mayer@rochester.UUCP (Jim Mayer) (08/01/84)
From: Jim Mayer <mayer> I am planning to buy a microcomputer for word processing and home terminal use. I am looking at either the Macintosh or one of the suped up MS-DOS machines (Tandy 2000, AT&T PC, etc.). If I get a MS-DOS machine I will be running Microsoft's Word and (eventually) the MS-Windows environment. I have some questions about both sorts of machine: Macintosh problems: Programs take too long to load. It should be possible to fix this when the 512k upgrades are available (at worst, run the current stuff out of a RAM disk) but I hate to take that much on faith. I could also add a hard disk, but... I would be very upset if Apple came out with a decent hard disk interface that I couldn't upgrade to. On the other hand, it should be possible to run a hard disk off of the serial line given remote buffering and a good protocol -- but no one seems to have done it yet. If I was sure something would come out I would go ahead and buy, but I'm not, and so I'm worried. The characters in MacTerminal seem quite readable, but they are very small. I worry about eye-strain if I had to look at them for a long time. Does anyone have experience with using MacTerminal for extended periods? Since I plan to do serious work munging I would have to use the MS-Word program for the Mac. What I've heard of it sounds fine, except for the copy protection which sounds completely unacceptable -- it doesn't even let you make a backup! You can make all the copies you want, but have to stick the master disk in before you can use them (only once per session though). I assume that the same nonsence also applies to copies on a hard disk. Any thoughts? MS-DOS problems: Speed -- Just how fast is an 8086? How does really good 68000 code (like the bitblt in the Mac ROM) compare with its 8086 equivalents? The 68000 has all those lovely registers, and the 8086 is stuck with its 64k segment architecture. Remember that I plan to run MS-Word, which does all its screen stuff with graphics, so speed really is important. General questions: What are the differences between the 8086, 8086-2, and 80186 processors? I ran a very simple Basic benchmark on several machines and got the following results: defint a-z print time$ s = 0 for i = 1 to 10000 s = s + 1 next i print time$, s end IBM-PC: 26 seconds (8088) Compaq Portable: 27 seconds (8088) Tandy 2000: 11 seconds (80186) AT&T PC: 12 seconds (8086-2) I think all of the machines were running variants of the same Basic interpreter, so the test has some validity as a CPU benchmark. -- Jim Mayer (arpa) mayer@Rochester (uucp) rochester!mayer
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (08/02/84)
<>
In comparing IBM clones, I think it's important to note display
characteristics. IBM gives you a choice between its "Monochrome"
display and a graphics display. The former offers good text but no
graphics and the latter offers graphics but not-so-good text.
The characters on the monochrome display live in a 9x14 dot matrix; those
on the graphics display in an 8x8 one. Obviously, the 8x8 characters are
a little more crudely-formed as a result. It is possible to use a
Hercules or similar display driver card to get graphics with the better
text, but with some sacrifice of compatibility with the "standard" graphics.
(The Hercules card replaces the IBM Monochrome Display card.)
Lotus 1-2-3, Microsoft Word, and other programs do support the
Hercules graphics mode, however.
A very nice solution is offered by Compaq with its dual-mode monitor.
When the computer is in text-only mode, you get the high-quality text.
When it is in a graphics mode, the display scan rate changes and you
get the same characteristics as the IBM graphics display.
D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgaryvizard@dartvax.UUCP (Todd Krein) (08/03/84)
As for the question of eye strain and/or text & graphics.....
I just bought a Zenith Z-150 (Came 320K standard!!) which comes complete
with color graphics board, and the text/graphics offered are extreamly readable.
Todd Krein
..!decvax!dartvax!vizard