From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Mac's vs. PC's (split for Macs cost too much)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:23:34 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <92244.120340REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <REE700A@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:

>   I find the Mac to be the system of choice for producing paper (graphics,
>literature, etc.  I never enterred this group waving the PC banner and 
>shouting "Macs cost too much".  

Once again we see your high regard for the truth.  The original subject
line, which you conveniently "reestablished" was "Macs Cost too Much,"
and you entered attacking everyone who said otherwise.

>I would like to reissue this with different objectives, ie MS Word 
>scroll speed, other cross-platform programs (no- Computer Associates' 
>Hack of Cricket Graph for Windows is not included in this... It sucks badly).

In other words, let's exclude the ones where you think you might lose.


>     My point here is that there is no fundamental capability gap
>     between the Mac and PC relative to Memory Addressing.  As far
>     as software goes, yes the Mac has always had better memory useage
>     than the PC, but software advantages are so fleeting...

So?  I'll pose my own challenge.  I'll send you a check for $50.
In return, every time I run into a problem with memory under Windows
on my PC, you'll fly down here and fix it.  Since you don't believe
that PCs ever have memory problems, that $50 should be money in the
bank.  Any takers?

No?  Not surprising.  You give me the standard line that every
PC salesman knows by heart, but like the salesman, when something
doesn't work the way you promised, you won't be around to fix it.
Has it ever occured to you that someone who's actually trying to
get work down on a PC might run into some problems a college
student might never see?  And that even though your textbook 
may say "there is no memory limitation on 386 and 486 PCs,"
the textbook isn't always right?   


>Although Ed doesn't think cooperative multitasking is a problem, he should
>consider that each track and draw operation is a different is a different
>message being processed from a different mouse interrupt.  The draw package
>is yielding control constantly during that process.  At least, I know that's
>how Windows does it  

Well, if that's true, it certainly helps explain why Windows
apps tend to be so slow.  The way I'd code it on the Mac is
simply to spin in a tight loop, reading the mouse position
and updating the graphic until the mouse is released.    
 

>& if MacOS isn't the same, what's the basis of Apple's
>suit against Microsloth?  The GUI from Xerox (I think it was?).

Well, among other things, Microsoft either copied or gave
the appearance of copying Apple's code.  As far as that old
chestnut about the interface being from Xerox goes, give it
a rest.  Xerox just happened to *own* 20% of Apple at the time,
which is why they had no objections to Apple using its interface
ideas. 


>By the way, Ed, What is your background: Physiology? Optimizing Compiler's?
>Color Matching at the paint store?  just wondering...

If I told you, I'd have to kill you.


>I'm sure some IBM patent attorney is saying, "How did
>Apple protect it's Toolbox, while our BIOS was copied freely?"

If that's the case, he'd better go back to law school.  The answer
is simple.  The people who cloned the PC BIOS used a well-established
procedure called "clean-room development."  The specs were written by
a team that studied the operation of the IBM BIOS, but the implementation
was done by another time that never saw the IBM proceduct.  This ensured
that no IBM code deliberately or accidentally ended up in the final product.
Although this is standard practice in the software industry, Microsoft did
not use it in the development of Windows.  The same engineers looked at
Apple's code, then went and wrote Microsoft's code.  This at least gives
the appearance of theft.