heart@bucc2.UUCP (10/09/89)
I would just like to take the time to say that I believe that Apple
is making a grave mistake in abandoning the Apple // line. I know
they giving up on it because:
a) they have only introduced 1 new Apple // since the GS (the //c+)
b) they insist on selling the Apple //'s at a price that makes the
Mac more attractive (the Mac+ can be had for about $1300, a reasonably
equiped //GS will cost $1500+)
c) they admit not caring about the Apple // line by ignoring it in their
latest quarterly report (the Mac and it's related products are heavily
emphasized.)
I think that Apple should give their // line of computers a serious upgrade
such as the ever rumored GS+. A new // need a clock speed of AT LEAST 8mhz
with 1meg ram, a built in 3.5" drive, serial, scsi, and at least one
PARALLEL port built in. Also, the price must come down from the insane
price of the GS.
If Apple is going to continue to ignore obviously needed upgrades in it's
original line of computers, they should SELL THE LINE to a company who
will take the time and make the effort to continue pushing it to it's limit
and giving the customers the support that they probably need and definately
want.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Kohler UUCP: {cepu,att,uiucdcs,noao}!bradley!bucc2!heart
Bradley University ARPA: cepu!bradley!bucc2!heart@seas.ucla.edu
University Hall room 218 ATTMAIL: attmail!bradley!bucc2!heart
1307 West Bradley Ave. PHONE: (309) 677-1664
Peoria, IL 61606
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------SAB121@PSUVM.BITNET (10/10/89)
Hmmmmm... Laser IIgs+. Has a nice ring to it, eh? At least we would know that
the speed would be there and that it would continue to be developed...
...Sal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are my own. If anyone thinks I speak for them, check again.. I
ain't a ventriloquist.
A dedicated IIgs user in search of help!jearls@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU ( Stupid ) (10/10/89)
SAB121@PSUVM.BITNET says: >Hmmmmm... Laser IIgs+. Has a nice ring to it, eh? At least we would know that >the speed would be there and that it would continue to be developed... > ...Sal The only problem is that (at least when I talked to Video Technologies at AppleFest) they are not planning to touch the IIgs at all. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >My opinions are my own. If anyone thinks I speak for them, check again.. I >ain't a ventriloquist. > A dedicated IIgs user in search of help! - John -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Stupid@Idiots.Anonymous.Com | There's an explanation for everything. Tis a pity jearls@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU | that many of those explanations make no sense. earlsj@AFAL-EDWARDS.AF.MIL | - The Teachings of Ebenezum, volume LXIX
bsherman@ibiza.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman) (10/10/89)
jearls@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU ( Stupid ) writes: >SAB121@PSUVM.BITNET says: >>Hmmmmm... Laser IIgs+. Has a nice ring to it, eh? At least we would know that >>the speed would be there and that it would continue to be developed... >> ...Sal >earlsj@AFAL-EDWARDS.AF.MIL | - The Teachings of Ebenezum, volume LXIX >earlsj@AFAL-EDWARDS.AF.MIL | - The Teachings of Ebenezum, volume LXIX >The only problem is that (at least when I talked to Video Technologies at AppleFest) they are not planning to touch the IIgs at all. >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>My opinions are my own. If anyone thinks I speak for them, check again.. I >>ain't a ventriloquist. >> A dedicated IIgs user in search of help! >- John >-- >_______________________________________________________________________________ >Stupid@Idiots.Anonymous.Com | There's an explanation for everything. Tis a pity >jearls@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU | that many of those explanations make no sense. >earlsj@AFAL-EDWARDS.AF.MIL | - The Teachings of Ebenezum, volume LXIX Gosh, is that what they were saying at Applefest?? I wonder then what they call the machine I =SAW= at their booth that was running Mean 18 golf or some sinilar GS golf program?? It had their name tag on it, and certainly did not look like anything that has originated in Cupertino. I did not hear any sound from it (if the program in fact has any sound, I've never played it). And what was it they were mimbling about using the word "portable"? Hmm, the spring rains bring new flowers, I wonder if the same applies to new computers?? :-) -- bsherman@ibiza.cs.miami.edu or bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu bsherman@pro-exchange MCI Mail: BSHERMAN
mmunz@pro-beagle.cts.com (Mark Munz) (10/10/89)
Network Comment: to #11450 by gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!sdsu!polyslo!jearls@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu -> >Hmmmmm... Laser IIgs+. Has a nice ring to it, eh? At least we would k -> >the speed would be there and that it would continue to be developed... -> > ...Sal -> -> The only problem is that (at least when I talked to Video Technologies -> est) they are not planning to touch the IIgs at all. -> -> -> - John Huh? Laser was showing off an early proto-type of the Laser GS at Kansas City..
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (10/11/89)
On Mon, 9 Oct 89 23:40:36 GMT you said: >SAB121@PSUVM.BITNET says: >>Hmmmm... Laser IIgs+. Has a nice ring to it, eh? At least we would know that >>the speed would be there and that it would continue to be developed... > >The only problem is that (at least when I talked to Video Technologies at > AppleFest) they are not planning to touch the IIgs at all. EITHER the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing OR Video Tech is going to name it something less likely to infringe on Apple's copyright (or trademark or both) -- maybe the Laser 1.25 Mbyte? They SHOWED the machine at the developers conference in Kansas last July (i.e., it ain't much of a secret). Of course it IS an <ahem> *unannounced* product, so maybe they want to be just like the 'big guys' (you know who ;-) and not admit to having what everyone already knows they've got. Video Technologies plans to market the machine early next year ASSUMING (sometimes 'if' is the largest word in the English language) 1) they really can write IIgs compatible ROM code that doesn't violate Apple's copyright (has to satisfy U.S. Customs of same too), and 2) can get enough fast 65816 chips (maybe they can buy that bag Bill Mensch was waving at Applefest?). Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] The opposite of artificial intelligence is genuine stupidity! -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)
philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) (10/11/89)
Network Comment: to #5993 by bucc2!heart@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Well Ken I can uderstand where you are coming from BUT there are a few points
you are overlooking.
Improvements to a computer system can come in many forms(simple way=increase
clock speed).One way(and this is elegant and in the spirit of the history
of excellence of // programming is to improve the system software.Apple seems
to have done a great job with 5.0.
The Mac(I typically use a MacIIcx but am about to get a GS) is a nice
computer.It is not aimed,I assume, at the same market as the GS.For many
people a fast GS is not required.If they need one they is the TWGS.
I don't think it is fair to compare the closed architecture of the Mac+ with
the open GS.
The main criticism I have of the GS is the lack of a 640x400 video mode. I
have to assume this will come.If it does and the printer drivers follow with
Apple's new printing routines then the GS is a very competitive product.
philip@utstat.toronto.edu ->Philip McDunnough
{I disclaim all if my employers wish to know}philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) (10/11/89)
Network Comment: to #6032 by mmunz@pro-beagle.cts.com Why all these rumours etc... about Apple and the GS? Of course Apple will devote more resources to the Mac end of things.They need to.But the company is supporting the GS etc....Not many computer companies would provide the support that Apple is giving to a 10 year old computer line.The only other one that comes to mind is HP and they don't have people on the Usenet supporting HP Integrals! In everyones best interest the sniping should end.The GS is a fine computer.Stop putting it down. Philip McDunnough -> philip@utstat.toronto.edu [definite disclaimer]
SAB121@PSUVM.BITNET (10/12/89)
Maybe Laser and Apple could strike a deal. Laser wants to sell real computers that real people can afford, and Apple seems to be doing all in it's power to c ompletely alienate the Apple II user. Couldn't they make each other happy by s elling each other some stock, and transferring the II line to Laser? Seems to be the most logical solution. Then Apple could have its much vaunted MAC and L aser could have the coveted II. Everyone should be happy all the way around if Apple keeps the patents. That way they still get their hands on the money and can switch their II factories over to Mac factories, while Laser get 100% compa tibility. _______________________________________________________________________________ I may not speak for everyone, but if I did, the world might be a better place!
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/13/89)
In article <14000013@bucc2>, heart@bucc2.UUCP writes: > > I would just like to take the time to say that I believe that Apple > is making a grave mistake in abandoning the Apple // line. I know > they giving up on it because: Apple has been unwilling to pursue any aggressive development of the // line since before the Mac was introduced. (This said knowing full well the attitude of many excellent engineers in the //'s engineering groups.) The // will continue to be sold, mostly as is, as long as people keep on buying the over-priced product. It would take a major effort, and cash expenditure, to update the line to convert the gs to something relatively competitive in the current marketplace. An effort that upper management at Apple has no intention of doing. If sales dry up, you might see prices go down long enough to flush current inventory out the door. Don't hold your breath for any more than that. > I think that Apple should give their // line of computers a serious upgrade > such as the ever rumored GS+. A new // need a clock speed of AT LEAST 8mhz > with 1meg ram, a built in 3.5" drive, serial, scsi, and at least one > PARALLEL port built in. Why a parallel port? Except on PC's, nobody much in any part of the industry is much interested in parallel devices. Least of all anything from Apple. There's no performance advantage for printers, very little (if any) price adavantage, and most other hardware either is or will be in the future serial. (Of course, if you *have* a parallel device of some sort, your feeling would be pretty strong about such.) That's what slots are for. > Also, the price must come down from the insane price of the GS. Don't hold your breath... > If Apple is going to continue to ignore obviously needed upgrades in it's > original line of computers, they should SELL THE LINE to a company who > will take the time and make the effort to continue pushing it to it's limit > and giving the customers the support that they probably need and definately > want. Don't plan on it. Some egos would be bruised of someone else could make a go at // follow-ons. There's a lot of "if I can't have it, nobody can" involved here. Remember the Apple ///? Maybe Sun Remarketing in Utah will get a big new line to handle. Probably not, though. I *wish* I were wrong. seh ------------ "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.
jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) (10/13/89)
Is Apple truly going to support the // series still? Apple has pulled out of the military exchanges as they have decided "to orient on the high end business user." I don't know about you, but this sounds like the Mac line and the end of the // line. I'm in the process of buying a second computer. I want to buy a //gs, but I'm seriously afraid that Apple will not be supporting it in the near future. -- John M. Adams --*-- Professional Student on the six-year plan! Internet: jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu -or- vladimir@maple.circa.ufl.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "It is neither safe nor honorable to act against conscience." - Luther
lbotez@pnet02.gryphon.com (Lynda Botez) (10/13/89)
>Why all these rumors etc... about Apple and the GS? [...] Not many computer >companies would provide the support that Apple is giving to a 10 year old >computer line. I'm tired of hearing this oft repeated old adage. While I know the line originated from Wozniak's first Apple ... the GS is barely 3 YEARS OLD! I bought one of the first of 'em, and to me it was the latest technology! (I didn't care what those black and white toasters could do....) That's just an excuse! Meanwhile, where are those HFS FST's (I know they've got 'em...); and how about a driver for those HP Deskjet printers? :-) Lynda UUCP: {ames!elroy, <routing site>}!gryphon!pnet02!lbotez INET: lbotez@pnet02.gryphon.com
sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) (10/14/89)
Comment to message from: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) <shrug> Why would =ANY= company (in its right mind) care to continue to develope for an obsolete <obsolete in the sense of type of CPU, clock, etc compared to what it available today> computer such as the Apple // when they can spend the same amount of money doing more with what is now state-of-the-art??? When something better than the MAC IIcx comes along for Apple <eventually all must pass> you'll hear the Mac users screaming just like the Apple // users are now. =AND= Apple will ignore them then just as Apple is ignoring you now. =AND= Apple will *STILL* be making BIG $$$$$ hands over fist JUST AS THEY ARE DOING NOW...... For all its shortcomings in user <singular.. we all know they crap all over themselves trying to do for user "groups"> relations Apple does =INDEED= know how to make some money... and that, afterall, is the name of the game. /steve +===========================================================================+ | UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider COMPU$ERVE : 75166,2544 | | ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider@nosc.mil GENIE : sschneider | | INET: sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com APLINK.PE : <shrug> | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The RainForest @ 305-434-4927 / PO Box 841422, Pembroke Pines, Fl, 33084 | +===========================================================================+
rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) (10/14/89)
In article <21038@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) writes: >Is Apple truly going to support the // series still? I think they are. The Mac is rapidly becoming a very high-end computer ($5,000-7,500 range for the newer models). The //gs is still a money-maker for Apple, too (somewhere around $1,000,000,000 last year is the figure which sticks in my head from somewhere). The Mac is not really much of a home computer--it takes *work* to program it, and the available software, while powerful, can take more time to learn than that on the ][ line. I know several people who use AppleWorks in preference to any Mac word processors; it does what they need.... It seems to me that the Apple ][ series is rapidly becoming (again) one of the few computers which is both affordable for families, has a lot of fairly inexpensive software, and is easy to "hack" on. I don't think Apple is going to give it up for a long time yet.... Anton Disclaimer: I don't know what Apple's plans are; I've just played with ][s & Macs for 10 years.... +----------------------------------+------------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | | University of Wisconsin--Madison | | +----------------------------------+------------------+
rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims) (10/14/89)
Comment to message from: usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!gryphon!pnet02!lbotez@ucsd.edu (Lynda Botez) > Meanwhile, where are those HFS FST's (I know they've got 'em...); and how > about a driver for those HP Deskjet printers? :-) Dunno about the HFS FST's, but you probably ought to ask HP about that driver! Apple sells ImageWriters and LaserWriters, and supplies (usually) drivers for the equipment they market. Other folks who want their hardware to be used on a given machine supply their own drivers. HP knows about that system for the Mac... they're the logical ones to ask about a GS-specific driver. (But you may be disappointed in the answer you get!) -Rich-
jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) (10/15/89)
Network Comment: to #1286 by sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com
Hi, Steve :-)
> Why would ANYONE continue to develop for an obsolete machine.
Now there's another one of those widely held misconceptions, that the Apple II
technology is only good these days for running Mr. Coffees. Wrongo. What's
flawed is Apple's marketing philosophy ... they've always had this California
boutique attitude that says if it isn't the haute-est thing on the block and
can't be sold for an obscene profit, it isn't worth supporting.
In fact, the 6502 family of processors are a more efficient design than those
used in the Macintosh for everything except desktop publishing. The 65- chips
were designed as a low-cost, low-power, efficient, portable, and
forward-compatible line. The chips succeed marvelously; it is Apple that has
failed to deliver the promise. Why has Apple failed? Because it is run by
brilliant young people who want to create their own legend, not nurture
something done by someone else. Apple could use a healthy dose of good old
stodgy corporate management.
As to the promise of the 65- series machines. Take the IIe emulation chip on
the IIGS motherboard, put it in a box with a couple of slots, and you've got
an ideal candidate for a truly affordable, usable portable, albeit one with a
$500 price tag and a $200 margin. You can't buy many Ferraris on $200 profit
margins, can you? Can you? I think Apple would make more money if it abandoned
its boutique attitude and made a serious commitment to providing a truly
low-cost computer-as-appliance. As it is, Bill Mensch is getting ready to do
it, and he's going to have to make an end run involving compatibility
trade-offs. Apple could do it better; they just don't want to.
Other promise? There is a 32-bit chip design waiting in the wings. Again,
compatible with old 8-bit and 16-bit technology. But again, this is nurturing
instead of brainstorming, so the Apple whiz kids want no part of it.
This problem, the boutique attitude, has been evident to Apple's money people
for years. They hired John Sculley straight out of the old school hierarchy to
fix it, but instead he fell in love with Steve Jobs and Jobs converted him.
Apple is in a continual state of rebirth. Its young managers hire other young
managers with the same set of ideals, and the management setup is such that
they just restructure every time a strategic initiative comes to bloom .. so
no one has to accept blame for youthful mistakes .. and no one ever gains the
maturity to get past the same mistakes, over and over. Why do you think there
are 47 different Macintosh CPUs, no more than 2 of them especially well-suited
to an actual market niche? 47 sets of starry eyed young managers is why.
No, the Apple II is not obsolete, not even close. In my opinion, it has
finally reached the point that it might become a mature appliance, but don't
expect Apple to take the steps necessary to carry through with this, because
Apple doesn't understand maturity. Apple doesn't do maturity.
Joe Abernathy
UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy
ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil
INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.comblochowi@rt4.cs.wisc.edu (Jason Blochowiak) (10/15/89)
In article <8910142319.AA12106@trout.nosc.mil> jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) writes: > [All sorts of stuff that I almost entirely agree with] Cheer, clap, clap... One question, though: 47 Macs? Last I counted, it was under 10 that were in production. -- Jason Blochowiak - back at school (again). blochowi@garfield.cs.wisc.edu or jason@madnix.UUCP "What's up pruneface?" - Bugs Bunny in the year 2000
lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) (10/15/89)
Network Comment: to #12206 by sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com Well, money may be the name of the game. Now that the Mac is finally making some money for Apple, it can support the development of some new RISC-based machine or something equally state-of-the-art that will blow the Mac away; and all the MacNuts can have their turn at complaining... Technology marches on. BTW, I see that Apple is now offering rebates on their computers. Low and behold, I see that the Apple IIGS is also included this time... There's a $150 rebate being offered. I'm impressed; I'm sure this will help sell quite a few GS's (gawd, I even saw an AD in the paper!). Good move. I also noticed that the Mac Plus has a $200 rebate; it looks like if you shop around you can pick up one of these toasters for under a $1000. Unloading time??? Apparently Apple is resurrecting their famous "Test Drive a Mac" campaign, on top of all this rebate stuff. "Test Drive a Toaster...." Lynda Disclaimer: My opinions are not my own, but someone else's. I haven't figured out whose, however...
sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) (10/16/89)
Comment to message from: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) Hey Hey Hey... <Hi Joe!> (By the way, thanks for correcting my spelling of develop in your reply.. :-) (I need an online spelling checker... hmmmm... now THERE'S an idea!) I believe that one of us missed the point <probably me>... I didn't say that the Apple // was worthless or obsolete... I said the technology was. Tell me with a straight face that Steve Jobs neXt computer doesn't have a lot more "bang for the buck" than the MAC IIcx that Apple has... And regardless of peoples' opinion on SJ and his ego, et al, the man will pass away rich and successful in old days that don't exist yet. I use an Apple//e daily on an average of eight hours a day (and I don't even have a computer related job). I run a BBS on one and I still have two Apple ][+s sitting here on the floor doing absolutely nothing (the CMS-20 I have won't run on a ][+ so I can't move the BBS to it.) I use AppleWRITER as a matter of choice when writing stories, etc even though I have an IBM compat with PC-Write (and a spelling checker and a word counter and a word-usage analyser) sitting in another room. I use them because that is what I can afford at the moment. Money-not-withstanding, I'd be running a 486i with 16 Hayes VSM9600s and about 5 gigabytes of storage. From a business standpoint, and Apple =IS= a business afterall, why should they bother with people like me and upgrade Apple // technology for several hundred dollar sales when they can sell new technology to new users <and techies> for 200-300 percent profit margins on $4,000 - $8,000 machines. The world is not like the "old days" where people cared about things. <look around at crime statistics to see what I mean; look at kids today; look at -anything- today> You people <and this is not a personal 'attack'> better realize that Steve W. and Steve J. are =GONE= from the Apple world as are their original, "HomeBrew Club" visions. IBM pissed on the PCJr and other 'original' IBM PCs and make money hands over fist... IBM is a very successful (even if not well liked on a personal user level) and Apple will be too. So we users over the last ten years <only five for me> made Apple GREAT; so what? What's past is past and I know that Apple will "go for the gold" instead of "buffing tarnished brass".... <And even though you are an Apple magazine writer, you know it too...> Maybe we can take over Apple and make Dave Lyons king... whadda ya think? <grin> /steve I know what I said but if you don't understand what I said in the way I said it then I disavow anything I said and claim durress under the influence of grandeur. <huh?... yeah; my thoughts exactly! :-}> +===========================================================================+ | UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider COMPU$ERVE : 75166,2544 | | ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider@nosc.mil GENIE : sschneider | | INET: sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com APLINK.PE : <shrug> | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The RainForest @ 305-434-4927 / PO Box 841422, Pembroke Pines, Fl, 33084 | +===========================================================================+
sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) (10/16/89)
Network Comment: to #6190 by sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com writes about how the Apple // is obsolete and is not worth continuing developement for... Why should something be state of the art to be sellable? Ever heard of Nintendo? The machine itself pales in comparison internally to an Apple //e, but our store sells hundreds. Why? Because it's a good product. Even take the exotic cars of our world. The Lambourghini Countach is running off of 1970 designs? It's reliability stinks, it's always in the shop, but people contest it is a "good product". Don't begin to tell me that there are better designs availible for the same price! If you are refering to Intel architecture machines, forget it. Even the most advanced 386 machines, are souped up 286 machines with a new chip. Those 286 machines are souped up 8088 machines which trace their heritage to CP/M. A 386 machine is basically a superfast CP/M style machine running mostly brain-dead operating systems (MS-DOS), OS/2 is something to behold but it is meerly taking advantage of the bus speed and memory capacity of these souped up CP/M machines. OS/2 is a software product, much like System Software 5.0 is on the Apple //gs, but don't compare architectures of machines. There have been next to none advancements in the Intel world for years, they meerly stuff faster x86's in them, more memory and sometimes double the bus width. It's been entirely software for those blue dudes. The //gs has a lot of promise as architecture goes, because of Apple's rules and visions on future compatibility, machines can be produced from Apple that ARE advancements, but at the same time won't obsolete old software... that's smart. Matthew Montano Be alert, our country needs lerts. UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sysop ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sysop@nosc.mil INET: sysop@pro-generic.cts.com
sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) (10/16/89)
Comment to message from: lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) Mmmmm.... two replies in a row.. <we gotta stop meeting like this> If I read the new ads correctly, I can buy a MAC IIcx now and use it until December 31st, 1989 and then take it back and it won't cost me a dime. I'd probably do it but there's just not enough scoundrel left in this aged body to try and cheat a company out of a free computer for two months. <sigh> Being over 45 sucks... /steve +===========================================================================+ | UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider COMPU$ERVE : 75166,2544 | | ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider@nosc.mil GENIE : sschneider | | INET: sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com APLINK.PE : <shrug> | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The RainForest @ 305-434-4927 / PO Box 841422, Pembroke Pines, Fl, 33084 | +===========================================================================+
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (10/16/89)
In article <8910140920.AA29715@trout.nosc.mil> sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) writes: >... Apple does =INDEED= know how to make some money... and that, afterall, >is the name of the game. Excuse me, but that is NOT the name of the game, at least not to the pioneers who built this industry.
philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) (10/16/89)
Network Comment: to #6129 by usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!gryphon!pnet02!lbotez@ucsd.edu Well Lynda ,I don't have the years of committment to the // line that you probably have. Clearly many people wish Apple would do more to support it. There is no need to have GS upgrades every few months.The Mac is competing in a very different market.Apple has to devout a great deal of resources to remain competitive in the face of PM+OS/2-386 .Whether one likes it or not the Apple// line(including the GS) was/is perceived by many as a less than capable product in the business/home business world.The GS is lumped in with the rest of the // line for obvious reasons(software being one).I personally don't share the postion I outlined above and Ireally like the GS.Nevertheless I think that some major work went into improving the current GS(in Apple's and many other good companies' tradition this improvement is evolutionary.It makes sense,does not disrupt the software base unduly,and meets most users needs).For not much more you can get a TWGS if speed is important.I would like to see in the next upgrade a better video mode such as 512x352x16 or even 640x400 and 640x200x16. Can the monitor(not the video signal) handle such modes? Please will someone from Apple give out the capabilities of the colour monitor? Philip McDunnough ->philip@utstat.toronto.edu :University of Toronto
philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) (10/16/89)
Network Comment: to #6170 by rang%speedy.wisc.edu@BRL.MIL Anton,I agree with most of what you say.The GS is a really nice personal computer.However you surely can't be serious that people would rather word process on the GS.The GS needs a "productivity" video mode(such as 640x400).There is nothing on the GS that compares with the ease of use and power(even though it is not considered high end) of Write Now 2.0 . Furthermore you cannot,to the best of my knowledge,find a GS version of TeX even though this is in the public domain,would suit the GS(it is not WYSYWIG) and would enable GS users to compose (long) technical documents. The Amiga and the Atari both have implementations of TeX which can be obtained via ftp.It is a matter of having a good C compiler I suppose.Ther is also a commercial version of TeX on the Amiga which is used in various universities.This may be the best implementation of TeX on any computer(except the NeXT-same person ported it there). I see this as a serious omission.Mathematical documents can't be produced in any decent way on the GS(to the best of my knowledge).This is not the fault of the computer but reflects on the user base. Philip McDunnough ->philip@utstat.toronto.edu ::University of Toronto
philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) (10/16/89)
Network Comment: to #6190 by sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com Are you implying that Apple is giving up on the personal/home/educational computer market that others would love to take over? Philip McDunnough ->philip@utstat.toronto.edu ::University of Toronto [my own opinions]
philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) (10/16/89)
Network Comment: to #6207 by mmunz@pro-beagle.cts.com
>I just read an ad in the paper today..
a new Apple IIGS system - almost $1600
a Macintosh Plus - around $1300
'nuff said.
Mark, you are missing the point.The Mac+ is a closed computer.It can't be
easily modified to suit ones' tastes.Black/white,no slots,... .It makes a nice
package for someone with well-defined needs.Totally different market.BTW you
can get 386 clones for the price of the Mac+.So what?
Philip McDunnough ->philip@utstat.toronto.edu
:::University f Toronto
: [my own opinions]
Philip McDunnough ->philip@utstat.edu
University of Toronto
[my own opinions]philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) (10/16/89)
Network Comment: to #6222 by jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com Joe, I really must take issue with the thrust of this posting.I agree that the GS is ready to mature, and it will.However take away Apple's support from it and the line wouldn't last very long indeed.HP cut off a wonderful computer caled the INTEGRAL.Some people tried to improve it(to what it should have been) but support from users just faded away.Still a great computer. Not too long ago Apple was in trouble(finacially).The Apple// line would never have saved them,NEVER.The Mac is the computer of choice for most businesses who purchase from Apple. Never mind if they could make do with an Apple//. They could also make do with a CP/M computer but not many do. There is this issue of connectivity,file transfers,etc... .The GS with System 5 has come a long way. It is irrelevant whether or not Mr.Mensch comes up with a 100mip cpu.Transputers are fast,but nobody buys them.People need a reliable source they can trust will be around.The days of the "hackers" I'm afraid are gone. The GS does have a market as a general purpose/personal/home/educational/small business with no connectivity needs/etc... computer.It will not dislodge the Mac and will certainly not hurt OS/2 prospects on the 386 intel line. There are very few personal computers left.The GS is one.I think it would be a disservice to the GS to try to make more of it than what it should be. Finally, have you ever wondered what the proportion of developpers to users is on comp.sys.apple .It's subjective but of all the groups(micro) that I read this is the one with the highest.Wonder why? Philip McDunnough ->philip@utstat.toronto.edu ::University of Toronto : [my own opinions]
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (10/17/89)
On Mon, 16 Oct 89 05:00:12 GMT you said: >In article <8910140920.AA29715@trout.nosc.mil> sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com > (The RainForest BBS) writes: >>... Apple does =INDEED= know how to make some money... and that, afterall, >>is the name of the game. > >Excuse me, but that is NOT the name of the game, at least not to the >pioneers who built this industry. Which may be why most of us associate 'pioneers' with 'ancestors' (who are no longer with us). Individuals may be idealists, but corporations have responsibilities to stock holders. Anyway, even you wouldn't identify John Sculley as a "pioneer who built this industry," and he's the one who's setting the objectives (clearly long term profit motive -- after all, it was Sculley, not too long ago, who told the financial community that Apple would pursue maintenance of <high> profit MARGINS over increases in market share -- widely quoted in Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, and the PC press). Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] The opposite of artificial intelligence is genuine stupidity! -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)
sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) (10/17/89)
Comment to message from: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Doug Gwyn) The pioneers are gone. And a business is there to make money... period. How much have you given away recently? /steve +===========================================================================+ | UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider COMPU$ERVE : 75166,2544 | | ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider@nosc.mil GENIE : sschneider | | INET: sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com APLINK.PE : <shrug> | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The RainForest @ 305-434-4927 / PO Box 841422, Pembroke Pines, Fl, 33084 | +===========================================================================+
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/17/89)
In article <RANG.89Oct13210925@derby.cs.wisc.edu>, rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) writes: > In article <21038@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) writes: > >Is Apple truly going to support the // series still? > > I think they are. The Mac is rapidly becoming a very high-end > computer ($5,000-7,500 range for the newer models). The //gs is still > a money-maker for Apple, too (somewhere around $1,000,000,000 last > year is the figure which sticks in my head from somewhere). This might not be such a strong argument (for Apple's bean counters, if nobody else) if and when the promised low-cost Mac comes out. Expected cost around $1000, or less. How much is a //c+? Can Apple abandon solid money makers, and their customers? There is precedent. The //gs isn't going to sell for anywhere near that price, given slots and Apple's pricing policies. > The Mac is not really much of a home computer--it takes *work* to > program it, and the available software, while powerful, can take more > time to learn than that on the ][ line. Things must have changed...the Mac has had from the beginning a most consistent approach to presenting programs to the user. The // had as many different ways as there were people to program on it. As for programming, lots of what people want to do can easitly be done in HyperCard. And it's easier to hack on that Applesoft ever was. The point being that there are ways around the vaunted high learning threshold required of Mac systems and application programmers. > I know several people who use > AppleWorks in preference to any Mac word processors; it does what they > need.... Too bad so many people think they have to have the latest whizbang thingy, when their old thingy will do the job. Sometimes faster and easier. > It seems to me that the Apple ][ series is rapidly becoming (again) > one of the few computers which is both affordable for families, has a > lot of fairly inexpensive software, and is easy to "hack" on. I don't > think Apple is going to give it up for a long time yet.... I don't think the //gs is really what you'd call "affordable". It's certainly no bargain, considering performance and capabilities. At around $950 or so for a 1Meg, single drive box with a color monitor, it should be a killer. ------------ "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/17/89)
In article <8910140920.AA29715@trout.nosc.mil>, sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) writes: > > Why would =ANY= company (in its right mind) care to continue to develope > for an obsolete <obsolete in the sense of type of CPU, clock, etc compared to > what it available today> computer such as the Apple // when they can spend the > same amount of money doing more with what is now state-of-the-art??? When > something better than the MAC IIcx comes along for Apple <eventually all must > pass> you'll hear the Mac users screaming just like the Apple // users are > now. The screaming is already in progress. Started when the Mac IIci was announced. > =AND= Apple will ignore them then just as Apple is ignoring you now. On the other hand, they have also announced an upgrade to the IIci for IIcx owners. And further development of the Mac is going on. ------------ "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/17/89)
In article <11304@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: > In article <8910140920.AA29715@trout.nosc.mil> sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) writes: > >... Apple does =INDEED= know how to make some money... and that, afterall, > >is the name of the game. > > Excuse me, but that is NOT the name of the game, at least not to the > pioneers who built this industry. Are you talking about the pioneers that are *still* in the industry, or the pioneers that are currently weaving rugs up in Oregon's woods? ------------ "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.
djhill@rodan.acs.syr.edu ( Number_6 **) (10/17/89)
> Apple could use a healthy dose of good old stodgy corporate management.
