dbrown@avsdT.BERKNET (Dennis Brown) (06/11/85)
MY MAC ATTACK !!!! I am considering the purchase of a 'FAT MAC'; 512k+2 drives,Printer, etc. But I have some reservations with what Apple is now going thru as well as the APPARENT lack of some software due to what a pain in the neck it is to write for MAC, I am led to beleave! How does the existing MAC community feel about the system as it stands now and how do you feel about the future?? Please reply to me as soon as you can. Thanks a lot.
hartwell@apple.UUCP (Steve Hartwell) (06/25/85)
...... How does the existing MAC community feel about the system as it stands now and how do you feel about the future?? The future is not what it used to be.
egv@aicchi.UUCP (Vann) (06/29/85)
> > ...... How does the > existing MAC community feel about the system as it stands now and > how do you feel about the future?? > > The future is not what it used to be. If I were to modify the existing system in any way it would be to success- fully add a hard disk that was possibly external and provide two (2) internal floppy disks (ala SONY) that were double-sided double-density. Could you also see about adding color? Please keep any further iterations of the system small and clean in design. What we don't need are more big boxes, which admittedly are easy to design hardware additions for but are murder on peripatetic individuals. Also, please find some way to convince the software firms that produce for you that this is a machine for power users too. I would think that ease of use need not be confused with lack of ability in the spreadsheet arena. As you might guess I am delighted that Microsoft is bringing Excel to the market. Lastly, more memory is an issue. Perhaps its addition can either be in unusually large chunks like 2 or 4 megs (so as to avoid the need to add much more in the immediate future) or perhaps open up the rear with a hatch or something that would allow for the insertion of memory cards. -- Eric Geoffrey Vann Analysts International (Chicago Branch) (312) 882-4673 ..!ihnp4!aicchi!egv
gwe@cbdkc1.UUCP ( George Erhart ) (06/30/85)
In article <503@aicchi.UUCP> egv@aicchi.UUCP (Vann) writes: >> >> ...... How does the >> existing MAC community feel about the system as it stands now and >> how do you feel about the future?? >> >> The future is not what it used to be. > >Could you also see about adding color? On the subject of ^^^^^. I would be unwilling to give up the Mac's super readable B&W screen for a few bits of color. I have used an IBM (yuck!) PC with their brand of color monitor and it stinks! The damn thing aint readable! I also think that it will be a few years before we see a color Mac that compares to the current one in readability. (No, I haven't seen an ST and I doubt they did much better.) A recent issue of PC magazine compared the Mac to an IBM PC, and discovered that the only thing you would really need the PC for is color. If you didn't want color (or a hard disk) you would probably prefer the Mac's more readable screen and more friendly software. (They did note that the PC software is getting friendlier.) Nuf said, George Erhart ATT-NS/Bell Labs
brownc@utah-cs.UUCP (Eric C. Brown) (07/03/85)
In article <1017@cbdkc1.UUCP> gwe@dkc1.UUCP ( George Erhart ) writes: >In article <503@aicchi.UUCP> egv@aicchi.UUCP (Vann) writes: >I would be unwilling to give up the Mac's super readable B&W screen >for a few bits of color. I have used an IBM (yuck!) PC with their >brand of color monitor and it stinks! The damn thing aint readable! Try using a real monitor and color display, like the one on the Tandy 2000. 640x400 resolution w/ 8 colors; The display is crisp, clean, non-interlaced, and more readable than the display on the Macintosh. Just goes to show what you can do if you're willing to put a couple of competent engineers on a problem... Eric C. Brown brownc@utah-cs ...!{ihnp4, seismo, decvax}!utah-cs!brownc
maddog@tolerant.UUCP (Bill Arnett) (07/04/85)
> > ...... How does the > existing MAC community feel about the system as it stands now and > how do you feel about the future?? > > The future is not what it used to be. My greatest desire is for a MUCH larger screen. Something like 1024x1024 at least. I realize that this is EXPENSIVE, but it is the only way to really take advantage of multiple windows. At its current size, the Mac screen is barey big enough for a single 'dumb termninal'-sized page. I would like to see a 8-1/2x11 page plus a little room to work.
hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) (07/10/85)
> In article <1017@cbdkc1.UUCP> gwe@dkc1.UUCP ( George Erhart ) writes: > >In article <503@aicchi.UUCP> egv@aicchi.UUCP (Vann) writes: > >I would be unwilling to give up the Mac's super readable B&W screen > >for a few bits of color. I have used an IBM (yuck!) PC with their > >brand of color monitor and it stinks! The damn thing aint readable! > Try using a real monitor and color display, like the one on the Tandy 2000. > 640x400 resolution w/ 8 colors; The display is crisp, clean, non-interlaced, > and more readable than the display on the Macintosh. Just goes to show what > you can do if you're willing to put a couple of competent engineers on a > problem... > > Eric C. Brown Excuse me, but as a (my opinion) competent engineer, I agree with the first opinion. No color other than red, green, or blue on a color CRT is as "crisp [and] clean" as the display of a monochrome monitor. Further, you have to pay more for a given resolution increase in color than in monochrome. Color has the advantage of carrying information better, but the price and resolution/ clarity penalty is real and significant. Our own product (a 68000 based process control system) has had to sacrifice in this same area, mainly in resolution, for cost reasons, and our consoles sell for >$15K! Apple chose to drop color to get resolution and clarity for a given price; I think their choice was the right one. (I suppose I better have the standard disclaimers about my employer not sharing my above opinions....) -- Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN path: ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!rosevax!hogan Quality used to be free, but now it merely has a fantastic ROI.
howard@amdahl.UUCP (Howard C. Simonson) (07/10/85)
> In article <1017@cbdkc1.UUCP> gwe@dkc1.UUCP ( George Erhart ) writes: > >In article <503@aicchi.UUCP> egv@aicchi.UUCP (Vann) writes: > >I would be unwilling to give up the Mac's super readable B&W screen > >for a few bits of color. I have used an IBM (yuck!) PC with their > >brand of color monitor and it stinks! The damn thing aint readable! > Try using a real monitor and color display, like the one on the Tandy 2000. > 640x400 resolution w/ 8 colors; The display is crisp, clean, non-interlaced, > and more readable than the display on the Macintosh. Just goes to show what > you can do if you're willing to put a couple of competent engineers on a > problem... > > Eric C. Brown > brownc@utah-cs > ...!{ihnp4, seismo, decvax}!utah-cs!brownc Are you trying to say that TANDY is stealing engineers from Apple :-) Anyway, who takes Tandy equipment seriously? ( Spoken like a true MacBiggot ) -- Time for a new catchy phrase in my Howard C. Simonson .signature, now if I could only ...{dragon,hplabs,ihnp4,nsc}!amdahl!howard think of one... [ Opinion? What opinion. I think you have the wrong guy... ]
morse@leadsv.UUCP (Terry Morse) (07/10/85)
In article <116@tolerant.UUCP>, maddog@tolerant.UUCP (Bill Arnett) writes: > > > > ...... How does the > > existing MAC community feel about the system as it stands now and > > how do you feel about the future?? > > I don't know about the future, but it sure would be nice if the Mac supported multiple concurrent tasks. That's one of the big advantages of Unix. A utility similar to 'at' on Unix for delayed unattended execution would sure be nice, also. That's what I want for Christmas (as well as a hard disk). Are you listening Apple ? -- Terry Morse (408)743-1487 UUCP: { (ucbvax!dual!sun) | (ihnp4!qubix) } !sunncal!leadsv!morse UUCP: { allegra | ihnp4 | dual } !fortune!amdcad!cae780!leadsv!morse UUCP: seismo!nsc!cae780!leadsv!morse
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/12/85)
In article <1761@amdahl.UUCP> howard@amdahl.UUCP (Howard C. Simonson) writes: >Are you trying to say that TANDY is stealing engineers from Apple :-) Tandy doesn't have that big a sense of humor. >Anyway, who takes Tandy equipment seriously? >( Spoken like a true MacBiggot ) People who don't like to wait a hundred years for disk drives, aren't color blind, like IBM compatability, and aren't stupid enough to pay $3000 for $400 worth of parts (if you don't belive me, open up your MAC). -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
grady@ucbvax.ARPA (Steven Grady) (07/16/85)
In article <523@leadsv.UUCP> morse@leadsv.UUCP (Terry Morse) writes: > >I don't know about the future, but it sure would be nice if the Mac >supported multiple concurrent tasks. That's one of the big advantages of >Unix. It seems to me that the Switcher could be modified to jump between tasks, running all of them (thus concurrently). It already saves the screen, and perhaps it would only redraw one screen (the process youre currently working on). The main drawback I see to this (and this is becuase or despite the fact that I am new to Mac programming) is how to determine a check for input. But that task doesn't seem insurmountable.. Any ideas? Steven
lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) (07/20/85)
In article <9098@ucbvax.ARPA> grady@ucbvax.UUCP (Steven Grady) writes: >It seems to me that the Switcher could be modified to jump between >tasks, running all of them (thus concurrently). The version of Switcher after 2.9 (I believe) support a rudimentary form of multitasking. An application can arrange to have one of its procedures called periodically by the Switcher while it is switched out. When Andy Herzfeld implemented this, he tried to provide an option so that the application could be switched in (except for the screen) before the procedure was called. He ran into some problems because of the time needed to do the switch and the necessity for turning interrupts off. So in the final implementation, the application does not get switched in. This means that the application has to be very careful about what is does. It must locate its heap zone in the Switcher's data structures and do any allocations on that zone. It must realize that its low-memory globals are not switched in, etc. But for applications that are well-behaved, the feature does work. All this will be documented in Inside Switcher that Andy is currently writing. -- Larry Rosenstein Apple Computer UUCP: {nsc, dual, voder, ios}!apple!lsr CSNET: lsr@Apple.CSNET
stuart@cmu-cs-h.ARPA (Richard Stuart) (07/27/85)
Now that @i(@u(@b(THE PEOPLE WHO WEAR LITTLE BOW TIES))) at Apple have been forced to leave or "have been fired up stairs", I MIGHT consider buying a Mac. My prerequisites are something like this: First, when the ROM changes are made I want to see a board swap made, not just a switching of the prom itself. When the swap is made I want to see a fix to the misengineered analog board (ala fried and over heated Macs). Until I see Apple's attitude change concerning the over heating problems I will not touch the machine. Secondly, if Apple is going to survive the onslaught of the Atari ST and the Amiga then something should be done about the speed of the Mac; namely, a coprocessor should be offered to manage the screen. This should be offered as a very inexpensive option to existing mac owners (read "at cost") and then built into all newly manufactured Macs. (If this is not done I will not hate Apple for the rest of my life, but will most likely buy an Amigia instead of a Mac.) The next change that should be implimented is the Obnoxious cost of the memory upgrade. If this does not change soon then I WILL hate Apple for ever. Other things such as a better feeling keyboard (optional and reasonablely priced, but not cheap), and a two or three button mouse (free upgrade) should be seriously looked at. I would have mentioned an internal harddisk and the ability for third party vendors to add hardware to the Mac, but I have already read in the paper that these will come about soon. Now I know that all of this seems to be a big bit much but there are several things to look at. Consider once again the Amigia and the Atari ST. Both of these machines seem to have been designed with some of these better features in mind. They are also priced much more reasonablely. Considering the outrageous amount of money Apple has been charging for the Mac it would seem to be Good Style for them to offer these upgrades as suggested. This would also help the bad reputation Apple has got for itself over the last several years. An awful lot of people that I know feel that they will never again consider buying an Apple product after seeing the performance of @i(@u(@b(THE PEOPLE WHO WEAR LITTLE BOW TIES))). BTW, one last Really Great Idea would be for Apple to try to get the Woz back. I realize that this will be practically impossible but it is a pretty spiffy idea.