hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) (12/13/88)
I are a real comp. sci. major who dabbles in architecture.
I grew up with apples, and will try not to whine too much here.
I think there is a cozy spot where Apple II's could stay IF Apple will let
it. The main push of Mac was aginst Big Blue and its nasty cast of 8088's
<hiss>. Now that Apple has tapped the shallow-minded "Buy it if it's IBM"
and turned it into not-much-better "Buy it if it looks real neato keen" the
Apple II is left where Apple itself used to be considered: middle-class,
education, better-than-atari-or-commodore, hobbymachine.
Now once again that Mac is becoming a "standard" and business will buy it
IF it looks real neato keen AND does graphs nicely from a spreadsheet,
<gasp> the Apple is becoming (I believe) the closest entry to a relatively
new niche. I am not a Commode-ore fan but the Amiga's hardware Does look
like the best thing since Peach Pie. The Commodore people, though, have
once-again sailed through to glory in making its software only too painful
and rather slow (not to mention a Tough WINDOWS interface [hard to make]).
The point is, the Amiga people did their homework and went nuts to make
a great machine.... but one mostly for games. A little of this appeared
to creep into the GS in the form of some different and innovative graphics
stuff and an Ensoniq chip (not creative, but who'll complain). Such is
status quo now.
My point (it IS in here somewhere) is that Apple outghta GO NUTS!!!!!
The Apple II compatibility requirement is Not Very Hard to make work
especially considering Apple gives up on buses between computers.
The things the Amiga Could've used are a REAL IN PARALLEL slave
processor of a sort. No one realizes their potential without some
multitasky system all cozy and easy to adapt into. Sheez what a box
that would be!!!! The Mac's problems are Huge more often because it
IS its operating system and Toolbox. The Toolbox is nice but forcing
that One poor processor to do that has only succeeded in ... you guessed
it slowing it down to petty graphics stuff all .. the .. time.
There appears to be little so Creativity left out there in Appleville
(The company). They now are into the formula apparently :-<.
neatness( Mhz, Meg, Ppi[pixel density] ) > aThreshold ... means Make it.
I think they've been reading too much Computer Shopper ("WE GOT MORE OF x!!")
I think they should aim for a non-number-cruncher which is what the Mac is
excelling at already and Business wants only so much of.
What The Rest Of Us needs is a good interface (faster?) COMPACT O/S's, and
Versitility No End. Not to mention a system that isn't taking all its time
passing structure A to procedure B while translating for applic C.
The rest of us shouldn't NEED 812Meg working on a little file with a BIG
application and the BIGGER O/S hogging memory and disk space.
A Hard Drive should be a storehouse not the-only-thing-that-will-hold-applic-
X. Most important, if it's there DON'T FAIL ON THE I/O SPEED!! (like C*dore)
Sharing information between applications is nice but it could be done
more _easily_ though not as 'convenient' or 'efficient'
Software compatibility is nice for everything too but it is overused.
(compatibility adjusting to other programs, not the machine/firmware)
And yes [dare I say it??] these measures are also to a Degree met by the
game performance of a machine [shudder], which I would have NO complaints
about if the did produce one (ohpleezlisten). I regard this to be a very
good way of measuring a New machine's capability and attributes. Games
require the *most* bandwidth to the user of any programs out there.
All of the maniac programmers out there WOULD go for a new architecture
(compatible but new). There IS some loyalty out there, and we want
our Old Apple back!!! [Not to mention Old Apple Prices!!!!!]
I think this could work from using a Parallel MIMD Processor attacking
system stuff at all times, while the normal programs run on.
(Love that parallelism. It just reeks Apple, alas, but not yet)
A smarter Operating System without so much hoopla and maybe a generalized
windowing system so that you could strip it down or modify it.
(one possib is a Unix method of files-can-be-stuffed-anywhere compatibility)
And Somehow in Frith's Name get the sizes of programs down. Too much is
needed to prepare for Der Operating System and more could be put in
Firmware. (actually these are more Mac problems than Apple GS's)
(If not Hardware / cofigurable of course)
That, I believe is what The Rest Of Us (non-business) could use!!
YES, however, I DO WANT comments. More comments mean more may actually
get somewhere. (I certainly ain't the only one with opinions)
Spray flames away if you have gotten
this far in any case. I *Hope* one or two from Almighty Apple is listening
in on this drivel. Otherwise, <sob> take it away, Commodore, and do it Right!
### C.H. ###-------------------------------------------------------------------
{ rutgers!sunybcs , nbires , ncar } ! boulder ! tramp ! hassell
(more from where that came from too)^^^^^^^
------------------------------------------------------------------------------kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) (12/15/88)
Uk. I hate vi.
Rememeber, UNIX was developed on a 64K pdp 8 (I think it was
and 8.)
Hmm. Sounds like something to do after I write my thesis.
Sean
--
UUCP: {decvax allegra ucbcad ucbvax hplabs}!tektronix!reed!kamath
CSNET: reed!kamath@Tektronix.CSNET || BITNET: kamath@reed.BITNET
ARPA: kamath%reed.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu
US Snail: 3934 SE Boise, Portland, OR 97202-3126 (I hate 4 line .sigs!)gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (12/16/88)
In article <11416@reed.UUCP> kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) writes: >Rememeber, UNIX was developed on a 64K pdp 8 (I think it was and 8.) PDP-7, and its memory size was measured in words, not bytes. (Word size was either 16 or 18 bits, I don't recall, and I don't know whether the one Ken found had 64Kw.) There have been reduced versions of UNIX that would run on a 48Kb PDP-11. >Hmm. Sounds like something to do after I write my thesis. Try adapting Minix instead. Good luck with the odd-ball Apple I/O.