Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:40166 comp.sys.mac:44513 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!mit-eddie!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!grad2.cis.upenn.edu!meuchen From: meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac Subject: IBM vs. Mac - Long (was Re: Xerox sues Apple!!!) Summary: Them's fightin' words (unsupported no less). Message-ID: <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> Date: 18 Dec 89 08:05:40 GMT References: <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <4574@ur-cc.UUCP> Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu Reply-To: meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 177 I usually try to avoid these kind of things, but this time I just couldn't. In article <4574@ur-cc.UUCP> you write: >In article <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (KUO ANDY Y) writes: >> It is a fact that NuBus, SCSI, AppleTalk, 68xxx chip is superior than >>EISA/MCA, ESDI, nothing standard or build in, 80xxx(not include 80486). > >You picked the wrong news group to post this (comp.sys.ibm.pc). In who's >book? I didn't originally post this, but it is in my book. > I think that you will find, oh, just a few people disagree with this >statement. SCSI is as slow as sh*t. Why? How? You give no method for evaluation. SCSI is very fast in my book. When originally conceived it could transfer a meg in a second. It's faster now. How's that compare to an interface on an IBM? For more specs on the SCSI interface, I would refer you to an article in MacUser, mid 1988. I can give you the specifics (date, page numbers) if you want. I think proof of the SCSI is the fact it has been adopted by other computer makers. >The 68xxx is nice, but I'll take a '386 or '486 any day of the week. Why? My 68020 runs at 16MHz. I can buy a 68030 that runs at 32 for under a thousand, and if I had the money I could buy one that runs at 50 MHz. Such a product is available today. Does anything approach this on an IBM machine. By the way, the 68040 will run faster that the '486, although I will admit it's not out yet, but since I can get a '30 that runs faster, I guess you've already lost. >My Compaq 386 eats Mac SE/30's for lunch. I don't think the SE/30 is the greatest myself. Could you elaborate on how how your Compaq eats it for lunch? Give me specifics so we can really debate instead of listen to unsupported claims. >Can you say "upgradable?" Yes, that's why I bought a Mac II (further discussion on this note will follow). >That's something that you can do with current >80xxx buses. Try doing that to a Mac without having to pay for an entire >new system board. OK, I will. I hopefully will put in a 68030 accelerator, which plugs into the board, no replacement needed. Maybe if I wanted to lower my standards I could buy a NuBus '386 board. Then I could do everything you can do. Can you plug in a Mac 68030 board and run all my programs? >Can you add the latest video technology to a Mac by dropping >a a board? Yes. I plan to upgrade to 256 colors over Christmas. Price is $49. I'd like to plug in a 24 bit board, but I don't have $800 or so. Can an IBM support 24 bit color? 19" Sony monitors with 24 bit color? Does the IBM support the latest in video technology? What is the lastest. Nothing I've seen on the IBM is the lastest. 32 bit Quickdraw on a Sony 19" might be. > No, you can even open the damn case without a proprietary tool!!! Actually, I open mine with a screwdrive, phillips I think. After removing the screw which is only a safety precaution, I hold two latches and viola! >Can you say "customization?" Something else you can't do with a Mac. Please explain. I think I've explained above all the ways I can customize my system. What can't I do? I can even make it IBM compatible, hook up drive to read all formats of IBM disks (DaynaFile makes the best drives for this purpose - they let you avoid dos by presenting the disks in a Finder environment. A problem with IBM customization follows below. >That's why nothing comes standard on 80xxx bus machines. I think we need a little standardization. I spent hours configuring Pagemaker to run on an IBM '386 this summer. We had to select mouse types, this type, that type. The Mac standardizes some things and makes other things easily changeable. Respond and I'll give specifics. >I'll die before I use a Mac or any of it's related equipment. It's >all junk. You give absolutely no explanation here. I guess you'll die a life that could have been so much better. How can yoy make comparisons with a machine you've never used or plan to use? >What the hell? Apple *STOLE* it's interface from Xerox. That's illegal. >You want fairness? Xerox