From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:41:07 GMT

In <=my1chq@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>In article 1925@nosc.mil, discar@nosc.mil (Joe Discar) writes:
>>In article <r!y1nsd@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes:
>>>In article 722096841@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>>>In <6dv1j!j@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>>
>>>>>(why do I say its not fast enough? Because the PCheads
>>>>>here seem to feel that way- otherwise they'd have blown away my comment
>>>>>about Windows having a slow  GDI by demonstrating that it doens't;
>>>>>instead they say you can use an accelerated graphics board...)
>>>>
>>>>Then let's start to compare lines/second. Your turn. :-)
>>>
>>>:) I dont know how many lines per second, nor does it matter terribly.
>>>(what these things do a lot of its blitting, actually..) I worry more
>>>about how snappy it feels.
>>>
>>
>>Yikes!  This is so idiotic.  Here, Wolfgang is saying "ok, let's use a
>>tangible metric to judge the speed of the graphical interface" and
>>Daniel is saying that he prefers a totally subjective view of which one
>>is "snappier"!
>>
>>Daniel.  My C64 is Sooooooo much faster than you Macintosh... because it
>>feels so much snappier.  :)

>Im sure it doesn't use a co-processor too! :) However you are misrepresenting
>what I said (if indeed you know what it was); see the end of this
>article about that. Certainly I dont think <adequate interface performance>
>= <fast computer>; You I suspect are reading that in bacause you see
>that I feel that <adequate interface performance> = <very important thing>
>and you (I, once again, suspect) feel that the one important thing is
>overall speed. Hence I must feel that the two things are related, so
>I must really mean <adequate interface performace> = <fast computer overall>,
>a rediculous assertion. Which you proceed to flame me for lightly.

I'm lost again. You don't mean it's important that it actually *is* fast, 
all you care about is whether it *feels* fast? This is ridiculous!

>Incidentally, I do count it a point in the favor of your C64 that it
>feels snappy wo/ an accelerated video card. (particularly since
>such things arent availiable for a C64 :) )

>>Seriously, most of the misunderstandings about feelings regarding operating
>>environments is due to poor definitions--including definitions based
>>solely on subjective feelings.  I think that if you really DO believe
>>that the Macintosh is so much faster than the PC (or vice versa), then
>>a set of quantitative metrics should be run (comp.benchmarks?).

>I do not so believe.

>This is just about the fact that I said it would be better if windows
>did not need an accelerated graphics card. I think its a Mac advantage
>not to so require. (for what thats worth)

I.e. a purely subjective statement, which cannot be proven wrong or
true, and for which you refuse to give a more precise definition
of what you are talking about. 

Well, I already said it, and say it again: Windows doesn't 
generally need an accelerated video card, in order to provide
an user interface which feels "snappy". I don't see an advantage
of the Macintosh here, neither from subjective experience, nor
from looking at the soft- and hardware architecture.

>(no, I dont know what comparing line drawing rates have to do with that)

I didn't know that from what you wrote, and offered an - quite
arbitrary - measure for "snappiness", and expected you to counter
with a better one of your choice.

>>Wolfgang seemed reasonable in suggesting line/second (scrolling a window,
>>I gather)

>Oh, I thought he meant # of lines the graphics system can draw per second.
>You know, the straight things. That why I said blitting was a better
>thing to compare anyway.

But you reserve the right to change your mind about what you'll
accept as an objective measure, do you?

>> since a lot of software (spreadsheets, telecommunications, and
>>wordprocessor--not to mentional terminal emulators) use scrolling a
>>*lot*.  He also said "let us begin" suggesting that -he- did not consider
>>the line/second metric all-encompassing.

This was exactly my intention. And I gave a vague description of
a measurement on purpose. I don't want to suggest an objective
measurement of the display speed of the GUIS in question, all 
I want to know is: what measurement is the base for the claim
that one GUI is faster than the other. 

>Well, good. Im not quite clear on the point of the test tho.
>I see "fast enough" in a very subjective sence; do you have
>a objective way to tell if something is fast enough?

Do you? *You* started to make wild claims about the relative
display speed of the two GUIs, so you should at least try to
substantiate your claim a little bit.

>Presumably you'd want to prove that windows is indeed "fast enough"
>wo/ acceleration. This is a real subjective thing, imho. Perhaps you
>disagree.

What do you accept as a proof?

>>So, suggest your own metric... but don't say that Wolfgang's methodology
>>is worse than "which one feels snappy."

>Its not very pointfull to deciding if a GUI is "fast enough" wo/ acceleration,
>and thats all Im arguing about.

So we should drop the topic. Why did you start it, btw? Or didn't you?

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy