jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Jeremy G. Mereness") (03/11/89)
I do not think Jeff Erickson of Claris deserves the treatment he has
gotten from this net. I sent him many messages over E-Mail and he has answered
my promptly and to the best of his ability. People like him are not the cause
of the Apple //'s problems. He is simply a realist who is closer to what
Cupertino is really doing to the machine.
Jeff seems tired of supporting a machine that its manufacturer's do not
support. If it did, it would not leak out to MacWeek that a under $1000 Mac
is projected for the K-12 market in 1990 (January issue, front page) and call
the machine dead architecture.
It is clear from dedicated people like those of Applied Engineering that
the // is not a dead machine. Damnit! It's more FUN to work with this machine,
and I have worked with virtuall all of them.
FACTS: Applied Engineering has proved that the //gs can go MUCH faster. Apple
held that the architecture prevented it; that a total rehash of the motherboard
was required.
Further, Programs like Roger Wagner's SoftSwitch prove that the machine,
even without a dedicated OS to perform the task, can simulate multitasking by
placing programs in different banks of memory, allowing one to switch between
them on the fly. Apple, however, allows this to remain quiet.
I feel that if Apple was truly behind the machine, they would support, or
even license these products (like they did with Styleware when it announced
GS Works). They haven't.
The fact is, the Mac works, the //gs does not, and this is Apple's fault.
Jeff is simply another programmer fed up with dealing with Apple's nonsupport,
and he needs to make a living. But I won't throw out my machine until its all
over, and then maybe not. This machine is too much damned fun.
I would love to have faith in the parent company, but only the third parties
seem to make the machine fly. If I worked at Apple, this would turn my
stomach, but I don't, and they have the Mac there to make the // seem
insignificant.
There. I said it.
jeremy mereness
jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (arpa)
r746jm7e@cmccvb (bitnet)SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (03/12/89)
>Jeff seems tired of supporting a machine that its manufacturer's do not >support. If it did, it would not leak out to MacWeek that a under $1000 Mac >is projected for the K-12 market in 1990 (January issue, front page) and call >the machine dead architecture. The story in MacWeek caused a stir, but should be taken with a grain of salt; especially since Apple's most senior management has gone to the trouble of denying it. From the March Vaporware column: No Low-Cost Mac (from Apple). Apple CEO John Sculley told stockholders last month that the firm has opened a second design center to focus on designing machines for the low end of the market, however a Mac with a price tag below $1,000 will not be offered this year. Products Division president Jean-Louis Gassee also is quoted as saying the company doesn't plan to offer a low-cost Mac configuration anytime in the next two or three years. - InfoWorld 30 January and PC Week 6 February /s Murph I bought the latest computer; it came fully loaded. It was guaranteed for 90 days, but in 30 was outmoded! - The Wall Street Journal passed along by Big Red Computer's SCARLETT FAX it to me at: 1-203-486-5246
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (03/12/89)
Jeremey, do you say this stuff just to raise the hair on the back of my neck? >FACTS: Applied Engineering has proved that the //gs can go MUCH faster. Apple >held that the architecture prevented it; that a total rehash of the motherboard >was required. Where have you heard this? I've never seen this theory posted here or anywhere else. The only reason I've heard as to why we don't put out 7MHz Apple IIGS's is because we are/were not able to get reliable 65816s in quantity from WDC. I don't think that AE has the volume that we do, and doesn't need the large quantity that we do in order to fulfill their orders. > Further, Programs like Roger Wagner's SoftSwitch prove that the machine, >even without a dedicated OS to perform the task, can simulate multitasking by >placing programs in different banks of memory, allowing one to switch between >them on the fly. Apple, however, allows this to remain quiet. I wouldn't call this multi-tasking. Softswitch doesn't allow background processes. I also seem to recall that it didn't work with ProDOS 8 applica- tions, but I may be mistaken. As for our remaining quiet, you know that Apple has always maintained such a stance on future product development. And since you are a regular reader of this net, you also know why. >I feel that if Apple was truly behind the machine, they would support, or >even license these products (like they did with Styleware when it announced >GS Works). They haven't. What do you mean here? From your point of view, how did we support GS Works? How would you like us to support or license Softswitch? Do you want us to buy it and put it into every GS sold? If so, then there is no advantage to you. We would have to charge more for the GS in order to cover Roger Wanger's costs and licensing fees. The net cost would either be a wash or higher than it is now. >The fact is, the Mac works, the //gs does not, and this is Apple's fault. I must really be dense this evening, as I am not following any of your arguments. As far as I see it, both machines "work". The Mac does what it does and the GS does what it does. >Jeff is simply another programmer fed up with dealing with Apple's nonsupport, >and he needs to make a living. But I won't throw out my machine until its all >over, and then maybe not. This machine is too much damned fun. If you like your Apple II, then why are *YOU* trying to kill it? With all of your comments foretelling doom and disaster for the Apple II, don't you think that you are instilling a sense of foreboding in your audience? If I were a naive listener to these networks, I would think that the Apple II was not worth a plug nickel and that it had no future. If I, as this naive listener, were also a talented programmer considering writing a great new program for the Apple II, I'd reconsider it...based on what I'd heard you say. On the other hand, if you like your Apple so much, why don't you support it? I believe that it was once you who told me that you like arguing just for the sake of it. If that is true, I'd like to see your talents steered in a more constructive vein. If, instead, you were to talk in glowing phrases about how much you liked your Apple and how you thought there was a great future for it, then you will instill this in the people who read your comments. Support of the Apple II does not have to stop with Apple. Anyone else can do it too. People's comments on the future can often be self-fulfilling; if you predict the death of the Apple II, then those comments will help to bring it around. The same can be said of predictions on its upcoming 25 year future. >I would love to have faith in the parent company, but only the third parties >seem to make the machine fly. If I worked at Apple, this would turn my >stomach, but I don't, and they have the Mac there to make the // seem >insignificant. But this is the whole purpose of 3rd party companies. Apple doesn't sell solutions. We just sell the computer. It has ALWAYS been the 3rd party companies that have provided the software that makes the Apple II useful. It has always been a combination of the 2nd party and the 3rd party to create a solution for you, the 1st party. What is so wrong with this that makes your stomach turn? There are many good reasons for Apple to rely on 3rd party companies for innovative software and hardware: - better for the economy in a capitalist system - smaller companies can create products more quickly - their products are often better because they don't design by committee the way a large company like Apple does. - Apple can concentrate on hardware and system software - If we were to write software like AWGS, all the people working on Apple II software at Claris would be out of a job. As you said, Jeff has to make a living. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. --- Developer Technical Support INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions
AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") (03/13/89)
>Date: Sat, 11 Mar 89 00:54:01 CST >From: "Jeremy G. Mereness" <jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU> >Subject: AppleSupport(wasre:ughh and the GS > >[...] FACTS: Applied Engineering has proved that the //gs can go MUCH >faster. Apple held that the architecture prevented it; that a total >rehash of the motherboard was required. Lots of people _guessed_ that. I don't recall Apple ever claiming it. Lack of fast 65816s _in quantity_ seems like the most plausible reason. >Further, Programs like Roger Wagner's SoftSwitch prove that the >machine, even without a dedicated OS to perform the task, can >simulate multitasking by placing programs in different banks of >memory, allowing one to switch between them on the fly. Apple, >however, allows this to remain quiet. What? (1) This is not multitasking. (2) SoftSwitch does it only for ProDOS 8 programs; it would be much more difficult to do something similar for 16-bit programs. (3) SoftSwitch is a 3rd-party product: Apple doesn't go around giving RWP free advertising, and they also don't try to prevent RWP from doing its own advertising. How is this "keeping it quiet"? (4) The user is responsible for knowing what will and will not cause problems when switching from one program to another. There's no way around that for ProDOS 8 programs. >The fact is, the Mac works, the //gs does not, and this is Apple's >fault. What? Mine works. >jeremy mereness >jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (arpa) >r746jm7e@cmccvb (bitnet) --David A. Lyons bitnet: awcttypa@uiamvs DAL Systems CompuServe: 72177,3233 P.O. Box 287 GEnie mail: D.LYONS2 North Liberty, IA 52317 AppleLinkPE: Dave Lyons
RXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC") (03/13/89)
TO Keith Rollin... Nice arguement Keith, and good points on the software mentioned. I think the man wanted to say in a since, that its been two years since the GS has been out and we feel like we are getting stomped by other machines. I have a lot of Amiga ziods and Ibm nuts to put up with, what can I say I'm stuck in Arkansas. I have been hearing about all of these great features that the Amiga can do and, telling people that the GS can do it too, but its just not as impressive. It was also kind of hard to tell them the GS only ran at 2.5Mhz. I have argued them all until we are all tired of argueing(sp?), and I still come back the next day to tell them the newest thing in the Apple // world. I would like multi-tasking mainly because I would like to play a game while I am d/loading a big program from a bbs. The main thing I want from the GS+ is speed. I could give up all the roumours(sp?) for 7 - 8 Mhz. Thats all I ask for. I have heard that there were not enough reliable 65816's around, but how did AE get it to work? And can't Apple do the same thing? I like both of my Apples eventhough I don't buy non-GS programs anymore, and I will continue to argue with these jerks until Apple comes out with a new // or until I can afford a MAC II. Even then I will still like my older Apples like //+ owners do. I have a side line comment here. I think Commodore is releasing too many Amigas. They don't let any of their machines mature, and people are still playing with the thing. One of these jerks I argue with keeps saying the Amiga is taking part of the Mac's market, and he does not even own an Amiga. I just have to tell him thats why we are a multi-million dollar company. Well I have said enough, I will talk to you later. Just remember, We were here second and the first one went for busniess market. Everybody else learned from our mistakes, but we are still alive and kicking. Robert Brown BITNET: RXBROWN@UALR APPLELINK: RODPHD
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (03/13/89)
> ...One of these jerks I argue with keeps saying the >Amiga is taking part of the Mac's market, and he does not even own an Amiga. >I just have to tell him thats why we are a multi-million dollar company. If you happended to catch the Computer Chronicles over the weekend, you'd have found that the "jerk" is correct. Nasa's Ames Research Center was shown using Amiga's to run a helicopter simulator (among other things). While the show spent much of it's time on games and "gee whiz" entertainment, it also showed off some serious productivity applications and made the case that, in MANY uses, the Amiga permits greater productivity (for a LOWER PRICE too) than even the Mac II. The smart folks are buying Amigas instead of Macs (when they can find software to do what they need to do). Apple's darn lucky that the Amiga's marketed by Commodore and hasn't been taken as seriously by software developers as the hardware (and operating system) merits. I LOVE the name of the operating system, "Intuition" (Apple shoulda thought of it first but didn't :-( Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) According to the American Facsimile Association, more than half the calls from Japan to the U.S. are fax calls. FAX it to me at: 1-203-486-5246
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (03/14/89)
In article <8903122241.aa08619@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> RXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC") writes: [ some stuff deleted ] >I am d/loading a big program from a bbs. The main thing I want from the GS+ >is speed. I could give up all the roumours(sp?) for 7 - 8 Mhz. Thats all I >ask for. I have heard that there were not enough reliable 65816's around, but >how did AE get it to work? And can't Apple do the same thing? AE doesn't sell as many Transwarp boards as we sell GS's. Assume that we sell 1 milllion GS's, and AE sells 5% as many AE boards. That means that all is required for them in order to fill their orders is 20,000 65816's that run at 7MHz. On the other hand, if we were to try to do the same thing, we would need 1,000,000 of the beasties. If there aren't that many then we can't fill our 1 million orders, and could only sell 20,000 GS's. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. --- Developer Technical Support INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions
wombat@claris.com (Scott Lindsey) (03/14/89)
From article <AY6=Yty00W0d47=mMO@andrew.cmu.edu>, by jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Jeremy G. Mereness"):
>
> I feel that if Apple was truly behind the machine, they would support, or
> even license these products (like they did with Styleware when it announced
> GS Works). They haven't.
Huh? License? The only thing Apple licensed from StyleWare was the Epson
printer driver & associated port driver(s). Ever. When we announced GSWorks,
it wasn't news to Apple. They were aware of what we'd been working on.
Apple isn't a software company. It's hardware/OS. Maybe you're confusing
Apple Incorporated and the Claris Corporation, which are two different
entities, albeit Claris is a subsidiary of Apple.
As far as support goes, Apple supported StyleWare just fine. The level of
support (as IIgs developers) may have increased slightly when we (the
programmers) came to Claris. There are several reasons behind this. It seems
obvious to me that Apple would pay more attention to the company that will
have more impact on the market. (Claris is initially selling more AWGS than
StyleWare could GSWorks). I don't view this as any gross imbalance, but
merely a slight weighting. The turnaround time for tech support seems to be
faster, but I think that this is due to changes in procedure at DTS over the
past year. Finally, it's somewhat psychological on our (OK, *my*) part.
Actually being in the same state, having the opportunity to visit and talk
to the people in DTS makes the whole operation more "realistic." That's
human nature.
DISCLAIMER (seriously):
--
Scott Lindsey | UUCP: {ames,apple,portal,sun,voder}!claris!wombat
Product Development | Internet: wombat@claris.com | AppleLink: LINDSEY1
Claris Corp. | These are not the opinions of Claris, Apple,
(415) 960-4070 | StyleWare, the author, or anyone else living or dead.gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (03/14/89)
In article <27215@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >Assume that we sell 1 milllion GS's, and AE sells 5% as many AE boards. That >means that all is required for them in order to fill their orders is 20,000 I hope that Apple CPUs can perform arithmetic more accurately than that...
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (03/14/89)
>Assume that we sell 1 milllion GS's, and AE sells 5% as many AE boards. That >means that all is required for them in order to fill their orders is 20,000 After all I've read on this newsfeed in the past two years, if AE sells accelerators to less than 1/3 of IIgs owners, I expect they'll be POWERFULLY DISAPPOINTED. If AE manages to deliver accelerators to say 50% of IIgs owners, what's Apple's excuse going to be then ('course if AE is unable to keep up with demand, then you'll be able to smirk :-( ?? Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) According to the American Facsimile Association, more than half the calls from Japan to the U.S. are fax calls. FAX it to me at: 1-203-486-5246
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (03/14/89)
In article <9851@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <27215@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >>Assume that we sell 1 milllion GS's, and AE sells 5% as many AE boards. That >>means that all is required for them in order to fill their orders is 20,000 > >I hope that Apple CPUs can perform arithmetic more accurately than that... Yeah, I can't type, cook, or make my own bed either. I'm either an idiot or an eccentric, I can't decide which... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. --- Developer Technical Support INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions
nicholaA@moravian.EDU (03/14/89)
Keith Rollin = >> Murph Sewal = > >>Assume that we sell 1 milllion GS's, and AE sells 5% as many AE boards. That >>means that all is required for them in order to fill their orders is 20,000 >After all I've read on this newsfeed in the past two years, if AE sells >accelerators to less than 1/3 of IIgs owners, I expect they'll be POWERFULLY >DISAPPOINTED. If AE manages to deliver accelerators to say 50% of IIgs >owners, what's Apple's excuse going to be then ('course if AE is unable to >keep up with demand, then you'll be able to smirk :-( ?? No, in that case, Apple will give us the line "but AE bought all the faster chips, so we can't build you a GS+.... no fast chips available." Bah. >Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90 >Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET >Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET >U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] ---- Andy Nicholas CsNET: shrinkit@moravian.edu Box 435, Moravian College InterNET: shrinkit%moravian.edu@relay.cs.net Bethlehem, PA 18018 liberty!batman!shrinkit@sun.com ---- UUCP: rutgers!lafcol!lehi3b15!mc70!shrinkit I have a CD player, send CD's. rutgers!liberty!batman!shrinkit I have a IIgs, send a GS+. ALink PE: shrinkit I wrote ShrinkIt, send tylenol.
nicholaA@moravian.EDU (03/14/89)
> >In article <27215@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >>Assume that we sell 1 milllion GS's, and AE sells 5% as many AE boards. That >>means that all is required for them in order to fill their orders is 20,000 >I hope that Apple CPUs can perform arithmetic more accurately than that... Aww leave keith alone. After all, he's not an engineer... just in the dtscrew. :-) > ---- Andy Nicholas CsNET: shrinkit@moravian.edu Box 435, Moravian College InterNET: shrinkit%moravian.edu@relay.cs.net Bethlehem, PA 18018 liberty!batman!shrinkit@sun.com ---- UUCP: rutgers!lafcol!lehi3b15!mc70!shrinkit I have a CD player, send CD's. rutgers!liberty!batman!shrinkit I have a IIgs, send a GS+. ALink PE: shrinkit
jbwaters@bsu-cs.UUCP (J. Brian Waters) (03/15/89)
In article <8903122241.aa08619@SMOKE.BRL.MIL>, RXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC") writes: > Arkansas. I have been hearing about all of these great features that the > Amiga can do and, telling people that the GS can do it too, but its just not Given the current hardware the Amiga has the edge for the most part in all but sound. > as impressive. It was also kind of hard to tell them the GS only ran at >2.5Mhz. Clock speeds only compare among members of the same processor. If you remember the trs-80 vs Apple ][ debates of long ago, a 1 MHz 6502 would beat a 2 MHz z80 on almost all benchmarks... > I would like multi-tasking mainly because I would like to play a game while Multi-tasking is something that grows on you.. kinda like updating to a floppy after using cassetes on the old apple ][. At first the disk drive was a luxary, now it is a must have. I would never go back to tape now. > I have a side line comment here. I think Commodore is releasing too many > Amigas. They don't let any of their machines mature, and people are still > playing with the thing. One of these jerks I argue with keeps saying the Two many amigas? there are really only three... and the difference among them are less then most seem to think... you can get the same HW to run on both the 500 and the 1000.... and the 2000 has the slots for easier expansion. The same sofware runs on all the machines, you order software for an Amiga you do not have to order it for an 'Amiga 1000 etc'. The new 2500 models are just the 2000 with some nice hardware already installed in the slots. > I just have to tell him thats why we are a multi-million dollar company. Hmmm... and so is Commodore and so is IBM... but that does not really prove much... it just proves that at one time the company grew... I have owned and Apple ][ since 1979... and am very glad especialy during the early 80s when it was THE machine to have. That was when all owners got a free montly magazine (softalk) paid for with advertising of all the new products that came out monthly... I think the Amiga is just about to enter its equivalant part of its life. (Though I doubt it will get a free magazine paid for with mostly game ads... computing has gotten to serious these days... sigh...) > Just remember, We were here second and the first one went for busniess market. > Everybody else learned from our mistakes, but we are still alive and kicking. I assume "we" refers to Apple? Apple was where second? Who was first? IBM? If that is who you are thinking of your cronology is a bit off... Apple was one of the early players in the turnkey micro market. It was one of the first that came with Basic in ROM in a pretty case etc... and was part of the second generation of micros after the Altair etc.. along with the PET and TRS-80... IBM did not come out till 82-83 with their micro... and something that I love to show people telling my I should buy an IBM since it has so much software is a review in BYTE saying "The IBM PC is nice, but it does not have the software for it that the Apple ][ has etc...." -- Brian Waters <backbone>!{iuvax|pur-ee}!bsu-cs!jbwaters
RXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC") (03/15/89)
TO DOUG GWYN... HE WAS TRYING TO GET A POINT ACROSS, SO WHAT IF HIS CALCULATIONS WERE OFF.
RXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC") (03/17/89)
TO Brian walters... >Multi-tasking is something that grows on you....... Bull I could start multi-tasking today if my GS would do it. Fungus is something that grows on you. >If you remember the tsr-80 vs Apple ][ debates of long ago, a 1 Mhz 6502 >would beat a 2 Mhz z80 on almost all benchmarks.... I don't care and I don't remember, I want 7MHz! Commodore has the 500, 1000 (which they don't sell anymore), 2000 and the 2500. If you want to settle for what you have its your busniess. I want more!!!! Robert Brown BitNet: RXBROWN@UALR APPLELINK: ROBPHD I didn't write Shrinkit. Send me a beer. I don't have any money. Send me some. Sorry Andy I could not resist.....
prl3546@tahoma.UUCP (Philip R. Lindberg) (03/17/89)
From article <AY6=Yty00W0d47=mMO@andrew.cmu.edu>, by jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Jeremy G. Mereness"):
>
> I do not think Jeff Erickson of Claris deserves the treatment he has
> gotten from this net.
>
> Jeff seems tired of supporting a machine that Apple does not support.
>
> Jeff is simply another programmer fed up with dealing with Apple's nonsupport,
>
> I would love to have faith in the parent company, but only the third parties
> seem to make the machine fly. If I worked at Apple, this would turn my
> stomach, but I don't, and they have the Mac there to make the // seem
> insignificant.
>
> There. I said it.
> jeremy mereness
Well, I sure can't argue with any of that.... But, like you say, I'm not
going to put my //e & //gs in the garage. The third party guys who are
still making stuff for the //'s will continue to get my money. And I will
continue to promote //'s in our schools, etc. (Not MAC's, they can't afford
them) Don't give up hope yet. Apple hasn't accually killed the goose that
laid the golden egg. It's still only talk, so far.
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| The Apple //'s will live forever!! |
| Phil Lindberg snail mail: 13845 S.E. 131 ST |
| Renton, WA 98056 |
| UUCP: ..!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!shuksan!tahoma!prl3546 |
| Disclaimer: I don't speak for my employer (and I not |
| sure they even know I exist....) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+jbwaters@bsu-cs.UUCP (J. Brian Waters) (03/17/89)
In article <8903161335.aa13797@SMOKE.BRL.MIL>, RXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC") writes: > TO Brian walters... Hmmm... > > >Multi-tasking is something that grows on you....... > > Bull I could start multi-tasking today if my GS would do it. Fungus is Fine then start writing a multi-tasking kernal.. it is not that hard really.. but I myself would prefer to buy a machine that has one already. There are lots of things that I could start doing today if I had the resources for it... what is the point? > something that grows on you. > I don't care and I don't remember, I want 7MHz! that's nice... > > Commodore has the 500, 1000 (which they don't sell anymore), 2000 and the 2500. I can see you did not read my posting at all.... I explained for one thing that the 2000 and the 2500 are not really different models at all. At least not any more so then say an Apple ][ with a CPM card. Or a closer analog still the GS with the AE speedup board. I also included some other stuff... but no point repeating it for you again... if you did not read it the first time I doubt you would read it this time. > If you want to settle for what you have its your busniess. I want more!!!! More what? And how much are you willing to pay for it? I have a 7.14 Mhz 68010... so I have the 7 Mhz that you claim to want... though I am not sure what it means to have it. I too would like more... but am not willing to pay the costs yet. I LIKE the Apple ][... I have three of them... but if your "defense" of them is the best you can do I think you do the Apple ][ line a bigger favor by keeping quiet. Defend the line on its merits, not on ill-informed slams of its "competitors". -- Brian Waters <backbone>!{iuvax|pur-ee}!bsu-cs!jbwaters
brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (03/19/89)
In article <6117@bsu-cs.UUCP>, jbwaters@bsu-cs.UUCP (J. Brian Waters) writes: > In article <8903122241.aa08619@SMOKE.BRL.MIL>, RXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC") writes: > > as impressive. It was also kind of hard to tell them the GS only ran at > >2.5Mhz. > > Clock speeds only compare among members of the same processor. If you remember > the trs-80 vs Apple ][ debates of long ago, a 1 MHz 6502 would beat a 2 MHz > z80 on almost all benchmarks... > I have also heard (and wish I could find the article) that the 1 MHz 6502 beat the 4.77 MHz 8086 on several benchmarks! Also, one day when I was trying to write a very tight loop for the 65802 (and dreaming about owning a 68000), I got out the data books and found the 65802 to be twice as efficient as a 68000 (at the same clock speed, that is). The routine exclusively used register variables on the 68000, so I assume the results would favor the 65802 even more if the problem required referencing more variables outside the 68000 registers. So think of the 7 MHz TransWarp GS as ~14 MHz 68000 - I can hardly wait for 10 MHz! I wonder if anyone is interested in doing a professional benchmark of the 6502? > >Just remember, We were here second and the first one went for busniess market > >Everybody else learned from our mistakes, but we are still alive and kicking. > > I assume "we" refers to Apple? Apple was where second? Who was first? IBM? > If that is who you are thinking of your cronology is a bit off... Apple was > one of the early players in the turnkey micro market. It was one of the first > that came with Basic in ROM in a pretty case etc... and was part of the second > generation of micros after the Altair etc.. along with the PET and TRS-80... > IBM did not come out till 82-83 with their micro... and something that I love > to show people telling my I should buy an IBM since it has so much software is > a review in BYTE saying "The IBM PC is nice, but it does not have the software > for it that the Apple ][ has etc...." > One fact I love to rub in when people mistakenly give IBM first credit: The first IBM PC came out six months after Apple Computer went public in the largest stock offering since the Ford Motor Company went public in the '50s. They sold enough stock in one day to take in $100 million! I think that this is what opened IBM's eyes. Also note, there were over 1000 programs available for the II from various third-party vendors when the IBM PC was announced. Brian Willoughby microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or uw-beaver!microsoft!brianw or just microsoft!brianw
jsaker@zeus.unl.edu (Jamie Saker) (03/20/89)
>What's really sad, is that MOST of the people I talk to (who are fed up with >the lack of GS improvements) is that they state EMPHATICALY.... They will NOT >give there $$$ to Apple again !!!!! They WILL NOT go to a Mac... I would think >that Apple thought they would... If they think that they LSOT $$$ WITH RAM, >you just wait and see..... I can't get over the stupidity of UPPER Management >and with the Marketeers... >Joe >Jeff, I already am angry at myself remaining with the GS after reading the >K-12 Mac special report in MacWeek Feb 12th (I think that is the right date >isnt it Murphy?). >Larry W. Virden 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 (614) 864-8817 >75046,606 (CIS) ; LVirden (ALPE) ; osu-cis!n8emr!lwv (UUCP) >osu-cis!n8emr!lwv@TUT.CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (INTERNET) >The world's not inherited from our parents, but borrowed from our children. I just wish someone with flack at Apple would give us owners some reason to continue to support their machines. After all the negative coverage resulting in a lot of rumors, why doesn't someone get up and STAND UP for their machine? Or are they all to ashamed to say something positive about the IIgs? It just is hard for me to understand, along with many others, why it can take them 3 years and still not have any improvement on the IIgs hardware, and yet develop a handful of Macs in the same time. How about SHARING some of that technology that all of that II series profits went to R&R for the Mac????? I too work on Macs extensivly, but if Apple drops the II line - or doesn't continue to support it to the extent it should, then why should I ever purchace another machine from them? Why wouldn't they abandon that one later too? You would think that most other companies would defend their products if they REALLY CARED about them. Come on Apple, just look at the hole you're digging yourself into. You think we'd buy a Mac if you don't support the II? Maybe Apple's marketing just wants us to buy a NeXT... <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> Jamie Saker Bitnet --- JSAKER@UNOMA1 <> <> Communications/ Internet - JSAKER@zeus.unl.edu <> <> Journalism Major GEnie --- J.SAKER1 <> <> Photojournalist, RFO/ONR - #1 (402)558-5182 <> <> Daily Nonpareil USMail --- 817 N. 47th St #7 <> <> Council Bluffs, IA Omaha, NE 68132 <> <> <> <> "An Apple with speed keeps the Amiga away..." <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
RXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC") (03/22/89)
TO Brian Willoughby... Thanks for the info. I did not know Apple came out first, but I knew is was not far away from the start of the IBM pc. A friend of mine told me he read an interesting article the other day. He said the article said, GS programmers were not writing efficent code. It sounds like they got more room from when they were writing 6502 code, and they took advantage of the extra, room shall we say... The benchmarks sound nice, but I still want more speed. Robert Brown BITNET: RXBROWN@UALR APPLELINK: ROBPHD
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (03/22/89)
In article <8903211823.aa07626@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> RXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC") writes: >Thanks for the info. I did not know Apple came out first, but I knew is >was not far away from the start of the IBM pc. You're still wrong -- Apples were in use for years before the advent of the IBM PC.