bullfrog@ruth.UUCP (Curtis Blevins) (01/30/91)
I recently read an article in the Dec issue of A+, which reviewed the new
Mac LC. One of the points they made was the cost of an LC is $500.00 cheaper
than of an Apple IIgs. They showed a chart to illustrate there point.
Here is their chart.
Feature MacLC Cost IIGS Cost
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CPU 68020 $2399 65816 $1149
Speed 16 MHZ 2.8 MHZ
Accelerator No Applied 7.MHZ $ 349
Ram 2megs N/C 1meg N/C
Apple 1meg $ 229
Color Monitor Apple RGB $ 599 Apple RGB $ 588
Internal HD 40 meg N/C Vulcan 40 $ 899
Superdrive 3.5 Apple N/C Applied $ 279
Floppy 5.25 Apple $ 329 Apple $ 329
Scsi interface Apple Scsi N/C Apple $ 209
Mono input yes N/C No
Runs GS warez no Yes
Runs Mac stuff yes Cirtech?
Runs II warez II board $ 249 yes N/C
Fan yes N/C Apple $ 49
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total $3576 $4091
Here is my chart
Feature MacLC Cost IIGS Cost
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CPU 68020 $2399 65816 $1149
Speed 16 MHZ 2.8 MHZ
Accelerator No Zip gs1600 8Mhz $ 249
Ram 2megs N/C 1meg N/C
Applied 1meg
GSram II $ 189
Color Monitor Apple RGB $ 599 Apple RGB $ 588
Internal HD 40 meg N/C No
External Hd No Ehman 60 $ 410
Superdrive 3.5 Apple N/C Applied $ 279
Floppy 5.25 Apple $ 329 Apple $ 329
Scsi interface Apple Scsi N/C Apple $ 209
Mono input yes N/C No
Runs GS warez no Yes
Runs Mac stuff yes Cirtech?
Runs II warez II board $ 249 yes N/C
Fan yes N/C Apple $ 49
Stereo in out no App. Sonic Blaster $ 98
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $3576 $3549
As you see my chart shows that they are priced the same and the gs has lots
of extra goodies that you don't really need to run it. If you eliminate the
accelerator,sound card,extra meg of memory you drop the price of the GS to
$3013 which is around $500 cheaper than the LC and still runs GS, II and
maybe in the future Mac software. Anyway it is pretty silly to compair a mac
to a gs. Would you compair a gs to a 386? The buyer has to decide what are
the features he is looking for then look at the price. Unfortunately Apples
pricing structure is set up so that the macs have a lower markup than the II
line. This is odd as the cost development of the IIs has long since been
regained. For all the lip wagging that apple has done lately about how they
still support the IIs out there, I have still not seen any evidence of
economic support in the form of lower prices. Gee I thought that "obsolete
technology" was allways cheaper.
Bull Frogschiffer@stsci.EDU (Skip Schiffer) (01/31/91)
I find that the fact that a II GS costs as much or more than a Mac Classic is the primary reason that there is no market for the II GS. I believe that the machine can be useful and has a market, but only if the pricing could be made such that the entire usable machine (CPU, 3.5" disk and color monitor) was below the cost of a Mac Classic. Then people who were more cost sensitive rather than performance sensitive could concider an Apple product rather than an IBM clone. As it is the basic machine is not cost effective (ie, those who would settle for the performance want a cheaper price and those that can tolerate the price want more performance or upward compatibility). I find that this situation is very unfortunate, because I think that a II GS priced so a usable system was $500-700 would be an effective machine which could be used to attract a wide audience of users to the desktop metaphor and "solution computing" which has been the strength of the Macs since day one. I can only assume that Apple cannot find a way to produce the machine so that it could be sold in this price range and still have a reasonable margin. Very unfortunate, because it means that the art of computing will continue to move forward a a glacial pace. These opinions are mine alone and the result of more than 15 years of watching personal computing grow. Skip -- | F. H. Schiffer 3rd | | | schiffer@stsci.edu | I speak for myself alone. | | scivax::schiffer | |
ART100@psuvm.psu.edu (Andy Tefft) (02/01/91)
One thing that annoys me about comparing computers that are "similarly equipped" is that this similar equipment refers only to the physical hardware, not usefulness of the machine. For example, memory and an old comparison. Soon after the mac came out, it had outgrown its memory and 512k was pretty much necessary to run anything. Now a 512k mac is virtually worthless - not because people actually have that much more data, but because software has grown into 1 meg, 2 megs, etc. On the other hand, I don't know of any // (non-gs) software that *requires* more than 128k (55k is a decent-sized desktop, but sometimes you want more than that). So if we were comparing a mac with 2 megs to a //e with 2 megs, of course the //e's extra 1800-some-K would bring the cost up. But in terms of usefulness, that extra memory is an extra cost and shouldn't really be included as a cost to make the machines comparable. Did this make sense? i.e. if we were comparing a mac 512k to a //e, I personally wouldn't add the cost of the (512k-128k) extra memory into the cost of the //e, because it's pretty much a necessity on the mac but would just be a luxury on the //e.
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (02/01/91)
In article <0XRkw1w162w@ruth.UUCP>, bullfrog@ruth.UUCP (Curtis Blevins) writes: > I recently read an article in the Dec issue of A+, which reviewed the new > Mac LC. One of the points they made was the cost of an LC is $500.00 cheaper > than of an Apple IIgs. They showed a chart to illustrate there point. > > Here is their chart. [Chart deleted] > Total $3576 $4091 > > Here is my chart [Chart Deleted] > Total $3576 $3549 > > As you see my chart shows that they are priced the same and the gs has lots > of extra goodies that you don't really need to run it. If you eliminate the > accelerator,sound card,extra meg of memory you drop the price of the GS to > $3013 which is around $500 cheaper than the LC and still runs GS, II and > maybe in the future Mac software. Anyway it is pretty silly to compair a mac > to a gs. Would you compair a gs to a 386? The buyer has to decide what are > the features he is looking for then look at the price. Unfortunately Apples > pricing structure is set up so that the macs have a lower markup than the II > line. This is odd as the cost development of the IIs has long since been > regained. For all the lip wagging that apple has done lately about how they > still support the IIs out there, I have still not seen any evidence of > economic support in the form of lower prices. Gee I thought that "obsolete > technology" was allways cheaper. $3500 for a 7MHz IIgs with 2 megs of ram and a 60 meg hard drive!!!!! No wonder why schools can't afford to put more computers in them!! The Apple II was outdated in '82, and the IIgs was outdated in '88. Here, I've got another chart for you: Atari STe Item Price ---------------------------------------- cpu 68000 $600 Ram 1 Meg N/C Extra 3 Megs $200 Color Monitor $300 Hard Drive 50 meg $550 ----------------------------------------- $1650 It can't run II or IIgs software, but for $350 more it can run Mac software. The point is, the only thing thats kept Apple as popular as it is is its educational market, and it is losing it to cheap PC clones that educators see as the future in computers. And at $3500 for a Mac or a IIgs, those PC clones are looking even more attractive. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan 'Gozar' Collins rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET ("UUdecode and Type with vt100 emulation") begin 666 SIG.VT M("`@?"!\?"!\("`@?"!\?"!\("`O("!\?"`@7"\@("`@?'P@("`@7!M;-4$;a M6S9`&ULV0!M;-D`;6S9`&ULU01M;-D`;6S9`&ULV0!M;-D`;6S5!&ULV0!M;a M-D`;6S9`&ULV0!M;-4$;6S9`&ULV0!M;-D`;6S9`&ULU01M;-D`;6S9`&ULVa M0!M;-D`;6S5!"2`@(%!O=V5R(%=I=&AO=70)("`@("`@5&AE(%!R:6-E(0D@a /071A<FD@0V]M<'5T97)Sa a end -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
scotth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Henderson) (02/01/91)
In article <9102010210.AA15163@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: > >This is in reply to the person that did a GS to macLC price comparison... > >You can knock off another $150 for monitor. Magnavox makes a GS compatible >RGB monitor with MANY MORE features than the Apple version, and for $150 less! I thought I'd also mention that the best price I've seen for the Magnavox GS compatible monitor (model #1CM135) is $249. The monitor can be obtained from Lyco Computer (1-800-233-8760) or USA Flex (1-800-872-3539). I would recommend USA Flex over Lyco Computer for various reasons. First, Lyco adds a surcharge to Visa/MC orders, and 2) I've been waiting 2 weeks for the one I ordered from them after being told it would be here in a couple of days. > >---------------------------------------- > Michael J. Quinn > University of Tennessee at Chattanooga > BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm > pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com -- = R. Scott Henderson = "Some people claim that there's a = = University of Illinois = woman to blame, but I know it's = = scotth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu = my own damned fault. = = Apple II Forever! = -Jimmy Buffet =
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (02/02/91)
Just a minor detail BullFrog seems to have neglected in his price comparison between the GS and the Mac LC are the facts that Macintosh compatibility (if it ever becomes available) will carry a heavy pricetag that he seems to have forgotten to include in his list (but we can be sure it won't be less than $500). Furthermore, while the GS might not need the fancy sound features, it pretty much does require you to have some sort of accelerator as well as more than 1 meg of RAm in order to do any serious work at decent speed. The final result is still that in a feature for feature comparison, the Mac LC wins simply because it has Macintosh compatibility along wit optional IIe compatibility. After all, think about it - all schools (!) need is IIe compatibility, and everything esle you can do on the GS can be done on the LC as well with Mac software. Let's face it, apple has priced the LC in such a way that it becomes cheaper for schools to buy those than to buy GS', which is ajust another way of showing their support for the Apple II line ... :-) Of course, I happen to like the LC, not the least bit because it offers 15-bit color resolution and variable resolutions on different monitors. Most of all it is a neat machine... 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."
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (02/04/91)
>The final result is still that in a feature for feature comparison, the Mac LC >wins simply because it has Macintosh compatibility along wit optional IIe >compatibility. After all, think about it - all schools (!) need is IIe >compatibility, and everything esle you can do on the GS can be done on the LC >as well with Mac software. You have made a basic premise that Macintosh is better than GS software and thus more of an advantage than GS compatibility. I do not believe this to be so. 90% of the software that I use is as good as any available on the Mac, and all of the games are better, Simcity and Falcon being the only exceptions. I am not sayin that the GS makes a better business computer than a Mac, or better scientific (althoug hthat is true in some cases), but it does make a better home computer that the family can enjoy using and a better educational computer for school kids. At the same price as a LC, the GS is the better value. As an added advantage, accelerating the GS accelerates the IIe, this is not true on the LC. Also increasing the amount GS memory increases the IIe memory, on the LC this is not linear, a 2Meg LC does not have a 2Meg IIe (expanded Appleworks desktop or large RAMdisk of course). Bullfrog should have added $79 for microphone input and HyperStudio. This gives the HyperCard-like interface and voice input. BTW, the LC does not have 15-bit colour, 8-bit colour is as good as it gets (unless there is a hidden video mode that I do know about), I understand that this was a last minute addition as well, they were only going to go with 4-bit colour on the 13" screen. UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (02/04/91)
On Sun, 3 Feb 91 16:18:14 GMT <info-apple-request@APPLE.COM> said: >>The final result is still that in a feature for feature comparison, the Mac >LC >>wins simply because it has Macintosh compatibility along wit optional IIe >>compatibility. After all, think about it - all schools (!) need is IIe >>compatibility, and everything esle you can do on the GS can be done on the LC >>as well with Mac software. The LC has 4 voices. The gs has 15. I know of no inexpensive music software for the mac. The GS has plenty. The GS can display 3200 colors. The LC can display 256. The GS (and all II's) have optional ibm compatibilty (PCT). The GS has seven slots. The GS (and all II's) have optional video overlay capability. -The GS has 15 voice sound. The LC has 4. -The GS has great, inexpensive music software. -The GS can display 3200 colors. The LC can display 256 -The GS (and all II's) have optional ibm compatibility (PCT). -The GS has seven slots. -The GS has true //e compatibility built in. -The GS's //e can have up to eight megs. the LC //e can't -The LC //e takes up the LC's ONLY slot. -The LC's //e can not use cards designed for the //e. -The GS is less expensive than the LC. There's no such thing as a "better" computer. What's better for one person isn't better for another. >At the same price as a LC, the GS is the better value. As an added advantage, >accelerating the GS accelerates the IIe, this is not true on the LC. Also >increasing the amount GS memory increases the IIe memory, on the LC this is >not linear, a 2Meg LC does not have a 2Meg IIe (expanded Appleworks desktop or >large RAMdisk of course). > >Bullfrog should have added $79 for microphone input and HyperStudio. This >gives the HyperCard-like interface and voice input. > >BTW, the LC does not have 15-bit colour, 8-bit colour is as good as it gets >(unless there is a hidden video mode that I do know about), I understand that >this was a last minute addition as well, they were only going to go with 4-bit >colour on the 13" screen. Just to clarify this, and to be fair to the mac (like it deserves it!?:), the LC's video RAM can be expanded (at a high price though) to allow it to display up to 4,096 colors at once. >UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg >INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
CSCHERRER@RUBY.VCU.EDU (02/04/91)
Ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com writes... > BTW, the LC does not have 15-bit colour, 8-bit colour is as good as it gets > (unless there is a hidden video mode that I do know about), I understand that > this was a last minute addition as well, they were only going to go with > 4-bit colour on the 13" screen. > UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg > INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com W R O N G W R O N G W R O N G "Apple's new Machintosh 12" RGB Display beams 512x384 pixels in 8-bit color onto a crisply focused screen without the optional VRAM SIMM. With the VRAM SIMM, the LC can display 16-bit color, providing subtle enough shading for all but the most demanding photo-retouching applications. The first 15 bits of the 16-bit color provide 32,768 colors; the 16th bit is reserved for the alpha channel, which is used by software developers." -MacUser, December1990 You should read more. Unless the reviewers are lying to us. ____________________________________________________________________________ |Chris Scherrer--------> Increasing his BITNET:cscherrer@vcuruby | | his loan debt daily! INTERNET:cscherrer@ruby.vcu.edu| |Medical College -------------------- | | of Virginia I am in debt. Therefore, I exist to be in debt. --Me. | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) (02/04/91)
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: > In article <0XRkw1w162w@ruth.UUCP>, bullfrog@ruth.UUCP (Curtis Blevins) writes: [stuff deleted] > > Here is my chart > > [Chart Deleted] > > > Total $3576 $3549 > > > > $3500 for a 7MHz IIgs with 2 megs of ram and a 60 meg hard drive!!!!! No > wonder why schools can't afford to put more computers in them!! The Apple > II was outdated in '82, and the IIgs was outdated in '88. Here, I've got > another chart for you: > [Atair STe chart deleted] > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ryan 'Gozar' Collins rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, but a school wouldn't pay $3500 for a GS like that. They get considerably better prices from Apple than we do. True, they'd probably pay full price for the accellerator and HD, but not for the CPU, monitor, or any of the other Apple stuff. -------------------- Jeffrey Hutzelman America Online: JeffreyH11 Internet: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: JHUTZ@DRYCAS >> Apple // Forever!!! <<
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (02/05/91)
> With the VRAM SIMM, the LC can display 16-bit color, providing subtle >|Chris Scherrer--------> Increasing his BITNET:cscherrer@vcuruby | I just glossed over the article, I thought the extra video RAM was just to give 13" screen 8-bit colour (which it does), it did not occur that the 12" screen would also benefit (which it should). I stand corrected. There may be a problem with programs using this mode, but with Quickdraw this is a minor point and most, if not all, programs should be able to run in this new 16 bit mode. Imagine the same thing on a DOS clone? Nothing would work. BTW, the GS has the same ability and there is no reason why an enhanced video card could not be produced (VOC not withstanding). UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (02/06/91)
From MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET: > -The GS can display 3200 colors. The LC can display 256 C'mon, I'm all for proving the GS is leaps and bounds beyond the Mac LC, but saying the GS can display 3200 colours and the LC can display 256 is a bit misleading. 3200-mode is of very limited use on the GS. I would much rather have the LC's 640x480x256-colour mode than 3200-colour graphics. > -The GS (and all II's) have optional ibm compatibility (PCT). You need to buy hardware to obtain MS-DOS compatibility however. You can use SoftPC on a Mac to emulate an IBM without additional hardware. I think you get EGA graphics to boot. Brian T. Tao {taob@pnet91.cts.com} || Computer guru? Someone who got University of Metro Toronto || their computer a couple of weeks Scarberia, ON, MIC 3A8 *B-) || before you did. (Alvin Toffler)
alfter@nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (02/06/91)
In article <460@generic.UUCP> taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) writes: > You need to buy hardware to obtain MS-DOS compatibility however. You can >use SoftPC on a Mac to emulate an IBM without additional hardware. I think >you get EGA graphics to boot. Yeah, but how good is it? I know there are XT and AT versions of it, but remember--this is a software emulation. Since we're doing the Mac LC, can a 16 MHz 68020 pretending to be an 80286 hope to outperform a real '286 at, say, 12 MHz (the standard AT clock rate these days)? How about even a 10 MHz 8086--can the emulation match that, since that's about the performance you get from a PC Transporter? If the UNIX-based Apple IIe emulator is any indication, I'd have to question SoftPC's real-world performance. You might also consider price. Mac software is usually obscenely expensive. You can slap a PC Transporter into an Apple II and, if you already have a 3.5" drive, that's all you would need. You're only looking at about $300-$350 for _hardware_ that ought to run MeSsy-DOS stuff better than any _software_ package could ever hope to achieve. (Unless they make SoftPC run on a RISC box. :-) ) 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?
swiers@plains.NoDak.edu (Mike Swiers ) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb6.055524.24883@nevada.edu> alfter@nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >that's about the performance you get from a PC Transporter? If the >UNIX-based Apple IIe emulator is any indication, I'd have to question >SoftPC's real-world performance. Where can I find the latest Unix-bassed Apple II emulator? I see one here on plains but it claims to be an old II+ emulator. >(Unless they make SoftPC run on a RISC box. :-) ) I was under the impression it _did_ run on RISC boxes.... Mike -- "I own a Harley, not just a T-shirt!" Apple IIgs! I like to trade. Got anything you want to get rid of? Sun 2/120! I got _lots_ of motorcycle parts, whatcha need? Sun 2/50! swiers@plains.nodak.edu, mike@egf-bbs.UUCP, ud169430@ndsuvm1.bitnet
daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) (02/06/91)
In article <8055@plains.NoDak.edu> swiers@plains.NoDak.edu (Mike Swiers ) writes: >Where can I find the latest Unix-bassed Apple II emulator? I see one here >on plains but it claims to be an old II+ emulator. Try looking at {avalance|headcrash|tornado}.berkeley.edu. There's a enhanced //e emulator there. [ Scott Alfter (sp?) says ] >>(Unless they make SoftPC run on a RISC box. :-) ) >I was under the impression it _did_ run on RISC boxes.... Since when was a Mac a RISC box?? >Mike >-- > "I own a Harley, not just a T-shirt!" Apple IIgs! >I like to trade. Got anything you want to get rid of? Sun 2/120! >I got _lots_ of motorcycle parts, whatcha need? Sun 2/50! >swiers@plains.nodak.edu, mike@egf-bbs.UUCP, ud169430@ndsuvm1.bitnet -- David Huang | Internet: daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "My ganglion is stuck in UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!daveh | a piece of chewing gum!" America Online: DrWho29 |
USERSIG@MTSG.UBC.CA (02/06/91)
>Unless the reviewers are lying to us.
Why rely on the reviewers? Pick up a spec sheet from any Apple dealer.
rhyde@feller.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (02/07/91)
I use softpc on my Mac IIfx (40 Mhz) every now and then. It runs about as fast as an eight to ten mhz 80286 (remember, 80286 chips are about 2-3 times faster than an 8088 running at the same clock speed). SoftPC is much better than the PC emulator running on the Suns (DOS Windows). SoftPC will be quite interesting running on the Next Machine. It will probably be as fast as a 16Mhz 80386sx system, which ain't too shabby. I'm waiting to see RDI's Macintosh emulator on the Sun. It would be nice to be able to run UNIX, PC, and Mac software from the same machine (a Sun) which only costs about $3,000. Of course, if someone would do a Mac emulator for the Next (so the code could execute on a real 680x0 CPU rather than being emulated) I'd get even more excited. Surprisingly enough, the Mac SoftPC runs quite a bit faster than DOS Windows on the Sun SparcStation. I suspect the Sun version was written in C rather than assembly (which is the only sane language to use for such a simulation).
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (02/07/91)
On Tue, 5 Feb 91 17:54:15 GMT <info-apple-request@APPLE.COM> said: >From MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET: > >> -The GS can display 3200 colors. The LC can display 256 > > C'mon, I'm all for proving the GS is leaps and bounds beyond the Mac LC, >but saying the GS can display 3200 colours and the LC can display 256 is a bit >misleading. 3200-mode is of very limited use on the GS. I would much rather >have the LC's 640x480x256-colour mode than 3200-colour graphics. Yeah, you're right, but I was on a roll and couldn't resist :) BUT, I did acknowledge the fact that those colors can be increased to well over 3200 on the LC. But, on the other hand, it IS something the GS can do that the mac can't (out of the box). >> -The GS (and all II's) have optional ibm compatibility (PCT). > > You need to buy hardware to obtain MS-DOS compatibility however. You can I know. I pointed that out ('optional...PCT'). That was in reply to them saying that the LC has Mac compatibility. >use SoftPC on a Mac to emulate an IBM without additional hardware. I think >you get EGA graphics to boot. I've used that too, but it doesn't compare to the PCT (although, I have to admit, I've never seen it on a color mac emulating EGA), and it doesn't allow you to use ibm compatible monitors, keyboards, or floppy drives. >Brian T. Tao {taob@pnet91.cts.com} || Computer guru? Someone who got >University of Metro Toronto || their computer a couple of weeks >Scarberia, ON, MIC 3A8 *B-) || before you did. (Alvin Toffler) ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (02/07/91)
Concerning this whole debate about MS-DOS compatibility on GS and Mac LCs: Let's get real! This is not a contest to run the fastest MS-DOS stuff on your machine, but merely an argument to prove compatibility. The point here is that SoftPC can be bought at less than $300, so can a PC-Transporter. Both provide MS-DOS compatibility to the machine running them. The difference is that SoftPC is upgradeable (lately the EGA compatibility was added) while PC-T is not. Also, if you are looking for a fast PC, buy a PC. We don't need the emulators so we can buy a Mac/GS and then use them for PC stuff. The only reason I see a limited use of Emulators is to provide the ability to edit a file, or import data. That is about it, thus the argument about emulators is pretty much moot iun bmy book.. 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."
dave@mystie.webo.dg.com (David Kopper) (02/07/91)
>>(Unless they make SoftPC run on a RISC box. :-) ) >I was under the impression it _did_ run on RISC boxes.... I saw a demo version of it running on a 88000 processor - it has definitly been ported to RISC machines... Dave Kopper Internet: dave@mystie.webo.dg.com or: dave%dgc.mceo.dg.com@relay.cs.net Apple II Forever! GEnie: D.Kopper
dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (02/08/91)
In article <9102040001.AA14006@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >On Sun, 3 Feb 91 16:18:14 GMT <info-apple-request@APPLE.COM> said: >>BTW, the LC does not have 15-bit colour, 8-bit colour is as good as it gets >>(unless there is a hidden video mode that I do know about), I understand that >>this was a last minute addition as well, they were only going to go with 4-bit >>colour on the 13" screen. > >Just to clarify this, and to be fair to the mac (like it deserves it!?:), >the LC's video RAM can be expanded (at a high price though) to allow it to >display up to 4,096 colors at once. Ah, the 15-bit color claim is wrong. It's 16-bit. With the appropriate VRAM expansion. Which is high priced. That gives you 65536 colors on screen at once no tricks or stunts - not 4k. Has anyone seens a picture displayed as such? Very nice, I must say. The LC comes with 8 bit video (256 colors at once no stunts). (I call the 3200 mode on the GS a stunt, as the programmer has to bend over backwards to get a static picture on screen. The LC, with 16-bit color can display 65536 different colors as easily as a GS can display 4 in 640 non-dithered mode.) -- Dave Whitney Computer Science MIT 1990 | I wrote Z-Link and BinSCII. Send me bug dcw@lcs.mit.edu dcw@mit.edu | reports. I have a job. Don't send me offers. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" --Binky (aka Matt Groening)
jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) (02/08/91)
It does; as a matter of fact, we have it running on DECstation 3100's
here at CMU. Unfortunately, due to licensing difficulties, only the
students in a specific class are able to run it. Eventually, I hope
they'll make it available to everyone. Then they can get rid of those
stupid IBM PCs and PS/2s that we still have.
