However, it doesn't necessarily make sense for Apple to make them. Apple would appear less elitist, which never hurts. Apple has promised a low-cost Mac and such a Mac would be good for Apple's image if not its coffers. If you have a powerful PC-clone and aren't going to buy a Mac soon, get Windows. Windows makes using applications written for Windows easier than using non-Windows applications-it does not make a PC-clone into a Mac. Windows users still must deal with the infamous CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files that have confounded many a DOS user. On the PC, you get DOS or at the ultimate worst, DEBUG (I'm thinking specifically of formatting a new hard disk on an XT, which required use of DEBUG). The difference is that with the Mac, you get other programs with decent interfaces for low level functions. You cannot initialize a hard disk from the Finder, similarly, you cannot perform many low level functions in Windows. However, Windows is just an interface, just as the Finder is. And finally, it provides some form of (we aren't getting into the argument over the definition of 'true' here) multitasking. It concatenates the functionality of a number of previously separate (and confusing) memory management tools into one package.

Our impression of Windows after installing it (and having it hang because of a conflict with a batch file), is that it is a step forward for user PC-clones user interfaces. There are two separate issues here, first, if Windows 3.0 is as good as the Mac interface, and second, if Apple can and should compete with PC-clones on price. Essentially, the argument is whether or not the introduction of Windows 3.0 will make a PC-clone just as good as a Mac, thus putting Apple out of business because the Mac would no longer be worth the money. We'd hoped not to have to address this topic again, but it refuses to die on Usenet or in the trade press. Copyright 1990 TidBITS Electronic Publishing.

Macintosh roms john barlow