Path: utzoo!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: <29390@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 9 Mar 91 22:01:04 GMT
References: <4196@gmdzi.gmd.de> <29227@cs.yale.edu> <4245@gmdzi.gmd.de>
Sender: news@cs.yale.edu
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 245
Nntp-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu
Originator: favorini@suned.CS.Yale.Edu

In article <4245@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes:
>>My point is that the fundamental problem with MS-DOS/Windows systems is that
>>most people using Windows also want to use DOS programs.
>
>As you say later, it is a *transient* problem, not a fundamental one.

The two are not mutually exclusive.  I say it IS a FUNDAMENTAL problem.  It
will probably be fixed gradually over the next few years.  Fundamental
problems can certainly be fixed, just not easily and not overnight.  I think
this describes the coexistence of DOS and Windows quite well.

>I like Paradox, too - I still keep a copy of the original article from Zloof in
>a '77 IBM System Journal, where he described Query-By-Example, which
>is the idea on which Paradox is built upon. But both the monolithic
>implementation and the user interface are a bit outdated. I would not call
>it "current". 

By current I don't mean state-of-the-art, I mean recently released and used
by people at the present time.  Paradox 3.5 was released less than 6 months
ago, and is used by thousands of people.  State-of-the-art programs will
never be used by the majority of people, just like the majority will never
have state-of-the-art hardware.

In comparing two platforms like PCs and Macs you must consider the present
state of affairs, which includes how people choose and are forced to use
their machines in real life situations.  You must also consider the potential
of the machines, if used ideally.  This is much harder too pinpoint, so
many of my comments deal mainly with the status quo.  I don't mean to ignore
the potential of a machine, I'm just trying to limit sheer speculation.

>It is not so obvious. The standard argument against Windows in this thread
>is that it handles old DOS applications not very well. While I don't buy
>the precondition, the whole argument is flawed in my opinion, because it
>doesn't say anything about the quality of Windows as a GUI at all!

I don't find it surprising or unjustified that Windows has trouble running
on top of DOS, running DOS programs, and doing a pretty good job of giving
Windows apps a decent environment in which to run, all at the same time.
The fact remains that this causes problems for people, and it can't always
be avoided.  If you look at the most recent PCWeek magazine (3/4?), you
will find an article on the front page about how difficult it can be
to set up and run Windows while using your old DOS programs, too.  I don't
have it in front of me (I'm at home), but the comment from die-hard
PC users back up what I have been saying.  I will quote them later, if you
want.

[Discussion of video cards, fast and slow.]
>Fast SVGA cards supporting 800*600 screens are in the price range
>of 100$ to 200$, so we aren't talking about that much money, here.

It isn't a lot of money for a single user, but if your whole company
was running slow monochrome cards and you wanted to upgrade your operations
to Windows, it could add up to a pretty penny.  (and maybe not a justifiable
one.)  I won't quibble with you about which cards are fast and which are slow.
Just let me say that to get good performance out of the Windows GUI,
some users will have to upgrade.

>>[I talk about File Manager and Program Manager.]
>...
>>Conceptually, two programs might work, if they cooperate well.  I don't think
>>Program and File Manager do.
>
>Can you give a specific example? I have some complaints myself, but would
>like to hear where the cooperation between Program and File Manager is bad,
>in your opinion.

OK.  In Program Manager(PM) you have a set of Program Groups that reside in the
PM window.  They can be moved, resized, or iconized.  So far, so good,
especially the iconization.  Inside a Program Group you can have icons for
programs or documents.  Click on one, and it is run.  Fine.  You can't have
nested groups however. :-(  Also, aside from the basic set of utilities, you
must install programs items, automatically (for programs only) or by hand.
PM is really like an icon dock for your favorite apps/docs.  You can also
have multiple icons that refer to the same file. :-) (aliases)

File Manager can be launched from PM (or automatically when you start Windows,
just like any other program). OK.  When you run it, it loads the directory
hierarchy from drive C, the hard drive, (I don't know which it picks if you
have no drive C), and displays it as a graphical tree.  Not bad.  However,
it is very slow -- 4-5 seconds for a 30Mb drive(28 ms), and at least 15 seconds
for our 300Mb(18ms) file server.  :-(  You can only have one tree active at
a time, so I usually have to wait 20 seconds if I want to look at the file
server's files.  This is supposed to be improved a lot in Win 3.1 due out
"some time this year."  Once you have the tree you want, you can hide/show
different branches with a click.  :-)  Double-clicking gets you a window
showing that directory's files.  (The tree shows only directories.)  The
files are not icons, just names (and attributes if desired).  I don't
like not having icons here, since you have them in PM and the dir. tree.
Inconsistent.  :-(  You can have many dir windows open at once.  You can
also open one from another dir window.  Fine.  Why can't I nest groups in
PM then?  Inconsistent.

In short, my gripes are:
	1) FM is slow.
	2) Inconsistent use of icons.
	3) Inconsistent use of nested windows.
	4) Can only view one directory tree at once.

I like:
	1) Graphical directory tree.
	2) Iconizing windows in PM.

It feels to me like a more character-oriented version of the Finder
combined with a third party icon dock program.  I like the Finder better,
because it is more consistent, faster, and you don't have to switch programs
to use all of its features.  You don't get a dir. tree until May 13 (7.0
release date), though.  (and for iconizing windows you need an INIT, or
maybe? 7.0??).

>>[I complain 640k DOS memory and other RAM problems.]
>>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.
>
>This is misleading, because there is nobody alienating their current
>user base, here.

You couldn't be more wrong!  See below.

>                 PCs are manufactured by many different hardware
>producers as part of their computer equipment line, while Microsoft
>is a software house selling application software and operating system
>software for these and other systems. So a PC is the result of the 
>combined effort of different companies, which is quite different from
>the Macintosh, where the essential parts, the hardware and the system
>software come from exactly one producer, Apple. 

So what.  Microsoft obviously feels it has to be compatible to its
previous mistake (DOS) or there wouldn't be a DOS box in Windows.
And if there weren't, there would be a hell of a lot fewer Windows
sales than there have been, and an even lower percent of people who
have Windows and actually use it day to day.

>Anyway, if beeing compatible with previous mistakes means repeating
>them, I'd rather be not compatible and make an advance.

Obviously Micrsoft did not entirely agree.  (Steve Jobs did, though. ;-))

>>PC users have to deal with this, and it is a problem.
>
>You can't both have the cake and eat it. A PC user has the choice
>to select from a rich supply of hard and software of different price
>and quality. With this freedom comes the ability to make the
>wrong choice, of course. 

I think freedom is not always the driving force, how about necessity.

>    But let me ask a specific question. What is wrong with the file
>dialogs used by the standard Windows programs, say notepad or calendar?

The Save As.. box in Excel doesn't allow you to pick a directory from
a scrolling list.  You just have a box to type in the file (and path,
if you want).  This is bogus.  I con't name specific prgrams in the
following, 'cause I'm at home on my Mac.  Sometimes you pick files from
one list and directories from another.  Sometimes both from one list.
Only occasionally can you go easily to the current directory' parent.
Sometimes there is a button labelled "UP".  Sometimes, you can click
on ".." in the directory list.  Sometimes you have to type ..\*.*
in the filename text box.  This is ridiculous.  I guarantee you if
you timed someone navigating ten different Windows apps' File Dialogs and
someone doing the same for Mac apps, the Mac user would be done much
faster.

[Talk of system crashes on both platforms.]
>                                         There are of course buggy
>applications which can crash the system, because Windows doesn't 
>use the memory protection of the protected mode fully. But if I
>avoid them, and if I don't run old DOS applications - which may
>interact with the system in a strange way - Windows runs the whole
>day long, 7 days a week. From what I see rom people using Macs here,
>a faulty application can crash the Mac OS easily, too.

If you avoid anything that crashes, you won't have crashes.  I find
it harder to avoid situations that crash the PC with Windows, than
those which crash my Mac.  Largely this is because I have to use
some DOS programs as well as Windows, and I certainly have to run
Windows on top of DOS.  This is reality for thousands of PC users.

>Microsoft controls Windows, but not much more. It certainly doesn't
>control DOS. There is a complete, enhanced DOS clone from
>Digital research, which is cheaper and runs Windows, for example.

DR-DOS exists, but how many use it compared to MS-DOS.  Most PC users
are afraid to use "non-standard" DOS, because it might not work with
all of their software.  If Bill Gates read your statement, I think he'd
get a good chuckle out of it.

>>... 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.
>
>I think it is fruitless ;-) to compare Macs with PCs that way. 

How can you compare two platforms and ignore their historical contexts?

>... But it is not very productive to
>compare "the" PC and "the" Mac, because the results are arbitrary and
>only reflect the current prejudices of the people.

Show me a comparison of any two things that is not arbitrary and does
not reflect the current prejudices of the people comparing.

>>...  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?
>
>Not at all! They should do what they actually do: continue to run what
>is useable, and throw out what is unuseable. This works very well for
>many people. 

This is "option" is more of a necessity.  No one can use was isn't useable,
and why would you throw out something that works.

>>  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.
>
>Of course, this applies only to people who already are computer users
>having a software collection, not for starters. Many of those computer
>users started using computers long before the Macintosh hit the market.
>So your statement reduces to the simple truth that there is an advance
>in the area of computers, and that those who start later have the
>advantage to be able to learn from the experiences of those starting
>earlier. This applies to both system designers and users.

Of course it is a simple truth.  But that doesn't mean it is ok that
current PC users should have to struggle in order to not have to throw
away their previous investments and use still be able to use more
friendly and powerful Windows programs.  The reality is that DOS and
Windows sometimes conflict.  In my opinion, there are fewer such conflicts
among the various versions of Mac System Software.  This is a point against
PCs in a Mac-PC comparison (which is what I thought we were conducting).
I'm not flaming you, I just want to make myself clear.


-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
Francis Favorini					favorini@cs.yale.edu
							favorini@yalecs.bitnet
							...!yale!favorini