should bust Apple on it's ass for trying to rip >off their work, sell it as their own, and then have the balls to sue someone >else over it. Judgement? Yeah, right... If you believe this, then you have to believe MicroSoft and HP stole it as well, from whom we'll let the courts decide. I've written enough for now and will let the lawyers have this one. > >> If *some* people would not be so close minded, will the *rest of general* >>users having to learn the terrible interface like the DOS? > >What about UNIX? The interface is little friendlier than DOS, yet it is one >of the most powerful and widely used operating systems... Who said most used meant best? Buy the way, Macs can run UNIX too, including X-Windows and everything else. Can your IBM do that? > >-- >>>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you * >University of Rochester * will screw it up." * >Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice." >ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunet I've worked on Macs for a number of years, and bought a Mac II system about a year and a half ago. Sure, I spent a little more than an IBM system, but you can't say I spent more than an equivalent IBM system because there isn't such a thing. Also, I worked at a company that used IBMs this summer, so I have a lot to base my decisions on. You've never touched a Mac and never plan to do so. I like to keep an open mind, so I worked on IBMs for more than three months. After this time, I respect and appreciate my Mac even more. I worked for APS Communications Corp. putting together a phonebook in Spanish in San Antonio, TX. We had three IBM machines, two '386 and one '286, hooked up to an NEC Silentwriter PostScript printer. We were using Aldus Pagemaker 3.0, a program I have used on the Mac for about a year and half. While some of these may reflect deficiencies of that program, I think they also offer insight to the IBM platform. Pagemaker was slooww. You give no benchmarks of basis of comparison. I've used the same program on both machines and I can tell you it was slower on the IBM. Pagemaker isn't the fastest on any machine (I think Quark Xpress is better - Can you get that for an IBM?), but simply changing pages was tedious onthe IBMs. Features from the program were missing on the IBM version. What happened to image control on imported graphics? We could do some things, but nothing like on the Mac (i.e. adjust contrast, give an arbitray grey-map, solarize). You might say there are other programs that can do these things. You might not. I don't now if they exist for the IBM. I know they do for the Mac. My point is Pagemaker for the Mac has these feature, PM for the IBM doesn't. What happened to removing styles from the palette? We kept getting errors. When we called tech support, they said once it was created, it couldn't be removed. Aauggh. What about not using a mouse? When we got out third machine, we didn't get a mouse for a few days. PM was useless. On a Mac you can use Easy Access (I think you hit the shift key five times) to let you use the arrow keys instead of a mouse. On the IBM, nothing. We called Aldus tech support on this one as well. "What can we do?" "GET A MOUSE!" was their reply. So much for customization. Printing was a pain. We couldn't network the machines easily like Macs to one laser printer. Instead, we had to hook up an A/B/C/D box and switch it whenever someone else had to print. This resulted in a lot of "Are you done printing?" The printer wasn't smart enough either to recognize what it was sent. A Mac laser printer can print text when printing from MacWrite or printing program listings, or PostScript when printing from PM or some other PostScript program. If we wanted to change on the IBM, we had to maually change the printer mode on the printer. When this wasn't done (and this did happen, especially in the morning after the boss had it in Diablo mode for printing out things late the night before (he had his own computer in another room but couldn't network it to our laser printer - you could with Macs)) we got pages of raw PostScript. We began to joke about "Oh, how I love raw PostScript in the morning." Colors were terrible, even with EGA. I guess you get 256 colors, but out of a palette of how many? The Mac give you a choice of 16.7 million. I have given straight comparisons, with data when appropriate and available, from an experienced backround on both machines. When you can do this same, I will continue this discussion. Paul Eric Menchen meuchen@grad1.cis.upenn.edu I am solely responsible for everything I've said, although I'm sure there are thousands (more, actually) of other Mac users (probably some IBM users as well) who will agree with me.