From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Date: 21 Nov 92 15:12:10 GMT
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany

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. :-)

>>The fact that the PC is a system which isn't controlled by a 
>>single source is one of its strenghts, IMHO.

>I think it is both a strength (you aren't dependant on any
>one company) and a weakness (you aren't supported by any one
>company)

Agreed.

>> The necessity to
>>aquire "extra software" is one of the prices to pay for that.

>Imho, its not worth the price. Perhaps you disagree.

I do.

>>Imposing a requirement like "no extra software" is a restriction
>>which artificially removes most of my choices when building
>>or aquiring a system based on PC hardware.

>It also artificially removes many of my choices, also. The idea
>is to make sure we are comparing something meaningfull.

We disagree on what's meaningfull.

>Merely comparing our personal systems would demonstrate nothing
>more than our personal tastes.

Merely comparing the Mac with systems which replicate its
features and characterics (the quality of having a single
source, for example), isn't very enlighting, either. 

[...]

>>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).

To use one of your arguments: if we start to talk about what
one can do to a PC with a soldering iron, it will soon get
out of hand. Want me talk about that? :-)

[...]

>>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.

>>>>>|> 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. 

It seems that you consider video performance to be the primary
quality of a computer, and cpu power a secondary one.

I don't share that opinion. If I need extremely fast video
response for a big drawing on a high resolution
screen, I'll add fast video hardware to my machine, just
like I add a fast, big and expensive disk for database
work. I can have it, if I want it, but why should I
pay for it if I don't need it?

>>Such CPU accelerators are known in the PC world, too. But
>>almost always such an accelerator alone is more expensive
>>than a complete motherboard of similar performance. So
>>they are only bought by people who have no choice, for
>>example because their system is nonstandard in some way
>>or another, so that swapping the motherboard isn't an 
>>option.

>You can swap motherboards with Macs also, but since you gotta
>get the motherboards from Apple its rather expensive to do so.

So it's usually better to buy a new machine and to try to
sell the old machine, or to add a CPU accelerator, which is 
(unlike a video accelerator), a kludge.

>Also, there's one upgrade which does more than a new motherboard
>can- it gives you a second processor, not a replacement.

Does it give you an OS which implements symmetrical
multiprocessing, too?

>[deletia- bundling components]
>>>How does this contradict my assertion (that it is common in
>>>the PC world to sell these things as a unit?)
>>
>>It doesn't contradict your assertion, but it shows that before
>>and after the buy, these things don't have to be handled as
>>a unit, and that they in fact aren't. The magazines are full
>>of ads for PC components. Who, do you think, buys all that stuff?
>>Or do you believe that all these advertisers have money to
>>burn? (Ah, I like this colourfull language!).

>Oh, I see. You are saying that this means you can replace the parts
>willy-nilly. You are right, replacing (integral) parts on the Mac
>means replacing them with Official Apple Components. You've a point
>here; with a PC its rather easier to send in that sound blaster
>board for repair, or get a replacement, than the equivalent on
>the Mac. Similarly for motherboard upgrades.

Or to throw out the cheap adlib clone because much better
sound hardware is available now, for less money. You don't
have to replace the whole PC to profit from minor
progress made in the industry.

>>>>>This is the only bit you must generally be apple-made.
>>>>>Tho there are exceptions- some portables are made with apple roms,
>>>>>but not by apple. And I think there's a tower mac "clone" done the
>>>>>same way.
>>>>
>>>>What does an Apple ROM cost, in comparison to a Phoenix BIOS? 
>>
>>>Lots; That tower mac uses IIfx roms (so it costs the same as a IIfx
>>>in that case); The Outbound portables use (I think) old 512ke roms
>>>that apple doesn't need anymore (no more 512kes), or anything
>>>else you can lay your hands on.
>>
>>So in order to built an Apple clone, you have either to cheat,
>>or to pay Apple the money they  loose if they don't build it
>>themselves. 

>Huh? Me no understand.

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.

Why should Apple sell ROMs for less? Nobody forces them to 
do that.

>>When I run Windows on a cheap clone with a Phoenix BIOS, I don't
>>have to pay IBM the price difference between a clone and a
>>true blue PS/2. IBM tried hard, but failed.

>'Taint the price difference. For the outbounds its less, for that tower
>its more.

>>>>>|> You man mix and match
>>>>>|>these hardware components almost freely, and make your choice
>>>>>                           ^^^^^^
>>>>>Almost? :)
>>>>
>>>>Almost. I don't want to cheat - this freedom of choice doesn't come
>>>>for free. You have to learn a few things - not that difficult -
>>>>in odrer to profit from it.
>>
>>>Oh; you made it sound like there were restrictions on what was
>>>possible.
>>
>>Of course there are restrictions. For example, a full size 
>>5-1/2 inch HD doesn't fit into 3-1/2 inch bay, there are
>>three different HD interfaces currently in use, so you have
>>to match the controller and the harddisk. You have to 
>>order an ESDI hd for your machine if you happen to have an
>>ESDI controller, just like you have to get the correct 
>>refill for you printer. Most computer shops are more than
>>happy to help you to select the right stuff. They live from
>>it.

>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. :-)


[...]

>>
>>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.

Of course there is a lot of overlap, just like in the area of
applications. 

>Imagine those bicycles if you had to get specific types
>of tires for specific brands o' bike. 

Well, fortunately Shimano doesn't sell tires! :-)


>Blech. They don't try to say
>"our OS is for xyz"; they want to Rule The Market. (well, notable
>exception is Windows NT- its only supposed to take the high end+
>servers, leaving Windows the rest (joy of joys :/ ))

There is at least competition from OS/2 and a few Unixes.


>>>Just because the problem is widespread doesn't make it less
>>>a problem.
>>
>>Not, but perhaps it is so widespread because it isn't a real problem?

>Don't buy it. Its a problem, its merely sometimes unavoidable.

Ok, ok.


>>For comparison, think about how much time is wasted with learning
>>to drive a car, and with maintaining and using it, and nobody cares
>>about it at all.

>I do. Perhaps thats why I also prefer Macs. :/

:)


>[deletia- puff puff]
>>
>>>>>And fitting it all together is all sorts of fun.
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't call it fun, but it isn't that difficult, either.
>>
>>>Depends how much you get pre-assembled. For those who want to buy
>>>a separate motherboard, power supply, etc (I know someone who
>>>did this btw!) its, well, not the sort of fun I want to have.
>>
>>I know someone who just replaced the motherboard of his PC the
>>third time, in order to get a faster machine. He's a lawyer.

>A pity he has to mess with a PC to get this sort of motherboard-upgrading,
>on the cheap, tho. 

I don't think that he did it in order to get a cheap PC, but 
partially for fun, and partially in order to get exactly what
he wants. 

>There's nothing about the Mac that prevents the
>operation, but its expensive for the same reason new Macs are- Apple is
>the only significant source. This is why accelerators are more popular.

How well is the Apple hardware documented (circuit diagrams and the
like)?

>[deletia- drivers]
>>>Upgrades are nice, and all that, but this sound driver is not
>>>an upgrade or it would be part of the Official System now.
>>
>>This sound driver was released after the latest release of the
>>Official System, i.e. 3.1. We are talking about shrink-wrapped
>>software, here!

>3.1, I understand, has gone through severl revisions (quietly);
>mostly bug fixes. They coudl have thrown it in. Is it planned
>for inclusion in 3.2?

I doubt it, because it is still buggy. :-)

More probably, the hardware of some PCs is buggy, and the driver
can't do much about it. I think Microsofts decision not to put it


[...]

>[deletia- counting that blasted sound driver]
>>>However, if I were to go out and buy a PC system with windows et all,
>>>I would not have it. It is not part of the system package now; its something
>>>else you can get, for free in this case, but it is no doubt not alone in
>>>that category.
>>
>>True. But what are the alternatives? There are so many new or enhanced
>>drivers, bug fixes and the like, so one probably could build a new
>>system almost daily. What does that mean: open all the Windows boxes
>>in all the computer shops each day and exchange the floppy disks
>>by new ones? Seems not to be an option to me.

>No. But if you manufacture a printer, include the latest driver when
>you ship. Not that hard.

They do it. 

>>>>>nor will I count (say) the MPW Shell
>>>>>(free from ftp.apple.com!); 
>>>>
>>>>Well, you are free to count it.
>>
>>>I hope not. If we do this, pretty soon my system will have every
>>>init I can load on it. :)
>>
>>If apple creates all these pretty inits, why don't they include them
>>into the Official Release?

>Independard Developers (tm), who won't let apple have them. :) Some of
>them want to make money; others just dont want anyone else making money
>off their work. In either case Apple out. But I recall hearing this
>driver attributed to Microsoft. Is this not so?

It is, and this is why I don't understand why you compare it to 
add-ons from ISVs.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
--
      o      (     Wolfgang Strobl    Wolfgang.Strobl@gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2394
     /\        *   GMD - Gesellschaft fuer Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung mbH
   _`\ `_<===      Schloss Birlinghoven, P.O. Box 1316,  | #include   
__(_)/_(_)___.-._  D-5205 Sankt Augustin, Germany        | <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy