From: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:08:36 GMT

In article 722375872@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <v911w2p@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>>In article 722358730@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>>In <vgz1s6p@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>>
>>>>Nonetheless Windows folk do argue that the Mac has no CLI,
>>>>and consider this important. If you don't, good for you.
>>>
>>>I don't argue that each Macintosh should come with a built-in
>>>CLI, just because *I* would't touch a machine without a CLI.
>>>It should come with a decent keyboard interface, however. :-)
>
>>:/ Oh, lemme guess. You feel there should be keyboard shortcuts for
>>all menu items, and keyboard based way to move/resize windows. Right?
>
>And a few other things (for example: keyboard "shortcuts" for all
>dialog boxes), in addition.
>
>The Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines require a conforming
>program to allow a program to be operated using the mouse only,
>keyboard usage is allowed for typing text (including naming
>of objects) and for *additional* shortcuts, only.

This sounds like you are complaining that the Mac UI can
be operated by mouse alone. The strikes me as quite irrelevant.

>The Windows UI guidelines contain a similar requirement,
>but applied to the keyboard: a conforming program has to
>be useable on a computer which doesn't have a pointing
>device, i.e. all functionality has to be accessible via
>the keyboard. This doesn't prevent a program from
>havin a decent mouse interface - not at all. But that
>mouse interface may not replace the keyboard interface.

And the Mac UI requires that the keyboard interface may not
replace (or hinder) the mouse interface. I prefer that, myself.
I have no objection to additional keyboard shortcuts on top of that,
so long as they dont interfere with the mouse interface.

I dont consider it a big deal myself.

>>[deletie- we agree. Wow.]
>
>Wow.
>
>I would like to impose a third requirement: a user 
>interface and all programs written to it should have a
>full script interface.

"requirement"?

> I.e. all functionality of the
>system and its programs should be accessible from
>within a program or from a script, by accessing
>named and well defined access points (i.e. functions,
>subroutines, variables and the like).

I agree this would be a good ->feature<- and the mac
would do well to have it (but doesn't, alas), but I
question your calling this a "requirement". A requirement
for what? A good UI? Its not even involved in that issue.

>Besides other things, this would make adding a CLI
>to a system almost trivial.

That may be true. Im not convinced; it sounds like it would
depend on how its done. I suspect something could be contrived
that didnt' conform well to a CLI.

>Windows doesn't have such a capability, yet. From my
>limited knowledge about the Amiga, I believe that it
>has it - they use an modified version of REXX (a 
>script language for IBM mainframes which originated
>on VM/CMS. Well written Amiga programs have something
>called an AREXX port, which allows controling a program
>from a AREXX script. I really would like Windows to 
>have a similar feature.

Good Mac program are SUPPOSED to have it (w/ apple events)
but rarely do.

>[...]
>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>>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)
>>>
>>>You can put 640k into an '81 PC by installing a memory board
>>>which still works on a '92 PC. (No, I don't recommend it).
>
>>Err, well only if its an ISA card, I believe.
>
>Only if it's a 8-bit ISA card. But it probably will work in
>an EISA machine (i.e. on a 32-bit bus), too. (I wouldn't
>recommend doing that, either).

Heh heh..

>It is completely ridiculours to make use of that capability
>for memory expansion. Using it in order to be able to
>continue to use an old, specialized I/O card is not.

Indeed that is 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?
>>>
>>>Well, the fact that they *buy* PCs a lot, for one.
>
>>It seems to me that a lot of people buy PCs for other reasons-
>>for one thing they are the standard, so you're not taking much
>>of a risk in buying one. For annother, they are *cheap*. Real
>>cheap. For a third, if you want raw speed you can get more of it
>>with a PC than you can with a Mac (there ain't no 66 Mhz 040 Mac...).
>
>>Also, everyone else is doing it. :)
>
>Well, the people here at GMD order Suns and Macs only, for
>the very same reason. :-)

:) Sometimes it works for Apple too.

>
>>>>>>>>|> 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.
>>>
>>>Sorry that I misunderstood what you said. But now I fail
>>>to understand your argument. 
>
>>My argument is not very complex. I just think Windows should
>>not need an accelerated video card. If you wish to assert that
>>it DOESN'T need one, be my guest. I am not going to call you on it;
>>if you have a fast enough computer you may well not; also it is
>>a question of how fast you feel is "fast enough".
>
>>But surely you agree it would be BETTER if it never needed one?
>
>Windows doesn't need it, and the the PC doesn't need it.
>On some - mostly older ones - Windows certainly needs it,
>but I would argue that it needs a new cpu and a new hard disk
>in that case, too. 

Heh. Ok. Sounds like you are essentially disqualifying all
PCs that aren't good 'nuff to run Windows unaided- a fairly
reasonably thing to do, I guess.

>The PC architecture certainly suffers from an I/O bottle-neck,
>nowadys, and Windows suffers with it, sometimes. But it is 
>misleading to blame Windows for that.

Heh ok. You're right there, although its hard to say how much is Windows
and how much is the throughput problem.

Still amounts to the same thing tho, no matter what part of the system
is responcible.

>
>[...]
>
>>On the Mac, you can also add hardware wo/ throwing out the existing
>>stuff. (I should expect this would include sound hardware too, but
>>I haven't gone looking)
>
>>I think you'd be on firmer ground if you argued that you didn't
>>need to get the origional adliblike sound hardware in teh first place.
>
>I didn't need, and I indeed did not (and could not) do it, because it 
>was not available when I bought my first IBM compatible PC. I bought 
>it later, for my current PC. I'll replace it by a new and better card
>soon, and put the adlib card into that old PC, so that the kids 
>can enjoy their games with sound. 

Unfortunatly, this arrangement has the minor problem that developers
(particularly game developers) can't count on having sound hardware.
If they write for windows it can take care of this, but most game-makers
dont do this (for good reasons, of course)

Of course, PC games are better than Mac games anyway. :(

>(Well, in reality its a bit more complicated: I bought that card
>used and cheaply, and I've already moved it to our "family computer".
>But I digress ...

Yeah, you do. :) But not as bad as I do, sometimes.

[deletia ROM debate]
>>>Using old Apple ROMs is against Apples intentions, if I'm 
>>>not mistaken. It's not part of the concept, its *against* the
>>>concept, so you shouldn't count that.
>
>>I dont quite follow this part. No, I completely fail to follow it.
>
>>>Why should Apple sell ROMs for less? Nobody forces them to 
>>>do that.
>
>>Believe it or not, the ROMs do constitute the entire cost of
>>the computer. Somehow or other outbounded managed to convince Apple
>>to sell ROMs to it. They build the rest.
>
>Apple sells *old* ROMs? I was under the impression that people
>where using old ROMs they got from cannibalizing complete
>motherboards or even old, used Macs.
>

That is my impression; they are certainly NOT selling brand new 1 meg
ROMs.

>
>
>
>>[deletia- more weird stuff]
>
>>[deletia- restrictions, what restrictions?]
>>>>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!)
>>>
>>>It's almost as difficult as getting the correct batteries for
>>>your walkman, indeed. :-)
>
>>Hmmm, funny walkman you have there.. :)
>
>Sure. It's controled using a three button mouse and has a
>nice VUI (Voice User Interface). Very handy when I ride
>the bike, the player is buried in one of my pockets and I
>want to switch to another program or to start the tape.
>
>I expect the next generation to have voice input, however.  :-)
>

Oh, YOUR VUI doesn't have voice input! Just goes to show the INFERIOR
NATURE of PC TECHNOLOG (if I may call it that).

:)

>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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. 
>>>
>>>Name two.
>
>>OS/2 and Window 3.1 and GeoWorks. Oops, that's 3.
>
>Can't say much about GeoWorks, you may be right about that.
>
>Currently, OS/2 and Windows are quite different - OS/2 is 
>a mature operating system with preemptive multitasking,
>multithreading, synchronization primitives supported by
>the OS, a nice file system, named pipes etc. etc.
>
>Windows on DOS has none of these features, just like the
>Mac.

:) The Mac has a nice file system, if nothing else. :)

> What it has - and the Mac doesn't have - is a 
>relatively clean and abstract API to the application
>program, which makes moving these programs to a different
>OS base (I'm talking about Windows NT here) quite simple.

Having a nice API in this case would help moving to NT- but
not to other platforms such as Unix/Motif or the Mac.

The problem is that the API needs to be similar to your destination
platform for this to work out.

>After Windows NTs release, the situation may change, 
>but even then both serve disimilar purposes. OS/2 was
>and still is IBMs integration platform, while Windows
>is sold by Microsoft for the rest of us ;-), i.e. as
>the GUI and/or OS to be used on non-proprietary hard-
>ware. They are not alone in trying to get that market,
>at least NeXT (with NextStep) and Sun (with Solaris)
>have a similar target.

IBM WANTS to sell you OS/2 as Der Generic OS. Those features you
mentioned are supposed to help.

>>>Of course there is a lot of overlap, just like in the area of
>>>applications. 
>
>>They nearly totally overlap, as near as I can tell.
>
>I don't expect to be able to run OS/2 on my Indigo 
>in the forseeable future.

:) That's probably true. But I dont expect to run Windows (not NT)
there either.

>>>>Imagine those bicycles if you had to get specific types
>>>>of tires for specific brands o' bike. 
>>>
>>>Well, fortunately Shimano doesn't sell tires! :-)
>>>
>
>>That sounds like a good line, but I dont know what Shimano is,
>>alas.
>
>It a Japanese company which sells parts of the transmission
>system (my dictionary and me don't know much about English
>bike part terminology, sorry) for bicycles, and it is 
>very well known here. Perhaps they use a different name in
>the U.S., just like Nanao, who call themselves Eizo, here
>in Germany.

I know the name vaguely, I just didn't know it well 'nuff to get
the joke.

>The point I tried to make was that for almost any
>part of a bicycle there are at least three completely
>incompatible systems in use.

:)

---
			- 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