From: tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM SUCKS!  (ha ha ...)
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:27:45
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
	<6051.2ac3aa51@hayes.com> <TOMSTER.92Sep28200453@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>
	<6079.2ac866ba@hayes.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: bcoleman@hayes.com's message of 29 Sep 92 14:22:50 EDT

In article <6079.2ac866ba@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

   In article <TOMSTER.92Sep28200453@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>, tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:
   > In article <6051.2ac3aa51@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
   > 
   >    RE: PC Applications. If you develop for Windows, it ain't any easier. If you
   >    develop for DOS, your applications are easier because they do less. Hence, you
   >    aren't comparing equivalent things.
   > 
   > What?  They do LESS?

   Yup.

   There's a lot of stuff you have to do in a graphic user interface like the
   Mac (or <sigh> Windows) that you don't have to do under DOS. This stuff is
   part of every application.

   Take the user interface for example. You don't have to have any user interface
   under DOS. Maybe some stuff on the command line. There's no standards for
   even what you would display.

If someone is going to buy your program, it had better have _some_ sort of 
interface.  What do you mean, DOS applications don't require an interface?

   On the Mac, you have to have a user interface. And you have to be able to
   crank up desk accessories. You have to be prepared to handle files when
   opened or dropped on your application. You have to be prepared to be

Ah.  Now I see what your problem is.  You don't regard the command line
as an interface at all, do you?  Let me tell you, it is.  What, did you
think that when a user types 'dir *.*' the 'dir' program doesn't have to
do *anything*?  How about 'edit dothis.bat'?  No work to be done there, either
I suppose.  The command line is much more important -- useful -- than the
'drag'n'drop' handling of your Mac program.  This is why many DOS apps
'forget' to include the real-time, interactive interface you value so
much on your Mac -- they really don't need it in order to be useful.

   switched to the background. You have to be prepared for your interface to
   operate with differing bit depths, with and without color.

*IF* your program requires anything but ascii text output (this includes
screen-size specific as well as mono- / color arrangements) you have to
make your program modular enough to handle it.

   You don't have to do this under DOS. Hence, your program does less.

But the thing is, most of the work involving these things is done at the
outset, before any interaction comes up.  If your Mac app has to set a
few variables with reference to the environment they are in, it probably
does that at the outset as well.  (I've never programmed a Mac, so correct
me if I'm wrong here.)
What the original post had been about was the *speed* of doing certain
tasks in DOS- and Mac- based applications, and benchmark test of the
machines based on those values.  While a DOS app is going (let's say one with
full-screen graphics, mouse manipulation, etc, like a Mac), it doesn't have
to do a lot of checking around about the bit depth or whatever -- it
figures out the system's configuration at the beginning, so that it doesn't
take up time in the middle to do this.  I would have to assume that the Mac is
the same.  If Mac programs are not written that way, maybe they (Mac
programmers) should try it.
Therefore, in this hypothetical scenario, the DOS application and the Mac
application are doing similar things -- especially if the DOS app happens
to really be a Windows app.

   > I don't know what kind of panty-ass programs *you* have been writing,
   > but I can get DOS to do quite impressive things.  

   I don't feel that the programs I write are "panty-ass." Nor do I have
   any idea what you feel is "impressive". I have a feeling that you have a
   vastly different idea that I about the meaning of the word.

Okay, I apologize for that obviously spiteful remark.  It was late.

   > That's neglecting direct
   > hardware manipulation.  Can you even get CLOSE to manipulating the hardware
   > on a MAC?

   You can. Apple recommends against it. That's because when the OS changes due
   to future improvements, or the hardware changes due to future improvements,
   your tremendous hardware hack will break. That's certainly doing a disservice
   to your users.

   Fortunately, Apple has excellent software interfaces to manipulate the hardware
   in just about every fashion. Further, they have guidelines created to tell
   you how they expect applications to act. This helps both the developer and the
   user. The developer knows what he has to do, and the user gets applications
   that act consistantly.

I don't know how to feel about this one.  You see, there are two arguments 
which must balance eachother here: one, that programmers can access new
hardware schemes immediately, without having to wait for a new OS to come
out; two, that hardware innovative hardware vendors are tied to making their
product somewhat backwards-compatible so that older programs will run on them.
The pc advantage is in the short-run here, while the Mac advantage is in the
long run.  Direct hardware manipulation, however, is a relatively easy way
to speed up a dos program.  (ie, writing to the video board's memory, rather
than telling the board's BIOS to do the work).  The DOS and BIOS video
manipulation routines are tediously slow most of the time.

To tell the truth, I think MS recommends against direct hardware manipulation
as well, but a programmer has little choice because the graphics routines
are so crappy.  Guess it pays to have a machine designed around graphics rather
than text if you're doing graphics ... 

   >    Perhaps you ought to look up a few studies that were done
   >    a few years ago (some were sponsered by Apple, others were independant) that
   >    showed that while PCs had lower hardware investment, when you added in the
   >    additional costs of maintainence and training, Macs were actually cheaper!
   > 
   > The same ones that say it costs $6000 to buy a computer that runs Windows?
   > Give me a break.

   No, this was done earlier. However, about that ad: I think you are throwing 
   the baby out with the bath water.

   I have that Ad posted on my cube wall. Apple marketing did some creative 
   accounting with the numbers. While I can fault their summation, I can't
   fault their message. PCs may give the appearance of being cheaper, but 
   when you factor in all the costs involved, the scales tip toward the Macintosh
   solution.

The 'concept' of the pc, if ever there was one, is just this: modularity.
For this reason, hardware is sold, for the most part, 'a la carte', peice
by peice.  I admit, this does allow room for certain parties to fool
certain other parties as to the real cost of a pc.  All things added together,
however, (unless you're going multi-media or such, in which case there's no
way you'll *ever* be happy on a DOS machine) a pc is *still* cheaper than a 
comperably equipped Mac.  The thing those Mac ads try to do is start with a Mac
fully loaded with stuff that is relatively cheap on the Mac line, but expensive
on the DOS line, then try to build a DOS machine with those same features.
I know that sentence is long and confusing, but it is true.  Think about it.
Do you see any of those ads talking about going out and getting a $100 1Meg
Boca SVGA Board?  No, the price *they* quote for the 'standard' SVGA board is
much higher than $100.  I don't have one in front of me now, but I seem to 
remember that the price they quoted was sufficient to get an ATI Stealth board.

Then, of course, a pc just *isn't* useful without a $250 Sound Blaster Pro card
with full MIDI extensions, is it?  Granted, a regular SB card is aroung $129,
but who could stand to listen to *that* horrible sound?  :->

My god, and I still get by with just the squeaker speaker ...

   >    And that was a few years ago, before the introduction of lower cost Macs.
   >    While PC hardware has gotten even cheaper, those maintainence and training
   >    costs haven't!
   > 
   > I beg to differ.  Have you bought and/or maintained a pc built in the last
   > year or so, Mr. Apple Spokeman?  

   Nope. I think I've sold my DOS machine. I had a Tandy laptop for my wife. We
   replaced it this year with a PB 100. That leaves me with three Macs and no
   PCs. I'm happy.

(Sorry about the Tandy ... )

   > It is quite difficult to get a machine which will break on you.  

   I think you are confusing the issue. I said maintainence. That includes
   setup and on-going support. You seem to be confusing the word maintainence
   with repairs. While repairs are a part of maintainence, they aren't the
   only part.

Setup?  I brought mine home, plugged it together, plugged it into the wall
and was off.  Hell, the company I bought it from even gave me a surge protector
and a mouse pad.  All the software I had then (DOS and Windows, WP51, Excel
for Windows) they installed for me.

I've had to deal with them exactly twice since then, and both times they
were eager to help me and prompt (within a day).  The first time was, when
I shipped my computer back home over the summer, UPS kindly dropped the CPU
from some height (the padding inside the box was all reduced to golf-ball
sized bits of styrofoam.)  The video board wasn't working when I got it.
They had a spare for me to use while I got everything straightenned out
with UPS.  The second time was when I went in to get more memory.  They
charged me twenty bucks to put it in, and had my CPU back to me.

This all says two things:
	1)  that cpu was *durable*.  The UPS estimate was that the box fell a
		good ten to twenty feet.  Nothing was damaged but the video
		card.
	2)  The people who work on computers are *more* than aware that I can
		take my business elsewhere at the drop of a proverbial hat,
		and temper their service accordingly.
That is what I meant.

   And you didn't even touch the training issue.

No, I didn't.
That was a different discussion.

   -- 
   Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
   Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
   Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
   POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
   Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
   Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

--
/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
|  The bleeding hearts and the artists  \ /  Words of Wisdom, Inc.            |
|  make their stand.  And when they've  / \  Thomas R. Dibble, esquire, C.E.O.|
|  given you their all, some stagger &  \ /  aka, The Tomster, Tomahawk, etc. |
|  fall,  after  all,  it's not  easy,  / \  send mail/ money to:             |
|  banging your heart against some mad  \ /  tomster@wpi.wpi.edu              |
|  bugger's wall. ---R. Waters, _Wall_  / \  (or don't send it at all)        |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy