From: johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:41:51 GMT

In article 722360278@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>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.

Are you saying taht I cant care BOTH about how it feels and how it
computes?

>>>>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?

That's not quite right; I do not think you can measure my
subjective feelings. That doesn't mean other measurements don't
count, it means they dont measure my subjective feelings.

Or yours, for that matter.

>
>>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.

Zing! You got me, I was talking about Windows, but didn't say so.

> 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.

But I agree with the rest of what you say here.

>
>>>>>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?
>

Right! (would you rather I used some other term?)

>>>>> 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.

An excellent idea. This'll be my last post on this silly topic.

---
			- 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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy