ilya@vectron.UUCP (ilya) (11/18/84)
Here is something for all the mac owners and prospective owners:
Is any company out there coming out with a Mac compatible ?
During the past few years, whenever a new computer was introduced,
many new companies sprang up and started making compatible computers.
This did not happen to the Mac. It has been out for several months and
no company has made a compatible (not including the Lisa which can run many
of the Mac programs.)
Are the companies *scared* to come up with another apple compatible
after all the law suits that Apple has gone thru, or are they just not as
sophisticated as Apple (do not have enough information about the internals)
and can not duplicate the Mac?
I was thinking about buying a Mac, but I think that it is still
overpriced. Since there are no compatibles out there, Apple can charge
a higher price because of the lack of competition; however, any new and
legal competition would bring the problem of no 100% compatibility to be
*legal* in the first place.
Yet, if anyone does come up with a Mac compatible, it could mean an
instant fortune for the company (the demand for Macs is still great) and
lower prices (price war) for the original Mac.
Anyway, whatever happens in the future, Apple Computer Inc. has
managed to monopolize the Mac market for several months already. I wonder
if it was part of their plan to come up with a new approach to personal
computers design that is not only useful, but also hard to copy.
--
Ilya Goldberg @ Vectronic's Computing,Berkeley,California
-----
From ARPA net : dual!vectron!ilya@BERKELEY.ARPA
From UCB : ilya@ucbonyx
UUCP:
{apple,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid,sun,ucbvax}!dual!vectron!ilyasean@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Sean Casey) (11/24/84)
Does software compatibility count?? Talk about Mac compatibles, did anyone see the ad in last Sunday's(11/18/84) New York Times Magazine for the IBM version of MacPaint. It uses an optical mouse and looks "alot" like the apple product. Sure the graphics layout is a little different but the difference is insignificant. (IBM's paint can, spray can, pencil, and pattern icons are practically identical to icons Apple uses in Macpaint. Not to mention the layout of the icons within the application itself.) Although IBMPaint is color, it does not offer the same resolution as the Mac. Looks like the Boys in Blue have decided to sit up and take note ( and pretty good notes too!!). Sean Casey ...ihnp4!oddjob!sean
jimb@amd.UUCP (Jim Budler) (11/25/84)
In article <> sean@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes: >New York Times Magazine for the IBM version of MacPaint. It uses >an optical mouse and looks "alot" like the apple product. Sure the ... >Although IBMPaint is color, it does not offer the same resolution >as the Mac. Looks like the Boys in Blue have decided to sit up >and take note ( and pretty good notes too!!). If it's the same optical mouse they have used previously it isn't as handy as the apple mouse as when you run out of desk space you can't pick it up and shift your rolling range. It gets lost. -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 982-6547 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200 The Source: STW265
wmb@sun.uucp (Mitch Bradley) (11/26/84)
> Is any company out there coming out with a Mac compatible ? > > During the past few years, whenever a new computer was introduced, > many new companies sprang up and started making compatible computers. > This did not happen to the Mac. It has been out for several months and > no company has made a compatible (not including the Lisa which can run many > of the Mac programs.) Personally, I think it would be hard to compete with Apple by making a cheaper Mac. Apple's cost for the hardware can't be more than a few hundred dollars, which means they can easily match any price cuts. Even more important is the Macintosh ROM, which is as much a part of the Macintosh as the hardware. I'll bet it would be pretty hard to quickly duplicate the functionality of that ROM without copying it. Having won the lawsuit about the original Apple ROM, Apple looks to be in a good position to challenge attempted copiers of the Macintosh ROM. Looks to me like Apple has what amounts to a proprietary software interface. I think Apple has already optimized the Mac to the point where they can cut the throats of any price-cutting competition. (Of course, somebody will probably prove me wrong. Where there's a will...) However, a higher performance Mac compatible might be interesting. Perhaps the ROM functionality could be duplicated in a reasonable time by throwing memory at the problem. Waiting with interest, Mitch Bradley
jwp@utah-cs.UUCP (John W Peterson) (11/26/84)
I think the reason there are no "Mac compatibles" is because of the copyright on the ROMs. Machines like the IBM PC require no more than a bright high-school kid and a license from MicroSoft to (re)write the necessary ROM software. This isn't true with the Mac; it takes a pretty high degree of sophistication to come up with things like a window manager and an extensive bitmap graphics package in assembly language. Some of QuickDraw's basic algorithm's (i.e, the "region clipper") aren't even published. There are companies producing retro-fitted Macs, though. There's a company now selling a mac re-fitted into a very rugged Osborn style case.
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (11/26/84)
In regards to IBM's PC-Paint (or whatever it is called), it will be interesting to see whether Apple sues them for patent infringement. It so happens that the pull-down menus have been granted a patent by the U.S. Patent Office. :-) \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen
robert@gitpyr.UUCP (Robert Viduya) (11/27/84)
>< > > Is any company out there coming out with a Mac compatible ? > It was more than a few months after the IBM-PC came out before the first IBM-PC compatible machine came out. And I've heard rumors that Atari (I think it's Atari, although it may be someone else) is coming out with a Mac-like product. How compatible it will be, I don't know. robert -- Robert Viduya Office of Computing Services Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA 30332 Phone: (404) 894-4669 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!robert ...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!gitpyr!robert
eric@milo.UUCP (Eric Bergan) (11/27/84)
> Personally, I think it would be hard to compete with Apple by making a > cheaper Mac. Apple's cost for the hardware can't be more than a few > hundred dollars, which means they can easily match any price cuts. Rumor had it that counting just cost of hardware, labor, and utilities a mac costs about $300 to produce. Of course, there is advertising, R&D, and factory construction to cover also, but since Jobs fought hard for a $1999 price tag up front, I suspect that they are not loosing money on the little darlings. -- eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!milo!eric
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (11/27/84)
[]
This probably belongs in net.rumor, but what the hay!
I heard a rumor to the effect that Apple received a patent for
menus pulled down with a mouse.
--
"The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct."
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307furuta@uw-june (Richard Furuta) (11/28/84)
At one point in the past, I played with whatever version of PC-Paint is available on the PC Jr. in ROM. Superficially, it resembled MacPaint but there were a lot of small things that added up to the point that my overall impression was that the program was confusing and felt unresponsive. Seems to me that Mac compatibility is going to require more than just duplicating one or two of the programs. Speaking of duplication, my local dealer was showing off a paint program for the IIc the last time I went by. Very much the same program although I didn't figure out enough about the IIc to play. --Rick
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/28/84)
> ... Some of > QuickDraw's basic algorithm's (i.e, the "region clipper") aren't even > published. Some of them aren't even right. I'm told (I haven't checked this out personally) that you get very entertaining results if you try drawing a very long, narrow ellipse. If it's long and narrow enough, it breaks up into disconnected line segments! Somebody didn't test the extreme cases very well. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
eve@ssc-bee.UUCP (Michael Eve) (11/29/84)
> > Is any company out there coming out with a Mac compatible ?
Why would anyone want to come out with a Mac compatible?
The Mac has been less than an overwhelming success. Apple
is not selling as many as they predicted and software is
scarce. Developers complain of the difficulty of interfacing
with the Mac internals, and hardware designers are severely
limited. Apple is scrambling to redesign the closed Mac to
meet market demands meanwhile angering the current owners.
Hell, the Mac isn't even software compatible with itself.
Software which ran on 128k Macs won't run on 512k Macs.
No. I don't think the market wants a Mac compatible.
I believe the market wants a high-performance, low-cost
computer. Say something like the Amiga is rumored to be.
A 68000 machine, bit-mapped color graphics, a serial and
parallel port, user-expandable memory to 1 Meg (socketed
for 256k bytes using 64k chips with a jumper to enable
use of 256k chips when the price drops to give 1 Meg), and
a couple of expansion slots (every designer knows you can't
please everyone, but the slots will get you better than 90%).
Built in 1 meg floppy, space for second. A simple, usable
operating system. A simple, fast BASIC with every machine.
--
Mike Eve Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!everej@cornell.UUCP (Ralph Johnson) (11/30/84)
I will probably not be the first to claim that your "facts" are wrong. Apple said that they wanted to sell 250,000 Macs the first year. They are apparently going to come very close to the target. The computer store that I frequent has 40 or 50 pieces of software for the Mac for sale. Of course, there seem to be a preponderance of filing systems and only one word processor. There are only half a dozen program development systems. However, that seems pretty good for less than a year since announcement. Mac owners that I talk to are generally delighted with their purchase. There will probably not be any Mac compatibles. Few people seem to realize the enormous amount of software built into the ROM. I heard that the first version of Quickdraw, done in Pascal, was 128K. After rewriting it in assembly it was 64K. After another year or so of optimization (and adding features) it was 16K, and that's what is in the 64K ROM. I think these numbers came from Byte, but I'm just remembering them, so don't trust them too far. There are many, many man-years of programs in that ROM, and it would be infeasible to rewrite them. Therefore, any Mac compatible will have to copy the ROM, and will be illegal in the US. In addition, Apple uses custom chips in the disk controller, (and perhaps elsewhere) making copying harder. I assume that Apple did it that way on purpose, to prevent the Mac from ending up like the Apple II in the far east. One reason that the Mac is harder to program than other machines is because it is so different. Programmers are fastest at what they know best, and the Mac is very different from anything else that they are likely to have used. I can remember the first time I used Lisp, thinking I was a hotshot programmer who could master any language in a week. A lot of people have been learning similar lessons from programming the Mac. Also, there is a lot more needed to learn to use the Mac than with other machines. However, the result is that programs have a more consistent user interface that on other machines, and so are easier to learn how to use. One problem is that most languages are not suited for the object oriented programming style that best suits the Mac. Neither C nor Pascal are really suitable. I predict that an object oriented interactive language would be vastly superior to the standard programming languages on a Mac. Ralph Johnson
jimb@amd.UUCP (Jim Budler) (11/30/84)
In article <> eve@ssc-bee.UUCP (Michael Eve) writes: > The Mac has been less than an overwhelming success. Apple > is not selling as many as they predicted and software is > scarce. Developers complain of the difficulty of interfacing > with the Mac internals, and hardware designers are severely > limited. Apple is scrambling to redesign the closed Mac to > meet market demands meanwhile angering the current owners. > Hell, the Mac isn't even software compatible with itself. > Software which ran on 128k Macs won't run on 512k Macs. > Obviously, YOU don't like the Mac but: 1. You must not have read the news lately, business analysts say that the Mac accounts for at least 30% of Apples $1.7 billion gross. 2. Apple is scrambling to expand the plant to increase capacity. ( Not selling as many as forcast but the plant's too small?????) 3. Developers always complain. 4. Software developed for the IBM with DOS 1.0 didn't work with 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0. Any any of the combinations thereof. 5. Closed? Inside Mac is available to anyone. Software supplement is available to anyone (It's even posted on Usenet). -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 982-6547 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200 The Source: STW265
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) (11/30/84)
>2. Apple is scrambling to expand the plant to increase capacity. >( Not selling as many as forcast but the plant's too small?????) The reality is that Apple is in the process of doubling production in their Mac plant in Fremont, CA (built in the US, no less!) from 40,000/mo to 80,000/mo (I don't remember where those figures came from-- probably the San Jose Mercury News) in a plant with a capacity of 100,000/mo. They will also be adding about 200 new employees. To be honest, sales of Mac's did seem to level off after the initial surge. The main reason for this seems to be the fact that it turned out to be MUCH harder to get decent software out for the Mac than anticipated so the third party stuff stretched