EHYOUNK@MTUS5.BITNET (06/27/90)
Why worry, Maybe then I'll be able to purchase a half way decent computer for less then price of a new car! Ed
Q8N@psuvm.psu.edu (Scott D. Camp) (06/27/90)
In article <42383@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (That's MR. Idiot to you) says: > >daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) writes: > >>>It's probably a long way off, but lets start worring now! > >> Lets not, and say we did.... > >My feeling is even simpler. Even if Microsoft CAN clean up Windows and make >is Just As Good as, say, System 5.0 (remember that? Long, long ago?) it'll >be a long time before they could even come close to the functionality and >power of system 6.0 -- and by the time they do, where do you think Apple >software will be? I certainly agree that the Mac OS is much simpler to install, maintain, and use than any version of Windows I have ever seen. (I oversee a lab with 5 Model 70s running 2.1.) I grit my teeth at the thoughts of reinstalling it (and hDC Windows Express) when something goes wrong. For example, the other day I couldn't get Excel to run on a 2 meg Model 70 because the PS/2 ran out of memory due to the FILES and BUFFERS setting I had in the config.sys. However, unless you happen to work on both the Mac and IBM platforms, you may not be aware of these types of advantages to the Mac OS. I think someone recently posted an article 'chastising' Apple for not pointing this fact out in their advertising of the Mac's advantages. I think I agree with this point. I think Apple should be more direct in advertising targeted toward Big Blue users (many of whom may believe, regardless of what the PC press is telling them, that Windows makes the Mac redundant). Of course, I don't have access to Apple's marketing info, so take my opinions for what they're worth. :-) I just wanted to post and state my opinion on what fun it is to install DOS (I won't even go into the joys of installing DOS 4.0 and dealing with hard disk partitions over 32 meg) and Windows on a PS/2. (Again, I must qualify this by stating that I have only seen Windows 386 v 2.1.) Scott D. Camp Q8N@PSUVM.PSU.EDU The Pennsylvania State University 305 Oswald Tower University Park, PA 16802 814-863-0121
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (06/28/90)
daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) writes: >>There goes the 20% that Windows 3.0 couldn't do that the Mac could... > When did windows become easy to install, easy to maintain, easy to >network, when did it get a consistant interface, where's the standard ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Why do you think the Windows 3.0 interface is inconsistent? Please explain. >networking protocol, standard print drivers, easy to configure new programms ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Huh? Windows has a standard printer interface (to the programmer / application / user) and comes with one or two disks full of printer drivers. The hardware compatibility list I got with my copy of Windows 3 specifies 169 different printers (some built by your company:-). Windows does not force you to buy one of a few "standard" printers. That's fine for me, the user. >on your HD, etc... > I don't know where this mythical 20% comes from, and I don't see how DOS >would make up that difference. Most all of the articles that I've been >reading {both Mac and PC mags} have gone out of their way to point out that >while Windows is nice, it's no Macintosh, and that if you *really* want a >quality system then the Mac is a better machine. I don't think so. Windows main advantage is that is was designed as a multitasking and multiapplication system from the very beginning. Wolfgang Strobl
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (06/28/90)
In article <42383@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (That's MR. Idiot to you) writes: >My feeling is even simpler. Even if Microsoft CAN clean up Windows and make >is Just As Good as, say, System 5.0 (remember that? Long, long ago?) it'll >be a long time before they could even come close to the functionality and >power of system 6.0 -- and by the time they do, where do you think Apple >software will be? As I remember it, System 6.0's main claim to fame was multitasking, which Windows 1.03 had back in 1985. Okay, it also had background printing (DOS had it since 1984). This isn't to claim that Windows was "ahead" of the Mac System, but wholesale generalizations that the Mac is way ahead of Windows in every conceivable (albeit unmentioned) way are useless to anyone trying to decide what machine to use. By the way, I've used System 6 since it first was released to us users for final beta testing. What exactly is this "functionality and power"? And how is it so superior to Windows? Enquiring minds want to know... >It's kind of funny to listen to folks warn us how close Windows is. It may >be getting Mac-like -- but at best, it's Mac-like in the way early versions >of the Mac were (and I don't even give it that, personally). And the pundits It's also funny that the only thing that most Windows-bashers have to say about Windows is that it isn't Mac-like. I mean, what a revelation... No one (outside of Apple?!) claims Windows is trying to be a Mac. It has certain aspects of the Mac interface, but so do most popular GUIs today-- and so did the ones that preceeded the Mac. Windows exists to allow PC users to use graphical software--like what the Mac has. If people want a Mac (and are independently wealthy) they'll buy one. Comparing the Mac to Windows, especially with the bias that the Mac is the Way It Should Be, is misleading. People used to the Mac will find Windows to be different, confusing, and will probably not like it too much. I'm more used to Windows (although I'm typing this between crashes on a IIfx) and find many aspects of the Mac interface different, confusing, and at times limited. Computers are like cars--personal and (esp. w/Macs--I know, wait for October :)) ex- pensive. People get defensive when they have a lot of $$$ tied up in equipment (or work for the company)... >keep thinking that if Microsoft runs as fast as it can, it can beat us to >the finish line. As though Apple were standing still or something... Why would Microsoft want to "beat" Apple to any finish line? Microsoft makes software, Apple, computers. Microsoft sells a lot of Mac software, and unless you think this is only to provide a good beta-testing arena or help fund Windows development, Microsoft has no reason to "beat" Apple. I've never understood why so many Mac users are anti-Windows. I would think that, if Windows provides a much larger user base than the Mac ever could, then Mac software developers would benefit from being able to sell stuff to Windows users as well. Perhaps this is why Microsoft is doing so well in the Mac world... >Maybe, if they're lucky, I'll see them in my rear view mirror sooner or >later. Maybe. We might've found a blind spot in your mirror here--it's usually just next to your car, a few yards back... Happens usually when getting passed. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) >Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] Aaron Wallace
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (06/28/90)
------ In article <2932@gmdzi.UUCP>, strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes... >> I don't know where this mythical 20% comes from, and I don't see how DOS >>would make up that difference. Most all of the articles that I've been >>reading {both Mac and PC mags} have gone out of their way to point out that >>while Windows is nice, it's no Macintosh, and that if you *really* want a >>quality system then the Mac is a better machine. > >I don't think so. Windows main advantage is that is was designed as a >multitasking and multiapplication system from the very beginning. Hmm. Last time I looked Windows was an a windowing interface to the MS-DOS operating system. MS-DOS is not a multitasking OS, as far as I know. Now Windows may accomplish multitasking, but to say that it was designed as such from the beginning is misleading; I doubt DOS was designed from the beginning to be a "multitasking and multiapplication system from the very beginning". Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (06/28/90)
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >In article <2932@gmdzi.UUCP>, strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes... > >>> I don't know where this mythical 20% comes from, and I don't see how DOS >>>would make up that difference. Most all of the articles that I've been >>>reading {both Mac and PC mags} have gone out of their way to point out that >>>while Windows is nice, it's no Macintosh, and that if you *really* want a >>>quality system then the Mac is a better machine. >> >>I don't think so. Windows main advantage is that is was designed as a >>multitasking and multiapplication system from the very beginning. >Hmm. Last time I looked Windows was an a windowing interface to the MS-DOS >operating system. MS-DOS is not a multitasking OS, as far as I know. Now >Windows may accomplish multitasking, but to say that it was designed as such >from the beginning is misleading; I doubt DOS was designed from the beginning >to be a "multitasking and multiapplication system from the very beginning". >Robert Sure. And MSDOS started as a poor CP/M clone, which hardly anyone would call an operating system, today. But so what? Starting with version 2 MSDOS got a file system which was designed to look similar to the **IX file system. Windows inherits this file system from MSDOS and has to live with the restrictions it may have. But after Windows is started, most other resources (CPU, memory, timer, printer, communication ports) are managed by Windows. The resource management of Windows is designed under the assumption that there are many applications running concurrently. Even the spooler (which is now called "print manager") is a normal application program, which gets print requests from other applications. There are no accessories, because there is no need for them. Two or more instances of an application share their code. Windows can move code segments around or discard them and reload them later, even if the code is currently in use. It can move data segments around, if they are local or not locked. All this is not a feature of some future version of Windows, it has been there for five or six years now. Wolfgang Strobl
amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet (06/28/90)
In article <1990Jun27.180718.3155@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: > > It's also funny that the only thing that most Windows-bashers have to say > about Windows is that it isn't Mac-like. I mean, what a revelation... It, internally, is also not Mac-like. To my knowledge. It's a GUI running on DOS platform. I'd compare that to typing a book on a type writer then using OCR to read it into a word processor. why not just buy the word processor from the start? >>keep thinking that if Microsoft runs as fast as it can, it can beat us to >>the finish line. As though Apple were standing still or something... > > Why would Microsoft want to "beat" Apple to any finish line? Microsoft makes > software, Apple, computers. Microsoft sells a lot of Mac software, and unless > you think this is only to provide a good beta-testing arena or help fund > Windows development, Microsoft has no reason to "beat" Apple. I've never > understood why so many Mac users are anti-Windows. I would think that, if > Windows provides a much larger user base than the Mac ever could, then Mac > software developers would benefit from being able to sell stuff to Windows > users as well. Perhaps this is why Microsoft is doing so well in the Mac > world... Microsoft happened to be there first. From my knowledge, programming in the Windows world is *not* like programming in the Mac world. Our programmers are looking into it right now, and while we do want to port, we can already see that we'll probably have to dish out loads of money for a programmer who knows Windows inside and out, because we won't have the time to do it ourselves. This is tense because I would rather have our programmers write the code and interface to stay consistent as much as possible to the way we work and structure internal algorythyms, etc. So it is not as beneficial as you might claim. Beneficial yes, heaven, no. If you have info on Windows 3.0 and programming, converting software from the Mac into, I'd be happy to listen. > Aaron Wallace ________________________ Andrei Herasimchuk Disclaimer: Marketing Director These are my opinions. Please Specular Int'l don't repeat them to my boss 'cause he hears them everyday already! bitnet: amherasimchu@amherst snail: P.O. Box 888, Amherst, MA 01004-0888 413.256.3166
Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews) (06/28/90)
In article <1990Jun27.180718.3155@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: > > No one (outside of Apple?!) claims Windows is trying to be a Mac. Ahem. I guess you missed the three-page ads Zenith has been running in PC mags, trumpeting Windows 3.0 with the line "At last, you can have everything you love about the PC... plus the best of Macintosh". Our local PC-clone dealer runs Windows ads proclaiming "A Macintosh interface at a PC price!". MicroSoft may not call Windows Mac-like, probably to avoid legal hot water, but their OEMs and dealers don't hesitate to hype Windows as a substitute for the Mac interface. Fans of the original are entitled to point out what a poor substitute it is. -- Jim Matthews Dartmouth Software Development
nolan@tssi.UUCP (Michael Nolan) (06/29/90)
In article <42383@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (That's MR. Idiot to you) writes: > > My feeling is even simpler. Even if Microsoft CAN clean up Windows and make > is Just As Good as, say, System 5.0 (remember that? Long, long ago?) it'll > be a long time before they could even come close to the functionality and > power of system 6.0 -- and by the time they do, where do you think Apple > software will be? Probably still trying to deliver either 7.0, the bugfix for 7.0, or the first third of the features initially promised for 7.0. (Sorry, Chuq.) Actually, I suspect that by that time, Apple will have totally integrated unix (nee A/IX) into System 9.0 (or whatever) with Open Look. Of course, the user community will complain that it won't run on a Mac Plus. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Nolan "I don't know what apathy is, Tailored Software Services, Inc. and I don't want to find out!" Lincoln, Nebraska (402) 423-1490 UUCP: tssi!nolan should work, if not try something like uunet!frith!upba!tssi!nolan
alexr@ucscb.ucsc.edu (Alexander M. Rosenberg) (06/29/90)
In article <2932@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > Huh? Windows has a standard printer interface (to the programmer / application > / user) and comes with one or two disks full of printer drivers. The hardware > compatibility list I got with my copy of Windows 3 specifies 169 different > printers (some built by your company:-). > Windows does not force you to buy one of a few "standard" printers. That's > fine for me, the user. To correct you, Microsoft's marketing department says that they support "169 printers" (I actually heard around 140.). They actually ship only a few drivers, and most of those printers were designed to be compatibile with one another.(i.e. HP LaserJet emulation). So they have a PostScript driver, a LaserJet driver, an Epson MX-80 (and the billions of other printers that use the same escape sequences), and so forth. Apple supplies drivers for every printer they make, and you will note that one of those is a PostScript driver, that for the most part, can drive every color/B&W/whatever version of PostScript printer you may have. Third-party products are available to support parallel printers, and printers such as the HP LaserJet compatibles. Please note how easy it is to install a printer driver on the Macintosh. You will also note the LaserWriter and LaserWriter IISC drivers support background printing. Try doing that under Windows. Windows is all "we can look like them." I say, "Where's the beef?" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Alexander M. Rosenberg - INTERNET: alexr@ucscb.ucsc.edu - Yoyodyne - - 330 1/2 Waverley St. - UUCP:ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!alexr - Propulsion - - Palo Alto, CA 94301 - BITNET:alexr%ucscb@ucscc.BITNET- Systems - - (415) 329-8463 - Nobody is my employer so - :-) - - - so nobody cares what I say. - -
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (06/29/90)
In article <8918@goofy.Apple.COM> alexr@ucscb.ucsc.edu (Alexander M. Rosenberg) writes: >In article <2932@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > >To correct you, Microsoft's marketing department says that they support >"169 printers" (I actually heard around 140.). They actually ship only a few drivers, and most of those printers were designed to be compatibile with one another.(i.e. HP LaserJet emulation). So they have a PostScript driver, a LaserJet driver, an Epson M >X-80 (and the billions of other printers that use the same escape sequences), and so forth. Probably depends on how you define driver, but, for instance, under the PostScript or HP LaserJet II drivers, many individual printer are supported separately. As each is different (resident fonts, forms, memory, limits, and so forth), each must be driven appropriately. While it is true that Apple's LaserWriter driver will support most PostScript printers, it won't necessarily take advantage of any additional features such printers may have. The Windows drivers in general will. The Windows drivers are NOT generic in the sense of one PostScript driver for all--there is one Post- Script driver, and a lot of stuff is common between the PostScript printers, but individual enhancements or limitations are supported as well. Once the PostScript driver is chosen you choose your specific printer. >Apple supplies drivers for every printer they make, and you will note that >one of those is a PostScript driver, that for the most part, can drive >every color/B&W/whatever version of PostScript printer you may have. >Third-party products are available to support parallel printers, and >printers such as the HP LaserJet compatibles. True, but the point is that if you want to go the non-Apple route, it's not as simple as going into the Control Panel, choosing, say, a Fujitsu dot-matrix printer from a list, inserting a few disks, and having it work well--without buying a separate driver or getting a printer that comes with one. From what I've heard many of such drivers are not all that great. And since Apple makes only a few printers, all of which are quite over- priced, I'd say support for them is of limited value. Which is why the DeskWriter is selling so well. I mean, OS/2 supports most of IBM printers, too--some of which are nice. This turns few heads. >Please note how easy it is >to install a printer driver on the Macintosh. I've done it on both the Mac and Windows--about the same in terms of easiness. The only advantage I'd give the Mac is that there aren't a lot of choices to be made--once the LaserWriter printer is selected, fine. Under Windows you'd have to say whose it is, how much memory you have (if appropriate) and so forth. Still, much on-line help is there, and such refinements are usually of the "suggested but not required" kind. >You will also note the >LaserWriter and LaserWriter IISC drivers support background printing. Try >doing that under Windows. I have many times... Works well with my Epson printer. Then again, background printing is nothing new in the DOS world--even the CP/M WordStar had it, as do most DOS word processors and DOS itself. Try it yourself-- fun stuff. Also note that *all* Windows printer drivers support background printing-- and have since at least Windows 2.xx. While the 2.xx spooler was a bit slow, the 3.0 one is very capable. The queue can be managed, priority set, the network queue can be fiddled with, or the entire works can be bypassed. Leaving it alone also works well. >Windows is all "we can look like them." I say, "Where's the beef?" How about in RAM usage, for one. On this 4 meg IIfx, I loaded Excel, Word, a few DAs, and a communications program (512K) and have 600K free. On a nearby 3 meg PC I loaded Excel, Word, and some other DA-type stuff and about 1.5 Meg free. In general I find that Windows is much more frugal with memory than MultiFinder--probably a remnant of the 640K barrier. (BTW, Excel and Word could be run together on a 640K PC under Windows 2.xx, albeit slowly...) Or DDE... Or virtual memory (not used in the above example, btw)... Aaron Wallace
moreno@cs.umn.edu (Andres Moreno) (06/29/90)
It seems that we are now engaging in a "my computer is better than yours war", which could be resolved only if the software world were a static one. Note that when the Mac came out, you could do precious little work with it. Within some years, it took a position of leadership for Desktop publishing and *nice* graphical interfaces. It now has problems: how to do multitasking without losing its software base? (My answer: do virtual machines, but instead of doing it like the other guys, do it the IBM mainframe way) Anyhow, the outcome of Win 3.0 has been to put some pressure on the people at Apple to make computers affordable, much in the same way the Mac pressed MS DOS software to get better with regards to user interaction. I want a new machine, but the nagging question is: which way to go? I think I'll go the Mac route if: i) Prices come down ii) Software offerings continue to be way better than on the other side. Regarding rear view mirrors, I think it is time the customer looked at the computer industry through one of them. Regards, Andres F. Moreno
ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (C. Irby)) (06/29/90)
In article <2590@network.ucsd.edu>, pbiron@weber.ucsd.edu (Paul Biron) writes: About Windows copying Macs... > > It seems that only lawyers and advertising people make this claim! Not really... it's painfully obvious to most people. > (Well, maybe a few *scared* MACofiles, too ;-| I see the smiley, but "scared?" Not anyone who's actually *seen* Win 3.0... It's not bad, but when you have to buy a fast 286 to get the performance of a Mac PlusA, you know you're hurting... > I haven't heard any user make it (and I think that is what Aaron > was getting at!). > I've heard a lot of MS-DOS users make the claim that it's a "Mac Killer," and it's not. > I work, daily, on Macs, PC's and Unix boxes (I'm on an X terminal at > this moment, tho I usually work from a normal vt100) [and from time > to time, on VAXEN running VMS] and as part of my job I do user > consulting and such. It's true that many people seem to think that > windowing interfaces and Machintosh as synonomous. However, I think > that is more a product of lawyers and advertising types, than the > "superiority" of Macs. > But until the Mac came along, nobody really used GUI. Sure, Xerox did the early development, but if someone tells you that the Mac isn't a *huge* step up from previous machines, they're lying. > Granted, MacOS has done a good job of standardizing what it means > to be a windowing interface, but it does *NOT* define it. > That brings up another point (which many MACofiles fail to realize). > There is a big difference between the interface presented by > a computer system and the computer system, itself. > That's right. Like the commands that work in almost all Mac programs in pretty much the same way. Try this simple experiment on an MS-DOS machine: Open a document in a word processor. Select a section of text. Change the font. Open the same document in another word processor. Select the same section. Change the font. Did you use the same commands? No? *That* is why the Mac is superior. (Note that the word procesors that break this rule are lousy ones imported from the MS-DOS world...) > DOS has to be one of the DUMBEST OS's created to date (I've been > known to make the sign of the cross when approaching PC's), but I > would rather have a 286 running DOS than a Mac Plus, simply because > of its increased computing power (and its cheaper, too :-) > "Increased computing power?" Get a life. If you manage to buy an MS-DOS machine for less than an equivalent Mac, you're going to lose one or more of the following: 1) Speed (due to kludges in memory that end up forcing the CPU to live with multiple wait states. This is very common in the MS-DOS clone world, and none of the folks who buy these clunkers seem to have the IQ to figure out that they got ripped... in any other industry, this is called "false advertising." Many "25 MHz 286 machines" really run like XTs... except in benchmarks. They can cheat on those...) 2) Compatibility. Many clones are pretty compatible, but the ceiling is about 90-95% (average about 85%). That means that some programs *will not run* on that "powerful" machine... (read "boat anchor.") 3) Quality. A cheap machine is OK until it dies, and you realize that you might as well get a new one (after a year or so), or spend half its value geting it fixed (if you can find someone who *can* fix it). > ("Flames approaching! Sulu, shields up!") > BTW- the preceding was not a flame. It wasn't important enough to deserve a real flame. Just because you work with Macs doesn't mean you know anything about them... > Paul Biron pbiron@ucsd.edu (619) 534-5758 > Central University Library, Mail Code C-075-R > Social Sciences DataBase Project > University of California, San Diego -- \ C Irby \ "The following will be a test of the ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu \ Emergency .Signature System. ac08@untvax \ This is only a test. \ Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep." \
pbiron@weber.ucsd.edu (Paul Biron) (06/29/90)
In article <22943@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews) writes: >In article <1990Jun27.180718.3155@portia.Stanford.EDU>, >aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >> >> No one (outside of Apple?!) claims Windows is trying to be a Mac. ^^^^^ most notibly Apple's lawyers!!!! > >Ahem. I guess you missed the three-page ads Zenith has been running in PC >mags, trumpeting Windows 3.0 with the line "At last, you can have >everything you love about the PC... plus the best of Macintosh". > >Our local PC-clone dealer runs Windows ads proclaiming "A Macintosh interface >at a PC price!". > >MicroSoft may not call Windows Mac-like, probably to avoid legal hot water, >but their OEMs and dealers don't hesitate to hype Windows as a substitute >for the Mac interface. Fans of the original are entitled to point out what >a poor substitute it is. > >-- >Jim Matthews >Dartmouth Software Development It seems that only lawyers and advertising people make this claim! (Well, maybe a few *scared* MACofiles, too ;-| I haven't heard any user make it (and I think that is what Aaron was getting at!). I work, daily, on Macs, PC's and Unix boxes (I'm on an X terminal at this moment, tho I usually work from a normal vt100) [and from time to time, on VAXEN running VMS] and as part of my job I do user consulting and such. It's true that many people seem to think that windowing interfaces and Machintosh as synonomous. However, I think that is more a product of lawyers and advertising types, than the "superiority" of Macs. Granted, MacOS has done a good job of standardizing what it means to be a windowing interface, but it does *NOT* define it. That brings up another point (which many MACofiles fail to realize). There is a big difference between the interface presented by a computer system and the computer system, itself. DOS has to be one of the DUMBEST OS's created to date (I've been known to make the sign of the cross when approaching PC's), but I would rather have a 286 running DOS than a Mac Plus, simply because of its increased computing power (and its cheaper, too :-) ("Flames approaching! Sulu, shields up!") Paul Biron pbiron@ucsd.edu (619) 534-5758 Central University Library, Mail Code C-075-R Social Sciences DataBase Project University of California, San Diego
