barry@rbdc (Barry Newberry) (03/20/90)
I have no doubts that the Mac is far more powerful than any Apple II,
IIgs included. At 8 MHz, the 65816 can't come close to a 680x0 running
at 20 MHz. The 65816 only has 3 data registers (counting X & Y regs);
the 680x0 has 8 data registers and 8 address registers. I've programmed
the Apple II in Assembly for 8 years, and there aren't enough tricks to
make a 65816 work anywhere near as fast as a 680x0. Still, I prefer my
IIgs over any Mac (I would accept a free Mac if I got a few thousand
dollars worth of peripherals to go with it).
The Apple II line is FAR from obsolete (IMHO, to use someone else's
abreviation). Most of the time, I run my IIgs at "normal" (1 MHz) speed.
The truth is that I spend most of my time programming (typing), and I
just don't type fast enough to require the "fast" mode. I really would
like to see the standard IIgs at 7+ Mhz, but the point is that most people
don't need a super-powerful computer. People want a useful, inexpensive,
and reliable machine. Macs are expensive. My first computer, an Apple II+,
started out with a cheap monochrome (green) composite monitor; I think it
was something like $100. At the time, you could run a good number of
programs off of a 5.25" disk (143K). Presently, a hard drive is a MUST on
any Mac, and you have to pay for the high resolution which is part of the
Mac. I do NOT like internal hard drives, due to the nature of viruses.
Also, I am not fond of GS/OS (although it's a great OS) because of the
frequent need to "Insert System.Disk."
Apple still needs to make major improvements on the IIgs. BASIC in
ROM should support Super Hi-Res graphics and the Toolbox, as well as using
upper banks of memory. The Hi-Res graphics of the the II+ was a good
selling point, because it could be EASILY used WITHOUT additional software.
The Double Hi-Res of the IIe was not a good selling point, because almost
no one could use it. Even with all of my Assembly Language and Graphics
experince, I avoid Double Hi-Res because it requires dithering and bank
switching (bank selecting). It would be real nice to use the IIgs sound
from BASIC, using a sine wave as the default waveform.
Apple management needs to realize that there are a lot of people
who have money and want to buy computers, but THEY DON'T ALL HAVE $5000
TO SPEND !!! Also, these people do not need multitask calculation of
dynamic five-body gravitational interaction. But a 7+ MHz CPU would be
nice.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, until there is a cure for Assembly Language Brain Fry,
there will always be the N.C. Home for Deranged Programmers.
.......................................................................nagendra@bucsf.bu.edu (nagendra mishr) (03/21/90)
You'r forgetting the point that very soon there is going to be a slew of user software popping out of companies, and they will be requireing mega cpu time. A wimpy computer will be ignored because the programmer won't want to wait just to debug the stuff. I wouldn't. It's like taking a pee shooter to stop a criminal. maybe you'll shot him in the eye and blind him, but why use the pee shooter when you've got an elephant gun? nagendra
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/21/90)
barry@rbdc (Barry Newberry) writes: >I have no doubts that the Mac is far more powerful than any Apple II, >IIgs included. And the point is that those of us who buy Apple II's don't buy for raw power. [ comments about register and machine code differences deleted ] > Still, I prefer my IIgs over any Mac I agree, and not because I hate the Mac -- I love using them -- it's because what I want from a computer is provided much better by a GS than by _any_ other machine, Amiga and PC included. > The Apple II line is FAR from obsolete (IMHO, to use someone else's >abreviation). Most of the time, I run my IIgs at "normal" (1 MHz) speed. >The truth is that I spend most of my time programming (typing), and I >just don't type fast enough to require the "fast" mode. I really would >like to see the standard IIgs at 7+ Mhz, but the point is that most people >don't need a super-powerful computer. People want a useful, inexpensive, >and reliable machine. I can't agree with you more. I've been writing my fingers raw trying to convince the MIPS-mongers of this. 7 mhz is what we need, because it makes all of our current software run very acceptably and is what Sierra needs to run their game system. I susptect many other third parties would feel the same way. >Macs are expensive. My first computer, an Apple II+, >started out with a cheap monochrome (green) composite monitor; I think it >was something like $100. At the time, you could run a good number of >programs off of a 5.25" disk (143K). Presently, a hard drive is a MUST on >any Mac, and you have to pay for the high resolution which is part of the >Mac. I do NOT like internal hard drives, due to the nature of viruses. >Also, I am not fond of GS/OS (although it's a great OS) because of the >frequent need to "Insert System.Disk." I can also agree with most of this. The system disk switching on the GS is far better than the Mac's -- trying getting info on a data disk with a one drive Plus -- I did and had to go through three full swaps. On the GS one swap at most. Some of them (like when you drage things to the trash) are bugs and you can cancel them without hurting anything. > Apple still needs to make major improvements on the IIgs. BASIC in >ROM should support Super Hi-Res graphics and the Toolbox, as well as using >upper banks of memory. The Hi-Res graphics of the the II+ was a good >selling point, because it could be EASILY used WITHOUT additional software. Thank God for that. People don't realize how handy Applesloth is. I have done stuff in it that would be sheer HELL on a real development system and I'm glad I at least have a choice. >The Double Hi-Res of the IIe was not a good selling point, because almost >no one could use it. Even with all of my Assembly Language and Graphics >experince, I avoid Double Hi-Res because it requires dithering and bank >switching (bank selecting). It would be real nice to use the IIgs sound >from BASIC, using a sine wave as the default waveform. Yup. Double hi-res is an arcane art, and there appear to be some adventure games that really exploit it now, so you get very nice looking graphics on a 'lowly' television. > Apple management needs to realize that there are a lot of people >who have money and want to buy computers, but THEY DON'T ALL HAVE $5000 >TO SPEND !!! Also, these people do not need multitask calculation of >dynamic five-body gravitational interaction. But a 7+ MHz CPU would be >nice. I can't say it any better. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
jayg@wpi.wpi.edu (Jay Giurleo) (03/21/90)
In article <1990Mar21.062445.13965@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >barry@rbdc (Barry Newberry) writes: > >>I have no doubts that the Mac is far more powerful than any Apple II, >>IIgs included. > >And the point is that those of us who buy Apple II's don't buy for raw >power. > >> Still, I prefer my IIgs over any Mac > >I agree, and not because I hate the Mac -- I love using them -- it's because >what I want from a computer is provided much better by a GS than by _any_ >other machine, Amiga and PC included. In my opinion, the GS has a lot of potential. But what I see now is a computer that is trying to gain the ease of use, standardization, and flexability of its manufacturer's bigger computers. Just look at the IIgs finder. If that's not a copy of the Mac, I don't know what is. Unfortunately, the GS isn't a Mac, and I don't think that type of inter- face was the best solution for the computer. Simply put, the GS isn't fast enough to deal with a complex graphic interface. I have to say that there are a lot of things that I like about my GS. It has a excellent sound chip, one that hasn't properly been exploited yet by the majority of programmers, and good graphics. What I DON'T like is the ridiculous operating speeds. No computer that is being produced today should have a clock speed of under 3 MHz. Even when the original PCs were built, they had a clock speed of just under 5 MHz. Why couldn't the GS have a decently fast chip? Why hasn't Apple done something about that sooner? There's a new Mac, the IIfx with a 33 MHz processer. How come Apple Computer is leaving us with basically no upgrade in performance? What really bothers my, however, is the Apple II line's affinity for crashing much too often. Maybe I just have bad luck, but my GS crashes many times more often than comparible computers. How can I get things done if my software keeps crashing and I have to wait for GSOS to load up again and again. Lately, I seem to be sticking to Prodos-8 material because it runs fast enough, loads fast enough, and doesn't crash nearly as often. Getting back to the point of the article, though, I believe the biggest difference between the Apple IIgs and the Macintosh line is not necessarily the speed, or the power, it's the fact that the Macintosh design over the years has improved vastly. The Mac is a machine that has been refined time and time again. That is what sets the Mac and GS apart. The Mac is a smooth computer to use. Its software works, and it doesn't crash as often. It does this with a transparency to the user that the GS doesn't offer. I'm not trying to sling mud at the GS, its just that when I am forced to compare it to the Mac, I see a computer that has been rather neglected in design. The GS+ may help that some. I hope it does. jayg@wpi.wpi.edu jayg@wpi.bitnet
bmarlowe@ics.uci.edu (Brett Marlowe) (03/22/90)
In response to someone having a reliable Macintosh: My experience has been just the opposite. I use most of the various models in the macintosh lineup from the plus in the lower-division labs here up to a IIci running A/UX, and I find myself restarting those machines far more often than my GS at home. For example, I'm writing this right now from home and I haven't rebooted my machine in weeks (I have a screen saver installed and never shutdown the system. I do have to keep the cover cracked open or my keyboard glu chip overheats. Is this fixed in the ROM 04 machine yet :-) -Brett -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brett Marlowe bmarlowe@bonnie.ics.uci.edu Apple // Forever!! A senior in mathematics and Information & Computer Science at the University of California, Irvine. I said it, so I'm responsible for it not them! So There!
