From: rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:50:35 GMT

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?

>|> 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.

Okay, is it possible to get a Quadra 950 sans video card, hard drive,
memory, mouse? If you can, then you can make a comparison.

>|> 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)

>|> 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.

Ah, but accelerators won't work on Macs that don't have a big enough
power supply. So if you bought an IIsi, you're stuck.

>|>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.

>|>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.

Yeah? As far as your initial purchase, what can you _not_ buy from Apple?

>|>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?

But you don't have to.

>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.

>|> You man mix and match
>|>these hardware components almost freely, and make your choice
>                           ^^^^^^
>Almost? :)

Precluding stupidity, like buying a tower case and a 50 W power supply.

>|>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?)
>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.

But you can run DOS apps in Windows 3.1 and OS/2, and Windows 3.0 apps
in OS/2 (should be 3.1 by December).

>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 like System 7 is not totally compatible with System 6. And as far
as seamless Windows in OS/2, it's because each Windows application has
its own instance of Windows. You can run non-seamless Windows, and every
application after the first doesn't encounter the speed penalty in loading
Windows, and then the app. Protection is compromised, to some degree,
but if you need the protection, you can always run seamless.

>And fitting it all together is all sorts of fun.

Fitting OSs? No problem. It's easy enough to run Dos+Windows and OS/2
dual boot. It's kind of lobotomized OS/2 (in terms of the file system)
but you can use the best OS for a particular task.

>|>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?
>|>

>I should certainly hope your printer COMES WITH that driver (it would
>be more than a little lame if it does not); 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?)

>The bug fixes are included in new versions of the system; As for the
>hardware; well I have not been counting multiple monitors. 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?), nor will I count (say) the MPW Shell
>(free from ftp.apple.com!); Ill let you count Windows (it usually
>comes with) but I wont count A/UX (which is rarely used).

But we'll let you count the MPW Shell.

>On the other hand, if you really hate it we can just Leap Into The Fray
>With All the Weird Utilties And So On We Can Think Of. It very likely
>wont convince me of anything (I dont think it means much), but it may
>be fun! :)

>---
>			- 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.
-- 
Ravikumar Venkateswar
rvenkate@uiuc.edu

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