out beyond original estimates. That stuff is now starting to show up, and sales are picking up again. If sales are below what apple expected, I don't think they are significantly below. When I went looking for my Mac most places I talked to had them in stock, but didn't have a LOT of them in stock because they were selling quite well. At least in california, they aren't a glut on the market. There is a certain group out there that has been against the mac from the start, mainly because it isn't IBM compatible. Some of us (I refrain from saying 'those with a view of the future') find that a significant advantage-- I wouldn't touch a PC if you gave it to me, and I'm sure there are a lot of PC owners who say the same about macs. I personally think that the Mac is a growing force in the market and will be a major player for a long time to come. chuq -- From the center of a Plaid pentagram: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA ~But you know, monsieur, that as long as she wears the claw of the dragon upon her breast you can do nothing-- her soul belongs to me!~
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy <Brian Westley>) (12/04/84)
In article <269@ssc-bee.UUCP> eve@ssc-bee.UUCP (Michael Eve) replies: >> > Is any company out there coming out with a Mac compatible ? > > Why would anyone want to come out with a Mac compatible? > The Mac has been less than an overwhelming success. Apple > is not selling as many as they predicted and software is > scarce. Apple has sold more Macs than they expected to. It is already an overwhelming success. Software is not exactly scarce, and getting unscarcer. Go to Comdex. > Software which ran on 128k Macs won't run on 512k Macs. Name one. > > No. I don't think the market wants a Mac compatible. > I believe the market wants a high-performance, low-cost > computer. Say something like the Amiga is rumored to be. How much software is available for this rumor? Rumors of vaporware, now? > A simple, usable operating system. A simple, fast BASIC > with every machine. Basic?? You own PCjr stock, no? Merlyn Leroy "I like anarchy, but it's difficult to enforce."
geller@rlgvax.UUCP (David Geller) (12/14/84)
> There will probably not be any Mac compatibles. Few people seem to > realize the enormous amount of software built into the ROM. I heard > that the first version of Quickdraw, done in Pascal, was 128K. After > rewriting it in assembly it was 64K. After another year or so of > optimization (and adding features) it was 16K, and that's what is in > the 64K ROM. I think these numbers came from Byte, but I'm just remembering > them, so don't trust them too far. > > There are many, many man-years of programs in that ROM, and it would be > infeasible to rewrite them. Therefore, any Mac compatible will have to > copy the ROM, and will be illegal in the US. In addition, Apple uses > custom chips in the disk controller, (and perhaps elsewhere) making > copying harder. I assume that Apple did it that way on purpose, > to prevent the Mac from ending up like the Apple II in the far east. The MAC uses the same disk controller as the II series (The Woz machine). It is not that difficult to imagine someone else writing the equivalent. I also suspect that it is not to difficult to believe that a team of good programmers couln't create something very close to the *magic* in the Macs ROMS. My claims are based upon the inevitable - there will eventually be little machines far faster and more complex then the MAC with better graphics and a better more usable user-interface. Maybe it will even come from Apple. Maybe the Amiga will bring us closer to what we want...
spector@acf4.UUCP (12/20/84)
If you think that someone could just assemble a team of "good" programmers and come up the the stuff thats in the Macintosh's ROM, guess again. The innards of the Mac come close in sophistication to the Internals of VMS (or any other LARGE layered operating system.) [Also, no flames PLEASE]. The Macintosh user interface is implmented as a series of "services", i.e., the Window Manager Desk Manager Scrap Manager < et al > and quite a few packages such as QUICKDRAW, The Standard File packages, etc. The reason why the mac is "difficult" to program is because most programmers who work with micros are used to do everything by hand, and have no conception of a layered operating system. Once you realize that Apple has given you all of the "hard stuff" on a platter, all you have to do is concentrate on being creative, which of course, is what programming (to me at least) is all about. David HM Spector NYU/acf Systems Group ARPAnet:Spector@nyu-cmcl1.ARPA UUCPnet:...!allegra!cmcl2!cmcl1!spector "The opinions exressed are....(etc).."