SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU (04/04/91)
In a previous article, Ryan 'Gozar' Collins writes: > Or someone who has payed a fortune for a computer that isn't as powerful as > your neighbor's computer that they paid half of what you paid. > When I read these Apple II forever msgs, I feel that it is coming from > someone who spent $3000 for a computer system, only to have it be outdated > in a few years. > Now before I get tons of flame-mail, I would like to say that Apple doesn't > have a grudge against the Apple II line or their users, its just that 8/16 > bit computers aren't profitably anymore. Well I'm going to make a couple of comments about a few things that have been bothering me for a while. Firstly, I'm really becoming disturbed by a market where the opinion is where the users should "junk" their system ever three years for another $3,000 computer system because there current one is obsolete. Stop and think how expensive that is. Hell, most people can't afford this constant expendature. I think thats one thing the IBM market has going for them right now, a cheap upgrade path. One things that I personally have praised the II line for has been its STABILITY. Sure it doesn't have all the new bells and whistles, but the hardware we bought 4 years ago is the same that we're using now. And while its nothing to brag about {hey, I am dying for new hardware too} look at what we have learned to do with our machine. 3200 colors, boarder effects, Synthlab, etc. With the Mac-of-the-Month Club, software deveolpers are having a hell of a time trying to keep up with the new machines, and half of the old ones need to be upgraded to run the new software. Its not Apple's fault, they have to remain competitive in the business market, but I think for this stability, its one of the best reasons why it makes such a good home computer. People know that when they buy a II, its going to give them 4-5 years at least of good, dependable service. Look at the number of II+'s, IIe, and IIc questions we still get. How many Mac 128 users are still trying to get something out of their machine? Secondly, my major resent with Apple Co. is that they have been selling these machines and then giving us the attitude that we bought an obsolte computer and should have purchased a mac. Everyone who HASN'T seen it, says "Ewww. Apple II, thats obsolete, you should upgrade to a REAL computer" You DO NOT treat your customers that way. These people went out and rather then going Big Blue or Commadore, they bought an overpriced and underdeveloped Apple II instead, and Apple didn't care. Instead we get an 30 page Incider add stating that "when your II computer becomes obsolete, retire it to the classroom..." Well the only thing that is making the II obsolte is Apple Co. itself. Anyone who hears and sees my IIgs running are all like "Cool!" {Athough many take it for a Mac} What wonderful product support. Thirdly, there IS money in the 8/16 bit machines. Although its been stated, Nientiendo sold 7.2 million more NES systems and 4 million gameboys last year in the USA alone which surpasses the TOTAL number of Macs AND II's sold over the last 10 years. These sales also brought in 3.7 billion dollars for nientendo, which is half of Apple's total revenues. In Japan, all 400,000 Super NES units in stock sold out on its opening day. Two weeks later when the next shipments came in, another 400,000 units sold out in one day. Plus those super NES run on a 65C816 at 3.86Mhz with 512x488x256 graphics with a palette of 32,000 colors {the graphics potental are amazing on that machine 128 moving sprites on a line without flickering!} and incorporates a Sony Digital Signal Processor that gives it 8 voice stero sound. Seems like someones doing a better job with our "out of date" processor then Apple is, and making a killing with it... | Hal Bouma | Send mail to: SHBoum@Macalstr.edu | Macalester College | and SHBoum@Macalstr.Bitnet | GEnie: H.Bouma | ".Sig Under Construction..."
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (04/04/91)
SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU writes: > Thirdly, there IS money in the 8/16 bit machines. Yeah, but apparently as game machines. That's not the kind of business _Apple_ _management_ wants to be in. Electronic Arts president whats-his-name told Sculley once that hardware designed for games is automatically well designed for multimedia. So what has Apple done? Hardware designed so poorly for games it isn't funny, and system software that is game-hostile. In stark contrast is the Amiga, whose original purpose was to be the perfect game machine of the mid-80's (and it was, to be honest), but is now struggling to gain the kind of prestige that the Mac has finally obtained -- the Amiga's only serious market at this point is low-end video and animation, things the Mac is incapable of because only high-end macs &/or mac peripherals can do it. Amiga users do have a right to snicker when Mac people talk about multimedia -- it's really sad that so many of them are egotistic snobs. (Please prove me wrong on that.) >Super NES units in stock sold out on its opening day. Two weeks later when the >next shipments came in, another 400,000 units sold out in one day. Plus those >super NES run on a 65C816 at 3.86Mhz with 512x488x256 graphics with a palette I believe the figure is really 7 mhz. The Super NES is the first game machine that _I_ would consider investing in -- the specs blow the 68K based turbographix and Genesis away, because Nintendo realized a fundamental truth about game boxes: The graphics and sound hardware are where the real power is, and the ideal controller for that hardware is a CPU that has nearly every property the 65xxx series has: a simple ALU whose instructions execute efficiently, a bus interface designed for fast turnaround instead of raw bandwidth, quick branches, efficient in-memory instructions, simple and adequately powerful addressing modes, FAST interrupt response, and the ability to simulate lots of registers (with a speed penalty) that do not need to be saved and restored constantly since they are accessed through a 'base pointer' register -- this is what the 65816 direct page and stack addressing modes do. Unfortunately, some grave mistakes in the Apple II firmware were made early on -- the BRK/IRQ handler was not re-entrant and could fail if a BRK and an IRQ occured in a small window (about 30 microseconds if I remember right, I'd have to check the listings). Worse, when the enhanced //e came out, the interrupt handler saved and restored the auxiliary memory state -- this was unnecessary since (a) old programs and peripherals that would break wouldn't use auxilary memory either, and (b) new peripherals and programs could have been told to either set interrupts or inform the ProDOS interrupt handler when the memory switches might be in an unsafe state for interrupts. Anyway, Apple picked the bulletproof limousine approach. When the GS came out, its interrupt handlers made two mistakes -- one is the tiny window of unreliability when a COP or BRK occurs in emulation mode, because the firmware jumps out of bank 0 without ensuring that the CPU is in native mode, and the IRQ manager is responsible for going to native mode as soon as possible. The other is that the firmware IRQ manager (which could be patched out by an init, admittedly) POLLS its sources instead of dispatching them. It would be much more efficient to have the IRQ manager save the machine state and check the following sources in this order: AppleTalk Serial/MIDI "high priority user IRQ" internal sources: scan-line, sound, VBL, quarter-second, etc. "low priority user IRQ" where the checking process for all internal sources consists of directly confirming the interrupt source and calling the handler, and clearing the interrupt after the handler returns and then IMMEDIATELY returning from the interrupt. The user IRQ sections would be handling dynamically, much like BindInt, but would be controlled by the Miscellaneous tool set. I don't know why Apple didn't think of something like this in the first place -- and at this point it's not really important. The existing firmware most definately works (except for AppleTalk and serial, but that's the fault of the AppleTalk driver and not the firmware itself). My aesthetic approval (or lack thereof) is not going to change anything. And how do I know that the above system would actually work? I haven't actually tried it. But I am going to see what I can do to my good ol' //+ if I permanently enable the 16K card and start from scratch. I've recently installed a 65802 in it, and my good ol' VT52 emulator is going to get a complete rewrite into a tiny multitasking system with mini drivers for the 6551 and the 80-column card that push each to their theoritical limit. A Mockingboard C (two 6522's, plus sound & speech, I'll consider writing drivers for them later) will be used for task switcher interrupts and VBL interrupts for the 80-column card, and perhaps VBL for the //+ itself (once I figure out which pin of D14 you're supposed to use). I'm not worried about disk access for now -- I intend to use it as a kick-butt terminal, with term, scrollback, text edit, and a simple command shell running simultaneously as pre-emptively switched processes. There are three reasons why I'm bothering to do that much: I want to add more features to the terminal program and it's really badly hacked at this point; I want to teach myself some basic O/S design since our CS dept. doesn't teach it (All the research here is into graphics, multiprocessor architectures, or self-timed IC's); and I want to finally have a concrete example of why I prefer the 65xxx architecture in spite of what history's done to it. I'll be using Orca on the GS to develop and compile the code, with binaries produced by MakeBin. I'll have to use DOS or ProDOS to bootstrap the O/S since I really don't want to write my own disk drivers. One of my goals is to be able to install and replace code on the fly (this is going to be a fun one, but FORTH systems and Niklaus Wirth's Oberon system can do it), so I can boot it once and download new code to it whenever I want to change something. I'm not sure how to do that yet, but I have some ideas that may or may not work. The point is I'll have an excellent test bed for trying new ideas, with reset hooked to drop into the monitor for a post-mortem. Damn. I wish I could get credit for this -- I'm too interested in the idea to leave it alone now... Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu P.S. Those of you who are waiting for LHG, a PROTOTYPE release is going out to various people. I need to totally restructure LHG so I can put a real interface on it and get it to handle low-memory conditions intelligently. I am extremely sorry to make you all wait (heck, I want the money!) but I'm not releasing betas publicly. There is too damn much beta software for the GS that will be beta forever, and the way I program, when it's done it's DONE except for truly obscure bugs that the beta testers don't usually find. I have 20 megs of GIFs of all kinds and the current LHG handles each and every one of them. The release version of LHG will do some other awesome things (assuming I can get DTS's help on something) and will not violate Apple Guidelines AT ALL (bet you wonder how I can pull that off).
6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) (04/05/91)
Actually all that will change. This fall apple will introduce a multimedia machine that will lean towards the entertainment field (sharply). Unfortunately it will be running on mac-innards for the most part. Supposed to have real hot graphic support and cd-rom of course. (doesn't make sense to me, but I don't understand what Apple is doing anymore). Strange, ain't it. Commodore intro's the CDTV, Apple counters. -- Parik Rao, University of California Santa Barbara 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (04/05/91)
In article <A14AF505C020F033@MACALSTR.EDU>, SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU writes: > In a previous article, Ryan 'Gozar' Collins writes: >> Or someone who has payed a fortune for a computer that isn't as powerful as >> your neighbor's computer that they paid half of what you paid. > >> When I read these Apple II forever msgs, I feel that it is coming from >> someone who spent $3000 for a computer system, only to have it be outdated >> in a few years. > >> Now before I get tons of flame-mail, I would like to say that Apple doesn't >> have a grudge against the Apple II line or their users, its just that 8/16 >> bit computers aren't profitably anymore. > > Well I'm going to make a couple of comments about a few things that > have been bothering me for a while. Firstly, I'm really becoming disturbed by a > market where the opinion is where the users should "junk" their system ever > three years for another $3,000 computer system because there current one is > obsolete. Stop and think how expensive that is. Hell, most people can't afford I'm not talking about buying another $3000 system, I think it is ridiculus for a home computer to be so expensive. No wonder it took so long for my hold school to get computers, that had to pay a small fortune for each computer. > Thirdly, there IS money in the 8/16 bit machines. Although its been > stated, Nientiendo sold 7.2 million more NES systems and 4 million gameboys > last year in the USA alone which surpasses the TOTAL number of Macs AND II's > sold over the last 10 years. These sales also brought in 3.7 billion dollars > for nientendo, which is half of Apple's total revenues. In Japan, all 400,000 > Super NES units in stock sold out on its opening day. Two weeks later when the > next shipments came in, another 400,000 units sold out in one day. Plus those > super NES run on a 65C816 at 3.86Mhz with 512x488x256 graphics with a palette > of 32,000 colors {the graphics potental are amazing on that machine 128 moving > sprites on a line without flickering!} and incorporates a Sony Digital Signal > Processor that gives it 8 voice stero sound. Seems like someones doing a better > job with our "out of date" processor then Apple is, and making a killing with > it... Well, if you want to play games. The original Nintendo was built around a 6502, and the Super NES has a 65816, but they also have a lot of specialized chips, especially geared to game playing. One of the things for succes of the Nintendo was that they design to do one and only one thing, to play games. If you want to talk support, you oughta own an Atari, where there is hardly any support. But I've grown used to it in the past 4 years, and it doesn't bother me that much anymore. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (04/05/91)
Be careful comparing Apple IIgs systems against Nintendo. I *know* Apple is still making money (perhaps not as much as the Mac, but still making money none-the-less) off the Apple II gs. Nintendo, if they are like other video game manufacturers does *not* make the money off their machine. They are a software house. They make their money selling software (cartridges). It wouldn't be fair to compare the two systems. (of course, I would like to see Apple make money selling software for the Gs). The other point to make is that Apple would sell a *ton* of GSes if they sold them for under $100 like the Nintendo.
dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Derek A. Taubert) (04/06/91)
In article <13343@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: >The other point to make is that Apple would sell a *ton* of GSes if they >sold them for under $100 like the Nintendo. Excuse me for being harsh, but this is absolutely, completely, and without a doubt a stupid remark. GM would sell a *ton* of trucks if they sold them for under a $1000. The company would then be laughed out of existance, but you get the picture... -- + Derek Taubert --> derek@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu + Author of : GScii + + dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu + {MUCH more to come...} + + "Well, ...lettuce is a transformation of a dead cougar that suffered a + + relapse on a lion's toe. And he swallowed the lion and something happened. + + The ...see, the ...Gloria and Tommy, they're two heads and they're not + + whales. But they escaped with herds of vomit, and things like that." +
SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU (04/06/91)
Ryan Collins writes in an ealier message: > Well, if you want to play games. The original Nintendo was built around a > 6502,and the Super NES has a 65816, but they also have a lot of > specialized chips, especially geared to game playing. One of the things for > succes of the Nintendo was that they design to do one and only one thing, > to play games. <...> > If you want to talk support, you oughta own an Atari, where there is hardly > any support. But I've grown used to it in the past 4 years, and it doesn't > bother me that much anymore. Todd also made a comment about the Nientendio being soo good because of the custom hardware for it. Somehow I see a new idea coming out of here. A computer is just more then its processor right? If we had good customized chips, then it might not matter as much if we go half or less the speed... Why do you think the mac's are so slow? Could it be because the CPU does everything? {Mac IIfx excluded to an extent} All the GS really needs is a 10Mhz chip and a REAL graphics chip and then we'd be rocking. {an increase to the 64K DOC ram would be really helpful too :)!} But my main point is that yes I do know that they are game machines, and that I really can't count them as "REAL"computers and thats why companies like Commadore are struggeling to break that image. but remember, Commedore never had the reputation of building "good quality" machines and that their software support {i.e. workbench} doesn't look that professional {for a state of the art machine, it looks like crud!}. This professional factor is one of the reasons why Apple has such a good reputation. They put out good quality products in both hardware and software. But nonetheless, no right computer manufacture can ignore the gaming market. It holds over 75% of all the software sales. What do you see the shelves filled with in the computer stores? Its definatly not shelves filled with Lotus 1-2-3! You don't see the gaming industry hurting IBM's image... Thus if people are going to go out and spend $100 for a game console, wouldn't you as a computer manufacture try and bring them a computer with say the power of a GS for $800? Hell, the advantages of owning a computer outweigh the game machine so much that you're machine would bound to be a sucess. Why do you think IBM is trying to capture this huge home industry with it's PS series? Apple 5 years ago, when it developed the Mega II chip was in the best position to dominate the home computer industry and all they had to do was slap it in with a CPU, some ram, put a little ADB connector, a disk drive, a LCD, a couple other I/O ports and viola a NOTEBOOK computer. And look how expenive the hardware is!!! Outside of the LCD, its nothing!!! Because they dominated the schools, students could have taken them to and from class, and when they got home, plug it into the TV for their work/games, or whatever. For the businessman it would have been great with Appleworks on the road. They could still do it today, although they'd have to upgrade some features to keep up with IBM. And it would be more feasible to do right now then Scully's idea with the Mac because look how much the portable is and they want to get it even SMALLER. Geez, the LCD screen to handle the resolution is going to be expensive as all hell. Sure its not the latest in technology, but it would have bought the power of computers in an innovative manner to the home users in an expensive manner. Like I mentioned before, there is more to a computer then just the CPU alone, whether or not its 8/16 bit. And Apple would have never suffered the same problems that Atari or Commadore suffer today from the lack of respect by producing the low end II. Indeed, Apple could have gained much from promoting the II line as such. They would have established a very large base of customers that would turn to them for their future needs... - Hal | Hal Bouma | Send mail to: SHBoum@Macalstr.edu | Macalester College | and SHBoum@Macalstr.Bitnet | GEnie: H.Bouma | ".Sig Under Construction..."
rhyde@hubbell.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (04/06/91)
>> Excuse me for being harse...
No problem, excuse me for not making myself clear. I was being facetious
(one of the problems with communicating over the net). Alas, it wasn't
the type of message to which I would normally attach a smiley.
I was just commenting that Ninetendo sells a lot of game machines because
it sells for under $100, not because it has a 65xxx in it. Apple, too, would`
sell a lot of machines if they sold it for $100, don't you agree? I don't
think anyone around would seriously expect Apple to do so. $500 is a price
point I *do* think they can achieve (and still make some money).jpenne@ee.ualberta.ca (Jerry Penner) (04/06/91)
In article <1991Apr5.224325.19564@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Derek A. Taubert) writes: >In article <13343@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: >>The other point to make is that Apple would sell a *ton* of GSes if they >>sold them for under $100 like the Nintendo. > >Excuse me for being harsh, but this is absolutely, completely, and without >a doubt a stupid remark. GM would sell a *ton* of trucks if they sold them >for under a $1000. The company would then be laughed out of existance, but >you get the picture... > > >-- >+ Derek Taubert --> derek@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu + Author of : GScii + And you, without a doubt, should take a pill. If you read his article would notice he never said Apple *should* sell the GS for < $100. The point is that Nintendo sells boatloads because it's cheap, not because the technology it uses is anything great. Obviously, they wouldn't make any money if they sold GS's for < $100, but they could sell them a lot cheaper and still make money, and they'd sell a lot more of them that way too. -- ------------- Jerry Penner alberta!bode!jpenne Edmonton, Alberta, Canada "Old error in new dress is ever error nonetheless." -- Screwtape to Wormwood
knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) (04/07/91)
In <1991Apr5.224325.19564@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Derek A. Taubert) writes: >In article <13343@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: >>The other point to make is that Apple would sell a *ton* of GSes if they >>sold them for under $100 like the Nintendo. >Excuse me for being harsh, but this is absolutely, completely, and without >a doubt a stupid remark. GM would sell a *ton* of trucks if they sold them >for under a $1000. The company would then be laughed out of existance, but >you get the picture... Well, it's time for my bi-monthly tongue-in-cheek contribution. Derek, it isn't hard at all to sell a *ton* of trucks no matter what the price... Rob -- Robert C. Knauerhase University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign "I get my exercise acting as Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group pallbearer for my friends knauer@cs.uiuc.edu, rck@ces.cwru.edu who exercise..." knauer@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov
mjgrimes@pro-shop.cts.com (M.J. Grimes) (04/09/91)
Gee, I don't know how Andy and Dave can keep being so positive when everyone else on the net seems to be so down on the future for the Apple II. Unless, of course, they know something, we don't...... ;) Why would Apple keep paying them to work on things for the Apple II line, if they were about to dump it? My only complaint? I wish we would hear from Apple Hardware people on here, that they are working on Apple II stuff. Even if it isn't a new CPU. ARE THERE any Apple, Inc. Hardware people on the NET? To Dave and Andy, I say only this: Thanks guys, you've been rays of sunshine in this time of darkness. ---- ProLine: mjgrimes@pro-shop Internet: mjgrimes@pro-shop.cts.com UUCP: crash!pro-shop!mjgrimes ARPA: crash!pro-shop!mjgrimes@nosc.mil America Online: MauriceG1 "Some days, the best it gets is so-so" - Brunacini
whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) (04/11/91)
|In article <13343@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: |>The other point to make is that Apple would sell a *ton* of GSes if they |>sold them for under $100 like the Nintendo. | |Excuse me for being harsh, but this is absolutely, completely, and without |a doubt a stupid remark. GM would sell a *ton* of trucks if they sold them |for under a $1000. The company would then be laughed out of existance, but |you get the picture... Point taken... But the GSes are WAY over priced... Apple COULD lower they're prices. whitewolf@gnh-starport!info-apple
whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) (04/11/91)
| Todd also made a comment about the Nientendio being soo good because |of the custom hardware for it. Somehow I see a new idea coming out of here. A |computer is just more then its processor right? If we had good customized |chips, then it might not matter as much if we go half or less the speed... Why |do you think the mac's are so slow? Could it be because the CPU does |everything? {Mac IIfx excluded to an extent} All the GS really needs is a |10Mhz chip and a REAL graphics chip and then we'd be rocking. {an increase to |the 64K DOC ram would be really helpful too :)!} ]Rest Deleted[ The co-processor idea is not new... but it is to Apple. Amigas and the NeXT are two examples of computers that use custom co-processors. You're right when it comes to hardware, Apple's stingier than... than... anything. The only thing they do have are FPUs which are only availible in the much more expensive machines. Look how long it took them just to start using VRAMs to improve speed for the SE... I guess the attitude goods back to the Woz... he did almost everything through software to keep cost of the machine down and still do color video and etc... and the disk drive... an attitude loooooooooooooong out dated, and something Apple should realize. Apple does the same thing with the software/hardware except they charge you arm and a leg while keeping the hardware cost down. whitewolf@gnh-starport!info-apple
dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) (04/12/91)
In article <8470@crash.cts.com> mjgrimes@pro-shop.cts.com (M.J. Grimes) writes: >Gee, I don't know how Andy and Dave can keep being so positive when >everyone else on the net seems to be so down on the future for the Apple II. > >Unless, of course, they know something, we don't...... ;) Stop me if I start to babble.... We "know" plenty of things that we can't talk about. I put "know" in quotes because knowing what projects are going on gives us very little idea what will actually happen. Projects and investigations frequently get started, stopped, shelved, and resurrected. This isn't surprising; this is just business. And this is one reason we can't talk about them--how much respect would you have for a company that enthused publically about all their great ideas and then shipped (say) 10% of them? I have no trouble staying "positive"--people have been predicting the death of the Apple II since about 1981. I'm getting paid to work on the Apple IIgs, a computer which seems to keep on selling whether it gets promoted or not, so I have no special reason to start worrying now. -- 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.
SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU (04/14/91)
Tae Song in an earlier article writes: > The co-processor idea is not new... but it is to Apple. Amigas and the NeXT > are two examples of computers that use custom co-processors. > You're right when it comes to hardware, Apple's stingier than... than... > anything. The only thing they do have are FPUs which are only availible in > the much more expensive machines. Look how long it took them just to start > using VRAMs to improve speed for the SE... Hey! What about my GS with the ensonic processor??? Thats a co- processor, and we've had that since what, 1986? And about that comment about Apple being hardware stingy, read my upcoming mac of the month article... - Hal | Hal Bouma | Send mail to: SHBoum@Macalstr.edu | Macalester College | and SHBoum@Macalstr.Bitnet | GEnie: H.Bouma | ".Sig Under Construction..."
gammal@CAM.ORG (Michael Gammal) (04/14/91)
mjgrimes@pro-shop.cts.com (M.J. Grimes) writes: >Gee, I don't know how Andy and Dave can keep being so positive when >everyone else on the net seems to be so down on the future for the Apple II. >Unless, of course, they know something, we don't...... ;) >Why would Apple keep paying them to work on things for the Apple II line, >if they were about to dump it? >My only complaint? I wish we would hear from Apple Hardware people on here, >that they are working on Apple II stuff. Even if it isn't a new CPU. >ARE THERE any Apple, Inc. Hardware people on the NET? >To Dave and Andy, I say only this: Thanks guys, you've been rays of >sunshine in this time of darkness. I think the reason most of apple does not post here is because they got fed up of the nagging complaints from a few months ago and put this section in their kill file permanently.... by the way, what the heck does ->IMHO<- Mean?!?!?! -- Michael Gammal Concordia University gammal@Altitude.CAM.ORG
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (04/14/91)
On Sat, 13 Apr 91 16:30:00 CST <SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU> said: > > Hey! What about my GS with the ensonic processor??? Thats a co- >processor, and we've had that since what, 1986? And about that comment about >Apple being hardware stingy, read my upcoming mac of the month article... Is a co-processor a co-processor if it steals cycles from the main CPU? I'm not insinuating (?SP?) that it's not,... I really don't know. Does anyone else? >| Hal Bouma | Send mail to: SHBoum@Macalstr.edu >| Macalester College | and SHBoum@Macalstr.Bitnet >| GEnie: H.Bouma | ".Sig Under Construction..." ---------------------------------------- BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm <------------send files here pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
stuckey@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Anthony J. Stuckey) (04/15/91)
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >On Sat, 13 Apr 91 16:30:00 CST <SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU> said: >> >> Hey! What about my GS with the ensonic processor??? Thats a co- >>processor, and we've had that since what, 1986? And about that comment about >>Apple being hardware stingy, read my upcoming mac of the month article... >Is a co-processor a co-processor if it steals cycles from the main CPU? >I'm not insinuating (?SP?) that it's not,... I really don't know. Does >anyone else? ////// I would assume so, as a floating point coprocessor in many cases will make the cpu wait until it is done... Apple is amazingly stingy with hardware. if they weren't, they would coprocess both video and sound, put DMA on the motherboard (not on a card!) and/or use dual-ported VRAMS to make the screen video. they might as well put in higher clocks, although they have almost always been generous with RAM. Let's face it, DMA might have been an innovation when IBM put it into the PC's in 1983, but this is 1991. And yet the only native DMA machine Apple makes is the Mac II fx. thye didn't even put it into the LC, SI, or classic, for (insert deity here)'s sake. {flame off} -- Anthony J. Stuckey stuckey@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) (04/15/91)
I have composed the following open letter which I am mailing to incider
magazine, Nibble, and a few select Software Developers. I would like to try
and get this open letter distributed as widely as possible, so please,
folks, let's help out in getting this message out. RE-POST!
Thanks,
Roby
Comments/suggestions are welcome... Please keep your FLAMES to yourselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Software Company :
I don't understand your reasoning. You tell me that your company will no
longer write software for the Apple II family because
1> THEY ARE NO LONGER SUPPORTED BY APPLE - Yes, Apple doesn't actively market
the Apple II line, but the Apple II product has earned a reputation over the years, a reputation that gives the product a sense of MAGIC when you own
one. And that reputation SELLS Apple II's, even TODAY! Also, WHY would Apple
HIRE programmers, paying them top dollar, to work on a product that they
were going to "kill?" I don't know about you, Mr. Software Company, but I
certainly would not go to work for a company if there was no sense of JOB
SECURITY. And yet... every month, Apple hires NEW people, whose sole purpose
in life is work on Apple II's!
Now, let's just say for a moment, that Apple *DID* drop the II line? If
Apple came out tomorrow and said, "WE WILL NO LONGER PRODUCE APPLE II'S..."
SO WHAT? Would 5 and 1/2 million people throw out their II's the very next
day? The answer is NO. Apple II's are not going to be chucked out the
window, or buried in the back yard, just because Apple drops the line. Now I
DO agree that YES some people would sell their II's, HOWEVER, did it ever
occur to you, Mr. Software Company, that if 400,000 people sold their Apple
II's that they would be selling them to 400,000 OTHER people??? And did it
also occur to you, that these people, would soon be looking for SOFTWARE and
HARDWARE products for their "NEW" computer???
2> APPLE WON'T ISN'T HELPING US DEVELOP SOFTWARE / THERE ISN'T A BIG ENOUGH
MARKET. Well, I'd like to bring up the Commodore Amiga. You complain about
the lack of Apple's support, but you turn right around and write program
after program for the Amiga. Commodore DOES NOT support developers AT ALL
(Meanwhile, Apple buries YOU in technotes!) and yet you "MANAGE" to write
software for that machine, selling to an installed base, SIGNIFICANTLY less
than the Apple II installed base, but there is more of a "MARKET" there than
the 5 1/2 million Apple II's HERE?
3> THE APPLE II LINE IS TOO SLOW / TOO DIFFICULT TO PORT SOFTWARE TO - Well,
Mr. Software Company, all I can say is this :
* Is it MY fault that your programmers are too lazy or lack the know-how to
re-write a program for the Apple II? If your hire programmers who only
know how to write in C and not 65xx assembler, am *I* to blame?
Rather than trying to save a buck, why don't you hire some extra
programmers who NOT ONLY can write Apple II software, but can WRITE it
WELL! Hire the Doug Smiths, the Bill Budges, the people who can make
that computer sing, rather than some old IBM hacker who writes messy,
inefficient code, which makes the program slow and a pain to use. And the
people will buy your products.
* Is it MY fault that you try to cut corners by "porting" software,
rather than writing specifically for MY machine, taking advantage of IT'S
features? Yes you can argue that the CPU speed is only 1 mhz or
2.8 mhz. Again, I ask, SO WHAT? I've seen demos written for both the
Apple II and the IIgs that run circles around other machine platforms.
How is this possible? Because the code was written FOR that machine, it
wasn't ported from some poorly written C code. It seems to me that
programmers have gotten so hung up on these faster "BOOM! ZAP! KAPOW!"
machines, running 20-33mhz, that they have gotten lazy, and have forgotten
what it's like to write "EFFICIENT" code. They much rather use a
high-level language which is slow and sluggish on anything less than 20
MHZ. And *IF* you find you must use a C compiler and you don't like the
ones around on the Apple II, do what they used to do in the "old-days."
WRITE one! and sell IT, too and make MORE money! Stop looking for
everything to be HANDED to you. When a machine first comes out, did the
languages come with it? NO, someone had to write it. If they did a bad
job, SOMEONE ELSE wrote another version.
4> THERE ARE NO TRUE II MAGAZINES OR OTHER CHANNELS TO ADVERTISE APPLE II
PRODUCTS - Well, SEND press releases. Post THEM to the Internet, send them
to user-groups, SEND them to dealers, schools, magazines! If a II user
knows that he/she can receive information via this channel, they will
GO BACK to that channel in the future. And when I say send releases to the
dealers, I mean also GET THE DEALERS OFF THEIR LAZY BUTTS! Send field rep
in and put up displays, get them to order your products through Merisel
and Micro D, or Roger Coats, or DIRECT! Show them that by selling your
products, it will increase the margin in the sale and increase the money
that THEY take home! And once a demand for your products is created, the
distributors will fulfill that need. How? By Advertising in Magazines. And
when they are not enough magazines to hold all of the distributor's ads,
MORE magazines will spring forth!
5> SOFTWARE IS PIRATED SO HEAVILY ON THE APPLE II THAT WE SIMPLY CANNOT MAKE
ANY MONEY FROM AN APPLE II PRODUCT - Pardon my french, but that is utter
bullshit. I have friends with IBM's and Amigas and BOTH of them have MORE
pirated software than ANY Apple II person I know.
Piracy is wrong, I agree, but it is something that will continue to
exist on EVERY machine for a long time to come! But to sit there and say
that Apple II has the worst case of piracy, over IBM and AMIGA, is just
blatant lying. Piracy is just as bad on EVERY PLATFORM as it is on the Apple
II, and YET you STILL write software for these other machines, why?
So, Mr. Software Company, in closing I would just like to say, that these
"excuses" you've given the Apple II community are just that, EXCUSES. If you
continue to support the Apple II, then the Apple II community will continue
to support you, by purchasing your products.
Thank you,
Roby Sherman
--
Internet : rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu
|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|
.signature : This message is from the Robester; the Robe Man; the Robo-ski;
The Robedude, doing that Internet thing.. Robe-o, Robe-o, ROBE-O!toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (04/15/91)
This letter needs some serious chilling out and toning down before Mr. Software Company is going to read it past the first paragraph. I don't mean to be harsh, just honest. When I did the Apple //f papers I made sure they were serious proposals with, for the most part, sound arguments. The paper sounded like I knew what I was talking about, and when I didn't I extrapolated and said so. You are not going to get the software companies to read this one as soon as they start seeing all the emphasized words, and "it's your problem if you can't hire decent programmers" type quotes. This letter looks way too much like the rantings of crazy old II fanatics and it really is not appropriate for this kind of letter campaign -- personal letters that they can't just look at and say 'oh yeah, one of those' until they've had a chance to be influenced by it are far more appropriate. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Roby Sherman) (04/15/91)
I forgot to mention... This is ONLY the first draft, but I wanted to get in
as much input and ideas before I send it.
thanks for the help.
Roby
--
Internet : rsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu
|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|
.signature : This message is from the Robester; the Robe Man; the Robo-ski;
The Robedude, doing that Internet thing.. Robe-o, Robe-o, ROBE-O!meekins@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (timothy lee meekins) (04/15/91)
You might want to mention the lack of Apple II magazines is due to the great support these companies are giving them. <sarcasm here> -- +---------------------------S-U-P-P-O-R-T-----------------------------------+ |/ Tim Meekins <<>> Snail Mail: <<>> Apple II \| |> meekins@cis.ohio-state.edu <<>> 8372 Morris Rd. <<>> Forever! <| |\ timm@pro-tcc.cts.com <<>> Hilliard, OH 43026 <<>> /|
alfter@nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (04/15/91)
It's strange that you mailed that letter to Nibble; they're one of a small handful of magazines that's sticking with the Apple II. InCider, on the other hand...:-P Scott Alfter-----------------------------_/_---------------------------- Support Operation Apple Storm! / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (04/16/91)
In article <9104141554.AA15358@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >On Sat, 13 Apr 91 16:30:00 CST <SHBOUM@MACALSTR.EDU> said: >> Hey! What about my GS with the ensonic processor??? Thats a co- >>processor, and we've had that since what, 1986? And about that comment about >>Apple being hardware stingy, read my upcoming mac of the month article... >Is a co-processor a co-processor if it steals cycles from the main CPU? >I'm not insinuating (?SP?) that it's not,... I really don't know. Does >anyone else? Steals cycles? Isn't it correct that once you dump stuff into the sound RAM, the CPU doesn't have to do diddley until you have to dump more data into the sound RAM? Many a time has a game crashed and left the sound playing forever.. (Cough, err.. uhh... I guess that's not a great example.. heh heh) -- /unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever! WANT ULTIMA VI //e or GS?-mail me.\ \CHEAP CDs info-mail me. McIntosh Junior: The Power to Crush the Other Kids. /