Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!oliveb!bu-cs!mirror!prism!rob
From: rob@prism.TMC.COM
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Xerox sues Apple!!!
Message-ID: <206900150@prism>
Date: 20 Dec 89 19:12:00 GMT
References: <4540@ur-cc.UUCP>
Lines: 45
Nf-ID: #R:ur-cc.UUCP:4540:prism:206900150:000:2342
Nf-From: prism.TMC.COM!rob    Dec 20 14:12:00 1989


>Please multiply these two matrices:

	>long A[70000][50],B[50][70000];

>Any vanilla Mac with enough memory can do this more efficiently than any PC 
>you can buy for the same price.  Others can take it from there.

   Well, it could be argued that, since accomodating these arrays would 
require 28Mb of memory (which is beyond the reach of the 8086 or the
68000), no low-end machine is going to handle this too well...:-)

   I know, I know... In general, the point is well taken. Pre-386 PCs are 
saddled with the old Intel memory architecture, which is a real hinderance 
in some cases. And many 386's are used simply as fast 8088s or 80286s, which 
is unfortunate.

   The key word here is 'vanilla'. A low-cost Mac could do this more easily 
than a low-cost PC (by 'low-cost', I mean under about $2500), but the higher 
end Macs compete with 386 and 486 machines that can handle this easily. 

>I regularly use a DTP program that's almost 400K in size.  I often fire up 
>the companion drawing program, another 270K, while the DTP program is still 
>running. Both programs, a drawing, and the 100 page manual I'm working on is 
>all in real memory.  You could simulate this on a PC by swapping to disk or 
>bank-switching memory, but there's no way this is going to be as fast under 
>MS-DOS as it would be on my Amiga or a Mac under Multifinder.  

   Again, on a 386 machine, this can be done without difficulty and at
fairly low cost, requiring neither disk swapping nor bank switching. Doing 
it on a 286 or 8088 machine does require some smoke-and-mirrors from the 
programmer (usually involving bank switching memory), but lots of older 
machines are used like this, and doing this on an older Mac would be no 
picnic, either.

   There's a common mistake being made here, which is to compare late
model Macs with older DOS machines. (Both camps are guilty of this; 
lots of the 'The Mac is a toy' criticism from the DOS side comes from
impressions of the early Macs.) 

   This is one of those debates where it could reasonably be said that 
'everybody's right'. It's clear that each side is learning from the other. 
In recent years, PC's have been moving toward graphical interfaces, while 
Apple has opened up the Mac and made it more powerful. In the long run, 
this is a rivalry from which everyone probably stands to gain.