jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) (02/01/89)
I am very worried about the future of the Transwarp GS. The Apple //gs is a much more cumbersome and complicated animal in the way that it has been run under prodos16 and the present versions of GS/OS. The OS seems to be approaching the complication of Mac OS's. I don't like this because I have seen three upgrades for Mac's system (4.2 to 6.0 to 6.1) and each time some software has become incompatible. The software seems to take so much for granted in hardware that a minor change may break a fragile balance. In a nutshell, a future version of GS/OS may make the Transwarp inoperable. Both DOS and ProDos for the //e were small and simple and tolerant of hardware changes. Will GS/OS carry on this tradition, or will it be like the Mac, where a typical system folder takes up 600K and must be accessed for just about every operation that involves I/O or system use? Capt. Albatross jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu r746jm7e@cmccvb (bitnet)
shawn@pnet51.cts.com (Shawn Stanley) (02/04/89)
jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) writes: >I am very worried about the future of the Transwarp GS. > >The Apple //gs is a much more cumbersome and complicated animal in the way >that it has been run under prodos16 and the present versions of GS/OS. > >The OS seems to be approaching the complication of Mac OS's. I don't like this >because I have seen three upgrades for Mac's system (4.2 to 6.0 to 6.1) and >each time some software has become incompatible. Your fears seem rooted in software updates, not hardware additions. For your information, Apple itself has changed a few toolbox results such that previous versions of certain software did not work with GS/OS, which required the software companies to update their packages. >The software seems to take so much for granted in hardware that a minor change >may break a fragile balance. In a nutshell, a future version of GS/OS may >make the Transwarp inoperable. Maybe so, but I'm not as worried about Applied Engineering refusing to make a hardware upgrade for such eventualities. They're not a small business that has a large chance of suddenly going under, leaving customers stranded with out-of-date hardware. They also have the success of the TransWarp for the Apple //e under their belt. >Both DOS and ProDos for the //e were small and simple and tolerant of hardware >changes. Will GS/OS carry on this tradition, or will it be like the Mac, where >a typical system folder takes up 600K and must be accessed for just about every >operation that involves I/O or system use? You seem more worried about Apple's future than the future of the TransWarp GS card. Please, if you have fears about the TransWarp GS, base them on something concrete, instead of basing them on opinions of the Apple //gs in general. Software is easily left behind; interface hardware is less liable to become obsolete on a particular line of computers. In such a situation, I would trust either Applied Engineering or Apple Computer to provide a solution. Users won't use an OS that doesn't work with their hard-earned hardware. It's in Apple's interest to cooperate to some extent, although I would assume that Applied Engineering would be doing most of the cooperating. UUCP: {uunet!rosevax, amdahl!bungia, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!shawn INET: shawn@pnet51.cts.com