From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Mac & IBM Info-Version .90
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:03:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.wf_i1Bi00VpAIS1cdP
Distribution: na
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

This list still has major bugs that I can see...

bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:
> 586(P5) 64      64       32        128      288   RISC-like features, 386-
>                                                   emulator, superscalar
...
> 80586(P5): Intel claims a performance of 100+ MIPS. It is to be out
in the first quarter of 1993 [InfoWorld July 27, 92 & Vaporware
9/92].{We need to see this.}

The P5 was Intel's internal designation for the next chip in the 8086
line, following the 486.  It is called the Pentium.  Intel is *not*
calling it the 586. 

> PowerPC: The chip is out and rumor has it that IBM may build its PowerPC 601 
> EARLY 1993 (InfoWorld June 8 and 15, 92; MacWeek July 13, 92) It is also 
> rumored that the 601  machine will be four times as fast as a 50 MHz 486dx 
> running Windows.{could give P5 a run for the money with the five OSs that 
> could run on this: DOS, Windows 3.x, OS/2, Mac OS, & UNIX (AU/X 4.0) and its 
> earlier release date.}

The PowerPC will only run 2 os's:  PowerOpen, and Apple's as yet
unnamed version of system 7.0.  Eventually, someone will probably port
unix to it.  Applications from other OS's will supposedly be supported
by several emulation / binary translation methods.

> 68040LC:  a 68040 without a working FPU, a varient of this to be used in the 
> Centris 610 due out on Feb. 15 {MacWeek 11/02/92}.  Unclear as if a 68040LC 
> will be used or Motorola will go the 468sx trek. (a 'failed' chip as opposed 
> to a purposely designed one.)}

Only earlier 486sx's were 'failed' chips.  Now they use a new die.
(Unless Intel never got their act together like they said they would.
Anyone to deny the above - they were supposed to be switched over long
ago.)

> in comparing the CPUs the list looks like this:

The comparison list is fairly misleading because generally, earlier
Motorola chips are faster and better than early Intel chips, mhz for
mhz, but the ratio drops significantly as the chips progress, up to
the 486/040 where the 040 is faster for the same clock speed, while
the 486 can be run at much higher clock speeds than the 040.

> To keep costs down and speed up most Macs display only 8-bits
> at a time, with some expandsion needed to display 24(32)-bit color.

No mac currently available comes with 24 bit color built in.  The
closest are the Quadras, which still need a video ram expansion.

> Monographics/Hercules Monochrome:  Text only/Text & Graphics
> {due to the age of these I am thinking of droping them from the list.}

Might as well - the earlier ones on the list (all the way up to vga)
are similar in age and usefullness of comparison to the early Mac
graphics (black and white 8 inch, etc...)

> Mac:  Built in AppleTalk functionality (Includes LocalTalk).  For
> most present machines Ethernet requires a card (PDS or Nubus) and
> the hardware support for each machine runs about $250-$300.

If you want to connect two machines with Appletalk, it takes a serial
cable.  Connecting more requires some hardware, the cost of which I
recall as being something like $30 per mac, plus $100 for the box...

> Printing requires connection of the printer and the printer being
> selected in the chooser.  Changing printers is by selecting a
> different name in the chooser.

> IBM:  

information included was mostly for dos
info for os/2 is lacking
os/2 works like this for what i've seen:
printing ala mac - the os deals with the printers, the apps deal with
the printer layer of the os, so there's no application/printer foo -
the only concern is if your printer is supported for os/2

> net, because there's no way for software to reliably determine which printer 
> is active right now. According to Jawdat "under DOS each piece of software 
> needs its own printer drivers, which have been fairly standardized." {Could 

most printers support one of various protocols - emulating certain
standard printers - usually panasonics for dot matrix, or hp for
laserjets


> somebody explain how this is standardized and why MicroSoft has not written 
> its own standard print drivers to save HD space? I am confused.}

Dos apps are too non-standardized for this to work.  As for Windows, I
believe the Windows supports standard printer protocols, and printers
that aren't supported can have drivers talk to the Windows printer
setup, so that every app talks to the windows printer drivers, and
windows talks to the printers.  Anyone correct me if i'm wrong...

> 7.1.0: 7.0.1 with WorldScript support and less RAM usage then
>        7.0.dot.[MacWeek Aug 24 & Sept 14 and PC Week Sept 7]

A lot of people have found that 7.1 actually takes up more memory,
both on the disk and in ram.

> OS/2: Unix like features and unix like requirements; 8 MB of RAM,
>       a 60MB hard drive (uses 17-33MB on HD), and 386 CPU. Has to
> use a swap file to handle more then 16 MB RAM.  IBM plans to use

Doesn't have to use a swap file to handle more than 16mb ram - though
it may have to use memory above 16mb as a huge virtual swap file on
ISA systems.

Also:  there are many implementations of unix out for the pc platform.
The three major ones I can think of are Interactive, 386bsd, and
Linux.

> Price issue: Apple has dropped prices for dealers 15% to 20% 

IBM compatibles are still far cheaper than Macs, spec for spec.  The
only question comes in whether one is willing to deal with more setup
on pc's than on Macs.


-- faisal jawdat                  | "Certainly the game is rigged.
email: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu       | Don't let that stop you;
if mail handler barfs             | if you don't bet, you can't win." 
fj05@andrew.cmu.edu               |        -Lazarus Long