Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!ads.com!killer!usenet From: anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' Message-ID: <1991Mar19.064322.12208@verity.com> Date: 19 Mar 91 06:43:22 GMT References: <46873@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <1991Mar15.101202.1@csc.anu.edu.au> <1468@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> <4321@gmdzi.gmd.de> Sender: usenet@verity.com (USENET News) Reply-To: anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren) Organization: Verity, Inc., Mountain View, CA Lines: 103 In-Reply-To: strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) In article <4321@gmdzi.gmd.de>, strobl@gmdzi (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill) writes: > > >>I am sure Windows seems great to people who have had trouble with the >>simplisticly complicated DOS interface, but compared to any other >>windowing system (Mac, Motif, NeXT....) it is still just a toy. > >Funny. The Motif window manager is more or less a MS-Windows clone. > This is a bit of an overstatement on both your parts. The Motif window manager handles moving windows and sizing them - basically what it takes care of is the frame around the window. As such, it has many things in common with those features of MW-Windows. But comparisons beyond that aren't that easy to make. > >>Windows is a kluge. The Mac is not. One hell of a difference, in my >>opinion, and I still wonder why Apple should even care. As long as they >>keep pushing the Mac, Microsoft will never catch up. > >Windows suffers from its relation to the DOS file system, no doubt. And >the Macintosh has the advantage that everything, hardware and system software >is created by one company. > Both of these points are true, but miss the point. The Macintosh system software and _system_ hardware was created by one company. This same company create above hardware and software in such a way that expanding the system with third-party products is much easier on the Macintosh than any other platform I've ever seen. This doesn't mean that Microsoft will never catch up, however. In fact, they already have - they've shipped over 3 million copies of Windows 3.0 already, compared to about 2.5-2.75 for the Mac. Look at Europe, for example. You will find the installed base of Macintoshes amazingly small - in the tens of thousands, I believe. This presents a huge opportunity for Microsoft to establish a foothold. >>In one of the trade rags (back page of InfoWorld, I think), the point >>was made that Windows apps will never achieve the same level of >>functionality that Mac apps have because a Windows developer cannot >>count on a consistent set of hardware features--any Mac developer knows >>that every Mac user has high-res graphics, built-in networking, great >>sound output( and now sound input), and the same kind of processor >>(functionally, the 68000 differs little from the '030, unlike the '286 >>and the '386). > >What about this tiny, 512 pixel wide screen? Does that count as high-res >graphics? In my opinion, Macintosh developers have to take smaller >screens into account, compared with Windows developers. > Neither of the two statements above are very relevant, IMO. The key is that software shouldn't be written with hardware in mind, it should be written with users in mind. If the platform supports the plethora of screen sizes, bit depths and other system configurations that the Macintosh does, this makes the job for the programmer that much harder, but a job well done makes the job of the user much more pleasant. >The Intel series of processors are more suitable for a Windows or >Mac like OS than the Motorola processors, because they allow it >to move code segments on the fly, for example. They have parts >of the memory management built right into the hardware. > I'm not terribly familiar with the Intel series anymore, but I fail to see how the architecture of either chip makes it harder or easier to move code segments around. In case you didn't know it, the Macintosh has been able to swap code segments in and out from disk since day one - they had to, since 128K didn't let you do much. The 68030 has a built in MMU. >> Pity the poor DOS developer who actually has to worry if >>his or her Window app will run properly on a dinky '286 machine with >>an old mono display, no network, and no sound; *and* also work properly >>on a high end 386 with XGA color running Novell and a bunch of wierd >>high end hardware kluges to speed the software up. > >As a Windows developer I assure you that this is not much of a >problem. (And don't call us "DOS developers", PLEASE). > I can't agree with the original statement here. It seems to me that to properly write a Macintosh application, you have to worry just as much about processor speeds, display types and network configurations as a Windows of PM developer, if not more. If you don't, you either don't care or aren't writing serious applications. >>Windows and Mac--it's no contest, Apple...... > >Of course it's a contest, but an unusual one: either both parties >win, or both loose. You seem to prefer the latter case. > I think there's room for both without many problems. If you're a betting person, you hedge your bet and develop software for ALL of these platforms... Anders Wallgren Verity, Inc.