From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:57:52 GMT

In <v911w2p@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>In article 722358730@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>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. :-)

>:/ Oh, lemme guess. You feel there should be keyboard shortcuts for
>all menu items, and keyboard based way to move/resize windows. Right?

And a few other things (for example: keyboard "shortcuts" for all
dialog boxes), in addition.

The Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines require a conforming
program to allow a program to be operated using the mouse only,
keyboard usage is allowed for typing text (including naming
of objects) and for *additional* shortcuts, only.

The Windows UI guidelines contain a similar requirement,
but applied to the keyboard: a conforming program has to
be useable on a computer which doesn't have a pointing
device, i.e. all functionality has to be accessible via
the keyboard. This doesn't prevent a program from
havin a decent mouse interface - not at all. But that
mouse interface may not replace the keyboard interface.

>[deletie- we agree. Wow.]

Wow.

I would like to impose a third requirement: a user 
interface and all programs written to it should have a
full script interface. I.e. all functionality of the
system and its programs should be accessible from
within a program or from a script, by accessing
named and well defined access points (i.e. functions,
subroutines, variables and the like).

Besides other things, this would make adding a CLI
to a system almost trivial.

Windows doesn't have such a capability, yet. From my
limited knowledge about the Amiga, I believe that it
has it - they use an modified version of REXX (a 
script language for IBM mainframes which originated
on VM/CMS. Well written Amiga programs have something
called an AREXX port, which allows controling a program
from a AREXX script. I really would like Windows to 
have a similar feature.

[...]

>>[...]
>>
>>>>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).

>Err, well only if its an ISA card, I believe.

Only if it's a 8-bit ISA card. But it probably will work in
an EISA machine (i.e. on a 32-bit bus), too. (I wouldn't
recommend doing that, either).

It is completely ridiculours to make use of that capability
for memory expansion. Using it in order to be able to
continue to use an old, specialized I/O card is not.



[...]
>>
>>>>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.

>It seems to me that a lot of people buy PCs for other reasons-
>for one thing they are the standard, so you're not taking much
>of a risk in buying one. For annother, they are *cheap*. Real
>cheap. For a third, if you want raw speed you can get more of it
>with a PC than you can with a Mac (there ain't no 66 Mhz 040 Mac...).

>Also, everyone else is doing it. :)

Well, the people here at GMD order Suns and Macs only, for
the very same reason. :-)


>>>>>>>|> 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. 

>My argument is not very complex. I just think Windows should
>not need an accelerated video card. If you wish to assert that
>it DOESN'T need one, be my guest. I am not going to call you on it;
>if you have a fast enough computer you may well not; also it is
>a question of how fast you feel is "fast enough".

>But surely you agree it would be BETTER if it never needed one?

Windows doesn't need it, and the the PC doesn't need it.
On some - mostly older ones - Windows certainly needs it,
but I would argue that it needs a new cpu and a new hard disk
in that case, too. 

The PC architecture certainly suffers from an I/O bottle-neck,
nowadys, and Windows suffers with it, sometimes. But it is 
misleading to blame Windows for that.


[...]

>On the Mac, you can also add hardware wo/ throwing out the existing
>stuff. (I should expect this would include sound hardware too, but
>I haven't gone looking)

>I think you'd be on firmer ground if you argued that you didn't
>need to get the origional adliblike sound hardware in teh first place.

I didn't need, and I indeed did not (and could not) do it, because it 
was not available when I bought my first IBM compatible PC. I bought 
it later, for my current PC. I'll replace it by a new and better card
soon, and put the adlib card into that old PC, so that the kids 
can enjoy their games with sound. 

(Well, in reality its a bit more complicated: I bought that card
used and cheaply, and I've already moved it to our "family computer".
But I digress ...


>>>>>>>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.

>I dont quite follow this part. No, I completely fail to follow it.

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

>Believe it or not, the ROMs do constitute the entire cost of
>the computer. Somehow or other outbounded managed to convince Apple
>to sell ROMs to it. They build the rest.

Apple sells *old* ROMs? I was under the impression that people
where using old ROMs they got from cannibalizing complete
motherboards or even old, used Macs.





>[deletia- more weird stuff]

>[deletia- restrictions, what restrictions?]
>>>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. :-)

>Hmmm, funny walkman you have there.. :)

Sure. It's controled using a three button mouse and has a
nice VUI (Voice User Interface). Very handy when I ride
the bike, the player is buried in one of my pockets and I
want to switch to another program or to start the tape.

I expect the next generation to have voice input, however.  :-)


>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>
>>>>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.

>OS/2 and Window 3.1 and GeoWorks. Oops, that's 3.

Can't say much about GeoWorks, you may be right about that.

Currently, OS/2 and Windows are quite different - OS/2 is 
a mature operating system with preemptive multitasking,
multithreading, synchronization primitives supported by
the OS, a nice file system, named pipes etc. etc.

Windows on DOS has none of these features, just like the
Mac. What it has - and the Mac doesn't have - is a 
relatively clean and abstract API to the application
program, which makes moving these programs to a different
OS base (I'm talking about Windows NT here) quite simple.

After Windows NTs release, the situation may change, 
but even then both serve disimilar purposes. OS/2 was
and still is IBMs integration platform, while Windows
is sold by Microsoft for the rest of us ;-), i.e. as
the GUI and/or OS to be used on non-proprietary hard-
ware. They are not alone in trying to get that market,
at least NeXT (with NextStep) and Sun (with Solaris)
have a similar target.

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

>They nearly totally overlap, as near as I can tell.

I don't expect to be able to run OS/2 on my Indigo 
in the forseeable future.

>>>Imagine those bicycles if you had to get specific types
>>>of tires for specific brands o' bike. 
>>
>>Well, fortunately Shimano doesn't sell tires! :-)
>>

>That sounds like a good line, but I dont know what Shimano is,
>alas.

It a Japanese company which sells parts of the transmission
system (my dictionary and me don't know much about English
bike part terminology, sorry) for bicycles, and it is 
very well known here. Perhaps they use a different name in
the U.S., just like Nanao, who call themselves Eizo, here
in Germany.

The point I tried to make was that for almost any
part of a bicycle there are at least three completely
incompatible systems in use.

--
      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