ST102272@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU (Apple Defender) (11/19/90)
From reading the messages on this board, it seems like everyone would want the Apple II line to continue living. Apple II users seem quite established and devoted to their machines. I would like to know the feasibility of taking the Apple II line off Apple's hands. Would it be possible to create a machine (like the IIGS) without too many legal complications (no copyright/patent law suits)? If this is possible, I might assemble a groups of programmers and developers to create and market this new machine. It would basically be a IIGS upgraded to modern standards. The compatiblity with the IIE would be improved. SCSI, 4 Meg memory, ENSONIQ sound, 15-25 Megahertz microprocessor would be built in. Also, it would have an improved tool box and more efficient software, which would run all the goodies currently available (like Pagemaker). Basically, I'd like to built a II with the power and flexibility of a Mac, for about 1000 or so, everything included (printer, monitor, hard drive, etc.) Do you think this is possible, or would Apple let me do it? Seeking Advice, Apple Defender.
ULTIMAV@VAX1.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU (and you think you have stress) (11/19/90)
I have no idea what Apple would say but I'm with you.
If you could build that awesome sounding machine, I'm sure I'd buy one along
with a lot of other Apple II fans. I'm behind you and I think its a great
idea!!!!!
My 4 or four or fore
scents or cents !!!!!
Anyway ... it just me again, Dana
In MSU..toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (11/20/90)
ST102272@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU (Apple Defender) writes: >Would it be possible to create a machine (like the IIGS) without too many >legal complications (no copyright/patent law suits)? It would be possible, the question is whether or not you have the resources to go to the trouble of figuring out all the things that Apple did. Too many programs do not use tools, and a good number of the best demos use totally undocumented information that would be a significant pain in the rear to reproduce UNLESS you have Apple's proprietary notes to work from. I maintain that Apple could easily make a GS for the 90's -- I've talked to the engineers and they know exactly what to do. The problem is that too many of them have been shuffled off to Mac projects (which don't get cancelled half as often, according to one of them) -- I can't be more specific because I was under non-disclosure, but I can say that I think Apple is going to make some very stupid product decisions in the next few years unless they get their heads out of the clouds and start revving up the Apple // groups. >If this is possible, I might assemble a groups of programmers and developers >to create and market this new machine. It would basically be a IIGS upgraded >to modern standards. I'm all for it, but beware of the resource investment you may be looking at. I'd look into licensing technology from Zip and maybe CVT, and especially the ASIC Technologies guys -- you will also need a VLSI ASIC service and a system to design the custom chips on. This can cost $$$ rapidly. Also read The Apple //f: A Possible Future for the Apple //, a paper I wrote, revised, sent to Sculley (he forwarded it to Ed Birss, who sent me a letter which didn't say much), revised again, and almost revised a fourth time (version 4 was beta released to about ten people; I then decided that it had done enough damage and decided to put it on hold). This paper addresses just about everything that needs to be done to the existing design, and suggests what I consider to be the most necessary enhancements. I can mail you copies if you haven't already seen them. >The compatiblity with the IIE would be improved. Yeah, for instance displaying the HR/DHR colors correctly (like the LC's //e card does) and effortlessly (like the LC's //e card DOESN'T). > SCSI, This could be an issue because getting both SCSI and performance on the mother board has a lot to do with the overall design. I'll explain if anyone wants to hear a lecture on cost-effective high performance system design :) >4 Meg memory, better yet just put SIMM sockets on the motherboard, or include a slot that is more or less compatible with the existing memory slot (it might require faster RAM though). Support up to 12 megs w/ DMA compatibility, etc. >ENSONIQ sound, with at least stereo decoding on the motherboard. there are a lot of things that could be done here but I'll save them. >15-25 Megahertz microprocessor would be built in. whoa there. this sort of relies on the completion of the ASIC 65816 clone, which is chugging along but isn't available yet. > Also, it would have an improved tool box and more efficient software, which >would run all the goodies currently available (like Pagemaker). tool box we can do. porting Pagemaker is up to Aldus and getting their support would be a truly formidable task. > Basically, I'd like to built a II with the power and flexibility of a Mac, >for about 1000 or so, everything included (printer, monitor, hard drive, etc.) Don't even try to do it with everything included, unless the thing is extremely closed (yuck). I'd shoot for a bare minimum system (floppy, cheap mono, 1 meg) at $1000 (like the Mac Classic) but make the thing eminently expandable out of the box. >Do you think this is possible, or would Apple let me do it? I think it bears further research, but be warned that Apple might take legal action over the ROMs -- GS/OS currently checksums the ROMs extensively (or so I'm told), a very antisocial thing to do. I don't know how much Apple would care, because they've been trying to keep their options open (last scuttlebutt I heard was that if the LC doesn't kill the // in schools then the // will finally get the attention it deserves). Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) (11/20/90)
In article <9011182054.AA29954@apple.com> ST102272@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU (Apple Defender) writes: [...] >The compatiblity with the IIE would be improved. SCSI, 4 Meg memory, ENSONIQ >sound, 15-25 Megahertz microprocessor would be built in. Also, it would have >an improved tool box and more efficient software, which would run all the >goodies currently available (like Pagemaker). Basically, I'd like to built a >II with the power and flexibility of a Mac, for about 1000 or so, everything >included (printer, monitor, hard drive, etc.) > >Do you think this is possible, or would Apple let me do it? I think the biggest bottleneck to creating a more powerful IIgs is the 1MHz slot-card bottleneck. Remove that, and you've got a winner. I'm not sure what you mean by "compatibility with IIE would be improved". 95% of IIe programs work on the GS, and the ones that don't are very special-purpose, and are often superceded by GS specific items. The GS needs the following things to be turned into an inexpensive powerhouse- 1) Ability to access all of the 16Meg memory space. 2) A PMMU to manage all that memory 3) Fast slots 4) a 20MHz or so processor with a cache on the motherboard. 5) built in SCSI, in addition to the built-ins it has right now. 6) Slightly better graphics system. Most of this has been said before. Find and read the "Apple IIf" (alias Apple IITPW :-) paper for more info. My addition to it is the PMMU. Some might say it's not necessary, but I disagree. With as much memory as many have in their GSs, about the only way they can use it is with NDAs and the like. A PMMU would enable the computer to prevent NDAs from stepping on the application or the OS, or vice versa. It would also allow the eventual creation of a true multitasking OS, which would be wonderful on the Apple II. Imagine running Choplifter in a window next to AppleWorks GS. * SOAPBOX * It's almost undeniable that Apple would snuff any attempt at such a machine immediately. They want to milk as much money from it as possible, without having to do R&D. Letting another company have it would reduce their profits. Apple making a new GS would reduce their profits. No, they're quite happy the way things are. I think they want to see if their Mac sales are affected as they slowly strangle the II. * END SOAPBOX * However, in the event there is no new Apple II, you can still do wonders with what you have. Thanks to Tony Fadell & Co., we'll soon have a lightening fast processor. If I & Co. can get around some of the problems we're having, and find some to work on it, we'll have a nice graphics card. And a PMMU for Unix (or a very much enhanced GS/OS). Time is the key here.. -- Jawaid Bazyar | Blondes in big black cars look better wearing Senior/Computer Engineering | their dark sunglasses at night. (unk. wierdo) jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The gin, the gin, glows in the Dark! Apple II Forever! | (B O'Cult) Comp.Sys.Apple2- Home of the Unofficial Apple II Developer Support Team (DST)
bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov20.012810.24936@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >ST102272@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU (Apple Defender) writes: > >>Would it be possible to create a machine (like the IIGS) without too many >>legal complications (no copyright/patent law suits)? > >It would be possible, the question is whether or not you have the resources to >go to the trouble of figuring out all the things that Apple did. Too many I know this is nitpicking but I couldn't help it. There were some copyright battles fought over micro-code in which the defence was that the defendant had not seen the existing code. I think that "figuring out all the things that Apple did" would in itself put you in a bad position legally. bob church bchurch.oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
taob@pnet91.cts.com (Brian Tao) (11/21/90)
From ST102272@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU (Apple Defender): > The compatiblity with the IIE would be improved. SCSI, 4 Meg memory, > ENSONIQ sound, 15-25 Megahertz microprocessor would be built in. Also, it > would have an improved tool box and more efficient software, which would run > all the goodies currently available (like Pagemaker). Basically, I'd like > to built a II with the power and flexibility of a Mac, for about 1000 or so, > everything included (printer, monitor, hard drive, etc.) Hear, hear! That would be nothing short of a MIRACLE if you could pull that off. Not only would it be competitive price/performance-wise, but it would cause all sales of Atari ST's, Amigas and most Macs to simply dry up... > Do you think this is possible, or would Apple let me do it? I suppose it is possible in the near future (I don't know about the price though, it seems too good to be true). Knowing Apple, however, they will do everything in their power to stop this monster. ;) \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ | Brian T. Tao | UUCP: torag!pnet91!taob | / \ | University of Toronto | INET: taob@pnet91.cts.com | \ The Apple II / | Scarberia, ON | taob@pro-micol.cts.com | / Lives On!! \ |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| \ / | "Computer guru? Someone who got their computer a | /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | couple of weeks before you did." (Alvin Toffler) |
bill@braille.uwo.ca (Bill Carss) (11/21/90)
I believe that the //e compatibility is still worth re-iterating. I
have a //e and have resisted getting a IIgs because I don't believe
the improvements that were made outweigh the drasbacks - or things
that I perceive to be drawback:
1. I prefer the //e style keyboard - the feel of the keys etc.
2. I also prefer the whole appearance of the computer. The IIgs
feels too plastic or artificial.
3. If you examine the inerds (sorry about the technical terms), the
interior of a IIgs is (or seems) flimsier than that of a//e. I
think it is pretty obvious that good old Apple minimized the
construction to save as much as possible.
4. From my limited experiece with the IIgs I would say that the
OS is far slower and clumsier than it need be and un-necessarily
finicky.
All of these things (and certainly many others) would have to be addressed
before I would even consider purchasing a new Apple or a new "whatever".
From talking to other //e users, I am not alone. Any new system that is
created has to satisfy "the old Apple users" as well as potential customers.
Neither the IIgs nor the Macesques seem to do that.
As far as the "market" is concerned, I believe that it would require
some serious work!! Certainly Apple hasn't nor apparently doesn't intend
to promote the II line adequately. A new system would have to be
demonstrably capable of performing business applications with lightning
speed and ease of use. In addition, the price of the unit would have to
be something that doesn't scare the customers away!! $8000 for a fancy
Mac is a lot of potatoes!!
To be atractive, this new system would have to come in at around $2000
fully loaded i.e. hard drive, good graphics, sound, and expandability.
If it doesn't come in at this level or less there would be no point in
even designing it. Certainly fancy add-ons like the new Amiga 3000
Video Toaster would be great and can be expensive (1595 U.S.) but the
average user and small business need something cheap and good!!
Obviously I'm not a technician. Neither am I a programmer. I am a user
who likes the ease of the //e but wants the power of a 386. I don't
know if it can be done - but if the "Apple II' line is to survive,
something of that order is necessary.
Bill Carss
bill@braille.uwo.ca
--
Bill Carss
bill@braille.uwo.ca (Please Note the Lower case!!)$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (11/21/90)
|I maintain that Apple could easily make a GS for the 90's - I've talked to the |engineers and they know exactly what to do. The problem is that too many of |them have been shuffled off to Mac projects (which don't get cancelled half as |often, according to one of them) -- I can't be more specific because I was |under non-disclosure, but I can say that I think Apple is going to make some |very stupid product decisions in the next few years unless they get their |heads out of the clouds and start revving up the Apple // groups. C'mon...Isn't it time to stop HOPING that Apple will wise up. Apple is a business, owned by shareholders; they must keep those shareholders happy. Those shareholders aren't happy when they pick up a newspaper or magazine stating that their products are out of date or not competitive. Business has been bad for Apple; their market share is in free fall. They can't respond with an Apple //f - no matter how many DMA controllers, blitters, or Direct Slots there are - the Apple II is percieved as obsolete technology. There will be just enough people in the media who know about electronics to say "Hey, its still just a jumped up //e - with a 8-bit processor" (whine all you want about architecture) The New Macs do everything that their sharholders wanted (i.e. what the media demanded - lower cost). The Apple II is just not very popular...it has a very sticky image of being obsolete. Even the //f won't get rid of it. Sure the engineers know what to do, but they don't call the shots. The Marketeers do. Did you hear what an Apple spokesperson said (reported in the Dec. inCider: "Our market research shows that people don't really use expansion slots". That, coupled with recent reports that Apple is hard at work building a RISC replacement for the Mac would lead anyone to conclude that the Apple II is the last thing on their minds. |>If this is possible, I might assemble a groups of programmers and developers |>to create and market this new machine. It would basically be a IIGS upgraded |>to modern standards. | |I'm all for it, but beware of the resource investment you may be looking at. |I'd look into licensing technology from Zip and maybe CVT, and especially the |ASIC Technologies guys -- you will also need a VLSI ASIC service and a system |to design the custom chips on. This can cost $$$ rapidly. Oh, great! You mean we have to fight Apple and Zip too??? |>4 Meg memory, | |better yet just put SIMM sockets on the motherboard, or include a slot that |is more or less compatible with the existing memory slot (it might require |faster RAM though). Support up to 12 megs w/ DMA compatibility, etc. As long as it supports 4 Mb SIMMS (and above), I have no quarrels |>ENSONIQ sound, | |with at least stereo decoding on the motherboard. there are a lot of things |that could be done here but I'll save them. Yeah, I really like the way Todd described it in the //f paper (i.e. mapping Ensoniq registers to the address space of the '816. How much trouble would it be to add a DSP (i.e. Motorola 96002, TI 32020, etc.)? |>15-25 Megahertz microprocessor would be built in. | |whoa there. this sort of relies on the completion of the ASIC 65816 clone, |which is chugging along but isn't available yet. Whoa there is right! There's alot we don't know about the ASIC (i.e. How compatible, how reliable, how much, how many). The guy was talking about building a Apple IIgs built to "modern standards" Modern standards sound like marketing talk to me, in which case, even with the ASIC, this enhanced GS clone is still just a jumped up //e. Who has the fastest GS right now? According to what I've read, the fastest GSs run modified Transwarps at 13 MHz. Faster accelerators could be built...say by taking a inherently faster processor (say the ARM, or the Advanced Micro Devices AMD 29000) and emulating the 65816 instruction set (uh-oh, I said the "E" word). One has to ask oneself: (1) How long will it be before the ASIC is available in production quantities? (2) How reliable and compatible will it actually be? (3) How much will it cost in production quantities? (the usual answer for new chips is "not cheap") An enhanced version of the ARM (a RISC chip produced by VLSI) and the AMD 29000 are available now, in quantity, and at reasonable costs. In the case of the ARM, it can be had in production quantites for less than the cost of a 80286. In a benchmark that I posted in the spring, the Archimedes A310, using an ARM at 5 MHz, easily beat a Compaq Deskpro 386 (20 MHz) in all areas except floating point math. An enhanced version of that chip is available that runs over 20 MHz with an onboard cache. The AMD 29000 is a very fast RISC chip that even without a cache of any kind could emulate an '816 faster than the ASIC. With a cache it could easily beat out a NeXT at half to 3/4 the cost (i.e. 17 MIPS, 192 gen. purpose registers, 42000 Dhrystones/second, far less than the cost of a 68040). Oh but I can hear everyone already..."If your going to emulate, why not buy a Mac LC". Because with these chips (I favor the ARM - it's cheaper) one could build a system that is competitive in price with the Mac LC, but far superior in terms of capability. Prices for complete systems would range from $1500 bare bones to $2500 loaded-to-the-gills, and could have slots and built in language and toolbox support...i.e. a 32-bit BASIC with full access to system resources and the equivalent of MacApp in ROM. Further it could (and should) embrace Unix and X-Windows (something I seriously doubt that the '816 could ever do). |> Also, it would have an improved tool box and more efficient software, which |>would run all the goodies currently available (like Pagemaker). | |tool box we can do. porting Pagemaker is up to Aldus and getting their support |would be a truly formidable task. Aldus would be more willing if they thought they were making Pagemaker for X-Windows. Timeworks would probably leap at the chance. |> Basically, I'd like to built a II with the power and flexibility of a Mac, |> for about 1000 or so, everything included (printer, monitor, hard drive, | |don't even try to do it with everything included, unless the thing is extremel |closed (yuck). I'd shoot for a bare minimum system (floppy, cheap mono, 1 meg) |at $1000 (like the Mac Classic) but make the thing eminently expandable out |of the box. Everything included, I doubt it could be done for 1000. Two-thousand, mabye. Bare minimum sounds good...as long as there were many expansion options. As an aside, I'd find a cheap(er) CD-ROM drive than Apple's (say one of those internal CD-ROMs available for PCs) and offer it as an option. The case definitely needs redesigning. |>Do you think this is possible, or would Apple let me do it? | |I think it bears further research, but be warned that Apple might take legal |action over the ROMs -- GS/OS currently checksums the ROMs extensively (or so |I'm told), a very antisocial thing to do. I don't know how much Apple would |care, because they've been trying to keep their options open (last scuttlebutt |I heard was that if the LC doesn't kill the // in schools then the // will |finally get the attention it deserves). Apple wouldn't LET you do it, no. There would definitely be a fight. As far as the ROMs go...you would definitely have to document everything extensively. Checksums sound a lot like copy protection; this is a cracking job...make a renegade GS/OS that dosen't do checksums, or thinks that they have already been done. It's doable...look at Tandy. And they said that Microchannel was unclonable. |Todd Whitesel |toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu ------------------------------ ! Mark Orr ! ! $CSD211@LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU ! ! @LSUVM.BITNET ! ------------------------------
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (11/21/90)
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: >work building a RISC replacement for the Mac would lead anyone to conclude >that the Apple II is the last thing on their minds. yep, and that's part of the problem. Apple's spending $40 million fighting the perception that Macs are expensive... >|I'd look into licensing technology from Zip and maybe CVT, and especially the >|ASIC Technologies guys -- you will also need a VLSI ASIC service and a system >|to design the custom chips on. This can cost $$$ rapidly. >Oh, great! You mean we have to fight Apple and Zip too??? No No No. I mean we ought to try to get their help! >As long as it supports 4 Mb SIMMS (and above), I have no quarrels Precisely. >Yeah, I really like the way Todd described it in the //f paper (i.e. mapping >Ensoniq registers to the address space of the '816. How much trouble would >it be to add a DSP (i.e. Motorola 96002, TI 32020, etc.)