carter@cat23.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) (05/12/91)
In article <1991May10.135518.5538@world.std.com> hal@world.std.com (Harry A Levinson) writes: >I am afraid to ask this because I don't want to start a roaring >fire of flames but... > >I have been using both a Mac and a DOS machine for about 5 years. I have >recently been trying to help some friends with their 386 machine >running Windows 3/ W4W and XL4W (facelift is installed and enabled). >The 386 is 16MHz with 2Mb. The printer is an Okidata 24 pin. > >My impression of Windows are: > >1. It has tryed to impose a GUI environment where it does not quite fit. > As a result computer novices take longer to learn how to use a Windows > machine than a Mac. However once acquainted with Windows both environments > provide similar capabilites. > >2. Adding applications and peripherals is easier (for a novice) on the Mac. > >3. It seems to take more Intel machine to get the same response as a Mac. > >Are these consistent with others? > >I would appreciate it if comments could be limited to those with working >knowledge of both Windows and Mac. I am especially interested in >comments from people who have seen reactions to both systems from >complete computer illiterate types learning to use a computer for the >first time. > >Thanks, >harry levinson >hal@world.std.com Your impression that it takes more Intel machine is correct, intel CPU's are brain damaged. --Gregory
dsals@vms.macc.wisc.edu (David Sals) (05/17/91)
I worked at ComputerLand for a while, and was asked to compare
window and the mac quite often. The main differences I have seen
with regard to new users are as follows:
1) Windows runs slower on a comparatively powerful machine (of
course, you can't really compare mac and ibm power, but the
windows environment is a software "emulation" shell, whereas
the mac environment is built into the hardware. Of course it
is going to run faster on the mac.
2) Windows is a little more awkward, a little less intuitive.
When Microsoft wrote windows, they had to make it look and
function significantly differently from the mac system so that
they wouldn't get sued (they got sued anyway). While the
differences are just fine for most DOS users, people who
haven't used computers before usually seemed much more confused
with windows. They would try to do things the way they did
them on the macintosh, and it just doesn't work. Note: even
though you are using a graphical interface, you are still
using the DOS filing system. Whenever you want to add a new
program to your windows library, you have to locate it in the
normal DOS mode of access.
3) This is the most important difference, in my oppinion. When
programs are written for the macintosh, they are all (with a
very few exceptions) written to use the same menu structure,
the same mouse functions, often even the same commands (cut,
copy, paste, print, all show up in the same place in most
programs). What this means to a new user, is that, once they
learn how to use ONE program on the mac, it is very easy to
transfer that knowledge to other software. The learning curve
goes way up.
Now let's talk about windows. Many programs that the user
might want to use, aren't even available for windows. Yes,
you might be able to start Wordperfect from windows, but you
won't be able to take advantage of the cut/paste or linking
features which make windows worth having. More importantly,
since there has been no standard set for DOS programs, the
interfaces are all over the place. Every time a user wants
to learn a new program, they are going to have to start from
scratch (at least as far as memorizing the commands, if not
learning the functions of the program). The learning curve
is much lower.
What this all comes down to, is that windows is a poor substitute
for a macintosh. I have nothing against DOS systems, and in fact
use one often, but I almost never use windows. It's not a lot
more than a toy to me. I would rather use batch commands to start
my programs.
If you want to take advantage of specific DOS software, get a DOS
system, and if you like, get windows too. If you want to get a
graphically based, intuitive machine, get a macintosh. Windows is
a poor substitute at best.
:-D ave
In article <1991May10.135518.5538@world.std.com>, hal@world.std.com (Harry A Levinson) writes...
>I am afraid to ask this because I don't want to start a roaring
>fire of flames but...
>
>I have been using both a Mac and a DOS machine for about 5 years. I have
>recently been trying to help some friends with their 386 machine
>running Windows 3/ W4W and XL4W (facelift is installed and enabled).
>The 386 is 16MHz with 2Mb. The printer is an Okidata 24 pin.
>
>My impression of Windows are:
>
>1. It has tryed to impose a GUI environment where it does not quite fit.
