rhyde@koufax.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (05/25/91)
He. He. You should hear all the Mac users bitching about the fact that Apple has no (announced) plan to upgrade 32-bit dirty ROMs on their older macs. It sounds like all the whining that goes on around here! I can hardly wait for the Apple RISC machines to appear! That'll take some wind out of the Mac snobbery sails! *** RAndy Hyde
nrunyon%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (The Third Bard) (05/25/91)
In article <14705@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@koufax.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: >He. He. >You should hear all the Mac users bitching about the fact that Apple has >no (announced) plan to upgrade 32-bit dirty ROMs on their older macs. >It sounds like all the whining that goes on around here! Like they should bitch. They can get a new machine, we can't. Let 'em cry all they want. >I can hardly wait for the Apple RISC machines to appear! No doubt. One of the grad students here was on the design team for the Motorola 88000, and he was giving a lecture on it the other day in one of my classes. It is an impressive RISC chip, and since the new Apple RISC machines are suppose to be based on the 88010 and 88020...well it ought to be interesting what they can do... >*** RAndy Hyde Neil - ------------ TBW (The Bird Watch) Sports - Baltimore Orioles! ------------- Neil M. Runyon | What is TWB Sports? Finger me and find out! University of Utah - CS Dept | "The Few. The Proud. The Stupid. The Inept." nrunyon@peruvian.utah.edu | - Phule's Company [Robert Asprin]
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (05/26/91)
>You should hear all the Mac users bitching about the fact that Apple has >no (announced) plan to upgrade 32-bit dirty ROMs on their older macs. >It sounds like all the whining that goes on around here! I can hardly >wait for the Apple RISC machines to appear! That'll take some wind out >of the Mac snobbery sails! >*** RAndy Hyde If Apple stays with the 88000 chipset then they will likely include a 680x0 emulation package to retain compatibility with older software. Apple may be many things, but it does insure compatibility with the installed base, and goes well out of its way to do so. At least for a couple years. UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) (05/27/91)
In article <776@generic.UUCP>, ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: > > If Apple stays with the 88000 chipset then they will likely include a 680x0 > emulation package to retain compatibility with older software. Apple may be > many things, but it does insure compatibility with the installed base, and > goes well out of its way to do so. At least for a couple years. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ahem. So that's why we see a IIgs emulator for the Mac LC? Sorry, it just had to be said. end; {procedure soapbox} -- Joel Sumner GENIE:JOEL.SUMNER This .sig may not be used q4kx@cornella.ccs.cornell.edu q4kx@cornella for public viewing or q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu q4kx@crnlvax5 rebroadcast without the .................................................... express written consent The impedance of absolutely nothing is 377 ohms. of major league baseball.
glaeske@plains.NoDak.edu (Brian Glaeske) (05/28/91)
In article <1991May27.130706.5070@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) writes: >Ahem. So that's why we see a IIgs emulator for the Mac LC? Sorry, it just >had to be said. > I've long wondered about the wonderful Mac LC. What a wonderful company Apple is to provide an Apple IIe emulator in hardware no less on a Macintosh that can emulate a Intel 286 in software. Why couldn't theyhave put a GS on the LC? Marketing. People might actually think that an Apple GS was a better machine than the baby Macs. Apple is just out to screw everyone now days. It is the way of companies when they get too big. -- Brian Glaeske - /| glaeske@plains.NoDak.edu [Internet] o.O` --Ooop ACK!! ..!uunet!plains!gehenna!brian [NeXT UUCP] =(___)= U "Bloom County Forever!!"
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (05/28/91)
In article <10653@plains.NoDak.edu> glaeske@plains.NoDak.edu (Brian Glaeske) writes: [quote deleted] >I've long wondered about the wonderful Mac LC. What a wonderful company >Apple is to provide an Apple IIe emulator in hardware no less on a Macintosh >that can emulate a Intel 286 in software. Insignia's SoftPC may be suitable for many things, but it hardly replaces an AT or even an xt for that matter. I have it running on a IIci and an 040 NeXT. As long as you don't do anything that demands refreshing the screen in a reasonable perriod of time, it may be a transistional type of progam( although not inexpensive). I don't see what Apple's use of the 68k family has anything at all to do with the IIe emulation card. The card is also meant. I assume, as a transitional product for those people with large IIe software libraries, such as educators. >Why couldn't theyhave put a GS on the LC? Marketing. People might actually >think that an Apple GS was a better machine than the baby Macs. I assume a GS on a card may come, but it's probably not that easy. In any case hybrid products are rarely successful. Better Apple produce and inexpensive GS, than a IIGS card( or both). Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.utoronto.ca [my opinions,...]
