MACINTOSH VS. WINDOWS 95 #10: SILLY WINDOWS TRICKS
August 23, 1995
#10: SILLY WINDOWS TRICKS
SUMMARY
THE EVIDENCE
MULTIMEDIA FEATURES
TROUBLE WITH APPLICATIONS
FLOPPY DRIVES
CONCLUSION
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
SUMMARY
Today we'll depart from our usual Mac Advantage format to take a quick look at
the most common question Apple is getting these days: Does a computer that
looks more like an Apple(R) Macintosh(R)(TM) computer necessarily work like
an Apple Macintosh?
Apple believes the answer to that question is no, at least so far as Windows 95
is concerned. This note examines the evidence in several areas: The file
system, hardware/software integration, and application installation and
configuration.
This is part of a series of short reports on the contrasts between a Macintosh
computer and a PC with Windows 95. To see previous entries in the series,
visit us on the Internet at
http://www.apple.com/whymac/.
THE EVIDENCE
None of the problems we cite below are the sort of "killers"; that would
likely cause Windows 95 to fail in the marketplace. But they help to
highlight the difference between the hype for Windows 95 and the reality of it.
These are not all of the problems we're aware of in Windows 95 (not even close)
, but they do give a taste of the sort of issues computer customers should
think about.
Is DOS still there?
"Windows 95 isn't the brand new operating system that Microsoft claimed it
would be. It is simply the latest revision to the same old DOS and Windows and
subject to the same old problems of stability, of running out of resources
when running complex work loads."
-Marketing Computers magazine, May 1995
The file system.
One of the most troubling aspects of Windows 3.1 for users has been navigating
the arcane DOS file system, with its three-character extensions, path names,
and forbidden characters. Windows 95 puts a more attractive interface on top
of that file system, but it's still there, and users still need to understand
it. For example, the three-character extension is still needed to identify
file types (it just isn't displayed), path names are still used (and reported
back by the operating system in many error messages), and special characters
used by the DOS file system cannot be used in file names (including * ?
" / \ .). Using them by mistake can cause invalid-filename messages or create
unpredictable results (for example, encasing a file name in "double quotes"
causes that name to be saved without the three-character extension, making it
hard for the user to open the file).
By contrast, the only character forbidden in a Macintosh filename is the
colon, :, and the operating system automatically replaces it with a hyphen
when the user types it.
One area in which Windows 95 has made progress is allowing longer file names.
But the long names are pasted on top of the old DOS file system. The real
name of the file is an old-style eight-character name abbreviated by Windows
95 automatically from the long name. This can cause confusion when files are
shared between Windows 95 users and users of DOS and Windows 3.1
(which won't display the long names). Confusion also results when using
existing DOS and Windows 3.1 applications under Windows 95. The problems are
troubling enough that Microsoft recommends users, particularly those in
workgroups, create special naming conventions. They recommend starting long
filenames with short significant words or with a legal 8.3 filename.* Thus
the user assumes the burden of designing long filenames with the
eight-character encoding scheme in mind.
With Macintosh, the user sees and can edit the real file name, and there's no
name problem when exchanging files with others.
Configuration files.
The CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files are still supported by Windows 95, for
use by DOS and existing Windows applications. So unless a user buys only
completely new Windows 95 applications, CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT are still
loaded and can still cause problems.
Windows 95 itself relies on other configuration files, especially one called
IO.SYS. In some cases it can be edited from within Windows, but in other
cases Microsoft's own technical documentation advises the user to edit it
directly with a text editing program.
Coordination of hardware and software.
Apple designs Macintosh hardware and software in tandem, so they work together
well. The PC architecture often requires the user to provide that
hardware/software integration. Here are two examples:
MULTIMEDIA FEATURES
Because Microsoft doesn't control the hardware design of PCs, it has to
specify multimedia features item by item. This leaves the user to do the
integration. Here are excerpts from the three-page list of features that
Microsoft recommend users look for in a multimedia PC:**
A sound card with 16-bit DAC and 16-bit ADC.
CD-ROM drive with multisession support.
Support for 8, 11, 22, and 44 kilohertz waveforms.
General MIDI support.
16-voice polyphony.
MIDI streams.
Avoid waveform synthesis.
Mixer that supports input from WAV, MIDI, Redbook, and AUX.
3-bit volume control on each input, with a logarithmic taper.
All sources are within -10db and without attenuation, to prevent the
mixer from clipping.
Apple believes it would be very difficult for the average PC customer to find
this information, let alone understand it. By contrast, here's Apple's
recommended multimedia configuration: Buy a Macintosh computer with a CD-ROM
drive installed.
FLOPPY DRIVES
One of the most-promoted features of Windows 95 is its ability to
automatically recognize when a CD has been inserted into the computer.
But what doesn't get reported is that Windows 95 does not sense when a floppy
disk has been inserted. The user has to tell the software what is happening,
by clicking on the A: drive icon. When the disk is removed, its image remains
on the screen, unchanged, unless the user selects the "Refresh" menu command.
If the user attempts to open one of the files displayed for a disk that's not
present, cryptic error messages can result ("invalid directory" and others).
By contrast, the Macintosh operating system senses when a disk is inserted or
removed and displays the appropriate icons.
TROUBLE WITH APPLICATIONS
One of the central promises of Windows 95 is that it will make installing
applications much easier, especially games. This is likely to be a major
competitive issue this fall, considering the extensive problems reported with
PC software installation last Christmas.
Unfortunately, Microsoft's own documentation shows that the applications
transition to Windows 95 may be difficult. Of 2,530 current Windows programs
tested, Microsoft reported technical problems of varying severity with 732 --
roughly 30% of the programs tested.
Some 124 of those programs sometimes or always require MS-DOS mode, meaning
they may have the same complex configuration issues that DOS programs did in
the past. The user also has to reboot the computer to enter DOS mode, and
reboot it again to exit. The problems in the other programs range from minor
to very significant. Here are a few examples of popular consumer programs and
the problems Microsoft reported with them:
7th Guest: Some versions of PAS 16 require IRQ 5 and DMA 3.
After Dark 3.0 for Windows: General protection fault (system crash)
occurs when running Bad Dog screen saver if Windows 3.x GRP files are
installed.
The Daedalus Encounter 1.1: System crashes occur in MSNOTIFY.QTC.
Dark Forces 1.0: Demo requires MS-DOS mode; sound card detection must
be run twice during installation.
Doom 2: Will not run in a DOS VM on systems that are paging through
MS-DOS.
Myst 1.02: Users of S3 video cards must place the entry
"optimize=driver" in the QTW.INI file.
Quicken 4.0 for Windows: Home inventory will create blank records
when entering data; trying to read or edit these records will cause a
system crash.
In many of these cases, the program can apparently be made to run by a
technically skilled person who knows what to do. And no doubt the Windows
programs in question will eventually be upgraded to fix the problems.
The question is whether those 30% of Windows programs that have problems will
be fixed by the Christmas selling season -- and for those that aren't, how
many families will be confused and frustrated again this Christmas.
CONCLUSION
As we said before, we're not trying to argue that Windows 95 will be a failure
in the marketplace. Current Windows users who are completely committed to it,
and have enough money to finance the upgrade, will generally see it as an
improvement over Windows 3.1. However, people who are considering both
Macintosh and a PC with Windows 95 deserve to understand exactly what they're
getting into.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
You can send e-mail to the Mac Platform Marketing team at
[email protected].
