From: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:37:50 GMT

In article 722173974@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <fjy1fap@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>>In article 722121166@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>>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.
>
>>If I compare the PC with a Cray, its slow. PCs are very, very
>>open. This does not make the Mac closed.
>
>Well, I said "more or less", and we where arguing about whether 
>to count "extra software" in a comparison. The point I was trying
>to make was that blaiming Windows for needing "extra software"
>sometimes makes as much sense as blaiming the Macintosh for not
>having a MSDOS like CLI, i.e. it makes no sense at all.

Nonetheless Windows folk do argue that the Mac has no CLI,
and consider this important. If you don't, good for you.

>The fact that the PC is a system which isn't controlled by a 
>single source is one of its strenghts, IMHO.

I think it is both a strength (you aren't dependant on any
one company) and a weakness (you aren't supported by any one
company)

> The necessity to
>aquire "extra software" is one of the prices to pay for that.

Imho, its not worth the price. Perhaps you disagree.

>Imposing a requirement like "no extra software" is a restriction
>which artificially removes most of my choices when building
>or aquiring a system based on PC hardware.

It also artificially removes many of my choices, also. The idea
is to make sure we are comparing something meaningfull.

Merely comparing our personal systems would demonstrate nothing
more than our personal tastes.

>>>>|> 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?
>
>>As someone pointed out, some of htem have mohterboard based
>>memory so you cant get them all totally bare. And I said nothing
>>bout the price.
>
>This is why I asked!

Happy now that I answered? :)

>What about the video and sound hardware? I was under the impression
>that all this is builtin and integrated on the CPU board.

The sound hardware is on the motherboard, the video sometimes
is. (although you can always use additional video hardware you add.)

Sometimes even more is built-in. Notably the ports are all on the
motherboard, and teh Quadras have builting ethernet on it.

>>>I wonder how Apple sells so many systems.
>
>>I understand it sells many of them thisway- to dealers who put
>>in other (3d party) hard drives and whatnot.
>
>I wasn't talking about mass-storage from third-party sources.
>The point is that one can built a PC clone from such sources,
>only, i.e. that there is more than just one choice for every
>single piece of a PC. This isn't possible for a Macintosh.

That is quite true.

>>>>|> 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.
>
>>That's correct. (do you really want me to talk about the
>>origional design of the PC, do you? After all, nobody
>>could possibly need more than 640k of RAM...)
>
>Why not? But I don't think that this will advance our
>discussion.

I agree.

> What I expected you to talk about was: 
>where,  how and when did Apple break with the above
>system philosophy.

They did so slowly; the first Mac with any real expandability
was the Plus; you could add RAM and SCSI devices to it. After
that they just said ta hell with it and released the Mac II, which
let you add (internal) hard drives, expansion cards, memory (still),
et cetera.

>Btw, you *can* put 640k into a '81 PC.

I know. And I suspect you also mean to imply that you can't
do that to a 128k Mac, which is true enough. (I seem to recall
there used to be a 3d party hack to get you up to 4 megs,
but 640k wasn't a configuration they offered, and its long gone
now)

>>>  The central theme in the design 
>>>philosophy was: eliminate the possiblity of choice, it
>>>will confuse the user. 
>
>>As to the "philosophy", I think you state it to broadly; if this
>>was the philosophy there would have been no "applications";
>>everything would be built in.
>
>The philosophy was to make the Mac hardware an invariant,
>so that all apps run on every Macintosh, because all Macs are 
>equal - same memory size, same resolution, same ports and
>so on.

I would say it was a decision made (and then abandoned later)
not a philosophy in this case. The idea that Mac hardware should
be totally invariant was rediculous.

>
>>It turned out the users needed more choice, which was delivered. So?
>
>Perhaps they need even more choice?

Then they can get it- and all that goes with it- on the PC.

What if they don't? What makes you think they do?

>>>>|> 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?
>
>>It gives you (well me) a faster CPU. Some of them can do veyr
>>neat tricks; theres one that adds an 040 and lets you use both
>>it and your main processor simultaniously.
>
>And you told me that video accelerators are a waste of
>resources?? :-)

Huh? I said ->that<-? I said it should not be necessary.

>Such CPU accelerators are known in the PC world, too. But
>almost always such an accelerator alone is more expensive
>than a complete motherboard of similar performance. So
>they are only bought by people who have no choice, for
>example because their system is nonstandard in some way
>or another, so that swapping the motherboard isn't an 
>option.

You can swap motherboards with Macs also, but since you gotta
get the motherboards from Apple its rather expensive to do so.

Also, there's one upgrade which does more than a new motherboard
can- it gives you a second processor, not a replacement.

[deletia- bundling components]
>>How does this contradict my assertion (that it is common in
>>the PC world to sell these things as a unit?)
>
>It doesn't contradict your assertion, but it shows that before
>and after the buy, these things don't have to be handled as
>a unit, and that they in fact aren't. The magazines are full
>of ads for PC components. Who, do you think, buys all that stuff?
>Or do you believe that all these advertisers have money to
>burn? (Ah, I like this colourfull language!).

Oh, I see. You are saying that this means you can replace the parts
willy-nilly. You are right, replacing (integral) parts on the Mac
means replacing them with Official Apple Components. You've a point
here; with a PC its rather easier to send in that sound blaster
board for repair, or get a replacement, than the equivalent on
the Mac. Similarly for motherboard upgrades.

>>>>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? 
>
>>Lots; That tower mac uses IIfx roms (so it costs the same as a IIfx
>>in that case); The Outbound portables use (I think) old 512ke roms
>>that apple doesn't need anymore (no more 512kes), or anything
>>else you can lay your hands on.
>
>So in order to built an Apple clone, you have either to cheat,
>or to pay Apple the money they  loose if they don't build it
>themselves. 

Huh? Me no understand.

>When I run Windows on a cheap clone with a Phoenix BIOS, I don't
>have to pay IBM the price difference between a clone and a
>true blue PS/2. IBM tried hard, but failed.

'Taint the price difference. For the outbounds its less, for that tower
its more.

>>>>|> 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.
>
>>Oh; you made it sound like there were restrictions on what was
>>possible.
>
>Of course there are restrictions. For example, a full size 
>5-1/2 inch HD doesn't fit into 3-1/2 inch bay, there are
>three different HD interfaces currently in use, so you have
>to match the controller and the harddisk. You have to 
>order an ESDI hd for your machine if you happen to have an
>ESDI controller, just like you have to get the correct 
>refill for you printer. Most computer shops are more than
>happy to help you to select the right stuff. They live from
>it.

Ah, yes. I had forgotten about the joys of hard drive controllers
on the PC. Fortunately most PCs ship with Hard drives, so this
isn't really such a big thing. (what a pity!)

>>>>|>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.
>
>>It does not seem to be worth the cost to Joe Average User
>>to me.
>
>This may depend on how much money Joe Average User earns.

That is true. But Mr. User can compromise. Get himself an Amiga. :)
[Im not even going to bother arguing on price- Im basically
no good at memorizing price lists. :/ ]

>>>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.
>
>>And you would be partically unique in doing so; most people
>>would not have a clue how to do this. Most dont want to know;
>>they'd buy a device specifically for this. (if there is one). Most
>>people dont exactly know C. :)
>
>Agreed. But there are so many people out there who want to
>do something unique with a computer. And if I look around me,
>I'm amazed how many young people learn programming in school.

Then you seem to have an market for your PCs! :)
(surprised? :) )

Folks like this would probably love a PC.

[deletia- 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. 
>
>>Similarly. This only makes sence if you program. Most people do not.
>
>Not necessarily. I just browsed through my Conrad catalogue (that's
>a German mail order shop for electronic stuff), and found a lot of
>hardware (multimeters, weather stations, small telephone exchanges
>[Nebenstellenanlage in German], etc), which has computer
>interfaces and comes with support software, from a few lines of
>BASIC to full applications. You don't have to be a programmer
>to use that stuff. It's better if you are, or if you find someone
>who is, but you can do without.

I haven't seen the stuff, so I wouldn't know about it.
I suspect it would be all sorts of fun to install+operate,
tho.

>>>>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.
>
>>Wouldn't it be nice if this weren't an issue? If you didn't
>>have to deal with this mess?
>
>Speaking from my experience with bicycles: absolutely NOT! 
>Just think about a mountain bike with thin, 28" tires. 8-/
>
>No, the bicycle (err, the COMPUTER) is just too flexible to be
>fully explored with one, single architecture. There is a place 
>for more than just one CPU, one OS or one user interface, IMHO.

Yeah, but in the PCs case it has many different OSes for the SAME
task. Imagine those bicycles if you had to get specific types
of tires for specific brands o' bike. Blech. They don't try to say
"our OS is for xyz"; they want to Rule The Market. (well, notable
exception is Windows NT- its only supposed to take the high end+
servers, leaving Windows the rest (joy of joys :/ ))

>>Just because the problem is widespread doesn't make it less
>>a problem.
>
>Not, but perhaps it is so widespread because it isn't a real problem?

Don't buy it. Its a problem, its merely sometimes unavoidable.

>For comparison, think about how much time is wasted with learning
>to drive a car, and with maintaining and using it, and nobody cares
>about it at all.

I do. Perhaps thats why I also prefer Macs. :/

[deletia- puff puff]
>
>>>>And fitting it all together is all sorts of fun.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't call it fun, but it isn't that difficult, either.
>
>>Depends how much you get pre-assembled. For those who want to buy
>>a separate motherboard, power supply, etc (I know someone who
>>did this btw!) its, well, not the sort of fun I want to have.
>
>I know someone who just replaced the motherboard of his PC the
>third time, in order to get a faster machine. He's a lawyer.

A pity he has to mess with a PC to get this sort of motherboard-upgrading,
on the cheap, tho. There's nothing about the Mac that prevents the
operation, but its expensive for the same reason new Macs are- Apple is
the only significant source. This is why accelerators are more popular.

[deletia- drivers]
>>Upgrades are nice, and all that, but this sound driver is not
>>an upgrade or it would be part of the Official System now.
>
>This sound driver was released after the latest release of the
>Official System, i.e. 3.1. We are talking about shrink-wrapped
>software, here!

3.1, I understand, has gone through severl revisions (quietly);
mostly bug fixes. They coudl have thrown it in. Is it planned
for inclusion in 3.2?

>>>>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.
>
>>Still, the bug fixes wind up in the next version on the system?
>
>Yes, if they aren't superseded by newer system components, which
>is often the case.

Which presumably are even better, right?

[deletia- counting that blasted sound driver]
>>However, if I were to go out and buy a PC system with windows et all,
>>I would not have it. It is not part of the system package now; its something
>>else you can get, for free in this case, but it is no doubt not alone in
>>that category.
>
>True. But what are the alternatives? There are so many new or enhanced
>drivers, bug fixes and the like, so one probably could build a new
>system almost daily. What does that mean: open all the Windows boxes
>in all the computer shops each day and exchange the floppy disks
>by new ones? Seems not to be an option to me.

No. But if you manufacture a printer, include the latest driver when
you ship. Not that hard.

>>>>nor will I count (say) the MPW Shell
>>>>(free from ftp.apple.com!); 
>>>
>>>Well, you are free to count it.
>
>>I hope not. If we do this, pretty soon my system will have every
>>init I can load on it. :)
>
>If apple creates all these pretty inits, why don't they include them
>into the Official Release?

Independard Developers (tm), who won't let apple have them. :) Some of
them want to make money; others just dont want anyone else making money
off their work. In either case Apple out. But I recall hearing this
driver attributed to Microsoft. Is this not so?

Also some of them muck about with the User Interface. Apple would
never include something like that. :)

---
			- 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.