NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/os/mswindo/advocacy/2837

Text File | 1992-11-21 | 13.5 KB | 380 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!jec327.its.rpi.edu!johnsd2
From: [e-mail]1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: jec327.its.rpi.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail]1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:32:43 GMT
Lines: 367

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>>Nonetheless Windows folk do argue that the Mac has no CLI,
>>and consider this important. If you don't, good for you.
>
>I don't argue that each Macintosh should come with a built-in
>CLI, just because *I* would't touch a machine without a CLI.
>It should come with a decent keyboard interface, however. :-)

:/ Oh, lemme guess. You feel there should be keyboard shortcuts for
all menu items, and keyboard based way to move/resize windows. Right?

[deletie- we agree. Wow.]
>
>>> The necessity to
>>>aquire "extra software" is one of the prices to pay for that.
>
>>Imho, its not worth the price. Perhaps you disagree.
>
>I do.

I knew that was coming.

>>>Imposing a requirement like "no extra software" is a restriction
>>>which artificially removes most of my choices when building
>>>or aquiring a system based on PC hardware.
>
>>It also artificially removes many of my choices, also. The idea
>>is to make sure we are comparing something meaningfull.
>
>We disagree on what's meaningfull.

Apparently so.

>>Merely comparing our personal systems would demonstrate nothing
>>more than our personal tastes.
>
>Merely comparing the Mac with systems which replicate its
>features and characterics (the quality of having a single
>source, for example), isn't very enlighting, either.

That's true.

>[...]
>
>>>Btw, you *can* put 640k into a '81 PC.
>
>>I know. And I suspect you also mean to imply that you can't
>>do that to a 128k Mac, which is true enough. (I seem to recall
>>there used to be a 3d party hack to get you up to 4 megs,
>>but 640k wasn't a configuration they offered, and its long gone
>>now)
>
>You can put 640k into an '81 PC by installing a memory board
>which still works on a '92 PC. (No, I don't recommend it).

Err, well only if its an ISA card, I believe.

>To use one of your arguments: if we start to talk about what
>one can do to a PC with a soldering iron, it will soon get
>out of hand. Want me talk about that? :-)

No. Ill shut up about the stupid hacks requiring a chainsaw.

>[...]
>
>>>Perhaps they need even more choice?
>
>>Then they can get it- and all that goes with it- on the PC.
>
>>What if they don't? What makes you think they do?
>
>Well, the fact that they *buy* PCs a lot, for one.

It seems to me that a lot of people buy PCs for other reasons-
for one thing they are the standard, so you're not taking much
of a risk in buying one. For annother, they are *cheap*. Real
cheap. For a third, if you want raw speed you can get more of it
with a PC than you can with a Mac (there ain't no 66 Mhz 040 Mac...).
Also, everyone else is doing it. :)

>>>>>>|> The usual case is that
>>>>>>|>if it doesn't fit your needs anymore, you throw it away or
>>>>>>|>sell it, and buy another machine, complete with a new system.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe you do but I dont have the money to burn.
>>>>>>If I need a faster system I expect Ill buy an accelerator.
>>>>>
>>>>>What does it accelerate?
>>>
>>>>It gives you (well me) a faster CPU. Some of them can do veyr
>>>>neat tricks; theres one that adds an 040 and lets you use both
>>>>it and your main processor simultaniously.
>>>
>>>And you told me that video accelerators are a waste of
>>>resources?? :-)
>
>>Huh? I said ->that<-? I said it should not be necessary.
>
>Sorry that I misunderstood what you said. But now I fail
>to understand your argument.

My argument is not very complex. I just think Windows should
not need an accelerated video card. If you wish to assert that
it DOESN'T need one, be my guest. I am not going to call you on it;
if you have a fast enough computer you may well not; also it is
a question of how fast you feel is "fast enough".

But surely you agree it would be BETTER if it never needed one?

>It seems that you consider video performance to be the primary
>quality of a computer, and cpu power a secondary one.

Uh no. You are reading a lot into the fact that we are arguing
about this. I brought up other things, some of them have been argued
out, others ignored. This is just a thread that refused to die.

>I don't share that opinion. If I need extremely fast video
>response for a big drawing on a high resolution
>screen, I'll add fast video hardware to my machine, just
>like I add a fast, big and expensive disk for database
>work. I can have it, if I want it, but why should I
>pay for it if I don't need it?

You shouldn't; moreover you shouldn't need it, for most
things anyway. That's what Im saying. Im certainly not saying
that accelerated video should be required.

>>>Such CPU accelerators are known in the PC world, too. But
>>>almost always such an accelerator alone is more expensive
>>>than a complete motherboard of similar performance. So
>>>they are only bought by people who have no choice, for
>>>example because their system is nonstandard in some way
>>>or another, so that swapping the motherboard isn't an
>>>option.
>
>>You can swap motherboards with Macs also, but since you gotta
>>get the motherboards from Apple its rather expensive to do so.
>
>So it's usually better to buy a new machine and to try to
>sell the old machine, or to add a CPU accelerator, which is
>(unlike a video accelerator), a kludge.

Im not familiar with how cpu accelerators manage their trick,
so I could not say if its a kludge.

>>Also, there's one upgrade which does more than a new motherboard
>>can- it gives you a second processor, not a replacement.
>
>Does it give you an OS which implements symmetrical
>multiprocessing, too?

No, alas. This ->is<- a kludge; its like running 2 macs on the same
machine.

>>[deletia- bundling components]
>>>>How does this contradict my assertion (that it is common in
>>>>the PC world to sell these things as a unit?)
>>>
>>>It doesn't contradict your assertion, but it shows that before
>>>and after the buy, these things don't have to be handled as
>>>a unit, and that they in fact aren't. The magazines are full
>>>of ads for PC components. Who, do you think, buys all that stuff?
>>>Or do you believe that all these advertisers have money to
>>>burn? (Ah, I like this colourfull language!).
>
>>Oh, I see. You are saying that this means you can replace the parts
>>willy-nilly. You are right, replacing (integral) parts on the Mac
>>means replacing them with Official Apple Components. You've a point
>>here; with a PC its rather easier to send in that sound blaster
>>board for repair, or get a replacement, than the equivalent on
>>the Mac. Similarly for motherboard upgrades.
>
>Or to throw out the cheap adlib clone because much better
>sound hardware is available now, for less money. You don't
>have to replace the whole PC to profit from minor
>progress made in the industry.

On the Mac, you can also add hardware wo/ throwing out the existing
stuff. (I should expect this would include sound hardware too, but
I haven't gone looking)

I think you'd be on firmer ground if you argued that you didn't
need to get the origional adliblike sound hardware in teh first place.

>>>>>>This is the only bit you must generally be apple-made.
>>>>>>Tho there are exceptions- some portables are made with apple roms,
>>>>>>but not by apple. And I think there's a tower mac "clone" done the
>>>>>>same way.
>>>>>
>>>>>What does an Apple ROM cost, in comparison to a Phoenix BIOS?
>>>
>>>>Lots; That tower mac uses IIfx roms (so it costs the same as a IIfx
>>>>in that case); The Outbound portables use (I think) old 512ke roms
>>>>that apple doesn't need anymore (no more 512kes), or anything
>>>>else you can lay your hands on.
>>>
>>>So in order to built an Apple clone, you have either to cheat,
>>>or to pay Apple the money they  loose if they don't build it
>>>themselves.
>
>>Huh? Me no understand.
>
>Using old Apple ROMs is against Apples intentions, if I'm
>not mistaken. It's not part of the concept, its *against* the
>concept, so you shouldn't count that.

I dont quite follow this part. No, I completely fail to follow it.

>Why should Apple sell ROMs for less? Nobody forces them to
>do that.

Believe it or not, the ROMs do constitute the entire cost of
the computer. Somehow or other outbounded managed to convince Apple
to sell ROMs to it. They build the rest.

[deletia- more weird stuff]

[deletia- restrictions, what restrictions?]
>>Ah, yes. I had forgotten about the joys of hard drive controllers
>>on the PC. Fortunately most PCs ship with Hard drives, so this
>>isn't really such a big thing. (what a pity!)
>
>It's almost as difficult as getting the correct batteries for
>your walkman, indeed. :-)

Hmmm, funny walkman you have there.. :)

>
>[...]
>
>>>
>>>Speaking from my experience with bicycles: absolutely NOT!
>>>Just think about a mountain bike with thin, 28" tires. 8-/
>>>
>>>No, the bicycle (err, the COMPUTER) is just too flexible to be
>>>fully explored with one, single architecture. There is a place
>>>for more than just one CPU, one OS or one user interface, IMHO.
>
>>Yeah, but in the PCs case it has many different OSes for the SAME
>>task.
>
>Name two.

OS/2 and Window 3.1 and GeoWorks. Oops, that's 3.

>Of course there is a lot of overlap, just like in the area of
>applications.

They nearly totally overlap, as near as I can tell.

>>Imagine those bicycles if you had to get specific types
>>of tires for specific brands o' bike.
>
>Well, fortunately Shimano doesn't sell tires! :-)
>

That sounds like a good line, but I dont know what Shimano is,
alas.

>>Blech. They don't try to say
>>"our OS is for xyz"; they want to Rule The Market. (well, notable
>>exception is Windows NT- its only supposed to take the high end+
>>servers, leaving Windows the rest (joy of joys :/ ))
>
>There is at least competition from OS/2 and a few Unixes.

I know. See what I mean?

[deletia- Im not buying it. Or driving it. Fun fun.]
>
>>>I know someone who just replaced the motherboard of his PC the
>>>third time, in order to get a faster machine. He's a lawyer.
>
>>A pity he has to mess with a PC to get this sort of motherboard-upgrading,
>>on the cheap, tho.
>
>I don't think that he did it in order to get a cheap PC, but
>partially for fun, and partially in order to get exactly what
>he wants.

If he does that for fun, I think that qualifies him as at
least a part time technoweenie. :)

>>There's nothing about the Mac that prevents the
>>operation, but its expensive for the same reason new Macs are- Apple is
>>the only significant source. This is why accelerators are more popular.
>
>How well is the Apple hardware documented (circuit diagrams and the
>like)?

I haven't the faintest idea, alas. The accerator manufactures
manage to do it anyway, tho.

>>[deletia- drivers]
>>>>Upgrades are nice, and all that, but this sound driver is not
>>>>an upgrade or it would be part of the Official System now.
>>>
>>>This sound driver was released after the latest release of the
>>>Official System, i.e. 3.1. We are talking about shrink-wrapped
>>>software, here!
>
>>3.1, I understand, has gone through severl revisions (quietly);
>>mostly bug fixes. They coudl have thrown it in. Is it planned
>>for inclusion in 3.2?
>
>I doubt it, because it is still buggy. :-)
>
>More probably, the hardware of some PCs is buggy, and the driver
>can't do much about it. I think Microsofts decision not to put it

Hmm. Well that seems a little silly. Why not include it but not
(by default) use it?

>
>[...]
>
>>[deletia- counting that blasted sound driver]
>>>>However, if I were to go out and buy a PC system with windows et all,
>>>>I would not have it. It is not part of the system package now; its something
>>>>else you can get, for free in this case, but it is no doubt not alone in
>>>>that category.
>>>
>>>True. But what are the alternatives? There are so many new or enhanced
>>>drivers, bug fixes and the like, so one probably could build a new
>>>system almost daily. What does that mean: open all the Windows boxes
>>>in all the computer shops each day and exchange the floppy disks
>>>by new ones? Seems not to be an option to me.
>
>>No. But if you manufacture a printer, include the latest driver when
>>you ship. Not that hard.
>
>They do it.

Then go ahead and count it. :)

>>>>>>nor will I count (say) the MPW Shell
>>>>>>(free from ftp.apple.com!);
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, you are free to count it.
>>>
>>>>I hope not. If we do this, pretty soon my system will have every
>>>>init I can load on it. :)
>>>
>>>If apple creates all these pretty inits, why don't they include them
>>>into the Official Release?
>
>>Independard Developers (tm), who won't let apple have them. :) Some of
>>them want to make money; others just dont want anyone else making money
>>off their work. In either case Apple out. But I recall hearing this
>>driver attributed to Microsoft. Is this not so?
>
>It is, and this is why I don't understand why you compare it to
>add-ons from ISVs.

Because from the users point of view it might as well be from an ISV.
MS could change this, but that's how it stands now.

Of course, MS would never do such a thing as it would ruin my argument
against it. :)
---
            - Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.