Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!uniol!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: <4252@gmdzi.gmd.de> Date: 9 Mar 91 03:47:31 GMT References: <130@s5000.rsvl.unisys.com> Distribution: comp Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, F. R. Germany Lines: 54 piper@s5000.rsvl.unisys.com (Piper Keairnes) writes: >carter@cat27.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) writes: >>Many of the problems with IBM hardware can be easily overcome by a good >>standardized software specification, which now appears to be quite >>widespread with so many windows owners, remember there are more window >>owners than there are Mac owners. >At work, I've been testing out a new Windows based terminal application >on one of the fastest PC's in the department. The program is perhaps one >of the best terminal environments available to our employees, but the sad >thing is that the refresh rate and the throughput of the screen is >unacceptable. >I understand that Windows 3.0 is now very wide spread, but the simple fact >remains that the hardware required to make Windows palatable would be too >costly for many organizations. For employees to move to the Windows >product, they would have to sacrifice speed... a great deal of speed. The >managers like the functionality we'd gain, but the programmers won't use >the program until we get faster hardware. That isn't going to happen >anytime soon. A mere Mac Classic performs better than a 25MHz 386 when it >comes to the windowing interface slapped on top of DOS. It is as easy to find a application which runs better on a low end PC that on a Mac costing five times as much, as it is to find a Windows application which doesn't perform well, even on decent hardware. This does not prove anything. Neither are Macs unuseable for real number crunching, nor are PCs unable to perform well under a GUI. These are all marketing myths, not more. Anyway, "windowing interface slapped on top of DOS" is misleading in this context. Of course, the Windows GUI is built on top of DOS in the sense that it needs DOS to launch and uses its file system, but its interface to the video hardware doesn't use DOS at all. It may be handicapped by the fact that the actually used video hardware wasn't designed for a GUI, but this has nothing to do with DOS, isn't Windows fault, is not very dependant on the speed of the CPU, and can be changed quite easily by replacing the video hardware. (I said: It may, not it is. Most video hardware - not IBM's - is quite useable. And it doesn't cost much.) >All in all, Windows is a STEP in the right direction, but it isn't going >to stop people from buying Macs... not after they've sat down at each >computer and taken a trial run. I believe that Windows in fact helps selling Macs, by giving much more people the opportunity to switch to and recognize the advantages of a decent GUI. Wolfgang Strobl #include