Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:40270 comp.sys.mac:44640 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!iuvax!ndcheg!kellow From: kellow@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (John Kellow) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: PC's are democratic; Mac's are fascistic Message-ID: <1021@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu> Date: 19 Dec 89 07:02:23 GMT References: <6767@tank.uchicago.edu> <1989Dec17.112127.27333@me.toronto.edu> <14960@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1210@serene.UUCP> <1989Dec18.142406.5066@hellgate.utah.edu> <1989Dec18.191117.18483@hellgate.utah.edu> <4591@ur-cc.UUCP> Organization: Dep't of Chemical Eng., Univ. of Notre Dame Lines: 101 I've sat back and watched a lot of these flame wars on Computer A vs. Computer B and now I think I'll add my $0.02 worth in the IBM vs. Mac war. Let me preface this by saying that I use both and I think they've both got their good and bad points. I've used all sorts of computers - my first basic course in high school started out on teletype machines and we thought it was a major technological innovation when we got a TRS-80 Model I. We could actually edit lines of our programs and save them on audio tape instead of paper tape! I remember when the Mac first came out, someone down the hall from me got one and everbody was fascinated by it. I though it was a nice idea but it had a long way to go to catch up to PC's. It didn't have any hard disk options, no letter quality printers, a tiny screen, no math co-processor, no expansion slots, etc. Well, now I think that the Mac has not only caught up to the PC but surpassed it in functionality. I say functionality because its true that a PC system could easily beat Mac on factors like price and raw processing power, but I don't think thats a good way to judge a computer. Its true that you could probably do just about anything on a PC that you could do on a Mac, but things just seem to work better on a Mac and I think thats why a lot of people like Macs. After using a color Mac II, DOS and windows on a PC seems like a gigantic hack. Mac users don't mess around with Config or Autoexec files, everythings done through the chooser and control panel. You want to add memory to a Mac? Just order some SIMMS mail order and pop them in. Current prices are as low as $79/Mb. Mac users don't have to worry about all this expanded/extended/640K/LIM4.0/EMM.SYS driver crap. Its pretty common around here to have 5Mb or more in a Mac, and virtual memory is already a reality. All Macs come with networking built in. Its certainly not high performance but it gets the job done - and everybody has it. Sure you could configure a DOS system that could run rings around a Mac and you can install a network that can blow appletalk away, but overall I think Mac users are getting more out of their Macs than DOS users are getting from their PC's. I think the biggest problem in the PC world has been compatibility - PC makers have made too big a deal out of it. So IBM is now selling OS/2 that finally takes advantage of the features of the 80286 - just when did they start selling AT's - 1984? The 80486 is already here. DOS is just being pushed beyond its limits. There comes a time when you just have to make a break with the past. Where would the Mac be today if Apple only shipped system updates that could still run on the 128K Mac? If your computer fills a need for you today then it can still fulfill the same need 10 or 20 years from now. Its like driving an old car - it may not get you there in style but it gets you there. Instead of waiting so long and going overboard with OS/2, why didn't IBM come out with a new OS when the AT came out? Forget Presentation Manager, virtual memory, multitasking, etc. Just a simple operating system that could run in protected mode, access 8Mb of memory (or whatever the 286 lets you have), with an improved file system would be a big step ahead of DOS. I don't know, maybe that wouldn't be so simple to create, but I think it seems ridiculous to be running a 33Mhz 80386 in 8086 real mode. I think there's just too much un-tapped potential in the PC world. Apple set an excellent example of what Mac programs could and should be by bundling Macpaint and Macwrite with the original Macs. What kind of example did IBM set? Displaywrite? Edlin? The original PCs came with fancy keyboards with lots of function keys but does DOS even use most of these keys? (I know about DOS4, CED, etc. - I'm just talking DOS 1.x, 2.x,3.x) No. The original display adapters could display text in multiple attributes. Does DOS even come with a command to set the prompt color? Oh sure, you could install ANSI.SYS and put escape codes in your prompt. But why can't you just type prompt=red, screen=blue, etc.? DOS could at least print the error messages in bold text. What you've basically got is an operating system that could run from a teletype hooked up to the serial port. That seems to be the intention of the CTTY command. It was probably all a marketing idea "Our customers have a large investment in teletype equipment so we should make our new computers compatible with this existing base of equipment." Why didn't they just call it the IBM-IKS (Intelligent Keypunch Station)? I can imagine the advertisements - "Now you can turn any teletype device into an intelligent keypunch station with the new IBM-IKS!" Edlin seems perfect for operators entering data into disk files instead of onto punch cards. Why couldn't IBM at least have added a screen editor to their original PC-DOS? Did they plan on selling systems without display adapters? I think its this "we can't make a break with the past" attitude thats held the PC world back. Clone makers want to make a new bus standard, just slap on more address lines. Gee, I can keep my $99 half-card internal 1200 baud modem when I upgrade to a new $7000 486 EISA system. If people want to keep using their old cards why can't they just keep using their old computers. Why does OS/2 have to be able to run DOS programs? I don't see why you couldn't just boot your computer with DOS if you want to run DOS programs and boot it with OS/2 if you want to run OS/2 programs. I think DOS is just trying to be too many things to too many people. If IBM had only taken a little more initiative with the PC and had a little more foresight instead of just introducing slightly improved versions of the same old crap, then I don't think the Macintosh would have become as successful as it has. I don't see why apple doesn't just port its Mac OS to the 80386! I just think its time DOS was given a decent burial. Well this turned out longer than I thought and I've probably only succeeded in adding more fuel to the fire, so flame away. I'm not really anti-PC, just pro Mac. John Kellow kellow@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu