wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (02/17/89)
I will try to keep this short. I have been a Macintosh addict for a
long time, I like many of the products available, and I see the Macintosh as a
major improvement on any previous general-user PC.
Which is why it causes me frustration that Macintosh technology is
basically stagnant. "Wait," you ask. "Didn't Apple introduce faster, more
powerful machines, with color and slots and coprocessors and (soon, I hear)
virtual memory and multitasking? Isn't that a long way from the Mac 128k?"
Yes. Those additions are a long way from the Mac 128k. But these
technologies have been around for a long time. What I am talking about is
this:
1) The Mac user interface, albeit a good user interface, has not changed
substantially in five years. It is not the user interface of the future
anymore.
2) Macintosh could be twice as fast. The processors now implemented in
ALL Apple systems spend at least two cycles on every RAM access. Apple
chose to use slow memory (120 ns) which doubtless reduced costs. BUT WITH A
MAC SE COSTING $3169 LIST WITH NO HARD DRIVE AND NO KEYBOARD, WE SURE ARE
PAYING FOR FAST RAM, WHY AREN'T WE GETTING IT? MAYBE THAT'S WHY APPLE MAKES
THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE PROFIT PER COMPUTER SOLD OF ANY OF THE TOP 10
MICROCOMPUTER MANUFACTURERS.
My firm, which will remain nameless because of a contractual agreement,
is a Certified Apple Developer, and by no means do I dislike using or
programming Macs. But when Sun releases its rumored announcements in April
of a new line of graphic user-interface, UNIX-based, 33MHz and cheaper than
Macintosh workstations, I will be first in line to sell my Mac II and get
one. And I encourage everyone else on the net who owns a Mac to do the
same. Why be held back by overpriced, old technology when you can get the
same in a more powerful package for less? I may be on the fringe of Mac
users now, but in a year, I predict that many more will be disillusioned too.
GET ON THE BALL, APPLE. LOWER YOUR PRICES AND IMPROVE YOUR MACHINES.
YOUR SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.
-- Mark Wilkinssobiloff@thor.stolaf.edu (Blake Sobiloff) (02/20/89)
In article <235@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> wilkins@jarthur.UUCP (Mark Wilkins) writes: >programming Macs. But when Sun releases its rumored announcements in April >of a new line of graphic user-interface, UNIX-based, 33MHz and cheaper than >Macintosh workstations, I will be first in line to sell my Mac II and get >one. And I encourage everyone else on the net who owns a Mac to do the >same. Why be held back by overpriced, old technology when you can get the >same in a more powerful package for less? I may be on the fringe of Mac >users now, but in a year, I predict that many more will be disillusioned too. > GET ON THE BALL, APPLE. LOWER YOUR PRICES AND IMPROVE YOUR MACHINES. >YOUR SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT. > > -- Mark Wilkins I think that in a year or so (yes, that *is* too long...) you will see a completely rewritten system (7.0) which will be a re-thinking of the present interface, and incorporate new advances that have been made since the Mac debuted. Yes, the Mac is an overpriced machine, but stiff compition from companies like Sun, Apollo, and yes, even NeXT, are going to put the flame to Apple's foot. At the moment, I really don't need UNIX or a 33MHz workstation (it would be nice to have one, though), so I can't complain too much. Sure, I have gripes just like everyone else, but I doubt you'll find *any* computer user who doesn't have a couple, regardless of what machine they use. I'm just sitting back and waiting (albiet *impatiently*!!!). Blake "Hey, where's MY fancy signature?" Sobiloff sobiloff@thor.acc.edu
hgw@julia.math.ucla.edu (Harold Wong) (02/22/89)
In article <235@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> wilkins@jarthur.UUCP (Mark Wilkins) writes: > > > 2) Macintosh could be twice as fast. The processors now implemented in >ALL Apple systems spend at least two cycles on every RAM access. Apple >chose to use slow memory (120 ns) which doubtless reduced costs. BUT WITH A >MAC SE COSTING $3169 LIST WITH NO HARD DRIVE AND NO KEYBOARD, WE SURE ARE >PAYING FOR FAST RAM, WHY AREN'T WE GETTING IT? MAYBE THAT'S WHY APPLE MAKES >THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE PROFIT PER COMPUTER SOLD OF ANY OF THE TOP 10 >MICROCOMPUTER MANUFACTURERS. > BTW, just how many mips does a Mac run. Frustrated minds want to know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harold Wong (213) 825-9040 UCLA-Mathnet; 3915F MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555 ARPA: hgw@math.ucla.edu BITNET: hgw%math.ucla.edu@INTERBIT Harold Wong (213) 825-9040 UCLA-Mathnet; 3915F MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555 ARPA: hgw@math.ucla.edu BITNET: hgw%math.ucla.edu@INTERBIT Harold Wong (213) 825-9040 UCLA-Mathnet; 3915F MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555 ARPA: hgw@math.ucla.edu BITNET: hgw%math.ucla.edu@INTERBIT for the line eater
tron@wpi.wpi.edu (Richard G Brewer) (02/23/89)
In article <480@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU> hgw@math.ucla.edu (Harold Wong) writes: -In article <235@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> wilkins@jarthur.UUCP (Mark Wilkins) writes: -- -- -- 2) Macintosh could be twice as fast. The processors now implemented in --ALL Apple systems spend at least two cycles on every RAM access. Apple --chose to use slow memory (120 ns) which doubtless reduced costs. BUT WITH A --MAC SE COSTING $3169 LIST WITH NO HARD DRIVE AND NO KEYBOARD, WE SURE ARE --PAYING FOR FAST RAM, WHY AREN'T WE GETTING IT? MAYBE THAT'S WHY APPLE MAKES --THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE PROFIT PER COMPUTER SOLD OF ANY OF THE TOP 10 --MICROCOMPUTER MANUFACTURERS. -- > >BTW, just how many mips does a Mac run. Frustrated minds want to know. > >Harold Wong (213) 825-9040 As I recall, the standard SE runs around 1 MIP, II a little more than that. The NeXT runs 5MIPS... Richard G. Brewer +----------------------------+--------------+--------------------------+ | Richard G. Brewer (TRON) | Worcester | rbrewer@wpi.bitnet | | WPI Box 149 | Polytechnic | tron@wpi.wpi.edu | | 100 Institute Rd. | Institute +--------------------------+ | Worcester, Ma 01609-2280 +--------------+ "Power through better | | (508) 792-3231 | VaNdaLs Sack | design and engineering" | +----------------------------+--------------+--------------------------+
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (02/24/89)
Re: BTW, just how many mips does a Mac run. Frustrated minds want to know.
Instead, try asking this question:
"BTW, just how many "GraphicStones" does a Mac run? Frustrated minds
want to know."
Realize the cost of a Mac goes towards optimized software, not
optimized hardware. If you want optimized hardware, buy a korean '386
PC, and enjoy!
(In case you hadn't noticed, graphics on a PC is a lot slower than on
a macintosh, due to extensive SOFTWARE optimization in quickdraw)
Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gilliesrcbaab@eutrc3.UUCP (Annard Brouwer) (02/24/89)
In article <480@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU> hgw@math.ucla.edu (Harold Wong) writes: > >BTW, just how many mips does a Mac run. Frustrated minds want to know. > I remember an amount of 0.9Mips for a MacII with coprocessor (not an awfull lot actually...). Even the number of drystones/whetstones is not satisfactory. A small flame: I wonder how much trouble Apple gas gotten when it tried to run a '030 on 16MHz, if I were a '030 I would refuse to work on such a low clock speed! Flame off. Annard. -- name : Annard Brouwer address: Dreef 74 BITNET : RCGBBAAB@HEITUE51 5504 LD Veldhoven UUCP : rcbaab@eutrc3.uucp the Netherlands
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (02/27/89)
In article <964@wpi.wpi.edu> tron@wpi.wpi.edu (Richard G Brewer) writes: >As I recall, the standard SE runs around 1 MIP, II a little more than that. >The NeXT runs 5MIPS... ... 4.5 MIPS of which are absorbed by display postscript! ;^) PS: ;^) is the offical Robert Woodhead smirk. +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Robert J Woodhead !uunet!cornell!biar!trebor CompuServe 72447,37 | | Biar Games, Inc., 10 Spruce Lane, Ithaca NY 14850 607-257-1708,3864(fax) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Games written, Viruses killed "I'm the head honcho of this here spread; | | While U Wait. Take a number. I don't need no stinking disclaimers!!!" | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (03/01/89)
>(In case you hadn't noticed, graphics on a PC is a lot slower than on >a macintosh, due to extensive SOFTWARE optimization in quickdraw) What graphics software are you running? All the graphics I have seen on Mac's was much slower than the stuff I use on my PC (assuming equivalent cpu speeds). The only slow graphics I see on my PC is Autocad. Remember that normal non-II macs have a VERY tiny 342x512 useful area screen. PC's these days normally use 480x640. I have NEVER seen animation work really right on a MAC - I have seen it on PC's (in 16 or more colors).
folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (03/05/89)
Whether you call IBM graphics slow in comparison to the Mac may depend on whether you are talking MS Windows or not. I know that PageMaker 2.0 on the Mac BLEW AWAY PageMaker 1.0 on an IBM AT. Isn't the AT, with its 286, a generation ahead of the SE with its 68000? But doing a zoom on the Mac was always 3 or 4 times faster than the AT. I have heard that the problem is not necessarily the IBM, but is probably MS Windows, which is--I hear--notoriously slow. Just watching the screen manipulations of QuickDraw versus Windows has convinced me that QuickDraw is much smarter about how and what to redraw, etc.. Wayne Folta (folta@tove.umd.edu 128.8.128.42)
jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) (03/05/89)
In article <16217@mimsy.UUCP> folta@tove.umd.edu.UUCP (Wayne Folta) writes: >I have heard that the problem is not necessarily the IBM, but is probably >MS Windows, which is--I hear--notoriously slow. Just watching the screen >manipulations of QuickDraw versus Windows has convinced me that QuickDraw >is much smarter about how and what to redraw, etc.. Quickdraw does everything with regions. Can someone tell what MS Windows does instead? Disply Postscript on the NeXT has the clipping path, but curiously updates (on non-retained) windows are reported as rectangles. I guess Microsoft didn't have a genious available when they implemented their graphics routines. Apple had/has Bill Atkinson and Adobe has many really good graphics experts. (I put that "had" there, since I don't think Mr. Atkinson is working on QuickDraw.) _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._ | Juri Munkki jmunkki@hut.fi jmunkki@fingate.bitnet I Want Ne | | Helsinki University of Technology Computing Centre My Own XT | ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) (03/07/89)
In article <46100288@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > >>(In case you hadn't noticed, graphics on a PC is a lot slower than on >>a macintosh, due to extensive SOFTWARE optimization in quickdraw) > >What graphics software are you running? All the graphics I have seen >on Mac's was much slower than the stuff I use on my PC (assuming >equivalent cpu speeds). The only slow graphics I see on my PC >is Autocad. Remember that normal non-II macs have a VERY tiny 342x512 >useful area screen. PC's these days normally use 480x640. I have >NEVER seen animation work really right on a MAC - I have seen it on >PC's (in 16 or more colors). Many things on the IBM use straight bit-blits, while on the Macs they typically use PICT's. The game 'crazy cars' work right... really right So does the OIDS demo. I try not to compare individual operations on the Mac and IBM because the approaches vary so widely. For example, many program bit blit and otherwise take shortcuts on the IBM, but when a new video card comes out, they stop working. The code that slows down quickdraw also makes things like Mac II compatibility with Pluses/SEs possible. -Steve Bollinger
dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David L. Williams) (03/07/89)
/ hpsmtc1:comp.sys.mac / mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu / 10:38 am Feb 28, 1989 / >>(In case you hadn't noticed, graphics on a PC is a lot slower than on >>a macintosh, due to extensive SOFTWARE optimization in quickdraw) >What graphics software are you running? All the graphics I have seen >on Mac's was much slower than the stuff I use on my PC (assuming >equivalent cpu speeds). The only slow graphics I see on my PC >is Autocad. Remember that normal non-II macs have a VERY tiny 342x512 >useful area screen. PC's these days normally use 480x640. I have Unless you are still in CGA mode or EGA. The mac II display is superior to these. Check out a GIF image running on an X windows display vs a Mac-- No CONTEST--The Mac renders a better display. Has VGA become the dominant installed video base for PC's? >NEVER seen animation work really right on a MAC - I have seen it on ^^^^^ Oh really? Try Videoworks II on a Mac in 256 glorious colors...works just fine for me! Or Aegis's Showcase F/X in the same environment. Or try the Videoworks Accelerator. >PC's (in 16 or more colors). Ok, try SuperMacs or RasterOps 24bit video card and check out the crispness and the animation quality. Frankly I've been UNDERWHELMED by the display quality and crispness on PC's. -David
jcocon@hubcap.clemson.edu (James C O'Connor III, 2846) (03/07/89)
From article <11540176@hpsmtc1.HP.COM>, by dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David L. Williams): > Frankly I've been UNDERWHELMED by the display quality and crispness on > PC's. I had to work on a PC on a daily basis for a while, and the screen gave me headaches and eye fatigue. I'll take my Mac anyday (not that there aren't things I wouldn't change :). SE/30 - here I come. (hope the upgrade price is something I can afford). Jim O'Connor
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (03/09/89)
To get a fast grahics program, it also takes a lot of hand optimization.
I remember hand-optimizing some graphics code once in a high level
interpreted language. I wrote the routine 5 different ways, and
benchmarked each way. Surprisingly, the version with the most
commands ran the fastest -- more than twice as fast as the others, and
seemingly, with no preemption on the timesharing system.
The 68020 is very complex because of the ideosyncracies of the cache.
This sort of experimentation is probably fruitful in 68020 assembly
language, too.
Apple also doesn't have Andy Hertzfeld any more, but luckily they're
smart enough to pay for his independent consulting projects occasionally!
(Kudos to Apple for buying quickergraf).
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