From: johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:37:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: rpi.fjy1fap
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In article 722121166@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <k0x1cwc@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>>In article 722088782@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>|>In <ckx1x-l@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>|>
>>[deletia- sound driver stuff]
>>|>>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 :-).
>
>>Oh  well annother good argument down the drain... :)
>
>>|>  Look, the Macintosh is a more or less
>>|>closed system.
>
>>It is?
>
>If I compare it with the options I have when using a system
>based on PC hard- and software, yes.

If I compare the PC with a Cray, its slow. PCs are very, very
open. This does not make the Mac closed.

>>|> You buy a system from a single source, complete
>>|>with all hardware and system software.
>
>>You ->can<- do this but then you ->can<- do that with an IBM
>>PC too. You dont have to; its true that apple is teh only major
>>source of Mac CPUs but you can get keyboards, mice, monitors,
>>video cards, hard drives, memory, etc from other sources. Often
>>cheaper or better.
>
>So it is possible to get the main CPU boards of all Apple 
>computers without memory, mouse, video and sound hardware,
>for a competetive price?

As someone pointed out, some of htem have mohterboard based
memory so you cant get them all totally bare. And I said nothing
bout the price.

>I wonder how Apple sells so many systems.

I understand it sells many of them thisway- to dealers who put
in other (3d party) hard drives and whatnot.

>>|> It may be expandable,
>>|>but only as an afterthought, at best.
>
>>Pardon me? Defend this (as a general statement about all Macs, not just
>>the dumb unexpandable ones; if you just mean those I agree but
>>it isn't relevant)
>
>Well, the original design was: one big ROM containing most
>of the system, one single memory size, and no external bus,
>if I'm not mistaken.

That's correct. (do you really want me to talk about the
origional design of the PC, do you? After all, nobody
could possibly need more than 640k of RAM...)

>  The central theme in the design 
>philosophy was: eliminate the possiblity of choice, it
>will confuse the user. 

As to the "philosophy", I think you state it to broadly; if this
was the philosophy there would have been no "applications";
everything would be built in.

It turned out the users needed more choice, which was delivered. So?

>>|> 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.

>>|>Because of that, there isn't a need for "extra software",
>>|>very often.
>
>>Sure you do; you can't very well do ANYTHING with an out-of-the-box
>>Mac 'cept play with the finder. You need some sort of apps, at least.
>
>I wasn't talking about apps, I was talking about the system software.

Well, that wasn't clear to me. If you limit it to system software
you are right.

>>|>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.
>
>>Right.
>>You don't have to with a Mac either, for the most part.
>
>You have to, for the essential parts - CPU and operating
>system.

That is true. (you dont have to use the MacOS but you get
it anyway, so you've basically bought it)

>>|>A PC is a case, a power supply, a motherboard, a keyboard,
>>|>a few peripheral cards and a monitor.
>
>>With the Mac the case, power supply, motherbaord and a floppy
>>drive are sold as a unit. This is rather common in the PC world
>>also, no?
>
>No. It may be perceived by the buyers that way, but if
>you look behind the scenes, you see that all these
>suppliers of PCs sold as a unit get their components
>from a common pool of component suppliers, and that 
>these components are quite interchangeable.

How does this contradict my assertion (that it is common in
the PC world to sell these things as a unit?)

>>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.

>>|> You man mix and match
>>|>these hardware components almost freely, and make your choice
>>                           ^^^^^^
>>Almost? :)
>
>Almost. I don't want to cheat - this freedom of choice doesn't come
>for free. You have to learn a few things - not that difficult -
>in odrer to profit from it.

Oh; you made it sound like there were restrictions on what was
possible.

>>|>of system software from a palette of four or five operating
>>|>systems, including Windows, according to your needs. 
>
>>That's true, and if thats what you want, well the PC delivers it.
>>The Mac does not.
>
>>But I dont think its something most people want (why would they?)
>
>Because it offers them more choices for less money.

It does not seem to be worth the cost to Joe Average User
to me.

>Look, if I want to put a real computer on my bicycle, in
>order to get a complete trace of how fast I did ride on my
>commute, I can buy a MSDOS compatible 400 g PC running on
>two AA size cells, for about 300$, and run programs I develop
>on my 486 at home, using the standard C compiler.

And you would be partically unique in doing so; most people
would not have a clue how to do this. Most dont want to know;
they'd buy a device specifically for this. (if there is one). Most
people dont exactly know C. :)

[ps- what standard C compiler do you refer to?]

>If I want to put a computer for house control into my cellar,
>it's easy to put an cheap motherboard into a case, add a few
>pheripheral cards for signal processing and control it via
>the serial line. 

Similarly. This only makes sence if you program. Most people do not.

>>And it leads to vicious compatability problems.
>
>>Do think they are so bad? Try running a WPS app in Windows 3.1!
>>Try to run a GeoWorks app (if you can find one) under, well, anything.
>>Try running a Unix binary on OS/2.
>
>So what. Try copying a A3 page on a A4 copier. Try to use
>a HP cartridge on a Ricoh printer or the other way around.
>Or try to refill a ball-pen using your favourite ink. 
>Try to use a 26" tire on a 28" bicycle.

Wouldn't it be nice if this weren't an issue? If you didn't
have to deal with this mess?

Just because the problem is widespread doesn't make it less
a problem.

>>There are various attemps in there to alleviate this problem- DOS
>>compataibility boxes, windows emulators etc- the compatibility is
>>never 100% (understandably) and may take quite a speed penalty.
>>(particularly, I understand the seamless Windows box of OS/2 is
>>fairly slow)
>
>Just as it is slow to run a DOS app on SoftPC? Remember these
>Apple ads? :-)

I ->still<- want to know what Apple is smoking!

>>And fitting it all together is all sorts of fun.
>
>I wouldn't call it fun, but it isn't that difficult, either.

Depends how much you get pre-assembled. For those who want to buy
a separate motherboard, power supply, etc (I know someone who
did this btw!) its, well, not the sort of fun I want to have.

[deletia- drivers]
>>|>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?
>>|>
>
>>I should certainly hope your printer COMES WITH that driver (it would
>>be more than a little lame if it does not); 
>
>I bought my printer before Windows 3.0 was released, so this wasn't
>possible.

Does it come with the driver now? If so, go ahead and count it.

>>I am willing to count
>>the most recent versions of these products (Windwos 3.1 instead of 3.0,
>>say. Or the latest-and-greatest-printer-driver from HP) It should be
>>thrown in as part of the hardware you buy. (is it?)
>
>It is, and even better - as I already mentioned - driver find their
>way into the standard distribution from microsoft. But this doesn't
>solve the problem what to do when newer versions of the OS or the
>hardware arrive, without me buying one of those. This is usually
>solved by driver collections from Microsoft supplied for free
>or for a small fee through various channels, or by the hardware
>manufacturer, which offers enhanced drivers for old hardware.

Upgrades are nice, and all that, but this sound driver is not
an upgrade or it would be part of the Official System now.

>>The bug fixes are included in new versions of the system; As for the
>>hardware; well I have not been counting multiple monitors. 
>
>Well, Apple makes it money by selling hardware and giving the
>software away for free, so bug fixing by releasing new versions
>of the system isn't a big deal. For MS, this isn't that easy,
>because they sell the system software only.

Still, the bug fixes wind up in the next version on the system?

>>I would
>>count the CAPABILITY to have them if you want them (say, if you need
>>more space or depht); and that comes with the system. Multitudinous
>>monitors generally do not come with the system. For similar reasons
>>Ill let you count accelerated video.
>
>>But you cant count the sound driver because its not sold with any part
>>of your hardware (odd, isn't it?), 
>
>I think I should count it, because I can get it from Microsoft,
>for free, just by a phone call, quite similar to getting
>a fixed printer driver for my DeskJet which supports Umlauts,
>too, or a fixed import filter for Word.

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.

>>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. :)

And yours would probably pick up a few more tricks yet. Wonder
how long it would take for Norton Desktop for Windows to show up.
Or NewWave.

>>Ill let you count Windows (it usually
>>comes with) but I wont count A/UX (which is rarely used).
>
>And expensive, right?

Definitly!

---
			- 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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy