From: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: "Windoze" slow? Naah...Re: pc and mac: was
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:51:11 GMT

In article L0D@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>In article <Af6NnVe00WB8EEQowh@andrew.cmu.edu> fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat) writes:
>>cvadsadm@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:
>
>>> BTW, i am both a mac user and a pc user. i think windows is better
>>> than mac os in some area, such as the handy active file icons and
>>> window borders. but i think mac is much better on hardware and overall
>>> system software. 
>
>>I'd have to agree with the latter part, assuming software like
>>windows.  If you're running something like os/2 the comparison is very
>>different.
>
>Since I'm the odd one out here (I run Windows on all the machines 
>I use exclusively) I suppose I ought to say something about it.

Why not? Join the fun. :)

>The Windows desktop is quite a bit nicer than the Mac (at least I 
>get really annoyed at some things on the Mac).

Well, I think the Mac desktop is really quite a bit nicer than
Windows. So there!

I get really annoyed at some things in Windows. :)

[just demonstrating how effective this sort of argument is. heh heh]

> As far as what lies 
>underneath it isn't bad at all actually.

Which one? Both have serious faults.

> In fact I'm of the opi-
>nion that Windows does a better job of multitasking than System 7.

Oh?

>System 7, for instance, still assigns fixed stack sizes to appli-
>cations. You have to adjust the stack size before you launch the 
>app. Windows does this dynamically.

It is not possible for users to adjust stack sizes. You are probably
thinking of _heap_ sizes. Applictions select their own stack size.

This is a real problem with the Mac. Interestingly, Windows shares it
but its a little odd. Windows and the Mac BOTH provide apps a 'local
heap'; on the Mac this is the thing whose size you may set. On windows its
64k. On the mac basically all your resources, windows, grafports, and whatnot
go there. Windows is similar, but there are two other heaps that can
be used for these purposes, so its not all there. Both provide routines
for the allocation of memory outside thie heap (GlobalAlloc and TempNewHandle,
I believe they are) which apps can use to bypass the heap-size problem.

BUT on Windows the apps actuall DO this- they have little choice. On the Mac
they often DON'T, and simply make do with their local heaps because allocating
"temporary" (not in your heap) memory is new with System 7. Its a compatibility
thing.

So it sometimes happens that on the Mac you must adjust the heap size of an
app. (you usually don't, as it happens, but it depends on things like how big
a document you wish to open)

One side point, its called "temporary" memory because you are not supposed
to hold it indefinitely. You might hold some while some particular document
is open, say, and dispose it when that document closes. Its not considered
nice to snarf up temporary memory and just hold it, tho, as this steals
memory from other programs.

> Its also quite good at networking -
>integrates very well with Netware.

Well, perhaps so. First I heard of it. Are you refering to Windows for
Workgroups? I dont know much about that, so that might do the trick
and bring it up to Mac network standards. It's supposed to.

As far as I know (not very far in this case) the only thing Windows 3.1
can do on a net is connect to a file server. Handy, but not
distinguishing. Perhaps I just missed it, but I was never even able
to find an option in the file manager for setting file or directory
protections. (not that I searched for hours, its quite possible I overlooked
it)

I thoughts Windows for Workgroups was supposed to fix this and other
gaps.

> Theres also the sticky little
>point of users forgetting to close apps - the apps don't dissapear 
>when you close the last file. Messy!

Quite right, this is not good. ->but<- Windows has the same problem;
close the last document and the apps' main window is still there!

Its the same idea, the difference is that the Mac usually hides the
fact that your really dealing with apps (not just documents) that when
this fact is thrust upon an unsuspective victim, its a real annoyance.

> If you don't like the default
>desktop for Windows you can always use an alternate shell - besides 
>NDW theres Aporia (or whatever they call the commercial version of
>it - an object oriented desktop), Usher (small, takes little RAM),
>Command Post, even WinCLI and that weird one that looks like an 
>office (to quit Windows you flip the light switch!)

You can do exactly the same thing with the Mac- just replace the finder.
Its rarely done because most MacHeads seem to like the Finder. Go figure.

There are (or at least used to be) some replacements out there.
I seem to remember one that resembled the NeXT file manager, in that
multiple-list mode thing.

Heck, if you are really singleminded, make your word processor your
"finder". :)

>There seems to be some kind of tacit agreement here that Windows 
>is "slow". Sure it is - if you run it on a 286. Or a 3 year old
>386-16. Or a Model 55SX with its 8 bit video. On any decent (386SX-20
>and above) clone with decent video card (anything other than a 
>Trident!) its not bad at all. Better than the Mac Si's and Ci's 
>around here. With 32-bit disk access turned on, a permanent swap
>file, and disk caching its pretty zippy actually. 

Dont' forget that sis adn cis have rather cruddy video subsystems. By
which I mean these video systems fight with the CPU for accessing
RAM, slowing everything down. Its an awful mess, but the newer (and
older for that matter) models do not have the problem.

Incidentally, the complaint that Windows is "slow" is a reasonable
IF your statement above is true. Its slow on low end PCs- 286s and such. 3
year old ones.

I have used System 7 on a Classic (a cheaper version of the plus, and
no faster certainly) and it ran fine. (of course, I turned of
automatical folder size calculation. That helps quite a bit)

>Why haven't I switched to OS/2? Well, several reasons. While I am
>aware of its multitasking prowess, there still aren't good Tseng 
>ET4000 SVGA drivers (most OS/2 users I know still use VGA).

Oh, yes. You PCheads still use video drivers, don't you? :)

[sorry, just couldn't resist]

> It still 
>runs Windows apps slower than native Windows does. And the Netware 
>Requestor is REALLY rough. Even with all the patches available on the 
>net (yet ANOTHER reason - no patches, no joy) it can still freeze the 
>machine solid.

Well, give it some time. OS/2 seems really promicing to me. I bet if
IBM keeps working on it it could be really good.

>Why run Windows apps at all? Well, thats where all the nice apps 
>are. There isn't anything the equal of Excel 4 in the OS/2 world,
>or the DOS world. The OS/2 users around here tell me they wish
>they could find a WinQVT/Net for OS/2. I agree, if you are running 
>mainly DOS apps, OS/2 is better. Not if you're running Windows apps. 

This is a serious problem for OS/2, and several other very nice
systems.

>Couple this with the fact that very little of our hardware here 
>is capable of running OS/2. 4 Meg of RAM _isn't_ enough for OS/2. 

Annother big problem for OS/2.

>I keep all my work on a server volume and can fire up Windows from
>any of 200 machines anywhere on campus. Hard to do that with OS/2.

Heh heh.

Well, if you'd only upgrade all the Machines on campus to 486-50s with
16 MB RAM and 600 MB Hard drives (preferably PS/2s), and put OS/2
on 'em, your troubles would be over! :)

>I also have to be able to _support_ Windows, since we have lots of 
>Windows users, so this gives me the incentive to learn it inside 
>out.

This is indeed a good reason to learn, and even use, Windows.

Never thought I hear one. :)

> In comparison the only OS/2 users out there (I know of exactly 
>_two_. Another half dozen I know installed it then got rid of it) 
>are gurus anyhow. I also have to know quite a bit about Macs since 
>we have an equal number of Macs and Mac users.

->2<- of them and you must know a lot about Macs?

> I try to avoid them 
>for my own work as much as possible however - they just annoy me 
>too much.

Well, personal preference is a wonderfull things I guess.
(personally I expect it is that you tend to like what you are
first exposed to)

> The exception is MacDraw II - I wish Claris would hurry 
>up and port it to Windows.

[blank stare]

MacDraw II?

That peice of crud?

Even MacDraw Pro isn't all that good. It's slow.

I sincerly hope there are superior products already availiable
for Windows.

---
			- 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