certain@washington.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Certain) (03/17/90)
In article <18491@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Andy Y.A. Kuo) writes: > > I don't understand why AppleII users can't accept the Mac. If Apple >had not bothered with the GS but built a Mac that can run the 8bit >AppleII softwares, then the "GS" that you are praising for would be >the Mac. Why can't you think of the Mac softwares as GS specific >softwares -- since they can't run on a IIe anyway? Why can't you >think of the Mac as the "GS" -- since both are "new" architecture? > But Apple didn't do this, and we would have to abandon all our Apple II software if we ran on a Mac. The idea that GS-specific software is like Mac software may, in some trivial way, hold some bit of merit, but until you can run Apple II software on the Mac, the Mac and the GS aren't both just "new" architectures. The GS is a "new" architecture with backwards compatibility, while the Mac is as different from the Apple II as far as software compatibility goes as a 386 machine. To say the Mac should be thought of as a new Apple II is like giving you a Mac III that won't run any of the current Mac software. How willing would you be to making the switch? > Another thing I don't understand is the idea that Apple isn't >supporting the AppleII line. There has been more OS upgrades >for the GS, no Mac user has ever complained about it. Apple made >the video overlay card for the GS, no Mac user has ever complained >about it. Are you just hard to please? Are you being reasonable >at all? > Let's take stock here. WHen the GS came out in, I believe, 1986, the top of the line Mac was an SE. That means there have been 5 new Mac models (the II, IIx, IIcx, IIci and SE/30) relesed since then with NO new Apple II models released. That sounds to me like a lack of support. Think about how much you would complain if Apple didn't release a new Mac for 4 years while release 5 new models on another line. I don't think we're being hard to please. I think you're not seeing both sides of the issue. I really wish Apple would put out a card that would allow us to run our Apple II software on a Mac II, and merge the two lines, but even though there would be a hugh market out there, I don't see it happening. Andrew Certain certain@cs.unc.edu
nrjwong@lion.waterloo.edu (03/17/90)
In article <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu> certain@washington.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Certain) writes: >In article <18491@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU >(Andy Y.A. Kuo) writes: > [Stuff deleted] >Let's take stock here. WHen the GS came out in, I believe, 1986, the top >of the line Mac was an SE. That means there have been 5 new Mac models >(the II, IIx, IIcx, IIci and SE/30) relesed since then with NO new >Apple II models released. That sounds to me like a lack of support. Think >about how much you would complain if Apple didn't release a new Mac for >4 years while release 5 new models on another line. I don't think we're >being hard to please. I think you're not seeing both sides of the issue. The Mac SE and II were introduced at the same time, I believe, in spring of 1987. So there have been six models since the IIgs came out. Didn't they release a IIc+ since the introduction of the IIgs? I think another problem is the 65816 itself. WDC is getting 12MHz samples going. If you look at Motorola, they're sampling the 68040, which gets about 20MIPS to the gallon. I don't think a 12 MHz 65816 will be close. Don't know about the ASIC chip. Then there's the basic architecture of the 65816 - to me, it's only slightly better than an 8086. If the '816 had come out 3-4 years earlier, it would've helped the Apple II line a lot more, IMHO. A 65832 would've helped a lot. [Stuff deleted] > >Andrew Certain >certain@cs.unc.edu Johnny Lee jlee4@orchid.waterloo.edu
aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Alan D Danziger) (03/17/90)
In article <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu> certain@washington.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Certain) writes: >In article <18491@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU >(Andy Y.A. Kuo) writes: >> >> I don't understand why AppleII users can't accept the Mac. If Apple >>had not bothered with the GS but built a Mac that can run the 8bit >>AppleII softwares, then the "GS" that you are praising for would be >>the Mac. Why can't you think of the Mac softwares as GS specific >>softwares -- since they can't run on a IIe anyway? Why can't you >>think of the Mac as the "GS" -- since both are "new" architecture? >> >But Apple didn't do this, and we would have to abandon all our Apple II >software if we ran on a Mac. The idea that GS-specific software is >like Mac software may, in some trivial way, hold some bit of merit, but >until you can run Apple II software on the Mac, the Mac and the GS aren't >both just "new" architectures. The GS is a "new" architecture with backwards >compatibility, while the Mac is as different from the Apple II as far as >software compatibility goes as a 386 machine. To say the Mac should be >thought of as a new Apple II is like giving you a Mac III that won't run >any of the current Mac software. How willing would you be to making the >switch? I sold my Apple IIc which I had just bought a 3.5" drive for, along with TONS of software, when I bought my Mac SE/30. I have never missed it. At the time, I was just learning about the Mac, and like it MUCH better than the Apple II line... Although I haven't done much with the IIGS, it seems to be a (s)low-end Mac lookalike... > >>... Are you just hard to please? Are you being reasonable >>at all? >> > >Let's take stock here. WHen the GS came out in, I believe, 1986, the top >of the line Mac was an SE. That means there have been 5 new Mac models >(the II, IIx, IIcx, IIci and SE/30) relesed since then with NO new >Apple II models released. That sounds to me like a lack of support. There was a little thing called the IIc+ which came out I believe less than a year ago... Sounds like a new model to me! >I really wish Apple would put out a card that would allow us to run our >Apple II software on a Mac II, and merge the two lines, but even though >there would be a hugh market out there, I don't see it happening. Why would there be a huge market? Think about it. How much was the upgrade from a IIe to a IIGS? How big a market was it? Now think about the Mac, which uses different chips, different bus, different interface, even. I could imagine a Mac (Plus or SE) card for a IIGS, but how many IIGS owners would WANT a Mac? Besides, if you want to run your Apple II software on a Mac, you CAN (not should) get a Mac and a program called ][ in a Mac ( I don't know who the company is offhand) and USE IT! All you would need is a 5.25" drive for your Mac, or if you had a 3.5" disk-based II (as I did) you can directly use your files Or if you use Appleworks on the II, get a Apple File Exchange file called Works to Works, and Microsoft Works, and you can convert your files automatically. >Andrew Certain >certain@cs.unc.edu Andrew, it seems to me that you are fixed in your belief, and that is fine for you. But don't try to tell us what Apple should do. If you feel you know, then it is your responsibility as an unsatisfied customer to report your suggestions and comments to Apple. -- -=Alan=- aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
c60a-3hu@e260-1g.berkeley.edu (Calvin Cheng) (03/17/90)
In article <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu> certain@washington.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Certain) writes: >> >> I don't understand why AppleII users can't accept the Mac. If Apple >>had not bothered with the GS but built a Mac that can run the 8bit >>AppleII softwares, then the "GS" that you are praising for would be >>the Mac. Why can't you think of the Mac softwares as GS specific >>softwares -- since they can't run on a IIe anyway? Why can't you >>think of the Mac as the "GS" -- since both are "new" architecture? >> >But Apple didn't do this, and we would have to abandon all our Apple II >software if we ran on a Mac. The idea that GS-specific software is >like Mac software may, in some trivial way, hold some bit of merit, but >until you can run Apple II software on the Mac, the Mac and the GS aren't >both just "new" architectures. The GS is a "new" architecture with backwards >compatibility, while the Mac is as different from the Apple II as far as >software compatibility goes as a 386 machine. To say the Mac should be >thought of as a new Apple II is like giving you a Mac III that won't run >any of the current Mac software. How willing would you be to making the >switch? > There's a program called II in a Mac that emulates a IIe (not IIGS) on any Mac. On a Mac II, it's faster than a stock IIe. The IIGS is far more difficult to emulate because of the Toolbox which is wholly controlled by Apple. And as far as software emulation is concerned, the Mac can emulate a PC AT with EGA in software too. Future 88000-based Macs will emulate the 680x0 in software as well. So if Apple had introduced a 68000-based IIGS, it could have bridged the gap much more easily. You don't even need hardware to emulate a IIe except for the slots. > >I really wish Apple would put out a card that would allow us to run our >Apple II software on a Mac II, and merge the two lines, but even though >there would be a hugh market out there, I don't see it happening. > > That's what I've sincerely hope. Instead of seeing the Apple II and Mac as 2 different lines of machines, we can at least try to think of them as the same machine for different purposes.
c60a-3hu@e260-1g.berkeley.edu (Calvin Cheng) (03/17/90)
>In article <1848@crash.cts.com> jabernathy@pro-houston.cts.com (Joe Abernathy) writes: >> someone wrote: >> > As far as I can see, the gs is no competition for the Mac II. >> >>But of course you have no idea what you're talking about. > > I think everyone knows who really has no idea what he is talking about! > >>The Macintosh -- anything less than the $10,000 Mac, to be accurate -- is a >>kinda sort of desktop publishing machine. It's useless for numerics, it's > ??????????????????????????????? >>useless for graphics, it's crippled with sound ... and it's handicapped by an > ????????????????????? ??????????????????? ??????????? >>amateurish user base that's incapable of minimizing its inefficiencies. >????????????????????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????????? > This is an absoluate insult! You are trying to say that the average man in the street to be some dirt slime jerk who's got the brain the size of a peanut? Before you put off such a statement, you should be aware that you represent only a minority among the huge fold of computer users. How many people you think out there has the capability, willingness, time and interest to tweek the system for "performance"? Programming these days is mainly the reserve of computer professionals and enthusiasts (namely the people who bother to read mail in this column). >>>I don't give a rat's ass about the computer label wars, but those owners of >>any brand of computer who spread misinformation based on the latest press >>releases give me a case of chapped lips. You guess which lips. COme on, I think everyone of us is at fault. We like to compare and comment without even knowing much about what's going on elsewhere. This appear to be the reply to some equally overblown statement. That's the problem to it all. Cool it man!
