gross@umiami.miami.edu (JD144) (09/06/90)
Well, just got done reading the latest issue of Macworld. In it was an
interesting article under the heading of The State of the Mac. The article
addressed the inherent design flaws in the Macintosh and how they affect
performance.
(If you really want to know, the issued discussed were: Lack of support
for NuBus block-transfer mode, no asych I/O, and no support for the new
DMA chips in the IIfx..not even with System 7.0)
Now, armed with this knowledge, I would like to offer my solution to this
dilemma: Completely redesign the Mac.
"But wait! This will make it incompatible with the other Macs!" Possibly..
but I believe it is high time that Apple stop trying to push it's now 6-year
old technology (albeit they have done an admirable job doing it!) and come
up with something brand new.
Y'see, many of the Macs performance problems comes from the fact that Apple
forces the poor CPU to do everything. The sound chip and the IIfx's DMA
chips are the only separate processors available to do asych tasks. And even
then, disk I/O will cause the sound chip to halt its execution.
When Apple is designing its '040 Macs, they should strongly consider giving
it the capabilities that would allow it to overcome the processing bottlenecks
imposed by the hardware and OS. The Mac could easily do everything that
is touted as being only capable on an Amiga if these bottlenecks are
removed.
Well, it's just my opinion. If you really need to flame me...go ahead.
Have a nice day. :)
--
Jason Gross Comp Sci Ugrad University of Miami Class of '91 (?)
===========================================================================
Hey, wanna save the world? | Got sumtin' to say? gross@umiami.bitnet
Nuke a Godless, Communist, | Pick and choose! gross@umiami.miami.edu
gay whale for Christ. | gross@miavax.ir.miami.edu
- Anonymous | jgross@umbio.med.miami.edu
===========================================================================
The University of Miami has a lovely fountain. anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony,116 Congdon,,2683915) (09/06/90)
From article <6897.26e532e9@umiami.miami.edu>, by gross@umiami.miami.edu (JD144): > (stuff deleted) > > Now, armed with this knowledge, I would like to offer my solution to this > dilemma: Completely redesign the Mac. > > "But wait! This will make it incompatible with the other Macs!" Possibly.. > but I believe it is high time that Apple stop trying to push it's now 6-year > old technology (albeit they have done an admirable job doing it!) and come > up with something brand new. > > Y'see, many of the Macs performance problems comes from the fact that Apple > forces the poor CPU to do everything. The sound chip and the IIfx's DMA > chips are the only separate processors available to do asych tasks. And even > then, disk I/O will cause the sound chip to halt its execution. > > When Apple is designing its '040 Macs, they should strongly consider giving > it the capabilities that would allow it to overcome the processing bottlenecks > imposed by the hardware and OS. The Mac could easily do everything that > is touted as being only capable on an Amiga if these bottlenecks are > removed. > Yes, I, in theory, agree. But, I don't think the new Macs would have to be incompatible. The beauty of the Mac's design is the wealth of routines built in to ROM (well, if you're not a programmer it's beautiful). By using this technique, Apple can change the underlying process for how these routines work, without affecting their results. Thus, Apple can develop improved hardware which distribute tasks to slave-processors, but still have the same functionality. The jump from IIci to IIfx wouldn't have been possible without this ability. While the hardware hasn't been fully exploited yet on the IIfx, future Systems will be able to, while not giving up compatibilty. I think this is the right direction for Apple to continue. One thing I like about Apple is that they push new technology. Object Oriented Prorgramming, 32-Bit clean programs, the new RISC based graphic cards etc. are all examples where Apple has moved forward without giving up the base behind it. (As a side note: would this be possible if the market were taken by Mac clones?) At the same time, old technology can be slowly let go without anyone having to suddenly make great new investments. > Well, it's just my opinion. If you really need to flame me...go ahead. Just mine too. > Have a nice day. :) Thanks, I will! :-) > > -- > Jason Gross Comp Sci Ugrad University of Miami Class of '91 (?) __________________________________________________________________ Jason W. Anthony anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu //// /| Computer Engineering / / | Clarkson University, Potsdam N.Y. / / /--| ____________________________________________________ ///. / |.
kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) (09/06/90)
gross@umiami.miami.edu (JD144) writes: >dilemma: Completely redesign the Mac. >When Apple is designing its '040 Macs, they should strongly consider giving >it the capabilities that would allow it to overcome the processing bottlenecks >imposed by the hardware and OS. The Mac could easily do everything that >is touted as being only capable on an Amiga if these bottlenecks are >removed. How about a multi-prossecor mac? I'd like to see the Mac machines move into the serious networking and multi-tasking - mulyi-user areas of computers. One of my greattest hangups (besides price) with the mac is the slowness and general pain or servers on a network. >Well, it's just my opinion. If you really need to flame me...go ahead. >=========================================================================== >Hey, wanna save the world? | Got sumtin' to say? gross@umiami.bitnet >Nuke a Godless, Communist, | Pick and choose! gross@umiami.miami.edu >gay whale for Christ. | gross@miavax.ir.miami.edu > - Anonymous | jgross@umbio.med.miami.edu >=========================================================================== I have a pin that says "Nuke a gay whale for christ!" Kaveh. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "Men are like lizards that bask in the sun, and say "what a nice place | | someone has built for me!"" -The Stone Of Farwell | | Tad Williams | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ee299bw@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Dark Star Crashes) (09/06/90)
> gross@umiami.miami.edu (JD144) writes stuff which must be correct, > because I agree with it. :-) They should also consider that the high performance workstation market is going to be a bloodbath in the 90s, and they're not going to stay in business for very long selling $10000 machines with pretty interfaces but can't handle multitasking, protected memory which can be reallocated in real time, and all the other wonderful things one would expect from a real operating system. I'm not sure how they will accomplish this without abandoning to some degree the bottom end of the Mac line, though. Just my $0.02, and your mileage may vary. :-) Dave -- *********************** Dave Chesavage **************************** * dchesavage@ucsd.edu * * "All the things I planned to do I only did halfway" *
kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) (09/06/90)
In article <1990Sep5.224018.3233@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony,116 Congdon,,2683915) writes: >One thing I like about Apple is that they push new technology. Say what? This is the apple that released a *15* MHz Mac II when everyone else was pushing 25 and 33? Apple's computers have lousy performance compared to almost any other system. Worse than the CPU managing the disk, is its managing the floppy! The NUBUS spec for the II says that the bus can't be used for real-time transfers because the CPU locks the bus for up to 200ms (yes, milli-seconds) at a time when dealing with the floppy. (A 10MHz bus, no less). Apple's pushed a lot of things, but *never* technology. -- _ Kevin D. Quitt demott!kdq kdq@demott.com DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St. Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266 VOICE (818) 988-4975 FAX (818) 997-1190 MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last 96.37% of all statistics are made up.
das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) (09/07/90)
In article <6897.26e532e9@umiami.miami.edu> gross@umiami.miami.edu (JD144) writes: >Y'see, many of the Macs performance problems comes from the fact that Apple >forces the poor CPU to do everything. The sound chip and the IIfx's DMA >chips are the only separate processors available to do asych tasks. And even >then, disk I/O will cause the sound chip to halt its execution. You can produce sound and access the disk at the same time. The Big Bang CD (which was passed out at the May developers conference) contains a sample app which does just that. But I agree with you, it is a shame that there is no OS support for the DMA chip. David #include <disclaim.h>
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (09/07/90)
In article <537@demott.COM> kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) writes: >In article <1990Sep5.224018.3233@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony,116 Congdon,,2683915) writes: >>One thing I like about Apple is that they push new technology. > > Say what? This is the apple that released a *15* MHz Mac II when >everyone else was pushing 25 and 33? Apple's computers have lousy >performance compared to almost any other system. This is a guy trying to compare raw MHz numbers of completely different processors? Come on, leave that to the RISC pushers. BTW, it was 16MHz, not 15.
billj@b11.ingr.com (Bill Jones) (09/07/90)
kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) writes: >In article <1990Sep5.224018.3233@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony,116 Congdon,,2683915) writes: >>One thing I like about Apple is that they push new technology. > Say what? This is the apple that released a *15* MHz Mac II when >everyone else was pushing 25 and 33? Apple's computers have lousy >performance compared to almost any other system. Clearly, you haven't seen an allegedly "fast" PClone trying to run Win 3.
jcocon@hubcap.clemson.edu (james c oconnor) (09/07/90)
From article <537@demott.COM>, by kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt): > In article <1990Sep5.224018.3233@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony,116 Congdon,,2683915) writes: >>One thing I like about Apple is that they push new technology. > > Say what? This is the apple that released a *15* MHz Mac II when > everyone else was pushing 25 and 33? Apple's computers have lousy > performance compared to almost any other system. When the Mac II came out it was nearly identical to one of the fastest IBM PS/2s that had appeared at the same time. Byte showed that the two were of comperable power, and the Mac II was cheaper when you loaded up the IBM to match it. Jim
ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (09/07/90)
In article <1990Sep6.200736.6012@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >In article <537@demott.COM> kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) writes: >> >> Say what? This is the apple that released a *15* MHz Mac II when >>everyone else was pushing 25 and 33? Apple's computers have lousy >>performance compared to almost any other system. > >This is a guy trying to compare raw MHz numbers of completely different >processors? Come on, leave that to the RISC pushers. BTW, it was 16MHz, >not 15. Well, if you want to get picky, it was (is) 15.6672MHz (something to do with video clocking frequencies, no?). 1MHz is not a hell of a big difference. In any case, when the Mac II and IIx hit the street, the faster 68020's were production parts. They *could* have used it, but didn't. I think that was the point... -- ken seefried iii ken@dali.gatech.edu "Vee haf veyz off making you talk...release da veasles..."
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (09/07/90)
In article <13417@hydra.gatech.EDU> ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >In article <1990Sep6.200736.6012@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: > >In any case, when the Mac II and IIx hit the street, the faster 68020's >were production parts. They *could* have used it, but didn't. I think >that was the point... "Production parts" is a phrase which contains no information about the availability. I'm sure a company could get several *hundred* faster 68020's or 68030's at the same time Apple had to design in a chip which was available in the multi-*thousands*. Several companies made very nice profits off of their accelerator boards by taking advantage of this situation. jim -- Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6061 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086
peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) (09/08/90)
In article <kaveh.652575426@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >gross@umiami.miami.edu (JD144) writes: > >>dilemma: Completely redesign the Mac. > >>When Apple is designing its '040 Macs, they should strongly consider giving >>it the capabilities that would allow it to overcome the processing bottlenecks >>imposed by the hardware and OS. The Mac could easily do everything that >>is touted as being only capable on an Amiga if these bottlenecks are >>removed. > >How about a multi-prossecor mac? I agree. I've always felt that it would be great to not only be able to pick up more memory for my machine, but more CPU too. I could head down to buy the latest greatest wonderApp, and since this would be running concurrently with something of importance on my machine, I decide that I need more CPU. So I just pick up a 68050 plug in module and voila, I've got five processors instead of four! It also has the advantange that I can completely dedicate at least one CPU to the UI - guaranteed responsiveness. And my BBS talking over ISDN lines never knows the difference... Claris Corp. | Michael R. Peirce -------------+-------------------------------------- | 5201 Patrick Henry Drive MS-C4 | Box 58168 | Santa Clara, CA 95051-8168 | (408) 987-7319 | AppleLink: peirce1 | Internet: peirce@claris.com | uucp: {ames,decwrl,apple,sun}!claris!peirce
ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) (09/25/90)
In <537@demott.COM>, kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) says "This is the apple that released a *15* MHz Mac II when everyone else was pushing 25 and 33?" Er, no, this is the company that released a 15.7MHz machine when everybody else was pushing 16 and 20 MHz. And this is the company that released a 40MHz machine when everybody else was pushing 25 and 33MHz. Sure, there are other issues to performance than raw megahertz. But let's keep our facts straight. Lawrence D'Oliveiro fone: +64-71-562-889 Computer Services Dept fax: +64-71-384-066 University of Waikato electric mail: ldo@waikato.ac.nz Hamilton, New Zealand 37^ 47' 26" S, 175^ 19' 7" E, GMT+12:00 Disk Sikhs wear turbines on their heads.