--------------------
Jeffrey Hutzelman America Online: JeffreyH11
Internet: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: JHUTZ@DRYCAS
>> Apple // Forever!!! <<taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (02/09/91)
From MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET: >> use SoftPC on a Mac to emulate an IBM without additional hardware. I >> think you get EGA graphics to boot. > > I've used that too, but it doesn't compare to the PCT (although, I have > to admit, I've never seen it on a color mac emulating EGA), and it > doesn't allow you to use ibm compatible monitors, keyboards, or floppy > drives. You've got a point there... I've only seen WordPerfect 5.0 running on a GS with a PCT. The coloured text was very sharp on the GS' monitor, but I didn't see any graphics. I did use SoftPC running on a Mac IIcx ones. Now that you've brought up the point, it did seem kind of slow. I wasn't doing anything heavy-duty, but innocent things like a scrolling directory listing seemed awfully slow. Brian T. Tao {taob@pnet91.cts.com} || Computer guru? Someone who got University of Metro Toronto || their computer a couple of weeks Scarberia, ON, MIC 3A8 *B-) || before you did. (Alvin Toffler)
lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com (Laer Haider) (02/10/91)
In-Reply-To: message from swiers@plains.NoDak.edu >In article <1991Feb6.055524.24883@nevada.edu> alfter@nevada.edu (SCOTT >ALFTER) writes: > >>that's about the performance you get from a PC Transporter? If the >>UNIX-based Apple IIe emulator is any indication, I'd have to question >>SoftPC's real-world performance. Depends on what you're running it on. On a Motorola 88000 based system, It runs pretty damn good! Of course, if you're running it on affordable hardware, you're going do have to do a bit of waiting for some things. Though probably not as long as a PCT if you've got a FAST Mac. >Where can I find the latest Unix-bassed Apple II emulator? I see one here >on plains but it claims to be an old II+ emulator. > >>(Unless they make SoftPC run on a RISC box. :-) ) > >I was under the impression it _did_ run on RISC boxes.... See above, the 88000 is a RISC chip. / _______________________________________________ \ / / ProLine: pro-beagle!lhaider \\\' , / // INET: lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com \\\//, _/ //, UUCP: crash!pro-beagle!lhaider \_-//' / //<, ARPA: crash!pro-beagle!lhaider@nosc.mil \ /// <//` / >> \\\`__/_ The opinions expressed here belong to nobody! /,)-^>>_\`, \\\ (Anybody see nobody lately?) (/ \\ /\\\ ----------------------------------------------- // _//\\\\ ((` ((
declan@remus.rutgers.edu (Declan McCullagh/LZ) (02/12/91)
> In article <1991Feb6.055524.24883@nevada.edu> alfter@nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: >that's about the performance you get from a PC Transporter? If the >UNIX-based Apple IIe emulator is any indication, I'd have to question >SoftPC's real-world performance. >(Unless they make SoftPC run on a RISC box. :-) ) How about a NeXTstation or NeXTcube with a 25 MHz 68040 ~= 15-18 MIPS. RISCy enough? I have SoftPC on my NeXT right now. At that speed, even the UNIX Apple IIe emulator is tolerable. And, speaking of emulation, RDI systems is going to be shipping a Mac software emulator for the NeXT in the near future. Vaporware? No - they're already shipping a ROM-based version for the Sun/3. -Declan
jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Darc Tangent) (02/16/91)
In article <9102040001.AA14006@apple.com>, MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: > -The GS can display 3200 colors. The LC can display 256 The GS can display 16 colors. Yes, you can switch palettes every scan line, but you can do that on any machine (i.e. you can get 256 * 342 colors on the standard LC). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Darc Tangent "He won't need a bed jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu He's a digital man" - RUSH
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (02/16/91)
In article <F#-&$Y%@rpi.edu> usenet@rpi writes: >I would expect that 3200-color mode would become the new standard >within a year on the GS, ... So-called "3200 color" mode has not made significant inroads in Apple IIGS software since it was first demoed a couple of years ago. I suppose some developers think they need cycles to DO something other than maintain a static display.
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/16/91)
jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Darc Tangent) writes: >The GS can display 16 colors. Yes, you can switch palettes every scan line, >but you can do that on any machine (i.e. you can get 256 * 342 colors on the >standard LC). Fine, but can you get a coherent picture out of it? Somehow I don't think you'd be able to read the LC's video counters directly. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
mvk@itsgw.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) (02/17/91)
In article <15220@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <F#-&$Y%@rpi.edu> usenet@rpi writes: >>I would expect that 3200-color mode would become the new standard >>within a year on the GS, ... > >So-called "3200 color" mode has not made significant inroads in Apple IIGS >software since it was first demoed a couple of years ago. I suppose some >developers think they need cycles to DO something other than maintain a >static display. When I first saw 3200 mode it was just that -- a standalone demo. In the past six months or so we've seen 3200 mode NDA's, GIF to 3200 converters, and at least one 3200 paint program. When DreamGraphix comes out, I would expect it to almost replace all 16 color paint programs. Speed is improving too. DreamGraphix demo 3 has a 3200 color picture, ani- mation, and a SoundSmith song playing simultaneously. With the proliferation of GS accelerators, I would expect this trend to continue. Michael Kent mvk@itsgw.rpi.edu