Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!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: <4256@gmdzi.gmd.de> Date: 10 Mar 91 23:52:06 GMT References: <4196@gmdzi.gmd.de> <29227@cs.yale.edu> <4245@gmdzi.gmd.de> <29390@cs.yale.edu> Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, F. R. Germany Lines: 49 favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: >>I think it is fruitless ;-) to compare Macs with PCs that way. >How can you compare two platforms and ignore their historical contexts? and later >>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. Neither am I :-). There are fewer such conflicts among the various versions of Mac System Software because Apple broke with everything they and most others had before. The upward compatibility time scale of DOS is long, compared to that of the Mac OS, especially if you consider the fact that DOS tried to be architecturally compatible with CP/M. You can bash Windows because it does break some DOS compatibility, or you can bash Windows because it does *not* break with DOS completely. There are valid reasons for both. But you can't do both at the same time. An example. If you want to continue your current data base system which you bought three years ago because it was able to import dBase indices, if dBase III was popular six years ago because it could run some financial sofware written for dBase II eight years ago, if that was done because dBase II was the only stable data base system ten years ago, because it was a mechanical port of the same system under CP/M , which was in use for quite a few years then, ..., if that data base system does not run well in a DOS box under Windows, there is really nobody to blaim for not having created a design for the whole system from the very beginning. One would have had to use a time machine to send the Windows specs back twenty years or so, to archieve that. Wolfgang Strobl #include