wombat@claris.com (Scott Lindsey) (03/23/90)
In article <26080B91.1658@paris.ics.uci.edu> bmarlowe@ics.uci.edu (Brett Marlowe) writes: > shutdown the system. I do have to keep the cover cracked open or my > keyboard glu chip overheats. Is this fixed in the ROM 04 machine yet > :-) FWIW, I've never seen it happen on a ROM 3. Scott Lindsey | I dig iguana in their outer space duds Claris Corp. | saying, "Aren't you glad we only eat bugs?" ames!claris!wombat| DISCLAIMER: These are not the opinions of Claris, Apple, wombat@claris.com | StyleWare, the author, or anyone else living or Dead.
cs225af@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (03/26/90)
> What really bothers my, however, is the Apple II line's affinity for > crashing much too often. Maybe I just have bad luck, but my GS > crashes many times more often than comparible computers. How can I get > things done if my software keeps crashing and I have to wait for GSOS to > load up again and again. Lately, I seem to be sticking to Prodos-8 material > because it runs fast enough, loads fast enough, and doesn't crash nearly as > often. Huh??? In all of the considerable amount of time I've used Apple IIs I've seen far fewer system crashes than I have often seen in a single day at a Mac lab. In fact, system crashes on the older IIs (pre-GS) are usually only caused by bugs, damage to disks, or hitting Control Reset. Granted, the IIgs is a bit more susceptible to system crashes (I have had to spend hours figuring out why a certain program always hangs). Usually the cause of this, though, is CDAs, NDAs, and/or INITs that don't quite do things just right. If you have lots of problems with GS/OS this is probably the cause, so try disabling all your desk accessories and see if your crashes go away. Then, re-enable them a few at a time until the problem reappears. You will often find that using this process of elimination you can isolate exactly what program is causing the trouble, and then either delete it or get in touch with the author for assistance. If on the other hand you are having "Fatal system error"s or GS/OS System Errors, you may have a different problem. In this case, you should write down EXACTLY what appears on the screen, what you were doing at the time, and your complete hardware/software/OS configuration and ask someone here for help. --rubio (rubio-1@uiuc.edu)
throoph@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Henry Throop) (03/26/90)
In article <15800108@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs225af@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >In all of the considerable amount of time I've used Apple IIs I've seen far >fewer system crashes than I have often seen in a single day at a Mac lab. MACINTOSH = Machine Always Crashes; If Not, The Operating System Hangs. (OK, so the gs crashes a lot too, but you can't make any good acronyms with only two letters...) >--rubio (rubio-1@uiuc.edu) Henry --- Henry Throop Internet: throoph@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
jem@hpisod2.HP.COM (Jim McCauley) (03/27/90)
In your posting to comp.sys.apple, you write:
You'r forgetting the point that very soon there is going to be a slew
of user software popping out of companies, and they will be requireing
mega cpu time. A wimpy computer will be ignored because the programmer
won't want to wait just to debug the stuff. I wouldn't. It's like
taking a pee shooter to stop a criminal. maybe you'll shot him in the
eye and blind him, but why use the pee shooter when you've got an
elephant gun?
nagendra
----------
Irrelevant. Development for the Apple // could be done on a more
powerful system, either through cross-assembly or emulation. A Mac IIfx
might be just the ticket -- especially considering the fact that it has
two well-disguised Apple //s on its circuit board. They do the I/O work.
Why not use them as the emulation base for a fast-turnaround development
system?
Apple // developers should use an "elephant gun." That would get the
Apple // software out the door in a hurry.
USO
Jim McCauley USO GSY/USO/HP-UX Learning Products
USO
Learning Products Engineer USO
General Systems Division USO
Hewlett Packard Company USO XXX USOUSOUSO XXX XXX XXX XXX
19447 Pruneridge Avenue USO XXX USOUSOUSO XXX XXX XXX XXX
Mail Stop 48SO USO XXX USO USO XXX XXX XXX XXX
Cupertino CA 95014 USOUSOUSO USOUSOUSO XXX XXX XXX XXXXX
USOUSOUSO USOUSOUSO XXX XXX XXX XXXXX
(408) 447-4993 XXX XXX USO XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX USO XXXXXXXXX XXX XXX
jem@hpulpcu3.hp.com XXX XXX USO XXXXXXX XXX XXX
Disclaimer: My employer has no idea that I have any opinions.