chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/23/87)
For all those folks who complain about how Apple has left you in the lurch over compatibility, I thought I'd toss in a few comments about how IBM has been handling compatibility over in PCland. The details are from the 12/20 San Jose Mercury News, by the way. Mac compatibility problems: you get to pay to upgrade from a 128K to a Mac Plus (worst case). New machines: SE and Mac II, in which Apple went to amazing lengths to make things work. With careful programming (and excluding color quickdraw on the Mac II) anything can run across the line from the 512E to the Mac II. IBM compatibility: IBM came out with the new PS/2 line. You own an AT? or an XT? or an old, moldy PC? You're out of luck. Obsolete. Burn it and buy a new, neat, nifty IBM (remember, folks, the original IBM PC is about the same age as a 128K machine. in the same frame that Apple put together an upgrade path (to the plus) and a second architecture (the II -- the SE is basically a funky Plus in my eyes) IBM obsoleted the PC, the XT and now the AT. Upgrade paths? What upgrade paths? It's even more fun on the software side. Remember MS-DOS? Toss it out. There's this neat new toy called OS/2 that is going to replace everything you ever new about operating systems. Or, at least, it will when they finish it. Even more fun, the pre-releases of OS/2 need (get this) 1.5 megabytes of memory to get started. The standard memory in a PS/2 computer? A megabyte. Think about that for a second. IBM ships as the standard configuration a system without enough memory to run its operating system. Holy bait and switch, batman. And it's even MORE fun, since the version of OS/2 shipping right now is missing the presentation manager (the OS/2 version of the windowing system, which will, in theory, make an IBM machine look sort of like a Mac, but different.). Wonder what that'll do to memory requirements. Apple has never shipped a macintosh that required you to buy a memory upgrade to boot the thing. Even teh 128K machine worked, and was perfectly functional, if cramped. Say what you like about Apple. You won't get much sympathy from me. Apple has gone to great lengths to maintain compatibility and minimize the impact to its users. There are limits to what it can do, and there are limits to how well developers listen. But when you compare that with what IBM is doing in the same market -- actively tossing computers, operating systems, and complete architectures out the window, setting configurations and prices in ways that force users to buy expensive upgrades to get functional, and trying to make old hardware not just slower, but unable to access the new technology, I think you'll have to admit that Apple ain't all that bad. --- Chuq "Fixed in 4.0" Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (12/24/87)
In article <37250@sun.uucp>, chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > > (remember, folks, the original IBM PC is about the same > age as a 128K machine. Um, almost. The IBM PC came out in early '81, I believe. I was at Apple back then, and I remember how interested we were in what they'd done. We were trying to straighten out the Apple/// mess that marketing had left us in, and I remember someone in our group comparing its' color display (seen in a local dealer) compared to the PC's display. (He rated ours as "home-cooked ..." in comparison.) There were some depressed people in the neighborhood in those days. The 128K Mac arrived in public in 1984. Good article, otherwise. seh
kwallich@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (Ken Wallich) (12/24/87)
Something left out of the discussion was that IBM does provide a "compatability mode" to run old MS-DOS programs. I quote here from the article "IBM confirms in the OS/2 manual that many MS-DOS progams won't run, including some communications programs, networked programs, and a miscellanea of others". For this semi functional "compatibility box" you need to add an additional 512K, a total of 2MB. Jim Bartimo also mentions that it will currently run you $500-600 for a memory card (512K!). That seems a bit high to me, can anyone confirm it? Also mentioned is the fact that currently the only OS/2 program is ThinkTank (can you say MacPaint/MacWrite?), and that other companies are waiting for the Presentation manager to be delivered (ETA: OCTOBER NINETEEN HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT!). I just went through and tested a bunch of system utility type stuff written in 1984-1985 that I got for my mac128K, on my MacII. About 90% of the stuff worked just dandy, with few side effects (granted, things like memory tests and disk tests failed). These were written with only the "Promotional Edition" of Inside Mac available as documentation, and probably written on a Lisa. I'd say that chances of an original version of some utility for the IBM PC would have less of a chance of running on a PS/2 machine. Although I have my problems with Apple, and was not pleased with them during the $1000-for-a-384K-upgrade days for one of the folks who *BOUGHT* a 128K mac for $2500, but they still make the best box on the market, and certaily are better to their customer base than big blue. End of soapbox. -------------------- Ken Wallich *My views are mine, and mine alone* Consultant "Slimey? Mud Hole? my HOME this is!" DCI kwallich@hpsmtc1.HP.COM @Hewlett Packard ...hplabs!hpsmtc1!kwallich "Why am I soft in the middle, when the rest of my life is so hard? - P.Simon"
akk2@ur-tut.UUCP (Atul Kacker) (12/24/87)
In article <11540095@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> kwallich@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (Ken Wallich) writes: >Something left out of the discussion was that IBM does provide a >"compatability mode" to run old MS-DOS programs. I quote here >from the article "IBM confirms in the OS/2 manual that many >MS-DOS progams won't run, including some communications programs, >networked programs, and a miscellanea of others". > >I just went through and tested a bunch of system utility type stuff written >in 1984-1985 that I got for my mac128K, on my MacII. About 90% of the >stuff worked just dandy, with few side effects (granted, things like >memory tests and disk tests failed). For the life of me, I can't understand why *all* programs written for a circa 1981 IBM PC should run as is on a circa 1988 PS/2 ? It is a machine with a significantly new architecture, will run a different operating system and hence only programs that are written with that in mind will work. Most programs will work with some modifications, which I'm sure the software companies will do. It's just like saying that Apple should have made sure that my Apple // programs would work as is, before they came out with the Mac. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Atul Kacker | Internet: akk2@tut.cc.rochester.edu | UUCP: {ames,cmcl2,decvax,rutgers}!rochester!ur-tut!akk2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kwallich@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (Ken Wallich) (12/29/87)
>For the life of me, I can't understand why *all* programs written for a circa >1981 IBM PC should run as is on a circa 1988 PS/2 ? It is a machine with >a significantly new architecture, will run a different operating system and >hence only programs that are written with that in mind will work. ---------- What I was trying to get across is that a "compatability mode" should be just that. HP, Dec, and IBM have all come out with "new architectures", and provided "compatability modes" which ran over 90% of their old software base. The software may not have run as fast, but it did RUN, with NO modifications. there is no reason (other than insufficient resources, or lack of desire to "do it right") to not have a very compatable system. The fact that my MacII can run over 90% of the old software for my Mac128 shows that if the company wants to, they can design compatable software. Granted, it is a design philosophy question, but I am tired of IBM not getting roasted for showing no interest in its customers. Apple has done some really stupid things, and has tried to rip me off for hardware upgrades, but their have been alternatives, and the basic software they deliver is solid and amazingly COMPATABLE! Anyway, I don't want to get into a "compatability war". I do understand the marketing reasons for this type of a move, and they are valid to some extent, however since my Mac can run MS-Dos programs with the addition of a card, the least IBM could have done was to provide a AT card, so purchasers of the PS/2 with OS/2 could run other folks software. I'm sure some third party has a board prototyped already... ken
stevel@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU (Steve Ligett) (12/29/87)
In article <37250@sun.uucp> chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >For all those folks who complain about how Apple has left you in the lurch >over compatibility, I thought I'd toss in a few comments about how IBM has >been handling compatibility over in PCland. The details are from the 12/20 >San Jose Mercury News, by the way. >Mac compatibility problems:... >IBM compatibility: IBM came out with the new PS/2 line. You own an AT? or an >XT? or an old, moldy PC? You're out of luck. Obsolete. Burn it and buy a >new, neat, nifty IBM (remember, folks, the original IBM PC is about the same >age as a 128K machine. in the same frame that Apple put together an upgrade >path (to the plus) and a second architecture (the II -- the SE is basically >a funky Plus in my eyes) IBM obsoleted the PC, the XT and now the AT. More accurately, the PC corresponds to the 128k mac - both of which have had ROM, disk drive, memory, and third party processor upgrades. And numerous system software changes, including new file systems. The AT might correspond to the Plus. The PS/2 corresponds to the Mac II, sort of. roughly... The AT is by no means obsolete, or at least no more than a Plus. (And remember, the AT came out before the 512K.) >It's even more fun on the software side. Remember MS-DOS? Toss it out. >There's this neat new toy called OS/2 ..... >...IBM ships as the standard configuration a >system without enough memory to run its operating system. IBM doesn't force you to run OS/2 any more than Apple forces you to use multifinder. Multifinder isn't as big as OS/2, but really, it's silly for either company to sell a machine with less than 2 megabytes in it, isn't it? I apologize for cutting down Chuq's article so much, and for leaving it so long. -- Steve Ligett steve.ligett@dartmouth.edu or (decvax harvard ihnp4 linus)!dartvax!steve.ligett
merchant@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU (Peter Merchant) (12/30/87)
In article <761@ur-tut.UUCP>, akk2@ur-tut.UUCP (Atul Kacker) writes: > For the life of me, I can't understand why *all* programs written for a circa > 1981 IBM PC should run as is on a circa 1988 PS/2 ? It is a machine with > a significantly new architecture, will run a different operating system and > hence only programs that are written with that in mind will work. Most programs > will work with some modifications, which I'm sure the software companies will > do. > > It's just like saying that Apple should have made sure that my Apple // programs > would work as is, before they came out with the Mac. I don't think that there is as wide a difference between IBM PCs and PS/2 as there is between Apple IIs and Macintoshes. Apple never even claimed that any programs would run. IBM claims that some programs will. There is a high degree of compatibility up and down the Macintosh line. For all currently produced Macintoshes (I leave out 128K, 512K, and 512KE) you can use the operating system you get with the machine, Finder 6.0 and System 4.2. For the PS/2 model 25 and model 30 and the Convertible, you use IBM PC-DOS. For the PS/2 model 50, 60, and 80s you use OS/2. Gads! Problems with the model 50, 60, 80s I suppose I can understand. First, the BIOS is different because of the different operating system and second, it is not the original chip that inspired PC-DOS. On what do you blame difficulties with the model 30 and the model 25? -- "Say you will, Say you won't..." Peter Merchant (merchant@dartvax.UUCP)
mccarthy@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (12/31/87)
Hi there.
I read this note and felt a tinge of uneasiness about what it was
saying... then, later, I realized why.
Written 11:50 pm Dec 22, 1987 by chuq@plaid.Sun.COM in comp.sys.mac
>For all those folks who complain about how Apple has left you in the lurch
>over compatibility,[....]
>in the same frame that Apple put together an upgrade
>path (to the plus) and a second architecture (the II -- the SE is basically
>a funky Plus in my eyes) IBM obsoleted the PC, the XT and now the AT.
>Upgrade paths? What upgrade paths?
Are you comparing the right things here? I don't think the comparison is
totally valid. How about this one: did Apple do anything more towards
making Macs (actually Lisas back then) compatible with their Apple ][ line
than what IBM is doing with their move from PC to PS/2? Just because SE's
and II's came out at about the same time as PS/2's did doesn't mean they're
the same kind of upgrade, and just because Apple came out with their new product
line about half a decade sooner than IBM doesn't mean their hands are clean
of non-upwardly-compatible griminess either.
>Say what you like about Apple. You won't get much sympathy from me. Apple
>has gone to great lengths to maintain compatibility and minimize the impact
>to its users.
Don't get me wrong; I love Apple. I was practically weaned on the things
(Apple ]['s, with INTEGER Basic, how's that for a trip down memory lane) back
in high school. I think they'll continue to come out with consistently
superior products to IBM at least half a decade before Big Blue even starts
thinking about them. But like I said, compatibility between their product
lines has historically not been one of their strongest points.
>Chuq "Fixed in 4.0" Von Rospach
_____ _____
D. J. McCarthy
{ihnp4, seismo, cmcl2, pur-ee} !uiucdcs!uiucuxe!mccarthy
mccarthy%uiucuxe@a.cs.uiuc.edu
"Radar, get Major Burns and his spreadsheet up here on the double."
"That's not a nice thing to call Major Houlihan, Colonel."farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (01/01/88)
In article <37250@sun.uucp> chuq@plaid.UUCP writes: >For all those folks who complain about how Apple has left you in the lurch >over compatibility, I thought I'd toss in a few comments about how IBM has >been handling compatibility over in PCland. The details are from the 12/20 >San Jose Mercury News, by the way. Chuq, Chuq, Chuq... I expected better from you. Relying on a rag like the Mercury News for information. Much better for you to have asked any of the people who know the IBM PC - you would have gotten a much more realistic answer. >IBM compatibility: IBM came out with the new PS/2 line. You own an AT? or an >XT? or an old, moldy PC? You're out of luck. Obsolete. Burn it and buy a >new, neat, nifty IBM (remember, folks, the original IBM PC is about the same >age as a 128K machine. in the same frame that Apple put together an upgrade >path (to the plus) and a second architecture (the II -- the SE is basically >a funky Plus in my eyes) IBM obsoleted the PC, the XT and now the AT. >Upgrade paths? What upgrade paths? No upgrade paths, but then, try and get Apple to upgrade your 128K Mac to a Mac II. The older architectures are NOT obsolete, any more than the original Mac architecture is obsolete. While IBM may have stopped making the original style PC's, they still work fine, and run most of the current round of software - my personal machine is one of the original PCs with the cassette port, and runs all of the latest software (short of OS/2) with ease. >It's even more fun on the software side. Remember MS-DOS? Toss it out. >There's this neat new toy called OS/2 that is going to replace everything >you ever new about operating systems. Or, at least, it will when they finish >it. Even more fun, the pre-releases of OS/2 need (get this) 1.5 megabytes of >memory to get started. The standard memory in a PS/2 computer? A megabyte. Well, compare OS/2 to A/UX - that's the reasonable comparison here. Nobody at IBM is requiring anyone to run OS/2, MS-DOS still works, and works just fine, thank you. Let's look at Apple, shall we? The last I heard, A/UX requires 2 megabytes of memory to get started. The standard memory in a Mac II? A megabyte. Remember, multifinder-like things for MS-DOS have been available for years. I used to run one - DoubleDos. Worked just fine for almost everything I ever tried to do (including comm programs). You can't compare multifinder to OS/2. Again, the appropriate comparison is between OS/2 and A/UX. >But when you compare [what Apple is doing] with what IBM is >doing in the same market -- actively tossing computers, operating systems, >and complete architectures out the window, setting configurations and prices >in ways that force users to buy expensive upgrades to get functional, and >trying to make old hardware not just slower, but unable to access the new >technology, I think you'll have to admit that Apple ain't all that bad. Apples and oranges, Chuq. Not to mention damn lies (or, at best, very misleading statements). The new line of IBM's does not, I repeat, does NOT, make the older models obsolete. One by one: "actively tossing computers" - something EVERY manufacturer does. Have you tried to buy a Mac 512e on the retail market lately? "operating systems" - MS-DOS is still around, and runs on ALL of the PS/2 line. "complete architectures" - not at all. The major change in the architecture is the addition of the microchannel I/O bus, and is no different than Apple adding NuBus to the Mac II. Would you have rather they made the Mac II I/O cards Apple II compatible? At any event, for most applications, the change will be transparent to the user anyway. "... expensive upgrades to get functional" - not at all. If you are willing to stay with MS-DOS, the PS/2 machines function perfectly well right out of the box. Now, I'm not trying to JUSTIFY staying with MS-DOS, mind you :-) If you decide to go to a multitasking operating system, yes, you may have to upgrade. But, again, the 'standard' Mac II system will not allow you to run A/UX, either. "Trying to make old hardware ... unable to access the new technology" - Bushwah. OS/2 will run just fine on an AT. It won't run on an ordinary PC, but then, neither will A/UX run on a 68000. The other issues of compatibility are being addressed - you can, right now, get a card which will allow ANY PC to have the graphics capablility of the PS/2 line. You can get equivalent hardware for almost every function that is supported on the PS/2 line for your ordinary PCs. What you can't do is take advantage of the microchannel I/O, but then, your basic Mac users can't use NuBus cards, either... In short, blasting IBM for compatibility problems is a fairly stupid thing to do. In comparison with Apple, IBM comes out OK. In comparison to IBM, Apple comes out OK. Mindless bashing of either machine is dumb, dumb, dumb, and not at all what I would have expected from the man that wrote the primer on using Usenet intelligently. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
tedj@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Ted Johnson) (01/02/88)
/ hpcilzb:comp.sys.mac / merchant@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU (Peter Merchant) / 2:07 pm Dec 29, 1987 / >> It's just like saying that Apple should have made sure that my Apple // programs >> would work as is, before they came out with the Mac. >there is between Apple IIs and Macintoshes. Apple never even claimed that any >programs would run. IBM claims that some programs will. For the record, I think there is an emulation program which WILL allow you to run Apple II programs on a Mac. Saw it in a magazine somewhere... -Ted
rhc@ptsfa.UUCP (Robert Cohen) (01/02/88)
In article <497@gethen.UUCP>, farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: > In article <37250@sun.uucp> chuq@plaid.UUCP writes: > >... Folks, This sounds more and more like a religious discussion. How about a new group: comp.sys.religion??? :-))) -- Robert Cohen San Ramon, California {ihnp4,lll-crg,qantel,pyramid}!ptsfa!rhc
phil@apple.UUCP (Phil Ronzone) (01/03/88)
In article <497@gethen.UUCP> farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: >In article <37250@sun.uucp> chuq@plaid.UUCP writes: >>For all those folks who complain about how Apple has left you in the lurch ... >Chuq, Chuq, Chuq... I expected better from you. Relying on a rag like > >Well, compare OS/2 to A/UX - that's the reasonable comparison here. >Nobody at IBM is requiring anyone to run OS/2, MS-DOS still works, and >works just fine, thank you. Let's look at Apple, shall we? The last I >heard, A/UX requires 2 megabytes of memory to get started. The standard >memory in a Mac II? A megabyte. > >... You can't >compare multifinder to OS/2. Again, the appropriate comparison is >between OS/2 and A/UX. > >... OS/2 will run just fine on an AT. It won't >run on an ordinary PC, but then, neither will A/UX run on a 68000. The >other issues of compatibility are being addressed - you can, right now, >get a card which will allow ANY PC to have the graphics capablility of >the PS/2 line. You can get equivalent hardware for almost every >function that is supported on the PS/2 line for your ordinary PCs. ... >Mindless bashing of either machine is dumb, >dumb, dumb, and not at all what I would have expected from the man that >wrote the primer on using Usenet intelligently. > >-- >Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just Ahem - much throat clearing and all here. Obviously capable of being called a biased party, nonetheless, I wish to speak up, indirectly perhaps, in defense of Chuq. First, A/UX does specify a minimum of 2 megabytes to get started. Even worse, you might say, it really wants at least 4-5 megabytes if you have configured in NFS or the Toolbox etc. But, if you really really really wanted to, you could throw just about everything out that is autoconfigurable, cut things like NBUFS down to 20 (:-) ?) etc., and ya can get it up in a megabyte. HOWEVER, more to the point, A/UX is an ALTERNATIVE operating system for the Mac II (our very own PR words) - it is not the definite, preferred only-way-to-go-forward answer that OS/2 seems to be reported in the trade press as. Correct me if I are wrong ... A/UX runs on a 68000, the 68020 to be precise. I suppose you might call it dependent, since 68000 and 68010 don't support exactly the PMMU the way we use it. More to the point, 68000 UNIX programs RUN UNCHANGED under A/UX. PERIOD. IST KLAR? JA! (Code execution unchanged - system call oddball ordering etc. doesn't count). But to really support what Chuq is saying (I think and thus presume), you don't have to buy extra hardware to run Mac binaries on a Mac 128K, Mac 512, Mac 512E, Mac+, or Mac II that ALSO RUN UNDER A/UX. Because we really sweated to get the launch program under A/UX to be backwards compatible. I do not know how IBM does their software (actually not true, but I will throw no stones) -- but here at Apple, we spend a lot of time asking ourselves things like "would we want this done to US??? Noooo, so let's not do it ..." and "will this make more programs run under the new XYZ widget?". Sometimes we find that we done "something less than optimal" that is so painful that we got to change it. We always wince, because we know the moans that arise when an application breaks. Believe me -- we care. And as for not being able to upgrade a 128K Mac to a Mac II, well, if the boards would have fit, we would 'uv done it. O.K.? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Philip K. Ronzone, A/UX Technical Manager APPLELINK: RONZONE1 Apple Computer, Mail Stop 27AJ, 10500 N. DeAnza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 UUCP: ...!{sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual,unisoft}!apple!phil
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (01/03/88)
In article <3972@ptsfa.UUCP> rhc@ptsfa.UUCP (Robert Cohen) writes: >Folks, >This sounds more and more like a religious discussion. How about a new >group: comp.sys.religion??? :-))) Well, for my part, at any rate, I wasn't trying to institute a religious discussion - I was only pointing out severe inaccuracies in Chuq's (and, presumably, the Mercury News') posting. I've long since given up trying to cut down the Mac (except amongst friends, of course :-). Actually, the discussion on this subject has been pretty reasonable so far. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (01/05/88)
In article <3972@ptsfa.UUCP>, rhc@ptsfa.UUCP (Robert Cohen) writes: > In article <497@gethen.UUCP>, farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: > > Folks, > This sounds more and more like a religious discussion. How about a new > group: comp.sys.religion??? :-))) Never work...you'd not get a word in edgewise past the Forth sermonisers. (What do you *mean* you sent my Nomex undies to the laundry??? I need them *NOW*!!) :} seh
B5U@PSUVMA.BITNET (George A. Brownfield) (01/06/88)
Well, I know Chuq doesn't care to read or reply to flames, and he has been
taking some heat - some of it deserved. But there is a point or two here that
I consider invalid so here comes my $0.02:
In article <497@gethen.UUCP>, farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) says:
>
>In article <37250@sun.uucp> chuq@plaid.UUCP writes:
>
>No upgrade paths, but then, try and get Apple to upgrade your 128K Mac
>to a Mac II. The older architectures are NOT obsolete, any more than
>the original Mac architecture is obsolete. While IBM may have stopped
>making the original style PC's, they still work fine, and run most of
>the current round of software - my personal machine is one of the
>original PCs with the cassette port, and runs all of the latest software
>(short of OS/2) with ease.
>
Sorry, but I feel Chuq is right here. There is no way any version of th
PC is going to be supporting new software running OS/2, whereas my Mac+
runs the latest version of Finder/System just dandy.
>>It's even more fun on the software side. Remember MS-DOS? Toss it out.
>>There's this neat new toy called OS/2 that is going to replace everything
>>you ever new about operating systems. Or, at least, it will when they finish
>>it. Even more fun, the pre-releases of OS/2 need (get this) 1.5 megabytes of
>>memory to get started. The standard memory in a PS/2 computer? A megabyte.
>
>Well, compare OS/2 to A/UX - that's the reasonable comparison here.
>Nobody at IBM is requiring anyone to run OS/2, MS-DOS still works, and
>works just fine, thank you. Let's look at Apple, shall we? The last I
>heard, A/UX requires 2 megabytes of memory to get started. The standard
>memory in a Mac II? A megabyte.
>
Here again I agree with Chuq. OS/2 is supposed to replace MS-DOS. You
can't run it without a memory upgrade. I can run Finder/System/Multi-
Finder without one on my Mac+, though I can only open 2 or 3 programs at
once. Also, A/UX is not designed to replace Finder/System, but to allow
it to run UNIX for those that want to. And I believe it is a little
easier to upgrade a Mac ][ by plugging in memeory boards than it is on
the PS/2.
>Remember, multifinder-like things for MS-DOS have been available for
>years. I used to run one - DoubleDos. Worked just fine for almost
>everything I ever tried to do (including comm programs). You can't
>compare multifinder to OS/2. Again, the appropriate comparison is
>between OS/2 and A/UX.
>
>>But when you compare [what Apple is doing] with what IBM is
>>doing in the same market -- actively tossing computers, operating systems,
>>and complete architectures out the window, setting configurations and prices
>>in ways that force users to buy expensive upgrades to get functional, and
>>trying to make old hardware not just slower, but unable to access the new
>>technology, I think you'll have to admit that Apple ain't all that bad.
>
>Apples and oranges, Chuq. Not to mention damn lies (or, at best, very
>misleading statements). The new line of IBM's does not, I repeat, does
>NOT, make the older models obsolete. One by one: "actively tossing
>computers" - something EVERY manufacturer does. Have you tried to buy a
>Mac 512e on the retail market lately? "operating systems" - MS-DOS is
>still around, and runs on ALL of the PS/2 line. "complete
>architectures" - not at all. The major change in the architecture is
>the addition of the microchannel I/O bus, and is no different than Apple
>adding NuBus to the Mac II. Would you have rather they made the Mac II
>I/O cards Apple II compatible? At any event, for most applications, the
>change will be transparent to the user anyway. "... expensive upgrades
>to get functional" - not at all. If you are willing to stay with
>MS-DOS, the PS/2 machines function perfectly well right out of the box.
>Now, I'm not trying to JUSTIFY staying with MS-DOS, mind you :-) If you
>decide to go to a multitasking operating system, yes, you may have to
>upgrade. But, again, the 'standard' Mac II system will not allow you to
>run A/UX, either. "Trying to make old hardware ... unable to access the
>new technology" - Bushwah. OS/2 will run just fine on an AT. It won't
>run on an ordinary PC, but then, neither will A/UX run on a 68000. The
>other issues of compatibility are being addressed - you can, right now,
>get a card which will allow ANY PC to have the graphics capablility of
>the PS/2 line. You can get equivalent hardware for almost every
>function that is supported on the PS/2 line for your ordinary PCs. What
>you can't do is take advantage of the microchannel I/O, but then, your
>basic Mac users can't use NuBus cards, either...
>
>In short, blasting IBM for compatibility problems is a fairly stupid
>thing to do. In comparison with Apple, IBM comes out OK. In comparison
>to IBM, Apple comes out OK. Mindless bashing of either machine is dumb,
>dumb, dumb, and not at all what I would have expected from the man that
>wrote the primer on using Usenet intelligently.
>
>--
>Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just
Yes, Chuq may have indulged in a little machine bashing, true. But I still
agree that OS/2 is getting to be a little ridiculous if half of the rumors are
true as to the size of disk/memory needed, and the point of the article (in my
mind) was that OS/2 will have a bear of a time being used on PC's, where that
problem doesn't exist now on the Mac.
-------
George A. Brownfield B5U @ PSUVMA
Aerospace Engineering Major B5U @ PSUVM
The Pennsylvania State University
BITNET: B5U @ PSUVM (down until late January, try GAB @ PSUECL)
UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!psuvax1!psuvma.bitnet!b5u
"Women, cats, and golf; man was not ment to understand these things."
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (01/06/88)
In article <7119@apple.UUCP> phil@apple.UUCP (Phil Ronzone) writes: >HOWEVER, more to the point, A/UX is an ALTERNATIVE operating system >for the Mac II (our very own PR words) - it is not the definite, preferred >only-way-to-go-forward answer that OS/2 seems to be reported in the trade >press as. Correct me if I are wrong ... I think you is wrong... MS-DOS isn't going away. OS/2 may be the 'preferred' OS for the PS/2 series, but that doesn't mean much - MS-DOS is going to dominate the market for a long time to come. >A/UX runs on a 68000, the 68020 to be precise. That's begging the question. The 68020 is NOT the same processor as the 68000, and all 68000 software does NOT run on a 68020. If you guys believe that it does, it's no wonder A/UX is taking so long :-) >But to really support what Chuq is saying (I think and thus presume), you >don't have to buy extra hardware to run Mac binaries on a Mac 128K, Mac 512, >Mac 512E, Mac+, or Mac II that ALSO RUN UNDER A/UX. Because we really sweated >to get the launch program under A/UX to be backwards compatible. And you don't have to buy extra hardware to run MS-DOS binaries which will also run under OS/2, either. So there, nyah, nyah, nyah :-) >And as for not being able to upgrade a 128K Mac to a Mac II, well, if the >boards would have fit, we would 'uv done it. O.K.? Not the point. You didn't do it, 'cause it couldn't be done. Same as IBM. O.K.? Come on. I'm trying very hard not to knock the Mac, or Apple. All I'm asking is that you guys work as hard not to knock the IBM line, especially on inappropriate or false grounds. There's plenty to knock IBM for, Ghod knows, and there is also plenty to knock Apple for. If we concentrate our efforts on trying to make the bad parts good, on BOTH machines, then the net result will be TWO good machines, and I can't see that as a losing proposition. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) (01/08/88)
As a PS/2 model 80 owner, I have a few objections....... A. My 1 megabyte version came with enough memory to run five (5) operating systems: MS-DOS 3.3 XENIX (can you run UNIX on your 128k mac??) CP/M PC-MOS (a virtual 8086 os) QNX B. The next megabyte of memory cost me just $411 That works to be about 100 dollars per 256 K and thats with the board friends. C. With this memory I had all I needed to run OS/2. And kermit works just fine, including the vt102 emulator. D. I have a 1981 pc it runs the newest version of MS-DOS just dandy! allong with all of the associated programs. E. There are at least a dozen ways I could upgrade the machine this machine to run OS/2 if I wanted to. I don't want to. F. Finally, IBM would much rather have you by a newer machine than upgrade to a new one. Ask an apple rep how to upgrade your mac 128k so it will run the new apple multitasking os A/UX... Ask him how to up grade it so it will have a color screen.... using APPLE products. reply to me... unccvax!cbenda@mcnc.org decvax!mcnc!unccvax!cbenda /Carl
gleicher@duke.cs.duke.edu (Michael Gleicher) (01/08/88)
Up until 2 weeks ago, I was an avid MacHater & PC user. But I have seen the light, so I have some comments. I'm absolutely sick of the debate, but at least I now can see both sides. There are pros to the PC world, but they weren't discussed here. Please flame me directly. (this article is not meant as a blow to the author, or to convey a "mines better", more like "gather all evidence and consider it before you talk") In article <880@unccvax.UUCP> cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) writes: > >As a PS/2 model 80 owner, I have a few objections....... > >A. My 1 megabyte version came with enough memory to run > five (5) operating systems: > MS-DOS 3.3 > XENIX (can you run UNIX on your 128k mac??) > CP/M > PC-MOS (a virtual 8086 os) > QNX Let me see you run ANY of these on a 48K PC (yes some of us are long time PC users). Don't knock a 128K mac unless you're going to compare it with its equivalent, a 256K PC. Besides, the 1 that I have on my Mac ][, has advantages over any of these (except for 1 you don't mention): A graphical, windowing user interface that is seemlessly integrated with all the old programs. >B. The next megabyte of memory cost me just $411 That works ... I'd say you got ripped off. I payed $900 for 4 (count'em !) megabytes! And, ALL my software can take advantage of it! >C. With this memory I had all I needed to run OS/2. And kermit In a megabyte I could run any single program I have. With 5, I can run a whole bunch. >F. Finally, IBM would much rather have you by a newer machine > than upgrade to a new one. Ask an apple rep how to upgrade > your mac 128k so it will run the new apple multitasking os > A/UX... Ask him how to up grade it so it will have a color > screen.... using APPLE products. Score 1 for Apple. They acknowledge, accept, and encorage third party support. IBM tries to scare it away. Admittedly, there were some problems with the early machines. Lack of expandability was the biggest. But apple has gotten better. >reply to me... >unccvax!cbenda@mcnc.org Mike