Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!gatech!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!b5u From: B5U@PSUVMA.BITNET (George A. Brownfield) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Macs, IBMs, and compatibility. Message-ID: <28796B5U@PSUVMA> Date: 5 Jan 88 17:49:06 GMT References: <37250@sun.uucp> <497@gethen.UUCP> Organization: The Pennsylvania State University - Computation Center Lines: 103 Well, I know Chuq doesn't care to read or reply to flames, and he has been taking some heat - some of it deserved. But there is a point or two here that I consider invalid so here comes my $0.02: In article <497@gethen.UUCP>, farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) says: > >In article <37250@sun.uucp> chuq@plaid.UUCP writes: > >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the original Mac architecture is obsolete.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. > Sorry, but I feel Chuq is right here. There is no way any version of th PC is going to be supporting new software running OS/2, whereas my Mac+ runs the latest version of Finder/System just dandy. >>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. > Here again I agree with Chuq. OS/2 is supposed to replace MS-DOS. You can't run it without a memory upgrade. I can run Finder/System/Multi- Finder without one on my Mac+, though I can only open 2 or 3 programs at once. Also, A/UX is not designed to replace Finder/System, but to allow it to run UNIX for those that want to. And I believe it is a little easier to upgrade a Mac ][ by plugging in memeory boards than it is on the PS/2. >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 Yes, Chuq may have indulged in a little machine bashing, true. But I still agree that OS/2 is getting to be a little ridiculous if half of the rumors are true as to the size of disk/memory needed, and the point of the article (in my mind) was that OS/2 will have a bear of a time being used on PC's, where that problem doesn't exist now on the Mac. ------- George A. Brownfield B5U @ PSUVMA Aerospace Engineering Major B5U @ PSUVM The Pennsylvania State University BITNET: B5U @ PSUVM (down until late January, try GAB @ PSUECL) UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!psuvax1!psuvma.bitnet!b5u "Women, cats, and golf; man was not ment to understand these things."