brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (03/29/89)
I just recently attended the University of Washington's Computer Fair.
There were many high-tech companies there including Amiga, Digital, Sequent,
Claris, Microsoft, Cray, Sun, NeXT and Apple.
FLAME ON
Why did Apple put so much more effort into the Mac diplays than the GS ?
One of the many Mac displays had a six monitor destop covering an entire wall,
and a real-time spectrum display with music. The silly little GS display looked
like kindergarten! They had the keyboard removed for some ridiculous input
device that no one over 10 was interested in. I came to this show looking for
the latest and most impressive in computing (which everyone else was showing)
and I was very disappointed by the Apple II display.
At first I thought that Apple was afraid to show any of the third-party
products that make the GS look good. But when I looked closer at the Mac
display, I noticed that the biggest color monitor was not Apple's, and the
digitizer for the spectrum display was also third-party. So why did the GS look
like a kids' show? I don't own a GS, but I have built hardware that digitizes
sound on my II+ and can display it to the screen in real-time like an
oscilloscope with simultaneous display of VU/peak hold and average value per
screenful. It even has software triggering to lock on to different frequencies.
My point is that the old 1 MHz machines are very capable, and I wonder why
someone at Apple didn't put together a show that would be as impressive as
every one elses? The familier Bose speakers were not even present. I would have
expected some showoff of the digital sound, which exceeds the Mac's standard
capabilities. Almost every company at the show had a display dealing with
data acquisition of some sort. I would think that Apple would want the GS to
appear like an affordable alternative to the $30,000 machines on the other
aisles. That is certainly why I am still hanging on to my Plus, I couldn't
afford another machine that offers the expandability of the II.
I understand that its good to show the big education market what is available,
but if there was room for over five Macs, then why did I only see two little
GS's both running ed software? Several aspects of the Mac capabilities were
shown by having separate displays. I wouldn't suggest no education display,
I'd just like a little demo of the G and S in GS. Don't you want me to buy one,
or what?
FLAME OFF
I hate to use so much heat, because I have faith in the Apple II line. I see
adds in the journals from Apple asking for programmers, and I'm sure that Apple
wouldn't have bothered with GS/OS if they were ready to dump the machine. All
this garbage about GS/OS bugs, A+ selling being a sign of the end, and other
bull. No new OS is without bugs, and at least GS/OS does a better job of
running ProDOS code than a certain unnamed OS/ does with old PC-DOS software.
Considering AE has only recently been able to ship the TransWarp GS, I feel
confident that Apple has a better speed solution in development now. (They had
better if they want me to switch off my Plus and buy a GS!).
BTW, I was laughing the whole time I looked at the NeXT display. If you like
OS troubles, they are currently on Beta version 0.8, with no definite date for
1.0 (they "think" end of august). None of the folks would commit to
availability of color either. I'm sure that when the NeXT is released to the
public, it will no longer sell for the advertised $10,000 non-student price.
Not considering the cost of its 8 Meg RAM and the $6,000 SLOW optical drive.
Some of the displays demos didn't even have an optical disk in the drive!
I don't think I'd buy one yet, even if they would offer to sell one to me!
Brian Willoughby microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET
or uw-beaver!microsoft!brianw
or just microsoft!brianw
#include <std.disclaimer> // I think
// for myself,
// therefore I am
// not responsible for my companys thoughtsmjohnson@Apple.COM (Mark B. Johnson) (03/29/89)
In article <1179@microsoft.UUCP> brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) writes: >Why did Apple put so much more effort into the Mac diplays than the GS ? Maybe because shows are run by the marketing department, but then again, maybe not. You be the judge. Mark B. Johnson AppleLink: mjohnson Developer Technical Support domain: mjohnson@Apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. UUCP: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!mjohnson "You gave your life to become the person you are right now. Was it worth it?" - Richard Bach, _One_
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (03/31/89)
Having heard Jean-Louis Gassee (spelling) and John Sculley talk, I get the impression quite definitely that Apple would like us to forget that the Apple II line existed. It is almost like Apple continues making the GS grudginly to quell schools' complaints of obsolescene. I do think that the GS is a pretty neat pice of computing iron; I'd like to see then take full advantage of what the hardware has to offer. I agree that GS/OS almost seems to have been purposely kept from being too good compared to the Macintosh. To be fair to Apple, I can understand the desire to downplay the Apple II. Obviously, it take a fair amount of investment of personell and capital to make revs to the O/S, etc. It would cost less for them if they had only the Mac O/S to be developing for. I have a feeling that Apple feels that for some reason, the GS is not business-like enough, and they are worried that will have an impact on the pinstipe-suit market that still has an IBM leaning. I'm not a marketing executive, so I can't figure out why that worries Apple. Curious... Apple has brought out a number of hardware upgrades to the IIc recently, etc, so the line is not totally forgotten. Bill
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (04/02/89)
In article <1560@neoucom.UUCP> wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes: > >I agree that GS/OS almost seems to have been purposely kept from being >too good compared to the Macintosh. What are your reasons for saying this? I've programmed extensively using both GS/OS and HFS, and I much prefer GS/OS. It is better thought out, doesn't have to inlclude kludges to support MFS, and has cleaner support for alternate device drivers and File System Translators. It also supports character devices (like the screen and keyboard) which the Mac File Manager doesn't. I can't really think of a case where I would say that the Mac File System is better than GS/OS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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