Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!hobyah.cc.uq.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!taurus!adnline68.adnc.com!user From: dke@adnc.com (David K. Every) Newsgroups: alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc,alt.binaries.warez.mac,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.acorn.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.machten,comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.user-friendly Subject: Re: FIVE GOOD REASONS WHY IBM'S ARE BETTER THAN MACS Date: 6 Apr 1996 15:20:06 GMT Organization: Jostens Learning Lines: 104 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <dke-0604960729360001@adnline68.adnc.com> References: <Cyclone-0504961737500001@dial24.trip.net> <31664662.1081143@153.2.170.10> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.216.154.69 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc:32295 alt.binaries.warez.mac:2752 comp.os.linux.advocacy:43546 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:121333 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:20296 comp.os.msdos.misc:52616 comp.os.os2.advocacy:189576 comp.sys.acorn.advocacy:7537 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:97025 comp.sys.next.advocacy:34431 comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy:2100 comp.unix.advocacy:18107 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:16621 comp.unix.bsd.misc:609 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2745 comp.unix.machten:2078 comp.unix.pc-clon e.16bit:582 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:9098 comp.unix.shell:31231 comp.unix.solaris:64956 comp.unix.user-friendly:3519 In article <31664662.1081143@153.2.170.10>, ezsoldos@microserve.net (Ellis M. Zsoldos Jr.) wrote: > >1. I like the choice of memory - conventional, UMB, HMA, EMS, XMS, DPMI, > >VCPI. Macintosh 32-bit flat addressing does not appeal to me. > Don't go there. OS/2, Windows 95, Windows NT all now use a 32 bit > flat model. OS/2 has had this for YEARS ! (Late 80's). Going there! It took 8+ YEARS for PC's to get a flat 32 bit addressing model on the baseline OS (after Macs). Before that Macs had a flat 24 bit scheme - while PC's had a paged 16 bit scheme. But to make matters worse, there are still some nasty artifacts left over when you look at Win95... like that total GDI space of 64K. You can run out of resource space LONG LONG before you run out of memory. You can fill up your root folders filing space LONG LONG before you fill up your hard-drive. Etc., etc. The memory model is getting better in PC's... and changing ever couple years. Someday they will achieve parity with what the Mac has basically had since '84. > >2. I like the choice of video adapter "standards": MDA, CGA, Hercules, > >Hercules Colour, EGA, VGA, SVGA, XGA, 8514, AT&T, PGA. In any case, I > >enjoy restarting Windows every time I want to change video modes. > > > Windows 95 does not have to be restarted to change video modes. It > can be done on the fly, simply and smoothly. Not if you change color depths. Sure it works now with SOME monitors in some cases to change resolutions (only 5-6 years after Macs)... but as usual it still does not work as well. On PC's you can put your machine into a video mode that your monitor does not support - and viola - you can see NOTHING. Not so on the Mac - it has "sense pins" ooooh... aaaah! So you can only set it to valid modes. > >3. Everyone knows IBM buses are better than the Macintosh - ISA 16 bit at > >8MHz is fast enough for me. Or I could use EISA, MCA, VLB, or even PCI. > >Those poor Macintosh users only get a 20MHz NuBus slot or a 32-bit local > >bus slot (which they had to put up with before us IBM users did anyway). > > > PCI, EISA, or MCA are not limited to 8Mhz like ISA was. Exactly... a PC standard - 10 competing standards that do not work real well. While the Mac usually offered only 1 or 2 of the best choices. That is what a standard is isn't it?!?! ‹stan0dard adj. 1. Serving as or conforming to a standard of measurement or value. 2. Widely recognized as a model of authority or excellence. 4. Normal, familiar, or usual. 5. Commonly used or supplied. 6. Linguistics. Conforming to established educated usage in speech or writing. ‹stan2dard0ly adv. > >4. My IBM PC is more expandable than a Macintosh - I've got two serial > >ports, a parallel port, a joystick port (all on the one card!), a sound > >card (SoundBlaster, AdLib, MediaVision, Gravis - all different standards, > >of course), a mouse plugged into my serial port, a video adapter, a > >network card, a disk drive controller, and a SCSI interface. Of course, > >that all takes up six of my eight slots just to get my PC up to the same > >standard as a Macintosh with nothing plugged into its expansion slots, but > >that doesn't really count. > > > Many mother boards integrate these functions now onto a plug and play > configuration. Plug & Play - GUFFAW! You are funny. Sure there is something called plug & pray on PC's... Digital had a warning on its computers that it was "for advanced users only". It requires luck, voodooo, the latest hardware, the latest software - and then it MIGHT work. In another couple years you might achieve something close to parity with the macs of a decade ago. > All options can be turned on or off via BIOS > (software) settings. (No more needs to tear open the computer to > reconfigure!!) I have all of the above and still have 6 free PCI > slots. Of course - because if you filled one of your PC slots your machine would no longer work, or would take hours/days to stabalized. > >5. My PC running 16-bit text mode DOS applications is much faster than a > >Macintosh running 32-bit GUI applications. Although, when I run Windows I > >have to be satisfied with a computer just slightly faster than molasses in > >the freezer. > This is subjective to the system. I run both Windows 95 and OS/2 > extremly fast. Both update the screen faster then I can see. No > slowdowns here. It seems faster then my buddies Mac display. (Again, > this is subjective). All studies and usage on both machines I have done - and about every benchmark I have run (including our own cross-platform app) show that the Macs are usually substantially faster than PC's... often a Mac one or two whole CLASSES below the PC can still beat it. Like the 6100/66 that beat my friends P5/120. 1/2 the clock rate, fraction the cost, but 10-20% faster. -- David K. Every | MaciDo Warrior - The Macintosh Way Sr. Software Engineer | Jostens Learning Corp. |