s_czempin@irav1.ira.uka.de (02/25/91)
OK everybody. I always have arguments with my fellow students about which computer system is better: the PC world or the MAC world. I'm for the mac, but I keep losing arguments. So I have decided to be really thorough: I will start the COMPLETE LIST OF REASONS WHY THE MAC IS BETTER THAN PC COMPATIBLES. for example: why a student should buy a mac and not a pc; why a small company should buy a mac and not a pc; why programmers should buy ....... I need mostly facts, because I can say that I "like" the Mac myself.. Please email, I'll summarize if you wish. P.S. Especially arguments why Europeans e.g. Germans should buy macs are appreciated. -- Nicolai Czempin (EdInBed), University of Karlsruhe, Germany
n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton) (02/26/91)
In article <91.056.16:01:18@ira.uka.de> s_czempin@irav1.ira.uka.de writes: >So I have decided to be really thorough: I will start the COMPLETE LIST >OF REASONS WHY THE MAC IS BETTER THAN PC COMPATIBLES. Nicolai, Here are some reasons why macs are better than older technology: :) * User interface intergral to operating system Because windows and other elements of GUI are part of the MacOS, there is not a kludge (i.e., Windows) needed for a decent user interface. Windows is basically a hack to support "multitasking under ms-dos". Also, because windows is ON TOP OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM (DOS), it is not as integral and therefore, the 'feel' is not as smooth and transparent. I've used PS/2's with OS/2 and Windows -- to get a GUI on a machine like this takes lots of processing power and memory. Not true with macs. (Sys 7.0 will up the memory requirements, but Sys 6.0.x are fairly efficient) * Macs don't rely on outdated CPUs (i.e., 8086/8088). Since macs are designed around the Motorola 68000 family, their future use is not hindered due to drastic redesign of the chip. What I mean is, the M68k was sophisticated enough (and still is) to support macintoshes for quite a while. On the other hand, the 80286/386 chips, which offer mere improvements, still have to support the OLD 8086/8088 chips (8 bit chips? they might be 16). Because PC use the Intel x86 chips which inherently are stuck in the "small memory" model (dos still supports this ancient design), the machines are restricted to 640K RAM. Sure, 1 Meg machines are available, but the upper 384k is not usuable by a user program, only device drivers. Even if a user is not using many device drivers (and the 384k is basically not used too much -- much free memory), that extended space is still no usuable. The PC machines, their architecture, still support this and DOS remains locked into this scheme. Motorola 680x0 chips are 32 bit chips which will address a linear array up to 4 Gigabytes (??). Since the memory space is a continuous linear arrangement, there are no "banks" or bank-switching schemes necessary. Various Unix operating systems on PC's still restrict programs to 64k(code)+64K(data) sized programs. There is basically NO LIMIT to mac application size. * Fonts, clipboard, and other mac nice-itys The OPERATING SYSTEM (macs) supports the Fonts, clipboard, DAs, Networking, and every other aspect that makes a mac a mac. With Windows, there is no integration of these aspects. Not every program follows the same standard, if indeed there is a standard. For example, fonts. Some PC programs use fonts (misc paint programs, CAD programs, etc). These programs use their own specific format for font files and therefore are not compatible. To support a clipboard is PC application dependent (for non-Windows). Again, here is an instance where PC programs like to use their own format, so it's not compatible (that's if you could even paste between two dos programs -- you'd first have to have them either running at the same time or DOS would have to support cut/paste.) You want networking? OK, select Chooser on macintosh, click on the 'AppleTalk Active' option and <poof!>, a network exists. On a PC, first buy the most current issue of Computer Shopper, find a cheap networking card, find "compatible" software, and once you get it, try hooking it up. Install the card, find out it isn't compatible with your modem, switch a button on the networking card and cause your printer to print 'X's all the time. Next, after _finally_ getting the card to work, install the software by hacking a batch file (.bat file) and hope there is space in the 384K "Extended memory" to load tc-pip/whatever. Find out your return key doesn't work anymore due to another TSR... * International language support The Macintosh operating systems and applications all support resources and therefore, by simply modifying resources you can have an instant German application from the native English application for example. No recompilation is necessary. This important to users and developers both -- users are happy they don't have to read _everything_ in English, and developers don't have to recompile several versions -- just copy the specific resources to the application. What is boils down to is trying to shave a wolf and give it a lobotomy just to make it _look_ like a sheep -- it just doesn't work. The PC family of computers should really be thrown out and redesigned using MODERN technology. By using 386/486 chips, you are only speeding up an 8088 as long as you use DOS. (There are a few nice UNIX implementations that take advantage of 386 virtual memory -- SCO UNIX? Also, these better systems support X and therefore have a good window system...) The mac is a real nice system since it is integrated so well. The machine was designed to be a windowing system. The hardware (graphic hardware/ ROMS) has a common goal - to support a graphical GUI. The PCs lack this 'feature' and they _try_ (real hard) to emulate it in software. This means a large, clunky system that offers pitiful performance. +----------------------+--------------------------+ | Brent P. Burton | n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu | | Texas A&M University | Computer Science/Physics | +----------------------+--------------------------+
jkain@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Jeff Kain) (02/27/91)
CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: >It doesn't matter whether I was using MacPaint, Illustrator, SuperPaint, >FreeHand, Canvas, MacDraw, Claris CAD, or whatever to draw that picture; >I can still incorporate it into my word processor without worrying about >where it came from. If I want to include a graph, I can just whip one >up using Cricket Graph, or KaleidaGraph, or Delta Graph, or whatever, and >do the same thing. HA! That's a good one... While cut and paste is seamless for most formats of data, standards have a long way to go before we don't have to worry about a chunk of data's internal representation. Differences between PICT, TIFF, EPS, etc. as well as text formats such as RTF can cause big headaches when you try to exploit the clipboard metaphor to its fullest and most seamless. There was an interesting article in last week's MacWeek about new initiatives coming from Apple to improve the state of standards on the Macintosh platform, as well as for Mac->PC data sharing. -- jkain@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu -- "Swing is a feeling... Everything else is just style." --Capt. Swing jkain@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (02/27/91)
In article <91.056.16:01:18@ira.uka.de> s_czempin@irav1.ira.uka.de writes: > I'm for the mac, but I keep losing arguments. PC users cite statistics and benchmarks, Mac users actually use their computers. > So I have decided to be really thorough: I will start the COMPLETE LIST > OF REASONS WHY THE MAC IS BETTER THAN PC COMPATIBLES. 1. Macintoshes are cheaper (when comparing similar name brand machines) 2. Macintoshes are more powerful 3. Macintoshes are more expandable & versitile (more standard plugs and network connectors on the back of the box) 4. Apple does not charge for the boot disk 5. Apple Credit Card (what more needs to be said) 6. The Mac does not require you to type "MODE COM1:12,N,8,,P" 7. Apple gives you a totally cool manual that nobody ever reads 8. The PC cannot run Mac, PC, Unix, and Apple II programs all at the same time 9. Multitasking, multitasking, multitasking (no, Windows does not count) 10. Net-Bunny and all of the other really net stupid Mac tricks If you ever have problems with a PC user again, simply ask that person to explain "CONFIG.SYS". That should keep them busy for a few days. You can keep novice users busy asking how MCGA is different from CGA or MGA, or ask how to tell the difference between the 200 different disk formats. You get the point.... -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) (02/27/91)
Note that the mac has a long list of standard functions and standardized
function keys that pretty much work the same in every application:
save - %s (% represent apple's "clover" key)
open file - %o
close-window - %w
quit - %q
enlarge font - %>
shrink font - %<
underline - %u
bold text - %b
italic - %i
cut - %x
copy - %c
paste - %v
undo - %z
find - %f
replace - %h
delete - (delete key)
...
1. These bindings are IDENTICAL in 99% of all applications where the
functions exist. This speeds up the learning curve TREMENDOUSLY for
new software. BUT - there's more. Even if you have an application
that does not conform to these guidelines, you can generally edit the
application's key bindings, through ResEdit, TO MAKE IT CONFORM.
Thus, re-learning is almost NEVER necessary. The menu names on the
mac are standard ("file" "edit" "patterns" "font"), and function keys
on the Mac are self-documenting (%x shows up alongside the "cut"
option in the "file" menu in EVERY application).
When you think about it, it makes no sense for different applications
to bind similar functions to different keys. The binding is (more or
less) absolutely irrelevant, once you've learned the association (why
does the letter "a" look the way it does in the english alphabet? Why
isn't "a" associated with the "s" sound, and vice-versa? There's no
particular reason).
2. There is a set of standard icons for entering drawing and painting
modes that work in identical ways across most applications. There is
a rich set of standard painting patterns and shadings available in all
applications. Because of Quickdraw, all non-postscript pictures are
interchangeable and rendered in the same consistent style.
3. There is a "standard file dialogue" for users to specify a file to
open/save/update from within an application. It allows you to browse
all the directories available on the machine if you can't remember or
find a name, and does fast filename-completion in most situations.
100% of macintosh applications make use of this standard file
dialogue.
These three innovations account for 50% of the reason why people say
the mac is easy to use.
Don Gillies | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
gillies@cs.uiuc.edu | Digital Computer Lab, 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana IL
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
"UGH! WAR! ... What is it GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!"
- the song "WAR" by Edwin Starr, circa 1971
-- u2zj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Stanton Loh) (02/27/91)
In article <91.056.16:01:18@ira.uka.de>, s_czempin@irav1.ira.uka.de writes: > OK everybody. > I always have arguments with my fellow students about which computer > system is better: the PC world or the MAC world. > I'm for the mac, but I keep losing arguments. > So I have decided to be really thorough: I will start the COMPLETE LIST > OF REASONS WHY THE MAC IS BETTER THAN PC COMPATIBLES. Since YOU can't come up with a winning argument, for YOU a PC compatible is the better machine.
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (02/28/91)
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) writes: >In article <12608@helios.TAMU.EDU> n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton) writes: >>In article <91.056.16:01:18@ira.uka.de> s_czempin@irav1.ira.uka.de writes: >>>So I have decided to be really thorough: I will start the COMPLETE LIST >>>OF REASONS WHY THE MAC IS BETTER THAN PC COMPATIBLES. >> >>Nicolai, >> >>Here are some reasons why macs are better than older technology: :) >> >>... >... As a Windows programmer and occasional reader of this newsgroup I would like to add my 0.01 DM (== 0.02 cent) to this discussion. >> >>* Fonts, clipboard, and other mac nice-itys >> >> The OPERATING SYSTEM (macs) supports the Fonts, clipboard, DAs, Networking, >> and every other aspect that makes a mac a mac. With Windows, there is no >> integration of these aspects. Not every program follows the same standard, >> if indeed there is a standard. >Finally, you hit the real advantages of the Mac. Too bad everyone hit the 'n' >key before this. > >[deleted discussion on fonts and clipboard, I agree DOS doesn't] But Windows does. It integrates fonts, clipboard, DAs (by making this kludge unnecessary), networking, and a few other things. Not every program follows the same standard, but most follow the standard given by the Windows Applications Style Guide. And it integrates multitasking, i.e. running many applications concurrently, instead of adding this feature afterwards. The Macintosh GUI was designed as a single tasking environment, while Windows was a multitasking, multi application environment from the very beginning. >> ... >>* International language support >> The Macintosh operating systems and applications all support resources >> and therefore, by simply modifying resources you can have an instant >> German application from the native English application for example. No >> recompilation is necessary. This important to users and developers >> both -- users are happy they don't have to read _everything_ in English, >> and developers don't have to recompile several versions -- just copy >> the specific resources to the application. >Apple did something extraordinarily right with this one. But it can >be done by Windows, too. Mac just got there first. I must qualify my >statement that it can be done by Windows. I mean its a feature that it >is technically possible to implement with Windows. This as opposed to >DOS where this is not possible. As far as I know only the Mac has already >implemented this feature. All Windows applications are constructed by creating resources using various editors (dialog box editors, icon editors, font editors, ....) and writing and compiling code using these resources, and finally combining the output of the resource compiler and the linker into one executable. Translating an application is simply done by creating yet another set of resource files and combining it with the - already linked and unmodified - program. No recoding, recompilation or relinking is necessary. So I wouldn't call this "technically possible to implement" with Windows. It's already implemented and widely used. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (02/28/91)
CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: >Someone already mentioned this, but it needs to be said again (and again, and >again, and again....) >Since Day One, Macintoshes have been equipped with a mechanism built into the >firmware of the machine to allow applications ("programs," to you MS-DOS >people) to share information. This is the "Clipboard" concept, and its real >beauty is that it is designed to be *completely* application-independant. Is this really true? I.e. is the clipboard support really built into the firmware of the Macintosh? >[NB: I don't know much about Windows, so I don't know just how it attempts > to emulate the Clipboard metaphor. For now, I'll just describe the Mac's > behavior, and make educated guesses about MS-DOS.] I think Windows implements the clipboard metaphor similar to the way the Macintosh does: not at all similar to a real clipboard, fortunately. It implements a few things which simplify information sharing between applications runninc concurrently (different ones or multiple instances of one application): format rendering on demand and private clipboard formats , for example. I don't know how the Macintosh handles multiple applications or multiple clipboard formats. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
scot@sun1.ise.ufl.edu (Scot Gardner) (02/28/91)
In article <672@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >In article <91.056.16:01:18@ira.uka.de> s_czempin@irav1.ira.uka.de writes: >> I'm for the mac, but I keep losing arguments. > >PC users cite statistics and benchmarks, Mac users actually use their >computers. > >> So I have decided to be really thorough: I will start the COMPLETE LIST >> OF REASONS WHY THE MAC IS BETTER THAN PC COMPATIBLES. > >1. Macintoshes are cheaper (when comparing similar name brand machines) Similar?? Your kidding, right? AT? 386? 486? If YOU can get them cheaper, then it's not by much. >2. Macintoshes are more powerful Oh, more POWERFUL. Like WHAT is more POWERFUL? They are more easly used? They use more WATTS? They suck more AMPS? Please do tell. >3. Macintoshes are more expandable & versitile (more standard plugs and >network connectors on the back of the box) Yea.. right. Just like a PC has. You can expand it, and (if you buy it right) it has quite a few more "standard plugs" >4. Apple does not charge for the boot disk Ah! There, ya got a point! >5. Apple Credit Card (what more needs to be said) Humm.. sorry. Never heard of it. >6. The Mac does not require you to type "MODE COM1:12,N,8,,P" Nor does the IBM PC. When did you last use a 12 baud printer? The Mac would not even THINK of letting you use it (: >7. Apple gives you a totally cool manual that nobody ever reads I was forced to read them a few times, not bad! >8. The PC cannot run Mac, PC, Unix, and Apple II programs all at the same time Nor would I want it to! (: >9. Multitasking, multitasking, multitasking (no, Windows does not count) WOW! Hold on. You've NEVER multitasked before right? That's NOT multitasking! If Windows does not count, then a Mac does not either! >10. Net-Bunny and all of the other really net stupid Mac tricks Ok, another score. You ARE kidding here, right? >If you ever have problems with a PC user again, simply ask that person to >explain "CONFIG.SYS". That should keep them busy for a few days. You can >keep novice users busy asking how MCGA is different from CGA or MGA, or ask >how to tell the difference between the 200 different disk formats. You get >the point.... > >-john- CONFIG.SYS: Simple! For you Mac people: It's a simple way of keeping track of INITS. (Well.. not really.. hehe) DISPLAYS: Your right, the video display problem is STUPID. You gotta expect that because you don't have ONE COMPANY controling the market. DISKS: It's a small problem. You learn to live with it. Don't get me wrong here people. *I* do hate a lot of things about Macs, but I like some things too. PC/MAC wars are STUPID. You did not talk about the REAL reasons to hate PC's. Like being stuck with 640K of "main" memory. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | University Of Florida | | Industrial And Systems Engineering | | Scot M. Gardner, Resident Computer Jock | | scot@sun1.ise.ufl.edu smg@beach.cis.ufl.edu smg@hindmost.math.ufl.edu | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) (02/28/91)
(* Wolfgang Strobl says some non-trivial things about Windows for the PC
being able to do the things that have been touted as major Macintosh
strengths, such as the Clipboard metaphor. *)
Even though Windows may impose a Clipboard metaphor and related features
of the GUI on the PC world now, the Mac has been supporting and refining
that metaphor for what, 5 years? 7 years? More?
Windows is *not* a mature GUI; it simply hasn't been used enough by
enough different people to have settled down yet. By contrast, the
Macintosh world (and Apple in particular) have been doing serious
research into human interface questions for years. That's why developers
have access to the Human Interface Notes -- so that there are definitive
answers to questions of "How should I present this concept to the user?"
Also: granted that Windows can do these things; what about OS/2? Or
is Windows supposed to be the new standard OS/GUI for MS-DOS machines?
I don't believe IBM would be very happy about that...
OS/2 has some features that are *really* nice for programming, such as
multithreading, and which aren't available on Macintoshes. Yet. But
I have yet to see a debate espousing OS/2 rather than Windows. I'm
really not sure why that is ... is it the price? Or does it have
failings in the GUI that exclude it from such discussions?
In essence, here are my feelings on the matter: If you're interested in
doing computation-intensive stuff quickly, by all means get an IBM.
There's a lot better performance/price ratio available for such things
in the DOS world. You're going to have to work around the user interface
(or the lack thereof), but you get what you pay for.
If you'd rather have a *comfortable* machine, go for the Mac.
-------
Christopher Tate | "Living in a fisheye lens, caught
| in the camera eye; I have no
cxt105@psuvm.psu.edu | heart to lie: I can't pretend a
{...}!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!cxt105 | stranger is a long-awaited friend."
cxt105@psuvm.bitnet | -- Rush, "Limelight"breidenb@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Oliver Breidenbach) (02/28/91)
May I make an observation?
I don't know any PC user who always runs Windows. *They* say: It's too slow,
requires too much memory and since there are only a few programs supporting
it it has no real benefit.
On the prices:
I know of some Mac Clones which come *without* the Mac OS which are less than
1/2 the price of an equally equipped Apple Mac. This is far less than a
MS-Dos Machine and quite compareable as well, 'cause MSDOS is really *no*
Operation System. Ever tried to do UNIX (an Operation System) on a PC?
That costs tremendous amounts of money... (including hours and hours of work to
get all these stupid grafix to work).
BTW:
Why is OS/2 called OS/2? Cause it wants to be *an* Operating System when
grown up. :-)
have fun, and happy hack to the *normal* PC *User*.
Oliver
PS.
This was the first and the last time I ever took part of such a silly thing
as a war.
Oliver Breidenbach, CSD, Technische Universitaet, Muenchen
E-Mail: Oliver.Breidenbach@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.demacman@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Dennis H Lippert) (02/28/91)
In article <1991Feb28.015446.16531@eng.ufl.edu> scot@sun1.ise.ufl.edu (Scot Gardner) writes: >In article <672@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >>In article <91.056.16:01:18@ira.uka.de> s_czempin@irav1.ira.uka.de writes: >> >>1. Macintoshes are cheaper (when comparing similar name brand machines) >Similar?? Your kidding, right? AT? 386? 486? >If YOU can get them cheaper, then it's not by much. Uh, he said "name brand"... meaning Apple vs. IBM. How many "PC" users actually have "true" IBM machines? >>2. Macintoshes are more powerful >>3. Macintoshes are more expandable & versitile (more standard plugs and >>network connectors on the back of the box) >Yea.. right. Just like a PC has. You can expand it, and (if you buy >it right) it has quite a few more "standard plugs" Correct... *if* you buy it right. A $999 (list) classic has 1mb ram, HD floppey drive (which can read MS-DOS and OS-2), SCSI port, Appletalk networking hardware, monochrome monitor (sure it's 9", but it can fit a full 80x24 display of 9 point Monaco, and IMHO, be more readable than a 'typical' PC.). And it's expandable to a useable 4 mb ram. >>6. The Mac does not require you to type "MODE COM1:12,N,8,,P" >Nor does the IBM PC. When did you last use a 12 baud printer? >The Mac would not even THINK of letting you use it (: Obviously, the point of the comment was lost! >>9. Multitasking, multitasking, multitasking (no, Windows does not count) >WOW! Hold on. You've NEVER multitasked before right? That's NOT multitasking! >If Windows does not count, then a Mac does not either! Wrong! Remember that the "semi-multitasking" is included with the Mac... it's not a $300, 5 meg software package. The typical Mac system uses around a meg to do what it does... Syetm 7.0 will bring true multitasking, and windows' neat-o "modern" windows to the Mac... free... at about 2 meg. Dennis Lippert- macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu
derek@coco2.albany.edu (Cinderella Man) (03/01/91)
In article <91058.234938CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: >(* Wolfgang Strobl says some non-trivial things about Windows for the PC > being able to do the things that have been touted as major Macintosh > strengths, such as the Clipboard metaphor. *) > [thangs deleted] >Also: granted that Windows can do these things; what about OS/2? Or >is Windows supposed to be the new standard OS/GUI for MS-DOS machines? >I don't believe IBM would be very happy about that... The latest IBM rumour I've heard says that the next version, OS/3(?), will combine support for BOTH Windows- and OS/2-based programs. As I say this is a rumour, I heard it from a DOShead down the hall, so I can't vouch for its validity. Imagine how big the software will be, though... they'll have to distribute it like Apple does AU/X: CD-ROM or hard drive. And the minimum system requirements, too! Whew! >Christopher Tate | "Living in a fisheye lens, caught > | in the camera eye; I have no >cxt105@psuvm.psu.edu | heart to lie: I can't pretend a >{...}!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!cxt105 | stranger is a long-awaited friend." >cxt105@psuvm.bitnet | -- Rush, "Limelight" > Derek L. -- We can go from Rocket's Red Glare Down to "Brother can you spare--"
davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Feb28.015446.16531@eng.ufl.edu>, scot@sun1.ise.ufl.edu (Scot Gardner) writes: > In article <672@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: > >In article <91.056.16:01:18@ira.uka.de> s_czempin@irav1.ira.uka.de writes: > >> I'm for the mac, but I keep losing arguments. > > > >> So I have decided to be really thorough: I will start the COMPLETE LIST > >> OF REASONS WHY THE MAC IS BETTER THAN PC COMPATIBLES. > > [David Lettermanesque Top Ten List and rebuttals deleted] > > You ARE kidding here, right? I think this was pretty clearly a joke since it sounded a lot like one of David Letterman's top ten lists. Let's all take ten deep breaths and declare a cease fire. We just seemed to have finished a relatively mild NeXT/Mac war, and now we're about to plunge into the great napalm pool of PC vs. Mac. Maybe somebody on from each side (Mac and PC) ought to put together a list of things they find useful and things they find annoying or poorly designed then put these somewhere we can direct those who seek comparisons. They can look at this and make up their own mind on how each system meets their needs. Just my $.02 worth. --russell
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/01/91)
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes: >In article <91.056.16:01:18@ira.uka.de> s_czempin@irav1.ira.uka.de writes: >> I'm for the mac, but I keep losing arguments. >PC users cite statistics and benchmarks, Mac users actually use their >computers. >> So I have decided to be really thorough: I will start the COMPLETE LIST >> OF REASONS WHY THE MAC IS BETTER THAN PC COMPATIBLES. >1. Macintoshes are cheaper (when comparing similar name brand machines) Sure. If you don't care how much you pay, they are cheaper ;-) >2. Macintoshes are more powerful >3. Macintoshes are more expandable & versitile (more standard plugs and >network connectors on the back of the box) >4. Apple does not charge for the boot disk >5. Apple Credit Card (what more needs to be said) These reasons may be sound for true believers, but are hard to understand for non-believers. What is "more powerful"? Who charges for what boot disk? What is an "Apple Credit Card"? >6. The Mac does not require you to type "MODE COM1:12,N,8,,P" PCs don't, either. >7. Apple gives you a totally cool manual that nobody ever reads >8. The PC cannot run Mac, PC, Unix, and Apple II programs all at the same time PC's can't run Mac programs mainly because Apple bundles hard- and software. Emulating the Mac on a PC would require either stealing the ROMs or buying them from Apple - if Apple would sell them. But Apple doesn't. Emulating a PC on a Mac is simple: buy the BIOS technology from one of the companies selling PC BIOSes, buy MSDOS from Microsoft, write a 80x86 emulator and put the three things together. Having second sources for all the parts of a system is a Good Thing, in my opinion. >9. Multitasking, multitasking, multitasking (no, Windows does not count) Why does the fact that Windows has the better multitasking not count? >10. Net-Bunny and all of the other really net stupid Mac tricks Bahnhof. (Sorry, German slang: I don't understand what you are talking about). Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
n298ad@tamuts.tamu.edu (John Jordan) (03/01/91)
If you want to talk multitasking, look at the Amiga. It has it built in and it runs in 512k. Keymaps for other countries are not a problem either. Besides, on messy dos Windows is a CPU hog. and on the MAC multitasking is a memory hog. Just my 2 cents. -John
dmittman@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Mittman) (03/01/91)
I just read an article in ComputerWorld (sorry, no reference other than "a recent issue") which stated that users are not rushing to the new "for windows" versions of popular PC software. Rather, they are using windows as a way of running multiple "character based" applications at one time. Can we truly expect people to purchase new versions of software they already have, just to have a common look and feel between applications on a PC? Also, lets remember that all Macintosh models (I think, at least most) can run MultiFinder. To use Windows (use = speed, etc.) I believe that a '286 machine is necessary. Apple is to be congratulated on maintaining compatibility between system versions for applications designed to the guidelines. - David
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/01/91)
CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: >(* Wolfgang Strobl says some non-trivial things about Windows for the PC > being able to do the things that have been touted as major Macintosh > strengths, such as the Clipboard metaphor. *) >Even though Windows may impose a Clipboard metaphor and related features >of the GUI on the PC world now, the Mac has been supporting and refining >that metaphor for what, 5 years? 7 years? More? So does Windows. Windows 1, which had the same Clipboard support as Windows 3, was announced before the Mac came out, and was finally delivered one year after the Mac - five years ago. >Windows is *not* a mature GUI; it simply hasn't been used enough by >enough different people to have settled down yet. What makes a GUI matured? And is beeing matured really an advantage, under all circumstances? The Mac's GUI was designed for a closed 128K machine with a small screen. Some of its concepts are still fresh, but some look a little worn out - Desk Accessories, the implementation of multitasking, even the Clipboard metaphor, to name a few examples. > By contrast, the >Macintosh world (and Apple in particular) have been doing serious >research into human interface questions for years. That's why developers >have access to the Human Interface Notes -- so that there are definitive >answers to questions of "How should I present this concept to the user?" I don't doubt that, but would rather like to discuss the results of that research in detail. >Also: granted that Windows can do these things; what about OS/2? Or >is Windows supposed to be the new standard OS/GUI for MS-DOS machines? >I don't believe IBM would be very happy about that... From a users point of view, the OS/2 Presentation Manager and Windows are nearly identical. In fact, the OS/2 PM is a reimplementation of the Windows GUI on top of the OS/2 kernel. Unfortunately, the situation is not as nice for the programmer, because the Application Program Interface has been changed, partially to serve IBM's intent to integrate features of its GDDM (Graphical Data Display Manager) mainframe graphics system into OS/2, and partially in order to clean up the API and fit it to a more modern operating system. The announced addition of a Windows compatibility layer in OS/2 V2 will probably solve this problem. >OS/2 has some features that are *really* nice for programming, such as >multithreading, and which aren't available on Macintoshes. Yet. But >I have yet to see a debate espousing OS/2 rather than Windows. I'm >really not sure why that is ... is it the price? Or does it have >failings in the GUI that exclude it from such discussions? Users don't care much for what is nice for programmers. They want applications. The problem of OS/2 is that it (Microsoft, that is) tried to make two steps at the same time: moving the user from a CP/M clone to a real operating system, and from a character based UI to a GUI. For the common DOS user, who is quite happy with the performance and functionality of her character based applications, this step is much too big. In short, the main problem was the complete lack of a migration path. The recent success of Windows version 3 was mainly because it offers a usable migration path for the DOS user, for the first time. The current version of OS/2 still does not, but the forthcoming version 2 will. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Feb28.163514.18832@sarah.albany.edu> derek@coco2.albany.edu (Cinderella Man) writes: The latest IBM rumour I've heard says that the next version, OS/3(?), Well, if they follow their recent nomenclature, they'll be calling it OS/1. :-) -- /=============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \=============================================================================/
francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (03/01/91)
In article <97235@unix.cis.pitt.edu> macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Dennis H Lippert) writes: In article <1991Feb28.015446.16531@eng.ufl.edu> scot@sun1.ise.ufl.edu (Scot Gardner) writes: >>6. The Mac does not require you to type "MODE COM1:12,N,8,,P" >Nor does the IBM PC. When did you last use a 12 baud printer? >The Mac would not even THINK of letting you use it (: Obviously, the point of the comment was lost! Besides which, he's wrong. A Mac's printer driver handles *everything* for the app. All you'd have to do to use a 12 baud printer would be plug it in, copy the driver into the System Folder, select it from the Chooser, and print. From _ANY_ app--none of this garbage about having a special driver for each program/printer combination that needs to handle graphics. Of course, after selecting "Print" from the menu, you would be obliged to starve to death waiting for the printer, but that's not the Mac's fault. :-) -- /=============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \=============================================================================/
francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (03/01/91)
In article <4161@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: >Someone already mentioned this, but it needs to be said again (and again [...] >Since Day One, Macintoshes have been equipped with a mechanism built into the >firmware of the machine to allow applications ("programs," to you MS-DOS >people) to share information. This is the "Clipboard" concept, and its real >beauty is that it is designed to be *completely* application-independant. Is this really true? I.e. is the clipboard support really built into the firmware of the Macintosh? More or less. It's in the System File, usually, but it's always there. , for example. I don't know how the Macintosh handles multiple applications or multiple clipboard formats. There's one system-wide clipboard; apps are supposed to copy their private scraps (if any) onto it when they get switched to background. As for multiple formats: the data is stored as resources (i.e., with four-character type names), and the resource type indicates the format. Multiple resources can be on the scrap at once; the classic example is a word processor exporting both its text and the picture of that text. (Most don't, but you could.) -- /=============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \=============================================================================/
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/01/91)
n298ad@tamuts.tamu.edu (John Jordan) writes: >If you want to talk multitasking, look at the Amiga. True. Or look at OS/2. >It has it built in and it runs in 512k. So what. I have a multitasker written in Z80 assembler which does preemptive multitasking within 4 K (or was it 2K? I forgot, it's long ago). >Keymaps for other countries are not a problem either. Internationalization is much more than changing the keymap. >Besides, on messy dos Windows is a CPU hog. Not at all. >and on the MAC multitasking is a memory hog. No comment ;-) Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/01/91)
dmittman@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Mittman) writes: >I just read an article in ComputerWorld (sorry, no reference other than "a >recent issue") which stated that users are not rushing to the new "for >windows" versions of popular PC software. Rather, they are using windows >as a way of running multiple "character based" applications at one time. >Can we truly expect people to purchase new versions of software they >already have, just to have a common look and feel between applications on >a PC? No, we can't. Neither can we expect people to purchase new versions of hardware and software they already have, just to have a common look and feel between applications. But sometimes people buy *new* software. In this case, there is a strong tendency to buy software which actually *uses* the hardware they already have. >Also, lets remember that all Macintosh models (I think, at least most) can >run MultiFinder. To use Windows (use = speed, etc.) I believe that a '286 >machine is necessary. Apple is to be congratulated on maintaining >compatibility between system versions for applications designed to the >guidelines. All PC clones with enough memory can run Windows. For using Windows a 80286 is *not* necessary. In fact, I know somebody who uses an eight year old 4.77 MHz XT clone to write reports, using Windows-Write. Of course, in order to get decent performance, a 80286 with 1 MB is recommended. Such machines exist nearly as long as the Mac does. Finally, Windows offers similar upward compatibility between system versions. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) (03/01/91)
In article <91.056.16:01:18@ira.uka.de>, s_czempin@irav1.ira.uka.de wrote: >OK everybody. >I always have arguments with my fellow students about which computer >system is better: the PC world or the MAC world. I'd get Amiga. More advanced technology, superior OS, expandable, etc and its capable of emulating the two systems you listed for next to nothing. Three (or ten!) computers in one, what more could you ask for? -- Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,## Beren was the son of Bereg the son of Etcetera. TCD,EIRE. <mike@maths.tcd.ie>## Caryion "Adnausium" ###############################DON'T MISS TRINCON400 6th, 7th, 8th FEBRUARY 1992 And she wore Black Contact Lenses when you said you liked her eyes......Toasties
rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe) (03/01/91)
In article <4161@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > >Since Day One, Macintoshes have been equipped with a mechanism built into the > >firmware of the machine to allow applications ("programs," to you MS-DOS > >people) to share information. This is the "Clipboard" concept, and its real > >beauty is that it is designed to be *completely* application-independant. > > Is this really true? I.e. is the clipboard support really built into > the firmware of the Macintosh? Yes - read on for some details. I wouldn't say it's *completely* application-independant. > I think Windows implements the clipboard metaphor similar to the way > the Macintosh does: not at all similar to a real clipboard, fortunately. > It implements a few things which simplify information sharing between > applications runninc concurrently (different ones or multiple instances > of one application): format rendering on demand and private clipboard formats > , for example. I don't know how the Macintosh handles multiple applications > or multiple clipboard formats. When a user tells an application to "copy", the app stores the specified data in the clipboard. The data may, if desired, be stored in several different formats: a word processor, for example, could store a chunk of text in its internal format (for pasting back into another document in the same application), and in plain unformatted ASCII (for pasting into other word processors or into simple text applications), and as a picture (for pasting into graphics applications). Each format is tagged with an ID so you can tell which is which. When the user tells an application to "paste", it looks at all the formats available in the clipboard, chooses the one it likes best, and uses that one. This is invisible to the user, who just "copies" in one place, "pastes" in another, and sees the pasted data appear in the most useful format. Two formats, text and PICT, are standards supported by nearly every Mac application. This allows transfer of text and pictures between a wide variety of applications - as someone else recently stated, pictures drawn in MacPaint, MacDraw, SuperPaint, HyperCard, MacProject, and a host of others, can be pasted into any word processor: MacWrite, WriteNow, FullWrite, MS Word, WordPerfect, Nisus, and others. The system isn't perfect. There is no strong standard format for formatted text - if you copy a paragraph from MacWrite into Nisus (or between any two dissimilar word processors), the font and typestyle information is usually lost; only the ascii text remains. (Fortunately, one doesn't need to do this often; one word processor at a time is usually enough for most folks.) EPS (pictures in PostScript) are not understood by the majority of apps. Graphics apps written before Color QuickDraw often can't cope with color pictures (and often can, but we prefer 100% compatibility when we can get it.) But by and large, the clipboard works smoothly and invisibly, and it really is one of the strengths of the Mac. BTW: It's rare for me to post into an argumentative thread. I did so this time because someone asked for some real information I could supply (and I hope it answers your question.) I have never seen anyone's mind changed by argument. The fellow who started this thread said he keeps losing arguments to the DOS fans - but I notice he remains unconvinced that their arguments are correct! I confidently predict that if he begins to win those arguments, the DOS fans will be equally unconvinced. (Of course, if arguing is simply your hobby, then have at it. :-) ========================================================================== Rick Holzgrafe | {sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual}!apple!rmh Software Engineer | AppleLink HOLZGRAFE1 rmh@apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. | "All opinions expressed are mine, and do 20525 Mariani Ave. MS: 3-PK | not necessarily represent those of my Cupertino, CA 95014 | employer, Apple Computer Inc."
dawg6844@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (<blank>) (03/01/91)
I realize its probably pointless, but I thought i'd put my two cents in, having used both macs and pc's running windows. Multifinder is no more a memory-hog than Windows is, and in fact, in many situations, it is better. Second, you most certainly can NOT get reasonable performance out of Windows 3 on a 286 with 1 meg. I can sketch the windows on paper faster than a 286 with 1 meg. My friend has a 33Mhz 386 with 5 meg, and Windows is STILL slower than my 25Mhz Mac IIci. -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Dan Walkowski | To understand recursion, Univ. of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci. | you must first understand recursion. walkowsk@cs.uiuc.edu |
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/01/91)
In article <4176@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
All PC clones with enough memory can run Windows. For using Windows a
80286 is *not* necessary. In fact, I know somebody who uses an eight
year old 4.77 MHz XT clone to write reports, using Windows-Write.
