youngdahl@gacvx1.gac.edu (02/08/91)
Recently I made a big decision that I'm sure I'm not going to like making, but I had to do it anyways. Its kind of strange for me to be posting this message to everyone here because I'm sure some of you remember me telling you in a past message how much I was looking forward to getting involved with some IIgs programming. The problem is this: with Apple's decision not to produce a new Apple II CPU, my hardware and software is devaluating at an astounding rate. So, I've made the decision to sell my IIgs system and move to a Mac LC. Now I've read the previous posts on the "Mac LC vs. the IIgs" and I've really gotten surprised at how some fundamental things have been forgotten. Things like price vs. power, upgradability, and, more important to me, new software. I'm not going to go into this to deeply, as I doubt if a "this computer is better than that computer" discussion is really going to change anyones minds. I'm just going to tell you why I'm giving up 8 years of Apple II devotion (since I had my little II+) and moving to another Apple platform. First, I'm going to be able to sell my 1.25 MB/floppy drive IIgs system used, and go right out and make a student purchase of a 4 MB RAM, 40 Meg hard drive system. For no extra cash. Of course, I'll have no software, but I can buy what I need fairly cheaply mail-order. And please don't flame me and tell me the IIgs is more powerful than the Mac LC. I've always been a big GS defender myself ... but its OBVIOUS that the only thing the GS has that the Mac lacks is a great sound chip, the Enisoniq. Second, I can't upgrade my GS to anything. But a Mac LC (hopefully) will be upgradable to SOMETHING someday. And it has new software coming out for it. Ben Youngdahl
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Feb7.133017.1@gacvx1.gac.edu> youngdahl@gacvx1.gac.edu writes:
[switching to a Mac LC, gives reasons,etc...]
There's nothing wrong in moving to the Mac. But one thing in your note
puzzled me. You were hoping for an upgrade path in the future. This is
very unlikely for the LC. It is the Mac+ of the modular Mac line. Keep
in mind that it has mono sound( unlike the MacII's), no 68881, and basically
no expansion). It's a nice computer, but for a bit more you can get a
MacIIsi with a full 32 bit bus( as opposed to the 16 bit data path in the
LC), easy installation of a math chip, NuBus slot,etc....
The Mac LC is not for doing many of the programs typically thought of for
a Mac II. It is not even recommended for using the professional version of
MathWriter 2.0( the only WYSIWYG technical word processor for the Mac).
Philip McDunnough
University of Torontoplatkus@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Shawn W Platkus) (02/09/91)
In article <1991Feb7.133017.1@gacvx1.gac.edu> youngdahl@gacvx1.gac.edu writes: >Recently I made a big decision that I'm sure I'm not going to like making, but >I had to do it anyways. Its kind of strange for me to be posting this message >to everyone here because I'm sure some of you remember me telling you in a past >message how much I was looking forward to getting involved with some IIgs >programming. The problem is this: with Apple's decision not to produce a new >Apple II CPU, my hardware and software is devaluating at an astounding rate. >So, I've made the decision to sell my IIgs system and move to a Mac LC. Well, all I can say here is that you are moving from an older obsolete machine the GS to a newer obsolete machine the LC. I've considered moving from the GS to a MAC, but I can't afford to get a Mac system that is comparable to the GS system I have, and also, I have used both the GS and MAC extensively, and frankly, I like the GS better! I mean just the way it does things like it doesn't take as long to bring up a 3.5" disk on the desktop of the GS as it does on the MAC, and just the way things "feel" on the GS, I dunno, I just like it better. Oh well, have fun with your mac, and I will be the first one to laugh at you mac-ies when apple abandons you guys too! Platkus
rhyde@koufax.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (02/09/91)
Of course, if you could possibly afford it, keep your GS and get the Mac as well. OTOH, if you can't afford it, gee, I find myself using my Mac more than my GS (at least, for applications). Someday you can come back here and defend your choice so I can sit back and laugh. If things work out okay for you, Apple will probably announce a RISC machine next year and it will be the start of their abandoning the Mac!
sb@pnet91.cts.com (Stephen Brown) (02/09/91)
youngdahl@gacvx1.gac.edu writes: > >Second, I can't upgrade my GS to anything. But a Mac LC (hopefully) will be >upgradable to SOMETHING someday. And it has new software coming out for it. > >Ben Youngdahl You'll be able to upgreade to something alright. It won't be a Mac though. IMHO. UUCP: lsuc!graham!pnet91!sb INET: sb@pnet91.cts.com
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (02/10/91)
In fact, no one else could have said it better than Ben in his post on why he is letting go of his Apple II roots and moving to the Mac LC. It truly is irrelevant how much better apple II afficionados think the GS is (and while doing so seeing it necessary to stretch a lot in order to compete with LC standard features), when it cannot really approach the price/performance ratio of the LC. Quite true that the only thing the GS has going for it is one heck of a great sound chip - which is hardly being used by software developers. With apple's apparent freeze on new Apple II CPUs (yet the continuing outpour of new Mac hardware - makes you wonder, doesn't it?), it does not appear as though a likely upgrade path exists for the GS. The LC, on the other hand can be expanded (though only through one slot, granted), yet I have just read of one company that came out with '040 accelerator for the LC that will give it 2-3 times the performance of the IIfx - quite a nifty feat (of course, the card will cost 2-3000 bucks). In the end, it is still a matter of which computer is the best for what YOU will do with it. If you are comfortable with the GS, then that is fine for you. Stay with it and use it. I generally do not thin that much can be achieved with the 'my computer is better than your computer debate' (though I have been known to engage in it as well), but one has to admit that Apple's positioning of the two platforms pushes the LC at the expense of the IIgs in such a way that any new buyer that compares them will be swayed towards the LC (and no, joe blow user will not care one bit about a great sound chip...). uucp : ucrmath!alchemy!hzink | Achieve True Wealth and Financial Independence! INET : hzink@alchemy.uucp | Intrigued? - Send E-Mail! -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Wesley: "Captain, this doesn't look like the holodeck to me." Worf: "Ready to cycle airlock, Captain." Picard: "Make it so."
meekins@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (timothy lee meekins) (02/10/91)
In article <477@generic.UUCP> sb@pnet91.cts.com (Stephen Brown) writes: >youngdahl@gacvx1.gac.edu writes: >> >>Second, I can't upgrade my GS to anything. But a Mac LC (hopefully) will be >>upgradable to SOMETHING someday. And it has new software coming out for it. >> >>Ben Youngdahl > >You'll be able to upgreade to something alright. It won't be a Mac though. > >IMHO. > > Ha ha. How sure are you (youngdahl) of that? You think you'll buy a Mac simply becuase you know it'll be upgraded. 5 years ago the Apple II community used to think the the same thing. Mac users laugh at us, but wait, in 5 years the Mac will be in the same straights as the Apple II. That's the main reason Apple II user's (generally) will not buy a Mac after they give up their II (which, hopefully, they never will). Apple has left a very sour taste in many people's mouths and that makes it very hard to believe in them. The Apple II is more than a computer, it is a cult phenomenon. There "used" to be people that treated Apple Co. as a God, now they have become a traitor, and I think the entire Apple II community is just sitting around, waiting for the Mac line to get cut. But, until that day, myself and others will continue to do what we can to show Apple just what the Apple II can do, and what the precious Mac cannot. But, hey, I like my II, it does what I want (well, *nothing* does what I *really* want), and I don't really care what Apple Co. thinks. :) >UUCP: lsuc!graham!pnet91!sb >INET: sb@pnet91.cts.com -- +---------------------------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 <<>> /|
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (02/10/91)
In article <477@generic.UUCP> sb@pnet91.cts.com (Stephen Brown) writes: >youngdahl@gacvx1.gac.edu writes: >> >>Second, I can't upgrade my GS to anything. But a Mac LC (hopefully) will be >>upgradable to SOMETHING someday. And it has new software coming out for it. >> >>Ben Youngdahl >You'll be able to upgreade to something alright. It won't be a Mac though. >IMHO. >UUCP: lsuc!graham!pnet91!sb >INET: sb@pnet91.cts.com I'd really like to know what the author of that post was trying to say with this rather incoherent post. Just seems like another bitter Apple II owner, out to make life miserable for a Mac owner. Sad we have to have such things... uucp : ucrmath!alchemy!hzink | Achieve True Wealth and Financial Independence! INET : hzink@alchemy.uucp | Intrigued? - Send E-Mail! -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Wesley: "Captain, this doesn't look like the holodeck to me." Worf: "Ready to cycle airlock, Captain." Picard: "Make it so."
youngdahl@gacvx1.gac.edu (02/11/91)
In article <361@alchemy.UUCP>, hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes: > In article <477@generic.UUCP> sb@pnet91.cts.com (Stephen Brown) writes: >>youngdahl@gacvx1.gac.edu writes: >>> >>>Second, I can't upgrade my GS to anything. But a Mac LC (hopefully) will be >>>upgradable to SOMETHING someday. And it has new software coming out for it. >>> >>>Ben Youngdahl > >>You'll be able to upgreade to something alright. It won't be a Mac though. > >>IMHO. > > >>UUCP: lsuc!graham!pnet91!sb >>INET: sb@pnet91.cts.com > > I'd really like to know what the author of that post was trying to say with > this rather incoherent post. > > Just seems like another bitter Apple II owner, out to make life miserable for a > Mac owner. Sad we have to have such things... > > > uucp : ucrmath!alchemy!hzink | Achieve True Wealth and Financial Independence! > INET : hzink@alchemy.uucp | Intrigued? - Send E-Mail! > -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------ > Wesley: "Captain, this doesn't look like the holodeck to me." > Worf: "Ready to cycle airlock, Captain." Picard: "Make it so." (sorry to have so much stuff quoted, but its esential to understand this reply) Actually, the funny thing is that I'll always be an Apple 2 owner. I've got a II+ sitting downstairs -- that will still be there when my GS has been replaced by a Mac LC. Just think cars, instead of computers. I guess this whole arguement sounds like we were arguing, one and all, over whether or not it made sense for me to sell my classic automobile for a new sportscar. I love my classic, but its not as fuel efficient, fast, or NEW enough for my tastes. Its served me well. I've put quite a few miles on it, and now its no longer in production, so I have to switch to another model. Now, I could be upset that time has left my "classic" behind. But its run well, and it certainly has run better than one from another company. In three years, I'll want a new car again. But my classic is starting to get too slow for my needs, and the longer I wait, the longer I'll end up waiting... and waiting... and waiting... I mean, don't we all *like* the Mac? What should a person do? Go out and buy a *gasp* IBM just to make a statement? Or a NeXT? I mean, sometimes this "Anti-apple" Apple 2 sentiment seems a bit ludicrous. Now I know I'm going to get flamed for saying this, but when the TSR-80, Commodore 128, TI-99a, Atari 800/8 bit, etc., etc. became increasingly out of date, a time came for the owners to move up if they needed more power. My original post was not meant to be taken as a "Mac is better than the GS" statement. I said: "For me, the Mac will be better than my GS." Ben Youngdahl
alfter@nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (02/12/91)
In article <361@alchemy.UUCP> hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes: >In article <477@generic.UUCP> sb@pnet91.cts.com (Stephen Brown) writes: >>You'll be able to upgreade to something alright. It won't be a Mac though. >Just seems like another bitter Apple II owner, out to make life miserable for a >Mac owner. Sad we have to have such things... You'd feel the same way if Apple was dissing you at every opportunity. Just wait...when Apple comes out with a new line of computers, you Mac owners will be in the same miserable condition as all of us with Apple IIs. (Actually, Mac users will probably be worse off since they're a bunch of computer illiterates who know nothing about what makes their machines tick. :-) ) Scott Alfter-----------------------------_/_-----------------------(>o<) SUPPORT OUR TROOPS IN THE GULF! / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/ Have you killed an Iraqi lately?
platkus@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Shawn W Platkus) (02/12/91)
>Actually, the funny thing is that I'll always be an Apple 2 owner. I've got a >II+ sitting downstairs -- that will still be there when my GS has been replaced >by a Mac LC. > >Just think cars, instead of computers. > >I guess this whole arguement sounds like we were arguing, one and all, over >whether or not it made sense for me to sell my classic automobile for a new >sportscar. I love my classic, but its not as fuel efficient, fast, or NEW >enough for my tastes. Its served me well. I've put quite a few miles on it, >and now its no longer in production, so I have to switch to another model. >Now, I could be upset that time has left my "classic" behind. But its run >well, and it certainly has run better than one from another company. In three >years, I'll want a new car again. But my classic is starting to get too slow >for my needs, and the longer I wait, the longer I'll end up waiting... and >waiting... and waiting... > >I mean, don't we all *like* the Mac? What should a person do? Go out and buy >a *gasp* IBM just to make a statement? Or a NeXT? I mean, sometimes this >"Anti-apple" Apple 2 sentiment seems a bit ludicrous. > >Now I know I'm going to get flamed for saying this, but when the TSR-80, >Commodore 128, TI-99a, Atari 800/8 bit, etc., etc. became increasingly out of >date, a time came for the owners to move up if they needed more power. > >My original post was not meant to be taken as a "Mac is better than the GS" >statement. I said: "For me, the Mac will be better than my GS." > >Ben Youngdahl I really don't understand your point for even posting this to the net anyway. What you do with your computer and your money is your business. If you wanted other peoples opinions about making a decision, then you should have stated this (even though you got them anyway), but I don't beleive this was your intent because your mind was made up when you made the post. I think you were either trying to start a flame war or either sneakingly get some advertisement here for your "for Sale GS" (shame on you). Sorry to accuse you of things though. THis is my opinion. Platkus
declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb11.010100.1@gacvx1.gac.edu>, youngdahl@gacvx1.gac.edu writes: > In article <361@alchemy.UUCP>, hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes: > > In article <477@generic.UUCP> sb@pnet91.cts.com (Stephen Brown) writes: > >>youngdahl@gacvx1.gac.edu writes: > >>> > >>>Second, I can't upgrade my GS to anything. But a Mac LC (hopefully) will be > >>>upgradable to SOMETHING someday. And it has new software coming out for it. > q n y mp.sys.apple2 How about a NeXTstation or NeXTcube with a 68040 ... 15-18 MIPS. Close25RISCy enoug~= I have SoftPC on my NeXT right now. At that speed, even the UNIX Apple IIe emulator is tolerable. And, speaking of emulation> >>INET: sb@pnet91.cts.c, RDI systems is going to be shipping a Mac emul softwareator for the NeXT in the near future. Vaporware? No - they're omalready shipping a ROM-based version for the Sun/3. -Declan > > > > I'd really like to know what the author of that post was trying to say with > > this rather incoherent post. > > > > Just seems like another bitter Apple II owner, out to make life miserable for a > > Mac owner. Sad we have to have such things... > > > > > > uucp : ucrmath!alchemy!hzink | Achieve True Wealth and Financial Independence! > > INET : hzink@alchemy.uucp | Intrigued? - Send E-Mail! > > -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------ > > Wesley: "Captain, this doesn't look like the holodeck to me." > > Worf: "Ready to cycle airlock, Captain." Picard: "Make it so." > > (sorry to have so much stuff quoted, but its esential to understand this reply) > > Actually, the funny thing is that I'll always be an Apple 2 owner. I've got a > II+ sitting downstairs -- that will still be there when my GS has been replaced > by a Mac LC. > > Just think cars, instead of computers. > > I guess this whole arguement sounds like we were arguing, one and all, over > whether or not it made sense for me to sell my classic automobile for a new > sportscar. I love my classic, but its not as fuel efficient, fast, or NEW > enough for my tastes. Its served me well. I've put quite a few miles on it, > and now its no longer in production, so I have to switch to another model. > Now, I could be upset that time has left my "classic" behind. But its run > well, and it certainly has run better than one from another company. In three > years, I'll want a new car again. But my classic is starting to get too slow > for my needs, and the longer I wait, the longer I'll end up waiting... and > waiting... and waiting... > > I mean, don't we all *like* the Mac? What should a person do? Go out and buy > a *gasp* IBM just to make a statement? Or a NeXT? I mean, sometimes this > "Anti-apple" Apple 2 sentiment seems a bit ludicrous. > > Now I know I'm going to get flamed for saying this, but when the TSR-80, > Commodore 128, TI-99a, Atari 800/8 bit, etc., etc. became increasingly out of > date, a time came for the owners to move up if they needed more power. > > My original post was not meant to be taken as a "Mac is better than the GS" > statement. I said: "For me, the Mac will be better than my GS." > > Ben Youngdahl
declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb11.010100.1@gacvx1.gac.edu>, youngdahl@gacvx1.gac.edu writes: > Just think cars, instead of computers. > > I guess this whole arguement sounds like we were arguing, one and all, over > whether or not it made sense for me to sell my classic automobile for a new > sportscar. I love my classic, but its not as fuel efficient, fast, or NEW > enough for my tastes. Its served me well. I've put quite a few miles on it, > and now its no longer in production, so I have to switch to another model. > Now, I could be upset that time has left my "classic" behind. But its run > well, and it certainly has run better than one from another company. In thre > years, I'll want a new car again. But my classic is starting to get too slow > for my needs, and the longer I wait, the longer I'll end up waiting... and > waiting... and waiting... Not a bad analogy, but there are a few points worth mentioning. First, you'll probably be able to get service on your "classic" car for quite a while. Do you think that computer dealers/repair centers will bother with Apple II computers five or ten years from now? Second, when you buy a computer from a company, you're buying into the future of that company, especially if the computer is a proprietary one like the IIgs or Macintosh (by this, I really mean that the default operating system is specific to that machine). If the company goes under or stops supporting your computer, then nobody else can release new motherboards or incremental operating system updates. In addition, if the computer is no longer supported, the third-party market slowly evanesces. With a car, all you need to ensure is that you'll be able to get parts for it in the future. The face of the computer industry is quite different now than it was seven years ago when Apple introduced the Macintosh; a new - incompatible - computer line would scarely be well received. Besides, it took five or more years from the introduction of the Macintosh for Apple to effectively discontinue the IIgs - if you bought a Mac now, you'd have a nice long grace period before your computer became obselete. But it would. Computers become obselete; cars become antique, with few exceptions. Don't get me wrong - I've had a IIgs since 1987, and an Apple IIe for quite a long time before that. I loved them both. Now, however, I use my NeXT exclusively. There's little reason for me to go from a young, robust computer system to an aged, outmoded one. Whose fault is it? Is it Apple's fault - a concious decision on their part? Or is it the gradually obseleting effects of new technology? -Declan
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (02/12/91)
Once again I have to read something like this: "You'd feel the same way if Apple was dissing you at every opportunity. Just wait...when Apple comes out with a new line of computers, you Mac owners will be in the same miserable condition as all of us with Apple IIs. (Actually, Mac users will probably be worse off since they're a bunch of computer illiterates who know nothing about what makes their machines tick. :-) )" And Ben has piut it quite clearly that this is not one of those 'my computer is better than your computer' arguments. It is simply a matter of people prefering to move on to newer, better and most of all, better supported technology while some people prefer to whine and scream about what they have and how they want it never to change. Though the part about computer illiterates above might have been meant as a joke, it is unfortunately sad but true that apple II owners are starting to appear more and more than that bunch of CP/M owners that still hovers over their machines, wishing CP/M were still around. Granted, and amusing phenomenon, but definitely also sad to observe. Liek I said earlier, it seems to me that the only argument left to them is "You just wait and see what apple will do to you next'. Pretty stuupid if you ask me. If apple truly comes out witha new machine that leaves the Mac behind (Like the knowledge Navigator) I will be glad to leave the Mac behind in exchange for something new. Face it, technoogy moves on, and you have the choice to either stay behind in the caves, or move up to the condos. I prefer running water and central heating... :-) Harry uucp : ucrmath!alchemy!hzink | Achieve True Wealth and Financial Independence! INET : hzink@alchemy.uucp | Intrigued? - Send E-Mail! -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Wesley: "Captain, this doesn't look like the holodeck to me." Worf: "Ready to cycle airlock, Captain." Picard: "Make it so."
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (02/12/91)
alfter@nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >Just wait...when Apple comes out with a new line of computers, you Mac >owners will be in the same miserable condition as all of us with Apple >IIs. I'm a Mac owner (with around $6000 invested in my machine), but the concept of Apple bringing out a new line of computers doesn't worry me - in fact, it pleases me. There will always be a point when trying to add on the latest innovations to an aging architecture just won't work... you have to make a clean break and start afresh. When Apple brings out their "Granny Smith", with multiprocessor/voice recognition/pen operated... I'll be glad to switch. The market for my old Mac will still exist for at least a couple of years. I can sell it second-hand, and buy into the new machine market. The trick is not to wait too long with your old machine, before getting the new machine... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "She's got a tongue like an electric eel, and she likes the taste of a man's tonsils!" - Rik Flashheart
daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) (02/13/91)
In article <361@alchemy.UUCP> hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes: >In article <477@generic.UUCP> sb@pnet91.cts.com (Stephen Brown) writes: >>You'll be able to upgreade to something alright. It won't be a Mac though. >>IMHO. > >I'd really like to know what the author of that post was trying to say with >this rather incoherent post. > >Just seems like another bitter Apple II owner, out to make life miserable for a >Mac owner. Sad we have to have such things... I believe the author was trying to say that there is no real upgrade from a Mac LC. Not much you can do with one little slot, ya know. Just as you can "upgrade" from a II to a Mac LC, you can "upgrade" from a Mac LC to some other computer. However, you can't upgrade from a Mac LC to another Mac. > uucp : ucrmath!alchemy!hzink | Achieve True Wealth and Financial Independence! > INET : hzink@alchemy.uucp | Intrigued? - Send E-Mail! > -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------ > Wesley: "Captain, this doesn't look like the holodeck to me." > Worf: "Ready to cycle airlock, Captain." Picard: "Make it so." -- David Huang | Internet: daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "Slight accidents with funny rays UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!daveh | can have serious consequences" America Online: DrWho29 |
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (02/13/91)
In article <44069@ut-emx.uucp> daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) writes: >I believe the author was trying to say that there is no real upgrade from a Mac >LC. Not much you can do with one little slot, ya know. Just as you can "upgrade" >from a II to a Mac LC, you can "upgrade" from a Mac LC to some other computer. >However, you can't upgrade from a Mac LC to another Mac. Apple, nor anyone else, has ever claimed that you could upgrade the Mac LC to another Mac. It is *usually* apple policy to allow users to upgrade from one Mac platform to the same within the same family, i.e. it is that policy that allows meek Macintosh II owners to upgrade to the Macintosh IIfx (for a price - which is nevertheless significantly less than buyng a full IIfx system). SImilarly, I envision that it might be possible to upgrade the LC to a possible future LC+ - just as it was possible to do so with the Apple II line for a while. The LC might only have a single slot, but that slot will allow you to later (or even right now) upgrade your LC with a 68040 accelerator that gives it 2-3 times the performance of a IIfx! As a sidenote, acceleration technology is very easy and very available on the LC, while the same, unfortunately can not be said for the Apple IIgs 9no thanks to Bill Mensch being incapable to built a CPU able to go at decent speeds. One wonders why it seems so difficult in an age when 32-bit architectures are getting CPUs rated at 50 and 100 MHz, why is it so difficult to WDC to manufacture a measly 16-bit processor at 20-25 MHz?). Granted, though, the single slot inhibits more complex expansion, but if you want more slots, all you need to do si get a Mac that has more. There are choices, you know! Harry
daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) (02/13/91)
In article <366@alchemy.UUCP> hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes: >Apple, nor anyone else, has ever claimed that you could upgrade the Mac LC to >another Mac. It is *usually* apple policy to allow users to upgrade from one Yes, but the original poster (youngdahl@gacvx1.gac.edu) said: >Second, I can't upgrade my GS to anything. But a Mac LC (hopefully) will be >upgradable to SOMETHING someday. And it has new software coming out for it. > >Ben Youngdahl >Mac platform to the same within the same family, i.e. it is that policy that >allows meek Macintosh II owners to upgrade to the Macintosh IIfx (for a price - >which is nevertheless significantly less than buyng a full IIfx system). Yes, that's true... >SImilarly, I envision that it might be possible to upgrade the LC to a possible >future LC+ - just as it was possible to do so with the Apple II line for a >while. > >The LC might only have a single slot, but that slot will allow you to later (or >even right now) upgrade your LC with a 68040 accelerator that gives it 2-3 >times the performance of a IIfx! As a sidenote, acceleration technology is That's also true, but many former II users (I'm not sure about Mr. Youngdahl) would like to have the //e emulation card, will fill that only slot. >very easy and very available on the LC, while the same, unfortunately can not >be said for the Apple IIgs 9no thanks to Bill Mensch being incapable to built a >CPU able to go at decent speeds. One wonders why it seems so difficult in an >age when 32-bit architectures are getting CPUs rated at 50 and 100 MHz, why is >it so difficult to WDC to manufacture a measly 16-bit processor at 20-25 MHz?). I agree with that... I don't know much about chip architecture and design, but it would seem that making a 25Mhz 65816 would be easier than making a 50 MHz 68040 or a 100Mhz 80486. My guess is that the money goes to the Motorola and Intel chips, not to WDC. >Granted, though, the single slot inhibits more complex expansion, but if you >want more slots, all you need to do si get a Mac that has more. There are >choices, you know! Yes, but Mr. Youngdahl seemed to be stating that he was getting a Mac LC because it was upgradable, whereas the GS was not. I think the LC would be the perfect computer for some people, but upgradability shouldn't be the main reason for getting one. >Harry -- David Huang | Internet: daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "Slight accidents with funny rays UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!daveh | can have serious consequences" America Online: DrWho29 |
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (02/14/91)
This is in reply to the message from the person that decided to get an LC
to replace their GS...
I (personally) have nothing against you deciding you needed an LC over a GS,
but I'd like to point a couple of things out in reply to some of the things
you included in that post:
1. We -don't- all '*like*' macs.
I don't dislike macs. I'd rather have a mac than no computer at all,
but I'd rather have a GS. If someone offered to swap a mac IIfx for
my GS, I'd be happy to ablige. I could sell it and buy 10 GS's :)
2. People aren't mad at the mac.
People are mad at Apple management for not supporting the II when
there was plenty they could have done. If there wasn't anything they
could do to make the GS better, I'd have no problem with them and
no problem """upgrading""" (quotes emphasized) to a mac. But knowing
That Apple Co. treated me this way when owning a II, how do I know they
won't do the same again if I got a mac? Another reason people are
mad at apple is because the prices on their products are just rediculous.
the price of their LOW DENSITY 3.5" drive is more than some 40meg
hard drives, for starters. Since Apple is obviously trying to replace
the II with the mac, it makes some people want macs less than they did
before, because the more macs that are sold instead of II's, the more
Apple is willing to continue with this ludicrous idea.
3. The GS is more upgradable than an LC (in contrast to what you printed).
The LC has ONLY ONE slot. The GS has SEVEN slots.
Apple has fallen back on the fundamental reasons Steve Jobs & Wozniak created
the company for in the first place: To inexpensively computerize the world.
Instead, Apple is doing just the opposite; they're charging outrageous prices
on their computers (inluding the II's), with the exception of the Classic.
Now the Classic is not incredibally overpriced. It's only about twice as much
as it should be.
I'm not even going to touch on the reasons why many of us like the II more
than the mac (it's been said only about a hundred million times on this net).
Now, I'm not saying the the LC isn't right for you. Only you can make that
decision. But the reason I'm replying is because you claimed the 'anti-apple
sentiment is ludicrous' and I want you to understand where it comes from.
---------------------------------------- f Tennes
Michael J. Quinn
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm
pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.comMQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (02/14/91)
On Tue, 12 Feb 91 04:10:24 GMT Harry K. Zink said: >And Ben has piut it quite clearly that this is not one of those 'my computer is >better than your computer' arguments. It is simply a matter of people >prefering to move on to newer, better and most of all, better supported >technology while some people prefer to whine and scream about what they have >and how they want it never to change. Though the part about computer >illiterates above might have been meant as a joke, it is unfortunately sad but >true that apple II owners are starting to appear more and more than that bunch >of CP/M owners that still hovers over their machines, wishing CP/M were still >around. Granted, and amusing phenomenon, but definitely also sad to observe. > >Liek I said earlier, it seems to me that the only argument left to them is "You >just wait and see what apple will do to you next'. Pretty stuupid if you ask >me. If apple truly comes out witha new machine that leaves the Mac behind >(Like the knowledge Navigator) I will be glad to leave the Mac behind in >exchange for something new. Face it, technoogy moves on, and you have the >choice to either stay behind in the caves, or move up to the condos. I prefer >running water and central heating... :-) I like hat running water and central heating too, but I shouldn't have to move to a new apartment to get it. I pay damn high rent in the apartment I'm in right now, and I expect my landlord (Apple Co.) to provide it to me! Look, I respect your decision to go mac. But quit hanging around here and telling us that your computer is better and that we're stupid for liking our machines. I could list several reasons why it's stupid to get an LC, but I won't. It won't do any good. Why are you even on this net anyway? If you don't want a GS, and you want a mac, leave us alone, PLEASE! Go join info-mac. I'm sure they'd welcome you there with open arms. Quit telling us that the Apple II is an antique and can't be helped. We know you're wrong and we're sick and tired of hearing that same old record from mac users. Just because Apple has decided not to support us currently, doesn't mean that nothing can be done for the Apple I and that it's a hopeless cause. What you said about our only argument being, "wait in a few years and apple will do the same to you" is stupid. That's just ONE of the reasons we don't plan on switching to macs. The main reason is, we actually -LIKE- the Apple II more than the mac. Is THAT stupid? I think not. And this is not an 'argument' either. You're the one making arguments. These are simply OUR reasons for preferring the II. P.S. I don't think he was joking when he said that mac users are computer illiterate. I work in a computer lab with both ibm's and macs. The people that use macs are definitely, beyond the shadow of a doubt, less knowledgable about basic computer concepts than ibm people. Don't get me wrong though, I prefer macs over ibms anyday. It's just that when all you do is point and click, it's hard to understand what's really going on. I'm not saying ALL mac users are this way, just the majority of them, compared to the majority of other kinds of computer users... Apple II users being the most knowledgable, although, there definitely are Apple II computer illiterates. So, please, if all you're going to do is tell us how much better macs are than Apple II's and that we're stupid for sticking with Apple II's, please leave. >Harry > > uucp : ucrmath!alchemy!hzink | Achieve True Wealth and Financial Independence! > INET : hzink@alchemy.uucp | Intrigued? - Send E-Mail! > -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------ > Wesley: "Captain, this doesn't look like the holodeck to me." > Worf: "Ready to cycle airlock, Captain." Picard: "Make it so." ---------------------------------------- f Tennes Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
jpenne@ee.ualberta.ca (Jerry Penner) (02/14/91)
In article <9102132324.AA00480@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: > >This is in reply to the message from the person that decided to get an LC >to replace their GS... > >I (personally) have nothing against you deciding you needed an LC over a GS, >but I'd like to point a couple of things out in reply to some of the things >you included in that post: > >1. We -don't- all '*like*' macs. > I don't dislike macs. I'd rather have a mac than no computer at all, > but I'd rather have a GS. If someone offered to swap a mac IIfx for > my GS, I'd be happy to ablige. I could sell it and buy 10 GS's :) >2. People aren't mad at the mac. > People are mad at Apple management for not supporting the II when > there was plenty they could have done. If there wasn't anything they > could do to make the GS better, I'd have no problem with them and > no problem """upgrading""" (quotes emphasized) to a mac. But knowing > That Apple Co. treated me this way when owning a II, how do I know they > won't do the same again if I got a mac? Another reason people are Actually, they are treating you fairly well. Consider the architecture of the 6502/65816 and consider the 680x0 series. Other considerations aside I'd much rather program the 680x0's in assembler than 65xxx. And I certainly wouldn't want to write a compiler for the 65xxx chips. I think Apple has considered this when they decided to forge on with the Mac. There is a future in the 68000 architecture because it was designed with the future in mind. The 65816 is a horrible kludge. If it had been designed more with a separate 16-bit mode (ie. no more 6502 instructions, just similar) it might have been worth taking a lot further. If you've read the article Randy Hyde posted about what the 65816 could or should have been, you know what I mean. If you haven't he basically outlined a completely new instruction set for the 16-bit mode with emulation of a 6502. But I digress... What I am saying is if you were a manufacturer who was trying to put power in people's hands, you wouldn't want to make a choice that was going to limit you in the future. I think Apple has done that. People love to hate Apple it seems. Take a look at Commodore. The 64 still sells. But what do you get from Commodore? Absolutely nothing. Apple gives you the video overlay card, the high speed DMA SCSI card, (all Apple IIs) and if you have a GS, new system software, Hypercard, and ongoing technical support even to those who don't pay for it. What more should they really do? Think carefully about what you would do if you were Apple. What can you do with the GS that's not a bunch of new hardware kludges? The architecture just doesn't lend itself to upgrading. > mad at apple is because the prices on their products are just rediculous. > the price of their LOW DENSITY 3.5" drive is more than some 40meg > hard drives, for starters. Since Apple is obviously trying to replace > the II with the mac, it makes some people want macs less than they did Yes, their prices are high, and have always been that way. I don't like their idea of telling me what to buy by the pricing strategy but if I didn't own a computer now and wanted to buy a new one, I sure wouldn't buy an Apple II. > before, because the more macs that are sold instead of II's, the more > Apple is willing to continue with this ludicrous idea. >3. The GS is more upgradable than an LC (in contrast to what you printed). > The LC has ONLY ONE slot. The GS has SEVEN slots. Since this discussion was about LC/GS's, I have to agree. I think the LC is a crippled Macintosh. (maybe like the crippled GS was in '86) > >Apple has fallen back on the fundamental reasons Steve Jobs & Wozniak created >the company for in the first place: To inexpensively computerize the world. You really think that's why they created Apple? More like Woz liked giving people something fun to play with and do cool things on and Jobs wanted to make piles of cash. Apple's have always cost lots. >Instead, Apple is doing just the opposite; they're charging outrageous prices >on their computers (inluding the II's), with the exception of the Classic. >Now the Classic is not incredibally overpriced. It's only about twice as much >as it should be. > >I'm not even going to touch on the reasons why many of us like the II more >than the mac (it's been said only about a hundred million times on this net). > >Now, I'm not saying the the LC isn't right for you. Only you can make that >decision. But the reason I'm replying is because you claimed the 'anti-apple >sentiment is ludicrous' and I want you to understand where it comes from. > > Michael J. Quinn > I understand why people are anti-apple. But in some ways I don't. They get so fanatical about it that it's almost insane. And lots of times I think they do it to convince themselves that they aren't wasting their time, money, and effort on a machine that might just be limiting the usefulness or fun of their computing. I like Apples a lot but I realize I'm never going to get a 10 MIPS Apple II and to try to make my GS anywhere near that is going to end up costing me a lot more than leaving it the way it is and purchasing another more powerful machine. I must also add that I don't think we should all run out to buy the latest technology. Not everyone needs it. But I for one would like to have more power at my fingertips. Sticking to the II line just because I like a lot of things about it means I'm missing a lot of nice things about other systems. Flame away, folks. :-] -- ------------- Jerry Penner alberta!bode!jpenne Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/14/91)
jpenne@ee.ualberta.ca (Jerry Penner) writes: >In article <9102132324.AA00480@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >the Mac. There is a future in the 68000 architecture because it was >designed with the future in mind. The 65816 is a horrible kludge. I disagree. It is the most elegant kludge I have ever seen. It is however far better suited to small and tight controller applications as opposed to general purpose programming (for which the 680x0 is indeed superior). The Super Nintendo uses a 65816 and its specs indicate that it will pound the Genesis and TurboGraphix (both 68000 boxes) into the dirt when 16 bit game machines finally oust the original Nintendo (which is 65c02 based). GS programmers, take heart! Get a job programming the Super Nintendo. 65816 at 7 mhz, kick-butt coprocessors for everything at your command... it's what the Amiga should have been but without the keyboard! Apple and NeXT will soon be the only companies whose flag product uses the 680x0 series. Apple is moving to Moto's 88xxx series and probably the ARM chipset. Both will leave the 680x0 in the dust (high end, and low end). >it had been designed more with a separate 16-bit mode (ie. no more >6502 instructions, just similar) it might have been worth taking a lot >further. If you've read the article Randy Hyde posted about what the >65816 could or should have been, you know what I mean. If you haven't >he basically outlined a completely new instruction set for the 16-bit >mode with emulation of a 6502. Randy Hyde's article (frankly) disgusted me. The bus architecture of the 65816 prefers a small and tight instruction set, whereas the bus scheme of the 680x0 prefers a larger and more powerful instruction set. Mixing the two (large instructions on a small bus & register set, or few instructions -- not RISC but way too few instructions -- with a wide, slow bus) does not easily produce efficient results. (I know there must be exceptions to this general statement). I claim that good 65816 compilers are possible (the Apple guy who worked on HyperCard IIgs posted recently and mentioned that MPW IIgs pascal had an awesome new code generator), and I have some ideas for a C code generator that I believe will produce excellent code -- but that doesn't count because I don't have time to try it and I don't have a job at ByteWorks. >But I digress... What I am saying is if you were a manufacturer who >was trying to put power in people's hands, you wouldn't want to make a >choice that was going to limit you in the future. I think Apple has >done that. Given Bill Mensch's track record I must agree to this. It comes down to an "I wish things had happened differently" but they didn't. What I blame Apple for is for not taking charge. They had the capability to do what the ASIC 65816 guys claim to be doing years ago -- I am not joking -- but did not consider the Apple II worth the effort, and I disagree. > Apple gives you the video overlay card, the high >speed DMA SCSI card, (all Apple IIs) and if you have a GS, new system >software, Hypercard, and ongoing technical support even to those who >don't pay for it. What more should they really do? Think carefully >about what you would do if you were Apple. What can you do with the >GS that's not a bunch of new hardware kludges? I can do a lot, Apple's hardware team could do a lot, given the ASIC resources alotted to two Mac CPUs and not much else. It'd take a lot more time for me to do it alone, of course, and I'd need access to Apple Internal specs for the Sound GLU, the SWIM, and the RTC interface section of the VGC. (Actually, I believe the Mac Hardware Reference describes enough of the RTC interface to design an interface for it.) The other custom chips (FPI, Mega II, Slotmaker, VGC, and the ADB/Keyboard GLU) could be totally redesigned and combined in order to simplify the logic board, add features, reduce chip count and overall logic complexity, and so on. While I cannot guarantee perfect hardware compatibility, I believe I can do it where it counts without violating the goal of the design effort -- an elegant reimplementation and improvement. > The architecture just doesn't lend itself to upgrading. I'm sorry, but that can't be true. Look at the