gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (05/17/89)
/* Written 5:17 am May 11, 1989 by bdiscoe@tybalt.caltech.edu in p.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.amiga */ > AMIGA's are inexpensive to BEGIN WITH. You don't need to be tricked into > thinking you're getting some huge discount. Apple's prices are so > grossly inflated, it's a rip-off even buying a peripheral from them. > This is a straight business FACT, not opinion. Well, in some cases this FACT is dead WRONG. *ALL* Mac's come with very high-quality displays, and very good mice/keyboards. I don't think the Amiga monitors and mice and keyboard are of equal quality. All this Mac-bashing is senseless. Clearly, Apple spends most of its development money on OTHER "wins". The Mac is an interactive machine. Multitasking is nearly useless for interactive work (spreadsheet / word processing / digital darkroom / picture editing). Background tasking is nice for printing and downloading, which the macintosh supports, using its klugey (but workable) periodic tasking system. It is nice for compilation too, and some slow mac compilers support it. But lightspeedC compiles 1 module, binds 10-20 modules, & launches in ~ 5 seconds flat, so there's no time to fire up a game. I admit the mac needs a good background ray-tracer. Apple spends more money on developing a clean user interface, on having a FULL FUNCTION network, on developing Quickdraw & 32-bit color, its picture description language, providing gobs of high-level toolbox support, and supporting the TEN macintoshes released to date (Lisa, 128K, 512K, 512KE, Plus, II, IIx, SE/030, SEx, IIcx). I think the mac is a nearly perfect "Personal Computer" by the original definition that came from Xerox PARC. The *Application* programmer is able to rip out ANYTHING in the OS and either replace it, extend it, or simply disable it. This includes adding virtual memory (*wow*). I used to program Xerox DLions with multitasking & virtual memory, and they thrashed like hell with 2-3 tasks running, and died for sure with 5 tasks running at once. I sure hope the amiga is more robust. Oh geez, now I'm going to get a flood of flame mail *shudder* Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801 ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillies
hugh@censor.UUCP (Hugh D. Gamble) (05/19/89)
In article <129000002@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > /* Written 5:17 am May 11, 1989 by bdiscoe@tybalt.caltech.edu in p.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.amiga */ > > AMIGA's are inexpensive to BEGIN WITH. You don't need to be tricked into ... > Well, in some cases this FACT is dead WRONG. *ALL* Mac's come with > very high-quality displays, and very good mice/keyboards. I don't > think the Amiga monitors and mice and keyboard are of equal quality. The Apple colour monitor for the MacII is beautiful. Anyone who wants one that nice and that expensive for an Amiga has to go to someone besides Commodore. The quality of the built in B/W screens in the smaller Macs is OK, but a good B/W screen that small shouldn't be expensive. I've used more than one Mac that came brand new with a mouse that didn't move smoothly and/or the button had a poor feel to it. I don't think there's a dramatic difference in mouse quality between Macs & Amigas, they're both adequate. I can't speak for A500 keyboards, but my cat, a game loving friend and I have abused my A2000 keyboard worse than I've ever abused a Mac keyboard and I expect it to last every bit as long as a Mac keyboard. Anyone who wants to convince me that Apple doesn't use (and quite effectively may I add) packaging tricks to give the appearance of lowering their prices, will have to describe to me an application for a standard configuration Mac. i.e. without the optional extra keyboard. The real price of a usable MacII after you add in all the pieces still makes my jaw drop. > All this Mac-bashing is senseless. Clearly, Apple spends most of its I get tired of "Mac bashing" Amiga zealots who don't know what they're talking about or what a Mac can do. I also get tired of Macinfools who are just as bad, and just picked a different machine to be blindly defensive about. What's really useful is rational debate on the relative merits & flaws of each machine. Both have lots of room for improvement, and it's nice for people to know what machine can do the things they want a computer for the best. > development money on OTHER "wins". The Mac is an interactive machine. > Multitasking is nearly useless for interactive work (spreadsheet / word > processing / digital darkroom / picture editing). I agree, on a Mac. I personally find any mac with less horsepower than a MacII to be nearly useless with only single tasking, because they're just too darn slow (relativity does enter into this, it's partly subjective & I've been spoiled a bit). On a MacII with at leat 4 Meg of ram and a hard disk fast enough that only the Mac file system slows you down, I'm satisfied with the performance of switching back and forth between one thing at a time with multifinder. The CPU has a lot to do in a Mac, it has to do all the graphics and other system functions not handled by the Mac's custom chips, as well as the general computations. There's a good reason for that. The design goal of the original mac was to produce an inexpensive, cheap to produce in large quantities, mass market computer for "the rest of us". That was long before there was an Amiga, if the Mac was being designed from scratch today it would be very different. On my A2500 I've run *video games* while compute intensive tasks were going on, as well as the alarm clock/appointment reminder, cron, etc. that I normally have running, with little or no degradation in performance. One time a friend of mine was playing the 3D game "space spuds" that comes with the X-Specs 3D glasses, and the only way we could tell that a UUCP connection had started up and my Amiga was talking to one of the Unix machines it knows, was because I happened to notice the lights on the modem going. > Background tasking is nice for printing and downloading, which the > macintosh supports, using its klugey (but workable) periodic tasking > system. It is nice for compilation too, and some slow mac compilers > support it. But lightspeedC compiles 1 module, binds 10-20 modules, & > launches in ~ 5 seconds flat, so there's no time to fire up a game. > I admit the mac needs a good background ray-tracer. Ray tracing, and other things that take a long time are good examples of things you don't want to stop you from using your machine for something else. A primitive foreground/background scheduler like I had on an old PDP-11/03 could handle that. Full general purpose multitasking buys you a lot more. IPC, "hot links", pipes etc. are all very usefull if you have tasks that can interwork and they can run simultaneously. > Apple spends more money on developing a clean user interface, on There has to be a reason why people pay so much to have Macs, that's it. You're not just paying for a hunk of iron, a lot of time & $ has gone into the S/W and the costs have to be recouped and some people are willing to pay the price to get the features the mac had first and best. Despite it's limitations I don't think anyone who has used both would argue that the Mac interface doesn't do a lot of things nicer than WB 1.3 does. > having a FULL FUNCTION network, on developing Quickdraw & 32-bit No on the network. I think I'm current with the state of the art of mac networking, and rather than going on and on about the problems, I'll just say that IBM PC networking used to be like that, and I'm sure that Mac networking will grow up and settle down. Up until very recently Apple was almost completely ignoring networking. Third parties have been doing their best to satisfy the huge demand coming from the market place, but there have been a lot of teething pains. Apple has finally woken up and publicly committed to treating networking as an important issue. > color, its picture description language, providing gobs of high-level > toolbox support, and supporting the TEN macintoshes released to date > (Lisa, 128K, 512K, 512KE, Plus, II, IIx, SE/030, SEx, IIcx). Personally, I wouldn't count the Lisa as a mac. What's a 512KE got the E for? For reasons I'll let you guess, Apple wouldn't name a product "Mac SEx", what someone might unofficially call the SEx is most likely a reference to the SE/30. > I think the mac is a nearly perfect "Personal Computer" by the If you're happy with it, then it is, for you. > original definition that came from Xerox PARC. The *Application* It's a long way from a dynabook. Apple has a really neat video (sorry, I can't remember what it's called, Sculley showed it off at the 88 winter Uniforum among other places) that gives a vision of the future of computers as arisen from the ideals out of PARK. There is no computer today that's anywhere close. The Mac today is not closer than most other personal computers. > programmer is able to rip out ANYTHING in the OS and either replace > it, extend it, or simply disable it. This includes adding virtual > memory (*wow*). This is exactly what the Mac is the *opposite* of, and why I like the Amiga. The Mac is closed, proprietary, and restrictive. It makes you bend over backwards to do everything in ways that someone decided were good for general use, whether you like it and it fits your application or not. Sure, you can hack out & replace almost anything on almost any system, but the Mac was designed intentionally to make that as impossible as possible. Why? For a very good reason, consistancy. The idea is to force application designers to make them look the same, act the same, and work together to some extent. The Amiga goes possibly too far the other way. There is a grab bag of interfaces and applications that could or should have similar "look and feel" sometimes don't. On the Amiga you have more freedom, but consequently, less conformity to useful standards. Amiga developers are working *volountarily* to conform to standards that make sense, where they are useful. It's a little like the way Pascal, makes you do things in nice, clean ways that you can make a horrible mess of in C. C doesn't force anyone to write dirty code, it just lets you. It also let's you do some things you just can't do (easily) in Pascal. Personally, I'm big on freedom, but I can see both sides. > I used to program Xerox DLions with multitasking & virtual memory, and > they thrashed like hell with 2-3 tasks running, and died for sure with > 5 tasks running at once. I sure hope the amiga is more robust. Yup. But todays computers wouldn't be where they are without pioneers like some of the people at Xerox proofing out the concepts first. > Oh geez, now I'm going to get a flood of flame mail *shudder* You're probably right. Passion (& brand loyalty) is a wonderful thing, but it should supplement rather than replace thinking. > Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois > 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801 > ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillies -- Hugh D. Gamble (416) 581-4354 (wk), 267-6159 (hm) (Std. Disclaimers) hugh@censor, kink!hugh@censor # It may be true that no man is an island, # but I make a darn good peninsula.
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (05/19/89)
* A Macoid writes... >/* Written 5:17 am May 11, 1989 by bdiscoe@tybalt.caltech.edu in p.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.amiga */ > AMIGA's are inexpensive to BEGIN WITH. You don't need to be tricked into > thinking you're getting some huge discount. Apple's prices are so > grossly inflated, it's a rip-off even buying a peripheral from them. > This is a straight business FACT, not opinion. *Well, in some cases this FACT is dead WRONG. *ALL* Mac's come with ^^^^ I got news for you. You can get a hell of a lot more Amiga than Mac for the same amount of money, in ALL cases. *very high-quality displays, and very good mice/keyboards. I don't *think the Amiga monitors and mice and keyboard are of equal quality. ^^^^^ I love this, your making comments about the Amiga? It's plain to see that you DON'T know what you are talking about! Have you even ever SEEN an Amiga? Or God forbid actually used one? I doubt it. *All this Mac-bashing is senseless. Clearly, Apple spends most of its *development money on OTHER "wins". The Mac is an interactive machine. Clearly, Apple spends most of it's money on PR and advertising. I don't think anyone denies this. They could teach IBM a thing or two. *I think the mac is a nearly perfect "Personal Computer" by the *original definition that came from Xerox PARC. The *Application* MMMMMM... sounds to me like it is time for Xerox to take Apple to court and sue them for "look and feel". :) :) *I used to program Xerox DLions with multitasking & virtual memory, and *they thrashed like hell with 2-3 tasks running, and died for sure with *5 tasks running at once. I sure hope the amiga is more robust. ^^^^ Don't ya just love it when someone talks about the Amiga and they clearly DON'T know what the hell they are talking about? Myself, I am getting tired of it. *Oh geez, now I'm going to get a flood of flame mail *shudder* I sure hope so! Anyone who tries to compare one machine to another, and obviously does not know of what he speaks, yet tries to make machine "A" look better than machine "B" DESERVES to be flamed to a crisp! :> *Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois *1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801 *ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillies - Doug - Doug_B_Erdely@Portal.Cup.Com
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (05/22/89)
In article <129000002@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >Multitasking is nearly useless for interactive work (spreadsheet / word >processing / digital darkroom / picture editing). > Boy, are you gonna get toasted for *this* one! Schwab
hugh%censor.uucp@mitvma.mit.edu (Hugh D. Gamble) (05/24/89)
----------------------------Original message---------------------------- ... >> Well, in some cases this FACT is dead WRONG. *ALL* Mac's come with >> very high-quality displays, and very good mice/keyboards. I don't >> think the Amiga monitors and mice and keyboard are of equal quality. >I can't speak for A500 keyboards, but my cat, a game loving friend >and I have abused my A2000 keyboard worse than I've ever abused a >Mac keyboard and I expect it to last every bit as long as a Mac >keyboard. My girlfriend dumped (by accident) a screwdriver (of the vodka-orange type) on my A2000 keyboard. I discovered it 12 hours later, when when I picked it up, screwdriver poured out. The keyboard worked (workes) fine. I wouldn't want to do that on an SE keyboard. >> All this Mac-bashing is senseless. Clearly, Apple spends most of its >I get tired of "Mac bashing" Amiga zealots who don't know what they're >talking about or what a Mac can do. I also get tired of Macinfools >who are just as bad, and just picked a different machine to be blindly >defensive about. What's really useful is rational debate on the >relative merits & flaws of each machine. Both have lots of room for >improvement, and it's nice for people to know what machine can do >the things they want a computer for the best. I agree. There is much about the Mac I'd like to see on the Amiga. >> development money on OTHER "wins". The Mac is an interactive machine. >> Multitasking is nearly useless for interactive work (spreadsheet / word >> processing / digital darkroom / picture editing). I disagree. I am lost every time I try to use a computer that doesn't multitask. Admitedly, I use multitasking as program switching quite a bit, but it is much faster than any other switcher I've seen. >> Background tasking is nice for printing and downloading, which the >> macintosh supports, using its klugey (but workable) periodic tasking >> system. It is nice for compilation too, and some slow mac compilers >> support it. But lightspeedC compiles 1 module, binds 10-20 modules, & >> launches in ~ 5 seconds flat, so there's no time to fire up a game. >> I admit the mac needs a good background ray-tracer. There is so much I use multitasking for. Running a program, while de-arcing a second, while downloading a third. Editing source while compiling and running it. Seeing what the screen said after booting an application. I am so lost on another desktop. >> Apple spends more money on developing a clean user interface, on I feel, IMHO, that there could have been money better spent. >> having a FULL FUNCTION network, on developing Quickdraw & 32-bit I agree. There is money better spent. >> color, its picture description language, providing gobs of high-level >> toolbox support, and supporting the TEN macintoshes released to date >> (Lisa, 128K, 512K, 512KE, Plus, II, IIx, SE/030, SEx, IIcx). >Personally, I wouldn't count the Lisa as a mac. >What's a 512KE got the E for? I wouldn't count anything before the Plus. The E meant enhanced. Had the bigger ROMs. Could use double sided disks. Stuff like that. >For reasons I'll let you guess, Apple wouldn't name a product >"Mac SEx", what someone might unofficially call the SEx is >most likely a reference to the SE/30. Cute. Nobody ever accused Apple of having intelegent naming conventions anyways. >> I think the mac is a nearly perfect "Personal Computer" by the >If you're happy with it, then it is, for you. I agree. Dispite my dislike for it, it does have a lot to offer. >Personally, I'm big on freedom, but I can see both sides. Total agreement. >> Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois >> 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801 >> ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillies -- >Hugh D. Gamble (416) 581-4354 (wk), 267-6159 (hm) (Std. Disclaimers) >hugh@censor, kink!hugh@censor ># It may be true that no man is an island, ># but I make a darn good peninsula. /* F. Michael Theilig OHA101 at URIACC.Bitnet "There is no Dark Side of the Moon... in fact it is all dark." */