klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) (03/01/91)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: give me solid facts: why is the mac better than MeSsy DOS/WINDOWS Summary: Friends don't let friends use MS-DOS Expires: References: <91.056.16:01:18@ira.uka.de> <91057.162111CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> Sender: Steve Klingsporn Followup-To: Distribution: world Keywords: Old technology, outdated, crap, kludge, textual Dear fellow readers of comp.sys.mac.groups, If I may "vent" on the comparison between DOS and Mac, I'd appreciate it. First of all, there is literally no comparison between the Macintosh and any MS-DOS machine. It just doesn't work. As a 4 year veteran Macintosh user and "informed" pseudo-member of the personal computing industry, I feel obligated to clarify a few things. First of all, as far as hardware is concerned, I hear that the Motorola chips are far superior to Intel's architecture. Though I've heard "nice" things about the i860, the 80386, for one, is WAY BEHIND the 68030 CPU. I read a report of test results conducted by the Chicago Tribune. It took a Macintosh 6 minutes to perform a calculation that took 11 hours on an IBM. The Macintosh was the IIci, and the IBM was a PS/20 Model 70. If you believe *everything* you read, you can believe this -- personally, I doubt it a bit. The Macintosh has no GUI built on top of it. Let's clarify this right now. The Macintosh sports Apple's Human Interface (commonly called the "Macintosh Interface," yet it's used on the Apple IIGS, don't forget), and the Human Interface is implimented at the ROM level in the Toolbox code. The Macintosh is never in a "text/debug" state where you are given a "joe text screen." MacsBug, which loads at boot time, draws a graphical screen -- it's in Geneva 9 font. This is not a "text mode" that the Macintosh "drops into." Sure, you can have little dinks like "Oasis," but that's just the Mac interface at work once again. You can run under MPW or an A/UX shell and type commands -- doesn't matter. These are "command-line" interfaces to the Macintosh, and should not be interpreted as being "alternatives" to the Macintosh interface. If you want the Human Interface to disappear, blow out your screen or close your eyes. You cannot escape it. As far as "modes" are concerned, the Macintosh is fortunate to have been developed as a virtually "modeless" screen. Where MS-DOS applications tend to lack event loops and the like, the Macintosh is basically an event-oriented system; you do whatever you like whenever you like, and the machine handles these events as they come. No more "Do 1 to Quit, 2 to Run, 3 to..." You get the point. As far as graphics are concerned, QuickDraw is wonderful, and once you get into it, not very hard at all to program. Beats the hell out of different hardware cards/configurations, etc. On a Macintosh, you don't have to worry about which video card is installed, which resolution you have, etc -- if you develop your applications properly, they look the same on any other Macintosh. Macintosh may be "held back" by this fact, yet it's truly amazing that the Macintosh is almost 100% backward compatible. I'm not talkinga bout "this app. is a color one and needs color; it won't work with this mac," but rather the mere fact that applications that were written and compiled in 1984 will still run on my Macintosh IIfx under System 7.0b3. To me, this is truly amazing. The Macintosh System Software people are a wonderful and amazing group. "A Macintosh is a Macintosh is a Macintosh" is a true statement -- not just a cheap marketing slogan. You can take basically any application from one machine to another, regardless of configuration, and use it. This is wonderful, and not always the case with the MS-DOS world. e.g., old 5.25" disks, etc. MultiFinder has evolved more from a "cheap hack" to a "real implimentation" in System 7.0 with the advent of the Process Manager. What you others bitch about as "Real multitasking" verses (fake?) multitasking is trivial. The true fact is you are productive on the Macintosh regardless of what's really happening, and you are truly running more than one application at once. Besides, on the Amiga, if you hold down the mouse button in a foreground app., you notice that the other apps that are doing something animated stop too? Interesting... :) System 7.0 adds quite a bit of functionality to Macintosh without sacrificing compatibility, etc. In my testing of System 7.0, I've found very few applications that don't function -- amazing to me. The only things that really seem to have problems are those that make dumb assumptions as to fonts, screen-depth, locations of specific routines, etc. If you follow the rules, your applications function perfectly in 7.0. If you take a bit more time, you can take advantage of the other wonders, those being Inter-Application-Communication (Edition Manager, AppleEvents, PPC Toolbox), control how Virtual Memory fragments (or doesn't) your application, give your application a nice set of color icons, impliment the Communications Toolbox (standard communications "tools" across all major applications), etc. System 7.0 is a new level of functionality that IBM/MS-DOS users will NEVER approach. Apple, with 7.0, has pushed Macintosh technology way past what was initially devised in 1984 and lately refined in 6.0.7 and earlier releases. 7.0 is literally incredible. If you're going to bitch about it requiring 2MB of RAM, I'm sorry -- go out and buy some -- it's not that expensive anymore -- if you think it is, you're living in the past. Nobody is going to force you to change over to 7.0 -- it's a natrual process. Applications and other people will be able to do things you can't, and you'll re-think your stubbornness. As for the "leap in RAM use," come on -- MultiFinder has always required more RAM -- the Finder is running always. If you want to stay ahead, you have to pay. At least Apple is doing something wonderful "that they don't have to" for the Macintosh community -- providing FREE added functionality to your initial purchase, be it in 1990/1991 or way back in 1986. Think about this. As for you MS-DOS users, I'm sorry, but you just don't have the power that we Macintosh users do. Arguing that your machines "crunch numbers" faster isn't really all that true -- the Motorola math chips are usually faster. Arguing that your machines draw screens faster may sometimes be true -- it doesn't take all that much processing time to flip on a boring page of text, does it? Arguing that your i486 will beat the Mac is bull, for the Motorola 68040 has been proven the winner there. Trying to say that Windows is "the cure all for MS-DOS" is also a crock, for I've used Win3, and it's truly a kludge. :) Hey, at least the IBM world will have one thing to look forward to -- Microsoft will be using Apple's TrueType font technology in future versions of Windows. Take care & have a good time with your "falsely fast" machines -- put unix on a Mac and it's fast -- draw text on a Mac, it's fast... Try rendering a 3d image (ray-trace) on your IBM, Try building applications that can talk to virtually any other applications. Try sharing files from your Macintosh with just system software. Network your machines by buying cables and little connections boxes. I dare you. Ahead of you MS-DOS users (and besides, I can run it in emulation in a window with SoftPC 1.4) -- at 40MHz, my IIfx seems to do a pretty good job of emulating DOS -- then again, it doesn't take much power, does it?! Steve Klingsporn From: klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.system Subject: MS-DOS -- just say "Why?!" References: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: world Organization: Colorado State University Keywords: Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: give me solid facts: why is the mac better than MeSsy DOS/WINDOWS Summary: Friends don't let friends use MS-DOS Expires: References: <91.056.16:01:18@ira.uka.de> <91057.162111CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> Sender: Steve Klingsporn Followup-To: Distribution: world Keywords: Old technology, outdated, crap, kludge, textual Dear fellow readers of comp.sys.mac.groups, If I may "vent" on the comparison between DOS and Mac, I'd appreciate it. First of all, there is literally no comparison between the Macintosh and any MS-DOS machine. It just doesn't work. As a 4 year veteran Macintosh user and "informed" pseudo-member of the personal computing industry, I feel obligated to clarify a few things. First of all, as far as hardware is concerned, I hear that the Motorola chips are far superior to Intel's architecture. Though I've heard "nice" things about the i860, the 80386, for one, is WAY BEHIND the 68030 CPU. I read a report of test results conducted by the Chicago Tribune. It took a Macintosh 6 minutes to perform a calculation that took 11 hours on an IBM. The Macintosh was the IIci, and the IBM was a PS/20 Model 70. If you believe *everything* you read, you can believe this -- personally, I doubt it a bit. The Macintosh has no GUI built on top of it. Let's clarify this right now. The Macintosh sports Apple's Human Interface (commonly called the "Macintosh Interface," yet it's used on the Apple IIGS, don't forget), and the Human Interface is implimented at the ROM level in the Toolbox code. The Macintosh is never in a "text/debug" state where you are given a "joe text screen." MacsBug, which loads at boot time, draws a graphical screen -- it's in Geneva 9 font. This is not a "text mode" that the Macintosh "drops into." Sure, you can have little dinks like "Oasis," but that's just the Mac interface at work once again. You can run under MPW or an A/UX shell and type commands -- doesn't matter. These are "command-line" interfaces to the Macintosh, and should not be interpreted as being "alternatives" to the Macintosh interface. If you want the Human Interface to disappear, blow out your screen or close your eyes. You cannot escape it. As far as "modes" are concerned, the Macintosh is fortunate to have been developed as a virtually "modeless" screen. Where MS-DOS applications tend to lack event loops and the like, the Macintosh is basically an event-oriented system; you do whatever you like whenever you like, and the machine handles these events as they come. No more "Do 1 to Quit, 2 to Run, 3 to..." You get the point. As far as graphics are concerned, QuickDraw is wonderful, and once you get into it, not very hard at all to program. Beats the hell out of different hardware cards/configurations, etc. On a Macintosh, you don't have to worry about which video card is installed, which resolution you have, etc -- if you develop your applications properly, they look the same on any other Macintosh. Macintosh may be "held back" by this fact, yet it's truly amazing that the Macintosh is almost 100% backward compatible. I'm not talkinga bout "this app. is a color one and needs color; it won't work with this mac," but rather the mere fact that applications that were written and compiled in 1984 will still run on my Macintosh IIfx under System 7.0b3. To me, this is truly amazing. The Macintosh System Software people are a wonderful and amazing group. "A Macintosh is a Macintosh is a Macintosh" is a true statement -- not just a cheap marketing slogan. You can take basically any application from one machine to another, regardless of configuration, and use it. This is wonderful, and not always the case with the MS-DOS world. e.g., old 5.25" disks, etc. MultiFinder has evolved more from a "cheap hack" to a "real implimentation" in System 7.0 with the advent of the Process Manager. What you others bitch about as "Real multitasking" verses (fake?) multitasking is trivial. The true fact is you are productive on the Macintosh regardless of what's really happening, and you are truly running more than one application at once. Besides, on the Amiga, if you hold down the mouse button in a foreground app., you notice that the other apps that are doing something animated stop too? Interesting... :) System 7.0 adds quite a bit of functionality to Macintosh without sacrificing compatibility, etc. In my testing of System 7.0, I've found very few applications that don't function -- amazing to me. The only things that really seem to have problems are those that make dumb assumptions as to fonts, screen-depth, locations of specific routines, etc. If you follow the rules, your applications function perfectly in 7.0. If you take a bit more time, you can take advantage of the other wonders, those being Inter-Application-Communication (Edition Manager, AppleEvents, PPC Toolbox), control how Virtual Memory fragments (or doesn't) your application, give your application a nice set of color icons, impliment the Communications Toolbox (standard communications "tools" across all major applications), etc. System 7.0 is a new level of functionality that IBM/MS-DOS users will NEVER approach. Apple, with 7.0, has pushed Macintosh technology way past what was initially devised in 1984 and lately refined in 6.0.7 and earlier releases. 7.0 is literally incredible. If you're going to bitch about it requiring 2MB of RAM, I'm sorry -- go out and buy some -- it's not that expensive anymore -- if you think it is, you're living in the past. Nobody is going to force you to change over to 7.0 -- it's a natrual process. Applications and other people will be able to do things you can't, and you'll re-think your stubbornness. As for the "leap in RAM use," come on -- MultiFinder has always required more RAM -- the Finder is running always. If you want to stay ahead, you have to pay. At least Apple is doing something wonderful "that they don't have to" for the Macintosh community -- providing FREE added functionality to your initial purchase, be it in 1990/1991 or way back in 1986. Think about this. As for you MS-DOS users, I'm sorry, but you just don't have the power that we Macintosh users do. Arguing that your machines "crunch numbers" faster isn't really all that true -- the Motorola math chips are usually faster. Arguing that your machines draw screens faster may sometimes be true -- it doesn't take all that much processing time to flip on a boring page of text, does it? Arguing that your i486 will beat the Mac is bull, for the Motorola 68040 has been proven the winner there. Trying to say that Windows is "the cure all for MS-DOS" is also a crock, for I've used Win3, and it's truly a kludge. :) Hey, at least the IBM world will have one thing to look forward to -- Microsoft will be using Apple's TrueType font technology in future versions of Windows. Take care & have a good time with your "falsely fast" machines -- put unix on a Mac and it's fast -- draw text on a Mac, it's fast... Try rendering a 3d image (ray-trace) on your IBM, Try building applications that can talk to virtually any other applications. Try sharing files from your Macintosh with just system software. Network your machines by buying cables and little connections boxes. I dare you. Ahead of you MS-DOS users (and besides, I can run it in emulation in a window with SoftPC 1.4) -- at 40MHz, my IIfx seems to do a pretty good job of emulating DOS -- then again, it doesn't take much power, does it?! Steve Klingsporn
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (03/06/91)
I'm probably going to regret this. The post which I'm following up appears to refer to one I made earlier. Maybe I'm wrong. In article <13297@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) writes: > > >Dear fellow readers of comp.sys.mac.groups, > >If I may "vent" on the comparison between DOS and Mac, I'd appreciate it. >First of all, there is literally no comparison between the Macintosh >and any MS-DOS machine. It just doesn't work. As a 4 year veteran >Macintosh user and "informed" pseudo-member of the personal computing >industry, I feel obligated to clarify a few things. There are of course many possible comparisons. Trying to deny them is futile. I'm sorry you only have 4 years using this great computer. You missed those wonderous first two years. >The Macintosh has no GUI built on top of it. Let's clarify this right now. The Mac most certainly does have a GUI built on top of it. >The Macintosh sports Apple's Human Interface (commonly called the >"Macintosh Interface," yet it's used on the Apple IIGS, don't forget), >and the Human Interface is implimented at the ROM level in the >Toolbox code. Wrong. The Human Interface is not in the ROM. The ROM contains a Toolbox of routines, some of which are optimized to assist in the intended GUI, but neither the full GUI, nor the Apple Human Interface are in the ROM. > The Macintosh is never in a "text/debug" state where >you are given a "joe text screen." MacsBug, which loads at boot time, >draws a graphical screen -- it's in Geneva 9 font. This is not >a "text mode" that the Macintosh "drops into." I beg to differ. The only thing graphical on the macsbug screen is the lines between the "windows". The information output is all in text, and the input is all by the keyboard in text. The font is just a bitmap, just like the font bitmap in an ascii terminal, maybe a slightly prettier bitmap. A vt100 can draw the same output. And certainly with the older Macs you can attach an ascii terminal and run the ROM debugger from it. > Sure, you can have little >dinks like "Oasis," but that's just the Mac interface at work once again. It uses the Toolbox, certainly, but not the GUI. >You can run under MPW or an A/UX shell and type commands -- doesn't matter. >These are "command-line" interfaces to the Macintosh, and should not >be interpreted as being "alternatives" to the Macintosh interface. Why not?!? I don't know anything about MPW, or even the latest A/UX, but the previous A/UX booted to a login prompt, which was identical to the login prompt on a PC running SCO unix. If you login, and never run a graphics program you are sitting at a dumb Unix terminal. There is no GUI. >If you want the Human Interface to disappear, blow out your screen >or close your eyes. You cannot escape it. Just run A/UX, and never run a Mac graphics program, and you have escaped into a fast Unix machine. No Apple Human Interface. To use your words, let's clarify this right now. The Toolbox in the ROM is not a GUI. It's a set of calls to perform tasks. They include a set of tasks which closely match those needed to implement the Apple Human Interface GUI. The Apple Human Interface is a GUI plus other UI. GUI means Graphical User Interface. The Apple Human Interface contains guidelines for writing programs with consistent Human Interface. They are not all graphical. Your contention that text is not text because it is drawn graphically is bogus. Text is text. > >As far as "modes" are concerned, the Macintosh is fortunate to have >been developed as a virtually "modeless" screen. Where MS-DOS >applications tend to lack event loops and the like, the Macintosh >is basically an event-oriented system; you do whatever you like >whenever you like, and the machine handles these events as they >come. No more "Do 1 to Quit, 2 to Run, 3 to..." You get the point. No, I don't. Windows has event loops. Windows is event oriented. The Mac implements events in the ROM, but they don't have to be used. A/UX doesn't until you start up a Mac graphics program. >As far as graphics are concerned, QuickDraw is wonderful, and once >you get into it, not very hard at all to program. Beats the hell out >of different hardware cards/configurations, etc. On a Macintosh, >you don't have to worry about which video card is installed, which >resolution you have, etc -- if you develop your applications properly, >they look the same on any other Macintosh. One paragraph I can agree with completely. >Macintosh may be "held back" by this fact, yet it's truly amazing that >the Macintosh is almost 100% backward compatible. I'm not talkinga bout >"this app. is a color one and needs color; it won't work with this mac," but >rather the mere fact that applications that were written and compiled >in 1984 will still run on my Macintosh IIfx under System 7.0b3. To me, No where near 100% compatible. I have lots of early 1984 programs which won't run under 6.0.5. But so what? I can find lots of early DOS programs for an original PC and DOS 1.0 that will still run under DOS 4.0.1 on a 486. I don't want to get into a percentage war on this. Any system which can retain over 50% compatibility through CPU changes and major OS revisions is doing great. Unfortunately for your argument both Mac and DOS succeeded at that. > You can take >basically any application from one machine to another, regardless of >configuration, and use it. This is wonderful, and not always the case >with the MS-DOS world. e.g., old 5.25" disks, etc. Trivial, or is it petty? If you're going to mention a problem solvable with a $75 add on disk drive, then maybe I can mention a compatibility issue for which there is not yet a solution on the Mac: 32 bit Color Quickdraw in ROM. > [ lots of stuff about wonderful System 7.0 vaporware deleted ] > "tools" across all major applications), etc. System 7.0 is a new level of functionality that IBM/MS-DOS users will NEVER approach. Apple, Never is a real long time 8^) >with 7.0, has pushed Macintosh technology way past what was initially >devised in 1984 and lately refined in 6.0.7 and earlier releases. 7.0 is >literally incredible. If you're going to bitch about it requiring 2MB of RAM, >I'm sorry -- go out and buy some -- it's not that expensive anymore -- if you >think it is, you're living in the past. Nobody is going to force you to change >over to 7.0 -- it's a natrual process. Applications and other people will be >able to do things you can't, and you'll re-think your stubbornness. Whew aren't you arrogant? [ more one sided arguments about RAM usage deleted ] > >As for you MS-DOS users, I'm sorry, but you just don't have the power that >we Macintosh users do. Arguing that your machines "crunch numbers" faster >isn't really all that true -- the Motorola math chips are usually faster. I'm sorry, guy. It's really all that true. I can go buy a $1800 33 MHz 386 DOS machine that'll blow the doors off of my $4000 Mac II. Or for $2500 I can get a 486 and do still better. >Arguing that your machines draw screens faster may sometimes be true -- >it doesn't take all that much processing time to flip on a boring page of >text, does it? Arguing that your i486 will beat the Mac is bull, for >the Motorola 68040 has been proven the winner there. Trying to say that Well, gee where did you get a 68040? Apple isn't selling any yet. The 486 on the other hand is widely available. >Windows is "the cure all for MS-DOS" is also a crock, for I've used >Win3, and it's truly a kludge. :) Hey, at least the IBM world >will have one thing to look forward to -- Microsoft will be using >Apple's TrueType font technology in future versions of Windows. Windows may not be a cure all, but it addresses all your arguments except the CPU question. It doesn't solve them, but it addresses them. The technology is in place, perhaps straining to approach the level of Macintosh System 1.1 in some areas, and exceeding System 6 in others. Windows 4 may be here before Macintosh System 7 is, so who knows what the future holds? >Take care & have a good time with your "falsely fast" machines -- >put unix on a Mac and it's fast -- draw text on a Mac, it's fast... I'm sorry, but again, I can buy a fast 386 or 486 cheaper than a MacII(generic), put Unix on it and be faster than a MacII with Unix that I would pay more for. True, I may not be as fast as "your" MacIIfx, but I'd be faster than a MacII that cost more than the 386 or 486. > >Try rendering a 3d image (ray-trace) on your IBM, No thanks, I'll use a Sparcstation instead, and it's cheaper than your IIfx for me, since I don't have a lovely University Mac discount, but do have a nice Sun discount. Or maybe I'd use an Apollo. >Try building applications that can talk to virtually any other >applications. OK, I'll just fire up Windows. > Try sharing files from your Macintosh with >just system software. I assume you mean Personal Appleshare, which is part of System 7, which is vaporware, therefore I can't do it on my Mac either. > Network your machines by buying cables >and little connections boxes. I dare you. You're half right on this one. You can network them cheaply and slowly with Localtalk. But the data rate is terrible, and it costs as much to equip a Mac network with Ethertalk as it does to equip a PC network with Ethernet. >Ahead of you MS-DOS users (and besides, I can run it in emulation in a >window with SoftPC 1.4) -- at 40MHz, my IIfx seems to do a pretty good job >of emulating DOS -- then again, it doesn't take much power, does it?! But why? You don't like DOS. Seriously though, if you need to use DOS more than occasionally, it doesn't cost much more to buy a decent 286 machine than SoftPC costs. And then my wife can use DOS without getting in the way of my using the Mac. And if she's using the Mac I can go play Minesweeper on the PC. >Steve Klingsporn > >From: klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) >Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.system >Subject: MS-DOS -- just say "Why?!" >References: >Sender: >Followup-To: >Distribution: world >Organization: Colorado State University >Keywords: > [ Second copy of entire post deleted, you should check your posting software ] There are also reasons to buy DOS machines, often cost. I'll repeat what I said in an earlier post: For $1500 I can equip a desk with: a) Mac Classic, one application or b) Fast 286, mouse, Windows, one application i) I can tell you, the Mac will be easier to learn, far more consistent on its user interface. ii) The PC will be faster, and have a larger screen. ( And yes it will be faster. A 16MHz 286 is demonstratably faster than a Mac Classic. It also could be color) The Mac will also be much easier to set up, but this often isn't really an important qualification. Remember, I said I could equip a desk. I'm not going to use it, my job is providing resources for users. Those users only care about the applications and the results, not the machine. And they generally prefer the large screen, now that WYSIWYG and style is available under Windows. They will not care how much harder it is to set up, after all that's what I get paid for. You, and even I, may feel sorry for those poor computer illiterates who don't recognize the benefits of the Macintosh, but they will still blissfully take their paychecks home for a job well done. Please, please don't use arrogant and specious arguments to attempt to justify Mac vs. PC. The Mac doesn't need them. Your valid arguments seem to me to come to: 1. MacIIfx can draw 3d Ray Trace better than a DOS machine. My Analysis: If you have the Apple accelerated graphics board, they can get RISC graphics accelerators, also. Without the accelerators, CPU wins, your 40MHz IIfx will beat a 33 MHz 486, but will it beat a 50 MHz 486? In University discount land, your 40 MHz IIfx will beat anything available for the price. Out in the "real" world, I may be able to get a RISC accelerated 386 cheaper than I can get an unaccelerated MacIIfx. 2. The Macintosh user interface is more consistent and easy to use than the DOS or Windows interface. My Analysis: A clear win, even over Windows. In fact extending the argument beyond personal computers, the Mac Interface is more consistent than Motif, or Open Look. New Wave may be the closest. 3. Quickdraw is the greatest graphical toolset. My Analysis: Other than knowing Quickdraw is a graphical toolset, and should be compared to the X11 intrinsics, and the Windows intrinsics, not to the Mac GUI or the Windows GUI or to other GUI's I don't know which toolset is better. My final analysis: Quit being so damn arrogant and argumentative. Some of us out here in the Mac land love the Mac every bit as much as you do. But we work in an environment containing both Macs and PCs, and even other computers, and we know where each can work. And we are constrained by cost. And I'm personally sorry about it but I can put a large screen 286 Windows machine with a word processor and a spreadsheet on a secretary's desk for less than I can put a large screen Mac with the same software on his/her desk. I can even add color and presentation software, and still beat the Mac cost. And the job will get done. I'm sorry also for the fact that my personal time and effort to set this secretary up will be about 10-15x time spent to configure the PC over the Mac. But over a 2 year use span it still doesn't cover the additional cost of even a MacLC, the minimum large screen Mac. jim P.S. Someday I'll learn not to read Mac groups at night.... -- __ __ / o / Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com | Proud / / /\/\ /__ Silvar-Lisco, Inc. +1.408.991.6115 | MacIIsi /__/ / / / /__/ 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 | owner
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (03/09/91)
In article <1991Mar6.110826.11844@silvlis.com> jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) writes: >I'm probably going to regret this. The post which I'm following up >>As far as "modes" are concerned, the Macintosh is fortunate to have >>been developed as a virtually "modeless" screen. Where MS-DOS >>applications tend to lack event loops and the like, the Macintosh >>is basically an event-oriented system; you do whatever you like >>whenever you like, and the machine handles these events as they >>come. No more "Do 1 to Quit, 2 to Run, 3 to..." You get the point. > >No, I don't. Windows has event loops. Windows is event oriented. The >Mac implements events in the ROM, but they don't have to be used. A/UX >doesn't until you start up a Mac graphics program. > Windows also has virtual memory which the mac doesn't have in it's system software until sys 7.0 comes out (still vaporware). >>As far as graphics are concerned, QuickDraw is wonderful, and once >>you get into it, not very hard at all to program. Beats the hell out >>of different hardware cards/configurations, etc. On a Macintosh, >>you don't have to worry about which video card is installed, which >>resolution you have, etc -- if you develop your applications properly, >>they look the same on any other Macintosh. > >One paragraph I can agree with completely. So does my NeXT. Big deal. Once the machine (PC) is set up which screen you have is not a real issue. > > >[ lots of stuff about wonderful System 7.0 vaporware deleted ] > >> "tools" across all major applications), etc. System 7.0 is a new level of functionality that IBM/MS-DOS users will NEVER approach. Apple, > >Never is a real long time 8^) > >>with 7.0, has pushed Macintosh technology way past what was initially >>devised in 1984 and lately refined in 6.0.7 and earlier releases. 7.0 is >>literally incredible. If you're going to bitch about it requiring 2MB of RAM, >>I'm sorry -- go out and buy some -- it's not that expensive anymore -- if you >>think it is, you're living in the past. Nobody is going to force you to change >>over to 7.0 -- it's a natrual process. Applications and other people will be >>able to do things you can't, and you'll re-think your stubbornness. > >Whew aren't you arrogant? > >[ more one sided arguments about RAM usage deleted ] > >> >>As for you MS-DOS users, I'm sorry, but you just don't have the power that >>we Macintosh users do. Arguing that your machines "crunch numbers" faster >>isn't really all that true -- the Motorola math chips are usually faster. > >I'm sorry, guy. It's really all that true. I can go buy a $1800 33 MHz 386 >DOS machine that'll blow the doors off of my $4000 Mac II. Or for $2500 >I can get a 486 and do still better. So true. Both Intel and Motorolla processors are comprable neither is superior. > >>Arguing that your machines draw screens faster may sometimes be true -- >>it doesn't take all that much processing time to flip on a boring page of >>text, does it? Arguing that your i486 will beat the Mac is bull, for >>the Motorola 68040 has been proven the winner there. Trying to say that > >Well, gee where did you get a 68040? Apple isn't selling any yet. The 486 >on the other hand is widely available. Yep, I have a few friends that have them. >>Take care & have a good time with your "falsely fast" machines -- >>put unix on a Mac and it's fast -- draw text on a Mac, it's fast... > >I'm sorry, but again, I can buy a fast 386 or 486 cheaper than a >MacII(generic), put Unix on it and be faster than a MacII with Unix >that I would pay more for. True, I may not be as fast as "your" >MacIIfx, but I'd be faster than a MacII that cost more than the 386 >or 486. > >> >>Try rendering a 3d image (ray-trace) on your IBM, > >No thanks, I'll use a Sparcstation instead, and it's cheaper than your IIfx >for me, since I don't have a lovely University Mac discount, but do have >a nice Sun discount. Or maybe I'd use an Apollo. > >>Try building applications that can talk to virtually any other >>applications. > >OK, I'll just fire up Windows. > >> Try sharing files from your Macintosh with >>just system software. > >I assume you mean Personal Appleshare, which is part of System 7, which is >vaporware, therefore I can't do it on my Mac either. > >> Network your machines by buying cables >>and little connections boxes. I dare you. > >You're half right on this one. You can network them cheaply and slowly >with Localtalk. But the data rate is terrible, and it costs as much to >equip a Mac network with Ethertalk as it does to equip a PC network with >Ethernet. > >>Ahead of you MS-DOS users (and besides, I can run it in emulation in a >>window with SoftPC 1.4) -- at 40MHz, my IIfx seems to do a pretty good job >>of emulating DOS -- then again, it doesn't take much power, does it?! > >But why? You don't like DOS. > >Seriously though, if you need to use DOS more than occasionally, it doesn't >cost much more to buy a decent 286 machine than SoftPC costs. And then my >wife can use DOS without getting in the way of my using the Mac. And if >she's using the Mac I can go play Minesweeper on the PC. > > >There are also reasons to buy DOS machines, often cost. I'll repeat >what I said in an earlier post: > >For $1500 I can equip a desk with: > > a) Mac Classic, one application >or > b) Fast 286, mouse, Windows, one application > >i) I can tell you, the Mac will be easier to learn, far more consistent on >its user interface. > >ii) The PC will be faster, and have a larger screen. > > ( And yes it will be faster. A 16MHz 286 is demonstratably > faster than a Mac Classic. It also could be color) > >The Mac will also be much easier to set up, but this often isn't really Depends on if you have a Mac with a lot of scsi peripherals. Usually the dealer you get a PC from sets up everything you buy from him. >an important qualification. Remember, I said I could equip a desk. I'm >not going to use it, my job is providing resources for users. Those users >only care about the applications and the results, not the machine. And >they generally prefer the large screen, now that WYSIWYG and style is >available under Windows. They will not care how much harder it is to set >up, after all that's what I get paid for. > >You, and even I, may feel sorry for those poor computer illiterates >who don't recognize the benefits of the Macintosh, but they will still >blissfully take their paychecks home for a job well done. > >Please, please don't use arrogant and specious arguments to attempt >to justify Mac vs. PC. The Mac doesn't need them. > >Your valid arguments seem to me to come to: > >1. MacIIfx can draw 3d Ray Trace better than a DOS machine. > >My Analysis: > If you have the Apple accelerated graphics > board, they can get RISC graphics accelerators, also. > > Without the accelerators, CPU wins, your 40MHz IIfx > will beat a 33 MHz 486, but will it beat a 50 MHz 486? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Not a chance the spec benchmarks have the 486 and '040 at about the same in real tests. So unless a 40MHz '030 is faster than a 25MHz '040 it is not faster than a 486. > In University discount land, your 40 MHz IIfx will beat > anything available for the price. What about my '040 NeXT. > > Out in the "real" world, I may be able to get a RISC accelerated > 386 cheaper than I can get an unaccelerated MacIIfx. Yep, an the i4860 mother board has an i486 and i860 on it and in a system it is much cheaper than a IIfx. > >2. The Macintosh user interface is more consistent and easy to use > than the DOS or Windows interface. Yep, I agree. > >My Analysis: > A clear win, even over Windows. In fact extending the argument > beyond personal computers, the Mac Interface is more consistent > than Motif, or Open Look. New Wave may be the closest. > >3. Quickdraw is the greatest graphical toolset. > >My Analysis: > Other than knowing Quickdraw is a graphical toolset, and should > be compared to the X11 intrinsics, and the Windows intrinsics, > not to the Mac GUI or the Windows GUI or to other GUI's I don't > know which toolset is better. The NeXT IB is easier to use than X, but X is widely accepted and there are some tools out/coming out that are as easy to use as IB. The same goes for Windows. > >My final analysis: > > Quit being so damn arrogant and argumentative. Some of us out here > in the Mac land love the Mac every bit as much as you do. But we > work in an environment containing both Macs and PCs, and even other > computers, and we know where each can work. And we are constrained > by cost. And I'm personally sorry about it but I can put a large > screen 286 Windows machine with a word processor and a spreadsheet > on a secretary's desk for less than I can put a large screen Mac > with the same software on his/her desk. I can even add color and > presentation software, and still beat the Mac cost. And the job > will get done. > > I'm sorry also for the fact that my personal time and effort to set > this secretary up will be about 10-15x time spent to configure the > PC over the Mac. But over a 2 year use span it still doesn't cover > the additional cost of even a MacLC, the minimum large screen Mac. I agree. No one machine is the be all, end all aswer to everyone's computing needs. If there was such a machine it would have to be compatible with everything already available, because the installed software base of application is too large to throw away and people don't like change. > >jim > >P.S. Someday I'll learn not to read Mac groups at night.... > >-- > __ __ > / o / Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com | Proud > / / /\/\ /__ Silvar-Lisco, Inc. +1.408.991.6115 | MacIIsi >/__/ / / / /__/ 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 | owner -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */
aslakson@cs.umn.edu (Brian Aslakson) (03/12/91)
Here is something interesting from an IBM style person who readers of comp. virus will recognize. In comp.virus padgett%tccslr.dnet@uvs1.orl.mmc.com (Padgett Peterson) writes: > I think it is time stand back from the PC and take a fresh >look at how protection can be placed on the system. Too many products >today rely on MS-DOS and its documentation to protect PCs. Since many >functions of DOS and Windows are either mis-documented or >un-documented and since there exist many opportunities for malicious >software to attack before DOS, this is obviously not the place to >start. This is interesting from the point of the "mis-documented" and "un-documented" point. He's talking about virus detection and prevention, but in doing so he points out that MS-DOS is (my words) a cheap hack. Not well done and well planned like the MacOS. Brian aslakson@cs.umn.edu -- .signature: No such file or directory
aslakson@cs.umn.edu (Brian Aslakson) (03/12/91)
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) writes: >In article <...> jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) writes: >>[someone else] >>>As for you MS-DOS users, I'm sorry, but you just don't have the power that >>>we Macintosh users do. Arguing that your machines "crunch numbers" faster >>>isn't really all that true -- the Motorola math chips are usually faster. >>I'm sorry, guy. It's really all that true. I can go buy a $1800 33 MHz 386 >>DOS machine that'll blow the doors off of my $4000 Mac II. Or for $2500 >>I can get a 486 and do still better. >So true. Both Intel and Motorolla processors are comprable neither is >superior. And this from COMP.SYS.IBM.PC.MISC: ruthenb@bgsuvax.UUCP (Joe Ruthenberg) writes: >This is in spite of the fact that the Motorola processor is a much >better processor then the 80x86 series. Brian aslakson@cs.umn.edu -- .signature: No such file or directory