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 02:09:01 GMT

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.

>>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.

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.

>>>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.

>>> 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?

>>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.

Pardon me? My "wild claim" was that Windows didn't feel snappy enough
for me.

>>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?

My experience, in this case. Gimme a Windows computer to try out
that you feel will convince me. :) I dont see how else such a claim
can be measured.

Im sorry if I my subjective feeling of this matters to me! Please
forgive me for caring what I think!

>>>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?

I didn't, I just mentioned it in passing on the way to the accelerated
video topic. Somehow it got blown up to rediculous proportions.

I assure you I never intended to argue this silly thing, as I know
its a waste of bandwidth. Its basically people trying to argue that
I am wrong to assert that Windows doesn't "feel" as snappy enough.

I should hope its obvious that I mean "snappy enough for me"; who else
could I be speaking for?
---
			- 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