From: johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec316.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:37:15 GMT

In article 722126991@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <r!y1nsd@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec326.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>>In article 722096841@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>>In <6dv1j!j@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>No! Come on this isn't that hard. You DO have that option; but it
>>>>should NOT be necessary to have an accelerator; it should be fast
>>>>enough by itself. 
>>>
>>>I disagree. This may be true for the Macintosh. It doesn't make 
>>>sense to construct an Macintosh with a video interface which 
>>>is not able to run the only available user interface software
>>>fast enough. It makes sense to sell a PC with video hardware which
>>>is more than fast enough to run in text mode or to display static
>>>graphics, but which is a bit slow when used with Windows. Especially
>>>if it can be replaced easily. Just throw out you old and slow VGA
>>>card, and put it into one of the file servers, where display
>>>speed doesn't matter at all, and buy an accelerated card for
>>>your desktop PC. Not that hard, either, isn't it?
>
>>Significanly harder in my book; why should this rigamarole be
>>necessary? Particularly if all your computers are using Windows..
>
>They don't. Some of them use Windows, others run OS/2, and 
>still others use plain old DOS.

An interesting arrangement. Would it hurt to for all video to be
faster?

>>>>(why do I say its not fast enough? Because the PCheads
>>>>here seem to feel that way- otherwise they'd have blown away my comment
>>>>about Windows having a slow  GDI by demonstrating that it doens't;
>>>>instead they say you can use an accelerated graphics board...)
>>>
>>>Then let's start to compare lines/second. Your turn. :-)
>
>>:) I dont know how many lines per second, nor does it matter terribly.
>>(what these things do a lot of its blitting, actually..) I worry more
>>about how snappy it feels.
>
>Ok. Then tell me how snappy it feels, and I will tell you how snappy
>my system feels. After that, we compare, ok? Your turn.

It is worth 272 FluugleZarbs. (my Patent Pending unit for Snappyness)

(its a very subjective thing ya know. How I am supposed to
describe it? Things just sorta happen. Blits are just there. That sort
of thing.)

[deletia- stuff about graphics libraries]
>
>>X is graphics library thingum; it ought to have such a thing.
>
>>>No, metafiles aren't new. I don't know about version 1, because
>>>I started programming for Windows with version 2.0, which already
>>>had metafiles. Perhaps this should be clarified by somebody else.
>
>>It would be a good idea.
>
>Yes. ANYBODY OUT THERE?        ...silence...

OUT THERE out there outthere utthere there ere ...

>>>>Does
>>>>PM? 
>>>
>>>Yes, and it's a bit better, because it got the segmented
>>>graphics architecture from IBMs GDDM instead of the flat
>>>metafile of GDI.
>
>>Segments? Yech! :)
>
>Big grin. :-}
>
>>Actually, I dont see what you mean by this.. segmented?
>
>You can put a list of primitives into graphic segments,
>and construct complex pictures from segments and primitives.
>A GDDM (and GPI) metafile is a tree of segments, instead
>of a flat list of primitives.

Oh, you mean that these metafiles can contain other metafiles?
PICT can do that- you can call DrawPicuter inside a picture definition.

[deletia- Mr Rogers comes to c.s.ms-w.a]

[deletia- sound stuff]
>>>No. This is Windows support. It is a native Windows device driver,
>>>which implements the sound device of Windows 3.1. It just wasn't
>>>include in the 3.1 release disk, but came later. Think of it
>>>as a bug fix for the default speaker driver, if you like.
>
>>There is no default speaker driver. If it was a bug fix, it should
>>be included with the 3.1 distribution.
>
>It should be included with the 3.2 distribution. The 
>multimedia support was new in 3.1.  Wait and see.

I shall. When it shows up, Ill shut up and let you count it without
whining. :)

>>My comment about "windows support" was beacuse of this:
>>"Even under Windows 2.0 the speaker can do much more than just beep."
>
>>What support is there under 2.0 beyond beeping?
>
>From the 3.0 SDK help file (because I have it online,
>the 2.0 interface is identical).

Hangon- Id be rather surprised that 3.0 added nothing at all
to the SDK. Perhaps this is one of the things it adds.

[deletia- Longs List of Sound Functions]
>
>>>>I dont generally count
>>>>stuff that isn't part of the Official Distribution, because if you
>>>>do that so can we and pretty soon it gets rediculous. (for instance,
>>>>now I can claim that the mac has a CLI- the MPW shell. :( )
>>>
>>>If it only uses a few bytes on the disk, is easily installable
>>>and simple to use, why not? :-)
>
>>Because two can play at that game. We will be comparing constantly
>>moving targets.
>
>On the other hand, comparing what a hardware *and* software
>supplier offers with something from a software only seems
>a bit unfair to me.

Hmmm? We were also counting the PC itself, I thought.

Otherwise Id shut up about sound support, since Win3.1 has this.

[deletia- accel. video AGAIN, and protection]

>>[deletia- protection]
>>>>>Well, any UAE is a proof that Windows has at least a little bit
>>>>>of memory protection. That most people don't get that right,
>>>>>and blame the messenger doesn't change that in any way.
>>>
>>>>And this is the thing; as you say Windows was designed in such a way
>>>>to be sturdier that the Mac this way. So why is it (Generally)
>>>>percieved as being crash-happy?
>>>
>>>I don't perceive it that way.
>
>>Ok. Nifty. So you dont know why people persist in saying
>>it is? (or is it just the Great Machead Conspiracy?) :)
>
>I have seen MFT crash, MVS crash, BS2000 crash, CP/M crash, 
>TSO crash, Unix crash (various flavors, of course), I
>know how it feels if DOS, Windows, OS/2 or the Mac OS crash.
>I even know how to crash most of them, and how to avoid
>it, and that this is simple on some systems, and difficult
>on others. I don't think that it is more easy to crash
>Windows than the Mac OS, or that it is more difficult
>to avoid.

Ah, so it IS the Great Machead Conspiracy? Now that we have been
found out, we'll have to go to some other front. :(

>[...]
>
>>[deletia- the error of my ways. Ive already seen it.]
>
>>>>I dont quite see how this works. Where do the resources
>>>>go? ARe they appended to the end or something?
>>>
>>>Exactly. If I remember correctly, the resource part
>>>comes first, but I could be wrong. I don't care, because
>>>it's the tools business to know that. 
>
>>Hmm.. how can you execute it then?
>
>Execute what? A program is excuted by using one of
>the API calls to load and run a program. A library
>is accessed using the LoadLibrary API call.

Oh, so its not a DOS .exe; if you ran it in DOS it would
crash with an illegal instruction or somesuch.

>>Resources wont run..
>
>[...]
>
>>[deletia- resouce modification]
>>>>>Hm. Perhaps it wasn't such a bad idea that the Windows API doesn't
>>>>>contain calls to modify resources ...
>>>
>>>>Hmm? Me no get it.
>>>
>>>Selfmodifying programs isn't a good idea, generally.
>
>>Do you mean "always" or "usually"? Ill buy the second but not he
>>first.
>
>Always. A program can generate another program and run it 
>after creation. But as an general option provided by a high level
>interface, it is a bad concept.

Ah. Always is a big thing. Why? (note that this is more than just
modifiying your own code)

[deletia- extended attributes]
---
			- 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.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy