Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!quasi-eli!cs.yale.edu!favorini-francis From: favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: give me solid facts: why is the mac better than MeSsy DOS/WINDOWS Message-ID: <29159@cs.yale.edu> Date: 1 Mar 91 16:24:20 GMT References: <91058.234938CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> <11628@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> <4176@gmdzi.gmd.de> Sender: news@cs.yale.edu Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158 Lines: 160 Nntp-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu Originator: favorini@suned.CS.Yale.Edu In article <4176@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >dmittman@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Mittman) writes: > >>Can we truly expect people to purchase new versions of software they >>already have, just to have a common look and feel between applications on >>a PC? > >No, we can't. Neither can we expect people to purchase new versions of >hardware and software they already have, just to have a common look and >feel between applications. > >But sometimes people buy *new* software. In this case, there is a strong >tendency to buy software which actually *uses* the hardware they already >have. > This is THE FUNDAMENTAL problem with Windows. You can't do everything you want to do in it. There are many DOS programs which outperform and out feature the Windows counterparts. (Sure, plenty go the other way too -- that's the problem.) I like to word process in AmiPro in Windows. I use PageMaker in Windows. Then I have to get out to use Paradox (a database), and don't tell me I can run it in a DOS subtask of Windows, because Windows hogs all the extended memory and Paradox runs with a pitifully small amount. Not to mention compiler/interpreter environments. You have to exit Windows to use most(all?) of them, too. Switching from DOS to Windows and back is a pain. Sometimes Windows trashes the machines memory/ports/environment enough that you must reboot to use another DOS program. HASSLE! Of course all this is to use an inferior GUI anyhow. See below for details. >>Also, lets remember that all Macintosh models (I think, at least most) can >>run MultiFinder. To use Windows (use = speed, etc.) I believe that a '286 >>machine is necessary. Apple is to be congratulated on maintaining >>compatibility between system versions for applications designed to the >>guidelines. > >All PC clones with enough memory can run Windows. For using Windows a >80286 is *not* necessary. In fact, I know somebody who uses an eight >year old 4.77 MHz XT clone to write reports, using Windows-Write. > >Of course, in order to get decent performance, a 80286 with 1 MB is >recommended. Such machines exist nearly as long as the Mac does. >Finally, Windows offers similar upward compatibility between system >versions. Windows on an XT must be excruciatingly slow! I'm running it on a network of 20MHz 386 machines and I still find myself waiting for scrolling, menu pull-downs, and window opens more than on my Mac II at home, and more than I can stand sometimes. These things are still tolerable (i.e. better than on my 386 for the most part) on my friend's Mac Plus. Note that I am talking about elements of the GUI and NOT how fast the machines can recalculate my Excel worksheets. (Here the 386 blows away the Plus, but the II wins by a neck [probably because it has a better math coprocessor].) Other things that bug me about Windows: 1) Program Manager and File Manager are separate programs. This is ridiculous. Imagine having Finder broken up into two parts. One which has a (one level) file/folder metaphor and lets you launch apps. The other has a tree hierarchy and lets you look at data files (and apps), but doesn't use icons at all. (And takes at least 30 seconds to read in the structure of our file server everytime you start it up!!) This dichotomy is unnatural and bogus. I don't like using it, so I often drop into DOS to use a "more primitive" file manipulator, EVEN when I'm in Windows. 2) Small, crippled DOS memory limits (640K). It is a huge pain to diddle around with expanded memory and extended memory. They are NOT the same (very subtle). Not to mention High DOS memory. Windows has its own way to do it, that often conflicts with the way third party extended memory managers like to do things. You try to figure out why your database won't run your 80k program when you have 5 megs of extended and 3 megs of expanded RAM. 3) Different video modes. I don't want to have to configure my software everytime I move from my VGA monitor to the machine in the other room running with EGA or MCGA or Hercules, etc. 4) More klunky/less standardized GUI. Every Windows program I've used has a slightly different way to implement the standard file dialogue. Sometimes you can use the letter keys to go right to a file, sometimes the files and directories(folders) are in two different scrolling lists, sometimes one (at the end or beginning, but never mixed). You get the idea. This defeats the purpose of a standard. You still have to remember how this or that particular program does things. I don't mean to say there is no standard, but there isn't enough of one, and the goes a long way to being the same thing. 5) Someone mentioned ResEdit and resources. I don't think there is a program like ResEdit for Windows that can be run by anyone (brave enough) on a program after its components have been assembled. I.e. a developer can add/change resources and send out various language version without rewriting code, but an end user cannot change Save from Ctrl-S to Ctrl-Z or put the File menu in Swahili. Correct me if I am wrong. 6) Windows crashes much more than my Mac at home. And I have 27 INIT running at home! Windows will crash about once or twice a week during seemingly normal and mundane operations like typing scrolling. It crashed even more often after you have installed new software (I mean just plain old apps) until you have tweaked WIN.INI, CONFIG.SYS, and AUTOEXEC.BAT enough. This is a major hassle. I have never had my Mac crash more often just because I installed a new applications (INIT maybe, app no way). 7) Installation programs/procedures. In the vast majority of cases a Windows or DOS program must be INSTALLED. This means that mere mortals can't do it without assistance from an installer program which mucks around with WIN.INI, CONFIG.SYS, and AUTOEXEC.BAT, sometimes telling you, sometimes not. Then you have to go in and undo any possible damage, because you have two different programs with potentially conflicting operating parameters. 8) Fonts on screen. They aren't as nice as on my Mac(no ATM). The characters actually move around ak{lot horizontally as you type. Very disconcerting. Not as WYSIWYG as the Mac. Note: A friend of mine at Microsoft tells me that some of these problems will be fixed in Windows 3.1 (specifically the Program/File Manager thing will improve). Also DOS 5.0 gets rid of the 640K barrier at least partly. Someone else may have more info on this. However, these improvements won't be available until Q3 or Q4 1991. And then they will finally bring things to the level of the Mac approx. 5 years ago. Things I like about Windows: 1) Better multi-tasking than Multifinder on the Mac. I.e. regular programs can run in the background, not just print spoolers, etc. (Note that I mean actually run, not just sit there as in Multifinder.) 2) Better interface than DOS. That's about it. In my book that makes it inferior to the Mac interface. Many of Windows problems come from having to live with DOS. This is an ancient OS (12 years, I think), designed for a bygone computing era. It is time to get rid of it. Until Microsoft does, they will have only a nice kludge. I should point out that most of my comments have to do with PCs running Windows, as I feel that DOS as an interface is slightly better than a typewriter. I mean you tell me what kind of disk "FORMAT /N:9" formats. Note that I am not afraid of command lines. I like Unix. Not for its interface, but for its power. I have constructed many a pipe of more than four filters. And some even did what I wanted ;-). DOS is like Unix, but without the power. I also program for both Macs and PCs (but not Windows). Disclaimer: I use both Macs and PCs. I like Macs better. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ Francis Favorini favorini@cs.yale.edu favorini@yalecs.bitnet ...!yale!favorini