Window's is sloooow. I use a Model 70 at work, and I wish that I
could trade it in on a Model 90.
Of course, in order to get decent performance, a 80286 with 1 MB is
recommended. Such machines exist nearly as long as the Mac does.
Finally, Windows offers similar upward compatibility between system
versions.
I saw a demostration of Word for Windows on a Model 55SX, and it
seemed to be slower than Word on a Classic.
-Miketorrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (03/01/91)
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >So does Windows. Windows 1, which had the same Clipboard support as Windows 3, >was announced before the Mac came out, But AFTER the Lisa... >and was finally delivered one year after the Mac - five years ago. The Mac was delivered in January 1984... 7 years ago. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Murphy's Law of Intelism: Just when you thought Intel had done everything possible to pervert the course of computer architecture, they bring out the 860
phillita@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Todd Phillips) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Feb28.234127.756@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) writes: >In article <91.056.16:01:18@ira.uka.de>, s_czempin@irav1.ira.uka.de wrote: >>OK everybody. >>I always have arguments with my fellow students about which computer >>system is better: the PC world or the MAC world. > > I'd get Amiga. More advanced technology, superior OS, expandable, etc >and its capable of emulating the two systems you listed for next to nothing. >Three (or ten!) computers in one, what more could you ask for? Personally, I think one should consider a Commodore 128, but then again I think A SPARCstation has its good points, too. Actually, if a person is interested in real computing--the answer is to buy a Sequent main frame. Anything less is just a weenie computer. Though, really now, a Casio Databank watch is all the computing power anyone REALLY needs. :^) (sarcasm off) Come on folks, let's stop trying to prove that the computer we bought is the best there is. Everyone has his needs and wants and a budget to fulfill those needs. Different computers are right for different people. Let's fill the bandwidth of this news group with more productive info than inter- system flame wars. ----------- Todd Phillips phillita@mentor.cc.purdue.edu todd@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov "MacNETS -- The Neural Net simulator for the '90s"
favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) (03/02/91)
In article <4176@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >dmittman@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Mittman) writes: > >>Can we truly expect people to purchase new versions of software they >>already have, just to have a common look and feel between applications on >>a PC? > >No, we can't. Neither can we expect people to purchase new versions of >hardware and software they already have, just to have a common look and >feel between applications. > >But sometimes people buy *new* software. In this case, there is a strong >tendency to buy software which actually *uses* the hardware they already >have. > This is THE FUNDAMENTAL problem with Windows. You can't do everything you want to do in it. There are many DOS programs which outperform and out feature the Windows counterparts. (Sure, plenty go the other way too -- that's the problem.) I like to word process in AmiPro in Windows. I use PageMaker in Windows. Then I have to get out to use Paradox (a database), and don't tell me I can run it in a DOS subtask of Windows, because Windows hogs all the extended memory and Paradox runs with a pitifully small amount. Not to mention compiler/interpreter environments. You have to exit Windows to use most(all?) of them, too. Switching from DOS to Windows and back is a pain. Sometimes Windows trashes the machines memory/ports/environment enough that you must reboot to use another DOS program. HASSLE! Of course all this is to use an inferior GUI anyhow. See below for details. >>Also, lets remember that all Macintosh models (I think, at least most) can >>run MultiFinder. To use Windows (use = speed, etc.) I believe that a '286 >>machine is necessary. Apple is to be congratulated on maintaining >>compatibility between system versions for applications designed to the >>guidelines. > >All PC clones with enough memory can run Windows. For using Windows a >80286 is *not* necessary. In fact, I know somebody who uses an eight >year old 4.77 MHz XT clone to write reports, using Windows-Write. > >Of course, in order to get decent performance, a 80286 with 1 MB is >recommended. Such machines exist nearly as long as the Mac does. >Finally, Windows offers similar upward compatibility between system >versions. Windows on an XT must be excruciatingly slow! I'm running it on a network of 20MHz 386 machines and I still find myself waiting for scrolling, menu pull-downs, and window opens more than on my Mac II at home, and more than I can stand sometimes. These things are still tolerable (i.e. better than on my 386 for the most part) on my friend's Mac Plus. Note that I am talking about elements of the GUI and NOT how fast the machines can recalculate my Excel worksheets. (Here the 386 blows away the Plus, but the II wins by a neck [probably because it has a better math coprocessor].) Other things that bug me about Windows: 1) Program Manager and File Manager are separate programs. This is ridiculous. Imagine having Finder broken up into two parts. One which has a (one level) file/folder metaphor and lets you launch apps. The other has a tree hierarchy and lets you look at data files (and apps), but doesn't use icons at all. (And takes at least 30 seconds to read in the structure of our file server everytime you start it up!!) This dichotomy is unnatural and bogus. I don't like using it, so I often drop into DOS to use a "more primitive" file manipulator, EVEN when I'm in Windows. 2) Small, crippled DOS memory limits (640K). It is a huge pain to diddle around with expanded memory and extended memory. They are NOT the same (very subtle). Not to mention High DOS memory. Windows has its own way to do it, that often conflicts with the way third party extended memory managers like to do things. You try to figure out why your database won't run your 80k program when you have 5 megs of extended and 3 megs of expanded RAM. 3) Different video modes. I don't want to have to configure my software everytime I move from my VGA monitor to the machine in the other room running with EGA or MCGA or Hercules, etc. 4) More klunky/less standardized GUI. Every Windows program I've used has a slightly different way to implement the standard file dialogue. Sometimes you can use the letter keys to go right to a file, sometimes the files and directories(folders) are in two different scrolling lists, sometimes one (at the end or beginning, but never mixed). You get the idea. This defeats the purpose of a standard. You still have to remember how this or that particular program does things. I don't mean to say there is no standard, but there isn't enough of one, and the goes a long way to being the same thing. 5) Someone mentioned ResEdit and resources. I don't think there is a program like ResEdit for Windows that can be run by anyone (brave enough) on a program after its components have been assembled. I.e. a developer can add/change resources and send out various language version without rewriting code, but an end user cannot change Save from Ctrl-S to Ctrl-Z or put the File menu in Swahili. Correct me if I am wrong. 6) Windows crashes much more than my Mac at home. And I have 27 INIT running at home! Windows will crash about once or twice a week during seemingly normal and mundane operations like typing scrolling. It crashed even more often after you have installed new software (I mean just plain old apps) until you have tweaked WIN.INI, CONFIG.SYS, and AUTOEXEC.BAT enough. This is a major hassle. I have never had my Mac crash more often just because I installed a new applications (INIT maybe, app no way). 7) Installation programs/procedures. In the vast majority of cases a Windows or DOS program must be INSTALLED. This means that mere mortals can't do it without assistance from an installer program which mucks around with WIN.INI, CONFIG.SYS, and AUTOEXEC.BAT, sometimes telling you, sometimes not. Then you have to go in and undo any possible damage, because you have two different programs with potentially conflicting operating parameters. 8) Fonts on screen. They aren't as nice as on my Mac(no ATM). The characters actually move around ak{lot horizontally as you type. Very disconcerting. Not as WYSIWYG as the Mac. Note: A friend of mine at Microsoft tells me that some of these problems will be fixed in Windows 3.1 (specifically the Program/File Manager thing will improve). Also DOS 5.0 gets rid of the 640K barrier at least partly. Someone else may have more info on this. However, these improvements won't be available until Q3 or Q4 1991. And then they will finally bring things to the level of the Mac approx. 5 years ago. Things I like about Windows: 1) Better multi-tasking than Multifinder on the Mac. I.e. regular programs can run in the background, not just print spoolers, etc. (Note that I mean actually run, not just sit there as in Multifinder.) 2) Better interface than DOS. That's about it. In my book that makes it inferior to the Mac interface. Many of Windows problems come from having to live with DOS. This is an ancient OS (12 years, I think), designed for a bygone computing era. It is time to get rid of it. Until Microsoft does, they will have only a nice kludge. I should point out that most of my comments have to do with PCs running Windows, as I feel that DOS as an interface is slightly better than a typewriter. I mean you tell me what kind of disk "FORMAT /N:9" formats. Note that I am not afraid of command lines. I like Unix. Not for its interface, but for its power. I have constructed many a pipe of more than four filters. And some even did what I wanted ;-). DOS is like Unix, but without the power. I also program for both Macs and PCs (but not Windows). Disclaimer: I use both Macs and PCs. I like Macs better. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ Francis Favorini favorini@cs.yale.edu favorini@yalecs.bitnet ...!yale!favorini
aard@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Anthony C. Ard) (03/02/91)
In article <29159@cs.yale.edu> favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: >Things I like about Windows: > 1) Better multi-tasking than Multifinder on the Mac. I.e. > regular programs can run in the background, not just > print spoolers, etc. (Note that I mean actually run, not > just sit there as in Multifinder.) -------------- No flames, just a question. What is multitasking really like in Windows? How is it better than Multifinder? One day, just to test MF's limits, I was downloading a file from my Unix account, unstuffing a file with Compactor, unstuffing another file with StuffIt Classic, calculating a fractal with MandelZot and playing a rousing game of NetHack -- 5 applications running all at the same time with no problems whatsoever. Isn't this multitasking? - Anthony C. Ard
smg@sparky.cis.ufl.edu (Scot M. Gardner) (03/02/91)
In article <FRANCIS.91Feb28170909@daisy.uchicago.edu> francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) writes: >In article <97235@unix.cis.pitt.edu> macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Dennis H Lippert) writes: > > In article <1991Feb28.015446.16531@eng.ufl.edu> scot@sun1.ise.ufl.edu (Scot Gardner) writes: > > >>6. The Mac does not require you to type "MODE COM1:12,N,8,,P" > >Nor does the IBM PC. When did you last use a 12 baud printer? > >The Mac would not even THINK of letting you use it (: > Obviously, the point of the comment was lost! > >Besides which, he's wrong. A Mac's printer driver handles >*everything* for the app. All you'd have to do to use a 12 baud >printer would be plug it in, copy the driver into the System Folder, >select it from the Chooser, and print. From _ANY_ app--none of this >garbage about having a special driver for each program/printer >combination that needs to handle graphics. > >Of course, after selecting "Print" from the menu, you would be obliged >to starve to death waiting for the printer, but that's not the Mac's >fault. :-) > I see, and how does one go about building this print driver?? You think APPLE has one?? -- | University Of Florida | | Computer and Information Sciences & Industrial and Systems Engeenering | | Scot M. Gardner, Resident Computer Jock | | scot@sun1.ise.ufl.edu smg@reef.cis.ufl.edu smg@hindmost.math.ufl.edu |
kingson@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Kingson Gunawan) (03/02/91)
favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: > 1) Better multi-tasking than Multifinder on the Mac. I.e. > regular programs can run in the background, not just > print spoolers, etc. (Note that I mean actually run, not > just sit there as in Multifinder.) Correct me, I have not seen a Multifinder compatible program that just sit in the background. All the program that I have seen (word processor, etc.) do actually run in the background including some compression utilities, databases etc. I do know about 3 years ago there was a program called mac switcher which actually suspends a program and sends it to the background. One thing about MS Windows that really irritates me is its speed. I actually notice a much slower responds from a 20MHz 386 machine running MS Windows than from the Mac SE. Otherwise, MS Windows is ok.
francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (03/02/91)
In article <1991Mar1.193406.22014@eng.ufl.edu> smg@sparky.cis.ufl.edu (Scot M. Gardner) writes: In article <FRANCIS.91Feb28170909@daisy.uchicago.edu> francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) writes: >Besides which, he's wrong. A Mac's printer driver handles >*everything* for the app. All you'd have to do to use a 12 baud >printer would be plug it in, copy the driver into the System Folder, >select it from the Chooser, and print. From _ANY_ app--none of this >garbage about having a special driver for each program/printer >combination that needs to handle graphics. > I see, and how does one go about building this print driver?? You think APPLE has one?? Well, no, not as such.... A printer that wasn't intended for a Mac is a problem, of course; but there's no way around that: Macs need to put out their graphics info, and there has to be *something* to interpret all that stuff. And if you buy a printer intended to be used with Mac, the company includes the driver, you stick it in, et voila. I suppose it would be possible to set up customization options on a printer driver: make a generalized driver, whose setings you could then tweak in a cdev. (You'd need two separate files for that, but that's a minor pain.) -- /=============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \=============================================================================/
n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu (Brent Burton) (03/02/91)
In article <17106@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> aard@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Anthony C. Ard) writes: > >One day, just to test MF's limits, I was downloading a file from my >Unix account, unstuffing a file with Compactor, unstuffing another >file with StuffIt Classic, calculating a fractal with MandelZot and >playing a rousing game of NetHack -- 5 applications running all at the >same time with no problems whatsoever. Isn't this multitasking? Anthony, no flames, just a question. While your machine was cranking away multitasking all this stuff, was it able to actually get anything done? :-) (besides switch tasks?) +----------------------+--------------------------+ | Brent P. Burton | n138ct@tamuts.tamu.edu | | Texas A&M University | Computer Science/Physics | +----------------------+--------------------------+
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/03/91)
rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe) writes: [description of the purpose and functionality of the Macintosh clipboard omitted] >BTW: It's rare for me to post into an argumentative thread. I did so this >time because someone asked for some real information I could supply (and I >hope it answers your question.) I have never seen anyone's mind changed by >argument. The fellow who started this thread said he keeps losing >arguments to the DOS fans - but I notice he remains unconvinced that their >arguments are correct! I confidently predict that if he begins to win >those arguments, the DOS fans will be equally unconvinced. (Of course, if >arguing is simply your hobby, then have at it. :-) Arguing is a good way to learn about something. If have read in this thread that the Macs clipboard support is something which makes it superior to other machines, especially to those running MSDOS and Windows. As a Windows programmer, I know how Windows handles the clipboard and consider it usable. So - assuming that the people who made the above statement know what they are talking about - I conclude that the Macs clipboard support has something which the Windows clipboard support doesn't have. But what? Nothing I've read so far gives any hint. So let me make the statement: Windows clipboard support is better. The Macs clipboard support seems to be written for transporting something between applications running one after the other, so the restriction to a few clipboard formats and the necessity to actually create and copy all the supported formats at the same time. While Windows allows the same style of interation between programs, the prefered method is to generate a request to render a clipboard format only if an application actually asks for a copy of the clipboard content in this format. I make this statement neither to convince anybody, nor because arguing is my hobby; its sole purpose is to learn something technical from the many answers refuting my statement. :-) Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/03/91)
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >>So does Windows. Windows 1, which had the same Clipboard support as Windows 3, >>was announced before the Mac came out, > But AFTER the Lisa... And after some Xerox machines. >>and was finally delivered one year after the Mac - five years ago. > The Mac was delivered in January 1984... 7 years ago. Ok, you have won. The difference in time is more than one year, but less than two years :-) But so what. My point was that the argument that Windows copies the Mac is getting stale. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/03/91)
favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: >In article <4176@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >>dmittman@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Mittman) writes: >> >>>Can we truly expect people to purchase new versions of software they >>>already have, just to have a common look and feel between applications on >>>a PC? >> >>No, we can't. Neither can we expect people to purchase new versions of >>hardware and software they already have, just to have a common look and >>feel between applications. >> >>But sometimes people buy *new* software. In this case, there is a strong >>tendency to buy software which actually *uses* the hardware they already >>have. >> >This is THE FUNDAMENTAL problem with Windows. You can't do everything you >want to do in it. There are many DOS programs which outperform and >out feature the Windows counterparts. (Sure, plenty go the other way too -- >that's the problem.) I like to word process in AmiPro in Windows. I >use PageMaker in Windows. Then I have to get out to use Paradox (a >database), and don't tell me I can run it in a DOS subtask of Windows, >because Windows hogs all the extended memory and Paradox runs with >a pitifully small amount. Not to mention compiler/interpreter environments. >You have to exit Windows to use most(all?) of them, too. You misunderstood my argument. The current version of Windows and in consequence its applications use the actual PC hardware (286-486, 2-20 MB) much better that the usual old DOS applications. Windows applications don't have to resort to all these little tricks which where necessary to squeeze a program into the 640k box, and which made these programs incompatible with each other. It does quite a good job to emulate the old DOS environment, if somebody wants to run an old application. Sometimes it fails, but so what? Do you judge the Macintosh environment by looking at its PC emulators? Surely not! Your above problem with Paradox is ill described by "because Windows hogs all the extended memory". Actually, Windows manages all the extended memory and gives it to applications - including old DOS applications - on demand. The problem is, Paradox does not use this interface. It uses an older interface to get the memory and manages that memory itself. Windows isn't the only environment where such ill behaved programs give you headaches. Speaking of compilers: I'm using mostly Zortech C and C++ to develop Windows applications. I do this in a DOS box under Windows, because these compilers run in protected mode, have access to 20 MByte virtual memory and can compile programs of unlimited size, that way. >Switching from DOS to Windows and back is a pain. Sometimes Windows >trashes the machines memory/ports/environment enough that you must >reboot to use another DOS program. HASSLE! Of course all this is >to use an inferior GUI anyhow. See below for details. Inferior to what? To a mixture of Paradox and your favorite menu system? If all you need is a task switcher for old DOS applications, there are better options than using Windows. Don't blame Windows because you seleted the wrong tool. >>>Also, lets remember that all Macintosh models (I think, at least most) can >>>run MultiFinder. To use Windows (use = speed, etc.) I believe that a '286 >>>machine is necessary. Apple is to be congratulated on maintaining >>>compatibility between system versions for applications designed to the >>>guidelines. >> >>All PC clones with enough memory can run Windows. For using Windows a >>80286 is *not* necessary. In fact, I know somebody who uses an eight >>year old 4.77 MHz XT clone to write reports, using Windows-Write. >> >>Of course, in order to get decent performance, a 80286 with 1 MB is >>recommended. Such machines exist nearly as long as the Mac does. >>Finally, Windows offers similar upward compatibility between system >>versions. >Windows on an XT must be excruciatingly slow! I'm running it on a >network of 20MHz 386 machines and I still find myself waiting for >scrolling, menu pull-downs, and window opens more than on my Mac II >at home, and more than I can stand sometimes. These things are still >tolerable (i.e. better than on my 386 for the most part) on my >friend's Mac Plus. Note that I am talking about elements of the GUI >and NOT how fast the machines can recalculate my Excel worksheets. >(Here the 386 blows away the Plus, but the II wins by a neck [probably >because it has a better math coprocessor].) The bottleneck for the GUI operations you describe as to slow (scrolling, menu pull-down, ...) is the video card, which is slow and dumb, usually. You did not mention what brand of video card you use, but I would assume the problem there. >Other things that bug me about Windows: > 1) Program Manager and File Manager are separate programs. > This is ridiculous. Imagine having Finder broken up > into two parts. One which has a (one level) file/folder > metaphor and lets you launch apps. The other has a tree > hierarchy and lets you look at data files (and apps), but > doesn't use icons at all. (And takes at least 30 seconds > to read in the structure of our file server everytime you > start it up!!) This dichotomy is unnatural and bogus. > I don't like using it, so I often drop into DOS to use > a "more primitive" file manipulator, EVEN when I'm in Windows. You're right, both programs leave something to be desired. Other companies have started to sell replacement shells. So far, I like none of them, so I stay with the above two programs. I don't share your opinion that having *two* such programs is a bad thing. > 2) Small, crippled DOS memory limits (640K). It is a huge pain > to diddle around with expanded memory and extended memory. > They are NOT the same (very subtle). Not to mention High DOS > memory. Windows has its own way to do it, that often conflicts > with the way third party extended memory managers like to do > things. You try to figure out why your database won't run > your 80k program when you have 5 megs of extended and 3 megs > of expanded RAM. See above. All this has nothing to do with Windows. Windows has no 640K limit. It does not use different kinds of memory. It emulates all kinds of quirks / bugs / features / interfaces an old DOS application may expect, mostly successfull, sometimes unsuccessfull. But this emulation feature is not the central feature of Windows, it's an ad on, a migration path. > 3) Different video modes. I don't want to have to configure > my software everytime I move from my VGA monitor to the machine > in the other room running with EGA or MCGA or Hercules, etc. Windows programs don't need that. In fact, a Windows program has no way of obtaining the video mode it is running in. > > 4) More klunky/less standardized GUI. Every Windows program > I've used has a slightly different way to implement the > standard file dialogue. Sometimes you can use the letter > keys to go right to a file, sometimes the files and > directories(folders) are in two different scrolling lists, > sometimes one (at the end or beginning, but never mixed). > You get the idea. This defeats the purpose of a standard. I have changed my opinion about this point a few times now. A standard file dialogue is simpler both for the programmer and for the the user. But this "one size fits all" approach does not encourage the development of spezialized file dialogues, which are optimized to the actual context. Windows offers a set of building blocks for file dialogues, which in fact allow all the variations you describe above. Because I was tired of writing the same file dialogue again and again, I started to write my own "standard file dialogue" some time ago. I finally gave up, because I noticed that the code which is really common between the file dialogue code of different applications is not much - most is handled by the above building blocks, and the specialized pars - a "file manager" button here, a "preview" button and a preview window there - differ. > You still have to remember how this or that particular > program does things. I don't mean to say there is no > standard, but there isn't enough of one, and the goes a > long way to being the same thing. > 5) Someone mentioned ResEdit and resources. I don't think there > is a program like ResEdit for Windows that can be run by > anyone (brave enough) on a program after its components > have been assembled. I.e. a developer can add/change resources > and send out various language version without rewriting > code, but an end user cannot change Save from Ctrl-S to > Ctrl-Z or put the File menu in Swahili. Correct me if I am wrong. I have heard that some company sells a resource editor, and I think it is not overly difficult to write one, but I did not check. No, you're right here, without support from the programmer, the user cannot modify resources. I'm not sure that he should. > 6) Windows crashes much more than my Mac at home. And I have > 27 INIT running at home! Windows will crash about once or > twice a week during seemingly normal and mundane operations > like typing scrolling. It crashed even more often after you > have installed new software (I mean just plain old apps) until > you have tweaked WIN.INI, CONFIG.SYS, and AUTOEXEC.BAT enough. > This is a major hassle. I have never had my Mac crash more > often just because I installed a new applications (INIT maybe, > app no way). Such statements are very hard to verify. A fair comparison would be running Windows with Windows applications only and then comparing. Many old DOS applications are buggy in the sense that they contain spurious reads or writes which hit ROM other places where it does no harm, so that these bugs get unnoticed. Windows in Enhanced mode is able to detect such illegal operations sometimes, and tries to terminate the offending application, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. > 7) Installation programs/procedures. In the vast majority of > cases a Windows or DOS program must be INSTALLED. This > means that mere mortals can't do it without assistance from > an installer program which mucks around with WIN.INI, > CONFIG.SYS, and AUTOEXEC.BAT, sometimes telling you, sometimes > not. Then you have to go in and undo any possible damage, > because you have two different programs with potentially > conflicting operating parameters. This is really a problem. But I don't know how it should be solved without going the Apple or the IBM way, i.e. having one hardware supplier controlling the system. > 8) Fonts on screen. They aren't as nice as on my Mac(no ATM). > The characters actually move around ak{lot horizontally as > you type. Very disconcerting. Not as WYSIWYG as the Mac. >Note: A friend of mine at Microsoft tells me that some of these problems >will be fixed in Windows 3.1 (specifically the Program/File Manager thing >will improve). Also DOS 5.0 gets rid of the 640K barrier at least >partly. Someone else may have more info on this. However, these >improvements won't be available until Q3 or Q4 1991. And then they >will finally bring things to the level of the Mac approx. 5 years ago. Tools which move the 640K barier a little bit are in common use for some time now - what Microsoft now integrates in DOS 5.0 is not at all new. And it is in no way related to Windows itself, only to its ability to run old DOS applications. I don't understand what that ability of Windows has to do with the level of the Mac 5 years ago. You compare apples and oranges. >Things I like about Windows: > 1) Better multi-tasking than Multifinder on the Mac. I.e. > regular programs can run in the background, not just > print spoolers, etc. (Note that I mean actually run, not > just sit there as in Multifinder.) Huh? My understanding was that background applications continue to run under the Multifinder, too. > 2) Better interface than DOS. >That's about it. In my book that makes it inferior to the Mac interface. >Many of Windows problems come from having to live with DOS. This is >an ancient OS (12 years, I think), designed for a bygone computing era. >It is time to get rid of it. Until Microsoft does, they will have >only a nice kludge. Many of Windows problems are related to DOS. But you don't have to live with most of them, because they only occur if you continue to run old DOS applications. If you don't, the only thing Windows inherits from DOS is the file system. Microsoft already tried the switch to a new operating system. This seems not so simple as it sounds. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/03/91)
aard@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Anthony C. Ard) writes: >What is multitasking really like in Windows? How is it better than >Multifinder? For example that the memory management for all the code and data of the involved task - which may not fit into main memory together - is dynamic. No memory partitioning, no polling. The windows programmer has to do or know nothing special in order to allow his program to multitask. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (03/04/91)
> > > 6. The Mac does not require you to type "MODE COM1:12,N,8,,P" > > Nor does the IBM PC. When did you last use a 12 baud printer? > > The Mac would not even THINK of letting you use it (: > Obviously, the point of the comment was lost! > Besides which, he's wrong. A Mac's printer driver handles > *everything* for the app. All you'd have to do to use a 12 baud > printer would be plug it in, copy the driver into the System Folder, > select it from the Chooser, and print. From _ANY_ app--none of this > garbage about having a special driver for each program/printer > combination that needs to handle graphics. Exactly my point about how easy PC/MS-DOS is to use. The MODE command only looks at the first two characters of your choosen speed. Therefore, 12 = 1200 Buad, 24 = 2400 Baud, 96 = 9600 baud, etc. And MODE is not just for printers. It controls low level stuff on serial comm, parallel comm, and video monitors. I also did not just mean to pick on the mode command. Every DOS command, and their are a bunch of them, have these switches, flags, and parameters. The manual always has a few examples, none of which ever seem to fit the problem that the user has. The biggest problem is to figure out what command to look up. Would anyone ever suspect that a laser printer is set-up using the mode command? Especially after using the same command to change to color graphics? -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (03/04/91)
In article <FRANCIS.91Mar1153010@daisy.uchicago.edu> francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) writes: > A printer that wasn't intended for a Mac is a problem, of course; but > there's no way around that: Macs need to put out their graphics info, > and there has to be *something* to interpret all that stuff. Between the Grapler, MacPrint, and one of the PostScript programs (like Freedom Of The Press), I doubt that a printer exists that cannot be used with the Mac. Of course, some printers will be able to exploit the graphics of the Mac better than others, but even a lowly ASCII printer can be used with text processing tools. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (03/04/91)
In <20168@natinst.natinst.com> davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli): >In <1991Feb28.015446.16531@eng.ufl.edu>, scot@sun1.ise.ufl.edu (Scot Gardner): >>In <672@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III): > [David Lettermanesque Top Ten List and rebuttals deleted] > > You ARE kidding here, right? No, I am not kidding. I am a Mac oriented consultant in an industry where the typical solution involves dumping a truck load of PS/2's on the problem. The best way to get attention is to use your competitors advertising lingo to support your position. For example, not only is a Mac Plus, with its 7 standard connectors and 2 built in network adapters, more expandable than a PS/2 model 70, the Mac Plus never requires a user or technician to waste valuable company time opening the computer's case. > I think this was pretty clearly a joke since it sounded a lot like one of > David Letterman's top ten lists. A Letterman list starts with 10 and counts down to 1. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
carter@cat27.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) (03/04/91)
I must agree with Brent P. Burton ... He outlines some very sound points about iNTEL's screwing architecture. BUT, We also have to look at reality. The Mac is a very small player in the computer market when compared to IBM compatiables. We also have too look at the advantages that the Mac has, and they are starting to disappear or at the least become very much less distinct. Most people fail to realize the "foreboding" consequences of selling a million copies of a software product like MS Windows 3.0 in a such a short time span. Although many will argue that the relative software technologies governing the two systems we are talking about here are very much on Apples side, sighting a mature and standardized specification, what most people fail to realize is that this only gives Apple a slight edge because the relative body of software development efforts are far more IBM orientated than that for the MAC. Even with a slight push to obtain the type of environment that Apple currently is dominant in by IBM development, would lift Windows to a even greater hieghts, maybe even past what Apple users call state of the art in GUI software technology. Many of the problems with IBM hardware can be easily overcome by a good standardized software specification, which now appears to be quite widespread with so many windows owners, remember there are more window owners than there are Mac owners. So, although we have the advantage now, because of someones insight, these could be very fleeting... --Gregory
woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (03/04/91)
In article <4196@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >Your above problem with Paradox is ill described by "because Windows hogs >all the extended memory". Actually, Windows manages all the >extended memory and gives it to applications - including old DOS applications >- on demand. The problem is, Paradox does not use this interface. It >uses an older interface to get the memory and manages that memory itself. >Windows isn't the only environment where such ill behaved programs >give you headaches. Boy I shouldn't jump into this thread; I haven't been following it at all. However, after reading this paragraph, I couldn't quite bring myself to hit the 'n' key. As a developer for both the Macintosh environment (doing it since the little 128K toasters came out), and Microsoft Windows (not developing for it quite as long, but...) it seems that the whole problem with the DOS/ Windows environment is wrapped up into this paragraph. A very good book for DOS developers, "Undocumented DOS" (highly recommended, not for the tricks it tells you about, but for the insite into how DOS works), contained a statement which also reflects this principle problem. "The problem is that many of the DOS functions and data structures that Microsoft has not documented are crucial to fulfill MS-DOS's potential as an extensible operating system. Notice that we have been saying DOS allows or permits almost infinite extensibility: we never said that DOS actually _supports_ such extensions. That is because support, as opposed to mere permission, tends to reside in the undocumented areas of the DOS programmer's interface." Undocumented DOS, page 6. Quite simply put, there is no good well-defined and well-inforced interface standards in the DOS world, and thus each and every vendor has to either hunt around and discover what the commonly used interfaces are, or to invent their own. (Inventing your own seems to be what Microsoft does best.) And therefore in the MS-DOS world, things have to be tinkered with to get them working well. (Show me a man who has not had to tinker with thier config.sys file or their autoexec.bat file on an MS-DOS machine to get their machine working again after installing something and having the whole house of cards fall around their ears, and I will show you a man who has never had the honor of maintaining an MS-DOS machine!) This is in complete contrast with the Apple Macintosh world. Again, I quote, this time from the Apple Technical Notes: "It is getting increasingly difficult to make additions to the Macintosh Toolbox. The single greatest obstacle today is compatibility.... You're probably thinking "But I Followed the rules." You're right. You've followed the stated guidelines in Inside Macintosh and the Macintosh Technical Notes. You've done nothing explicitly wrong. However, you can do more than just follow the rules. Consider what effect your design decisions have on the Macintosh community. Understand that by taking advantage of a documented feature, you may be preventing the Macintosh from growing in the future...." Technical Note #227: Toolbox Karma (BTW, "taking advantage" here is used in the same sense as taking advantage of a person. I have removed a lot of the intermediate text for brevity which allows us to actually put this quote into context.) In the Apple Macintosh community there are rules, guides, comments about rules, Thought Police (remember them? also known as the Macintosh Evangelists), and everyone follows them or faces the threat of having their software possibly break in the future. Macintosh programmers hate Apple for this; you almost feel like you are being watched over your shoulder by Apple as you try to figure out how you are *supposed* to put your application together. And even if you think you are doing it right, it turns out you weren't paying attention and did it in a way which was in reality wrong. You can't simply stay up and pull an all- nighter and get your house of cards to work, sorta; you actually have to be paying attention the whole time. The result? No house of cards. For most users, no complex installation routines, fiddle with the config.sys and autoexec.bat files, and prey that the house of cards holds up. Instead, again for most users, you plug your computer together, plug in your software, and work. My brother, a person who is about as computer-illiterate as they come (he's a musician in a rock-'n'-roll band, and having a hell of a lot more fun than *I* am...) managed to put his new Macintosh IIsi together with no help in less than thirty minutes. (It took him that long because he actually read all the packing directions in great detail before removing the computer from the box.) And when he uses a new software package, he pops in the disks and copies them in. A friend of my family bought an MS-DOS machine. After he installed MS Windows, a mouse, and an accounting package (which runs under DOS and not Windows), he wound up comming to me to help him make his machine work, after spending the better part of a day tinkering with it. (It turned out to be a conflict between the non-standard mouse driver he bought, and the built-in Windows drivers.) The difference seems to be in the attitude taken by Microsoft in their operating system, and with Apple and their operating system. I am not suggesting that Apple is perfect--Apple has it's own problems. And I am not suggesting that Microsoft Windows is totally evil and horrible--if it were, I wouldn't be spending a lot of time, money, and effort learning how to write software for the Windows environment. And to be quite frank, Windows is one hell of an improvement over the older DOS environment--you are either Windows compatable, or you are not. This will make it economically important for vendors to be Windows compatable. However, as Apple started it first (yes, with thier thought police, and the Macintosh 'cult' of followers who are the first to reject software packages which are not Macintosh Compliant, and the long learning curve, and the feeling that someone is looking over your shoulders all the time), and Apple still is one of the few companies who have a line of computers which come the closest to being "plug and play", even to a computer-illerate user like my brother. Well, I'm out of here; I don't want to contribute any more to the flame wars. And not that I believe that Apple is superior to MS-DOS or visa-versa; I know each operating system grew up out of it's own environment and culture. I *do* believe that it is the attitude of Apple (with their enforcement of the Macintosh Way) that makes the Apple Macintosh a superior machine for the common user, but I also believe that Microsoft Windows have gone a very very long way to fixing the usability of the MS-DOS machine for the common user. -- Bill -- William Edward Woody | Disclamer: USNAIL P.O.Box 50986; Pasadena, CA 91115 | EMAIL woody@tybalt.caltech.edu | The useful stuff in this message ICBM 34 08' 44''N x 118 08' 41''W | was only line noise.
