Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.misc:11926 comp.windows.ms:12567 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!jessica.stanford.edu!aaron From: aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: Mac Vs. Windows? (sorry) Message-ID: <1991May10.203309.22163@leland.Stanford.EDU> Date: 10 May 91 20:33:09 GMT References: <1991May10.135518.5538@world.std.com> <1991May10.183738.15661@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu> Sender: Aaron Wallace Distribution: usa Organization: Academic Information Resources Lines: 55 In article <1991May10.183738.15661@zardoz.eng.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu writes: >I agree that Windows doesn't quite fit. After having used it on a >day-to-day basis for the past 6 months, I'm convinced that it's a >shell, not an OS. Now, granted, it's one hell of a shell, adding >numerous new capabilities to the operating system, especially in the >area of graphics. But it is still layered on top of DOS, and all its >limitations. (memory, device handling, file names, ad nauseum) The only thing DOS is used for (and thus imposes limits on) is the file system. Windows takes over memory management and device handling. Okay, this is a bit of a simplification, but the exceptions are few... >>2. Adding applications and peripherals is easier (for a novice) on the Mac. > >Adding an application still requires an often-lengthy "install" >process (although more Mac applications need to be "installed" these >days), and files such as CONFIG.SYS, AUTOEXEC.BAT, WINDOWS.INI, and >the like often need to be modifies and tweaked by hand. Then you >still have to install the icon in a Windows group. Funny. Most programs I install do it automatically. As for ease of use installing peripherals, is it easier to get a working on a Mac or with Windows, in general? >>3. It seems to take more Intel machine to get the same response as a Mac. > >I've got an IBM PS/2 model 30 on my desk (10 Mhz 286, 16 color VGA, 2 >MB RAM, 20 MB HD), and it runs Windows programs significantly slower than >a Mac Plus (8 Mhz 68000, 9" b/w screen, 1 MB RAM, 20 MB HD) runs >comparable programs. (Windows Write - MacWrite II, Terminal - Red >Ryder, Windows Paint - Canvas). And here I thought that the '286 >machines were supposed to be similar in response to '020s. (Gross >oversimplification). Note that you have VGA (4 bits/pixel) and the Mac is monochrome (1 bit/ pixel). Thus, in terms of raw graphics speed, you'd expect the PS/2 to be 1/4th the speed in screen-intensive stuff. Better comparison: a 10 MHz 286 with a Herc and a Classic. I think you'll find it to be much closer-- My 12 MHz machine is easily as fast as a classic (and probably faster, subjectively). Even then, the Herc shuffles around 50% more pixels than the tiny Classic screen. Comparing Apples and non-Apples is never easy :-) >In the end, IMHO, Windows doesn't compare to System 6.0x. System 7.0 >will make the comparison even worse. However, Windows 3.0 is the best >thing going for MS-DOS machines at the time being. The one problem I have with this kind of thread and the OS/2 vs. Windows one is that people tend to buy and use applications, not operating systems. OS/2 is much better than Windows, but Windows apps are in general better (or at least more plentiful) than OS/2 apps. There are some good Mac apps, but for what I do the Windows apps are better. For me, that is the final line... That and price, that is! Aaron Wallace