying to eat or crush all competiton, they're just fighting for their piece of the action, and doing it with the occasional new idea. Finally, I thought I'd let you know that yes, I now know Rush Limbaugh uses a Mac, and his staff use Amigas for video graphics. I was just using the Limbaugh as an adjective in the PC bit for effect, not example.
The BeBox
It's a flashy new machine that's very powerful overall, and compounds that power with a proprietary multitasking OS that's quite efficient. If this were 1985 or 86 I would say that was an Amiga 1000. Unfortunately, Be Inc. realizes this fact too, and that's where their focus lies, going so far as to describe themselves as "Amiga 96" and genuine Amigas as "Failed". I will reserve judgement on BeBox hardware and OS because while I have seen one in action, I have not used or observed enough to formulate an informed opinion. You gotta respect the platform which does not run WindowsTM in this age, and a company who bring a little more originality, diversity, and quality to the market, but I'm not too crazy about their methods. The BeBox and its owners are rather actively campaigning to get current and former Amiga owners and developers to switch to their platform. It's unfortunate that so many companies try to survive by killing others, but I guess it's a fact of life. If Be folks are so confident of their superiority, why don't they aim toward the Mac or even the PC? I would suppose it's because the average PC-head is about as willing to try new things as a cinder block, as evidenced by the dearth of attention a BeBox got at a PC dominated computer show I attended. Personally, I don't see the BeBox offering much more to me than my Amiga already provides, save a heftier processor. I already have the high powered - low overhead OS and video graphic power I want, and I don't see the BeBox being any more a success than the Amiga has already proved to be since '85 (Surviving the death of TWO badly managed parent companies is a testament to its success.)
The Atari ST:
While the ST beat the Amiga to the market originally, I classify it as a reaction to the Amiga, similar to the Apple IIGS, another Amiga 'Assassin'. The ST, and its relatives, the TT and Falcon, were never directly compared to Macs and PCs, but often compared to Amigas. In general, STs were usually slightly behind Amigas in capability, spec, and software. It's one of a few machines that the Amiga had an integral part in killing, So I'm happy that the Amiga can beat somebody, but I still respect the ST and its users for not settling for a PC just because everyone they know did. Before anyone dismisses them totally, the ST was able to find a productivity niche. Like the Mac found Desktop Publishing and the Amiga had (and is rapidly losing) Desktop Video, The ST had a strong showing in MIDI-based music work, due partly to its built in MIDI port that others lacked. I won't go any farther here because I don't know enough about the platform to do an informed bash, and given the current state of Atari computer, I doubt I will gain any experience with them in the future. Thus, any more I could say would just be kicking a dead horse (I just hope there's not some other column somewhere using these same words in reference to Amiga)
The Amiga:
As you may have noticed, I've been bashing the other platforms for a good while. Now it's time to turn toward home. You may have also noticed my platform of choice is the Amiga, and I'm quite proud of that, no matter how misguided others might think me to be. Anyway, just to prove I can be fair, I will acknowledge the Amiga is not perfect, not the object of divine intervention that I may have portrayed it as being.
The Amiga platform as a whole is a testament to success despite the grossly incompetent management by its parent company (Commodore). It spent a good portion of its life as a strong third behind the PC clones and Macs, surviving and felling assassination attempts called the Atari ST and the Apple IIGS, but thanks to our friends at Commodore, it fell behind the leading platforms in a number of tech issues, the most obvious being raw processor speed. Your average computer consumer being cinder-block stupid, they usually ignore the aspects that don't bash you in the head when they see an Amiga running at 25 Mhz compared to the 133 or better of some Pentium bundled with Doom, Doom 2, and Quake (Doom 3). While they were in control, Commodore delayed development on new machines, arbitrarily repriced machines, and didn't pay much attention to the niche market it had in a hefty grip: Desktop Video. Not the best way to keep a platform in the running.
The Amiga is also a testament to having advantages that double as disadvantages. The Amiga has custom-made graphic and sound chips that are heavily interdependent with the main processor and the OS. This means graphics, animation, video, and multimedia applications are very powerful, fast, and capable regardless of the processor speed. It also means it's not so simple to set up a retargetable display (it's easier now than it used to be) or change the system over to a faster processor type such as PowerPC. The Amiga has a very efficient graphic operating system with preemptive multitasking that uses little memory (under 1 meg) and disk space (a minimal system can run from a DD floppy). It doesn't take much imagination to guess the benefits of such a system, considering the Mac and PC can't match it's efficiency, and probably never will. Unfortunately, a lightweight system doesn't match the other's feature set and polish, such as built in networking, virtual memory, and a Minesweeper game. There are other examples in this vein, but you get the idea. The Amiga is far from a perfect computer platform, but nothing else is either. I prefer the Amiga, pure and simple. I admit, you have to work to get the stuff you want for it, but I look at it as a classic car sorta thing. It's a lot easier to live with a new overpriced Toyota fatass car, if I didn't have any pride or spirit in me, but I'll stick it out for as long as it takes with my Amiga Mustang with the rust spots in the rear fender and laugh at you all. A lot of you might be saying "It's only a computer!", to which my response is "It's only a car. It's only a college. It's only a religion." There's a lot less difference from your own causes than you might think, so don't bug me about being an Amiga advocate until you can tie a name to your computer, and 'Packard Bell' doesn't count.
Eric W. Schwartz
Disclaimer I hope I don't come off sounding too harsh to you folk who aren't quite lucky enough to have experienced an Amiga. It's nothing personal, I assure you. I'm just an underdog poking some semi-observational fun at the big boys and the not-so-big, though some will probably consider me 'just another bitter Amiga user lashing out in Anti-PC frustration' as some Atari users have in the past and Mac users are arleady gearing up to do with each financial loss. I like consider it on a bigger scope, bigger than Amigas, perhaps bigger than Microsoft. I just don't like to see what I percieve as a lowest-common-denominator platform be the technology leader. It's like trying to make a cube-shaped airplane. Sure, if you stick enough extra wings and engines on it, it'll fly, perhaps better than the aerodynamic craft without the bigger engine, but wouldn't you rather deal with a craft that didn't need a mass of horsepower and extra tech to run the same as some simple streamlining would've given you.
- I really do have respect for all computer platforms, even the (bleah) Win-tel ones, and I wouldn't propose you give up what you're using now just because I said so, but do at least keep an open mind to the other platforms and operating systems around you, and consider how much more useful that 166 Mhz, 32Meg ,accelerated hardware 3D graphic card PC would be if it only needed 2 meg or less for the OS, and could run decently at only 7 Mhz.
P.S. - Don't perpetuate the thinking that made laptops, turned the laptops into desktops, then brought in palmtops to fill the niche laptops left, and then made Windows©®© for palmtops (vicious cycle).