rgm@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Rob Menke) (03/04/91)
In article <4196@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: A standard file dialogue is simpler both for the programmer and for the the user. But this "one size fits all" approach does not encourage the development of spezialized file dialogues, which are optimized to the actual context. Windows offers a set of building blocks for file dialogues, which in fact allow all the variations you describe above. "One size fits all" is a bit harsh in describing the Standard File Package. A better description would be "lowest common denominator." The Standard File Package allows the programmer to use the regular dialog box (SFGetFile/SFPutFile) or make their own (SFPGetFile/SFPPutFile). A good example is when Apple switched from MFS (Macintosh File System) to HFS (Hierarchical File System), they went to great pains figuring out how to change the nonstandard dialogs to support the new system even though they had given warning that nonstandard dialogs might not be supported in future releases of the OS. It's all rather technical, involving checking the resources for certain configurations (another good reason for allowing USERS to edit resources--I've altered a few old dialogs myself) and if you are really interested, I'll explain it via e-mail. No need to bore the rest of the net. -- >GIVE COIN TO CHARON | Robert Menke "So educated," giggles the voice in | rgm@OCF.berkeley.edu your ear... | ...!ucbvax!OCF!rgm
jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) (03/04/91)
In article <4197@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >aard@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Anthony C. Ard) writes: > >>What is multitasking really like in Windows? How is it better than >>Multifinder? > >The windows programmer has to do or know nothing special in order to >allow his program to multitask. What a loaded comment! You neglect to mention that an {MS,PC}Dos programmer != windows programmer. Dos programmers are rather used to assuming they have the entire machine to much around with. Only with the advent of Windows does a programmer have to be concerned with sharing system resources via requests instead of simply taking a port or chunk of memory directly. Of course, I'm waiting for the day when an IBM PC can format both A: and B: simultaneously... -- John M. Adams --****-- Professional Student /// Internet: jma@reef.cis.ufl.edu Genie: vlad /// Only the Amiga Sysop of The Beachside, Amiga BBS, Paragon 2.0858 \\V// Makes it Possible Fido Net 1:3612/557. 904-492-2305 (Florida) \X/
nguyent@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Thien Nguyen) (03/04/91)
In article <91.056.16:01:18@ira.uka.de> s_czempin@irav1.ira.uka.de writes: >OK everybody. >I always have arguments with my fellow students about which computer >system is better: the PC world or the MAC world. >I'm for the mac, but I keep losing arguments. >So I have decided to be really thorough: I will start the COMPLETE LIST >OF REASONS WHY THE MAC IS BETTER THAN PC COMPATIBLES. > >for example: why a student should buy a mac and not a pc; why a small >company should buy a mac and not a pc; why programmers should buy ....... > >I need mostly facts, because I can say that I "like" the Mac myself.. > >Please email, I'll summarize if you wish. > >P.S. Especially arguments why Europeans e.g. Germans should buy macs are >appreciated. Why not just buy an Amiga? That way you can run both Mac, IBM, Atari ST, UNIX all in one box. Seeing that you're from Germany, I am surprised that you made no mention of an Amiga. > >-- >Nicolai Czempin (EdInBed), University of Karlsruhe, Germany
ingemar@isy.liu.se (Ingemar Ragnemalm) (03/04/91)
scot@sun1.ise.ufl.edu (Scot Gardner) writes: >In article <672@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >> >>1. Macintoshes are cheaper (when comparing similar name brand machines) >Similar?? Your kidding, right? AT? 386? 486? >If YOU can get them cheaper, then it's not by much. I look in the catalog of our local dealer. They have Macs, IBM and Nokia (PC clones, supposedly high quality). They don't have lowest-possible-price PC clones, you know the ones that work for two days before needing the first repair. Just have a look at the prices (university prices - and you know that Apple doesn't discount as much any more, right?): Mac LC (16 MHz), 12" hi-res grayscale (decent monitor), 2MB, 40M HD: 15000 SEK. The same with 13" color: about 19000 SEK. 386SX-clone, 16MHz, 14" color, Windows, 2MB, 40M HD, mouse: 29980 SEK. IBM 386SX 10MHz (!), 14" color, 2MB, 30M HD: 29540 SEK. IBM 386SX 16MHz, 14" color, 4MB, 120M HD: 47990 SEK. (Seems like that HD costs a lot.) If you want a math coprocessor: Mac IIsi (20 MHz), 15" b/w, math pr., 5M, 40M HD: 30400 SEK. The same with 80M HD: 35090 SEK. (Expensive HD, Apple! But you win anyway.) 386-clone, 20MHz, 15" b/w, math pr., 4M, 100M HD: 47600 SEK. IBM 386, 25MHz, 15" b/w, math pr., 8M, 120 M HD: 78870 SEK. IBM 386, 20MHz, 15" b/w, math pr., 4M, 115M HD: 65930 SEK. (SEK = swedish crowns.) Yes, I know there are cheaper clones around, so you can get a "noname"-style PC for less that a comparable Mac. A Mac can fail too, but I do believe that they have a higher quality than the low-budget PC clones. Sure you might find a cheap PC that works for a while - if you are lucky. Compared to the PCs of known high-quality brands, the Mac seems to be priced on a nice level. Note that I didn't compare lowest cost computers, since I wouldn't consider a "toaster" with the LC around. I usually advise people who consider buying a cheap Mac to get an LC with 12" grayscale. So, as long as you are looking at known brands (is that what "name brands" means?) it seems like the claim holds pretty well: Macs aren't very expensive. -- Ingemar Ragnemalm Dept. of Electrical Engineering ...!uunet!mcvax!enea!rainier!ingemar .. University of Linkoping, Sweden ingemar@isy.liu.se
breidenb@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Oliver Breidenbach) (03/05/91)
hi there,
Wolfgang, I have two questions:
1.) Do you have no other things to do all the day long as to fight long
flame wars? (this is a personal question not a flame.)
2.) Did you ever even see a mac? Or programm it? Probably with MacApp?
Okay, actually these are three questions. But since you can't stand
to hazzle mac, I assume you haven't use it yet.
I did the following experiment. At our company we have a person who
was very impressed by MSDOS PCs. He didn't know a lot about them, but
as a programmer he fought his way through them quite fast. I was always
enthusiastic about mac and finally got the management convinced to buy
macs. The person has a MSDOS machine at his desk for daily work. So he
didn't get one of the first macs and kept argueing: my pc does anything I
expect from it. At least recently he got a mac and now there are two
computers on his desk. And the only reason for the msdos machine to stay
is that it has a modem build in which is needed from time to time to
transfer cad data from our CAD system to the company which supplies the
PCBs. The mac simply does more than he expected it to do...
About MacApp: I've never seen a simpler way to program complicated things.
Maybe the NextStep programming tool, but not on a MSDOS machine.
Using it provides you with the ability to write a text editor with 2000
lines of code. The program will be very simple but support clipboard
operations, multible dokuments, different fonts, sizes, and attributes to
text, file operations and undo... Do you have a comparable programmers
tool under MSDOS? Oh, I forgot, it also will have printing on any printer
and will run with any previously and future releases of mac machines.
have fun.
Oliver.strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/05/91)
breidenb@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Oliver Breidenbach) writes: >hi there, >Wolfgang, I have two questions: >1.) Do you have no other things to do all the day long as to fight long > flame wars? (this is a personal question not a flame.) "This sentence is indeed true" Is anything which isn't breathless admiration of the system you're using looks like a flame war to you, that's your problem, not mine. My intent is to get into a technical discussion of the relative merits and problems of the various GUIs. This seems to be rather difficult, because many Mac enthusiasts perceive any attempt to analyze their system and to compare it to other systems as a personal attack. This doesn't prevent them from insulting other peoples of beeing stupid or ignorant, just because they use another system, which may be as good or usefull as their own system. I could start a flame war by quoting examples for that and/or pay back in the same currency, but why should I? I'm doing this, contrary to your assumption, mostly during the evening or during the night, and for fun or for my own education. Flame wars are neither fun nor educative. >2.) Did you ever even see a mac? Or programm it? Probably with MacApp? Yes, many. No. No. Did you? > Okay, actually these are three questions. But since you can't stand > to hazzle mac, I assume you haven't use it yet. Sure I did. Similar to all those people on this list who compare their new 68040 based high speed Mac to the old original IBM PC they where forced to use years ago, my own experience with Macs comes from using one of the first Macs (128K, one floppy) with beta versions of various programs. The machine was a joke, it was slow; the programs - MacWrite, MacPaint and Multiplan, if I remember correclty - crashed nearly everytime you tried to do something useful, and you had to have backup copy of the system disk, because the machine liked to trash the system on this disk now and then. The endless necessity to swap the application/data disk and the system disk was annoying. I recommended this system, nevertheless, because I recognized its superiour user interface, and because I could differenciate between the actual deficiencies and pitfalls of the machine, and its inherent elegance and possible usefullness. This may indeed be one of the reasons why the Mac is used heavily in my organization, nowadays. I prefer other machines, mainly because I started to use small computers long before the advent of the Mac, and because I like to have control over my machine, instead of having one supplier having the control. I was exposed to object oriented programming using SIMULA67 on a mainframe during my study, so references to MacApp and similar systems don't impress me that much, either. [story about impressed, but uninformed MSDOS user/programmer deleted] > About MacApp: I've never seen a simpler way to program complicated things. > Maybe the NextStep programming tool, but not on a MSDOS machine. > Using it provides you with the ability to write a text editor with 2000 > lines of code. The program will be very simple but support clipboard > operations, multible dokuments, different fonts, sizes, and attributes to > text, file operations and undo... Do you have a comparable programmers > tool under MSDOS? Oh, I forgot, it also will have printing on any printer > and will run with any previously and future releases of mac machines. I checked the samples which come with the Windows SDK (system development kit). It includes a 280 line program which is a complete editor, and a 1200 line program which is an editor, which includes clipboard support, file operations and printing. Supporting multiple documents is not necessary under MS Windows, because any application normally is reentrant, so you can start it as many times as you like, with different data. Of course, it prints on any printer and will run with any PC which runs Windows. These programs are quite longish, because they are programmed in a procedural language (C), which doesn't allow to shorten code by inheriting usefull things from predefined classes. Nevertheless, they show what can be done in MS Windows with relativly few lines of code. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
smg@sparky.cis.ufl.edu (Scot M. Gardner) (03/05/91)
In article <ingemar.668090810@stuart> ingemar@isy.liu.se (Ingemar Ragnemalm) writes: >I look in the catalog of our local dealer. They have Macs, IBM and Nokia >(PC clones, supposedly high quality). They don't have lowest-possible-price >PC clones, you know the ones that work for two days before needing the first >repair. > How come you don't list THOSE prices? >Just have a look at the prices (university prices - and you know that Apple >doesn't discount as much any more, right?): No, I don't know. Last time I saw OUR university prices, they were pretty good (for Apple). >Mac LC (16 MHz), 12" hi-res grayscale (decent monitor), 2MB, 40M HD: 15000 SEK. >The same with 13" color: about 19000 SEK. >386SX-clone, 16MHz, 14" color, Windows, 2MB, 40M HD, mouse: 29980 SEK. ....(various prices deleted)... > >(SEK = swedish crowns.) > >Yes, I know there are cheaper clones around, so you can get a "noname"-style >PC for less that a comparable Mac. A Mac can fail too, but I do believe >that they have a higher quality than the low-budget PC clones. Sure you might >find a cheap PC that works for a while - if you are lucky. > >Compared to the PCs of known high-quality brands, the Mac seems to be >priced on a nice level. Note that I didn't compare lowest cost computers, >since I wouldn't consider a "toaster" with the LC around. I usually advise >people who consider buying a cheap Mac to get an LC with 12" grayscale. > >So, as long as you are looking at known brands (is that what "name brands" >means?) it seems like the claim holds pretty well: > >Macs aren't very expensive. > I'm sorry if you have had bad problems in the past with "no-name" PC's, but I am using one at work (lowest bidder, don't you know!) and it's run FINE. I would talk prices, but I don't know them in SEK. *I* belive we are talking 2 worlds here folks. You CAN'T COMPARE PC's and MACS. I do think you can compare MAC's an AMIGAs though. (I think AMIGAs win hands down!!) -- | University Of Florida | | Computer and Information Sciences & Industrial and Systems Engineering | | Scot M. Gardner, Resident Computer Jock | | smg@cis.ufl.edu scot@sun1.ise.ufl.edu smg@hindmost.math.ufl.edu |
favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) (03/05/91)
In article <4196@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > Windows applications >don't have to resort to all these little tricks which where necessary >to squeeze a program into the 640k box, and which made these programs >incompatible with each other. > >It does quite a good job to emulate the old DOS environment, if somebody >wants to run an old application. Sometimes it fails, but so what? Do >you judge the Macintosh environment by looking at its PC emulators? >Surely not! My point is that the fundamental problem with MS-DOS/Windows systems is that most people using Windows also want to use DOS programs. Switching back and forth is a hassle, despite the DOS box in Windows, which very often doesn't allow you to use a DOS program to the fullest, if at all. Why do people want to use DOS programs? Because plenty of useful programs are not available in Windows versions. And I'm not talking about old programs, but current stuff put out by MAJOR companies. (E.g. Paradox by Borland) Now you might say there are several databases/word processors/speadsheets available. But if the one I've been using for the past three years isn't among them it doesn't do me a whole lot of good. I have too much time and effort invested in XYZ program to convert over easily. I am not blaming either the companies who write the apps or the Windows folks at Microsoft. Programmers are not clairvoyants or magicians. The point is that PCs are in a transitional phase, and it can be hard on the users. Ultimately, users will benefit, of course. But the intervening hassle is of an indefinite length, and in my opinion that is one area that puts PCs behind Macs. >>Switching from DOS to Windows and back is a pain. Sometimes Windows >>trashes the machines memory/ports/environment enough that you must >>reboot to use another DOS program. HASSLE! Of course all this is >>to use an inferior GUI anyhow. See below for details. > >Inferior to what? To a mixture of Paradox and your favorite menu >system? I think it's obvious that I mean it is inferior to the Mac. That's what this comparison is all about. >>[Discussion of the fact that Windows is slow on machines that are otherwise >>fast. E.g. 20MHz 386s] >The bottleneck for the GUI operations you describe as to slow (scrolling, >menu pull-down, ...) is the video card, which is slow and dumb, usually. >You did not mention what brand of video card you use, but I would >assume the problem there. I use an ATI VGA Wonder Card with 512k on-board video RAM. Now this may not be the fastest card available, but it is not anywhere near the slowest. But the point is that if you need to get the fastest (i.e. expensive) video card to make Windows perform acceptably in the display of its basic GUI elements, then plenty of people will have to get a hardware as well as software upgrade to use Windows. Also the prices people quote when saying how cheap PCs are should reflect that. This is a point against PCs. [I talk about File Manager and Program Manager.] >You're right, both programs leave something to be desired. Other companies >have started to sell replacement shells. So far, I like none of them, so >I stay with the above two programs. I don't share your opinion that >having *two* such programs is a bad thing. Conceptually, two programs might work, if they cooperate well. I don't think Program and File Manager do. [I complain 640k DOS memory and other RAM problems.] >See above. All this has nothing to do with Windows. Windows has no >640K limit. It does not use different kinds of memory. It emulates all >kinds of quirks / bugs / features / interfaces an old DOS application >may expect, mostly successfull, sometimes unsuccessfull. But this >emulation feature is not the central feature of Windows, it's an >ad on, a migration path. It may have nothing to do with Windows, but it has everything to do with PCs. The point here is that you have to be compatible to your previous mistakes, unless you can afford to alienate your current user base. Obviously, both Apple and Microsoft feel they can't. However, I think Apple has been more succesful at maintaining a smooth transition to new versions of their system software than Microsoft has. (Granted Microsoft has more to handle, but they can't blame anyone but themselves.) PC users have to deal with this, and it is a problem. >> 3) Different video modes. I don't want to have to configure >> my software everytime I move from my VGA monitor to the machine >> in the other room running with EGA or MCGA or Hercules, etc. >Windows programs don't need that. In fact, a Windows program has no >way of obtaining the video mode it is running in. That's fine. But PC users still have to worry about video cards and modes. [I talk about (Non)Standard File in Windows, and general klunkiness in its GUI.] >I have changed my opinion about this point a few times now. >A standard file dialogue is simpler both for the programmer >and for the the user. But this "one size fits all" approach >does not encourage the development of spezialized file dialogues, >which are optimized to the actual context. Windows offers a set >of building blocks for file dialogues, which in fact allow all the >variations you describe above. I'm not talking about exotic features. I'm talking about the simple mechanics of picking the file you want to operate on. This one of the most basic interface elements, and Windows programs can't agree on how to do it. I might also add that not a single one I've seen matches the cleanness and simplicity of the Mac's version. >> 6) Windows crashes much more than my Mac at home. And I have >> 27 INIT running at home! Windows will crash about once or >> twice a week during seemingly normal and mundane operations >> like typing scrolling. It crashed even more often after you >> have installed new software (I mean just plain old apps) until >> you have tweaked WIN.INI, CONFIG.SYS, and AUTOEXEC.BAT enough. >> This is a major hassle. I have never had my Mac crash more >> often just because I installed a new applications (INIT maybe, >> app no way). > >Such statements are very hard to verify. A fair comparison would be >running Windows with Windows applications only and then comparing. The crashes I'm talking about occur when I run only Windows programs. >Many old DOS applications are buggy in the sense that they contain >spurious reads or writes which hit ROM other places where it does no >harm, so that these bugs get unnoticed. Windows in Enhanced mode >is able to detect such illegal operations sometimes, and tries >to terminate the offending application, sometimes successfully, >sometimes not. Here again, I have to say that PC users suffer from the fact that DOS and Windows beat each other up sometimes. [I bemoan laborious and ill-documented installation procedures for apps.] >This is really a problem. But I don't know how it should be solved >without going the Apple or the IBM way, i.e. having one hardware >supplier controlling the system. I don't know what you mean here. Apple and IBM control the hardware and operating systems (if you count OS/2), but certainly not the vast majority of software. And Microsoft certainly controls DOS and Windows. The problem is not control, but designing an OS that allows third party software to be installed without mucking around with lower-level aspects of system configuration. Apple has Microsoft/IBM beaten by a mile on this one. >Tools which move the 640K barier a little bit are in common use for >some time now - what Microsoft now integrates in DOS 5.0 is not at all >new. And it is in no way related to Windows itself, only to its ability >to run old DOS applications. I don't understand what that ability >of Windows has to do with the level of the Mac 5 years ago. You compare >apples and oranges. I know all about memory managers and have been using them for years. They can cause all kinds of problems and the sooner they aren't needed, the better. As I have said repeatedly, users of PC do have to worry about these things if they want to use both DOS and Windows programs. And most will have to, at least for now. The whole point of this discussion is to compare PCs and Macs. And if a current PC feature is comparable to an old Mac feature, it just shows that the Mac is more advanced in that area. > >>Things I like about Windows: >> 1) Better multi-tasking than Multifinder on the Mac. I.e. >> regular programs can run in the background, not just >> print spoolers, etc. (Note that I mean actually run, not >> just sit there as in Multifinder.) > >Huh? My understanding was that background applications continue to >run under the Multifinder, too. What I mean is that old Mac apps did not include and background ability, and many still do not. Thus, when they are swapped out by Multifinder, they don't do anything useful. >Many of Windows problems are related to DOS. But you don't have to >live with most of them, because they only occur if you continue >to run old DOS applications. If you don't, the only thing Windows >inherits from DOS is the file system. > >Microsoft already tried the switch to a new operating system. This >seems not so simple as it sounds. This is exactly the point. The mish-mash of operating systems/interfaces/ memory models/video standards etc. is a serious headache for people trying to do real work in the real world on PCs. I.e. tens of thousands of people who recently bought Windows still have to run their old DOS programs too. What do you think they did with all that software? Throw it out? Even if you could replace all of your old DOS software with spiffy new Windows software, it would cost lots of money. I repeat my assertion that until DOS is long gone, PC users will still be weighted down with a nasty old boat anchor, even if they have nice Windows programs to look at. Disclaimer: I use both Macs and PCs. I like Macs better. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ Francis Favorini favorini@cs.yale.edu favorini@yalecs.bitnet ...!yale!favorini
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/06/91)
ingemar@isy.liu.se (Ingemar Ragnemalm) writes: ... >I look in the catalog of our local dealer. They have Macs, IBM and Nokia >(PC clones, supposedly high quality). They don't have lowest-possible-price >PC clones, you know the ones that work for two days before needing the first >repair. I always bought one of those lowest-possible-price PC clones for my private purposes - the third one just a few months ago - and never had any problems with them. In fact, there is *one* problem - what to do with the old machines - they work perfectly well, but nobody wants to buy an old, slow machine, if the ads are full of fast, cheap new ones. So I let my children play with the old machines, perhaps *they* are able to break them. :-) >... >Yes, I know there are cheaper clones around, so you can get a "noname"-style >PC for less that a comparable Mac. A Mac can fail too, but I do believe >that they have a higher quality than the low-budget PC clones. Sure you might >find a cheap PC that works for a while - if you are lucky. The last sentence is an exaggeration. IBM PC clones and Macs aren't that different inside. Sure you might find a clone that breaks after a short while, if you are unlucky. I haven't observed much difference between the failure rate of PCs of known high-quality brand, and no-names. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) (03/06/91)
In article <1991Mar5.005141.13193@eng.ufl.edu>, smg@sparky.cis.ufl.edu (Scot M. Gardner) writes... >I'm sorry if you have had bad problems in the past with "no-name" PC's, >but I am using one at work (lowest bidder, don't you know!) and it's >run FINE. I would talk prices, but I don't know them in SEK. > >*I* belive we are talking 2 worlds here folks. You CAN'T COMPARE >PC's and MACS. That's right, unless you compare a Macintosh with a PC from a brand-name company. Ideally, that would be IBM. But to be liberal, let's pick Dell. I compared the IIci, with a comparably equipped 386 w/ SCSI, color, 80MB drive, math chip, etc., and the prices were pretty similar as I recall; this was a few months ago. You can't compare a Macintosh from Apple with a PC from Joe's PC Klones and Kut-Rate Stuff. Richard C. Long * long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com * ...!decwrl!mcntsh.enet.dec.com!long * long%mcntsh.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com
piper@s5000.rsvl.unisys.com (Piper Keairnes) (03/06/91)
carter@cat27.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) writes: >Many of the problems with IBM hardware can be easily overcome by a good >standardized software specification, which now appears to be quite >widespread with so many windows owners, remember there are more window >owners than there are Mac owners. At work, I've been testing out a new Windows based terminal application on one of the fastest PC's in the department. The program is perhaps one of the best terminal environments available to our employees, but the sad thing is that the refresh rate and the throughput of the screen is unacceptable. I understand that Windows 3.0 is now very wide spread, but the simple fact remains that the hardware required to make Windows palatable would be too costly for many organizations. For employees to move to the Windows product, they would have to sacrifice speed... a great deal of speed. The managers like the functionality we'd gain, but the programmers won't use the program until we get faster hardware. That isn't going to happen anytime soon. A mere Mac Classic performs better than a 25MHz 386 when it comes to the windowing interface slapped on top of DOS. All in all, Windows is a STEP in the right direction, but it isn't going to stop people from buying Macs... not after they've sat down at each computer and taken a trial run. Disclaimers: If I spoke for my employer I'd be a salesperson, not a programmer. -- Piper Keairnes * piper@rsvl.unisys.com * Purdue Univ. Unisys Corporation * uunet!rsvl.unisys.com!piper * Computing Center Open Software Products * 1410 Carling Dr, St Paul, MN 55108 * Consultant
francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (03/06/91)
In article <1991Mar4.052143.19855@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: In the Apple Macintosh community there are rules, guides, comments about rules, Thought Police (remember them? also known as the Macintosh Evangelists), and everyone follows them or faces the threat of having their software possibly break in the future. Macintosh programmers hate Apple for this; you almost feel like you are being No we don't. (At least *I* don't. :-) I LOVE this. I get a big kick out of being able to take any program I write and put it into any Mac. And I know that it's largely because Apple's so careful. -- /=============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \=============================================================================/
francis@uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (03/06/91)
In article <4080@ryn.mro4.dec.com> long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: You can't compare a Macintosh from Apple with a PC from Joe's PC Klones and Kut-Rate Stuff. Unfortunately, you can, and should. Consider that there is (currently) no analogue of Joe's PC Klones and Kut-Rate Stuff in the Mac world. That nonexistence is a problem. Sort of. (Keep in mind that a large part of our wonderful compatibility is due to the fact that Apple is our only source. :-) -- /=============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \=============================================================================/
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (03/06/91)
In article <4194@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: The Macs clipboard support seems to be written for transporting something between applications running one after the other, so the Well, often you have to. See below. restriction to a few clipboard formats and the necessity to actually Did you read the explanation I posted? You can put *anything* on the Mac's Clipboard. The name of the format is four characters; that's not few, by any stretch of the imagination. create and copy all the supported formats at the same time. While Windows allows the same style of interation between programs, the prefered method is to generate a request to render a clipboard format only if an application actually asks for a copy of the clipboard content in this format. Wait a minute. Who does the reformatting? Windows? That would pretty definitely limit you to one set of formats, wouldn't it? And if the apps do the reformatting, then you can't do it after quitting (unless you relaunch the whole bloody app just to switch formats!). On a Mac, an app puts out everything it can, all together, for the simple reason that users *do* sometimes/often/always (depending on system and user) quit between making their copy and using it. (In fact, since the Clipboard gets stored on disk, the system may have been restarted and the app deleted since the copy was made! Try reformatting then!) Granted, it would save some RAM/disk resources to be able to get away with copying in only one format at a time--but (1) you don't usually copy all that much at once, and (2) Macs before Sys7 don't have IAC, which would be necessary if you were to request reformatting like this, and (3) putting it into all the formats you can do saves the user time later on. (Suppose the app this came from was on a disk currently off-line. Assuming that the system remembers where it is--no great task for a Mac [Macs remember stuff about removed disks until told to forget--wonderful feature, even if it *is* a legacy of the 1-drive Skinny]--the user will be asked to swap disks to make a copy! Ugh. And let's not even THINK about what happens if you take a year-old item out of the Scrapbook.) All in all, while I see that Window's way saves some storage space, I really think Mac's way is easier on the user. (Provided I've understood Windows right. Perhaps some actual details, please?) -- /=============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \=============================================================================/
dswt@stl.stc.co.uk (D.S.W.Tansley) (03/07/91)
Here's a fact I was stung by only yesterday, whilst (stupidly) venturing
into the braindead world of PCs: you can't simply rename directories.
UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!
Not only can you not simply 'rename' (or whatever) an exsiting directory
in DOS, but WINDOWS 3.0 ALSO DOES NOT HIDE THIS STUPID LIMITATION!!!
Am I so naive a Mac user as to want to simply rename a folder (sorry,
directory)? Let alone have a decent number/type of characters in the name...
===========================================================================
Stewart Tansley | STC Technology Ltd | 'Be cool, or be
| London Rd, Harlow, CM17 9NA, UK | cast out...'
dswt@stl.stc.co.uk | +44 279 429531 x2763 | Subdivisions, Rush
===========================================================================
'You know how that rabbit feels - going under your spinning wheels...'
===========================================================================carter@cat27.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) (03/07/91)
Well, golly jeepers, (er huh!) my machine is better because I have a window on mine, that (uh HUH, golly) that I can open up and expands so large that my monitor explodes!!! And my computer uses a REAL mouse, you have to catch your own and gut IT OUT and hook it up to your computer...UH HER! Gosh golly ain't that neato. Aaaa And my machine comes with a built in shaver that allows me to save time and effort and cleans up the mess too! Gosh golly, (er HUh!), what can yours computers do's? I got mine at a local TARGET and it was much better than any of yours! Yeah, so my computer is has better features than yours.... Eeeks! (My mouse moved, dam thing ain't dead yet, well, just another feature!) ---Gregory
ds4a@dalton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Dale Southard) (03/07/91)
The key reason why macs are better than messy dos: Steve and Steve are WAY COOLER than Bill Gates!!!!!!!! --> --> Dale UVa (ds4a@virginia.edu)
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (03/07/91)
In article <4203@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >breidenb@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Oliver Breidenbach) writes: > > >I checked the samples which come with the Windows SDK (system development >kit). It includes a 280 line program which is a complete editor, and >a 1200 line program which is an editor, which includes clipboard support, >file operations and printing. Supporting multiple documents is not necessary >These programs are quite longish, because they are programmed in a procedural >language (C), which doesn't allow to shorten code by inheriting usefull You can write similar Mac programs (using the Mac Toolbox) in about the same number of lines. The advantage of using an application framework (e.g., MacApp) is that the framework will handle a lot of features for you. You end up with more features per line of code that you write, and the code ends up being easier to maintain. -- Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 3-PK Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/08/91)
favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: >In article <4196@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >> Windows applications >>don't have to resort to all these little tricks which where necessary >>to squeeze a program into the 640k box, and which made these programs >>incompatible with each other. >> >>It does quite a good job to emulate the old DOS environment, if somebody >>wants to run an old application. Sometimes it fails, but so what? Do >>you judge the Macintosh environment by looking at its PC emulators? >>Surely not! >My point is that the fundamental problem with MS-DOS/Windows systems is that >most people using Windows also want to use DOS programs. As you say later, it is a *transient* problem, not a fundamental one. > Switching back >and forth is a hassle, despite the DOS box in Windows, which very often >doesn't allow you to use a DOS program to the fullest, if at all. Why do >people want to use DOS programs? Because plenty of useful programs are not >available in Windows versions. Not yet, mostly because there are so many useful old DOS programs. > And I'm not talking about old programs, >but current stuff put out by MAJOR companies. (E.g. Paradox by Borland) I like Paradox, too - I still keep a copy of the original article from Zloof in a '77 IBM System Journal, where he described Query-By-Example, which is the idea on which Paradox is built upon. But both the monolithic implementation and the user interface are a bit outdated. I would not call it "current". >Now you might say there are several databases/word processors/speadsheets >available. But if the one I've been using for the past three years isn't >among them it doesn't do me a whole lot of good. I have too much time >and effort invested in XYZ program to convert over easily. I am not >blaming either the companies who write the apps or the Windows folks at >Microsoft. Programmers are not clairvoyants or magicians. The point >is that PCs are in a transitional phase, and it can be hard on the users. You are absolutely right here. But I think it is better to make the transition now than later. If we make it later, it will be even more difficult and costly. Character based, "integrated" DOS applications with their own user interface are a dead end. >Ultimately, users will benefit, of course. But the intervening hassle is >of an indefinite length, and in my opinion that is one area that puts PCs >behind Macs. It's the users choice. The intervening hassle is as long as the user chooses. There is nobody forcing the users to stay with old DOS applications, and there is nobody forcing them to switch to Windows, immediately. This is indeed a problem Mac users don't have. >>>Switching from DOS to Windows and back is a pain. Sometimes Windows >>>trashes the machines memory/ports/environment enough that you must >>>reboot to use another DOS program. HASSLE! Of course all this is >>>to use an inferior GUI anyhow. See below for details. >> >>Inferior to what? To a mixture of Paradox and your favorite menu >>system? >I think it's obvious that I mean it is inferior to the Mac. That's what this >comparison is all about. It is not so obvious. The standard argument against Windows in this thread is that it handles old DOS applications not very well. While I don't buy the precondition, the whole argument is flawed in my opinion, because it doesn't say anything about the quality of Windows as a GUI at all! >>>[Discussion of the fact that Windows is slow on machines that are otherwise >>>fast. E.g. 20MHz 386s] >>The bottleneck for the GUI operations you describe as to slow (scrolling, >>menu pull-down, ...) is the video card, which is slow and dumb, usually. >>You did not mention what brand of video card you use, but I would >>assume the problem there. >I use an ATI VGA Wonder Card with 512k on-board video RAM. Now this may >not be the fastest card available, but it is not anywhere near the slowest. I don't have access to such a card, so I can't compare it with others. But from reading comp.windows.ms, I remember that there where many complaints about the Windows 3 drivers of the ATI VGA Wonder to be very slow. >But the point is that if you need to get the fastest (i.e. expensive) video >card to make Windows perform acceptably in the display of its basic GUI >elements, then plenty of people will have to get a hardware as well as >software upgrade to use Windows. Also the prices people quote when saying >how cheap PCs are should reflect that. This is a point against PCs. No, it isn't. You don't need to get the fastest, but sometimes a card which performs well under some conditions - using character based applications or static graphics in this case - does not perform not so good under changed conditions - if you switch to a GUI, for example. I have an old ATI EGA Wonder somewhere, which I bought because it, while beeing a bit slower, is able to change personality on both sides, both to the software and to the monitor. This made it possible to buy a cheap B&W monitor and use it as a cheap, temporary replacement for a otherwise required color monitor. Under character based applications, the difference in performance is hardly noticeable. Under Windows, the card crawls. Fast SVGA cards supporting 800*600 screens are in the price range of 100$ to 200$, so we aren't talking about that much money, here. >[I talk about File Manager and Program Manager.] >>You're right, both programs leave something to be desired. Other companies >>have started to sell replacement shells. So far, I like none of them, so >>I stay with the above two programs. I don't share your opinion that >>having *two* such programs is a bad thing. >Conceptually, two programs might work, if they cooperate well. I don't think >Program and File Manager do. Can you give a specific example? I have some complaints myself, but would like to hear where the cooperation between Program and File Manager is bad, in your opinion. >[I complain 640k DOS memory and other RAM problems.] >>See above. All this has nothing to do with Windows. Windows has no >>640K limit. It does not use different kinds of memory. It emulates all >>kinds of quirks / bugs / features / interfaces an old DOS application >>may expect, mostly successfull, sometimes unsuccessfull. But this >>emulation feature is not the central feature of Windows, it's an >>ad on, a migration path. >It may have nothing to do with Windows, but it has everything to do with >PCs. The point here is that you have to be compatible to your previous >mistakes, unless you can afford to alienate your current user base. This is misleading, because there is nobody alienating their current user base, here. PCs are manufactured by many different hardware producers as part of their computer equipment line, while Microsoft is a software house selling application software and operating system software for these and other systems. So a PC is the result of the combined effort of different companies, which is quite different from the Macintosh, where the essential parts, the hardware and the system software come from exactly one producer, Apple. Anyway, if beeing compatible with previous mistakes means repeating them, I'd rather be not compatible and make an advance. >Obviously, both Apple and Microsoft feel they can't. However, I think >Apple has been more succesful at maintaining a smooth transition to new >versions of their system software than Microsoft has. (Granted Microsoft >has more to handle, but they can't blame anyone but themselves.) Sure they can. They didn't invent the machine for which they wrote the system software, for example. And they can blame the necessity to be compatible with the tremendous amount of usefull CP/M software they had to be compatible with. >PC users have to deal with this, and it is a problem. You can't both have the cake and eat it. A PC user has the choice to select from a rich supply of hard and software of different price and quality. With this freedom comes the ability to make the wrong choice, of course. >>> 3) Different video modes. I don't want to have to configure >>> my software everytime I move from my VGA monitor to the machine >>> in the other room running with EGA or MCGA or Hercules, etc. >>Windows programs don't need that. In fact, a Windows program has no >>way of obtaining the video mode it is running in. >That's fine. But PC users still have to worry about video cards and modes. as long as they continue to use old DOS applications. >[I talk about (Non)Standard File in Windows, and general klunkiness in its >GUI.] >>I have changed my opinion about this point a few times now. >>A standard file dialogue is simpler both for the programmer >>and for the the user. But this "one size fits all" approach >>does not encourage the development of spezialized file dialogues, >>which are optimized to the actual context. Windows offers a set >>of building blocks for file dialogues, which in fact allow all the >>variations you describe above. >I'm not talking about exotic features. I'm talking about the simple >mechanics of picking the file you want to operate on. This one of the >most basic interface elements, and Windows programs can't agree on how >to do it. I might also add that not a single one I've seen matches the >cleanness and simplicity of the Mac's version. I'm not talking about exotic features, either. But I don't think that only because the Mac does it a certain way, and because it is written down in the Human Interface Guidlines, Windows has to do it in an identical way. But let me ask a specific question. What is wrong with the file dialogs used by the standard Windows programs, say notepad or calendar? >>> 6) Windows crashes much more than my Mac at home. And I have >>> 27 INIT running at home! Windows will crash about once or >>> twice a week during seemingly normal and mundane operations >>> like typing scrolling. It crashed even more often after you >>> have installed new software (I mean just plain old apps) until >>> you have tweaked WIN.INI, CONFIG.SYS, and AUTOEXEC.BAT enough. >>> This is a major hassle. I have never had my Mac crash more >>> often just because I installed a new applications (INIT maybe, >>> app no way). >> >>Such statements are very hard to verify. A fair comparison would be >>running Windows with Windows applications only and then comparing. >The crashes I'm talking about occur when I run only Windows programs. I see. My experience is a bit different. There are of course buggy applications which can crash the system, because Windows doesn't use the memory protection of the protected mode fully. But if I avoid them, and if I don't run old DOS applications - which may interact with the system in a strange way - Windows runs the whole day long, 7 days a week. From what I see from people using Macs here, a faulty application can crash the Mac OS easily, too. >>Many old DOS applications are buggy in the sense that they contain >>spurious reads or writes which hit ROM other places where it does no >>harm, so that these bugs get unnoticed. Windows in Enhanced mode >>is able to detect such illegal operations sometimes, and tries >>to terminate the offending application, sometimes successfully, >>sometimes not. >Here again, I have to say that PC users suffer from the fact that DOS and >Windows beat each other up sometimes. You describe the situation as symmetrical, but it isn't. Windows is built on top of DOS by using its file system (which is indeed a drawback) and throws away everything else, by managing the system resources itself. PC users suffer only if they choose to. >[I bemoan laborious and ill-documented installation procedures for apps.] >>This is really a problem. But I don't know how it should be solved >>without going the Apple or the IBM way, i.e. having one hardware >>supplier controlling the system. >I don't know what you mean here. Apple and IBM control the hardware and >operating systems (if you count OS/2), but certainly not the vast majority >of software. And Microsoft certainly controls DOS and Windows. The problem >is not control, but designing an OS that allows third party software to >be installed without mucking around with lower-level aspects of system >configuration. Apple has Microsoft/IBM beaten by a mile on this one. Apple surely has beaten IBM in this area. Apple so far never lost control over the essential parts of their system - the hardware and the system software, while IBM never had the control over the system software, lost the control over the hardware to clone makers and failed miserably to regain control via the switch to a closed - i.e. not clonable - architecture, the Micro Channel. Microsoft controls Windows, but not much more. It certainly doesn't control DOS. There is a complete, enhanced DOS clone from Digital research, which is cheaper and runs Windows, for example. Designing an OS that allows third party software to be installed without mucking around with lower-level aspects of the system configuration is trivial (ok, let's say: simpler) if one party builds both the OS and the essential hardware interfaces. It is not so simple if an OS designer has to take foreign hardware including changing interfaces into account. The problem gets worse if those hardware was not designed for automatic installation and new hardware continues to do so. On the long run, this problem will go away because hardware supplies start to build their hardware to be compatible with the software instead the other way around. But this will take a while. The shorter solution would be the way IBM intended it to go: PC's are built only by IBM, add-on cards have to be approved by IBM, IBM builts a special version of OS/2 with additions nobody else has. I prefer it the way it is now. >>Tools which move the 640K barier a little bit are in common use for >>some time now - what Microsoft now integrates in DOS 5.0 is not at all >>new. And it is in no way related to Windows itself, only to its ability >>to run old DOS applications. I don't understand what that ability >>of Windows has to do with the level of the Mac 5 years ago. You compare >>apples and oranges. >I know all about memory managers and have been using them for years. They >can cause all kinds of problems and the sooner they aren't needed, the better. So we don't disagree, here. >As I have said repeatedly, users of PC do have to worry about these things >if they want to use both DOS and Windows programs. And most will have to, >at least for now. The whole point of this discussion is to compare PCs >and Macs. And if a current PC feature is comparable to an old Mac feature, >it just shows that the Mac is more advanced in that area. I think it is fruitless ;-) to compare Macs with PCs that way. The Mac started with nearly no hardware: a CPU, a little bit of memory, a few peripheral circuits and a small monitor. What the Mac made the Mac was its innovative software, which broke with most concepts which where in common use at that time in the microcomputer area. The innovation was to squeeze inventions made earlier and elsewhere (at Xerox Parc) into a small box. The IBM PC instead was an earlier attempt to built some kind of "super CP/M machine" by selecting an 16 bit processor instead of the common 8 bit processor, and by adding hardware - video, DMA controller, floppy controller, optional numeric coprocessor and the usual serial and parallel interfaces. The hardware was a step forward, the software wasn't. It makes sense to compare the system software of the various Macs with Microsoft Windows, because they are on the same level, if looked at from an architectural point of view. It may make sense to discuss whether the Intel processors or the Motorola processors are better for a GUI of the Mac or Windows sort. But it is not very productive to compare "the" PC and "the" Mac, because the results are arbitrary and only reflect the current prejudices of the people. >> >>>Things I like about Windows: >>> 1) Better multi-tasking than Multifinder on the Mac. I.e. >>> regular programs can run in the background, not just >>> print spoolers, etc. (Note that I mean actually run, not >>> just sit there as in Multifinder.) >> >>Huh? My understanding was that background applications continue to >>run under the Multifinder, too. >What I mean is that old Mac apps did not include and background ability, and >many still do not. Thus, when they are swapped out by Multifinder, they >don't do anything useful. I wouldn't blame the Macintosh of not beeing a multitasking machine because of that. >>Many of Windows problems are related to DOS. But you don't have to >>live with most of them, because they only occur if you continue >>to run old DOS applications. If you don't, the only thing Windows >>inherits from DOS is the file system. >> >>Microsoft already tried the switch to a new operating system. This >>seems not so simple as it sounds. >This is exactly the point. The mish-mash of operating systems/interfaces/ >memory models/video standards etc. is a serious headache for people trying >to do real work in the real world on PCs. I.e. tens of thousands of people >who recently bought Windows still have to run their old DOS programs too. >What do you think they did with all that software? Throw it out? Not at all! They should do what they actually do: continue to run what is useable, and throw out what is unuseable. This works very well for many people. > Even >if you could replace all of your old DOS software with spiffy new Windows >software, it would cost lots of money. I repeat my assertion that until >DOS is long gone, PC users will still be weighted down with a nasty old >boat anchor, even if they have nice Windows programs to look at. Of course, this applies only to people who already are computer users having a software collection, not for starters. Many of those computer users started using computers long before the Macintosh hit the market. So your statement reduces to the simple truth that there is an advance in the area of computers, and that those who start later have the advantage to be able to learn from the experiences of those starting earlier. This applies to both system designers and users. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (03/08/91)
In article <1991Mar7.001111.29948@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ds4a@dalton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Dale Southard) writes: The key reason why macs are better than messy dos: Steve and Steve are WAY COOLER than Bill Gates!!!!!!!! They're also gone... Flame me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 030 the only Mac left that was created while either Steve was around? (Or was even that one later? I don't remember very clear when Jobs left...) -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \============================================================================/
jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (03/08/91)
In article <FRANCIS.91Mar7164001@arthur.uchicago.edu> francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu writes: >In article <1991Mar7.001111.29948@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ds4a@dalton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Dale Southard) writes: > > The key reason why macs are better than messy dos: > > Steve and Steve are WAY COOLER than Bill Gates!!!!!!!! > >They're also gone... > >Flame me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 030 the only Mac left that was >created while either Steve was around? > >(Or was even that one later? I don't remember very clear when Jobs >left...) Steve Jobs left Apple in 1985, which was before the Mac Plus. (!) -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900
murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) (03/08/91)
In article <4195@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: -torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: - --strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: - ---So does Windows. Windows 1, which had the same Clipboard support as Windows 3 ---was announced before the Mac came out, -- But AFTER the Lisa... - -And after some Xerox machines. - ---and was finally delivered one year after the Mac - five years ago. - -- The Mac was delivered in January 1984... 7 years ago. - -Ok, you have won. The difference in time is more than one year, -but less than two years :-) - -But so what. My point was that the argument that Windows copies the -Mac is getting stale. I think the point was that Windows is already stale right out of the box. :-> -- ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar murat@farcomp.UUCP -or- farcomp!murat@apple.com
barr@Apple.COM (Ron Barr) (03/09/91)
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu writes: >In article <1991Mar7.001111.29948@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ds4a@dalton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Dale Southard) writes: > The key reason why macs are better than messy dos: > Steve and Steve are WAY COOLER than Bill Gates!!!!!!!! >They're also gone... >Flame me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 030 the only Mac left that was >created while either Steve was around? I just checked my handy Apple Resource Directory desk accessory, which searches a live database of Apple employees. Steve Wozniak is still here, and has been all along, not counting some leaves of absences. Ron
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/09/91)
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu writes: >In article <4194@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > The Macs clipboard support seems to be written for transporting > something between applications running one after the other, so the >Well, often you have to. See below. > restriction to a few clipboard formats and the necessity to actually >Did you read the explanation I posted? You can put *anything* on the >Mac's Clipboard. The name of the format is four characters; that's >not few, by any stretch of the imagination. I do not doubt that. But there is a tendency to use only a a few at the same time - during one cut/paste action -, because it simply may consume far to much space and time to actually create all these different clipboard formats at the same time. The theoretical upper limit of 2^32 possible clipboard formats doesn't help at all. > create and copy all the supported formats at the same time. While > Windows allows the same style of interation between programs, the > prefered method is to generate a request to render a clipboard format > only if an application actually asks for a copy of the clipboard > content in this format. >Wait a minute. Who does the reformatting? Windows? That would pretty >definitely limit you to one set of formats, wouldn't it? No. The sending application - the one handling the request of the user to cut/copy something - does. The following scenario describes what happenes: Application A (a drawing program, for example), gets the request to copy something to the clipboard. It is able to deliver the data in three different formats, bitmap, picture and text. It has the bitmap anyway, so it it does a SetClipboardData(BITMAP,<actual bitmap>). The clipboard remembers the format type and stores the data. (Nothing new, so far). Then application A does a SetClipboardData(PICTURE,<>). The clipboard remembers the format type and the fact that there is no data delivered, yet. Application A does the same with text. Some time later, the user switches to application B (a text program, for example). The user just has opened a picture frame and does a paste. The application knows from context that the user wants to paste graphics, so it asks Windows to GetClipboardData(PICTURE). Windows knows that the announced clipboard content in the picture format hasn't been created yet, so it sends a message RENDERFORMAT(PICTURE) to application A. Application A processes the message by creating the data and does a SetClipboardData(PICTURE,<actual picture>), i.e. repeats the "copy to clipboard" operation, this time with a filled container. Application B - and the user - didn't notice this short interlude, and application b now has the requested data and handles it at the users request, for example by filling the frame with the requested picture. It is like buying something by mail. The shop makes a list what it has and sends it to you, you select something and order it, the shop puts it into a packet and sends it to you. Replace the shop by application A and yourself by application B, and you get the picture. :-) > And if the >apps do the reformatting, then you can't do it after quitting (unless >you relaunch the whole bloody app just to switch formats!). This has to be handled, of course. Windows does it by sending a RENDERALLFORMATS to the terminating application, so that it has a chance to deliver everthing it has announced but not yet delivered to the clipboard. The idea to relaunch an application just to get at its data isn't as bad as you seem to think, but it is not necessary in this case. >On a Mac, an app puts out everything it can, all together, for the >simple reason that users *do* sometimes/often/always (depending on >system and user) quit between making their copy and using it. (In >fact, since the Clipboard gets stored on disk, the system may have >been restarted and the app deleted since the copy was made! Try >reformatting then!) This is of course not possible. But as long as the application is running, there is no need to create data only to throw it away. >Granted, it would save some RAM/disk resources to be able to get away >with copying in only one format at a time--but (1) you don't usually >copy all that much at once, and (2) Macs before Sys7 don't have IAC, >which would be necessary if you were to request reformatting like >this, and (3) putting it into all the formats you can do saves the >user time later on. (Suppose the app this came from was on a disk >currently off-line. Assuming that the system remembers where it >is--no great task for a Mac [Macs remember stuff about removed disks >until told to forget--wonderful feature, even if it *is* a legacy of >the 1-drive Skinny]--the user will be asked to swap disks to make a >copy! Ugh. And let's not even THINK about what happens if you take a >year-old item out of the Scrapbook.) >All in all, while I see that Window's way saves some storage space, I >really think Mac's way is easier on the user. (Provided I've >understood Windows right. Perhaps some actual details, please?) See above. I could post actual code, but this probably would bore most readers of this newsgroup, so I try to describe it in English (I'd rather like to do it in German, really!). In this case, the Windows way saves both time and space, and is completely transparent to the user. The advantages of this "lazy evaluation" style are: it it gives the user more freedom, because he can decide how to view the copied data when it is *used*, not when it is copied. It gives the application designer more freedom, because he does not have to trade one clipboard format for another, because all together would be to costly to process. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/09/91)
favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: >My point is that the fundamental problem with MS-DOS/Windows systems is that >most people using Windows also want to use DOS programs. Switching back >and forth is a hassle, despite the DOS box in Windows, which very often >doesn't allow you to use a DOS program to the fullest, if at all. Why do >people want to use DOS programs? Because plenty of useful programs are not >available in Windows versions. And I'm not talking about old programs, >but current stuff put out by MAJOR companies. (E.g. Paradox by Borland) You're just whining about a very temporary problem. I believe there are more copies of Win3 sold than there are Macs now. Many Mac sw houses are porting to Win3. Nearly all the DOS people are porting to Win3. In a year or so, there will be very few DOS apps that you can't get in a Windows version. This kind of complaint doesn't really provide any information which is of lasting value. Frankly, I also don't understand why you find switching back and forth so difficult. I have done it. It just takes an ALT-TAB. Easy. >Now you might say there are several databases/word processors/speadsheets >available. But if the one I've been using for the past three years isn't >among them it doesn't do me a whole lot of good. I have too much time >and effort invested in XYZ program to convert over easily. I am not Well, I can see why you, as a Lotus 123 user, so much prefer the Mac over the PC then. You seem like a very confused fellow. >Conceptually, two programs might work, if they cooperate well. I don't think >Program and File Manager do. Another short lived complaint. MS will address this problem. Your information has a lifetime of about 6 months. >It may have nothing to do with Windows, but it has everything to do with >PCs. The point here is that you have to be compatible to your previous >mistakes, unless you can afford to alienate your current user base. >Obviously, both Apple and Microsoft feel they can't. However, I think >Apple has been more succesful at maintaining a smooth transition to new >versions of their system software than Microsoft has. (Granted Microsoft Let's see, the IBM PC came out in 1980 and the Mac came out when? >Here again, I have to say that PC users suffer from the fact that DOS and >Windows beat each other up sometimes. What's this I hear about clean 32-bit code on the Mac? Well, there's no dirty Mac sw like there is PC sw, is there? -- My father is on national television! (Beef Council, Jupiter, Florida)
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/09/91)
long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: > You can't compare a Macintosh from Apple with a PC from Joe's PC Klones and > Kut-Rate Stuff. Sure you can. PC Clones work just fine for many people. In the PC world, you have a choice over how much you pay and if you want a brand name. In the Mac world, you don't. -- My father is on national television! (Beef Council, Jupiter, Florida)
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/09/91)
dswt@stl.stc.co.uk (D.S.W.Tansley) writes: >Here's a fact I was stung by only yesterday, whilst (stupidly) venturing >into the braindead world of PCs: you can't simply rename directories. >UNBELIEVABLE!!!!! >Not only can you not simply 'rename' (or whatever) an exsiting directory >in DOS, but WINDOWS 3.0 ALSO DOES NOT HIDE THIS STUPID LIMITATION!!! Of course, both is wrong. You CAN rename a directory in DOS. The brain dead standard shell of DOS (command.com) has this limitation. The DOS function call - and every program using it - does not have such a limitation. All decent shells - both visual shells and command.com replacements like 4dos - don't have this limitation. The don't have to hide anything, they simply don't have to reimplement this misfeature of command.com. The File Manager of Windows 3 does exactly what one would expect: you point at a directory, select "rename" and type another name. Thats it. Would you care to explain what caused your posting? >Am I so naive a Mac user as to want to simply rename a folder (sorry, >directory)? Let alone have a decent number/type of characters in the name... Sure. I like OS/2 because of that. It allows 255 character per name ... Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/09/91)
What I like about the Mac over Win3: 1) fonts are much cleaner. But MS will fix this in Win3. 2) you can get full page displays for Mac cheap! maybe around $600. I don't think you can do this on PCs. 3) long filenames. Fixed in OS/2, will migrate to Windows someday? 4) uw. Can't get this on the PC. 5) Neat sound effects associated with various actions. What I like about Win3 over the Mac 1) I hate the trashcan. Too much mouse movement. 2) Much cheaper. 3) There is almost no sw that is not (eventually) ported to the PC. Many programs run only on PCs. 4) Formatting 720K floppies (but it's ok under windows). 5) Color is much cheaper if you want that kind of thing. But real color is not. 6) The Classic screen is SO SMALL! (I've been using Windows for about a year, the Mac for about a week....) -- My father is on national television! (Beef Council, Jupiter, Florida)
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/09/91)
piper@s5000.rsvl.unisys.com (Piper Keairnes) writes: >carter@cat27.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) writes: >>Many of the problems with IBM hardware can be easily overcome by a good >>standardized software specification, which now appears to be quite >>widespread with so many windows owners, remember there are more window >>owners than there are Mac owners. >At work, I've been testing out a new Windows based terminal application >on one of the fastest PC's in the department. The program is perhaps one >of the best terminal environments available to our employees, but the sad >thing is that the refresh rate and the throughput of the screen is >unacceptable. >I understand that Windows 3.0 is now very wide spread, but the simple fact >remains that the hardware required to make Windows palatable would be too >costly for many organizations. For employees to move to the Windows >product, they would have to sacrifice speed... a great deal of speed. The >managers like the functionality we'd gain, but the programmers won't use >the program until we get faster hardware. That isn't going to happen >anytime soon. A mere Mac Classic performs better than a 25MHz 386 when it >comes to the windowing interface slapped on top of DOS. It is as easy to find a application which runs better on a low end PC that on a Mac costing five times as much, as it is to find a Windows application which doesn't perform well, even on decent hardware. This does not prove anything. Neither are Macs unuseable for real number crunching, nor are PCs unable to perform well under a GUI. These are all marketing myths, not more. Anyway, "windowing interface slapped on top of DOS" is misleading in this context. Of course, the Windows GUI is built on top of DOS in the sense that it needs DOS to launch and uses its file system, but its interface to the video hardware doesn't use DOS at all. It may be handicapped by the fact that the actually used video hardware wasn't designed for a GUI, but this has nothing to do with DOS, isn't Windows fault, is not very dependant on the speed of the CPU, and can be changed quite easily by replacing the video hardware. (I said: It may, not it is. Most video hardware - not IBM's - is quite useable. And it doesn't cost much.) >All in all, Windows is a STEP in the right direction, but it isn't going >to stop people from buying Macs... not after they've sat down at each >computer and taken a trial run. I believe that Windows in fact helps selling Macs, by giving much more people the opportunity to switch to and recognize the advantages of a decent GUI. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
JACOBSEN@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (03/09/91)
(Long, useful description of how Windows provides a facility for the clipboard 'pasting' application to request a particular format from the 'clipping' application, which provides it only then) There is a real difference in the operation of the Windows and Mac clipboard models. It's visible to any Mac user of Excel, which does the Windows clipping/pasting model even though it's on a Mac. Specifically, you select some cells, hit 'copy', and then do some other stuff (insert cells, change formats, close a window, etc). You then go to 'paste' the data you thought you had in a specific place - the clipboard. Arrgh - it's not there! Arrgh**2 - you've already changed the cells you wanted a copy of! The problem for Mac users is this just does not conform to our mental model of the clipboard as a place where copies are actually put. The Windows model has some advantages and disadvantages, but it is NOT equivalent. (Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I really don't like Microsoft Mac products - they really don't fit into the Mac well. Nor can they, if they want to keep the Mac - Windows similarity)
favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) (03/10/91)
In article <4245@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: >>My point is that the fundamental problem with MS-DOS/Windows systems is that >>most people using Windows also want to use DOS programs. > >As you say later, it is a *transient* problem, not a fundamental one. The two are not mutually exclusive. I say it IS a FUNDAMENTAL problem. It will probably be fixed gradually over the next few years. Fundamental problems can certainly be fixed, just not easily and not overnight. I think this describes the coexistence of DOS and Windows quite well. >I like Paradox, too - I still keep a copy of the original article from Zloof in >a '77 IBM System Journal, where he described Query-By-Example, which >is the idea on which Paradox is built upon. But both the monolithic >implementation and the user interface are a bit outdated. I would not call >it "current". By current I don't mean state-of-the-art, I mean recently released and used by people at the present time. Paradox 3.5 was released less than 6 months ago, and is used by thousands of people. State-of-the-art programs will never be used by the majority of people, just like the majority will never have state-of-the-art hardware. In comparing two platforms like PCs and Macs you must consider the present state of affairs, which includes how people choose and are forced to use their machines in real life situations. You must also consider the potential of the machines, if used ideally. This is much harder too pinpoint, so many of my comments deal mainly with the status quo. I don't mean to ignore the potential of a machine, I'm just trying to limit sheer speculation. >It is not so obvious. The standard argument against Windows in this thread >is that it handles old DOS applications not very well. While I don't buy >the precondition, the whole argument is flawed in my opinion, because it >doesn't say anything about the quality of Windows as a GUI at all! I don't find it surprising or unjustified that Windows has trouble running on top of DOS, running DOS programs, and doing a pretty good job of giving Windows apps a decent environment in which to run, all at the same time. The fact remains that this causes problems for people, and it can't always be avoided. If you look at the most recent PCWeek magazine (3/4?), you will find an article on the front page about how difficult it can be to set up and run Windows while using your old DOS programs, too. I don't have it in front of me (I'm at home), but the comment from die-hard PC users back up what I have been saying. I will quote them later, if you want. [Discussion of video cards, fast and slow.] >Fast SVGA cards supporting 800*600 screens are in the price range >of 100$ to 200$, so we aren't talking about that much money, here. It isn't a lot of money for a single user, but if your whole company was running slow monochrome cards and you wanted to upgrade your operations to Windows, it could add up to a pretty penny. (and maybe not a justifiable one.) I won't quibble with you about which cards are fast and which are slow. Just let me say that to get good performance out of the Windows GUI, some users will have to upgrade. >>[I talk about File Manager and Program Manager.] >... >>Conceptually, two programs might work, if they cooperate well. I don't think >>Program and File Manager do. > >Can you give a specific example? I have some complaints myself, but would >like to hear where the cooperation between Program and File Manager is bad, >in your opinion. OK. In Program Manager(PM) you have a set of Program Groups that reside in the PM window. They can be moved, resized, or iconized. So far, so good, especially the iconization. Inside a Program Group you can have icons for programs or documents. Click on one, and it is run. Fine. You can't have nested groups however. :-( Also, aside from the basic set of utilities, you must install programs items, automatically (for programs only) or by hand. PM is really like an icon dock for your favorite apps/docs. You can also have multiple icons that refer to the same file. :-) (aliases) File Manager can be launched from PM (or automatically when you start Windows, just like any other program). OK. When you run it, it loads the directory hierarchy from drive C, the hard drive, (I don't know which it picks if you have no drive C), and displays it as a graphical tree. Not bad. However, it is very slow -- 4-5 seconds for a 30Mb drive(28 ms), and at least 15 seconds for our 300Mb(18ms) file server. :-( You can only have one tree active at a time, so I usually have to wait 20 seconds if I want to look at the file server's files. This is supposed to be improved a lot in Win 3.1 due out "some time this year." Once you have the tree you want, you can hide/show different branches with a click. :-) Double-clicking gets you a window showing that directory's files. (The tree shows only directories.) The files are not icons, just names (and attributes if desired). I don't like not having icons here, since you have them in PM and the dir. tree. Inconsistent. :-( You can have many dir windows open at once. You can also open one from another dir window. Fine. Why can't I nest groups in PM then? Inconsistent. In short, my gripes are: 1) FM is slow. 2) Inconsistent use of icons. 3) Inconsistent use of nested windows. 4) Can only view one directory tree at once. I like: 1) Graphical directory tree. 2) Iconizing windows in PM. It feels to me like a more character-oriented version of the Finder combined with a third party icon dock program. I like the Finder better, because it is more consistent, faster, and you don't have to switch programs to use all of its features. You don't get a dir. tree until May 13 (7.0 release date), though. (and for iconizing windows you need an INIT, or maybe? 7.0??). >>[I complain 640k DOS memory and other RAM problems.] >>It may have nothing to do with Windows, but it has everything to do with >>PCs. The point here is that you have to be compatible to your previous >>mistakes, unless you can afford to alienate your current user base. > >This is misleading, because there is nobody alienating their current >user base, here. You couldn't be more wrong! See below. > PCs are manufactured by many different hardware >producers as part of their computer equipment line, while Microsoft >is a software house selling application software and operating system >software for these and other systems. So a PC is the result of the >combined effort of different companies, which is quite different from >the Macintosh, where the essential parts, the hardware and the system >software come from exactly one producer, Apple. So what. Microsoft obviously feels it has to be compatible to its previous mistake (DOS) or there wouldn't be a DOS box in Windows. And if there weren't, there would be a hell of a lot fewer Windows sales than there have been, and an even lower percent of people who have Windows and actually use it day to day. >Anyway, if beeing compatible with previous mistakes means repeating >them, I'd rather be not compatible and make an advance. Obviously Micrsoft did not entirely agree. (Steve Jobs did, though. ;-)) >>PC users have to deal with this, and it is a problem. > >You can't both have the cake and eat it. A PC user has the choice >to select from a rich supply of hard and software of different price >and quality. With this freedom comes the ability to make the >wrong choice, of course. I think freedom is not always the driving force, how about necessity. > But let me ask a specific question. What is wrong with the file >dialogs used by the standard Windows programs, say notepad or calendar? The Save As.. box in Excel doesn't allow you to pick a directory from a scrolling list. You just have a box to type in the file (and path, if you want). This is bogus. I con't name specific prgrams in the following, 'cause I'm at home on my Mac. Sometimes you pick files from one list and directories from another. Sometimes both from one list. Only occasionally can you go easily to the current directory' parent. Sometimes there is a button labelled "UP". Sometimes, you can click on ".." in the directory list. Sometimes you have to type ..\*.* in the filename text box. This is ridiculous. I guarantee you if you timed someone navigating ten different Windows apps' File Dialogs and someone doing the same for Mac apps, the Mac user would be done much faster. [Talk of system crashes on both platforms.] > There are of course buggy >applications which can crash the system, because Windows doesn't >use the memory protection of the protected mode fully. But if I >avoid them, and if I don't run old DOS applications - which may >interact with the system in a strange way - Windows runs the whole >day long, 7 days a week. From what I see rom people using Macs here, >a faulty application can crash the Mac OS easily, too. If you avoid anything that crashes, you won't have crashes. I find it harder to avoid situations that crash the PC with Windows, than those which crash my Mac. Largely this is because I have to use some DOS programs as well as Windows, and I certainly have to run Windows on top of DOS. This is reality for thousands of PC users. >Microsoft controls Windows, but not much more. It certainly doesn't >control DOS. There is a complete, enhanced DOS clone from >Digital research, which is cheaper and runs Windows, for example. DR-DOS exists, but how many use it compared to MS-DOS. Most PC users are afraid to use "non-standard" DOS, because it might not work with all of their software. If Bill Gates read your statement, I think he'd get a good chuckle out of it. >>... The whole point of this discussion is to compare PCs >>and Macs. And if a current PC feature is comparable to an old Mac feature, >>it just shows that the Mac is more advanced in that area. > >I think it is fruitless ;-) to compare Macs with PCs that way. How can you compare two platforms and ignore their historical contexts? >... But it is not very productive to >compare "the" PC and "the" Mac, because the results are arbitrary and >only reflect the current prejudices of the people. Show me a comparison of any two things that is not arbitrary and does not reflect the current prejudices of the people comparing. >>... The mish-mash of operating systems/interfaces/ >>memory models/video standards etc. is a serious headache for people trying >>to do real work in the real world on PCs. I.e. tens of thousands of people >>who recently bought Windows still have to run their old DOS programs too. >>What do you think they did with all that software? Throw it out? > >Not at all! They should do what they actually do: continue to run what >is useable, and throw out what is unuseable. This works very well for >many people. This is "option" is more of a necessity. No one can use was isn't useable, and why would you throw out something that works. >> Even >>if you could replace all of your old DOS software with spiffy new Windows >>software, it would cost lots of money. I repeat my assertion that until >>DOS is long gone, PC users will still be weighted down with a nasty old >>boat anchor, even if they have nice Windows programs to look at. > >Of course, this applies only to people who already are computer users >having a software collection, not for starters. Many of those computer >users started using computers long before the Macintosh hit the market. >So your statement reduces to the simple truth that there is an advance >in the area of computers, and that those who start later have the >advantage to be able to learn from the experiences of those starting >earlier. This applies to both system designers and users. Of course it is a simple truth. But that doesn't mean it is ok that current PC users should have to struggle in order to not have to throw away their previous investments and use still be able to use more friendly and powerful Windows programs. The reality is that DOS and Windows sometimes conflict. In my opinion, there are fewer such conflicts among the various versions of Mac System Software. This is a point against PCs in a Mac-PC comparison (which is what I thought we were conducting). I'm not flaming you, I just want to make myself clear. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ Francis Favorini favorini@cs.yale.edu favorini@yalecs.bitnet ...!yale!favorini
favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) (03/10/91)
In article <1991Mar9.023444.17526@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: >>My point is that the fundamental problem with MS-DOS/Windows systems is that >>most people using Windows also want to use DOS programs. Switching back >>and forth is a hassle, despite the DOS box in Windows, which very often >>doesn't allow you to use a DOS program to the fullest, if at all. Why do >>people want to use DOS programs? Because plenty of useful programs are not >>available in Windows versions. And I'm not talking about old programs, >>but current stuff put out by MAJOR companies. (E.g. Paradox by Borland) > >You're just whining about a very temporary problem. I believe there are >more copies of Win3 sold than there are Macs now. Many Mac sw houses >are porting to Win3. Nearly all the DOS people are porting to Win3. In >a year or so, there will be very few DOS apps that you can't get in a >Windows version. I'm not whining about a very temporary problem. Would you buy a car if your wife couldn't ride in it for at least a year? I think it will be longer than a year, anyway. Win 3.1 might not even be out this year, and when will DOS 5.0 be here? >This kind of complaint doesn't really provide any information which is >of lasting value. There have been compatibility problems with Windows since it came out. They have gotten better, but have not gone away. They will not be gone for at least a year, probably more like two or three. Time will tell. The point is that they're here now, and if you have work to do now, you have to live with them. I can't tell my boss that I will give him something he wants on Friday next year when Windows and DOS are better friends. >Frankly, I also don't understand why you find switching back and forth >so difficult. I have done it. It just takes an ALT-TAB. Easy. I'm not talking about context switches in Windows. I'm talking about exiting Windows in order to run programs that Windows can't deal with, and then running Windows again to use Windows apps. This is inferior to working on a Mac and just staying in Multifinder. >>Now you might say there are several databases/word processors/speadsheets >>available. But if the one I've been using for the past three years isn't >>among them it doesn't do me a whole lot of good. I have too much time >>and effort invested in XYZ program to convert over easily. I am not > >Well, I can see why you, as a Lotus 123 user, so much prefer the Mac >over the PC then. You seem like a very confused fellow. I DO NOT use Lotus 123. It is mostly garbage. When I say XYZ program, I mean any DOS program which doesn't work well with Windows. And there are plenty. >>Conceptually, two programs might work, if they cooperate well. I don't think >>Program and File Manager do. > >Another short lived complaint. MS will address this problem. Your information >has a lifetime of about 6 months. I already mentioned MS was addressing this at least twice. I doubt Win 3.1 will be ready in 6 months, however. Maybe 10 months. >>Apple has been more succesful at maintaining a smooth transition to new >>versions of their system software than Microsoft has. (Granted Microsoft > >Let's see, the IBM PC came out in 1980 and the Mac came out when? 1984. So IBM and Microsoft have had longer to screw things up. >>Here again, I have to say that PC users suffer from the fact that DOS and >>Windows beat each other up sometimes. > >What's this I hear about clean 32-bit code on the Mac? Well, there's >no dirty Mac sw like there is PC sw, is there? I didn't say the Mac is perfect, but it remains to be seen how bad the problems are. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ Francis Favorini favorini@cs.yale.edu favorini@yalecs.bitnet ...!yale!favorini
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/10/91)
JACOBSEN@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes: >There is a real difference in the operation of the Windows and >Mac clipboard models. It's visible to any Mac user of Excel, which >does the Windows clipping/pasting model even though it's on a Mac. >Specifically, you select some cells, hit 'copy', and then do some other >stuff (insert cells, change formats, close a window, etc). You then >go to 'paste' the data you thought you had in a specific place - the >clipboard. Arrgh - it's not there! Arrgh**2 - you've already changed the >cells you wanted a copy of! I just tried it with Excel for Windows. You don't have to change the cells to be copied to destroy the copy - every new cell action, for example typing something into another cell which is not member of the set of copied cells has the same effect of removing the moving frame and destroying the clipboard content. This behaviour doesn't conform to the Windows clipping/pasting model, which says that an application should keep a record of the last data copied to the clipboard, if it uses Rendering Data on Request. The delayed rendering should be transparent to the user, most of the time, but in the case of Excel, it actually isn't. This is a fault of Excel, in my opinion. >The problem for Mac users is this just does not conform to our mental >model of the clipboard as a place where copies are actually put. The >Windows model has some advantages and disadvantages, but it is NOT >equivalent. It is not equivalent, but it does not enforce a behaviour like the one Excel has. Can you undo a copy to the clipboard on the Mac? >(Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I really don't like Microsoft >Mac products - they really don't fit into the Mac well. Nor can they, if >they want to keep the Mac - Windows similarity) Excel 2 (I haven't seen version 3, yet) seems to fit neither into the Windows, nor into the Mac environment, exactly. I remember reading complaints of a Windows programmer who noticed that the behaviour of the Excel text entry fields was different from the usual ones, because Excel does not use the standard Windows edit control (which implements text entry fields), but implements its own one from the scratch. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (03/10/91)
ds4a@dalton.acc.Virginia.EDU (Dale Southard) writes:
DS> The key reason why macs are better than messy dos:
DS>
DS> Steve and Steve are WAY COOLER than Bill Gates!!!!!!!!
Yeah, but Bill Gates is WAY RICHER. :-)
Seriously, while the respect I have for each of the three abovementioned people is different, the fact is I have immense, IMMENSE respect for all of them. Where would we be without any one of them?
--Adam--
--
Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!20.18!Adam.Frix
INET: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORGmelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/10/91)
In article <50028@apple.Apple.COM> barr@Apple.COM (Ron Barr) writes: >Flame me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 030 the only Mac left that was >created while either Steve was around? I just checked my handy Apple Resource Directory desk accessory, which searches a live database of Apple employees. Steve Wozniak is still here, and has been all along, not counting some leaves of absences. I thought he was a school teacher in California. -Mike
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (03/10/91)
In article <4252@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: [...] interface to the video hardware doesn't use DOS at all. It may be handicapped by the fact that the actually used video hardware wasn't designed for a GUI, but this has nothing to do with DOS, isn't Windows fault, is not very dependant on the speed of the CPU, and can be changed quite easily by replacing the video hardware. Ah, but *all* Macs have video hardware designed for the Mac GUI! I believe that Windows in fact helps selling Macs, by giving much more people the opportunity to switch to and recognize the advantages of a decent GUI. Hmm. I see the reasoning--but do you know if this actually happens? I can see somebody not wanting to switch GUIs.... -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \============================================================================/
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/11/91)
favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: >In article <4245@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >>favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: >By current I don't mean state-of-the-art, I mean recently released and used >by people at the present time. Paradox 3.5 was released less than 6 months >ago, and is used by thousands of people. State-of-the-art programs will >never be used by the majority of people, just like the majority will never >have state-of-the-art hardware. If the majority of people learns the advantages of a standardized user interface and decent operating systems resource management, they will quickly start to use state-of-the-art programs. The software houses will follow. ... >>It is not so obvious. The standard argument against Windows in this thread >>is that it handles old DOS applications not very well. While I don't buy >>the precondition, the whole argument is flawed in my opinion, because it >>doesn't say anything about the quality of Windows as a GUI at all! >I don't find it surprising or unjustified that Windows has trouble running >on top of DOS, running DOS programs, and doing a pretty good job of giving >Windows apps a decent environment in which to run, all at the same time. Nor do I. But we should not forget that these are three different things, which shouldn't be confused. MS-Windows main purpose is to run Windows programs. Like the Mac, Windows comes with its own philosophy, which doesn't allow much deviations. If a DOS programm has trouble running under Windows (note the different wording), the DOS program should go away, in my opinion. Microsoft did quite a good job to emulate/replicate DOS under Windows, but I'd rather like to see them enhancing Windows itself in the future, not enhancing its support for old, nonstandard DOS applications. >The fact remains that this causes problems for people, and it can't always >be avoided. If you look at the most recent PCWeek magazine (3/4?), you >will find an article on the front page about how difficult it can be >to set up and run Windows while using your old DOS programs, too. I don't >have it in front of me (I'm at home), but the comment from die-hard >PC users back up what I have been saying. I will quote them later, if you >want. No need to. But it should be mentioned that even now there are many old DOS programs which run better under Windows than they ever did under plain DOS. Take for example all these programs needing different amounts of extra memory. Some of them need extended memory, some of them expanded memory. With plain DOS, you had to decide what to put into the machine. Now, under Windows, everything is emulated, on the fly. Or think about the ability to cut and paste from a DOS windows. Or the ability to terminate an endless loop. And so on. Sometimes I think these die-hard PC users (plain DOS users, that is) are getting greedy. They view Windows as a DOS task switcher with a few unnecessary graphical add-ons. It isn't. >[Discussion of video cards, fast and slow.] >>Fast SVGA cards supporting 800*600 screens are in the price range >>of 100$ to 200$, so we aren't talking about that much money, here. >It isn't a lot of money for a single user, but if your whole company >was running slow monochrome cards and you wanted to upgrade your operations >to Windows, it could add up to a pretty penny. (and maybe not a justifiable >one.) I won't quibble with you about which cards are fast and which are slow. >Just let me say that to get good performance out of the Windows GUI, >some users will have to upgrade. Monochrome cards (hercules compatible ones, that is) aren't slow under Windows; they are usually a bit faster than current VGA cards, because they have less data to move around. I would not use them, because the current version of Windows seems to be built with color or grayscale video in mind - it doesn't look very weel on a b&w only output device. Nobody said that upgrading to Windows doesn't cost you anything. But it is not much compared to the price of a Mac, for example. And it it is worth the money, in my opinion. Both. [detailed discussion of file manager and program manager features and misfeatures deleted for brevity] >In short, my gripes are: > 1) FM is slow. Yes, it is. It lacks optimization. Reading the whole directory tree is a costly operation on DOS, because the directories may be scattered all over the disk. Some well known third party DOS utilities solve this by caching the directory tree. This could be added to FM, but I'd rather like to get a new file system, for example the OS/2 HPFS. > 2) Inconsistent use of icons. It is different from the Mac, but not inconsistent. In the program manager icons are used for representing parameterized application calls. The icon shown is usually just the first (or only) built-in icon of a program. Different application calls (which have identical icons, that way) can be differentiated by using different annotation text. The program manager is a purely organizational tool managing only references to programs and data which resides somewhere on the disk. There is no relation between the directory hierarchy and the flat group structure of the program manager. The file manager views everything as a file. It is able to differentiate between directories, programs, known documents and unknown documents, and uses icons to show what is what. It is used to move files around, to install them into the program manager, or to launch applications that are not installed into the program manager. > 3) Inconsistent use of nested windows. No. Both use overlapped windows, not nested windows. > 4) Can only view one directory tree at once. I hate this, too. >I like: > 1) Graphical directory tree. > 2) Iconizing windows in PM. You mean iconized group windows? ... Things I don't like: The program manager uses the same icon for all groups. Its algorithm for aranging icons in group windows leaves something to be desired - I always arange them by hand. But this is tedious. It is inconsistent that moves of icons beween groups are memorized immediately, but icon positions are memorized only at Windows termination. The is especially annoying because there is no obvious command for asking Windows to store the icon positions immediately. An icon represents an application call. Unfortunately, there is no obvious way to specify a start directory for the running application. The file manager lacks a feature complementary to the installation procedure for documents. Making a document known to the file manager should be possible using the mouse, not by typing the programs name, only. It should be able to store its window layout, like the program manager. The file manager lacks a "program manager compatible" view mode for directories, which shows all the applications in a directory as if they where installed into a program manager group. It would be nice if the file manager would be able to create a actual group in the PM from that view. It should be possible to use the file manager to locate a file, from within a file dialog, i.e. without having to retype the path/file name. Both PM and FM lack a programmability similar to what Word for Windows has. >>>[I complain 640k DOS memory and other RAM problems.] >>>It may have nothing to do with Windows, but it has everything to do with >>>PCs. The point here is that you have to be compatible to your previous >>>mistakes, unless you can afford to alienate your current user base. >> >>This is misleading, because there is nobody alienating their current >>user base, here. >You couldn't be more wrong! See below. >> PCs are manufactured by many different hardware >>producers as part of their computer equipment line, while Microsoft >>is a software house selling application software and operating system >>software for these and other systems. So a PC is the result of the >>combined effort of different companies, which is quite different from >>the Macintosh, where the essential parts, the hardware and the system >>software come from exactly one producer, Apple. >So what. Microsoft obviously feels it has to be compatible to its >previous mistake (DOS) or there wouldn't be a DOS box in Windows. This doesn't follow. Most Unix adaptions for '86 processors have DOS boxes. The Mac has a PC emulator using DOS. Why shouldn't Windows have one? And why do you call DOS a mistake? It obviously was a big success for Microsoft. >And if there weren't, there would be a hell of a lot fewer Windows >sales than there have been, and an even lower percent of people who >have Windows and actually use it day to day. True. But one should differentiate between why people move to Windows, why they *use* it, and what it is good for. ... >>>PC users have to deal with this, and it is a problem. >> >>You can't both have the cake and eat it. A PC user has the choice >>to select from a rich supply of hard and software of different price >>and quality. With this freedom comes the ability to make the >>wrong choice, of course. >I think freedom is not always the driving force, how about necessity. Oh, there is always IBM. No necessity to exercise your freedom :-) >> But let me ask a specific question. What is wrong with the file >>dialogs used by the standard Windows programs, say notepad or calendar? >The Save As.. box in Excel doesn't allow you to pi >a scrolling list. You just have a box to type in the file (and path, >if you want). This is bogus. I con't name specific prgrams in the >following, 'cause I'm at home on my Mac. Sometimes you pick files from >one list and directories from another. Sometimes both from one list. >Only occasionally can you go easily to the current directory' parent. >Sometimes there is a button labelled "UP". Sometimes, you can click >on ".." in the directory list. Sometimes you have to type ..\*.* >in the filename text box. This is ridiculous. I guarantee you if >you timed someone navigating ten different Windows apps' File Dialogs and >someone doing the same for Mac apps, the Mac user would be done much >faster. Perhaps. But the situation is not as confusing as you describe it here. Most applications implement the file dialogs as follows: There are the four file menu entries, in that order: New Open Save Save as and perhaps more. Only "Open" gives you a standard file dialog box, where you can navigate up and down the various directory trees in order to find the file you want to open. Older Windows versions - and older Windows applications implement this by giving you an edit field where you can enter a file name directly, and a list box where you see all the files and directories of the current directory, and placeholders for all the disk drives. The current Windows version - and newer applications - have split this single list box into two - the files of the current directory to the left, and the directories and drives to the right. New and Save don't use a dialog. "Save as" assumes that you want to create a new file in the current directory, so it asks for a name, only. If there is a name clash, the application usually asks wether you want to overwrite the file or not. There are deviations from this standard practice, sometimes for good reason, sometimes just because the programmer was lazy or incompetent. ... >>... But it is not very productive to >>compare "the" PC and "the" Mac, because the results are arbitrary and >>only reflect the current prejudices of the people. >Show me a comparison of any two things that is not arbitrary and does >not reflect the current prejudices of the people comparing. For example a comparison of Windows running on a decent PC and a decent Mac, from a software point of view. A pure hardware comparison would be not so simple. (Rest of message deleted; I'm running out of time :-). Perhaps later) Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/11/91)
favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: >>I think it is fruitless ;-) to compare Macs with PCs that way. >How can you compare two platforms and ignore their historical contexts? and later >>So your statement reduces to the simple truth that there is an advance >>in the area of computers, and that those who start later have the >>advantage to be able to learn from the experiences of those starting >>earlier. This applies to both system designers and users. >Of course it is a simple truth. But that doesn't mean it is ok that >current PC users should have to struggle in order to not have to throw >away their previous investments and use still be able to use more >friendly and powerful Windows programs. The reality is that DOS and >Windows sometimes conflict. In my opinion, there are fewer such conflicts >among the various versions of Mac System Software. This is a point against >PCs in a Mac-PC comparison (which is what I thought we were conducting). >I'm not flaming you, I just want to make myself clear. Neither am I :-). There are fewer such conflicts among the various versions of Mac System Software because Apple broke with everything they and most others had before. The upward compatibility time scale of DOS is long, compared to that of the Mac OS, especially if you consider the fact that DOS tried to be architecturally compatible with CP/M. You can bash Windows because it does break some DOS compatibility, or you can bash Windows because it does *not* break with DOS completely. There are valid reasons for both. But you can't do both at the same time. An example. If you want to continue your current data base system which you bought three years ago because it was able to import dBase indices, if dBase III was popular six years ago because it could run some financial sofware written for dBase II eight years ago, if that was done because dBase II was the only stable data base system ten years ago, because it was a mechanical port of the same system under CP/M , which was in use for quite a few years then, ..., if that data base system does not run well in a DOS box under Windows, there is really nobody to blaim for not having created a design for the whole system from the very beginning. One would have had to use a time machine to send the Windows specs back twenty years or so, to archieve that. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/12/91)
In article <29390@cs.yale.edu> favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: |>Fast SVGA cards supporting 800*600 screens are in the price range |>of 100$ to 200$, so we aren't talking about that much money, here. | |It isn't a lot of money for a single user, but if your whole company |was running slow monochrome cards and you wanted to upgrade your operations |to Windows, it could add up to a pretty penny. (and maybe not a justifiable Yes, let's just give everyone a Mac, that will obviously be lots cheaper. Why do you keep holding the PC to standards that you don't make the Mac meet? |The Save As.. box in Excel doesn't allow you to pick a directory from |a scrolling list. You just have a box to type in the file (and path, |if you want). This is bogus. I con't name specific prgrams in the Also untrue, at least for Excel 3.0. I don't have the older Excel anymore. |following, 'cause I'm at home on my Mac. Sometimes you pick files from |one list and directories from another. Sometimes both from one list. |Only occasionally can you go easily to the current directory' parent. |Sometimes there is a button labelled "UP". Sometimes, you can click |on ".." in the directory list. Sometimes you have to type ..\*.* |in the filename text box. This is ridiculous. I guarantee you if MS seems to be getting more consistent with their newer software. Maybe Apple is a little ahead in this regard, but I can live with it. |Of course it is a simple truth. But that doesn't mean it is ok that |current PC users should have to struggle in order to not have to throw |away their previous investments and use still be able to use more |friendly and powerful Windows programs. The reality is that DOS and But the Mac is not an alternative in the sense of being less expensive. -- The government is not your mother. The government doesn't love you.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/12/91)
In article <29391@cs.yale.edu> favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: |I'm not whining about a very temporary problem. Would you buy a car if |your wife couldn't ride in it for at least a year? I think it will be |longer than a year, anyway. Win 3.1 might not even be out this year, |and when will DOS 5.0 be here? Over the long term, what my wife drives this year is of vanishingly small importance to where the market goes. DOS 5.0 is in beta NOW. I could get a copy if I wanted. If it's not out by summer I'd be very surprised. |They have gotten better, but have not gone away. They will not be |gone for at least a year, probably more like two or three. Time will tell. |The point is that they're here now, and if you have work to do now, you have to |live with them. I can't tell my boss that I will give him something he |wants on Friday next year when Windows and DOS are better friends. Like I said, it really doesn't matter to the market what you buy this year. If your boss wants a Mac, then get one. In two or three years, when all the apps come out for Windows and the Mac is a poor cousin as far as the latest version of software, then you can get your boss a PC. |>Well, I can see why you, as a Lotus 123 user, so much prefer the Mac |>over the PC then. You seem like a very confused fellow. | |I DO NOT use Lotus 123. It is mostly garbage. When I say XYZ program, I |mean any DOS program which doesn't work well with Windows. And there |are plenty. And the MAC runs these bad DOS programs better? Ha! |>Let's see, the IBM PC came out in 1980 and the Mac came out when? | |1984. So IBM and Microsoft have had longer to screw things up. And Apple has less history to be compatible with. |>>Here again, I have to say that PC users suffer from the fact that DOS and |>>Windows beat each other up sometimes. |> |>What's this I hear about clean 32-bit code on the Mac? Well, there's |>no dirty Mac sw like there is PC sw, is there? | |I didn't say the Mac is perfect, but it remains to be seen how bad the |problems are. At least you admit the Mac is not perfect either. -- The government is not your mother. The government doesn't love you.
gt8931a@prism.gatech.EDU (MARKHAM,ANDREW WILLIAM) (03/12/91)
I haven't had a chance to sample Windows 3.0 nor do I claim to know about the advantages of DOS 5.0 over the older versions, but from my experience with Windows/DOS v. Mac Interface/MacOS is that because the MacOS was designed with the Mac Interface in mind, while Windows is an obvious after thought of DOS, there is an obvious 'natural feeling' difference. The Mac interface feels like it is doing what it should be doing while Windows is doing what it is capable of doing, having been hacked on top of an unfriendly command-line interface. JMHO. NOTE: This may not be as true with the latest and greatest versions of Windows, but I would be surprised if the difference were *that* great. -- Andrew W. Markham Georgia Tech gt8931@hydra.gatech.edu Go Heels!!! Go Bulls!!! "But mommy, font isn't a bad word." -- Woody Boyd from "Cheers"
long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) (03/12/91)
I've been reading this thread for a while, and just thought I'd jump in.
I think the Mac is better for one simple reason: less hassle (substitute
more, ah, descriptive word, if you like).
For the most part, stuff on the Macintosh JUST WORKS. I don't have to worry
about expanded/extended/unimaginable/unreachable memory. I plug in memory,
and IT WORKS. I don't have to worry about path statements, and device
drivers, etc., etc. I install an application and IT WORKS. Tossing an INIT in
the System Folder is about as much configuration as I ever need to do. Case
in point: I recently set up and used a freeware AFP file server without
reading the documentation. Try something similar on a PC!
The Macintosh is not without its flaws, but the fact is that it's carrying a
lot less baggage than Windows. It's PAINFULLY obvious that Windows 3 is a GUI
layered on top of a command line interface. I dislike the File Manager and
Program Manager, because they are not graphically integrated (i.e. when you
get into them, it is obvious there is a command line underneath). For
example, Copy... in the File Manager brings up a dialog where I get to type a
drive letter! Oooh. Aaaaah. Windows, IMO, is not a true graphic interface,
but another DOS shell.
When I first bought a Mac in 1987, the DOS world was in the throes of the
introduction of the PS/2, OS/2, the EISA and MicroChannel, and VGA. I looked
at the Mac, and it JUST WORKED. It cost more, but I just didn't need the
hassle with the DOS machines.
As for the controversy over prices, with Apple's Macs being compared to
PClones, I can't speak for a cheap clone, never having taken one apart, but
presumably machines from an established maker are of higher construction
quality. If ever you've taken apart one of the modular Macs, you'd see what I
mean. On the IIci anyway, two screws, a couple of clips, and all the pieces
are out. Beautiful, clean design.
None of this matters, though. What it comes down to is what's important to
YOU! I like my computers (and everything else) to just work (as much as
possible), so I picked a Mac. Your mileage may vary. See dealer for details.
Not valid in all states.
Richard C. Long * long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com
* ...!decwrl!mcntsh.enet.dec.com!long
* long%mcntsh.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Dennis H Lippert) (03/13/91)
In article <1991Mar12.030105.11850@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: > >|>Let's see, the IBM PC came out in 1980 and the Mac came out when? >| >|1984. So IBM and Microsoft have had longer to screw things up. > >And Apple has less history to be compatible with. > Let's see, the LC has an Apple ][ card available... that takes us back to 1976. Does IBM have a System/23 card for the PC? (circa 1981/82). I'd bet the PC can't even interface an 8" disk, as did the System/23. And don't say that the Mac can't... because *it* doesn't have to be compatible to earlier IBM stuff. dennis Lippert - macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (03/13/91)
In article <1991Mar12.025422.11530@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: In article <29390@cs.yale.edu> favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: |following, 'cause I'm at home on my Mac. Sometimes you pick files from |one list and directories from another. Sometimes both from one list. |Only occasionally can you go easily to the current directory' parent. |Sometimes there is a button labelled "UP". Sometimes, you can click |on ".." in the directory list. Sometimes you have to type ..\*.* |in the filename text box. This is ridiculous. I guarantee you if MS seems to be getting more consistent with their newer software. Maybe Apple is a little ahead in this regard, but I can live with it. A LITTLE ahead? Try "has had a standard interface ever since it came out--changed it when it added true subdirectories, but everything worked fine." That's a HELL of a long way ahead. (And it's easy on programmers, too, which means that we all use it! :-) -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \============================================================================/
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (03/13/91)
In article <1991Mar12.030105.11850@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: DOS 5.0 is in beta NOW. I could get a copy if I wanted. If it's not out by summer I'd be very surprised. Short beta period, don't you think? Mac Sys7 is going to be *damn* well-tested before it hits the market. If your boss wants a Mac, then get one. In two or three years, when all the apps come out for Windows and the Mac is a poor cousin as far as the latest version of software, then you can get your boss a PC. Excuse me, but the Mac has not been significantly behind on the software front for some years now. (And the initial lag was due to its complicated programming interface. [Note that I mean "more complicated than programming a text-based machine."]) And a lot of the word-processing and graphics (examples I know well, is all) advances in the DOS world have been stuff that Macs have done better for years anyway. |I DO NOT use Lotus 123. It is mostly garbage. When I say XYZ program, I |mean any DOS program which doesn't work well with Windows. And there |are plenty. And the MAC runs these bad DOS programs better? Ha! Don't be snide. If I buy a machine that runs a lot of software, get used to it, then want to convert to a GUI, I'm going to ask whether that GUI will let me run my old apps. You don't expect that when you change machines. Making a Mac (It's *not* MAC, and I don't understand where you idiots get the idea that it is) run DOS programs would take ridiculous amounts of emulation. |>Let's see, the IBM PC came out in 1980 and the Mac came out when? | |1984. So IBM and Microsoft have had longer to screw things up. And Apple has less history to be compatible with. Yeah, right. DOS started breaking several years ago. -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \============================================================================/
kap1@phyllis.math.binghamton.edu (Dietrich Kappe) (03/14/91)
The real question is: Has Windows 3.0 reduced PC instalation time? I used to install both PC's and Macs at a major midwestern university, and PC's always took an order of magnitude longer to install (bugs, order of execution in autoexec.bat, etc. ect.) than macs. --Dietrich-- kap1@math.binghamton.edu
ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr) (03/14/91)
long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: > For the most part, stuff on the Macintosh JUST WORKS. Well said. I've been setting up a DOS laptop to run MS Word without snags, and it seems that 4 days is not enough... Sheesh... By the way, are there similar "Mac-Commandos" dropping in on comp.sys.msdos? Just wondering :) -- Eric Behr, Illinois State University, Mathematics Department Internet: ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu Bitnet: ebehr@ilstu
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (03/14/91)
In article <102510@unix.cis.pitt.edu> macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Dennis H Lippert) writes: >In article <1991Mar12.030105.11850@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >>|>Let's see, the IBM PC came out in 1980 and the Mac came out when? >>|1984. So IBM and Microsoft have had longer to screw things up. >>And Apple has less history to be compatible with. You must have forgotten some of the early PC history. The PC was introduced in 1981. Most of the early PC's were 64k units with cassette drives. Things didn't really take off for the PC until hard disks were supported. > Let's see, the LC has an Apple ][ card available...that takes us back to 1976. And the Mac Plus could run "][ In A Mac" several years back. > Does IBM have a System/23 card for the PC? (circa 1981/82). I'd bet the PC > can't even interface an 8" disk, as did the System/23. And don't say that the > Mac can't... because *it* doesn't have to be compatible to earlier IBM stuff. And does anyone remember IBM's other PC from the early 1980s? The 68000 CPU machine called the 5x00 (or something)? How about the PC system 36 stuff? Or about those early PC-RT's? -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/15/91)
long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: > I think the Mac is better for one simple reason: less hassle (substitute > more, ah, descriptive word, if you like). > For the most part, stuff on the Macintosh JUST WORKS. I don't have to worry > about expanded/extended/unimaginable/unreachable memory. I plug in memory, > and IT WORKS. Not different from a PC with Windows. And you don't have to decide how to partitionate your memory if you want to use more than one application at the same time, on the PC. > I don't have to worry about path statements, and device > drivers, etc., etc. I install an application and IT WORKS. Tossing an INIT in > the System Folder is about as much configuration as I ever need to do. Case > in point: I recently set up and used a freeware AFP file server without > reading the documentation. Try something similar on a PC! No problem. Just drag it into the \windows directory and start to use it. (I prefer to have it a little more organized, so I have different directories for different parts of the system, which indeed makes it necessary to change the path statement. But you can do without, if you are afraid of it.) > The Macintosh is not without its flaws, but the fact is that it's carrying a > lot less baggage than Windows. It's PAINFULLY obvious that Windows 3 is a GUI > layered on top of a command line interface. It may be obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to me. So please explain, where you got this impression. (It's wrong, by the way.) > I dislike the File Manager and > Program Manager, because they are not graphically integrated (i.e. when you > get into them, it is obvious there is a command line underneath). Repeating this wrong statement doesn't make it true. > For > example, Copy... in the File Manager brings up a dialog where I get to type a > drive letter! Oooh. Aaaaah. Windows, IMO, is not a true graphic interface, > but another DOS shell. Ahem. Ever tried to drag a file to another directory or another drive? Use your mouse to point to the file you want to copy, push the mouse button and hold it down. The pointer will change to a little document icon. Now move this document to the place where you want the file to go - this may be everything you see in the File Managers window which is a valid destination for a file. Drop the document by releasing the mouse button. Now you have successfully copied a file. Having to tell a Mac user how to use a mouse. Funny... Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/15/91)
kap1@phyllis.math.binghamton.edu (Dietrich Kappe) writes: >The real question is: Has Windows 3.0 reduced PC instalation time? Sure it has. Installing five printer and video drivers for five applications is a lot more work that having the Windows setup program analyzing the actual hardware configuration and installing the appropriate drivers, once for all. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/15/91)
ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr) writes: >long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: >> For the most part, stuff on the Macintosh JUST WORKS. >Well said. I've been setting up a DOS laptop to run MS Word without snags, >and it seems that 4 days is not enough... Sheesh... By the way, are there >similar "Mac-Commandos" dropping in on comp.sys.msdos? Just wondering :) I don't read that group. There are a few Mac people on comp.windows.ms discussing Mac vs. Windows, mostly from a programmers point of view. Most others seem to ignore everything else and seem to be proud about that. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/16/91)
In article <FRANCIS.91Mar13015634@arthur.uchicago.edu> francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu writes: |A LITTLE ahead? Try "has had a standard interface ever since it came |out--changed it when it added true subdirectories, but everything I don't care about history. I look at the products as they are today. There may be some subtle advantages on the Mac (and there are certainly disadvantages too) but there's not any overwhelming advantages that I can see. -- The government is not your mother. The government doesn't love you.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/16/91)
In article <FRANCIS.91Mar13020506@arthur.uchicago.edu> francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu writes: |In article <1991Mar12.030105.11850@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: | | DOS 5.0 is in beta NOW. I could get a copy if I wanted. If it's not | out by summer I'd be very surprised. | |Short beta period, don't you think? Mac Sys7 is going to be *damn* I didn't say it just entered beta, as a matter of fact, it's been in beta test for quite a while. |Excuse me, but the Mac has not been significantly behind on the |software front for some years now. (And the initial lag was due to Now that Windows 3 is out and has in its first year (not over yet) sold as many copies as there are Macs, all the software houses are rushing to provide Win apps. Again, I don't care about history, I'm looking at the future. Win has Excel 3, what does Mac have? Win has a much better Word than Mac has. |Don't be snide. If I buy a machine that runs a lot of software, |get used to it, then want to convert to a GUI, I'm going to ask |whether that GUI will let me run my old apps. You don't expect that |when you change machines. Making a Mac (It's *not* MAC, and I don't Ok, just think of Win as a new machine. One which costs a lot less than the Mac and has more software support. |Yeah, right. DOS started breaking several years ago. Don't worry, MS will fix DOS. -- The government is not your mother. The government doesn't love you.
francis@arthur.zaphod.uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (03/17/91)
In article <1991Mar16.022325.21686@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: In article <FRANCIS.91Mar13020506@arthur.uchicago.edu> francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu writes: |In article <1991Mar12.030105.11850@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: |Short beta period, don't you think? Mac Sys7 is going to be *damn* I didn't say it just entered beta, as a matter of fact, it's been in beta test for quite a while. Sorry--made a very bad assumption. -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \============================================================================/
long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) (03/19/91)
In article <1991Mar16.022325.21686@amd.com>, phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes... >Now that Windows 3 is out and has in its first year (not over yet) >sold as many copies as there are Macs, all the software houses >are rushing to provide Win apps. The fact that something has sold in large numbers does not alone make it good. People, for better or worse, tend to flock to trendy things. Windows is currently trendy. Macintosh: Quality, not quantity. Richard C. Long * long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com * ...!decwrl!mcntsh.enet.dec.com!long * long%mcntsh.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/20/91)
long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: > The fact that something has sold in large numbers does not alone make it > good. It does if you care about software availability. You can only run Excel 3 on Windows. Can't get it for Mac (yet). -- The Macintosh makes it easy to do sloppy work.
ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Behr) (03/20/91)
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >-- >The Macintosh makes it easy to do sloppy work. Just like a pen makes it easy to write Mein Kampf, and a phone makes it easy to make obscene calls... Get real - I come across this argument a lot, and I just can't believe how obtuse can one get. In case you haven't noticed, computers are for people, not the other way around. If you are a masochist, or think that arcane and complicated systems will somehow make you a better person, fine with me; but why are you so intent on converting others? If we must have a religious discussion here, can't it at least be based on some logic and common sense? Regards - E. -- Eric Behr, Illinois State University, Mathematics Department Internet: ejbehr@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu Bitnet: ebehr@ilstu
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) (03/21/91)
> In article <FRANCIS.91Mar13015634@arthur.uchicago.edu> francis@zaphod.uchicago.e > du writes: > |A LITTLE ahead? Try "has had a standard interface ever since it came > |out--changed it when it added true subdirectories, but everything > > I don't care about history. I look at the products as they are today. > There may be some subtle advantages on the Mac (and there are certainly > disadvantages too) but there's not any overwhelming advantages that > I can see. When I buy something, I don't care how much I'm "saving," I only look at the price I'm paying. So in this context I understand and agree with your comments. However, the "price history" of an item is totally irrelevant to its price today. The history of a computer system is VERY relevant. Products don't spring up full-grown overnight. The Mac and the IBM have been around for years, and have developed their own styles of programs, programming, and interfaces. Macintosh has a small market segment, and the interface tools were in ROM from day one--they have evolved, but have never been radically revised. Apple published style guidelines, and the Mac community has been very vocal about supporting them, to the extent of driving out of the marketplace (by totally ignoring) products which, although perfectly good or even excellent in other respects, showed a poor understanding of the Mac interface guidelines. Many of these were and are popular DOS programs. [And yes, MS Word is an exception; Nisus may yet displace it, by providing both power AND a great interface.] IBM and its clones have a many-times larger market segment, and essentially no guidelines. Many more products are available, and there is little uniformity among them. Instead of a single windowing environment, IBM users have a choice of several. And while the makers of these environments may publish style guidelines, no penalty is incurred for ignoring them, because users are used to the diversity. In principle, I favor diversity; it provides opportunities for rapid evolution and the emergence of newer and better things. As to "overwhelming advantages": unfortunately, this uniformity across applications is very hard for DOS users to see, and even harder for them to understand the importance of, but for me it's crucial. I use literally hundreds of programs; I couldn't possibly afford the time required to learn how to use all of these, memorizing commands and keystroke equivalents and the like. On a Mac I don't have to. If I had an IBM I would probably learn to use ONE word processor and ONE drawing program, thus severly limiting what I could do with the machine--not because it isn't entirely capable of doing more, but because *I'm* not. I use an IBM clone sparingly (very sparingly) at work, and I have a Mac at home. While my experience is admittedly limited, I have yet to see a single thing on an IBM that appeals to me--well, other than price :-(. The speed doesn't, because the IBMs need the horsepower just to make the windowing system usable (how did they make them so big and so slow?). The range of programs doesn't, because the thought of having to read all those manuals is too daunting. And I certainly don't want to have to figure out how to configure one of the things; I once learned how to format disks (though I've forgotten the details now), and that was more than enough, thank you. So I think the bottom line is: both are very powerful machines, and have excellent software available. IBM clones are inexpensive, but harder to learn and more hassle to use. Macs are user-friendly because of a strong committment to uniform, well-designed user interfaces (NOT because they have windows!), but cost more. There. That's as even-handed and impartial as I could make it. :-) Please ignore my .signature. -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) I don't speak for my employer. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | When I was young, my family bought a color TV. Our neigbors, who | | were poorer, had only a black-and-white set. They bought a piece of | | cellophane, red on top, yellow in the middle, and blue on the bottom, | | and taped it over their screen, so they could claim that they had a | | color TV, too. | | Now there's Windows 3.0. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
lj@documail.UUCP (Laura Jean Rispens) (03/21/91)
In article <1991Mar6.192401.10935@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, carter@cat27.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) writes: > Well, golly jeepers, (er huh!) my machine is better because I have a > window on mine, that (uh HUH, golly) that I can open up and expands so > large that my monitor explodes!!! > etc............................... I'm sorry, do you have a point?
long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) (03/21/91)
In article <1991Mar19.210944.18251@amd.com>, phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes... >It does if you care about software availability. You can only >run Excel 3 on Windows. Can't get it for Mac (yet). And this is a surprise to you? :-) Microsoft provides Windows for PCs. It also provides Word and Excel for both Macintosh and Windows. I am not shocked that Microsoft would provide upgrades first to Windows versions, and then to the Macintosh; it seems like good business on their part (note: I don't have to like it, though). In any event, there are other good spreadsheets for the Mac, and I've heard Mac Excel 3.0 will be out when System 7 appears, because Excel takes advantage of System 7 features (I don't know this for a fact). Richard C. Long * long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com * ...!decwrl!mcntsh.enet.dec.com!long * long%mcntsh.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com
jan3@po.CWRU.Edu (James A. Nauer) (03/21/91)
In a previous article, phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) says: >long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: >> The fact that something has sold in large numbers does not alone make it >> good. >It does if you care about software availability. You can only >run Excel 3 on Windows. Can't get it for Mac (yet). Did it ever occur to you that that might have something to do with the fact that the company that writes Excel also wrote Windows? And that that company's numero uno priority these days is Windows stuff?? Never mind that are way more macs to write software for than there are copies of Windows in use. Note the qualification there! (BTW, I use the slightly old version of Excel on my Mac; I avoid running Windows 3.0 on my PC because it destroys the speed of an otherwise useful computer...) >-- >The Macintosh makes it easy to do sloppy work. The implication is that PC's make it hard to do sloppy work. I agree. PC's make it hard to do ANY work. Cheers, --Jim -- Jim Nauer (jan3@po.cwru.edu) | "We apologize for the inconvenience." Microcomputer Lab Supervisor | --God's final message to His creation, CWRU | in _So Long, And Thanks for All the Fish_ (216) 368-6227 | -- Douglas Adams
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/21/91)
In article <16918@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: |As to "overwhelming advantages": unfortunately, this uniformity across |applications is very hard for DOS users to see, and even harder for |them to understand the importance of, but for me it's crucial. I use I don't buy this at all, unless you're talking about the DOS straw man. If you are trying to make a useful comparison of Mac vs Windows, I find the Win apps I've seen to be quite consistent in terms of there being a file menu, edit menu, clipboard, etc. Beyond that kind of stuff, I don't really see that Macdraw has anything at all in common with Adobe Illustrator. AI doesn't even have a grid for god's sake. There's not much standardization for exchanging drawings either. Macdraw doesn't even read PICT and loses information when you write PICT. |had an IBM I would probably learn to use ONE word processor and ONE |drawing program, thus severly limiting what I could do with the And what do you use on the Mac? |The range of programs doesn't, because the thought |of having to read all those manuals is too daunting. And I certainly There's some truth to that, but to a hardware engineer like myself, if I wanted to use a transmission line analyzer badly enough to read the manual, I could run something on the PC. Not on the Mac that I'm aware. Actually the manual isn't that bad, and this comparison is beside the thing I'm interested in which is Windows v Mac. |don't want to have to figure out how to configure one of the things; I This is one real advantage of the Mac. But there's nothing that would prevent a company from selling preconfigured PCs. With Mac, you only have one source. If you are willing to accept that, you can do the same thing with PCs. |once learned how to format disks (though I've forgotten the details Windows makes this easy now. || When I was young, my family bought a color TV. Our neigbors, who | || were poorer, had only a black-and-white set. They bought a piece of | || cellophane, red on top, yellow in the middle, and blue on the bottom, | || and taped it over their screen, so they could claim that they had a | || color TV, too. | || Now there's Windows 3.0. | Can you say straw man? -- Help! I just got a Macintosh. Anyone got a magnifying glass?
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu (Don McGregor) (03/21/91)
In article <4173@ryn.mro4.dec.com> long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: > > And this is a surprise to you? :-) Microsoft provides Windows for PCs. It also > provides Word and Excel for both Macintosh and Windows. I am not shocked > that Microsoft would provide upgrades first to Windows versions, and then > to the Macintosh; it seems like good business on their part (note: I don't > have to like it, though). > Has anybody else noticed that MS tends to write apps for the Mac first, and then release them for the PC some time later? For example, powerPoint, MS Word graphical, Excel, MS Mail... Later they make the PC the primary development platform, and release new features there first. Don McGregor | "I too seek the light, so long as it tastes mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu| great and is not too filling."
straka@cbnewsc.att.com (richard.j.straka) (03/21/91)
In article <1991Mar21.052502.15366@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) writes: >In article <4173@ryn.mro4.dec.com> long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: >> > Has anybody else noticed that MS tends to write apps for the Mac first, > and then release them for the PC some time later? For example, powerPoint, > MS Word graphical, Excel, MS Mail... > > Later they make the PC the primary development platform, and release new > features there first. And this should make MS' Mac releases of this software more bug-free and stable, right? Just like MW Word 3.00 (oops, 3.01), and MS Word 4 (oops, 4.00D) and Excel 1.5 (bombs if not in the first 1MB of memory space), ... I use MS products, but I am getting more and more fed up with them. -- Richard Straka |AT&T Bell Laboratories, IH-6K311 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP: att!ihlpf!straka |MSDOS: All the wonderfully arcane INTERNET: richard.straka@att.com |syntax of UNIX(R), but without the power.
peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) (03/22/91)
In article <1991Mar21.024213.9550@amd.com>, phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: > > Macdraw doesn't even read PICT and loses information > when you write PICT. Of course MacDraw reads PICT files. Don't be silly. -- michael -- Michael Peirce -- outpost!peirce@claris.com -- Peirce Software -- Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place -- Macintosh Programming -- San Jose, California 95117 -- & Consulting -- (408) 244-6554, AppleLink: PEIRCE
peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) (03/22/91)
In article <1991Mar21.052502.15366@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>, mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu (Don McGregor) writes: > > Has anybody else noticed that MS tends to write apps for the Mac first, > and then release them for the PC some time later? For example, powerPoint, > MS Word graphical, Excel, MS Mail... Minor correction: PowerPoint was not developed by Microsoft. Someone else developed it and then Microsoft bought the entire company. A similar thing happened with what is now Microsoft Mail. -- michael -- Michael Peirce -- outpost!peirce@claris.com -- Peirce Software -- Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place -- Macintosh Programming -- San Jose, California 95117 -- & Consulting -- (408) 244-6554, AppleLink: PEIRCE
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) (03/22/91)
In article <1991Mar21.024213.9550@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <16918@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: >|As to "overwhelming advantages": unfortunately, this uniformity across >|applications is very hard for DOS users to see, and even harder for >|them to understand the importance of, but for me it's crucial. I use > >I don't buy this at all, unless you're talking about the DOS straw man. >If you are trying to make a useful comparison of Mac vs Windows, I >find the Win apps I've seen to be quite consistent in terms of >there being a file menu, edit menu, clipboard, etc. Oops, sorry. I thought most applications still didn't use Windows. Shows how much attention I pay to the DOS market, I guess. >Beyond that kind of stuff, I don't really see that Macdraw has anything >at all in common with Adobe Illustrator. AI doesn't even have a grid >for god's sake. There's not much standardization for exchanging >drawings either. Macdraw doesn't even read PICT and loses information >when you write PICT. I agree that nothing is perfect. I only claimed that the Mac was much superior to IBM clones in this regard. I still do. In the Mac world there are probably as many examples of programs that can't read each others' data, are there are examples of programs in the DOS world that CAN. >|had an IBM I would probably learn to use ONE word processor and ONE >|drawing program, thus severly limiting what I could do with the > >And what do you use on the Mac? Mostly WriteNow and MacWrite (ancient version). I use MiniWriter a lot, TeachText often, and McSink on rare occasions. I use MindWrite when I feel the need to do outlines as well. When I really have to, I even use MS Word (bletch). Oh yes, I've used QUED/M. I play with the Nisus demo a lot, hoping I can afford it soon... And the THINK Pascal built-in editor, of course, but I'm not sure that counts. For painting/drawing I use MacPaint a lot, MacDraw rarely, Studio One when I'm doing anything fancy, SuperPaint 1.5 on occasion. That's on my old B&W Mac. Oh, and Hypercard, of course. On my new IIsi I use Color MacCheese, PixelPaint, and DeskPaint and DeskDraw. I've used and discarded a few other shareware-type programs that weren't very powerful. Why, what do you use? >|The range of programs doesn't, because the thought >|of having to read all those manuals is too daunting. And I certainly > >There's some truth to that, but to a hardware engineer like myself, >if I wanted to use a transmission line analyzer badly enough to >read the manual, I could run something on the PC. Not on the Mac >that I'm aware. Actually the manual isn't that bad, and this >comparison is beside the thing I'm interested in which is Windows >v Mac. Sure, I can read manuals if I have to. Mac manuals tend to be pretty bad, because they feel they have to describe lots of self-evident things. Like commenting code this way: A = A + 1; /* add one to A */ In general, you have to read manuals when there are CONCEPTS you need to learn; you don't need them to tell you what's on the menus! For example, we just got SoundEdit, and I simply don't understand some of the things on the menus (I can use them, though). And then there's MS Word, where you need to read the manual just to find the menus.... But if your point was that it's easier to find specialized IBM software for things like analyzing transmission lines, you're absolutely right. The market is ten times bigger, after all. Besides, IBM programs can be a lot simpler than Real Mac programs (I'll bet your analyzer doesn't use Windows), so they're easier to write. >|don't want to have to figure out how to configure one of the things; I >This is one real advantage of the Mac. But there's nothing that would >prevent a company from selling preconfigured PCs. With Mac, you only >have one source. If you are willing to accept that, you can do the >same thing with PCs. Perhaps I misused the word "configure". Yes, I'm used to just buying a new piece of equipment, say a CD-ROM reader, and just plugging it in, but I really wouldn't mind a half-hour configuration procedure that much. What I meant was, the last time I had to use floppies on an IBM, I had to get out of my program, maybe re-log in as root (I forget), put in the disk, run some program to mount it (because the IBM was just plain too stupid to realize I had stuck in a disk), then get back into my program again. I don't remember the details. Do Windows users still have to go through this sort of sh-, er, nonsense? >|once learned how to format disks (though I've forgotten the details >Windows makes this easy now. Thank God for that. Formatting disks alone was enough to put me off IBMs. What a joke! >Can you say straw man? Heck, I can even say things like "evangelist." More seriously, I make no bones about the fact that I'm convinced the Mac OS is far superior, even against Windows. However, I admit that reasonable people may have good reasons for prefering IBM. I feel I am not at all prejudiced, in the literal sense of "pre-judge," since I've seen and used both, and have reasons for my opinions. However, I admit that I don't pay a lot of attention to the IBM world, and things there may change fairly significantly before I notice. And that's as fair as I can be.
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (03/22/91)
In article <16936@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: Perhaps I misused the word "configure". Yes, I'm used to just buying a new piece of equipment, say a CD-ROM reader, and just plugging it in, but I really wouldn't mind a half-hour configuration procedure that much. What I meant was, the last time I had to use floppies on an IBM, I had to get out of my program, maybe re-log in as root (I forget), put in the disk, run some program to mount it (because the IBM was just plain too stupid to realize I had stuck in a disk), then get back into my program again. I don't remember the details. Do Windows users still have to go through this sort of sh-, er, nonsense? Sounds like Unix to me. -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \============================================================================/
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/22/91)
peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) writes: >In article <1991Mar21.024213.9550@amd.com>, phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >> Macdraw doesn't even read PICT and loses information >> when you write PICT. >Of course MacDraw reads PICT files. Don't be silly. Sorry, I tried something that didn't work and came to that conclusion. I just tried it another way and it does work. Thanks for the correction. (I created a PICT file from Micrografx Designer under MS Windows and couldn't get MacDraw to read it. I'm now guessing I need to resedit it but haven't been able to figure out how.) -- Help! I just got a Macintosh. Anyone got a magnifying glass?
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/22/91)
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: >Oops, sorry. I thought most applications still didn't use Windows. >Shows how much attention I pay to the DOS market, I guess. Maybe not most in terms of numbers of apps vs the whole market, but the kind of things I really care about like MS Word are available. >Why, what do you use? Not as many as you. Although I don't necessarily see a virtue to the number of different apps one uses, either large or small. (large to imply lots of power. small to imply the ones you do use are very powerful) I use MS Word for Windows, MS Excel, MS Powerpoint, MGX Designer. Would like to use Timing Designer. I could use Ventura or CorelDraw or Pagemaker, etc. >Perhaps I misused the word "configure". Yes, I'm used to just buying >a new piece of equipment, say a CD-ROM reader, and just plugging it >in, but I really wouldn't mind a half-hour configuration procedure >that much. What I meant was, the last time I had to use floppies on >an IBM, I had to get out of my program, maybe re-log in as root (I >forget), put in the disk, run some program to mount it (because the >IBM was just plain too stupid to realize I had stuck in a disk), then >get back into my program again. I don't remember the details. Do >Windows users still have to go through this sort of sh-, er, nonsense? No, just go to file manager and chose Format from the menu. -- Help! I just got a Macintosh. Anyone got a magnifying glass?
woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (03/22/91)
In article <1991Mar21.024213.9550@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <16918@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: >|As to "overwhelming advantages": unfortunately, this uniformity across >|applications is very hard for DOS users to see, and even harder for >|them to understand the importance of, but for me it's crucial. I use > >I don't buy this at all, unless you're talking about the DOS straw man. >If you are trying to make a useful comparison of Mac vs Windows, I >find the Win apps I've seen to be quite consistent in terms of >there being a file menu, edit menu, clipboard, etc. Phil: You once commented to me that you aren't a developer, nor do you care how difficult each environment makes development, so long as you get the quality applications you need to do your work. I respect this. However, I may suggest that you may wish to limit your comments on to do with uniformity across applications, as this is a development issue, one you yourself have said (privately, I know) was not a concern of yours. As development difficulties on the different environments is a concern of mine (as I do active development on both the Macintosh and MS Windows 3), I can say that the issues of compatability is far easier to cope with on the Macintosh than under Windows. Further, the Apple Human Interface Guidelines are much more complete and easier to deal with than the SAA CUA interface. Finally, compatability with the Apple Human Interface Guidelines is greater across all Macintosh applications I have seen than have Windows 3 applications. (Shucks, Windows 3 itself violates the SAA CUI guidelines that it itself is supposed to support and advocate!) -- Bill -- William Edward Woody | Disclamer: USNAIL P.O.Box 50986; Pasadena, CA 91115 | EMAIL woody@tybalt.caltech.edu | The useful stuff in this message ICBM 34 08' 44''N x 118 08' 41''W | was only line noise.
francis@daisy.zaphod.uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (03/22/91)
In article <320@documail.UUCP> lj@documail.UUCP (Laura Jean Rispens) writes: I'm sorry, do you have a point? I believe the line is "I'm sorry, this is irrelevant, isn't it?" (John Cleese, in the Dead Parrot Sketch, when the pet shop owner's brother starts telling him that he never wanted to do this in the first place.) And, yes, this is irrelevant, too. :-) (Yes, I know--I *tried* to mail it, but I couldn't figure out how to get it to the UUCP site. [that's what .signatures are for...]) -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \============================================================================/
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/24/91)
woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: > However, I may suggest that you may wish to limit your comments on >to do with uniformity across applications, as this is a development >issue, one you yourself have said (privately, I know) was not a concern of I thought we were talking about consistency seen by the users. -- Sun PC-NFS: for the engineer who really want a Sun and got a PC.
woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (03/24/91)
In article <1991Mar24.025913.29727@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: >> However, I may suggest that you may wish to limit your comments on >>to do with uniformity across applications, as this is a development >>issue, one you yourself have said (privately, I know) was not a concern of > >I thought we were talking about consistency seen by the users. Hmmmm. I guess I need to explain myself better, as I obviously didn't do such a good job the first time. Uniformity across applications may be determined by several factors. Some of them do with the amount of support provided by the operating system to allow a seemless integration and consistency of applications. Others have to do with the guidelines and application 'look and feel' standards set by the makers of the GUI interface (that is, how well the guidelines have been defined, how much support the GUI interface maker provides, how strongly those guidelines are pushed, and how well suited the GUI interface is to your particular application and to other applications similar, and different, from your application). 1) Operating system support. This has to do with such mechanisms as to how much code the underlying OS supports the ability for two applications to cut and paste between eachother, to present windows and menu items which have the same look and feel, and other such issues. This is principally a development issue, for if the OS supports the user interface, it will make it easier (in theory) for the developer to write code which supports that interface, thus increasing the number of compliant applications. On the other hand, if the OS doesn't support the interface (or at least support it well), then the chances are applications won't use the interface (or at least support it well). For the most part the Macintosh scores over MS Windows in this area, as far as I can see. [I develop for both platforms, so I think I am more qualified than someone who doesn't have experience on both platforms to make such judgements.] The 'clipboard' on the Macintosh supports multiple formats, and so an application who is getting information from the clipboard can in theory pick and choose from the formats for something it supports well. Under Windows it's a little more gross. One area where the Macintosh is sorely lacking, by the way, is in it's support of 'tear-off menu palettes', or floating palettes in general. Under Windows I can create a window which is constantly floating above it's parent window by simply specifying the window is a WS_CHILD and WS_OVERLAPPING to the CreateWindow function's style parameter. Under the Macintosh I have to write quite a lot of code to make sure my palette is above the other windows; it's not (currently) supported on the operating system. I don't believe the Macintosh is the perfect platform; just that it seems to be better than Windows on most areas where the operating system needs to support the consistant look-and-feel well-integrated suite of applications that work together seemlessly and across multiple hardware platforms. (This by the way is due to the fact that Apple is the single sole source of Macintosh computers, and the fact that Apple has been at the GUI business a hell of a lot longer than Microsoft.) 2) Standard Interface Guidelines The Apple Human Interface Guidelines (the bible, by the way, for anyone who is to develop a Macintosh application and is not certain what his application is supposed to look like) is very complete and (for the most part) completely reasonable for every aspect of your application. It is complete, very well thought out, and Apple makes it rather clear that they _strongly_ suggest that unless you have a good reason not to follow their guide, you should follow it to the letter. IMHO, the guidelines are completely impossible to live without. Shucks, I own two copies, one at home (next to my Macintosh which I'm using to write this responce--it's just above my keyboard next to my monitor), and one at work (where it lives next to the Macintosh I use to develop applications there). The IBM Systems Applications Architecture: Common User Access guidelines, on the other hand, are not quite as well thought out, and are not as strongly recommended by the authors of the guidelines (they're only guides, not gospel...) And (with the exception of the elements having to do with the necessity to support applications without mice), are not as complete by any stretch of the imagination as the Apple guidelines. Further, the attitude in the SAA CUA is "well, here's some guidelines. Follow them or not; shucks, we think they're okay." *SIGH* Though quite a few Windows developers seem to be falling all over themselves to support the SAA CUA, it's just a matter of making the keystroke accellerators match in the 'Edit' menu (which may or may not be there, and doesn't have to be the third menu bar item, after the system menu (Alt-Space), and the File menu). In fact, in order to make my Windows applications work with reasonable consistency, I follow the Apple Human Interface Guidelines when writing Windows applications! (Of course, when the SAA CUA bothers to have an opinion (which it doesn't do too often), I follow it instead. But for the most part those elements seem to be a subset of the more rigerous Apple Guidelines.) 3) Philosophic Support "It may seem that if a popular application 'pokes' the operating system and otherwise engages in unsavory practices that the authors or users of the application will suffer because a future release, such as OS/2, may not run the application correctly. To the contrary, the market dynamics state that the application has now set a standard, and it's the operating system developers who suffer because they must support that standard. Usually, that 'standard' operating system interface is not even known; a great deal of experimentation is necessary to discover exactly which undocumented side effects, system internals, and timing relation- ships the application is dependent on" -- Gordon Letwin, Microsoft's Chief Architect for System Software, "Inside OS/2". Quoted in "Undocumented DOS", page 22. In other words, Microsoft doesn't set the standards; instead, it is the market which determines the operating system standards. And through a bit of guessing and luck, you may be able to reverse-engineer the standards and (hopefully) keep future releases of the operating system from breaking. And you expect from a company such as this one to get a standard operating system interface which works for everyone seemlessly and without flaws and hidden gotchas? Be serious! Whenever you build an operating system with this sort of philosophy, it's just a matter of time before the entire house of cards comes falling down around your neck. Now, I quote from Apple, this time from their technical notes: "As a developer you play a key role in shaping the future of the Macintosh. By going beyond the guildlines in Inside Macintosh and the Macintosh Technical Notes and considering the effects of your design decisions on the whole Macintosh community, you allow the Macintosh to grow and change while still maintaining compatability. We won't break your applications, we can fully support features you desire, and we can implement these features in the best possible way for us, for you, and for the users. By going that extra step, you help us make programming the Macintosh simpler and ensure the best possible future for your products as well as ours." Apple Technical Note #227: Tookbox Karma The summary of Apple's position (in sharp contrast to that of Microsoft) is that not are you only to strictly follow their well documented interface standards, and not only are you to use only those interface options provided without 'going behind the operating system's back', but you need to also consider doing your thing using the most straight-forward and most obvious method possible. The quote above is almost a plea to the developers to make their applications consistent and compatable, and not to use dirty tricks which make life more difficult on everyone. Now tell me which philosophy is going to create a more robust system in the long run? -- Summary In short, you are correct: only the end-user can be the final judge in which operating system is more seemless and useable. However, CREATING such seemless applications and the support given in that creation process IS STRICTLY A DEVELOPER ISSUE. Yes, Windows is lightyears ahead of DOS in terms of it's usability and consistency; that is why I like doing Windows applications better than I like doing DOS applications. (I do Windows also because my employer thinks I'm a GUI guru, and hired me because I had experience on one platform--the Macintosh. He still hasn't figured out the work I had to do to get up to speed under MS Windows; he sorta thinks that a GUI is a GUI is a GUI...) However, the Macintosh is still lightyears ahead of Windows in terms of it's integration and ease of use, as well as in the integration of it's applications. Remind me to tell you about the time I posted about how my brother, on getting his new Macintosh IIsi, managed to put it together in about half- an-hour, without any help or any computer training (he's a musician in a rock-'n'-roll band). It contains the curious twist of the person from Apple writing me a private message saying essentially "that's interesting; our human engineering research suggests that the mean time to take someone who has never seen a computer before about 2 hours to unpack, plug in, and start using a Macintosh right out of the box." My god, they _researched_ the problem, and have been _analyzing_ the results, and _improving_ their products from these experiments! It sounds so simple and obvious to do this for the manual, or for the software, but for the box the computer comes in??? And when I watched my brother open the box and start assembling the Macintosh I was almost in tears. I was _moved_ that the box was so well engineered, so well put together, the proper manuals presenting themselves as the box unfolded, that it was almost a crime to have to open it. I swear with God as my witness that I have never seen a package so well engineered, so well thought out, so well _done_, from the very first time you open the very first box containing the Macintosh until it has been brought up and running with the latest software. And I have seen a lot of packages (and I mean ANY package--hell, I wasn't as impressed with my new 1991 Toyota MR-2 as I was with this simple computer!) And THAT is why I own a Macintosh, and THAT is why I believe that for the end-user, the Macintosh is currently the only way to go, and THAT is why I study the Apple manuals on Human Interface Guidelines, Documentation Guidelines, C Programming Style Guidelines, C++ Programming Style Guidelines and any other Apple guideline I can get my hands on RELIGIOUSLY. Because if I can help create a product which is even half as well engineered as my brother's Macintosh IIsi, I could then finally die happy, satisfied that I finally did something that was _right_. -- William Edward Woody | Disclamer: USNAIL P.O.Box 50986; Pasadena, CA 91115 | EMAIL woody@tybalt.caltech.edu | The useful stuff in this message ICBM 34 08' 44''N x 118 08' 41''W | was only line noise.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar24.065427.16198@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: |For the most part the Macintosh scores over MS Windows in this area, as far |as I can see. [I develop for both platforms, so I think I am more qualified |than someone who doesn't have experience on both platforms to make such |judgements.] The 'clipboard' on the Macintosh supports multiple formats, and |so an application who is getting information from the clipboard can in |theory pick and choose from the formats for something it supports well. |Under Windows it's a little more gross. I believe Wolfgang Strobel described the MSWin clipboard as follows: As I understand it, the paster puts a list of supported formats in the clipboard. The pastee picks the one he likes best and the paster then delivers the actual data. WS, any comments? | In other words, Microsoft doesn't set the standards; instead, it is |the market which determines the operating system standards. And through a |bit of guessing and luck, you may be able to reverse-engineer the standards and |(hopefully) keep future releases of the operating system from breaking. You seem to be reading into Letwin's quote the exact opposite of what I got out of it, unless you're the OS vendor (like Digital Research). MS is saying that if your application does something undocumented and it is popular enough in the market, MS will bend over backwards to support you. If you stick to the specs, then none of this is a problem. You don't have to "reverse-engineer the standards" unless you're writing your own DOS. I'd be inclined to call your reading malicious. | Now tell me which philosophy is going to create a more robust system |in the long run? As long as it works, I don't care what the philosophy behind it is. It may be ugly to you, but it's the results that count and I think my PC with Win3 works fine. MS is promising to me that if my application is used by enough people, they'll keep supporting it even if the app does some unclean things. I think I like that better than not being supported. | Remind me to tell you about the time I posted about how my brother, |on getting his new Macintosh IIsi, managed to put it together in about half- |an-hour, without any help or any computer training (he's a musician in a Believe it or not, I think the Mac has its place. I have even recommended to people that they buy a Mac. But I don't see that the Mac has any inherent long term advantage over the PC. I could open up a shop tomorrow and put together and sell PCs (or PS/2s) with Windows on them. The buyer wouldn't have to configure anything either. I could probably still do it for less than Macs cost. |start using a Macintosh right out of the box." My god, they _researched_ the |problem, and have been _analyzing_ the results, and _improving_ their products |from these experiments! It sounds so simple and obvious to do this for the |manual, or for the software, but for the box the computer comes in??? Good for them. But you know, people still buy PCs and PS/2s. | And when I watched my brother open the box and start assembling the |Macintosh I was almost in tears. I was _moved_ that the box was so well |engineered, so well put together, the proper manuals presenting themselves |as the box unfolded, that it was almost a crime to have to open it. Neat stuff. | And THAT is why I own a Macintosh, and THAT is why I believe that |for the end-user, the Macintosh is currently the only way to go, and THAT |is why I study the Apple manuals on Human Interface Guidelines, Documentation |Guidelines, C Programming Style Guidelines, C++ Programming Style Guidelines |and any other Apple guideline I can get my hands on RELIGIOUSLY. | | Because if I can help create a product which is even half as well |engineered as my brother's Macintosh IIsi, I could then finally die happy, |satisfied that I finally did something that was _right_. I appreciate how devoted you are to the Mac way, but your personal satisfaction doesn't mean that much to most computer buyers. -- Sun PC-NFS: for the engineer who really want a Sun and got a PC.
akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) (03/26/91)
I perfer two things in the Mac. First, the file system is much better than MSDOS, for simple things like the length of a file name, keeping the lower/upper case-ness of characters, to more complex things like maintaining seperate resource and data forks, associating icons with every file, and associating a creating application with a file. I also feel that the desktop/icon/running application is much better integrated in the mac (wrote a paper about that...) This has immediate consequences fo the user. For example, in Windows, if you have two icons for Word for Windows, one in the program manager, and one on the desktop (representing a running, but iconised version of Word), and you double click on the icon in the program manager, you get an icon box that says: ---------------------------------------- | | | Microsoft Word is already running | | | | OK | | | ---------------------------------------- On the mac, if you double click on the (greyed) icon for Word, you get back to the running copy. Also, on the Mac, double clicking on a second word doc gets you into word with the document, with Word for Windows, you will get the error message. This is only in part because of the way word is written, it is also because the FileManager, Program Manager and Desktop are seperate entities in Windows, but all parts of the same thing in the Macintosh Finder. The seperation makes a different to users. I had a user who kept going back to the icon in the program manager (that was the one that she new about because that is the one she used to start Word with), and double clicking on it, which resulted in her repeatedly getting the same message. Finally, in frustration, she said "Yes I KNOW!! So RUN it!!" The Mac has had a long time to iron out its problems, give Windows time... 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
STREATER@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar26.011127.28302@amd.com>, phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) says: > >In article <1991Mar24.065427.16198@nntp-server.caltech.edu> >woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: >| In other words, Microsoft doesn't set the standards; instead, it is >|the market which determines the operating system standards. And through a >|bit of guessing and luck, you may be able to reverse-engineer the standards d >|and (hopefully) keep future releases of the operating system from breaking. > >You seem to be reading into Letwin's quote the exact opposite of what I >got out of it, unless you're the OS vendor (like Digital Research). >MS is saying that if your application does something undocumented >and it is popular enough in the market, MS will bend over backwards >to support you. > >If you stick to the specs, then none of this is a problem. > >You don't have to "reverse-engineer the standards" unless you're writing >your own DOS. > Well, obviously MS *is* writing its own DOS (or Windows 3.0 in this case). So they are the ones who have to figure out how someone's "clever" use of some wrinkle in the system is supposed to work. Ever tried to figure out even 500 lines of spagetti code? Because sure as Murphy rules, some klod will manage to write the 500 "clever" lines in some wildly successful Win3.0 application, then leave or fall under a bus, leaving behind no doccy or comments. >| Now tell me which philosophy is going to create a more robust system >|in the long run? > >As long as it works, I don't care what the philosophy behind it is. It >may be ugly to you, but it's the results that count and I think my PC >with Win3 works fine. MS is promising to me that if my application is >used by enough people, they'll keep supporting it even if the app does >some unclean things. I think I like that better than not being >supported. This I find to be a rather frightening attitude, albeit an unsurprising one. This is the attitude for which we have to thank IBM for OS/360, MVS, and CMS. Sure it gets the job done, but a bigger pile of junk (in all three cases) I have yet to see. None of these systems will ever get below a certain level of bugginess, simply because they are too large, unwieldy, and over-extended. MS has a historic opportunity here, to prevent history being repeated. Otherwise they will find themselves running into the quicksands, like the dinosaurs of old. I think that was what Woody was trying to get at, the fact that if MS constrained developers like Apple does then we, the users, will be better off in the long run. Its rather akin to the Amazon - do we cut it down now for a quick profit, or manage it for the long term.
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/26/91)
woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: >In article <1991Mar24.025913.29727@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >>woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: >>> However, I may suggest that you may wish to limit your comments on >>>to do with uniformity across applications, as this is a development >>>issue, one you yourself have said (privately, I know) was not a concern of >> >>I thought we were talking about consistency seen by the users. >Hmmmm. I guess I need to explain myself better, as I obviously didn't >do such a good job the first time. >1) Operating system support. >This has to do with such mechanisms as to how much code the underlying OS >supports the ability for two applications to cut and paste between eachother, >to present windows and menu items which have the same look and feel, and >other such issues. This is principally a development issue, for if the >OS supports the user interface, it will make it easier (in theory) for the >developer to write code which supports that interface, thus increasing the >number of compliant applications. On the other hand, if the OS doesn't >support the interface (or at least support it well), then the chances are >applications won't use the interface (or at least support it well). >For the most part the Macintosh scores over MS Windows in this area, as far >as I can see. [I develop for both platforms, so I think I am more qualified >than someone who doesn't have experience on both platforms to make such >judgements.] The 'clipboard' on the Macintosh supports multiple formats, and >so an application who is getting information from the clipboard can in >theory pick and choose from the formats for something it supports well. >Under Windows it's a little more gross. This is not true. Windows clipboard supports multiple formats, too, so an application who is getting information from the clipboard can choose from supported formats the sending application supports. So far there is nothing which justifies your above comment. To the contrary, Windows concept of a clipboard is superior in my opinion, because it allows clipboard format rendering on demand, where the users action to paste something from the clipboard in a certain format triggers the sending applications rendering the data in the requested format. While this is not visible to the user, it makes it possible to support many different clipboard formats, without consuming resources (memory and time) for seldomly used formats or asking the user which format he wants to use, which is the usual "solution" of having the user do something the computer could perform better. Windows clipboard can do most things the Macintoshs clipboard can do, and more. The difference is mostly hidden from the user, but allows the application designer to do a better job. The delayed rendering feature is based on the fact that there is no (and never has been) a "non- multitasking" version of windows (there is no need to start a multifinder, and from the user's point of view a switch between different applications works more smoothly), so an application designer can - and in fact often does - assume that a user runs two or more applications concurrently. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar26.063111.3133@cs.uoregon.edu> akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes:
The seperation makes a different to users. I had a user who kept going
back to the icon in the program manager (that was the one that she new
about because that is the one she used to start Word with), and double
clicking on it, which resulted in her repeatedly getting the same
message. Finally, in frustration, she said "Yes I KNOW!! So RUN it!!"
The Mac has had a long time to iron out its problems, give Windows
time...
Hasn't it been out since 1985? How much time do you want? Isn't the
IBM community moving towards OS/2? DOS weenies are the source of my
frustation. Too many stupid users who should own Macintoshes but
trust those three letters: IBM. Oh well, sooner or later their
ignorance will hit them.
-Mikeakm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) (03/27/91)
In article <me5G_sb91@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >(in reply to my article...) > The Mac has had a long time to iron out its problems, give Windows > time... > >Hasn't it been out since 1985? How much time do you want? Isn't the >IBM community moving towards OS/2? DOS weenies are the source of my >frustation. Too many stupid users who should own Macintoshes but >trust those three letters: IBM. Oh well, sooner or later their >ignorance will hit them. One of the things that I respect the Mac for is that it made programmers aware that the needs and perceptions of the user are of paramount importance. Calling users stupid does not show any respect for them or their needs. If they trust IBM, then obviously there is some need that they have that IBM satisfies, and you can't ignore that. Also, if your role is to help users, if you believe they are stupid, you can't satisfy that role. Mac users calling DOS/Windows/OS/2 users weenies and vice versa is, IMHO a waste of time, and it shows a level of almost religous bigotism that is not productive. Much better that we learn from one another. I use both Macs and PCs extensively and am aware that there are advantages and problems with both systems/software platforms. And I think that the argument that "the IBM community is supposed to be moving towards OS/2" quite meaningless. A while back, the world was supposed to be moving towards UNIX. There are people in my department who would not use anything that can't support X-Windows, but we get along fine realizing that our needs are different. 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
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/27/91)
STREATER@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes: >This I find to be a rather frightening attitude, albeit an unsurprising one. >This is the attitude for which we have to thank IBM for OS/360, MVS, and CMS. >Sure it gets the job done, but a bigger pile of junk (in all three cases) I >have yet to see. None of these systems will ever get below a certain level of >bugginess, simply because they are too large, unwieldy, and over-extended. You're overlooking the fact that there is a clear upgrade path from DOS to Windows to OS/2. Win and OS/2 have DOS boxes and they are good enough. I'm sure it's no surprise to you that the Mac is not bug free either, so let's not live in glass houses and throw stones. -- Sun PC-NFS: for the engineer who really want a Sun and got a PC.
bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar26.063111.3133@cs.uoregon.edu> akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >On the mac, if you double click on the (greyed) icon for Word, you get >back to the running copy. Also, on the Mac, double clicking on a >second word doc gets you into word with the document, with Word for >Windows, you will get the error message. This is only in part because >of the way word is written, it is also because the FileManager, >Program Manager and Desktop are seperate entities in Windows, but all >parts of the same thing in the Macintosh Finder. DDE or somesuch (OLE) should still allow windows to do this same thing. Being separate is probably not the problem. The other thing I like about the MAC is the way an application, once loaded, stays out of the way. When I load Word or Excel, or Powerpoint (etc.) the MAC only displays the open document and uses a single command bar for all applications that are loaded. While this was annoying and confusing at first (I'm a long time windows user), it does really make better use of the available screen display area. With the MAC it is normal to have three or four applications contantly loaded and in use, where with windows I find 3-4 applications up simaltaneously is too cluttered and I spent a lot of time moving, arranging, iconizing, etc., to use the apps together. It is easy to forget that Excel or Powerpoint is loaded when using the MAC. With Windows, they always chew up real estate - so I'm constantly loading and quiting them. I think the MAC still leads, but windows is coming along. -- * Bruce Benson + Internet - bwb@sei.cmu.edu + + * SSC/XPE + bbenson@xpe.ssc.af.mil + >--|> * Gunter AFB, AL 36114 + Compuserv - 76226,3407 + + * (SEI Affiliate Alumni) + Voice - 205 279-5153 + US Air Force
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) (03/27/91)
akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >One of the things that I respect the Mac for is that it made >programmers aware that the needs and perceptions of the user are of >paramount importance. This would have been GREAT if some programmers hadn't gone ALL the way to the other side and considered that the needs and perceptions of users (who really did not know WHAT they wanted in most cases) were more important than functionality, robustness, usefulness, and efficiency. >Calling users stupid does not show any respect >for them or their needs. That is true. I believe that the issue is honesty. Some users ARE stupid, not in the sense of low intelligence, but in the assumption that getting or using a computer means that they don't have to learn one whit about what they are using. Too much catering to this "unwilling" user, and you make all the "willing" users (especially us computer professionals) resistant to the idea of catering to the user. A happy medium is what is needed. THIS IS WHY Mac's are such a "religious" issue. Those who hate them hate them and their philosophy because no respect is given the user who is willing to learn the machine. My $0.02 anyway... -- Dave Hayes - dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov - ames!elroy!dxh In a meadow, the King shot an arrow at a deer but missed. "Bravo!" a Fool shouted. The King became angry and snapped "So! You're making fun of me, eh? I am going to punish the life out of you!" "My word of praise was not for His Excellency, but for the deer."
zoroaster@oak.circa.ufl.edu (03/27/91)
(RE {blah} is already running in ms Win3)
That's odd- I always get a another program session. Maybe you're using the
fabled MacWindows ( :-) ?)?cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (03/27/91)
From article <1991Mar26.181438.17611@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, by dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes): > akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >>One of the things that I respect the Mac for is that it made >>programmers aware that the needs and perceptions of the user are of >>paramount importance. > > This would have been GREAT if some programmers hadn't gone ALL the way to > the other side and considered that the needs and perceptions of users > (who really did not know WHAT they wanted in most cases) were more important > than functionality, robustness, usefulness, and efficiency. > Anybody ever run a BATCH file on a MAC. Better yet, anybody ever use that input queue to his advantage in getting ahead of the machine? On a MAC, YOU wait for the machine, no if's and's or but's. Batch processing is not a bad word, quite the contrary. It has its purpose, and this purpose is not filled by MAC's. Therefore, in answer to the article subject, the MAC is NOT better than DOS machines, just more demanding of user input. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (03/27/91)
In <1991Mar26.181438.17611@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes: >THIS IS WHY Mac's are such a "religious" issue. Those who hate them hate >them and their philosophy because no respect is given the user who is >willing to learn the machine. Perhaps the philosophy is that people should be spending time learning their application instead of learning the machine. This seems to work since Mac users find time to learn 5-6 different applications. The Mac machine has a small set of skills to learn and they are of utility in every application. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (03/27/91)
From article <39867@netnews.upenn.edu>, by claytor@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Nelson Claytor): > In article <1991Mar26.205631.16141@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu > (CADSI) writes: >> Anybody ever run a BATCH file on a MAC. > > Yes, I use MPW to do script-oriented things. It works very nicely, thank > you. Get outa here, where'd you get this? I need it NOW!!!! >> Better yet, anybody ever >> use that input queue to his advantage in getting ahead of the machine? > > The type-ahead is 20 characters or so. What is it on a DOS machine? > (Curious, not confrontational.) Oooh (pain)... Got me beat, 16 pathetic characters. Macros are used to expand this. > >> Therefore, in answer to >> the article subject, the MAC is NOT better than DOS machines, just >> more demanding of user input. > > So an IBM mainframe is the ultimate machine, since it runs batch jobs > best? ;-> Naw, be serious, a Cray is, BUT actually, I like 3090's. They scream on certain applications. Great File concentrator programs. more dribble forthcoming: Ok, last but not least, When I unbox tha MAC, and I have an ASCII file to print (I haven't looked at software packages yet mind you), how do I send this file to the printer? If I'm not mistaken, And I admit, I probably am (i'm probin' sort of), you have to load everything into an application to do anything. In DOS, its just copy <file> prn. Matter of fact, I just wanna spit some stuff out the Serial port. Such as a command to turn off auto answer at boot-up: copy <stuff> >aux |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
kchang@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Chang) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar27.032812.23838@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: >Ok, last but not least, When I unbox tha MAC, and I have an ASCII file >to print (I haven't looked at software packages yet mind you), how do >I send this file to the printer? It depends on how intelligently you have things set up. In the worst case, you would have to launch an application or desk accessory, open the file and then select "Print" from the File menu. If you have it set up so the the creator of the text file is something you have or if you have HandOff installed so that all text files are by default associated with a given word processor, then all you would have to do is click on the file to select it and then pull down "Print" from the File menu in Finder to print it. If this sounds un-Macish, well, yes, it is. (After all, the user isn't supposed to have to know anything about file types and file creators.) The "application not found" message is annoying. (Have they fixed this in 7.0?) And, oh yes, if you have MPW, then it's probably something trivial. >Matter of fact, I just wanna spit some stuff out the Serial port. >Such as a command to turn off auto answer at boot-up: Don't know. It's not trivial under the MacOS. It may be trivial with MPW. -- Kenneth Chang | National Center for Supercomputing Applications kchang@ncsa.uiuc.edu | Consulting Office/(217)244-1144 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Everything's entertainment in America eventually" -- Tracy Ullman
woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar26.063111.3133@cs.uoregon.edu> akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >On the mac, if you double click on the (greyed) icon for Word, you get >back to the running copy. Also, on the Mac, double clicking on a >second word doc gets you into word with the document, with Word for >Windows, you will get the error message. This is only in part because >of the way word is written, it is also because the FileManager, >Program Manager and Desktop are seperate entities in Windows, but all >parts of the same thing in the Macintosh Finder. > >The seperation makes a different to users. I had a user who kept going >back to the icon in the program manager (that was the one that she new >about because that is the one she used to start Word with), and double >clicking on it, which resulted in her repeatedly getting the same >message. Finally, in frustration, she said "Yes I KNOW!! So RUN it!!" Strictly speaking, the problem your friend is experiencing is a problem with Word. Window has many mechanisms for running an application; each of these pretty much funnel down to the same routine which actually runs the application. On running the application a second time, the application can at that point choose to allow a second copy to run at the same time, or to abort the second copy. This causes Windows to put up the message 'no cigar'. Your friend can figure out what's running by clicking in the desktop; though I don't have a Windows machine next to me, I do believe that this will pop up a modal dialog which lists all the programs which are currently running, and will allow you to select one of them. -- See, I may be deeply imbedded in 'Mac Zen', but I still know a little bit about Windows... ;-) -- Bill -- William Edward Woody | Disclamer: USNAIL P.O.Box 50986; Pasadena, CA 91115 | EMAIL woody@tybalt.caltech.edu | The useful stuff in this message ICBM 34 08' 44''N x 118 08' 41''W | was only line noise.
freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) (03/28/91)
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: >Ok, last but not least, When I unbox tha MAC, and I have an ASCII file >to print (I haven't looked at software packages yet mind you), how do >I send this file to the printer? OK. So, what's an "ASCII" file? I never saw such a beast on a Mac. Where did it come from? What icon did it show? Freek "the Pistol Major" Wiedijk E-mail: freek@fwi.uva.nl #P:+/ = #+/P?*+/ = i<<*+/P?*+/ = +/i<<**P?*+/ = +/(i<<*P?)*+/ = +/+/(i<<*P?)**
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar26.181438.17611@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: >Too much catering to this "unwilling" user, and you make all the "willing" >users (especially us computer professionals) resistant to the idea of >catering to the user. A happy medium is what is needed. > >THIS IS WHY Mac's are such a "religious" issue. Those who hate them hate >them and their philosophy because no respect is given the user who is >willing to learn the machine. OK, I'm forced to respond. I learned to program in 1963, and discovered I loved it. I've long since lost count of the number of machines I've used and the number of programming languages I've written in. I got a doctorate in Computer Science, taught CS for a few years at a university, and I'm currently an AI researcher at Unisys. In other words, I am NOT an "unwilling user," not by any stretch of the imagination. But I AM a user, as well as a "computer professional." I spend as much time using other people's programs as I do writing my own. You say that, according to the Macintosh philosopy, "no respect is given the user who is willing to learn the machine." I think this is completely bogus. Let's turn it on its head: "Respect IS given to the user who wants to get things done, but isn't a professional and doesn't want to become one just to work his computer." Programs are, you will certainly agree, very complex entities. In my view, a certain task (e.g. word processing) requires a certain minimum complexity to get it done. A software engineer can meet the user halfway, providing the necessary functionality and expecting the user to master the remaining complexity; or the engineer can meet the user MORE than halfway, providing not only the functionality, but attempting to absorb as much as possible of the complexity into the program, so that the user doesn't have to work as hard or learn as much. To achieve this, the engineer has to (1) learn principles of good user interface design, (2) put a hell of a lot of work into the interface, often substantially more than into the basic functionality itself, (3) test the program with real users, being as open as humanly possible to complaints and suggestions, and (4) revise and test in a seemingly endless cycle until the interface and functionality are "right." Macintosh programming is some of the hardest programming I have ever done, and I'm still not good at it. But it's also the most rewarding (and I certainly don't mean in a financial sense!), because I feel I can create a program of substantially higher quality. The Macintosh toolbox makes this possible, but it doesn't make it easy. Resentment is natural when people are forced to do work they wouldn't otherwise have to do, or feel is unnecessary. In this case the pressure of the marketplace for higher-quality user interfaces is putting a lot of programmers into this position. Yes, users have learned to expect more and demand more, just as they do from any field that is advancing. But no, it isn't pandering to work to meet those needs; they are legitimate. I don't believe a "happy medium" is needed or appropriate. We have a free marketplace; users buy or don't buy your product. If you strike a compromise and I give buyers what they want, you're out of business. Those are the facts of life. Macintosh gives me, my wife, and my four kids what we want in a computer: ease of learning and ease of use. I think this shows that the designers respected us and our needs; you seem to feel the opposite. In addition, I personally have always been a technophile, and want to live in the future; Macintosh was and is a pioneer in software, and is still years ahead of windows. I'm "religious" about them because, with the possible exception of NeXT, their software is years ahead of the competition. But I'm not religious in the sense that I'll jump ship in a minute if something better comes along. Other users have other needs: they need to spend less, or they can afford to spend more time learning the system. Novice users don't know the differences, so they often make the "safe" choice (and similarly, no one was ever fired for recommending that his company buy IBM computers). And that's my nickel. -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) I don't speak for my employer. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | When I was young, my family bought a color TV. Our neigbors, who | | were poorer, had only a black-and-white set. They bought a piece of | | cellophane, red on top, yellow in the middle, and blue on the bottom, | | and taped it over their screen, so they could claim that they had a | | color TV, too. | | Now there's Windows 3.0. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/28/91)
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <1991Mar24.065427.16198@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: >|For the most part the Macintosh scores over MS Windows in this area, as far >|as I can see. [I develop for both platforms, so I think I am more qualified >|than someone who doesn't have experience on both platforms to make such >|judgements.] The 'clipboard' on the Macintosh supports multiple formats, and >|so an application who is getting information from the clipboard can in >|theory pick and choose from the formats for something it supports well. >|Under Windows it's a little more gross. >I believe Wolfgang Strobel described the MSWin clipboard as follows: >As I understand it, the paster puts a list of supported formats in the >clipboard. The pastee picks the one he likes best and the paster then >delivers the actual data. >WS, any comments? Correct. I would like to add that the paster has the choice, either to put all the data into the clipboard during cut/copy or shortly after that (the method of the Macintosh), or to do it much later, on demand, and only for the requested format. For small amounts of data it is simpler to put everything into the clipboard immediately. But it is quite usefull that an application can announce a format for which it has to generate the actual data only if there is somebody (another application, that is), who actually requests it. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/28/91)
akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >I perfer two things in the Mac. First, the file system is much better >than MSDOS, for simple things like the length of a file name, keeping >the lower/upper case-ness of characters, to more complex things like >maintaining seperate resource and data forks, associating icons with >every file, and associating a creating application with a file. All this is not a sign of quality of a filesystem, but of features a filesystem has. Those you mention are quite useless for a filesystem which is used mostly using a command driven interface. They aren't very hard to implement. Adding robustness, support for very large files, support for efficient direct access etc. are much harder to realize. I agree that the MSDOS file system is poor, given todays standards. But it performs quite well for the purposes it was created for. >I also feel that the desktop/icon/running application is much better >integrated in the mac (wrote a paper about that...) This has immediate >consequences fo the user. For example, in Windows, if you have two >icons for Word for Windows, one in the program manager, and one on the >desktop (representing a running, but iconised version of Word), and >you double click on the icon in the program manager, you get an icon >box that says: > ---------------------------------------- > | | > | Microsoft Word is already running | > | | > | OK | > | | > ---------------------------------------- >On the mac, if you double click on the (greyed) icon for Word, you get >back to the running copy. Also, on the Mac, double clicking on a >second word doc gets you into word with the document, with Word for >Windows, you will get the error message. This is only in part because >of the way word is written, it is also because the FileManager, >Program Manager and Desktop are seperate entities in Windows, but all >parts of the same thing in the Macintosh Finder. Not so. Its a bug in WinWord, in my opinion. The normal behaviour of Windows is that you can start as many copies of your application as you like. Opening two documents is usually done by starting two copies of the application. This is no problem from a technical point of view, because all instances of an application share their code, so only one copy of the code has to be in memory. In addition, there is a simple mechanism for these multiple instances to exchange data. Some applications prefer to exist only in one single instance, for some reason or another. WinWord is one of them, obviously. Such applications (which are a minority) have the problem you describe. It could easily be solved by having any secondary instance of such an application send an open request to the primary instance. Cooperation from one of the Managers (file/program) isn't necessary. Why Microsoft didn't implement it that way, who knows. (My theory is that it applies mostly to applications they have to support on both platforms, but I could be wrong). The point I want to make here that this problem is not an architectural deficiency in Windows. Multiple instances make it difficult to decide to which running instance of an application a document to be opened has to be attached, if this operation is performed from the outside, in some manager. But on the other hand, they have advantages. Of course, the problem can be solved by crippling the whole system so that it only allows one instance of an application, i.e. by copying the Mac architecture. This makes the system simpler in some areas (you described one), but makes it more complicated in another (you have to implement multiple document support in each and every application, for example). Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar26.063111.3133@cs.uoregon.edu>, akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) wrote: >consequences fo the user. For example, in Windows, if you have two >icons for Word for Windows, one in the program manager, and one on the >desktop (representing a running, but iconised version of Word), and >you double click on the icon in the program manager, you get an icon >box that says: > | Microsoft Word is already running | >On the mac, if you double click on the (greyed) icon for Word, you get >back to the running copy. Also, on the Mac, double clicking on a The Amiga just goes ahead and launches multiple copies. I saw this happen with a user and ProPage2. She'd launched three copies of the program before I could stop her, each overlaying the other. Nice. -- Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,## Everyone should try to kill themselves once in a TCD,EIRE. <mike@maths.tcd.ie>## while, it gives you a whole new outlook on life. ###############################DON'T MISS TRINCON400 7th, 8th, 9th FEBRUARY 1992 And she wore Black Contact Lenses when you said you liked her eyes......Toasties
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (03/28/91)
In article <16994@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: >In article <1991Mar26.181438.17611@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: > >>Too much catering to this "unwilling" user, and you make all the "willing" >>users (especially us computer professionals) resistant to the idea of >>catering to the user. A happy medium is what is needed. >> >>THIS IS WHY Mac's are such a "religious" issue. Those who hate them hate >>them and their philosophy because no respect is given the user who is >>willing to learn the machine. > >OK, I'm forced to respond. [ extremely well-written response deleted. GO READ THE ARTICLE! NOW! ] David, your arguments should be required reading for all computer jocks who lose patience with those annoying users. :-) I've never seen a clearer and more persuasive statement of the Macintosh philosophy. Made my day. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) (03/28/91)
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: >In article <1991Mar26.181438.17611@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: >>Too much catering to this "unwilling" user, and you make all the "willing" >>users (especially us computer professionals) resistant to the idea of >>catering to the user. A happy medium is what is needed. >> >>THIS IS WHY Mac's are such a "religious" issue. Those who hate them hate >>them and their philosophy because no respect is given the user who is >>willing to learn the machine. >You say that, according to the Macintosh philosopy, "no respect is >given the user who is willing to learn the machine." I think this is >completely bogus. Let's turn it on its head: "Respect IS given to >the user who wants to get things done, but isn't a professional and >doesn't want to become one just to work his computer." THe two aren't the same thing. How about if I word it another way: "Respect could be given to the professional who is willing to sacrifice ease-of-learning for interface throughput speed." >complexity to get it done. A software engineer can meet the user >halfway, providing the necessary functionality and expecting the user >to master the remaining complexity; or the engineer can meet the user >MORE than halfway, providing not only the functionality, but >attempting to absorb as much as possible of the complexity into the >program, so that the user doesn't have to work as hard or learn as >much. However, in absorbing that complexity you more often than not wind up denying flexibility, speed, or even usefulness. There are the interfaces designed to be easy-to-use and then there are those designed to be quick-to-use. Most of the time these are two different camps...and current trendyism tends to favor the easy-to-use. My suggestion is that these two camps be fused...so that an interface is easy to use at first, then as it is mastered it becomes quick to use. So often I see people using EZGUIs work at least 1/2 as fast as those using keyboard interfaces or quicker GUIS (if there IS such a thing). The solution and the better way is to slow everybody down? >Resentment is natural when people are forced to do work they wouldn't >otherwise have to do, or feel is unnecessary. YES! Now you understand why some of us professionals HATE these GUI interfaces! For example...WHY should I have to move my right hand to my mouse to get something done that used to take a keystroke? >I don't believe a "happy medium" is needed or appropriate. We have a >free marketplace; users buy or don't buy your product. If you strike >a compromise and I give buyers what they want, you're out of business. >Those are the facts of life. That they may be for you...I feel everything is negotiable into a happy medium. >Macintosh gives me, my wife, and my four kids what we want in a >computer: ease of learning and ease of use. I think this shows that >the designers respected us and our needs; you seem to feel the >opposite. Exactly correct. I feel the designers have neglected my needs for fast throughput and complex powerful constructed commands from a simple orthogonal command subset. Different strokes for different folks. -- Dave Hayes - dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov - ames!elroy!dxh One day, a Fool was in the village mill, filling his bag with a little bit of every other person's wheat. "Why are you doing that?" someone asked. "Because I am a Fool" "Why don't you then fill other people's bags with your own wheat?" "Then," the Fool answered, "I would be more of a fool."
mtang@sgi.com (Man Kit Tang) (03/28/91)
In article <16994@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: >In article <1991Mar26.181438.17611@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov writes: > >>Too much catering to this "unwilling" user, and you make all the "willing" >>users (especially us computer professionals) resistant to the idea of >>catering to the user. A happy medium is what is needed. >> >>THIS IS WHY Mac's are such a "religious" issue. Those who hate them hate >>them and their philosophy because no respect is given the user who is >>willing to learn the machine. > >OK, I'm forced to respond. > ... <much stuff deleted> ... > We have a >free marketplace; users buy or don't buy your product. If you strike >a compromise and I give buyers what they want, you're out of business. >Those are the facts of life. I couldn't agree more on this. So, let the market declare who's the winner. -mkt
JEB107@psuvm.psu.edu (Jonathan Baker) (03/28/91)
Pardon me for asking this, but....
Is all this Apple <--> IBM bashing really necessary?
I had assumed, for a while, that most of the people who participate in
these discussions are professional, or semi-professional computer
literate people. However, from the amount of anit-computer system
mail out there, I guess I would be mistaken.
I had, about 6 months ago, a chance to argue with a dedicated (and
I mean REALLY dedicated) Big Blue enthuiast, who told me all about
why IBM should be the monopoly in the market (along with all of
the clone makers, of course). This was sitting in a shop, with
the guts of about 3 IBM's sitting around useless ("I can't get
the right parts for them").
Right across the hall, was a student Macintosh Lab. Not too nice
(It really didn't get much support), but usuable. In this lab
sat a dedicated 'Apple should be gods!' enthuiast, who said
almost exactly the same things the pro-IBM guy did, in reverse.
I blew it off, thinking it was the result of these people being
stuck in a backwater campus, unaware that there were better
things out there.
I guess I was wrong. I always thought that the idea of computers
was to help the user, user stupid or user bright. It was
the general idea that, if you liked it, you bought it (remember
the idea of market competition?) and then you could always
change your mind.
Nowadays, with the advent of the LAN, WAN, GlobalAN, etc...
I figured that the computer community would be imagining
all kinds of new ways to get all these computers to work
together, and let each show it's own strengths, and
weaknesses. Hey, if you had to so DTP, use a Mac/NeXT.
If you wanted to work in WordPerfect (if you were used to
it), then use an IBM. Great, huh?
I guess not. With the same general stupidity that gave
us racism, the computer 'professionals' out there seem
to have a great time telling each other just how BAD the
other guy is.
(All exceptions to this rule, please forgive me. I am trying
to make a point)
So, I guess we are just as bad as the users, huh?
Jonathan Baker
Penn State Universitycms2839@isc.rit.edu (a.stranger) (03/28/91)
stop it .
this idiotic thread is making the
general level of discussion in alt.sex ( no flames ) look positively
philosophical . it all adds up to dozens upon scores upon ... of
irrelevant analogies , atypical examples , and just plain shitty logic
from the collection of idiots who profess that one computer and one
operating system is perfect for the world in general . and we haven't
ever heard from the Amiga and CoCo/OS-9 followers yet .
believe it or not , there ARE people who
use these groups to answer their questions about and enhance their
productivity on the corresponding systems . might i suggest USING them
instead of debating which is better ? i use and program Macs ,
Dos/Windows , and straight DOS . i've found that the experience gives me
flexability and skills that cannot be matched by someone who refuses to
step beyond the safe walls of their pet system . no argument for either
system is going to convince me that i won't have a need to use the other
in the future , and dogmatic bullshit will do me no more good in that
situation than it does these newsgroups .
find a system that you like and do what
you can with it . but realize that the fact that it fits you does not
mean that it axiomatically applies to the rest of the earth .
how about getting back to the subject ?
--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ "Imagination keeps the shadows away - Xymox @
@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@
@ a.stranger - CMS2839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu @dinda@cat59.cs.wisc.edu (Peter Dinda) (03/29/91)
In article <23195@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: >separate is probably not the problem. The other thing I like about the MAC is >the way an application, once loaded, stays out of the way. When I load Word or >Excel, or Powerpoint (etc.) the MAC only displays the open document and uses >a single command bar for all applications that are loaded. While this was >annoying and confusing at first (I'm a long time windows user), it does >really make better use of the available screen display area. With the MAC it >is normal to have three or four applications contantly loaded and in use, where >with windows I find 3-4 applications up simaltaneously is too cluttered and I >spent a lot of time moving, arranging, iconizing, etc., to use the apps >together. It is easy to forget that Excel or Powerpoint is loaded when using >the MAC. With Windows, they always chew up real estate - so I'm constantly >loading and quiting them. I think the MAC still leads, but windows is coming >along. >-- Simple solution: Run your apps maximized and switch between them using SWITCHTO on the system menu - voila: instant multifinder task list! It is also rather interesting that you should mention DDE, a feature Windows has had for a number of years now and that Apple is finally getting around to emulating. If you also throw IBM's raison d'etre operating system, OS/2, into the fold, you realize that the 'space race' between Macs and PCs is quite close. Certainly, if you look at bare hardware, you would think PCs are a whole new generation! >* Bruce Benson + Internet - bwb@sei.cmu.edu + + >* SSC/XPE + bbenson@xpe.ssc.af.mil + >--|> >* Gunter AFB, AL 36114 + Compuserv - 76226,3407 + + >* (SEI Affiliate Alumni) + Voice - 205 279-5153 + US Air Force
korpela@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) (03/29/91)
In article <23195@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: > The other thing I like about the MAC is >Excel, or Powerpoint (etc.) the MAC only displays the open document and uses >a single command bar for all applications that are loaded. Actually, I find that one of the most annoying Macintosh traits. Everything wants to use the whole damn screen. In MS windows I can be programming in one window while looking at reference docs in another, while glancing over at an ASCII table in another, while looking at the number that has just popped up in the calculator. I don't have to click in the upper right corner to change apps. IMHO, multifinder doesn't come close to MS windows when it comes to running multiple apps. Maybe if you have a 19 inch screen it's a bit better, but not even God can afford one of those. (Hell, even a 16 inch Mac monitor is out of his price range. And color? You might as well forget it.) /\ korpela@ssl.berkeley.edu Internet /__\ rioch BKYAST::KORPELA 42215::KORPELA DecNet / \ of Chaos korpela%bkyast@ucbjade Bitnet (_____________________ <aka Eric Korpela>
jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar29.002307.9456@agate.berkeley.edu> korpela@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) writes: >In article <23195@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: >> The other thing I like about the MAC is >>Excel, or Powerpoint (etc.) the MAC only displays the open document and uses >>a single command bar for all applications that are loaded. > >Actually, I find that one of the most annoying Macintosh traits. Everything >wants to use the whole damn screen. In MS windows I can be programming in one >window while looking at reference docs in another, while glancing over at >an ASCII table in another, while looking at the number that has just popped up >in the calculator. I don't have to click in the upper right corner to change >apps. > >IMHO, multifinder doesn't come close to MS windows when it comes to running >multiple apps. Maybe if you have a 19 inch screen it's a bit better, but >not even God can afford one of those. (Hell, even a 16 inch Mac monitor is >out of his price range. And color? You might as well forget it.) > > /\ korpela@ssl.berkeley.edu Internet > /__\ rioch BKYAST::KORPELA 42215::KORPELA DecNet > / \ of Chaos korpela%bkyast@ucbjade Bitnet > (_____________________ <aka Eric Korpela> What's wrong with running programs all over the screen on a Mac like you say you do under windows and simply clicking once on the window you want to make active? Jess Holle
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar29.034441.25349@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes: > >What's wrong with running programs all over the screen on a Mac like you say >you do under windows and simply clicking once on the window you want to make >active? > Answer 1: There is only one menu bar! Simple copy from one app and paste into the other -type commands are a pain. Edit-copy, then click on the destination window, then Edit-paste. I find it much easier to be able to hit the destination's menu bar directly, thus activating the app and the menu at once. It's also nice to be able to tug an app and all its windows off the screen temporarily, or have just its title and menu bar appearing at the bottom of the screen to do cuts and pastes to/from. Answer 2: How many compact macs have a burnt-in stripe across the top of their screen because of the menu bar always being there? Almost all I've seen do. Screen savers work, except it's hard to work when the screen saver is activated! Apple standard response: The gods in our Human-Computer Interaction labs have decreed that the one menu bar at the top is more efficient. Why? Because you can overshoot the bar when moving the mouse and the fact that it's muched against the top of the screen will prevent overshooting it. Wouldn't similar reasoning suggest smunching all common controls against the screen edges? I just want to know how much more efficient it is to have to activate, then access the menu bar, instead of doing both in one click. For that matter, it's probably *most* efficient to use Alt-<letter> to access the menu! [Side note: I was involved in a rather lengthy discussion with some folks from comp.sys.mac.religion.gods.sys.misc or whatever on this exact point about a year ago. I think Apple is trying to justify a poor decision made when the original Mac interface was cast in stone, but this is my opinion. It's *very* interesting to note that the company that most recently said they'd successfully cloned the Mac ROMS is using a Motif-like interface, with the menus in each apps window right where they belong.] Actually, one thing I really like is the ability for an app like Windows Help to spring forth with its own menu bar--on the Mac the alternatives are to have a bunch of silly buttons or pop-up menubutton thingies or to take over the global menu bar. Sorry for the digression... Aaron Wallace
doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar27.195719.15623@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) writes: > The Amiga just goes ahead and launches multiple copies. I saw this >happen with a user and ProPage2. She'd launched three copies of the program >before I could stop her, each overlaying the other. Nice. Why would one want this functionality? I use a Mac with Multifinder running, and I can have multiple copies of the same program running if I make duplicate copies of the program on the disk, using different names, and then starting each of them. But so what? I can recall only one occassion where I needed to do that in the last three years, and that was with a "quick hack" type program that had almost none of the normal capabilities. The "normal capabilities," which most commercial Mac programs nowadays seem to have, include the ability of an application program to have several documents open at once in separate windows. Given that, what's the point of running several copies of the same program? John E. Doner doner@henri.ucsb.edu (805)893-3941 Dept. Mathematics, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (03/30/91)
In article <10212@hub.ucsb.edu> doner@henri.UUCP (John Doner) writes: >In article <1991Mar27.195719.15623@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) writes: >> The Amiga just goes ahead and launches multiple copies. I saw this >>happen with a user and ProPage2. She'd launched three copies of the program >>before I could stop her, each overlaying the other. Nice. > >Why would one want this functionality? I use a Mac with Multifinder >running, and I can have multiple copies of the same program running if >I make duplicate copies of the program on the disk, using different >names, and then starting each of them. But so what? Ah, but on the Mac you get two entirely separate programs, each eating up its full share of memory. Under Windows all the code is shared, so the second copy is much cheaper than the first. >The "normal capabilities," which most commercial Mac programs nowadays >seem to have, include the ability of an application program to have >several documents open at once in separate windows. Given that, >what's the point of running several copies of the same program? The key word is "most." MacDraw for years didn't have multiple windows. Most games don't. Most DAs don't. Many toy shareware programs don't. Running two copies would be a good fix to this limitation. Many Windows apps don't support multiple windows because they don't have to--they get it for free through Windows. I mean, let's say you want to have two versions of a chess game running at the same time or whatever. Most, if not all, games don't support multiple windows--nor should they really have to. With Windows this isn't a problem at all (unless the silly program can't run multiply, which means it was written poorly). Other reasons: some programs like to have "global" (i.e. across windows) settings. Multiple copies allow one to have different copies with different settings. Aaron Wallace
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/30/91)
In article <10212@hub.ucsb.edu> doner@henri.UUCP (John Doner) writes: > >The "normal capabilities," which most commercial Mac programs nowadays >seem to have, include the ability of an application program to have >several documents open at once in separate windows. Given that, >what's the point of running several copies of the same program? > Admittedly it isn't all too common, but it does have its uses. If you have a sound player program, or a image display program, you might want to have multiple sounds/pictures displayed at once. You might have two or more serial ports and want a communications program running on each. Same with printing via parallel ports. You get the idea. It isn't rampantly useful, but it can be used. >John E. Doner doner@henri.ucsb.edu (805)893-3941 >Dept. Mathematics, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 -- Ethan Q: How many Comp Sci majors does it take to change a lightbulb A: None. It's a hardware problem.
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (03/30/91)
>>What's wrong with running programs all over the screen on a Mac like you say >>you do under windows and simply clicking once on the window you want to make >>active? >Answer 1: There is only one menu bar! Simple copy from one app and paste into >the other -type commands are a pain. Edit-copy, then click on the >destination window, then Edit-paste. I find it much easier to be able to >hit the destination's menu bar directly, thus activating the app and the >menu at once. It's also nice to be able to tug an app and all its windows >off the screen temporarily, or have just its title and menu bar appearing >at the bottom of the screen to do cuts and pastes to/from. At the risk of throwing more acetone on the fire, I'd like to say that I'm pretty impressed with the way the Next menus work. No, not the separate ver- tical menu bar that always appears in the same place, and I do HATE the close button on the top right (I suppose they did that to avoid a MacLawsuit). I refer to the ability to bring up the menu bar whereever the mouse cursor is by simply hitting right mouse button! I suppose someone will eventually write some kind of utility that will let us do this in Windows.. 8-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (03/30/91)
In article <10212@hub.ucsb.edu> doner@henri.UUCP (John Doner) writes: >In article <1991Mar27.195719.15623@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) writes: >> The Amiga just goes ahead and launches multiple copies. I saw this >>happen with a user and ProPage2. She'd launched three copies of the program >>before I could stop her, each overlaying the other. Nice. > >Why would one want this functionality? I use a Mac with Multifinder >running, and I can have multiple copies of the same program running if >I make duplicate copies of the program on the disk, using different >names, and then starting each of them. But so what? The reason why multiple instances of an application is desirable under Microsoft Windows is that under Windows it's generally 'one instance -- one file'. That is, if you have two text files to edit, you open two copies of your text editor, one for the first edit file, and one for the second. On the Macintosh, applications are *supposed* to be able to open and edit multiple files. In other words, you need only one copy of your editor to open several files at the same time. The Windows model is easier to program. After all, as each instance behaves as if it is it's own private model, with it's own globals, you can be lazy and stick the contents of your text file (or whatever) into a global data structure and use it there. But I find the windows model is a bit awkward to use; after all, if you want to open three text files, you have to open three instances, then find the text files... I have not found a fast and easy way around this, and I would love it if someone could tell me a quick workaround. The Macintosh model is harder to write programs for. Not too much harder, though, as you basically need to create a structure which stores all of the 'globals' associated with each 'window', and access those structures as messages are passed to your windows. However, when I want to open a second text file, I can either double click on the text file (as in Windows), or I can simply select 'open' under the ever-present 'File' menu, and open a second text file in my application. With the Macintosh model there is no need, therefore, to be able to run multiple instances of an application, when a single instance will do. (And before letting me know about the applications out there on the Mac which don't allow editing multiple files, please realize that there are applications out for Windows which won't let you run multiple instances.) -- Bill -- William Edward Woody | Disclamer: USNAIL P.O.Box 50986; Pasadena, CA 91115 | EMAIL woody@tybalt.caltech.edu | The useful stuff in this message ICBM 34 08' 44''N x 118 08' 41''W | was only line noise.
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/30/91)
doner@henri.ucsb.edu (John Doner) writes: >In article <1991Mar27.195719.15623@maths.tcd.ie> mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) writes: >> The Amiga just goes ahead and launches multiple copies. I saw this >>happen with a user and ProPage2. She'd launched three copies of the program >>before I could stop her, each overlaying the other. Nice. >Why would one want this functionality? I use a Mac with Multifinder >running, and I can have multiple copies of the same program running if >I make duplicate copies of the program on the disk, using different >names, and then starting each of them. But so what? I can recall >only one occassion where I needed to do that in the last three years, >and that was with a "quick hack" type program that had almost none of >the normal capabilities. Why would one want the ability to run more than one program or open multiple documents at all? It's much simpler to have multiple copies of the computer on the *real* desk, each running its own copy of the operating system. How many applications do people want to run concurrently? Three, four? No problem: arrange four Classic Macs in a row on the desk, and you have still space left to use a fifth one as a paper-weight. :-) >The "normal capabilities," which most commercial Mac programs nowadays >seem to have, include the ability of an application program to have >several documents open at once in separate windows. Given that, >what's the point of running several copies of the same program? Most commercial Mac programs have this capability, because they have to. The Macs operating system does not have the built-in capability for multiple documents, so applications have to implement it. I prefer to have the feature built right into the OS. (I don't doubt that there is some support in the Mac OS for implementing multiple documents in an application. My point is that the application has to do it, instead of relying on a more general OS feature.) What is the point of running several copies of the same program? Simplicity, in my opinion. Many programs which allow more than one open document support more that one type of document (different views, different components of a workspace, etc.). So usually there is of mixture of documents visible on the desktop, some of them looking similar, some of them looking different. The distinction between different open documents belonging to one application and differnt open documents belonging to different applications seems highly artificial to me. It's a technical detail, and nothing to bother the user with. If there is support for instancing and code sharing in the OS, and if the inter-program communication support is good enough, it is even something not to bother the programmer with, most of the time. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
dinda@cat55.cs.wisc.edu (Peter Dinda) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Mar30.084515.18789@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: >The reason why multiple instances of an application is desirable under >Microsoft Windows is that under Windows it's generally 'one instance -- >one file'. That is, if you have two text files to edit, you open two >copies of your text editor, one for the first edit file, and one for the >second. Take a look at Winword or Excel sometime... Multiple Documents within the same program. >On the Macintosh, applications are *supposed* to be able to open and edit >multiple files. In other words, you need only one copy of your editor >to open several files at the same time. Sorry. On the Mac, you have to jump through hoops to provide multiple open documents. It's one of the reasons Macwrite never did! Under Windows it is also hellish, but the OS gives you a boost: There is a Windows API called MDI (Muliple Document Interface) which simplifies the programming. >The Windows model is easier to program. After all, as each instance behaves >as if it is it's own private model, with it's own globals, you can be lazy >and stick the contents of your text file (or whatever) into a global >data structure and use it there. But I find the windows model is a bit Yah. This is known as a BADLY WRITTEN PROGRAM. Ideally the code is written to be reenterant and the data is stored in non static memory you ask Windows for. >awkward to use; after all, if you want to open three text files, you have >to open three instances, then find the text files... I have not found >a fast and easy way around this, and I would love it if someone could >tell me a quick workaround. It seems like you are talking about NOTEPAD here. Multipad (comes with the SDK) is an MDI equipped NOTEPAD. Alternatively, use WinWord or Ami - or (gods forbid!) open a DOS box and use LIST! Peter A. Dinda see also dinda@VMS.macc.wisc.edu
robertk@lotatg.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Mar27.061300.7636@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: In article <1991Mar26.063111.3133@cs.uoregon.edu> akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >On the mac, if you double click on the (greyed) icon for Word, you get >back to the running copy. Also, on the Mac, double clicking on a >second word doc gets you into word with the document, with Word for >Windows, you will get the error message. This is only in part because >of the way word is written, it is also because the FileManager, >Program Manager and Desktop are seperate entities in Windows, but all >parts of the same thing in the Macintosh Finder. > >The seperation makes a different to users. I had a user who kept going >back to the icon in the program manager (that was the one that she new >about because that is the one she used to start Word with), and double >clicking on it, which resulted in her repeatedly getting the same >message. Finally, in frustration, she said "Yes I KNOW!! So RUN it!!" Exactly. The computer knows what's going on, so why can't it remedy the problem and help her get work done ? Strictly speaking, the problem your friend is experiencing is a problem with Word. Window has many mechanisms for running an application; each of these pretty much funnel down to the same routine which actually runs the application. The real problem is that Windows does not define higher-level mechanisms for things that the Macintosh does already. See, the way it ought to work is that the File Manager ought to notice that an instance of Word (or another other MDI application) is already running, and then sends a DDE message to it (with standard semantics and a standard interface) to open up a new file. I actually submitted on OnLine SR about this a long time ago, but it never showed up in Windows 3.0. Basically, it would involve extending the currently anemic file association mechanism. Actually, the way the Mac actually implements the equivalent functions is gross: it involves faking out a *dialog box call* after searching down the application's menu for the File:Open item. On the other hand, at least there *is* a standard call to get a file on the Mac. As a developer, I find that Windows, especially Windows 3.0, has a somewhat more robust and clean API, especially in terms of memory management and dialog boxes. (Some of the difference is surely due to the fact that Microsoft could learn from Apple's mistakes.) On the other hand, the coolest stuff still appears on the Mac. Many Windows programs betray DOS lineage: ugly or gratutious use of color, lack of direct-manipulation interfaces, and deviation from Windows/CUA user interface guidelines are much more common than in corresponding Mac applications.
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (04/02/91)
In article <ROBERTK.91Apr1171818@lotatg.lotus.com> robertk@lotatg.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski) writes: >In article <1991Mar27.061300.7636@nntp-server.caltech.edu> woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) writes: > > In article <1991Mar26.063111.3133@cs.uoregon.edu> akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: > > > >The seperation makes a different to users. I had a user who kept going > >back to the icon in the program manager (that was the one that she new > >about because that is the one she used to start Word with), and double > >clicking on it, which resulted in her repeatedly getting the same > >message. Finally, in frustration, she said "Yes I KNOW!! So RUN it!!" > >Exactly. The computer knows what's going on, so why can't it remedy >the problem and help her get work done ? Because "the right thing to do" is not clear. Windows can't always tell if the app allows multiple instances or not by examining the .EXE file. So, should Windows throw the file at the existing instance or start another afresh? Remember, an app that is otherwise multiple-instance compatible could still allow only one instance for whatever reason. > Strictly speaking, the problem your friend is experiencing is a > problem with Word. Window has many mechanisms for running an application; > each of these pretty much funnel down to the same routine which actually > runs the application. Windows *can* do it the Mac way--why Microsoft didn't choose to add the functionality is beyond me. I put it in an editor I'm working on and it took about 10-20 lines of simple code. You basically get the handle of the previous instance and send it a message with the file to be opened. >The real problem is that Windows does not define higher-level >mechanisms for things that the Macintosh does already. See, the way >it ought to work is that the File Manager ought to notice that an >instance of Word (or another other MDI application) is already >running, and then sends a DDE message to it (with standard semantics >and a standard interface) to open up a new file. But what if you really want a second instance? I think this is something best left to the application to worry about; the command line provides the communication channel between the shell and the app; the app can do whatever it pleases to effect the correct behavior. >I actually submitted >on OnLine SR about this a long time ago, but it never showed up in >Windows 3.0. Basically, it would involve extending the currently >anemic file association mechanism. Seems to work fine for me--throw the file at the program, and if it wants to hand it over to a previous instance, it can. If it wants to keep it to itself, no problem either. In my editor either behavior can be defined; you can also have a dialog box ask what to do with the file. And none of it involves any hacks as described below; it's all simple IPC. >Actually, the way the Mac actually implements the equivalent functions >is gross: it involves faking out a *dialog box call* after searching >down the application's menu for the File:Open item. On the other hand, >at least there *is* a standard call to get a file on the Mac. Anyway, all I really want to see is more programs that don't act like Word. Launching the second instance is ok. Passing the file to a previous instance is fine. But the Word reaction is silly; Word *should* know better. Windows doesn't have to: it told Word to open a file using the well-established command line interface. Aaron Wallace
whir@orbit.cts.com (Rick Allard) (04/02/91)
In article <16994@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: > >To achieve this, the engineer has to... >(3) >test the program with real users, being as open as humanly possible to >complaints and suggestions, and (4) revise and test in a seemingly >endless cycle until the interface and functionality are "right." > In my day-to-day use, especially of Microsoft stuff -- only partially accounting for scale, I cannot believe houses do nearly enough of this. Yes, software is complicated, but it doesn't vary statistically like an auto nor is it difficult to test. Just do it sufficiently many times, and *listen* and watch closely. Think of the 100,000 or million times we all go down the same dumb path of some idiotic menu, and how that got left in! ... >I don't believe a "happy medium" is needed or appropriate. We have a >free marketplace; users buy or don't buy your product. If you strike >a compromise and I give buyers what they want, you're out of business. >Those are the facts of life. Since Microsoft has a near monopoly they can operate on inertia, and it is clear to me, who must use there products, that despite their capability to be sensitive to their customers, they do not practice this most important rule (3 & 4 from David). ooooooooooooootter#spoon in bowl !!!!!!!!!!!!& RooM & !!!!!!!!!!!!R oooo M
gourdol@imag.imag.fr (Gourdol Arnaud) (04/03/91)
In article <ROBERTK.91Apr1171818@lotatg.lotus.com> robertk@lotatg.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski) writes: >Actually, the way the Mac actually implements the equivalent functions >is gross: it involves faking out a *dialog box call* after searching >down the application's menu for the File:Open item. On the other hand, >at least there *is* a standard call to get a file on the Mac. With System Seven, the Finder uses AppleEvents to tell applications what documents to open or print, to ask them to quit or to tell them they have just been launched (so that they can open a new untitled document). This is much cleaner. >As a developer, I find that Windows, especially Windows 3.0, has a >somewhat more robust and clean API, especially in terms of memory >management and dialog boxes. (Some of the difference is surely due to >the fact that Microsoft could learn from Apple's mistakes.) On the >other hand, the coolest stuff still appears on the Mac. Many Windows >programs betray DOS lineage: ugly or gratutious use of color, lack of >direct-manipulation interfaces, and deviation from Windows/CUA user >interface guidelines are much more common than in corresponding >Mac applications. I am not (by far!) a Windows expert, so my request is informative only. I don't wan't to launch yet another Flame war: in which way is the Memory management better on Windows. I find the Mac model quite clean and powerful (except for this stupid story of MultiFinder partitions maybe). As for the dialog boxes, I can imagine quite easily how they can be better on Windows :-) Could you however elaborate... Arnaud. -- /======================//==========================================/ / Arnaud Gourdol. // On the Netland: Gourdol@imag.fr / / // Via AppleLink: Gourdol@imag.fr@INTERNET# / /======================//==========================================/
kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) (04/03/91)
korpela@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) writes: >multiple apps. Maybe if you have a 19 inch screen it's a bit better, but >not even God can afford one of those. (Hell, even a 16 inch Mac monitor is >out of his price range. And color? You might as well forget it.) Hey now! :-) I've got a 21" monitor and it looks great. Windows all over the place. The interesting thing is that the demo that I was given to show me how good the monitor was was delivered on a Mac II something or other. For my money Windows looks better (but then I have eye problems):-) Kevin -- Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc}!atha!kevinc Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA
otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) (04/05/91)
But my daddy has a bigger car than your daddy. -- /* * * Otto J. Makela <otto@jyu.fi> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */ /* Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (USR HST/V.32, 24h/d) */ /* Mail: Kauppakatu 1 B 18, SF-40100 Jyvaskyla, Finland, EUROPE */ /* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.edgar.mn.org (Jim Spencer) (04/05/91)
Peter Dinda writes in a message to All PD> Sorry. On the Mac, you have to jump through hoops to provide PD> multiple open documents. It's one of the reasons Macwrite never PD> did! Under Windows it is also hellish, but the OS gives you a PD> boost: There is a Windows API called MDI (Muliple Document Interface) PD> which simplifies the programming. What jump through hoops? All you have to do is open another window and attach whatever your data is to it through reference constant. The original MacWrite had to run on a 128k Mac: multiple documents probably were not coded in because there wasn't enough memory to open two window structures, etc. In any case, there is a considerably bigger boost than MDI: use MacApp or for that matter TCL and multiple documents are automatically taken care of for you.
rcook@grumpy.helios.nd.edu (04/09/91)
|> DDE or somesuch (OLE) should still allow windows to do this same thing. Being |> separate is probably not the problem. The other thing I like about the MAC is |> the way an application, once loaded, stays out of the way. When I load Word or |> Excel, or Powerpoint (etc.) the MAC only displays the open document and uses |> a single command bar for all applications that are loaded. While this was |> annoying and confusing at first (I'm a long time windows user), it does |> really make better use of the available screen display area. With the MAC it |> is normal to have three or four applications contantly loaded and in use, where |> with windows I find 3-4 applications up simaltaneously is too cluttered and I |> spent a lot of time moving, arranging, iconizing, etc., to use the apps |> together. It is easy to forget that Excel or Powerpoint is loaded when using |> the MAC. With Windows, they always chew up real estate - so I'm constantly |> loading and quiting them. I think the MAC still leads, but windows is coming |> along. |> |> |> -- |> * Bruce Benson + Internet - bwb@sei.cmu.edu + + |> * SSC/XPE + bbenson@xpe.ssc.af.mil + >--|> |> * Gunter AFB, AL 36114 + Compuserv - 76226,3407 + + |> * (SEI Affiliate Alumni) + Voice - 205 279-5153 + US Air Force Personally, I find this to be a huge fault with the Macintosh interface. You can't show more than one program on the screen at once. In windows, you have a choice, just maximize all the running programs. Either click in the maximize box, or more easily double-click anywhere on the title bar. Switch to the next program using ALT-TAB. Hey the computer now acts like a mac. Robert Kelley Cook U. of Notre Dame '91