From: rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:29:30 GMT

johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>In article 722126991@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>In <r!y1nsd@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>
>>>In article 722096841@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>>>In <6dv1j!j@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>>No! Come on this isn't that hard. You DO have that option; but it
>>>>>should NOT be necessary to have an accelerator; it should be fast
>>>>>enough by itself. 
>>>>
>>>>I disagree. This may be true for the Macintosh. It doesn't make 
>>>>sense to construct an Macintosh with a video interface which 
>>>>is not able to run the only available user interface software
>>>>fast enough. It makes sense to sell a PC with video hardware which
>>>>is more than fast enough to run in text mode or to display static
>>>>graphics, but which is a bit slow when used with Windows. Especially
>>>>if it can be replaced easily. Just throw out you old and slow VGA
>>>>card, and put it into one of the file servers, where display
>>>>speed doesn't matter at all, and buy an accelerated card for
>>>>your desktop PC. Not that hard, either, isn't it?
>>
>>>Significanly harder in my book; why should this rigamarole be
>>>necessary? Particularly if all your computers are using Windows..
>>
>>They don't. Some of them use Windows, others run OS/2, and 
>>still others use plain old DOS.

>An interesting arrangement. Would it hurt to for all video to be
>faster?

But graphics in DOS on an S3 card are slower than VGA. It only
accelerates GUIs, not DOS. And if we really wanted to make it unfair,
we wouldn't be talking about accelerated cards, we'd have you note
that a lot of computers come with coprocessed cards (which are even
faster in most cases). If I'm not mistaken, this is the kind of thing
that Mac video "accelerators" have. Accelerated cards on the PC
only have a limited spectrum of acceleration - especially bitblitting.

>>>>>(why do I say its not fast enough? Because the PCheads
>>>>>here seem to feel that way- otherwise they'd have blown away my comment
>>>>>about Windows having a slow  GDI by demonstrating that it doens't;
>>>>>instead they say you can use an accelerated graphics board...)
>>>>
>>>>Then let's start to compare lines/second. Your turn. :-)
>>
>>>:) I dont know how many lines per second, nor does it matter terribly.
>>>(what these things do a lot of its blitting, actually..) I worry more
>>>about how snappy it feels.
>>
>>Ok. Then tell me how snappy it feels, and I will tell you how snappy
>>my system feels. After that, we compare, ok? Your turn.

>It is worth 272 FluugleZarbs. (my Patent Pending unit for Snappyness)

>(its a very subjective thing ya know. How I am supposed to
>describe it? Things just sorta happen. Blits are just there. That sort
>of thing.)

So obviously it's not a very good metric.

>[deletia- stuff about graphics libraries]
>>
>>>X is graphics library thingum; it ought to have such a thing.
>>
>>>>No, metafiles aren't new. I don't know about version 1, because
>>>>I started programming for Windows with version 2.0, which already
>>>>had metafiles. Perhaps this should be clarified by somebody else.
>>
>>>It would be a good idea.
>>
>>Yes. ANYBODY OUT THERE?        ...silence...

>OUT THERE out there outthere utthere there ere ...

>>>>>Does
>>>>>PM? 
>>>>
>>>>Yes, and it's a bit better, because it got the segmented
>>>>graphics architecture from IBMs GDDM instead of the flat
>>>>metafile of GDI.
>>
>>>Segments? Yech! :)
>>
>>Big grin. :-}
>>
>>>Actually, I dont see what you mean by this.. segmented?
>>
>>You can put a list of primitives into graphic segments,
>>and construct complex pictures from segments and primitives.
>>A GDDM (and GPI) metafile is a tree of segments, instead
>>of a flat list of primitives.

>Oh, you mean that these metafiles can contain other metafiles?
>PICT can do that- you can call DrawPicuter inside a picture definition.

>[deletia- Mr Rogers comes to c.s.ms-w.a]

>[deletia- sound stuff]
>>>>No. This is Windows support. It is a native Windows device driver,
>>>>which implements the sound device of Windows 3.1. It just wasn't
>>>>include in the 3.1 release disk, but came later. Think of it
>>>>as a bug fix for the default speaker driver, if you like.
>>
>>>There is no default speaker driver. If it was a bug fix, it should
>>>be included with the 3.1 distribution.
>>
>>It should be included with the 3.2 distribution. The 
>>multimedia support was new in 3.1.  Wait and see.

>I shall. When it shows up, Ill shut up and let you count it without
>whining. :)

>>>My comment about "windows support" was beacuse of this:
>>>"Even under Windows 2.0 the speaker can do much more than just beep."
>>
>>>What support is there under 2.0 beyond beeping?
>>
>>From the 3.0 SDK help file (because I have it online,
>>the 2.0 interface is identical).

>Hangon- Id be rather surprised that 3.0 added nothing at all
>to the SDK. Perhaps this is one of the things it adds.

>[deletia- Longs List of Sound Functions]
>>
>>>>>I dont generally count
>>>>>stuff that isn't part of the Official Distribution, because if you
>>>>>do that so can we and pretty soon it gets rediculous. (for instance,
>>>>>now I can claim that the mac has a CLI- the MPW shell. :( )
>>>>
>>>>If it only uses a few bytes on the disk, is easily installable
>>>>and simple to use, why not? :-)
>>
>>>Because two can play at that game. We will be comparing constantly
>>>moving targets.
>>
>>On the other hand, comparing what a hardware *and* software
>>supplier offers with something from a software only seems
>>a bit unfair to me.

>Hmmm? We were also counting the PC itself, I thought.

>Otherwise Id shut up about sound support, since Win3.1 has this.

No, but in the PC's case, hardware and software are not made by the
same company. It makes it a lot tougher to optimize since companies
are reluctant to give up proprietary secrets and because there aren't
even common chips (the Intel clone chips are not entirely identical
to their Intel counterparts). You have many different BIOSes, none of
them entirely compatible...makes it a lot more difficult to write
software, wouldn't you think? Let's see how Apple manages to port
System 7 to the Intel platform :-)

>[deletia- accel. video AGAIN, and protection]

>>>[deletia- protection]
>>>>>>Well, any UAE is a proof that Windows has at least a little bit
>>>>>>of memory protection. That most people don't get that right,
>>>>>>and blame the messenger doesn't change that in any way.
>>>>
>>>>>And this is the thing; as you say Windows was designed in such a way
>>>>>to be sturdier that the Mac this way. So why is it (Generally)
>>>>>percieved as being crash-happy?
>>>>
>>>>I don't perceive it that way.
>>
>>>Ok. Nifty. So you dont know why people persist in saying
>>>it is? (or is it just the Great Machead Conspiracy?) :)
>>
>>I have seen MFT crash, MVS crash, BS2000 crash, CP/M crash, 
>>TSO crash, Unix crash (various flavors, of course), I
>>know how it feels if DOS, Windows, OS/2 or the Mac OS crash.
>>I even know how to crash most of them, and how to avoid
>>it, and that this is simple on some systems, and difficult
>>on others. I don't think that it is more easy to crash
>>Windows than the Mac OS, or that it is more difficult
>>to avoid.

>Ah, so it IS the Great Machead Conspiracy? Now that we have been
>found out, we'll have to go to some other front. :(

>>[...]
>>
>>>[deletia- the error of my ways. Ive already seen it.]
>>
>>>>>I dont quite see how this works. Where do the resources
>>>>>go? ARe they appended to the end or something?
>>>>
>>>>Exactly. If I remember correctly, the resource part
>>>>comes first, but I could be wrong. I don't care, because
>>>>it's the tools business to know that. 
>>
>>>Hmm.. how can you execute it then?
>>
>>Execute what? A program is excuted by using one of
>>the API calls to load and run a program. A library
>>is accessed using the LoadLibrary API call.

>Oh, so its not a DOS .exe; if you ran it in DOS it would
>crash with an illegal instruction or somesuch.

No, it just wouldn't execute. Of course, if you're stupid enough to
rename the file with a .COM extension, it would crash, but that extremely
silly format is over 10 years old and on its way out (hopefully).

>>>Resources wont run..
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>[deletia- resouce modification]
>>>>>>Hm. Perhaps it wasn't such a bad idea that the Windows API doesn't
>>>>>>contain calls to modify resources ...
>>>>
>>>>>Hmm? Me no get it.
>>>>
>>>>Selfmodifying programs isn't a good idea, generally.
>>
>>>Do you mean "always" or "usually"? Ill buy the second but not he
>>>first.
>>
>>Always. A program can generate another program and run it 
>>after creation. But as an general option provided by a high level
>>interface, it is a bad concept.

>Ah. Always is a big thing. Why? (note that this is more than just
>modifiying your own code)

Because a lot of people run programs on a network - sharing violations
are not exactly fun (and among other things, AppleShare is buggy). Windows
doesn't like it much (don't know about OS/2).

>[deletia- extended attributes]
>---
>			- 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.
-- 
Ravikumar Venkateswar
rvenkate@uiuc.edu

A pun is a no' blessed form of whit.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy