dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) (04/06/91)
In article <9104051641.AA23415@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >[...] >>My only question is: How long till they Axe the //gs??? > >Who knows? Concidering their attitude, I'm surprised they haven't already >done it. Apple is currently paying me to work on the GS Toolbox. Life is never predictable, but from where I sit the end is not in sight. -- David A. Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems Apple II System Software Engineer | P.O. Box 875 America Online: Dave Lyons | Cupertino, CA 95015-0875 GEnie: D.LYONS2 or DAVE.LYONS CompuServe: 72177,3233 Internet/BITNET: dlyons@apple.com UUCP: ...!ames!apple!dlyons My opinions are my own, not Apple's.
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (04/06/91)
In article <51235@apple.Apple.COM> dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) writes: >Apple is currently paying me to work on the GS Toolbox. Life is never >predictable, but from where I sit the end is not in sight. And I'm sure that all thoughtful Apple II (or at least IIGS) users appreciate that. The problem seems to be that Apple is not a single fully consistent entity but rather has all sorts of internal structure complete with politics. Thus one part of Apple (DTS for example) can be doing very nice work, only to have another part (high-level management, perhaps) make it all for naught. When you hear us rail against "Apple", be assured that it is the latter part we have problems with, not the talented and helpful worker bees.
2hnemarrow@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (04/06/91)
Just out of curiousity, what kinds of obstacles must one overcome to find out about an Apple II computer such as the GS. Is there a picture of one hidden in the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet locked in the basement of an Apple II distribution center disguised as an auto salvage yard guarded by attack dogs somewhere out in the middle of a desert? Last week I saw a picture of two IIgses in a TOYOTA ad of all places! They looked like a couple of toys. I never would have known of the GS's existence if one single lonely soul I chanced upon once happened to own one. I was immediately impressed and eventually bought one for myself. I still like my computer better than either the Macs or (blech) MS-DOS machines, I don't care what Apple or anybody else says. I just wish somebody quit hiding it. I'm a Computer Engineering major, I've been going to school here for 4 years and three majors, and in all that time, I still have met only ONE person at school who has ever even heard of an Apple IIgs. That's once by chance my first year and not again in four years. When I'm using a Mac I feel like I'm trapped in this sluggish box of a graphic interface. With my GS I can go to a text based program and flip through screens a heck of a lot faster and more easily than on the AT's at school, and on the Macs it's a moot point since you can't flip through text screens at all. After 10 years of computing I -finally- find a computer I LOVE to use, and it's on the verge of extinction except in various Kindergartens around the country. What can I say, it's the story of my life.
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (04/06/91)
2hnemarrow@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >When I'm using a Mac I feel like I'm trapped in this sluggish box of a graphic >interface. With my GS I can go to a text based program and flip through >screens a heck of a lot faster and more easily than on the AT's at school, and >on the Macs it's a moot point since you can't flip through text screens at all. >After 10 years of computing I -finally- find a computer I LOVE to use, and it's >on the verge of extinction except in various Kindergartens around the country. This strikes a chord. It constantly bugs me that the market trend has been towards brute-force hardware and software that is way too complex for the average mortal to ever hope to comprehend. (never mind independent programmers.) What happened to elegance and truly innovative solutions? They're buried under virtual memory hardware that has a fixed 1 cycle penalty, or brain-dead bootstrap ROMs that leave the machine useless if no boot volume is available, or operating systems that have severely skewed I/O models or no concept of interactive vs. batch execution. The latest MIPS wonder is simply expected to run the same old O/S's better and faster and everybody happily throws gobs of money at the problem of technological obsolesence. Someday somebody's going to break that cycle. I hope they hire me. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (04/07/91)
In article <1991Apr6.102920.22598@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >It constantly bugs me that the market trend has been towards brute-force >hardware and software that is way too complex for the average mortal to >ever hope to comprehend. (never mind independent programmers.) The Macintosh approach was to simplify the user interface even though it added immense complexity to the program/system interface. If one assumes that that trade-off is necessary, then the answer becomes obvious -- it was done to increase the market for computing, to raise it from the level of the dedicated hobbyist to that of a consumer appliance. >What happened to elegance and truly innovative solutions? >They're buried under virtual memory hardware that has a fixed 1 cycle penalty, >or brain-dead bootstrap ROMs that leave the machine useless if no boot volume >is available, or operating systems that have severely skewed I/O models or no >concept of interactive vs. batch execution. The latest MIPS wonder is simply >expected to run the same old O/S's better and faster and everybody happily >throws gobs of money at the problem of technological obsolesence. >Someday somebody's going to break that cycle. >I hope they hire me. Maybe first you should revise your assessment of the situation. I know of no significant virtual memory implementation that has an overhead per access anything like one (instruction) cycle. There are many advantages to virtual memory, such as being able to isolate multiple concurrent applications from each other and to streamline code generation and linking. The common notion that virtual memory is useful for increasing the effective address space of a process is usually wrong; most applications that rely heavily on that feature perform very poorly (for technical reasons not worth going into here). Machines that are inteded to run significant operating systems really cannot do anything useful if they are unable to bootstrap an operating system (or at least some diagnostic software). Surely you don't think they ought to pop up an AppleSoft BASIC interpreter when they can't load their operating system? As to interactive vs. batch, many of us don't know what such a distinction would be, since we can use our systems to accomplish either, using the same mechanisms for both. The "same old O/S" actually tends to evolve and acquire important new features; for example, our latest acquisitions support true parallel computation in multiple threads sharing common address spaces. Unless you can come up with a new system that is SO much better in SO many ways that it is worth the hassle of converting existing applications to work with it, you would better spend your time figuring out how to improve the operating environments that are already being happily used. Indeed, there is research toward radically different computing methods, but most such developments in recent years have not been commercially successful, because they aren't meeting real needs.
SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU (04/07/91)
2hnemarrow@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: > When I'm using a Mac I feel like I'm trapped in this sluggish box of a > graphic interface. With my GS I can go to a text based program and flip > through screens a heck of a lot faster and more easily than on the AT's at > school, and on the Macs it's a moot point since you can't flip through text > screens at all. After 10 years of computing I -finally- find a computer I > LOVE to use, and its on the verge of extinction except in various > kindergartens around the country. Its really sad that Apple has nearly killed the Apple II at the expense of the Mac in its push to make the mac succesful. They took pride when Mac sales finally passed Apple II sales. In this goal to kill one line, Apple is making a grave mistake. What they are fogetting is a basic fact in human nature: people's tastes. If everyone wanted the same thing, we'd all be driving the same car to work, drinking the same soda, and heck even listening to the same music. The same thing goes for computers.... Hey, I'll admit it, macs are very nice computers. They give me a chance to use professional programs in a clear and straigtforward method and all the programs work in a similar manner. Basically with their total GUI system, they are perfect for people who do not care what a computer is, but needs to use one. For a college student who needs to type papers, its great. Its as one Intro-Mac book described it, an appliance computer. However for the people who'd like to learn more about what computers are or be able to control it and mess around with it, then its not a good computer for you. Thats why the IIs are such a nice alternitive for those wanting to know more about computers because of the II's awesome open-archetechure. Here is a computer that has a CLI where we can access basic and and a mini assembler without ANY software or mice. Thats why I think its a much better computer in the schools because it shows more of what a computer is, then what it can do. You can even build your own cards and write programs for it without that much difficulty. And when you're able to go on, in comes the IIGS toolbox and GS/OS which makes a very nice introduction for those wanting to learn the Mac's toolbox. Not only that, its very flexible and is able to adapt to new technologies very well. Sure it doesn't have the great HLL's, but for many home user who wants to experiment and have some fun with his computer, the II can't be beat. But Apple as a company should know better then to try and push one computer for everyone because it doesn't work that way. Hey, the mac may be the future of computing, but its not for everyone. They should rather tell the customers about both computers and help them decide which would fit their needs better. Need to use a computer but don't want to deal with the hassle with learning it or need a powerful workstation/PC then how about a mac, but if you need somthing that you'd like something simple to mess around with and get a lot of features and flexibility, then the II makes a wonderful choice. But it shouldn't be Apple telling US what computer to buy for all our needs. - Hal P.S. I'm really happy that we've found another happy II fan, they are getting so hard to find today :). | Hal Bouma | Send mail to: SHBoum@Macalstr.edu | Macalester College | and SHBoum@Macalstr.Bitnet | GEnie: H.Bouma | ".Sig Under Construction..."
SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU (04/07/91)
In an earlier article, Todd Whitesel writes: >It constantly bugs me that the market trend has been towards brute-force >hardware and software that is way too complex for the average mortal to >ever hope to comprehend. (never mind independent programmers.) >What happened to elegance and truly innovative solutions? >They're buried under virtual memory hardware that has a fixed 1 cycle penalty, >or brain-dead bootstrap ROMs that leave the machine useless if no boot volume >is available, or operating systems that have severely skewed I/O models or no >concept of interactive vs. batch execution. The latest MIPS wonder is simply >expected to run the same old O/S's better and faster and everybody happily >throws gobs of money at the problem of technological obsolesence. Its a trend that has bothered me too. It seems like people are more anxious to get a faster processor to speed things up rather than look at the hardware they already have and try to write better software for it. The mac is a great example of this. "You're new machine runs the software three times faster now." Oh goody, does that mean its TOLERABLE now? In fact, its more of the notion for them that the only way their machines are going to run faster is by fasters CPU's. Which is why for a state-of-the-art processor, the Mac certinaly isn't that impressive... A mac is slow, doesn't have co-processors, its a monster to learn to program for, and likes to crash. Ever scroll color windows on a Mac II {just a plain Mac II}? Geez, its slower then Prodos 16 came to loading files. On the other hand, if our IIs ran at the Mac IIs 15 Mhz, we'd be zooming along. It just goes to show you that there is more than just a good processor to a system. But thats ok, most people worry about how many Mhz the machine has and not how kludgy the software is for it. Great! My IBM now runs at 40 Mhz!!! But a lot of people don't see is that Mhz is just one of the many comparisons in a system. If it takes 5 cycles to do an operation on a 25Mhz machine, and just 1 on a 5Mhz machine, you're going to end up at about the same speed. Not only that, if the software is sloppily written, {which a lot is for the faster machines because you've got so much speed to waste}, then the efficency goes down even more. One thing that the II has is a good software developer team at Apple. For a 2.8Mhz machine, the IIGS really moves on windows including scrolling under GS/OS. For many graphics operations, its leaves many low end macs in the dust. I feel that this shows that good software really helps system performance. Hopefully people will finally realize that their 40Mhz machines can do a hell of a lot more then what they've ever imagined if they ever took the time to do some really good programming for it. - Hal | Hal Bouma | Send mail to: SHBoum@Macalstr.edu | Macalester College | and SHBoum@Macalstr.Bitnet | GEnie: H.Bouma | ".Sig Under Construction..."
it1@Isis.MsState.Edu (Tim Tsai) (04/07/91)
SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU writes: [lines deleted] >performance. Hopefully people will finally realize that their 40Mhz machines >can do a hell of a lot more then what they've ever imagined if they ever took >the time to do some really good programming for it. I say give the programmers and the Q&A people the slowest machine possible, then they'll start writing efficient programs.. Better yet, insert 2000 wait states in the program (no fair using 100 mips machines), and remove them only when the product is ready (so the development cycle can be efficient).. :-) > - Hal >| Hal Bouma | Send mail to: SHBoum@Macalstr.edu >| Macalester College | and SHBoum@Macalstr.Bitnet >| GEnie: H.Bouma | ".Sig Under Construction..." -- I have lots of common sense. I just choose to ignore it. <Calvin>
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (04/08/91)
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >The Macintosh approach was to simplify the user interface even though it >added immense complexity to the program/system interface. If one assumes >that that trade-off is necessary, I don't think it is. That's why it bothers me. >>What happened to elegance and truly innovative solutions? >Maybe first you should revise your assessment of the situation. I'm not assessing YOUR situation, I'm assessing the microcomputer and low workstation situation. You can plug away on supercomputer unix systems owned by somebody else for as long as you want. Nothing I say needs to apply to them although sometimes I swear it would help. >I know of no significant virtual memory implementation that has an >overhead per access anything like one (instruction) cycle. Oh? Then what IS the overhead? The 68851 PMMU has a fixed overhead of 1 clock cycle. >are many advantages to virtual memory, such as being able to isolate Of course it does! I'm not arguing against virtual memory as a feature, just the high-overhead implementation it often has. > Surely you don't think they ought to pop up an AppleSoft BASIC interpreter >when they can't load their operating system? Not Applesoft, but why the hell not? I really think enough of the O/S should be in ROM already so that you only need to go tto disk for add-on hardware or O/S revisions. Trying to use a computer under very nonideal conditions can make you appreciate how self-contained the Apple II is compared to most machines. If all my drives go down, I can still use my Apple as a calculator and a BASIC engine for small tasks. Which is more than I can say for nearly any other computer in existence (besides the ARM). > As to interactive vs. batch, many of us >don't know what such a distinction would be, since we can use our >systems to accomplish either, using the same mechanisms for both. I'm talking about high-priority for lightweight tasks handling the user interface, things like ensuring the cursor gets changed to a watch and things react to your clicking them and so on. Try using a NeXT sometime. >The "same old O/S" actually tends to evolve and acquire important new >features; for example, our latest acquisitions support true parallel >computation in multiple threads sharing common address spaces. Good for you. You've got loads of money to blow on hardware that makes those things possible. I'm nowhere near as pampered, nor would I want to be. >Until >you can come up with a new system that is SO much better in SO many >ways that it is worth the hassle of converting existing applications >to work with it, you would better spend your time figuring out how to >improve the operating environments that are already being happily used. I quite agree. >Indeed, there is research toward radically different computing methods, >but most such developments in recent years have not been commercially >successful, because they aren't meeting real needs. The developments I'd like to see aren't so much radical as unfettered by excessive compatbility constraints. The NeXT actually has the right idea when it comes to development, but their implementation seems to be just as bloated as unix usually is. Unlike Intel, I don't think you can hide an infinite number of transistors on the head of a pin. It's about time people looked into implementing the tried and tested hardware and software concepts (like virtual memory, graphic interfaces, and multitasking) more cleanly and with less overhead. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
rhyde@gibson.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (04/11/91)
>> It seems to me that people are more anxious to get a faster processor >> to speed things up......"Oh goodie, does that mean it's tolerable now" No. When every time Apple releases a faster machine (I have a Mac IIfx) the software developers write a new round of software which runs slower. I went from a Lisa to Mac II to Mac IIci to Mac IIfx. Each time I thought "gee, I finally get a machine that runs the software 'fast enough'." Never happened. If the macIIfx were twice the speed it is now (what a 40Mhz 040 would supply) it would be fast enough for the software we have available *today*. The day Apple releases such a machine, current software products will be bloated to the point where they run *half* the speed of today's applications. This is why I'm so upset about people writing applications in HLLs.
rhyde@gibson.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (04/11/91)
re: virtual memory costing cycles Technically, this isn't correct at all. I assume the original poster was referring to memory management hardware, not VM. Older MMUs (those not built onto the CPU) did extract a one-clock-cycle-per-access penalty (this is not an instruction cycle), however, the latest CPUs have removed this penalty. Now the only penalty incurred happens when there is a cache miss (only about 5-20% of the time). This may involve one or two memory fetches depending on the architecture. The performance benefits of MM *far* outweigh this penalty. As to virtual memory management, only overloaded systems (too many processes running at once) suffer performance-wise due to VM. In fact, well-written and well-designed programs actually run *faster* under a well-designed VM system than on a bare machine. For example, a good part of most programs handles error recovery and obscure portions of the user interface (a good candidate to write in a HLL, even I must admit) which rarely, if ever execute. Under a non-VM system, you have to load the code and data associated with this portion of the program from disk every time you run the program. On a demand-based VM system you only load the code and data you actually need. For many types of programs (e.g., filters) you would save more time by not loading this extra code than you would lose because of VM overhead.
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (04/15/91)
In article <1991Apr8.035012.20436@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: > If all my drives go down, I can still use my Apple as a calculator > and a BASIC engine for small tasks. Which is more than I can say for nearly > any other computer in existence (besides the ARM). That may be so, Todd, but besides being able to do small calculations (which any pocket calculator can do more conveniently without having to type "PRINT 2+2" or "? 2+2" followed by RETURN) and running a small BASIC engine (which is, as far as productivity goes, relatively useless.) an Apple II with drives down only serves as a big paperweight. Let's be serious here: If we assume that the machine you mentioned has drives, we can safely assume that all your important data was on those drives. If they go down, you can't access the data and therefore you can't use it - so what good is the computer to you now (besides offering you a weak argument in your discussion)? [unless you keep backups on audio tape on your //e...) > Good for you. You've got loads of money to blow on hardware that makes those > things possible. I'm nowhere near as pampered, nor would I want to be. I usually enjoy reading most of your stuff on this group, but the prior and the above statements in your argument are very weak and, IMHO, useless drivel. Obviously, both comments seemed to have been made on your part solely to counter an argument, not to make any relevant intellectual contributions (especially the later one, which seems like a personal problem you seem to have with people who are lucky enough to be 'pampered'...) I personally am glad that there are people who are as pampered, working on exciting new technology. There are many good arguments to support the apple II and the ones you posted neither reflected good on your, nor on the platform. Let's try to stay with useful and relevant facts in the future (like the fact that the GS is a neat and fun machine...) uucp : ucrmath!alchemy!hzink | Financial Independence *CAN* be Yours! INET : hzink@alchemy.uucp | 24hr Taped Information Hotline (714) 276-2020 -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Wesley: "Captain, this doesn't look like the holodeck to me." Worf: "Ready to cycle airlock, Captain." Picard: "Make it so."
scott@ne3005.ingr.com (Scott Gentry) (04/15/91)
rhyde@gibson.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: >re: virtual memory costing cycles >Technically, this isn't correct at all. I assume the original poster >was referring to memory management hardware, not VM. Older MMUs (those >not built >onto the CPU) did extract a one-clock-cycle-per-access penalty (this is not >an instruction cycle), however, the latest CPUs have removed this >penalty. Now the only penalty incurred happens when there is a cache >miss (only about 5-20% of the time). This is a blanket statement. Its accuracy depends largely on the size of cache, the application, the compiler, or sometimes the application author. > This may involve one or two memory >fetches depending on the architecture. The performance benefits of MM >*far* outweigh this penalty. You miss the worse case scenario - memory misses. On some computer systems, such as VAX hardware, the flow (simplified), is like this: Cache hit (Everythings fine) Cache miss (Soft page fault) ---> Item found in memory (Yes)---> Get it. ---> Item found in memory (No) ---> (hard page fault) Item found in page file (Yes)---> Get it. Item found in page file (No) ---> Check swapfile, get item. (rest of message deleted) -- ******************************************************************************* * W. Scott Gentry | uucp: uunet!ingr!ne1300!brnded!scott | I didn't * * Intergraph Corporation| America Online: AFL Scott | mean it! * *******************************************************************************
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (04/19/91)
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes: > Let's be serious here: If we assume that >the machine you mentioned has drives, we can safely assume that all your >important data was on those drives. If they go down, you can't access the data >and therefore you can't use it - so what good is the computer to you now >(besides offering you a weak argument in your discussion)? [unless you keep >backups on audio tape on your //e...) Harry, you're thinking like an MBA. Computers can do more than suckle from hard disks if people would get smart and put REAL utilities in ROM. A CLI and language system is only the start -- why not a barebones communications program for the built-in serial ports? Apple's trend towards more tools in ROM is a good one, but those tools are still pretty useless until you boot the O/S or type something in yourself. (get real -- nobody uses tape anymore.) The Mac Classic (and the LC too, I think) has a 384k ROM disk with a bare system on it -- if it can be used for anything real and not just rebooting from a server then Apple's finally got the right idea. >I usually enjoy reading most of your stuff on this group, but the prior and the >above statements in your argument are very weak and, IMHO, useless drivel. Is it useless drivel to say that I like being able to use a computer for something even though the disks are gone? My idea of using a computer is not limited to sticking a floppy in before I can get anywhere. Often I have had math questions or graphs I wanted to do that would be inconvenient on even the new "super"calculators, and whipping out a quick basic program from scratch fit the bill perfectly. I want to see that kind of support for all the built in hardware, especially some form of O/S kernel (the release version as of the ROM burning) that can be updated simply by mounting (not booting) a disk. We've had gobs of ROM as a practical reality for a long time, why is is that nobody uses it for anything worthwhile?? At least Apple's TRYING. >Obviously, both comments seemed to have been made on your part solely to >counter an argument, not to make any relevant intellectual contributions >(especially the later one, which seems like a personal problem you seem to have >with people who are lucky enough to be 'pampered'...) I personally am glad >that there are people who are as pampered, working on exciting new technology. Are you deliberately trying to piss me off or do you seriously believe that?? I think you need a vacation or two (or three..) Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr18.171854.13367@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: [quotes an ongoing discussion] >Harry, you're thinking like an MBA. Computers can do more than suckle from >hard disks if people would get smart and put REAL utilities in ROM Not to break in here, but my HP Integral( which HP discontinued when they decided to become high class clone makers-in their micro division- and deengineered all their neat computers) had Unix V in ROM, a very nice technical Basic in Rom( C was in ROM),etc...It had an inkjet printer, windowing interface, mouse, CLI,etc...This was a computer made in 1985. The MBA rulers of the US decided that since it couldn't run 1-2-3 (it used 710k 3.5" floppies) it was of no use. I think you're hoping for too much to expect anything of interest coming out of the current crop of companies. They are all too busy trying to outspeadsheet themselves. Philip McDunnough philip@utstat.utoronto.ca [my opinions,etc...]
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr8.035012.20436@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: > If all my drives go down, I can still use my Apple as a calculator > and a BASIC engine for small tasks. Which is more than I can say for nearly > any other computer in existence (besides the ARM). Or you have an ST which has the entire OS in ROM and can use programs on cartridge. (Like the VT100 cart that is out) You could still use it as a terminal. The only problem with the OS in ROM is the fact that its more expensive to upgrade, but it does protect you from virus a lot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins Question for MAC Users: rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET |||| Power Without What IS the format of a rc1dsanu@miamiu.BITNET / || \ The Price!! MAC HFS floppy disk? R.COLLINS1 on GEnie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (04/21/91)
In article <1991Apr18.171854.13367@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >Harry, you're thinking like an MBA. Computers can do more than suckle from >hard disks if people would get smart and put REAL utilities in ROM. When any of our computers goes down, people cannot reasonably be expected to make use of the machine in a "standalone ROM monitor mode" while waiting for the field service engineer to arrive. Even if it reverted to an IBM PC level of functionality, that would not help.
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (04/21/91)
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >When any of our computers goes down, people cannot reasonably be expected to >make use of the machine in a "standalone ROM monitor mode" while waiting for >the field service engineer to arrive. Even if it reverted to an IBM PC level >of functionality, that would not help. If no other free machines are availale, they CAN be reasonably expected to make do with a built in terminal emulator, text editor, RAM disk, and printer driver. IF they were in ROM along with the base O/S and a simple shell or windowing system, that is -- which is my whole point in pursuing this. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU (04/21/91)
In an earlier article, Doug Gwyn writes: A lot of talk recently has covered the concept about using a computer without any drives, and how the II's, while primitive at it, are the best computer out there for it. I also support this idea because chances are, when something breaks on the computer, its not going to be the CPU/Monitor/Keyboard, instead its going to be the disk drives {they have the most moving parts} or the mouse or printer. And you're sitting at home and you HAVE to call in to your work's mainfraime to finish the program you're working on when your hard drive crashes... Oh boy damn!!! You're in a mess! Now if you were using an Apple II with a proper modem, you can use Applesoft and dial into work {I did it on my Apple II years ago when my term program broke!} and get the work done - possibly provided you don't need any terminal emulations. While this isn't a good example, it does show that when the drives go down, or even the mouse {for mac owners - and yea, I know about the mousekeys option, but how many "normal" mac users do?} you should not be restricted from using your computer's remaining hardware. While you do not want to place too much into ROM including any major kind of O/S's because it would drive up the price of the computer and limit upgrades, there should be enough to be able to do some simple stuff, provide access to your perherpials, and be able to save your work. Now what appears to be the largest restricting function of the II's when we lose our drives is our inability to save the work that we do. And it would be really cool if Apple were to place say Prodos in ROM {well what is it, only 16K? and how many MEGS of ROM space do we have???} so that we can save our work to the RAM drive and then get it back later when we are able to replace our drives. - Hal | Hal Bouma | Send mail to: SHBoum@Macalstr.edu | Macalester College | and SHBoum@Macalstr.Bitnet | GEnie: H.Bouma | ".Sig Under Construction..."
alfter@nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (04/23/91)
In article <88E3C35518BF205A45@MACALSTR.EDU> SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU writes: >we lose our drives is our inability to save the work that we do. And it would >be really cool if Apple were to place say Prodos in ROM {well what is it, only >16K? and how many MEGS of ROM space do we have???} so that we can save our work Actually, there's only 16K of ROM in the IIe (not counting the video and keyboard ROMs since they're not accessible to the processor). It shouldn't be too hard for Apple to do this in any future II, though. You'd probably want BASIC.SYSTEM as well, so you'll need about 48K of ROM; three 27128s can hold this amount. Scott Alfter-----------------------------_/_---------------------------- Support Operation Apple Storm! / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr21.051415.894@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: -gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: ->When any of our computers goes down, people cannot reasonably be expected to ->make use of the machine in a "standalone ROM monitor mode" while waiting for ->the field service engineer to arrive. Even if it reverted to an IBM PC level ->of functionality, that would not help. -If no other free machines are availale, they CAN be reasonably expected to -make do with a built in terminal emulator, text editor, RAM disk, and printer -driver. IF they were in ROM along with the base O/S and a simple shell or -windowing system, that is -- which is my whole point in pursuing this. WRONG, and our computer users would find your claims ludicrous. Perhaps you've been around toy computers too much.
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (04/23/91)
In article <88E3C35518BF205A45@MACALSTR.EDU> SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU writes: >In an earlier article, Doug Gwyn writes: For the record none of that article was written by me!
alfter@nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (04/24/91)
In article <15941@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <1991Apr21.051415.894@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >-gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >->When any of our computers goes down, people cannot reasonably be expected to >->make use of the machine in a "standalone ROM monitor mode"... >-If no other free machines are availale, they CAN be reasonably expected to >-make do with a built in terminal emulator, text editor... >WRONG, and our computer users would find your claims ludicrous. Geez, talk about spoiled! What did they cut their teeth on? Macs? That's the mentality you ascribe to them--"damn, the HD failed; guess we're gonna have to call it a day, huh?" I find it hard to believe that they'd be completely lost without all their normal whiz-bang widgets; the attitude you describe is pathetic. It's your tax dollars at work, people. Scott Alfter-----------------------------_/_---------------------------- Support Operation Apple Storm! / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (04/26/91)
From alfter@nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER): >>WRONG, and our computer users would find your claims ludicrous. > > Geez, talk about spoiled! What did they cut their teeth on? Macs? > That's the mentality you ascribe to them--"damn, the HD failed; guess > we're gonna have to call it a day, huh?" I find it hard to believe > that they'd be completely lost without all their normal whiz-bang > widgets; the attitude you describe is pathetic. I don't know if you or Todd realize this (he *should*), but if you a hard drive on even a single-user computer, most of your data will be on the hard drive, with perhaps a not-so-recent backup elsewhere. If my hard drive went down, I would not be able to do any work, since all my data is on there, and the backups locked away on floppy. So let's say I'm working on a large programming project and I lose the HD. What am I supposed to do with a cheesy built-in text editor or terminal? Diddle away while I figure out what to do? I'm not even hinting at the chaos that would occur if the HD server went down in a government department, company office or school network. Brian T. Tao *B-) | t569taob@bluffs.scar.utoronto.ca | "Though this be U of Metro Toronto | - or - | madness, yet there Scarberia, ON | taob@pnet91.cts.com | is method in 't."
crew.wicklein@pro-midnightex.cts.com (Chris Wicklein) (04/26/91)
In-Reply-To: message from alfter@nevada.edu Actually, there's only 16K of ROM in the IIe (not counting the video and keyboard ROMs since they're not accessible to the processor). It shouldn't be too hard for Apple to do this in any future II, though. You'd probably want BASIC.SYSTEM as well, so you'll need about 48K of ROM; three 27128s can hold this amount. Opps. I ment to add > quote indicators. Oh well. The GS supports up to 1 Meg of ROM, and the ROM 3 machine only uses 256K. Even if we saw years of active developement, I think we could spare enough ROM for a stable version of ProDOS 8 and BASIC.SYSTEM. ---- ProLine: crew.wicklein@pro-midnightex Internet: crew.wicklein@pro-midnightex.cts.com UUCP: crash!pro-midnightex!crew.wicklein ARPA: crash!pro-midnightex!crew.wicklein@nosc.mil
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (04/27/91)
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) writes: >drive on even a single-user computer, most of your data will be on the hard >drive, with perhaps a not-so-recent backup elsewhere. If my hard drive went >down, I would not be able to do any work, since all my data is on there, and >the backups locked away on floppy. So let's say I'm working on a large >programming project and I lose the HD. What am I supposed to do with a cheesy >built-in text editor or terminal? Diddle away while I figure out what to do? Dammit, that's not what I'm talking about. I NEVER said you could just keep doing your HD-based work as if nothing happened!! That's such a ludicrous idea I never realized people were interpreting it as that until now. What I am talking about is the basic futz work everybody does: memo's, logging in to remote machines to read mail, news, program, or whatever, that sort of thing. Scratch calculations, rough graphs, tiny diddle programs to see what such-and-such and algorithm would do. None of them REQUIRE a storage device because they are stepping stone jobs that are completed and then forgotten. A computer without a disk can and "should" still be useful as a terminal (and a damn nice one at that), a 'print shop' (crude, perhaps, but better than nothing), a programmable calculator with graphing capability (even if you have to take five minutes to write the graphing function yourself), and ideally a set of common DA type things like alarm clocks, calendars, and so on. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (04/27/91)
>That's the mentality you ascribe to them--"damn, the HD failed; guess >we're gonna have to call it a day, huh?" I find it hard to believe >that they'd be completely lost without all their normal whiz-bang >widgets; the attitude you describe is pathetic. > >It's your tax dollars at work, people. > >Scott Alfter-----------------------------_/_---------------------------- Actually, we had a power failure at the office and everything stopped for a good two hours. You couldn't even sharpen a pencil. On;y the phones worked (they can thank me for that of course, told 'em UPS's were useful (for the switch)). You would be surprised at just how dependent most companies have become on technology and power (electricity, except for IBM which is literal). UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com