charlie@pro-mansion.cts.com (Charles Vangsgard) (05/28/91)
In-Reply-To: message from nrunyon%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu What is so special about RISC? What can it do that current computers cannot do? Is it faster with more memory capability? I assume the big hitch is providing software powerful enough to take advantage of the RISC machines. ---- ProLine: charlie@pro-mansion Internet: charlie@pro-mansion UUCP: crash!pro-mansion!charlie ARPA: crash!pro-mansion!charlie@nosc.mil
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (05/29/91)
>Ahem. So that's why we see a IIgs emulator for the Mac LC? Sorry, it just >had to be said. > >end; {procedure soapbox} > >-- >Joel Sumner GENIE:JOEL.SUMNER This .sig may not be >used That's why we see a GS at all. No law forced Apple to produce the GS, just a couple engineers on their own and management willing to go with the product. Some installed base outcry really didn't do that much, IMHO. This was a few years ago and the times have changed, support is waining, management is less supportive and the new cash cow is paying halthy dividends. This is why we see the 1991 version of the GS, an Mac with an Apple IIe emulator as opposed to the 1987 GS, and Apple II with an Apple IIe emulator. (personally I would call them both //c emulators) UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (05/29/91)
In article <1991May28.113624.329@crash.cts.com> charlie@pro-mansion.cts.com (Charles Vangsgard) writes: >What is so special about RISC? What can it do that current computers cannot >do? Is it faster with more memory capability? I assume the big hitch is >providing software powerful enough to take advantage of the RISC machines. No, Reduced Instruction Set Computer architecture is merely a means of improving computational throughput for the same level of circuit technology, by relying on simpler machine instructions that can be executed with fewer clock cycles each than in the traditional, (relatively) Complex Instruction Set Computers. One significant characteristic of RISC is that it relies heavily on compiler technology to exploit the simpler instruction set. There is no relation between the RISC concept and any specific detail such as amount of addressable memory. Your last sentence leads me to suggest that you read Ted Nelson's "Computer Lib" or some other accessible explanation of what computing is all about.
rhyde@hubbell.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (06/01/91)
Apple did the same thing for Apple II owners with the Apple II card for the LC. Now if only they'd support the GS!
taob@micor.ocunix.on.ca (Brian Tao) (06/01/91)
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: > >Ahem. So that's why we see a IIgs emulator for the Mac LC? Sorry, it just > >had to be said. > > > >end; {procedure soapbox} > > > >-- > >Joel Sumner GENIE:JOEL.SUMNER This .sig may not be > >used > > That's why we see a GS at all. No law forced Apple to produce the GS, just a > couple engineers on their own and management willing to go with the product. > Some installed base outcry really didn't do that much, IMHO. Uh... did I miss something here? A GS emulator for the LC? Some renegade project at Apple, Inc.? Or am I oblivious to the heavy sarcasm implied here? -- Brian T. Tao *B-) | taob@micor.ocunix.on.ca | "Though this be 2705-1510 Riverside | - or - | madness, yet there Ottawa, ON K1G 4X5 | taob@micor.uucp | is method in 't."
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (06/02/91)
>> That's why we see a GS at all. No law forced Apple to produce the GS, just a >> couple engineers on their own and management willing to go with the product. >> Some installed base outcry really didn't do that much, IMHO. True. No law forces Apple to produce the GS. That doesn't mean/prove/suggest that Apple Inc. supports it. All that proves is that they haven't completely cut it. They CAN'T just drop it immediately, because of the MASSIVE outcry they would get from their customers and they could probably lose the trust of present mac customers and possibly future customers. It seems to me, that the only reason they haven't completely dropped the II is because of this. Where were you during that last few months when we went over the Apple II support issue? Yes we get system software support and once in a while, a new product (VOC & SCSI). The SCSI card wasn't that big of a deal, considering we caould already get one somewhere else, and the VOC, well, not a whole lot of people have a use for that, especially with it's price. Compared to what they do for the mac, we've gotten virtually nothing. I'd love to be proven wrong in the future, but for the present and the past few years, this is the case. ***DISCLAIMER*** I, IN NO WAY, AM IMPLYING THAT APPLE II DTS OR SYSTEM SOFTWARE PEOPLE ARE GUILTY!! I BLAME MANAGEMENT FOR THIS. ---------------------------------------- BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm <------------send files here pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) (06/02/91)
In article <o0su32w162w@micor.ocunix.on.ca>, taob@micor.ocunix.on.ca (Brian Tao) writes: > ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: [someone forgot to include me in an attribution and what I was responding to here. So I will include it.] [>> In article <something> q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:] > >> >Ahem. So that's why we see a IIgs emulator for the Mac LC? Sorry, it just >> >had to be said. [my .sig deleted] >> That's why we see a GS at all. No law forced Apple to produce the GS, just a >> couple engineers on their own and management willing to go with the product. >> Some installed base outcry really didn't do that much, IMHO. > > Uh... did I miss something here? A GS emulator for the LC? Some > renegade project at Apple, Inc.? Or am I oblivious to the heavy sarcasm > implied here? [Brian's sig deleted] Yes, you missed a little something. Someone made a quote a week ago about how Apple goes to great lengths to keep everything compatible and continue their product lines. In response to that assertion, I stated [with heavy sarcasm above] that we of course see that continuation of their support in the form of a IIgs emulator for the Mac LC [instead of that //c emulator]. No, there is no IIgs emulator, I won't make any assumptions either way that there ever will be one. I would challenge the assertion that "No law forced Apple to produce the GS..." Yes, no law forced anyone to do anything. That is pretty obvious. I don't think Apple 'owes' Apple II series owners anything. At the same time, I think it is a farce to say that Apple has a continued tradition of supporing past architectures. They abandoned Apple III owners, Lisa owners [to some extent], they will eventually abandon totally Apple II owners, and even [gasp!] Mac owners. So, no, Apple owes me nothing. I owe them nothing. When I buy a new computer, I will [probably] buy it from a company who I think will support me. They don't owe me support, but then again, I don't have to buy their product, now do I? There is no law that Apple has to support their series owners, but they damn well better if they want to continue selling computers. -- Joel Sumner GENIE:JOEL.SUMNER This .sig may not be used q4kx@cornella.ccs.cornell.edu q4kx@cornella for public viewing or q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu q4kx@crnlvax5 rebroadcast without the .................................................... express written consent The impedance of absolutely nothing is 377 ohms. of major league baseball.
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (06/02/91)
In article <14866@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@hubbell.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: >Apple did the same thing for Apple II owners with the Apple II card >for the LC. Now if only they'd support the GS! I'm not objecting to the LC not the the II card for it. Obviously that was done inorder to ease the transistion to the Mac. It is hardly likely to result in increased AppleIIe software. It's simply a transition into oblivion. Is that what you want for the GS? In any case, I hope Apple realizes that there are other vendors out there with interesting price/performance figures. Moreover, the home market is evolving, and I doubt the Mac is the platform to build a home computer. After being with Apple for many years( Mac->GS->Mac), i must tell you that I moved most of the Mac work to the NeXT, the GS acts as a terminal, the Mac's as a MathWriter word processor and I just sinmply bought Commodore's CDTV( basically an A500 with a CD-ROM floppy), which is family oriented and can should you wish be turned into an A500( with SCSI, floppy,etc...). Apple has probably lost me as a customer as my software base shifts. Since you are talking of a diehard Apple user, I am more than put off by their dilly dallying with the GS, and the hype surrounding True Type. There's more to computers than spreadsheets, MacWrite,etc...I do hope they get their acts together. The GS is a fine underestimated computer. The nonsense that one hears here about moving up to DOS, Mac OS,etc...is just that. The Mac has its place. No reason to alieanate loyal Apple users. While I'm at it, I simply wish to put onto the record that I, for one, am not impressed by System 7.0 . If that's what took 3 years to produce than... Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.utoronto.ca [my opinions,...]
jhagen@talos.npri.com (Jarom Hagen) (06/07/91)
q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) writes: > So, no, Apple owes me nothing. I owe them nothing. When I buy a new >computer, I will [probably] buy it from a company who I think will >support me. They don't owe me support, but then again, I don't have to >buy their product, now do I? There is no law that Apple has to support >their series owners, but they damn well better if they want to continue >selling computers. When I bought my Apple II+ ten years ago, I made a choice between Atari, Apple and IBM. I don't see a whole lot of support for the Atari 800 computer or the original IBM PC. Even that big company known for their "support" dropped the PC jr. If Apple is going to support anyone, they have to make money selling computers or charge for support. Would you be willing to pay Apple to support your system? Jarom -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Not paid for and/or endorsed by National Political Resources Incorporated. 602 Cameron St, Alexandria VA 22314 (UUCP: ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!jhagen)
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (06/10/91)
On Fri, 7 Jun 91 16:05:38 GMT <info-apple-request@APPLE.COM> said: > >When I bought my Apple II+ ten years ago, I made a choice between Atari, >Apple and IBM. I don't see a whole lot of support for the Atari 800 computer >or the original IBM PC. Even that big company known for their "support" >dropped the PC jr. The original IBM PC has been 'modified' all the way up to the latest PS/w. The reason the PCjr was dropped was because of poor sales (which is acceptable). The reason Apple hasn't supported the Apple II isn't because of poor sales. That's not acceptable. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *Not paid for and/or endorsed by National Political Resources Incorporated. > 602 Cameron St, Alexandria VA 22314 > (UUCP: ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!jhagen) ---------------------------------------- BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm <------------send files here pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com