Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccird1!rb From: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: net.micro.mac Subject: Re: IBM vs. Mac debate Message-ID: <409@ccird1.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-May-86 22:15:30 EDT Article-I.D.: ccird1.409 Posted: Thu May 8 22:15:30 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 11-May-86 03:14:22 EDT References: <2515@sdcc6.UUCP> <1019@runx.OZ> <13351@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <978@well.UUCP> <178@bridge2.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Organization: CCI Rochester Development, Rochester NY Lines: 118 Summary: IBM compatibility. Remember, ANYTHING IBM produces IS IBM compatible. :-) The fact that later versions aren't the same as the is irrelevent :-). When IBM comes out with UNIX, or the RT, it will be IBM-compatible :-). Furthermore, if applications don't work on the new box, the programs are simply "not IBM compatible" :-). Unless IBM wrote the program, in which case, it is a "feature" :-). Remember when the IBM-PeeCee came out? I remember their generous offer to provide money, marketing support, and other nice things. Of course, there were four "cute" requirements. 1: It had to use all the special "features" of the PC (virtually guarenteeing incompatibility because MS-DOS only standardised "text only" things. You had to jump into the BIOS, manipulate hardware, and do other "nasty" things to get graphics and other "features". 2: It had to original (supposedly to keep people from just "dressing up" CP/M programs. 3: You could call ABASIC rom routines, but you could not copy any part of that rom. You were encouraged to use the Assembler/Linker on the early systems. 4: IBM would tell you practically anything you wanted to know about where to call BIOS, ABASIC, and other ROM routines as well as the hardware addresses, but you automatically acknowleged IBM's rights to any such information. If you did all this, IBM would make sure that your special products showed up on the dealers' shelves, got "freebee publicity" and lot's of other benifits. What are the "Torture tests" for IBM compatibility? What are the "Most popular" programs for the PC? Which programs seem to be available for IBM's next product even BEFORE it is released? Which programs seem to take months to get ported to "Almost Compatibles"? In an effort to make "compatibles" more compatible (And gain support for CP/M-86), DRI produced a version of GKS, VDI, and finally GEM. Each level made "incompatibles" compatible with the DRI standard, using "vectors" into the graphics routines and drivers supplied by the manufacturer. GKS was included in the CP/M 3.0 versions for both '80, and '86 lines. In about 1982. Even before GKS was in the stores, Microsoft and IBM both announced "Super-Duper Whiz-bang Windows Packages". Want to know why it took three years to "finally get them to market"? Because when DRI first annouced and released their GKS, these products didn't even exist! Another interesting thing is that all of the "Torture test" makers never even attempted to investigate the DRI packages. It wasn't until "GEM" vs. Mac, that anyone even considered DRI a threat. If IBM/Microsoft/Lotus/... continue on their current pattern, it will only be a matter of time before the consumer figures out that IBM is "bundling" third party products. Now we come to the Mac. When it came out: Developers had to get a LISA to write products for it. They had to spend a lot of time learning "object oriented" techniques. They were encouraged to use "lineA" vectors (illegal instructions). They were discouraged from using conventional structures such as directories, files, text. Instead, they were encouraged to use "resources" containing "objects" and "groups". They were discouraged from using languages like 'C'. They were encouraged to depend on the Mac ROM's, using the "Standard Interface". Result: Even simple software cannot be written for the Mac and get the kind of recognition it might deserve. Macs can store data on other machines, and read it back, but the "Host" can do very little with the data itself. Few Mac applications can even even deal with input from non-Mac sources. Mac supporters can't believe it would even be possible to come up with anything else as good. Even PD software is Non-Mac or Mac-Only. So here we see a hot debate over which is better, the IBM or the MAC. We won't discuss those "new kids" which are incredibly flexible, have tried to follow what few standards there are in the "PC with Graphics" arena, published books including everything up to and even including schematics, "contribute" software, and effectively "open their doors" to just about everybody (including non-owners), encourage dealers to carry even "trivial" products, and have practically twisted arms to make developement tools available as soon as possible. The fact that both can already run 1000's of titles (mostly PD, but then again how many of Macs titles are in that catagory) isn't important. The fact that not only can you run these titles, but can afford more of them has never been an issue with Apple or IBM. True, I can't get 1-2-3 or Jazz or Excel on an Amiga or an ST, but I can get VIP for 1/4 the price. While Ford, GM, and Chrysler fought for market in the "Big Cars", Datsun, Volkwagon, and Toyota almost bankrupted them by capturing 70% of the market with "economy cars". The big car market didn't vanish completely, but it will never be what it once was. While IBM and MAC fight for the market in "expensive computers", and complain about the "slump" in computer sales, the ST and Amiga will capture >50% of the "units sold" (read IBM/Macs not sold) with "economy computers". Does this mean that "expensive computers" are better than "economy computers", for some things no. But for most uses, yes. IBM will stay in the game by virtue of it's name (like Chrysler did). Macs better learn to use "unleaded gas" and fast. Mac doesn't have "government subsidies" to bail it out.