Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.misc:11921 comp.windows.ms:12558
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!cs.uoregon.edu!gla-aux.uucp!glenn
From: glenn@gla-aux.uucp (Glenn L. Austin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Mac Vs. Windows? (sorry)
Message-ID: <0E010021.w5btrb@gla-aux.uucp>
Date: 11 May 91 04:29:22 GMT
Reply-To: glenn@gla-aux.uucp
Organization: The Pit Lane
Lines: 81
X-Mailer: uAccess - Mac Release: 1.0.4a


In article <1991May10.135518.5538@world.std.com>, hal@world.std.com (Harry A Levinson) writes:
> I am afraid to ask this because I don't want to start a roaring
> fire of flames but...
> 
> I have been using both a Mac and a DOS machine for about 5 years.  I have
> recently been trying to help some friends with their 386 machine
> running Windows 3/ W4W and XL4W (facelift is installed and enabled).  
> The 386 is 16MHz with 2Mb.  The printer is an Okidata 24 pin.
>
> My impression of Windows are:
>  
> 1. It has tryed to impose a GUI environment where it does not quite fit.  
>    As a result computer novices take longer to learn how to use a Windows 
>    machine than a Mac.  However once acquainted with Windows both environments
>    provide similar capabilites.

That was my impression as well.  I believe Windows ends up requiring a higher level
of user as well, due to the many non-standard peripherals available for DOS machines.
This makes it much more difficult to change the operating system, both for the users
and the developers.

> 2. Adding applications and peripherals is easier (for a novice) on the Mac.  

See comment above about peripherals.
 
> 3. It seems to take more Intel machine to get the same response as a Mac.

That is consistent with my evaluation as well.  A few years ago (when the 386 was
just announced), I put an 8088, an 80286 and an 80386 all running DOS on a logic analyzer.
My results were surprising -- all three processors when executing code were doing
byte fetches, in spite of the fact that the 286 and 386 had 32-bit buses.  After doing
some comparitive evaluations of the designs of the 680x0 and the x86, I came to the
following conclusions:

1) Average instruction length for the Intel processors is approximately 5 bytes (using
general-purpose code), and is fetched on a byte-by-byte basis.  The fetch cycle is
due to the limitations of the 86 architecture.  By keeping relatively compatible with
the 8080, additional instructions for newer processors must use a flag byte to denote
an instruction for a newer processor.  For example, all new 386 instructions start
with $0F with no indication as to the actual instruction without reading this first
byte.

2) Average instruction length for the Motorola processors is approximately 3.5 bytes
(using general-purpose code), and is fetched on a long-word basis, if long-word aligned.
By using long-word fetches, approximately 80% of the more common instructions are
loaded with one memory access.  This explains why fewer wait states on the Mac have
a smaller affect than on the PC.

3) The Intel processors are designed more for use with higher-level languages.  They
provide easier string processing at the expense of more specialized registers and
more complex setup.  The Motorola processors are designed more for use with C and
Assembly, and provide more register flexibility at the expense of specialized functions.

4) Windows is added to DOS, and is reliant upon DOS and BIOS for all of the peripheral
access, except video and specialized drivers.  The Mac O/S was designed in from the
beginning, so there are no "levels" of OS to contend with.

> Are these consistent with others?
> 
> I would appreciate it if comments could be limited to those with working 
> knowledge of both Windows and Mac.  I am especially interested in 
> comments from people who have seen reactions to both systems from
> complete computer illiterate types learning to use a computer for the
> first time.

Just for the record, I've been programming for 15 years, including 13 on mainframes
and minis, 9 on the PC, and 6 on the Macintosh.  I've worked extensively with MS/DOS,
UNIX and the Macintosh, and I've found that not only is the machine faster, but the
time for developing products is significantly less, if the same care is given to the
user interface to make the program easy to use.  The Mac is my machine of choice for
both use and development, if the comparison is limited to microcomputers.


===============================================================================
| Glenn L. Austin                | "Turn too soon, run out of room.           |
| Macintosh Wizard and           |    Turn too late, much better fate."       |
| Auto Racing Driver             |   -- Jim Russell Racing School Instructors |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Usenet:  glenn@gla-aux.uucp         | CI$:       76354,1434                 |
| GENie:     G.AUSTIN3                | AOnline:   GAustin                    |
===============================================================================