This is a lengthy email conversation I've had with someone who at first
seemed to dislike Macs. After a few emails, James Ritchie seemed to
begin to realize that the Mac vs PC question is simply a matter of taste,
and that his first posting on ZDnet didn't contribute to anything at all.
After reading these emails, even you might begin to show some sort of
respect for people using PCs. Even if it's just a "They don't know any better".

The quoted text (indented with > ) was written by James Ritchie.
The unquoted text was written by me. The messages are in chronological
order, starting with my email to James, in reply to an article he had posted
on ZDnet, on a page for replies to the press release of the iMac rip-off:
A complete iMac duplicate, only with a Celeron wintel PC in it.

PS: Please do read it all if you read it at all.

> The simple truth is this: Apple makes the worst computer in the world.
> The only success anyone has with an Apple is when they run virtual PC.
> In fact, Apple is so bad the only thing they have going for them is color
> The iMac is user unfriendly, and does nothing right except when it copies
> PC programs.

This is clearly the statement of a frustrated little
mind that has never ever touched a Macintosh.

> There's nothing new about colored computers, and absolutely nothing
> copyrightable about it. That would be like saying I can't paint my house
> green unless I use a particular brand of paint.

This is clearly the comparison of an adolescent.
If the jury takes a good look at both computers,
they'll agree this is a rip-off. Only question that
lasts is wether this is covered in law.

> It isn't the iMac operating system that's being copied. . .
> who on earth would want it?

People with other tastes, other opinions, less narrow minds.

> Mac enthusiasts should get a life.

That's so sad I'll skip it.

> But I guess when all you have going
> for you is the fact that your computers are a different color, you have
> to fight for it.

Grow up.

Kind regards,

R. Sixkiller

> I am grown up, I have touched a Mac, albeit I won't do it again.
> Macs have nothing going for them except fanatics who seem to
> have some weird, juvenile disliking for Bill gates.

Obviously you've been around the wrong kind of Mac users.
This is a clear prejudice (I know that word's a cliche).

> It isn't a question, of course it's a ripoff of
> color and shape, but no, it isn't covered by law, nor should it be. You
> sell tablecloths by color and shape, you sell computers by what they
> can do.

You're partially right, because if they would make another sort of compact
PC with about the same specs as iMac except the motherboard but its own
design, it would still beat the iMac in sales.
Nevertheless, the clear copy of the design should not be tolerated, cause
if we allow this, what else will we think is "ok" ?

> Mac's measley little market share shows exactly what they can do that a
> much cheaper PC can't. Nothing. Grow up? I have. That's why I own
> a PC instead of a Mac.

That's a bull statement, which I suspect you admitted to yourself as you
typed.

> I'll probaly surprise you here, but, yes, that was a bull statement I
> made,
> at least in the way I made it, and I humbly apologize for it. And, yes, a
> lot of Mac users I've known have without question tainted my view of Macs.
> At the same time, however, if Mac could do anything important that a PC
> can't, the Mac market share would be much, much larger. It is small
> precisely because there's nothing anyone needs to do that they can't do on
> a
> PC, so why buy a Mac? The first time a salesperson has to start telling
> large numbers of people, "Well, no, you can't do THAT on a PC. If you
> want
> to do THAT you'll have to get a Mac", then and only then will Mac's share
> grow to any degree.

That's right. PCs do what Macs do, and the other way around.
Difference is the OS that it runs. I personally think the Mac OS is
superior ro Windows 9x, for too many reasons to start listing.
Of course there are things about Windows 9x too that are superior
to the Mac OS, for instance the autodetection and uninstallation wizards.
The Mac OS 8.6 on the other hand, crashes very rarely and takes more
responsibility for system failures. (Mac OS says "The disk is locked" where
Windows 98 says "Error -43".)

> And to clarify one other point, when I say Macs are useless, that's what I
> mean. . . that I honestly can't find anything they can do that a good PC
> can't.

In other words, Macs do what PCs, do, and still Macs are useless?
IOW, Macs are exactly as useless as PCs are. Yea... that makes sense.

> Mac users will argue that a Mac does this a little neater, or that a
> trifle faster, sometimes it's true, sometimes not, but either way, nobody
> cares. PCs do it, too,

.... and so do Macs.

> and despite what Mac users say, PCs are easy to use.
> A first time computer user can go buy a PC, set it up completely and be
> online in an hour. And Microsoft offers pretty good support for their
> software. If you don't know how to use a Microsoft program, they show
> you.
> It's easy. And PCs, as you know, come loaded to the hilt with Microsoft
> programs.

Easy is a relative term. PCs running Windows 98 aren't at all that hard to
use.
Macs on the other hand are even easier to use. This is one bit that you can
absolutely not deny if you know both OSes well enough.

> The Mac word processor is somewhat superior, but not enough so to matter,
> and I really do earn my living with word processors, so I've tried just
> about every one ever made, including the very lowly Works, and even lower
> Yeah, Write. And the modest superiority of the Mac word processor is
> vastly
> overridden by the fact that at least half the people I deal with won't
> take
> anything written on a Mac because they believe they can't translate it.
> Usually they can, but they don't know it, so it doesn't matter. And PC
> word
> processors have never let me down. Again, I don't need the Mac.

Excuse me, but what in the world do you mean by "The Mac word processor" ?

> And maybe I've just been exposed to bad Macs, but the ones I've seen
> freeze
> just as often as a PC. A woman writer I know got rid of her iMac after it
> froze eight times in one day, and I hear similar complaints from other
> iMac
> users.

I find that very hard to believe, even though I'm not at all an iMac fan.

> Nearly everyone I hear saying how great Macs are happens to be a
> longtime user, many of whom haven't even used the iMac.

In my opinion, the iMac is a follow-up to the Performa ages, which would
mean that Apple put together a cheap piece of G3, made it look well and
sold it to the unknowing first-time computer buyer. Therefore "power users"
will indeed not be using an iMac.

> In a way, I hope I'm wrong, but I really don't see a future for Mac.

Uh-huh, look at the sales.
I know, they might not last for long, but for now, sit tight and see.

> I know
> Mac users love their Macs, but I don't see any need they can fill that a
> PC can't,

Nor the other way around. That's the point.
What do Macs add ? To the opinion of many, the best consumer OS around.

> and to me that makes them unnecessary.

Uh, does that mean you think there should only be one brand
of soft drinks too? Kill Pepsi, Coke's already here ? More choice = good.

> PCs can handle the largest
> job to be tackled, up to and including fighting a war, down to the bottom
> end tasks of getting someone on the internet who's never used a computer,
> and doesn't want to do anything with a computer but use chat rooms and
> send e-mail.

Same for Macs, so, agreed.

> Right now a PC user can do that for $300, and it looks like it won't be
> long
> before they won't have to buy a PC at all. Just agree to to use AOL for
> three years, and you get the computer for free.
> There simply isn't anything a PC can't do. And at a very low price.
> Since
> the Pentium III came out, you can hunt around and find a fairly new
> Pentium
> II 450 with SVGA monitor for $500. Less if you have a little patience.

Correct, that's Apple's problem. Cash and not being the world standard.

> I don't like Macs, and for that I don't apologize.

Why _would_ you apologize for an opinion ?
Question is wether it's smart to put Macs down and thereby piss
off alot of users to no good purpose at all. Same for prank calls,
IRC takeovers, etcetera: They just don't contribute.

> Jobs made too many silly
> decisions back when it mattered, and I honestly think it's now too late.

If you mean back in the Apple II ages, the Apple II was number one for a
while. Then the GUI war began as both Apple and Microsoft supposedly
"stole the Xerox concept".

> But complaining about color and shape really ends it for me. There may be
> something Mac can do to stop an exact copy of the design,

Mac ---> Apple.
The brand is Apple, they make Macs.
Sorry to be a bitch.

> but I doubt it,

I'll be looking forward to the outcome.

> and it won't matter anyway. The car market really does apply here.
> You can make the design so close that a casual glance won't tell the
> difference,and it's still legal. What you can't copy is logo and/or brand
> name. What you can copy is color and basic design. would have copied
> them. That's simply how you stay in business. Mac needs to stay ahead
> of the curve by coming out with yet another good idea while everyone else
> is busy copying shape and color.

The difference between cars and puters is that cars all end up having four
wheels and being more or less tall. Computer casings on the other hand can
be formed to any shape you like. Future Power could've made something as
original as an iMac, that still looked totally different. Instead they admittedly
chose to copy the iMac completely.Wether this is legal or not isn't in discussion,
that's in the book. Question is wether we think this is fair, justified or just plain
lame.

> Like it or not, the world is pretty much run with PCs, and the only thing
> that's going to cut deeply into that market share is some completely new
> operating system that makes both Macs and PCs look antiquated. Which, by
> the way, I also think is going to happen fairly soon.

Lemme guess, you suspect Linux will take over ? I certainly wouldn't mind,
although Linux isn't exactly userfriendly to the average user.
This is why Apple's next OS is Mac OS X. This is a mix of the hardcore
stability of UNIX, and the friendly interface of the Mac OS. I for one think
this will be the perfect OS. But let's not get carried away.

> And I'm sure you've heard this before, but isn't Robert Sixkiller a
> character on RENEGADE?

Yep. That's where I got my pseudonym from.
I used to have a pretty-well visited website called Sixkiller Enterprises too,
but only Mac users would probably remember that as it was a Mac
software oriented site.

Sincerely

Robert Sixkiller
mailto:ok.here@i.am
http://ok.here.i.am/

> Robert,
> First, once again I'm guilty of letting my mouth get ahead of my brain
> in word choice.
> When I say Mac word processor, I mean how Mac handles the word
> processing program. That's one place it is superior to a PC. Office 97
> word processing is an adventure. You never know when cut and paste, for
> example, is going to roll back to the preceding page. Mac word processing
> never seems to do anything wrong. And I mean I've tried every word
> processing program out there, and my PC running Windows 98 finds a way to
> screw up one little feature or another. Mac leaves you alone and lets you
> work.

Actually I think Windows has picked that up pretty well.
I've migrated to a Pentium II machine a month ago, from a PowerMac 9500,
and I still use the same keyboard shortcuts to copy and paste like I used
to. Where in the world would we be without copypaste..?

Editorial note

My PC ownership didn't last more than a few months, don't worry. Nowadays now I'm the happy owner of a PowerMac G3/350 :-)

> And there I go with "useless" again. That's not what I mean. exactly, but
> that's the opinion of most people I know who go looking for a computer the
> first time.
> Yes, Apple makes Macs, but for some reason I never hear anyone say "Apple"
> anymore. And they should.
> And I don't think this generation of Linux will take over, but, and I
> could
> be even more off here than you think I am about anything esle, but I think
> the next generation of Linux could. I hope so, in fact. Linux, like
> everything else, has problems, but in this case I think the fixes are
> easy.

Technically, UNIX and all its ports are put together so well, any other OS,
Mac OS or Windows is a toy in comparison. What UNIX just needs is an
interface. This is what Apple's doing right now.

When Apple began to make huge losses in the early nineties, Steve Jobs left
Apple and started a company named NeXT. There, he developed an operating
system running on a UNIX kernel named Mach. Many saw this as yet another
windowmanager written for X-Windows, but underneath was something totally
different.
When Jobs returned to Apple, Apple picked up his work from NeXT to make a
new operating system they thought would call Rhapsody. This was pretty
much the NeXT OS with a Mac OS makeover, running on a UNIX kernel for
PowerPC processors they call Mach. Mach obviously stands for speed, as this
kernel is a very optimized and minimal UNIX kernel. The Rhapsody project took
so long, many things started to change in the meantime. One of the most
important things was that they wanted apps for Mac OS to be easily ported
to Rhapsody.
To make that happen, Apple developed a layer of APIs named Carbon.
From there on, Rhapsody turned into Mac OS X Server and Mac OS X:
A fast Mach UNIX kernel with a BSD layer (BSD is a UNIX variant) and NeXTSTEP
with a Mac OS interface on top of it. This is the OS many Mac users are eagerly
waiting for.

> And you're absolutely right, I shouldn't go around pissing everyone off.
> The only defense I have is that just that. . .much of it is defensive. I
> think even you will admit that Mac users have a dedication and love for
> their computers that goes far above what most PC users have.

Diehard Mac fans indeed do. And you're right many of them do hate every-
thing Microsoft related, as they feel (and if you go back to the early 80's
you'll find they're right too) that Microsoft stole the Mac OS concept.
I'm still not at all a Microsoft fan, especially since Windows 95 (With the
menubar and the Recycle Bin, hint hint), but on the other hand, I do not
at all blame anyone for using Wintel machines and appreciating them.
Windows simply brought simplicity to the PC, and PC users have every
right to be thankful to Microsoft for it. So no, I am not a PC user hater.

Last night after I sent the mail you're replying to, I read an intruiging
piece of history of Apple on a website. It was a set of essays written by
the very creators of the entire Mac project. In their essays, they explain
how Bill Gates' response to Steve Jobs by saying "Hey, we all had a rich
neighbour called Xerox, and we both stole his TV. Now you're saying you
saw it first.", was wrong, as many things of the Mac OS were developed far
before both of them even met Xerox. If you have no idea what I'm talking
about, Xerox was a company that invented the GUI. Both Steve Jobs and
Gates had seen this and it gave them inspiration. However, the Mac OS
project originated from a while before that, while Gates started his Windows
project later.

But, instead of boring you with all the computer history,
I'll just quote a bit that I think says it all:

"I'm sure some things I remember as having originated at Apple
were independently developed elsewhere. But the Mac brought them
to the world." -- Bruce Horn

> I've been
> flamed half to death for saying no more than I like Windows 98. I had
> dozens of flames, nasty, vicious, sometimes life-threatening flames,
> about
> a month ago for saying I hope Microsoft isn't ordered to break up. It may
> be a cliche, but a lot of Apple fans really do hate Bill Gates and
> Microdoft. I've gotten so ticked off at being flamed where it wasn't
> warranted, that I've shot off my mouth and given people a reason to strike
> back. Foolish of me.

Generalization happens alot from "both sides", in fact so much, it's hard
to ever be stopped. Therefore I keep an open mind and just "let PC users be".
I hope that the people posting "Mac sucks dick" articles on usenet will
one day learn to let Mac users be, too.

> Now, I'm all for more than one brand, and I don't want to see Apple die.
> But I honestly don't think anyone is killing them. If anything, they're
> comitting suicide. Maybe some of their latest moves will reverse this,
> and
> I hope so. If market share rises dramatically, I'll celebrate with you.

Correct, when Gil Amelio was CEO for Apple back in the early ninetees,
he made a set of decisions that were obviously the wrong ones. Now
that Steve Jobs is "back where he belongs", we're very hopeful.

> But the more I think about two points, the more I agree with you. As I
> said, I should keep my mouth shut more and not let Mac fans get to me,
> then
> respond in kind. This helps nothing, and you've given me quite a bit to
> think about here. And, okay, maybe OS is a little easier to use than
> Windows. My point there was really how easy can it get? My wife learned
> to
> use Windows 98 in nothing flat, on her own, never having so much as booted
> a
> computer before, and with no help from me or anyone else. Granted, she's
> a
> highly intelligent woman, but she learned so fast and easy that I can't
> see
> any complaints about Windows 98 being user unfriendly in any way.

I was pretty surprised myself when I migrated to this machine a short while
ago,
I too think Windows 98 isn't that user unfriendly after all. This doesn't
mean,
though, that things couldn't get any easier, cause the Mac OS is.

> You, Robert, are a highly intelligent man, and you've certainly given me a
> lot to think about. And I hope you've taught me a lesson about shooting
> off
> my mouth. The next time I get flamed without cause I'll keep you in mind
> and try like heck not to respond with stupid again. For that I thank you.

Our email conversations set an example to every PC hater and Mac hater
in the world. If everyone just "chills out" and keeps an open mind for other
people's experiences, PC users and Mac users can live in harmony.
In fact, I am.

>
> James A. Ritchie
>

> P.S. I wasn't making a crack about your name.

I didn't suspect you were.

> I loved Bobby Sixkiller, and I was hoping there might be some connection.

Well, the odds were pretty high :-)
Sixkiller isn't a common last name, although I have been contacted
by a Johnnie J Sixkiller once, who thought I could be a distant cousin
of his. That was pretty cool.

> In my business the sound of a
> person's name can mean a lot of dollars in the bank.

> Robert,
> I'll keep this one short.

Idem.

> Steve Jobs being "back where he belongs" as you
> put it, is, in my opinion, Apple's greatest hope for the future. In that
> you're absolutely correct. Partially because he brings with him some true
> advancements that may actually give Apple the right to say "Hey, you can't
> do THIS on a PC. " That's what I was talking about at one point. It's
> Apple's biggest hope.

> And I agree completely. Bill Gates basically stole the OS idea and used
> it for Windows. I just don't blame him for doing it, and I think his doing
> so, plus some brilliant market strategy, is really what opened the
> computer world up for the average user.

Marketing is really the key word, isn't it. That's what went wrong in '93.
Apparently Jobs plus the looks of the iMac and advertising did it for now.

> I also think Apple, Microsoft,
> and just about any PC maker you care to name, play a little too much to
> their competition instead of catoring to what people really need and want.
> Which is a long-winded way of saying I think, in the long run, the PC
> makers are starting to make mistakes every bit as silly as some of Apple's
> were.

... to survive.

> Anyway, it has been a true pleasure going back and forth with you in such
> a kind and thoughtful fashion.

The pleasure was all mine.

> P.S. One thing. A couple of weeks back I recorded "Pirates of Silicon
> Valley" I think it was called. But I haven't had a chance to watch it.
> After talking to you, however, I think I will. Have you watched it, and
> is it accurate?

I missed that, and I hate to have missed it, if it was shown here in the
first place. I live in Europe, the Netherlands to be exact, where we do
have a channel called TNT, but I'm not sure it's the same one, as this one's
100% movies from the '70s-'80s. I was planning to put my VCR on scheduled
record just in case, but forgot. I bet they plan on showing it in Europe
anyway, and if not, I'll try and get it on tape.

Editorial note

Pirates of Silicon Valley will be available on VHS tape from Amazon.com when it's released at 16 May 2000. Unclear wether it'll be available in both PAL and NTSC.

Kind regards

Robert Sixkiller