Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:40180 comp.sys.mac:44528 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!nprdc!malloy From: malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: IBM vs. Mac - Long (was Re: Xerox sues Apple!!!) Message-ID: <5107@skinner.nprdc.arpa> Date: 18 Dec 89 15:34:46 GMT References: <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <4574@ur-cc.UUCP> <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> Reply-To: malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) Organization: Navy Personnel R&D Center, San Diego Lines: 70 In article <18222@netnews.upenn.edu> meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen) writes: >>Can you say "upgradable?" >Yes, that's why I bought a Mac II (further discussion on this note >will follow). >>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. You might want to pay a little closer attention to what the original poster was writing. He was talking about the Macintosh, not the Mac II. You know, the computer disguised as a toaster? They've managed to cram a hard disk, more memory, and a second floppy drive inside them, but that's about the limit of customization. >>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. A necessary consequence of having so much freedom in assembling an 80x86 system is that the software needs to be told what all the different pieces are. When you limit yourself to the "any color you want as long as it's black" design parameters of the Mac, you don't need the customization. < text deleted > >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. Correction. The _Mac II_ gives you a choice of 16.7 million colors. A _Mac Plus_ gives you any color you want to use from the set [white black]. With IBM's architecture, going from monochrome graphics to high-resolution color graphics requires that you buy a new video card and monitor. With the Macintosh architecture, going from monochrome graphics to high-resolution color requires that you sell your Mac Plus and buy a Mac II. An amazing cost differential. >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. By basing all of your counterexamples on the fact that _you_ own a Mac II and ignoring all of the 'toaster' Macs that are out there, you are essentially putting yourself in the same group as the twits who tell people "Of course it won't run on an 8088. Buy a 386 machine." If _everybody_ who owned a Mac had a Mac II, your arguments would be valid; all of the people who don't own the top-of-the-line Mac systems are obviously dust under your feet and their opinions are unimportant. >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. Ha. Sean Malloy | ". . . They always have an air Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | of cheap melodrama about them." San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | "You will find, my dear, that malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | _true_ melodrama _never_ comes | cheap."