? Thanks for the compliment, after trying to program the DOC myself it became pretty obvious that memory mapping the DOC RAM and registers would vastly simplify a number of things (and that's not all, heh heh). Putting a DSP on the motherboard is asking a bit much though, but I expected the Sound Direct Slot to take care of those concerns. >Whoa there is right! There's alot we don't know about the ASIC (i.e. How >compatible, how reliable, how much, how many). The guy was talking about I'm not worried about ASIC. I just don't know how long they'll take. >that runs over 20 MHz with an onboard cache. The AMD 29000 is a very fast >RISC chip that even without a cache of any kind could emulate an '816 faster >than the ASIC. I'm sorry, but I don't think so. Let me see some code. I sincerely doubt that a 20 mhz 29K can emulate a 20 mhz 65816, even given the cycle differences. >a Mac LC". Because with these chips (I favor the ARM - it's cheaper) one >could build a system that is competitive in price with the Mac LC, but far >superior in terms of capability. Prices for complete systems would range >from $1500 bare bones to $2500 loaded-to-the-gills, and could have slots and >built in language and toolbox support...i.e. a 32-bit BASIC with full access >to system resources and the equivalent of MacApp in ROM. Further it could >(and should) embrace Unix and X-Windows (something I seriously doubt that >the '816 could ever do). Sounds extremely seductive, and it's certainly the right direction, but think about the consistency of it: you might as well buy an ARM and write a GS emulator. Still wouldn't be as fast as the machine whose creation we're pondering -- when it was emulating. Your point that it would capable of a lot more than emulating a GS is well taken, but I feel that once the decision to use a different CPU has been made, GS emulation becomes less and less worth the effort. I still think that a better system can be had by fixing Apple's mistakes rather than by building a whole new computer and forcing it to emulate a GS. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (11/22/90)
On the subject of making a GS clone and the GS/OS checksum on the ROM, why not just provide a patch to GS/OS? Provide GS/OS with the system AND a special 'patching' disk than you use once on the copy of GS/OS that you make? I would suggest providing a modified GS/OS with the system, but you could probably get into serious legal problems there. Just a though. What'ya think? ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (11/22/90)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From reading the messages on this board, it seems like everyone would want the
Apple II line to continue living.
Apple II users seem quite established and devoted to their machines. I would
like to know the feasibility of taking the Apple II line off Apple's hands.
Would it be possible to create a machine (like the IIGS) without too many
legal
complications (no copyright/patent law suits)?
If this is possible, I might assemble a groups of programmers and developers
to
create and market this new machine. It would basically be a IIGS upgraded to
modern standards.
The compatiblity with the IIE would be improved. SCSI, 4 Meg memory, ENSONIQ
sound, 15-25 Megahertz microprocessor would be built in. Also, it would have
an improved tool box and more efficient software, which would run all the
goodies currently available (like Pagemaker). Basically, I'd like to built a
II with the power and flexibility of a Mac, for about 1000 or so, everything
included (printer, monitor, hard drive, etc.)
Do you think this is possible, or would Apple let me do it?
Seeking Advice,
Apple Defender.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Aside from processor speed there is nothing in your specs that are not already
in my GS (cost a bit more tha $1000 though). Improving the toolbox is not yet
worth the effort and how would you create more efficient software? I would say
run the 65816 at 16+MHz and improve screen resolution and Pagemaker
equivalents will get written. Low price is a fine objective, but I want
quality for my money.
In my opinion, given that you have remained anonymous (unless you have
fanatic parents), I would say that you are setting us up for the Mac LC. If
this is true I am not amused.
Eric McGillicuddy
UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg
INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.comlhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com (Laer Haider) (11/22/90)
In-Reply-To: message from jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
[...stuff about a better IIgs...]
You are all missing one of the most important features missing in the IIgs -
higher screen resolution, with a correct aspect ratio and access to more
colors. Ability to use dual page monitors and more than one monitor at a time
would be real nice too.
/
\ / /
______________________________________________________ \\\' , / //
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 (/ \\ /\\\
// IIgs \\\ no entity(s), living or dead! // _//\\\\
------------------------------------------------------ ((` ((AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET (12/06/90)
Well, I agree with much of what Mark's said here -- for the most part, I
think he's right on the mark - especially on what he's said about us not
hoping that Apple's going to "wise-up" someday.
Personally, I am a long-time Apple person, but I can see the end (or at
least the downfall) of Apple Computer in the not too distant future. Such
computers as the Amiga 3000 are beating out Mac IIFX's, and at about half
the price.
However, I think the time IS right for a third party to do something...
I think the idea of a MUCH faster processor just emulating the '816
would probably be much better.... It would be FAR faster, and would like
O/S's like Unix much more... THe '816, even with a speed accelerator
would be a dog of a Unix machine.
- Andrew.
P.S. Don't send replies in netnews or to the address on this message --
I never log in here, and almost never read netnews (problems with the
server lately). Instead, send mail to:
Internet: aabenson@balance.cs.mtu.edujoeq@pro-odyssey.cts.com (Joe Quilici) (12/14/90)
In-Reply-To: message from AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET I doubt an Amiga 3000 can beat out a Mac IIFX with its 40 Mhz processor, I've seen one, they are _FAST_ . 486/33s can beat the IIFX in various benchmarks I understand, maybe because they use more of a textual interface rather than graphical. ---- ProLine: joeq@pro-odyssey Internet: joeq@pro-odyssey.cts.com UUCP: crash!pro-odyssey!joeq ARPA: crash!pro-odyssey!joeq@nosc.mil
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (12/15/90)
In article <6323@crash.cts.com> joeq@pro-odyssey.cts.com (Joe Quilici) writes: >I doubt an Amiga 3000 can beat out a Mac IIFX with its 40 Mhz processor, I've >seen one, they are _FAST_ . 486/33s can beat the IIFX in various benchmarks I >understand, maybe because they use more of a textual interface rather than >graphical. Clock speed is irrelevant, especially when you consider that the Amiga has a million coprocessors while the Mac does almost everything with just a 68030/68882 combination. Isn't the desktop supposed to eat up about 40% of available processor power in the Mac? Scott Alfter-----------------------------_/_---------------------------- / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (12/15/90)
In article <90340.002411AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET>, AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET writes: > Personally, I am a long-time Apple person, but I can see the end (or at > least the downfall) of Apple Computer in the not too distant future. Such > computers as the Amiga 3000 are beating out Mac IIFX's, and at about half > the price. Apple computer is huge. I do not see them going down at all in my lifetime. If Atari and Commodore can stay in business making a healthy product with their low sales, then why would Apple be on the road to ruin. Joe Public, if he wants to get a computer for his home that he wants everyone to use, and so he can do his work, would opt for the Mac LC, with the //e card. Any work he brings home can be used on the Mac, it is low priced enough to afford, plus his wife and kids are able to use it. p.s. I just picked up the Jan MacUser, and they have just spent a half a million dollars on a new testing lab. If a magazine can afford that much money for a lab, there must be a lot of Mac people out there reading their magazine. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o__)\ rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET / ) RC1DSANU@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu / / ____ R.COLLINS1 (On GEnie) /(____/__(_) o)_/ /) [ || ] Atari Computers, "There is no Substitute." [ || ] They're not just Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er geniryvat // || \\ for breakfast gbb pybfr! // || \\ anymore ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yea, right, thats what I said.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
josh@athena.mit.edu (Josh Hartmann) (12/15/90)
