kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) (09/27/86)
Well, I'm pissed.
I absolutely hated InCider's review of the new //GS. Or maybe it's the
way Apple is pushing it.
It seems Apple and/or InCider are going full force for a "Mac-like"
interface standard. I for one do not like, want, or need the Mac-like
interface! And from a programmers point of view, I don't think it's
nearly as much fun to program with "toolboxes". The standard display
for the //GS in 16bit mode is graphics. Why? It's slow. My lord is
that slow. Why do they want to force us into using graphics in
non-graphics applications like spreadsheets and wordprocessors? Hmmm?
It takes forever. They did it to the mac, I'm afraid they'll do it to
the //. I like having a text page for textual information, and being
able to flip to the graphics page for a graphic display.
Ugh! I could go on forever. I really dislike the Mac interface. I
really do! I don't like Mousedesk and I don't use it. In fact, right
now I'm using a //e emulator on a Mac. I really realy hate the menu
bars. Windows can be tolerated in applications that need them, and ONLY
in such applications. If they try to make the //GS a MACINCOLOR I will
not buy it. It's very tempting to buy the //e for sale for $950, but
unfortunately I'm in Oregon. I'd sooner have a Sinclair ZX80 than a
Mac!
Your in total disgust of the Mac . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Sean Kamath
To send flames and hate mail, use the following. I realize I was a bit
nasty in this article, but I'm realy pretty pissed off about that. I
had heard so much good stuff about the //GS, but it is ALL ruined by the
thought of it being wasted on the Mac-like interface. Pthththth! ick!
UUCP: {masscomp, decvax, allegra, psu-cs, ucbcad, ucbvax,
purdue, hplabs, hp-pcd, sequent, uw-beaver, ihnp4,
cbosgd, gatech, nsc-pdc}!tektronix!reed!kamath
CSNET: reed!kamath@Tektronix.CSNET
BITNET: reed!kamath@Berkeley.BITNET
ARPA: tektronix!reed!kamath@Berkeley
reed!kamath@hplabs
DECNET: RHEA::DECWRL::"decvax!tektronix!reed!kamath"
US Snail: Box 395 Reed College,
Portland, OR 97202
(503) 239-7458
These are not the fastest or best paths, just the easiest to use.
I hope they work. (Most notably the US Snail Service :-)guest@csustan.UUCP (Chris Rhodes) (09/28/86)
In article <4158@reed.UUCP> kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) writes: > > I like having a text page for textual information, and being >able to flip to the graphics page for a graphic display. Good point. Even in 16-bit mode (where you said it's stuck on a graphics mode, does that mean no ProDOS?) the machine doesn't run nearly fast enough to warrant it. >Sean Kamath I took a look at the GS today. While the graphics were 'so-so', the sound quality blew me away. I saw that 'light jazz' demo (which included a sampled voice saying "Presenting the //gs" or something which was very realistic) as well as the music construction set demo. Again, the sound is *awesome.* If any sophisticated music software is developed (i.e. one that works with a MIDI card, external keyboard, etc.) it may be a better buy than a comparably priced synthesizer. On another note, pretend you have a //e and you want to buy the expansion card in January for $599. Remember that you also need a mouse if you haven't got one ($100) and a 3.5" drive ($300). So you're up to $1000...you might as well buy a standalone //gs. /* Chris Rhodes / Shooting Shark * Currently cowering behind lll-crg!csustan!guest * real uucp : lll-crg!csuh!shark -or- lll-crg!ptsfa!harlie!shark * My opinions *are* those of csustan! Yeah, they made me spokesman, ah, */ president of the university! Yeah, *that's* the ticket!
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (09/28/86)
> > On another note, pretend you have a //e and you want to buy the > expansion card in January for $599. Remember that you also need > a mouse if you haven't got one ($100) and a 3.5" drive ($300). > So you're up to $1000...you might as well buy a standalone //gs. You forgot the RGBi monitor. Add another $500! I saw the "apple light" demo too. I cringed when the picture of the guy playing the sax disolved into the combo. I saw that old fill-in-inbetween-the-lines video behavior that I've learned to HATE so well on the ][ and //e!! Somebody pleeze tell me that they were just doing the disolve that way for effect, rather than becuase adjacent sceen pixels aren't adjacent memory (be honest)! I have to admit that no text page in the 16 bit mode is peculiar. I guess that is Apple being Apple again. The additional sound capability seems like overkill relative to the level of improvement made on other parts of the machine. Most curious. Perhaps, there is something that they aren't telling us right now. One thing positive that I can say is that the 65816 is a pretty neat CPU. I'd like to get my hands on a //GS to dhrystone it. From what I've read, the claims are that the 3 MHz65816 can beat an 8 MHz 68K chip. Also WDC promised a 65832 that fits the same socket by 1987. --Bill Bill Mayhew Division of Basic Medical Sciences Northeastern Ohio Universities' College of Medicine Rootstown, OH 44272 USA tel: 216-325-2511 (wtm@neoucom.UUCP)
steve@jplgodo.UUCP (Steve Schlaifer x43171 301/167) (09/29/86)
In article <4158@reed.UUCP>, kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) writes: > > [ Summary: upset that the //GS only provides mac-like windows and must > use graphics for text only applications (spreadsheets, word processor, > etc.). Also doesn't want to have to use built-in toolboxes. ] Although there has not been any mention of it that I have seen, I know for a fact that the GS has text pages and you can easily switch back and forth between graphics display and text display (GrafOff and GrafOn calls in QuickDraw II toolbox). Should make text only applications much faster but you can still do graphics. As far as using toolboxes goes, I would rather make use of someone else's code that they have spent a great deal of effort to get right than have to reinvent it myself. I have more code to write than I will ever get done in many lifetimes. If someone wants to provide me with a quality graphics/sound/windowing/line edit/etc package great--just makes my own programming faster. -- ...smeagol\ Steve Schlaifer ......wlbr->!jplgodo!steve Advance Projects Group, Jet Propulsion Labs ....logico/ 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 301/165F Pasadena, California, 91109 +1 818 354 3171
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (09/29/86)
> One thing positive that I can say is that the 65816 is a pretty > neat CPU. I'd like to get my hands on a //GS to dhrystone it. > From what I've read, the claims are that the 3 MHz65816 can beat an 8 > MHz 68K chip. Also WDC promised a 65832 that fits the same socket > by 1987. > > Bill Mayhew Don't count on it. A 2.8MHz 65C816 can, in many cases, beat a 4.77MHz 8088. But not a 68000 at 8MHz. While the 65C816 at 2.8MHz does run a slightly faster bus speed than the 68000 at 8MHz, it has several major problems with using this speed: (1) The bus is still 8 bits wide, the 68000 bus is 16 bits wide. The 68000 is going to clobber the '816 when 16 bit operations are required. (2) The 65C816 still only has one general purpose register, the 68000 has 16 reasonably general registers, each of which is twice the width of the '816's register. Register based computation is much, much faster than memory based computation; this is one of the major principles of RISC architectures (not to imply that either machine is RISC, neither is). (3) The 68000 has a much more powerful instruction set. Just the multiply instruction alone is a big win in any numeric computations. (4) The '816 is a bit awkward/inefficient to program, especially considering the instruction overloads. Every instruction can operate on either 8 or 16 bit data, based upon a bit set in the status register. This makes switching between byte and word oriented data clumsy. (5) An upgrade to a 32 bit processor, in a pin-compatible package, won't gain you very much. A large part of the advantage of a 32 bit processor over a 16 bitter, or a 16 over an 8, is the doubling of the data bus. A pin compatible replacement would take a minimum of 4 times as long to run each 32 bit instruction based in memory as the equivalent processor with a 32 bit data bus. Also, WDC promised to have the 65C816 chip ready about 4 years ago, and its just now avilable in production quantities, from GTE. So I wouldn't be waiting on the edge of my seat for a 32 bit version. -- ============================================================================ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh These opinions are my own, though if you try them out, and decide that you really like them, a small donation would be appreciated.
B5U@PSUVMB.BITNET (10/01/86)
Well, if you don't like the Mac, go on net.micro.mac and say so. It is
only the most powerful micro on the market. And if you don't like the
//GS, find someone who is selling their //e to get the //gs. No one is
forcing you to use the computer you don't like.
I haven't been able to lay my hands on the //GS, but from what I've seen,
it is a color alternative for someone that wants a user-friendly machine.
And, places like schools that can't afford to replace all their // series
software can expand to the color and sound quality theat the //GS offers.
I don't think you need a 3.5 inch drive to expand a //e to the //GS level,
just the memory expansion and the mouse. This is an expense, but not as
much as the total //GS cost.
I think Apple has made a great move in maintaining the // series, and the
//GS is just another step in the ongoing process. Now, if my roommate can
afford the expansion....a //GS would complement my Mac Plus nicely.
Oh, by the way, I love the Mac, as it is much more powerful than most other
micros, and the graphics you seem to detest I think help the ease of use.
However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion...
==============================================================================
George A. Brownfield
The Pennsylvania State University
Bitnet: GAB @PSUECL
UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!psuvax1!psuvmb.bitnet!b5u
"Not everyone can be bought, but most can be rented"
==============================================================================ranger@ecsvax.UUCP (Rick N. Fincher) (10/02/86)
> > I saw the "apple light" demo too. I cringed when the picture of > the guy playing the sax disolved into the combo. I saw that old > fill-in-inbetween-the-lines video behavior that I've learned to > HATE so well on the ][ and //e!! Somebody pleeze tell me that they > were just doing the disolve that way for effect, rather than > becuase adjacent sceen pixels aren't adjacent memory (be honest)! OK, I'll tel you, yes the video is contiguous. It's a 32 K block of RAM, they supposedly went to great lengths to do this because the RAM is not physically contiguous for electrical reasons, so they remapped it so that the address would be contiguous. > > I have to admit that no text page in the 16 bit mode is peculiar. > I guess that is Apple being Apple again. > > > One thing positive that I can say is that the 65816 is a pretty > neat CPU. I'd like to get my hands on a //GS to dhrystone it. > From what I've read, the claims are that the 3 MHz65816 can beat an 8 > MHz 68K chip. Also WDC promised a 65832 that fits the same socket > by 1987. Yes this chip really screams, it's close to being a RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Machine) technology chip. It's interesting how the hardware world has come full circle and the 65xxx family is still viable. Rick Fincher Ranger@ecsvax
ranger@ecsvax.UUCP (Rick N. Fincher) (10/02/86)
> > One thing positive that I can say is that the 65816 is a pretty > > neat CPU. I'd like to get my hands on a //GS to dhrystone it. > > From what I've read, the claims are that the 3 MHz65816 can beat an 8 > > MHz 68K chip. Also WDC promised a 65832 that fits the same socket > > by 1987. > > > > Bill Mayhew > > Don't count on it. A 2.8MHz 65C816 can, in many cases, beat a 4.77MHz > 8088. But not a 68000 at 8MHz. While the 65C816 at 2.8MHz does run a > slightly faster bus speed than the 68000 at 8MHz, it has several major > problems with using this speed: (1) The bus is still 8 bits wide, the > 68000 bus is 16 bits wide. The 68000 is going to clobber the '816 > when 16 bit operations are required. (2) The 65C816 still only has one True but all of the 65816's instructions are 8 bits long and research has shown that the vast majority of tasks involve 8 bit to 16 bit quantities. A 6mhz 65816 would give the 68000 a run for its money. The 8 bit data bus is a limitation but the '816 load 32 bits in 4 clock cycles, about the same as the 68000. > general purpose register, the 68000 has 16 reasonably general registers, > each of which is twice the width of the '816's register. Register based > computation is much, much faster than memory based computation; this is Yes the 68000 will be a big winner in register based computation but the 68000 machines in the //gs class suffer from the major problem of a lack of software, the '816 has compatibility with the 6502, so the machine has 20,000 programs for it the day it hits the street. > one of the major principles of RISC architectures (not to imply that either > machine is RISC, neither is). (3) The 68000 has a much more powerful > instruction set. Just the multiply instruction alone is a big win in any > numeric computations. (4) The '816 is a bit awkward/inefficient to program, The 68000 design team didn't include 32 mult because they found that it was faster in software, this is stated in "The MC68000 design Philosophy" printed in Byte in '83 (I think). The Motorola boys compared their 32 bit software mult to the Z8000 hardware mult and showed how the software mult was faster, that is why RISC machines came about (I agree though, neither of these processors are RISC). I just think simple, hardwired processors are the way to go, because we are running up against the speed limits of current silicon technology. > especially considering the instruction overloads. Every instruction can > operate on either 8 or 16 bit data, based upon a bit set in the status > register. This makes switching between byte and word oriented data clumsy. > (5) An upgrade to a 32 bit processor, in a pin-compatible package, won't > gain you very much. A large part of the advantage of a 32 bit processor > over a 16 bitter, or a 16 over an 8, is the doubling of the data bus. A > pin compatible replacement would take a minimum of 4 times as long to > run each 32 bit instruction based in memory as the equivalent processor > with a 32 bit data bus. Also, WDC promised to have the 65C816 chip ready > about 4 years ago, and its just now avilable in production quantities, from > GTE. So I wouldn't be waiting on the edge of my seat for a 32 bit version. Sure the 816 took awhile, WDC didn't have Mot's big bucks, but with the good sales of the 65C02 and the '816 they have some cash to work with and an accepted product. > Rick Fincher Ranger@ecsvax
kamath@reed.UUCP (10/05/86)
In article <7641B5U@PSUVMB> B5U@PSUVMB.BITNET writes: > > Well, if you don't like the Mac, go on net.micro.mac and say so. It is > only the most powerful micro on the market. And if you don't like the > //GS, find someone who is selling their //e to get the //gs. No one is > forcing you to use the computer you don't like. Well, I expected it, and I got it. I suppose I spoke before I quite had my thoughts in order. Why bother going over to net.micro.mac? They all love the mac, and I'd get hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of hate mail... I plan to buy a //GS. I never really said I hated the //GS. > [Misc stuff about //e->//GS expansion] > > I think Apple has made a great move in maintaining the // series, and the > //GS is just another step in the ongoing process. Now, if my roommate can > afford the expansion....a //GS would complement my Mac Plus nicely. I, too, think Apple should be congratulated on their efforts. I can also see how a //GS could compliment a Mac+. > Oh, by the way, I love the Mac, as it is much more powerful than most other > micros, and the graphics you seem to detest I think help the ease of use. > However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion... Yes, I have my opinions... First you say the Mac is the most powerful, now you say it's one of the most powerful. I don't want to get nit-picky, but do you call a MicroVax a micro? Never mind. What I don't like about the //GS is the direction Apple is pushing it. I think that there are many uses for the mouse. Sometimes even in wordprocessing :-). I love graphics! I really do! But why on earth do you want graphics when you're using a terminal emulator on a machine like the vax I'm on, and not using ANY graphics what so ever? It just slows things down. What I hate about the mac is the user interface (What! Did he really SAY that!!!! Gasp!). Frankly, it sucks. before I say something like "You can take your menu bar and. . ." I think I better go. > George A. Brownfield > UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!psuvax1!psuvmb.bitnet!b5u Sean Kamath UUCP : . . .!tektronix!reed!kamath
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (10/06/86)
>> One thing positive that I can say is that the 65816 is a pretty >> neat CPU. I'd like to get my hands on a //GS to dhrystone it. >> From what I've read, the claims are that the 3 MHz65816 can beat an 8 >> MHz 68K chip. Also WDC promised a 65832 that fits the same socket >> by 1987. > > Yes this chip really screams, it's close to being a RISC (Reduced > Instruction Set Machine) technology chip. It's interesting how the > hardware world has come full circle and the 65xxx family is still > viable. The '816 isn't that fast, and its hardly RISC. One of the basic RISC philosophies is to have a single set of instructions that read and write memory, while everything else is a register-to-register instruction. This lets things happen inside, very quickly. This also requires a large number of registers (the Berkely RISC has near 200, as I recall). The '816 still has just on general purpose register, and lets nearly every instruction access memory. And it has to access memory 8 bits at a time, while the 68000 can touch 16 at a time. The '816 is also missing more sophisticated instructions, like multiplies. Its certainly an advance over the 6502, but it compares much more closely to the 8088. > Rick Fincher > > Ranger@ecsvax -- ============================================================================ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh These opinions are my own, though if you try them out, and decide that you really like them, a small donation would be appreciated.
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (10/06/86)
> > True but all of the 65816's instructions are 8 bits long and research > has shown that the vast majority of tasks involve 8 bit to 16 bit quantities. Huh? What's your point. Instructions on the '816 are all 8 bits long, many of the 68000 instructions are 16 bits long. These load in the same time. But your 8/16 bit argument pertains to data, not instructions. The 68000 is just as happy with 8 bit quantities as 16 bits. > A 6mhz 65816 would give the 68000 a run for its money. The 8 bit data bus > is a limitation but the '816 load 32 bits in 4 clock cycles, about the > same as the 68000. (1) 6MHz 65816 doesn't exist. (2) A 16.6 MHz 68000 kills any '816 permutation; a 20 MHz 68020 (software compatible with the 68000) beats VAXen at most benchmarks, and they're available TODAY. (3) The only time an '816 can load 4 bytes in 4 cycles is responding to or returning from an interrupt, not including an instruction fetch for the returns. A normal LDA or STA will read or write two bytes in 5 cycles. Compare this to the 68000 move multiple instruction. > The 68000 design team didn't include 32 mult because they found that it was > faster in software, this is stated in "The MC68000 design Philosophy" > printed in Byte in '83 (I think). The Motorola boys compared their > 32 bit software mult to the Z8000 hardware mult ... The problem is ALUs. The 68000 has three 16 bit ALUs which would make a built-in 32 bit multiply inefficient. A 68020 does it just fine. Where's the '816s 8 bit multiply, then? >> ... So I wouldn't be waiting on the edge of my seat for a 32 bit version. > Sure the 816 took awhile, WDC didn't have Mot's big bucks, but with the > good sales of the 65C02 and the '816 they have some cash to work with > and an accepted product. WDC is too far behind. They may do well in the future 8-bit market, but mainly since no one else is still designing 8 bitters. But they're not going to do well against the 16 and 32 bit machines, because there already exist. > Rick Fincher > > Ranger@ecsvax -- ============================================================================ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh These opinions are my own, though if you try them out, and decide that you really like them, a small donation would be appreciated.
ranger@ecsvax.UUCP (Rick N. Fincher) (10/09/86)
> The '816 isn't that fast, and its hardly RISC. One of the basic RISC > philosophies is to have a single set of instructions that read and write > memory, while everything else is a register-to-register instruction. > This lets things happen inside, very quickly. This also requires a large > number of registers (the Berkely RISC has near 200, as I recall). The > '816 still has just on general purpose register, and lets nearly every > instruction access memory. And it has to access memory 8 bits at a time, > while the 68000 can touch 16 at a time. The '816 is also missing more > sophisticated instructions, like multiplies. Its certainly an advance > over the 6502, but it compares much more closely to the 8088. CLOSE to RISC. The RISC-like features are: hardwired for speed, lots of piplining and many 1 cycle operations. Although the 68000 can work on 16 bits at a time it takes 4 cycles to do it. The '816 can load or store 16 bits in 2 cycles. Not to put down the 68000 however because it is a clearly superior chip. Comparisons to the 8088 are more apt (and more fun!), the 65816 is a clear winner here, but there is all of that 8088 software out there..... > > > Rick Fincher > > > > Ranger@ecsvax > -- > ============================================================================ > Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh > > These opinions are my own, though if you try them out, and decide > that you really like them, a small donation would be appreciated.
ranger@ecsvax.UUCP (Rick N. Fincher) (10/09/86)
> WDC is too far behind. They may do well in the future 8-bit market, but > mainly since no one else is still designing 8 bitters. But they're not > going to do well against the 16 and 32 bit machines, because there already > exist. > In the high end market, but there is money to be made in the low end market by selling quantity, take your C-64 for instance (Please! :-) ) > > Rick Fincher > > > > Ranger@ecsvax > -- > ============================================================================ > Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh > > These opinions are my own, though if you try them out, and decide > that you really like them, a small donation would be appreciated.
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (10/13/86)
> CLOSE to RISC. The RISC-like features are: hardwired for speed, lots > of piplining and many 1 cycle operations. Although the 68000 can work > on 16 bits at a time it takes 4 cycles to do it. The '816 can load or > store 16 bits in 2 cycles. Not to put down the 68000 however because > it is a clearly superior chip. Comparisons to the 8088 are more apt > (and more fun!), the 65816 is a clear winner here, but there is all > of that 8088 software out there..... Rick, I agree with the 8088 comparison. But you've got more bus above that! The 68000 loads 16 bits in 1 (one!) MEMORY cycle, the '816 and the 8088 each load 16 bits in 2 (two) MEMORY cycles. The '816 uses a straight processor clock, the 8088 and 68000 essentially divide their input clock by 4 for their memory cycles. Its the memory cycle that counts, that's where the cost of memory is figured in, and its a much better meter of performance than the clock speed (which is why your 2.8MHz '816 will probably kill an 8088 at 4.77 MHz in most operations). The advantage of the 4 cycle input clock is that fewer internal operations are left to chance, since they have definate clock edges from which to be referenced. It makes for a much less asynchronous design. -- ============================================================================ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh "Techno-Hippie, heathen, designing evil computers" These opinions are my own, though if you try them out, and decide that you really like them, a small donation would be appreciated.