> As a result computer novices take longer to learn how to use a Windows
> machine than a Mac. However once acquainted with Windows both environments
> provide similar capabilites.
>
>2. Adding applications and peripherals is easier (for a novice) on the Mac.
>
>3. It seems to take more Intel machine to get the same response as a Mac.
>
>Are these consistent with others?
>
>I would appreciate it if comments could be limited to those with working
>knowledge of both Windows and Mac. I am especially interested in
>comments from people who have seen reactions to both systems from
>complete computer illiterate types learning to use a computer for the
>first time.
>
>Thanks,
>harry levinson
>hal@world.std.comakm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May17.170732.13608@macc.wisc.edu> dsals@vms.macc.wisc.edu (David Sals) writes: >1) Windows runs slower on a comparatively powerful machine (of > course, you can't really compare mac and ibm power, but the > windows environment is a software "emulation" shell, whereas > the mac environment is built into the hardware. Of course it > is going to run faster on the mac. A number of people have talked about how the fact that much of the MacToolbox is in ROM makes it faster than Windows, where the code for all the graphics resides in RAM. Does this really make a difference? I have the following reasons for believing this doesn't make a difference: 1. Many PC clones allow for shadow ram, which copies the ROM routines to RAM, which substantially speeds the machines up. 2. The System distributed for the Mac contains patches to fix bugs in the ROM, so some Toolbox routines execute in RAM 3. There are a couple of applications that exist in both Windows as well as PM versions (e.g. Word for PM and Word for Windows), and the PM versions are faster (InfoWorld reported on this a while back. This is done by running the two versions of the program on the same machine, so they are using the same ROM (to whatever extent the ROM is used at all...) So, my question is: if the Mac is faster than a "comparable" pc in execution, what is the reason? Is it ROM? (I don't think so for the reasons listed above.) What other things can make a difference? cheers, kartik -- Anant Kartik Mithal akm@cs.uoregon.edu Research Assistant, (503)346-4408 (msgs) Department of Computer Science, (503)346-3989 (direct) University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1202
jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) (05/19/91)
In article <9154566@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >The *correct* approach is to start with what the customer actually wants >to *DO* with their computer! Whoa, scary concept there huh? Jeez, >what'll they think of next. If you can characterize the APPLICATION or >applications the customer has in mind, you can select SOFTWARE that does >what he or she wants; and in turn sell them HARDWARE to support it. If this approach is followed every time it will often lead to a PC if a graphical user interface for all programs is not high on the list of priorities. I have seen far too many friends and previous places of employment buy a PC system simply because it offered a hardware and software combination that could accomplish what they needed it to for the lowest initial cost. This sounds good except for one small caveat, LOWEST-INITIAL COST. Both a PC and Mac usually can offer a solution of some sort (niche applications not included) to any given problem. PC clones generally offer lower initial costs. The unfortunate thing is that, though the PC does accomplish the desired solution, it does not do so as easily (in MOST cases) as a Mac. The aforementioned purchasers of PC systems that I have known personally are then later disappointed at the lack of productivity that their system yields in relation to a Mac. They are frustated by the lack of universal integration between the Windows and PC mix of things that they must live with, as compared to the nice integrated structure and unified interface that is found on the Mac. This is generally not a problem for the engineer who wants a machine to run a piece of equipment, take measurements, and export values. This requires only a couple of applications, plus perhaps a little hand-crafted code. The problem also does not effect the person who only uses one program to accomplish their work. However, it effects anyone who tries to integrate the results of a half dozen programs, as well as those who have to integrate the results of others work with their own (especially when they are trying to integrate results of a totally different type of program into their own). This can lead to a frustrating world of translators and incompatibilities, as well as just plain operator inefficiency caused by having to switch environments continuously. In short (after all my ramblings), the above aspects MUST also be considered when a new computer purchase is considered. Jess Holle
tomr@dbase.A-T.COM (Tom Rombouts) (06/04/91)
In article <0E010021.e0mxxc@gla-aux.uucp> glenn%gla-aux.uucp@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu writes: > >In article <1991May18.050842.5732@cs.uoregon.edu>, akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >> So, my question is: if the Mac is faster than a "comparable" pc in >> execution, what is the reason? Is it ROM? (I don't think so for the >> reasons listed above.) What other things can make a difference? > >Two things -- processor effeciency and levels of routines. [ rest of post deleted ] >2) The Motorola (and for that matter, any linear-addressing processor) is >faster than segmented memory. Correct me if I am wrong, but in small (or tiny) memory model apps, the 80x86 is essentially a linear-addressing processor. I would tend to think it would be faster shuffling 16-bit addresses (since the segment registers do not change) than a Motorola with (is it?) 32-bit addresses. Of course, this is straying from discussion of Win3.... Tom Rombouts Torrance 'Tater tomr@ashtate.A-T.com
s902113@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Luke Mewburn) (06/05/91)
tomr@dbase.A-T.COM (Tom Rombouts) writes: >In article <0E010021.e0mxxc@gla-aux.uucp> glenn%gla-aux.uucp@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu writes: >> >>In article <1991May18.050842.5732@cs.uoregon.edu>, akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >>> So, my question is: if the Mac is faster than a "comparable" pc in >>> execution, what is the reason? Is it ROM? (I don't think so for the >>> reasons listed above.) What other things can make a difference? >> >>Two things -- processor effeciency and levels of routines. >[ rest of post deleted ] >>2) The Motorola (and for that matter, any linear-addressing processor) is >>faster than segmented memory. >Correct me if I am wrong, but in small (or tiny) memory model apps, >the 80x86 is essentially a linear-addressing processor. I would tend >to think it would be faster shuffling 16-bit addresses (since the >segment registers do not change) than a Motorola with (is it?) 32-bit >addresses. Not really. apps for the 680x0 chips can use a 'short' addressing, which is 32K either side of 00000000 (ie bottom & top 32K of address space). which is really fast. >Of course, this is straying from discussion of Win3.... Yeah, I think the mac groups need a '.advocacy', like the amiga groups, for all sorts of mac vs {ibm|amiga|next|unix|other gui}. >Tom Rombouts Torrance 'Tater tomr@ashtate.A-T.com -- ____________________________________________________________________________ | Luke Mewburn [Zak] | #disclaimer: I _own_ these opinions, | | s902113@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au | No-one else deserves them :-) | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
risto@tuura.UUCP (Risto Lankinen) (06/06/91)
tomr@dbase.A-T.COM (Tom Rombouts) writes: >In article <0E010021.e0mxxc@gla-aux.uucp> glenn%gla-aux.uucp@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu writes: >> >>In article <1991May18.050842.5732@cs.uoregon.edu>, akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >[ rest of post deleted ] >>2) The Motorola (and for that matter, any linear-addressing processor) is >>faster than segmented memory. >Correct me if I am wrong, but in small (or tiny) memory model apps, >the 80x86 is essentially a linear-addressing processor. I would tend >to think it would be faster shuffling 16-bit addresses (since the >segment registers do not change) than a Motorola with (is it?) 32-bit >addresses. >Of course, this is straying from discussion of Win3.... Hi! To stray back, a small model program for Windows doesn't necessarily gain as much as it would in DOS, where the library calls and indirect references to data really are near/short. In Windows, all calls to external modules will inavoidably be far, most of which also require pointers to be long. The (static) library calls still are near, but there is an option of not using them at all, in which case you'll get 99% identical executables in both small and medium model for many source codes. (This is *not* to say, that programs made for Windows are inefficient in one way or other, nor am I doing any comparison between Windows and Mac!) Terveisin: Risto Lankinen -- Risto Lankinen / product specialist *************************************** Nokia Data Systems, Technology Dept * 2 3 * THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK * 2 +1 is PRIME! Now working on 2 -1 * replies: risto@yj.data.nokia.fi ***************************************
c60c-1jo@e260-1e.berkeley.edu (Payam Mirrashidi) (06/11/91)
Could any tell me what the actual number of MIPS and FLOPS the various Motorola have. I guess that the numbers for FLOPS are going to drastically different if a floating point co-processor is included, so those numbers would be great too. Payam