From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: RE-Win/NT
Date: 7 Sep 92 11:51:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.keev_bC00WB78Xif8m
	<Bu7LH9.4ML@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

triantos@acsu.buffalo.edu (Nick B Triantos) writes:

>        really is.  With pre-fetching and other niceties that the MC680x0's
>        offer, I have not seen a 33MHz '486 _PERFORM_ as fast as my Mac.  The
>        '486 machines spend too much of their processing time dealing with a
>        ridiculously out of date OS called DOS, and then a DOS program which
>        pretends to offer a GUI for PCs called Windows.

this assumes that you are dealing with dos/windows, and not a modern
os like os/2 2.0, or when it arrives NT - both of these are 32 bit,
preemptive multitasking, protected mode operating systems, and have
standardized graphics functions, standardized printing (ala mac), and
only require a printer driver and a graphics driver for the os (just
like the mac) - not one for each piece of software
and a pc with an accelerated graphics card such as the ATI/Ultra will
display more colors faster and in higher resolution than a mac without
additional video card, while still costing less than a mac whithout
additional video hardware...

>   (2)  The people who buy Macs spend money for the quality components which
>        Apple uses, much like those expensive IBM brand PCs.  They cost more,
>        but everything is supposed to be compatible, and there are less 

actually, most lower end models these days (such as ZEOS, the new
Compaq's, Dells, Gateway (except that stupid modem)) are very high
quality at fairly low cost - the margin has gotten so low that all the
serious companies have to compete on quality anyway - IBM only sells
because of their name - if anything, their systems are less standard,
and not as fast (even if MCA is fantastic)

>        could have bought some clone.  I wanted a good computer, where a word
>        processor doesn't include 4 disks of printer drivers, the File menu
>        always has Save in the same place, and I don't need to own a single
>        piece of equipment or software from the ultimate megacorporation for
>        being unresponsive to industry guidelines, MicroSloth.

the printer drivers meet the os - you only need one - the 4 disk
problem is a relic of dos -  which is dying faster than anyone thought
it would
the file menu's in os/2, windows, and NT all have a Save command just
like the mac - it's CUA (common user access?)
as for Microsoft... well that's the reason I have a macIIci 8/230
instead of a 486/50 8/340 with a caching scsi controller, an
accerarated graphics card, etc - I'd rather use os/2 today, but don't
want to have to use NT tomorrow if that becomes the standard...

And one final point - the current specs for NT seem to be at least:
486/33
8 megs ram
100 meg hd

but will probably be much higher to be usefull when the things come
out
486/50 EISA
16 megs ram
400 meg disk seem more ball park, when you consider all the
capabilites promised for the thing (namely all the networking foo,
windows hooks, dos hooks, etc...)
Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.system:11781 comp.sys.mac.misc:16332