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (03/17/90)
In article <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu> certain@washington.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Certain) writes: >In article <18491@boulder.Colorado.EDU> kuo@boulder.Colorado.EDU >(Andy Y.A. Kuo) writes: >> >> Another thing I don't understand is the idea that Apple isn't >>supporting the AppleII line. There has been more OS upgrades >>for the GS, no Mac user has ever complained about it. Apple made >>the video overlay card for the GS, no Mac user has ever complained >>about it. Are you just hard to please? Are you being reasonable >>at all? >> > >Let's take stock here. WHen the GS came out in, I believe, 1986, the top >of the line Mac was an SE. That means there have been 5 new Mac models >(the II, IIx, IIcx, IIci and SE/30) relesed since then with NO new >Apple II models released. That sounds to me like a lack of support. Think >about how much you would complain if Apple didn't release a new Mac for >4 years while release 5 new models on another line. I don't think we're >being hard to please. I think you're not seeing both sides of the issue. > I suppose it's all how you count. You are not counting the fact that since September 15, 1986 - when we announced the Apple IIgs - that we've come out with several different versions of the GS (new ROMs and RAM configurations), the Apple //e (cost reduced, expanded keyboard, more RAM) and Apple //c (the //c+ with a faster CPU rate). However, many of the Macintoshes you mention above fall into the same category. In March of 1987, we came out with the Mac SE and Mac II. I would consider the Mac II to be different enough to be considered a major new machine. However, the SE is just a faster Mac Plus. As is the SE/30. And the Mac IIx, IIcx, and IIci are just minor modifications to the Mac II. So, if you categorize things in a different - yet still valid - way, the only new Macintosh we've come out with since the Apple IIgs was introduced was the Mac II. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Doug McClure) (03/17/90)
In article <1990Mar17.053255.22944@agate.berkeley.edu> c60a-3hu@e260-1g.berkeley.edu (Calvin Cheng) writes: >There's a program called II in a Mac that emulates a IIe (not IIGS) on any An unenhanced IIe right? >Mac. On a Mac II, it's faster than a stock IIe. The IIGS is far more Interesting, never heard it was anything but slow as shit, and major buggy and that was a review of it when I read about it, seems like about 1-2 years after the Mac finally came out. Course, with megadoses of MHz, probably wouldn't run too bad. And gosh, the IIe manages it on just 1something MHz. Totatlly forget copy protected stuff. Totally forget your add-on boards. >680x0 in software as well. So if Apple had introduced a 68000-based IIGS, >it could have bridged the gap much more easily. You don't even need hardware >to emulate a IIe except for the slots. Too bad, they didn't so it's a moot point. I love arguements with these "if Apple had intro'ed a 68000-IIgs". How about IF Apple had pursued the Apple II market, if they had supported development for the Apple II, if they had pushed Mensch for better/faster cpu's, or done it themselves, we'd have a great, incredible machine that wouldn't be being beat-up by most every other machine on the market. Or how about if the AppleII hadn't paid for the Mac and hadn't totally fed it money to keep development going, and had pumped it into AppleII development, all you Mac "Kill the II by merging" folks wouldn't have much to spew about. They didn't, so why even argue that. Time to do something about the present. >>I really wish Apple would put out a card that would allow us to run our >>Apple II software on a Mac II, and merge the two lines, but even though >>there would be a hugh market out there, I don't see it happening. >That's what I've sincerely hope. Instead of seeing the Apple II and Mac as >2 different lines of machines, we can at least try to think of them as the >same machine for different purposes. Yeah, right, I'm gonna go out and shell out the same amount of cash for EVERYTHING I have with my IIgs (cpu, monitors, 4 drives, modem, joystick, printer, boards) to get a Mac II? Forget it. I'll go buy a NeXT or an Amiga where I'll be getting my money's worth. The Amiga is cheap for the power it has, and the NeXT at least has all the bundled software for it's price. The VERY least Apple would have to do is emulate the IIgs ROM03 complete with hardware support for boards. Be mighty interesting seeing a Mac II with NuBus slots and Apple II slots, and whatever odds and ends needed to run both software. Boy, I really wanna go out and pay for two machines! Might be nice to have a board for Mac users who would like access to AppleII but I sure don't see it as a replacement for the AppleII. They ARE two different lines, they've ALWAYS been two different lines, I don't see it changing anytime soon, if even ever. If anything, I vote for merging the Mac into the AppleII vs. AppleII into Mac. After all, we (AppleII's) paid for them so in essence, they exist only because of AppleII's. Be funny seeing what Mac users thought about that! I don't even wanna know, cuz I could care less, it ain't gonna happen. -k
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/17/90)
certain@washington.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Certain) writes: > That means there have been 5 new Mac models >(the II, IIx, IIcx, IIci and SE/30) relesed since then with NO new >Apple II models released. Not true; the //c+ was released in 1988. This is a 4 mhz 65c02 based Apple II, with a built in 3.5 disk and disk port on the back that acts like a IIGS disk port with one 3.5 on it -- this disk port has its own coprocessor too but I don't know how much it helps since prodos drivers will wait for it anyway. It does make the interrupt response during disk access a non-issue though. The //c+ can be had mail order for $499 and some people have gotten it for $450 (I don't know where). Except Apple Marketing doesn't seem to think they need to advertise it. Or the new SCSI card, which dealers haven't reall been informed of either. > That sounds to me like a lack of support. It still is. Now that the 20 mhz 65816 is going through debug (heard they got a few trial chips to work at a paltry 12-13) Apple will have no real excuse not to make the IIGS into a real Amiga killer. They will need it, because not everyone is going to want a Low Cost Color Mac. I won't, for example. I want my Apple //f and I know Apple will build it IF we can convince them there is a market for it. I think there is and it does not hurt the Low Cost Color Mac one bit. People who want to run Mac applications buy the Mac; those of us who want the Apple II software, BASIC, the monitor, and the ensoniq will buy a //f! The last time a home computer was purposely kept from competing with another product made by the same company it failed miserably because it was so stripped down nobody could use it for anything. I'm sure you all remember the PCjr. Apple needs to realize that the philosophy of non-intersecting product lines is a mistake and is idealistic. Real markets have many subtle divisions within them and the low end will embrace both a decent IIGS and a cheap Color Mac. And when they both sell well, Apple should be pushing them side by side for what each does best. That's how you take on the low end, by offering many cost effective solutions to each portion of the market and letting the consumer decide. You do NOT make only one offering and just expect everyone to buy it. >I really wish Apple would put out a card that would allow us to run our >Apple II software on a Mac II, and merge the two lines, but even though >there would be a hugh market out there, I don't see it happening. The engineering reality of such a board would mean that the card would either (a) stink, or (b) be EXPENSIVE. At the price you'd end up paying it's cheaper to buy two machines and be able to use them both, unless you really have to save desk space; it would be an luxury option at best. Why merge the two lines? We already use the same peripherals, many of the same onboard as well as external. The CPU itself is determined by what you want to run on it and the two lines differentiate themselves for all but the most casual users. I, for one, will never want whole Mac, and I don't feel a major need to emulate one either though I respect the fact that many people do. I do want to see a IIGS to nuke the Amiga, because I know it can be done. Read my //f paper if you're interested (I'll mail it) and mail any comments you like. Many of the features were really sketchy until I got some comments about the first version of it, but the latest (third) writing is pretty bulletproof. The stated intent is to produce the most cost effective general purpose low end machine. Period. This machine would attract those who want what an Amiga or Clone does but would rather have the Apple interface. Many of these people will not buy the Low Cost Color Mac because the price of a full system will still be higher than the alternatives. The fact that Apple hasn't supported the GS enough has already lost many of these customers. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/17/90)
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: [ about lack of new Apple II's versus the Mac ] >I suppose it's all how you count. You are not counting the fact that since >September 15, 1986 - when we announced the Apple IIgs - that we've come out >with several different versions of the GS (new ROMs and RAM configurations), >the Apple //e (cost reduced, expanded keyboard, more RAM) and Apple //c >(the //c+ with a faster CPU rate). The //c+ was the only truly new machine. The //e and IIGS updates were ok but the GS still needs major work. Scrapping the Mega II and redoing most of the chip set (heck, ALL of the chip set) to take over for it, not to mention KILLING THE BOTTLENECKS, would do wonders for the machine. It might even get some real software support from the big names! How about that. And tell Marketing to advertise the //c+. Nobody knows it exists and that's a real shame, because it's a great machine. Now if it were portable... we might have a REAL notebook computer, and afforable too. >However, many of the Macintoshes you mention above fall into the same category >In March of 1987, we came out with the Mac SE and Mac II. I would consider the >Mac II to be different enough to be considered a major new machine. However, >the SE is just a faster Mac Plus. As is the SE/30. And the Mac IIx, IIcx, and >IIci are just minor modifications to the Mac II. I beg to differ again. The Mac SE had many major redesigns, not the least of which was Mac II-style disk options and a CPU direct slot which the IIGS really needed. The Mac IIx is more of a CPU upgrade that takes the whole motherboard, true, and the IIcx has only three slots, but the IIci is a completely new board with integrated video (they should have used VRAMs though, DMA video at that resolution is murder on a ci's Bank A) and the SE/30 is also a completely different board. While your perspective has merit, the examples you've given don't proven your point when you really look at the motherboards. A more accurate list would be: Apple II, one machine and two logic board improvements; Macintosh, four machines and two logic board improvements. I personally don't care about the difference, it's just that Apple could have done wonders to the IIGS years ago but they haven't invested the money to fix the now-archaic and ill-fitting chip set. The Mega II was not originally designed for the IIGS and its presence is the root cause of many common complaints about the IIGS as a product, especially in comparison to simlarly priced machines from Amiga and Tandy. Unless Apple addresses this specific problem soon -- and the Low Cost Mac will NOT be enough -- they will lose a permanent share of the low end market to the IIGS's competitors, most of whom are not quite in the Low Cost Mac's league anyway. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) (03/17/90)
In article <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu> certain@washington.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Certain) writes: > To say the Mac should be >thought of as a new Apple II is like giving you a Mac III that won't run >any of the current Mac software. How willing would you be to making the >switch? You mean the _NeXT_? -- Freek "the Pistol Major" Wiedijk Path: uunet!fwi.uva.nl!freek #P:+/ = #+/P?*+/ = i<<*+/P?*+/ = +/i<<**P?*+/ = +/(i<<*P?)*+/ = +/+/(i<<*P?)**
certain@washington.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Certain) (03/18/90)
In article <1990Mar17.043503.15606@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Alan D Danziger) writes: >In article <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu> certain@washington.cs.unc.edu >than a year ago... Sounds like a new model to me! I admit it: I forgot about the //c+; however, if you want to think that Apple has put equal amounts of R&D into each line (or even proportional to the user base -- which is much larger for the Apple II), and that the new Apple II machines (if you count ROM 03, etc.) are as much an improvement over the previous machenes as the new Macs, I guess I'll have to admit that I can't convince you since all I can do is look at the machines and draw conclusions. I wrote: >>I really wish Apple would put out a card that would allow us to run our ^^^^^^^^^^^ emphasis added >>Apple II software on a Mac II, and merge the two lines, but even though >>there would be a hugh market out there, I don't see it happening. > > >Besides, if you want to run your Apple II software on a Mac, you CAN >(not should) get a Mac and a program called ][ in a Mac ( I don't know >who the company is offhand) and USE IT! All you would need is a 5.25" > >Andrew, it seems to me that you are fixed in your belief, and that is >fine for you. But don't try to tell us what Apple should do. If you >feel you know, then it is your responsibility as an unsatisfied >customer to report your suggestions and comments to Apple. > I didn't know that we weren't supposed to express our opinions in such harsh, commanding words as "really wish." This newsgroup, then, should be free of any disgruntled words for fear of offending somebody? We should only communicate privately with Apple? I disagree. If "I really wish" offends you, I guess you'd better filter all article written by me. The ][ in a Mac only emulates an unenhanced //e and not even that in every mode. Andrew Certain certain@cs.unc.edu
wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) (03/18/90)
Well, I certainly hope I could take a view of this issue from both sides since I used a //e for 5 years and then moved over to the Mac. Generally, I agree with your sentiment that it would be nice to have some sort of IIgs emulation on a Mac (probably a NuBus card, with supporting software) for those IIgs users who would like the extra functionality of the Mac without having to dispose of all their II software. However, I (and I believe Apple) differ in your opinion that this effort should be undertaken by Apple. It is my understanding that Apple, throughout its history, has not developed such products, leaving them to third party developers. If you want to scream at someone for such hardware, scream at them. I really don't understand why such bickering persists between these two "camps." As you point out so nicely, these are two very different machines. Thus, it should come as no surprise that they develop differently. Granted, I can identify with your (and other II users') feelings that they have somehow been cheated. But consider the viewpoint of the Mac users... How would you like it if, a week after your purchased the latest and greatest of the Mac world Apple introduces a newer, more expensive model that you like even better (and may have purchased had it been available)? Granted, this exaggerates things a bit, but then quite a bit of that goes on in these discussions. I'm sure you wouldn't be too pleased. In addition, this creates a nightmare as far as new users are concerned... "which one of these is the right one for me??" So, while we have benefitted (in one sense) from more product development, we suffer from a bit of confusion surrounding the "improvments" in the different models available. In contrast, the II line benefits via third parties in that there is one stable hardware platform to work from... versus a shaky software platform (try cleaning up the System Apple!!!) and a myriad of hardware configurations. I think that all this arguing between II users and Mac users serves no purpose and is generally a waste of effort. If you really want to have an impact, complain to those people who can change this situation.... those wonderful, bureaucratic folks at Apple! :-) -- "I'm sorry, you'll have to call your local Apple dealer." -- Apple customer "service" Bill Taroli WWTAROLI@RODAN.acs.syr.edu -- ******************************************************************************* * Bill Taroli (WWTAROLI@RODAN.acs.syr.edu) | "You can and must understand * * Syracuse University, Syracuse NY | computers NOW!" -- Ted Nelson * *******************************************************************************
dent@unocss.unomaha.edu (dent) (03/18/90)
I've been an Apple fan ever since the ][+ (which is still running fine, thank you, with the expansion chasis, Rana drives, etc etc etc etc... :-), and I'm a Mac-lover now. So, all of this discussion got me thinking (look out). The Apple // -vs- Mac debate (war?) has been going on for a very long time, and it seems that by doing next-to-nothing to "finalize" the outcome of that battle, Apple may have stumbled across the solution to it all. Let me elaborate: The appeal of the Mac, (at least back in 1984, when Apple had DAMN GREAT ads.. [anyone got 1984 on VHS, btw?] :-) is not (at first), the hardware, but the user interface. In fact, the Macintosh User Interface has had such a huge impact on the entire industry (by virtue of actually being sucsessful at it), that nearly all of the functionality of it has been copied to other, sometimes radically different, archtechtures. If you have been asleep for the last 7 years, some examples would be: GEM for the PC, "TOS" (i.e., GEM for the Atari ST), Amiga "Intuition", MicroSoft Windows (how could we forget, right?), and more recently, NeXT STeP, IBM's SAA (The Sleeping Giant moved!), and the rash of Interfaces that "The X Window System" brought on : DECwindows, Motif, Open Look, and on and on.... Case 1: A little closer to home, witness the Apple IIgs. "Coincidentally", it has also adopted a Mac-style user interface (but without fear of litigation :-). The IIgs is not going anywhere, folks. Apple would probably not have released System 5.0 for it if they weren't expecting it to last a little while longer. So given that the IIgs will be around for a while (the fate of the //e and //c is less certain, however.. ), let's press on. Case 2: System 7.0 for the Mac can just barely be seen on the horizon now, and some of the major developments for it weren't entirely for the Mac. Apple and Microsoft (kind of a love-hate relationship there :-) have joined Presentation Manager running on OS/2 with the Mac, by using a consistant font format: TrueType. In exchange, Microsoft provided the means to more inexpensively keep compatiblilty with the good old PostScript LaserWriters (as well as non- Apple printers) in the world. So, another part of the Mac Interface has expanded beyond the confines of a single architecture. Case 3: AU/X 2.0 is on the horizon as well, and with it, MacX. This is perhaps one of the most exciting developments of all, IMHO. From the rumors, MacX allows X Windows applcations to display on the Mac, which is what you would expect. What it additionally does is provide those X Windows applications with the "Mac Look". The implications of this are that the industry without a standard interface may get one, if MacX can be expanded to "MacWM" (for lack of a better name). If this is done, the Mac Interface could be used on even more dissimilar architectures. Case 4: The 68xxx series Mac is not going to last forever, and it's no secret that Apple has been playing with the idea of an 88000-based machine. This new machine does not, however, mean that the users of the old machine will be abandoned. The Mac /Interface/ can run on /any/ architecture. Sure, assembly language programmers will be a little upset :-), but C and Pascal programmers should be able to just link with a new library, tweak a little, and go. [Yes, this is oversimplifying the case dramatically, I realize.] Ok, let's wrap it up: The entire point of this rambling article is that the "Macintosh" is really more than simply the hardware by the same name that does the work. (Kind of like "AppleTalk", huh?) Steve Jobs was correct in a sense when he talked of the impending doom of the Mac. Sure, the 68000-based Mac is eventually going to be ancient technology (how many new 6502-based machines do you see today? :-) But the essence (look&feel if you like) of the Macintosh will outlive it's 68000-based "body" (I can't beleive I'm talking about Meta- Physical Macintoshes here.. :-) Similarly, certain Apple II machines will probably die. The //e and //c lines really should be replaced with something similar to what the //gs is now (but for considerably less I hope!!). The //gs will also be replaced, but not by a "Low Cost Mac" in the Hardware sense. An "enhanced" //gs that runs the Mac-like Interface is really enough. There's no need for over-engineered Apple-II compatibility boards in every Mac. There /is/ a need for the Mac functionality on the Apple II architecture, so the two lines can merge in that sense. There is only one way that this all is going to work, however: The Macintosh Toolbox has got to be freed from the Macintosh Hardware. I have no idea how similar the GS Toolbox is to the Mac Toolbox, but I hope they are nearly identical. Only by making the Macintosh Toolbox the standard programmers' interface to hardware, can the same source code be used to generate machine code for various kinds of architectures. Programmers shouldn't really need to know what specific machine their program is going to run on. (well, the ones writing the toolboxes obviously should, but.. :-) This is *NOT* going to happen overnight, however. :-) The current state of programming on the Mac seems to be filled with minor inconsistencies that require the /programmer/ to correct for. Is this machine an SE? Do this... is it a Mac II? HasColorQD is TRUE.. but then it could be an SE/30 too, so better check for that... This is pure nonsense. The toolbox already is designed to be generalized. You can have any size display you want on a Mac; it makes no difference to your applications. This same generality needs to be perfected, and expanded to the other areas... what we'll wind up with is the "Macintosh Virtual Machine", and if /only/ toolbox calls are used to access hardware, and dynamic linking could be used to link in the machine- specific implementations of the toolbox, the same applications /will/ run on different architctures, and not even know it. The preliminary steps have been made; file transfer has almost become trivial, and hopefully future support for Foreign File Systems will make it moreso. I know I'm asking for a lot here, but I don't think I'm asking for the /impossible/. I suppose we'll have to wait around to see if /any/ of this occurrs (what a let-down ;-)... but it should be fun to watch if nothing else. (It'd be even more fun to participate in, but what do I know. I /liked/ the Apple ///+. :-) -/ Dave Caplinger /--------------------------------------------------------- Microcomputer Specialist, Campus Computing, Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha dent@zeus.unomaha.edu ...!uunet!unocss!dent DENT@UNOMA1
cyliao@eng.umd.edu (Chun-Yao Liao) (03/19/90)
In article <39559@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >Mac II to be different enough to be considered a major new machine. However, >the SE is just a faster Mac Plus. As is the SE/30. And the Mac IIx, IIcx, and >IIci are just minor modifications to the Mac II. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >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 HaaaChuuu... excuse me, I hate flames, and I hope we can vote to form a new newsgroup called Comp.flame.ap2mac so all the flames go that way, but I can't resist to post this one so sorry for others flame-haters (me included) You call Mac IIci is just minor modification to the Mac II? As far as I've been read, The Mac IIci is a completely redesign from the original Mac II lines. The heavyly use of VLSI made it possible..... all the stuffs deleted. Or, the publisher made it up? -- |I want Rocket Chip 10 MHz, Z-Ram Ultra II, UniDisk 3.5 | cyliao@wam.umd.edu | |I want my own NeXT, 50MHz 68040, 64Mb RAM, 660Mb SCSI, | Chun Yao Liao | | NeXT laser printer, net connection. | Accepting Donations!| /* If (my_.signature =~ yours) coincidence = true; else ignore_this = true; */
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (03/19/90)
In article <1990Mar18.224038.9682@eng.umd.edu> cyliao@eng.umd.edu (Chun-Yao Liao) writes: >In article <39559@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: > >>Mac II to be different enough to be considered a major new machine. However, >>the SE is just a faster Mac Plus. As is the SE/30. And the Mac IIx, IIcx, and >>IIci are just minor modifications to the Mac II. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >You call Mac IIci is just minor modification to the Mac II? As far as I've >been read, The Mac IIci is a completely redesign from the original Mac II >lines. The heavyly use of VLSI made it possible..... all the stuffs deleted. >Or, the publisher made it up? I was talking from the user's (i.e., _functional_) point of view. As you correctly pointed out, from the technological point of view, the Mac IIci is a totally new machine. As someone else pointed out, the same can be said of the Mac SE and even more for the Mac SE/30. But for the most part, all you get out of them is a faster CPU rate. Anyway, if anyone wants to follow up on this, I suggest we take this private. After all, this IS comp.sys.apple2, not comp.sys.mac.merits. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/19/90)
dent@unocss.unomaha.edu (dent) writes: >The entire point of this rambling article is that the "Macintosh" is really >more than simply the hardware by the same name that does the work. This and all the bit about the Mac interface being largely hardware independent is true. Apple has been trying to keep the O/S hardware independent from day one of the Mac and the GS. Problem is, they haven't been doing that hot a job of it. >Similarly, certain Apple II machines will probably die. The //e and //c lines >really should be replaced with something similar to what the //gs is now (but >for considerably less I hope!!). Why bother? 65c02 based systems can be made for VERY CHEAP with Apple's latest technologies and they could make a very nice 8 bit // that would do what most people buy XT Clones for but for substantially less. The 8 bit //'s are actually adequate for a lot of things but because they are old nobody seems to realize that they would still have a market if they cost about half as much (more like a third) or what they do now. Especially when you consider what you really buy a portable for, I realize that a portable //c+ would be a MUCH better deal than the Mac Portable. > The //gs will also be replaced, but not by >a "Low Cost Mac" in the Hardware sense. An "enhanced" //gs that runs the >Mac-like Interface is really enough. True, but we'd rather see some head-to-head competition with the Amiga -- the IIGS is already an NTSC machine, and the extra features (DMA controller, video Blitter / coprocessor) would assist so many toolbox routines (like QuickDraw!!) that the machine would give wonderful performance levels for the price. The "Apple //f" that I proposed to Apple works on precisely this principle. When Apple realizes that the Toolbox gives them the freedom to make REAL hardware upgrades without fear, then maybe they will do it! > There's no need for over-engineered >Apple-II compatibility boards in every Mac. There is a need. It's just that it is NOT the ultimate future of the Apple //, as some would have us believe. The Apple // is a fine computer in its own right and Apple is throwing money down the drain by not keeping it competitive with the Amiga and the PC clones. many of these computers will still outsell the Low Cost Color Mac because of price differences and because they are establishing themselves in the market while Apple lets the GS rot. Expecting everyone to drop everything for the Low Cost Mac A YEAR FROM NOW is ludicrous. > There /is/ a need for the Mac >functionality on the Apple II architecture, so the two lines can merge in >that sense. This I agree with most wholeheartedly. The GS more or less does, but the most recent release is almost fast enough to be reasonable. Unless system 6 is yet another order of magnitude faster (and I bet they could do it) the desktop applications will still be about as fast as a Mac plus. The real solution is to introduce a faster GS so that software developers will feel confident that the base machine can handle their newer software. A 7mhz transwarp GS is already known to be adequate; this can be the upgrade option for current machines. >There is only one way that this all is going to work, however: The Macintosh >Toolbox has got to be freed from the Macintosh Hardware. I have no idea >how similar the GS Toolbox is to the Mac Toolbox, but I hope they are nearly >identical. They're close, but not identical. It isn't that hard to port a Mac Application to the GS if you use MPW IIGS (or so I'm told). The GS toolbox does have a couple things that the Mac toolbox doesn't (yet, I hope) because they managed to put a little hindsight into it. There are also the sound tools which are DOC specific, but these are like the Slot Manager in the Mac II. > Only by making the Macintosh Toolbox the standard programmers' >interface to hardware, can the same source code be used to generate machine >code for various kinds of architectures. Programmers shouldn't really need >to know what specific machine their program is going to run on. This is possible: at worst a new toolset could be created to act as a standard toolbox interface. Yuck, I know, but that may actually be the easiest way to do it. There are markets for both generic applications that are easy to develop for many machines and for specific applications that really push a particular machine. Both have their own merits. >This is *NOT* going to happen overnight, however. :-) The current state of >programming on the Mac seems to be filled with minor inconsistencies that >require the /programmer/ to correct for. Is this machine an SE? Do this... >is it a Mac II? HasColorQD is TRUE.. but then it could be an SE/30 too, so >better check for that... This is pure nonsense. Ouch, I didn't know it had gotten that bad. The GS doesn't have enough software for it that will break because of considerations like that; it's pretty ironic really that we can take the neglect Apple has given the machine and turn it into an advantage... I hope they get the system straight and THEN promote the hell out of it, so that developers will not have to worry about that kind of thing. > The toolbox already is designed to be generalized. In theory. In practice... > You can have any size display you want on a Mac; >it makes no difference to your applications. This same generality needs to >be perfected, and expanded to the other areas... Hear Hear! I heard a rumor that the 640x400 graphics mode on the Video Overlay was supported by a patched version of QuickDraw; I wish they'd release that and drop the VOC to $300 so people will actually buy it. If someone can find a monitor that interlaces OK then we will have a 640x400 desktop! (My monitor does but it's kind of expensive if you buy it. I grubbed it from a prof) >what we'll wind up with >is the "Macintosh Virtual Machine", and if /only/ toolbox calls are used to >access hardware, and dynamic linking could be used to link in the machine- >specific implementations of the toolbox, the same applications /will/ run >on different architctures, and not even know it. Bravo! This is what I would like to see. For a couple years now I've been wondering how we might actually do this. If Apple can pull it off then they will have something that they can tout as a standard and that will shatter the 'proprietary' image Apple has -- which will be good. >The preliminary steps have been made; file transfer has almost become trivial, >and hopefully future support for Foreign File Systems will make it moreso. The GS has support for foreign filesystems already; I can't wait until the get it on the Mac because it is too good a thing to deny to anyone. >I know I'm asking for a lot here, but I don't think I'm asking for the >/impossible/. NO, you're asking for the next generation in operating systems. If Apple doesn't do it first, then somebody else will... > I suppose we'll have to wait around to see if /any/ of this >occurrs (what a let-down ;-)... but it should be fun to watch if nothing >else. (It'd be even more fun to participate in, but what do I know. I /liked/ >the Apple ///+. :-) The ///+ _was_ a nice machine, but the reputation of the /// was so horrid that Apple couldn't do anything about it. A pity, really. If the /// hadn't been so rushed and flopped so badly, the IIGS might have had the Amiga's chipset and there never would have been an Amiga... Wouldn't mind if Apple made up for that mistake of not buying the Amiga chipset when they had the chance. Their Low Cost Mac will be a flop if it doesn't have a blitter to assist QuickDraw. The GS is not doing too hot for exactly the same reason! Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
c60a-3hu@e260-1g.berkeley.edu (Calvin Cheng) (03/20/90)
In article <2595@unocss.unomaha.edu> dent@unocss.unomaha.edu (dent) writes: > >I've been an Apple fan ever since the ][+ (which is still running fine, thank >you, with the expansion chasis, Rana drives, etc etc etc etc... :-), and I'm >a Mac-lover now. So, all of this discussion got me thinking (look out). > So did I and I have been a IIGS user too thot I'm now a Mac user. >The Apple // -vs- Mac debate (war?) has been going on for a very long time, >and it seems that by doing next-to-nothing to "finalize" the outcome of that >battle, Apple may have stumbled across the solution to it all. Let me >elaborate: > >The appeal of the Mac, (at least back in 1984, when Apple had DAMN GREAT ads.. >[anyone got 1984 on VHS, btw?] :-) is not (at first), the hardware, but the >user interface. In fact, the Macintosh User Interface has had such a huge >impact on the entire industry (by virtue of actually being sucsessful >at it), that nearly all of the functionality of it has been copied to other, > It's important to look at what they are trying to sell in a machine rather than the hardware alone viz-a-viz. That's why Commodore isn't doing as well as it should. >The 68xxx series Mac is not going to last forever, and it's no secret that >Apple has been playing with the idea of an 88000-based machine. This new >machine does not, however, mean that the users of the old machine will be >abandoned. The Mac /Interface/ can run on /any/ architecture. Sure, >assembly language programmers will be a little upset :-), but C and Pascal >programmers should be able to just link with a new library, tweak a little, This clearly marks the point. No single machine is going to survive for a long period. Not the 680x0 nor the 658xx. We must open ourselves to new architectures as and when they come. That's what people in the mini/mainframe and now workstation market have been doing for years. It's about time the same thing happen for the mass market, "low-technology" personal computer market. >The entire point of this rambling article is that the "Macintosh" is really >more than simply the hardware by the same name that does the work. (Kind >of like "AppleTalk", huh?) Steve Jobs was correct in a sense when he talked >of the impending doom of the Mac. Sure, the 68000-based Mac is eventually >going to be ancient technology (how many new 6502-based machines do you see >today? :-) But the essence (look&feel if you like) of the Macintosh will >outlive it's 68000-based "body" (I can't beleive I'm talking about Meta- >Physical Macintoshes here.. :-) > The name game is totally irrelevant. How would you compare a PC to a PS/2? What if they chose to call the Mac II by some other name (or maybe even an Apple II) or the IIGS a Mac? It's entirely possible. But u still have the same machine in front of u! Why that rambling about names? > >This is *NOT* going to happen overnight, however. :-) The current state of >programming on the Mac seems to be filled with minor inconsistencies that Apple sure has lots of creb to beat up... they've partially dug a grave for themselves when they tore down all the great aspects of the Lisa to produce the Mac. It takes time... The essense of this all is that the debate that has been rambling on is really quite senseless like the bloodshed in Northen Ireland, Lebanon or Sri Lanka. People can't get along just because they try their best to make themselves feel different when they are very similar.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/20/90)
In article <1990Mar17.105403.17776@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >certain@washington.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Certain) writes: >It still is. Now that the 20 mhz 65816 is going through debug (heard they got a >few trial chips to work at a paltry 12-13) Apple will have no real excuse not >to make the IIGS into a real Amiga killer. Yeah, right. You're going to grow very old waiting for 65816s that can compete with the latest 680x0s. Way back in '85, when I was looking around for a follow-up for the C128 for Commodore, I looked at 65816 chips. We had actually received specs on them from WDC several years earlier. At that time, they had fully speced 8MHz parts, yet in '85, GTE (the only company actually MAKING 65816s) had all they could do to make enough 4MHz parts. Rumor is that Apple managed get enough for the IIGS by actually having a special 2.8MHz version tested. I needed 4.08MHz parts, but enough of that. It really doesn't matter if WDC eventually comes out with a 20MHz part (neat trick; with a memory cycle time of 60ns, you'll need about 35ns-45ns SRAM to talk to the thing), it's not going to compete with newer machines. It's just going to lose based on architecture -- each instruction does so little work compared to a 680x0. Same reason you aren't seeing serious competition from fast 8088s anymore. >They will need it, because not everyone is going to want a Low Cost Color Mac. >I won't, for example. I want my Apple //f and I know Apple will build it IF we can >convince them there is a market for it. Thing is, it's going to cost more to build your 20MHz Apple //f, significantly more, that the el-cheapo color Mac. Way back in '85, a 4MHz '816 cost noticably more than an 8MHz 68000. Things are going to be even more skewed now. And which direction is Apple really heading, as if I needed to ask? While they certainly aren't moving downscale in either line, yet, they do seem to be spending most if not all their time on their 680x0 lines. Pretty much the same thing that other companies with old 65xx lines and new 680x0 lines are doing. Compatibility is a nice goal, but there are times when it can wind up costing more to stay compatible than to dump all the compatibility and start over fresh. >>I really wish Apple would put out a card that would allow us to run our >>Apple II software on a Mac II, and merge the two lines, but even though >>there would be a hugh market out there, I don't see it happening. >The engineering reality of such a board would mean that the card would >either (a) stink, or (b) be EXPENSIVE. Actually, you could build a card to run Apple II software fairly cheaply. A good deal of any machine's cost is for stuff other than the PC board. The problem is that you'd have to stick this in a color Mac with slots, making it a rather silly Apple II-only solution. Though having dealt with a similar 65xx to 680x0 upgrade myself, I found that I really didn't want to run any of the old software once I had new software for the same functions. The most useful thing I found was a way to read the 65xx machine data file on the 680x0 machine. >I, for one, will never want whole Mac, and I don't feel a major need to emulate >one either though I respect the fact that many people do. I do want to see a >IIGS to nuke the Amiga, because I know it can be done. It can't be done. Period. And that has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with what the 65816 is and always will be compared to the 680x0 line. As well as considering that Apple has never shown themselves to be stupid -- any Apple II machine that really looks better than an Amiga will also look better than a Mac. The cost of your //f is going to put you up against the Amiga 2500 and Amiga 3000 lines -- 68030 machines that run about as fast as a Mac IIci. The current //gs already costs more than an equivalently set up Amiga 500. Or a similar low-cost Mac, should Apple want to introduce one. I'm not talking here as some Amiga zealot, either. I actually design the hardware, I know what I'm talking about. >Todd Whitesel -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
kdb@intercon.com (Kurt D. Baumann) (03/20/90)
Just as a thought... If you folks (and probably most of you do think this) think that the IBM-PC is old outdated equipment, then what does that make the Apple II? At some point in time, you must give up the old software you have and move onto a new machine with new software. The arguement that you need to be compatable with the old software holds weight as long as there is software that is worthwhile and up to current software standards available. At some point though it just isn't going to be there. By the way, this isn't a poke at Apple II owners. I was one.--
dseah@wpi.wpi.edu (David I Seah) (03/20/90)
In our last episode, Keith Rollins points out that the entire Mac line, taken from a certain perspective, consists of only two basic machines. In today's serial, Chun-Yao Liao writes: >You call Mac IIci is just minor modification to the Mac II? As far as I've >been read, The Mac IIci is a completely redesign from the original Mac II >lines. The heavyly use of VLSI made it possible..... all the stuffs deleted. >Or, the publisher made it up? From a user's standpoint, I'd say that Keith's perspective is stunningly accurate. The Mac Plus/SE is analogous to the classic Apple II, while the Mac II family is like the IIGS. Even though the hardware was redesigned from scratch for the IIci, the machine acts just like a faster, slightly more capable Mac II. The difference, of course, between their story and ours is that they RELEASED a faster Mac II while the GS Plus exists as rumor. :~( -- Dave Seah | O M N I D Y N E S Y S T E M S - M | Internet: dseah@wpi.wpi.edu | User Friendly Killing Machines | America Online: AFC DaveS .............................................................................. // Infinitum! // Infinitum! // Infinitum! // Infinitum! // Inifinitum!
cwilson@NISC.SRI.COM (Chan Wilson) (03/20/90)
In article <2595@unocss.unomaha.edu> dent@unocss.unomaha.edu (dent) writes: > >The appeal of the Mac, (at least back in 1984, when Apple had DAMN GREAT ads.. >[anyone got 1984 on VHS, btw?] :-) is not (at first), the hardware, but the >user interface. In fact, the Macintosh User Interface has had such a huge >impact on the entire industry (by virtue of actually being sucsessful >at it), that nearly all of the functionality of it has been copied to other, >sometimes radically different, archtechtures. If you have been asleep for Interesting point here. While the Apple ][ was the personal computer that defined the term "personal computer", the Macintosh was the computer that defined the term "graphical user interface." Much in the same way that the Model T define the term "automobile." But anyway... >System 7.0 for the Mac can just barely be seen on the horizon now, and some >of the major developments for it weren't entirely for the Mac. Apple and [slurp] >AU/X 2.0 is on the horizon as well, and with it, MacX. This is perhaps one >of the most exciting developments of all, IMHO. From the rumors, MacX allows >X Windows applcations to display on the Mac, which is what you would expect. >What it additionally does is provide those X Windows applications with the >"Mac Look". The implications of this are that the industry without a >standard interface may get one, if MacX can be expanded to "MacWM" (for lack >of a better name). If this is done, the Mac Interface could be used on >even more dissimilar architectures. <Head scratching here> Well, that's a close description. From a quick scan of the latest issue of Unix world (or whatever it's called), what Apple has done is merged the power of unix with the ease of the Mac GUI. From what it looks like, you'll start up your mac ii[fc][xi] into A/UX 2.0, which starts up Multifinder. You'll be able to run 32bit clean Mac applications from the finder, and run Unix programs from a shell window. You want X? Start up MacX, a modified version of X windows that runs concurrently with the Mac GUI. So, there's the screen shot they had. A standard Macintosh (color) screen, running multifinder. A couple finder windows were open, an X window with a graph was open, and a standard terminal window was open, speaking to A/UX. Wow. That's impressive. What they've just done is eliminate the last major obstacle for Mac workstations. Not that I'm a macintosh fanatic, but I can see the enormous appeal this has. Why buy a SparcStation, when for approximately the same amount you can buy a Mac IIfx running A/UX, MacX, and Mac GUI? It's one of those 'have your cake and eat it too' scenarios. >abandoned. The Mac /Interface/ can run on /any/ architecture. Sure, >assembly language programmers will be a little upset :-), but C and Pascal >programmers should be able to just link with a new library, tweak a little, >and go. [Yes, this is oversimplifying the case dramatically, I realize.] Hmm. One wonders how hard it would be to write a converter betwixt 65K and 68K assembler. >The entire point of this rambling article is that the "Macintosh" is really >more than simply the hardware by the same name that does the work. (Kind Ah. Good point. Hmm... I wouldn't be too all amazed if Apple came up with a translator library of some such that lets (for example) a sparcstation run Macintosh programs. [slurp] >for considerably less I hope!!). The //gs will also be replaced, but not by >a "Low Cost Mac" in the Hardware sense. An "enhanced" //gs that runs the >Mac-like Interface is really enough. There's no need for over-engineered >Apple-II compatibility boards in every Mac. There /is/ a need for the Mac >functionality on the Apple II architecture, so the two lines can merge in >that sense. Well, it's getting there. [slurp] >identical. Only by making the Macintosh Toolbox the standard programmers' >interface to hardware, can the same source code be used to generate machine >code for various kinds of architectures. Programmers shouldn't really need >to know what specific machine their program is going to run on. (well, >the ones writing the toolboxes obviously should, but.. :-) I can see it now: "MacC, the portable graphical programming language." Although, I'd prefer a different name.. >designed to be generalized. You can have any size display you want on a Mac; >it makes no difference to your applications. This same generality needs to >be perfected, and expanded to the other areas... what we'll wind up with >is the "Macintosh Virtual Machine", and if /only/ toolbox calls are used to >access hardware, and dynamic linking could be used to link in the machine- >specific implementations of the toolbox, the same applications /will/ run >on different architctures, and not even know it. ...opening the door for "Mac-in-the-Cray" :) >The preliminary steps have been made; file transfer has almost become trivial, <snicker, snicker. Define trivial.> >and hopefully future support for Foreign File Systems will make it moreso. speaking of such, where's our FSTs? >I know I'm asking for a lot here, but I don't think I'm asking for the >/impossible/. I suppose we'll have to wait around to see if /any/ of this >occurrs (what a let-down ;-)... but it should be fun to watch if nothing >else. (It'd be even more fun to participate in, but what do I know. I /liked/ >the Apple ///+. :-) Hoh yes! If we can't join the party, at least we've got a front row seat... >-/ Dave Caplinger /--------------------------------------------------------- > dent@zeus.unomaha.edu ...!uunet!unocss!dent DENT@UNOMA1 --Chan ................ Chan Wilson -- cwilson@nisc.sri.com <!> I don't speak for SRI. Janitor/Architect of comp.binaries.apple2 archive on wuarchive.wustl.edu "And now, the penguin on top of the television set will explode." ................
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/20/90)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: [ in response to stuff I wrote ] >Yeah, right. You're going to grow very old waiting for 65816s that can compete >with the latest 680x0s. Why should I wait for a CPU that does more than I need when I will be able to buy a 20 mhz 65816 in a month or two? I don't do anything that requires the raw power of a 68030/040, and I'm not going to pay for one because I'd be wasting my money on features I won't use. Most of what I do are jobs best done by coprocessors, and you'll notice that Apple has been devoting quite a bit of research into them lately. I and many others don't pay for a CPU, we pay for a system, and Commodore of all companies should understand the value of that because it's the secret of the A500. Apple's finally learned to exploit that secret and the Apple II has been crying for more of it for years. >It really doesn't matter if WDC eventually comes out with a 20MHz part They might or might not. But ASIC Technologies (two college students) reverse engineered a 65816 state machine. On rented supercomputer time they silicon compiled it onto a gate array and the prototypes are due in silicon Real Soon Now. We have 12 mhz capable accelerators already just waiting for faster chips, and Applied Engineering is probably working overtime on a 20 mhz capable redesign. Mensch, however, appears to be screwing around with a mask that is the same one his wife (or daughter, I forget which) laid out years ago... His main business these days is embedded microcontrollers anyway, so he's probably given up on Apple. They shafted him from them start, anyway; Apple requires two second sources and "won't buy from design companies" so after WDC licensed VLSI technologies and California Micro Devices, Apple quit ordering from WDC. >(neat trick; with a memory cycle time of 60ns, you'll need about 35ns-45ns >SRAM to talk to the thing) No problem, it'll be running on a cache anyway. The Transwarp GS accelerator seems to do a mighty fine job of that already. > it's not going to compete with newer machines. Like I said, if they CPU isn't what's being used for everything, then who cares, especially if price is a major concern? Most people are going to be using the graphics performance which should be taken care of by a cheap blitter and NOT the CPU. > It's just going to lose based on architecture -- each instruction does so > little work compared to a 680x0. Hold it, you're talking like a power user, and not like your typical Apple II customer. People who buy Apple II's want a cheap, reliable machine that does what they need and doesn't give them any trouble. Try to corner one with the sacred word "MIPS" and they'll ask you why you care. They already know that the software will run acceptably fast, and that their friends will help them use it -- that's how real people choose a system, by using it and not by reading the spec sheet. >Same reason you aren't seeing serious competition from fast 8088s anymore. Serious competition? Do you care about low end price/performance or just wicked fast machines? Many of us care about getting a reasonable computer for the price. >>They will need it, because not everyone is going to want a Low Cost Color Mac >>I won't, for example. I want my Apple //f and I know Apple will build it IF >>we can convince them there is a market for it. >Thing is, it's going to cost more to build your 20MHz Apple //f, significantly >more, that the el-cheapo color Mac. I really doubt that, after seeing what Apple can do when they acutally pour a little money into the Apple //. Right now the Low Cost Mac sounds like it will be about as powerful as a Transwarped GS but will run 'professional' Mac programs if you force it to, and for about the same price. > Way back in '85, a 4MHz '816 cost noticably more than an 8MHz 68000. > Things are going to be even more skewed now. Not really; Bill Mensch won't be doing the production anymore. Now it'll be large gate array houses and they shouldn't have a problem with quantity or price. > And which direction is Apple really heading, as if I needed to ask? > While they certainly aren't moving downscale in either line, yet, they do > seem to be spending most if not all their time on their 680x0 lines. That's because they've been waiting for a faster 65816 and Bill Mensch hasn't been able to give them one. Meanwhile, Apple Marketing has gotten it into their heads that the Mac is the only computer Apple sells and so they've been trying to strangle the Apple // without realizing what it's costing them in customers or customer support. Their Mac support is not that hot either; the Mac magazines have been pummeling Apple about it for years. Apple's hurting all over right now, except in revenue; Commodore is lucky that it didn't grow too fast too soon the way Apple appears to have done. > Pretty much the same thing that other companies with old 65xx lines and new > 680x0 lines are doing. Compatibility is a nice goal, but there are times > when it can wind up costing more to stay compatible than to dump all the > compatibility and start over fresh. Agreed, except I don't think the 65816 deserves a burial just yet. It's still darn simple for what it *can* do, and the cost-effectiveness of that gives it a market in the low end if someone dares to exploit it, as Nintendo is rumored to be doing with their Super Famicom system. Apple II compatibility is disgustingly cheap -- don't let the current IIGS fool you, it used the worst possible method because of budget constraints (or worse, but I couldn't make any serious claims) and the entire machine suffered as a result. Apple's failure to give it a real update after all these years is another symptom of their indecision about the low end. The IIGS system software is also a LOT cleaner than the Mac's because no new CPUs have forced it to be patched all over yet. The GS toolbox has some good hindsights in it and is constantly improving now that they are letting it. It's a real shame that the big name software companies have abandoned the GS, because System 5.0 is actually worth using, and system 6 (unannounced) is rumored to be genuinely good even on a stock GS. [ comment about Apple II NuBus card feasibility deleted by accident ] Even if it is cheap, it's not going to be cheaper than a used //e and educators often go for the cheaper solution. Not everybody has gobs of money to spend on the latest technology, just because it is the latest. People would rather pay less money to do the same things once they know what their needs are. When they want something new, they go for it in steps as their budget permits. I don't mean to bore you with this but with all the Mega-mongering going on it is easy to forget that to most people computers are a tool and an investment and not a toy to be bragged about. >>I, for one, will never want whole Mac, and I don't feel a major need to >>emulate one either though I respect the fact that many people do. I do want >>to see a IIGS to nuke the Amiga, because I know it can be done. >It can't be done. Period. And that has nothing to do with Apple and >everything to do with what the 65816 is and always will be compared to the >680x0 line. Let me be more specific. I want a IIGS to nuke the 500. A great home machine that fufills the original purpose of the IIGS and that complements the Low Cost Mac. Something which is easily possible when you look at how Apple makes CPUs, and what the two would be used for. Many of us are sick of Apple's insane fear that the Mac and the Apple II might (horrors!) _compete_ with each other!! There will always be markets for both machines and if Apple doesn't realize it soon then they will have abandoned the low end to CBM and Tandy. The Low Cost Mac isn't going to arrive soon enough to fix things all by itself. Besides, most of us buy for reasons OTHER THAN THE BLOODY CPU, so please don't assume that everyone wants a 68K based machine just because it is a 'better' CPU. It is also much more expensive and I for one am happy paying less for less because the 65816 suits me just fine. > As well as considering that Apple has never shown themselves to >be stupid -- any Apple II machine that really looks better than an Amiga will >also look better than a Mac. Oh, now we can't have that now can we? Who's to say the low cost mac won't inherit some of the technology from //f research? It probably will get the disk coprocessor that first went out in the Apple //c+, if they haven't made a better one yet. It'll probably have the ADB coprocessor from the GS, too. And if it doesn't have at least a blitter then it will flop real bad. In short, it'll have to look better than a similarly priced Amiga too. So what's to worry about? > The cost of your //f is going to put you up against the Amiga 2500 and Amiga >3000 lines -- 68030 machines that run about as fast as a Mac IIci. I doubt that. The Apple // stuff which has come out in recent years has been artificially inflated in price because Apple hasn't bothered to care that they are selling to a more competitive market now. Why else do you think Amiga and the PC clones are cleaning up in the low end? If Apple hadn't been so intent on cranking the Mac into solid competition with IBM, they wouldn't have gotten so far out of touch with their entire distribution network. > The current //gs already costs more than an equivalently set up Amiga 500. The 'current //gs' uses five year old gate arrays and a ten year old architectural structure but with major beef-ups. It also hasn't been given any real subsequent development other than analog motherboard fixes and more reasonable amounts of memory, although it has been given vastly better software which is now deemed adequate; simply doubling the CPU speed (with a Transwarp) transforms it into a viable machine. In other words, it doesn't reflect Apple's real cost-cutting power by a long shot. It doesn't have a fully new chipset (less than half have been changed at all, and those were convenience upgrades) and this is where the problem is. By doing to the //gs what Apple did to the Mac IIfx (and don't try to tell me that designing the system intelligently costs that much money) they will save gobs over the current design even after adding the bare essential new features. > Or a similar low-cost Mac, should Apple want to introduce one. Oh they do, you can count on that. But they seem to be having a lot of trouble figuring out how to make a machine that will actually sell, and at the price they want it to cost... >I'm not talking here as some Amiga zealot, either. I actually design the >hardware, I know what I'm talking about. I don't doubt that. But let me say that I've delved deep enough into the GS to know how inefficent its current implementation is, and from talking to Apple employees how cheaply it could be done if it REALLY used the most recent manufacturing technology, which it does not. The Mega II "Apple II on a chip" is the Ball and Chain of the GS -- it was originally designed for a low cost //e but wasn't cheap enough to make the //e any cheaper. (to Apple, apparently. Certainly not to us.) When they get rid of it and implement the logic where it belongs (i.e. all over the machine and integrated into the custom chips that handle each part of the system already) it will blow away the performance limitations of the current design and cost a hell of a lot less. Do not assume that the IIGS is the best that the Apple II can do. You would be doing the machine a serious injustice, and there are a number of specific examples which are so trivial to fix that they would have done so long ago had they been given more than miserable funding for the project. >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/21/90)
In article <1990Mar20.153543.5841@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >[ in response to stuff I wrote ] >>Yeah, right. You're going to grow very old waiting for 65816s that can compete >>with the latest 680x0s. >Why should I wait for a CPU that does more than I need when I will be able to >buy a 20 mhz 65816 in a month or two? I don't do anything that requires the >raw power of a 68030/040, and I'm not going to pay for one because I'd be >wasting my money on features I won't use. My point being that, at any level of performance, the 65xxx solution these days costs more than then 680x0 solution, for general purpose computing. We still use 65xx-family parts where they make sense. Commodore's 7 port serial card is managed by a slow (3.5MHz) 4502. But 4502s cost pennies, all serial ports deal with are interrupts and byte pumping. Real computers with GUIs need more performance. Which is exactly the reason you're concerned with 65816s. >Most of what I do are jobs best done by coprocessors Specific purpose jobs are done well by coprocessors, as long as the coprocessor can do the job better, or at the same time the CPU is doing something else. But if the CPU can't run in parallel and could do the job nearly as well as the special purpose unit, than that extra hardware is a waste of money. Just to keep things in prespective. >>It really doesn't matter if WDC eventually comes out with a 20MHz part >They might or might not. But ASIC Technologies (two college students) reverse >engineered a 65816 state machine. On rented supercomputer time they silicon >compiled it onto a gate array and the prototypes are due in silicon Real Soon >Now. We'll see. Most chip design isn't generally done on supercomputers, and especially something as simple as a 65816 core. The CSG 4502 I mentioned was a redesigned CMOS version of the 6502 that brings in all the Rockwell instructions and a mess of new ones, and goes up to 10MHz or so. The redesign was pretty simple at the gate level, as a gate array. Also, you don't use silicon compilers on gate arrays -- gate arrays and standard cell chips are automatically routed from a gate description. Pretty standard stuff, anyone can bop on over to LSI Logic or Motorola, plunk down about $10K NRE, and get their own gate array made. The first Sparc chip was done this way, that's just a tad more complex than any 65xxx you might dream up. But if you have any hope for the future of the 65xx family, getting away from WDC is a good idea. Far as I know, WDC never made production quantities on their own -- like I mentioned, GTE was the first to make any. But everyone did count on WDC and Mr. Bill for new designs. Throwing a few new ideas at the thing, cache, a wider data bus, etc. would keep it competitive for another few years at the low end. But more than likely give software compatibility the big one-two. Most 65xx code is extremely bad and intolerant, in modern terms. >They shafted him from them start, anyway; Apple requires two >second sources and "won't buy from design companies" so after WDC licensed >VLSI technologies and California Micro Devices, Apple quit ordering from WDC. When the GS came out, the only company making '816s was GTE. The main reason I couldn't get any 4MHz '816s in quantity was that Apple bought them all. They could make a real deal on 2MHz parts, since the yield on 4MHz was so low, they had more of those than they knew what to do with. That was back in '85, I haven't kept up-to-date on who's cranking these babies out now. Back then, at least, WDC didn't have a production volume foundary anyway. And "buying from design companies" certainly didn't scare Apple away from the 68030, only available from Motorola. Though I do believe that no one would have trusted any production item on WDC as a single source had they been the one and only '816 vendor. >Like I said, if they CPU isn't what's being used for everything, then who >cares, especially if price is a major concern? Most people are going to be >using the graphics performance which should be taken care of by a cheap >blitter and NOT the CPU. Even a rather complex blitter like the Amiga's requires a good CPU behind it. The blitter does a good bit of work for you, but there are many graphics issues that are handled much better with the CPU. In general, they work together. >Hold it, you're talking like a power user, and not like your typical Apple II >customer. Does it really show? True, the Apple II is plenty fast enough for lots of people. But here you are proposing a more extensive implementation of that architecture, to go much faster. Yet even the current GS isn't on a par with something like the A500, speed-wise. It doesn't seem very likely that you can do all that much to build a faster, more powerful GS for any less money than the current one (while, of course, keeping up against any desire on Commodore's part to build a faster, more powerful A500 for less money than the current one). The GS is in what I would call a techological bottleneck. Same place the C64 is. My suggestion for the C64's future was to put the whole thing on a single chip or so and sell it in cardboard/shrink wrap packages in the checkout lines at K-Mart for $25.00. Or something like that. Same principle applies to the Apple II, if Apple even wants it to stay around. >>Same reason you aren't seeing serious competition from fast 8088s anymore. >Serious competition? Do you care about low end price/performance or just wicked >fast machines? Personally? I think speed is the ONLY thing that matters. That's what they pay me for. But seriously, the 8088 machines are a good example -- they're getting cheaper, but not faster. You brought up the speed issue, talking about killing A500s with a faster Apple GS. >>Thing is, it's going to cost more to build your 20MHz Apple //f, significantly >>more, that the el-cheapo color Mac. >I really doubt that, after seeing what Apple can do when they acutally pour >a little money into the Apple //. Right now the Low Cost Mac sounds like it >will be about as powerful as a Transwarped GS but will run 'professional' >Mac programs if you force it to, and for about the same price. Apple must, of course, decide to build a low-cost color Mac. But they're already well on the way to it -- the video controller in the Mac IIci, or something like it, is the first step. This uses cheap memories. Apple is capable of doing a cheap Mac. They might have to bend the rules. The GS doesn't have the traditional Apple 5x cost to retail markup like the Macs do; the cheap Mac wouldn't either. >> Way back in '85, a 4MHz '816 cost noticably more than an 8MHz 68000. >> Things are going to be even more skewed now. >Not really; Bill Mensch won't be doing the production anymore. It doesn't matter. There are all kinds of companies making the basic 68000, and this has driven the price way, way down, at least in volume. You can't get a small-to-medium gate array from LSI for less than a 68000. >That's because they've been waiting for a faster 65816 and Bill Mensch >hasn't been able to give them one. If Apple really wanted a faster Apple II, they could have banged out a clone in about a year, at the rate they're cranking out new gate arrays. Sure, it's easier for them if Mensch does the work, but it also could wind up costing much more if they looked at this as a real product with a chance at making them some money. >Marketing has gotten it into their heads that the Mac is the only computer >Apple sells and so they've been trying to strangle the Apple // without >realizing what it's costing them in customers or customer support. Nobody feels good if their computer is apparently abandoned by the parent company. But you can't expect altruism from Apple or anyone else either (nice if you get it, but don't ever expect it). If the IIGS isn't making them enough to justify the II's continued existence, at least Apple's bean counters will want to dump it. >The IIGS system software is also a LOT cleaner than the Mac's because no new >CPUs have forced it to be patched all over yet. The 680x0 series was designed pretty much from the start to allow painless updates. At least to a certain extent, Apple didn't follow the guidelines necessary to follow through with that. I really don't know how badly that affects Mac stuff today. Updates SHOULD have been completely transparent. >Besides, most of us buy for reasons OTHER THAN THE BLOODY CPU, so please don't >assume that everyone wants a 68K based machine just because it is a 'better' >CPU. It is also much more expensive and I for one am happy paying less for less >because the 65816 suits me just fine. As I've pointed out several times, the 68000 costs less than the 65816. >> The current //gs already costs more than an equivalently set up Amiga 500. >The 'current //gs' uses five year old gate arrays and a ten year old >architectural structure but with major beef-ups. The current A500 is using four custom chips designed in '85 or earlier, and two finished in 1986. Heck, even the 68000 has been around much longer than the 65816. New architecture can sometimes lower a system's cost, but you have to pay for that new architecture. By the time you've been making a part, any part, for 5 or 10 years, if you're paying for more than plastic, metal, and sand, you're paying too much. >By doing to the //gs what Apple did to the Mac IIfx (and don't try to tell me >that designing the system intelligently costs that much money) they will save >gobs over the current design even after adding the bare essential new features. It costs quite a bit of money for Apple to build the new stuff in the IIfx, no doubt. In some respects, the very successful Mac II line may have already funded that R&D. Apple makes lots of money on Mac IIs, they have a very high markup. Only Apple knows for sure, but I doubt they could fund a major Apple II revamp project with the current profits from the Apple IIs they still sell. >Do not assume that the IIGS is the best that the Apple II can do. I've never assumed that about any Apple II machine -- they're always had too many parts. But Apple only started getting serious about gate arrays near the end of the Apple II's current history, and applied the best of that new (to them) ASIC capability to the Mac II. You can always do better, like the "C64 on a chip" I joked about up above (though it has moved that way over time -- today's C64 board is less than 1/2 the size of the original). Somebody has to justify that "doing better". Back before the A500 was done, the C128 group I was working with wanted a similar cost reduction and feature improvement, to build a new C256 or some-such. No matter what we came up with, the PC board was only a small part of the cost for either machine. Casework, power supplies, keyboard, floppy disk drives, etc. are essentially the same for both. It doesn't take a marketing wizard to figure out that "16/32 bit, 7MHz, Blitter, Copper, 880K, 68000" are easier to sell than "8 bit, 2 or 4MHz, 360K, 65/85/45-something-or-other" at the same price. >Todd Whitesel >toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
thanatos@pro-graphics.cts.com (Steve Godun) (03/21/90)
In-Reply-To: message from toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu
Just a note/question...
You stated:
rushed and flopped so badly, the IIGS might have had the Amiga's chipset and
there never would have been an Amiga...
Not wanting to start a war, but Apple had NOTHING to do with the Amiga. The
Amiga was designed by an independant contractor (contracted by, ironically
enough, Atari, but Atari dropped them two weeks after Jack Tramiel took over
Atari) and was initially going to be a high-end video game machine. Commodore
picked it up and, well, you know the rest. (Also, the Amiga's chipsets were
designed by the same team that designed the custom chips for the Atari 8-bit
series of computers, so even if Commodore didn't pick up Amiga it wouldn't
have gone to Apple.)
****************************************************************************
* "Ere sin could blight or sorrow fade, Death came with friendly care; *
* The opening bud to Heaven conveyed, And bade it blossom there." *
* -Samuel Taylor Coleridge *
* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *
* thanatos@pro-graphics.cts.com | Steve "Lord Thanatos" Godun *
****************************************************************************
ProLine: thanatos@pro-graphics
UUCP: ...crash!pro-graphics!thanatos
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!thanatos@nosc.mil
Internet: thanatos@pro-graphics.cts.comnicholso@hpcuha.HP.COM (Ron Nicholson) (03/24/90)
/ hpcuha:comp.sys.mac / thanatos@pro-graphics.cts.com (Steve Godun) writes: >Not wanting to start a war, but Apple had NOTHING to do with the Amiga. The >Amiga was designed by an independent contractor (contracted by, ironically >enough, Atari, but Atari dropped them two weeks after Jack Tramiel took over >Atari) and was initially going to be a high-end video game machine. Commodore >picked it up and, well, you know the rest. (Also, the Amiga's chipsets were >designed by the same team that designed the custom chips for the Atari 8-bit >series of computers, so even if Commodore didn't pick up Amiga it wouldn't >have gone to Apple.) Just some corrections to historical points and to add some relevance to comp.sys.mac: The team that designed the Amiga chip set included engineers from both the Atari 8-bit team and the Macintosh design team. ------------- The Amiga wasn't designed on contract. It was originally planned to be marketed by Amiga Inc. itself. You are correct in stating that it was planned originally as a high-end video game. By the way *Five* custom chips were done as part of the original Mac development. And Bill Atkinson talked about a blitter for Quickdraw as early as 1981! Steve Jobs saw the Lorraine(Amiga) prototype at an early stage of development while he was still at Apple. --- Ronald H. Nicholson, Jr. Hewlett Packard uucp: nicholso@hpda.HP.COM Cupertino, CA (408) 447-6603 #include <canonical disclaimer>