toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/17/90)
jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Darc Tangent) writes: > Your remarks about the Amiga's hardware are very accurate, but you seem >to not know much about currently available Amiga software. You're right, I don't. I was working from memory, which is a few years old on that score. > There is far much >more productivity software available for the Amiga than for the Apple IIGS. Fine. But the marketing still sucks. Until Commodore can get the kind of network that Apple, IBM, and Tandy have going they won't be considered by many people because they don't know if Commodore will still be there after the sale. >Where are the GS CAD programs? TeX applications? Math programs like Maple and >MatLab? The GS doesn't have them because it doesn't have the processing or >graphics power for those types of applications. The Amiga does. We're aware of that. We've been flaming Apple for years and they haven't really listened until now, and now they seem to need convincing that it is worth their time and effort to produce a decent GS -- a task so simple that third parties have provided the (sadly) necessary add-ons for years! > The Amiga >certainly has as many word processors, dtp programs, spreadsheets, and data >bases as the GS (not counting all the ancient general Apple II software that >is hopelessly behind the times (I'm not talking about the newer Apple II >software like DB Master Pro, etc.)). Hopelessly behind the times? They still work! Why should I stop using something because it is old, when it still does what I want better than anything else available? > Of course, for graphics and sound >processing, there is much more available on the Amiga, Graphics, yes. Sound, HELL NO. Not until the Amiga has a 32 voice synthesizer on board. You've never heard of SoundSmith, I take it. And when the new sound tools start showing up in applications... >as well as for system >level things like UNIX type shells and utilities, compilers, text editors, >and terminals. That's because Apple's software support (APW) has sucked the big one. Until they invest the man-hours to develop a decent C compiler for the 65816 (and don't try to tell me it can't be done, 68K compilers sucked until the did the same thing; though I admit they did have an easier job of it because the 68K instruction set is nearly C primitives already) it will stay that way. The actual programs we do have are actually pretty good, it's the development systems that are lacking. Apple II software seems to have a better hit rate because most of our developers really care about the machine and not just their paycheck. > Now admittedly if you count all of the old Apple II software, >the GS does have more software, but most of those 10000+ packages just cannot >compete with modern programs for any machine. Why do they have to, if they are more cost-effective at what they do? Which certain examples may or may not be, to be sure. >Before I get flamed, I would like to mention that I've owned an Apple II for >ten years. Good for you. But that doesn't mean you're automatically right about what _we_ see in the Apple II. There are qualities that the Apple II has that the Amiga does not, and probably never will. Until the Amiga has a programming language and a hands-on machine language environment built in I will never buy one. They are what I like most about my Apple II's and I wouldn't give them up for the world. I'd rather see a machine like my Apple //f, that does anything I'd want from an Amiga and still gives me my II. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) (03/18/90)
In article <1990Mar17.122507.18534@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>, toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: > The actual programs we do have are actually pretty good, it's the > development systems that are lacking. Part of this may change for the better in the next 72 hours. > Todd Whitesel andy -- Yeah!
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/19/90)
jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Darc Tangent) writes: > Commodore's marketing definitely sucks. Commodore is a huge corporation and >will certainly be there after the sale, but they fail to project that fact. True, and now that they've hired ex-Apple Marketing people that may change. For better or for worse I really don't know... >>>Where are the GS CAD programs? TeX applications? Math progrms like Maple and >>>MatLab? The GS doesn't have them because it doesn't have the processing or >>>graphics power for those types of applications. The Amiga does. >> >> We're aware of that. We've been flaming Apple for years and they haven't >> listened until now, and they seem to need convincing that it is worth their >> time and effort to produce a decent GS -- a task so simple that third parties >> have provided the (sadly) necessary add-ons for years! >> > Yes, I also flamed Apple for many years about the same problems, but I still >haven't seen evidence that they have listened. I hope they have- just a faster >processor would be enough to make the GS usable (for GS specific applications). True. I'd also like to see a real redone chipset because their are some horrid bottlnecks in the GS that were forced on them by design and budget constraints (that's why they kept the Mega II when it would have been far smarter to scrap it. Now they have the resources to reimplement it so that it is better in every way and still fully compatible, and they will be signing their own death warrant in the low end if they think that a Low Cost Mac is going to uproot Amiga and Tandy -- both will stomp it to death like they have the current GS! >>> The Amiga >>>certainly