Joe, you've got to be kidding! That's just what Apple is suffering from.
Look at IBM. They have plenty (!) of corporate management and look at where
it gets them. OS/2 PM is horribly late, now spectaular breakthroughs w/
PC's (compared to Compaq (new portable), Zenith, etc), mainframes are
at a standstill (Tandem's new one blows a 3090 away). Why? Partly because
management is still nurturing old products along. I see nothing wrong w/
milking development expenditures for as much as possible, but you have to
keep researching (those Whizkids, remember) else all your left w/ is ancient
hardware and nothing to match the next guys new box.
I think Apple has definitely _not_ failed w/ the 65xx series. Considering
how old the II is I thinks it's done (is doing, sorry) extremely well. For
all the bitching and moaning that goes on about how Apple screwed us over
again, Apple has done a lot more than any other computer vendor I can think
of in terms of support (new machines, new operating systems, developer
assistance). I don't see Commodre w/ (at least) three people on
developer support full time. Where's IBM's answers to programmer's questions?
Ok, I aggree that perhaps the prices are high (compared to the competitions)
but look at what you get - new operating systems (semi) regularly (ProDOS 16,
GS/OS...), oppurtunities to upgrade your machine to a newer and better
model, and backward compatibility of software if you do upgrade.
I think we've all taken for granted Apple's approach to upgrades, new
enhancements, etc. How many other machines is even one upgrade offered?
If I've got a PC/AT, I can't upgrade to a PS/2 (ok, I can, buy a new machine
:-), or can I swap motherboards from a Atari xxx to Atari yyy? At least
you have that OPTION w/ an Apple (both // and Mac).
Well, I've rambled for quite long enough and after re-reading it it isn't
even coherent(! but what the hey, I'll post it anyway.
- Doug Hill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
djhill @ rodan.acs.syr.edubrianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (10/17/89)
In article <8910140920.AA29715@trout.nosc.mil> sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) writes: ><shrug> > >Why would =ANY= company (in its right mind) care to continue to develope >for an obsolete <obsolete in the sense of type of CPU, clock, etc compared to >what it available today> computer such as the Apple // when they can spend the >same amount of money doing more with what is now state-of-the-art??? > >/steve Obsolete? The Compaq 20e on my desk here at work uses RAM caching because the CPU operates faster than normal DRAM. I know for a fact that the 65C8xx is capable of executing at speeds too fast for DRAM, but I don't know of any Apple II that employs cache technology. I think the reason that Apple's II line is slow is because they haven't taken the time to use their chip design teams to put the same kind of support circuitry in an Apple that is standard in high speed computers. The TransWarp GS has a cache (so I understand), but who would buy the Compaq 20e if only a third party provided the necessary hardware for high speed? On the subject of RAM slowing down the processor, this is one of the bottlenecks in the IIgs design. The Apple Mac SE/30 employs dual-port RAM to allow the 68030 and the video to BOTH access RAM without waiting. Apple has the technology for the Mac, where is it for the II series? The Apple II CPU is not obsolete, and you've probably read the other postings about how clock speeds offer no guideline for direct comparison between different CPUs. I'll bet that you can't show me a fast machine from anyone else that doesn't use at least one of the following: Cache, Virtual Memory, DMA. Granted, many other CPUs have these functions built in, but in ALL cases these support functions evolved as EXTERNAL chips. Only after they became accepted did Motorola and Intel begin building them in. Those two companies have enough demand to develop such integrated CPUs. But if you look closely at even some of today's IBM PC clones, you'll see that there was once a time when the 80x86 couldn't stand on its own without both an interrupt controller chip AND a clock chip - which means that it took a 3 chip CPU in the 4.77 MHz PC/XT to run as fast as a single chip 1 MHz 6502. In fact, it is these two chips (and a few others) which DEFINE a PC compatible. I should know, because we at Microsoft have to deal with the shortcoming of this architecture while designing OS/2 to multitask on this limited platform. The Catch-22 is that the Western Design Center cannot design these support chips alone without the revenues that Intel and Motorola enjoy. Without the support to make the chip more attractive, the revenues won't be there. Kinda sucks, don't it? Where does this leave the Apple II? Well, I wouldn't call it out of date unless you could compare EQUALLY EQUIPPED systems. It is not the CPU or clock speed (although Apple could increase thier standard speed to match AE's), but the lack of support hardware which strangles the line. There is the added fact that people are crazy enough to demo IIgs's at the computer stores WITHOUT A HARD DISK. When is the last time you WAITED for an IBM to RUN PROGRAM FROM A DISK-ONLY SETUP? At least the Apple II is faster in this area. My opinion? Apple has designed Dynamic RAM Controllers (the //e MMU), integrated all the I/O on one chip (IOU), and recently put the entire Apple II on a chip (MEGA II). If their very capable VLSI team, who have obviously had enough practice and experience, would turn to NEW CIRCUIT IDEAS instead of repackaging the original Apple I (sic) circuit - then perhaps we could see 65C8xx support chips like Virtual Memory and Cache Controllers from Apple. From what I understand of VLSI and ASIC, it must be incredibly cheap for Apple to do this considering the investment in on-site development equipment and the sheer volume of chips they have made so far. Hey, I tried to get into the Apple hardware group when I was fresh out of college, but received the 'try again after you've worked a little and have some experience' response. I'd love the opportunity to put some meat into my ideas :-) hint Brian Willoughby UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw InterNet: microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or: microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM Bitnet brianw@microsoft.UUCP
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (10/17/89)
In article <8910161138.AA10844@trout.nosc.mil> sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) writes: >386 machine is basically a superfast CP/M style machine running mostly >brain-dead operating systems (MS-DOS), OS/2 is something to behold but it is >meerly taking advantage of the bus speed and memory capacity of these souped >up CP/M machines. ... There have been next to none advancements in the Intel >world for years, they meerly stuff faster x86's in them, more memory and >sometimes double the bus width. You shouldn't talk about things you don't know about. The 386 supports 8086 (NOT 8080 or CP/M) the way the 65816 supports 6502, but is MUCH, MUCH better in its native mode. In fact the first available 386 systems were all UNIX boxes. Damn near any UNIX makes GS/OS look like the toy operating system that it is. Additional graphics support is pretty much orthogonal to OS and CPU considerations, and there are many bitmap-supporting UNIX implementations (even Apple offers one). Check out the Sun 386i.
lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) (10/17/89)
Network Comment: to #12310 by sysop@pro-generic.cts.com Matthew Montano writes: >Why should something be the state of the art to be sellable? Ever heard of >Nintendo? The machine itself pales in comparison internally to an Apple IIe, >but our stores sells hundreds. Why? Because it is a good product. Interesting that you brought up the Nintendo as an example of a technically inferior product being the best selling video game machine. As most of you are aware, the next generation of video game machines are out on the market just in time for Christmas. Except for Nintendo's model, there is Sega's Genesis (a 16-bit model); NEC's TurboGrafx-16 (pseudo-16-bit); new machines that have much better graphics, but have much higher price tags (about twice as much as a conventional NES) and whose software is not compatible with the older 8-bit type. I can't quite remember why Nintendo isn't introducing it's new machine (which is already a big seller in Japan), but I can't help but wonder if these new machines will be big sellers this Christmas. I own a Nintendo (or rather, my kids do). I can tell you right now that there will be NO new video game machine in our house this year. After spending hundreds of dollars on game cartridges, the last thing I'm going to do is go out and purchase a machine that requires entirely new software, and costs twice as much to boot! I'd rather buy a few new games than a new machine. Of course, I may change my opinion in a year or two, but the current Nintendo seems to be sufficiently adequate for what it does. It will be interesting to see how the sales go on the new game machines. Lynda
lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) (10/17/89)
Network Comment: to #12318 by philip@pro-generic.cts.com Phillip McDunnough writes: >There is no need to have GS upgrades every few months. Ha! That's a good one... we've never asked for upgrades every few months... at the rate we're going now, the next GS update should occur in 1992! >Whether one likes it or not, the Apple II line (including the GS) was/is >perceived by many as a less than capable product in the business/home >business world. Whose fault was that? The original Apple IIGS should have been more like the ROM 3 machine that is now on the market today. The speed could have been faster than it is now. From what I've heard, a few of the Cortland prototypes were a much superior machine than the one that was eventually put into production. Apple wanted to keep the IIGS in it's place; and not compete with the Mac. >Nevertheless, I think that some major work went into improving the current GS >[...] this improvement is evolutionary. Yes, an enormous amount of energy and effort was poured into writing System Disk 5.0.2... it's greatly appreciated and we thank Apple and the hardworking, dedicated Apple II programmers every day ... when my Finder boots up, I bow towards Cupertino in a moment of silent appreciation. -:) >For not much more you can get a TWGS if speed is important. Yes, speed IS important. However, you should not have to get a TWGS; the new GS should have a faster processor. 2.8 mhz is TOO slow. >I really like the GS. I really like mine too. Lynda
jerryk@pro-tcc.UUCP ("Jerry E. Kindall") (10/17/89)
Network Comment: to #1213 by gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Re: Profit not being the name of the game Sorry, if you're a multi-million dollar company like Apple, profit IS the name of the game. You can't expect them to do something out of the goodness of their hearts (except to build goodwill and thus, future sales -- although I'm not sure if Apple's marketing is looking that far ahead). A business is defined as a profit-seeking entity -- and Apple is definitely a business. Maybe that's why Woz got out of it, eh? _____ ||___|| Jerry Kindall | Internet: jerryk@pro-tcc.cts.com | o | 2612 Queensway Drive | UUCP: nosc!crash!pro-tcc!jerryk |__O__| Grove City, OH 43123-3347 | GEnie: A2.JERRY ALine: A2 Jerry
SAB121@PSUVM.BITNET (10/17/89)
In the last posting you said that you could still get upgrades.
Where pray tell are you getting the upgrade to the ROM 03 machine (IIgs)?
Give us an address so that we can call them. Last I heard Apple was NOT going
to make the upgrade available! This is supporting us? This is changing
motherboards? SINCE WHEN?!?!?!?
As for operating systems, that is a nice touch. They create a "better" OS
and we get it and find out it has just as many (and potentially more dangerous)
bugs than the last version. Oh and it is nice how Apple updates it's machines.
7 new MACs in about 1 year, but all they throw the // line are two VERY lean
bones, the c+ and the "new" II(bd)GS. What's the point? At least if Apple would
just come out and say that they're not going to support the line we coould all
start saving our money for MACs or IBMs. Maybe even an AMIGA. Atleast IBM has
the politeness to TELL it's users that they won't be supporting machines any
more. An as for C=, they just don't come out with the machines as often, saving
old customers from having to moan about no upgrades. It's time Apple got back
on track and realized that most of those people who learned on an Apple II in
high school would like to have a machine in college or in the office that they
are familiar with. You'd be amazed at how many papers are typed on AppleWorks
because the people are used to it. Apple has got a great machine. Now they
should support the people who support them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are only my own, unless you agree. Send any flames through e-mail,
I can always use a good laugh!sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) (10/18/89)
>> Are you implying that Apple is giving up on the personal/home/educational >> computer market that others would love to take over? I never imply anything. I either say it or I don't. And I didn't say they were abandoning that market. However, I do get into the staff side of schools in my job and all I see are Macs and IIgss... I do not see a whole heck of a lot of //es... Since I have no idea of which message of mine you are replying to I am unable to see where your thought proccesses went wrong. What I did say was Apple has no =OBLIGATION= to improve an obsolete product (and they aren't) and they =ARE= in the business to make MONEY. Doing things to make people happy (read that as individual users) went the way of dinosaurs about 1984.... Apple <in my opinion> has no obligation to do a darned thing for any of you other than to guarantee that the product you buy is defect-free and will most likely work as advertised in writing. Apple chose to make its upscale products able to work on old programs but nobody ever said they "had" to do this. /steve +===========================================================================+ | UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider COMPU$ERVE : 75166,2544 | | ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider@nosc.mil GENIE : sschneider | | INET: sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com APLINK.PE : <shrug> | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The RainForest @ 305-434-4927 / PO Box 841422, Pembroke Pines, Fl, 33084 | +===========================================================================+
sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) (10/18/89)
Comment to message from: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Steve... Nice to see your comments. I even agree with most of them. <grin> I wasn't aware of the Mac IIci (I don't get around much any more) so my comment was more of a "shot in the dark". BTW... I thought =ALL= the pioneers were out in the woods weaving cloth. I didn't know any had stayed around. Personally I kept holding out for Woz to actually come back with a new idea (not neccessarily with Apple, mind you) instead of Jobs. Afterall, history always said it was Woz's brains and Job's business sense that make early Apple success... /steve (the other one) +===========================================================================+ | UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider COMPU$ERVE : 75166,2544 | | ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider@nosc.mil GENIE : sschneider | | INET: sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com APLINK.PE : <shrug> | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The RainForest @ 305-434-4927 / PO Box 841422, Pembroke Pines, Fl, 33084 | +===========================================================================+
chines@pro-europa.cts.com (Clifford Hines) (10/19/89)
Comment to message from: lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) Hmmm. I wonder if these new game machines can do other things? Cliff UUCP: crash!pro-europa!chines ARPA: crash!pro-europa!chines@nosc.mil INET: chines@pro-europa.cts.com
sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) (10/20/89)
Network Comment: to #6325 by microsoft!brianw@uunet.uu.net All this talk of 3.5" drives, I would just like to add that under System Software 5.0, the AppleDisk 3.5" is about the fastest 3.5" drive I have ever seen. Don't even start to compare it to the macintosh... copying files from a 3.5" disk (properly formatted) to a Ram disk is out of this world.. It's now a pleasure to use a 3.5" drive with the system software... even booting from it! (Ever remember System Disk 3.2? hahahahah). just my 100 odd words.. our usenet, our walls... UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sysop ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sysop@nosc.mil INET: sysop@pro-generic.cts.com
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/20/89)
In article <8910181005.AA17718@trout.nosc.mil>, sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) writes: > Comment to message from: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) > > Steve... > Nice to see your comments. I even agree with most of them. <grin> I wasn't > aware of the Mac IIci (I don't get around much any more) so my comment was > more of a "shot in the dark". > > BTW... I thought =ALL= the pioneers were out in the woods weaving cloth. I > didn't know any had stayed around. Personally I kept holding out for Woz to > actually come back with a new idea (not neccessarily with Apple, mind you) > instead of Jobs. Afterall, history always said it was Woz's brains and Job's > business sense that make early Apple success... From the point of view of those of us who were there ('79-'85), it was Woz's smarts, Jobs' evangelistic fervor, and the business sense of guys like Mike Markkula and Mike Scott. The Jobs of today is *not* the Jobs of then. (I still refuse to even consider buying a NeXT...some of us have some very bitter memories.) A lot of the pioneers, btw, are still writing code and wiring prototypes at Apple. And Sun. And RasterOps. And ... ------------ "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/20/89)
In article <8910161738.AA22328@trout.nosc.mil>, philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) writes: > Network Comment: to #6222 by jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com > > Joe, > I really must take issue with the thrust of this posting.I agree that the GS > is ready to mature, and it will.However take away Apple's support from it and > the line wouldn't last very long indeed.HP cut off a wonderful computer caled > the INTEGRAL.Some people tried to improve it(to what it should have been) but > support from users just faded away.Still a great computer. > > Not too long ago Apple was in trouble(finacially).The Apple// line would > never have saved them,NEVER.The Mac is the computer of choice for most > businesses who purchase from Apple. Never mind if they could make do with an > Apple//. They could also make do with a CP/M computer but not many do. There > is this issue of connectivity,file transfers,etc... .The GS with System 5 has > come a long way. > > It is irrelevant whether or not Mr.Mensch comes up with a 100mip > cpu.Transputers are fast,but nobody buys them.People need a reliable source > they can trust will be around.The days of the "hackers" I'm afraid are gone. Oh, the hackers are still around. It just costs more to get into the game. Both in cash and in intellectual investment. There are lots of them with Mac. *Lots* with Amigas (I'm not sure, but they may be the majority of Amiga owners.) Lots with other systems. > The GS does have a market as a general > purpose/personal/home/educational/small business with no connectivity > needs/etc... computer. If that's true, then the // is doomed: It's got a tiny, and shrinking niche. Just knowing about what some other machines do will raise the expectations of owners and potential owners, hopefully, increased capabilities will follow. > There are very few personal computers left.The GS is one.I think it would be > a disservice to the GS to try to make more of it than what it should be. There comes the fight (I'll hold your coats): Exactly what *should* it be? ------------ "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.
mmunz@pro-beagle.cts.com (Mark Munz) (10/20/89)
Network Comment: to #11811 by philip@pro-generic.cts.com -> a new Apple IIGS system - almost $1600 -> a Macintosh Plus - around $1300 -> -> Mark, you are missing the point.The Mac+ is a closed computer.It can't -> easily modified to suit ones' tastes.Black/white,no slots,... .It makes -> package for someone with well-defined needs.Totally different market.BT -> can get 386 clones for the price of the Mac+.So what? My point is that the Macintosh is already selling for less than the IIGS. True, the IIGS does *NOW* come with 1MEG onboard, but before, folks were paying the same price for a 512K machine. I like the IIGS (I've got one at the office and one at home), but I think Apple's pricing scheme is (and has been for quite some time) outrageous. Apple could still make a hefty profit by selling the ENTIRE system for around $999. That would mean folks could go out and buy that TransWarp GS card or the Hard Drive.
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (10/20/89)
In article <8910191817.aa04292@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> (Mike Aos) writes: >Come on people, it's not like it's a closed system!!!!! The whole philosophy >behind the IIgs is it's expandability!!! I'm going to buy a HD, TWGS, FPE, >Stereo card....I'll prolly fill the thing up. If it had everything I wanted >when I bought it, I COULDN'T have afforded it! As it is, I have a functional Okay, let's take a look at this statement. I'll forget about the HD for right now as Apple probably wouldn't sell that standard with a IIgs anyways (maybe an option tho). TWGS = $294 FPE = $100 (okay, so this might be a bit low, just going for a guess) Stereo = $50-100 (depending on brand) So right there, you have just tacked on almost $500 to the price of the IIgs. Now I figure a FPE would cost more than $100, maybe $200 or so, so you could be talking $600, possibly $700 by the time you pay for taxes/shipping/etc (at an extreme). So, you are pay $600 for stuff that is ALREADY on the motherboard of the IIgs, and a little more. If the IIgs was faster, you wouldn't have to pay for all the extra stuff on the TWGS that is needed to make it go fast. So you could expect a faster IIgs NOT to be $294 more. Maybe $50-100 I'd expect, but not $294. Add stereo (which isn't much), and the price increase is maybe $10-20. FPE, well, THIS if nothing else would add to the price. But the price for a IIgs can't get really too much, it's already priced too high. If it starts getting too high, nobody will buy it, and it'll be out of it's price range for the home market (it probably already is). So, for the price you will pay to upgrade to what you WANT is almost positively going to be less than a IIgs that HAD what you WANTED to BEGIN WITH! I don't think anybody is complaining about it's expandability, but the power that the machine was given for what it is expected to do. Just like the original Mac. It was too little machine for what was wanted out of it. For regular // software, the IIgs is adequate, but NOT for IIgs software. Or at least, not enough to make IIgs software work like how it could! For example, I have AWGS which I do (unlike many others) like, but I hardly ever use it because of it's speed. If Apple is going to make a machine that is going to use/have software like AWGS, or if they want software like that programmed for it, then make a machine that is capable of running it, and running it a LOT more quickly than it does right now. >BTW-I still don't understand why people won't buy an accelerator because the GS >SHOULD be faster. It's NOT! Deal with it! Maybe we believe Apple will come out with an upgrade that will make having an accelerator useless. Or maybe we don't wanna for don't want to fork over $300 for something that SHOULD already be on the motherboard! -kareth.
sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) (10/20/89)
Network Comment: to #6380 by gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn@apple.com Your right on the part of the 386 offering virtual 8086 modes. Still MS-DOS is an operating system which still shows it's CP/M heritage like humans show their monkey heritage under the influence. Nothing to be said of UNIX, every implementation of UNIX on a 386 is something to behold and is a proper use of 386 machines. Although the barrier/boundry between MS-DOSed 386's and UNIX based 386 boxes is dissappearing quickly, it is still there and in my mind there is no comparison. A 386 is an almost perfect architecture to run UNIX off of, but MS-DOS? WHY? UNIX is also an operating system that was originally designed for mini computers, and when you produce a machine (386 box) that is basically what a mini was a few years ago, it makes sense that UNIX runs on it handidly. GS/OS have grown from the opposite end of the spectrum... remember that. UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sysop ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sysop@nosc.mil INET: sysop@pro-generic.cts.com
lvirden@pro-tcc.UUCP (Larry Virden) (10/20/89)
Network Comment: to #1314 by psuvm!sab121@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu
Any ideas on when the last operating system on ANY machine without bugs was
released? As far as I am aware there has NEVER in the history of mankind been
an operating system without bugs - which, very often, are quite dangerous.
For instance, at work I use unix. And we weekly see dozens of reports of
general unix bugs and bugs specific to the hardware and software machines that
we have. By general, I mean they apply to our machine AND dozens, hundreds of
other models! And this is an OS which has been around in one form or another
for more than 10 years. So we should not be surprised if there are bugs in an
OS which is about 1 year old.
--
Larry W. Virden ProLine: pro-tcc!lvirden
674 Falls Place Work: lvirden@cas.bitnet
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614 Aline: LVIRDEN
CIS: 75046,606lvirden@pro-tcc.UUCP (Larry Virden) (10/20/89)
Network Comment: to #1319 by gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn@apple.com
Not only does the 386 have better OSs, but the prices are better as well.
A friend just ordered an 8 meg 386 running around 16-25 Mhz (i dont know
what the final order speed was). It will have 120 meg of hard disk, both
disk and cpu caching. It will have 1024x768 VGA graphics. and so on and so
on. The cost is approx. $3700 . To get an 8 meg GS with 120 meg would cost
a person at least $2400 and the graphics wouldnt be any better. And the
person would still be stuck with GS/OS - not have the option of Unix , MSDOS,
and OS/2. While MS-DOS and OS/2 may be 'poor' in many folks eyes, Unix for
me is a VERY nice programming environment.
So why dont I dump my GS and get one of those puppies? I am asking myself
the same question. And so far, the only honest answer that I have is
that inertia and 'fear of the unknown' (i.e. I have had an Apple II for googol
<wink> years - really about 10-11 yrs) are slowing me down. I see the Mac and
NeXT machines and like the potential I see there. I see the 386 and like the
price of those machines and the ability to get work done. But I stick with
my obsolete machine and single tasking <sigh> environment basically 'cause I
am a stick in the mud. How depressing a thought!
--
Larry W. Virden ProLine: pro-tcc!lvirden
674 Falls Place Work: lvirden@cas.bitnet
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614 Aline: LVIRDEN
CIS: 75046,606gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (10/20/89)
In article <8910171319.AA20183@trout.nosc.mil> jerryk@pro-tcc.UUCP ("Jerry E. Kindall") writes: >Re: Profit not being the name of the game >You can't expect them to do something out of the goodness of their hearts I hope it's clear to everybody else that this is a classic example of a "false dichotomy". It is possible to make money without that being your primary motivation. In fact, that's been true of every company I've ever worked for.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (10/20/89)
In article <8910171019.AA16614@trout.nosc.mil> sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) writes: >The pioneers are gone. No, they're not. I know a large number of them. >And a business is there to make money... period. >How much have you given away recently? How does that contribute to the discussion? It's precisely that attitude that is responsible for the problems.
sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) (10/21/89)
Comment to message from: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Apple in trouble financially? With $800 million in CASH, THAT'S the kind of financial trouble =I'D= like to be in! <ummm... this goes to Phil instead of you... please disregard.. :+} > /steve +===========================================================================+ | UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider COMPU$ERVE : 75166,2544 | | ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider@nosc.mil GENIE : sschneider | | INET: sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com APLINK.PE : <shrug> | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The RainForest @ 305-434-4927 / PO Box 841422, Pembroke Pines, Fl, 33084 | +===========================================================================+
dlyons@Apple.COM (David Lyons) (10/21/89)
In article <8910161040.AA09884@trout.nosc.mil> sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) writes: >[...] >Maybe we can take over Apple and make Dave Lyons king... whadda ya think? ><grin> > >/steve Nope...I don't wanna be king. (I might consider a position as a king's advisor or overpaid mad scientist, though.) -- --Dave Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems AppleLink--Apple Edition: DAVE.LYONS | P.O. Box 875 America Online: Dave Lyons | Cupertino, CA 95015-0875 GEnie: D.LYONS2 or DAVE.LYONS CompuServe: 72177,3233 Internet/BITNET: dlyons@apple.com UUCP: ...!ames!apple!dlyons My opinions are my own, not Apple's.
dlyons@Apple.COM (David Lyons) (10/21/89)
In article <89290.121139SAB121@PSUVM.BITNET> SAB121@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >[...] As for operating systems, that is a nice touch. They create a "better" OS >and we get it and find out it has just as many (and potentially more dangerous) >bugs than the last version. I definitely can't agree with that. System Software 5.0.2 not only corrects some serious problems in 4.0, but it also adds significant new features both to the user and the programmer. Yes, there are bugs, and there always will be. When the bugs cannot be worked around, we fix them as quickly as practical. I use 5.0.2 on at least three machines (two ROM 01 and a ROM 03) regularly, and it works very well. >[...] You'd be amazed at how many papers are typed on AppleWorks >because the people are used to it. [...] What about papers that are typed on AppleWorks because it's a very usable word processor? -- --Dave Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems AppleLink--Apple Edition: DAVE.LYONS | P.O. Box 875 America Online: Dave Lyons | Cupertino, CA 95015-0875 GEnie: D.LYONS2 or DAVE.LYONS CompuServe: 72177,3233 Internet/BITNET: dlyons@apple.com UUCP: ...!ames!apple!dlyons My opinions are my own, not Apple's.
philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) (10/21/89)
Network Comment: to #6384 by sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com In 6384 Steve writes: >I never imply anything. I either say it or I don't. And I didn't say they were abandoning that market. However, I do get into the staff side of schools in my job and all I see are Macs and IIgss... I do not see a whole heck of a lot of //es... Since I have no idea of which message of mine you are replying to I am unable to see where your thought proccesses went wrong. > My thought processes seem to be quite in order thank you.I include the IIGS in the Apple// line.The Mac is a fine product for what it does.I work with them a lot. But to get colour/expandability/good sound costs a lot(I just ordered a IIci so I can attest to that at least).There is also the issue of ongoing cost.AppleCare on Macs is not inexpensive.The GS represents a very good choice for a school. Be realistic,even the MacIIci is not a Cray and really heavy number crunching/scientific work is currently harder to so on the Mac than on a UNIX workstation on a network. I'm not surprised the schools you have seen have Mac's and GS's.I have seen many with PS/2's.The PS/2's are getting cheaper everyday and it is only a matter of time before they address some shortcomings. Moreover,it is my opinion that the option of a CLI is essential.The Mac currently does not have that. Philip McDunnough ->philip@utstat.toronto.edu University of Toronto [my opinions]
mmunz@pro-beagle.cts.com (Mark Munz) (10/21/89)
Network Comment: to #11890 by UD182050@vm1.nodak.edu Subject: Re: Apple's committment to the // line > This is in reply to all those messages saying the IIgs SHOULD be this, and >SHOULD be that. > Come on people, it's not like it's a closed system!!!!! The whole philosophy {>behind the IIgs is it's expandability!!! I'm going to buy a HD, TWGS, FPE, >Stereo card....I'll prolly fill the thing up. > Osiris >BTW-I still don't understand why people won't buy an accelerator because the GS >SHOULD be faster. It's NOT! Deal with it! It isn't just that. The fact is that since the IIgs was introduced (let's see, how long ago was that.. 4-5 years now?? AW2.0 came out to support the IIGS in 1984 or so), it hasn't been seriously improved. I know, you'll probably jump up and down telling me about the new GS. Well, I've been using the "new" IIGS for quite some time. Fact is, when you look at the "new" IIGS and compare it to the "old" IIGS and then consider that it took 4-5 years to put that together, it should make you sick... because in the meantime, Apple has been cranking out new Macintosh machines left and right.. Mark Munz
mmunz@pro-beagle.cts.com (Mark Munz) (10/21/89)
Network Comment: to #11891 by UD182050@vm1.nodak.edu
{
Subject: Re: Apple's committment to the // line
>Yeah, I type my papers in AppleWorks, on my IIgs, and I print them on IIe's.
>If AppleWorks on a IIe is all you need, why do you need an "upgrade"? What's
>the point of a 20 MHz machine to run AppleWorks?
>
>Osiris
Hey, AppleWorks at 20Mhz sounds great... I almost (that's a big almost though)
wish I did have a IIe so I could get a 10Mhz Rocket chip.
My IIGS with the TWGS can't even reach that yet..
Mark Munzjerryk@pro-tcc.UUCP ("Jerry E. Kindall") (10/22/89)
Network Comment: to #1405 by haven!adm!smoke!gwyn@purdue.edu Re: false dichotomy... OK, maybe I should have phrased that differently. How about "You can't expect Apple to do something SOLELY out of the goodness of their hearts." _____ ||___|| Jerry Kindall | Internet: jerryk@pro-tcc.cts.com | o | 2612 Queensway Drive | UUCP: nosc!crash!pro-tcc!jerryk |__O__| Grove City, OH 43123-3347 | GEnie: A2.JERRY ALine: A2 Jerry
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (10/23/89)
In article <8910220019.AA05923@trout.nosc.mil> mmunz@pro-beagle.cts.com (Mark Munz) writes: > >It isn't just that. The fact is that since the IIgs was introduced (let's >see, how long ago was that.. 4-5 years now?? AW2.0 came out to support the >IIGS in 1984 or so), it hasn't been seriously improved. > I suggest you check something more tangible, like the modification dates on the AW 2.0 disk. :) Actually, the IIgs came out in September of 1986, and AW 2.0 was announced at that time. >I know, you'll probably jump up and down telling me about the new GS. Well, >I've been using the "new" IIGS for quite some time. Fact is, when you look >at the "new" IIGS and compare it to the "old" IIGS and then consider that >it took 4-5 years to put that together, it should make you sick... because >in the meantime, Apple has been cranking out new Macintosh machines left >and right.. > This only makes any kind of sense if you assume that all of Apple's Apple II development since September of 1986 went into the recently-announced 1 MB IIgs. The fact is, especially on the software side, it did not. Other Apple II software and hardware products (such as all but the first IIgs System Disk, AppleTalk networking, the IIc Plus, the Video Overlay Card, GS/OS and System Software 5.0.2, and more stuff to come) have also taken up Apple II resources at Apple. The fact is that Apple has been very busy on the Apple II line, as it has on the Macintosh line. It's just that a lot of Apple II development has been in System Software, which most people can take advantage of very cheaply, and a lot of Macintosh development has been in CPUs, which are expensive to upgrade even where it's possible. Most of our Apple II customers say they prefer added functionality without having to buy a new machine, and this is what we've been trying to deliver. There is always room for other opinions, though. >Mark Munz -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions expressed in this tome Send PERSONAL mail ONLY (please) to: | should not be construed to imply that Amer. Online: Matt DTS | Apple Computer, Inc., or any of its ThisNet: mattd@apple.com | subsidiaries, in whole or in part, ThatNet: (stuff)!ames!apple!mattd | have any opinion on any subject." Other mail by request only, please. | "So there." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
lvirden@pro-tcc.cts.com (Larry Virden) (10/23/89)
Network Comment: to #1391 by mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!asd@purdue.edu
Note that while I too would love to see Apple marketing join the 20th century
in terms of equipment provided, you might want to note one of the consequences
of this action. While IBM, DEC, HP, Sun, Apple Macs, Amiga's, Ataris, ...
(i.e. the rest of the industry) do offer faster, better machines, and more
options for speed, etc. they have this annoying behavior of offering it at
RIDICULOUS prices. For instance, one popular manufacturer offers options for
hard disks that are so expensive that NO ONE in their right mind ever buys
them - unless they have money to burn. Another good example is memory - it
often costs a user 4-5 times the street price to buy memory from one of the
big boys ... though Apple DID get this one right for the GS!
So there is certainly the possibility that even if Apple DID provide options
for faster CPUs, more memory on the initial configuration, disks, etc. that
the options would be so expensive that folks would still buy 3rd party
products to fill the need.
--
Larry W. Virden ProLine: pro-tcc!lvirden
674 Falls Place Work: lvirden@cas.bitnet
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614 Aline: LVIRDEN
CIS: 75046,606fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/24/89)
In article <8910191817.aa04292@SMOKE.BRL.MIL>, UD182050@VM1.NODAK.EDU (Mike Aos) writes: > This is in reply to all those messages saying the IIgs SHOULD be this, and > SHOULD be that. It SHOULD be faster, it SHOULD have more RAM, it SHOULD have > more ROM.... > > Come on people, it's not like it's a closed system!!!!! The whole philosophy > behind the IIgs is it's expandability!!! Yes, but... You *can* boost the performance of the //gs in any arbitrary direction, and that's good. What's not good, is that doing so makes it less likely that any given program will work properly on the machine. Suppose you boost the video to 24-bit, 1152x900 color. What software is going to support that? Widespread "improving" of the machine makes it much harder to write, test, and support software (and other hardware) for the box. An acknowledged problem with PC clones, btw. While you can do it, the base machine doesn't drag people in off the streets to spend their cash on it. Another problem is that it's almost *too* easy to build enhancment boards for the box...making it not at all certain that some new board won't break something you're already running successfully. > BTW-I still don't understand why people won't buy an accelerator because the GS > SHOULD be faster. It's NOT! Deal with it! This point of view (not upgrading 'cause...) doesn't make much sense at all. Takes all kinds, I suppose. ------------ "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.
mmunz@pro-beagle.cts.com (Mark Munz) (10/24/89)
Network Comment: to #12050 by mattd@apple.com
{
>I suggest you check something more tangible, like the modification dates on
>the AW 2.0 disk. :) Actually, the IIgs came out in September of 1986, and
>AW 2.0 was announced at that time.
Ooops.. you got me there.. my math has been off lately..
>The fact is that Apple has been very busy on the Apple II line, as it has on
>the Macintosh line. It's just that a lot of Apple II development has been in
>System Software, which most people can take advantage of very cheaply, and a
>lot of Macintosh development has been in CPUs, which are expensive to upgrade
>even where it's possible.
Perhaps we sometimes do take system software for granted.. and according
to some folks.. the Apple IIGS toolbox is much nicer than the Macintosh
one.. so although I still have my doubts, I may have under estimated
Apple's involvement.
Perhaps I'll step outside.. grab some fresh air.. and take another look.
Mark Munzrnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher) (10/24/89)
In article <35835@apple.Apple.COM> mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) writes: > >The fact is that Apple has been very busy on the Apple II line, as it has on >the Macintosh line. It's just that a lot of Apple II development has been in >System Software, which most people can take advantage of very cheaply, and a >lot of Macintosh development has been in CPUs, which are expensive to upgrade >even where it's possible. Most of our Apple II customers say they prefer >added functionality without having to buy a new machine, and this is what >we've been trying to deliver. > >There is always room for other opinions, though. > Thanks Matt for letting on the rationale behind some of Apple's decisions. You guys in the Apple II group are doing a great job! I think you catch a lot of flames sometimes for decisions made by other departments at Apple, ie Marketing. I know how this guy at CMU feels. Most university bookstores don't sell the Apple IIgs and the education reps never discuss it. They let the false impression that the II series is not useful at the post secondary level go unchallenged. Although Mac Pluses are cheap at student prices, they don't always fit a student's needs (no color, no bus for Electrical Engineering students to play with etc.). Some students can't even afford the Mac Plus but they could probably afford a similarly discounted IIgs with a monochrome monitor. Instead they buy a cheap PC clone and Apple loses another customer. If they start out on a IIgs they will be comfortable with the interface and have no trouble migrating to the Mac if that's what they encounter in business, in other words they develop brand loyalty. If they get a PC clone they will stick with that family after graduation because they are familiar with it. Because learning DOS is such a bad experience, they will avoid going through that again at all costs. They associate switching computer types with going through that learning curve again (mistakenly if they switch to Apple). Many students bring Apple II'sto college from high school. When they get there they have no support. Apple encourages them to buy a Mac which they don't need since they already have a perfectly good computer. They feel abandoned because the company that sold them their computer in high school has no interest in supporting them in college. By this I am not saying you guys at DTS are not supporting them. It's the sales force in the field. A lot of these neglected folks jump ship and buy an MS-DOS machine because they are so angry at Apple. They wouldn't take a Mac if you gave it to them. I don't think the sales reps intentionally dump on the II series. Many of them are just not familiar with the machine. The bottom line for these guys is sales and they get more recognition for moving the more expensive Macs. The system that Apple has set up for their sales force causes neglect of the II series. This is costing Apple customers and sales. The situation won't change until that system changes or until Apple II's are sold through non-Apple channels and get discounted to the point that they can compete with the XT/AT MS-DOS machines (which they are clearly superior to in every respect except availability of software). I realize that you have no part in making these decisions but if you could pass it along to the marketing folks maybe it will help. Rick
brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (10/25/89)
In article <11322@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <8910161138.AA10844@trout.nosc.mil> sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) writes: >>386 machine is basically a superfast CP/M style machine running mostly >>brain-dead operating systems (MS-DOS), OS/2 is something to behold but it is >>meerly taking advantage of the bus speed and memory capacity of these souped >>up CP/M machines. ... There have been next to none advancements in the Intel >>world for years, they meerly stuff faster x86's in them, more memory and >>sometimes double the bus width. > >You shouldn't talk about things you don't know about. The 386 >supports 8086 (NOT 8080 or CP/M) the way the 65816 supports 6502, >but is MUCH, MUCH better in its native mode. In fact the first >available 386 systems were all UNIX boxes. Damn near any UNIX >makes GS/OS look like the toy operating system that it is. >Additional graphics support is pretty much orthogonal to OS and >CPU considerations, and there are many bitmap-supporting UNIX >implementations (even Apple offers one). Check out the Sun 386i. You're right about the 386, Doug, but what have you proven? If you take the original 4.77 MHz 8088 PC and multiply the clock speed by 6.9 (33 MHz), increase to 32 bits, and add caching, hard disk and virtual memory, then you do have a decent machine. The fact that it is based on old technology, and doesn't have true general purpose registers is only a small limiting factor - mostly the machine is so fast you don't notice the many restrictions. But tell me this: why do you think that a 6502 running at TEN times the clock speed (I own a 10 MHz W65C802) of a machine comparable to the PC (the Apple I was faster than the PC in some benchmarks), with extended 16 bit registers (eventually 32 bit), and the rest of the support needed couldn't run UNIX? Sure, such an Apple would need RAM caching (what modern PC doesn't?), hard disk, possibly virtual memory, and some controllable interrupt source (a MC6840 for task switch interrupts) to be able to run UNIX well, but nothing prevents all this. I don't see why the 65C816 couldn't offer an affordable alternative in an architecture that is familiar, and a little more developer friendly than the (still) segmented, special purpose register set 80x86. For all of its shortcomings, I think an 8 to 10 MHz Apple II would be so fast that you wouldn't care (at least not any more than the 386 folks do) that it isn't perfect. Some of the improvements in the PC world include reducing the number of video RAM wait states, so removing the 1 MHz video restriction on the GS (with SE/030-style dual port video RAM) would help greatly as well. Brian Willoughby UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw Bitnet brianw@microsoft.UUCP InterNet: microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or: microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM
brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (10/25/89)
In article <8910202319.AA14029@trout.nosc.mil> sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) writes: >Nothing to be said of UNIX, every implementation of UNIX on a 386 is something >to behold and is a proper use of 386 machines. Although the barrier/boundry >between MS-DOSed 386's and UNIX based 386 boxes is dissappearing quickly, it >is still there and in my mind there is no comparison. A 386 is an almost >perfect architecture to run UNIX off of, but MS-DOS? WHY? UNIX is also an >operating system that was originally designed for mini computers, and when you >produce a machine (386 box) that is basically what a mini was a few years ago, >it makes sense that UNIX runs on it handidly. GS/OS have grown from the >opposite end of the spectrum... remember that. "almost perfect architecture" ? how do you mean? Sure its fast, but as unweildy as the 386 is, I would hardly say that it has any UNIX oriented features. What makes the 386 any better than a number of other currently available processors? The only reason the 386 is being used is because of the sheer number of 386-based machines out there. MS-DOS sold the x86 to the computer public, and the various UNIX vendors are merely catering to a large installed base. Don't confuse the performance of any 386 box by assuming that UNIX favors the 386, because it doesn't. Limited, non- orthagonal registers, backward compatible segment registers, crippled I/O addressing modes, the inability to use BOTH 16 AND 32 bit data sizes AT THE SAME TIME without using instruction prefix modifiers, and an instruction set which was not even entirely designed within the same decade - all of these "features" make the 386 a poor choice, if one could only ignore the *sales* of hardware and concentrate on just the *capabilities* of the hardware. But no one is designing UNIX systems from an ideal point of view, so they must adapt to the most "popular" processor instead of the best suited. It is true that new 386 machines are being sold as UNIX boxes (thus seemingly voiding the "existing user base" argument), but they enjoy greater sales because of the ability to run the large number of existing and proven MS-DOS applications. Machines based of processors better suited to UNIX sell in fewer numbers because they cannot offer multi-operating system support for backward compatibility. What does this have to do with the Apple II? Well, you see what can be done with *one* processor which isn't particularly suited to UNIX - just think about what the same amount of effort could do with another large installed user base! It's not any more difficult to implement UNIX with the 65xxx than with the 80x86, it's just that the effort has not yet been applied. Of course, there isn't much demand for a UNIX II, but until it exists, there can't BE any demand. And demand is the thing that brings us UNIX on the 386. These are not the opinions of my employer. They are not interested in the Apple II line. Brian Willoughby UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw InterNet: microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or: microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM Bitnet brianw@microsoft.UUCP
UNESTJ@UNCVX1.BITNET (Tamara) (10/25/89)
I too have been really really impressed with the copying speed of system
5.0. Thanks be to it!!!
------
Just say, "YO!"
unestj@uncvx1.bitnetjabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) (10/26/89)
Network Comment: to #1415 by gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!nyser!rodan!djhill@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Doug Hill writes: > Joe, you've got to be kidding! Not kidding, but perhaps exercising the debate a bit. Yes, I agree Apple does a fine job innovating and keeping good new things coming our way. GS/OS version 5.0 is a landmark upgrade, for the cost of a blank disk. Kudos to Apple. But is cutting edge where the Apple II needs to be? Arguably not. If you want cutting edge, the Apple II just isn't equipped to offer it. The point of my diatribe was that the Apple II IS equipped to offer other things, most notably serviceability at a low price, with a broad existing user base. If Apple wanted to do so, they could make this platform the de facto standard of American life. And I even think that selling $500, low-end Apple IIs, they could still afford to provide reasonable R&D ... <if> the computer were sold into an audience perhaps 10 or 20 times as large as the audience that now can afford it. Don't forget: The average Apple II buyer has an income of over $50,000, and lots of folks aren't in that neighborhood. > IBM has good old stodgy corporate management, and look what it's done > for them. Yeah, look. Who entered the market late, but created the industry standard based on technology quite inferior to what should have been by that time an existing Apple standard. Say what you will, but something went awry in Cupertino. The only good news is that things have been awfully encouraging over the last year. Joe Abernathy UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com
jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) (10/26/89)
Network Comment: to #1452 by lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com
> I can't quite remember why Nintendo isn't introducing its new line.
I can remember, from a story about two months ago in the business section of
the paper. "We plan to sell down present inventories before moving into the
American market."
Can't blame 'em, but I wouldn't be buying a lot cartridges in the meantime.
UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy
ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil
INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.comjabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) (10/26/89)
Network Comment: to #1456 by philip@pro-generic.cts.com Philip McDunnough writes: > Take away Apple's support and what will it be? Again, I like Apple and their products. And again, the capabilities of the MicroChannel and MultiFinder are not what I am suggesting the Apple II should compete against. Let those technologies compete against each other, at $12,000 a pop. Me, I'm interested in what a machine can do for us, all of us. Give me a low-cost machine with matching abilities, and I'll find you worthy uses for half a dozen such units in your own home. Not at $12,000 each, not even at $2,000 each. At $350 each, or less, which is what I was talking about in my post (which has my mailbox up to 78 letters as of this evening). Maturity is accepting the fact that you've made a breakthrough, and having the stick-to-it-iveness to live up to the promise of your accomplishment. Not engineering workstations, tools. UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (10/28/89)
In article <8192@microsoft.UUCP> brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) writes: >The fact that [the 486 etc.] is based on old technology, and doesn't >have true general purpose registers is only a small limiting factor >- mostly the machine is so fast you don't notice the many restrictions. >... why do you think that a 6502 ... couldn't run UNIX? I didn't say it couldn't, although I do think the result would not be worth the effort. However, it DOESN'T run UNIX, and that is important when you compare the value of different processor architectures. In fact, I happen to think the 6502/65816 architecture is not really better than the 8086 family's. It is page-oriented, uses absolute page 0 for special purposes, has only one register that really qualifies as "general-purpose" (although you can't index with it), and has a wildly nonorthogonal coupling between opcodes and addressing modes. There are sensible computer architectures, but the 65816 is not one of them. Check out MIPS or SPARC for typical examples of architectures with all the structural advantages of the 6502 (actually, its only one is its single-cycle execution) while avoiding its problems. I own a IIGS, but not because I think it's a great CPU design.
lmb7421@ultb.UUCP (L.M. Barstow) (10/30/89)
In article <11434@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <8192@microsoft.UUCP> brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) writes: >In fact, I happen to think the 6502/65816 architecture is not really >better than the 8086 family's. It is page-oriented, uses absolute >page 0 for special purposes, has only one register that really >qualifies as "general-purpose" (although you can't index with it), >and has a wildly nonorthogonal coupling between opcodes and addressing >modes. Yeah, it's page-oriented (oh, well...can't have everything)...page/bank 0 may be used normally just like any other section of memory - it merely has a seperate opcode in addition to the normal ones - direct, which allows for even faster access. As for registers, the single-register (actually about 3 useable ones, with limits) CPU is an old concept and could use some revamping...maybe Bill Mensch could figure out a new set of opcodes to deal with more registers... Actually, the opcode->addressing mode organization is wonderful - do a bit decomposition on the opcodes - you'll be surprised...every addressing mode has the same last 5-bit extension across opcodes... It may not look nice when you're trying to figure out which opcodes are which, but it's great for interpretation inside the CPU... >I own a IIGS, but not because I think it's a great CPU design. It may not be the best CPU ever designed, but it certainly isn't the worst... -- Les Barstow **All of the paths work!!!!** LMB7421@RITVAX.BITNET lmb7421@{ultb,vaxa,vaxb,vaxc,vaxd}.isc.rit.edu UUCP: ...rutgers!rochester!rit!ultb!lmb7421 LENSMAN@DRYCAS.BITNET lensman@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (11/08/89)
In-Reply-To: message from haven!adm!smoke!gwyn@purdue.edu orthogonal in architecture terms basically means no special purpose registers. The 68000 has no accumulator,but has 9 index registers and 8 data registers. Instructions can operate on any register in the same way (with some restrictions) it is thus more orthogonal than a 6502. The 88000 set has 32 registers and does not even have a status register, again all instructions can operate equally on all registers. This is the most orthgonal processorr on the market today. This is how I feel processors should be, after all it's how I designed the one for my thesis. The special registers of the Intel series and the 6800/6500 series are passe in my opinion. p.s. doug - chill out ok?
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (11/09/89)
In article <7029.infoapple.net@pro-generic> ericmcg@pro-generic.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: >orthogonal in architecture terms basically means no special purpose registers. That's one manifestation, but the concept is considerably more general.
jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) (11/11/89)
In-Reply-To: message from philip@pro-generic.cts.com Philip McDunnough writes: > Another direction is in the sound/speech area, with which you seem > to be very familiar. We need standards, both video and sound, which > are up to date and provide communication capabilities with the rest of > the world. Oh, and while you are at it, how about a greater variety of > printer drivers ... I've put together a complete set of interfaces for producing speech and digitized sounds in all of the various IIGS languages, so that programmers can do speech or sound playback with one-word commands. ... I just haven't decided what to do with the libraries yet .. put 'em in a column, sell as software utility, give away. As for the printer drivers, contact Bill Heineman at Interplay Productions. He has a number of nifty drivers, including ones for the HP Laserjet, SilentType, and one for the ImageWriter II twice as fast as the standard driver. Joe Abernathy UUCP: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy ARPA: crash!pro-houston!jabernathy@nosc.mil INET: jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com