MAC vs PC Comparison: (LONGIH)
Paul Thomas
requests for info to help choosing between Macs or PCs for kids. I
posted this recently on another group and spawned lively discussion about macs
and pcs among a variety of people both assenting and dissenting in response.
I assume that the more and varied experiences brought into the discussion,
the better the basis on which to make a decision. I grew up on Mac but am
trying to learn, particularly from those who have experience in Macs _and_ PCs.
For that reason I am posting to groups oriented to both systems. Please let
me know of your experiences and why you might have particular biases. If I
get the quality and quantity of response that I hope to via post or email, I
can compile the results and make the body of info available. Robin authored
the original response to my query and I want to attribute appropriately but
please address responses, etc., to this post or my email address. Also,
please excuse both the poor editing (was getting old) and the
cross-posting, it seems the best way to get this info.
Thanks in advance,
Paul
________________
My Query:
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 16:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: PMTH...@NEU.EDU
To: ro...@pencom.com
Subject: re misc.kids.computer post
Hello,
I recently subscribed to the mentioned newsgroup and saw
your post regarding your kids and computers. I was wondering if you
know of any sources of information along the lines of getting kids started.
I posted a request for faqs, suggestions, etc., but had no responses. Can
you make any recommendations or suggestions? One of the decisions soon to be
faced is between choices of Macs and PC clones. Would you have prefernces or
recommendations? I have been thinking that the power mac would give
access to both platforms without the greater likelihood of crashes I
imagine is had using Windows layered on top of DOS, and the application
on top of that.
If you can suggest anything I'd appreciate it. If not, sorry to
bother you by email. Thanks, and if you might provide other info or
pointers, please do so.
Paul Thomas
_______________________
Robin's Response:
Subject: Re: re misc.kids.computer post
Boy... you start the questions off with several "loaded" questions.
Rather than me suggesting which system you buy, perhaps I can give you some
caveats about both. Before I start that, let me say, I am a programmer.
I work on
UNIX systems all day. I have a PC at home (486/33) and my father has a
Mac(IIfx) that I am very familiar with. I have supported both PCs and Macs
at work for quite awhile (so I feel _very_ qualified to discuss either).
Now for the Pros...
PCs:
1) Cheap hardware. This is due to the large numbers of vendors and
serious competition.
2) More software. An article I once read said there were more titles
available for DOS/Windows (actually the article distinguished between
the two, but together they were even more significant) than all the other
systems combined.
3) Good capability. (With careful purchasing, you can get stereo sound,
hi-reso), there is a _very_ good chance that you will be able to use the
system for 5+ years before it is so obsolete that people stop making
stuff that works on it. Of course, this is the "computer" industry, and the
future can take strange turns...
5) More operating systems. You are not limited to DOS/Windows on your
PC. There are a multitude of other choices as well. For example, NEXTSTEP
(my personal favorite), Solaris, SCO Unix, Windows NT, Linux (free version
of UNIX), among others... The advantage of this is: if you ever get tired
of DOS/Windows, you can switch to a different OS pretty easily.
Now for the Pros of Macs
1) Tightly integrated system. Since most of the base system comes from
a single vendor (especially in _new_ models), you can be VERY sure that it
will all work together.
2) High performance. (Applies _only_ if you are getting the PowerPC
based systems -- otherwise performance is only "moderate".) So long as the
application has been recompiled to run on the PowerPC's "native" mode,
it will be significantly faster than most other packages.
3) Higher quality software. While the PCs clearly have the edge in
"volume" of software, Macs have a distinct advantage in the "quality" of the
software. This can mean anything from: "it doesn't crash" to "it has more
features".
4) More refined user interface. The Mac has a slight advantage in the
ease-of-use (over Windows... e Windows interface.
Now for the Cons of PCs
1) Painful to configure. This is not a joke. I have _never_ had so
much trouble getting a machine to work as I have had with my PC at home. You
have to modify the "config.sys" and the "autoexec.bat" files to squeaze
memory out of the box so all the DOS applications work. Everytime I add a new
peripheral, I have to take the box apart to twiddle some card's
"jumpers" (we haven't used "jumpers" on UNIX boxes in 10 years!). Mostly it
requires that you ask someone who's already got it working...
2) Unstable OS. The Windows/DOS combination seems to have no problem
simply dieing when an exception condition is raised while running a program.
I frequently experience "General Protection Faults" (GPF) while switching
between several applications. Generally, if I am doing only one thing
at a time, I don't have a problem... But when I try to use the "task
switching" that is supposedly a feature of Windows, the machine frequently
hangs/crashes/GPFs.
3) Poor memory usage. I have a machine with 8MB of RAM (small by todays
standards), but I frequently get programs telling me that I'm out of
memory... This is caused by two things: 1) DOS can still only use 640KB
of memory for certain operations. So applications written to that
specification need almost all of the "low" (first 640KB) memory.
Unfortunately, when
you load device drivers for things like CDROM, Sound, Mouse, etc. they take
up space in "low" memory. 2) Windows does a poor job of "virtual memory".
This is where (as on advanced systems like, say, UNIX) the OS uses the
hard-disk to provide extra memory. When a program needs more memory, it
asks the
OS for the memory. The OS then moves another (not in use) block of RAM to
the hard-disk, and then gives the active program the freed space in RAM. On
UNIX (and other advanced OSes) this system is very functional and smooth. On
Windows, it is poorly implemented and frequently breaks (I suspect that
many GPFs are really caused by the memory management routines in Windows).
4) Low quality software. In addition to problems with the reliablity of
the OS, the quality of the software is seriously lacking. Numerous bugs,
poorly implemented features, and generally shabby programming lead to software
that fails to properly account for unexpected behavior (exception
conditions). Consequently, when the user does something that the software didn't
expect, the program will either crash, or totally ignore the user's input...
For example, I was attempting to install a package. It asked me where on
the disk I wanted the package installed. I gave it a directory name (that
didn't exist because I mispelled the name). Rather than creating the dir
for me, and rather than telling me the directory didn't exist (and then
perhaps exiting), the package attempted to copy every file from the install
diskette to the non-existent directory -- which caused an error panel to be
displayed for each file (of which, there were about 400!). I finally
decided to reboot the system to regain control (since there was no "cancel"
operation, and the standard escape mechanisms didn't work). Basically,
look at it like this: every package is a compromise between what you wanted,
and what it actually does.
Now for the Cons of Macs
1) Expensive. Don't be fooled by that low entry level price (~$6000)...
(That's a joke...). A power Mac will be _very_ expensive to purchase,
and then _very_ expensive to add-on to. Every piece of hardware will cost
alot. For the same money as you are willing to spend on a 'base model' PowerPC
Mac,you could buy a fully decked out Pentium system. And then 2 years from
nowyou could upgrade the Pentium to the "next generation" for less than
your original investment in the PowerMac.
2) Non-PowerMac software will run slower. Software that is not compiled
specifically to run on the PowerMac will be about as fast as it is on
the regular Mac. For the time being, this will be a serious problem --
since little software (especially "kid software") is likely to be upgraded to
the PowerMac. DOS/Windows software (in emulation mode) will be slower than
existing 486 systems. Probably as fast as a 386/25. This means that
your DOS/Windows software will work like the stuff that runs on PCs from 2
generations back... Some of the modern software (especially "kid
software") really needs the extra "power" in the newer processors.
3) Single vendor. What happens if Apple decides to change direction and
abandon PowerPC? Suddenly your system is completely obsolete (and
people stop developing new software for it!) It has happened before (even at
Apple-- remember the "Lisa"? -- and the "Apple III"?)
4) Technology advances are in big (expensive) leaps, instead of small
(cheap) steps... Since a single company is responsible for improving the
Macintosh technology base, it generally takes longer to introduce significant
improvements in the technology.
Just so you won't feel totally ripped off... I "personally" would buy a
pentium with a PCI bus, PCI graphics adaptor, 17 inch (or larger)
monitor, 1GB (gigabyte) SCSI disk, 3x (or 4x) speed CDROM (SCSI), and 32MB of
ram. I think I could get all of that for about as much as the base model
PowerMac...
Then I would partition the disk to give 300MB to DOS/Windows (for my
kid) and use the rest for NEXTSTEP...
Hope that helps...
---
robin -- "The key to being an effective manager is keeping the people
who hate me away from those who are still undecided -- Casey
Stengal"
Klaus
pth...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Paul Thomas) writes:
|> Hello to all on this group. I have seen in a couple of groups recently,
|> requests for info to help choosing between Macs or PCs for kids. I
posted
|> this recently on another group and spawned lively discussion about macs
|> and pcs among a variety of people both assenting and dissenting in
|> response. I assume that the more and varied experiences brought into
|> the discussion, the better the basis on which to make a decision...
|> For that reason I am posting to groups oriented to both systems...
Geez, are you trying to start a flamewar?
If anyone wants to reply to the original article, I would ask that they just
send e-mail directly to Paul, or at least post followups to the advocacy
groups only.
Thanks.
-Klaus (heil...@math.berkeley.edu)
Hank Leininger
*Hello to all on this group. I have seen in a couple of groups recently,
*requests for info to help choosing between Macs or PCs for kids. I
*posted this recently on another group and spawned lively discussion about macs
*and pcs among a variety of people both assenting and dissenting in response.
*________________
The OS/2 advocate in me is moved to fill in a bit. Robin does not make any
mention of OS/2; perhaps that is due to a lack of exposure. Let me just go
point-by-point on the disadvantages given for PC's, and "plug" the advantages
of OS/2 where appropriate :)
From the Pros of Macs:
*4) More refined user interface. The Mac has a slight advantage in the
*ease-of-use (over Windows... e Windows interface.
I would have to agree that the Windows interface leaves a lot to be desired.
The Workplace Shell in OS/2 may not look terribly different (just enough to be
unfamiliar), but it is much more "intelligent" than either Windows *or* the Mac
OS. OS/2's WPS is entirely object-oriented. What this means for Windows users
is, for instance, that there is no separate "file manager"; as with Mac's,
folders can be nested ("Letters", "Phone Bills", "Poetry", and "Borrowed Words"
folders can live on the desktop inside the folder "Writings"). Associations
for data files mean that double-clicking a text file starts the editor with
that file loaded; double-click an Ami Pro file and Ami Pro will start up.
Double click a fax document, and the fax program will start up and send the
fax. Also, to change the "properties" or whatever of an object, a right-click
on that object brings up a pop-up menu of manipulations possible--from changing
the amount of XMS memory a DOS program sees to changing the icon for the object
to creating a shadow of that object wherever you want it--similar to the
"shortcuts" being put into Chicago, but with a more robust object-oriented
intelligence behind it. The OS/2 desktop is fully SOM aware. In short, it is
far more intelligent and, once you know it, easier to use than either the
Windows interface or the Mac. There is, of course, a bit of personal
preference/bias here, but everyone I know who has taken the time to learn how
to fully exploit the WPS is consistantly aggrivated when they have to sit down
at a non OS/2-machine, for this among other reasons.
*2) Unstable OS. The Windows/DOS combination seems to have no problem
*simply dieing when an exception condition is raised while running a program.
*I frequently experience "General Protection Faults" (GPF) while switching
*between several applications. Generally, if I am doing only one thing
*at a time, I don't have a problem... But when I try to use the "task
*switching" that is supposedly a feature of Windows, the machine frequently
*hangs/crashes/GPFs.
This is another *big* advantage of OS/2. I heartily agree with Robin again
here; DOS/Windows is painfully unstable. A single application bombing out is
never good, but if it is a buggy application, it will happen sometimes. What
there is no excuse for is an operating system that allows the entire system to
be taken down by an errant application. OS/2 is extremely crash resistant. In
a week the average Windows PC is rebooted and/or work is disrupted by software
failures more times than I have had to reboot in the past year. If not for
frequent power failures in my dorm, I would never have to reboot my computer
except to install the next version :)
Under OS/2 apps run in protected memory space; it is virtually impossible (I
will *not* say completely impossible, as *nothing* is impossible) for one
Windows program that crashes to take down other running Windows sessions. DOS
programs, too, are shielded.
I must grin when Robin says, "task switching." This is quite true; Windows is
a poor multitasker. It is better described as a talk-switcher. The
co-operative multitasking model has a fleet of negative ramifications
performance and stability-wise. Pre-emptive operating systems such as OS/2 are
far better at scheduling and handing out CPU time to running applications.
Background applications will not be "starved" for CPU time, nor will a
foreground application become unresponsive because the computer is too busy
tending to another running program.
*3) Poor memory usage. I have a machine with 8MB of RAM (small by todays
*standards), but I frequently get programs telling me that I'm out of
*memory... This is caused by two things: 1) DOS can still only use 640KB
*of memory for certain operations. So applications written to that
*specification need almost all of the "low" (first 640KB) memory.
Again, I couldn't agree more. The 640K conventional memory problem does not
exist under OS/2, even when running DOS and Windows programs. OS/2 doesn't
care about any of these memory management woes; it uses a flat memory model by
which any and all memory can be used at any time. When running DOS and Windows
programs, it will create for those apps a simulated "640K" of memory, or 640K +
1024 K of XMS, or 706K plus 10 megs of EMS--whatever you want. And, of course,
you can have multiple DOS programs running concurrently which have entirely
different memory useage (one running in CGA mode with 706K conventional, one
running a VGA game, and another "DOS" session running Word for Windows on your
OS/2 desktop....). Any devices for which support must be loaded are taken care
of before you create this DOS session; OS/2 handles the allocation of memory
for disk caches, ramdrives, sound card/CD/network drivers, etc. So none of it
takes away from the memory available to DOS programs you run, while still
allowing access to all the advantages.
*2) Windows does a poor job of "virtual memory".
*This is where (as on advanced systems like, say, UNIX) the OS uses the
*hard-disk to provide extra memory.
OS/2 is also a virtual memory system, which handles memory in much the same way
Robin describes for UNIX-based systems.
Let me add that from the little I have been exposed to NeXT, Robin's preferred
environment, I can see why. I think it is beyond the needs and means of most
of the computing world. There are deficiencies, or rather, possible
improvements to OS/2 that I will acknowledge, and which are addressed by NeXT.
However, since I am not an application developer, I don't care overmuch that
NeXT is probably the mest development platform in existance. What I do care
about is reliable multitasking, memory handling, and an intelligent
interface--available in NeXT *and* OS/2. OS/2's hardware requirements are
lower (and getting lower with every version), and the variety of applications
that can run on an OS/2 box is unsurpassed. Show me a NeXT that can run
Microprose's Civilization or X-Com. Or, show me a Windows machine that can run
both at once while resorting a database and downloading with two 28.8's going
full speed. OS/2 is, in my opinion, the "something better" that many PC users
want, but don't think is within their reach (many of them would prefer to wait
another seven months or so for what I've been doing for over a year....)
Hank Leininger
lein...@vaxino.scri.fsu.edu
Matthew Clark
: available for DOS/Windows (actually the article distinguished between
: the two, but together they were even more significant) than all the other
: systems combined.
Doesn't *more software* amount to more name brands whose software perform
similar functions anyway? The burden is on the consumer to filter out the
hype and hoopla and pick a name brand s/he hopes s/he will be happy with.
: 3) Good capability. (With careful purchasing, you can get stereo sound,
On the PC side of the fence, making anything but *careful purchasing*, a
skill level reserved for geru's only, means YOU are going to get screwed
otherwise which is where most of the population of PC users is anyway.
: 5) More operating systems. You are not limited to DOS/Windows on your
*more operating systems?* Mac users probably don't know what an operating
system is anyway. We've got our work to do and the Mac OS gets it done.
: of UNIX), among others... The advantage of this is: if you ever get tired
: of DOS/Windows, you can switch to a different OS pretty easily.
*ever get tired of DOS/Windows* THE TRUTH BE KNOWN! Macintosh users are
productivity oriented people who will not let any computer red tape hinder
progress. We chose the correct *gun* the first time around.
: 1) Painful to configure. This is not a joke. I have _never_ had so
: much trouble getting a machine to work as I have had with my PC at home. You
: 2) Unstable OS. The Windows/DOS combination seems to have no problem
: simply dieing when an exception condition is raised while running a program.
: 3) Poor memory usage. I have a machine with 8MB of RAM (small by todays
: standards), but I frequently get programs telling me that I'm out of
: 4) Low quality software. In addition to problems with the reliablity of
: the OS, the quality of the software is seriously lacking. Numerous bugs,
: Now for the Cons of Macs
: 1) Expensive. Don't be fooled by that low entry level price (~$6000)...
: (That's a joke...). A power Mac will be _very_ expensive to purchase,
Coulda sworn we didn't pay more than $2500 for Performa 475, complete with
software, and a stylewriter II.
: 2) Non-PowerMac software will run slower. Software that is not compiled
: specifically to run on the PowerMac will be about as fast as it is on
*run slower* proven not related to superior productivity. Even slower
Macs proved more productive than Windoze.
: 3) Single vendor. What happens if Apple decides to change direction and
: abandon PowerPC? Suddenly your system is completely obsolete (and
The sky is falling too! Besides, apple is now licensing MAC OS.
: 4) Technology advances are in big (expensive) leaps, instead of small
: (cheap) steps... Since a single company is responsible for improving the
: Macintosh technology base, it generally takes longer to introduce significant
: improvements in the technology.
This is your imagination at work.
: Just so you won't feel totally ripped off... I "personally" would buy a
: pentium with a PCI bus, PCI graphics adaptor, 17 inch (or larger)
You are getting what you deserve.
Eric Gerstenberger
% : Now for the Cons of Macs
%
% : 1) Expensive. Don't be fooled by that low entry level price (~$6000)...
% : (That's a joke...). A power Mac will be _very_ expensive to purchase,
%
% Coulda sworn we didn't pay more than $2500 for Performa 475, complete with
% software, and a stylewriter II.
$2500 for an entry level computer is a lot when you can get something
similar on the PC side with a printer (usually an HP or Epson inkjet,
sometimes a Canon) for about $1400-$1600. That's a lot better than $2500
for an entry level computer.
Stephan Anagnostaras
>The Performa 466 (8/250; 14" color monitor, keyboard, software, CD-ROM;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sorry, I meant, the 636!!!
>33 mhz 68040) goes for $1699.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephan Anagnostaras ste...@psych.ucla.edu
UCLA Behavioral Neuroscience sana...@umich.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Gerstenberger
ste...@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu (Stephan Anagnostaras) wrote:
% >
% >$2500 for an entry level computer is a lot when you can get something
% >similar on the PC side with a printer (usually an HP or Epson inkjet,
% >sometimes a Canon) for about $1400-$1600. That's a lot better than $2500
% >for an entry level computer.
%
% No, the Performa 475 (25 mhz 68040; 14" color monitor; 4/160; software,
% keyboard) goes for $1199.
%
% The Performa 466 (8/250; 14" color monitor, keyboard, software, CD-ROM;
% 33 mhz 68040) goes for $1699.
The software is shit, so don't even include that in the discussion (the
only decent software included is ClarisWorks), most PC packages also
include software (usually something to the effect of ClarisWorks) plus
monitors that allow more than one resolution and those that include
CD-ROMs include superior sound generation equipment and usually speakers.
Also, you didn't include the price for the printer, and may I say that the
HP and Epson inkjets are superior in resolution and paper handling
capabilities to the Stylewriter/Canon.
Also, some bonehead in marketing doesn't dictate what you have to buy when
you purchase a PC, don't want the printer, strike it off, want a different
monitor, then fine by me--you aren't stuck with what Apple wants to give
you.
Also, the memory that comes with the PC (usually 4) is enough to run
multiple applications at the same time, 4 mb on the Mac is hardly enough
to start it up.
Alan Santos
>From: ste...@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu (Stephan Anagnostaras)
>Subject: Re: MAC vs PC Comparison: (LONGIH)
>Date: 22 Oct 1994 16:42:37 -0700
>>The software is shit, so don't even include that in the discussion (the
>>only decent software included is ClarisWorks), most PC packages also
>>include software (usually something to the effect of ClarisWorks) plus
>>monitors that allow more than one resolution and those that include
>>CD-ROMs include superior sound generation equipment and usually speakers.
>Horseshit, most Macs have better sound generation equipment then PCs
>period. Never mind that it is a fully integrated part of the system
>without configuration problems.
Please take *all* of this shit over to an .advocacy group. Choose what you
want, both have their merits..It's like religion, or abortion, no matter how
good your argument is, you'll never convince me that your ideas are better
than mine.
Personally, being in the market for a video card, I would like to read about
*video*.
The "ex" philosophy major,
Alan Santos
Florida State University
asa...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
http://cob.fsu.edu
Stephen Jonke
to this. Just let it die. Don't followup if you disagree either as we've
all been through this before a thousand times over - don't all of you get
tired of this? I've set the followup to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc, because the
PC hierarchy doesn't seem to have an advocacy group (at least not here).
Steve :(
-------------------
jo...@gsfc.nasa.gov
Go! Go! Go!
-------------------
Stephan Anagnostaras
>$2500 for an entry level computer is a lot when you can get something
>similar on the PC side with a printer (usually an HP or Epson inkjet,
>sometimes a Canon) for about $1400-$1600. That's a lot better than $2500
>for an entry level computer.
No, the Performa 475 (25 mhz 68040; 14" color monitor; 4/160; software,
keyboard) goes for $1199.
The Performa 466 (8/250; 14" color monitor, keyboard, software, CD-ROM;
33 mhz 68040) goes for $1699.
--
Stephan Anagnostaras
>only decent software included is ClarisWorks), most PC packages also
>include software (usually something to the effect of ClarisWorks) plus
>monitors that allow more than one resolution and those that include
>CD-ROMs include superior sound generation equipment and usually speakers.
Horseshit, most Macs have better sound generation equipment then PCs
period. Never mind that it is a fully integrated part of the system
without configuration problems.
The software is OK, I wasn't making a big deal about it. But Quicken
and Grolier's are also included with the 636, both of which are
good pieces of software. MS Bookshelf is included to, but I'm not
sure what that is worth or what it is.
>capabilities to the Stylewriter/Canon.
So WHAT? Anyone can buy an HP printer. Mac packages don't include printers.
Besides, the Mac HP Deskwriter includes better software than the PC
version does.
>
>Also, some bonehead in marketing doesn't dictate what you have to buy when
>you purchase a PC, don't want the printer, strike it off, want a different
No one is forcing you to buy the package. You can always buy a Q605, 630,
or 6100 and build it up.
The Performa 6110 comes with the 15" multiple scan monitor. Again,
no one is forcing you to buy the package deal.
>Also, the memory that comes with the PC (usually 4) is enough to run
>multiple applications at the same time, 4 mb on the Mac is hardly enough
>to start it up.
Sure, the P475 only has 4 megs, but all the other packages come with
8 megs. In any case, you can get by with 4 megs on Mac running
7.1, without suffering consequences except that you can only run
one app or maybe two if one is small. However, on a PC running
Windows you suffer slow speed and other problems with only 4 megs.
Stephan
Alfred Hazelworth
>On the PC side of the fence, making anything but *careful purchasing*, a
>skill level reserved for geru's only, means YOU are going to get screwed
>otherwise which is where most of the population of PC users is anyway.
Good thing I'm a guru, eh? (pet peve, 99% of all mac people don't have
that opportunity. Damn OS gets in your face all the time.)
>: 5) More operating systems. You are not limited to DOS/Windows on your
>*more operating systems?* Mac users probably don't know what an operating
>system is anyway. We've got our work to do and the Mac OS gets it done.
>: of UNIX), among others... The advantage of this is: if you ever get tired
>: of DOS/Windows, you can switch to a different OS pretty easily.
>*ever get tired of DOS/Windows* THE TRUTH BE KNOWN! Macintosh users are
>productivity oriented people who will not let any computer red tape hinder
>progress. We chose the correct *gun* the first time around.
Yeah. I got tired of dos/windows real fast. Dos, yeah. Great
interface. (yes. I like command-line interfaces. Bite me.) But Windblows,
that really sucks. Why do you think I use OS/2?
There was a study done somewhere some years back (mid 80s) where they
planned to discover wether GUI or CLI was better. (Graphical User
Interface / Commmand Line Interface)
Basicly, they got something like 160 people and put them on Unix
workstations useing a database aplication. 1/2 of the people were useing
raw Unix command-line, and the other 1/2 were useing X-Windows (the
environment that MAC-os is a crime against).
After 3 weeks, the GUI users were outperforming the CLI users by 70%,
but after 6 weeks the CLI users were outperforming the GUI users by 25%,
and after another 6 weeks the GUI users had not advanced at all.
>: 1) Painful to configure. This is not a joke. I have _never_ had so
>: much trouble getting a machine to work as I have had with my PC at home. You
Personaly, I enjoy it.
>: 2) Unstable OS. The Windows/DOS combination seems to have no problem
>: simply dieing when an exception condition is raised while running a program.
Exactly. Why use a kludgy 32 bit shell on top of a 16 bit interupt
handler / translation table combo? Use OS/2, dummy.
>: 3) Poor memory usage. I have a machine with 8MB of RAM (small by todays
>: standards), but I frequently get programs telling me that I'm out of
Use a better memory manager. Better yet, use a true 32 bit OS.
>: 4) Low quality software. In addition to problems with the reliablity of
>: the OS, the quality of the software is seriously lacking. Numerous bugs,
What? Obviously, I'm out of touch. I just don't see it. Yes, there are
more bugs, but then there are more features.
>: Now for the Cons of Macs
>: 1) Expensive. Don't be fooled by that low entry level price (~$6000)...
>: (That's a joke...). A power Mac will be _very_ expensive to purchase,
>Coulda sworn we didn't pay more than $2500 for Performa 475, complete with
>software, and a stylewriter II.
>: 2) Non-PowerMac software will run slower. Software that is not compiled
>: specifically to run on the PowerMac will be about as fast as it is on
>*run slower* proven not related to superior productivity. Even slower
>Macs proved more productive than Windoze.
Again. You're comparing goat manure to horse manure.
>: 3) Single vendor. What happens if Apple decides to change direction and
>: abandon PowerPC? Suddenly your system is completely obsolete (and
>The sky is falling too! Besides, apple is now licensing MAC OS.
Remember the early AV macs? Remember that nifty DSP they had, and how
Apple said it was GOD and if you didn't program for it you were a looser
because it's the future? It's not in the PPC AV macs.
>: 4) Technology advances are in big (expensive) leaps, instead of small
>: (cheap) steps... Since a single company is responsible for improving the
>: Macintosh technology base, it generally takes longer to introduce significant
>: improvements in the technology.
>This is your imagination at work.
>: Just so you won't feel totally ripped off... I "personally" would buy a
>: pentium with a PCI bus, PCI graphics adaptor, 17 inch (or larger)
>You are getting what you deserve.
AlHaz (Two Pounds of Flax!)
(Yes, I know. Put it in advocacy. Lay off.)
kar...@news.delphi.com
> Remember the early AV macs? Remember that nifty DSP they had, and how
>Apple said it was GOD and if you didn't program for it you were a looser
>because it's the future? It's not in the PPC AV macs.
Well actually, Apple has told developers since 1984 not to program the
hardware directly and use the API whenever possible. When Apple released
the AV Macs it also released ARTA, the API to program the DSP and other
"real-time" processes. If you program the DSP using ARTA, your program
will work on PowerMacs without a DSP, the AV Macs, and other 68K Macs
with third party DSP cards. In fact, if you later decide to get a dsp
card for your P-Mac, the same programs will run faster without using up
as much cpu time and without them being modified.
>>: 4) Technology advances are in big (expensive) leaps, instead of small
>>: (cheap) steps... Since a single company is responsible for improving the
>>: Macintosh technology base, it generally takes longer to introduce significant
>>: improvements in the technology.
Do you mean technologies like high-quality video, visual interfaces,
3-1/2 disk drives, scalable fonts, "plug-and-play", etc?
Charles Wiltgen
anything but comp.sys.mac.advocacy.
In article <st946r24-221...@sn197025.resnet.drexel.edu>,
st94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Eric Gerstenberger) wrote:
> Also, the memory that comes with the PC (usually 4) is enough to run
> multiple applications at the same time, 4 mb on the Mac is hardly enough
> to start it up.
This should tell you that this person has not run Windows with 4 Mb of RAM.
Besides, the real value of the Mac is not in the hardware, it's in the
OS. Buy Windows if you like screwing with the OS. Buy a Mac if you want
to get some work done.
I change my mind, buy a PC.
[Followups are redirected *out* of c.s.m.*]
--
Charles Wiltgen "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and
cwil...@mcs.com then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
(INTP) At night, the ice weasels come." - Nietzsche (Groening)
The Apocalypso! http://www.mcs.net/~cwiltgen
Adam Robert Fields
Stephan Anagnostaras <ste...@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu> wrote:
>No, the Performa 475 (25 mhz 68040; 14" color monitor; 4/160; software,
>keyboard) goes for $1199.
>
>The Performa 466 (8/250; 14" color monitor, keyboard, software, CD-ROM;
>33 mhz 68040) goes for $1699.
Will someone please tell me how Apple decided to come up with that
numbering scheme?!?! The lower number machine is more powerful - that
makes sense...
But seriously, Apple has far more problems than that. While I will
admit that they're better for some things - their SCSI operation is
much smoother and built in, and 24-bit color seems to be
easier/cheaper to get (although this may not be true now as PC video
adapter prices have dropped significantly) - they're WAY behind. Even
for DTP, which is what Macs are supposed to be great at, the Quadra
650 is slower in actual operation than my 486/50, with equal amounts
of RAM (16 megs). Much slower. And I think that there should be some
sort of law prohibiting Apple Co's recent blast of commercials
with that guy stating, roughly, that adding a big hard drive, "many
megabytes of RAM", a spell-checker, and a grammar checker is going to
make my desktop capable of launching a Saturn-exploration mission. GET
REAL!
- Adam
*-- "The Buddha: The gearshift of your brain." **>> ar...@columbia.edu
*>> Affiliations: The Church of the Subgenius, The Discordian Society, ADP,
*>> The Philolexian Society, Horizon's Edge Enterprises, Userfriendly Inc.
Login time: Sun Oct 23 16:59:37 EDT 1994
Stephan Anagnostaras
>Best reason to buy a pc over a mac is because of choice of operating systems
>Unix, dos (windows), os/2, desqview... vs. Apple System OS (worst memory management ever).
>You decide.
Give me a break!!! Unix on a PC? Windows good memory management?!?
You probably buy PC's for the key clicking!
Simon Karpen
for the PC, and source compatible with all unices. It runs very well, is
fully 32-bit, has excellent memory management, and has loads of high
quality apps, mostly free. Yes, UN*X runs on a PC, and it runs well, too.
I keep MS-DOG and windoze around on a smaller piece of my hard drive to
be backwards compatible with people too stupid/brainwashed to use anything
else.
Simon
--
*******************************************************************************
* Simon Karpen kar...@ncssm-server.ncssm.edu *
* flames to /dev/null Linux: choice of the GNU generation *
* #include <disclaimer.h> I don't speak for NCSSM *
*******************************************************************************
Philip Machanick
> : 3) Poor memory usage. I have a machine with 8MB of RAM (small by todays
This is what you both have :( We've seen this flame war before. Off to the
advocacy groups with you.
--
Philip Machanick phi...@cs.wits.ac.za
Department of Computer Science, University of the Witwatersrand
2050 Wits, South Africa (at University of Cape Town 4 July-7 Nov)
phone 27(11)716-3309 fax 27(11)339-7965
Mr. Bungle
Unix, dos (windows), os/2, desqview... vs. Apple System OS (worst memory management ever).
You decide.
Mental Illness is the Road to Freedon
-Jello Biafra
Jeremy Mayes
jlm...@midway.uchicago.edu
Leslie Mikesell
Stephan Anagnostaras <ste...@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994Oct23.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> Mr. Bungle writes:
>>Best reason to buy a pc over a mac is because of choice of operating systems
>>Unix, dos (windows), os/2, desqview... vs. Apple System OS (worst memory management ever).
>>You decide.
>
>Give me a break!!! Unix on a PC? Windows good memory management?!?
>You probably buy PC's for the key clicking!
Don't forget you are talking about moving targets here. Have you actually
compared the price/performance of a Pentium 90 to anything else (this
month...), or had a real problem with a recent version of unix on an
Intel processor?
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Amancio Hasty Jr
>In article <1994Oct23.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> Mr. Bungle writes:
>>Best reason to buy a pc over a mac is because of choice of operating systems
>>Unix, dos (windows), os/2, desqview... vs. Apple System OS (worst memory management ever).
>>You decide.
>
>Give me a break!!! Unix on a PC? Windows good memory management?!?
>You probably buy PC's for the key clicking!
>
Funny, I was thinking this morning that Sun should upgrade their CPU
because they are going to be left in the dust.
At any rate, don't be surprise if hundreds of Linux activists follow
you home just to flame you :)
Me, happily typing all of this on a P66 and a S3 864 VLB card running
FreeBSD and XFree86 -- we are only about twice as fast as a sparc
10 with a gx per xbench results .
