mlbarrow@e40-008-11.bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Michael L Barrow) (07/15/90)
In article <123@sierra.STANFORD.EDU> siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (siegman) writes:
2) IMHO the debates raging in this and other groups over the relative
merits of the Mac versus Windows 3.0 are largely irrelevant. A very
large number of novice computer buyers (and a large number of
elementary and high school educators needing to replace their Apple
IIs) are going to look at Windows 3.0, and say, "Hey, that's great!!
... Just like the Mac!" (whether that's true or not) ". And then
they're going to look at clone prices, and at the total system they
can get for their limited dollars (and the warranties), and say "And a
lot cheaper too!!" And they're going to buy the clone with Windows.
(And developers are going to look at, what is it, 1 million Macs, and
7 (?) million PCs and growing, out there, and decide where to steer
their creativity.)
I don't think Apple yet really believes this will happen. We'll see...
I think you have a valid point in that one can assemble a 80x86-based
GUI system for _waaaaay_ cheap using clone machines, but GUI is not the
whole 'ball of wax,' so to speak.
I support both MacOS & Windows 3.0 platforms in my work and there are
shortcomings of both systems. I don't think that it is fair to compare
MacOS GUI to Windows. The MacOS was designed with the hardware in mind.
Everything works together because it was essentially designed to be that
way. Windows is limited both by DOS' limitations and by the lack of
certain standards, such as networking, on the PC side of things. OS/2
and PM is a method of getting over those limitations. The problem is
just that most people aren't ready for a new OS, I guess.
I don't think that the Mac platform is going to be crippled because of
its smaller installed base for several reasons:
o Seven million PCs include the PC, PCXT-type hardware. Remember
that not even Windows 3.0 can turn these dinosaurs into rocket racers.
The only class of machine that really goes to work with Windows is a >=
80386 machine with a good chunk of RAM, a fast hard disk and VGA. Even a
clone isn't too cheap any more.
o Macintosh OS fits well with the hardware. After all, the
windowing environment is making calls to the toolbox in ROM!!! This is
proof that the software is supposed to fit the hardware.
o If one buys a PC clone, one runs the risk of poor support --
something we won't experience in getting the hardware from the orginal
maker directly.
o Uniform hardware platform -- something not available on the PC
side. At least with the Mac one is guaranteed a networking protocol that one
can use to up and download lessons to students, etc. It may not be the
best protocol, but it is a standard. On PCs, you can run any kind of
network, from 3Com to Novell to one of those inexpensive LAN solutions in the
back of BYTE. This can become a real hell when it comes time to unite
two LANs or move client workstations back and forth between two.
So you see, there is more to this discussion than look-alike screens and
prices (you get what you pay for). Also, you can only push DOS so far
before it is no longer worth the effort (I am not saying that MS hasn't
done an awesome job from DOS all the way up to Windows).
In summary, even with a smaller installed user base, the Macintosh is
still a strong contender in the GUI wars. I think it is better overall
because it ties in _directly_ to the hardware platform. I think that
Windows' success is because it is a sight for sore eyes. (Wouldn't a
thirsty person just out of a long desert trip think that a glass of
water was the greatest thing ever????)
On that note, I'll sign out...
--Michael L Barrow
mlbarrow@athena.mit.edu
o MIT Information Systems/Information Services MCR Consultant
o Project Athena Volunteer User Consultant
o Member, Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
--
--Michael L Barrow
mlbarrow@athena.mit.edu
o MIT Information Systems/Information Services MCR Consultant
o Project Athena Volunteer User Consultant
o Member, Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)