Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!unisoft!gethen!farren
From: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Macs, IBMs, and compatibility.
Message-ID: <497@gethen.UUCP>
Date: 31 Dec 87 23:26:41 GMT
References: <37250@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren)
Organization: There's Unix there in Oakland
Lines: 89

In article <37250@sun.uucp> chuq@plaid.UUCP writes:
>For all those folks who complain about how Apple has left you in the lurch
>over compatibility, I thought I'd toss in a few comments about how IBM has
>been handling compatibility over in PCland. The details are from the 12/20
>San Jose Mercury News, by the way.

Chuq, Chuq, Chuq...  I expected better from you.  Relying on a rag like
the Mercury News for information.  Much better for you to have asked any
of the people who know the IBM PC - you would have gotten a much more
realistic answer.

>IBM compatibility: IBM came out with the new PS/2 line. You own an AT? or an
>XT? or an old, moldy PC? You're out of luck. Obsolete. Burn it and buy a
>new, neat, nifty IBM (remember, folks, the original IBM PC is about the same
>age as a 128K machine. in the same frame that Apple put together an upgrade
>path (to the plus) and a second architecture (the II -- the SE is basically
>a funky Plus in my eyes) IBM obsoleted the PC, the XT and now the AT.
>Upgrade paths? What upgrade paths?

No upgrade paths, but then, try and get Apple to upgrade your 128K Mac
to a Mac II.  The older architectures are NOT obsolete, any more than
the original Mac architecture is obsolete.  While IBM may have stopped
making the original style PC's, they still work fine, and run most of
the current round of software - my personal machine is one of the
original PCs with the cassette port, and runs all of the latest software
(short of OS/2) with ease.

>It's even more fun on the software side. Remember MS-DOS? Toss it out.
>There's this neat new toy called OS/2 that is going to replace everything
>you ever new about operating systems. Or, at least, it will when they finish
>it. Even more fun, the pre-releases of OS/2 need (get this) 1.5 megabytes of
>memory to get started. The standard memory in a PS/2 computer? A megabyte.

Well, compare OS/2 to A/UX - that's the reasonable comparison here.
Nobody at IBM is requiring anyone to run OS/2, MS-DOS still works, and
works just fine, thank you.  Let's look at Apple, shall we?  The last I
heard, A/UX requires 2 megabytes of memory to get started.  The standard
memory in a Mac II?  A megabyte.  

Remember, multifinder-like things for MS-DOS have been available for
years.  I used to run one - DoubleDos.  Worked just fine for almost
everything I ever tried to do (including comm programs).  You can't
compare multifinder to OS/2.  Again, the appropriate comparison is
between OS/2 and A/UX.

>But when you compare [what Apple is doing] with what IBM is
>doing in the same market -- actively tossing computers, operating systems,
>and complete architectures out the window, setting configurations and prices
>in ways that force users to buy expensive upgrades to get functional, and
>trying to make old hardware not just slower, but unable to access the new
>technology, I think you'll have to admit that Apple ain't all that bad.

Apples and oranges, Chuq.  Not to mention damn lies (or, at best, very
misleading statements).  The new line of IBM's does not, I repeat, does
NOT, make the older models obsolete.  One by one: "actively tossing
computers" - something EVERY manufacturer does.  Have you tried to buy a
Mac 512e on the retail market lately?  "operating systems" - MS-DOS is
still around, and runs on ALL of the PS/2 line.  "complete
architectures" - not at all.  The major change in the architecture is
the addition of the microchannel I/O bus, and is no different than Apple
adding NuBus to the Mac II.  Would you have rather they made the Mac II
I/O cards Apple II compatible?  At any event, for most applications, the
change will be transparent to the user anyway.  "... expensive upgrades
to get functional" - not at all.  If you are willing to stay with
MS-DOS, the PS/2 machines function perfectly well right out of the box.
Now, I'm not trying to JUSTIFY staying with MS-DOS, mind you :-)  If you
decide to go to a multitasking operating system, yes, you may have to
upgrade.  But, again, the 'standard' Mac II system will not allow you to
run A/UX, either.  "Trying to make old hardware ... unable to access the
new technology" - Bushwah.  OS/2 will run just fine on an AT.  It won't
run on an ordinary PC, but then, neither will A/UX run on a 68000.  The
other issues of compatibility are being addressed - you can, right now,
get a card which will allow ANY PC to have the graphics capablility of
the PS/2 line.  You can get equivalent hardware for almost every
function that is supported on the PS/2 line for your ordinary PCs.  What
you can't do is take advantage of the microchannel I/O, but then, your
basic Mac users can't use NuBus cards, either...

In short, blasting IBM for compatibility problems is a fairly stupid
thing to do.  In comparison with Apple, IBM comes out OK.  In comparison
to IBM, Apple comes out OK.  Mindless bashing of either machine is dumb,
dumb, dumb, and not at all what I would have expected from the man that
wrote the primer on using Usenet intelligently.

-- 
Michael J. Farren             | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just 
{ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}!     | dogmatize it!  Reflect on it and re-evaluate
        unisoft!gethen!farren | it.  You may want to change your mind someday."
gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame