From: rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:15:09 GMT

johnsd2@vccnw04.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>In article Kou@news.cso.uiuc.edu, rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar) writes:
>>johnsd2@jec328.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>
>[deletia- attributions]

>>>>>I worry more about the results; its very impressive that Windows
>>>>>runs at all on all those systems. But it still requires (yech) DOS,
>>>>>still has a very poor file manager, still needs that Program
>>>>>Manager Hack. Its graphics engine is still a bit slow and it has
>>>>>rotten color handling abilities. Windows lacks anything comparable
>>>>>to the PICT format, and has a hard time with sounds (due to the
>>>>>hardware, tho) I also dont think much of the multi-document interface.
>>>>>Too busy, and too restrictive.
>>>>
>>>>Graphics engine? Slow? Certainly not if you have an accelerated graphics
>>>>card!
>>
>>>Heh heh. That's true- but that just takes the GDI mostly out of the loop.
>>>What if you dont have/want one?
>>
>>You just have to buy one and plug it in! It's still less expensive than
>>a Mac!

>Perhaps, Ive heard arguments on both sides and haven't made up my
>mind (yet); but you still have to spend money on it. It would be better
>if you did not need to do so.

Most new computers come with one and the result of PC+accel. graphics is
still much cheaper than a Mac.

>(ps what about offscreen graphics)

>>>(also, dont forget the bit depth you are running in. As I recall, windows
>>>usually uses 4 bit depth. It still seems slow to me, compared to an 8 bit
>>>deep Mac. Wonder what windows is like at 8 bits deep)
>>
>>_I_ run Windows at 15 bit depth. And Windows works internally at 24.

>You use a accelerated graphics card, no? Windows does indeed use 24 bit
>colors internally, but I believe its offscreen bitsmaps run at the screens
>depth, the icons are 4 bits deep, no? Its not ALL 24 bit (or it
>would be even slower!)

Icons are stored at multiple depths (just like the Mac). They are stored
at 1,4,8 and 24 (though rumors purport that Microsoft is planning a 16 bit
format for XGA-2).

>>>> And if I remember correctly, a PICT is pretty much the same as a DIB
>>>>in Windows.
>>
>>>What exactly is DIB? I thought it was Device Independant Bitmap, which
>>>isn't very much like PICT (although PICT can duplicate the functionality
>>>using a CopyBits operator)
>>
>>Then what _is_ a PICT? A DIB is how graphics images are stored internally
>>in Windows - and it's converted before display. So it can handle any
>>pixel pitch and color depth<24 bits.

>PICT is basic encapsulated quickdraw commands. This means of course
>that its device independant; it can encode bitmaps of any depths,
>and they can be compressed in various ways (including JPEG compression)
>by using the copybits operator.

So a DIB can do everything that a PICT can do except be seperated into objects.

>But it can also use other operartions, so unlike bitmaps it can
>scale well to other depths; if you have stuff made by a drawing
>program and put it in PICT it will do this. Its also possible to take
>it apart again into objects.

>Its very flexible, basically.

>>>> And Windows also supports a wide variety of hardware for sounds -
>>>>like a SoundBlaster Pro - which is as good as a Mac's
>>
>>>If not better, but you can't count on a SoundBlaster being present in
>>>general. This isnt' really Windows fault, of course.
>>
>>But the point is that you can get one if you _need_ one.

>Yes, you can. But why you should need one for event the simplest,
>tinniest sounds I dont see.

For the simplest, tinniest sounds you can get a speaker driver (bleagh).
Which is free.

>>>> - and is certainly
>>>>easier to program (my opinion) as far as sounds are concerned.
>>
>>>Really? How is that? The Macs sound system is very easy to program.
>>
>>Really? Try async sounds.

>I ->have<-. Its not difficult at all. I use SndPlay() to do that
>too.

I guess it might just be me. I didn't think SndPlay() was that easy to
use and I had to run through the whole gamut of ITM before I got it to work.

>[deletia- Windows/PC speed]
>>>Quite so; I am certain you could (with sufficient effort) get the speed
>>>in a Windows box. But who wants to spend the effort? Once again,
>>>this is not all Windows' fault- I understand that the data path to your
>>>video cards is usually either 8 or 16 bits, not 32.
>>
>>Effort? It's not a user's or programmer's, it's the hardware/software
>>developers that have to put in effort. And as for doing research, yeah, sure
>>if you want to make it easy, I agree - buying a Mac involves much less
>>effort.

>That is what I meant, not programmers effort.

If you want it easy to buy a computer, get a Mac.

>[deletia- my lust for Wing Commander]

>>>[deletia- Windows slow, kludgy, error prone]
>>>>
>>>>Again, if you have an accelerated card, it doesn't even draw slow. In fact,
>>>>now that I think about it, most computers come with Windows accelerated
>>>>graphics adapters (IBM's XGA-2, Compaq's QVision,... the list goes on).
>>
>>>Its news to me. Does this include cheap clones?
>>
>>If you buy a cheap clone, you get exactly what you pay for.

>Gotcha.

>> But Dell,
>>Compaq's Deskpro/i, and Gateway computers are not extremely expensive
>>either. Certainly nothing compared to a Mac or an IBM PS/2 .

>Hmmm, can you give me figures, or do you expect me to, like,
>do my OWN reseach? (gasp!)

Unfortunately, I don't Compaq's prices on me, but Dell and Gateway - 

From Byte Magazine October 92:

Dell 466DE i486DX2 66 MHz 
8 MB RAM, 230MB IDE HDD, 6 EISA slots, 128K cache, accel. video,
15" 1024X768 .28 monitor, one floppy drive, MSDOS 5.0 -------------$3899

Gateway i486DX2 66 MHz
8 MB RAM, 340MB SCSI HDD, 6 EISA slots, 128K cache, accel. video,
14" 1024X768 .28 monitor, two floppy drives, MSDOS 5.0, Windows3.1, mouse
and choice of software (Excel, Word, Powerpoint, TPW, paradox) ----$3995

cheap clone
Comtrade 486 EISA advantage i486DX2 66 MHz
4 MB RAM, 130MB IDE HDD,              , 64K cache, accel. local bus video,
14" 1024X768 .28 monitor, two floppy drives, MSDOS 5.0, Windows 3.1, mouse
							      -----$2375

Apple Quadra 950 M040 33 MHz (Note: educational price at UIUC)
8 MB RAM, 400MB HD, 5 NuBus slots, one floppy drive, mouse,
system 7 ----------------------------------------------------------$5952

Compaq's Deskpro/m is slightly more expensive than the Dell (~$200) and
includes built-in sound. Note also that all prices include keyboard
(101 in most, 124 in Gateway) except the Quadra. I doubt that the price
of the Quadra would be any cheaper on the street. Note also that if an
ISA bus is preferred, all prices are ~$1000 less.

>> And
>>_all_ come with accelerated graphics adapters. Even some cheap clones
>>have had accelerated graphics adapters for about three months.

>I didn't know this.

>>>>And Windows is not more kludgy than the Mac, and crash-prone? Not unless
>>>>you're using non-commercial software and/or multitasking heavily.
>>
>>>Multitasking is no excuse for an OS that was DESIGNED to do it
>>>(Windows); certainly NOT when you are comparing it with an OS that
>>>was NOT so designed (MacOS)
>>
>>>And I like using non-commercial software. I dont want it to crash. Honest. :)
>>
>>And please - don't give me that. Badly written software crashes on any
>>platform. _I_ like using non-commercial software, and I get rid of the stuff
>>that crashes (and so have a stable machine) but I'm sure the average user
>>doesn't come into contact with a lot of the stuff I do.

>Im not giving you what you think I am.

>Im not saying:
>	"The Mac makes poorly written software work"

>Im saying;
>	"Mac shareware is not poorly written."

>Basically.

I've seen poorly written shareware programs on both platforms. Giving
some advantage to the Mac users for more experience on a GUI platform, the
quality is about the same. The only thing is that with Windows 3.0, if one
program crashed, it took down the whole system with it, but this is not true
with Windows 3.1 .

>>>As for the kludgy thing, sure looks kludgy to me. You still have to
>>>have separate files for your (non-editable) resources, right? Kludge!
>>
>>Resources are editable with programmers' tools. Users don't have to edit
>>resources. And they're easier to use for multiple executables if they are
>>in separate files (any executable can share a DLL).

>But you MUST put them in separate files- ALWAYS. This means that
>a program CANNOT be one file. That sux.

Resources can be embedded in executables. It's just that you don't usually
want to.

>And I meant that programs can't edit their own resources, or use
>resources in the files they make. They are actually rather handy
>little things.

They can.

>>>You still have a separate program manager which you must maintain, right?
>>>You have a separate control panels thing, right? And a "font tool" is
>>>still needed for even simple font installation and examination?
>>>Still have 64k local heaps, where resources go? Still have "system
>>>resource"- the limit on them is now 128k, right?
>>
>>Maintain? It's not much maintenance, but it is separate.

>I mean you must create and delete the icons manually- it does
>not know to add them for you except in the special case that it can
>search out and add all apps' icons for you (but no documents)

>> And that is a problem
>>with an API on top of an operating system. Windows NT will not have that
>>problem (but I don't want to bring that into this discussion).

>I doubt it- I understood the same arrangement would be used in NT,
>exactly, for continuity. If this isn't so, Id like details.

Don't have details on NT, but it's not true in OS/2 . Wait for a few weeks
for NT.

>> The limit
>>on "system resource", as you call it,

>I THINK that is the right name.. I mean the private heaps for
>the GDI and the menu/window/etc systems.

>> has not been any trouble to me. I've
>>never run out, and I have 10 M RAM, and multitask _very_ heavily. It's not
>>a limitation in practice.

>Hmmmmm. Well, the partitions on the MacOS don't bother me. That doens't
>make them any the less a problem in the system.

And I suppose the 32 bit addressing limit is a problem and all of us should
embrace Alpha architecture.

>[deletia- we all agree about 8+3]

>[deletia- buggyness and so on]

>>>[deletia- OS/CPU as one package]
>>>>>>But Apple is planning on _charging_ for the OS! So eventually you're
>>>>>>going to have to think about it.
>>>>
>>>>>Apple is ALREADY charging for its OS (I wonder what they are smoking up
>>>>>there, anyway. Its crazy); but you still get it free with every Mac.
>>>>>You have to pay for updates, now. :(
>>>>>[not bug fixes, however]
>>>>
>>>>So no advantage there, anyhow.
>>
>>>Definitely an advantage there, but not as big of one as it used
>>>to be. You get the OS with the computer; Always, no exceptions.
>>>I know Windows is bundled with a lot of systems these days,
>>>but it isn't universal; so the issue of which to get still
>>>exists.
>>
>>It is bundled on any computer worth buying. (IBM's are not worth buying
>>at the prices they're at right now. So even though they don't come bundled
>>with Windows, they don't count. But they do come bundled with OS/2)

>What's you definition of "worth buying"?

High price/performance ratio. Which IBM's don't have right now (except
maybe the RS/6000s).

>---
>			- Dan Johnson
-- 
Ravikumar Venkateswar
rvenkate@uiuc.edu

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