From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:52:54 GMT

In <fjy1fap@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

>In article 722121166@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>In <k0x1cwc@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>
>>>In article 722088782@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>>|>In <ckx1x-l@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>>|>
>>>[deletia- sound driver stuff]
>>>|>>Remember that if Windows can count the extra stuff like that, so can
>>>|>>the Mac. It would get crazy fast, I think.
>>>|>
>>>|>I don't buy that argument, because it gives the Macintosh an
>>>|>unfair advantage :-).
>>
>>>Oh  well annother good argument down the drain... :)
>>
>>>|>  Look, the Macintosh is a more or less
>>>|>closed system.
>>
>>>It is?
>>
>>If I compare it with the options I have when using a system
>>based on PC hard- and software, yes.

>If I compare the PC with a Cray, its slow. PCs are very, very
>open. This does not make the Mac closed.

Well, I said "more or less", and we where arguing about whether 
to count "extra software" in a comparison. The point I was trying
to make was that blaiming Windows for needing "extra software"
sometimes makes as much sense as blaiming the Macintosh for not
having a MSDOS like CLI, i.e. it makes no sense at all.

The fact that the PC is a system which isn't controlled by a 
single source is one of its strenghts, IMHO. The necessity to
aquire "extra software" is one of the prices to pay for that.
Imposing a requirement like "no extra software" is a restriction
which artificially removes most of my choices when building
or aquiring a system based on PC hardware.

>>>|> You buy a system from a single source, complete
>>>|>with all hardware and system software.
>>
>>>You ->can<- do this but then you ->can<- do that with an IBM
>>>PC too. You dont have to; its true that apple is teh only major
>>>source of Mac CPUs but you can get keyboards, mice, monitors,
>>>video cards, hard drives, memory, etc from other sources. Often
>>>cheaper or better.
>>
>>So it is possible to get the main CPU boards of all Apple 
>>computers without memory, mouse, video and sound hardware,
>>for a competetive price?

>As someone pointed out, some of htem have mohterboard based
>memory so you cant get them all totally bare. And I said nothing
>bout the price.

This is why I asked!

What about the video and sound hardware? I was under the impression
that all this is builtin and integrated on the CPU board.

>>I wonder how Apple sells so many systems.

>I understand it sells many of them thisway- to dealers who put
>in other (3d party) hard drives and whatnot.

I wasn't talking about mass-storage from third-party sources.
The point is that one can built a PC clone from such sources,
only, i.e. that there is more than just one choice for every
single piece of a PC. This isn't possible for a Macintosh.

>>>|> It may be expandable,
>>>|>but only as an afterthought, at best.
>>
>>>Pardon me? Defend this (as a general statement about all Macs, not just
>>>the dumb unexpandable ones; if you just mean those I agree but
>>>it isn't relevant)
>>
>>Well, the original design was: one big ROM containing most
>>of the system, one single memory size, and no external bus,
>>if I'm not mistaken.

>That's correct. (do you really want me to talk about the
>origional design of the PC, do you? After all, nobody
>could possibly need more than 640k of RAM...)

Why not? But I don't think that this will advance our
discussion. What I expected you to talk about was: 
where,  how and when did Apple break with the above
system philosophy.

Btw, you *can* put 640k into a '81 PC.

>>  The central theme in the design 
>>philosophy was: eliminate the possiblity of choice, it
>>will confuse the user. 

>As to the "philosophy", I think you state it to broadly; if this
>was the philosophy there would have been no "applications";
>everything would be built in.

The philosophy was to make the Mac hardware an invariant,
so that all apps run on every Macintosh, because all Macs are 
equal - same memory size, same resolution, same ports and
so on.

>It turned out the users needed more choice, which was delivered. So?

Perhaps they need even more choice?

>>>|> 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?? :-)

Such CPU accelerators are known in the PC world, too. But
almost always such an accelerator alone is more expensive
than a complete motherboard of similar performance. So
they are only bought by people who have no choice, for
example because their system is nonstandard in some way
or another, so that swapping the motherboard isn't an 
option.

[...]


>>>|>A PC is a case, a power supply, a motherboard, a keyboard,
>>>|>a few peripheral cards and a monitor.
>>
>>>With the Mac the case, power supply, motherbaord and a floppy
>>>drive are sold as a unit. This is rather common in the PC world
>>>also, no?
>>
>>No. It may be perceived by the buyers that way, but if
>>you look behind the scenes, you see that all these
>>suppliers of PCs sold as a unit get their components
>>from a common pool of component suppliers, and that 
>>these components are quite interchangeable.

>How does this contradict my assertion (that it is common in
>the PC world to sell these things as a unit?)

It doesn't contradict your assertion, but it shows that before
and after the buy, these things don't have to be handled as
a unit, and that they in fact aren't. The magazines are full
of ads for PC components. Who, do you think, buys all that stuff?
Or do you believe that all these advertisers have money to
burn? (Ah, I like this colourfull language!).

>>>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. 

When I run Windows on a cheap clone with a Phoenix BIOS, I don't
have to pay IBM the price difference between a clone and a
true blue PS/2. IBM tried hard, but failed.

>>>|> You man mix and match
>>>|>these hardware components almost freely, and make your choice
>>>                           ^^^^^^
>>>Almost? :)
>>
>>Almost. I don't want to cheat - this freedom of choice doesn't come
>>for free. You have to learn a few things - not that difficult -
>>in odrer to profit from it.

>Oh; you made it sound like there were restrictions on what was
>possible.

Of course there are restrictions. For example, a full size 
5-1/2 inch HD doesn't fit into 3-1/2 inch bay, there are
three different HD interfaces currently in use, so you have
to match the controller and the harddisk. You have to 
order an ESDI hd for your machine if you happen to have an
ESDI controller, just like you have to get the correct 
refill for you printer. Most computer shops are more than
happy to help you to select the right stuff. They live from
it.

>>>|>of system software from a palette of four or five operating
>>>|>systems, including Windows, according to your needs. 
>>
>>>That's true, and if thats what you want, well the PC delivers it.
>>>The Mac does not.
>>
>>>But I dont think its something most people want (why would they?)
>>
>>Because it offers them more choices for less money.

>It does not seem to be worth the cost to Joe Average User
>to me.

This may depend on how much money Joe Average User earns.

>>Look, if I want to put a real computer on my bicycle, in
>>order to get a complete trace of how fast I did ride on my
>>commute, I can buy a MSDOS compatible 400 g PC running on
>>two AA size cells, for about 300$, and run programs I develop
>>on my 486 at home, using the standard C compiler.

>And you would be partically unique in doing so; most people
>would not have a clue how to do this. Most dont want to know;
>they'd buy a device specifically for this. (if there is one). Most
>people dont exactly know C. :)

Agreed. But there are so many people out there who want to
do something unique with a computer. And if I look around me,
I'm amazed how many young people learn programming in school.

>[ps- what standard C compiler do you refer to?]

I should have said "a" standard compiler, i.e. one of the many
compilers (MSC, Turbo C, Quick C, Zortech C, DeSmet C, Power 
C, ...) which compile plain DOS executables, not a cross-
compiler or something alike.

I'm using the Zortech C/C++ compiler myself, for reasons which
don't matter here.

>>If I want to put a computer for house control into my cellar,
>>it's easy to put an cheap motherboard into a case, add a few
>>pheripheral cards for signal processing and control it via
>>the serial line. 

>Similarly. This only makes sence if you program. Most people do not.

Not necessarily. I just browsed through my Conrad catalogue (that's
a German mail order shop for electronic stuff), and found a lot of
hardware (multimeters, weather stations, small telephone exchanges
[Nebenstellenanlage in German], etc), which has computer
interfaces and comes with support software, from a few lines of
BASIC to full applications. You don't have to be a programmer
to use that stuff. It's better if you are, or if you find someone
who is, but you can do without.

>>>And it leads to vicious compatability problems.
>>
>>>Do think they are so bad? Try running a WPS app in Windows 3.1!
>>>Try to run a GeoWorks app (if you can find one) under, well, anything.
>>>Try running a Unix binary on OS/2.
>>
>>So what. Try copying a A3 page on a A4 copier. Try to use
>>a HP cartridge on a Ricoh printer or the other way around.
>>Or try to refill a ball-pen using your favourite ink. 
>>Try to use a 26" tire on a 28" bicycle.

>Wouldn't it be nice if this weren't an issue? If you didn't
>have to deal with this mess?

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.

>Just because the problem is widespread doesn't make it less
>a problem.

Not, but perhaps it is so widespread because it isn't a real problem?

