Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.hardware:9150 comp.sys.mac.misc:9174 Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!sgi!silvlis.com!jimb From: jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: MS-DOS -- Just say "Why?" Message-ID: <1991Mar6.110826.11844@silvlis.com> Date: 6 Mar 91 11:08:26 GMT References: <13297@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> Sender: usenet@silvlis.com (USENET news maint) Organization: Silvar-Lisco, Inc. Lines: 327 I'm probably going to regret this. The post which I'm following up appears to refer to one I made earlier. Maybe I'm wrong. In article <13297@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) writes: > > >Dear fellow readers of comp.sys.mac.groups, > >If I may "vent" on the comparison between DOS and Mac, I'd appreciate it. >First of all, there is literally no comparison between the Macintosh >and any MS-DOS machine. It just doesn't work. As a 4 year veteran >Macintosh user and "informed" pseudo-member of the personal computing >industry, I feel obligated to clarify a few things. There are of course many possible comparisons. Trying to deny them is futile. I'm sorry you only have 4 years using this great computer. You missed those wonderous first two years. >The Macintosh has no GUI built on top of it. Let's clarify this right now. The Mac most certainly does have a GUI built on top of it. >The Macintosh sports Apple's Human Interface (commonly called the >"Macintosh Interface," yet it's used on the Apple IIGS, don't forget), >and the Human Interface is implimented at the ROM level in the >Toolbox code. Wrong. The Human Interface is not in the ROM. The ROM contains a Toolbox of routines, some of which are optimized to assist in the intended GUI, but neither the full GUI, nor the Apple Human Interface are in the ROM. > The Macintosh is never in a "text/debug" state where >you are given a "joe text screen." MacsBug, which loads at boot time, >draws a graphical screen -- it's in Geneva 9 font. This is not >a "text mode" that the Macintosh "drops into." I beg to differ. The only thing graphical on the macsbug screen is the lines between the "windows". The information output is all in text, and the input is all by the keyboard in text. The font is just a bitmap, just like the font bitmap in an ascii terminal, maybe a slightly prettier bitmap. A vt100 can draw the same output. And certainly with the older Macs you can attach an ascii terminal and run the ROM debugger from it. > Sure, you can have little >dinks like "Oasis," but that's just the Mac interface at work once again. It uses the Toolbox, certainly, but not the GUI. >You can run under MPW or an A/UX shell and type commands -- doesn't matter. >These are "command-line" interfaces to the Macintosh, and should not >be interpreted as being "alternatives" to the Macintosh interface. Why not?!? I don't know anything about MPW, or even the latest A/UX, but the previous A/UX booted to a login prompt, which was identical to the login prompt on a PC running SCO unix. If you login, and never run a graphics program you are sitting at a dumb Unix terminal. There is no GUI. >If you want the Human Interface to disappear, blow out your screen >or close your eyes. You cannot escape it. Just run A/UX, and never run a Mac graphics program, and you have escaped into a fast Unix machine. No Apple Human Interface. To use your words, let's clarify this right now. The Toolbox in the ROM is not a GUI. It's a set of calls to perform tasks. They include a set of tasks which closely match those needed to implement the Apple Human Interface GUI. The Apple Human Interface is a GUI plus other UI. GUI means Graphical User Interface. The Apple Human Interface contains guidelines for writing programs with consistent Human Interface. They are not all graphical. Your contention that text is not text because it is drawn graphically is bogus. Text is text. > >As far as "modes" are concerned, the Macintosh is fortunate to have >been developed as a virtually "modeless" screen. Where MS-DOS >applications tend to lack event loops and the like, the Macintosh >is basically an event-oriented system; you do whatever you like >whenever you like, and the machine handles these events as they >come. No more "Do 1 to Quit, 2 to Run, 3 to..." You get the point. No, I don't. Windows has event loops. Windows is event oriented. The Mac implements events in the ROM, but they don't have to be used. A/UX doesn't until you start up a Mac graphics program. >As far as graphics are concerned, QuickDraw is wonderful, and once >you get into it, not very hard at all to program. Beats the hell out >of different hardware cards/configurations, etc. On a Macintosh, >you don't have to worry about which video card is installed, which >resolution you have, etc -- if you develop your applications properly, >they look the same on any other Macintosh. One paragraph I can agree with completely. >Macintosh may be "held back" by this fact, yet it's truly amazing that >the Macintosh is almost 100% backward compatible. I'm not talkinga bout >"this app. is a color one and needs color; it won't work with this mac," but >rather the mere fact that applications that were written and compiled >in 1984 will still run on my Macintosh IIfx under System 7.0b3. To me, No where near 100% compatible. I have lots of early 1984 programs which won't run under 6.0.5. But so what? I can find lots of early DOS programs for an original PC and DOS 1.0 that will still run under DOS 4.0.1 on a 486. I don't want to get into a percentage war on this. Any system which can retain over 50% compatibility through CPU changes and major OS revisions is doing great. Unfortunately for your argument both Mac and DOS succeeded at that. > You can take >basically any application from one machine to another, regardless of >configuration, and use it. This is wonderful, and not always the case >with the MS-DOS world. e.g., old 5.25" disks, etc. Trivial, or is it petty? If you're going to mention a problem solvable with a $75 add on disk drive, then maybe I can mention a compatibility issue for which there is not yet a solution on the Mac: 32 bit Color Quickdraw in ROM. > [ lots of stuff about wonderful System 7.0 vaporware deleted ] > "tools" across all major applications), etc. System 7.0 is a new level of functionality that IBM/MS-DOS users will NEVER approach. Apple, Never is a real long time 8^) >with 7.0, has pushed Macintosh technology way past what was initially >devised in 1984 and lately refined in 6.0.7 and earlier releases. 7.0 is >literally incredible. If you're going to bitch about it requiring 2MB of RAM, >I'm sorry -- go out and buy some -- it's not that expensive anymore -- if you >think it is, you're living in the past. Nobody is going to force you to change >over to 7.0 -- it's a natrual process. Applications and other people will be >able to do things you can't, and you'll re-think your stubbornness. Whew aren't you arrogant? [ more one sided arguments about RAM usage deleted ] > >As for you MS-DOS users, I'm sorry, but you just don't have the power that >we Macintosh users do. Arguing that your machines "crunch numbers" faster >isn't really all that true -- the Motorola math chips are usually faster. I'm sorry, guy. It's really all that true. I can go buy a $1800 33 MHz 386 DOS machine that'll blow the doors off of my $4000 Mac II. Or for $2500 I can get a 486 and do still better. >Arguing that your machines draw screens faster may sometimes be true -- >it doesn't take all that much processing time to flip on a boring page of >text, does it? Arguing that your i486 will beat the Mac is bull, for >the Motorola 68040 has been proven the winner there. Trying to say that Well, gee where did you get a 68040? Apple isn't selling any yet. The 486 on the other hand is widely available. >Windows is "the cure all for MS-DOS" is also a crock, for I've used >Win3, and it's truly a kludge. :) Hey, at least the IBM world >will have one thing to look forward to -- Microsoft will be using >Apple's TrueType font technology in future versions of Windows. Windows may not be a cure all, but it addresses all your arguments except the CPU question. It doesn't solve them, but it addresses them. The technology is in place, perhaps straining to approach the level of Macintosh System 1.1 in some areas, and exceeding System 6 in others. Windows 4 may be here before Macintosh System 7 is, so who knows what the future holds? >Take care & have a good time with your "falsely fast" machines -- >put unix on a Mac and it's fast -- draw text on a Mac, it's fast... I'm sorry, but again, I can buy a fast 386 or 486 cheaper than a MacII(generic), put Unix on it and be faster than a MacII with Unix that I would pay more for. True, I may not be as fast as "your" MacIIfx, but I'd be faster than a MacII that cost more than the 386 or 486. > >Try rendering a 3d image (ray-trace) on your IBM, No thanks, I'll use a Sparcstation instead, and it's cheaper than your IIfx for me, since I don't have a lovely University Mac discount, but do have a nice Sun discount. Or maybe I'd use an Apollo. >Try building applications that can talk to virtually any other >applications. OK, I'll just fire up Windows. > Try sharing files from your Macintosh with >just system software. I assume you mean Personal Appleshare, which is part of System 7, which is vaporware, therefore I can't do it on my Mac either. > Network