From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:12:46 GMT

In <k0x1cwc@rpi.edu> 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?

If I compare it with the options I have when using a system
based on PC hard- and software, yes.

>|> 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.

So it is possible to get the main CPU boards of all Apple 
computers without memory, mouse, video and sound hardware,
for a competetive price?

I wonder how Apple sells so many systems.

>|> 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)

Well, the original design was: one big ROM containing most
of the system, one single memory size, and no external bus,
if I'm not mistaken.  The central theme in the design 
philosophy was: eliminate the possiblity of choice, it
will confuse the user. 

>|> 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.

What does it accelerate?

>|>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.

I wasn't talking about apps, I was talking about the system software.

>|>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.

You have to, for the essential parts - CPU and operating
system.

>|>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?

No. It may be perceived by the buyers that way, but if
you look behind the scenes, you see that all these
suppliers of PCs sold as a unit get their components
from a common pool of component suppliers, and that 
these components are quite interchangeable.

>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.

What does an Apple ROM cost, in comparison to a Phoenix BIOS? 

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

Almost. I don't want to cheat - this freedom of choice doesn't come
for free. You have to learn a few things - not that difficult -
in odrer to profit from it.

>|>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?)

Because it offers them more choices for less money.

Look, if I want to put a real computer on my bicycle, in
order to get a complete trace of how fast I did ride on my
commute, I can buy a MSDOS compatible 400 g PC running on
two AA size cells, for about 300$, and run programs I develop
on my 486 at home, using the standard C compiler.

If I want to put a computer for house control into my cellar,
it's easy to put an cheap motherboard into a case, add a few
pheripheral cards for signal processing and control it via
the serial line. 

>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.

So what. Try copying a A3 page on a A4 copier. Try to use
a HP cartridge on a Ricoh printer or the other way around.
Or try to refill a ball-pen using your favourite ink. 
Try to use a 26" tire on a 28" bicycle.

>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 as it is slow to run a DOS app on SoftPC? Remember these
Apple ads? :-)

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

I wouldn't call it fun, but it isn't that difficult, either.

>|>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 bought my printer before Windows 3.0 was released, so this wasn't
possible.

>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?)

It is, and even better - as I already mentioned - driver find their
way into the standard distribution from microsoft. But this doesn't
solve the problem what to do when newer versions of the OS or the
hardware arrive, without me buying one of those. This is usually
solved by driver collections from Microsoft supplied for free
or for a small fee through various channels, or by the hardware
manufacturer, which offers enhanced drivers for old hardware.

>The bug fixes are included in new versions of the system; As for the
>hardware; well I have not been counting multiple monitors. 

Well, Apple makes it money by selling hardware and giving the
software away for free, so bug fixing by releasing new versions
of the system isn't a big deal. For MS, this isn't that easy,
because they sell the system software only.

>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?), 

I think I should count it, because I can get it from Microsoft,
for free, just by a phone call, quite similar to getting
a fixed printer driver for my DeskJet which supports Umlauts,
too, or a fixed import filter for Word.

>nor will I count (say) the MPW Shell
>(free from ftp.apple.com!); 

Well, you are free to count it.

>Ill let you count Windows (it usually
>comes with) but I wont count A/UX (which is rarely used).

And expensive, right?

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