Forum Posts Feed
Fallows Article on Info Managers
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Nov 19, 2006 at 11:37 PM
Your telling me what to post is presumptuous and like your other opinions, loathsome. If you don’t like my posts, don’t read them.
Kenneth Rhee wrote:
>
>
>Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>>
>>Fallows is more capable than I would have previously
>believed in talking complete
>>nonsense about software. Perhaps it comes with being
>a journalist, but he is far from
>>immune to hype. I was looking at some older articles
>he wrote, where he said that
>>OmniOutliner for OS X combined the best features of
>BrainStorm, NoteMap, Echo, and
>>GrandView. Yeah, right. Omin isn’t _that_ feature
>rich; and no one, including James,
>>mentions that OS X is painfully slow and not
>terribly stable, traits which
>>considerably diminishing any application it runs.
>
>
>I know I’m risking this being escalated into another “flaming” war, but I couldn’t
>stand any longer.
>
>I would appreciate if you could post something that would be
>helpful to people on this board, and avoid making any snide remark about folks who
>might not have the opportunity to defend themselves in this forum.
>
>Also, if I didn’t
>know better, I would think you would be on MS’s payroll. Your repeated attacks on Mac is
>getting tiresome. Mac is an excellent platform on its own right, and it offers certain
>outlining programs that have features that are currently not available in the
>Windows platform, Omni being one. I don’t think I have found any Windows equivalent of
>Omni, DEVONthink, Tinderbox, or even Notetaker. Although Eastgate (maker of
>Tinderbox) has been working on the windows version of Tinderbox for a long
>time.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Ken
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Nov 19, 2006 at 11:56 PM
Daly de Gagne wrote:
>Stephen, a couple of points.
>
>First of all, you are admitting that your first post
>with the comment about Mac’s speed was based on old data.
In much the same way that my criticism of ADM is based on “old data.” I do not grant license to software and hardware companies to present users with a moving target, to be immediately forgiven for their past failures. The best way, imo, to evaluate Apple is looking at at least a 10-year history. It is NOT reasonable to suppose that because a product gets better one year, it will remain that way the next. The whole track record is relevant to the evaluation. Thus I hold the miseries of System 8 & 9 and even the sub-professionnal System 7 firmly against Apple.
>
>Second, you question
>whether “Mac users on the whole are objective observers and commentators on their
>computers’ performance.”
>
>May one draw the inference that PC users are
>objective?
>
>Or are you saying that Mac users are as lacking in objectivity as PC
>users?
>
>Is there a lick of evidence anywhere to suggest that one group or the other is
>lacking in objectivity?
Look, Daley, every time you cannot form an opinion or want to avoid looking at an argument, it really doesn’t do to say “where’s the evidence.” Do you think that because no one has formally studied a topic and published results, opinions are impossible. If your perception is that all the various platforms’ users are the same, either a difference does not exist or you are too obtuse to notice it. Both are possibilities, but the arguments for positions like these do not consist of evidence of the kind you seek, because it simply doesn’t exist. It consists of impressions tested for coherence. You may not be up to this sort of intellectual labor, but calls for “evidence” just lower the level of the discussion, presenting a facade of crude scientism that you cannot actually believe.
>
>Rather, it sounds to me like a way of simply discrediting
>Mac users as a group, having been soundly called on the issue of Mac
>performance?
No, I don’t think so. My investment in the lousiness of Mac products is minimal. Certainly, I would rather know the truth than discredit someone conveying possible truths. Rather, my impressions of the dishonesty of Apple as a company and less wittingly of vocal Mac users as a group precedes and is far more firm than any beliefs I have about the current condition of Mac products, which could easily be wrong for the moment. (But see previous post on temporal standards for assessment.)
Come on, doesn’t everyone know this. When someone criticizes Apple to a mass audience, they get mail bombed. Windows users, though far more numerous, do not generate such problems. The press generally knows that Jobs psychopathically generates a “reality distortion field,” yet he is oddly forgiven for it and never truly taken to task. If someone criticized Windows here, no one would take it personally. But the response of Franz smelled to me of personal offense. Why would someone get upset about criticisms of a *product*? You see this among Apple fans; you see it among ADM fans. It is not a general characteristic of people to become highly emotionally invested in the perfect accuracy of their choice of tools. Have I EVER become irritated—in the manner of an Apple fan or in my manner when the flaws of Macs are brushed aside—when a tool I have chosen was criticized. Not to my knowledge; it would certainly be an ego-alien experience.
I am not troubled by competing products. And I could see myself bying a Mac. What I am troubled by is the practices of companies like Apple and ADM, and the readines of bystanders to forgive psychopaths.
>
>Just curious.
>
>Daly
>
>Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>>There’s some
>forthright discussion of speed and reliability issues in Mac OS X at
>
>>http://www.atpm.com/12.08/paradigm.shtml. There seems to be general
>agreement
>>that OS X through 10.3 was plagued by stability and speed problems. I
>pointed out that
>>this had generally not been previously admitted in the Mac
>literature, as it isn’t
>>recognized in your response here. There seems to have been
>improvement in 2005 and
>>some regression in 2006. If the consensus represented in
>that unusually forthright
>>discussion was that OS X just became usable recently, it
>is unlikely to have become a
>>speed demon or to rival Windows XP in stability in the
>time since.
>>
>>When I played with
>>Omni Outliner on a Mac 6 months to a year ago in the
>Apple Store in LA, it was painfully
>>slow. I don’t think Mac users on the whole are
>objective observers and commentators on
>>their computers’ performance.
>
Posted by Kenneth Rhee
Nov 20, 2006 at 12:02 AM
Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>Your telling me what to post is presumptuous and like your other opinions, loathsome.
>If you don’t like my posts, don’t read them.
>
Here we go again!
I refuse to engage in a debate where I don’t think there will be any benefit to you, me, or any other members of the community.
So, I am doing this with great reluctance. It’s great that you have your opinions, and I am in no way trying to infringe your right to speak, but I do think I would like to keep things civilized and cordial on this board.
As far as your comment about Apple being an unethical company made me laugh since your inference was that MS is not (since you are running Windows OS instead of Mac OS).
A bit of self-control will do everyone on this board some good—including myself and with that thought, I’m signing off on this topic.
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Nov 20, 2006 at 12:03 AM
What you apparently mean by “discussing outlining tools” is uncritically trading impressions. You cannot evaluate an outlining tool that runs on a certain platform without evaluating the claims of the platform itself. In fact, the attempt to do this was part of my criticism of a Fallows article on outliners. You think you are providing a map for civil discussion; you are actually providing a rationalization for superficiality.
An opinion expressed forcefully does not thereby become a rant. Frankly, I would match the intellectual content of my contributions against yours any day.
Franz Grieser wrote:
>Stephen
>
>>
>p.s. I do not
>think here is the place for ranting and grumbling about operating systems. Let’s get
>back to discussing outlining tools.
>
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Nov 20, 2006 at 01:00 AM
Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>
>
>Daly de Gagne wrote:
>>Stephen, a couple of points.
>>
>>First of all, you are
>admitting that your first post
>>with the comment about Mac’s speed was based on old
>data.
>
>In much the same way that my criticism of ADM is based on “old data.” I do not
>grant license to software and hardware companies to present users with a moving
>target, to be immediately forgiven for their past failures. The best way, imo, to
>evaluate Apple is looking at at least a 10-year history. It is NOT reasonable to
>suppose that because a product gets better one year, it will remain that way the next.
>The whole track record is relevant to the evaluation. Thus I hold the miseries of
>System 8 & 9 and even the sub-professionnal System 7 firmly against
>Apple.
Comparing ADM and Apple is like comparing—well, apples and oranges. The only similarity without stretching a whole lot is that they both start with A.
Your criteria for evaluating a product based on a 10 year history bears little relevance to operating systems. Take Windows (please take it, I can hear some people—Mac sycophants all— saying under their breath), for example. It has improved steadily, a fact you could not readily acknowledge based on your 10-year criterion.
>>
>>Second, you question
>>whether “Mac users on the whole are objective
>observers and commentators on their
>>computers’ performance.”
>
>
>>
>>May one draw
>the inference that PC users are
>>objective?
>>
>>Or are you saying that Mac users are
>as lacking in objectivity as PC
>>users?
>>
>>Is there a lick of evidence anywhere to
>suggest that one group or the other is
>>lacking in objectivity?
>
>Look, Daley, every
>time you cannot form an opinion or want to avoid looking at an argument, it really
>doesn’t do to say “where’s the evidence.” Do you think that because no one has formally
>studied a topic and published results, opinions are impossible. If your perception
>is that all the various platforms’ users are the same, either a difference does not
>exist or you are too obtuse to notice it. Both are possibilities, but the arguments for
>positions like these do not consist of evidence of the kind you seek, because it simply
>doesn’t exist. It consists of impressions tested for coherence. You may not be up to
>this sort of intellectual labor, but calls for “evidence” just lower the level of the
>discussion, presenting a facade of crude scientism that you cannot actually
>believe.
You’re right. It is a waste of mine time to ask about evidence. Instead, I should just shoot from the lip. Opinions are often vulnerable to evidence, so the less evidence, the better for the opinions.
No doubt I am naive, thinking that when one makes a sweeping generalization about a whole group of people there ought to be some evidence. You suggest that to ask for evidence is to lower the level of the discussion—I’ll take your word for that, no point clouding the discussion further by seeking substantiating input.
I was not really suggesting the users of the different platforms are the same—they can be very different to each other, and still share the same level of objectivity, or lack thereof.
>>
>>Rather, it sounds to me like a way of simply discrediting
>>Mac users as a
>group, having been soundly called on the issue of Mac
>>performance?
>
>No, I don’t
>think so. My investment in the lousiness of Mac products is minimal. Certainly, I
>would rather know the truth than discredit someone conveying possible truths.
>Rather, my impressions of the dishonesty of Apple as a company and less wittingly of
>vocal Mac users as a group precedes and is far more firm than any beliefs I have about the
>current condition of Mac products, which could easily be wrong for the moment. (But
>see previous post on temporal standards for assessment.)
Indeed, firm beliefs become more possible—and plausible when one is not encumbered by evidence. I think I understand. And certainly, this approach has worked for politicians, so it has lots of real world testing behind it. How could I have been so naive?
>
>Come on, doesn’t
>everyone know this. When someone criticizes Apple to a mass audience, they get mail
>bombed. Windows users, though far more numerous, do not generate such problems. The
>press generally knows that Jobs psychopathically generates a “reality distortion
>field,” yet he is oddly forgiven for it and never truly taken to task. If someone
>criticized Windows here, no one would take it personally. But the response of Franz
>smelled to me of personal offense. Why would someone get upset about criticisms of a
>*product*? You see this among Apple fans; you see it among ADM fans. It is not a general
>characteristic of people to become highly emotionally invested in the perfect
>accuracy of their choice of tools. Have I EVER become irritated—in the manner of an
>Apple fan or in my manner when the flaws of Macs are brushed aside—when a tool I have
>chosen was criticized. Not to my knowledge; it would certainly be an ego-alien
>experience.
>
>I am not troubled by competing products. And I could see myself bying a
>Mac. What I am troubled by is the practices of companies like Apple and ADM, and the
>readines of bystanders to forgive psychopaths.
When have you known me ever to forgive a psychopath?
Cheers,
Daly