From: rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar)
Subject: Re: For all you Mac users...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:52:33 GMT

feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:

>In article <k#21x9q@rpi.edu>  writes:

>>I wish you'd come out with WHAT you can do on a Mac but _not_ do on
>>a PC. If I could come up with something like that Id do better
>>in these .advocacy flamewars.

>>>  And quite a few things that can be done on Macs  
>>>but require high-end-PCs because of the PC's antiquated I/O subsystem.
>>
>>Ditto for this (Although it strikes me as more believable)



>I don't want to start a flame war, so I'll give some general categories of  
>stuff rather than direct instances (where people will immediately say,  
>"Oh, but you can buy product X to do that."  :)

>Let's compare a typical Mac against a typical PC, and start from there.   
>Please don't go into a point-by-point response, just a general one.  These  
>are just opinions, and I think they're reasonably fair.

>1)  The Mac's graphics I/O is significantly faster, IMHO.  This allows for  
>nifty stuff like Quicktime without any special boards or accelerators.

Most new PCs come with accelerators. The point is that you have the _option_
of slow, cheap video. And nifty stuff like Quicktime is being ported by
Apple.

>2)  The Mac's graphics I/O is better-designed and much more flexible.   
>Whereas two-headed PCs are few and far between, the Mac can accomodate  
>large numbers of monitors as a virtual screen.  By the same token, the Mac  
>can accomodate unusual-sized monitors, interesting stuff like Radius'  
>tiltable monitor, or multiple monitors of *different* bit-depths.  It is  
>my understanding that PCs' standard "Monitor Types" do not accomodate such  
>things.

Obviously your experience in the PC world is not that great. As far as
most Windows developers go, multiple monitors are used, and they usually
consist of one low bit-depth monitor and one high bit-depth monitor. And
virtual screens and unusual-sized monitors can be accomplished with
drivers from the manufacturers.


>3)  The Mac's OS was designed to be easy to manage.  Hence, there are a  
>wide range of things that can be done on the Mac, at least quickly, that  
>would take a lot more work on the PC to do.  This isn't a good example of  
>the question above, though.

What OS is designed to be difficult to manage? And you haven't provided
any examples. The only thing that I find the Mac much faster is DTP.
And most certainly not programming.

>4)  Macs come with SCSI, and treat it as their standard method of  
>high-speed throughput.  Even monitors can be hooked up to Macs using SCSI.   
>On the other hand, SCSI does not come on typical PC machines, leastwise  
>not a fast implementation.  And what SCSI comes with the PC must be a  
>device-specific version, which has definite disadvantages.

You can get SCSI. And it's not device-specific. And fast-and-wide
SCSI is certainly supported.

>5)  Macs use NuBus, which has better throughput (I believe) than ISA or  
>EISA.  As a result, a Macs can do data acquisition rapidly and flexibly.   
>My personal experience with this is in sound production and direct-to-disk  
>recording, where the Mac shines.

This is true. But data acquisition with a sound board on a PC is no
worse than on a Mac. The bus speed problems is one of those that will
eventually be addressed by VL, PCI, or QuickRing.

>6)  The Mac's sound system...the PC needs a 16-bit card to be equivalent.

Depends on where you buy it from. Some PC cards are even better than the
Mac's sound system. So you have the choice to pick and choose the sound
hardware that best suits your needs (including, the cheap and indomitable
built in speaker - though that seems to be changing, at least on Compaqs)

>7)  The SuperDrive can easily read PC disks.  Not the other way around.   
>In fact, we distribute PC software with Macs here at BYU's Computer  
>Consultation Center because we've found the SuperDrive can format PC disks  
>more cleanly and faster than a PC drive!  The SuperDrive is an expensive  
>piece of hardware, and it shows.

Why the heck would I want to read a Mac disk? And even if I do, I can
use Macindos, or any number of shareware and commercial programs to do this.
Or I could use Apple File Exchange at the other end. Where's the need for 
redundancy? If a NeXT, Mac, and most workstations read/write PC disks,
why should I read these other formats?

>8)  The Mac does peer-to-peer networking for free, and its operating  
>system had networking built in from the start.  As a result, Macs handle  
>peer-to-peer, IMHO, better than PCs running DOS or Windows.  Now UNIX (and  
>NFS) is another matter, but we're comparing typical PCs here.

Windows for Workgroups now ships with some computers. And does ptpn.

>Etc.

What etc?

>There are others, of course.  The point of this is that the Mac has some  
>advantages over the PC, mostly based on the Mac being a newer  
>architecture, that lend credence to the Mac being able to do stuff that  
>the PC cannot do, or cannot do without some significant add-ons.

Yes, the add-ons are significant. But the overall price is still cheaper
than a Mac.

>This is the nature of technology:  newer designs have advantages over  
>older ones.  The Amiga's graphics system, for example, while not as  
>flexible as the Macs, certainly is far faster.  And the NeXT, a newer  
>machine, has so many advantages over the Mac that I'd prefer not to get  
>into it in this post.

>It's also a market issue.  Apple *must* be better than the PC, or Apple  
>will die.  Why buy a Mac when you can get something better for cheaper?   
>No one would consider purchasing Apple products.

Because Macs are most certainly easier to use. Any idiot can use a Mac, but
this is not possible on a PC. So you pay a premium for the smaller learning
curve.

>The original poster suggested that the Mac is somehow behind the PC.   
>Everyone recognizes this is not true.  The PC is catching up, and rapidly  
>(localbus is a nice step), but it is not ahead yet.  Give it a few years  
>and we'll see.

Exqueeze me?

>--

>Sean Luke
>Brigham Young University                   MILK:  It Comes From Cows
>sean@digaudio.byu.edu  
>NeXTmail and nifty Mac stuff welcome
-- 
Ravikumar Venkateswar
rvenkate@uiuc.edu

A pun is a no' blessed form of whit.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy