Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Monday, 31 Aug 1992 15:16:12 EDT
From: <REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
 <ewright.714943016@convex.convex.com> <1992Aug28.063440.28863@CS.ORST.EDU>
 <ewright.715017293@convex.convex.com> <ajross.715040512@husc10>
 <ewright.715276388@convex.convex.com>

  E. Wright need not reed this,  it is civil and informative.  Finally,
it summarizes facts from the Windows Programmers Reference series and
a leading book (who's authors' names escape me but can be provided -
both names the same...) on the 80486 architecture and its programming.
No need to accept a correct answer.  Any other Mac lover (I'm kinda
one) who wants to know the truth about the 640K lie read on...

  Alas, the old "Windows has a ton of memory but my application won't
load..." (or System 7 shows 20 MB used?)
  Windows, the '286 or better and even DOS with extenders have no 640K
memory limit!  Windows does something even worse in the name of memory
protection.  You see, in 386-enhanced mode, the memory segments are
described (start address, size and priveledge level) in the so-called
segment descriptor table.  Since Windows is the operating system (or
thinks it is), it insists on protecting this (hardware-level) table
and provides the Windoze application with a shadow of this.  Since
Windoze is still a 16-bit OS running on a 32 bit machine (gotta be
compatible with that Model-T..), these segments (and every other
memory-resident object) is assigned one of 32K values - yes, even though
each of the handles is a 16 bit pointer, Win 3.0 only used the even #'s!.
   Now, if you have a lot of icons, line styles, fonts, etc., each of
them requires a handle.  Each 64K block of code requires a handle.  As you
may have surmized (after all, Windows uses 20% of them on startup) this
table becomes full rather quickly.  At least Win 3.1 had the intelligence
to multiply the entry by two and allow 64K objects!
   None the less, the 386 and 486 (and the 286 if you insist that it was
ever a computer <grin> and allow that an 8 MHz 68000 is as well <more grin>)
can address up to 4GB with no trickery or virtual memory.  You will need a
shitload of SIMMs and a custom case and motherboard to fit it all, but so
what?  NTL - Win 32 will be capable of this and OS/2 is now.

   The Mac is currently a better system, as a whole, and is probably worth
the extra money in most cases.  Certainly it is if your needs are served
by existing software or if you like message-based GUI operating systems as
a programmer.  I like the Mac for existing app's.  I like the PC for data
acquisition and numerical analysis.  With the 386/33 in the lab I can
control a rack of GPIB instruments and number crunch in the background while
writing a paper in MS Word/Win or reading these posts in the foreground...
Of course the Ethernet locks up occasionally in Windows, but I here the mac
has that problem occasionally too...

   BTW - it cost around $4500 a little over a year ago (171MB SCSI and 150MB
scsi tape, Cyrix coprocessor...) so $7000 for a 386/387 with coprocessor
and two-page monitor 18 months ago is no big deal (especially if he bought
Compaq et al.)...

   Just to show, facts & reason can survive in any environment...
   Jeff Andle, A know-nothing infant who never saw a computer before in his
               very short, entirely academic life... <grin grin>
               Not a Mac hater, just a dual use type who would own one
               of nearly every computer (and most motorcycles) if he could
               afford it.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.sys.mac.system