From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 15:37:58 GMT

In <mhz1kqq@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>In article 722191267@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>In <=my1chq@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>
>[deletia- Various flames]

>>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!

>No, I mean that I care about how it feels. This is not all I
>care about.

But you can't have it both.

>>>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. 

>Right. C'mon, you can do this too. In fact, you do. Right here:

>>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.

Sure I can. I did it, because you did it. If you refute to
take other measurements into account than your subjective
feelings, what can I do other than counter it with *my*
subjective feelings?


>Well, then what are we arguing about?
>If its good enough for you, there's no problem (for you), and
>this whole discussion is totally without point (for you)





>>>(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.

>Snappyness is subjective. If you think PCs are snappy enough (or
>snappier for that matter), then fine.

PCs are indeed snappy enough (and often snappier). I've yet to find
a machine (workstation, Mac or other) which gives the same amount
of snappiness as a PC working in non-graphics mode. For PCs 
running under Windows, OS/2 or Unix with X, it's different. 
These machines aren't snappy if they still use old and slow
VGA or EGA cards, because these aren't optimized for working
in graphics mode, i.e. the only allow 8-bit access to the video
and enforce many wait states for each access. But newer ones
have less wait states and allow 16-bit access. This is of course
still not as good as a card working on a 32 bit bus. On the
other hand, this is easily compensated by using a faster
CPU.


>>>>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?

>Er, no. Both of those are objective measures.

But not for what you call "snappy", right?


>>>> 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. 

>Oh. Well then you are in for a rough time. You need to account
>for things like processor speed, bus width (and speed), etc.

>But even so its not measuring the right thing; I am talking
>about how it feels. How can you measure that?

I don't know. I got the impression that you can measure it.
Obviously a misunderstanding on my side, sorry. We should
drop that topic, as you already suggested.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
--
      o      (     Wolfgang Strobl    Wolfgang.Strobl@gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2394
     /\        *   GMD - Gesellschaft fuer Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung mbH
   _`\ `_<===      Schloss Birlinghoven, P.O. Box 1316,  | #include   
__(_)/_(_)___.-._  D-5205 Sankt Augustin, Germany        | <std.disclaimer.hpp>