PC vs. Mac

[thosial]

Why are PC's better than Mac's? Why does everyone use windows and hardly no one uses mac?

[Scott M.]

Hmmm. Not an easy or straightforward answer. Having you been living under
a rock for the last 20 years? :) It's kind of like saying why is
Christianity better than Judaism?

Ok, kidding aside....

For many years in the 80's and early 90's Mac's did have a much superior
ability to render graphics and this is why most professional graphic
designers and digital video gurus flocked to the Mac.

Apple was also very smart about marketing and from the early days of the
Mac, offered it at very low prices to schools. This is why most elementary
and middle schools have & use Mac's.

In the mid 90's though, PC's became just as powerful as Mac's (I'm
anticipating the Apple users responses as I write this) and for the last
several years (from a performance standpoint) they have been roughly equal.

Over the years, MS has written its software to only run on a PC and since
they have been/are the biggest software maker in the world, you were always
a bit limited in what software you could even get if you owned a Mac. Just
go into any software store and look at the small section devoted to Mac
software as opposed to PC software.

I'm a PC user (although I have used Mac's) and you generally find a deep and
bitter rivalry between the two groups. Now, having declared what camp I am
in, I must admit that the new Apple G5 is supposed to run circles around any
PC, BUT this is only because it has dual processors.

I'm sure I won't have the last word on this, but I hope it helps.

Scott M.
"thosial" > wrote in message
...
> Why are PC's better than Mac's? Why does everyone use windows and hardly
no one uses mac?

[Chris Lanier [MVP]]

Hi, Good question. Check out
http://thetechnozone.com/smartbuyersguide/OS_Shootout-2003.htm for a
Shootout of the two.

--
Chris Lanier
Microsoft MVP - Digital Media
--
"thosial" > wrote in message
...
> Why are PC's better than Mac's? Why does everyone use windows and hardly
no one uses mac?

[Albert Sims]

"thosial" > wrote in message
...
> Why are PC's better than Mac's? Why does everyone use windows and hardly
no one uses mac?


My guess, one BIG reason, you can buy a powerful PC for a LOT less money
than a Mac...Apple lowers their prices to a competitive level, they might
start selling more, they start selling more, software makers start making
more software for them. Also, if they ever hit a larger chunk of the market,
virus writers will start targeting them!
--
Albert Sims
West Monroe,Louisiana

[-xiray-]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:02:26 -0600, "Albert Sims"
> wrote:


>My guess, one BIG reason, you can buy a powerful PC for a LOT less money
>than a Mac...Apple lowers their prices to a competitive level, they might
>start selling more, they start selling more, software makers start making
>more software for them. Also, if they ever hit a larger chunk of the market,
>virus writers will start targeting them!

Nah. That's not the reason. The reason they don't want to sell more is
that they're avoiding the anti-trust pundits.

[Papa]

Are you trying to start a very l - o - n - g thread? ;>)

IMHO one is no better than the other, assuming equivalent specifications.

I prefer the PCs because parts are more widely distributed and are less
expensive for those of us who repair them or build our own. The software is
also more widely distributed, and the variety of PC software is broader.

But as I said, neither one is technically or qualitatively superior.

"thosial" > wrote in message
...
> Why are PC's better than Mac's? Why does everyone use windows and hardly
no one uses mac?

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Just one correction, if I may. A large part of Microsoft's
revenue comes from the sale of applications written for Apple
computers. This is part of the reason Microsoft gave Apple a $150
Million cash infusion a few years ago.

Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"Scott M." > wrote in message
...
> Hmmm. Not an easy or straightforward answer. Having you been
living under
> a rock for the last 20 years? :) It's kind of like saying why is
> Christianity better than Judaism?
>
> Ok, kidding aside....
>
> For many years in the 80's and early 90's Mac's did have a much
superior
> ability to render graphics and this is why most professional graphic
> designers and digital video gurus flocked to the Mac.
>
> Apple was also very smart about marketing and from the early days of
the
> Mac, offered it at very low prices to schools. This is why most
elementary
> and middle schools have & use Mac's.
>
> In the mid 90's though, PC's became just as powerful as Mac's (I'm
> anticipating the Apple users responses as I write this) and for the
last
> several years (from a performance standpoint) they have been roughly
equal.
>
> Over the years, MS has written its software to only run on a PC and
since
> they have been/are the biggest software maker in the world, you were
always
> a bit limited in what software you could even get if you owned a
Mac. Just
> go into any software store and look at the small section devoted to
Mac
> software as opposed to PC software.
>
> I'm a PC user (although I have used Mac's) and you generally find a
deep and
> bitter rivalry between the two groups. Now, having declared what
camp I am
> in, I must admit that the new Apple G5 is supposed to run circles
around any
> PC, BUT this is only because it has dual processors.
>
> I'm sure I won't have the last word on this, but I hope it helps.
>
> Scott M.

[Scott M.]

Yes true. I was speaking more of the early days and why Mac didn't evolve
the way the PC did. In those early days, MS wasn't writing software for the
Mac and the Mac wasn't seeking to run MS software.

These days though, you are absolutley correct that MS writes versions of its
software for the Mac. MS not only gave Apple a cash infusion a few years
back, but in the process they bought 7% of non-voting Apple stock (the old
MS addage "If you can't beat em, buy em!").

"Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings --
>
> Just one correction, if I may. A large part of Microsoft's
> revenue comes from the sale of applications written for Apple
> computers. This is part of the reason Microsoft gave Apple a $150
> Million cash infusion a few years ago.
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> --
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having both at once. -- RAH
>
>
> "Scott M." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hmmm. Not an easy or straightforward answer. Having you been
> living under
> > a rock for the last 20 years? :) It's kind of like saying why is
> > Christianity better than Judaism?
> >
> > Ok, kidding aside....
> >
> > For many years in the 80's and early 90's Mac's did have a much
> superior
> > ability to render graphics and this is why most professional graphic
> > designers and digital video gurus flocked to the Mac.
> >
> > Apple was also very smart about marketing and from the early days of
> the
> > Mac, offered it at very low prices to schools. This is why most
> elementary
> > and middle schools have & use Mac's.
> >
> > In the mid 90's though, PC's became just as powerful as Mac's (I'm
> > anticipating the Apple users responses as I write this) and for the
> last
> > several years (from a performance standpoint) they have been roughly
> equal.
> >
> > Over the years, MS has written its software to only run on a PC and
> since
> > they have been/are the biggest software maker in the world, you were
> always
> > a bit limited in what software you could even get if you owned a
> Mac. Just
> > go into any software store and look at the small section devoted to
> Mac
> > software as opposed to PC software.
> >
> > I'm a PC user (although I have used Mac's) and you generally find a
> deep and
> > bitter rivalry between the two groups. Now, having declared what
> camp I am
> > in, I must admit that the new Apple G5 is supposed to run circles
> around any
> > PC, BUT this is only because it has dual processors.
> >
> > I'm sure I won't have the last word on this, but I hope it helps.
> >
> > Scott M.
>
>

[Kevin Davis³]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:52:08 -0500, "Scott M." >
wrote:

>Apple was also very smart about marketing and from the early days of the
>Mac, offered it at very low prices to schools. This is why most elementary
>and middle schools have & use Mac's.
>

But the reason Apple isn't today's Personal Computing monopoly instead
of Microsoft is because of greed and stupid marketing blunders. First
they absolutely refuse to allow clones. Second, they refused to lower
their outrageous prices until well after the PC had already won and
forced their hand.

---------------------------------------
What could possibly go wrong?

[Rob Schneider]

Don't forget the battle between IBM and Microsoft on OS/2 vs. Windows
and the evolution from an IBM-centric corporate world to
Microsoft-centric corporate world.

Books have been written on all this.


rms




Scott M. wrote:
> Hmmm. Not an easy or straightforward answer. Having you been living under
> a rock for the last 20 years? :) It's kind of like saying why is
> Christianity better than Judaism?
>
> Ok, kidding aside....
>
> For many years in the 80's and early 90's Mac's did have a much superior
> ability to render graphics and this is why most professional graphic
> designers and digital video gurus flocked to the Mac.
>
> Apple was also very smart about marketing and from the early days of the
> Mac, offered it at very low prices to schools. This is why most elementary
> and middle schools have & use Mac's.
>
> In the mid 90's though, PC's became just as powerful as Mac's (I'm
> anticipating the Apple users responses as I write this) and for the last
> several years (from a performance standpoint) they have been roughly equal.
>
> Over the years, MS has written its software to only run on a PC and since
> they have been/are the biggest software maker in the world, you were always
> a bit limited in what software you could even get if you owned a Mac. Just
> go into any software store and look at the small section devoted to Mac
> software as opposed to PC software.
>
> I'm a PC user (although I have used Mac's) and you generally find a deep and
> bitter rivalry between the two groups. Now, having declared what camp I am
> in, I must admit that the new Apple G5 is supposed to run circles around any
> PC, BUT this is only because it has dual processors.
>
> I'm sure I won't have the last word on this, but I hope it helps.
>
> Scott M.
> "thosial" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Why are PC's better than Mac's? Why does everyone use windows and hardly
>
> no one uses mac?
>
>

[Unknown]

I think, can't swear to it, but, the first computer language was DOS and was
written for IBM PC's and written by Microsoft. Microsoft then created Windows
and its popularity based on ease of use exploded. PCs then, are 'better' than
Mac's because there are multitudes more of programs, games etc. written for
them..
"thosial" > wrote in message
...
> Why are PC's better than Mac's? Why does everyone use windows and hardly no
one uses mac?

[Rob Schneider]

Xref: kermit microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:939887

DOS is not really considered a "computer langauge", but an operating
system. And whether you call it a language or an operating system, it
was by no means the first.

Hope this is useful to you. Let us know.

rms




Unknown wrote:
> I think, can't swear to it, but, the first computer language was DOS and was
> written for IBM PC's and written by Microsoft. Microsoft then created Windows
> and its popularity based on ease of use exploded. PCs then, are 'better' than
> Mac's because there are multitudes more of programs, games etc. written for
> them..
> "thosial" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Why are PC's better than Mac's? Why does everyone use windows and hardly no
>
> one uses mac?
>

[Scott M.]

DOS was sold to IBM as an operating system for its PC line. Actually, MS
"sold" an operating system to IBM before they even had one. They then, went
and bought "DOS" from a programmer who had written a fundamental version of
it and MS modified it to meet IBM's needs.

Many people aren't aware of it, but Xerox actually invented the GUI
(graphical user interface) and the mouse to interact with it. Xerox didn't
really know what they had built and let MS and Apple look at it without
realizing what they were doing. Many people believe that Apple invented the
GUI and that MS rips off other peoples ideas because they came out with
Windows after Apple's first GUI. The fact is, that BOTH MS and Apple stole
the concept of the GUI from Xerox. I have done some contract work for Xerox
World Headquarters (Stamford, CT) and this is still a taboo subject to bring
up there.


"Unknown" > wrote in message
m...
> I think, can't swear to it, but, the first computer language was DOS and
was
> written for IBM PC's and written by Microsoft. Microsoft then created
Windows
> and its popularity based on ease of use exploded. PCs then, are 'better'
than
> Mac's because there are multitudes more of programs, games etc. written
for
> them..
> "thosial" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Why are PC's better than Mac's? Why does everyone use windows and
hardly no
> one uses mac?
>

[thos]

thanks for everyones input. I was just curious on why there is such a feud between the two. Your replys helped, thanks.

[Tim Slattery]

"Unknown" > wrote:

>I think, can't swear to it, but, the first computer language was DOS and was
>written for IBM PC's and written by Microsoft. Microsoft then created Windows
>and its popularity based on ease of use exploded. PCs then, are 'better' than
>Mac's because there are multitudes more of programs, games etc. written for
>them..

DOS is an operating system, not a language.

Macintosh was the first *successful* computer to use a graphical
operating system (GUI). The GUI was developed by Xerox at the
legendary Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). Steve Jobs learned about
it there and licensed it for Apple. Apple used it on the Lisa computer
which bombed, then on Mac which was a success. MS started on its GUI
(Windows) after Macs started selling well.

The primary reason PCs outsell Macs (IMHO) is that IBM put its name on
the PC (it was IBM's creation, after all). The fact that it was IBM's
machine made it acceptable to business people who knew nothing about
computers except IBM.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)

[-xiray-]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:11:09 -0800, "thos"
> wrote:

> I was just curious on why there is such a feud between the two.

That's like asking why there's a feud between religions or political
parties.

Because their different. They're not like us. We should hate them for
that.

[Scott M.]

LOL!! That's how I replied to the OP in the first place:

"It's kind of like saying why is Christianity better than Judaism?"



"-xiray-" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:11:09 -0800, "thos"
> > wrote:
>
> > I was just curious on why there is such a feud between the two.
>
> That's like asking why there's a feud between religions or political
> parties.
>
> Because their different. They're not like us. We should hate them for
> that.
>
>
>

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Another reason PCs outsold Apples is that IBM licensed its designs
to other manufacturers, thus allowing competition and lower prices,
while Apple kept its ideas for its own sole use. It's pretty much the
same story as the difference in sales of VHS VCRs vs. Sony's BetaMax
models, which arguably had a better picture.

Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"Tim Slattery" > wrote in message
...
> "Unknown" > wrote:
>
>
> DOS is an operating system, not a language.
>
>
> The primary reason PCs outsell Macs (IMHO) is that IBM put its name
on
> the PC (it was IBM's creation, after all). The fact that it was
IBM's
> machine made it acceptable to business people who knew nothing about
> computers except IBM.
>
> --
> Tim Slattery
> MS MVP(DTS)
>

[PCEngWork]

On the VHS vs. BetaMax issue. The reason that VHS won out,
was because at that time VHS would allow for longer recording
times per tape. Salesman sold the VHS format strictly on that one
single feature, not the quality differences between them. When
VCR's first appeared there was not a significant price difference
between VHS & Beta.( Like Apple vs. the "IBM" PC).
I know because I owned one of the first 20 BetaMax's, Sony
sold in the US.

"Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings --
>
> Another reason PCs outsold Apples is that IBM licensed its designs
> to other manufacturers, thus allowing competition and lower prices,
> while Apple kept its ideas for its own sole use. It's pretty much the
> same story as the difference in sales of VHS VCRs vs. Sony's BetaMax
> models, which arguably had a better picture.
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> --
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having both at once. -- RAH
>
>
> "Tim Slattery" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Unknown" > wrote:
> >
> >
> > DOS is an operating system, not a language.
> >
> >
> > The primary reason PCs outsell Macs (IMHO) is that IBM put its name
> on
> > the PC (it was IBM's creation, after all). The fact that it was
> IBM's
> > machine made it acceptable to business people who knew nothing about
> > computers except IBM.
> >
> > --
> > Tim Slattery
> > MS MVP(DTS)
> >
>
>

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

That's a good point, one that I hadn't paid too much attention to
at the time. (I always tried to have one VCR for each format, to keep
my options open.) But there were also many different brands and
models of VHS machines available to choose from, while there was only
one BetaMax supplier. This kept the BetaMax machines' prices higher,
as well, which also discouraged people from buying them.

Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"PCEngWork" > wrote in message
k.net...
> On the VHS vs. BetaMax issue. The reason that VHS won out,
> was because at that time VHS would allow for longer recording
> times per tape. Salesman sold the VHS format strictly on that one
> single feature, not the quality differences between them. When
> VCR's first appeared there was not a significant price difference
> between VHS & Beta.( Like Apple vs. the "IBM" PC).
> I know because I owned one of the first 20 BetaMax's, Sony
> sold in the US.
>

[Spinner]

Apple did allow third parties to build clones for a time. (I think UMAX
actually did, but I could be wrong)
The problem was the "clones" where cheaper, and performed just as good or
better then the originals.
Once the sale of the clones started cutting into their profit, the clones
disappeared real fast.



"Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings --
>
> Another reason PCs outsold Apples is that IBM licensed its designs
> to other manufacturers, thus allowing competition and lower prices,
> while Apple kept its ideas for its own sole use. It's pretty much the
> same story as the difference in sales of VHS VCRs vs. Sony's BetaMax
> models, which arguably had a better picture.
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> --
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having both at once. -- RAH
>
>
> "Tim Slattery" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Unknown" > wrote:
> >
> >
> > DOS is an operating system, not a language.
> >
> >
> > The primary reason PCs outsell Macs (IMHO) is that IBM put its name
> on
> > the PC (it was IBM's creation, after all). The fact that it was
> IBM's
> > machine made it acceptable to business people who knew nothing about
> > computers except IBM.
> >
> > --
> > Tim Slattery
> > MS MVP(DTS)
> >
>
>

[Kevin Davis³]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:35:03 -0500, "Spinner" > wrote:

>Apple did allow third parties to build clones for a time. (I think UMAX
>actually did, but I could be wrong)
>The problem was the "clones" where cheaper, and performed just as good or
>better then the originals.
>Once the sale of the clones started cutting into their profit, the clones
>disappeared real fast.

Along with their market share.



---------------------------------------
What could possibly go wrong?

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

>"thosial" > wrote in message

>> Why are PC's better than Mac's?

Wow, how to start a flame war ;-)

I prefer PCs to Macs because I don't like being chained down by
monopolies. It's bad enough having MS as a software monopolist, I'd
hate to live in the tiny Mac ghetto with Apple as the tin-pot god of
both software *and* hardware.

>Why does everyone use windows and hardly no one uses mac?

Price and monopoly. Anyone can build PC parts or systems, and
everyone does, and because these are cheaper, users buy them.

From there, the dominant mrket share becomes a rolling snowball that
builds on its own momentum until it's possible to forget non-PC
computers exist. But they do, and have done before the PC existed.


First came the mainframes, and with it, the dominance of IBM, who
predicted at one point that the global market for computers would
never be more than about a dozen of these early powerhouses.

IBM wrote the book on damaging monopolistic practices; arbitrary
changes to interfaces to invalidate competitor's products, functional
pricing, niche-and-divide, and some back-room dirty tricks that boggle
the mind. I read all this in a book ("Big Blue"?) written by one of
the senior prosecutors in a DoJ trial that went for years before being
dropped as "without merit", a conclusion the author disagreed with
(hence the book). That the book exists, i.e. wasn't struck down by
litigation, appears to speak for its veracity.

It was in this era that the first computing languages and Operating
Systems were being forged - DOS was yet to be a twinkle in Seattle
Computing's eye, and Gates and Allen were prolly still at school.


Home computing started in the UK, when Clive Sinclair started to
produce kits for the electronic hobbyist market. The first I saw was
the "Black Watch" (a digital watch). The Sinclair ZX-80 was the first
of several home computers that shared the following charactaristics:
- "OS" and BASIC built into ROM chip
- use of domestic TV as monitor, domestic cassette player too
- use of cassette tape for storage of programs and data
- BASIC as the "command prompt"
- 16-bit memory map, i.e. 64k address range

By the early 1980s, several tribes of home computers existed from
Sinclair/Timex, Commodore, Apple, Acorn, Atari, Amstrad, several small
UK firms that got shaken out, and a batch of new Asian players riding
the coat-tails of the MSX specification. Until MSX, there was no way
for these tribes to share programs or data, even between computers
based on the same Z80 processor. MSX defined a home computer
specification to facilitate this, and was what Asiam manufacturers had
been waiting for - but events overtook this in the shape of the PC.


IBM planned a simple "Personal" computer that would never reach the
dizzy heights of mainframe power. Perhaps out of a certain
implication blindness, they did two things that destroyed their
monopoly forever:
- they defined the PC architecture as an open standard
- they allowed Microsoft to market the OS as their own MS-DOS

The original PC hardware design was flawed, in that IBM located the
system ROMs at address 640k instead of 0k, thus creating the sandbar
that limited DOS to 640k. The original hardware was limited to 1024k
addressability anyway, so this appeared to be a reasonable decision.

IBM needed an OS for the new PC, and went to speak to Digital
Research, but the chief was flying his glider at the time. So they
went to Microsoft - which was basically Gates, Allen and the name at
that stage, who agreed to develop "DOS". They bought the basic
product from Seattle Computing and built it up from there.

Before too long, multiple 3rd-parties were manufacturing PCs and parts
for PCs, using the generic Microsoft DOS rather than IBM's PC DOS.
These PCs were more expensive than home computers, had the advantage
of fast disk storage, but had awful non-TV-compatible graphics.

In what has to be the worst hardware specification ever to blight the
planet, IBM concieved CGA (Crummy Graphics Adapter), which in an age
of 16-color home computers, seemed to think that 3 colors and 320x240
resolution would be all business would need. They graciously allowed
a choice of those three colors; either white, cyan and purple, or
yellow, red and green. Yep, you read that right; you had to choose
between having red and green, or cyan and white. What's "blue"?

A halway-decent EGA ("Expensive Graphic Adapter") standard followed,
that was costly and poorly supported TV as monitor. Then, at last,
the VGA standard emerged - but this had no TV compatibility at all.


Because even the newest PCs with decent graphics couldn't interoperate
with TV directly, there continued to exist a niche for the home
computer tribes there. By now, these had evolved into 32-bit
computers with decent graphics that didn't lock out TV, and hard
drives and peripherals typically accessesd via SCSI.

Several players had dropped out by this stage; the rest were launching
new-generation 32-bit products that often cut ties with earlier
models. Sinclair QL, Atari ST, Commodore Amiga, Acorn Archemedes,
Apple Mac were all alike in another respect; they all provided a GUI
as part of the OS. This gives the lie to the notion of "Windows vs.
Apple" as the tussle for "first GUI" crown; there was also Atari's GEM
(used by Venture on the PC) and GUIs from Amiga, Archemedes and QL.


IBM tried to reclaim the PC as proprietary territory, by the PS/2
initiative. This redefined the PC architecture in many key ways:
- new ISA-incompatible Micro-Channel Architecture (MCA) bus
- new 2.88M diskette format
- new PS/2 connection standard for keyboard and mouse
- a stunted version of VGA as baseline graphic standard
- a "PS/2-uber-alles" branding campaign

Generic PC manufacturers huddled and brought out the EISA bus as a
response to MCA; this was also 32-bit with "faster" bus speed, but
could accomodate ISA cards via a novel slot depth approach. In the
event, truly faster VESA Local Bus wiped the floor with both MCA and
EISA for speed, and PCI overtook them in terms of device intelligence.


The market voted on PS/2 with their feet, and IBM has remained a bit
player in the PC world ever since. This is the PC we have inherited;
a truly open and generic hardware platform with Intel and AMD as the
substantial processor vendors, and Microsoft as the incumbent dominant
software player. Out of the original proprietary home computer
tribes, Apple has emerged as the sole survivor.



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Dreams are stack dumps of the soul
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

[Kelly]

>Wow, how to start a flame war ;-)

And what a guy to pick such a post to answer. Great seeing you here, Chris.
:o)

--
All the Best,
Kelly

MS-MVP Win98/XP
[AE-Windows® XP]

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

Utilities for Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_u.htm#xp_util


"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" > wrote in message
...
> >"thosial" > wrote in message
>
> >> Why are PC's better than Mac's?
>
> Wow, how to start a flame war ;-)
>
> I prefer PCs to Macs because I don't like being chained down by
> monopolies. It's bad enough having MS as a software monopolist, I'd
> hate to live in the tiny Mac ghetto with Apple as the tin-pot god of
> both software *and* hardware.
>
> >Why does everyone use windows and hardly no one uses mac?
>
> Price and monopoly. Anyone can build PC parts or systems, and
> everyone does, and because these are cheaper, users buy them.
>
> From there, the dominant mrket share becomes a rolling snowball that
> builds on its own momentum until it's possible to forget non-PC
> computers exist. But they do, and have done before the PC existed.
>
>
> First came the mainframes, and with it, the dominance of IBM, who
> predicted at one point that the global market for computers would
> never be more than about a dozen of these early powerhouses.
>
> IBM wrote the book on damaging monopolistic practices; arbitrary
> changes to interfaces to invalidate competitor's products, functional
> pricing, niche-and-divide, and some back-room dirty tricks that boggle
> the mind. I read all this in a book ("Big Blue"?) written by one of
> the senior prosecutors in a DoJ trial that went for years before being
> dropped as "without merit", a conclusion the author disagreed with
> (hence the book). That the book exists, i.e. wasn't struck down by
> litigation, appears to speak for its veracity.
>
> It was in this era that the first computing languages and Operating
> Systems were being forged - DOS was yet to be a twinkle in Seattle
> Computing's eye, and Gates and Allen were prolly still at school.
>
>
> Home computing started in the UK, when Clive Sinclair started to
> produce kits for the electronic hobbyist market. The first I saw was
> the "Black Watch" (a digital watch). The Sinclair ZX-80 was the first
> of several home computers that shared the following charactaristics:
> - "OS" and BASIC built into ROM chip
> - use of domestic TV as monitor, domestic cassette player too
> - use of cassette tape for storage of programs and data
> - BASIC as the "command prompt"
> - 16-bit memory map, i.e. 64k address range
>
> By the early 1980s, several tribes of home computers existed from
> Sinclair/Timex, Commodore, Apple, Acorn, Atari, Amstrad, several small
> UK firms that got shaken out, and a batch of new Asian players riding
> the coat-tails of the MSX specification. Until MSX, there was no way
> for these tribes to share programs or data, even between computers
> based on the same Z80 processor. MSX defined a home computer
> specification to facilitate this, and was what Asiam manufacturers had
> been waiting for - but events overtook this in the shape of the PC.
>
>
> IBM planned a simple "Personal" computer that would never reach the
> dizzy heights of mainframe power. Perhaps out of a certain
> implication blindness, they did two things that destroyed their
> monopoly forever:
> - they defined the PC architecture as an open standard
> - they allowed Microsoft to market the OS as their own MS-DOS
>
> The original PC hardware design was flawed, in that IBM located the
> system ROMs at address 640k instead of 0k, thus creating the sandbar
> that limited DOS to 640k. The original hardware was limited to 1024k
> addressability anyway, so this appeared to be a reasonable decision.
>
> IBM needed an OS for the new PC, and went to speak to Digital
> Research, but the chief was flying his glider at the time. So they
> went to Microsoft - which was basically Gates, Allen and the name at
> that stage, who agreed to develop "DOS". They bought the basic
> product from Seattle Computing and built it up from there.
>
> Before too long, multiple 3rd-parties were manufacturing PCs and parts
> for PCs, using the generic Microsoft DOS rather than IBM's PC DOS.
> These PCs were more expensive than home computers, had the advantage
> of fast disk storage, but had awful non-TV-compatible graphics.
>
> In what has to be the worst hardware specification ever to blight the
> planet, IBM concieved CGA (Crummy Graphics Adapter), which in an age
> of 16-color home computers, seemed to think that 3 colors and 320x240
> resolution would be all business would need. They graciously allowed
> a choice of those three colors; either white, cyan and purple, or
> yellow, red and green. Yep, you read that right; you had to choose
> between having red and green, or cyan and white. What's "blue"?
>
> A halway-decent EGA ("Expensive Graphic Adapter") standard followed,
> that was costly and poorly supported TV as monitor. Then, at last,
> the VGA standard emerged - but this had no TV compatibility at all.
>
>
> Because even the newest PCs with decent graphics couldn't interoperate
> with TV directly, there continued to exist a niche for the home
> computer tribes there. By now, these had evolved into 32-bit
> computers with decent graphics that didn't lock out TV, and hard
> drives and peripherals typically accessesd via SCSI.
>
> Several players had dropped out by this stage; the rest were launching
> new-generation 32-bit products that often cut ties with earlier
> models. Sinclair QL, Atari ST, Commodore Amiga, Acorn Archemedes,
> Apple Mac were all alike in another respect; they all provided a GUI
> as part of the OS. This gives the lie to the notion of "Windows vs.
> Apple" as the tussle for "first GUI" crown; there was also Atari's GEM
> (used by Venture on the PC) and GUIs from Amiga, Archemedes and QL.
>
>
> IBM tried to reclaim the PC as proprietary territory, by the PS/2
> initiative. This redefined the PC architecture in many key ways:
> - new ISA-incompatible Micro-Channel Architecture (MCA) bus
> - new 2.88M diskette format
> - new PS/2 connection standard for keyboard and mouse
> - a stunted version of VGA as baseline graphic standard
> - a "PS/2-uber-alles" branding campaign
>
> Generic PC manufacturers huddled and brought out the EISA bus as a
> response to MCA; this was also 32-bit with "faster" bus speed, but
> could accomodate ISA cards via a novel slot depth approach. In the
> event, truly faster VESA Local Bus wiped the floor with both MCA and
> EISA for speed, and PCI overtook them in terms of device intelligence.
>
>
> The market voted on PS/2 with their feet, and IBM has remained a bit
> player in the PC world ever since. This is the PC we have inherited;
> a truly open and generic hardware platform with Intel and AMD as the
> substantial processor vendors, and Microsoft as the incumbent dominant
> software player. Out of the original proprietary home computer
> tribes, Apple has emerged as the sole survivor.
>
>
>
> >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> Dreams are stack dumps of the soul
> >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

A fascinating read; thanks for taking the time to compose and post
it. I particularly enjoyed your take on the meanings of the acronyms.

Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wow, how to start a flame war ;-)
>
> I prefer PCs to Macs because I don't like being chained down by
> monopolies. It's bad enough having MS as a software monopolist, I'd
> hate to live in the tiny Mac ghetto with Apple as the tin-pot god of
> both software *and* hardware.
>
> >Why does everyone use windows and hardly no one uses mac?
>
> Price and monopoly. Anyone can build PC parts or systems, and
> everyone does, and because these are cheaper, users buy them.
>
> From there, the dominant mrket share becomes a rolling snowball that
> builds on its own momentum until it's possible to forget non-PC
> computers exist. But they do, and have done before the PC existed.
>
>
> First came the mainframes, and with it, the dominance of IBM, who
> predicted at one point that the global market for computers would
> never be more than about a dozen of these early powerhouses.
>
> IBM wrote the book on damaging monopolistic practices; arbitrary
> changes to interfaces to invalidate competitor's products,
functional
> pricing, niche-and-divide, and some back-room dirty tricks that
boggle
> the mind. I read all this in a book ("Big Blue"?) written by one of
> the senior prosecutors in a DoJ trial that went for years before
being
> dropped as "without merit", a conclusion the author disagreed with
> (hence the book). That the book exists, i.e. wasn't struck down by
> litigation, appears to speak for its veracity.
>
> It was in this era that the first computing languages and Operating
> Systems were being forged - DOS was yet to be a twinkle in Seattle
> Computing's eye, and Gates and Allen were prolly still at school.
>
>
> Home computing started in the UK, when Clive Sinclair started to
> produce kits for the electronic hobbyist market. The first I saw
was
> the "Black Watch" (a digital watch). The Sinclair ZX-80 was the
first
> of several home computers that shared the following charactaristics:
> - "OS" and BASIC built into ROM chip
> - use of domestic TV as monitor, domestic cassette player too
> - use of cassette tape for storage of programs and data
> - BASIC as the "command prompt"
> - 16-bit memory map, i.e. 64k address range
>
> By the early 1980s, several tribes of home computers existed from
> Sinclair/Timex, Commodore, Apple, Acorn, Atari, Amstrad, several
small
> UK firms that got shaken out, and a batch of new Asian players
riding
> the coat-tails of the MSX specification. Until MSX, there was no
way
> for these tribes to share programs or data, even between computers
> based on the same Z80 processor. MSX defined a home computer
> specification to facilitate this, and was what Asiam manufacturers
had
> been waiting for - but events overtook this in the shape of the PC.
>
>
> IBM planned a simple "Personal" computer that would never reach the
> dizzy heights of mainframe power. Perhaps out of a certain
> implication blindness, they did two things that destroyed their
> monopoly forever:
> - they defined the PC architecture as an open standard
> - they allowed Microsoft to market the OS as their own MS-DOS
>
> The original PC hardware design was flawed, in that IBM located the
> system ROMs at address 640k instead of 0k, thus creating the sandbar
> that limited DOS to 640k. The original hardware was limited to
1024k
> addressability anyway, so this appeared to be a reasonable decision.
>
> IBM needed an OS for the new PC, and went to speak to Digital
> Research, but the chief was flying his glider at the time. So they
> went to Microsoft - which was basically Gates, Allen and the name at
> that stage, who agreed to develop "DOS". They bought the basic
> product from Seattle Computing and built it up from there.
>
> Before too long, multiple 3rd-parties were manufacturing PCs and
parts
> for PCs, using the generic Microsoft DOS rather than IBM's PC DOS.
> These PCs were more expensive than home computers, had the advantage
> of fast disk storage, but had awful non-TV-compatible graphics.
>
> In what has to be the worst hardware specification ever to blight
the
> planet, IBM concieved CGA (Crummy Graphics Adapter), which in an age
> of 16-color home computers, seemed to think that 3 colors and
320x240
> resolution would be all business would need. They graciously
allowed
> a choice of those three colors; either white, cyan and purple, or
> yellow, red and green. Yep, you read that right; you had to choose
> between having red and green, or cyan and white. What's "blue"?
>
> A halway-decent EGA ("Expensive Graphic Adapter") standard followed,
> that was costly and poorly supported TV as monitor. Then, at last,
> the VGA standard emerged - but this had no TV compatibility at all.
>
>
> Because even the newest PCs with decent graphics couldn't
interoperate
> with TV directly, there continued to exist a niche for the home
> computer tribes there. By now, these had evolved into 32-bit
> computers with decent graphics that didn't lock out TV, and hard
> drives and peripherals typically accessesd via SCSI.
>
> Several players had dropped out by this stage; the rest were
launching
> new-generation 32-bit products that often cut ties with earlier
> models. Sinclair QL, Atari ST, Commodore Amiga, Acorn Archemedes,
> Apple Mac were all alike in another respect; they all provided a GUI
> as part of the OS. This gives the lie to the notion of "Windows vs.
> Apple" as the tussle for "first GUI" crown; there was also Atari's
GEM
> (used by Venture on the PC) and GUIs from Amiga, Archemedes and QL.
>
>
> IBM tried to reclaim the PC as proprietary territory, by the PS/2
> initiative. This redefined the PC architecture in many key ways:
> - new ISA-incompatible Micro-Channel Architecture (MCA) bus
> - new 2.88M diskette format
> - new PS/2 connection standard for keyboard and mouse
> - a stunted version of VGA as baseline graphic standard
> - a "PS/2-uber-alles" branding campaign
>
> Generic PC manufacturers huddled and brought out the EISA bus as a
> response to MCA; this was also 32-bit with "faster" bus speed, but
> could accomodate ISA cards via a novel slot depth approach. In the
> event, truly faster VESA Local Bus wiped the floor with both MCA and
> EISA for speed, and PCI overtook them in terms of device
intelligence.
>
>
> The market voted on PS/2 with their feet, and IBM has remained a bit
> player in the PC world ever since. This is the PC we have
inherited;
> a truly open and generic hardware platform with Intel and AMD as the
> substantial processor vendors, and Microsoft as the incumbent
dominant
> software player. Out of the original proprietary home computer
> tribes, Apple has emerged as the sole survivor.
>
>
>
> >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> Dreams are stack dumps of the soul
> >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:51:58 GMT, Kevin Davis³
>On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:35:03 -0500, "Spinner" > wrote:

>>Apple did allow third parties to build clones for a time. (I think UMAX
>>actually did, but I could be wrong)

Umax were one of the players, yes...

>>The problem was the "clones" where cheaper, and performed just as good or
>>better then the originals.
>>Once the sale of the clones started cutting into their profit, the clones
>>disappeared real fast.

They didn't just "disappear". They were killed, by Apple.

It's amazing how selective ppl's memory is on this one. Really, this
was a scaldal far worse than anything MS have done; it's just that
when a tin-pot dictator like Apple or Idi Amin starts smashing things
up, few of us pay the same attention as when a powerful leader like
Bill Gates or Bill Clinton commits a lesser indiscretion.

Apple are the last surviving dinosaur from the days of tribal
proprietary platforms, yet are seen by the media as originality
personified. Interesting, that.

Only Apple could make computers that ran MacOS, and only Apple can
make MacOS. Imagine if you had to buy your PC from MS, with only MS's
list of approved models to choose from. Now *that* is dictatorship!

At some point, Apple opened thier sphincter to allow other vendors to
make computers that could run MacOS. Several of Apple's most loyal
hardware accessory vendors were first in line, ramping up production
lines for these computers, and rolling out the promotional machine.

Then the bait-and-switch started; Apple's new point revision of MacOS
was either not going to be made availible to "clones", or would cost
substantially higher licensing fees. AFAICR this wasn't a matter of
Win95 vs. Windows 3.yuk; more a Win98SE vs, Win98 point upgrade.

Then media-darling Steve Jobs came back to head Apple, and regeiged on
the agreement to license MacOS to other vendors - who had to scrap
their investment in computers designed for MacOS (which can't run
Windows, as they aren't x86-based). What a bloodbath, and what a way
to repay vendors who had been loyal to Apple, producing peripherals
for the smaller Apple niche market instead-of/as-well-as PC mainstream

I'd say "how soon they forget", except that many knee-jerk "MS-sucks"
industry "observers" never noticed this happening in the first place.



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Dreams are stack dumps of the soul
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

[Rob Schneider]

Excellent summaries of Microsoft (other post) and now Apple. All as I
remember also. Thanks for taking time to write these.

I guess in the 21st century, it's easier to "hate" than to remember and
understand.


rms




cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:51:58 GMT, Kevin Davis³
>
>>On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:35:03 -0500, "Spinner" > wrote:
>
>
>>>Apple did allow third parties to build clones for a time. (I think UMAX
>>>actually did, but I could be wrong)
>
>
> Umax were one of the players, yes...
>
>
>>>The problem was the "clones" where cheaper, and performed just as good or
>>>better then the originals.
>>>Once the sale of the clones started cutting into their profit, the clones
>>>disappeared real fast.
>
>
> They didn't just "disappear". They were killed, by Apple.
>
> It's amazing how selective ppl's memory is on this one. Really, this
> was a scaldal far worse than anything MS have done; it's just that
> when a tin-pot dictator like Apple or Idi Amin starts smashing things
> up, few of us pay the same attention as when a powerful leader like
> Bill Gates or Bill Clinton commits a lesser indiscretion.
>
> Apple are the last surviving dinosaur from the days of tribal
> proprietary platforms, yet are seen by the media as originality
> personified. Interesting, that.
>
> Only Apple could make computers that ran MacOS, and only Apple can
> make MacOS. Imagine if you had to buy your PC from MS, with only MS's
> list of approved models to choose from. Now *that* is dictatorship!
>
> At some point, Apple opened thier sphincter to allow other vendors to
> make computers that could run MacOS. Several of Apple's most loyal
> hardware accessory vendors were first in line, ramping up production
> lines for these computers, and rolling out the promotional machine.
>
> Then the bait-and-switch started; Apple's new point revision of MacOS
> was either not going to be made availible to "clones", or would cost
> substantially higher licensing fees. AFAICR this wasn't a matter of
> Win95 vs. Windows 3.yuk; more a Win98SE vs, Win98 point upgrade.
>
> Then media-darling Steve Jobs came back to head Apple, and regeiged on
> the agreement to license MacOS to other vendors - who had to scrap
> their investment in computers designed for MacOS (which can't run
> Windows, as they aren't x86-based). What a bloodbath, and what a way
> to repay vendors who had been loyal to Apple, producing peripherals
> for the smaller Apple niche market instead-of/as-well-as PC mainstream
>
> I'd say "how soon they forget", except that many knee-jerk "MS-sucks"
> industry "observers" never noticed this happening in the first place.
>
>
>
>
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
>
> Dreams are stack dumps of the soul
>
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

[Alex Nichol]

cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:

>Then media-darling Steve Jobs came back to head Apple, and regeiged on
>the agreement to license MacOS to other vendors - who had to scrap
>their investment in computers designed for MacOS (which can't run
>Windows, as they aren't x86-based). What a bloodbath, and what a way
>to repay vendors who had been loyal to Apple, producing peripherals
>for the smaller Apple niche market instead-of/as-well-as PC mainstream
>
>I'd say "how soon they forget", except that many knee-jerk "MS-sucks"
>industry "observers" never noticed this happening in the first place.

A related matter was DR-DOS and GEM - basic windowing system. Apple
threw suits at DR (as they did at MS over Windows) and DR backed down.
But DR had already licensed it to Atari (in a better version than the PC
one - with sizeable, overlappable windows) and Atari had it on their ST
machines for quite a long time. These were Motorola based, like Apple,
(32+16 bit style compare a 386SX), with the benefit of flat memory
space, and I had a Mega-ST 4 MB one up to around 1995. And it was very
nice (Especially with a third party Neodesk - which allowed things like
desktop icons of programs that you could drag and drop files into).
Troubles were basic limitations: of hard disk to 16MB partitions, and of
display to what could be mapped in 32K of system memory. (so 600x400 BW
or horrible low res color). Atari did try the full 32 bit TT series,
but were too late and it never caught on; by then Windows had got too
big a grip. But for a long time the ST was machine of choice for
musicians wanting to work with MIDI



--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

[Spinner]

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:51:58 GMT, Kevin Davis³
> >On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:35:03 -0500, "Spinner" > wrote:
>
> >>Apple did allow third parties to build clones for a time. (I think UMAX
> >>actually did, but I could be wrong)
>
> Umax were one of the players, yes...
>
> >>The problem was the "clones" where cheaper, and performed just as good
or
> >>better then the originals.
> >>Once the sale of the clones started cutting into their profit, the
clones
> >>disappeared real fast.
>
> They didn't just "disappear". They were killed, by Apple

Yes, I know the full story.
I was only making a point, not trying to give a history lesson.



>
> It's amazing how selective ppl's memory is on this one. Really, this
> was a scaldal far worse than anything MS have done; it's just that
> when a tin-pot dictator like Apple or Idi Amin starts smashing things
> up, few of us pay the same attention as when a powerful leader like
> Bill Gates or Bill Clinton commits a lesser indiscretion.
>
> Apple are the last surviving dinosaur from the days of tribal
> proprietary platforms, yet are seen by the media as originality
> personified. Interesting, that.
>
> Only Apple could make computers that ran MacOS, and only Apple can
> make MacOS. Imagine if you had to buy your PC from MS, with only MS's
> list of approved models to choose from. Now *that* is dictatorship!
>
> At some point, Apple opened thier sphincter to allow other vendors to
> make computers that could run MacOS. Several of Apple's most loyal
> hardware accessory vendors were first in line, ramping up production
> lines for these computers, and rolling out the promotional machine.
>
> Then the bait-and-switch started; Apple's new point revision of MacOS
> was either not going to be made availible to "clones", or would cost
> substantially higher licensing fees. AFAICR this wasn't a matter of
> Win95 vs. Windows 3.yuk; more a Win98SE vs, Win98 point upgrade.
>
> Then media-darling Steve Jobs came back to head Apple, and regeiged on
> the agreement to license MacOS to other vendors - who had to scrap
> their investment in computers designed for MacOS (which can't run
> Windows, as they aren't x86-based). What a bloodbath, and what a way
> to repay vendors who had been loyal to Apple, producing peripherals
> for the smaller Apple niche market instead-of/as-well-as PC mainstream
>
> I'd say "how soon they forget", except that many knee-jerk "MS-sucks"
> industry "observers" never noticed this happening in the first place.
>
>
>
> >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> Dreams are stack dumps of the soul
> >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -