erickson@mfgmem.dec.com (12/29/89)
This is a call for SPECULATION regarding the grade school/high
school educational computing environment of the year 2000.
In perusing this conference I have seen MANY notes by concerned
parents asking for advice in buying a family computer --- they
want functionality and performance, but they want the same
computing environment that their kids have at school. Today this
generally means buying something from the Apple ][ family.
I'm curious about what the future might bring --- specifically
the state of educational computing in the year 2000. I recall
the situation when I graduated from High School in 1980:
educational computing for MOST elementary, junior, and senior
high schools meant:
(a) No computing
(b) Time sharing (teletypes and 300 baud!)
(c) Early personal computers and home-brew software
o Ohio Scientific
o PETs
o Early Apples
My personal experience was a little bit of (b) and a lot of (c),
the latter on Ohio Scientific CHALLENGER computers. At that time
we never expected personal computing to be what it is today, ten
years later. But at the same time I see some simularities.
Educators (School Districts) tend to gravitate towards the
low-risk option --- spend money on moderately-priced systems with
huge installed bases and a wealth of courseware. This is a trend
that will continue, IMHO. Computer manufacturers can crank out
all the workstation-class machines they want, but the schools
will continue to purchase machines like the ][ family because of
the wealth of courseware available.
In a recent note someone downplayed the courseware/Apple ][
argument, suggesting that the majority of the 10K titles are OLD
--- that the NEW/GOOD stuff is available on newer platforms, such
as the Amiga or the MAC. Is this a valid argument? Consider
also the library of user-developed courseware.
My father is typical of a breed of educator that both buys
commercially available courseware and develops his own. He
chooses the Apple ][ family specifically because it allows him
this duality --- new courseware (physics-related) is constantly
available and the programming environment is simple enough for
him to easily, without formal training, create his own. When
add-in hardware is required (photoelectric timing gates, for
example) it is relatively inexpensive, if he cannot build it
himself. I propose that in ten year's time the elementary
/junior/senior high school computer of choice must allow this
duality --- a deep library of courseware, plus a supportive
development environment that allows easy user development of
courseware.
This was Stephen Jobs' dream with the NeXT machine. But is it
realistic to expect a migration of NeXT technology down to the
lower-end educational computing environment? Is is realistic to
expect my kids to be UNIX-literate?
My personal vision: a ][-class machine (realitively speaking)
with a supportive development environment. In short,
object-oriented application development on a ][-compatible
machine. Performance that makes such a machine practical/"fun",
but price that reduces the platform's perceived risk in the eyes
of educators. Sophistication that is invisible to the user when
heshe wants it to be, yet is easily accessible when it must be.
NeXT-class application-development innovations mapped onto a
][-class platform, much the same as the way the ][gs mapped
Mac-class interface innovations onto the ][-class platform.
So what do you think? Where are we headed? I'm sure there are a
few original opinions out there! 8^)
John Erickson
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
* John Erickson * erickson@mfgmem.dec.com *
* Advanced Test Development * ...!decwrl!mfgmem.dec.com!erickson *
* Digital Equipment Corp. * erickson%mfgmem.dec@decwrl.dec.com *
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (12/30/89)
In article <7143@shlump.nac.dec.com>, erickson@mfgmem.dec.com writes: > > This is a call for SPECULATION regarding the grade school/high > school educational computing environment of the year 2000. As impossible as it seems to predict this far ahead in the computer world I would like to make one observation. I think that the greatest threat to Apple's hold on the K-12 market will come as a result of IBM's release of OS/2 and their new bus architecture. I could just leave off here and let the flames roll in but here is my reason for believing this. It's been my experience that the majority of administrators in education think in terms of two computers, IBM's or Apples. They tend to opt for a $1500 Apple over a $4500 IBM. ( very rough estimates on the prices here, it's been a long time since I bought a new machine :-) ). Clones are unheard of. This, I feel, is due to the fact that the clones are made by a lot of smaller companies, or at least companies who's names aren't synonymous with computers. This may all change. The new IBM architecture and OS have infuriated so many people that seven of the largest clone manufacturers have banded together to keep the fire burning for MS-DOS and the old data bus. This will probably result in greater compatibility and, more importantly, a place in the spotlight. When education administrators start getting a hard look at clone prices ( though not necessarily a hard look at what they are getting) it could spell big trouble. In a similar vein, Apple may be shooting their Macs in the foot. Apple Macintosh has carved out a fairly nice spot in the small business category. However, more and more of these businessmen and administrators are looking into UNIX systems. Why? Because Apple keeps harping on Unix and multitasking. Where I work is a perfect example. This place was MAC USA. Anybody even talking about anything beside the Mac was sneered at. But now that's changing. They may be switching to 386's soon.Why, because Apple has convinced them that they need Unix capabilities. This is like volkswagon starting an add campaign stessing the safety value of a large vehicle. Pick up a copy of UNIX review someday and then tell me one good reason to get A/UX. The irony of course, is that most of these people had never heard of or cared about UNIX until Apple started telling them about it. Well, I'm off of my soapbox now. Happy New Year, everyone. Bob Church att!oucsace!bchurch
erickson@mfgmem.dec.com (John Erickson) (12/30/89)
The following text was posted on Digital's internal NOTES conference:
<<< LNKUGL::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]APPLE_COMPUTERS.NOTE;2 >>>
-< Apple Computer Discussions >-
================================================================================
Note 939.2 Educomputing 2000 2 of 2
LEDS3::ACCIARDI 109 lines 29-DEC-1989 23:04
-< the future is multimedia... are you prepared? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that most of the premises in .0 are on target, but I disagree
with a few...
The buzzword of the nineties is 'multimedia', which implies the
seamless integration of text/graphics/sound into interactive or
non-interactive 'slideshows' or tutorials.
In order for a platform to be a successful multimedia machine, I
believe a few lowest common denominators are needed...
* A unified file format for graphics and sound
* NTSC (television) compatibility, ie; any video source can provide
the background screen right on your computer display. Video
producers look for buzzwords like 'chroma-key', genlock, overscan...
* Good fast hardware with the ability to display at least 8 bit (256)
and preferably 12 bit (4096) or more colors in NTSC resolutions
* Powerful software that makes the creation of scripts painless
The educational possibilities for multimedia platforms are bounded only
by your imagination. With the availability of CD Rom readers with
almost infinite storage capacity, educators could assemble courseware
that covers almost all of mankind's accumulated knowledge.
Currently, the Macintosh II and the Amiga are the platforms of choice.
In a recent Newsweek article, Apple got most of the press, but the
Amiga was acknowledged as the pioneer and leader in the (currently
tiny) field.
Each has advantages and disadvantages over the other...
The Mac has in it's favor an open video architecture, good
compatability with the entire Motorola 68*** CPU line, a very well
developed user interface, and a killer marketing department. It also
has some excellent software (Macromind Director, VideoWorksII, etc).
NTSC compatibility can be added at reasonable cost, and most CD
library titles are available in Mac format.
The disadvantages to the Mac are it's relative high cost, which would
strain the budgets of most school systems.
The Amiga has in it's favor built-in NTSC compatibility, and meets full
NTSC severe overscan requirements with lots of colors (768 x 480 w/4096
colors). It's custom display hardware makes for very smooth animation
(up to 100 frames per second). The entire system is designed around
integer multiples of the NTSC colorburst frequency of 3.57 MHz, which
makes it easy to add low-cost genlocks. Total system costs will almost
always be far less than a comparable Mac II system. Compatability with
the full line of Moto CPUs is near perfect (the Amiga was developed
after the 68020 was announced, so it's OS has always been 32-bit
clean). The use of consistent file formats exceeds religious
fanaticism.
Software support is outstanding, with killer programs like The
Director, InVision, and Deluxe Video.
The disadvantages are the total lack of credibility of Commodore as a
reliable hardware vendor. This reputation, while unfair today, (CBM is
completely run by ex-Apple heavyweights) was earned during Jack
Trameil's tenure at CBM, and will be difficult or impossible to dispel.
The Amiga has a much cruder GUI than the Mac (although it's promised to
be fixed during 1990) making it considerably more difficult to learn.
Once mastered, it can actually be much more powerful than a Mac, given
it's true multitasking design.
The Amiga is doing well in verticle niche markets, such as cable TV and
weather graphics, but penetration of the educational market has been
negligable. The Amiga doesn't even get an asterisk or 'other' in the
pie charts. As far as I know, no CD rom libraries have been ported to
Amiga format, even though the machine uses Mac compatible SCSI
peripherals.
At the university level, where budgets are bigger, Amiga labs have been
established at major colleges like Ohio State and U of Lowell.
So, where does this leave the Apple II, specifically the GS? I have no
doubt that the Apple II (in some form) will be alive and well into the
nineties, but the current hardware falls short on many counts. The
display cannot handle enough colors at high resolution to provide
photographic realism, and the animation capabilities are severely
limited by the lack of graphics co-processors and a pokey CPU. There
is no interlaced composite video output. (Is it available from a
third party?) There is no software (in 16 bit mode) that can compare
with the offerings for the Mac and Amiga. Unless Apple significantly
improves the GS hardware, it will be (or already is) left faaaar behind
by the 68*** based systems.
My brother-in-law and sister both work at Apple HQ in Cupertino, and
are heavily involved in the explosive multimedia area. All their
efforts are Macintosh oriented, which should say something about
Apple's direction.
What about the MS-DOS systems? The Clones are penetrating the
educational system pretty successfully, but mostly in 8088/CGA
incarnations. These boxes also fall short in my list of requirements
for a good multimedia platform. By the time you get into a powerhouse
386/VGA system, your up into the $4k-$5k price range. Again, the Mac
and Amiga leave these entry level Clones far behind in performance.
Ed (Acciardi)
Disclaimer: The opinions and ideas expressed are those of the
author, and do not necessarily reflect the ideas or opinions
of this poster or Digital Equipment Corporation.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
* John Erickson * erickson@mfgmem.dec.com *
* Advanced Test Development * ...!decwrl!mfgmem.dec.com!erickson *
* Digital Equipment Corp. * erickson%mfgmem.dec@decwrl.dec.com *
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*UNESTJ@UNCVX1.BITNET (Tamara) (12/31/89)
Time : 30-DEC-1989 12:35 > > In article <7143@shlump.nac.dec.com>, erickson@mfgmem.dec.com writes: > > > > This is a call for SPECULATION regarding the grade school/high > > school educational computing environment of the year 2000. > > As impossible as it seems to predict this far ahead in the computer world I > would like to make one observation. I think that the greatest threat to Apple' s > hold on the K-12 market will come as a result of IBM's release of OS/2 and the ir > new bus architecture. [rest of argument deleted] > Bob Church > att!oucsace!bchurch Bob perhaps this is an oversimplification of your argument but I will state it anyway. You seem to argue that most of the decisions about education are based on hardware, whereas I believe it is the educational software which sells the machine to educational institutions. How much educational software has been written for OS2? Why would K-12 need 386s or 486s? What about the investment schools have already made in software and training in that software? Schools are conservative institutions. Change comes slowly. IBM is going to have to do more than just offer a cheaper better machine. I believe they will need a good argument for telling schools (especially their libraries) to trash all the software they've invested in because there's better software out there and that multitasking or speed or any of the other sexy things OS2 proports to do are really going to be useful in this particular environment. Just my humble opinion -------- "Keep On Rocking in a Free World" Neil Young UNESTJ@uncvx1.bitnet<Tamara>
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (12/31/89)
On Sat, 30 Dec 89 05:10:04 GMT you said: >more and more of these businessmen and administrators are looking into UNIX >systems. Why? Because Apple keeps harping on Unix and multitasking. Where I >work is a perfect example. This place was MAC USA. Anybody even talking about >anything beside the Mac was sneered at. But now that's changing. They may >be switching to 386's soon.Why, because Apple has convinced them that they >need Unix capabilities. This is like volkswagon starting an add campaign >stessing the safety value of a large vehicle. Pick up a copy of UNIX review >someday and then tell me one good reason to get A/UX. The irony of course, is First good reason: ALL "32-bit clean" Macintosh software will run under A/Ux AND '32-bit clean' also will be REQUIRED by Operating System 7.x That means that by '91 or so, if you're running A/Ux, then you get UNIX AND Macintosh. (see PC Week 25 Dec page 4) Second good reason - the Motorola 88000 Macintosh planned for 1991 (even the 68040 in late 1990). Those workstations will have enough capacity to run 'user friendly interface' UNIX and Macintosh with enough left over to open a Window emulating OS/2 Presentation Manager and another emulating a IIgs. (Ibid.) For myself: I *fearlessly* predict that by the turn of the century, hardware won't matter to educators anymore. Software will. A variety of hardware will exist that is capable of running whatever software an educator wants to use and the REAL debate will be over what software most effectively attains educational goals.
abc@BRL.ARPA (Brinton Cooper) (12/31/89)
In response to erickson@mfgmem.dec.com's argument "that the greatest threat to Apple's hold on the K-12 market will come as a result of IBM's release of OS/2 and the new bus architecture..." Tamara <UNESTJ%UNCVX1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu> writes: > Schools are conservative institutions. Change comes slowly. IBM is going to > have to do more than just offer a cheaper better machine. I believe they will > need a good argument for telling schools (especially their libraries) to trash > all the software they've invested in because there's better software out there > and that multitasking or speed or any of the other sexy things OS2 proports to > do are really going to be useful in this particular environment. The argument is even stronger. In addition to thousands of dollars in software, school districts may have tens of thousands of dollars worth of Apple II computers in each elementary school. My wife's public school has about 10 such machines on a server. To move away from Apple would cost our county perhaps a half million dollars. In addition, there are teacher re-training costs. Every time a teacher is sent to an "in service" workshop, a substitute teacher is hired. Instructors for these workshops are hired, and study materials are purchased. Who pays for all this? In this region, Apple and the Giant food chain are collaborating on a promotional to give away, typically, an Apple IIe for $125,000 in food store cash register receipts. This only increases the installed base of II-class systems even more. In addition, those few high schools that had Apple II machines have passed them over to the elementary schools, thus concentrating the installed base and making it more viable as more machines are available to the children at one time. I don't know who will benefit the most from all this. According to InCider, Apple may abandon the II line in 1990. Yet, the machines chug along. Perhaps Claris, Broderbund, and the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium will benefit by continued software sales. But I don't think that our County Council will buy the argument that the existence of OS/2, new bus archintectures, multitasking, and the 386/486/586 processors are sufficient reason to abandon an investment and sign up for an additional $500K or more of expenses. > Just my humble opinion Mine, too. _Brint
ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (01/01/90)
In-Reply-To: message from erickson@mfgmem.dec.com In general, all computers will be networked, inside the classroom, with other classrooms and WANed to other schools (similiar to bitnet). There will be very few Macs, except as servers. Boards with money will have IBM EDNET (PS/30 then later PS/30 286), boards with less money will have Apple //'s (GS's) and boards with no money will have whatever boards with money are finished with (Apple II's (pluses and e's) and C64's). I have seen EDNET running PORT, it works, but the interface is retarded, it is too easy to get lost and even easier to hang the machine. Not just yours, but the server as well. I understand IBM is going with a different interface in the future though. Mac's are too expensive and not cost effective for most programs, particularly technical ones where mechanical add-ons are used. This could change IF a low cost Mac comes out with colour and slots. Apple does not realize that it has its answer already installed. The GS provides just about all the functionallity needed. A clean interface, good graphics (although VGA wll be minimum by 2000), excellent sound (for true voice and real music), easy LANability, installed base, and thousands of education specific programs. it is also competant at business level functions although a good database and spreadsheet (scripting languages needed) is needed. A GS can easily take us to 2000 with creative application of software ideas. I wouldn't say no to hardware speed ups though.
cwilson@NISC.SRI.COM (Chan Wilson) (01/02/90)
In article <8912301451.aa16052@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> abc@BRL.ARPA (Brinton Cooper) writes: > >In response to erickson@mfgmem.dec.com's argument "that the greatest >threat to Apple's hold on the K-12 market will come as a result of >IBM's release of OS/2 and the new bus architecture..." >Tamara <UNESTJ%UNCVX1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu> writes: > [....] >The argument is even stronger. In addition to thousands of dollars in >software, school districts may have tens of thousands of dollars worth >of Apple II computers in each elementary school. My wife's public >school has about 10 such machines on a server. To move away from Apple >would cost our county perhaps a half million dollars. [....] >In this region, Apple and the Giant food chain are collaborating on a >promotional to give away, typically, an Apple IIe for $125,000 in food >store cash register receipts. This only increases the installed base of >II-class systems even more. In addition, those few high schools that >had Apple II machines have passed them over to the elementary schools, >thus concentrating the installed base and making it more viable as more >machines are available to the children at one time. > >I don't know who will benefit the most from all this. According to >InCider, Apple may abandon the II line in 1990. Yet, the machines chug >along. Perhaps Claris, Broderbund, and the Minnesota Educational >Computing Consortium will benefit by continued software sales. "Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice." A few days ago I recieved the latest Apple Computer shareholders report (owning a measly 40 shares :-), and scanning through it, I came across several interesting items: a) The macintosh side of things gets a page and a half of mention, with the 3 cpus introduced in the '89 year, and the revealing of system 7.0 in the works. b) The GS gets 1/3 a page, with no mention of any system, cpu or other soft/hardware upgrades. Okay, this one is somewhat understandable. But this one... c) There are several paragraphs about the Macintosh as used in educational institutions. NOTHING is mentioned about the //e. d) furthermore, they go on to say that students that use Macintoshes at school will turn into professionals that use Macintoshes at work. Uh huh. Now, I don't recall them explicitly saying K-12 or college students, but there is little/no mention of the //e in K-12 situations. I don't get this. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing; doesn't, in fact, seem to be connected to the same body. Hmm... why don't we draft up a letter similar to the one just posted to the FCC, but complaining to Apple about the representation that the // series is getting? Especially if this came from shareholders, but all Apple // owners apply. Sure, you can bitch and moan all over Usenet, but remember, the people who make these decisions most likely don't have access. A little 'physical overflowing' of mailboxes should bring a change...? >> Just my humble opinion > >Mine, too. > Me too. I want a GS with the speed of a Mac ci, graphics of an Amiga... but improved, naturally. (hee hee ho ho...) ................ Chan Wilson -- cwilson@nisc.sri.com <or> cwilson@nic.ddn.mil 'A computer operator at SRI International' I think, therefore, there is the distinct possibility that I exist. Furthermore, I find it likely that there are other people out there. ...UUCP/GS in research phase. More to come...
rnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher) (01/03/90)
In article <11480@fs2.NISC.SRI.COM> cwilson@NISC.SRI.COM (Chan Wilson) writes: > > a) The macintosh side of things gets a page and a half of > mention, with the 3 cpus introduced in the '89 year, and > the revealing of system 7.0 in the works. > > b) The GS gets 1/3 a page, with no mention of any system, cpu > or other soft/hardware upgrades. > > > Okay, this one is somewhat understandable. But this one... > > c) There are several paragraphs about the Macintosh as used in > educational institutions. NOTHING is mentioned about the > //e. > > >I don't get this. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is >doing; doesn't, in fact, seem to be connected to the same body. > >Hmm... why don't we draft up a letter similar to the one just posted >to the FCC, but complaining to Apple about the representation that the >// series is getting? Especially if this came from shareholders, but >all Apple // owners apply. Sure, you can bitch and moan all over >Usenet, but remember, the people who make these decisions most likely >don't have access. A little 'physical overflowing' of mailboxes >should bring a change...? I have a suggestion. If someone will draft a sample letter and find out the appropriate addresses I will include the letter in our users group newsletter and encourage our members to sign it and send it in. I'm sure many of you also are in users groups of some kind. If we all do this perhaps we can start a significant grass roots campaign that Apple will listen to. Apple has sold over 5 million Apple II series machines and just over 1 million Macs. That means that over 80% of Apple's customers are Apple II users. Any company that pisses off 80% of its customers (even if they only account for 25% of the company's current revenues) would be crazy. I didn't originate the thought above. An Apple marketing type did. The statement above is paraphrased from a statement he made to the Apple II developers at AppleFest. Perhaps he is the one to send the letters to. He could use them as ammunition to influence his bosses. His name is: Michael J. Homer Director of Marketing Apple USA Apple Computer, Inc. 20330 Stevens Creek Blvd., MS 36-D Cupertino, CA 95014 Let's keep the tone reasonable. A bunch of letters from rabid, unreasonable people will be dismissed as the work of cranks and more moderate Apple II users will have no part of such a campaign. However, letters indicating the unhappiness of cash paying customers with a legitimate complaint will be taken seriously. Any comments folks? Rick Fincher rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu
ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (01/04/90)
In-Reply-To: message from SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET This is really a Mac statement however..... Did you know that all fully System 7.0 complient software will run unchanged on the 88000 Mac? I didn't believe it either, but if you restrict your program to just using the toolboxes it will run on any processor. My question is, when will it run on the GS?
ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (01/04/90)
In-Reply-To: message from bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU Ontario has been using UNIX systems in the elementary and secondary schools for about 5 years now on the Unisys ICON system. It has basically failed. A little history first. By 1983 a number of different microcomputers were installed in Ontario schools, Commodore PETs, Apple II's and about a dozen CP/M type machines. The costs for maintaining each type was increasing rapidly, particularly for the orphaned CP/M machines (remember Hyperion?) In addition software was needed for each school for each machine. Since the courseware was to be standardized across the province, each program had to be ported to each machine increasing costs further. The solution was to standardize are a single system. ICON was chosen because it was networked UNIX and fast (at the time). Schools could buy which ever system they wanted, but would not receive any subsidies unless ICON's were purchased. Many boards continued with the same systems snce the ICONs were very expensive even with the subsidy. This was 1985. It is now 1990. The ICONs are now one of five systems authorized for subsidies. There is still little software available for them, compared to Apple II and C64 and most children would rather not use them (depending on their aptitude, some love them, some will never use a computer again). Most school boards are going IBM except those with large numbers of Apples, who are networking off of a Mac file server. Secondary schools are close to 99% IBM with 1% everything else. The C64's have moved down to elementary schools. UNIX in schools might take off, but at present the cost is too high. Stable X-windows (ditch the CLI entirely) is needed, 386 boxes with 80+Meg HD's and a cuouple Meg's of RAM plus VGA+ graphics. the ICON is 8088 based and is kinda DOS compatible. The ICON II is 286 based and more DOS compatible. The kids can use the Apple II's, bu the Mac's are for the teachers only. EDNET seems to be IBM's future. Amiga's are used in special areas, music usually.
prl3546@tahoma.UUCP (Philip R. Lindberg) (01/05/90)
> This is a call for SPECULATION regarding the grade school/high > school educational computing environment of the year 2000. > [...] There are at least two points that apply here. One: Eventually, the "innovative" and "progressive/futuristic thinking" administrator (which most of them think they are) will choose the "standard-of-the-future" as their base computer, which of course is I*M, (Everybody knows that right? ;). Unless Apple chooses to AGGRESSIVELY pursue them and convince them that they will continue to advance AND still support their older systems. Two: In the past, progress has usually started on the coasts (of USA) and moved inward. This means that while the middle-state schools are still computing merrily with their //e's & IIgs' the coast-state schools will start moving to I*M. The Clone people are already jumping into this are have made "great deals" with coast-state schools, (I know of several personally). The result? Since Apple currently has a solid hold in the education market, they will either sit on their laurels or push for MAC's. The end result? The administrators will say, "Hey, if we need to change computers, why not change to the 'standard-of-the-future' ?" (read I*M) > So what do you think? Where are we headed? I wish I knew. I think its up to Apple at this point. > John Erickson +--------------------------------------------------------------+ |If my IIgs 'll just hold out for a few more months 'til GS+...| | Phil Lindberg snail mail: 13845 S.E. 131 ST | | UUCP: ..!uunet!bcstec!tahoma!prl3546 Renton, WA 98056 | | Disclaimer: I don't speak for my employer (and I not | | sure they even know I exist....) | +--------------------------------------------------------------+
bpendlet@bambam.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) (01/11/90)
> This is a call for SPECULATION regarding the grade school/high > school educational computing environment of the year 2000. The driving force in the low end of the computer industry is the commodity commputer. A long time ago there were lots of different companies making automobiles. They were all different. Now days there are still lots of companies making cars, But about the only differences you can name are cost, durability, and performance. Computers are going the same way. In less than ten years I expect to see computers manufactured by many companies that can only be told apart by reading the name plate on the front. You will pay for the amount of storage, the performance, and the communications bandwidth that you want. You'll buy a machine based on company reputation, service, price, special features ... What do I expect these machines to be like? Only hardcore computer jocks will care about what CPU is in the system because ANSI C or maybe C++ will be accepted as the universal assembly language. Applications will be sold in an ISO standard machine independent form. Each machine will have a comverter that converts from the machine independent form to a form suitable to the CPU. The OS kernal will be POSIX compliant. Windowing, interactive input, video, graphics (including 3d graphics), and sound output will be done through a highly extended version of X. The GUI will probably be based on Motif. Networking will be based on ISO communications standards. Why will this happen? Because the national governments are tired of spending lots of money and getting nothing. This is a feeling shared by computer users world wide but the governments have the power to force this shape on the computer industry. By forcing conformance to a set of standards you force a situation in which software you buy today will run on computers you buy tomorrow. And computers you own will usually run software you buy tomorrow. The computer companies have done everything they could to avoid face to face competition. But the situation in the IBM PC clone market graphically demonstrated the value of direct competition in the computer industry. The users won big. In last sundays want adds I saw NEW 10 Mhz xt clones with 640K, dual floppies, hercules compatible monochrome graphics, mointor, all the standard interface being offered for less than the price of an Apple IIc advertised in the business section. Even less than some people wanted for USED Apple IIs. Competition helps the consumer and the national goverments are HUGE consumers of computers. Companies that don't follow this trend will die. Computers that don't have enough power to follow the trend will soon be obsolete. Anything with less than a 32 bit data path and 24 bits of address is already obsolete. Though there are so many of them that you'll be able to buy software for them for many years. Looking down the road we see 16 megabit DRAMs coming on the market around '92 or '93 and 64 megabit parts sometime between '94 and '96. 32 bit RISK processors just keep getting faster. And so does the 68000 family and the 80X86 family. Think about it, a machine the pysical size of a Commodore 64, or an Apple IIc, designed to enter the market in '95 could easily have a >20 mips 32 or 64 bit processor and 64 MegaBYTES of internal ram. Such machines can run the kind of software interface I'm talking about and give very good performance. It looks to me that Apples move toward the Mac running AU/X is a smart response to the writing on the wall. By 2000 the schools will be using much the same technology that business and government will have been using for the last 5 years. In my not so humble opinion Bob P. -- Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet X: Tools, not rules.
sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown) (01/13/90)
In-Reply-To: message from ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.com We use ICONS (made by Burroughs, now Unisys) at my school. The 'educational' software is a joke. It could easily be replaced by Apple IIe software, let alone Apple IIgs software. The only thing it does provide however, is for students to very easily grab things from each other's directories, and for complete records to be kept of what each student does (somewhat Orwellian!) In terms of what these psuedo UNIX (called QNX) machines COULD do, they are being underutilized. But the Government of Ontario (Canada) has made a large financial committment to the ICON, and I can't see them admitting that they have developed a very expensive mistake. UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sb ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sb@nosc.mil INET: sb@pro-generic.cts.com
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (01/17/90)
On Wed, 10 Jan 90 22:46:35 GMT <info-apple-request@APPLE.COM> said: >> This is a call for SPECULATION regarding the grade school/high >> school educational computing environment of the year 2000. Rumor has it that IBM is about to offer a (bundled) Apple II coprocessor board with PS/2 Models 25 and 30 (AT buss, not microchannel). Has anyone heard if that board is going to be any more capable that the previous which emulated ONLY a 48K Apple ][+ in 40 columns (like is Big Blue going to offer at least Apple //c compatibility????)???? :-) /s Murph <Sewall%UConnVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu> [Internet] or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP] + Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)
w0033@desire.wright.edu (01/20/90)
It would seem that since the toolsets are quite similar between the GS and Mac, it wouldn't take much to make a cross compiler for the two machines. I'm not sure if specific parameter passing is in the same order and the like, but many tools are the same. I'm unsure, but I suspect that the Mac does have some tools which are not available on the GS directly, so it might end up being only upward (downward???) compatible in that GS programs could be ported to the Mac but not the other way. I had heard rumors that such a cross compiler existed or was in the works, but I have yet to see anything