Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!eos!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!jessica.stanford.edu!aaron From: aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Rumor -> Loss of Mac's 20% advantage over Windows 3.0 Message-ID: <1990Jun29.181438.28403@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 29 Jun 90 18:14:38 GMT References: <40218215MES@MSU> <42382@apple.Apple.COM> <42383@apple.Apple.COM> <1990Jun27.180718.3155@portia.Stanford.EDU> <22943@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <2590@network.ucsd.edu> <28411.268ab266@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> Sender: Aaron Wallace Organization: Academic Information Resources, Stanford University Lines: 152 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