Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.hardware:9269 comp.sys.mac.misc:9335 Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!olivea!oliveb!amdahl!JUTS!duts!kls30 From: kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: MS-DOS -- Just say "Why?" Message-ID: Date: 8 Mar 91 19:39:33 GMT References: <13297@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> <1991Mar6.110826.11844@silvlis.com> Sender: netnews@ccc.amdahl.com Reply-To: kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 247 In article <1991Mar6.110826.11844@silvlis.com> jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) writes: >I'm probably going to regret this. The post which I'm following up >>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. > Windows also has virtual memory which the mac doesn't have in it's system software until sys 7.0 comes out (still vaporware). >>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. So does my NeXT. Big deal. Once the machine (PC) is set up which screen you have is not a real issue. > > >[ 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. So true. Both Intel and Motorolla processors are comprable neither is superior. > >>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. Yep, I have a few friends that have them. >>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. > > >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 Depends on if you have a Mac with a lot of scsi peripherals. Usually the dealer you get a PC from sets up everything you buy from him. >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? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Not a chance the spec benchmarks have the 486 and '040 at about the same in real tests. So unless a 40MHz '030 is faster than a 25MHz '040 it is not faster than a 486. > In University discount land, your 40 MHz IIfx will beat > anything available for the price. What about my '040 NeXT. > > Out in the "real" world, I may be able to get a RISC accelerated > 386 cheaper than I can get an unaccelerated MacIIfx. Yep, an the i4860 mother board has an i486 and i860 on it and in a system it is much cheaper than a IIfx. > >2. The Macintosh user interface is more consistent and easy to use > than the DOS or Windows interface. Yep, I agree. > >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. The NeXT IB is easier to use than X, but X is widely accepted and there are some tools out/coming out that are as easy to use as IB. The same goes for Windows. > >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. I agree. No one machine is the be all, end all aswer to everyone's computing needs. If there was such a machine it would have to be compatible with everything already available, because the installed software base of application is too large to throw away and people don't like change. > >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 -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */