From: ajross@husc10.harvard.edu (Andrew Ross)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:52:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.ajross.715279978
 <ewright.714943016@convex.convex.com> <1992Aug28.063440.28863@CS.ORST.EDU>   
 <ewright.715017293@convex.convex.com> <ajross.715040512@husc10> <ewright.715276388@convex.convex.com>

ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <ajross.715040512@husc10> ajross@husc10.harvard.edu (Andrew Ross) writes:

>>     THE PC IS NOT LIMITED TO 640K.

>>This is a .DOS. limitation.  

>Sorry, but Ventura Publisher does not run under DOS.  It runs under
>*Windows* and still has trouble because of the 640K barrier.  This
>is not only a DOS limitation.  Even if it was, that would be small
>consolation because *most PC programs still run under DOS, not Windows
>or OS/2.*

Granted, I've never used Ventura Publisher for Windows (although I have
used the older GEM version, which DOES need memory management hacks like
LIM 4.0).  I have a little trouble believing this statement though.  Under
windows, unless you specifically code otherwise, all applications see a
flat 32 bit addressing space, i.e. they THINK they have the whole 4GB
available if they want it.  What problems were you having with the "640k
barrier".  It's worth pointing out, though, that Windows itself breaks the
640k barrier in the first place, so it doesn't make much sense to talk
about it in relation to windows programs.

>>Most office assistants and students use PC's that much.  This does not
>>make them experts.  Using a machine for what it is intended to do teaches
>>you nothing about its internals.  

>That's the whole problem.  You *can't* use a PC without knowing
>a hell of a lot about the internals, just to keep it going.  Of
>course I'm not a PC expert by your definition, which is "someone
>who uses, knows, and worships the Poltically Correct computer."

Tell that to the millions of office assistants and others out there who
use PC's every day to do productive work.  I can see logic in claiming
that the Mac is more efficient/easier, but claiming that no one can even
use a PC without internals knowlege?  Come on.

>This is equally if not more true on the
>>Mac.  Please back up you attacks with evidence.

>>I have to get one flame in here:

>>IMHO, someone who suports his office's decision to pay $7000 for a
>>386-20 and $600 for a Video Accelerator and thinks all PC's are limited to
>>640k doesn't know sh*t about PC's.  Please grow up.

>And I'll flame you right back.  If you had read any of my
>previous posts, you would know that I *opposed* the decision 
>to buy PCs.  I have stated time and time again that the decision 
>was not made by me but by a PC support expert -- in other words, 
>Mr. Ross, someone like you.  I realize your reading skills are
>so poor you probably won't grok this statement either but, oh well,
>hope springs eternal.

Touche.  You did, however, argue that the cost was justified in order to
get "good quality", something I and many others disputed.  Our point was
that the $7000 you spent was essentially wasted on buying a 386-20. 
Anyone familiar with the PC world should have known this, IMHO.  I am
writing this on a 486-33 I paid $2300 for a year ago and have had ZERO
problems with.

You do get the prize for most acidic toungue lashing, however.  Perhaps my
reading skills really aren't quite up to snuff; what does "grok" mean?

Andy Ross
ajross@husc.harvard.edu
                                                    A dumb PC jock who really
                                                    LIKES Mac's, just can't
                                                    afford one.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc