From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 12:13:02 GMT

In <ckx1x-l@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>In article 721999698@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>In <b=w16xf@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>
>>>In article 721932965@dhhalden.no, runehh@dhhalden.no (RUNE HALFDAN HOLST HUSEBY) writes:
>>>>In article <00t1hlb@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec314.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>>[deletia- metafiles]
>>>>>>You don't, if you only need simple sounds. There is always the 
>>>>>>speaker.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which can only beep under Windows, no? Or did windows pick up a driver
>>>>>for the internal speaker that I dont know about?
>>>>There is a driver for the internal speaker you don't know about. It's OK as 
>>>>long as you don't need noise-free sound.
>>
>>>I understand from an email conversation that this driver disables
>>>interrupts. This would mean you cant use it asyncrhonously (it
>>>locks up your mouse). Kinda... cheesy.. no wonder MS didn't
>>>include it.
>>
>>The Windows 3.1 driver for the internal speaker that I have installed
>>on my machine (I got it from one of the collections of new or
>>enhanced drivers which MS distributes via CompuServe or the
>>networks) can be configured via the control panel. One of the
>>options is a checkbox labeled "Enable interrupts during playback".
>>If this box is checked, the sound becomes a bit noisy, but the
>>mouse dosn't freeze during playback, if interrupts are enabled.
>>
>>All this is of course a kludge. But, contrary to what you said
>>earlier, it proves that even on PCs without a soundcard, Windows
>>*can* replay sounds and isn't restricted to simple beeps. 
>>

>Well, I didn't know about the checkbox. But what it proves is that
>windows can be made to replay sounds on a standard speaker. The
>difference is the need for extra software.

>Remember that if Windows can count the extra stuff like that, so can
>the Mac. It would get crazy fast, I think.

I don't buy that argument, because it gives the Macintosh an
unfair advantage :-).  Look, the Macintosh is a more or less
closed system. You buy a system from a single source, complete
with all hardware and system software. It may be expandable,
but only as an afterthought, at best. 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.
Because of that, there isn't a need for "extra software",
very often.

In the PC world, this is a bit different. Of course, you
*can* stay with the "single supplier" model here, too, i.e.
buy everything from IBM, for example. But you don't have to.

A PC is a case, a power supply, a motherboard, a keyboard,
a few peripheral cards and a monitor. You man mix and match
these hardware components almost freely, and make your choice
of system software from a palette of four or five operating
systems, including Windows, according to your needs. 

In that latter case, one usually gets the necessary drivers
from the hardware supplier. For example, I got the Windows 3.0
printer driver for my DeskJet from HP, because it had more
capabilities (scaleable fonts) than the standard DeskJet
driver on the Windows 3.0 disks. I'm not using it anymore,
because the standard 3.1 driver supports TrueType. 

If I can't count that 3.0 driver, because it's "extra software",
or the internal speaker driver from Microsoft, because it
isn't contained on the original retail disks of Win 3.1, we
should stop to count all the "extra hardware", for example
secondary video cards, and all the bug fixes which found
their way into Macintoshs after the original OS installation,
for the Macintosh. Ok?

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy