broehl@wateng.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) (09/26/84)
In light of the recent Macannouncements, the following comparison
may be of some interest:
Macintosh PC
Base system $ 2495 $ 1400 (*minimal* configuration)
Display card included $ 250
Monitor included $ 300
Printer $ 500 $ 400 (typical, for Gemini 10-X)
Addt'n'l RAM $ 1000 $ 600 (some shopping around, includes board)
Drive cntrler included $ 300
first drive included $ 350
second drive $ 495 $ 350
mouse included $ 195
Bottom line... $ 4490 $ 4145
In other words, they're in the same ballpark. The reason that the prices
in the PC column are in so low (relative to what Big Blue is asking) is that
there are *lots* of third-party vendors supplying low-priced peripherals for
the PC. In fact, most of the figures in the PC column are *high*; you can
get much better deals if you shop around a bit. (The same is true for the
Macintosh, which is why the PC figures are "un-shopped").
Both systems have a mouse and a bit-mapped display. (512 x 384 for the Mac,
640 x 200 for the PC). However, you can get (for a couple of hundred bucks
more) a high-resolution display for the PC that beats the pants off the Mac.
You can also hook up a larger display to the PC; the Mac won't let you use
anything but the dinky 9-inch screen they have built-in. The PC also gives
you the option of color, which the Mac doesn't. (True, the Quickdraw roms
supposedly know about handling a color display; the problem is that the
hardware can't interface to a standard monitor of any kind. This means
another expensive Macmod, and if the prices their asking for their ram
expansion are any indication, you can expect to pay through the nose).
The Mac uses the 68000, an extremely powerful and well-thought-out processor.
The 68K can run rings around the 8088 used in the PC. The major advantages
of the 68k are that it's fast, has a much simpler architecture, and has a
large unsegmented address space.
None of these advantages are apparent in the Mac. The Macsoftware doesn't
seem significantly faster than the equivalent PC versions of the same software.
The simpler architecture is only apparent if you program in assembler, which
is rare in these days of "portable" code. The large address space means
nothing on a machine with a *maximum* of 512k.
The only area where the Mac shines is user interface. It looks pretty,
which is more than you can say for a lot of the PC software. The problem
is that the "prettiness" is all in the software. The mouse and windows
approach, the icons, the pull-down menus, and all the other goodies that
make the Mac *fun* to use are all *software*, and already people are
writing the same software for the PC. Mice and windows (like 'em or not)
seem to be drawing a lot of novice users, and the whole Xerox-descended
approach to user interface is going to be widespread in years to come on
*all* machines, including the PC.
It's a shame. I *like* the Mac. But I also *like* the PC, and will like
it even more as it becomes more Mac-like. The Mac, unfortunately, is
proving to be an expensive, closed system. In a way, Apple and IBM have
both done the unexpected; IBM (after literally decades of a monopolistic
approach in the mainframe world) produced one of the most open systems
around. They allow (indeed, *encourage*) the installation of boards and
peripherals from other vendors, even to the point of publishing schematics
and giving source code for their BIOS roms. Apple (after many years of
open architecture on the II) has decided to slam the doors shut. Open
their box, and you violate your warranty. No support for drives, printers
or anything else that isn't made by Apple. No easy way for third-party
vendors to do *anything* without going through Apple and paying the price
Apple asks. You want more memory? You buy it from Apple, and pay through
the nose. You want to use another display? Sorry, Apple only gives you
the one. Another printer? Uh-uh.
This kind of philosophy may well doom the Macintosh to being an also-ran,
which is a genuine shame. It may also mean that Big Blue's dominant
position in the marketplace will continue, which ultimately doesn't help
anyone.
Time will tell, but it's a shame Apple's chosen the path it has.
--
-Bernie Roehl (University of Waterloo)
...decvax!watmath!wateng!broehlbruce@godot.UUCP (Bruce Nemnich) (09/30/84)
In article <> broehl@wateng.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) writes: >The simpler architecture is only apparent if you program in assembler, which >is rare in these days of "portable" code. The large address space means >nothing on a machine with a *maximum* of 512k. The address space isn't the problem; it is the segmentation of it in the 8086 architecture. No matter how hard I try to avoid it, there are just some things in life which call for data structures > 64k, and they present a royal pain. I got a great laugh out of last year's 3-part series of articles in Byte titled "8086: An Architecture for the Future." Written by someone at Intel, of course. -- --Bruce Nemnich, Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA {astrovax,cca,harvard,ihnp4,ima,mit-eddie,...}!godot!bruce, BJN@MIT-MC.ARPA