Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!unido!gmdzi!strobl From: strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: give me solid facts: why is the mac better than MeSsy DOS/WINDOWS Message-ID: <4196@gmdzi.gmd.de> Date: 3 Mar 91 04:28:31 GMT References: <91058.234938CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> <11628@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> <4176@gmdzi.gmd.de> <29159@cs.yale.edu> Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, F. R. Germany Lines: 255 favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: >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. You misunderstood my argument. The current version of Windows and in consequence its applications use the actual PC hardware (286-486, 2-20 MB) much better that the usual old DOS applications. Windows applications don't have to resort to all these little tricks which where necessary to squeeze a program into the 640k box, and which made these programs incompatible with each other. It does quite a good job to emulate the old DOS environment, if somebody wants to run an old application. Sometimes it fails, but so what? Do you judge the Macintosh environment by looking at its PC emulators? Surely not! Your above problem with Paradox is ill described by "because Windows hogs all the extended memory". Actually, Windows manages all the extended memory and gives it to applications - including old DOS applications - on demand. The problem is, Paradox does not use this interface. It uses an older interface to get the memory and manages that memory itself. Windows isn't the only environment where such ill behaved programs give you headaches. Speaking of compilers: I'm using mostly Zortech C and C++ to develop Windows applications. I do this in a DOS box under Windows, because these compilers run in protected mode, have access to 20 MByte virtual memory and can compile programs of unlimited size, that way. >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. Inferior to what? To a mixture of Paradox and your favorite menu system? If all you need is a task switcher for old DOS applications, there are better options than using Windows. Don't blame Windows because you seleted the wrong tool. >>>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].) The bottleneck for the GUI operations you describe as to slow (scrolling, menu pull-down, ...) is the video card, which is slow and dumb, usually. You did not mention what brand of video card you use, but I would assume the problem there. >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. You're right, both programs leave something to be desired. Other companies have started to sell replacement shells. So far, I like none of them, so I stay with the above two programs. I don't share your opinion that having *two* such programs is a bad thing. > 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. See above. All this has nothing to do with Windows. Windows has no 640K limit. It does not use different kinds of memory. It emulates all kinds of quirks / bugs / features / interfaces an old DOS application may expect, mostly successfull, sometimes unsuccessfull. But this emulation feature is not the central feature of Windows, it's an ad on, a migration path. > 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. Windows programs don't need that. In fact, a Windows program has no way of obtaining the video mode it is running in. > > 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. I have changed my opinion about this point a few times now. A standard file dialogue is simpler both for the programmer and for the the user. But this "one size fits all" approach does not encourage the development of spezialized file dialogues, which are optimized to the actual context. Windows offers a set of building blocks for file dialogues, which in fact allow all the variations you describe above. Because I was tired of writing the same file dialogue again and again, I started to write my own "standard file dialogue" some time ago. I finally gave up, because I noticed that the code which is really common between the file dialogue code of different applications is not much - most is handled by the above building blocks, and the specialized pars - a "file manager" button here, a "preview" button and a preview window there - differ. > 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. I have heard that some company sells a resource editor, and I think it is not overly difficult to write one, but I did not check. No, you're right here, without support from the programmer, the user cannot modify resources. I'm not sure that he should. > 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). Such statements are very hard to verify. A fair comparison would be running Windows with Windows applications only and then comparing. Many old DOS applications are buggy in the sense that they contain spurious reads or writes which hit ROM other places where it does no harm, so that these bugs get unnoticed. Windows in Enhanced mode is able to detect such illegal operations sometimes, and tries to terminate the offending application, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. > 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. This is really a problem. But I don't know how it should be solved without going the Apple or the IBM way, i.e. having one hardware supplier controlling the system. > 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. Tools which move the 640K barier a little bit are in common use for some time now - what Microsoft now integrates in DOS 5.0 is not at all new. And it is in no way related to Windows itself, only to its ability to run old DOS applications. I don't understand what that ability of Windows has to do with the level of the Mac 5 years ago. You compare apples and oranges. >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.) Huh? My understanding was that background applications continue to run under the Multifinder, too. > 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. Many of Windows problems are related to DOS. But you don't have to live with most of them, because they only occur if you continue to run old DOS applications. If you don't, the only thing Windows inherits from DOS is the file system. Microsoft already tried the switch to a new operating system. This seems not so simple as it sounds. Wolfgang Strobl #include