🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10600@steinmetz.ge.com> vita@sunbarney.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita)
writes:

>...as a former 128K Mac owner, I think that this [closed architecture]
>was less of a disadvantage than you might think. Note that most
>of so-called "expansion slots" in a PC are not used for
>"expansion" at all, but rather for basic necessities such as a
>video controller, disk drive controllers, clock chips,
>serial/parallel ports, etc. -- all of which were *built in* to
>even the 128K Macintosh (along with the AppleTalk networking
>capability).

Which the IBM owner had a choice of which to add. He could add a
color monitor (and, later, an EGA) without throwing out the whole
machine (It took Apple until 1987 to come out with a color Mac at
all). He could add memory and a hard disk without modifying the
motherboard and potentially voiding your warranty.

Too many 128K Mac users were left in the dust by newer models,
frustrated to find that they had to pay the price of another
machine to upgrade to the new hardware standard. An original IBM
XT, however, can still run all the best state-of-the-art
software as-is -- and can be expanded or upgraded simply by plugging
in a new board.. Which sounds like a better investment?

>and don't even talk to me about this LIM expanded memory
>bank-switching bogosity.

Why not? I'm using it right now to multitask multiple
applications under DESQview -- a multitasking environment that
was available YEARS before MultiFinder.

>>slowest floppy disk drives in creation,
>
>This is a common misconception.  If you look at the benchmarks, you
>will find that the original Mac drives are as fast as typical PC 5-1/4
>drives.
>

Oh? Then why did one wait for (seemingly) hours while the disk
drive in a 128K Mac ground away like a sawmill trying to get at
files?

>>no multitasking until 1988,
>
>Which is a lot sooner than multitasking will be available from IBM...
>

Not so. As I mentioned above, I'm doing multitasking right now.
And utilities to do so have been available for years.

>>(and then only with some applications).
>
>Actually, ANY Mac application which is written to Apple's guidelines
>should run fine under MultiFinder.

Unfortunately, many of Apple's "guidelines" are stated post-hoc,
after developers have already written their applications
differently. Were I an Apple developer, I would not be pleased
that Apple has broken my software.

>Of course, to take full advantage
>of the multitasking, most programs need to be modified.

None of the programs I'm using under DESQview needed to be
modified.

>Clearly, MultiFinder is a short-term solution, but it gets the job done.

Oh? Then what is the long-term solution? A MultiFinder that
requires a mapper (and therefore a Mac II) to run?

>>> IBM PS/2's with OS/2 - 32-bit, Mouse, Graphical User Interface,
>>> 3 1/2 inch disks,circa 1988
>>
>>You forgot: Full 32-bit bus,
>
>You mean, like in the Mac II?
>

Which came out at roughly the same time....

>
>>open architecture,
>
>Ah yes, as in the Mac II.
>

In other words, only for users who are willing to pay a premium
price. And it might not have been available at all had customers
not preferred IBM because of its open architecture.

>
>>multitasking OS,
>
>Uh huh, Real Soon Now.  (By the way, MultiFinder is here *now*, it
>works, and it IS multitasking.)
>

No, right now. I also have a machine running OS/2, which has true
pre-emptive multitasking and real multitasking features.

MultiFinder has cooperative multitasking (if one program hangs or
crashes, that's it), no facilities for interprocess communication
(though I hear you can use AppleTalk in cases of dire need), no
memory protection, no virtual memory, no shared code segments, no
record locking....

>
>> runs existing software base.
>
>This is a joke, right?
>

Hardly. Virtually all PC programs from as far back as DOS 1.0 run
in the Compatibility Box. Many original Mac applications,
including some put out by Apple, don't run with MultiFinder.

>
>Let's just make up a little score card:
>
>Things Apple did before IBM
>---------------------------
>Graphical user interface
>Mouse

OK.

>32-bit architecture
Nope; both got there at about the same time.

>3-1/2 disk drives
Not a significant advantage. I, like many, still prefer
5.25" drives; the media is cheaper and they're faster.

>Built-in video, disk drive controllers, clock chip, etc.
This is an advantage? See comments above....

>OS capable of addressing large amounts of memory
LIM was out before Apple made a Mac with more than 512K.

>Multitasking
Available on the IBM first.

>
>Things IBM did before Apple:
>----------------------------
>Open architecture (not even this if you count the Apple II...)

                   ^ IBM didn't regress after its first product;
                     why did Apple?

How about:

Hard disk (before the Mac was even out!)
Color graphics (It took the Mac 7 years to catch up!)
Networking (IBM and others -- and even the first was an order
 of magnitude faster than AppleTalk)
Micro-Mainframe interface, including 3270 Emulation (IBM and
 others)
Large-format text/graphics displays (several vendors)
UNIX (several vendors)
Tape backup (hundreds of vendors)

And on and on. But I have not the time to engage in endless
PC-vs-Mac flame wars. For me, the important thing is that I have
an architecture which is multiple-sourced, reasonably priced,
able to run the largest base of professional software in the
world, and not made by a company which uses litigation as a
"competitive" tactic -- and thus hurts the microcomputer community
as a whole) when it is no longer able to keep up with the pack
through innovation.

Nuff said.

<rogue>