From: johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:54:37 GMT

In article 7M8@news.cso.uiuc.edu, rvenkate@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Ravikuma Venkateswar) writes:
>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]

[deletia- graphics cards. Nothing left to argue, is there?]

>>(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).

24 bit icons? Impressive. My point was merely that even Windows isn't dumb
enough to do EVERYTHING at 24 bits. :)

[deletia- PICT vs DIB]
>
>>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.

No; PICT can draw nice at any resolution, DIB can't. But metafile
can, so this argument falls apart.

>>>>> 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.

Which disables interrupts (so your mouse wont work during sounds) and
which does not come with windows.

Why does that matter? If you can drag in things that don't, so can
we. We'll drag in MPW shell. Its free too. :)

But this would get insane fast.

>>>>> - 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.

I just read IM-VI. All I had to do with SndCreateNewChannel with the
usual default parameters (theres sample code for this) and then
pass it to SndPlay; also a sound handle and 'TRUE' as the asynch paramater
(telling it to play asynchronously). Did have a problem with it though;
turns out SndPlay goes and unlocks the handle when it exits (!) so you
have to lock it again. (stupid thing to do for an asynch sound. Should
know better)

[deletia- Macs are easy to buy]
>
>>> 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

How deep is that monitor? What sort of floppy drive? It doens't
include windows? What warranty and suchlike? How's the documentation
and setup and so on for this computer? Mouse? What ports
does it have (if any)?

>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

Basically the same questions; but this one has windows. :)

>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

Dat is a cheap clone!
This one has a mouse too!

>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

I already know about this guy. (you forgot to mention various other
things it has like ethernet, builtin video [you did mention the video
cards on above clones!], sound, etc. And I think it has a PDS slot too.

>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.

Pity you couldn't come up with systems more closely comparable.

[deletia- more about accel. video cards]

>>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 .

Well, I dont know about Windows shareware. I have found most of the
shareware Ive found for the MAc to be pretty stable, tho there
have been exceptions.

>>>>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.

Waitasec? Most people are saying Im wronge, you MUST so embed them?

>>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.

I dont think so. MS-DOS does not have a resource fork, right?

>>>>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.

I know OS/2 does not suffer from a program-manager kludge. I think
we'll be waiting more than a few weeks for NT. Call it a gut
feeling. :)

[ps are you planning to address my other complaints above, or should
I nuke them and save bandwidth?]

[deletia- system resources]
>>> 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.

I haven't heard of a 32 bit architecture bothering people. I HAVE heard
of partitions and system resources doing so.

[deletia- deletions]
>>>>>>>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).

So the Gateway box above wich does not have windows is for some reasons
not "worth buying"?
---
			- 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.