cory@three.MV.COM (Cory Kempf) (06/29/90)
chuq@Apple.COM (That's MR. Idiot to you) writes: >daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) writes: >>>It's probably a long way off, but lets start worring now! >> Lets not, and say we did.... >My feeling is even simpler. Even if Microsoft CAN clean up Windows and make >is Just As Good as, say, System 5.0 (remember that? Long, long ago?) it'll >be a long time before they could even come close to the functionality and >power of system 6.0 -- and by the time they do, where do you think Apple >software will be? System 7.0 beta 3?? (due out "In the Fall") :-) +C -- Cory Kempf I do speak for the company (sometimes). Three Letter Company 603 883 2474 email: cory@three.mv.com, harvard!zinn!three!cory
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (06/30/90)
In article <28411.268ab266@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (C. Irby)) writes: >In article <2590@network.ucsd.edu>, pbiron@weber.ucsd.edu (Paul Biron) writes: > >I see the smiley, but "scared?" Not anyone who's actually *seen* Win 3.0... >It's not bad, but when you have to buy a fast 286 to get the performance >of a Mac PlusA, you know you're hurting... As found in MacWeek (not the paragon of objective computer press, I admit), "a very inexpensive ... 10-MHz AT clone with 2 meg of extended memory, the performance of Windows 3.0 ... was roughly equivalent to that of a 4 Mb Mac Plus running MultiFinder." On some informal tests with a Model 50 and an SE, (the former with 3 Mb, the latter 4; both w/20 Mb hard disks; the former with 4-bit VGA, the latter with the good 'ol 9"er), performance is comparable. Of course it's hard to be definitive since a lot of differences could be in how well applications are written. "Try before you buy--or reject" seems to be a good idea here. Also, most 286s are priced at or below the cost of a Plus (indeed so are some 386sx's which deliver SE/30-like performance)... >I've heard a lot of MS-DOS users make the claim that it's a "Mac Killer," >and it's not. People who want a Mac still will but a Mac. People who want a usable GUI at a good price will at least consider Windows. This probably will not kill the Mac (Apple's quite capable of that on its own :-)) >But until the Mac came along, nobody really used GUI. Sure, Xerox did >the early development, but if someone tells you that the Mac isn't >a *huge* step up from previous machines, they're lying. The Mac interface was a huge step forward. The hardware was an incremental advance. I mean, the SE/Plus screen resolution is worse than a Hercules card, and the Herc is almost a decade old. It's hard to believe that the fx is the first Mac to have DMA--the original PC used DMA for all disk transfers, and adapter cards always have it at their disposal... >Like the commands that work in almost all Mac programs >in pretty much the same way. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Key phrase. Ami Pro, Write, and Winword work "pretty much" the same way, too. > Try this simple experiment on an MS-DOS >machine: Since this thread is about Windows, what's the relevance of this? Ami Pro and Winword are as similar as MacWrite and Word 4.0. No one ever claimed that WordPerfect commands worked with Manuscript... However, you will find that many editors use the tried-and-true WordStar commands, so the DOS world is not devoid of standards. But I digress... > Open a document in a word processor. Select a section of text. > Change the font. > Open the same document in another word processor. Select the > same section. Change the font. > Did you use the same commands? > No? > *That* is why the Mac is superior. > (Note that the word procesors that break this rule are lousy > ones imported from the MS-DOS world...) This works nicely for font changes, but a quick tour of several (all?) Mac word processors on this fx reveals that for many other operations, remarkably different commands are required. Again, the same is true with Ami Pro/Winword. One would expect that Excel and Wingz on the PC will be as similar as Excel and Wingz on the Mac. Also, I've found a lot of interface inconsistencies on the Mac--many DAs seem to have their own special (silly) buttons. I saw a hard disk program that tried to implement a pseudo-NeXT interface. Easier than DOS, probably. Easier than Windows, debatable. >> DOS has to be one of the DUMBEST OS's created to date (I've been >> known to make the sign of the cross when approaching PC's), but I >> would rather have a 286 running DOS than a Mac Plus, simply because >> of its increased computing power (and its cheaper, too :-) >> > >"Increased computing power?" Get a life. If you manage to buy an >MS-DOS machine for less than an equivalent Mac, you're going to lose >one or more of the following: Not at all necessarily true... > 1) Speed (due to kludges in memory that end up forcing the > CPU to live with multiple wait states. This is very > common in the MS-DOS clone world, and none of the folks > who buy these clunkers seem to have the IQ to figure out > that they got ripped... in any other industry, this is > called "false advertising." Many "25 MHz 286 machines" > really run like XTs... except in benchmarks. They can > cheat on those...) Last I checked, every Mac I know of works with at least 1 wait state. Which is probably why the Mac II can use 120 ns RAM while most 0 w/s 386's at 16 MHz need 80 ns. RAM. Most clones I've seen work at 0 or 1 wait state. I think this is a reference to memory that is installed on ISA expansion cards--sure, there will be wait states when going to the bus, which is why most motherboards allow memory to be put directly on them (w/SIMMs or SIPPs). As for 386s running like XTs, I've used both and there is a real world difference. The 25 MHz 386 will also perform comparably to the Mac IIci when comparably configured, based on some recent benchmarks done in some publication (with Windows 2.xx!). And, for any machine faster than about 16 MHz, it is impossible (using cheap memory) to run at 0 wait states without a cache, page interleave, or other such tricks. > 2) Compatibility. Many clones are pretty compatible, but the > ceiling is about 90-95% (average about 85%). > That means that some programs *will not run* on that > "powerful" machine... (read "boat anchor.") Just curious where the percentages came from--I'd like to see the reference. And as I know from experience, almost each new Apple machine is incompatible with a few programs that ran fine on earlier machines--seems there was a IIci (in)compatibility chart posted recently. > 3) Quality. A cheap machine is OK until it dies, and you realize > that you might as well get a new one (after a year or so), or > spend half its value geting it fixed (if you can find someone > who *can* fix it). All makers are subject to QC problems--IBM's AT drive, Apple's Quantum/Seagate problems, power supplies, early SE fans... Peek inside a clone one day and you'll find that most parts are made by big-name companies. In fact, a lot of these makers are responsible for Apple parts, too. Samsung makes most PC-world TTL monitors--and the (recent) compact Mac displays. Same is true for floppy drives and hard disks. Of course, there is always the chance of getting a shoddily-put together clone, but those who want to take the "safe" road can go with one of many good name-brand PC makers like AST, Everex, Dell, or ALR. In summary, it is possible to get a cheaper PC compatible without losing ANY of the above. Of course you could also fall victim to one or more of these--kindof like used car shopping... >> ("Flames approaching! Sulu, shields up!") > >BTW- the preceding was not a flame. It wasn't important enough to deserve a >real flame. Just because you work with Macs doesn't mean you know anything >about them... Nor is this a flame--just a clarification. I think this is important--misinformation leads to more misinformation. BTW, I don't intend this to be a "my computer is better than yours" debate. Those are senseless. I'm all for promoting a sensible discussion of the Windows and Mac platforms, hopefully free of rhetoric and such. When obvious factual goofs are made (and many references to Windows here have had a few), it seems to be in everyone's interest to have them corrected, or at least clarified. Okay, maybe this isn't quite the right forum, but most people at comp.windows.ms know Windows and hardly mention the Mac. Asbestos suits on, just in case... Aaron Wallace
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (06/30/90)
amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes: >It, internally, is also not Mac-like. To my knowledge. It's a GUI running >on DOS platform. I'd compare that to typing a book on a type writer then using >OCR to read it into a word processor. why not just buy the word processor >from the start? Why not just take a look into "The Macintosh Programmer's Introduction to Windows" (From Microsoft Windows Software Development Kit, Windows Extensions, Version 2.0, 1987, page 181 ff)? Wolfgang Strobl
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (06/30/90)
alexr@ucscb.ucsc.edu (Alexander M. Rosenberg) writes: >In article <2932@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >> ... (some statements about printer support in Windows, deleted) >To correct you, Microsoft's marketing department says that they support >"169 printers" (I actually heard around 140.). They actually ship only a few drivers, and most of those printers were designed to be compatibile with one another.(i.e. HP LaserJet emulation). So they have a PostScript driver, a LaserJet driver, an Epson MX-80 (and the billions of other printers that use the same escape sequences), and so forth. I don't care what Microsoft's marketing department says. I had counted the printers in the compatibility list I got with Windows. But you are right, they only ship a few drivers with Windows. 30, to be exact. The Postscript driver is one of them, the HP PCL driver is another one. Most drivers in this collection know something about the differences between the different models of the printer family they support. So these 30 printer drivers support 169 different printers. >Apple supplies drivers for every printer they make, and you will note that >one of those is a PostScript driver, that for the most part, can drive >every color/B&W/whatever version of PostScript printer you may have. >Third-party products are available to support parallel printers, and >printers such as the HP LaserJet compatibles. Please note how easy it is >to install a printer driver on the Macintosh. You will also note the >LaserWriter and LaserWriter IISC drivers support background printing. Try >doing that under Windows. I think Microsoft supplies drivers for every printer they make, and a few more :-). I don't know how easy printer driver installation on the Macintosh is, so please tell me. I just know how easy it is under Windows. Your note about background printing support in the LaserWriter printer driver of the Macintosh puzzles me. Background printing support should be separated from the printer drivers. Windows comes with an application called "spooler" or "print manager" which does the background printing. It does this with whichever printer driver you want to use. So, please tell me more about what I should try to do under Windows. Thank you. Wolfgang Strobl
amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet (06/30/90)
In article <2590@network.ucsd.edu>, pbiron@weber.ucsd.edu (Paul Biron) writes: > Granted, MacOS has done a good job of standardizing what it means > to be a windowing interface, but it does *NOT* define it. > That brings up another point (which many MACofiles fail to realize). > There is a big difference between the interface presented by > a computer system and the computer system, itself. To the hacker, yes. To the end-user, no. One important aspect of the Mac that I feel is being left out of the this discussion is how easy is really is to use. I used to train personnell how to use their computer systems. Training people on DOS based platforms takes twice as long, as the personnel understand maybe 25% of what computers do. Besides that, DOS machines are dull, boring, and no fun to use. Training personnel on the MacOs takes half the time, the user is enjoying how much fun the Mac really is, and they actually *want* to use the computer. Apple started that. Really started making comptuing fun, exciting and enjoyable in a world filled with hacker machines. I am sorry. I just used Win 3.0 today to test run it. It is an improvement, but the first thing my non-hacker, total user friend said about Win3 was "Wow! Neat icons." > DOS has to be one of the DUMBEST OS's created to date (I've been > known to make the sign of the cross when approaching PC's), but I > would rather have a 286 running DOS than a Mac Plus, simply because > of its increased computing power (and its cheaper, too :-) What companies need are personnel who know how to use computers. The computer phobia age is finally breaking up because college students, who have been using computers on a regular basis now, are graduating and infiltrating into corporations. They want computers, their bosses want computers. Corporations are loving it. But for that wall to be completely broken down will take some time. Computing power means nothing if the system can't be used. I'd rather have personnel using a Mac, and *wanting* to use the Mac on regular basis because thy're fun and easy to use than any 286 platform. Power is only powerful when its accessible. > ("Flames approaching! Sulu, shields up!") Now, now... > > Paul Biron pbiron@ucsd.edu (619) 534-5758 ________________________ Andrei Herasimchuk Disclaimer: Marketing Director These are my opinions. Please Specular Int'l don't repeat them to my boss 'cause he hears them everyday already! bitnet: amherasimchu@amherst snail: P.O. Box 888, Amherst, MA 01004-0888 413.256.3166
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (06/30/90)
In article <40218215MES@MSU> 18215MES@MSU.BITNET writes: > There goes the 20% that Windows 3.0 couldn't do that the Mac could... That line is perhaps the biggest piece of bullshit that I have ever seen on USENET. It is interesting that a religious subject such as an operating can be quantified as "better" or "worse", but this line suggests that it can also be measured. As long as a sub-window cannot be opened larger than it's parent window, I will not consider Windows 3.0 a viable graphic user interface. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!bungia!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/01/90)
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) writes: >In article <40218215MES@MSU> 18215MES@MSU.BITNET writes: >> There goes the 20% that Windows 3.0 couldn't do that the Mac could... >That line is perhaps the biggest piece of bullshit that I have ever >seen on USENET. It is interesting that a religious subject such as >an operating can be quantified as "better" or "worse", but this line >suggests that it can also be measured. >As long as a sub-window cannot be opened larger than it's parent window, >I will not consider Windows 3.0 a viable graphic user interface. >-john- You're kidding. Wolfgang Strobl
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (07/01/90)
> MicroSoft may not call Windows Mac-like, probably to avoid legal hot water, > but their OEMs and dealers don't hesitate to hype Windows as a substitute > for the Mac interface. Fans of the original are entitled to point out what > a poor substitute it is. Poor substitute it may be, but how many people will read all the Windows hype and walk into the local clone dealer with every intention of buying one of these Mac-like thingys, then walk out with a basic AT setup for a steal? Windows will get people into the showrooms; when they discover the expense of the optimized setup, many won't buy it but _will_ buy that $1100 AT setup and maybe a copy of Windows. They may try to run Windows, but will find it less than efficient on the machine they chose, and will set it aside, but will still have and use that AT clone. Showroom traffic is all important. Bait-and-switch works, even if it isn't intentional... --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) (07/02/90)
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: >of Windows. They may try to run Windows, but will find it less than efficient >on the machine they chose, and will set it aside, but will still have and use >that AT clone. ***NOTE*** this is a person expressing this opinion not Apple!!! The un-informed masses buying windows instead of a Mac could be a problem. The qualities of a Macintosh over a DOS machine are hard to demonstrate to a user concerned about price, and with most sales people's everlasting concern for the Customer's well being, well you can figure out the rest.... My only question is with the typical non-computer person buying a Window's machine, becoming upset since it doesn't appear to be all that "great". What will they think of the Macintosh, after all they've heard its the same. Window's running on cheap underpowered clones might do more to damage the computer industries strides in getting people over computer phobia than DOS ever did.... Just random thoughts from a happy Macintosh owner... remember this is just me speaking, and the opinion above does not express any policy, opinion, or public statement on Apple's part. -- daveo@apple.com David M. O'Rourke _______________________________________________________________________________ I do not speak for Apple in *ANY* official capacity.
cfj@isc.intel.com (Charlie Johnson) (07/03/90)
With all this hoopla over Windows 3.0, still the biggest barrier to acceptance
of the Mac by the masses is the price and possibly the small screen size
on the compact macs. As an example, my wife and I showed our SE/30 to my
sister in law who is a PC user but is totally nontechnical. When we told
her how much we paid (and we bought it used!!) she said :
1. I could get a PC AT of 1/3 the price.
2. I could never survive with the small screen.
3. No color ??
I know that Apple is trying to address this with the new so called low cost
Mac. Reality is that you must have a competitive price to get people in
the door. Only then will user interface become an issue.
--
Charles Johnson
Intel Scientific Computers, MS CO1-01
15201 NW Greenbrier Pkwy
Beaverton, OR 97006 phone: (503)629-7605 email: cfj@isc.intel.comaaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (07/03/90)
In article <42559@apple.Apple.COM> daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) writes: >Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: > The un-informed masses buying windows instead of a Mac could be a problem. >The qualities of a Macintosh over a DOS machine are hard to demonstrate to >a user concerned about price, and with most sales people's everlasting >concern for the Customer's well being, well you can figure out the rest.... Aside: People here keep talking abou the "qualities of a Macintosh." I've been using Macs for about 4 years. Enlighten me. End aside. > My only question is with the typical non-computer person buying a Window's >machine, becoming upset since it doesn't appear to be all that "great". What >will they think of the Macintosh, after all they've heard its the same. But to a lot of people Windows will be great. Those who don't like Windows probably 1) prefer the Mac and should've gotten one or 2) don't like GUIs and would dislike the Mac just as much. Maybe they'll realize that GUIs are not the end-of-all-computer-pain placebos they're pushed by some vendors as. Believe it or not there are people who find the Mac as hard to use as anything. > Window's running on cheap underpowered clones might do more to damage the >computer industries strides in getting people over computer phobia than >DOS ever did.... Why do we all assume that people are going to be getting "underpowered" machines? Windows needs an AT--that's on the box. No one I know of sells ATs that are slower than 10 MHz--even IBM's home computers are 10 MHz 286s. A 10 MHz AT runs Windows at roughly the same clip as a Mac Plus/SE runs System 6.0.<current bugfix>. Either 1) the Plus/SE Macs are underpowered or 2) the Windows person will be as happy as the Plus/SE user. I leave you to decide. >daveo@apple.com David M. O'Rourke Aaron Wallace
awessels@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (07/03/90)
In article <804@intelisc.isc.intel.com> cfj@isc.intel.com (Charlie Johnson) writes: >her how much we paid (and we bought it used!!) she said : > > 1. I could get a PC AT of 1/3 the price. Not a similarly-equipped AT she couldn't. My SE/30 has a math co-processor, stereo sound chip, built-in SCSI, built-in network support, and a much better OS (IMHO, not intended to start flame war). Add that to the price of that AT and you don't end up with a 1/3 cost. (Besides, my SE/30 is faster than any "stinking" AT clone.) However, if all you ever plan on doing with your SE/30 is what she does with her AT, you made the wrong computer choice. > 2. I could never survive with the small screen. I've never understood this. I can get 80x25 columns on my Mac, and if we're talking resolution, 72 dpi ain't bad. If you want a "bigger" picture, slap one of those "magnifiers" on the front of your machine. > 3. No color ?? Well, I'm gonna add color as soon as the price of hi quality monitors comes down a bit. Not only thhat, I won't lose the use of my built-in screen either. I have an AT on my desk at work. It does what it does just fine, but I can't get near the flexibility for it that can with my Mac. I'd take my SE/30 up against any power 386 setup in a general purpose test of "what can you do" any day. If all you want is word processing, spreadsheet, and telcomm functions, you have lots of cost-cutter options. You don't even need an AT for that. >I know that Apple is trying to address this with the new so called low cost >Mac. Reality is that you must have a competitive price to get people in >the door. Only then will user interface become an issue. I wish the Mac market had the numbers the DOS market has on its side, but if it is a choice between running zillion programs under the Mac OS, and a zillion DOS programs under Windows (with a few Windows prorgams), the choice is an easy one for me.
c3ar@zaphod.uchicago.edu (Walter C3arlip) (07/03/90)
With all this talk about how expensive macs are in comparison to pc's,
can someone tell me:
Just how much cheaper *is* windows than the Macintosh system/finder? :-)
--Walter
_____________________________________________________________________________
Walter C3arlip c3ar@zaphod.uchicago.edu
(the "3" is silent) c3ar%zaphod@UCHIMVS1.bitnet
_____________________________________________________________________________clubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Club Mac, Australia's Largest Mac Users Group) (07/03/90)
In article <40218215MES@MSU> 18215MES@MSU.BITNET writes: >I read a rumor somewhere - Infoworld ? - that suggested that >Microsoft will merge DOS into Windows..... >It will no longer be a windowing environ running on top of DOS... > >There goes the 20% that Windows 3.0 couldn't do that the Mac could... > >It's probably a long way off, but lets start worring now! Merging DOS into Windoze is like wrapping a cheap fibreglass shell around a Yugo engine, and calling it a Ferrari... Jason Haines
sobiloff@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy) (07/03/90)
In article <1990Jun27.180718.3155@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >It's also funny that the only thing that most Windows-bashers have to say >about Windows is that it isn't Mac-like. I mean, what a revelation... The MacFans out in net.land use the word Macintosh to describe the proper way of maintaining consistency and ease-of-use in an interface. So, when they (and I) say that Windows isn't Mac-like, what they are saying is that the level of consistency and ease-of-use is not up to the Macintosh's levels. >If people want a >Mac (and are independently wealthy) they'll buy one. This is a common mistake--compare the prices of Macintosh with "True Blue" boxes and the Macintosh has a price advantage. Now of course there are clones, which significantly upset this advantage, but then that brings into the picture the argument concerning research costs, etc. >I'm more used to Windows >(although I'm typing this between crashes on a IIfx) and find many aspects >of the Mac interface different, confusing, and at times limited. How so (esp. limited)? >Why would Microsoft want to "beat" Apple to any finish line? Microsoft makes >software, Apple, computers. False. :-) Apple "makes" software, and bundles boxes to run it on. The soft- ware is what differentiates Macs from all other computers, not the other way around. Anyone can put together a '020/'030 box, but not just anyone can write the Mac OS (legally, at least... :-) I don't know if there is such a thing as a "finish line" in the computer world- what is it? More platforms than the other side? Better hard/software? Regard- less, by producing Windows, Microsoft has put themselves in competition with Macintosh because they are trying to sell the same virtues that cause the Mac to sell-an easy to use, powerfull interface. Now of course there is quite a lot that can be said about the level of hardware integration that Apple accomplishes, but Microsoft isn't competing on the hardware level. >I've never >understood why so many Mac users are anti-Windows. I would think that, if >Windows provides a much larger user base than the Mac ever could, then Mac >software developers would benefit from being able to sell stuff to Windows >users as well. What Mac users are worried about (if they worry about these things) is that Mac developers might migrate completely to the Windows-world because it is so much larger, leaving Macintosh out in the cold, or at least a box that is supported as an afterthought. Not that I think that this will happen, but... >Aaron Wallace -- Global warming--what a crock! Remember 10 years ago when the cause of the year was global cooling? Let's get some real evidence first, folks... Now, more than ever, we need SDI. Why? The threat isn't a massive strike by the Soviets anymore, it's a couple of missles launched by a lesser power.
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchel) (07/05/90)
In article <1990Jul3.143206.940@acc.stolaf.edu> sobiloff@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy) writes: >>I'm more used to Windows >>(although I'm typing this between crashes on a IIfx) and find many aspects >>of the Mac interface different, confusing, and at times limited. > >How so (esp. limited)? I am a big Mac fan, but I am realistic enough to recognize the deficiencies as well as the stregths of the Mac. Among the limitations: - No standard command line interface. A BIG minus for many power users. Try deleting a number of files in nested directories that satisfy some search criterion with a single command. Try opening the directory window on your hard disk when the screen is filled with a Word4 window (without moving/resizing the Word window). Lets be realistic - the Mac interface is among the best, but has many flaws too. >-- >Global warming--what a crock! Remember 10 years ago when the cause of the year > was global cooling? Let's get some real evidence first, folks... Ever seen any of the models that show what could happen if the global warming projections are correct? Some well founded models project a "runaway" effect. One of the concerns is as follows: Methane is one of the best greenhouse gasses. It is produced by rotting organic material (among other things). The hotter the environment, the faster methane is produced. More methane means even hotter environment. Runnaway system. (I have radically over-simplified this model). My company does a lot of work with satellite image processing, and we are involved in studying global change. If you saw some of the models I have you would realize that we *may* live in an unstable equilibrium. If this is the case (it may not be), the right nudge can produce a radical change in state in our environment (go study chaos systems for relevant material). We have a much more fragile ecosystem than most people recognize. Some people seem to want to wait until the planet is visibly dying before we start worrying. That can be much too late. Over the course of a generation our planet could look like Mars. * NO JOKE * Remember, holes in the ozone layer were once a "crock". Talk to the Australians and ask how they feel about it now (note: I just returned from there). >Now, more than ever, we need SDI. Why? The threat isn't a massive strike by the > Soviets anymore, it's a couple of missles launched by a lesser power. If lesser powers get N-weapons, the last thing we need to worry about is missiles. All they need to do is put a bomb in a suitcase on any cargo ship steaming into New York harbour. Lets face it folks, there ain't no protection. Spend the trillions on something useful. Flame me if you will, but lets take it to email, or whatever. Eric =========================================================================== Disclaimer: If I could get anybody else to accept responsibility for my opinions, I would.
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/05/90)
sobiloff@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy) writes: >The MacFans out in net.land use the word Macintosh to describe the proper way >of maintaining consistency and ease-of-use in an interface. So, when they (and >I) say that Windows isn't Mac-like, what they are saying is that the >level of consistency and ease-of-use is not up to the Macintosh's levels. So Apple has a copyright on consistency and ease-of-use. I am impressed. Wolfgang Strobl
brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (07/05/90)
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchel) writes: >Remember, holes in the ozone layer were once a "crock". Talk to the >Australians and ask how they feel about it now (note: I just returned >from there). Just thought I aught to endorse this as a genuine Ozzie. Though I think it strange that all the ozone destroyers released in the Northern hemisphere cause a hole over Antartica and Tasmania. We are pretty pissed off I can tell you. French bombs go home! -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz | Department of Computer Science | University of Queensland | Australia |
ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ((C. Irby)) (07/05/90)
In article <2986@gmdzi.UUCP>, strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > sobiloff@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy) writes: > >>The MacFans out in net.land use the word Macintosh to describe the proper way >>of maintaining consistency and ease-of-use in an interface. So, when they (and >>I) say that Windows isn't Mac-like, what they are saying is that the >>level of consistency and ease-of-use is not up to the Macintosh's levels. > > So Apple has a copyright on consistency and ease-of-use. I am impressed. > No copyright- but a monopoly so far... > Wolfgang Strobl -- \ C Irby \ "The following will be a test of the ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu \ Emergency .Signature System. ac08@untvax \ This is only a test. \ Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep." \
awessels@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (07/05/90)
In article <886@mdavcr.UUCP> ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchel) writes: > satisfy some search criterion with a single command. Try opening > the directory window on your hard disk when the screen is filled > with a Word4 window (without moving/resizing the Word window). > Lets be realistic - the Mac interface is among the best, but has I'll agree that the Mac could use a good CLI. However, just as DOS has utilities that would allow you to delete wildcard files across directories, the Mac has utilities that let you do similar manipulations. There is a program called Batfiler that I think allows you to do the delete. Your window problem is easily solved. Using Layout 1.9 or RedEdit, modify the LAYO resource in the Finder to allow a double click on the title bar of an open window to open the parent window (Finder windows, of course). This works very well for me. From my point of view, Apple's biggest problem is that it seems to think that if it isn't obvious how to do something with the Mac, then nobody needs to know about it. Ever tried to thread the Aple tech support maze? Good luck. - Allen
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/05/90)
ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ((C. Irby)) writes: >In article <2986@gmdzi.UUCP>, strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >> sobiloff@agnes.acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy) writes: >> >>>The MacFans out in net.land use the word Macintosh to describe the proper way >>>of maintaining consistency and ease-of-use in an interface. So, when they (and >>>I) say that Windows isn't Mac-like, what they are saying is that the >>>level of consistency and ease-of-use is not up to the Macintosh's levels. >> >> So Apple has a copyright on consistency and ease-of-use. I am impressed. >> >No copyright- but a monopoly so far... So the MacFans out there have a monopoly on a certain terminology. I am even more impressed. Wolfgang Strobl
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (07/06/90)
In article <1915@runxtsa.runx.oz.au> clubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Club Mac, Australia's Largest Mac Users Group) writes: >In article <40218215MES@MSU> 18215MES@MSU.BITNET writes: >>I read a rumor somewhere - Infoworld ? - that suggested that >>Microsoft will merge DOS into Windows..... >>It will no longer be a windowing environ running on top of DOS... >> >>There goes the 20% that Windows 3.0 couldn't do that the Mac could... >> >>It's probably a long way off, but lets start worring now! > >Merging DOS into Windoze is like wrapping a cheap fibreglass shell around a >Yugo engine, and calling it a Ferrari... Very bad/misleading analogy. DOS does not drive/power Windows at all. DOS provides file access--period. Everything else is done through Windows itself. In fact, there is only one Windows internal function I know of that uses DOS--OpenFile. >Jason Haines
sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Sho Kuwamoto) (07/06/90)
In article <1915@runxtsa.runx.oz.au> clubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Club Mac, Australia's Largest Mac Users Group) writes: >Merging DOS into Windoze is like wrapping a cheap fibreglass shell around a >Yugo engine, and calling it a Ferrari... I don't mean to pick on any one poster, but I feel we should try to keep this type of comment to a minimum. There seem to be *some* people here who are knowledgable about Windows 3.0, and I for one am very curious about what capabilities it has. I don't mean to sound high-and-mighty, but if this turns into a flame war, it's not going to do anyone a hell of a lot of good. Now for some content. I'd like to know more about the Windows architecture from a programmer's point of view. I liked the discussions of the printer drivers and resource handling. What other capabilities does Windows 3.0 offer to the programmer? Graphics, presumably, are device independent. Are there things analogous to cdev's, or do you have to pop up a window for a TSR by hitting ctrl-alt-hyper-meta-slash? Is there any other non-obvious functionality which Windows 3.0 provides? Let me explain by example. From where I sit, I can guess that it makes it easier to use fonts. However, I have no idea if it makes it easier to deal with arrays of screen objects (like the List Manager) sound, whatever. Does Windows require you to write your own event loop, does it use callbacks, or does it use some sort of object oriented design? -Sho -- sho@risc.com <<-- questions, questions.
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/07/90)
sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Sho Kuwamoto) writes: >Now for some content. I'd like to know more about the Windows >architecture from a programmer's point of view. I liked the >discussions of the printer drivers and resource handling. What other >capabilities does Windows 3.0 offer to the programmer? Graphics, >presumably, are device independent. Are there things analogous to >cdev's, or do you have to pop up a window for a TSR by hitting >ctrl-alt-hyper-meta-slash? Is there any other non-obvious >functionality which Windows 3.0 provides? Let me explain by example. >From where I sit, I can guess that it makes it easier to use fonts. >However, I have no idea if it makes it easier to deal with arrays of >screen objects (like the List Manager) sound, whatever. I will try to answer some of your questions. I cannot tell you much about the API of Windows 3, because I don't have the Windows 3 SDK, yet. My own experience comes from using the Windows 2 SDK. The basic architecture hasn't changed much since Windows 1, anyway. Device independent graphics Graphics are handled in a device independent way, so a program can draw (and type) something into a device without knowing about device specifics like aspect ratio, resolution of the device, what colors the device supports, which fonts it has, and the result looks more or less the same on all devices. This works only on a best fit base, sometimes. Windows approximates colors with dithering, uses a hardware font which is nearest to your specification "12pt, light, italic, sansserif font" for example, or it uses one it's builtin raster fonts, if there is nothing else available. Windows queries the device driver about it's graphic capabilities (installed hardware fonts, whether it can draw a circle, whether it supports or needs banding) and hides much of that from the programmer by simulating the missing parts. But while a program CAN produce device independent output, this is not enforced. The program can ask Windows about the capabilities of the current output device and change it's behavior dependent on the result. A common example is that a text processor or drawing program lets a user select from the font list it got from the printer driver. cdev's. Sorry, I don't know what cdev's are. "TSR" is of course the (in)famous Terminate and Stay Resident routine. What does a cdev do, and what is it used for? Non obvious functionality. Two somehow related but often overlooked features of Windows are it's multitasking and that it's takes advantage of the segmented architecture of the 80x86 processors. Windows had to squeeze everything into what MSDOS leaves from the 640KByte. Windows itself would not fit into the remaining space. There had something to be done in order to run more than one application in this space, concurrently, especially when the OS itself (here: Windows) has to compete with its applications for memory. Most code of Windows and of WIndows applications is reentrant and moveable. Bigger applications and Windows itself consist of many small code segments, which are loaded and discarded on demand. It is sufficient to have space for the largest code segment of an application (plus data, of course), in order to run it. An application does not hold pointers to memory for a long time, they use handles, instead, which have to be locked in order to get to the pointer. A memory block can be marked as "discardable", if the application can reconstruct its content. Windows does not normally preserve the content of a window, because this may need to much memory, and an application has to be able to reconstruct the window content anyway. As long as an application restricts itself to the so called Small Memory Model, where all pointer are 16-Bit offsets from segments, Windows has to manipulate the segment registers only, in order to move code and data around. This is fast, and the application does not have to do anything to make it work. If the application has special needs, it can allocate global memory using a far (i.e. 16+16) bit pointer. But then it has either to allocate it fixed (not moveable), or it has to use the proper lock/unlock sequence. Code can be placed in Dynamic Link Libraries, which are just files which contain programs - or better: collections of functions - which cannot be run standalone, but operate using the stack of the calling application. The important point here is that the code of a DLL is shared by all running applications which use it. Windows itself is a collection of such DLL's. Printer drivers are DLL's with a known set of entry points. Many major applications consist of a set of DLL's and one ore more programs using these DLL's. Arrays of screen objects Windows windows are instances of a window class. A window class is a name, a window function and some data. Windows communicate per messages, which are handled by the window function of it's class. Windows can have childs. A child lives on the surface of its parent. A window does it work by creating childs and let them do the work, or by reacting to messages it gets sent by its childs, for example. MS Windows takes care about which window gets which message, and queues a few of them. Sound There is a little know set of Windows functions which seems to be written with a polyphonic sound chip in mind. Its works, but is not much used, because the only sound hardware in common use on PC's it not worth to mention it. >Does Windows require you to write your own event loop, does it use >callbacks, or does it use some sort of object oriented design? Yes, yes and yes (-: You have to write your own event loop, but it normally does not contain any special code, i.e. the standard Windows message loop while(GetMessage(&msg,NULL,0,0)) { TransLateMessage(&msg); DispatchMessage(&msg); } or a slightly more complicated version of it fit for most applications. The three above functions are Windows functions. The loop removes messages from the application message queue and dispatches it to the window function it belongs to. This is handled by Windows. Window functions are callback functions. They have all the same parameter list, which consists of a handle to the own window (the "self", or "this"), the most important parts of the above &msg structure: message id and two parameters whos content depend on the message. A window functions processes some of the messages it gets (by sending messages to other windows or even to itself, and hands all other messages to the default window function DefWindowProc (by calling it with the same list of parameters). This is a kind of one level subclassing. By replacing the window function of a window class with one which processes some of the messages and calls the original one for all others, it is possible to get more levels of subclassing. I leave it to you whether you call this "object oriented". Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Sho Kuwamoto) (07/10/90)
In article <3053@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >Sorry, I don't know what cdev's are. "TSR" is of course the (in)famous >Terminate and Stay Resident routine. What does a cdev do, and what >is it used for? A cdev is a control panel device. The control panel is used by the user to control aspects of the mac's behavior. Key repeat time, mouse speed, etc. For a number of years now, the control panel has been modular. It is relatively simple to write a module for the control panel when appropriate. It is common to use the control panel to control the functionality of an init. For example, my screen blanker can be set through my control panel. I can tell it how long to wait until blanking the screen, etc. This is a minor point, but it's just one thing I happened to find annoying on PCs running DOS. If I wanted to change the behavior of a TSR, I had to remember what key sequence would pop up the menu for that TSR. >Bigger applications and Windows itself >consist of many small code segments, which are loaded and discarded >on demand. This sounds very similar to how it's done on the mac. >An application does not hold pointers to memory for a long >time, they use handles, instead, which have to be locked in order >to get to the pointer. A memory block can be marked as "discardable", >if the application can reconstruct its content. Windows does >not normally preserve the content of a window, because this >may need to much memory, and an application has to be >able to reconstruct the window content anyway. This does as well. >The important point here is that the code of a DLL is shared >by all running applications which use it. Windows itself is a >collection of such DLL's. Printer drivers are DLL's >with a known set of entry points. Many major applications >consist of a set of DLL's and one ore more programs using >these DLL's. We don't have any sort of dynamic linking on the mac, but then again, all the windowing routines are in ROM, so it's not real important. >>Does Windows require you to write your own event loop, does it use >>callbacks, or does it use some sort of object oriented design? > >Yes, yes and yes (-: > >You have to write your own event loop, but it normally does >not contain any special code, i.e. the standard Windows message loop > while(GetMessage(&msg,NULL,0,0)) > { TransLateMessage(&msg); > DispatchMessage(&msg); > } Much simpler than the code for mac applications. In some ways, I'd like to see a complete revamping of the entire mac ROM. Then again, I think of the headaches that would cause... -Sho -- sho@risc.com
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/14/90)
sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Sho Kuwamoto) writes: >In article <3053@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >>Sorry, I don't know what cdev's are. "TSR" is of course the (in)famous >>Terminate and Stay Resident routine. What does a cdev do, and what >>is it used for? >A cdev is a control panel device. The control panel is used by the >user to control aspects of the mac's behavior. Key repeat time, mouse >speed, etc. For a number of years now, the control panel has been >modular. It is relatively simple to write a module for the control >panel when appropriate. It is common to use the control panel to >control the functionality of an init. For example, my screen blanker >can be set through my control panel. I can tell it how long to wait >until blanking the screen, etc. This is a minor point, but it's just >one thing I happened to find annoying on PCs running DOS. If I wanted >to change the behavior of a TSR, I had to remember what key sequence >would pop up the menu for that TSR. Having a modular control panel is a nice thing. I prefer to have the intialization/configuration bound to the application itself (remember: almost everything is an application under Windows). And, please, don't compare the Mac to a PC without Windows. This is unfair. >>... >This sounds very similar to how it's done on the mac. >>... >This does as well. But that was my point: I was arguing against the statment that Windows has an inferior and completely different architecture. Both the user interface and the interface to the programmer are different, but both architectures share a lot of concepts. >>The important point here is that the code of a DLL is shared >>by all running applications which use it. Windows itself is a >>collection of such DLL's. Printer drivers are DLL's >>with a known set of entry points. Many major applications >>consist of a set of DLL's and one ore more programs using >>these DLL's. >We don't have any sort of dynamic linking on the mac, but then again, >all the windowing routines are in ROM, so it's not real important. But the printer drivers, for example, are not in ROM. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>