your machines by buying cables >and little connections boxes. I dare you. You're half right on this one. You can network them cheaply and slowly with Localtalk. But the data rate is terrible, and it costs as much to equip a Mac network with Ethertalk as it does to equip a PC network with Ethernet. >Ahead of you MS-DOS users (and besides, I can run it in emulation in a >window with SoftPC 1.4) -- at 40MHz, my IIfx seems to do a pretty good job >of emulating DOS -- then again, it doesn't take much power, does it?! But why? You don't like DOS. Seriously though, if you need to use DOS more than occasionally, it doesn't cost much more to buy a decent 286 machine than SoftPC costs. And then my wife can use DOS without getting in the way of my using the Mac. And if she's using the Mac I can go play Minesweeper on the PC. >Steve Klingsporn > >From: klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) >Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.system >Subject: MS-DOS -- just say "Why?!" >References: >Sender: >Followup-To: >Distribution: world >Organization: Colorado State University >Keywords: > [ Second copy of entire post deleted, you should check your posting software ] There are also reasons to buy DOS machines, often cost. I'll repeat what I said in an earlier post: For $1500 I can equip a desk with: a) Mac Classic, one application or b) Fast 286, mouse, Windows, one application i) I can tell you, the Mac will be easier to learn, far more consistent on its user interface. ii) The PC will be faster, and have a larger screen. ( And yes it will be faster. A 16MHz 286 is demonstratably faster than a Mac Classic. It also could be color) The Mac will also be much easier to set up, but this often isn't really an important qualification. Remember, I said I could equip a desk. I'm not going to use it, my job is providing resources for users. Those users only care about the applications and the results, not the machine. And they generally prefer the large screen, now that WYSIWYG and style is available under Windows. They will not care how much harder it is to set up, after all that's what I get paid for. You, and even I, may feel sorry for those poor computer illiterates who don't recognize the benefits of the Macintosh, but they will still blissfully take their paychecks home for a job well done. Please, please don't use arrogant and specious arguments to attempt to justify Mac vs. PC. The Mac doesn't need them. Your valid arguments seem to me to come to: 1. MacIIfx can draw 3d Ray Trace better than a DOS machine. My Analysis: If you have the Apple accelerated graphics board, they can get RISC graphics accelerators, also. Without the accelerators, CPU wins, your 40MHz IIfx will beat a 33 MHz 486, but will it beat a 50 MHz 486? In University discount land, your 40 MHz IIfx will beat anything available for the price. Out in the "real" world, I may be able to get a RISC accelerated 386 cheaper than I can get an unaccelerated MacIIfx. 2. The Macintosh user interface is more consistent and easy to use than the DOS or Windows interface. My Analysis: A clear win, even over Windows. In fact extending the argument beyond personal computers, the Mac Interface is more consistent than Motif, or Open Look. New Wave may be the closest. 3. Quickdraw is the greatest graphical toolset. My Analysis: Other than knowing Quickdraw is a graphical toolset, and should be compared to the X11 intrinsics, and the Windows intrinsics, not to the Mac GUI or the Windows GUI or to other GUI's I don't know which toolset is better. My final analysis: Quit being so damn arrogant and argumentative. Some of us out here in the Mac land love the Mac every bit as much as you do. But we work in an environment containing both Macs and PCs, and even other computers, and we know where each can work. And we are constrained by cost. And I'm personally sorry about it but I can put a large screen 286 Windows machine with a word processor and a spreadsheet on a secretary's desk for less than I can put a large screen Mac with the same software on his/her desk. I can even add color and presentation software, and still beat the Mac cost. And the job will get done. I'm sorry also for the fact that my personal time and effort to set this secretary up will be about 10-15x time spent to configure the PC over the Mac. But over a 2 year use span it still doesn't cover the additional cost of even a MacLC, the minimum large screen Mac. jim P.S. Someday I'll learn not to read Mac groups at night.... -- __ __ / o / Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com | Proud / / /\/\ /__ Silvar-Lisco, Inc. +1.408.991.6115 | MacIIsi /__/ / / / /__/ 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 | owner