IBM PC. They did what I'd love to see done to the IIgs and gee Mr. Wizard it worked. >Yes, their prices are high, and have always been that way. I don't >like their idea of telling me what to buy by the pricing strategy but >if I didn't own a computer now and wanted to buy a new one, I sure >wouldn't buy an Apple II. Neither would I, but I wouldn't buy a Mac either. I'd get a NeXT pizza box or a Sun. At least they run unix properly. >Since this discussion was about LC/GS's, I have to agree. I think the >LC is a crippled Macintosh. (maybe like the crippled GS was in '86) I'll agree with that. If I did have to buy a Mac, the si would be minimum, preferably a ci because the si has no FPU. >You really think that's why they created Apple? More like Woz liked >giving people something fun to play with and do cool things on and >Jobs wanted to make piles of cash. Apple's have always cost lots. I agree with this. Read Steven Levy's book _Hackers_. The original reason the paddle inputs were added was so he could play pong on it... > Sticking to the II line just because I like a lot of things about it means >I'm missing a lot of nice things about other systems. If you are primarily a user, sure. I however can't believe the amount of crap in the Mac O/S. While the IIgs still lacks many practical features of the Mac O/S, its overall design is infinitely cleaner and (ironically) more powerful in the long run. Of course there were mistakes, and it's too late to completely fix most of them. But most of these (like the Mac's) can be worked around or avoided. As far as the mass market is concerned, it is too late. I believe however that a ROM 04 done right could allow the Apple II a dignified death and give the schools the LC they really need. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (02/14/91)
I'm going to try this ONE MORE TIME. This is my third attempt, so I appolige if this gets transmitted 3 different ways! On Thu, 14 Feb 91 02:42:41 GMT Jerry Penner said: > >Actually, they are treating you fairly well. Consider the architecture [reasons why the 68000 architecture is better than the 65816 architecture] >mode with emulation of a 6502. I think I missed the point of that paragraph. I looks like you're pointing out reasons why the AREN'T treating us well? I agree with what you said about the 68000 vs. 65816 though. But there are other things besides the CPU chip in an Apple II and Mac to consider. >But I digress... What I am saying is if you were a manufacturer who >was trying to put power in people's hands, you wouldn't want to make a >choice that was going to limit you in the future. I think Apple has >done that. People love to hate Apple it seems. Take a look at I, persoanlly, don't love to hate Apple. I would LOVE to love them and defend everything they do, but I can't because of the way they've been treating Apple II users. >Commodore. The 64 still sells. But what do you get from Commodore? >Absolutely nothing. Apple gives you the video overlay card, the high >speed DMA SCSI card, (all Apple IIs) and if you have a GS, new system >software, Hypercard, and ongoing technical support even to those who >don't pay for it. What more should they really do? Think carefully That's well and fine, but just because there's a company that gives even LESS support than Apple does, does NOT justify it. What more should they really do? This has been answered about a hundred different ways on here before. All the reasons mainly boil down to, a NEW, FASTER, Apple II with many of the bottlenecks and limitations improved or done away with. AND, ADVERTISING, so other companies have faith in the II and produce hard- ware and software for it. >about what you would do if you were Apple. What can you do with the >GS that's not a bunch of new hardware kludges? The architecture just >doesn't lend itself to upgrading. I HAVE thought carefully about it, MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY times. I don't know what you mean by 'a bunch of new hardware kludges' though. If the hardware doesn't lend itself to upgrading, that's another thing they need to do. FIX IT so it does. But I don't agree. It's been posted here several times before, by very knowledgable people, about what can be done. >Yes, their prices are high, and have always been that way. I don't >like their idea of telling me what to buy by the pricing strategy but >if I didn't own a computer now and wanted to buy a new one, I sure >wouldn't buy an Apple II. I agree, if I didn't already have thousands of dollars invested in my II and years of experience with it, I wouldn't get one either, but I do have one, and I have spent an immeasurable amount of my time into it that I probably won't bet back out of it if Apple continues this course. >Since this discussion was about LC/GS's, I have to agree. I think the >LC is a crippled Macintosh. (maybe like the crippled GS was in '86) > >>Apple has fallen back on the fundamental reasons Steve Jobs & Wozniak created >>the company for in the first place: To inexpensively computerize the world. > >You really think that's why they created Apple? More like Woz liked >giving people something fun to play with and do cool things on and >Jobs wanted to make piles of cash. Apple's have always cost lots. I agree, but the 'official' reasoning is what I posted and they definitely are not following it. Yes, Apples have always cost alot, but they just keep getting more and more expensive. >>Instead, Apple is doing just the opposite; they're charging outrageous prices >>on their computers (inluding the II's), with the exception of the Classic. >>Now the Classic is not incredibally overpriced. It's only about twice as much >>as it should be. >> >>I'm not even going to touch on the reasons why many of us like the II more >>than the mac (it's been said only about a hundred million times on this net). >> >>Now, I'm not saying the the LC isn't right for you. Only you can make that >>decision. But the reason I'm replying is because you claimed the 'anti-apple >>sentiment is ludicrous' and I want you to understand where it comes from. >> >> Michael J. Quinn > >I understand why people are anti-apple. But in some ways I don't. >They get so fanatical about it that it's almost insane. And lots of >times I think they do it to convince themselves that they aren't >wasting their time, money, and effort on a machine that might just be >limiting the usefulness or fun of their computing. I like Apples a >lot but I realize I'm never going to get a 10 MIPS Apple II and to try >to make my GS anywhere near that is going to end up costing me a lot >more than leaving it the way it is and purchasing another more >powerful machine. I must also add that I don't think we should all >run out to buy the latest technology. Not everyone needs it. But I >for one would like to have more power at my fingertips. Sticking to >the II line just because I like a lot of things about it means I'm >missing a lot of nice things about other systems. I agree with this paragraph. I want more power too, but I don't think I should have to switch to another platform to get it. It's entirely possible Apple could give Apple II owners that power. That's why some of us are so fed up. > Jerry Penner alberta!bode!jpenne Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
mkheintz@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Michael Heintz) (02/15/91)
I'm finally breaking down and writing about this subject... It was stated before how the Commodore 64 is still selling, and they get no support from Commodore, fine. I'm sure we would all be happier, at least I would, if Apple stopped talking about phasing out the Apple II. I would be happy if they just told me that they would keep producing it. There is a fear in this community that Apple wants to phase out the Apple II line...I can understand that they don't want to support it, but if they'd commit to production at least some secondary developers may stick with the line. All I'm asking is that Apple keep producing the Apple II, I really don't care if Apple supports me too much, if the computer is still in production, and will stay in production, then the other companies can continue to produce accessories. On the other hand, if Apple says it wants to phase out the II, then who in their right mind would want to produce for it? I think that is the main problem CirTECH had with the Duet...it would have been great, but there are not enough IIgs computers out there in the market for the card, if Apple stops producing the IIgs, then they will lose money...and Apple has made no guarantees in either direction. I hope that Apple will let the II go the way of the 64! Companies are still making accessories for it, because it is still available...a company recently came out with an accellerator for it (which was thought to be impossible)! As long as we can still buy the computer without fear of the computer being discontinued, people will keep producing things for it, at least that's my opinion. Mike
shankar@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Subash Shankar) (02/15/91)
In article <1991Feb12.071357.4525@Neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >alfter@nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >>Just wait...when Apple comes out with a new line of computers, you Mac >>owners will be in the same miserable condition as all of us with Apple >>IIs. > There will always be a point when trying to add on the latest >innovations to an aging architecture just won't work... you have to >make a clean break and start afresh. When Apple brings out their >"Granny Smith", with multiprocessor/voice recognition/pen operated... >I'll be glad to switch. So would I, but this overlooks one major difference IMHO - Apple's pricing policies. I don't think people would be hearing so much bitching about Apple if the Macintosh had originally been reasonably priced, thus making it more feasible for Apple owners to upgrade to Macs. Alternatively, if the Mac II had been available at the price of the IIGS when the GS came out, low-cost software emulation of the //e by the Mac II would probably have been feasible without too much of a performance hit for those who wished to transfer existing data. Products do become obsolete and customers do need to change to keep up with technology; however, Apple's pricing policies have not been conducive to keeping up with technology. If Apple prices Macs at prices only businesses can afford, then the rest of us have every right in the world to complain when Apple orphans its home line. At the time I bought my GS, my choices were the Amiga, a Mac II, and a GS - the Mac II served my purposes better, but the prices were so exorbitantly ridiculous that I bought a GS, expecting that it would be a temporary computer until Mac II prices came down, thus giving me peripheral compatibility with the Mac II and software compatibility with my old //e. One year later, Apple set another first in the history of personal computing by raising its prices on existing models. So much for that expectation. The new Mac prices are a big improvement but there's still a way to go. The LC is the only reasonably priced model, but it seems to have been named after "lo compatibility" and may thus be the first Mac II to be orphaned. The other Mac II's are still a bit too expensive (though in the right ballpark relative to the competition and capabilities if university prices are considered). KEY: Apple = Apple Corporation //e = pre-IIGS Apple II line //GS = Apple IIGS Mac = Mac and Mac II lines MacII = Mac II line --- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center MN65-2100 voice: (612) 782 7558 US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 shankar@src.honeywell.com srcsip!shankar
scott@brnded.ne1300.ingr.com (Scott Gentry) (02/15/91)
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes: >I'd really like to know what the author of that post was trying to say with >this rather incoherent post. >Just seems like another bitter Apple II owner, out to make life miserable for a >Mac owner. Harry, you're my friend so I'll be gentle... It seems to me that you're trying to start a wave of negative commentary here. If that is indeed your intent, you've succeeded. Since this is an Apple II newsgroup, it would be greatly appreciated by me if you would move this discussion to the appropriate Macintosh newsgroups. I would truly hate to create a kill file with the intent of ignoring you, however, if this stuff continues, I'll do it. Harry, it's clear that the Apple II is not a joke to some people, myself included. Please don't belittle a persons judgement just because they do not agree with you. Thanks, dude! :) -- ******************************************************************************* * W. Scott Gentry | uucp: uunet!ingr!ne1300!brnded!scott | I didn't * * Intergraph Corporation| America Online: AFL Scott | mean it! * *******************************************************************************
rhyde@koufax.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (02/16/91)
Todd, there must be *NO* making you happy!
>>>>>
The bus architecture of the 65816 prefers a small and tight instruction
set, whereas the bus scheme of the 680x0 prefers a larger and more powerful
instruction set.
<<<<<
Gee, that's the first time in my life I've ever heard anyone claim that a
"bus" prefers one instruction set over another. Now I can understand how
a cpu with large (3-8 byte) instructions might execute faster on a 32-bit
bus (over an eight-bit bus), but "prefers"? It is true that the 6502
cpu was optimized for an eight-bit bus. The pipelining is such that a
three-byte
instruction needs three cycles for loading, decoding, and execution (plus any
cycles associated with accessing memory). There are very few "dead bus" cycles
on the 6502. From this standpoint I guess you could claim that the 6502's
instruction set "prefers" an eight-bit bus. Mainly because going to a larger
bus would not improve the efficiency any. Note that this discussion does *NOT*
apply overall to the 65816 since there are many instructions which exhibit
dead bus cycles. However, this "preference" is a *bad* thing! It means that
going to a 16 or 32-bit bus would provide very little in the way of performance
improvement! It still takes 4 cycles to execute LDA $1000 (in eight-bit mode)
on an eight-bit bus as it would on a 32-bit bus. After discussing this with
Mr. Mensch, He led me to believe a 16-bit access would still take 5
cycles, even
on a 16-bit bus. This is lousy microcode design. When I put together the
65c820 article, I assumed that such a chip would be designed by people who
were up to the job. We've learned a lot about squeezing the most out of CPU
cycles since the 6502 was designed back in 1975 (or whenever). The classic
example is National's 32764 chip (which, apparently, is real). This chip is
the epitome of CISC yet it executes most instructions in about one or two
cycles (I haven't seen the actual timings, this is what National claimed
it would
do in earlier papers). True, the 65c820 chip required larger instructions.
The 65c816 uses 255 of the available 256 eight-bit opcodes. The only way to
increase the size of the instruction set is to go to larger opcodes (anyone
taking an undergraduate architecture class can tell you this). Kludges
like the
M & X bits in the processor flags aren't practical for the type of instruciton
set I envisioned. Of course my "chip" would deliver lousy performance on an
eight-bit bus. The instructions, on the average would have to be about
twice as
long as 65c816 instructions (even for those instructions which do
exactly the same
thing). This, of course, means it would take twice as long to fetch the
instructions across an eight-bit bus. I solved this problem two ways: (1) I
designed the instruction set so that it would take fewer than half the
instructions to accomplish the same thing. (2) I would use a 32-bit bus
(allowing
me to fetch twice as many instructions in the same time period). Overall,
the chip, using modern design techniques, could run much faster than an
equivalently clocked 65c816.
Of course the whole discussion is a moot point since this chip will
never exist.
But since my design "disgusts" you, why don't *YOU* write an article describing
something which is better.
Normally, I try to hold personal flames down a bit, but your constant flaming
on the net has pushed even the patience of Job. You keep claiming the GS can
do so many wonderful things. There are those of us who don't believe you.
Quite honestly, the only way you're going to convince us otherwise is to
actually write the code. In other words, "put up or shut up." I know the
Apple II GS can support an assembler which assembles at the rate of over
100,000 lines per minute (2.8 Mhz), Brian Fitzgerald and I wrote such a product
(LISA 816). You claim a decent compiler can be written for the GS. I've yet
to see it. Perhaps it's theoretically possibly. But one drawback to the 65816
is that this is so hard to do that no one has done it (and will probably never,
ever do it, either). Prove me wrong. Prove a good compiler can be written,
write it! If you don't have time, I doubt anyone else will have the
time either.
Perhaps it can be done. But if it takes so much time to do this that no one
ever does, it may as well be impossible for all the Apple II GS owners are
concerned. That's the beauty of a design like the 65c820-- it would make it
possible to write a decent compiler for the chip. And it would be easy to do
so. Therefore, someone would actually do it.
As for PascalIIGS, I have every intention of ordering this for my Mac II.
However, "good" code generation is a very relative term. I suspect (and
I could
be quite wrong on this) that it doesn't come close to producing the same code
quality that compilers for 80x86, 680x0, and 32x32 compilers produce. Oh, it
may do all the neat optimizations (which, as it turns out, rarely do more than
double the speed of an *AVERAGE* program), but I'll but it's still relatively
lousy code (compared to a straight assembly language program).
Todd, I love reading the flames around here. But you should try to hold the
personal attacks, especially the unwarranted ones, down to a minimum. I hate
to get defensive about this, but gee, I *AM* defensive about it. It's
one thing
to blast me for telling the the GS is obsolete and everyone really should`
consider switching to a Mac; it's another thing to call my work disgusting.
You will notice that nowhere (other than the implication in this statement)
in this article did I blast you personally concerning some rather ignorant
statements you made. I know several people who read this conference quite a
bit and they all know your name. They do not hold a very high opinion of you.
I'm positive the same could be said about me. However, after reading your
attacks on everyone around here I came to the conclusion that "gee, I probably
sound just as bad as Todd." You will notice I've knocked off flaming the
"truly ignorant" around here lately. I suspect this conference would be much
better if *WE* all stop the personal attacks around here.hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (02/16/91)
This is in reply to Scott Gentry's post on this subject directed to me: I ignored an earlier post by some other discontent, but I believe it has come to it that I need to posts ome clarifications on this matter. I am in no way making statements meant to belittle the apple II or any serious users of them (especially the apple IIgs). Far be it for me to do such things. I have been weaned on the apple II from early on (Apple II+, //e, IIgs), yet I have chosen the Macintosh as my current computer of choice. This, in no way, means that I am now harboring bad sentiment for the Apple II and the community. Au contraire, I still like the Apple IIgs and in fact very much admire the amazing things people are able to produce on it (and that is intended as a direct compliment to you, Scott - Ireally think you have single-handedly redefined the state of graphics and picture acquisition on the apple IIgs!) In fact, I still take an active interest in developments for the Apple IIgs thorugh my work with another developer (which you might be quite familiar with, Scott.) The origin of a rather patronizing natuyre of my recent posts can not be found in the apple II community itself, but rather in the very few fanatics among them that regard the Macintosh as a direct threat to them and their machine (which it might be, apple does a good job at stupid marketing as always) and as a direct consequence tries to spell doom to all those of us who are happy with our Macintosh computers. It is this very immature attitude that has lately made me angry, and it is this attitude that I have recently attacked. Not apple II user, not the community, and by no means thiose who are serious about the machine. I have the utmost respect and sympathy for you guys out there, and I hope you continue to prove apple and others wrong in what can (or cannot) be done on the apple II. On the other hand, I really wish some others would grow up and let those of us who are happy with our machines enjoy our work. Get a grip on reality and face it that we are happy with our machines and thart we may not care when Apple decides to abandon the Mac. Also understand that you may be happy with your choice, but also understand that this does not mean others have to be happy with *YOUR* choice for them! Just because one individual decided to post his view why he decided for the Mac LC and asked for input is no reason to jump on your little soapbox and tell him how he *HAS* to use the apple IIgs (when he just explained why he can't). Sure, I could leave and take this to the mac sub, but I do believe this kind of statements belongs on here and should be read. I further believe in a synergy betwen the apple II line and the Macintosh, as great things can come from it (just take a look at the recenmt influx of programs like Twilight and Transprog - great utilities that got their origin on the Mac). A lot can be benefited for both sides by working TOGETHER, instead of regarding the other as a threat (admittedly the threat part only works one way). So, I invite a new discussion on this subject and I hope that my post, albeit long, has helped explain *WHERE* my current state of discontent lies and why. I also hope (though I really don't think it will) that it might make those people I referred to (maybe) think a bit about their position. That's it (aren't you grateful!) Harry K. Zink 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."
larmo@pro-odyssey.cts.com (System Administrator) (02/16/91)
In-Reply-To: message from toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu CAN WE PLEASE STOP THIS MAC INTERFERENCE ON THIS APPLE II NET? It is O.K. for a while but when it starts to dominate the net it is time to quit. PLEASE ---- ---- ---- ---- ProLine: larmo@pro-odyssey AOL: ODYSSEY 1 Internet: larmo@pro-odyssey.cts.com Pro-Odyssey: 707/437-4734 ARPA: crash!pro-odyssey!larmo@nosc.mil UUCP: crash!pro-odyssey!larmo
hackett@obelix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca (MICHAEL HACKETT) (02/17/91)
In article <1991Feb11.010100.1@gacvx1.gac.edu> youngdahl@gacvx1.gac.edu writes: ... >Actually, the funny thing is that I'll always be an Apple 2 owner. I've got a >II+ sitting downstairs -- that will still be there when my GS has been replaced >by a Mac LC. > >Just think cars, instead of computers. > ... > >My original post was not meant to be taken as a "Mac is better than the GS" >statement. I said: "For me, the Mac will be better than my GS." > >Ben Youngdahl I agree that everyone should pick the computer that is best for them. That is why I would not recommend a Mac over a GS or IBM <chuckle> clone to anyone new to computers. But for me the Mac just does not give me the feeling of being in control. And messy-DOS has very much earded its name. I program in MicroSoft C 6.0 at work and I don't like it much at all. Even with all its bugs and shortcomings, I much prefer ORCA. And to continue your car analogy, for me a Mac is an automatic and the GS is a stick. No auto-phile (sorry I don't know the proper term) would buy a car with an automatic transmission, as it just doesn't give him as much control over the vehicle. I may be one of a dying breed (ML programmers) but I love hacking away on my GS. Don't take this the wrong way (I do very much like women) but I find the GS to be much more "intimate" (might be the wrong choice of words) than other machine. Nothing is as cold as an IBM-box, and the metal cases than most have don't help any. I will never change my primary platform from a II or a II-type of machine if another one ever comes along, though I will have to program both Macs and IBMs and Amigas, etc. to take advantage of the full software market, but I will always write for GS (or its successor - so I hope) first. Just me $.40 + G.S.T. worth... Mike Hackett
dzimmerman@gnh-tff.cts.com (Daniel Zimmerman) (02/19/91)
>> The LC may be the first Mac II to be orphaned...
It may be orphaned, yes, but it isn't a Mac II.. It's just the "Macintosh LC".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel M. Zimmerman InterNet - dzimmerman@gnh-tff.cts.com
TFF Enterprises America Online - Surak TFF CompuServe - 76407,2246
"Learn reason above all. Learn clear thought; learn to know what is from what
seems to be, and what you wish to be. This is the key to everything: the truth
of reality, the reality of truth. What IS will set you free."
- Surak Of Vulcanericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (03/01/91)
>better than your computer' arguments. It is simply a matter of people >prefering to move on to newer, better and most of all, better supported Statements such as this are supposed to end the argument? I agree that the LC is newer and that it is better supported. I do not agree that is is a better machine (than an Apple IIGS). It has some features that make it better for some people and some features that render it useless to others (myself included). Philosophically, the LC is identical to the GS. Both are user friendly. Both use a GUI. Both run Apple II software. Both run desktop applications, DAs, what-have-you. Both contain a two standard external buses, SCSI and ADB. Both are colour systems (fundamentally, mono is an option on either). Resolutions differ and raw horsepower differs, however these are trivial details when comes right down to how one does their work. Essentially, I have found no difference between working on a Mac and working on a GS. I do find the GS a bit more enjoyable, but in intangible ways. I also find that the well supported bus provides a wealth of peripherals to chose from which are not yet available to the LC. >exchange for something new. Face it, technoogy moves on, and you have the >choice to either stay behind in the caves, or move up to the condos. I prefer >running water and central heating... :-) I agree technology does move on. What's your point? The LC has precious little technology in it. Apple is a software company, it uses minimal hardware to get the software operating. This is true of the first Apple II and the latest IIsi (less true of the fx, but most is not supported). Much of the technology that is in use on the LC was prototyped on the GS years ago, ADB, sound input, automated assembly, I/O coprocessors (for ADB and sound). TO expand the housing metaphor, I consider my GS a semi-detached house with a rather large backyard which I may do with as I please. Personally, you can have your condo with its monthly maintenance fees and noisy neighbours and lifestyle restrictions. Enjoy your life and let me enjoy mine. >Harry > >uucp : ucrmath!alchemy!hzink | Achieve True Wealth and Financial Independence! >INET : hzink@alchemy.uucp | Intrigued? - Send E-Mail! UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com