has as many word processors, dtp programs, spreadsheets, and data >>>bases as the GS (not counting all the ancient general Apple II software that >>>is hopelessly behind the times (I'm not talking about the newer Apple II >>>software like DB Master Pro, etc.)). >> >> Hopelessly behind the times? They still work! Why stop using something >> because it is old, when it still does what I want better than anything else >> available? >> > If it does what you want, then use it; however, much of the older software >doesn't do what I want and newer software provides more capabilities and is >generally better supported. What I'm trying to say is that large quantities >of old programs are not necessarily better than smaller numbers of newer more >capable programs.Number of software packages is not a measure of good software >availability. Point taken. Number of _new_ and _updated_ packages is. The GS is doing miserably in that score and Apple is entirely to blame for that. We've finally got a decent system (5.0) and the big names have decided not to support it! >>> Of course, for graphics and sound >>>processing, there is much more available on the Amiga, >> >> Graphics, yes. Sound, HELL NO. Not until the Amiga has a 32 voice synthesizer >> on board. You've never heard of SoundSmith, I take it. And when the new sound >> tools start showing up in applications... >> > No, I haven't heard of Soundsmith, and yes, the GS's sound hardware is >definitely better (although you really do want a stereo card), but there is >a lot of Amiga sound software out there and you did admit that you were several >years behind on Amiga software. Right. SoundSmith is a 14 track sequencer for the ensoniq and it sounds great! With any luck it will support the new sound tools in its final release (does it already?) and if the code becomes available then we might see some great sound coming from a lot more programs. I want to see an NDA that plays soundsmith songs so I can listen to them while I do other desktop stuff. I wonder if it would work from Prodos 8 stuff too? heh, soundsmith songs in Kermit! What's sad is that the Amiga spent two years figuring out how to do that already, and all Apple has to show so far is Multifinder... >> There are qualities that the Apple II has that the >> Amiga does not, and probably never will. Until the Amiga has a programming >> language and a hands-on machine language environment built in I will never >> buy one. They are what I like most about my Apple II's and I wouldn't give >> them up for the world. I'd rather see a machine like my Apple //f, that does >> anything I'd want from an Amiga and still gives me my II. > By built-in I assume you mean in ROM? Why? ROM languages are difficult >to update and modify. I prefer the vareity and choice of non-ROM programming >languages. I'm talking about good ol' AppleSloth BASIC. More than adequate for many small projects and always there before you even boot a disk. I've written cheap BASIC hacks to do so many things that would be a pain to do with a real development system but the point is that I usually need the convenience far more than the power. The original success of the Apple had a lot to do with the built in BASIC, and until I used another machine I didn't realize how much I appreciate it. > What exactly do you mean by a hands-on machine language environment? I >know you are referring to the monitor, but what exactly is it that you want >abou it. The fact that it is there in ROM. The O/S could be blowing big chunks but I can always get into the monitor and mess around _before_ I reboot. Not that it's that handy, but I want the convenience that the monitor and the BASIC in ROM provide, and the feeling of CONTROL that I never get with any other machine, which can simply lock up and the only option is to power cycle it. > Will the Apple IIf ever be built? God, I hope so. It's Apple's only real hope of competing with the Amiga because the Low Cost Mac won't do it well enough or soon enough. There is a chance: I got a letter from Ed Birss (Senior VP, Product Engineering) and I quote, "John Sculley asked me to reply to your letter. I appreciate your suggestion and have forwarded it to my engineering staff." That's about all I can expect right now. With any luck they'll look past the fuzzy ideas in the video section (they have the second version which wasn't posted here to the net; it's on America Online under AHW New Files). I should look over the third version and try to perfect it, and then ship them a fourth version with justifications for each feature, too much of which was sketchy on the copy they have. Ah well, it's spring break at Caltech so guess what I'll be doing. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (03/21/90)
jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Darc Tangent) writes: [ on the value and convenience of a built-in Basic ] > I felt that way at first when I first used another machine regularly after >using my Apple II+, but I hate BASIC so much and it's difficult to put a C >compiler in ROM (and certainly to keep it up to date - I want a C++ compiler! >(currently cannot afford one)). I can understand that. I happen to like Basic, because in its own ways it is as compact and elegant as C. The way boolean expressions are handled has allowed me to often do in one line of Basic something that would take quite a bit of code in Pascal (or even C). The fact that it is interpreted is what I value the most; if it were possible to put a C interpreter in ROM I would use that instead. A properly updated Basic that was native to the GS would be unbeatable for quickie desktop programming and would open up the machine to a new generation of hackers. > I do like the monitor, but don't really feel it to be a necessity if I >have another software tool that will do the same thing without the ability to >mess around before you reboot (it is nice though). Unfortunately when the full O/S is up and running a monitor-style environment is risky at best. I got used to this fact and found that the //e compatibility box in the GS made an excellent compromise. (You run a Prodos program and it allocates the lower 128K exclusively for your use, minus the memory reserved for Prodos. When you only need the low 48K as I usually do it works great.) After I get my algorithms (Bresenham's, LZW for a giffer, and rapid fill mode drawing is what I'm working on right now) debugged in this 'cradle' environment I can throw them into more serious programs and spend almost no time debugging when debugging really hurts. >> Ah well, it's spring break at Caltech so guess what I'll be doing. > Building an Apple IIf in your garage? :-) I wish. Got a CAD workstation I can design gate arrays on? > To expand the original topic, do you think the Apple IIGS would have been >better if it had been built with a 68000 procesor, with a 6502/AppleII >coprocessor board? That is what I wanted with the GS - being free from prior >systems as much as possible helps greatly in how far you can go. Ouch! Don't ask me this one. I personally don't like working in 68K assembler and Apple assembly is what I like most about the machine. Such as, mere mortals can remember the entire instruction set and even some of the opcodes! (No flames please, I'm biased and I admit it.) The GS was actually very free 'from prior systems', in everything that was specific to it. It's just the gate array implementation that, for non-technical reasons, was forced to handle the compatibility issue in a very inappropriate and performance-sapping manner. I.E. they wanted to scrap the Mega II and do it properly but management wouldn't let them -- budget, probably. Apple also took care to warn everybody to use the toolbox, and "use a read- modify-write sequence when modifying this byte" and so on. The 65816 was, for all its "faults", very well designed from a software perspective. Relocatable code was painless if not trivial. Software emulation of 65832 opcodes should be fairly easy to do (compiler switch at worst) and CPU improvements dealing with on-chip caching and pipeling of direct page & stack would largely address the need for more registers. I agree more modular programming functions would be a good idea (like a stack crash detector that doesn't require a PMMU!!) but what we have now is adequate for GS/OS. It just needs to run faster. After seeing a Transwarped GS running finder I'm convinced that the 65816 isn't what was lacking at all -- it was Mensch an his inability to get the damn mask working at higher speeds. Having a 68000 w/ a 6502 card would have costed far more than having one 65816, especially after all the extra circuitry gets figured in. For that reason alone I am glad they did it the way they did. I just wish Apple had shoved a poker up Mensch's rear end years ago so we wouldn't have any reason to be discussing the question!! Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
m.tiernan@pro-angmar.UUCP (Michael Tiernan) (03/25/90)
In-Reply-To: message from alphalpha!toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu
I didn't take the time to read all of this message but I skimmed it as it
scrolled by and agree with Todd Whitesel, BASIC is an embarrasment to the
computing industry but what's embarrasing about it is that it always works
(99% of the time) is easy and any fool can do it. DBMaster was written in
AppleSlop with ML routines thrown in. It worked good. Slow but always
worked.
Me, I hate BASIC for what it teaches people but I love it because I don't
even need to boot the OS to use it, just turn on my //e (or IIgs) and it's
going. I can test something simple without waiting for a recompile, link and
all the rest of the foolishness. I personally love Pascal and am developing
a passion about C but I recognize that BASIC has it's place in life.
One of the things that put the Apple II's where it is today is the fact that
it put Mr Ordinary-Everyday-Joe on the keyboard writing programs. Heck, there
are some really neat (I know that that word right away means "Not profitable
for resale") programs that do some nice things. What Apple seems to have
forgotten is that I didn't buy my system to "Use" and draw pretty (but
useless) graphics or "Utilize as a development platform"
and write and sell the next AppleWorks. I bought it to use and make my life
easier, to do things on it that I don't want to do by hand, do challenge
myself to write software that does something. This is where the word
"Personal" in Personal Computer made it's point.
My opinion: If Apple wants to save anything of the Apple II market, make the
machine more useful to the the non-developers, get someone to write a simple
BASIC (such as AppleSoft) that utilizes all 16bits has no "Structured"
do-dads, just a simple language so that ANYONE can boot the machine and type a
BASIC program that works. No screwing around.
Before you think that I'm a neanderthal user, I program in many different
things, Pascal, C, Assembly (6502, 65816, 68000, Z80 remember them?, and
others). Again, I don't like what BASIC teaches but it gets more people using
the machine than anything else will.
Time to get off the soap box, the altiude is getting to me....
Thanks for letting me blow off some steam.
<< MCT >>
GEnie : M.Tiernan
AppleLinkPE : M Tiernan, BCS Mike, or MichaelT34
Internet : pro-angmar!m.tiernan@alphalpha.com
UUCP : ...!uunet!alphalpha!pro-angmar!m.tiernan
"And the sweating of their souls will not wash the blood from their hands."
- Phil Ochsc60a-3hu@web-4a.berkeley.edu (Calvin Cheng) (03/25/90)
In article <3508.apple.net@pro-angmar> m.tiernan@pro-angmar.UUCP (Michael Tiernan) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from alphalpha!toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu > >I didn't take the time to read all of this message but I skimmed it as it >scrolled by and agree with Todd Whitesel, BASIC is an embarrasment to the >computing industry but what's embarrasing about it is that it always works >(99% of the time) is easy and any fool can do it. DBMaster was written in >AppleSlop with ML routines thrown in. It worked good. Slow but always >worked. > >Me, I hate BASIC for what it teaches people but I love it because I don't >even need to boot the OS to use it, just turn on my //e (or IIgs) and it's >going. I can test something simple without waiting for a recompile, link and >all the rest of the foolishness. I personally love Pascal and am developing >a passion about C but I recognize that BASIC has it's place in life. > HyperTalk with HyperCard on the Mac has spurred thousands to produce interesting stacks. Likewise HyperCard for the IIGS when released should do the same on the IIGS. What I feel that's needed is not an overall development of Applesoft but a new structured language+environment that allows the masses to produce nifty and nice-looking applications that fit their purposes. The same things can be incorporated into BASIC but only after serious modifications that actually make not look a BASIC anymore. The main strength of AppleSoft + monitor is that they are readily accessible. Unfortunately, GS/OS has become so complicated (code no longer end up in the same location every time) that quick fixes and patches are no longer possible. It's much easier to work indirectly via high-level development tools ie source debuggers etc. For example, u can't just interprete the result of a memory dump just like that and there are tons of data structures to interprete. The good old days of simple, absolute code are over. Last but not least is the instability of system code. THe size of today's OS and system programs are in the magnitude of hundreds and thousands of kilobytes. It's impossible to sniff out all the potential bugs for any single release. The concept of a ROM interpreter is laudable but practically impossible because of the frequency of system updates. FOr example, when Apple introduced the IIci, System 6.0.4 on the Mac incorporated a number of fixes to system tools including those in the ROM. System 6.0.5 with the IIfx incorporates a new version of 32-bit QuickDraw but the ROM only contains version 1.0 instead of the new 1.2 and has to be patched accordingly. The cost of changing new ROM masks just isn't worthwhile in this instance. Applesoft by contrast was a mere 10K in size and even so it had been to some extent been debugged in earlier versions of Microsoft BASIC on other PCs.
ysk@Asia.Sun.COM (Yong Su Kim) (08/13/90)
It seems that nobody has been bitching about the future of the GS for some time.I remember that this area was in flames over the comments made at some educational conference that the GS was going to be dropped. I've been away from the GS world for around 2 months. I heard that there's some new software out. It's nice that the GS software market isn't dead yet. Is RASTAN out yet? PS. If anybody out there has a long list of archive-servers etc. could they please e-mail me a copy? I'm stranded in Hong Kong without access to ftp sites. PPS. What is the difference in performance between the old SCSI and the new DMA SCSI card for someone like me who has 2Megs on his Octoram? The Korean From Hong Kong
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (08/13/90)
In article <9008130754.AA17364@sunhkd.Asia.Sun.Com> ysk@Asia.Sun.COM (Yong Su Kim) writes: >PPS. What is the difference in performance between the old SCSI and the new DMA >SCSI card for someone like me who has 2Megs on his Octoram? If you have 256K SIMMs, you can't successfully use the DMA feature of the new SCSI card (at least, I couldn't). It works fine with 1M SIMMs, though.
ysk@Asia.Sun.COM (Yong Su Kim) (08/15/90)
I have 2 1M SIMMS on my Octoram. Can anyone provide figures on the bootup time using the new DMA SCIS with a 2Meg Octoram?
sehrlich@lynx.northeastern.edu (01/27/91)
Does anyone know if it is possible to turn a GS into a fully functional PC AND Mac? Be it via software and/or hardware? So, let's say I'd like to run TETRIS for the PC. I get into the PC partition of the hard drive, and run Tetris from there. Then, I decide I want to do a paper for class in MS Word for the Mac. I exit Tetris and go into Word. Then I decide to play around in Applesoft Basic, so I go into the GS mode. Can all of this be done? Thanks for any help you can offer. Scott (sehrlich@lynx.northeastern.edu) P.S. One other question - If it is possible to do, how much would it cost total? (Including purchasing a GS with the Apple RGB color monitor - unless someone were to suggest another monitor?)
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (02/09/91)
>Does anyone know if it is possible to turn a GS into a fully functional >PC AND Mac? Be it via software and/or hardware? So, let's say I'd like >Scott (sehrlich@lynx.northeastern.edu) Yes, but a PCT, the GS is already a Mac (at least philosophically speaking). The PCT lets you play Tetris in CGA, although the native GS version is much nicer. The sound is quite good and the graphis are also most as good as a VGA clone's. I would suggest Graphic Writer III in lieu of MS Word since Microsoft has not deigned to port it to the native GS as yet. :) You will have to explain why you want the PC half, Autocad may be inappropriate, but Lotus certainly is not. Personally I think that this gets you a better system than either individually (I'm biased :) and the cost is not bad if you can convince you Apple dealer that the GS is made by Apple and is covred under the educational discount program. UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com