q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) (09/11/90)
One more Pascal related question. When should I call the following? var p:pointer (or StringPtr, or anything pointer) begin .... new(p); .... end; In other words, when do you have to call new()? Only when it is defined in 'var' headings? Only global 'var' headings? How about as value parameters of a procedure/function? I was writing a program that kept crashing (corrputed string) until I called new(mystringptr). But I have made other programs before that do similar things and I never used new(). I am confused. Someone please help me. Thanks -- Joel Sumner GENIE:JOEL.SUMNER These opinions are q4kx@cornella.ccs.cornell.edu q4kx@cornella warranted for 90 days or q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu q4kx@crnlvax5 60,000 miles. Whichever .................................................... comes first. Never test for an error condition that you can't handle.
stephens@latcs1.oz.au (Philip J Stephens) (09/11/90)
Joel Sumner writes: > One more Pascal related question. When should I call the following? > > var p:pointer (or StringPtr, or anything pointer) > begin > .... > new(p); > .... > end; > > In other words, when do you have to call new()? A pointer variable is simply that: a two-byte variable which contains an address to the actual data (thus the value of p is an address, and the value of p^ is the data stored at that address). Initially, p is not pointing to anything at all, hence referencing p^ is likely to crash the program. The procedure new(p) allocates some memory to hold the data (whose type is given in the var definition), and stores the address of that data in p. The following program will thus allocate an integer variable to the pointer p, store the value 10 in the integer variable pointed to by p, then write that value out. var p: ^integer; begin new(p); p^ := 10; writeln(p^); end; I don't think you can use new(p) if p is of type pointer, as you are not specifying what TYPE of data p must point to. I hope that helps. </\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\></\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\> < Philip J. Stephens >< "Many views yield the truth." > < Hons. student, Computer Science >< "Therefore, be not alone." > < La Trobe University, Melbourne >< - Prime Song of the viggies, from > < AUSTRALIA >< THE ENGIMA SCORE by Sheri S Tepper > <\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/><\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/>
dnelson@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Dru Nelson) (09/11/90)
Hello, >One more Pascal related question. When should I call the following? >var p:pointer (or StringPtr, or anything pointer) >begin >.... >new(p); >.... >end; >In other words, when do you have to call new()? Only when it is defined >in 'var' headings? Only global 'var' headings? How about as value parameters >of a procedure/function? I was writing a program that kept crashing >(corrputed string) until I called new(mystringptr). But I have made >other programs before that do similar things and I never used new(). I >am confused. Someone please help me. >Thanks >-- >Joel Sumner GENIE:JOEL.SUMNER These opinions are I think the problem is that you didn't allocate the memory for the string. See, you only allocated a pointer, not the data area where the string is supposed to go (ie. a new call, or array) -- %% Dru Nelson %% Miami, FL %% Internet: dnelson@mthvax.cs.miami.edu %%
$CSF214@LSUVM.BITNET (John Mills) (09/14/90)
Joel Sumner <vax5!q4kx@CU-ARPA.CS.CORNELL.EDU> writes: >One more Pascal related question. When should I call the following? > >var p:pointer (or StringPtr, or anything pointer) >begin >.... >new(p); >.... >end; > >In other words, when do you have to call new()? Only when it is defined >in 'var' headings? Only global 'var' headings? How about as value parameters >of a procedure/function? I was writing a program that kept crashing >(corrputed string) until I called new(mystringptr). But I have made >other programs before that do similar things and I never used new(). I >am confused. Someone please help me. > >Thanks Joel, you have defined the variable "p" to be of type "pointer" in this example. A pointer can be thought of as a variable holding an integer number, which is in itself the address, in memory, of some data structure (be it integer, record, whatever). When you test-run the program, NEVER assume that your variables have some pre-initialized value; i.e. all variables are assumed to be UNDEFINED in value. This is what the "new(p)" procedure is for. Specifically, the "new" procedure allocates storage space in memory for the "pointed-to" data structure and then puts the address of the storage space in the variable "p". In short, to answer your question "when do you have to call new()," I would say use it whenever you need to create new storage space for your data structure. ======================================== Bitnet : $csf214@lsuvm Internet : $csf214@lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu ========================================
lexter@pro-abilink.cts.com (Sam Robertson) (09/16/90)
In-Reply-To: message from q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
The New() procedure in Pascal is used with dynamic allocated variables
(etcc....) The only time New() need be used is when your linked list (or
whatever) needs another space in memory. If you must have unlimited arrays or
need to allow for memory use pointers (and I recommend you read thouroughly
about it!), otherwise stick with static arrays. The following is a simple
example (out of an old Data Structures text) on how to set up a pointer etc...
type
pointertype= ^NodeType;
infotype = (* declaration of the information type *)
Nodetype = record
info:infotype;
next:pointertype;
end;
var
list:pointertype; (* pointer to start of list *)
ptr:pointertype; (*temporary use pointer *)
begin
...
...
new (list)
....
....
dispose (list) (* deallocate this space for other variables etc...*)
end.
sam
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applelink: Lexter || Sam Robertson Pro-Abilink 300/1200/2400
GENIE: SL.Robertson || 1357 Santos Sysop (Saw)
Proline: Lexter@Pro-Abilink || Abilene Texas 79605 (915)673-6856
INET: Lexter@Pro-Abilink.cts.com || UUCP: Crash!pnet01!pro-abilink!lexter
ARPA: Crash!pnet01!pro-abilink!lexter@nosc.mil
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"An Apple a day, keeps the Big Blue Meanies away!"sb@pnet91.UUCP (Stephen Brown) (09/29/90)
Isn't it funny that Apple is bringing out a low cost Macintosh. And its colour
too. And its rumoured that they're bringing out AppleWorks for the Mac. And if
I recall, the low cost Mac will have Apple II compatibility... on a card.
Well, isn't that sweet.
There are a number of interpetations one can make. But it looks like they are
trying to give the Macintosh everything that has made the Apple IIGS
successful: low cost, colour, Apple II compatibility, and the best selling
integrated software. But what does that mean???
That means that they're going to go the IIGS market with a Mac.
And if it works, well... the computer line that we know and love will have
company, with the Apple III, Lisa, etc. But what of all the money that Apple
has recently dumped into the Apple II..? Short of reading about the unreleased
Synthlab program, we haven't seen anything at all. There could be loads of new
goodies, but will they ever be in production? And I'm sure that John (S) will
try to placate us by raving about the "continuing commitment" by announcing
another minor revision of System Disk 5: 5.0.3, which has been floating around
since KansasFest.
Bottom line: Don't buy the low cost/colour/A2compatible Macs.
Discourage others from doing so.
I think the viability of the Apple II line may depend on it. I firmly believe
that Apple hasn't changed. They want to sell Macs. Period: "Damn the
torpedoes, the letters... and the Apple II..."
Stephen Brown (Toronto, CANADA)
UUCP: lsuc!graham!pnet91!sb
INET: sb@pnet91.cts.comdcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (10/02/90)
In article <9009290715.aa09290@generic.UUCP> sb@pnet91.UUCP (Stephen Brown) writes: >Isn't it funny that Apple is bringing out a low cost Macintosh. And its colour >too. And its rumoured that they're bringing out AppleWorks for the Mac. And if >I recall, the low cost Mac will have Apple II compatibility... on a card. > >Well, isn't that sweet. I think it is. >There are a number of interpetations one can make. But it looks like they are >trying to give the Macintosh everything that has made the Apple IIGS >successful: low cost, colour, Apple II compatibility, and the best selling >integrated software. But what does that mean??? It just might mean that Apple // folks will have Mac compatability. It really depends on what sort of machine you want to call an Apple //. If thing can boot my GS/OS disk, then I'd call it a useable Apple // (GS). The whole idea of the Mac is to have a computer where one does not need to know about the guts of the machine. GS/OS is an OS that abstracts the filing system away from the user. How would have felt if the GS was released ONLY with an HFS fst? We would all be yelping about it because the damn thing could only read Mac disks...what was apple thinking, etc. If I have a machine in front of me that can run Apple // stuff, then I'm happy. I have Apple // stuff. I've written Apple // stuff (although no GS stuff). I use a Mac IIfx and Sun SPARC 1s at work and they're nice. I'd be very happy if the // had some of what the Mac has (in terms of display and other hardware niceties). A combo machine is not something to have a stroke over, it just might mean the revival of the //. Look at it this way. Apple is pricing these things to sell (or at least, that's the idea). The publishing houses are going to take note that a large segment of the population owns one os these babies. They will also know that they are capable of running // software. Who knows? The machine may even be able to dynamically switch. One could use the // end for certain things and the Mac end for others. The point of the GS was to have a // machine with toolbox support, like the Mac. This makes it possible for Apple to make wholesale changes in the machine and maintain compatability. What the hell difference does it make what the hardware is made of if it can run your software? That was the whole point. Apple has the freedom to do this with the Mac (and did right from the start) because of a well thought out interface between the software and the hardware. If Apple stopped supporting 680x0 machines and popped right over to 88000 (as most speculate they will do in a year or 2), then it won't matter worth a damn to anyone, as the new machine will still run old software. Emulating a 680x0 on an 88000 will be a piece of cake, and because of the toolbox, everything should port silky smoothly. You won't see any revolts from the Mac crowd. So now, you're whining that all this great Apple // hardware won't work in the new machine. Well, I have 3MB ram and a SCSI card in my machine. What sort of cards do most people have? RAM cards, disk cards (SCSI) and speed cards. Big deal. The new thing will already go fast, have slots for RAM expansion, have a SCSI, sound, etc. You'll still be able to buy cheap Apple // software for it. I just don't see the point of the whining. I see Apple making a good (and correct) attempt to merge the // with the Mac. All of you with //e's shouldn't be whining, as you've already got a machine that works great, and you obviously showed no intention of upgrading (you had the chance and passed it up with the GS - and don't whine about price, why should it be free?). //c owners shouldn't complain, as they haven't got all that specialized hardware that would otherwise prevent an upgrade. At best, you've stuck some RAM in your machine. All you've got is software, which should run just fine on the new machine. GS owners should cry the least, as one could view this new machine as the ultimate GS upgrade - it now runs Mac stuff. Not just reads the disks, but runs its software. It has the standardized graphics modes (I HATE dithering! It's a cheat - they call it higher spacial resolution and higher color resolution, but it's not! Only one or the other!) The Mac has nice high spacial and color resolution because the hardware really can do it. And, I can pop in a different video card if I want more - I don't have to beg the company to produce Yet Another Computer. I'm waiting to see what Apple produces before I scream bloody murder. In fact, it just might be the machine I want. It'll allow me a smooth transition into the Mac world (something I've wanted to do for about 4 years). I can still run my old stuff and have the new machine too. Sounds like a damn good deal to me. (whew) -- Dave Whitney | I wrote Z-Link and BinSCII. Send me bug Computer Science MIT 1990 | reports. I need a job. Send me an offer. dcw@goldilocks.lcs.mit.edu | My opinions, you hear? MINE! dcw@athena.mit.edu | "...we came in?"
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (10/02/90)
The new Apple II compatible Mac might sound nice to all Apple //e and Apple //c owners out there, but do take notice that the Apple II emulation card is an **Apple //e** emulation card. So all those people who have investments in GS software might as well flush it down the toilet. Of course, the logical argument would be that now that we have Macintosh compatibility, why bother with the GS since the new machine can do what the GS tried. Well, there are some pretty nice games and applications out for the GS, not to mention the sound capabilities, which the new machine will not be able to run/use. All in all, it is a cheap cop-out by apple to bury the GS and move people to the Mac (no matter how many times MattD tells us that he builds machines to 'empower' people). 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."
jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) (10/03/90)
dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) writes: > In article <9009290715.aa09290@generic.UUCP> sb@pnet91.UUCP (Stephen Brown) wr\ > ites: >>Isn't it funny that Apple is bringing out a low cost Macintosh. And its colour >>too. And its rumoured that they're bringing out AppleWorks for the Mac. And if >>I recall, the low cost Mac will have Apple II compatibility... on a card. >> >>Well, isn't that sweet. > >I think it is. > >>There are a number of interpetations one can make. But it looks like they are >>....... integrated software. But what does that mean??? > > It just might mean that Apple // folks will have Mac compatability. It > really depends on what sort of machine you want to call an Apple //. > If thing can boot my GS/OS disk, then I'd call it a useable Apple // > (GS). > > If I have a machine in front of me that can run Apple // stuff, then > I'm happy. I have Apple // stuff. I've written Apple // stuff > (although no GS stuff). That's one major point against the idea. > A combo machine is not something to have a stroke over, it just might > mean the revival of the //. .... The publishing > houses are going to take note that a large segment of the population > owns one os these babies. No, they won't. The way the machine is packaged, the //e emulation is an option, purchased seperately at a cost. It also won't be available until after the Mac LC has been out for a while. This is a TOKEN gesture. It is not an option that Apple expects people to go for unless they have some specific reason to have the compatibility, like educators. New users will not be interested, and Apple will not try to change their minds. > What the hell > difference does it make what the hardware is made of if it can run > your software? It can't run my software. It won't run the //gs software I have worked on, and most probably will choke on many of the older ][ applications that used hardware hacks to make things work. Besides, there ain't no joystick on a Mac. And a low-cost Mac is a trap, like the SE or the Plus. You cannot do any real development on it. The screen is too small, the configuration and speed is too low. It's a sucker-play to get you to buy a Mac //ci. BTW...You say you have a IIfx and a Sparc (I have a Sparc as well). Did you pay for these things? Do you know how much more was paid for the Mac than the Sparc? > If Apple > stopped supporting 680x0 machines and popped right over to 88000 (as > most speculate they will do in a year or 2), then it won't matter > worth a damn to anyone....Emulating a 680x0 on an 88000 will be a > piece of cake Don't count on it. The overhead will be enourmous, and probably more effort than any sane developer would ever want to take on. Simulating an entire CISC instruction set on a RISC chip? Get outta town!!!!! > won't see any revolts from the Mac crowd. But the point of changing architectures is so that binaries can be written for a different chip. What happens when all the software of the future is for the 88000 only? All the suckers who still have 680x0 macs are out in the cold, and suckers who bought the emulation package for the new machines now don't need to emulate anything anymore. > So now, you're whining that all this great Apple // hardware won't > work in the new machine. This isn't whining. No new software will be written for the //gs because apple is for all purposes replacing it with this new mac. Instead of augmenting the software market for the //gs, they are smothering it. And those people who don't throw out their //gs's and buy macs will be hacking without company support. And as far as 8-bit software goes, new software will be written for the new machine; Mac, not 8-bit apple, because all Mac LC's run Mac software, but not all Mac LC's will have Apple // emulation in them. This way, educators with investments in Apple //e's and such are not cut off, but are given an easy migration to the mac platform. The industry will follow this route. Those of us who wish to remain loyal to our old machines, however, are left in the dust. The // line had lots of potential to be competitive in today's market with performance, software, and an ingenius OS. This, however, is being nipped in the bud by Apple Computer. You're damned right I'm angry for this. > the ultimate GS upgrade - it now runs Mac stuff. What?!?!?!? UPGRADE????? Do you really think Apple will give a discount for trading in a //gs for a Mac? Get Real!!! Sorry, friend, you're gonna have to purchase that thing full-price!! I agree that we should see the stuff before making final judgements, but I think it is clear that no new // hardware will ever be produced, like IBM will never make another RT, and Sun will never make another Sun 3. But Macs and //gs's don't run non-unique portable OS's like Unix. And the //gs had potential, desperately in want of a standard manufacturer's configuration of speed and VGA style graphics. This could have been delivered at minimal cost, as pioneered by third parties. But after laying down lots of hints at Kansasfests and other places, Apple has indeed never had the intention of boosting the machine to the next level. > > -- > Dave Whitney | I wrote Z-Link and BinSCII. Send me bug > Computer Science MIT 1990 | reports. I need a job. Send me an offer. > dcw@goldilocks.lcs.mit.edu | My opinions, you hear? MINE! > dcw@athena.mit.edu | "...we came in?" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |Jeremy Mereness | Support | Ye Olde Disclaimer: | |jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (internet) | Free | The above represent my| |a700jm7e@cmccvb (Vax... bitnet) | Software| opinions, alone. | |staff/student@Carnegie Mellon U.| | Ya Gotta Love It. | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
araftis@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Alex Raftis) (10/03/90)
In article <182@alchemy.UUCP> hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes: >The new Apple II compatible Mac might sound nice to all Apple //e and Apple //c >owners out there, but do take notice that the Apple II emulation card is an >**Apple //e** emulation card. So all those people who have investments in GS >software might as well flush it down the toilet. > Something interesting I picked up the other day. A Scottish company (I belive the name is CMS?) claims that they've built a Mac emulation card for the IIGS. They claim that it can outperform a Mac IIci. So even if Apple makes a II emulation card, all those in the II world can get the best of both worlds without supporting apple's lack of support. -- -------------------------------------------------- Internet: araftis@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU America Online: xela (Real Life: Alex Raftis)
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (10/04/90)
>What the hell difference does it make what the hardware is made of if it can >run your software? It makes a whole hell of alot of difference. My hardware investment can't be moved over to the Macs! My stereo digitizer, video digiter(s), PC Transporter, RAM card, 5.25" disks, their controller, joystick, modem, SCSI card, monitor... 5.25" drives (four of'em), two more 5.25" drives (for the PCT). I'll almost be t my left nut that I'll have to go through the MAC desktop to get to the // inside of it, and I'll bet my other one that it's not GS compatible (hmmmm, I don't think I'll make that last bet... better safe than sorry). And... there's only going to be ONE slot... and it's going to be filled with the Apple // card so there are NO slots, I have no choice of monitors (maybe for the color one, I'll have to wait and see). ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | | This is your brain on whole wheat.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (10/04/90)
>GS owners should cry the least, as one could view this new machine as >the ultimate GS upgrade. Say WHAAAAAAAAAAAT?!?!?! Not if it's not GS compatible! Slots are another biggy. I don't want a computer without any slots, even if it IS GS compatible. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | | This is your brain on whole wheat.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|
bb0@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Bowie Bailey) (10/04/90)
In article <1990Oct1.195457.24180@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) writes: >GS owners should cry the least, as one could view this new machine as >the ultimate GS upgrade - it now runs Mac stuff. Not just reads the >disks, but runs its software. It has the standardized graphics modes >(I HATE dithering! It's a cheat - they call it higher spacial >resolution and higher color resolution, but it's not! Only one or the >other!) The Mac has nice high spacial and color resolution because the >hardware really can do it. And, I can pop in a different video card if >I want more - I don't have to beg the company to produce Yet Another >Computer. And why shouldn't this GS user cry? I've sunk well over $2000 into my system (a good bit less than most). I have a huge box of //e games and quite a few GS games. Now Apple wants me to junk this machine(who is going to buy a GS now?) and buy a Mac? This Mac will not run any of the nice games that I've bought for the GS, I'll have to buy new ones. Will the //e card allow the Mac to run my DOS 3.3 things? I rather doubt it. It will have better graphics which would be nice for GIF conversions. And what about sound? I don't know about this, but can the Mac approach the sound quality of the GS? > >I'm waiting to see what Apple produces before I scream bloody murder. I'm waiting too, but I'm not expecting much. >In fact, it just might be the machine I want. It'll allow me a smooth >transition into the Mac world (something I've wanted to do for about 4 >years). I can still run my old stuff and have the new machine too. ^^^^^^^^^ GS/OS? DOS 3.3? I don't have much prodos. >Sounds like a damn good deal to me. I'll reserve my opinion on the quality of this 'deal' until after I've seen it -------- Bowie Bailey bb0@beach.cis.ufl.edu
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (10/05/90)
In article <24720@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> bb0@beach.cis.ufl.edu () writes: >I don't know about this, but can the Mac approach the sound quality of the GS? NO,NO,NO,...it cannot. You'd have to get a Midi interface and hook up a good keyboard or a Roland MT-32 sound module, or you could go the DSP route. The Mac's sound is 4 voices and resembles more the PC's in stereo. Even there, thereare now excellent audio boards for the PC( such as the Roland MT32 one) which are used by the software( Sierra for example) and in a few months a DSP based || attachment will ship for the PC's giving them sound capabilities which rival those of the GS. Phone Advanced Gravis for more information( in Vancouver, Canada). Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (10/05/90)
In article <24720@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> bb0@beach.cis.ufl.edu () writes: >In article <1990Oct1.195457.24180@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) writes: >>GS owners should cry the least... > >And why shouldn't this GS user cry? I've sunk well over $2000 into my system >(a good bit less than most). I have a huge box of //e games and quite a >few GS games. Now Apple wants me to junk this machine(who is going to buy >a GS now?) and buy a Mac? This Mac will not run any of the nice games that >I've bought for the GS, I'll have to buy new ones. Will the //e card allow >the Mac to run my DOS 3.3 things? I rather doubt it. It will have better >graphics which would be nice for GIF conversions. And what about sound? >I don't know about this, but can the Mac approach the sound quality of the GS? >Bowie Bailey bb0@beach.cis.ufl.edu Um, $2000 isn't a big investment. I've sunk more in, and I still haven't put in as much as many. (I'm talking total investment here: CPU, 3.5, 5.25, screen, HD, RAM, AWGS, APW, and *time* - $3000 to $3500 perhaps) Your huge box of //e games should run using the //e emulator that will be available. Bad argument here. The GS games are a good argument, but I wouldn't use the small investment in games as a pivoting factor on my decision to buy a new machine. (I personally don't play games much at all, so the game argument doesn't hold a lot of water for me anyway.) Why do you think you won't be able to run your DOS 3.3 stuff? Presuming you can attach a 5.25 drive to the machine, I can't imagine what the problem would be. A //e emulation can't be partial...either the card does or does not emulate a //e. By the way, Apple doesn't care what you do regarding keeping the old and buying the new. They aren't *making* you do anything. If you don't want the new one, don't buy it. Your current setup won't stop working just because there's a snazzier box on the market. Mac plusses still work. (This by the way is the big argument I use in many cases. To completely go off on a tangent, I think the censoring-happy public is full of it. If you don't like something, don't buy it.) Apple is not going to tell current GS owners to drop dead. Why would they stop making improvements to the OS? Look at it this way. Schools are the big owners of Apple //s and //GSs. They are NOT about to go out and dump these to buy macs. They will buy the Macs when they have money and everyone on the board feels it's time to get MORE stuff (note, not NEW stuff). The schools will probably NEVER throw away their //s. Apple realizes this and continues to supply basic service (something's better than nothing...) Don't tell me that Apple's been doing NOTHING since the GS came out. There's been a steady (albeit slow) stream of stuff coming forth. They KNOW the GS isn't going vanish. They won't stop the trickle... The Mac's sound is indeed not as good as the GS for only the fact that the GS has 32 oscillators (to paired into 15 voices and 2 for system use) while the mac has only 4 voices. Aside from that, they're pretty equal (I think). Each can only do 8 bits/sample. If I had control of things (ha!) I'd have put an Ensoniq in the Mac some time ago. Enough already. -- Dave Whitney | I wrote Z-Link and BinSCII. Send me bug Computer Science MIT 1990 | reports. I need a job. Send me an offer. dcw@goldilocks.lcs.mit.edu | My opinions, you hear? MINE! dcw@athena.mit.edu | "Isn't this where..."
jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) (10/05/90)
dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) writes: > Why do you think you won't be able to run your DOS 3.3 stuff? > Presuming you can attach a 5.25 drive to the machine, I can't imagine > what the problem would be. A //e emulation can't be partial...either > the card does or does not emulate a //e. Hmmmm. I understand what you believe of Apple's product reliability (although dealers are less-then-friendly when you tell them your serial port was faulty out of the box) but I get nervous about emulation cards. Heh, Heh, I don't know if you boys up at MIT ever heard of a little beast by IBM called the RT-6152? a PS/2 model 60 with an RT card built in it to run as a workstation? Yeccchhh! The trouble is, some folks (like me) still wanna hack. We wanna have graphics screens right at our fingertips to do insane things like the FTA folks do (read, sans tools!) These folks like animation, which just don't seem to figure on the Mac. I think MacFish is real neat, and Crystal Quest was impressive, but the GS did it faster, and I have yet to see a full-color Joust or StarGate or Robotron or anything else insane and super like that for the Mac. I concluded that since the Mac uses tools as a means of making the screen hardware independent, animation just couldn't be a reality without a processor of 100MHz to eat the overhead.... sort of like X-Windows ;-) I don't think the //e emulation card will let people really hack. I also have a personal grudge with the Mac's terminal screens; either too slow or just plain ugly, and they make my eyes hurt. Every time this feed goes through this phase, I ask myself why I stick with this little //gs. Well, I like Prosel, I reeeeeely like CDA's, I like that lightning fast text screen (my biggest beef with Amigas is they ain't got one!), the Mac-style GUI under 5.02 is about as fast as an SE but in color and better with more capabilities, more keymappings, better icons, and I don't have to use it! I can fire up the Orca shell (which I have actin' like Unix) and applications will return there! I like the keyboard better, too. Nyah. Have you ever noticed that the GS finder lets you draw boxes over multiple selections when View is selected on Name or Date? Try THAT on a Mac!! Or even more fun.... take out the System Disk and try to DO something! Anything!!!! And the more I look, the more it seems that the GS can do all those stupid things that a Mac can do, like finder backgrounds, stupid digitized beep and startup noises, toilets for trashcans, dirty GIF pics... that's what really sells the Mac on campus!!! It's really true!! I sit hackers in front of my little machine and within 15 minutes they are seriously impressed. You say this thing is 2.5MHz?? Naaahhhh... Macs are 8 and this is faster!! The //gs is full of goodies, from graphics to sound (ohhh that sound) there's lots to play with... all around a great platform to build on, but it needed a few things. Some more speed, some more standard memory, and a VGA-style graphics mode wouldn't hurt. Well, after a shaky start, the Mac grew from its little 128k past to built in SCSI, slots, memory, CoLoR, speeeed, co-processors, and it has starting to reach its potential (initially funded by the apple ][). The GS, or for that matter ANY computer today, needs these things. Its kind of an industry standard. But it ain't gonna get it. And that depresses me, and makes a lot of netters turn up their flame guns. The Mac was allowed to go through its growing pangs, but the //gs is gettin' nipped in the bud! And all this executive, marketing rhetoric from Apple about future support, non-disclosure agreements, Mr. Pepsi Two-Face, c'mon! They've shoveled lots of it at us! And now they want to migrate people to Mac. Going Mac doesn't do it for me. I miss my shell (I'm a Unix hacker... I do SICK things with C-shell scripts), the text is the wrong color, and the bigger these monitors get, I gotta break my arm moving the mouse around!! Really, I use the things alot! They are all over this campus, along with workstations, PS/2's; Macs really aren't God's Gift to users, and they ain't worth ditching the potential of the GS, which to me is the Micro that they finally got right!! Well, that's how I feel anyway. I kinda like NeXT 'cause they're cheap, can run Gnu stuff, Pretty good GUI, can run clunky ol' X if I need it, has a great foundation to build on, incredible sound, and unlike the mac, I can pull up a terminal and work in a shell. Heck... take away the Unix and the workstation stuff, keep the sound, add a smaller screen, add color; is there a resemblance beginning to form here? But enough of this. I'm sick of this trail. I'm developing for the GS whether Apple likes it or not. It's just that the way Apple is going, I'm not going to have as many other friends doing it with me. In the end, I think that's the real beef here, isn't it? > dcw@goldilocks.lcs.mit.edu | My opinions, you hear? MINE! > dcw@athena.mit.edu | "Isn't this where..."
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (10/05/90)
In article <4b30SfK00VQl44KApS@andrew.cmu.edu> jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) writes: >I like the keyboard better, too. Nyah. Boy I sure am quoting and replying to a very tiny portion of your whole letter. I personally like the Mac 'standard' keyboard better. What really seems stupid to me (not mentioning all of the stuff we've been talking about lately) is WHY Apple stocks TWO different keyboards which are virtually the same thing. To my understanding, the "GS standard" and "Mac standard" keyboards (I'm just making those names up) are THE SAME EXACT THING electronically AND physically except the Mac standard keyboard has around .5 inch to 1 inch (just a guess) of extra plastic around most of the case of the keyboard. I -REALLY like that. It gives you a little bit of a place to rest your hands on. And from what I remember, it is tilted up a little bit so if you put it on a flat horizontal surface the keyboard is at an angle wheras the GS keyboard is basically flat. This just seems UTTERLY stupid to me... (as I said, disregard all of the other utterly stupid things Apple {and other big companies} has done)... Why keep two products in inventory when you could just keep one, especially when they are the SAME thing except minor differences? That would be like having a beige (superior color in my opinion) 3.5" drive for the GS (I'm saying if the GS were still beige) and a platinum 3.5" drive for the Mac. Now I don't think Apple'd've done that (or maybe that's why they changed the colors??), but they do the SAME idea with the keyboard... It just seems really dumb to me... I guess I shouldn't talk though since I got my keyboard for $30 used from some other GS user who was upgrading to a "Mac" extended keyboard... [My GS is upgraded from a //e thus I had no detached keyboard for a while] I still like swiping the keyboard from my mom's Mac when I'm at home though. Makes a BIG difference in my mind to have that little case difference... -- / Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu \ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
sb@pnet91.UUCP (Stephen Brown) (10/09/90)
In article <9009290715.aa09290@generic.UUCP> I said: >Isn't it funny that Apple is bringing out a low cost Macintosh.And its colour and I went on to suggest that these new Macs are designed to replace the Apple IIGS. In message somewhat after, David C. Whitney (dcw@lcs.mit.edu) says: >It just might mean that Apple // folks will have Mac compatibility. It >really depends on what sort of machine you want to call an Apple //. >If thing can boot my GS/OS disk, then I'd call it a useable Apple // [cut] >If I can have a machine in front of me that can run Apple // stuff, then >I'm happy. I have Apple // stuff. I've written Apple // stuff [cut] An Apple II is more than software compatiblity. Its hardware compatibility too. It is also a programming and operating environment which is not plain vanilla boring macintosh. >A combo machine is not something to have a stroke over, it just might >mean the revival of the //. Look at it this way. Apple is pricing I don't think the Apple II compatibility will be a powerful Apple II compatibility. It will be just enough to sell it to schools, and then insideously switch 'em over to Macs. Do you really think they're going to emulate a TWGS'ed or Zipped IIGS? I don't think so. >The point of the GS was to have a // machine with toolbox support, No. It was to placate the Apple II community/market with a minimal offering, and a bid to soak the cash cow a bit longer. One of the many wonderful things about the Apple II is that you CAN use the Tools if you want that type of application, or you don't. >So now, you're whining that all this great Apple // hardware won't >work in the new machine. Well, I have a 3MB ram and a SCSI card in my >machine. What sort of cards to most people have? RAM cards, disk cards I'm pleased that you want to throw out your stuff. Really. But I had planned to make my system last a tiny bit longer, seeing as how I worked so hard to get it in the first place. Another wonderful thing about the Apple II. That parallel printer interface from my II+, my Unidisk 3.5 from my IIe, they all work so nicely on the IIGS. Well, at least I'll be able to save my IIGS ADB keyboard... :-( >I see Apple making a good (and correct) attempt to merge the // with >the Mac. All of you with //e's should'nt be whining, as you've already >got a machine that works great, and you obviously showed no intention >of upgrading (and you had the chance and passed it up with the GS - and >don't whine abou the price, why should it be free?) //c owners shouldn't I don't see what your problem is. If there is a large installed userbase, money to be made, and users clamouring for updated hardware, WHY MUST Apple insist on ramming their preferences down our throats? There's a market. Exploit it. Would you be against a better GS? Sure sounds like it. >GS owners should cry the least, as one could view this machine as >the ultimate GS upgrade - it now runs Mac stuff. Not just reads the I'll pas on that upgrade. Why don't you buy a Mac now, and save yourself the wait. >I'm waiting to see what Apple produces before I scream bloody murder. >In fact, it just might be the machine I want. It'll allow me a smooth >transition into the Mac world (something I've wanted to do for about 4 The Crown rests... Bye! The next machine I buy will not be a Macintosh. I just don't like the feel. >Dave Whitney | I wrote Z-Link and BinSCII. Send me bug >Computer Science MIT 1990 | reports. I need a job. Send me an offer. STEPHEN BROWN (Toronto, Canada) UUCP: lsuc!graham!pnet91!sb INET: sb@pnet91.cts.com
fraenhawk@oak.circa.ufl.edu (02/05/91)
I'm new to the VAX world and was wondering what type of conversion is neccessary to use the files in .binaries.apple2. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks, David
lucifer@world.std.com (Kevin S Green) (02/05/91)
In article <00943BCB.2EEC1200@OAK.CIRCA.UFL.EDU> fraenhawk@oak.circa.ufl.edu writes: > > I'm new to the VAX world and was wondering what type of conversion is >neccessary to use the files in .binaries.apple2. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks, David David, You will need a copy of Binscii v1.0 (by David C. Whitney). This will convert the text only stream in the message to a file. If the file created has a suffix like .SHK you will need to run Shrinkit on it too. I'm not too sure how you will go about getting Binscii since it obviously can't be sent Binscii'ed. I got my copy from America Online I think. Never found a use for it until I finally got Internet access about 3 months ago. -- Kevin S. Green / lucifer@world.std.com / {xylogics;uunet}!world!lucifer Party naked... /AOL: Gargoth / Pro-line: kgreen@pro-angmar