Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!qns3.qns.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!mr.net!newshub.tc.umn.edu!alpha.mrs.umn.edu!markvo@cda.mrs.umn.edu From: Ryan Lundebrek <lundebr@cda.mrs.umn.edu> 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: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 22:06:22 +0000 Organization: University of Minnesota - Morris Lines: 167 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <317FF75E.2CC@cda.mrs.umn.edu> References: <Cyclone-0504961737500001@dial24.trip.net> <31664662.1081143@153.2.170.10> <dke-0604960729360001@adnline68.adnc.com> <31678d59.1170056@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <31685e02.5498255@news.earthlink.net> <4kabef$lfg@acmez.gatech.edu> <3169647e.2324874@news.earthlink.net> <4kc7m3$b7o@acmez.gatech.edu> <316abacb.31125569@news.earthlink.net> <avi-1104962354100001@cyber100.cyberspc.mb.ca> <316e38b1.3254237@news.earthlink.net> <Cyclone-1204961753220001@dial18.trip.net> <316f7c0f.4109582@news.earthlink.net> <ak night-1304961318100001@dial4.trip.net> <avi-1604962127440001@cyber119.cyberspc.mb.ca> <31794646.5442940@news.innotts.co.uk> <317a9ffe.9078316@news.brandeis.edu> <317bd82d.4871541@news.innotts.co.uk> <jm040795-2304961948090001@mencju.apple.com> <31801aeb.271271000@news.fastlane.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: gay1-b-225b.mrs.umn.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc:35314 alt.binaries.warez.mac:3522 comp.os.linux.advocacy:46945 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:125246 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:23003 comp.os.msdos.misc:54059 comp.os.os2.advocacy:196360 comp.sys.acorn.advocacy:8728 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:101747 comp.sys.next.advocacy:35021 comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy:3085 comp.unix.advocacy:19971 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:18047 comp.unix.bsd.misc:832 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3325 comp.unix.machten:2330 comp.unix.pc-clo ne.16bit:727 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:9283 comp.unix.shell:31986 comp.unix.solaris:66906 comp.unix.user-friendly:3663 Jay Urbanski wrote: > jm040795@fhda.edu (Raven) wrote: > :Some may argue the MacOS sucks, but that's another arguement. > > And I would, it's not robust enough for me.. but most Mac users don't care. Please define "robust" my mac and I have out done a number of PC in many catigories > :Here are a few things that bother me on PC clones: > : - 640k memory barrier, 64k allocations > > Wrong. Intel CPU's have no 640K limit - they can address up to 4G of ram. > 64K allocations? You are thinking of some 16-bit OS limit not hardware. Yes the allocations do refer to hardwared. but this particular reference if only applicable to the 486 class chips. > : - Many OSes will not install over 1 gigabyte, including Linux. > > Huh? Install over 1G what? My OS can utilize 2G ram and 16 Exabytes hard > drive space - on one volume. I would like to Know what OS you use. How much RAM you can use is determined by hard ware. the most I have seen possible is 768 Mb of RAM. > : - Many OSes can only see DOS partitions and not other partitions. > > Hmm.. gee the only ones I can think of in this case are the DOS and Windows > 95. Seeing how 95 uses DOS to boot that's not surprising. My OS can see 3 > types. It's true that particular problem belong to MS stuff (I really can't stand any of it. > : - BIOS ONLY boots IDE even if you have SCSI drives (Mr. BIOS and others > :exception) > > Gee I boot from SCSI - you just turn the SCSI BIOS on. This is hard? > Mac's just have SCSI boot support in their BIOS I am sure - tell me can you > pick whichever latest and greatest SCSI controller you want and boot from > it with a Mac? Yes you can > : - Need to adjust CMOS in BIOS when changing floppy drive, hard drives, etc. > > I don't change floppy's very often I don't know about you, but yes you have > to tell the BIOS what is present. As for hard drive's I don't have to tell > my SCSI adapter anything. > > : - Drives/Removable media formatting on one SCSI host adapter may be > :unreadable on a system with a different host adapter. > > Gee maybe becuase we have a choice of different vendors? Again can you > pick whatever vendor you want? (I really have no idea) I would like to point out that there are many different vendors for Mac Hardware. the hardware is just more standardized (and I don't mean the PCers battle cry of "WERE STANDARDIZED!!" and still seeing them deal with 20 different opposing architectures. > : - Many cards difficult to configure with DMA channels, port i/o > :addresses, IRQs, etc. > > This is one of the biggest pains with the PC architecture, I admit. But > modern PC's do most of this automatically - the situation has improved > greatly and continues to improve. > > :Macintoshes do not have these pathetic partitioning and booting limitations. > > Again, what partitioning and booting limits? All the things you mentioned > were DOS limitations. Some of us run real operating systems. I would like to what these pathetic partitions are? the Mac OS can handle pretty large partitions. > :Some points on Macs > : - Macintosh auto configure Boot ROM settings. (PRAM) > > I'm not sure what this accomplishes - feel free to elaborate. It alows you to retain some settings when booting from a different source. > : - You can boot either IDE or SCSI on computers that have both interfaces. > > Again, so can I. > > : - Drives/Removable media work interoperably between different hardware. > > And different SCSI cards? Just how do they accomplish this? You mean I > can take a drive formatted by my Buslogic controller and have an Adaptec > controller read it like magic? That is pretty neat.. how do they do that? Again Hardware is pretty standarized. You don't need to bother with different cards. and yes if you want a faster one you can buy one. FWD Hammer makes a great SCSI card for PCI Power Macs. Up to 34 Mb/s > : - Newer Macs use 64bit DIMMs. > > Advantage being? Come on. Think about it. A wider band with means more imformation. > : - Newer Macs have cpu daughter card. > > Hm.. I have 2 CPU's on my motherboard, what would I use a daughter card > for? Have a multi-proccessor system has nothing to do with the use of a daughter card. The Daughter card alows you to upgrade the proccesor at the same time a retaining better compatiblility and along with it the neccessary ROMs to tell your computer what's going on without the expense of replacing the whole mother board.(kind of like a stait proccessor upgrade but a little more flexablity and adding the nesseccary ROMs at the same time.) > : - All PowerMacs have cache SIMMs verses SRAM chips. > > Advantage being? The advatage is again speed. and btw in the PCI Power Macs they use 64bit DIMMS. Even faster yet again. > : - Video settings stored in Boot ROM settings (PRAM) verses .INI or other > :config files. > > This sounds neat - but how do you accomodate all the different video card > manufacturers? Need I mention the stanardization of hardware again? even if something new comes out you would be supprised at how versitle the Mac OS is. > : - Video on Macs require high-refresh, verses low refresh on many monitors > :used with PC clones. > > Require? This is supposed to be good? What if I can't afford a > high-refresh monitor? But good thing I can a decent one I'm running > 1024x768 at 76H. Of course if you have the money you can get much better > than that - but Mac monitors are no cheaper. You would be pressed to find a monitor with low-refresh rate for a mac (cheap or not.) > : - Macintosh cards Nubus and PCI (OpenFirmware) autoload/autoconfigure > :themselves. There's no need to change any dip switches on the card if dip > :switches did exist. > > I don't have a card in my machine that uses dip switches, thank goodness. The one fact in this arqument on hardware that is ignored is the speed difference between proccessors. Back in the old days Intel was king. But I'm sorry the pentium is a poor excuse for a processor. I NUMMEROUS studies I have seen, and most by 3rd party ventors, have agreed that the Power PC proccessor if a lot faster than the Pentium. I saw one that had the pentium faster, but when I read details of the test I saw that none of the tests done on the power pc was in native code. it was all CISC code that the pentium used. and even under emulation the Power PC was only slightly behind the Pentium. and when in native code if far faster. And Jay if you are using some kind of unix system. You can get them for the Power Mac. and infact most system curently using Intel chips are coming out in favor of CHRP. A Power PC based system that will run Mac OS, Solaris, UIX, OS/2. These hardware specs were created in co-operation by Apple and IBM. Yes IBM the creator of your beloved hardware configuation. But not of DOS and Windows, because there not stupid.