Amancio
--
FREE unix, gcc, tcp/ip, X, open-look, netaudio, tcl/tk, MIME,
midi,sound at freebsd.cdrom.com:/pub/FreeBSD
Amancio Hasty, Consultant
Home: (415) 495-3046
e-mail ha...@netcom.com
Brian Connors
ste...@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu (Stephan Anagnostaras) wrote:
> The Performa 6110 comes with the 15" multiple scan monitor. Again,
> no one is forcing you to buy the package deal.
>
Although, all things considered, the Multiple Scan 15 is hardly a monitor
I'd mind being forced to buy...
Brian Connors
Boston College
Paul Thomas
Thanks for your responses to my original post. I am still
interested in constructive comment on the Mac-PC comparison issue (no,
my intent was not to start a flamewar between advocates or detractors
of either system) adn will still appreciate responses via mail or post.
I want to let folks know that, in one exchange, I learned of an existing
FAQ addressing the topic. It is current, (Oct 1/94) as long as things
are current in News and is available via anonymous FTP at the following
site:
ftp.hawaii.edu info-mac/info/hdwr/mac-ibm-compare***.txt
Current version is 1.9.7
Supposedly, one may also obtain it from the sumex and wuarchive sites
(ftp.hawaii.edu mirrors sumex, I believe)
Again, thanks, if you are aware of other such info sources,
please let me know.
Paul Thomas
Alexander the Great
You get what you pay for. Noone gives you anything for free without cutting
corners. Simple business principles. those 1400-1600 comps have, in my all to
exp'd exp, given the user nothing but trouble and not lived up to billing.
Also, I can get a Pmac 6100 for 1500 (sine printer, oh well, I got my
StyleWriter). 2000 for the system. Hmm.. where's that educational pricelist?
Performa 636 8/250 CD, complete. Tons of software: 1706.00
PMac 7100 8/250 CD, complete. Tons of Software: 2613.00
Style Writer II w/ Apple font pack bundle (all ccables, etc) 276.00
Personal LaserWriter 300 w/ Font Pack (all cables, etc.) 579.00
Call 1 800 877 4433 ext 701 for more info.
Source: Apple Campus DIrect Individual Purchase Plan, Confidendtial Price
List, August 2, 1994
Somehow I doubt your 486 can match the native apps (yes, the apps are native,
says it right here) on a Pmac.. MOF, I know it can't.
Any questions? Call Apple.
NOTE: Prices have decreased further on these bundles since this list by an avg
of 10% across the board. I did not post those numbers cause I could only do a
very few from memory and would rather not chance geting them off by a few
dollars. I only know the avg. %age because I was asked to figure it and it took
me 2 hrs ot do it! :) (don't ask)
Oh, one I forgot. = performance (about) to a 486/ DX 66 4/270 (this is a
common sears system I am using as a reference, bcause the ac system is also
sold in sears and basically walked and talked the same, save for being a far
superior mac. You get what you pay for)
Performa 475 4/160 (512KVRAM), mounds of software, complete. 1199.00
[LC040/25Mhz]
Performa 578 8/320 (1MB VRAM) CD, mounds of software, complete. 1995.00
All biases aside, I've yet to find a 486 that can give me all the mac does.
Service, software, performance, reliability, upgradeability for that price.
Granted, I can find MANY 486 systems that give the mac its walking papers on a
single part, but not all of them (price is nearly always the Clone's domain).
Any questions? Want a more complete rundown?
-scott
Kid
>>similar on the PC side with a printer (usually an HP or Epson inkjet,
>>sometimes a Canon) for about $1400-$1600. That's a lot better than
>>$2500
>>for an entry level computer.
>No, the Performa 475 (25 mhz 68040; 14" color monitor; 4/160; software,
>keyboard) goes for $1199.
Unless you are part of an Apple User's Group, then you can get
the above machine for $959 including shipping. So to spend $1199
add a CDROM and a VRAM SIMM to get 16bit color.
>The Performa 466 (8/250; 14" color monitor, keyboard, software, CD-ROM;
>33 mhz 68040) goes for $1699.
--
Kid ___ __ "She's a Peach"
neid...@eden.rutgers.edu / ~ \ ,,, 0{+>
| #=#==========# |
\___-__/ ```
Tommy Thornton
>>
>>$2500 for an entry level computer is a lot when you can get something
>>similar on the PC side with a printer (usually an HP or Epson inkjet,
>>sometimes a Canon) for about $1400-$1600. That's a lot better than $2500
>>for an entry level computer.
>
>No, the Performa 475 (25 mhz 68040; 14" color monitor; 4/160; software,
>keyboard) goes for $1199.
>
>The Performa 466 (8/250; 14" color monitor, keyboard, software, CD-ROM;
>33 mhz 68040) goes for $1699.
>
a 486dx2/66 w/ 15" monitor, keyboard, soundcard, 14.4k fax modem, CD-ROM,
for about $1600.
-t3
Rayfes Mondal
Paul Thomas <pth...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>Hi again,
> Thanks for your responses to my original post. I am still
>interested in constructive comment on the Mac-PC comparison issue (no,
>my intent was not to start a flamewar between advocates or detractors
>of either system) adn will still appreciate responses via mail or post.
>Paul Thomas
>
Heres' my 2-bits on the issue. I personally have used both Macs, PCs,
and workstations (HP 735/125). I thoroughly enjoy how easily things
go together on Macs. You don't really have to worry about compatibility
problems. I do however enjoy playing with all the options on my PC but
I realize that's not for everyone and it shouldn't be. Now to the
main reason I posted. One issue I see is the mouse. On Macs you are
virtually forced to use the mouse to many things. This is finde but
sometimes the keyboard would be faster since you wouldn't have to
take your hands offf the keyboard. I'm saying I'm for a CLI, I just
enjoy the way windows lets me not use a mouse at all if I want. When
a dialog box appears it's nice not to have to move the mouse to it in
order to clear it. Also having the menu commands accessible by the
keyboard is nice too. I know that Macs have some options in the menus
with quick control key alternatives but not all the options are that
way. I also know that you can utilities for the Mac that allow you
to do this but it should be built in. I run Mentor Graphics stuff on
my workstation and they use the mouse in a rather keen way. The middle
mouse button is used for strokes. If you drag a straight horizontal
line across a window while holding the middle mouse button, the window
closes. Also, if you highlight something and drag out a quick "C" it
invokes the copy command. The strokes are recognized on a 3x3 grid and
the grid gets mapped onto whatever size you draw with so if your
mousemanship is poor just make the strokes larger and the system will be
able to understand easily. I think this would be a nice feature in
all computers. Also I don't like the single button mice on Macs but I
hear that can be replaced with normal more functional mice. Feel free
to comment as this is only one person's experience. Sorry for the
multiple negative remarks about Macs but I know there are as many for
PCs. Oh yeah, I prefer true multi-tasking systems like OS/2 and unix to
winblows/dog or system 7...
--Rayfes A. Mondal
Brian Ballard
: In article <38es79$4...@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu> ste...@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu (Stephan Anagnostaras) writes:
: >In article <1994Oct23.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> Mr. Bungle writes:
: >>Best reason to buy a pc over a mac is because of choice of operating systems
: >>Unix, dos (windows), os/2, desqview... vs. Apple System OS (worst memory management ever).
: >>You decide.
: >
: >Give me a break!!! Unix on a PC? Windows good memory management?!?
: >You probably buy PC's for the key clicking!
: >
: *Time to upgrade pre-conceived notions of Unix on a PC*
: Funny, I was thinking this morning that Sun should upgrade their CPU
: because they are going to be left in the dust.
: At any rate, don't be surprise if hundreds of Linux activists follow
: you home just to flame you :)
: Me, happily typing all of this on a P66 and a S3 864 VLB card running
: FreeBSD and XFree86 -- we are only about twice as fast as a sparc
: 10 with a gx per xbench results .
Hate to say it... but likely 95% of people who own/use PCs don't
give a hoot how many operating systems their machine can run, or how well
it'll run Unix. Half of those folks probably don't even know (or care) what
Unix is! The bottom line for these folks is:
1) Is it cheap?
2) Can I run Lotus 1-2-3 or WordPerfect or MS Word or
[insert your favorite bestselling app here]...
3) Can I run any good games?? (esp. Doom)
That's it folks. Discussions about memory management, multitasking,
bus mastering, and makefiles are left to nerds like us...
A quick survey here where I work shows that 5 of my coworkers own PCs.
2 of those were bought for the sole purpose of playing Doom, 1 was bought
only for playing games in general, and 2 are obsolete and gathering dust.
Two coworkers, besides myself, own Macs. All three Macs are happily being
used for all sorts of things from simple checkbook management and word
processing, to full blown DTP and music/midi processing (like me!).
I know... it's a small sample but, mind you, everyone mentioned is a
hardware/software engineer, yet!
: Amancio
Just adding a drop of fuel to the fire....
Have a nice day!
brian
--
Brian Ballard |
Current Technology, Inc. | "the ultimate development
Durham, New Hamsphire | of total harmony....."
b...@curtech.mv.com |
Chris McGinley
> All biases aside, I've yet to find a 486 that can give me all the mac does.
> Service, software, performance, reliability, upgradeability for that price.
> Granted, I can find MANY 486 systems that give the mac its walking papers on a
> single part, but not all of them (price is nearly always the Clone's domain).
>
>
> Any questions? Want a more complete rundown?
>
> -scott
I can get a 486/dx2 66, which is comparible to the Power Mac 6100 and
probable the 7100 also, for around $1500, no problem. I got my PowerMac,
through a school (required to) for 2600+. Now, after using both PC and
Mac, I find that the Mac crashes much more, has less ability to be formed
to the user's needs, and is a memory hog. I don't understand why the
Operating System on a Mac requires 3+ MB of RAM for the system 7, and 7+
for system 7.5. That is a complete memory eater in my eyes in comparison
to a PC. Running Dos takes about 600K, or less of memory, depending.
Also, with the Mac, all of the software puts its own preferences,
extensions, control panels, and files everywhere all of the system. When
you want to remove a file, you have to search all over the entire system
to find all of its sub-parts. This is a hassle. Personally, I think the
PC has more pros than the Mac.
--
Chris
st94...@Dunx1.OCS.Drexel.Edu
Jeff Lind
st94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Chris McGinley) wrote:
> I can get a 486/dx2 66, which is comparible to the Power Mac 6100 and
> probable the 7100 also, for around $1500, no problem. I got my PowerMac,
> through a school (required to) for 2600+. Now, after using both PC and
> Mac, I find that the Mac crashes much more, has less ability to be formed
> to the user's needs, and is a memory hog. I don't understand why the
> Operating System on a Mac requires 3+ MB of RAM for the system 7, and 7+
> for system 7.5. That is a complete memory eater in my eyes in comparison
> to a PC. Running Dos takes about 600K, or less of memory, depending.
OK, there's no reason that 7.5 should be taking up anywhere near 7 MB of
your RAM. I've got a lot of stuff on my PowerMac right now--System 7.5,
Powertalk, Quicktime, file sharing turned on, and about 10 non-Apple
Extensions, (it's basically everything except Quickdraw GX), and my system
is only about 5.8 MB. What in the world are you doing? I think you've got
some extra stuff in there that's taking up space.
Now granted that that's still a lot more than DOS's measely 600K. But
that's not a fair comparison. Look what you get with the Mac--a nice GUI,
networking and file sharing, TCP-IP, digital video, email, scripting,
interapplication communication, CD-ROM support, and a fun jigsaw
puzzle--All Built In.
In what way can't you conform the machine to your needs? Tell the net and
it will help you.
> Also, with the Mac, all of the software puts its own preferences,
> extensions, control panels, and files everywhere all of the system. When
> you want to remove a file, you have to search all over the entire system
> to find all of its sub-parts. This is a hassle. Personally, I think the
> PC has more pros than the Mac.
This is a problem, I agree. But most of that stuff is just taking up space
on the disk (and prefs files aren't that big anyway) and not actively
hurting anything once the program that uses it is gone.
But in any case, the new Installer has a feature that can "uninstall"
software packages. It will do the job of pulling out all of a program's
stuff for you.
Personally, I'll take these hassles over modifying autoexec.BAT files to
install things on a PC and whatnot.
--Jeff
George Daswani
UNIX on a PC? Why not? I have been using it lately.. They are also
free..
Check out LINUX or FREE BSD.. They come with X-Windows (XFREE86)..
I use it all the time now (programming chores) instead of my
Sun SparcClassic.. Please ask me which one is faster (486DX-2 66
running Linux with 16 megs vs Sun Sparc Classic with 32 megs)..
Sun machine is running System V..
As for windows and good memory management. It's better than the
System 7.X's memory management.. System 7.X doesn't like virtual
memory that much (Why do you have to buy a third party soluction?),
and Windows has Dynamic Memory allocation..
E-Mail address: gdas...@funky.csci.csusb.edu
Real Name: George Henry C. Daswani
Vice President of CLUB ANIM8 - California State University
San Bernardino's ANIME CLUB
**************************************************************
* Disclaimer: All opinions blurted out from my keyboard are *
* mine. My employer does not pay me enough to make my *
* opinions a part of their business. *
**************************************************************
just another theatre geek
Chris McGinley <st94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> wrote:
>Also, with the Mac, all of the software puts its own preferences,
>extensions, control panels, and files everywhere all of the system. When
>you want to remove a file, you have to search all over the entire system
>to find all of its sub-parts.
And DOS/Windows DOESN'T??????
Sorry, but this doesn't fly.
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Chris Umbricht, M.D.
McGinley, st94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu writes:
>I can get a 486/dx2 66, which is comparible to the Power Mac 6100 and
probable the 7100 also, for around $1500, no problem. I got my PowerMac,
through a school (required to) for 2600+. Now, after using both PC and
Mac, I find that the Mac crashes much more, has less ability to be formed
to the user's needs, and is a memory hog. I don't understand why the
Operating System on a Mac requires 3+ MB of RAM for the system 7, and 7+
for system 7.5. That is a complete memory eater in my eyes in comparison
to a PC. Running Dos takes about 600K, or less of memory, depending.
extensions, control panels, and files everywhere all of the system. When
you want to remove a file, you have to search all over the entire system
PC has more pros than the Mac. <
Well, how much time did you spend finding the pro's on each platform? It
does'nt sound like you are very familiar with the Mac to me...
A couple of points:
-was that 6100 gold plated?
-what user needs were you not able to fulfill?
-Unless you install Powertalk and Quickdraw GX, the RAM requirements
between 7.x and 7.5 are within a few 100KB.
-So you prefer the dozens of files PC programs typically install easier
to manage? To each his own....
Eric Bennett
st94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Chris McGinley) writes:
>
> I can get a 486/dx2 66, which is comparible to the Power Mac 6100 and
> probable the 7100 also, for around $1500, no problem. I got my PowerMac,
The 7100/66 runs rings around a Pentium 66, which in turn runs rings
around a DX4/100, which in turn runs rings around a DX2/66, so I'd say
the DX2/66 isn't even in the same league as the PowerMac 7100 (or even
the 6100).
> through a school (required to) for 2600+. Now, after using both PC and
> Mac, I find that the Mac crashes much more, has less ability to be formed
> to the user's needs, and is a memory hog. I don't understand why the
> Operating System on a Mac requires 3+ MB of RAM for the system 7, and 7+
> for system 7.5. That is a complete memory eater in my eyes in comparison
> to a PC. Running Dos takes about 600K, or less of memory, depending.
Care to try running Windows? Windows apps, according to a study (I
think from Byte magazine, but I'm not sure--I'll check if you really
care) occupy 1.8 times as much disk space as the corresponding
Macintosh programs. A Mac and a Dos application which do the same
thing generally eat equal amounts of disk space. Note also that you
cannot seriously compare the Mac and DOS as operating environments; for
example, you can't run multiple programs in DOS (I run a mail server,
an HTTP server, and an FTP server on my 7100 constantly--you need
Windows to do this on a PC). This is also why a Mac will probably
crash more than a DOS machine--many things are open at once, so
conflicts are much more likely. If you were running Windows instead of
DOS, you would crash much more often (my roommate uses Windows 3.11 and
he crashes at least as much--probably more--than I do). Finally, if
your system software is eating 7 megs of RAM, you are doing something
seriously wrong.
> Also, with the Mac, all of the software puts its own preferences,
> extensions, control panels, and files everywhere all of the system. When
> you want to remove a file, you have to search all over the entire system
> to find all of its sub-parts. This is a hassle. Personally, I think the
> PC has more pros than the Mac.
>
Once again, TRY WINDOWS! Mac programs almost always keep all of their
files in the same directory as the application; if they put files in
the system folder, they usually create their own folder first so that
all files are intelligently grouped together. Windows programs usually
dump all of their files into the Windows system directory, and since
you have to put up with 8.3 filenames, figuring out which file belongs
to which program is more difficult that it is on the Mac.
If your Mac is crashing often and the system is eating 7+ megs of RAM,
PLEASE HAVE SOMEBODY LOOK AT YOUR POOR MAC! Somebody set it up wrong!
I have TONS of extensions, speech recognition, file sharing, etc. and
mine is only using 4 MB of RAM; if I junk this stuff, I'm down to 2 MB.
Michael A. Flynn
their system of choice.
Just my $0.02.
M. Flynn
Stephan Anagnostaras
I run 7.5 tons of extensions:
1) MacTCP, Appleshare, Filesharing, Ethertalk, AND ARA
2) After Dark, AutoDoubler
3) Speech Recognition
4) FTP server
5) lots of crap I don't even remember
6) I have the disk cache set to 256K, and AutoDoubler's cache at 64K
On an 8100, this uses 4600K of space. If I turn GX on, I think it uses
about 6 megs (of course, I don't turn GX on). So how are you using
that much RAM? Of course, you can easily cut this down to about two
megs, with a fairly complete system. A minimal 7.1 system took
about 1 meg of RAM, not sure about 7.5 (nor do I care).
In any case, here are some tips to reduce it:
1) if you are on a 68040 mac, make sure 32-bit address is on
2) make sure your disk cache isn't outrageously large (256K is good)
3) make sure any other programs which have a cache don't use too
much
4) lose Appleshare if you don't use it. Not only does it use a ton
of RAM, it slows down the machine somewhat.
5) lose GX if you have it on. For that matter, throw it away altogether
6) lose your desktop-picture if you have one (these take up an
enormous amount of RAM, especially with lots of colors)
7) lose some fonts you don't use. Fonts eat RAM like crazy.
Good luck!
Paul Thomas
Hi again,
I must correct a mistake regarding the path to the mac-ibm
comparison.
I should have posted the following in the original MAC vs PC Comparison:
FAQ ftp site
ftp.hawaii.edu mirrors/info-mac/info/hdwr/MAC-IBM-COMPARE-197.TXT
My apologies to those who went on a futile search.
Paul
Mark Sicignano
than your computer" debate once again, there are people getting real
work done on their Mac's and their PC's I'm sure.
I see people make lots of comments out of ignorance to the facts,
and they never take the time to live the other way for a while.
If you did, the answer would become clear and we wouldn't have to argue.
Myself, I've worked extensively with both, and I clearly have a preference
for the type of machine I want at home, and the type of machine I want at work.
I manage to get my work done, and I still have a life.
I hope some of you can progress to that stage too.
-mark
--
Mark Sicignano Internet: ma...@hsi.com
3M Health Information Systems AOL: JacketBoy
Chris McGinley
(just another theatre geek) wrote:
>
> And DOS/Windows DOESN'T??????
>
> Sorry, but this doesn't fly.
>
> --
>
Yes, DOS/Windoze do. But the catch is this....they put them in a much
more accessible area. The preference (so to speak) files for a DOS app
are placed in sub-directories based in the same directory. You don't have
to search all over, and hope that you are choosing the right file. With
Mac extensions, I have many which I have no idea what they are for. Or
what program they came with. When clicked on, they just say "This adds
functionality to you Mac". What the heck is that? I want a description
of that functionality personally, so I know if I want it or not.
--
Chris
st94...@Dunx1.OCS.Drexel.Edu
Chris McGinley
> Once again, TRY WINDOWS! Mac programs almost always keep all of their
> files in the same directory as the application; if they put files in
> the system folder, they usually create their own folder first so that
> all files are intelligently grouped together. Windows programs usually
> dump all of their files into the Windows system directory, and since
> you have to put up with 8.3 filenames, figuring out which file belongs
> to which program is more difficult that it is on the Mac.
>
>
> If your Mac is crashing often and the system is eating 7+ megs of RAM,
> PLEASE HAVE SOMEBODY LOOK AT YOUR POOR MAC! Somebody set it up wrong!
> I have TONS of extensions, speech recognition, file sharing, etc. and
> mine is only using 4 MB of RAM; if I junk this stuff, I'm down to 2 MB.
>
> -Er...@psu.edu
I am not running system 7.5 currently. My friend is, and his software is
using 7+ MB or RAM. I don't know why, but I feared that if it was true,
it wouldn't work on my 8 MB RAM system well.
I don't use Windows more than I have to on my PC; I personally use DOS
99% of the time. It is much more efficient, and better structured than
both Windows and Mac systems. If you want to multi-task with DOS, there
are plenty of programs that can do such. If you have ample memory, there
are much more possibilities in DOS than in Mac!
--
Chris
st94...@Dunx1.OCS.Drexel.Edu
Amancio Hasty Jr
>In article <st94jw9m-251...@sn195030.resnet.drexel.edu>
>st94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Chris McGinley) writes:
>
>>
>thing generally eat equal amounts of disk space. Note also that you
>cannot seriously compare the Mac and DOS as operating environments; for
>example, you can't run multiple programs in DOS (I run a mail server,
>an HTTP server, and an FTP server on my 7100 constantly--you need
>Windows to do this on a PC). This is also why a Mac will probably
>crash more than a DOS machine--many things are open at once, so
>conflicts are much more likely. If you were running Windows instead of
>DOS, you would crash much more often (my roommate uses Windows 3.11 and
>he crashes at least as much--probably more--than I do).
If you were running FreeBSD or Linux you would hardly be crashing
at all:)
On my previous contract my FreeBSD system stayed up for weeks !
Oh, yeah I was using the system, compiling large packages like
isode-8.0, X, reading news, reading/send mail, talking to
poeple on the internet via "vat", etc..
Keep on crashing :)
Eric Gerstenberger
[stuff about intellegence and maturity deleted]
I agree with you, we should all have the intelligence and maturity to
admit that each platform as its advantages/disadvantages and that which is
used is a matter of personal preference.
I also like to say that the advocacy group is for these types of
discussions, so unfortunately one is forced to live with it, but for
god-sake's leave it out of the other groups where people try to get stuff
answered.
Marc Nimchuk
: > All biases aside, I've yet to find a 486 that can give me all the mac does.
: > Service, software, performance, reliability, upgradeability for that price.
: > Granted, I can find MANY 486 systems that give the mac its walking papers on a
: > single part, but not all of them (price is nearly always the Clone's domain).
: >
: >
: > Any questions? Want a more complete rundown?
: >
: > -scott
: I can get a 486/dx2 66, which is comparible to the Power Mac 6100 and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: probable the 7100 also, for around $1500, no problem. I got my PowerMac,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: through a school (required to) for 2600+. Now, after using both PC and
: Mac, I find that the Mac crashes much more, has less ability to be formed
: to the user's needs, and is a memory hog. I don't understand why the
: Operating System on a Mac requires 3+ MB of RAM for the system 7, and 7+
: for system 7.5. That is a complete memory eater in my eyes in comparison
: to a PC. Running Dos takes about 600K, or less of memory, depending.
: Also, with the Mac, all of the software puts its own preferences,
: extensions, control panels, and files everywhere all of the system. When
: you want to remove a file, you have to search all over the entire system
: to find all of its sub-parts. This is a hassle. Personally, I think the
: PC has more pros than the Mac.
: --
: Chris
: st94...@Dunx1.OCS.Drexel.Edu
Uhh, you're joking right? You _must_ be....
just another theatre geek
Chris McGinley <st94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> wrote:
>In article <38jou9$o...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, gwan...@u.washington.edu
>(just another theatre geek) wrote:
>>
>> And DOS/Windows DOESN'T??????
>> Sorry, but this doesn't fly.
Ummm. Not true for Windows for Workgroups, sicne I had to chase
among three different directories to uninstall. (and, of course, various
other programs, which are not compliant with Windows programming
guidelines, which I would grant are exceptions).
But the catch is this....they put them in a much
>more accessible area. The preference (so to speak) files for a DOS app
>are placed in sub-directories based in the same directory. You don't have
>to search all over, and hope that you are choosing the right file. With
>Mac extensions, I have many which I have no idea what they are for.
And .INI and .SYS files are any better?
Sorry, I just go to the Preferences folder and look at 'em there.
T. Kephart
(Bob Williams) wrote:
> On the latest macs, if you start up with no extensions, the system will fit
> nicely in about 1200 K of memory. I have about 40 of 'em, and mine still only
> takes about 3000K.
Sheesh, get some heavy duty extensions... up to 7,788K system software now ;)
> +------------------------------------------------------+
> | Robert E. Williams, Jr. |
> | Enterprise Software |
> | 2006 State Route 380 |
> | Wilmington, Ohio 45177-9241 |
> | (513) 382-8232 |
> | |
> | E-mail: will...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu |
> +------------------------------------------------------+
> | Those who are patient in the trivial things in |
> | life and control themselves will one day have the |
> | same mastery in great and important things. |
> | --Hapkido Master Bong Soo Han |
> +------------------------------------------------------+
I think the sig needs a few more lines... it's kinda short ;)
-t
Bob Williams
> multiple applications at the same time, 4 mb on the Mac is hardly enough
> to start it up.
Are you talking about doze? Couldn't be. With its archaic memory management
scheme, it hardly runs at all in 4. It runs 10 times faster with 8. And to do
any real multitasking, you must have at least 16, with 20 recomMended. There is
a very good reason that reputable DOS and doze mags like BYTE say you should
have no less than 16 on doze....
On the latest macs, if you start up with no extensions, the system will fit
nicely in about 1200 K of memory. I have about 40 of 'em, and mine still only
takes about 3000K.
Nope, we're definently not talking about doze here, must just be dos 3.0.
Bob
--
James R Lendino
Bob Williams <will...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> wrote:
>> Also, the memory that comes with the PC (usually 4) is enough to run
>> multiple applications at the same time, 4 mb on the Mac is hardly enough
>> to start it up.
>
>Are you talking about doze? Couldn't be. With its archaic memory management
>scheme, it hardly runs at all in 4. It runs 10 times faster with 8. And to do
>any real multitasking, you must have at least 16, with 20 recomMended. There is
>a very good reason that reputable DOS and doze mags like BYTE say you should
>have no less than 16 on doze....
I've seen Aldus Pagemaker and Winword 6 run simultaneously on a
486/25 with 4 MB of RAM and quite well too. I run several
applications at once on 8 MB without any trouble either. And like
System 7, Windows cannot do any real multitasking consistently.
There's also the PC Mag article about how 8 MB is the sweet spot
for Windows and that, while it helps, it certainly isn't necessary
to have more than that. I've never seen an out of memory error on
my 8 MB machine, and that's with the virtual memory disabled.
I don't know *where* some people are getting their information but
it's certainly not reality-based. I'm not even going to state my
preference for either platform because it's irrelevant; something
I think some of you should realize in kind.
Best regards,
-JRL
______
James R. Lendino | |
Computer Sales Consultant | i486 | Phone: (718)-646-3701
JBJ of New York, Inc. |______|
Brian Walker
|> I can get a 486/dx2 66, which is comparible to the Power Mac 6100 and
|> probable the 7100 also, for around $1500, no problem. I got my PowerMac,
|> through a school (required to) for 2600+. Now, after using both PC and
|> Mac, I find that the Mac crashes much more, has less ability to be formed
|> to the user's needs, and is a memory hog.
|> I don't understand why the
|> Operating System on a Mac requires 3+ MB of RAM for the system 7, and 7+
|> for system 7.5. That is a complete memory eater in my eyes in comparison
|> to a PC. Running Dos takes about 600K, or less of memory, depending.
|> Also, with the Mac, all of the software puts its own preferences,
|> extensions, control panels, and files everywhere all of the system. When
|> you want to remove a file, you have to search all over the entire system
|> to find all of its sub-parts. This is a hassle. Personally, I think the
|> PC has more pros than the Mac.
Extensions and control panels and fonts are all counted in the System memory
area. You can remove some of those and turn off AppleShare to reduce your
system memory requirements. For System 7.5, the answer is that you installed
PowerTalk and Quickdraw GX. Why did you do that? If you turn on virtual
memory, your system memory usage will go down to about 5 Mbytes. If you
remove PowerTalk and QuickDraw GX, you should see your system memory go down
to about 3 Mbytes or less.
Please don't exagerate, most non-Microsoft applications do not come with
control panels or extensions. They also install those files only in the
designated control panel, extension or preference directories.
--
Brian Walker Design Technology Lab, Tektronix, Inc.
Brian.R...@tek.com PO Box 500, MS 50-662, Beaverton, OR 97077
Chris McGinley
Chris McGinley
> And .INI and .SYS files are any better?
>
> Sorry, I just go to the Preferences folder and look at 'em there.
>
>
Tell me then, how do you know what "This file adds functionality to you
Mac" really does?????
--
Chris
st94...@Dunx1.OCS.Drexel.Edu
Reid Goldsborough
:Are you talking about doze? Couldn't be. With its archaic memory management
:scheme, it hardly runs at all in 4. It runs 10 times faster with 8. And to do
:any real multitasking, you must have at least 16, with 20 recommended. There
:a very good reason that reputable DOS and doze mags like BYTE say you should
:have no less than 16 on doze....
This is nonsense, and typical of Mac people who know nothing of Windows
but spout off about it. In all fairness, many Windows people do the same
about Macs. You can multitask just fine in Windows with 8 MB of RAM.
I've been doing so for several years now, with Windows 3.0 then 3.1.
Sure, the more RAM you have, the more programs you can load
simultaneously. But few people need to be multitasking 10 programs at a time.
You give away your ignorance and prejudice by using the term "doze," just
as Windows freaks used to admit their ignorance every time they called
Macs toys.
Jamie Jamison
>> Also, the memory that comes with the PC (usually 4) is enough to run
>> multiple applications at the same time, 4 mb on the Mac is hardly enough
>> to start it up.
>Are you talking about doze? Couldn't be. With its archaic memory management
>scheme, it hardly runs at all in 4. It runs 10 times faster with 8.
Uhh, I hate to point this out to you but you can't do any
real multitasking in a Macintosh with less than 8 Mb of memory
and as far as archaic memory management goes I would hardly
call the Macintosh, with it's inability to map unused memory
to a continuous space when applications quit, a model of
modern memory management. I just love it when I have to quit all
of my apps and restart them so that the Mac can reallocate
the memory into nice continuous chunks.
And to do
>any real multitasking, you must have at least 16, with 20 recomMended. There is
>a very good reason that reputable DOS and doze mags like BYTE say you should
>have no less than 16 on doze....
Where have they said this? Interestingly enough most of the Mac
magazines will also recommend that you shove as much memory
in the machine as possible. System 7 will not run in less than
4 Mb and 7.5 will not run in less than 8. I use run in the context
of actually being able to get work done, not just in the context
of "gee, the machine boots".
>On the latest macs, if you start up with no extensions, the system will fit
>nicely in about 1200 K of memory. I have about 40 of 'em, and mine still only
>takes about 3000K.
This is the typical kind of non-argument that Mac fanatics
offer as an alternative to Windows. Unfortunately it doesn't
wash, if I turn off all of the extensions on my system
it's damn nearly useless. This argument is like some DOS
drone saying "Hey, if you don't load any device drivers or
TSR you can run DOS programs in less than 640k, never mind
that you need tons of TSRs and device drivers to make
DOS do anything useful.
>Nope, we're definently not talking about doze here, must just be dos 3.0.
>Bob
Jamie
Chris Umbricht, M.D.
McGinley, st94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu writes:
>Tell me then, how do you know what "This file adds functionality to you
Mac" really does?????<
I know I am repeating myself, but if you spent a fraction of the effort
learning the insides of DOS/W on a mac, you would not be asking this
question.
You can easily figure out what an extension belongs to from just looking
at its icon and name in the Extesions folder. If that's not enough, you
can get info (cmd-i) on any file, which will give you the version# and
manufacturer.
What's your point anyway? Would it make sense to you if I stated the
DOS/OS stinks because I don't understand what the command.com or sys.ini
and all that crapp does?
Note that on a PC, your dead if you don't know. Our secretarial staff
does'nt know an extension from a cdev, and has no problem installing
stuff and using it....
David H. Stocker
>>Best reason to buy a pc over a mac is because of choice of operating systems
>>Unix, dos (windows), os/2, desqview... vs. Apple System OS (worst memory management ever).
>>You decide.
>
>Give me a break!!! Unix on a PC? Windows good memory management?!?
>You probably buy PC's for the key clicking!
>
but Santa Cruz Operation says that SCO unix is the most popular flavor
of unix in the world. SCO runs only on Intel. You can also get BSD,
Unixware, Solaris, NextStep, Linux, QNX and a bunch of other unixes
for Intel. Intel make good inexpensive box to run unix on.
Dave
Bob Williams
>From: st94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Chris McGinley)
>Subject:Re: MAC vs PC Comparison: (LONGIH)
>Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 13:49:53 -0500
>Message-ID:<st94jw9m-251...@sn195030.resnet.drexel.edu>
>> All biases aside, I've yet to find a 486 that can give me all the mac does.
>> Service, software, performance, reliability, upgradeability for that price.
>> Granted, I can find MANY 486 systems that give the mac its walking papers on
>> single part, but not all of them (price is nearly always the Clone's
domain).
>>
>>
>> Any questions? Want a more complete rundown?
>>
>> -scott
>
>I can get a 486/dx2 66, which is comparible to the Power Mac 6100 and
>probable the 7100 also, for around $1500, no problem. I got my PowerMac,
Comprable in what way? Physical size? Come on, if you want to compare a dos-box
to a PM, at least use the Pentium. The 486, even a DX4, is not even a wothy
opponent. There is just simply no comparison.
>through a school (required to) for 2600+. Now, after using both PC and
>Mac, I find that the Mac crashes much more, has less ability to be formed
>to the user's needs, and is a memory hog. I don't understand why the
You obliously are nut running the mac right. You probably have a ton of
extensions installed, which, with older ones, especially on a PM, can cause
lots of problems like those described. As for being "formed to the user's
need", what do you mean? The mac, thanks to resources, is the most
customizeable machine on the planet. All my peecee friends even admit that.
They are impressed about what the user can customize easily.
>Operating System on a Mac requires 3+ MB of RAM for the system 7, and 7+
>for system 7.5. That is a complete memory eater in my eyes in comparison
If you are taking 3+ MB in System 7, you definently are running inefficiently.
System 7 can run in <1200K easily enough. You must have lots of extensions
installed, which would explain why you are having so much memory trouble (not
to mention all the crashes as outlined above). System 7.5 only takes 7+ MB of
RAM when PowerTalk and/or QuickDraw GX are running. These are extremely
powerful additions to the System, and they would take just as much memory (in
fact mch more) in doze, but unfortunately, I can't prove this to you, as no
comparable technologies exist fr doze.
>to a PC. Running Dos takes about 600K, or less of memory, depending.
Who cares? Dos is dead, even Microsoft is dumping it. Besides, a CLI as
rudimentary as dos should be able to run in <600K; especially considering that
it was actually made to run on a 64K computer and has nbot changed much since
then.
>Also, with the Mac, all of the software puts its own preferences,
>extensions, control panels, and files everywhere all of the system. When
>you want to remove a file, you have to search all over the entire system
>to find all of its sub-parts. This is a hassle. Personally, I think the
>PC has more pros than the Mac.
Ok, I'll only say this once, so listen up. The mac is easy. You have a system
folder. Within it, you have three other folders: Control Panels, Extensions,
and Preferences. Installing is easy: drag the stuff to the system fodler and it
is put where it needs to go (of course this is only necessary if the program
does not use the standard installer; that's right I said standard installer -
ever see one of those in the dos world?). Uninstalling is almost as easy. If
the program uses the installer, it has a [little knwon] ability to uninstall as
well. Other wise just open the three mentioned folders and drag the appropriate
files to the trash. If their is an application, drag it also. Now empty the
trash. All done! No trace of the prograam whatsoever. True, some older
programs put stuff in the system folder itself, but only the rally old ones or
poorly written ones; Apple guidelines downplay this practice in a big way. Now
for dos/doze. After you do the standard
delete-all-the-files-inside-then-delete-the-directory-itself routin, you are
forced to go thrugh (manually I might add) all the various text files (WIN.INI.
AUTOEXEC.BAT, CONFIG.SYS, etc. etc.) and remove all references to that program
and pray you haven't messed anything else up accidentally. True, there are a
couple of commercial unistall programs out there, but they don't work real well
(what can you expect?), as outlined in the latest issue of BYTE.
Regards,
Jim Sun
>You get what you pay for. Noone gives you anything for free without cutting
>corners. Simple business principles.
hmm... have you heard of the term monopoly, or market differentiation?
Apple has definite carved up a niche market for itself; there's more than enough
ground for premium.
>those 1400-1600 comps have, in my all to
>exp'd exp, given the user nothing but trouble and not lived up to billing.
Do you mean $1400-1600 mac? or your experience is simply too limitted.
FYI, one of my computer systems started as a $1000 clone deal three and a half
years ago; never had any problem, not even after continuous upgrading process it
went through: now I have Pentium90, 64megs of ram, 4meg graphics card, 17" monitor;
can take on any Pmac anyday. BTW, as far as I know, all the old parts are running
just fine in someones else's computer.
>Also, I can get a Pmac 6100 for 1500 (sine printer, oh well, I got my
>StyleWriter). 2000 for the system.
Any one marketed anything like the Pmac6100 would face serious financial trouble
in the competitive pc market. Fellow pc owners: can you imagine any Pentium class
box sold without any secondary cache? Even 486 without L-2 cache went extinct
long time ago.
>Hmm.. where's that educational pricelist?
are we goint to compare educational discount with fair market price again?
For comparison, I have quoted below prices from MidWest Micro. It's not a hole-in-
the-wall operation. They have monthly full-color catalog, LIFE TIME TOLL FREE
customer service and tech support, 30day money back, 3 year warranty.
There's very little room left that Apple can do to top that.(In fact, the dealer handles
Apple educational discount around here only takes 5-day money back.)
If you could forgo some of the support (which I do), I can find you places undercut
Midwest Micro by 10-20% easily.
>Performa 636 8/250 CD, complete. Tons of software: 1706.00
for $1499:
DX2-50 PCI 128k cache, 4meg RAM, 545meg HD, doulbe-speed CD Rom, 1meg graphics
card with 24bit color, 15" monitor (Hitachi tube) upto 1280x1024 resolution,
9624 internal fax modem, 8 drive-bay minitower case.
MS-DOS, MFW, MS-Works Multimedia edition (which is
quite equivalent to the Performa's "tons of software," namely, ClarisWorks).
The market price for 4 additional megs of ram is around $130, which is more than
made up for by the 128k cache and 300meg of extra disk space.
extra values beyond the $205 price tag difference:
PCI bus future compatibility ($100? yup, guess what, Apple is moving to PCI too)
1meg 24bit graphics card (vs. 512k 8bit in base Performa) $50 (or $200 in a mac catalog?:)
15" monitor (vs. 14" in base Performa) $70 (what's the difference in a mac catalog? :)
9624 internal fax modem $50 (maybe more like $100 in a mac catalog :)
>PMac 7100 8/250 CD, complete. Tons of Software: 2613.00
P5-60 box equipped similarly to the DX2-50 above, except for 8megs of ram instead of
4megs and 256k cache instead of 128k, is listed at $1999; P5-66 with 2meg graphics
card (ATI Mach64 PCI) $2299; P5-90 with same graphics card $2499.
>Style Writer II w/ Apple font pack bundle (all ccables, etc) 276.00
>Personal LaserWriter 300 w/ Font Pack (all cables, etc.) 579.00
Many inkjets and laser printers are compatible with both mac and pc, so there's little
point for comparison. FYI, Epson Sylus 800+ (a 360dpi inkjet) and NEC Silentwriter
SS610 (a 6ppm 300dpi pinter + edge enhancement (600dpi bogores:), PS, and TT)
are usually sold at lower than the prices you quoted above.
>Somehow I doubt your 486 can match the native apps (yes, the apps are native,
>says it right here) on a Pmac.. MOF, I know it can't.
Comparing 486 to a Pmac? are we stretching a little? it's like comparing
020 or 030 based mac to a (Intel or AMD) 486. Actually, I doubt 610 can
outperform DX4, or even dx2-66 by much, due to its lack of external cache
and slow operating system.
>Oh, one I forgot. = performance (about) to a 486/ DX 66 4/270 (this is a
>common sears system I am using as a reference, bcause the ac system is also
>sold in sears and basically walked and talked the same, save for being a far
>superior mac. You get what you pay for)
>Performa 475 4/160 (512KVRAM), mounds of software, complete. 1199.00
>[LC040/25Mhz]
>Performa 578 8/320 (1MB VRAM) CD, mounds of software, complete. 1995.00
You gotta be kidding: a 040/25 equivalent to a 486dx2/66? Not even Motorala
dares to make such wild claim. Besides, on a mac you can't do jack-shit with 4 megs
of ram; on a pc, you can do quite a lot (though becoming low-end only too).
Once again "you get what you pay for" is a fallacy; or put the other way,
if the DX2/66 and Performa 475 are priced the same, I won't pay for the Performa;
I'd get what _I pay for_ (not what Sears prices for); namely, the dx2/66.
Market mechanics assumes perfect knowledge on the parts of both the consumer and
producer. At Sears, the sales rep probably knows about computer less than you
and me, much less the potential buyer.
>All biases aside, I've yet to find a 486 that can give me all the mac does.
>Service, software, performance, reliability, upgradeability for that price.
>Granted, I can find MANY 486 systems that give the mac its walking papers on a
>single part, but not all of them (price is nearly always the Clone's domain).
Maybe, just maybe, you haven't looked hard enough.
Service:
how much more can you get beyond toll-free life time support? there are pc
companies with on-site services too. Personally, I don't need any of that support.
Since you don't get something out of nothing, I'd rather prefer the company to
sell service separately, as in servicepacks.
Software:
Just about everything, except system 7, has been ported / is being ported to pc.
Ever heard of Next? Ouch! I don't mean to ruin your day. Personally, I can't care
less if Apple becomes a software (and commit the last betrayal to her loyal followings).
I think OS2 and linux (a unix clone) are far superior to system 7; except for clueless
newbies, of course.
Reliability:
Is this a joke or what? How many times have you run into the deep-shit-manager?
My workplace does cross-platform development, and Mac is by far the least stable
system. My pc linux box has been up for 52 days, 6 hours and 49 mins, and still
running; the last shutdown was intentional: adding more memory. It provides ftp
service to people around the world; quite popular at it too: xferlog has grown to
over 100k since the beginning of the month. Users do compilation, even run multiple
sessions of C-Scheme (a 20meg memory hog), too.
Upgradability:
Are you arguing in favor of pc? A simple look at the slot and drive-bay count will
reveal the truth. Just to give a bit perspective: my computer started its career
three and a half years ago as a lowly 286/12 with 1meg of ram, 40meg HD, 14" VGA
(640x480), 256k video card (16 color at 640x480); now it's Pentium 90, 64megs of ram,
1gig HD, 17" monitor (1600x1200), 4meg video card (true color at 1152x864, or
64k color at 1600x1200).
There were numerous intermediate points; mainboard (+ memory), storage subsystem,
graphics subsystem were alwasy upgraded seperately, due to budgetary constraints.
Never a single part failed to cooperate. All of the old parts (except for mouses,
which I replace every year) are still working now (of
course many of them are in other peoples' computers, including an Amiga,
which hosts my original 1meg 100ns dipp ram in the second bank of slow-ram).
A similar achievement would be someone putting a Pmac 8100 motherboard into a
Classic (020) shoebox, plus a truecolor graphics card to drive a 17" monitor;
not to mention the gobs of drives and other cards.
Just as we are speaking, Apple has condemned your graphics card to obsolesence:
Pmacs are moving to PCI archetecture soon.
Even for graphics work and graphics-based text-editting and type-setting, pc, with
its latest graphics accelearators, is rapidly outperforming mac. Last year during
the grand clearance blitz, one of my friend bought a Quadra 650 16/250 with Radius
duel monitor support; I was appalled to find out how much slower it looked and felt
than my then 386-40 16/220 with Diamond Stealth24 (S3801) running MSWindoze. I couldn't
help wondering just what mac was good at if it's beaten on the GUI speed. Of course,
in that particular case, the Quadra probably could do meaningful things (such as
compiling) faster than my then 486-40; but don't forget, we were comparing a
near-obsolete pc with a top-of-the-line desktop mac. Now one of my housemate's got
a 8100 right above me; we are not impressed by its GUI speed either.
My point is not to convince you to move to pc; even one of my friends down the hall
is perfectly justified to believe his 030-25 based Amiga 6/105 is better than my
linux box. hey, that's what alt.religion.amiga is for, right? :) Mac does have
a number of virtues, particularly initial installation and gentle learning curve for
novice. I still remember how easy it was helping a friend setting up her new Quadra 610
last Christmas Eve; I had more than half a bottle of Whisky (well, I can never get
drunk, perhaps due to high metabolism), I still set up the whole system before the
hostess could clean up the dinner table and serve up Champeine; I carried on the post
dinner small talks with other guests as usual all the while. However, this is not
good enough to prove that mac is better than pc. Considering the criteria you listed,
and price (which IMHO is another important criterion for anyone with a budget), I
happen to be of the opinion that a pc is a more appropriate investment for any one
new to the game (ie. who does not have substantial investment already in
mac archetecture), particularly if he/she is not content to be a novice three years
from now.
Jim
Jim Sun
>Hate to say it... but likely 95% of people who own/use PCs don't
>give a hoot how many operating systems their machine can run, or how well
>it'll run Unix. Half of those folks probably don't even know (or care) what
>Unix is!
It may be true now, but it's bound to change very soon; no, we are not talking about
the 2nd coming here; the 95% number is already disputable. See below for reason
>The bottom line for these folks is:
>
> 1) Is it cheap?
Linux, a clone of Unix from GNU (Free Software Foundation), is FREE!
Is Apple gonna top that? I might be paid to use a mac :)
> 2) Can I run Lotus 1-2-3 or WordPerfect or MS Word or
> [insert your favorite bestselling app here]...
Yes, yes, and yes. There's a thing called DOSEMU in linux. It can run pretty much
all conventional DOS application (not MSWindows application) quite reliably.
WINE (Windows Emulator) is under development. There can always be ports of
software if there's
big enough of a user base; besides, WordPefect for SCO runs perfectly in linux;
that's a full-fledged GUI-based wordprocessor.
> 3) Can I run any good games?? (esp. Doom)
Yup. There's linux port for doom, too.
>
>That's it folks. Discussions about memory management, multitasking,
>bus mastering, and makefiles are left to nerds like us...
The trick is that there are literally dozens of binary distributions of linux;
so you don't have to "make world" from ground up.
There's also the ldp (Linux Documentation Project), designed specifically for
newbies.
>A quick survey here where I work shows that 5 of my coworkers own PCs.
>2 of those were bought for the sole purpose of playing Doom, 1 was bought
>only for playing games in general, and 2 are obsolete and gathering dust.
>Two coworkers, besides myself, own Macs. All three Macs are happily being
>used for all sorts of things from simple checkbook management and word
>processing, to full blown DTP and music/midi processing (like me!).
>I know... it's a small sample but, mind you, everyone mentioned is a
>hardware/software engineer, yet!
If you run the same survey on my floor at the beginning of the summer, you'd
find 6 dos/windows machines, 1 Pmac, 1 Amiga; 0 linux. All being highly utilized.
right now, there are 2 dedicated linux boxes, 2 pc's switching between
linux and dos/windows, 2 in the process of installing linux. None of us had been
avid unix user (much less administrator) at the beginning of the summer (largely
due to our reliance on our own pc's).
linux 1.0 came out only this past March (well, there had been 0.xx beta versions).
The speed with which it spreads is amazing; just how far did mac go in '84?
comp.os.linux.help is a 600+ post/day group; there are 4 or 5 groups
under comp.os.linux hierarchy. x86-based Xwindow is covered in an entirely
different group though at least half of the posts there are from linux users.
Though I doubt unix will be the majority os on pc, but it is becoming or will
become a significant minority. If the Mac experience is any testimony, it doesn't
take being the Dominant player to survive and play a significant role in the
industry's development.
>Just adding a drop of fuel to the fire....
>Have a nice day!
just my couple drops (cheaper than cents :)
Jim
BTW, there's another popular free implementation of unix for pc, namely FreeBSD.
Sorry for not covering it much in my post, I'm really not very familiar with
the current state of development of FreeBSD.
Eric Bennett
js...@athena.mit.edu (Jim Sun) writes:
> emb...@hearst.cac.psu.edu (Eric Bennett) wrote:
>
> >The 7100/66 runs rings around a Pentium 66, which in turn runs rings
> >around a DX4/100, which in turn runs rings around a DX2/66, so I'd say
> >the DX2/66 isn't even in the same league as the PowerMac 7100 (or even
> >the 6100).
>
> Just how tight are these rings? :) I thought the phrase meant an order of
> magnitude (at least 2.7x, ie. +1 on natual log). Maybe nowadays, if my processor
> is 5% faster than your processor on some operations I can claim running rings
> around your processor; then of course, your processor could be 5% faster than mine
> in some other operations. Hence, our processors are enterwined; no wonder everyone
> is so confused :)
Ingram 94 Report
Machines tested: Power Macintosh 6100/60, 7100/66, and 8100/80
Compaq Deskpro Pentium/60 and Pentium/66, and Compaq Presario 486SX/25
All machines had 16 MB of RAM. Standard configurations
Programs: 25 tests incorporating Adobe Photoshop, Aldus Freehand, Frame
Technology's FrameMaker, Fractal Design Painter, and some other
programs
available on both platforms
Tasks: included opening files, scrolling, and spell checking
Conclusions:
1) Power Macintoshes were $1,000 cheaper than comparitive Pentium
boxes.
And that is ignoring the built-in SCSI-2, networking, and audio
features
that generally cost extra for most Intel based machines.
2) Power Macintosh 6100/60 performed 24% faster than a Compaq Deskpro
Pentium/60
3) Power Macintosh 6100/60 performed 5% faster than a Pentium/66
4) Power Macintosh 7100/66 performed 38% faster than a Pentium/66
6) Everything else being equal a Power Macintosh 8100/80 should
perform
~12% faster than a Pentium/90.
See item #4. As for the Pentium/60 being noticeably faster than a
DX4/100, that came right out of an ad from Intel which listed relative
speeds for its processors.
>
> But why do you want to run MSWindoze? This is a thread on pc vs. mac,
> not microsoft vs. apple. There are plenty alternatives to MSWindoze on the pc.
> Perhaps your own lack of adventurism is NOT shared by us pc users. I see:
> when you activate the apple pull-down menu, you don't see "ditch the card house
> operating system" option, so you take whatever apple decides to shove down your
> throat. We pc users happen to be not so helpless. We have OS/2 (aka Warp) from
> IBM, Linux from GNU (Free Software Foundation, if your eyes never ventured beyond
> the fences of Apple orchid), and myriads of other operating systems. Did you mention
> "mail server"? ouch! it's actually something a mac user can be proud of? It's
> quite standard on any Linux (a clone of Unix; gosh, just how flat do I have to make
> the learning curve?). My linux box has been running for over 52 days (yeah, that
> means continuously); rlogin, telnet by various users; my ftp xferlog has grown to
> over 100k since the beginning of the month. Even the last shutdown was intentional:
> adding more memory.
I DON'T want to run MSWindows. I hate it and encourage PC users to
install OS/2. Then, when my roommate actually tried to do it (he got
sick of Windows crashing so much--he tried removing _everything_ he
could think of and it continued to bomb), OS/2 got a weird error in the
middle of the installation and refused to install.
>
> Even MSWindoze, as much as I'd like to trash it, is still more stable than mac os.
> My workplace does cross-platform development on pc, mac, sparc, alpha and hp;
> Deep-Shit-Manager is by far the most frequent tresspasser.
>
From what I've seen, MSWindows is quite sensitive and less stable than
the Mac, but that depends on exactly what you're running. I would say
that there are certain tough-to-find conflicts which will bring down
either Windows or the Mac; I know of Windows machines (my roommate's)
which crash constantly and others (the guy across the hall) whose
Windows machines never crash (well, almost never :). The same goes for
Macs.
Eric Bennett
js...@athena.mit.edu (Jim Sun) writes:
> Comparing 486 to a Pmac? are we stretching a little? it's like comparing
> 020 or 030 based mac to a (Intel or AMD) 486. Actually, I doubt 610 can
> outperform DX4, or even dx2-66 by much, due to its lack of external cache
> and slow operating system.
>
The 6100 is comparable in benchmarks to a Pentium 60 or 66, which,
according to Intel, is noticeably faster than a DX4/100.
> >Oh, one I forgot. = performance (about) to a 486/ DX 66 4/270 (this is a
> >common sears system I am using as a reference, bcause the ac system is also
> >sold in sears and basically walked and talked the same, save for being a far
> >superior mac. You get what you pay for)
> >Performa 475 4/160 (512KVRAM), mounds of software, complete. 1199.00
> >[LC040/25Mhz]
> >Performa 578 8/320 (1MB VRAM) CD, mounds of software, complete. 1995.00
>
> You gotta be kidding: a 040/25 equivalent to a 486dx2/66? Not even Motorala
> dares to make such wild claim. Besides, on a mac you can't do jack-shit with 4 megs
> of ram; on a pc, you can do quite a lot (though becoming low-end only too).
The 040/25 is certainly not equivalent to a DX2/66. It is slightly
faster than a DX/33. The 040/40 (found only in the Quarda 840AV) is
equivalent in speed to the DX2/66.
>Is this a joke or what? How many times have you run into the deep-shit-manager?
>My workplace does cross-platform development, and Mac is by far the least stable
>system. My pc linux box has been up for 52 days, 6 hours and 49 mins, and still
>running; the last shutdown was intentional: adding more memory. It provides ftp
>service to people around the world; quite popular at it too: xferlog has grown to
>over 100k since the beginning of the month. Users do compilation, even run multiple
>sessions of C-Scheme (a 20meg memory hog), too.
I think this depends more on the specific apps or environments you're
using than the platform. I run three servers and lots of add-ons
continuously on my Mac. Only two programs crash my machine; one is a
beta of my WWW server and the other is NCSA Mosaic 2.0 alpha (very
buggy). On the other hand, my roommate's 486/33 running Windows 3.11
(yuck!) loves to dump him into DOS at random (this has been happening
quite frequently in the last few weeks; removing various add-ons and
programs hasn't helped).
I am also surpised at the apparent pickiness of some PC programs.
Among 4 of my PC-user friends, there are two 486/DX33s, and 386/DX40
and a 386/SX40. WinFTPD (FTP server) absolutely refuses to run on the
Gateway 486 but runs fine on the other three. NCSA Mosaic refuses to
run on the 386/DX40. I doubt you would run into this on the Mac (unless
perhaps you have an 840AV ;-).
Chris Rose
>Yes, DOS/Windoze do. But the catch is this....they put them in a much
>more accessible area. The preference (so to speak) files for a DOS app
>are placed in sub-directories based in the same directory. You don't have
>to search all over, and hope that you are choosing the right file. With
>Mac extensions, I have many which I have no idea what they are for. Or
>what program they came with. When clicked on, they just say "This adds
>functionality to you Mac". What the heck is that? I want a description
>of that functionality personally, so I know if I want it or not.
>
>--
>Chris
>st94...@Dunx1.OCS.Drexel.Edu
I can't believe that I am taking part in a Mac Vs PC debate, but what
the hell. I agree that it is not always easy to tell where mac extensions
came from, though the picture on the icon and the long file names really do
help, though they sound trivial. In addition, all extensions do go into the
extensions folder, all preferences do go into the extensions folder etc.
By comparison, I find Windows much more difficult (and yes, I'm using
a Windows machine). Just think of the tens of obscurely named .dlls that
get droppped into the Windows (/System?) directory, just think of the
curious little .ini files and the odd changes to win.ini, system.ini,
autoexec.bat, whatever.
Face it, even on the .dll side alone you have got absolutely NO chance
of working out where they come from, as far as I can see. There are a
couple of good Windows utilities around that help you un-install stuff.
No, though I agree that the mac is not perfect in this respect (more
info in the Get Info window would be useful), it is still easier to
track stuff down that the mass of complexity that makes up the average
\windows and \windows\system directories
Chris R.
Amancio Hasty Jr
>: In article <38es79$4...@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu> ste...@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu (Stephan Anagnostaras) writes:
>: >In article <1994Oct23.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> Mr. Bungle writes:
>: >Give me a break!!! Unix on a PC? Windows good memory management?!?
>: >You probably buy PC's for the key clicking!
>: >
>: *Time to upgrade pre-conceived notions of Unix on a PC*
>
>: Funny, I was thinking this morning that Sun should upgrade their CPU
>: because they are going to be left in the dust.
>
>: At any rate, don't be surprise if hundreds of Linux activists follow
>: you home just to flame you :)
>
>: Me, happily typing all of this on a P66 and a S3 864 VLB card running
>: FreeBSD and XFree86 -- we are only about twice as fast as a sparc
>: 10 with a gx per xbench results .
>
>Hate to say it... but likely 95% of people who own/use PCs don't
>give a hoot how many operating systems their machine can run, or how well
>it'll run Unix. Half of those folks probably don't even know (or care) what
>Unix is! The bottom line for these folks is:
>
> 1) Is it cheap?
>
> 2) Can I run Lotus 1-2-3 or WordPerfect or MS Word or
> [insert your favorite bestselling app here]...
>
> 3) Can I run any good games?? (esp. Doom)
>
>That's it folks. Discussions about memory management, multitasking,
>bus mastering, and makefiles are left to nerds like us...
>
>A quick survey here where I work shows that 5 of my coworkers own PCs.
>2 of those were bought for the sole purpose of playing Doom, 1 was bought
>only for playing games in general, and 2 are obsolete and gathering dust.
>Two coworkers, besides myself, own Macs. All three Macs are happily being
>used for all sorts of things from simple checkbook management and word
>processing, to full blown DTP and music/midi processing (like me!).
>I know... it's a small sample but, mind you, everyone mentioned is a
>hardware/software engineer, yet!
>
>: Amancio
>
>Just adding a drop of fuel to the fire....
>Have a nice day!
I most agree that most of the uses for PCs are for word processing,
spread-sheets, games, etc...
Well, as for sound stuff we can talk/listen on the internet
And when I am bored my gravis ultrasound can pump up the jam
while I code away :)
Some of us do use our PCs to develop software for Unix based
systems. In that small category, the PCs are a viable solution for
many of us. Most of the people that I know run Unix at home and
yes some of them also run DOS/Windows. While I am typing all of
this I decided to run a background job to update the location
of all my files on my system so I may do "locate file" and
pretty much instantly locate a file on my system. Funny,
I barely noticed that it was running Oh, well, got to go my background
job is done :)
See Ya,
Amancio
P.S.: A public domain effort called "wt" is on the way to provide
game action like Doom. The difference from Doom is that we got
the sources and get taylor it to our hearts content
Terje Rydland
(Bob Williams) wrote:
> If you are taking 3+ MB in System 7, you definently are running inefficiently.
> System 7 can run in <1200K easily enough. You must have lots of extensions
> installed, which would explain why you are having so much memory trouble (not
> to mention all the crashes as outlined above). System 7.5 only takes 7+ MB of
> RAM when PowerTalk and/or QuickDraw GX are running. These are extremely
> powerful additions to the System, and they would take just as much memory (in
> fact mch more) in doze, but unfortunately, I can't prove this to you, as no
> comparable technologies exist fr doze.
I run 7.5 on a 7100. I use QuickDraw GX and PowerTalk and Express Modem
(I use the Geoport Pod). It uses about 7 MB (or slightly less.). The Express
Modem uses about 600 k. This means about 6.5 MB on a PowerMac with
QuickDraw GX and PowerTalk. On a 68040 Mac this will be reduced with about
10-20 % (PPC code is bigger).
So - if you have a Quadra and you use QuickDraw GX and PowerTalk
you will use about 5.5 MB.
This number also depends on how many Extensions, Fonts and Sounds
you have installed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terje Rydland Tel.:73 59 18 45 (+47-73 59 18 45)
Dept. of Informatics Fax.:73 59 17 33 (+47-73 59 17 33)
UNIT/AVH E-Mail:terje....@ifi.unit.no
N-7055 Dragvoll AppleLink: NOR0103
Norway
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Sun
>The 7100/66 runs rings around a Pentium 66, which in turn runs rings
>around a DX4/100, which in turn runs rings around a DX2/66, so I'd say
>the DX2/66 isn't even in the same league as the PowerMac 7100 (or even
>the 6100).
Just how tight are these rings? :) I thought the phrase meant an order of
magnitude (at least 2.7x, ie. +1 on natual log). Maybe nowadays, if my processor
is 5% faster than your processor on some operations I can claim running rings
around your processor; then of course, your processor could be 5% faster than mine
in some other operations. Hence, our processors are enterwined; no wonder everyone
is so confused :)
The last time I checked, at the same clock rate, Pentium has slightly (< 5%) higher
SpecInt rating than PPC, and the other way around with regard to SpecFloat.
Of course, it's all garbage if you are using 6100; with its lack of L2 cache,
there's no way you could turn in any decent number on a comprehensive benchmark.
The rings you refer to between Pentium66 and DX4/100, I happen to know, turns out
to be less than 10% in integer operations. Unless, you work with floating point
most of the time (processor time), I simply don't see these rings; if your work
is so specific as to be utilizing the floating point section of the processor
most of the time, you should probably start looking for alternatives to either
PPC or Pentium, as neither are particularly remarkable for floating point.
Granted, there's a significant processor performance difference between PPC 601/66
and 486dx2/66, but peripherals, particularly the graphics subsystem, can makeup
in the look-and-feel department any difference less than an order of magnitude in
processor speed. I wasn't particularly impressed with the graphics card in
8100 or 7100.
>Care to try running Windows? Windows apps, according to a study (I
>think from Byte magazine, but I'm not sure--I'll check if you really
>care) occupy 1.8 times as much disk space as the corresponding
>Macintosh programs. A Mac and a Dos application which do the same
>thing generally eat equal amounts of disk space. Note also that you
>cannot seriously compare the Mac and DOS as operating environments; for
>example, you can't run multiple programs in DOS (I run a mail server,
>an HTTP server, and an FTP server on my 7100 constantly--you need
>Windows to do this on a PC). This is also why a Mac will probably
>crash more than a DOS machine--many things are open at once, so
>conflicts are much more likely. If you were running Windows instead of
>DOS, you would crash much more often (my roommate uses Windows 3.11 and
>he crashes at least as much--probably more--than I do). Finally, if
>your system software is eating 7 megs of RAM, you are doing something
>seriously wrong.
But why do you want to run MSWindoze? This is a thread on pc vs. mac,
not microsoft vs. apple. There are plenty alternatives to MSWindoze on the pc.
Perhaps your own lack of adventurism is NOT shared by us pc users. I see:
when you activate the apple pull-down menu, you don't see "ditch the card house
operating system" option, so you take whatever apple decides to shove down your
throat. We pc users happen to be not so helpless. We have OS/2 (aka Warp) from
IBM, Linux from GNU (Free Software Foundation, if your eyes never ventured beyond
the fences of Apple orchid), and myriads of other operating systems. Did you mention
"mail server"? ouch! it's actually something a mac user can be proud of? It's
quite standard on any Linux (a clone of Unix; gosh, just how flat do I have to make
the learning curve?). My linux box has been running for over 52 days (yeah, that
means continuously); rlogin, telnet by various users; my ftp xferlog has grown to
over 100k since the beginning of the month. Even the last shutdown was intentional:
adding more memory.
Even MSWindoze, as much as I'd like to trash it, is still more stable than mac os.
My workplace does cross-platform development on pc, mac, sparc, alpha and hp;
Deep-Shit-Manager is by far the most frequent tresspasser.
Jim
Chris Umbricht, M.D.
by...@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
>While we're on the topic that sys 7.5 can take up a lot of ram, can
>people give tips as to how to reduce mem usage by the system? Does
system use more mem if you have more of it available? <
No. The system needs more as you add more and more extensions, cdevs,
fonts to it. Most of these things can be eliminated if your are desperate
for RAM. You can also try ramdoubler v1.5.1, which works very well.
Dave Simons
reading of this thread than you would ever hope to save with your
"blindingly fast" machines. It's all relative folks.
Nigel Tzeng
yep...but dont let folks kid you around...the Specmarks might say you
get close to a Sparc 10 performance but the feel is somewhat less.
Scads better than the IPC but that's not saying much. SuperSparc
isn't the worlds most awesome RISC chip but the FP performance IS
better than anything Intel can pump out.
Then again my "touchy feely" benchmark was for Solaris X86 (2.1) at a
trade show sitting next to a Sparc 10. We had a IPC at our booth (yes
we were embarassed...but we did have a Sparc 20 too :).
If I can convince my boss to buy me Solaris X86 2.4 well park our P90
up against our midline Sparc 20 and see how close they are in usability.
Linux and other leaner Unixes will clock in much faster than the
bloated Solaris machines but if you need to do XYZZY and XYZZY only
appears on a Sun Sparc platform you get a Sun or a Sun clone. And for
under 6K or so the P90 is a reasonable Sun clone if no SBUS slots are
needed. With a decent 17" monitor I'd probably go with a P90 over a
Sparc 5 which comes stock with a 16".
>Dave
Nigel
Dan Johnson
>Stephan Anagnostaras (ste...@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu) wrote:
>: In article <1994Oct23.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> Mr. Bungle writes:
[snip]
>As for windows and good memory management. It's better than the
>System 7.X's memory management.. System 7.X doesn't like virtual
>memory that much (Why do you have to buy a third party soluction?),
>and Windows has Dynamic Memory allocation..
I always thought dynamic memory allocation was just the
ability to demand an arbitrary-sized hunk of RAM and
get it from the system (and also the be able to get rid
of it again).
Now, the Mac has this, so obviously you are talking about something
else.
What are you talking about?
---
- Dan "No Nickname" Johnson
"Be _proud_ of your thigh, Dan! It is stronger than a pencil!"
- Matt Widiger
These opinions probably show what I know.
Eric Gerstenberger
st94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Chris McGinley) wrote:
> I am not running system 7.5 currently. My friend is, and his software is
> using 7+ MB or RAM. I don't know why, but I feared that if it was true,
> it wouldn't work on my 8 MB RAM system well.
That's all right, someone in my dorm had a system file of 11.9mb--I think
I would rather have the extra memory than the dumb system extension that
says "I love trash!" everytime I empty the trash.
Then again, to each his own.
Stephen Jonke
might not be aware of this, that the PowerMac 6100's built in DRAM video
(and the 7100 and 8100's second video out) uses normal RAM for it's video
memory. Thus any system on a 6100 (or a 7100 or 8100 which is also using
the 2nd video out) is going to show System RAM usage higher by the amount
used by that video. Offhand I forget how much it is, but it depends on
what resolution you use. I'm certain it's <= 1MB. Point is that if you
have a system that's showing itself using 5MB RAM, on a 6100 it's really
4MB + 1MB video ram, or thereabout.
Another note about the PowerMacs in general. You can turn virtual memory
on on a PowerMac and see basically no performance hit (in the range of 1%)
as long as you don't actually venture into the virtual RAM space. As a
benefit, PowerMac native applications will use less RAM (often
significantly less - Adobe Photoshop 3.0, for instance, saves 4MB of RAM
with VM on), and applications will start up slightly faster. So, on
PowerMacs it's a good idea to turn VM on, and set it to 1MB more then the
real RAM you have (i.e. set it to it's lowest possible setting). As a
result you'll be able to use more apps, or give apps more RAM that they
can use for documents in the same amount of REAL RAM, with out actually
using the extra 1MB of virtual memory. If you do venture into that extra
MB, you'll start to see disk swapping, but you'll reach that point later
then you would have run out of memory in the same situation with VM off.
Hope that was comprehensible! :)
I won't go into the details, but the reason has to do with the native code
residing in the "data fork" of the application file, rather then as code
resources in the "resource fork" like 68k Mac apps. Having VM on lets the
system use features of the VM architecture in order to deal with the
applications code in a more efficient manor. The down side to turning VM
on is that it requires disk space, though significantly less then with the
old System 7 VM. Also, I believe RamDoubler can be used for the same
effect. Not 100% certain about that, though.
Steve
-------------------
jo...@gsfc.nasa.gov
Go! Go! Go!
-------------------
Bruce Hoult
> The last time I checked, at the same clock rate, Pentium has slightly (< 5%) higher
> SpecInt rating than PPC, and the other way around with regard to SpecFloat.
> Of course, it's all garbage if you are using 6100; with its lack of L2 cache,
> there's no way you could turn in any decent number on a comprehensive benchmark.
PC users keep making this false claim.
Why don't you look at the actual SPEC results? The 66 MHz PPC system that did a
couple of percent lower SPECInt than the Pentium was an IBM system with NO L2 CACHE.
The Pentium had L2 cache.
Why is this so hard to understand?
-- Bruce
Brandon Hines
>NCSA Mosaic refuses to
>run on the 386/DX40.
>
Runs perfect on mine.
Brandon
Sol...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
P.S. to the original poster: if you go with a MAC, go PowerMAC.
Apple has been publicly stating that the will discontinue production
of non-PowerMAC within the next few years. Some software venders
are already developing exclusivly for PowerMAC.
Nigel Tzeng
>
>The 7100/66 runs rings around a Pentium 66, which in turn runs rings
>around a DX4/100, which in turn runs rings around a DX2/66, so I'd say
>the DX2/66 isn't even in the same league as the PowerMac 7100 (or even
>the 6100).
I missed the original price comparison...how much are the 7100? I know my
Pentium 90 cost $2300 for 8 megs RAM, 525MB HD, CD-ROM, etc...
I really like that recent MacWeek Pentium 90 vs PowerMac 8100 (or
whatever). The fully loaded price of the Pentium 90 (Dell XPS-P90)
was $6000. The BASE price of the 8100 was $6000. Not included in the
price was the monitor ($2000), the two graphics accelerators ($4000 or
so) and memory (the XPS-P90 had something on the order of 64MB...or
was it 128MB...I don't remember...I was pretty impressed. Damn thing
had more ram than our Sparc 20...the Powermac 16Meg).
Gee...the souped up Powermac was rated as twice as fast as the Pentium
90 for more than double the cost (12K+). Eh...looking at the actual
time results you really have to want to worry about a few extra
seconds to do really complex transformations in Photoshop. It's not
surprising that they gave the FP operations more weight than the rest
when doing the ratings since they knew that with the base PowerPC you
get scads better FP perfromance than the Pentium an add in the
accelerators it's not an even match.
For 12K I'll buy a Sparc 5 and have 8K left to buy a PC and a HP
Laserjet 4mp+ printer.
[snip]
>Care to try running Windows? Windows apps, according to a study (I
>think from Byte magazine, but I'm not sure--I'll check if you really
>care) occupy 1.8 times as much disk space as the corresponding
>Macintosh programs. A Mac and a Dos application which do the same
Gah...who cares about hard disk space? I need to run multiple apps at
the same time and my 8 megs of PC ram goes further than the 8 megs on
my Quadra. I have a 525MB hard drive...I could have 2 gig if I cared.
Hell, our NFS disk farm on the Sparcs is only 4 gig. At 50 cents a MB
hard drive space is the least of my worries.
>thing generally eat equal amounts of disk space. Note also that you
>cannot seriously compare the Mac and DOS as operating environments; for
>example, you can't run multiple programs in DOS (I run a mail server,
>an HTTP server, and an FTP server on my 7100 constantly--you need
>Windows to do this on a PC). This is also why a Mac will probably
>crash more than a DOS machine--many things are open at once, so
>conflicts are much more likely. If you were running Windows instead of
>DOS, you would crash much more often (my roommate uses Windows 3.11 and
>he crashes at least as much--probably more--than I do). Finally, if
>your system software is eating 7 megs of RAM, you are doing something
>seriously wrong.
Yeah...our macs are loaded and run in the high 2's...but that's a
quarter of available mem. Word takes 2, Powerpoint 2, Excel 2...gee
all of a sudden it wont print in the background and windows go away.
8 meg is okay on a PC...not awesome but okay. I can run everything in
MS Office at one time and not run into memory problems.
All in all I choose a PC because MS Office was much better than MS
office for the Mac. And the games are better...so where does it leave
you? If you have to do DTP and Photoshop stick with the PowerMac. If
you want to do anything else go with a PC.
Besides...who wants to buy into a product line that may be controled
by IBM in the near future. Christ...no one in the PC world takes IBM
too seriously (Microchannel will save you! OS2 Will Remake the
Universe!). Gah...better hardware didn't help the Amiga. Better GUI
didn't help NeXT. With IBM at the controls nothing will help the Mac.
'Sides with Tog at Sun and CDE around the corner the Unix boxes may
steal much of the thunder from the PowerPC machines (either the Macs
or RS6000) because the biggest problem with Unix will go away and a
standard (and decent looking and working) desktop will finally exist
for most major platforms. The only thing it wont have are games.
Eh...I'll have a cheap PC for that...
Nigel
Eric Soroos
Tzeng) wrote:
>
> Yeah...our macs are loaded and run in the high 2's...but that's a
> quarter of available mem. Word takes 2, Powerpoint 2, Excel 2...gee
> all of a sudden it wont print in the background and windows go away.
> 8 meg is okay on a PC...not awesome but okay. I can run everything in
> MS Office at one time and not run into memory problems.
And my guess here is that you are using the windows swap file (turned on
by default) and aren't using the Virtual memory on the macs. With a VM
setting of 2x normal ram, i.e. 16 meg swp for your 8 meg machines, you
will find that large portions can be swpped out to disk.
oh well, and I pronised that I would't get involved.
eric
David Willis
emb...@hearst.cac.psu.edu writes:
>From what I've seen, MSWindows is quite sensitive and less stable than
>the Mac, but that depends on exactly what you're running. I would say
>that there are certain tough-to-find conflicts which will bring down
>either Windows or the Mac; I know of Windows machines (my roommate's)
>which crash constantly and others (the guy across the hall) whose
>Windows machines never crash (well, almost never :). The same goes for
>Macs.
The bottom line is: If you run DOS, you deserve what you get. What you
get is a clumsy operating system. DOS is Windows,OS/2, etc. Windows is a
SHELL, not a system.
ALL computers crash. The harder you push em the more they'll crash.
Life is short, I don't have time to fuck with bat exec sys config crap.
Untill something better comes along, Mac is the only game in town for
people who have a little style in their lives. The only people who
actually -like- windows are developers$$ and users who've never had a Mac.
Yes, I know millions use DOS computers, but 18 million people live in
trailer parks in America, too.
I'm not interested in living in one myself.
David Willis
dwi...@earthlink.net
"I don't give a damn what religion you are - all I care is how you treat
people."
Eric Bennett
Sol...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Brandon Hines) writes:
>
> >NCSA Mosaic refuses to
> >run on the 386/DX40.
> >
> >-Er...@psu.edu
>
>
> Runs perfect on mine.
>
> Brandon
> Sol...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Hey! That's not what I said. I said ONE 386DX/40, not all of them. I
have two experienced PC-using friends, one with a 386DX/40 and one with
a 386SX/40; Mosaic runs on the SX but crashes the DX all the time--a
conflict which could be fixed, perhaps, but despite my friend's
experience on PCs he's not been able to find it.
Roger Hill
> I use it all the time now (programming chores) instead of my
> Sun SparcClassic.. Please ask me which one is faster (486DX-2 66
> running Linux with 16 megs vs Sun Sparc Classic with 32 megs)..
> Sun machine is running System V..
>
And I am sure they are both faster than a 486 DX2/50 running Solaris...
Put it this way Solaris on my 486 is a great advert for DOS and windows :-)
(Well at least you known when you are using DOS/Windoze that you are only
using the second worst OS in the world ;-)
--
Roger Hill -- AEG Postal Systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ///\\\ 00
We're making your snail mail go faster .. \\\/// //
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<///
Stephan Anagnostaras
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephan Anagnostaras ste...@psych.ucla.edu
UCLA Behavioral Neuroscience sana...@umich.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Cohen
>Stephan Anagnostaras (ste...@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu) wrote:
>: Give me a break!!! Unix on a PC? Windows good memory management?!?
>: You probably buy PC's for the key clicking!
>I've been running Unix on this PC (a 386SX too) since 1992. So have a lot
>of people. I wouldn't be caught dead running anything else either.
PCs make decent cheap Unix systems - I have Linux running on a 486/33 here
and it's pretty nice. It can't compete with a workstation like a Sun or a
RS/6000, but for the price it makes a great system.
--
Mike Cohen - is...@netcom.com
NewtonMail, eWorld: MikeC / ALink: D6734 / AOL: MikeC20
Home Page: file://ftp.netcom.com/pub/isis/home.html
Jim Sun
What is "so hard to understand"? You just repeated what I said, namely, the speed difference
between a PPC and a Pentium is well within the range influenced by board design and etc.
My original note was refuting some macphile's claim that Pmac 6100 is much faster than
Pentium box running at the same clock. I think I was being very objective, note
the "<5%" in my note (instead of "running rings around ...," like some macphile would like
to describe any speed difference); also note my comment on why 6100 is slow: "lack of
L2 cache," I didn't just slam all Pmac just because one particular incarnation is slow.
You may think comparing a machine with L2 cache to one without L2 cache is unfair, but
the truth is that 6100 is shipped without L2 cache, and no Pentium box comes without L2
cache.
Just a few extra points that might infuriate a blind macphile, read carefully before
you reply: since Spec mark is a comprehensive benchmark for multitasking environment,
the operating system and the compiler have great influence on the outcome.
AIX (the unix system running on a the IBM RS600) is a lot
more effient (speed only, not talking about user-friendliness!) than System7.x in
multitasking; the code generated by the IBM PPC compiler is still much faster than that
by anything availabe on the Pmac (ask any developper if you don't trust me.) So,
Pmac 6100 would have a lower (possible significantly) Spec mark than the IBM system.
Last note, I'm not only a pc user, I use Pmac too. Using a Pmac8100 in the office daily,
I'm probably much more familiar with mac than most mac users. No, it's not my primary
computer in the office; I spend much more time on Sparcs and HPs. The 8100 is there only
for cross-platform development.
Jim
Bruce Hoult
> ------------------
> The Church of Mice
> ------------------
> An English translation of Italian novelist Umberto Eco's back-page column
> "La bustina di Minerva" in the Italian news weekly "Espresso," Sept. 30,
> 1994:
>
> The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh
> computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers. I am firmly of the
> opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant. Indeed,
> the Macintosh is counter-reformist and has been influenced by the 'ratio
> studiorum' of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory, it
> tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to reach -- if not
> the Kingdom of Heaven -- the moment in which their document is printed. It
> is catechistic: the essence of revelation is dealt with via simple
> formulae and sumptuous icons.
>
> Everyone has a right to salvation.
>
> DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free interpretation of
> scripture, demands difficult personal decisions, imposes a subtle
> hermeneutics upon the user, and takes for granted the idea that not all
> can reach salvation. To make the system work you need to interpret the
> program yourself: a long way from the baroque community of revellers, the
> user is closed within the loneliness of his own inner torment.
>
> You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe has
> come to resemble more closely the counter-reformist tolerance of the
> Macintosh. It's true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism, big
> ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a
> return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre decisions...
But where do the Templars fit in?
Bruce Hoult
> Br...@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult) wrote:
> >js...@athena.mit.edu (Jim Sun) writes:
> >> The last time I checked, at the same clock rate, Pentium has slightly (< 5%) higher
> >> SpecInt rating than PPC, and the other way around with regard to SpecFloat.
> >> Of course, it's all garbage if you are using 6100; with its lack of L2 cache,
> >> there's no way you could turn in any decent number on a comprehensive benchmark.
> >PC users keep making this false claim.
> >Why don't you look at the actual SPEC results? The 66 MHz PPC system that did a
> >couple of percent lower SPECInt than the Pentium was an IBM system with NO L2 CACHE.
> >The Pentium had L2 cache.
> >Why is this so hard to understand?
> What is "so hard to understand"? You just repeated what I said, namely, the speed difference
> between a PPC and a Pentium is well within the range influenced by board design and etc.
> My original note was refuting some macphile's claim that Pmac 6100 is much faster than
> Pentium box running at the same clock. I think I was being very objective, note
> the "<5%" in my note (instead of "running rings around ...," like some macphile would like
> to describe any speed difference); also note my comment on why 6100 is slow: "lack of
> L2 cache,"
That's right. You say the 6100 is slow because it has no L2 cache. But the IBM
system that matched the Pentium had no L2 cache either. And the Pentium did.
If the 6100 is slow (which I don't agree with) then it isn't because of lack of
L2 cache.
> I didn't just slam all Pmac just because one particular incarnation is slow.
> You may think comparing a machine with L2 cache to one without L2 cache is unfair, but
> the truth is that 6100 is shipped without L2 cache, and no Pentium box comes without L2
> cache.
Nope. Perfectly fair comparison. The x86 designs *need* a lot of L2 cache to work
well, but the 68040 and PPC don't. That's why Apple and IBM PPC systems often
don't come with L2 cache while "no Pentium box comes without L2 cache". The Pentium
and 486 are completely hopeless without one.
> Just a few extra points that might infuriate a blind macphile, read carefully before
> you reply: since Spec mark is a comprehensive benchmark for multitasking environment,
> the operating system and the compiler have great influence on the outcome.
> AIX (the unix system running on a the IBM RS600) is a lot
> more effient (speed only, not talking about user-friendliness!) than System7.x in
> multitasking; the code generated by the IBM PPC compiler is still much faster than that
> by anything availabe on the Pmac (ask any developper if you don't trust me.)
I *am* a developer. I've written quite a bit of PPC assembly code myself, and
optomised it for cache effects etc. I've looked at the output of CodeWarrior,
Lucid and xlc. I think I've got a vague idea of what I'm talking about here.
Many shipping Mac programs have in fact been compiled (for the final version)
using IBM's xlc compiler on an RS/6000.
Certainly System 7 is a different environment than AIX. And DOS/Windows is also
a far different environment than Unix, and most code being run is 286 code, or
386 optomised if you're lucky.
I don't think the PowerMacs come off at all badly compared to the typical use
of a Pentium.
-- Bruce
Bill Coleman
> One issue I see is the mouse. On Macs you are
> virtually forced to use the mouse to many things.
True enough, but every Mac is equipped with a mouse or other pointing device.
This should not be a problem.
> This is finde but
> sometimes the keyboard would be faster since you wouldn't have to
> take your hands offf the keyboard.
Purely shortsighted baloney. Who says your hands are on the keyboard to start
with? Perhaps you have to take your hands off the mouse to type on the
keyboard. I'm afraid your CLI bias is showing through. Your thoughts are
being clogged with prior learning.
> I'm saying I'm for a CLI, I just
> enjoy the way windows lets me not use a mouse at all if I want.
Windows 3.x was designed to be used from Laptop computers without a mouse.
At least, that's the theory. Some applications don't quite work well without
a pointing device. Others do. Its a mixed bag.
> [ discussion of strokes removed ]
Strokes are used quite effectively in a pen-based environment. A pen has a
much higher mobility than the mouse or trackball.
> Also I don't like the single button mice on Macs but I
> hear that can be replaced with normal more functional mice.
Bias and prior learning showing through. While you can replace a Mac mouse
with a multi-button mouse, it doesn't follow that such mice are "more
functional." The one-button mouse is a FEATURE of the Mac, not a limitation.
--
Bill Coleman, AA4LR ! Internet: bcol...@hayes.com
Principal Software Engineer ! AppleLink: D1958
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! CIS: 76067,2327
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA !
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.
Jim Cooper
Frier) wrote:
> In <390o04$g...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben
> Hansen) writes:
>
> >
> > Curious. What area of applications are missing on the Macintosh?
> >Microsoft alone has releases of database, spreadsheet, and word
> >processing applications.
>
> Floating-point-intensive apps (eg. AIQ's TradingExpert which I own),
> specialized scientific apps used in data analysis, etc. True, some
> exist for the Mac, but the really *serious* stuff is written for PCs.
>
>
> --
> John L Frier | The problem with the gene pool
> jlf...@ix.netcom.com | is that there is no lifeguard...
> South San Francisco, CA | --anon
Well, the really serious stuff is really seriously written for workstation
(and faster) class machines, which almost all run some flavor of UNIX, you
PC bigot.
And, um, there are a number of image processing apps written for the Mac
that are quite floating point intensive (of course some of those also
exist for Windows, few of them for DOS).
--
-jim cooper-
------------------------------------------------------------
| "Yes, it's true my dear, you are a good woman... |
| On the other hand, perhaps you are the anti-christ" |
| |
| Doc Holiday in Tombstone (the movie, not the real thing) |
------------------------------------------------------------
Amancio Hasty Jr
>In article <393qv8$e...@coyote.rain.org>
>it...@coyote.rain.org (Etherious) writes:
>
>hack). If I were to remove from my machine the three or four beta and
>alpha programs that I use, I am quite certain that I would experience
>NO CRASHES whatsoever--and please remember that my PowerMac is
>EMULATING some of the things that I use, so one might expect more
>conflicts than if everything were native.
Why don't you post on any PC unix news group stating that in
your OS user level programs can crash your entire system :)
Amancio
Bill Anderson
<da...@amy.tch.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>Perhaps you can help me then. On my PC, I can (an do) run a TSR that swaps
>my Capslock and Control key. I want to do the same on my girlfriend's
>powerbook. How do I do this? That is what I want to customize. How do I
>do it (across all applications)?
I was hoping that ResEdit would provide a quick fix, but I can seem to
change every key except for the modifiers (Caps Lock, shift, control,
alt, and the "clover" control keys). Does anyone know how to do this?
Bill :-o
--
__________________________ ______________________________
\\\///
Always Open! |||| big...@fubar.cs.montana.edu
__________________________///\\\______________________________
Frederick Goff
> In article k...@news.csus.edu, gdas...@silicon.csci.csusb.edu (George
Daswani) writes:
> >Stephan Anagnostaras (ste...@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu) wrote:
> >: In article <1994Oct23.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> Mr. Bungle writes:
>
> [snip]
> >As for windows and good memory management. It's better than the
> >System 7.X's memory management.. System 7.X doesn't like virtual
> >memory that much (Why do you have to buy a third party soluction?),
> >and Windows has Dynamic Memory allocation..
>
> I always thought dynamic memory allocation was just the
> ability to demand an arbitrary-sized hunk of RAM and
> get it from the system (and also the be able to get rid
> of it again).
>
> Now, the Mac has this, so obviously you are talking about something
> else.
>
> What are you talking about?
The fact that Windows applications can change the amount of RAM they are
using "on the fly."
--
Fred Goff
All opinions expressed are the result too much coffee in the morning.
David Erin
}In <390o04$g...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben
}Hansen) writes:
}
}>
}> Curious. What area of applications are missing on the Macintosh?
}>Microsoft alone has releases of database, spreadsheet, and word
}>processing applications.
}
}Floating-point-intensive apps (eg. AIQ's TradingExpert which I own),
}specialized scientific apps used in data analysis, etc. True, some
}exist for the Mac, but the really *serious* stuff is written for PCs.
<LOL> Get serious guy. NOTHING serious is written for the PC!
If you want serious scientific Apps, you must look to HP9000 or SGI in the
workstation market and Cray or Fujitsu in the main-frame market. I'm
sorry, but scientific number-cruching just ain't done on PCs.
}
}
}--
} John L Frier | The problem with the gene pool
} jlf...@ix.netcom.com | is that there is no lifeguard...
} South San Francisco, CA | --anon
--
David Erin | Blessed are the meek*, for
Davi...@avalon.dash.com | they shall inherit the
<A HREF="http://avalon.dash.com/"> </A> | Earth....
| Yeah, a nice 7x3x6 piece!
ftp to avalon.dash.com |
User: anonymous | * and MS-DOG users
John Frier
Cooper) writes:
>Well, the really serious stuff is really seriously written for workstation
>(and faster) class machines, which almost all run some flavor of UNIX, you
>PC bigot.
The focus of this thread was, I believe, revolving around mainstream
operating systems and hardware. While UNIX-based FP apps are found largely
on "workstation (and faster)" machines--and are superior, IMHO--they are
increasingly finding their way onto desktop PCs (and Macs?). However, few
people still know or need to run UNIX, relative to PCs. The fact is, most
people are running DOS and Windows, and, though I've owned 8 Macs (and
actually done contract work for Apple), I prefer the PC now because the
performance/cost ratio coupled with the most *comprehensive* selection of
software available on the planet makes it a logical choice. And I can run
good UNIX or OS/2 32-bit multi-tasking apps if I want. I believe the Mac has
A/UX, but how many people choose a Mac to run UNIX? They choose HP, SGI,
IBM, etc. instead...
>And, um, there are a number of image processing apps written for the Mac
^^^^^^^^
>that are quite floating point intensive (of course some of those also
>exist for Windows, few of them for DOS).
What is this number, if I may ask? I am aware of the Adobe products that
can make use of the PowerPC chip, but what else is there? How stable are the
companies writing them?
Etherious
: Ahhhh Someone who makes sense!!!!!
: I have 2 486/66/DX2s and 1 Quadra 610 0n my desk. So here's the comparison:
: The MAC dies daily... just locks up and goes out to lunch and you may or may not
: get an error message. Sometimes it dies 2 or 3 times. Guess what you get for an
: answer from all the Apple people around here when you tell them this.. ITS NORMAL....
: NOTHING IS WRONG.. There are also about 150 of these machines around here
: IT IS NORMAL... they all do this!!!! And NO ONE thinks it is unusaul or should
: be fixed..... lets just say I would never actually, personaly PAY for one
: of these machines.
I have an LC 575 and a PC. So does my best friend. Mine is a 386DX/40,
his is a 486DX/50. We have the same Mac setup, almost totally different
PC setups. His Mac never crashes. I think he said once or twice when he
was configuring SLIP. My Mac crashes maybe a couple times a week, but
NEVER if I remove all my unnecessary extensions (Greg's buttons, Speed
Beep, Apollo, etc. All stuff completely seperate from System 7.5). I
know a few of my extensions don't like each other, but I like the cool
features, and will deal with the occasional system crash.
My PC hangs in Windows after no more than 1/2 hour, and Mark says he gets
no fewer than two GPFs a week. While I believe that my PC's problems are
most likely due to a hard drive problem, all Mark's equipment is fairly
main stream, and all of what is considered the best quality. PCs hang
too. Get the poor Mac looked into if it crashes that often.
: The 486's.. If they were to lock up, something would be wrong, either with the
: hardware or software and you can get to the OS prompt to find out what, and if
: you can change a light switch you can replace the parts in it. If its software
: there's about 300 times the information base out in the world to find the fix...
: and you can actually get into things to fix it!!
I start to get really nervous if Windows DOESN'T lock up on MY system!
After a half-hour, I start to get real jumpy. If it hasn't come by 45
minutes, I'm almost clawing at the walls. Sometimes my PC is merciful,
though. Sometimes I come back after booting Windows only to find an
immobile mouse cursor. Yes, it hangs on startup sometimes.
: to load them all at once for a run. The 496 NEVER did lock up... gee
: why??????
Probably because the PC is running only the most mainstream, reliable
apps that came with it straight out of the box, while someone probably
put some screensaver from 1986 or something on the Mac that causes
conflicts with current software. Or because it runs a badly-written utility.
: Laurel Conrad
Nick
--
Shannon Hendrix
>My PC hangs in Windows after no more than 1/2 hour, and Mark says he gets
>no fewer than two GPFs a week. While I believe that my PC's problems are
>most likely due to a hard drive problem, all Mark's equipment is fairly
>main stream, and all of what is considered the best quality. PCs hang
>too. Get the poor Mac looked into if it crashes that often.
The problem here is you are talking about two operating systems that both
suck rocks: Apple's and Microsoft Windows. Put UNIX on that PC (a good
one) and you'll see it crash less per year than your Mac does per week.
Awesome hardware with a cruddy OS doesn't buy you much. Just look at the
PowerMAC for proof. Killer CPU saddled with a brain-dead OS. It may
look good but it's not a good OS.
>Probably because the PC is running only the most mainstream, reliable
>apps that came with it straight out of the box, while someone probably
>put some screensaver from 1986 or something on the Mac that causes
>conflicts with current software. Or because it runs a badly-written utility.
Ick! I'd go nuts if a badly written program could bring my OS down.
If you can deal with the crashes, I guess to each his own. I just wish
Apple would put something on the desktop that looked good and was solid
too. Same for non-UNIX PC operating systems.
--
csh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
shen...@escape.widomaker.com | Linux... that's it for the moment
-----------------------------------+
Eric Bennett
> I have an LC 575 and a PC. So does my best friend. Mine is a 386DX/40,
> his is a 486DX/50. We have the same Mac setup, almost totally different
> PC setups. His Mac never crashes. I think he said once or twice when he
> was configuring SLIP. My Mac crashes maybe a couple times a week, but
> NEVER if I remove all my unnecessary extensions (Greg's buttons, Speed
> Beep, Apollo, etc. All stuff completely seperate from System 7.5). I
> know a few of my extensions don't like each other, but I like the cool
> features, and will deal with the occasional system crash.
>
> My PC hangs in Windows after no more than 1/2 hour, and Mark says he gets
> no fewer than two GPFs a week. While I believe that my PC's problems are
> most likely due to a hard drive problem, all Mark's equipment is fairly
> main stream, and all of what is considered the best quality. PCs hang
> too. Get the poor Mac looked into if it crashes that often.
On both platforms, the frequency of crashes seems to vary
significantly. For example, my PowerMac 7100 only crashes when I'm
running really buggy software (like NCSA Mosaic 2.0 alpha); in all
cases, I know which program caused my crash. However, my roomate's
486DX/33 has, over the past month, been spontaneously restarting
SEVERAL TIMES EVERY DAY! Usually he's at class and I'm sitting at my
desk when I hear his hard drive start crunching; I look over to his
machine and see that, without anyone even touching it, it has
restarted. My roommate has at various times removed all of his various
Windows add-ons, and nothing has fixed the problem. He tried to
install OS/2 but OS/2 refused to install; it got an error midway
through installation. The 386DX/40 across the hall from me dumps from
Windows out to DOS quite often. The guy who owns the machine [and is
definitely an experienced PC user] reinstalled Windows and other items
to no avail. But what's really wacky is that my other friend two doors
down the hall, who has an old 386SX/40 with only 4MB of RAM and a huge
swap file, is running all of the same networking software and other
enhancements as the other two machines, yet he never crashes.
In response to the person who said "Apple claims multiple lockups per
day is normal," all I can say is "Apple is wrong" (big surprise there;
the Apple people probably just get sick of solving the extension
conflicts of 100 people per day). Remove your extensions one by one
and you'll almost certainly find that some extension is crashing your
machine (probably it'll be some poorly programmed freeware or shareware
hack). If I were to remove from my machine the three or four beta and
alpha programs that I use, I am quite certain that I would experience
NO CRASHES whatsoever--and please remember that my PowerMac is
EMULATING some of the things that I use, so one might expect more
conflicts than if everything were native.
B. E. Johnson
Hoult) writes:
>
>wi...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Larry Wink) writes:
>> ------------------
>> The Church of Mice
>> ------------------
>> An English translation of Italian novelist Umberto Eco's back-page
column
>> "La bustina di Minerva" in the Italian news weekly "Espresso," Sept.
30,
>> 1994:
>>
>> The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh
>> computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers. I am firmly of the
>> opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant.
Indeed,
---------------virtual scissors----------------------------
>> You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe
has
>> come to resemble more closely the counter-reformist tolerance of the
>> Macintosh. It's true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism,
big
>> ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a
>> return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre
decisions...
>
>But where do the Templars fit in?
>
\templar directory?
Eric Bennett
ha...@netcom.com (Amancio Hasty Jr) writes:
> >hack). If I were to remove from my machine the three or four beta and
> >alpha programs that I use, I am quite certain that I would experience
> >NO CRASHES whatsoever--and please remember that my PowerMac is
> >EMULATING some of the things that I use, so one might expect more
> >conflicts than if everything were native.
>
> Why don't you post on any PC unix news group stating that in
> your OS user level programs can crash your entire system :)
>
> Amancio
I am quite aware of the superiority of Unix with respect to crash
protection when comparing it to Windows and the Mac; however, since
many people run these two inferior OSes (perhaps people choose the Mac
for ease of use, perhaps people choose Windows because they want to
torture themselves), they are worth discussing.
-Eric
David Erin
: In <jcooper-3110...@papm012.olympus.net> jco...@olympus.net (Jim
: Cooper) writes:
Ummm, how about Canvas and Video Fusion.
(To be honest, PhotoShop is damn good that I never looked at anything
else.)
Oh, yeah, GifConverter, JPeg View, GCon. (All shareware, all good)
And Pico...
Steve Kanefsky
I have on many occasions had a bad X-windows program crash my X server on
a UNIX machine, bringing down all the other X apps I had up at the time,
and taking just as long to recover from as rebooting a Mac would. The
only difference is that background processes like ftp and nfs servers
continue to run, and UNIX processes can do a better job of crashing
gracefully (saving critical data in a crash recovery file, for example,
though many apps don't do this). But as far as the user is concerned, his
whole system still crashed.
And the thing that most often makes Macs crash -- extension conflicts --
would be no different on a UNIX box since they are not user level
programs.
--
Steve Kanefsky
Steve Sheldon
>Well, the really serious stuff is really seriously written for workstation
>(and faster) class machines, which almost all run some flavor of UNIX, you
>PC bigot.
>And, um, there are a number of image processing apps written for the Mac
>that are quite floating point intensive (of course some of those also
>exist for Windows, few of them for DOS).
While it's true the Workstation offers a great many possibilities.
We do run PC versions of Arc/Info, as well as Atlas*GIS and Mapinfo here.
These are all GIS applications. I believe there is a version of Mapinfo
available for the Mac, but Mapinfo doesn't have all the features that Arc
and Atlas have.
Meanwhile the full version of Arc/Info is available on workstations. But
not everyone can afford a $50,000 solution over a $5,000-10,000 one.
--
Steve Sheldon [These are my own opinions]
Iowa State University ICSS Resource Facility by day
she...@iastate.edu ProMap by night
BEEF! -- Cause the west wasn't won on salad.
Jason Winter-Roach
[snip]
>............This is also why a Mac will probably
>crash more than a DOS machine--many things are open at once, so
>conflicts are much more likely. If you were running Windows instead of
>DOS, you would crash much more often (my roommate uses Windows 3.11 and
>he crashes at least as much--probably more--than I do).
[snip]
>
>-Er...@psu.edu
Windows? windows? */WARP Speed Mr Sulu....