han@apple.UUCP (Byron Han) (06/16/87)
Howdy. Just thought that Macintosh II looks better than Macintosh ][.
It is Apple ][ not Apple II. It is also Apple // sometimes. But it
is never Macintosh ][.
I am just bored and it is early Tuesday morning here so here is some
contentless garbage.
=====================================================================
Byron Han | UUCP: {sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual}!apple!han
Apple Computer, Inc. | CSNET: han@apple.csnet
20525 Mariani Ave, | ATTNet: 408-973-6450
Cupertino, CA 95014 | GENIE: BYRONHAN APPLELINK: HAN1
MS 27Y | CSERVE: 72167,1664
=====================================================================
All opinions and statements do not necessarily represent those of my
employer, Apple Computer Inc.
=====================================================================gustav@swanee.OZ (Gustav) (06/21/87)
In article <1051@apple.UUCP>, han@apple.UUCP (Byron Han) writes: > Howdy. Just thought that Macintosh II looks better than Macintosh ][. Actually, Mac ][ is quite OK, the more so as it sticks to the tradition. Apple ][ revolutionized in some sense computing being the first affordable micro - Mac ][ possibly will be the first affordable supermicro with the consequent next revolution in sight. ARPA : gustav%swanee.oz@seismo.css.gov UUCP : ...!{seismo,mcvax,ucb-vision,uks}!munnari!swanee.oz!gustav
dtw@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Duane Williams) (06/21/87)
| | Mac ][ possibly will be the first affordable supermicro with the consequent | next revolution in sight. A low end Sun 3 is the same class machine as a fully decked out Mac II and I can purchase either for about the same price. (I can't say exactly how much difference there is because I haven't seen an official price on Apple's version of UNIX.) I'll bet the difference is under $1000 and I don't know which would be cheaper. The Mac II is roughly a small Sun 3 with the Mac ROMS added on. I see no "revolution" here.
jamin@thoth15.BERKELEY.EDU (06/27/87)
In article <336@swanee.OZ> gustav@swanee.OZ (Gustav) writes: > >ac ][ possibly will be the first affordable >supermicro with the consequent next revolution in sight. > Did you say affordable? Pardon me, just curious. Sugih Jamin (jamin@bartleby.berkeley.edu)
gustav@swanee.UUCP (07/04/87)
In article <4131@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, jamin@thoth15.BERKELEY.EDU writes: > In article <336@swanee.OZ> gustav@swanee.OZ (Gustav) writes: > > > >Mac ][ possibly will be the first affordable > >supermicro with the consequent next revolution in sight. > > > > Did you say affordable? Pardon me, just curious. Well, affordability, like beauty is all in the eye of beholder. Sure, I wish Mac ][ was cheaper, and so would everybody else, yet if a machine capable of running full UNIX V with all sort of extras and full 32 bit architecture costs as much as, say, a new medium range car, then one can venture an opinion that it is affordable, at least, for a "working professional". Whether the above mentioned "working professional" would like to spend as much money on a UNIX workstation as he/she would be willing to spend on a new car is another question, question of priorities, should I say. Having said that, I wonder if anybody (Apple?) can tell me precisely what is the minimum configuration required to run effectively A/UX? I am just about to make up my mind about my priorities. ARPA : gustav%swanee.oz@seismo.css.gov UUCP : ...!{seismo,mcvax,ucb-vision,uks}!munnari!swanee.oz!gustav
spector@acf3.NYU.EDU (David HM Spector) (07/06/87)
No "revolution", eh? A Macintosh II may be comparable in "hardware" to a
Sun3 ( I disagree, actually, a MacintoshII is a much better thought out piece
of hardware), but a Sun3 is LIGHTYEARS behind a Macintosh, of any flavour, in
terms of software engineering. Despite all of this hype about Unix on
Macintosh most "real"(*) computer users have no use for Unix (no flames please,
I manage a few Unix systems...), but rather the software that runs on a Mac *AS*
a Macintosh! I don't have to enumerate the packages available on a Macintosh,
do I?
There are a few things that would have been "nice" to see in the MacintoshII
like (as a friend of mine often points out) DMA, a faster 68020 maybe, but all
in all, the MacII is a pretty heavy duty CONSUMER machine(read: Personal
Computer). Suns, by the way, are not CONSUMER machines, I have yet to be able
to walk into my local ComputerLand and say to the salesthing,
"Hey, I want a Sun3 with 4.x, nnnMb of disk, ...etc".
I don't mean this to be a flame... I hope it didn't come across that way --'kay?
(*)
"real" being the class of person that buys, or uses a personal computer - most
middle managers and small business people that use Macintoshes and MS-DOS
machines don't use Unix machines or any machine other than their personal
computers...they depend upon commercially available software to achieve some
goal, like running a business,..tasks that are not usually come with standard
unix systems that are for the most part, programming environments.
Dave Spector
Senior Systems Programmer
Academic Computing Center
Graduate School of Business Adminstration, New York University
Spector@NYU
...!{allegra, seismo, inhp4, harvard}!cmcl2!spector
Relay-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf3.NYU.EDU
From: russell@acf3.NYU.EDU (Bill Russell)
Date: 5-Jul-87 19:55 EDT
Date-Received: 5-Jul-87 19:55 EDT
Subject: Re: Control Panel vs. Chooser
Message-ID: <170008@acf3.NYU.EDU>
Path: acf3!russell
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf3.NYU.EDU
Organization: New York University
References: <1170@k.cs.cmu.edu>
/* acf3:comp.sys.mac / abr@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Adam B Rosen) / 3:10 pm Jul 5, 1987 */
In article <1170@k.cs.cmu.edu> wrs@k.cs.cmu.edu (Walter Smith) writes:
>It seems to me that since the Control Panel is now fully extensible (nice
>job, by the way), the Chooser is superfluous. Why isn't there a "Printers"
>cdev that lets you set the current printer (which darn well tells you what
>printer you're already using, unlike the Chooser) and other cdevs for
>whatever file servers, mail servers, or other weird stuff you install?
>
>It seems that the difference in functionality between the Chooser and the
>Control Panel is not at all well defined. How does one decide where things
>like "Startup Device" go? You're choosing a startup device, right? The
>cdev just displays a list of startup devices, from which one is chosen,
>right? Sounds like a Chooser task to me. Choosing which file server to use
>seems just as valid in the Control Panel as in the Chooser. When I first
>used AppleShare, I wandered around for about five minutes trying to figure
>out how to log in. Never occurred to me to look in the Chooser.
>
>The Chooser is a bunch of AppleTalk stuff added to Choose Printer, retaining
>the serial port assignment task and adding near-arbitrary extension
>capability with which all sorts of strange things are being added. It seems
>like these two extensible configuration-changing DAs are competing with each
>other for functionality. Remember when turning AppleTalk on and off bounced
>around between the Control Panel and Choose Printer/Chooser?
>
>Having both of these things seems like unnecessary confusion and, less
>importantly, waste of the precious, arbitrarily limited DA space.
>
This is a good point. Before I acquired my own Mac and began using it extensively
I was often confused as to where to set the various things necessary to print
something out. The chooser always seemed to be the most undefined DA that one HAD
to use if they switched between ImageWriter and LaserWriter. Having had a fair
amount of experience using various different kinds of computers and still being
puzzled over this at first made me wonder how many non-technical people struggled
with this too.
Putting both Control Panel and Chooser functions together seems logical, and the
Control Panel seems the best place; from here you set all the switches the
machine requires. Also, I think the Print option should be somewhat standardized
among applications. There should be a line that says "CURRENT PRINTER IS:
{ImageWriter, LaserWriter, etc} in the usual ImageWriter, LaserWriter dialog box,
and then a click-button which says "CHANGE PRINTER". Choosing Change Printer
would automatically invoke the Control Panel DA, with Choose Printer module
selected, and, after you made your choice, you would be returned to the chosen
printer's dialog box. The AppleTalk on/off switch could be in the printer module
also.
Something along these lines would obviate the need for Chooser, make things easier
all around and build upon the new (and improved) modular Control Panel.
Adam B. Rosen
/* ----------6'6munson@renoir.Berkeley.EDU (Ethan V. Munson) (07/06/87)
In article <80@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu> dtw@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Duane Williams) writes: >| >| Mac ][ possibly will be the first affordable supermicro with the consequent >| next revolution in sight. > >A low end Sun 3 is the same class machine as a fully decked out Mac II and I >can purchase either for about the same price. (I can't say exactly how much >difference there is because I haven't seen an official price on Apple's >version of UNIX.) I'll bet the difference is under $1000 and I don't know >which would be cheaper. The Mac II is roughly a small Sun 3 with the Mac >ROMS added on. I see no "revolution" here. The low-end Sun 3 has no disk, and cannot operate on a stand-alone basis. It must be connected to either a network disk or a local shoebox drive to be able to run anything besides its low-level monitor OS. Color is more expensive than for the MacII and the Sun has no inherent graphics support (Quickdraw or Graphics chip). The Sun does have two different Ethernet configurations available, comes with a nice, large monitor and is designed around a good programming environment. A 3/50 (which I think you are referring to) is also usually shipped with 4 Meg of memory. A Mac II would be very useful to a small business given a $1000-$2000 software investment. A Sun, probably even with a shoebox drive, would still be very expensive to make useful. In contrast, here at UC Berkeley, a Sun 3/50 is only half the price of a Mac II that has enough extras to be a useful workstation (40Meg+ drive, A/UX, MMU, 4Meg Memory, ...) and probably integrates better with our existing 4.3bsd system centered around X. For the small-to-medium business environment that is typically built around the medium-tech IBM PC/clone with or without a network, the Mac II with vastly more memory, better color, high performance and, most importantly, a better user interface may really be a revolution. Ethan Munson munson@renoir.berkeley.edu ...ucbvax!renoir!munson
ali@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Ali Ozer) (07/06/87)
In article <170009@acf3.NYU.EDU> David HM Spector writes: >No "revolution", eh? A Macintosh II may be comparable in "hardware" to a >Sun3 ( I disagree, actually, a MacintoshII is a much better thought out piece >of hardware), but a Sun3 is LIGHTYEARS behind a Macintosh, of any flavour, in >terms of software engineering. An operating system that forces me to sit and "twiddle my thumbs" (or anything equally silly, such as "look through the TV guide," "go bother the cat," "go get another can of pepsi," etc) while printing (or anything else you might want to do on your computer, such as "compiling," "transferring a file," "ray tracing," etc) just cannot be LIGHTYEARS ahead of Unix. At best it is five years behind. >Despite all of this hype about Unix on >Macintosh most "real"(*) computer users have no use for Unix... I am no fan of Unix but I prefer Unix over the Macintosh's OS any day. Even if the Mac OS came wrapped in a 25 Mhz 68020 and the Unix on a wimpy 750. The multitasking Unix would still more productive. Ali Ozer, ali@rocky.stanford.edu
spector@acf3.UUCP (07/07/87)
>An operating system that forces me to sit and "twiddle my thumbs" >(or anything equally silly, such as "look through the TV guide," >"go bother the cat," "go get another can of pepsi," etc) while >printing (or anything else you might want to do on your computer, >such as "compiling," "transferring a file," "ray tracing," etc) >just cannot be LIGHTYEARS ahead of Unix. At best it is five years >behind. > >>Despite all of this hype about Unix on >>Macintosh most "real"(*) computer users have no use for Unix... > >I am no fan of Unix but I prefer Unix over the Macintosh's OS any day. >Even if the Mac OS came wrapped in a 25 Mhz 68020 and the Unix on a >wimpy 750. The multitasking Unix would still more productive. > >Ali Ozer, ali@rocky.stanford.edu Yeah, I suppose you're right. Command line interfaces, commands like 'rm', 'ls', 'mv', i-nodes, and useful, full featured applications such as 'bc' are much more useful than a visual interface and Microsoft Excel on a Macintosh. :-) Seriously, multitasking would be a nice addition to the Macintosh evironment, but its absence doesn't mean that people (yes, "real" people) cannot get more use out of a Macintosh than out of a Unix box. Multitasking will be here soon enough though...its better that Apple (and every one else) has gotten most of the User Interface issues out of the way first. Not that there aren't going to be a lot of broken bits when Juggler, or whatever it'll be called when Apple releases it, comes out but those things will be fixable. Bad user interface design, poorly thought out applications, badly written manuals and other similar nasties are harder to fix in the long run. Granted, that if you are developing large software systems, and have to do large numbers of compilations, multitasking is nice..but I (and hundreds of other folk) have developed software without it. Waiting for printing isn't a major hassle(it gives me a chance to make another pot o'coffee), and if it is... buy a print spooler -- cost ya less than $100 (less than half the cost of a good compiler). In its current form, Unix is not a OS for the masses, no matter how often people try to make it one by stating that it is. It's a programmer's environment. (Some noble attempts have been/are being made tho --i.e. SunWindows X, et al..) In my other hat as a professional consultant, I deal with people ("real computer users" NOT programmers!) who don't have the time to WASTE learning how to use a computer. Remember, most of the people who USE computers are not programmers. In fact, in the real world, where people have to make money, run businesses, save lives, et al (not Universities where you and I work -- the ultimate in non real-world environments) if you tried to put Unix boxes in someones' office and then said "OK - Here's your computer, all you have to know to use it is in these 4 or 5 three inch thick manuals", you'd be lucky if you weren't run outta town on a rail! In fact the growing complexity of command line oriented personal computers (read: MS-DOS machines) is leading to incredible problems in support and training. 'wonder why IBM is trying to make the PS/2's look like small beige (and now "Platinum") boxes? As for productivity, there are many, many more things one can do with a Macintosh than any Unix system. For starters, take a look at Excel, MORE, Word, MacWrite, MacPaint, Illustrator, PageMaker, Express, MacDraw, etc, and so on. David HM Spector Senior Systems Programmer Academic Computing Center Graduate School of Business Administration, New York University SPECTOR@NYU.EDU ...!{seismo,allegra,inhp4}!cmcl2!spector Disclaimer: I have a Macintosh, I use one all day, every day, in fact I couldn't start my day without it. In addition, I write Macintosh software, and am obviously VERY biased towards the little critters. Despite all that I try to be completely objective in discussions such as this. ;-) *Oh, yeah. These are MY opinions, and my employer don't know nuthin about it.
elwell%tut.cis.ohio-state.edu@osu-eddie.UUCP (Clayton Elwell) (07/07/87)
In article <396@rocky.STANFORD.EDU> ali@rocky.UUCP (Ali Ozer) writes: >[...] > >An operating system that forces me to sit and "twiddle my thumbs" >(or anything equally silly, such as "look through the TV guide," >"go bother the cat," "go get another can of pepsi," etc) while >printing (or anything else you might want to do on your computer, >such as "compiling," "transferring a file," "ray tracing," etc) >just cannot be LIGHTYEARS ahead of Unix. At best it is five years >behind. > Oh, come on. I use a Mac Plus, a Mac II, a Sun 3/50, a Pyramid 98x, an Encore Multimax, and a DECSystem-2060, among others. I spend about the same proportion of my time waiting for each of these. Even on a nice, big, fast, multitasking machine, I end up going and getting a Coke after typing "make." Probably the biggest use I make of multitasking is to maintain several simultaneous connections to different machines, which I can do on a Mac 128K! The important metric here is not how much you can make the computer do at once, but how quickly you can accomplish what you set out to do. Many people do find it easier to get things done on a Mac. THIS IS AN ADVANTAGE! It means that for their purposes, the Mac OS is more advanced than UNIX. > >I am no fan of Unix but I prefer Unix over the Macintosh's OS any day. >Even if the Mac OS came wrapped in a 25 Mhz 68020 and the Unix on a >wimpy 750. The multitasking Unix would still more productive. > >Ali Ozer, ali@rocky.stanford.edu I'll believe it when I see a concrete example. -=- Clayton Elwell Arpa/CSNet: Elwell@Ohio-State.ARPA UUCP: ...!cbosgd!osu-eddie!elwell Voice: (614) 292-6546
bc@apple.UUCP (07/07/87)
Assuming you have a Mac II and a Laserwriter for development, (If you are willing to settle for an Imagewriter, then spool boxes are insanely cheap) if the only thing you need is background printing, then get LaserSpool or equivalent, and the cheeepest secondhand mac that will run it. Chances are, this config will be cheaper than some UN*X boxes that I would care to mention, with equivalent capabilities. And, when you are not spooling the Great American Program, you have a whole 'nother processor to test out your programs on. And you can have it Right Now, not Real Soon. (I'm not kidding. This is a cost-effective solution.) (DISCLAIM: My address may say "apple", but I'm an MIT student working here for the summer. They won't tell me their official opinions, so any resemblance is coincidental.)..................................bc
dlt@csun.UUCP (Dave Thompson) (07/09/87)
In article <170011@acf3.NYU.EDU>, spector@acf3.NYU.EDU (David HM Spector) writes: > > As for productivity, there are many, many more things one can do > with a Macintosh than any Unix system. For starters, take a look at Excel, MORE, > Word, MacWrite, MacPaint, Illustrator, PageMaker, Express, MacDraw, etc, > and so on. On my desk I have a terminal, MacPlus/HD20 and a *very* underutilized Sun 3/110. Why is the Sun not used? Can you say "no software?" Of course there *is* software. Interleaf, for examply, would be *super*--unfortunately, it's a bit expensive for a university. I'd like to trade the Sun in for a Mac II, but my boss isn't convinced... *sigh* I may have to break down and buy one myself. :-) -- Dave Thompson uucp: {ihnp4|hplabs|psivax}!csun!dlt CSUN Computer Center phone: (818) 885-2790 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330
ali@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Ali Ozer) (07/11/87)
In article <1282@apple.UUCP> bc@apple.UUCP (Bill Coderre) writes: >Assuming you have a Mac II and a Laserwriter for development, >... if the only thing you need is background printing, >then get LaserSpool or equivalent, and the cheeepest secondhand mac >that will run it. Hmm --- Sure the Mac can multitask, all you need is a second processor! And if you need more and more programs running concurrently, you just buy more and more cheap secondhand Macs... Ok, I agree that if you've got a Mac II and a LW, you probably are rich enough to spend some more on a cheap secondhand Mac and be able to print stuff in the background. In a business environment where the Mac II is being used a lot, say, this would probably be a necessary solution. It's silly to have a $5000 68020/68881 machine sit there and spend 10 minutes spooling to the printer. This of course goes back to the original point --- That the Mac OS is not "LIGHTYEARS" ahead of Unix --- In it's present form, it's not even a good enough OS for the Mac II. Printing in the background is a simple operation that takes a few percent of CPU, and it shouldn't require a whole new machine to perform. >Chances are, this config will be cheaper than some >UN*X boxes that I would care to mention, with equivalent >capabilities. ... (I'm not kidding. This is a cost-effective solution.) Cost effective! The point is that, when you buy a Unix machine (or some other machine that multitasks, such as the $600 Amiga 500), you get the capability to print in the background without paying an extra cent. A lot of the 68000/68020 hardware out there has got the horsepower to print in the background --- whether you can or not just depends on how smart your OS is. Ali, ali@rocky.stanford.edu
cbenda@unccvax.UUCP (carl m benda) (07/17/87)
Subject: Re: Macintosh II not Macintosh ][ Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Keywords: stupid posting by me, GARBAGE, JUNK Summary: new car for 2989??? References: <1051@apple.UUCP> <336@swanee.OZ> <4131@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <341@swanee.OZ> In article <341@swanee.OZ>, gustav@swanee.OZ (Gustav) writes: > In article <4131@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, jamin@thoth15.BERKELEY.EDU writes: > > In article <336@swanee.OZ> gustav@swanee.OZ (Gustav) writes: > > > > > >Mac ][ possibly will be the first affordable > > > > Did you say affordable? Pardon me, just curious. > > Well, affordability, like beauty is all in the eye of beholder. Sure, > I wish Mac ][ was cheaper, and so would everybody else, yet if a > machine capable of running full UNIX V with all sort of extras and > full 32 bit architecture costs as much as, say, a new medium range car, Gee I didn't know that you could get a new car for 2989.00... That is what it would cost for this brand new 32 bit 16Mhz ALR system with 1 meg of 80 ns ram... witness: ALR 80386 16Mhz AT compatible 1990.00 Miniscribe 44 Meg 28ms Hard Dr. 500.00 Display and Adapter 200.00 Microport System V AT 199.00 total for a 1meg ram 44meg hard drive UNIX 2989.00 You can't even put a softwareless MAC II on your desk for that price.. Let alone the extra MMU you'd need to buy for the MAC II to let it run AUX.. If you like UNIX but hate spending money.. look to 80286 implementations they are about 1000.00 dollars cheaper than 2989.00. /Carl mcnc!unccvax!cbenda