From: stdkap1@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu (Dietrich Kappe)
Subject: Re: RE-MACS COST TOO MUCH (NOT!)
Organization: Center for Population Economics
	<1992Aug27.205714.13960@CS.ORST.EDU>
	<ewright.714956536@convex.convex.com>
	<STDKAP1.92Aug27224620@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu>
	<ewright.715018400@convex.convex.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:13:44 GMT

In article <ewright.715018400@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

   >Oooh, hypercard. That is serious software. I bet that you use
   >hypercard quite a bit, or else its just some peice of software you are
   >subsidizing with your overpriced mac purchases, right? You do seem
   >like a major hypercard power user to me. Can you point me to a good
   >CAD stack? :-)

   A program isn't serious software if it can't do CAD?  By that standard, 
   most PC software isn't serious, either.  Turbo Pascal, Lotus 1-2-3, 
   Ventura Publisher, DBase II, and all Microsoft products included.  Of
   course, I'm sure your CAD program gives you full online versions of the 
   Windows developer's documentation and the King James Bible, in addition
   to cataloging all your disks for you, right?  I also assume that the
   Center for Population Economics uses CAD software to write all its
   reports, crunch its statistics, and keep track of its budget, right?
   Or don't you do "serious" research there?

I'm not a PC owner. I don't even play one on Usenet. My first "real"
computer was a Macintosh. I still own one, I write programs for it. My
sympathies are with the Mac, but I'm openwinded enough to realize that
things are changing in a big way in the PC world, changing in ways
that impact the Mac community in nontrivial ways.

Since you asked, we use SparcStations running SunOS at the CPE. Use
the right tool for the right job. Batting around several concurrent
revisions of 6GB of base data shouldn't be done on a PC (Read Personal
Computer, i.e. Mac, IBM, Amiga, Atari, etc.).

   Of course the price of the Mac subsidizes Hypercard's development.
   That's the point I've been trying to hammer into you.  When you
   buy a Mac, you're getting a complete system. When you buy a PC,
   you get a stripped-down machine, then you pay for the nose to
   buy the capabilities you need (or, at least, as many of them as
   you can afford).


   >Wow! You must do an awful lot of systems programming (in Hypercard, I
   >bet. Boy, that is a real feat. I'll go and sell all my OS books now. )
   >Have you written much in this area? Where can I get your books?

   Actually, all of my books have been on optimizing FORTRAN and
   C coe performance, not writing operating systems in Hypercard.
   If you send me your address, I'll see that you get ordering
   information.  BTW, how many books have you written?

I have written none. But I am truly amazed that someone who has
written what I assume are reputable books on CS topics could be so
ignorant of the current state of hardware and software in the PC
world. Let me outline this state for you and others in the briefest
way I can:

1) The IBM compatible 286, 386, and 486 machines have no built in 640k
limit. That is a limitation of DOS (Disk Operating System), which is
software, not hardware, as I am sure a man of your experience must
know. If you run a different operating system such as OS/2 2.0 or UNIX
on a 286 and up, NO SPECIAL TRICKS ARE NEEDED TO ACCESS ALL OF THE
MEMORY ON BOARD (vintage Mac512 PC's excluded, of course).

2) OS/2 provides virtual memory, a gui, a cli, and much much more.
Much of it is still buggy and slow, but it is a very usable system,
perhaps somewhat more complex (but also more flexible) than the MacOS.
If you wanted to write a program that behaved on OS/2 exactly like an
equivalent program on the Mac, you could get darned close. IBM is
using many of the same design and implementation concept that arguably
made the Mac interface preeminent in the 80's and early 90's.

   >That is quite a zinger. Those dumb DOS heads (well, OS/2 is just DOS
   >6.0, isn't it?) might as well fold up their tents. You neglected to
   >mention that A/UX is free, right? 

   I never said that A/UX was free, or that it was worth the price
   Apple charges, or that it would be worth having even if it was
   free -- none of which I believe.  I merely pointed out that AU/X
   exists which disproves your claim that the Macintosh hardware is 
   incapable of running a preemptive operating system.  I don't claim
   it's desirable, but it's possibly and available if you're silly
   enough to want it.

I forgive you for attributing that claim to me, although I did not
make it. Again, your ignorance is showing. Since I assume you are an
expert in some CS field, you must be what the Germans call a
"Fachidiot."

In conclusion, I don't necessarily disagree that the Mac is superior
to the PC running a real OS, but I do disagree with your attack dog
style of arguing that point. And I find your arguments laughable.
Where they aren't hopelessly naive, they are way behind the times.
Your "640k barrier" argument is analogous to someones argument in
favor of the bycicle versus the car -- represented by the Model T.

"Yes, but you have to crank it up by hand everytime you use it."

If you do use PC's so much, and you can handle the bile rising above
your eyeballs, investigate OS/2 2.0, maybe even buy it for your PC.
Heck, get Xwindows on it, throw in some fancy networking. I hope your
PC computing get more pleasnat as a result. Remember: the PC is just a
machine, all that counts is what you run on it. Face it, Ed, you've
been brainwashed by too many water cooler religious wars.

Ciao.

--

---
Dietrich Kappe
kap1@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu
Center for Population Economics
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc