greg@cti1.UUCP (Greg Fabian) (10/29/90)
I was leafing through the Washington Post Business section
this Monday morning before work when I came across an ad for an
Apple computer store. They have the new Macintoshes for sale with
prices and options listed. I can buy a Macintosh Plus with a Sony
40 MB hard disk and 1 MB RAM for $998. This price includes a
keyboard and mouse.
Just above the Mac Plus ad is the new Mac Classic. I can
pick-up one of these babies for $1399. It has 2.5 MB RAM and an
Apple 40 MB hard disk and also includes the keyboard and mouse.
Assuming that I can upgrade the Mac Plus memory for $100/meg, I
could boost the Plus to the Classic level for a total cost of $1199
(with 3 megs RAM) and pay $200 less than the Classic.
Granted, the Classic has an Apple hard disk and the Plus a
Sony, but is there any real advantage to one over the other??
Isn't the new Classic supposed to be more affordable than the
Plus?? From what I can see, I get slicker looking plastic with the
Classic, but the guts inside seem to operate the same.
Take the Mac II lc. This looks like a potentially crippled
machine. There is no memory/paging chip in it, so when the new
System 7.0 comes out, this machine won't be able to use virtual
memory management. And the new Mac II si. If I want to use a
Newbus expansion board, I have to buy a board that plugs into the
processor slot for about $250 so I can then plug a Newbus board into
the machine.
They say that Apple is trying to become more price competitive
with ISA PC prices. Of course that will never happen because the
Mac is still a closed box - sure you can buy expansion boards and
memory, and other stuff from other manufacturers, but the BIOS and
ROMs are all Apple and they will never open those up. I can stroll
down to the local computer store and buy a store brand 386/25 with
4 MB RAM, 80 MB hard disk and a 14" VGA plus monitor for $2500 and
it will blow the doors of the Mac II lc/si and come in at a cheaper
price.
Don't get me wrong. I like the Mac. It's software is great
and novice users can get up to speed quickly on the machine because
you only have to learn to use the applications and not the computer
(on an MS DOS box you have to learn the applications and MS DOS).
It never ceases to amaze me, however, that Mac software is well
designed from an ergonomic view but the physical design of the box
itself sucks - you can look at a non-adjustable 9" screen for only
so long before your eyes feel like they're about to roll out of
their sockets. They didn't change that with the Classic.
I've always regarded Apple as a somewhat greedy company. This
new marketing tack seems to make Apple more price competitive (if
you are looking at IBM, Compaq, and other expensive PC
manufacturers), but I am not convinced. Is everyone else?
--
Greg Fabian
////////////////////////////////////|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
CTI (703) 685-5437 |
2121 Crystal Drive | Life is a conspiracy of coincidences
Suite 103 | - Me
Arlington, DC 22202 greg@cti.com |
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|////////////////////////////////////rsfinn@athena.mit.edu (Russell S. Finn) (10/30/90)
In article <306@cti1.UUCP> greg@cti1.UUCP (Greg Fabian) writes: >[can buy Plus 1/40 for $998, Classic 2/40 for $1399] > > Granted, the Classic has an Apple hard disk and the Plus a >Sony, but is there any real advantage to one over the other?? The Classic contains a SuperDrive, which lets it read 1.4 MB high density disks (like the ones System 6.0.7 come on). >Isn't the new Classic supposed to be more affordable than the >Plus?? Well, it depends on your point of view. The list price of the Plus, at $1799, was $800 more than the list price of the Classic is. On the other hand, Apple isn't making any more Pluses. For a while, therefore, you may be able to get them cheaper than Classics; but I expect the eventual street price of the Classic will be much less than the street price of the Plus was, say, at the beginning of the year. > Take the Mac II lc. This looks like a potentially crippled >machine. There is no memory/paging chip in it, so when the new >System 7.0 comes out, this machine won't be able to use virtual >memory management. Actually, this model is called simply "Macintosh LC"; it's not considered a II because it doesn't have NuBus [note correct spelling]. Apple probably figures that the lower cost is more important than the ability to run virtual memory, for the markets the LC is intended (K-12 education and inexpensive home color, primarily). No doubt some may consider this an inexact analogy, but would you consider a Ford Escort "crippled" because you can't put a V8 engine in one? >And the new Mac II si. If I want to use a >Newbus expansion board, I have to buy a board that plugs into the >processor slot for about $250 so I can then plug a Newbus board into >the machine. Again, this machine seems to be positioned for people who don't intend to use expansion cards. It is true that there is no longer a machine at this price point that is easily expandible (now that the IIcx is defunct), but according to Apple, most users only have a video card installed, anyway; you don't need one with the IIsi. Nevertheless, you can still install one card, if you want to. >I can stroll >down to the local computer store and buy a store brand 386/25 with >4 MB RAM, 80 MB hard disk and a 14" VGA plus monitor for $2500 and >it will blow the doors of the Mac II lc/si and come in at a cheaper >price. Yes, but will it run Macintosh software? (Only half joking there.) If you can make that purchase, and get a system that will serve you well, then by all means do so. (Don't forget to add Windows 3.0 and Toolbox, to make the comparison more even; that'll bump the price up another $400 or so. Not to mention 8-bit sound input and output; of course, not everybody uses them.) I've acquired a lot of both software and programming expertise for the Macintosh; I'm not in a position to change horses now. Now that that IIsi is available, I finally have a reasonably affordable upgrade point (from my Plus). Let's look at it another way -- how much do you think a IIci 4/80 with keyboard and monitor (which, for sake of argument, we'll call an "equivalent" system) should cost? Surely, the Macintosh environment is worth *some* premium -- how much? $500? $1000? I'd like to hear what people think on this one. > Don't get me wrong. I like the Mac. Don't get me wrong, either; I don't consider myself an apologist for Apple. It just seems to me that Apple is a favorite target for criticism, and I'm not sure *all* of it is deserved (although I know *some* is). > I've always regarded Apple as a somewhat greedy company. This >new marketing tack seems to make Apple more price competitive (if >you are looking at IBM, Compaq, and other expensive PC >manufacturers), but I am not convinced. Is everyone else? Do you consider IBM and Compaq greedy companies as well? How about Mercedes-Benz and BMW? I think the new Macintoshes are priced at a point where many people who would not have considered purchasing them before will consider it now. Sure, PC clones remain cheaper, if you just look at "raw horsepower" (however that's measured), but you get more than that when you buy a Macintosh. Isn't that why people buy them? Responsible opposing points of view are welcomed... -- Russell S. Finn rsfinn@{athena,lcs}.mit.edu
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (10/30/90)
greg@cti1.UUCP (Greg Fabian) writes: > Take the Mac II lc. This looks like a potentially crippled machine. > There is no memory/paging chip in it, so when the new System 7.0 comes > out, this machine won't be able to use virtual memory management. Can somebody explain to me why the average Mac user, say a typical office secretary, or a scientist who just wants to do word processing, data graphing, and figure preparation, or a (non-CS) student typing papers (or just about anybody not doing programming or major number crunching) needs VM? OK, so you can't run Unix on it, but so what? -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
francis@daisy.uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct29.195413.7784@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > Can somebody explain to me why the average Mac user [...] needs >[virtual memory]? OK, so you can't run Unix on it, but so what? You don't really, but, looking at history, you KNOW there will come a word processor too big to run in a reasonable amount of RAM; virtual memory will then let you pretend you have an unreasonable amount (provided you either have or can cannibalize enough HD space). Applications always expand to overflow available memory. Back when the Apple II first got 64K, who would have thought anybody could possibly ever be crunched with only a meg? | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Non sequiturs make me eat lampshades | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | |
ajauch@orion.oac.uci.edu (Alex Jauch) (10/30/90)
In <306@cti1.UUCP> greg@cti1.UUCP (Greg Fabian) writes: ..stuff deleted... >I can buy a Macintosh Plus with a Sony >40 MB hard disk and 1 MB RAM for $998. This price includes a >keyboard and mouse. ..stuff deleted about how Pluses are cheaper than Classics... > Granted, the Classic has an Apple hard disk and the Plus a >Sony, but is there any real advantage to one over the other?? >Isn't the new Classic supposed to be more affordable than the >Plus?? From what I can see, I get slicker looking plastic with the >Classic, but the guts inside seem to operate the same. Two major notes for your comparison: As already noted, the Classic has a FDHD which allows it to read MS-Dos floppies and 1.44 HD disks. Also, the plus has no internal SCSI connector to the best of my knowledge. That means only external hard drives (I love my Mac in one piece). > They say that Apple is trying to become more price competitive >with ISA PC prices. Of course that will never happen because the >Mac is still a closed box - sure you can buy expansion boards and >memory, and other stuff from other manufacturers, but the BIOS and >ROMs are all Apple and they will never open those up. I can stroll >down to the local computer store and buy a store brand 386/25 with >4 MB RAM, 80 MB hard disk and a 14" VGA plus monitor for $2500 and >it will blow the doors of the Mac II lc/si and come in at a cheaper >price. Please define "blow the doors of(f)." An si will operate at more than twice the speed of the 386/25 running windows. Yes, the machine is spinning its wheels really fast, but nothing is happening as far as the user can tell, so it's wasted. The importance of a GUI is not something I will discuss on this group. > Don't get me wrong. I like the Mac. It's software is great >and novice users can get up to speed quickly on the machine because >you only have to learn to use the applications and not the computer >(on an MS DOS box you have to learn the applications and MS DOS). >It never ceases to amaze me, however, that Mac software is well >designed from an ergonomic view but the physical design of the box >itself sucks - you can look at a non-adjustable 9" screen for only >so long before your eyes feel like they're about to roll out of >their sockets. They didn't change that with the Classic. I have a B.S. (almost) in computer science and definately not a "novice user" by any stretch of the imagination. However, I find DOS applications require more effort on my part to use and learn than Mac ones do. As to the shape of the Mac, it's such a trademark shape by now that Apple would have been killed if they had abandoned it. Besides, I LOVE my SE30, I take it everywhere and 9" is plenty big for me. > I've always regarded Apple as a somewhat greedy company. This >new marketing tack seems to make Apple more price competitive (if >you are looking at IBM, Compaq, and other expensive PC >manufacturers), but I am not convinced. Is everyone else? > Welcome to America buddy. Everyone has the God given right to be as greedy as they can get away with. Do you really think any company is not in business to make money? Not a for profit, publically owned one at any rate. I think Apple is making a concentrated effort to lower prices. If their products are too expensive for what they do, don't buy one. Alex Jauch -- Alex Jauch *ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu |"If all you have is a hammer, then the whole* *ajauch@orion.oac.uci.edu |world looks like a nail" -- Stolen *
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct29.195413.7784@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >greg@cti1.UUCP (Greg Fabian) writes: >> Take the Mac II lc. This looks like a potentially crippled machine. >> There is no memory/paging chip in it, so when the new System 7.0 comes >> out, this machine won't be able to use virtual memory management. > > Can somebody explain to me why the average Mac user, say a typical >office secretary, or a scientist who just wants to do word processing, data >graphing, and figure preparation, or a (non-CS) student typing papers (or >just about anybody not doing programming or major number crunching) needs >VM? OK, so you can't run Unix on it, but so what? I am amazed by how many times I've heard the cry "well, who really needs it anyway" over the last ten years. The fact is, if a feature is available on a computer system, software vendors will write programs to take advantage of it, and users will grow to use it and expect it. Actually, I think saying that the only people who need VM are programmers and "major" number crunchers is 180% out of line. I would say the ones who need it most are *precisely* the secretaries, scientists, etc, who want to do wordprocessing, data graphing, and figure preparation. These are the people who want to have 3-4 programs running so they can have a spreadsheet active, copy data from it into a graphing program, which they then copy to a drawing program to fine tune, and finally transfer the result to a wordprocessor to reinforce the text. Personally, this is how I work when I have a VM, multi-tasking system. I doubt I am the only person who likes to be able to do this. Something like virtual memory is so darned convenient that I sure as heck want it. If you have used a system that can run multiple applications at the same time, I would think you would understand this. Eric ====================================================================== disclaimer: I claim `dis'.
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct29.191639.7536@athena.mit.edu> rsfinn@athena.mit.edu (Russell S. Finn) writes: [text debating whether not having VM means Mac LC is "crippled"] >No doubt some may consider this an inexact analogy, but would you >consider a Ford Escort "crippled" because you can't put a V8 engine in >one? Couldn't resist this one. I like this analogy better: Would you consider a Ford Escort "crippled" if you couldn't have more than one person in it at a time? (You can still get there, but it is a lot less convenient) I'd say yes. :-) (Donning asbestos gear... Ha! Flame me now, you fiends!) Eric ps. I WANT VM !!! I WANT VM !!! I WANT VM !!! I WANT VM !!! I WANT VM !!! I WANT VM !!! I WANT VM !!! <SOB!> ======================= disclaimer: I claim `dis'. No one else can use it.
boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) (10/30/90)
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes that virtual memory is a feature that people who "only" do wordprocessing and simple office tasks do, in fact, need. Now, I don't like puny 8MHz-68000-type machines with puny little 1MB RAMs any more than Mr. Mitchell does. I have near-daily arguments with administrators who cite the "these people ONLY want..." line to me. (Typically, only people who are either unaware of what they can do with powerful machines or are intellectually lazy are happy with Pluses, SEs and Classics in their standard configuration; likewise, many DOS users who have never experienced a Mac don't feel the need for one, living as they do in the North Korea of the computer world.) But VM is rather beside that point. I do rather intensive multitasking in my 4MB (soon to be 5MB) RAM, as the LC-owning secretaries/English students will also be able to do. (At $37-odd per 1MB SIMM, stuffing your Mac to the limit with RAM is cheaper than getting a 68030 model.) Why these people need VM into the double-digit megabyte range is beyond me, especially considering that the virtual part of that RAM will be unbearably slow (I've used Ready-Set-Go with its down-your-throat VM facility, and I've tried Word's load-only-used- portion-of-document thing, and as a result, I'm less excited about VM than practically any other System 7.0 feature). VM is for people who need RAM beyond the generous physical RAM limits of every Mac down to the Plus. That means serious (particularly color) DTPers, people who do animation or rendering, video and sound editing, CAD, work with Mathematica or run A/UX -- in other words, do things that, on a Mac, can be done with virtual memory or expensive RAM NuBus cards or not at all. Now, with all the multitasking capabilities the Mac has today, the world is still alarmingly full of those pathetic 8MHz-68000, 1MB RAM Macs. Wanting VM while such suffering is so commonplace is like living in the USSR and wanting Communism; let's concentrate on the doable and the realistic first, like a 16MHz 020 (at least) and 4MB RAM in every pot. Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (10/31/90)
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: > the ones who need [VM] most are *precisely* the secretaries, scientists, > etc, who want to do wordprocessing, data graphing, and figure preparation. > These are the people who want to have 3-4 programs running so they can have > a spreadsheet active, copy data from it into a graphing program, which they > then copy to a drawing program to fine tune, and finally transfer the > result to a wordprocessor to reinforce the text. I do that all the time right now with plain old non-VM, not true multitasking, not timesharing, MultiFinder. The only thing that annoys me about MF (and I'm not sure if it's just the way it is, or something imposed by the non-VM environment) is that you have to click in a window to activate it. It takes me a little mental effort to shift gears from my suntools environment to MF because of this. Then again, I watch new people use the Sun and not understand why, just because their elbow accidentally pushed the mouse out of the window, their keyboard all of a sudden went dead. Besides, somebody who uses a Mac for all their work won't have the Sun style windows to confuse them. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (10/31/90)
In article <272CAF47.16091@orion.oac.uci.edu> ajauch@orion.oac.uci.edu (Alex Jauch) writes: >In <306@cti1.UUCP> greg@cti1.UUCP (Greg Fabian) writes: > > >> They say that Apple is trying to become more price competitive >>with ISA PC prices. Of course that will never happen because the >>Mac is still a closed box - sure you can buy expansion boards and >>memory, and other stuff from other manufacturers, but the BIOS and >>ROMs are all Apple and they will never open those up. I can stroll >>down to the local computer store and buy a store brand 386/25 with >>4 MB RAM, 80 MB hard disk and a 14" VGA plus monitor for $2500 and >>it will blow the doors of the Mac II lc/si and come in at a cheaper >>price. > >Please define "blow the doors of(f)." An si will operate at more than >twice the speed of the 386/25 running windows. Yes, the machine is spinning >its wheels really fast, but nothing is happening as far as the user can >tell, so it's wasted. The importance of a GUI is not something I will >discuss on this group. Spinning its wheels????? More like doing faster screen draws, processing those background tasks a lot faster, and doing some paging. (Paging - you know what a Mac can't do until that vaporware System 7 shows up.) A si isn't twice the speed of a 386/25, not even in a dream. The fact that the cpu is faster makes a hell of a lot of difference. (See above.) > >> Don't get me wrong. I like the Mac. It's software is great >>and novice users can get up to speed quickly on the machine because >>you only have to learn to use the applications and not the computer >>(on an MS DOS box you have to learn the applications and MS DOS). >>It never ceases to amaze me, however, that Mac software is well >>designed from an ergonomic view but the physical design of the box >>itself sucks - you can look at a non-adjustable 9" screen for only >>so long before your eyes feel like they're about to roll out of >>their sockets. They didn't change that with the Classic. > >I have a B.S. (almost) in computer science and definately not a "novice >user" by any stretch of the imagination. However, I find DOS applications >require more effort on my part to use and learn than Mac ones do. As to >the shape of the Mac, it's such a trademark shape by now that Apple would >have been killed if they had abandoned it. Besides, I LOVE my SE30, I >take it everywhere and 9" is plenty big for me. ---------------- You must like either sitting 2" from the screen or squinting. I do have a B.S. in Elec. Engr./Computer Engr. currently working to complete my M.S. in the same and have worked in the field several years. For engineering type work a Mac plainly sucks. Macs are great if you never want to see the operating system, or do quick and dirty programming I WANT a command line somewhere, somehow, because I DON"T always want a mouse. A mouse is not the ultimate solution!!! I have found that programming a Mac is harder than X11 or any other environment I've been in. >> I've always regarded Apple as a somewhat greedy company. This >>new marketing tack seems to make Apple more price competitive (if >>you are looking at IBM, Compaq, and other expensive PC >>manufacturers), but I am not convinced. Is everyone else? >> > >Welcome to America buddy. Everyone has the God given right to be as greedy >as they can get away with. Do you really think any company is not in business >to make money? Not a for profit, publically owned one at any rate. I think >Apple is making a concentrated effort to lower prices. If their products are >too expensive for what they do, don't buy one. > >Alex Jauch A Mac is generic 680x0 hardware. There is nothing special, new, inovative, spectacular about Mac hardware. The software is what Apple is charging you for. The reason Macs are so high is that Apple has enjoyed artificially high margins because they have had a virtual monopoly on GUI's and would like to remain that way. Macs are not easy to set up once you get into the II line because you have configuration options, just like all other systems on the market. So if you want expansion options ease of setup goes away (usually). Apple used to pride itself on plug and play. Can't do that anymore unless you stick to low end machines or to Apple peripherals which are also priced artificially high. Got that Apple name on em' don't ya know. Apple is not trying to lower its prices. If it was you would find them doing something besides repackaging old harware in new cases and trying to pass it off as a new product. There are several companies working on clean room versions of Mac ROMs. This is the same approach used to clone IBM PC's. I won't go into details but, IT IS legal to write compatible ROM code and OS as long as you follow certain guidelines. To avoid look and feel lawsuits all they have to do is get a lic. from Xerox for their interface. Apple can't sue Xerox; wouldn't be too wise to try. 8-{ Since Apple it was not trying to restrict trade when Xerox took them to court. 1. Macs WILL get cheaper or Apple WILL start lose market share to cheaper and more powerful systems, GUI or NO GUI. 2. Windows and the NeXT WILL NOT go away. They will slowly erode marketshare until Apple puts its prices in line with the rest of the industry. May take a while. (Windows is selling very well.) 3. Mac clones WILL come sooner or later and that WILL definitely piss Apple off. Apple will lower prices. Peripherals will get cheaper. -This is what happened in the IBM market. >-- >Alex Jauch >*ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu |"If all you have is a hammer, then the whole* >*ajauch@orion.oac.uci.edu |world looks like a nail" -- Stolen * -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */
greg@cti1.UUCP (Greg Fabian) (10/31/90)
Well folks, looks like I got some good responses from that last posting and learned a few things too (like how to really spell NuBus and that the Classic has an SE type motherboard). As for the Ford Escort analogy, even with an 8 cylinder engine the Escort would *still* be a crippled car (but that's a topic of discussion for another news group). Many car analogies don't count with computers anyway because automotive technology is extremely backwards compatible - a '57 Chevy can be driven on the same street as a Ferrarri F-40. Can you you run the latest version of Word on a vintage '84 Mac with the original 128K RAM and perform useful work on it? You may not need it next week or next year, but you will at some time in the near future need VM. Programs are getting bigger all the time and it makes life a heck of a lot easier if you're a programmer and you don't have to worry about overlaying (like the old PDP-11 I used to work on). Believe me, those programmers will start taking advantage of VM when it's available and before long you'll be sending money to Apple and poppin' new chips in your Mac. I have a Mac SE and a Compaq 386/20e (which I am using to write this response). I use the Mac, Windows 3.0 (very pretty colors) and, when I'm logged onto the Unix box, X windows (and, while I'm at it, there's only one mouse button on the Mac). When I get bored with Unix, I can cu over to the MicroVAX and play with VMS, although we don't have a GUI for the VAX yet. The only big player I don't have access to is MVS (we use it here but I'm really not interested in it anyway). Sure windows sucks up some horsepower on the Compaq, but Excel runs faster on the Compaq without the coprocessor chip than it does on the SE with a Dove board (or is it bar?). -- Greg Fabian ////////////////////////////////////|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ CTI (703) 685-5437 | 2121 Crystal Drive | Life is a conspiracy of coincidences Suite 103 | - Me Arlington, DC 22202 greg@cti.com | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|////////////////////////////////////
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (10/31/90)
The Mac was introduced in late '84/early '85 (at least, that was the
first mac commercial, and the special issue of Newsweek with
Apple-only advertising). Since that time, the minimum amount of RAM
necessary to run the latest system software has gone from 128K to
2048K (in 6 years). This is a factor of 16 -- a factor of 2 every 1.5
years. Note that these numbers should be doubled if the purpose is
programming (smalltalk, mathematica, etc).
Here is why you need VM in your macintosh.
At the previously mentioned rates, the SE and Mac Classic (4Mb) will
be unable to support a "minimum" memory configuration in mid 1992;
the mac II (8Mb, no PMMU) will be unable to support a "minimum" memory
configuration in late 1993; and the Mac LC (17Mb) will be defunct in
early 1995.
I hope that no buyers of these machines are planning on running
current software and system/finder for more than about 4 years.
Don W. Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gilliesdan@b11.ingr.com (Dan Webb) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct29.205503.109@midway.uchicago.edu>, francis@daisy.uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) writes: > In article <1990Oct29.195413.7784@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > > Can somebody explain to me why the average Mac user [...] needs > >[virtual memory]? OK, so you can't run Unix on it, but so what? > > You don't really, but, looking at history, you KNOW there will come a > word processor too big to run in a reasonable amount of RAM; virtual > memory will then let you pretend you have an unreasonable amount (provided > you either have or can cannibalize enough HD space). > > Applications always expand to overflow available memory. Back when the > Apple II first got 64K, who would have thought anybody could possibly > ever be crunched with only a meg? I hope this NEVER happens on the Mac. If it does, it will take a long time, given the large number of Mac users who won't be able to take advantage of VM. Word processors shouldn't have to fill all available memory; they're just word processors. On the other hand, engineering applications, for example, should take advantage of big, fast Macs; not everyone uses them. It's a double-edged sword. If you don't have VM, you always have nicely space-optimized software that fits well into physical memory, but it would be nice if you had more memory. If you DO have VM, you've got lots of memory, but programmers tend to get lazy, and you end up with bulky, slow software. I develop software on Unix systems, and I loathe the applications that require 10 MBytes or more to run. I pride myself in the efficient code that I write. I wish more people did. Look at Microsoft Word 4.0. Some of you may find this unbelievable, but it can be run on a Mac 512KE! ---------------------- Dan Webb Intergraph Corp. ...!uunet!ingr!b11!dan
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (10/31/90)
------ In article <2eBi026n031i01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) writes... [...] >Spinning its wheels????? More like doing faster screen draws, processing >those background tasks a lot faster, and doing some paging. (Paging - >you know what a Mac can't do until that vaporware System 7 shows up.) To be completely accurate, you can get VM _NOW_ (and for the past year or so) with the use of Virtual. [...] >>have been killed if they had abandoned it. Besides, I LOVE my SE30, I >>take it everywhere and 9" is plenty big for me. > ---------------- You must like either sitting > 2" from the screen or squinting. Let me get this straight: this fellow has just told you that he finds his 9" screen fine for his (non-novice) use. And you are telling him that, actually, he doesn't??? [...] > >For engineering type work a Mac plainly sucks. Macs are great if you >never want to see the operating system, or do quick and dirty programming Nonsense. [...] >I have found that programming a Mac is harder than X11 or any other >environment I've been in. I've heard people rate X as more difficult than the Mac. Check out Windows for difficult programming, too. [...] > >A Mac is generic 680x0 hardware. There is nothing special, new, >inovative, spectacular about Mac hardware. The software is what Apple Actually -- again in the interests of accuracy -- this is not true. While the software is mainly what makes an Apple different, there are hardware innovations in Apple's equipment. >is charging you for. The reason Macs are so high is that Apple has >enjoyed artificially high margins because they have had a virtual >monopoly on GUI's and would like to remain that way. Oh, puhleeze! Since when has the Mac had a "monopoly" on GUIs? What is Windows? What is NextStep? What is OpenLook? What is Motif? Apple has had a near-monopoly on a GOOD GUI; others made sucky GUIs up until now. That is NOT Apple's fault. Some companies tried to copy Apple: hence the Windows suit. Some people tried to be original: Next licensed Xerox technology and built their own GUI. > >Macs are not easy to set up once you get into the II line because >you have configuration options, just like all other systems on the market. [...] Nonsense. One of my client's has literally HUNDREDs of Macs, including every model Apple makes. Except for some tricky networking and hooking in with ethernet, it's been basically plug-n-play the whole way. [...] > >There are several companies working on clean room versions of Mac ROMs. >This is the same approach used to clone IBM PC's. I won't go into >details but, IT IS legal to write compatible ROM code and OS as long >as you follow certain guidelines. It certainly is legal and possible to write clean room versions of Mac ROMs (though I wonder how they'll implement Apple-patented code such as regions). But the operative word there is "clean room": they will have to prove that they had NO knowledge of Apple's methods. Tricky. And remember: people are mainly working on 128k ROM clones. And then will come 256k ROMs. But Apple's already up to 512k. Many many years 'til any cloners catch up. And remember: they'll have to clone the OS too: it's illegal for Apple Mac OS software to run on non-Apple machines. How long will it take the cloners to clone System 7? >1. Macs WILL get cheaper or Apple WILL start lose market share to cheaper > and more powerful systems, GUI or NO GUI. > Probably true. Of course Macs ARE getting cheaper, whether you think so or not. >2. Windows and the NeXT WILL NOT go away. They will slowly erode > marketshare until Apple puts its prices in line with the rest > of the industry. May take a while. (Windows is selling very well.) Maybe. Windows will certainly be here for awhile. Next may be. > >3. Mac clones WILL come sooner or later and that WILL definitely piss > Apple off. Apple will lower prices. Peripherals will get cheaper. > -This is what happened in the IBM market. > I don't know about this one. By the time any clone appears on the market, goes thru a protracted court battle with Apple, it will probably be years behind the newest Mac models in functionality (see above). By that time no one may want to buy them. Would you be keen on buying a 64k ROM Mac clone today? Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
chas@netcom.UUCP (Chuck Fisher) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct30.165433.28495@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: > I do that all the time right now with plain old non-VM, not true >multitasking, not timesharing, MultiFinder. The only thing that annoys me >about MF (and I'm not sure if it's just the way it is, or something imposed >by the non-VM environment) is that you have to click in a window to activate >it. It takes me a little mental effort to shift gears from my suntools >environment to MF because of this. Then again, I watch new people use the >Sun and not understand why, just because their elbow accidentally pushed the >mouse out of the window, their keyboard all of a sudden went dead. Besides, >somebody who uses a Mac for all their work won't have the Sun style windows >to confuse them. SunView has a variable called "ClickToType" or something like that which makes a Sun act like the Mac does under MultiFinder. That is, that you have to "click" in a window in order to make it "active." The story I had heard was that there was much debate within Engineering at Sun over this point and so they leave it to user discretion of how windows are activated. Chuck ----- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Chuck Fisher Work: (800) 359-7997 | | chas@netcom.uucp Home: (415) 964-2819 | | {apple,claris,amdahl,tandem}!netcom!chas | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (10/31/90)
> Mac clones WILL come sooner or later and that WILL definitely piss > Apple off. Apple will lower prices. Peripherals will get cheaper. > -This is what happened in the IBM market. There will Never be Mac Clones if Apple has their say so, and so far they have had their way. The closest things to Mac clones are the rom emulator rip-offs.. I've always wondered Why Apple allowed even that.. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct29.195413.7784@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > Can somebody explain to me why the average Mac user, say a typical >office secretary, or a scientist who just wants to do word processing, data >graphing, and figure preparation, or a (non-CS) student typing papers (or >just about anybody not doing programming or major number crunching) needs >VM? OK, so you can't run Unix on it, but so what? There have been several replies to this, mostly along the lines of what I want is what I need, and I want VM because ..., usually larger memory capacity. A point that seems to be missed is that whilst the greater memory of VM is useful, the protected memory is ESSENTIAL for people doing real work on their multifinder machine. It money depends on it, you cannot afford to have one process go wild and destroy the memory allocated to other processes. Another point is that VM reduces the complexity of the code writting process, which cannot be bad for the end user. If makes things easier for the programmer you need it. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (10/31/90)
by brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony): | There have been several replies to this, mostly along the lines of what | I want is what I need, and I want VM because ..., usually larger memory | capacity. A point that seems to be missed is that whilst the greater | memory of VM is useful, the protected memory is ESSENTIAL for people doing | real work on their multifinder machine. It money depends on it, you | cannot afford to have one process go wild and destroy the memory | allocated to other processes. Sorry, but VM does not equal protected memory. You can have neither, one, or both. Sys 7 will offer only VM... I would rather have protected memory any day, but VM is probably a whole lot easier to tack onto an existing OS. | Another point is that VM reduces the complexity of the code writing | process, which cannot be bad for the end user. If makes things easier | for the programmer you need it. Wow, with more memory to work with, I'll be inspired to create really good code. This is going to be great! While some programming constraints may be eased, lots of RAM (real or otherwise) does not in and of itself make programming too much easier. A redesigned OS based on OOP technology would go a whole lot further in that respect. Since 1984, the Mac has only had the look of OOP without its heart. More recently, MacApp and the TCL have helped fill much of the gap but a more fundamental redesign of the OS would do wonders. Just my opinions... -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| A fanatic is one who sticks to |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | his guns -- whether they are | U | - Ackphtth | loaded or not.
aslakson@cs.umn.edu (Brian Aslakson) (10/31/90)
chas@netcom.UUCP (Chuck Fisher) writes: >In article <...> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >>ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: >>The only thing that annoys me >>about MF (and I'm not sure if it's just the way it is, or something imposed >>by the non-VM environment) is that you have to click in a window to activate >>it. It takes me a little mental effort to shift gears from my suntools >>environment to MF because of this. Then again, I watch new people use the >>Sun and not understand why, just because their elbow accidentally pushed the >>mouse out of the window, their keyboard all of a sudden went dead. Besides, >>somebody who uses a Mac for all their work won't have the Sun style windows >>to confuse them. >SunView has a variable called "ClickToType" or something like that which >makes a Sun act like the Mac does under MultiFinder. That is, that you >have to "click" in a window in order to make it "active." X windows has the same type option. I have my X windows set up so that clicking once in a title bar (left button) makes that the active window no matter where the mouse pointer is. If I click in the same title bar twice (in sucession) it goes back to the standard style where the mouse pointer must be in the window for it to be active. (Like most X-window stuff, this was copied from someone else. This trick came from mtymp01 (@ux.acs.umn.edu) AKA Nils McCarthy). Brian -- To be fair to myself, he copied my .plan.... -- Brian Aslakson aslakson@cs.umn.edu mac-admin@cs.umn.edu <-= Macintosh related
brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (10/31/90)
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: >Sorry, but VM does not equal protected memory. You can have neither, >one, or both. Sys 7 will offer only VM... Sorry to hear that. Sounds like a waste of space then. In my first year CS course VM did imply protected memory. Every process has its own (virtual) copy of the full machine address space. The PMU converts a virtual address to a physical address, be it in main memory or on disc. The weaker form of memory management was called paged memory management. |> Another point is that VM reduces the complexity of the code writing |> process, which cannot be bad for the end user. If makes things easier |> for the programmer you need it. >Wow, with more memory to work with, I'll be inspired to create really >good code. This is going to be great! You miss my point. VM means that programers do not need to worry about the size or availability of code segments, or for that matter have segments at all. This is the reduction of complexity to which I refer. -- Brendan Mahony | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz Department of Computer Science | heretic: someone who disgrees with you University of Queensland | about something neither of you knows Australia | anything about.
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (10/31/90)
In article <5485@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >It money depends on it, you >cannot afford to have one process go wild and destroy the memory >allocated to other processes. Frankly, I think this argument has very little merit, considering the difficulty of implementing protected memory on the Mac. Protected memory will not let you do anything you can't now. VM will. Furthermore, I've never seen a system crash which wasn't caused by an INIT conflict or running out-of-date software, except in my programming work. But even if things do crash, if money depends on it you're stupid not to have extensive backups and so on even if protected memory is present. People got along without protected memory for years and will probably continue to do so. Not that protected memory is a bad idea -- it's a great one, and Apple is working on it, or at least they're aware of user demands for it. But it's not the cure-all you make it out to be. -- Mark Wilkins -- ******* "Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude!" ********** *-----------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Mark R. Wilkins wilkins@jarthur.claremont.edu {uunet}!jarthur!wilkins * ****** MARK.WILKINS on AppleLink ****** MWilkins on America Online ******
cmpeters@eos.ncsu.edu (C MAVERICK PETERSEN) (10/31/90)
In article <77800049@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > Here is why you need VM in your macintosh. > > At the previously mentioned rates, the SE and Mac Classic (4Mb) will > be unable to support a "minimum" memory configuration in mid 1992; > the mac II (8Mb, no PMMU) will be unable to support a "minimum" memory > configuration in late 1993; and the Mac LC (17Mb) will be defunct in > early 1995. > > I hope that no buyers of these machines are planning on running > current software and system/finder for more than about 4 years. What? I just don't understand what you just said: If I buy a Mac today, then (you say) I can run _CURRENT_ for only four (4) more years. Apparently, all the _current_ software existing today is going to just BLOW-UP in about 1461 days! :-o (accounting for leap years) Well, (I say) I think I can run all the software I have _right_now_ for as long I a want--until I (or my machine) DIES. Just my 2%. C. Maverick Petersen mav@eceugs.ncsu.edu <or> cmpeters@eos.ncsu.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Somebody please send me to Colorado... I've gotta get away from Jesse Helms! -----------------------------------------------------------------------
saaf@joker.optics.rochester.edu (Lennart Saaf) (10/31/90)
g> Here is why you need VM in your macintosh..... Gee... Macs have always had VM. Haven't you ever heard of RESOURCES? ;-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Len Saaf, The Institute of Optics, Univ. of Rochester, Rochester, NY | | Internet: saaf@joker.optics.rochester.edu Bitnet: SAAF@UOROPT | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (10/31/90)
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > I hope that no buyers of these machines are planning on running > current software and system/finder for more than about 4 years. I'm still running 4.2 (I think) on my MacPlus at home. Works just fine to support the few applications I want to run there (MS Word version 3.something, Dreams, CricketGraph, random games). Havn't seen a need to upgrade to 6.0.x at home yet, and I guess I won't see the need to upgrade to 7.0 either. Four years from now, I'll probably have the Plus stashed away in the same closet where my Vic-20 is. At work, I run 6.0.5 on my cx, with inits up the wazoo, applications like Word 4.0, Mathematica and Think-C 4.0, and silly customizations like SonicFinder and a trash can that looks like Bart Simpson. I also require that everybody on the network keep upgrading so their LaserWriter drivers stay compatable. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (11/01/90)
me: | Sorry, but VM does not equal protected memory. You can have neither, | one, or both. Sys 7 will offer only VM... by brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony): | Sorry to hear that. Sounds like a waste of space then. | | In my first year CS course VM did imply protected memory. Every process | has its own (virtual) copy of the full machine address space. The PMU | converts a virtual address to a physical address, be it in main memory | or on disc. The weaker form of memory management was called paged memory | management. I guess I'm not sure what is meant by "paged" as you use/understand it. To me, it means that when a memory access that doesn't land in RAM some "page" (a contiguous block of memory) will be written to disk and the page with the address being accessed will be read into RAM. BM: [VM will aid programmers] Me: [not really] | You miss my point. VM means that programmers do not need to worry about | the size or availability of code segments, or for that matter have | segments at all. This is the reduction of complexity to which I refer. Nothing about VM on the Mac will significantly alter the way programming is currently done. The Mac's idea of "segments" are chunks of code that can be dynamically loaded as they are needed. The technique is to have a jump table with an entry for each routine accessed externally to that segment. If the segment being called is in memory, the table merely jumps to the proper place. If the segment is on disk, the table entry loads in the requested segment from disk. This was very important with 128K to play with but is not very critical now. There is no law that a program MUST use this method only. It just happens that most compilers use it. VM will change nothing about this whole process other than having more memory to keep stuff around in. Also, VM will do zip to fix the stupid scheme where we grant blocks of memory to individual programs. You'll be able to give them bigger blocks but if Memory Hog 3.7 has a 5 meg partition and only happens to be using 100K of it, 5020K of unused memory will be inaccessible to the rest of the system. Apple's implementation of VM will not be able to run out of swap space, unlike UNIX systems where swap space can grow and shrink. There will be a big file somewhere and the size of RAM + swap file = total available memory. So even if you have a 2MB free on disk, if you run out of VM you'll have to reboot to allocate more. Likewise, if you want a maximum of say 10MB with 5MB RAM, you'll have a 5MB swap file on your disk whether you're actually making use of it or just running the finder. <sigh> As I said before, it would be Real Nice to have the Mac OS rewritten from scratch so these problems could be fixed properly. That would also allow (require?) a rethinking of what sort of globals programs can access. This would make protected memory A LOT easier to implement than figuring out how to do it with the current OS and programming model. At the same time, we could fix things like lack of DMA support, non-preemptive multitasking, etc. This is why I (as in me, not necessarily eveyone and his brother) am very intersted in the NeW NeXT machines, where these fundamental OS issues are better dealt with already. Just my personal views. -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| A fanatic is one who sticks to |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | his guns -- whether they are | U | - Ackphtth | loaded or not.
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) (11/01/90)
In article <77800049@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > The Mac was introduced in late '84/early '85 (at least, that was the > first mac commercial, and the special issue of Newsweek with > Apple-only advertising). Since that time, the minimum amount of RAM > necessary to run the latest system software has gone from 128K to > 2048K (in 6 years). This is a factor of 16 -- a factor of 2 every 1.5 > years. Note that these numbers should be doubled if the purpose is > programming (smalltalk, mathematica, etc). Two points. 1) Even when it was introduced, 128K was not enough memory to really survive on. Just about every program that was written was in a bind for memory, that's why we still have this nightmare of memory being relocated on the fly. You had to squeeze out every last byte of memory for *every* program you wrote. 2) You don't need 2meg to run the current system software in. You pretty much need more than 1 meg, and 2meg is the next plateau. That doesn't mean you're using up every byte of that 2Meg to run the minimum system software (certainly not in the same way that 128K was cramped for memory). When you're computing that magic factor, you should take those points into account. Ignore what Apple is actually selling, and compute it based on the minimum amount of memory that the user really *needs*. Pick a current memory size that feels as cramped as 128K felt back when the Mac was first released. 2Meg is plenty of room, even today, compared to the cramped quarters of a 128K Mac. Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USA
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) (11/01/90)
In article <1990Oct31.035942.2412@cs.umn.edu> aslakson@cs.umn.edu (Brian Aslakson) writes: >chas@netcom.UUCP (Chuck Fisher) writes: >>In article <...> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >>>ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: >>>The only thing that annoys me >>>about MF (and I'm not sure if it's just the way it is, or something imposed [stuff deleted] >>makes a Sun act like the Mac does under MultiFinder. That is, that you >>have to "click" in a window in order to make it "active." The above quote is inaccurately attributed to me (Eric W. Mitchell). It may be from a post by Roy Smitch (who is credited one level up from myself). Just thought I'd set the record straight. Eric
ajauch@orion.oac.uci.edu (Alex Jauch) (11/01/90)
In <5485@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes: >In article <1990Oct29.195413.7784@phri.nyu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >> Can somebody explain to me why the average Mac user, say a typical >>office secretary, or a scientist who just wants to do word processing, data >>graphing, and figure preparation, or a (non-CS) student typing papers (or >>just about anybody not doing programming or major number crunching) needs >>VM? OK, so you can't run Unix on it, but so what? >There have been several replies to this, mostly along the lines of what >I want is what I need, and I want VM because ..., usually larger memory >capacity. A point that seems to be missed is that whilst the greater >memory of VM is useful, the protected memory is ESSENTIAL for people doing >real work on their multifinder machine. It money depends on it, you >cannot afford to have one process go wild and destroy the memory >allocated to other processes. Yes, Certainly. However, this has no bearing on the Mac v IBM debate we seem to have fallen into. Windows does not offer true multi-tasking nor protected memory. OS/2 v 2.10 does but is not really available yet. The problem here is we have some IBM people attacking Apple for some inherently Mac type things (9" mono monitor) on a Mac group. You wonder about the response? I'm not responding to this poster here but to the thread in general. >Another point is that VM reduces the complexity of the code writting >process, which cannot be bad for the end user. If makes things easier >for the programmer you need it. I would be estatic if DOS or MacOS would support it fully. I'm looking forward to pounding on the new version of OS/2. -- Alex Jauch *ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu |"If all you have is a hammer, then the whole* *ajauch@orion.oac.uci.edu |world looks like a nail" -- Stolen *
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/01/90)
------- In article <1990Oct31.185243.29169@d.cs.okstate.edu>, minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes... [...] > As I said before, it would be Real Nice to have the Mac OS rewritten >from scratch so these problems could be fixed properly. That would also >allow (require?) a rethinking of what sort of globals programs can >access. This would make protected memory A LOT easier to implement than >figuring out how to do it with the current OS and programming model. At >the same time, we could fix things like lack of DMA support, >non-preemptive multitasking, etc. This is why I (as in me, not >necessarily eveyone and his brother) am very intersted in the NeW NeXT >machines, where these fundamental OS issues are better dealt with >already. About 12-18 months ago Sculley made a big noise about re-writing the Mac OS from the ground up. Obviously that isn't 7.0. 8.0? Anyone want to hazard any guesses about due date? :-> :0> :=> Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
rsfinn@athena.mit.edu (Russell S. Finn) (11/01/90)
In article <1055@mdavcr.UUCP>, ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: |> I like this analogy better: |> |> Would you consider a Ford Escort "crippled" if you couldn't |> have more than one person in it at a time? |> |> (You can still get there, but it is a lot less convenient) OK, I recognize that automobile analogies are imprecise, and I promise to stop. Eventually. (I also promise to stop using a Ford Escort as an analogy for an automobile. :-) Having said that: an inexpensive motor vehicle that only carries one person at a time is called a "motorcycle", and though it does have its own set of drawbacks, they sell an awful lot of them. Would you consider a motorcycle "crippled" with respect to a regular passenger car? Getting back to the original issue, which is that an LC is "crippled" because it has no PMMU: well, neither does my Plus, which I've gotten a lot of use out of; furthermore, I understand I can buy a board from a third party which *will* allow me to put a PMMU in. (I'm getting a IIsi anyway, because I want Color QuickDraw too -- greedy, I know...) Folks, you can't have it both ways -- if there are to be cheaper Macs, they're going to have to cut back on some features; otherwise, the people who bought the more expensive and more powerful machines would start complaining. (It's always *something*...) I read a review of the IIsi which griped about "no new technological innovations." To me, Color QuickDraw at a price I can afford is a technological innovation. -- Russ rsfinn@{athena,lcs}.mit.edu
rsfinn@athena.mit.edu (Russell S. Finn) (11/01/90)
In article <2eBi026n031i01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) writes: |> I have found that programming a Mac is harder than X11 or any other |> environment I've been in. You know, I hear this a lot, but personally, I've never found this to be the case. (For instance, I found programming the Amiga much harder than the Mac.) I've never programmed in Windows or X, but I've glanced through their reference manuals, and my initial impression is not favorable. In contrast, Inside Macintosh usually seemed to make sense to me. Perhaps I'm just twisted the right way. I guess I shouldn't complain -- if I'm really one of the two or three dozen people in the world that actually *like* programming the Mac, and are good at it, then I should be able to find plenty of work once everyone else goes off to Windows or Motif or whatever. (At Apple, if nowhere else.) :-) |> A Mac is generic 680x0 hardware. There is nothing special, new, |> inovative, spectacular about Mac hardware. The software is what Apple |> is charging you for. Actually, if you want to see *real* generic 68000 hardware, open up an Atari ST -- but I digress. It's exactly the *software* in the Macintosh that makes me want to buy one. |> Apple is not trying to lower its prices. If it was you would find them |> doing something besides repackaging old harware in new cases and trying |> to pass it off as a new product. Huh? You mean, re-engineering existing technology to make it cheaper to manufacture, and passing the savings along to the consumer, isn't "trying to lower prices"? What does Apple have to do for you to call it "trying to lower prices"? [Not flaming, just confused.] -- Russ rsfinn@{athena,lcs}.mit.edu
aslakson@cs.umn.edu (Brian Aslakson) (11/01/90)
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: >In article <1990Oct31.035942.2412@cs.umn.edu> aslakson@cs.umn.edu (Brian Aslakson) writes: >>chas@netcom.UUCP (Chuck Fisher) writes: >>>In article <...> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >>>>ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: >>>>The only thing that annoys me >>>>about MF (and I'm not sure if it's just the way it is, or something imposed >[stuff deleted] >>>makes a Sun act like the Mac does under MultiFinder. That is, that you >>>have to "click" in a window in order to make it "active." >The above quote is inaccurately attributed to me (Eric W. Mitchell). >It may be from a post by Roy Smitch (who is credited one level up >from myself). >Just thought I'd set the record straight. >Eric Sorry about that! All the >'s get confusing! I thought I let the machine figure the number of >'s, so either I didn't or the machine got confused. -- Brian Aslakson aslakson@cs.umn.edu mac-admin@cs.umn.edu <-= Macintosh related
mtymp01@ux.acs.umn.edu (Nils H. McCarthy) (11/01/90)
In article <1990Oct31.035942.2412@cs.umn.edu> aslakson@cs.umn.edu (Brian Aslakson) writes: chas@netcom.UUCP (Chuck Fisher) writes: >In article <...> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >>ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: >>The only thing that annoys me >>about MF (and I'm not sure if it's just the way it is, or something imposed >>by the non-VM environment) is that you have to click in a window to activate >>it. It takes me a little mental effort to shift gears from my suntools >>environment to MF because of this. Then again, I watch new people use the >>Sun and not understand why, just because their elbow accidentally pushed the >>mouse out of the window, their keyboard all of a sudden went dead. Besides, >>somebody who uses a Mac for all their work won't have the Sun style windows >>to confuse them. >SunView has a variable called "ClickToType" or something like that which >makes a Sun act like the Mac does under MultiFinder. That is, that you >have to "click" in a window in order to make it "active." X windows has the same type option. I have my X windows set up so that clicking once in a title bar (left button) makes that the active window no matter where the mouse pointer is. If I click in the same title bar twice (in sucession) it goes back to the standard style where the mouse pointer must be in the window for it to be active. (Like most X-window stuff, this was copied from someone else. This trick came from mtymp01 (@ux.acs.umn.edu) AKA Nils McCarthy). Okay.. if any of you you people out there want to know how to do this, 1) get TWM or VTWM 2) add this line in your .twmrc file: Button1 = : title|frame : f.focus 3) when you start up x windows, click on one window to begin with. (this assumes you want to use button 1, the left one. If you wish to use a different one, just change Button1 to Button2 or Button3.) -- -- Nils_McCarthy mtymp01@ux.acs.umn.edu rutgers!umn-cs!ux.acs.umn.edu!mtymp01 "The wonders of modern technology..." :-) :-) :-)
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (11/01/90)
Re: Here is why you need VM (virtual memory) on your macintosh I forgot to mention: some symbolic programming languages make good use of virtual memory to handle allocation/deallocation/garbage collection of memory. When Apple releases system 7.0, if they do it right it will export an interface that lets user-level programs control the paging of their own partition. Then I expect some developers might modify their applications, such as expert systems shells, LISPs, Prolog interpreters, maybe even neural net simulators, to depend on VM. In any cose, these applications might be useless in a machine without VM support.
ajauch@orion.oac.uci.edu (Alex Jauch) (11/02/90)
In <2eBi026n031i01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) writes: >In article <272CAF47.16091@orion.oac.uci.edu> ajauch@orion.oac.uci.edu (Alex Jauch) writes: >>In <306@cti1.UUCP> greg@cti1.UUCP (Greg Fabian) writes: >> >> >>> They say that Apple is trying to become more price competitive >>>with ISA PC prices. Of course that will never happen because the >>>Mac is still a closed box - sure you can buy expansion boards and >>>memory, and other stuff from other manufacturers, but the BIOS and >>>ROMs are all Apple and they will never open those up. I can stroll >>>down to the local computer store and buy a store brand 386/25 with >>>4 MB RAM, 80 MB hard disk and a 14" VGA plus monitor for $2500 and >>>it will blow the doors of the Mac II lc/si and come in at a cheaper >>>price. >> >>Please define "blow the doors of(f)." An si will operate at more than >>twice the speed of the 386/25 running windows. Yes, the machine is spinning >>its wheels really fast, but nothing is happening as far as the user can >>tell, so it's wasted. The importance of a GUI is not something I will >>discuss on this group. >Spinning its wheels????? More like doing faster screen draws, processing >those background tasks a lot faster, and doing some paging. (Paging - >you know what a Mac can't do until that vaporware System 7 shows up.) >A si isn't twice the speed of a 386/25, not even in a dream. The fact >that the cpu is faster makes a hell of a lot of difference. (See above.) I would like to know exactly what hardware and software you are talking about. I have a Mac II (about the speed of a LC I presume) and a Zenith 386/25 (a dx notice). I am running System 6.0.5 and Word and Excel on the Mac and Windows 3 with Word and Excel. The Zenith is notably slower in all operations, including cut and paste, application switching, screen redraw and startup. Am I doing something wrong with Windows or have you never actually tried comparing them? Please note that I feel this verifies my claim that Windows sucks, since it does not install its self properly :-). >For engineering type work a Mac plainly sucks. Macs are great if you >never want to see the operating system, or do quick and dirty programming This plainly is not true. Put a ci with a 25" 8 bit monitor on an engineer's desk and watch his eyes light up. Try to do 3D color rendering in Windows. >I WANT a command line somewhere, somehow, because I DON"T always want a >mouse. A mouse is not the ultimate solution!!! >I have found that programming a Mac is harder than X11 or any other >environment I've been in. >>> I've always regarded Apple as a somewhat greedy company. This >>>new marketing tack seems to make Apple more price competitive (if >>>you are looking at IBM, Compaq, and other expensive PC >>>manufacturers), but I am not convinced. Is everyone else? >>> >> >>Welcome to America buddy. Everyone has the God given right to be as greedy >>as they can get away with. Do you really think any company is not in business >>to make money? Not a for profit, publically owned one at any rate. I think >>Apple is making a concentrated effort to lower prices. If their products are >>too expensive for what they do, don't buy one. >> >>Alex Jauch >A Mac is generic 680x0 hardware. There is nothing special, new, >inovative, spectacular about Mac hardware. The software is what Apple >is charging you for. The reason Macs are so high is that Apple has >enjoyed artificially high margins because they have had a virtual >monopoly on GUI's and would like to remain that way. >Macs are not easy to set up once you get into the II line because >you have configuration options, just like all other systems on the market. >So if you want expansion options ease of setup goes away (usually). >Apple used to pride itself on plug and play. Can't do that anymore >unless you stick to low end machines or to Apple peripherals which are >also priced artificially high. Got that Apple name on em' don't ya know. This is just plain silly. Try installing a network card into a Mac. Put it in, run the install on the software. End of story. Install a new Hard Drive. Put it in, format it (if neccessary). End of story. Try putting new memory. Put it in. End of story. The Mac II series is the easiest computer platform to work on I've ever supported. Much easier than the compact series because it is so hard to get those durn cases off. >Apple is not trying to lower its prices. If it was you would find them >doing something besides repackaging old harware in new cases and trying >to pass it off as a new product. Are you honestly asserting that the Compaq 386sx is a blinding new innovation? Or how about that daring bit of work, the 55sx? What a gamble that was! The only really new machines these days are the 486's (Apple is working on that one) and the multi-processors from Compaq. >1. Macs WILL get cheaper or Apple WILL start lose market share to cheaper > and more powerful systems, GUI or NO GUI. Define more powerful. I'd love to see a micro with more horsepower than the FX. >2. Windows and the NeXT WILL NOT go away. They will slowly erode > marketshare until Apple puts its prices in line with the rest > of the industry. May take a while. (Windows is selling very well.) Beause everything else for the PC SUCKS!! Wake up, Windows is not competion for Apple, it is imitation. The Windows interface is soo poor it is no competition for Apple. OS/2 is the only competitor. >3. Mac clones WILL come sooner or later and that WILL definitely piss > Apple off. Apple will lower prices. Peripherals will get cheaper. > -This is what happened in the IBM market. I would love this but I doubt it. More likely look for license agreements. -- Alex Jauch *ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu |"If all you have is a hammer, then the whole* *ajauch@orion.oac.uci.edu |world looks like a nail" -- Stolen *
jcocon@hubcap.clemson.edu (james c oconnor) (11/02/90)
From article <1990Oct31.185243.29169@d.cs.okstate.edu>, by minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich): > want a maximum of say 10MB with 5MB RAM, you'll have a 5MB swap file on > your disk whether you're actually making use of it or just running the > finder. <sigh> Funny, I've set up a few Sun workstations running unix. They all had swap partitions if they had swap on a local hard disk, so to change the virtual memory size you had to RE-PARTITION the disk. If swap was on a server, then you had to allocate a file the size of the virtual memory space you wanted, including the RAM. A 16 Meg file was needed if you wanted a 16Meg address space. That makes sense to me (need to put the info in memory somewhere while you move in the memory on disk, although if you do it a page at a time the disk space would be VM - RAM + page size, but then you have table look-ups to determine where byte page n is right now on the hard disk, instead of simply using the "real" address as the offset into the file.) The memory manager has to be real low in the operating system, so you want to keep it simple.
rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel) (11/02/90)
In article <77800049@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >The Mac was introduced in late '84/early '85 (at least, that was the >first mac commercial, and the special issue of Newsweek with >Apple-only advertising). Since that time, the minimum amount of RAM Actually, Mac was introduced late '83/early '84. Some dealers had them for at least for demo in late '83. I believe Mac was officially announced in Jan. '84.
chas@netcom.UUCP (Chuck Fisher) (11/02/90)
In article <11322@hubcap.clemson.edu> jcocon@hubcap.clemson.edu (james c oconnor) writes: >Funny, I've set up a few Sun workstations running unix. They all had >swap partitions if they had swap on a local hard disk, so to change the >virtual memory size you had to RE-PARTITION the disk. If swap was on >a server, then you had to allocate a file the size of the virtual memory >space you wanted, including the RAM. A 16 Meg file was needed if you >wanted a 16Meg address space... SunOS has had the "swapon" command for several releases which allows you to dynamically add to the swap space in addition to the reserved swap partition. The "swapon" file can be later released when it is no longer required. A large swap partition on a disk can only be used as swap space. The best recommendation is to size the swap partition to a reasonable size (usually somewhat larger than the physical memory.) And use the swapon facility to add to the total swap space available when needed. Chuck ----- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Chuck Fisher Work: (800) 359-7997 | | chas@netcom.uucp Home: (415) 964-2819 | | {apple,claris,amdahl,tandem}!netcom!chas | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
mazu@terre.DMI.USherb.CA (Marc Mazuhelli) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Oct31.185243.29169@d.cs.okstate.edu> minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: >There will be a big file somewhere and the size of RAM + swap file = >total available memory. So even if you have a 2MB free on disk, if you >run out of VM you'll have to reboot to allocate more. Likewise, if you >want a maximum of say 10MB with 5MB RAM, you'll have a 5MB swap file on >your disk whether you're actually making use of it or just running the >finder. <sigh> I was under the impression that if you wanted 10Megs of virtual memory with 5 Megs of real memory, you would need to allocate a *10* Meg file on your disk (i.e. the total amount of virtual memory you want). Is this true? if so, it's even worst!! -- { Marc Mazuhelli | professeur } { internet: mazu@dmi.USherb.CA | Departement de math-info. } { <this space intentionaly ... | Universite de Sherbrooke } { ... left blank> | Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada }
clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong) (11/02/90)
What with discussions of tweaking X Windows and pissing matches about what runs faster/better, a Mac model N with N megs of memory or a Name-Your-DOS- Clone model N with a N megahertz processor and N megs of memory running... well, this thread sure has wandered a lot! :-) Yes, I know, this is a silly, unproductive, off-topic post. Sorry sorry sorry sorry terribly sorry. I'm wearing my asbestos underwear; flame away. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kathy Strong : "Welcome to FUBAR Corp., where there's (Clouds moving slowly) : never enough time to do a job right, clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu : but always enough time to do it over."
lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) (11/03/90)
In article <107@genco.bungi.com> rad@genco.bungi.com (Bob Daniel) writes: > >Actually, Mac was introduced late '83/early '84. Some dealers had >them for at least for demo in late '83. I believe Mac was officially >announced in Jan. '84. Yes. And that was why 1984 wasn't like "1984". - Trent Lange -- ************************************************************************ * UCLA: Trying to bring light and happiness to the world. * ************************************************************************
whit@milton.u.washington.edu (John Whitmore) (11/03/90)
In article <1990Oct30.231000.2343@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > > [responding to previous post] >>There are several companies working on clean room versions of Mac ROMs. >>This is the same approach used to clone IBM PC's. I won't go into >>details but, IT IS legal to write compatible ROM code and OS as long >>as you follow certain guidelines. > >It certainly is legal and possible to write clean room versions of Mac ROMs >(though I wonder how they'll implement Apple-patented code such as regions). >But the operative word there is "clean room": they will have to prove that they >had NO knowledge of Apple's methods. Tricky. That's not true. The burden of proof, should Apple bring suit, is on Apple. Given the large body of common knowledge regarding most of the GUI features that are Apple's stock in trade, this will be difficult to prove (and Apple will probably try to fight such a battle as a delaying tactic, if at all). >And remember: people are mainly >working on 128k ROM clones. And then will come 256k ROMs. But Apple's already >up to 512k. Many many years 'til any cloners catch up. And remember: they'll >have to clone the OS too: it's illegal for Apple Mac OS software to run on >non-Apple machines. Huh? Why? I never signed any agreement to keep my copy of the OS off other machines. Did you? Apple licenses software companies to distribute the latest versions of their system software, for a nominal fee (like $50 per year); ANY AND ALL such distributed software can be used freely by the recipients. Any restrictions on the use that you may have in mind would be established only by some pre-existing contract WITH THE PURCHASER of the software. No such contract exists. Remember, it's a free country. 'Illegal' has meaning far beyond 'Apple won't like it'; if Apple wants to control System 7, they might come up with a new scheme when they make it available; if they want to forbid its use on other folks' machines, they can make signature on a contract a condition of purchase. They haven't yet. John Whitmore
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (11/03/90)
>pick-up one of these babies for $1399. It has 2.5 MB RAM and an >Apple 40 MB hard disk and also includes the keyboard and mouse. >Assuming that I can upgrade the Mac Plus memory for $100/meg, I >could boost the Plus to the Classic level for a total cost of $1199 >(with 3 megs RAM) and pay $200 less than the Classic. Yes, but you'll have a Mac Plus! Seriously, the Classic has the nicer keyboard, will not be discontinued by Apple and is overall, well, nicer looking. Also, it is about 20% faster than the Plus (kinda like the SE) and sports an internal hard disk. Overall, you'd be much happier with the Classic, except for the keyboard that now sports the idiotic PC style layout that Apple has (unbfortunately) grown fond off (you know, the ones with the CAPS LOCK and CONTROL key in the wronmg places) Harry uucp : ucrmath!alchemy!hzink | Achieve True Wealth and Financial Independence! INET : hzink@alchemy.uucp | Intrigued? - Send E-Mail! -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Wesley: "Captain, this doesn't look like the holodeck to me." Worf: "Ready to cycle airlock, Captain." Picard: "Make it so."
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/05/90)
------ In article <10524@milton.u.washington.edu>, whit@milton.u.washington.edu (John Whitmore) writes... >In article <1990Oct30.231000.2343@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >> >> [responding to previous post] >>>There are several companies working on clean room versions of Mac ROMs. >>>This is the same approach used to clone IBM PC's. I won't go into >>>details but, IT IS legal to write compatible ROM code and OS as long >>>as you follow certain guidelines. >> >>It certainly is legal and possible to write clean room versions of Mac ROMs >>(though I wonder how they'll implement Apple-patented code such as regions). >>But the operative word there is "clean room": they will have to prove that they >>had NO knowledge of Apple's methods. Tricky. > > That's not true. The burden of proof, should Apple bring suit, >is on Apple. Given the large body of common knowledge regarding most Interesting opinion. What legal precedents are you basing this on? >>And remember: people are mainly >>working on 128k ROM clones. And then will come 256k ROMs. But Apple's already >>up to 512k. Many many years 'til any cloners catch up. And remember: they'll >>have to clone the OS too: it's illegal for Apple Mac OS software to run on >>non-Apple machines. > > Huh? Why? I never signed any agreement to keep my copy of the OS >off other machines. Did you? Apple licenses software companies to distribute >the latest versions of their system software, for a nominal fee (like >$50 per year); ANY AND ALL such distributed software can be used freely >by the recipients. Any restrictions on the use that you may have in mind >would be established only by some pre-existing contract WITH THE PURCHASER >of the software. No such contract exists. I don't have any idea what you're talking about. The system software distributed with Macs is shrink-wrap licensed so that it can only be run on Macs. This is generally known. Is this legal? Probably. It could of course be overturned, but I think it is safe to assume that it may not be, since it's a valid licensing agreement as far as I can tell. I don't know what software companies you are talking about which distribute Apple system software. Whatever the case, it is unlikely that a 3rd party company can invalidate an Apple licensing agreement. Remember: even if you have purchased a 3rd party product and Apple software came with it, you have NOT purchased the Apple software, just licensed it. Check the fine print. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (11/05/90)
Bob Daniel writes in a message on 01 Nov 90: BD> Actually, Mac was introduced late '83/early '84. Some dealers BD> had them for at least for demo in late '83. I believe Mac was BD> officially announced in Jan. '84. "On January 23, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like _1984_." (And of course on January 23, 1985 Apple Computer announced the Macintosh Office--and so the PR habits surrounding System 7.0 were born.) --Adam-- **************************************************************** * "But Windows slows performance, and its interface isn't as * * elegant as the Mac's. It's a little like listening to * * Bruce Willis play the blues: technically correct but * * soulless." * **************************************************************** * CIS: 70721,504 * * America OnLine: AdamFrix * * Internet: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG * **************************************************************** -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (11/05/90)
Harry K. Zink writes in a message on 03 Nov 90: HKZ> Seriously, the Classic has the nicer keyboard, will not be discontinued HKZ> by Apple Oh, yes it will be. --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (11/05/90)
(1) Patents are not issued for computer algorithms. Only trade secret
and copyright protection is available for such algorithms (and
languages, like quickdraw, which is copyrighted). I disbelieve that
any part of the Quickdraw code is patented in a way that would stand
up in court.
(2) I believe Pheonix Technologies legally cloned the IBM ROM BIOS as
follows. First get two design teams together. One reads the BIOS and
writes an exact behavioral specification of how the BIOS should work,
including the bugs it should have. The second team contains no
programmer that has ever disassembled a single line of IBM BIOS. In
complete isolation, they take the functional specification and write a
ROM BIOS from scratch. This method has been upheld in court. Pheonix
Technologies was careful to document the design process, and make sure
to get "virgin" programmers.
Don W. Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gilliesgft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (11/06/90)
----- In article <77800053@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes... > >(1) Patents are not issued for computer algorithms. Only trade secret >and copyright protection is available for such algorithms (and >languages, like quickdraw, which is copyrighted). I disbelieve that >any part of the Quickdraw code is patented in a way that would stand >up in court. Bzzt! Wrong answer! Patents ARE issued for computer algorithms. Parts of the Mac toolbox ARE patented. Example: "Regions" (by Bill Atkinson). Look it up. If your argument is that patents issued by the US Patent Office won't stand up in court, I guess anything's possible, but I since I'm not a patent lawyer -- and neither are you -- there's not much to say about this. No matter what you "believe". Any patent lawyers out there want to comment on the possibility of overturning issued patents? Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (11/07/90)
> Bzzt! Wrong answer! > > Patents ARE issued for computer algorithms. > > Parts of the Mac toolbox ARE patented. Example: "Regions" (by Bill > Atkinson). Look it up. Go directly to Jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars (or a law degree). Apparently, you don't know the difference between a computer algorithm, and the expression of the algorithm in a ROM. See the April 1990 and August 1990 issues of IEEE Micro to learn the difference. In particular, the articles state, "For all practical purposes the [invalid patent] claims covered any use of the [BCD] algorithm in a general-purpose digital computer, so that the effect would be to give a patent on the algorithm itself". Also, it doesn't really matter WHAT the patent office issues, but WHAT is upheld in a court challenge. According to the April IEEE Micro issue, the supreme court has never upheld a patent on an algorithm. Algorithms are in the same class as laws of nature, and pure mathematics. The court only upholds patents on devices, of which algorithms were not the central source of novelty. Any patents associated with the Mac are patents on the expression of the algorithm in the ROM, not on the expression of the algorithm in a general sense (i.e. reimplemented from scratch and stored in RAM).
gt4586c@prism.gatech.EDU (WILLETT,THOMAS CARTER) (11/08/90)
In article <2eBi026n031i01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) writes: > For engineering type work a Mac plainly sucks. Macs are great if you > never want to see the operating system, or do quick and dirty programming > > I WANT a command line somewhere, somehow, because I DON"T always want a > mouse. A mouse is not the ultimate solution!!! > > I have found that programming a Mac is harder than X11 or any other > environment I've been in. > I strongly disagree with the assertion that the mac "plainly sucks" for engineering work, or that its programming environment is difficult. i am using a IIci and Think Pascal and Borland Numerical Methods Toolbox to write a simulation program which will be the key tool in my doctoral research (sorry, couldn't resist dropping in my academic rank since several folks in this thread have been doing it). using the above tools i've done a ton of programming and had a blast, especially because i can easily display my own graphics and thus have complete control over how it is done. i can do my work much faster than the command line method which requires the following steps: - get into a text editor and type code, exit editor - compile code, and deal with separate listings of errors - link code to external libraries - build executable file - run program, output data to disk file - use some commercial graphics package to display the data and jump through their hoops to do it. with the mac and Think Pascal, i can edit, compile, link, build, and run all from within the compiler environment. by handling my own graphics i don't have to waste time jumping around between applications, and i can make sure i get exactly what i want. as far as quick and dirty programming, both Think Pascal and Turbo Pascal provide for a simple text window for you so you can write quick and dirty command line programs. i'm also not alone in feeling macs are perfectly adequate for engineering work. in my department, IBM has held sway for all of the 80s, but now we have a new lab full of macs, and the aerospace folks across the street have a lab full of new macs also, and the chemistry folks have a mac lab also. additionally, Mathematica and Matlab are much easier to run on a mac than they are on a command line machine. -- thomas willett Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta gt4586c@prism.gatech.edu "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Salvor Hardin (Foundation)
jackb (Jack Brindle) (11/09/90)
In article <16651@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt4586c@prism.gatech.EDU (WILLETT,THOMAS CARTER) writes: >command line programs. i'm also not alone in feeling macs are perfectly >adequate for engineering work. in my department, IBM has held sway for all >of the 80s, but now we have a new lab full of macs, and the aerospace folks >across the street have a lab full of new macs also, and the chemistry folks >have a mac lab also. additionally, Mathematica and Matlab are much easier >to run on a mac than they are on a command line machine. >-- >thomas willett >Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta >gt4586c@prism.gatech.edu This is far more significant than one would think at first. Atlanta is definitely the land of IBM, with many thousands of employees there. Ga Tech has been "in IBMs pocket" for quite some time now. Further, Ga Tech's president is on the board of directors of Next. So one would think that if they switched away from IBM equipment, it would be to a Next box. Way to go guys! Jack Brindle - Former Atlantan, (and future, whenever that will be)... P.S. To the Ga Tech folks. Great going last Saturday. We really enjoyed THE GAME.
KPURCELL@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK (11/09/90)
In article <77800060@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu says: > >> Bzzt! Wrong answer! >> >> Patents ARE issued for computer algorithms. >> >> Parts of the Mac toolbox ARE patented. Example: "Regions" (by Bill >> Atkinson). Look it up. > >Go directly to Jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars (or a >law degree). Apparently, you don't know the difference between a >computer algorithm, and the expression of the algorithm in a ROM. See >the April 1990 and August 1990 issues of IEEE Micro to learn the >difference. [...] There are some companies who certainly believe they have a patent on an *algorithm*. The best example is the LZW (yes, the one used in Stuffit) which is patented by Unisys -- and they are demanding money from people who are using it (like $20,000 per product). And it certainly looks like they're trying to patent and algorithm (go and read the patent if you disagree, then we'll argue. I've already done it :-) [...] >Also, it doesn't really matter WHAT the patent office issues, but WHAT >is upheld in a court challenge. According to the April IEEE Micro >issue, the supreme court has never upheld a patent on an algorithm. This is again true. And I hope that patents on algorithms are never upheld in Court. The original ruling which allowed all these applications to slip through is a result of somebody patenting a process that used a computer to control a plant. We are now in desperate need of one of these things being challenged (for you old hackers out there, did you know that the idea of putting a cursor and screen by XORing it with the screen bits is patented! Such an innovative solution :-) For those that want to know more, read Richard Stallman's articles: "On Software Patents" and "On User Interface Copyright". RMS doesn't like Apples so keep your head down (something to do with a user interface copyright suit ...). You can get these papers by anonymous ftp from prep.ai.mit.edu. If you're worried about User Interface copyright and software patents (if you write software you should be worried) join The League for Programming Freedom. Again see the papers for more details. Kevin Kevin Purcell | kpurcell@liverpool.ac.uk -or- kgp@cxa.dl.ac.uk Surface Science, | Liverpool University | There is now a *Twin Peaks* distribution list for Liverpool L69 3BX | UK Peak Freaks. Mail me for details ....