Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!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: <29227@cs.yale.edu> Date: 5 Mar 91 03:17:18 GMT References: <4176@gmdzi.gmd.de> <29159@cs.yale.edu> <4196@gmdzi.gmd.de> Sender: news@cs.yale.edu Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158 Lines: 197 Nntp-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu Originator: favorini@suned.CS.Yale.Edu In article <4196@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > 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! My point is that the fundamental problem with MS-DOS/Windows systems is that most people using Windows also want to use DOS programs. Switching back and forth is a hassle, despite the DOS box in Windows, which very often doesn't allow you to use a DOS program to the fullest, if at all. Why do people want to use DOS programs? Because plenty of useful programs are not available in Windows versions. And I'm not talking about old programs, but current stuff put out by MAJOR companies. (E.g. Paradox by Borland) Now you might say there are several databases/word processors/speadsheets available. But if the one I've been using for the past three years isn't among them it doesn't do me a whole lot of good. I have too much time and effort invested in XYZ program to convert over easily. I am not blaming either the companies who write the apps or the Windows folks at Microsoft. Programmers are not clairvoyants or magicians. The point is that PCs are in a transitional phase, and it can be hard on the users. Ultimately, users will benefit, of course. But the intervening hassle is of an indefinite length, and in my opinion that is one area that puts PCs behind Macs. >>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? I think it's obvious that I mean it is inferior to the Mac. That's what this comparison is all about. >>[Discussion of the fact that Windows is slow on machines that are otherwise >>fast. E.g. 20MHz 386s] >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. I use an ATI VGA Wonder Card with 512k on-board video RAM. Now this may not be the fastest card available, but it is not anywhere near the slowest. But the point is that if you need to get the fastest (i.e. expensive) video card to make Windows perform acceptably in the display of its basic GUI elements, then plenty of people will have to get a hardware as well as software upgrade to use Windows. Also the prices people quote when saying how cheap PCs are should reflect that. This is a point against PCs. [I talk about File Manager and Program Manager.] >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. Conceptually, two programs might work, if they cooperate well. I don't think Program and File Manager do. [I complain 640k DOS memory and other RAM problems.] >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. It may have nothing to do with Windows, but it has everything to do with PCs. The point here is that you have to be compatible to your previous mistakes, unless you can afford to alienate your current user base. Obviously, both Apple and Microsoft feel they can't. However, I think Apple has been more succesful at maintaining a smooth transition to new versions of their system software than Microsoft has. (Granted Microsoft has more to handle, but they can't blame anyone but themselves.) PC users have to deal with this, and it is a problem. >> 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. That's fine. But PC users still have to worry about video cards and modes. [I talk about (Non)Standard File in Windows, and general klunkiness in its GUI.] >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. I'm not talking about exotic features. I'm talking about the simple mechanics of picking the file you want to operate on. This one of the most basic interface elements, and Windows programs can't agree on how to do it. I might also add that not a single one I've seen matches the cleanness and simplicity of the Mac's version. >> 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. The crashes I'm talking about occur when I run only Windows programs. >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. Here again, I have to say that PC users suffer from the fact that DOS and Windows beat each other up sometimes. [I bemoan laborious and ill-documented installation procedures for apps.] >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. I don't know what you mean here. Apple and IBM control the hardware and operating systems (if you count OS/2), but certainly not the vast majority of software. And Microsoft certainly controls DOS and Windows. The problem is not control, but designing an OS that allows third party software to be installed without mucking around with lower-level aspects of system configuration. Apple has Microsoft/IBM beaten by a mile on this one. >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. I know all about memory managers and have been using them for years. They can cause all kinds of problems and the sooner they aren't needed, the better. As I have said repeatedly, users of PC do have to worry about these things if they want to use both DOS and Windows programs. And most will have to, at least for now. The whole point of this discussion is to compare PCs and Macs. And if a current PC feature is comparable to an old Mac feature, it just shows that the Mac is more advanced in that area. > >>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. What I mean is that old Mac apps did not include and background ability, and many still do not. Thus, when they are swapped out by Multifinder, they don't do anything useful. >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. This is exactly the point. The mish-mash of operating systems/interfaces/ memory models/video standards etc. is a serious headache for people trying to do real work in the real world on PCs. I.e. tens of thousands of people who recently bought Windows still have to run their old DOS programs too. What do you think they did with all that software? Throw it out? Even if you could replace all of your old DOS software with spiffy new Windows software, it would cost lots of money. I repeat my assertion that until DOS is long gone, PC users will still be weighted down with a nasty old boat anchor, even if they have nice Windows programs to look at. Disclaimer: I use both Macs and PCs. I like Macs better. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ Francis Favorini favorini@cs.yale.edu favorini@yalecs.bitnet ...!yale!favorini