The Other Side
Grant Kwai
Copyright (c) 1991 Apple Users' Group, Sydney
Republished from Applecations, a publication of the Apple Users' Group, Sydney, Australia.
Come last Christmas break, I ended up and an IBM clone shop and bought a 80386 machine. So, you think I've sold out the Apple do you? Perhaps you should defer judgement until you read the following article, you might be pleasantly surprised.......
Moving to a 25 megahertz (mhz) IBM 386 machine from a lowly Apple //e 1mhz machine, you would think I would be bewildered at the sheer increase in pace and power of the change. Somehow, I obtained somewhat less that what I had expected.
SPEED
In terms of loading and running a program on both machines, there was very little increase in speed. Find this a little surprising? Well, it stems from the complicated way IBM systems work.
First of all, take two programs which have versions for both the IBM and Apple. Just from having a look at the size of the program, you will notice that the IBM version will most likely be twice as large, or greater. Why is this?
Firstly, in the Apple // world, Apple programmers have to restrict themselves to writing programs which will function perfectly under 64k or 128k's using bank switching (on a //e). This means that they need to compress the program to as small as possible. This involves concise work.
On the IBM MS/DOS world, they can access up to 640k in real mode (though in actual fact, it is much less, but I won't go into detail as to why).
Basically this means that programmers have much more room to program in, hence there is no need to make a program small (A small and well thought out program would run faster). Thus, a standard program on the IBM can take anywhere from 100k to over 5 megabytes (MB - 1,000,000 bytes). This is comparable to around 36 standard 5.25" 140k disks on the Apple.
The other fact, is that IBM has many graphics standards. So, separate graphics drivers must be created for each type. This is explained in more detail further on in this article.
Admittedly, if we compare the amounts of bytes which are loaded on the IBM and Apple, the IBM is much faster, but what use is this, if the end result is the same as on the Apple? Its basic advantage is in number crunching.
GRAPHICS
The MS/DOS environment has many graphics modes, generally requiring a different monitor and controller card. For instance, there is MGA, CGA, EGA, VGA and XGA, just to name but a few.
Most systems these days use a VGA screen. A standard VGA screen can have a maximum resolution of 640 x 400. A super VGA screen can handle up to 1024 x 768. This resolution however, requires at least 512k on the VGA controller card, and this amount of memory will only give 16 colours at this resolution. To reach 256 colours, you will need a 1MB video card.
While this may seem rather daunting, it doesn't stop there. Throughout the world, there are many third party manufacturers of both monitors and controller cards. While this may seem good news, in actual fact, it can be a real pain for the user. You will find that there are many 'chip sets' used on the controller cards, and each is incompatible
with each other! This means that you need specific drivers for your particular controller card!
It doesn't stop there. Some monitors won't work with some brands of controller cards, because they scan at different frequencies!
Going back to the Apple //, we generally have one standard. On a GS it would be Super high resolution. This has a maximum resolution of 640 x 200, though it is possible under some circumstances to have it go up to 640 x 400. This will run all software, there is no need to go out and buy a memory intensive video controller card (of which the actual computer can't use, i.e. the memory. It is entirely dedicated to handling any graphics displays.). All this makes it much easier for us, as we know that 'one size fits all'.
PROGRAMS
People generally associate IBM programs as being more powerful than Apple // programs. I can vouch for this, but they forgot to include 'a massive pain to use', 'almost impossible to use', 'complicated', 'large', plus a host of other phrases and adjectives.
Take for instance Word Perfect. I have been using this program at university now and I'm still absolutely spell bound by the amount of commands you have to at your disposal, though it may take till the end of my degree to learn how to invoke them.
Most of you will most likely know that the standard IBM keyboard has function keys. With wordperfect (why they call it this I don't know. 'Wordcomplicated' would be more suitable), you can use these function keys to use commands. Pressing a function key by itself will bring up a host of commands (generally about 10 choices). This doesn't seem so bad, except the same function key, along with either one of the control, shift or alternate keys (i.e. like the open-apple, & closed apple keys), will bring up another menu, with just as many choices. From these menus it is also possible to invoke other sub-menus with just as many choices. Trying to load a simple text file requires much patience.
If these comments seem harsh, it is most likely because I am used to using Appleworks or similar type word processing programs (e.g. Multiscribe). They offered all the functions I want (justification, outline, bold, graphics etc) while letting me access them with the minimum of fuss. Commands are available from a menu type system, making it much more user friendly. IBM programs are definitely not for those who still have hair, or want to keep it!
DISK SPACE
Most people are familiar that the IBM, when using double sided, double density disks, can store 360k on a 5.25" disk. To do this, it uses both sides of the disk. If we disk notch the Apple // disk, it can store 280k (140k on each side). Now, most IBM users will tell you that this is a major limitation of the Apple, showing its age. Next time someone says this to you, interrupt them and ask them how much data can be stored on an IBM disk IF you want it bootable. You see, IBM disks are not bootable. You need to load the operating system from the floppy disk, or the hard drive.
If you put it on disks, it effectively takes up 100k! That is, they are left with only 260k!; less than the Apple //!
CONCLUSION
So, there is more to the IBM than meets the eye. The old theory about IBM being a non user-friendly operation systems is true (in my
opinion). Even with Windows, it is not all that great (and to effectively run Windows, you need at-least 2MB of RAM, preferably 4MB+) Your standard Apple // will quite happily run under 128k (or 1.25MB on a gs) and this will perform just about all functions without a hitch on whatever Apple // you have. Though the Apple // is just as old as the original IBM PC, for ease of use, Apple is the master, while IBM has appears to have failed as a disciple.
From my experience, all I can conclude is that unless you really need a computer which can handle large volumes, and complicated data, your Apple will do the job quite happily. Add a hard drive to an Apple //, and you have mass storage space and speed. With Apple programs, you also have ease of use. So why are people turning away from the Apple //? Possibly from its one greatest asset, its small and simple. People think that a bigger and faster machine (or so claimed) must be a better machine and that a small machine is just that, small. How wrong they are.
[Sub-Editor's note: Does anyone remember the video Apple Computer Australia were showing at MacWorld 1990 which showed them trying to add cards to an IBM to make it comparable to a MAC? They ran out of slots!]

THIS CONTENT COPYRIGHT © 2007, APPLE MACINTOSH USERS' GROUP, SYDNEY
Permission has been obtained to make this material available on the Internet.

Permission is hereby granted for non-profit user groups to republish this content.
PLEASE CREDIT THE AUTHOR AND THE SOURCE: Applecations, publication of the Apple Users' Group, Sydney, Australia

THIS PAGE COPYRIGHT © 2007, ANDREW ROUGHAN