AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") (03/28/88)
>Date: Sat, 19 Mar 88 20:37:25 GMT >Sender: INFO-APP Info-Apple List <INFO-APP@NDSUVM1> >From: Lazlo Nibble <unmvax!charon!cs2531bn@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> >Subject: IIgs Too Wimpy, Seeking Greener Pastures >Most of the // people I know (four or five of us) are looking >into trashing the //s and gettting Amigas. When I got my //e looong ago >(five years now! Geez!) it was becuase it was the most hack-able machine >out there, and you could do the most fun stuff on it. Unfortunately Apple >has decided not to keep going in that direction. What would you like Apple to do to make the GS more fun and hackable? If you ask me, it is very fun and very hackable. There are more vectors to intercept than most people ever dreamed of. The faithful monitor is still there, with useful new features (pattern search, making any toolbox call...). There is a large LINEAR address space with a real memory manager--so you can write all the utilities you want and not worry about memory conflicts. There are desk accessories available at any time. (Let me know if you're interested in a real GS hacker's CDA I wrote [I don't think it's been posted to APPLE2-L yet...I suppose I should work on that].) >I didn't bother to upgrade to a IIgs because >the wimpy increase in processor speed didn't make it worthwhile Processor speed is NOT the most important thing, and it's not the GS's strongest feature. What about desk accessories, built-in clock & parameter RAM, built-in printer and modem ports, built-in 80-col card, built-in mouse port, built-in SmartPort interface, and a large [and hackable] toolbox? >when you can >get a 12MHz PC clone system (complete with 40M hard drive) or a rockin' little >Amiga 500 system, both for under $1500, what the hell's the point of spending >around $1000 for a new motherboard, monitor, and mouse? Be CAREFUL throwing "MHz"'s around--there are major differences in the number of clock cycles taken for each instruction cycle between different processors. There isn't all that much difference in processor speed between a 2.8MHz 65816 and a 12MHz 80?86. I won't try to defend Apple's prices. >Lazlo Nibble (cs2531bn@charon.unm.edu) --David A. Lyons a.k.a. DAL Systems PO Box 287 | North Liberty, IA 52317 BITNET: AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS CompuServe: 72177,3233 GEnie mail: D.LYONS2
barry@aurora.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (03/29/88)
In article <8803221951.aa27106@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") writes: >>From: Lazlo Nibble <unmvax!charon!cs2531bn@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> >>Subject: IIgs Too Wimpy, Seeking Greener Pastures >>Most of the // people I know (four or five of us) are looking >>into trashing the //s and gettting Amigas. >>[...] >>I didn't bother to upgrade to a IIgs because >>the wimpy increase in processor speed didn't make it worthwhile > >Processor speed is NOT the most important thing, and it's not the GS's >strongest feature. What about desk accessories, built-in clock & parameter >RAM, built-in printer and modem ports, built-in 80-col card, built-in mouse >port, built-in SmartPort interface, and a large [and hackable] toolbox? Processor speed is just one factor, but it should not be ignored. The problem with the good points you make about the GS above is that they're in comparison to an Apple ][, not with modern machines. Lazlo's wondering why he should buy a GS instead of an Amiga, Atari, or 286 IBM clone, not instead of a ][. Most of the features you cite are common to all these machines. I speak as one who deserted Apple's ship about a year ago. I bought my 1st computer, an Apple ][, in 1978. I still have it, and it works beautifully. But I don't use it much since I bought my Amiga. Why Amiga? Same reason that I chose Apple in '78 - most bang for the buck from a hacker's point of view. >Be CAREFUL throwing "MHz"'s around--there are major differences in the number >of clock cycles taken for each instruction cycle between different processors. >There isn't all that much difference in processor speed between a 2.8MHz >65816 and a 12MHz 80?86. Uhhh... this is an exaggeration. You're certainly right about machine cycles not being one-for-one comparable. I don't know much about the GS or the 65816, but if it's like the 6502, I'd grant it's probably as fast as a 80?86 running at twice the clocks. Not at 4X speed, though. Nor is this the best comparison. Lazlo sounded more interested in an Amiga 500 than a '286. I think you'll find the Amiga's 68000 + coprocessors makes it much faster than a GS, especially for graphics and animation. Believe me, I'm not out to trash the Apple ][ line. The original ][ is the Model T of computers. It's a great machine for its size, and so versatile that we still get use out of Apple ][s here at Ames, despite the availability of many bigger, faster machines. It's even fun to program - arcane but basically comprehensible. As for the GS, it's a reasonable upgrade that preserves the best features of the ][, while adding attractive enhancements. The sound is particularly nice. But you just don't get the bang for your buck that you can get from other machines out on the market. Compatibility is pointless. If I want to run Apple software (and I'm still hooked on "RobotWar" :-), I turn on my Apple. No point in selling the machine; I probably have 5K invested in just the hardware, and I doubt I could get 1K for hardware and software combined. And compatibility is equally pointless for those who've never owned an Apple, obviously. If you're going to run the kind of fancy software that takes advantage of the neat features of a GS, Amiga or Atari ST, it never existed for the old 8-bit machines, anyway. So, I think Apple missed the boat with the GS. But they have brought out the 1st Apple computer I really like since the original ][: the MAC II. Now, if only they'd cut the price by about 60%, they might get me back as a customer :-). - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry - QQQCLC - NASA-Ames Research Center ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {hplabs,seismo,dual,ihnp4}!ames!aurora!barry ARPA: barry@ames-aurora.arpa
BHUBER@ECLA.USC.EDU (04/01/88)
Sitting here watching and reading the discussion about the poor Apple II line finally got to me. For the record I own and heavily use a IIgs with a PC Transporter installed. PCT was installed for compatibility reasons with my office environment; most home related work remains native IIgs based. I recently decided to "upgrade" one mailing list that I maintain (for a non-profit volunteer organization, if that matters) using Appleworks 2.0. I purchased Borlands Reflex which was recommended as a cheapo but fairly sophisticated data base manager. The heavy duty MS-DOS packages such as dBase or similar packages seemed to be gross overkill for just a mailing list. Conversion was relatively easy, using "DIF" format out of Appleworks and directly read into Reflex. After dorking around with one mailing, I'm going back to Appleworks. It runs faster, is more user friendly, and provides additional capabilities that I had come to take for granted. Specifics: a) sorting a data base of about 450 names was about 30% faster in Appleworks, although I know that some will say that is because PCT is not as fast as an PC/AT or Compaq 386, etc. b) inputting or changing data is easier, even though both packages provide tabular or list formats or full record formats. c) additional capabilities includes simple things like Open-Apple-"F" to locate all records with some imbedded text string as opposed to having to check each field within the Reflex data base. For instance, answer the question about locating the lady who we think was named Mildred or did she live on Mildred street....., etc. d) report formats seem to be more easy to input under Appleworks. Please -- no flames about "well, if he'd picked a different software package then he wouldn't say....." I'm glad I have PCT for office compatibility reasons, but it has caused me to appreciate the native GS machine even more. Bud P.S., I still am not able to run at 2400 bps without character overrun in PCT mode, and I don't like the 16 MB limit on my PCT pseudo-disk.