For comparison, think about how much time is wasted with learning
to drive a car, and with maintaining and using it, and nobody cares
about it at all.

>>>There are various attemps in there to alleviate this problem- DOS
>>>compataibility boxes, windows emulators etc- the compatibility is
>>>never 100% (understandably) and may take quite a speed penalty.
>>>(particularly, I understand the seamless Windows box of OS/2 is
>>>fairly slow)
>>
>>Just as it is slow to run a DOS app on SoftPC? Remember these
>>Apple ads? :-)

>I ->still<- want to know what Apple is smoking!

:-)

>>>And fitting it all together is all sorts of fun.
>>
>>I wouldn't call it fun, but it isn't that difficult, either.

>Depends how much you get pre-assembled. For those who want to buy
>a separate motherboard, power supply, etc (I know someone who
>did this btw!) its, well, not the sort of fun I want to have.

I know someone who just replaced the motherboard of his PC the
third time, in order to get a faster machine. He's a lawyer.

>[deletia- drivers]
>>>|>If I can't count that 3.0 driver, because it's "extra software",
>>>|>or the internal speaker driver from Microsoft, because it
>>>|>isn't contained on the original retail disks of Win 3.1, we
>>>|>should stop to count all the "extra hardware", for example
>>>|>secondary video cards, and all the bug fixes which found
>>>|>their way into Macintoshs after the original OS installation,
>>>|>for the Macintosh. Ok?
>>>|>
>>
>>>I should certainly hope your printer COMES WITH that driver (it would
>>>be more than a little lame if it does not); 
>>
>>I bought my printer before Windows 3.0 was released, so this wasn't
>>possible.

>Does it come with the driver now? If so, go ahead and count it.

Currently, it comes with yet another (newer) driver.

>>>I am willing to count
>>>the most recent versions of these products (Windwos 3.1 instead of 3.0,
>>>say. Or the latest-and-greatest-printer-driver from HP) It should be
>>>thrown in as part of the hardware you buy. (is it?)
>>
>>It is, and even better - as I already mentioned - driver find their
>>way into the standard distribution from microsoft. But this doesn't
>>solve the problem what to do when newer versions of the OS or the
>>hardware arrive, without me buying one of those. This is usually
>>solved by driver collections from Microsoft supplied for free
>>or for a small fee through various channels, or by the hardware
>>manufacturer, which offers enhanced drivers for old hardware.

>Upgrades are nice, and all that, but this sound driver is not
>an upgrade or it would be part of the Official System now.

This sound driver was released after the latest release of the
Official System, i.e. 3.1. We are talking about shrink-wrapped
software, here!

>>>The bug fixes are included in new versions of the system; As for the
>>>hardware; well I have not been counting multiple monitors. 
>>
>>Well, Apple makes it money by selling hardware and giving the
>>software away for free, so bug fixing by releasing new versions
>>of the system isn't a big deal. For MS, this isn't that easy,
>>because they sell the system software only.

>Still, the bug fixes wind up in the next version on the system?

Yes, if they aren't superseded by newer system components, which
is often the case.

>>>I would
>>>count the CAPABILITY to have them if you want them (say, if you need
>>>more space or depht); and that comes with the system. Multitudinous
>>>monitors generally do not come with the system. For similar reasons
>>>Ill let you count accelerated video.
>>
>>>But you cant count the sound driver because its not sold with any part
>>>of your hardware (odd, isn't it?), 
>>
>>I think I should count it, because I can get it from Microsoft,
>>for free, just by a phone call, quite similar to getting
>>a fixed printer driver for my DeskJet which supports Umlauts,
>>too, or a fixed import filter for Word.

>However, if I were to go out and buy a PC system with windows et all,
>I would not have it. It is not part of the system package now; its something
>else you can get, for free in this case, but it is no doubt not alone in
>that category.

True. But what are the alternatives? There are so many new or enhanced
drivers, bug fixes and the like, so one probably could build a new
system almost daily. What does that mean: open all the Windows boxes
in all the computer shops each day and exchange the floppy disks
by new ones? Seems not to be an option to me.

>>>nor will I count (say) the MPW Shell
>>>(free from ftp.apple.com!); 
>>
>>Well, you are free to count it.

>I hope not. If we do this, pretty soon my system will have every
>init I can load on it. :)

If apple creates all these pretty inits, why don't they include them
into the Official Release?

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Xref: sparky comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:2706 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:2676