Confessions Of A Computer Atheist: Why It Pays To Keep An Open Mind About Platforms.
via MacWay
By Rich Levin <RBLevin@compuserve.com>
March 24, 1997
Long before portable computers provided desktop computing power, I
decided to do away with my desktop systems and go strictly portable. It
was challenging, at first, to accomplish my everyday computing tasks on
machines with mediocre processors, small monochrome screens, abysmal
keyboards, limited storage, and virtually no expandability. But I managed.
For me, the difficulty of maintaining separate desktop and portable
systems, in terms of data and configuration synchronization, was a
greater price to pay than the challenge of performing high-grade work on
low-grade portables. What my portable computers lacked in desktop
performance and expandability they more than made up for in productivity.
Wherever I found myself on the face of the planet, my digital world was
with me.
Portable computers have long been marketed under headlines such as
"Finally! Desktop computing power for the road!" Only recently, however,
have portable computer manufacturers actually delivered desktop power in
a lightweight box. A well-engineered notebook computer with a 12.1-inch,
active-matrix color display, integrated CD-ROM, high-performance
processor, huge hard disk, lots of memory, and PC Card slots will give
the best desktop boxes a run for their money.
Finally! Really expensive desktop computing power for the road! And the
pace at which the notebook vendors are improving their products'
capabilities is accelerating. Consider this: In the past year, I've moved
from a 90-MHz Pentium notebook, to a 120-MHz box, to 133-MHz, all of
which weigh under 5 pounds, and all of which spin Windows 95 like a top.
And I've just upgraded again, this time to a 200-MHz notebook, loaded
with high-performance features. In addition to hosting the fastest
notebook processor available today, here's what's in the box: PCI bus; 16
Mbytes of RAM (which I wasted no time in expanding to 32 Mbytes); 2-Gbyte
IDE (integrated development environment) hard disk; hot-swappable 6x
CD-ROM, floppy, or Zip drive (!); stereo speakers; integrated SCSI
controller; 10Base-T Ethernet port; 33.6 fax-modem; zoomed video; SVGA
and IrDA ports; and a full-size, full-stroke keyboard with a track pad
and wrist-rest.
Interestingly, the only thing the system didn't have was a pre-loaded
version of Windows 95. But no biggie. I fired up an installation CD and
slammed Windows 95 into the box. I'm now in the process of porting all of
my Windows 95 applications and data over to the new machine, which so far
appears to chew on everything just fine. No indigestion yet detected.
If I haven't lost you to an advertiser's hyperlink by now, then I'm
certain you're drooling (check your shirt and let me know). Yes, in a
word, this Windows 95 notebook is a beauty. But--surprise!--it's also a
Macintosh.
Stay with me. Don't let that old-time computing religion get in the way
of an enlightening op-ed piece. From this point on, bear in mind that I'm
a computing atheist. In addition to my new PowerBook, I maintain a
Windows 95 notebook, an OS/2 box, and a sweet Linux machine. (Not to
mention various and sundry personal digital assistants, a Web TV set-top
box, and an occasional tryst with a Sony PlayStation.)
Why check out the Mac? For the same reasons we in IT regularly check out
all kinds of new, different, and often wacky technologies. To see for
myself what the platform is all about. To expand my experience base, as a
developer, by exploring new and different programming tools, and by
scaling new multiplatform development challenges. To see if this
technology is worth supporting, at a time when Apple needs the support
most.
In my view, if we're willing to seriously consider, and in some cases
rebuild, systems around the World Wide Web, Java, and the network
computer, then it behooves us to revisit the original alternative
computing platform. In fact, while it's drop-dead easy to acquire a
portable Mac and explore its many benefits, chief among them ease of use
(read: lower cost of ownership), it'll be quite some time before portable
NCs are even on the drawing board, let alone available. If ever.
What about Apple's management, finance, and market problems? Is it sheer
insanity to commit to a platform that, if you believe the industry
pundits, is unalterably destined for extinction or, worse,
marginalization? These are the same "experts" who predicted we'd all be
using OS/2 by 1990, and that Microsoft would never recover from its
year-long ignorance of the Web. Wrong, and wrong again.
It is also these same experts who further the notion that the next great
panacea is the NC platform. Sorry, but the next great panacea isn't the
NC. It's Java, and future languages like it that employ a "write once,
run anywhere" model via multiple virtual machines hosted on multiple
operating systems. Just wait until some of the portable, powerful, true
Web Basic languages now under development see the light of day (sorry,
can't say who). The legions of Basic developers who gag when they read
Java source code will have a direct on-ramp to the Web. And that's when
the real fun begins.
Apple's recent large-scale layoffs and jettisoning of key technologies,
such as OpenDoc (which was D.O.A. anyway), were long overdue, and have
the distinct and decisive fingerprint of one Steven P. Jobs. Now the
deeds are done. The company is focusing back on its core competencies
(building workstation-class hardware with scalable user interfaces), has
a next-generation operating system in the works, and is betting on Java
and JavaBeans as its development and component strategy, respectively.
Next's Unix-based operating system and development tools technology are
unarguably state-of-the-art, and just plain fun to use and work with.
(Yes, at one time I had an Intel PC running NextStep, so I speak from
experience. That was 1995, and it was still more advanced than the stuff
I work with today.) As a developer, the prospect of developing for a
brand-new, built-for-the-new-millennium operating system is refreshing,
exciting, and sure to be challenging.
If Apple can meet their delivery schedules, and deliver their
next-generation operating system in 1998 as promised, the platform is as
worthy of enterprise IT consideration as any other alternative,
Net-centric, Java-based computing platform. In fact, it's more worthy,
because over 25 million Macintosh computers boot up every day, compared
to a handful of darn near-prototype NCs.
And all the grousing about Steve Jobs is also so much hot air. Give the
guy a chance. He's not the same pimply faced kid who started Apple
Computer 21 years ago, on April 1, 1976. He's a seasoned executive with
more experience, grand successes, and brilliant friends (read: Larry
Ellison) than you or I likely could ever lay claim to. Hopefully, he's
learned from his mistakes and maintained a firm grip on his vision. If
so, both Bill Gates and Scott McNealy may have a formidable new
competitor to reckon with.
Apple zealots and bigots alike say they "bleed six colors", a reference
to Apple's rainbow-colored logo. Well, I don't bleed six colors, nor do I
fly a Windows flag. I'm a programmer, and I bleed 1's and 0's, the common
heart and soul of every computing platform. I'm willing to give the
MacOS, even in its current incarnation, a chance. If you're willing to
consider Java, NCs, the NetPC, and other alternative platforms, then, by
rights, the Macintosh is worthy of fair and equal consideration.
In doing so, you may experience a simple, yet profound discovery: The Mac
is the only computer that starts every day with a smile. It's consistent
user interface, intelligent applications, and way-cool development tools
make me and tens of thousands of other developers smile from that moment
on. That, plus a Windows emulator and a strong dose of Java, may well be
the perfect blend of desktop power and Internet panache your IT staff can
exploit, deploy, and smile about today.
Return to AuthorITies
RunTime Archives:
February 24, 1997
January 27, 1997
November 25, 1996
Comments?
informationweek.com
-------------------
Anecdotal, yes. But nice anecdotal.
soup |