In article <3136.2769275c@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: |> |> p.s. I just picked up the Jan MacUser, and they have just spent a half a |> million dollars on a new testing lab. If a magazine can afford that much |> money for a lab, there must be a lot of Mac people out there reading their |> magazine. An Apple II person reading MacUser!?! :-) But seriously, although I haven't seen that magazine yet, keep in mind that MacUser is published by Ziff, which also puts out MacWEEK and several PC magazines. I would be _very_ surprised if the new MacUser Labs will only be used for MacUser. I imagine they will be shared, much as the columnists are... Josh -- ___ _ __ _ __ ___ _ | / \ |_ |_| |_| |_| |_| | |\/| |_| |\ | |\ | MIT never likes what I \_/ \_/ __| | | | | | | | \ | | | | | | \| | \| write. Why start now? INTERNET/josh@athena.mit.edu UUCP/mit-eddie!mit-athena!josh BITNET/your problem
josh@athena.mit.edu (Josh Hartmann) (12/15/90)
In article <2493@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU>, alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: |> |> Clock speed is irrelevant, especially when you consider that the Amiga |> has a million coprocessors while the Mac does almost everything with |> just a 68030/68882 combination. |> |> Isn't the desktop supposed to eat up about 40% of available processor |> power in the Mac? This really belongs in comp.flame.mac.amiga. :-) But since it's here.... In most Macs this is true -- the processor does most of the work. But it is my understanding that the IIfx is different and has several coprocessors, more than any other Mac. That's why its clock speed, 40 MHz, is quite deceiving, since it can blow the pants off anything with Windows in the PC (yuck) world. But yes, on my Mac II, ROM calls take about 65 percent of the processor time, according to MacMeter, a desk accessory. -- ___ _ __ _ __ ___ _ | / \ |_ |_| |_| |_| |_| | |\/| |_| |\ | |\ | MIT never likes what I \_/ \_/ __| | | | | | | | \ | | | | | | \| | \| write. Why start now? INTERNET/josh@athena.mit.edu UUCP/mit-eddie!mit-athena!josh BITNET/your problem
AABENSON@MTUS5.BITNET (12/15/90)
Ryan, Sorry, I guess that didn't come out the way I wanted it to. I didn't mean that they'd go broke or anything, I just meant that they'd lose the relatively high position in that marketplace that they have -- For instance, systems such as SPARCStations are competing with their high-end Mac IIs, and to be perfectly honest, I don't know of any Macs that come anywhere NEAR the power of a Sparc - even a low-end sparc at that, which is relatively close in price to the high-end Macs. Anyway, it's just a thought.... with many new companies moving so fast now, it makes Apple appear to be standing still. - Andrew. Internet: aabenson@balance.cs.mtu.edu.
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (12/15/90)
>> I doubt the Amiga can beat out the Mac II fx...
Depends on what you're doing. If you compare the amiga writing directly
to the screen memory vs. the mac going through quickdraw, the Amiga might
be a little faster (this comparison isn't totally ridiculous since this
is what happens in reality). OTOH, for brute force computing the "FX" is
not a bad machine at all. If it were twice as fast it would be almost
perfect for the Mac Environment (I can't imagine going back to a ci now).
I've only got a 20 Mhz 386, so I can't compare against a 486/33. Maybe
next year. The comparison will be difficult, even using windows, since
the machines are doing totally different things.
Of course, my fx is probably 20-30 times faster than my gs.
*** Randy Hyde O-)c60c-4gj@web-2e.berkeley.edu (Calvin Cheng) (12/16/90)
In article <2493@unsvax.NEVADA.EDU> alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) writes: > >Clock speed is irrelevant, especially when you consider that the Amiga >has a million coprocessors while the Mac does almost everything with >just a 68030/68882 combination. > >Isn't the desktop supposed to eat up about 40% of available processor >power in the Mac? > The Mac IIfx has a peak Dhrystone rating of about 12000-15000/s compared to about 7000-8000 for the 25Mhz A3000. It also comes with an array of IOP (10Mhz 65C02s for serial I/O, disk I/O, SCSI I/O with DMA although these are only taken full advantage of in A/Ux or System 8.0??) For that matter, it is about 2.5 to 3 times the speed of a 25Mhz IIci and about 3 to 4 times as fast as a 16Mhz SE/30 and 10 to 15 times as fast as an SE. So it is definitely a beast. As far as comparison with MS-DOS machines are concerned though, it's only up to the level of 25Mhz 386 systems (it seems 33Mhz ones are faster) while the A3000 has been rated to be comparable to 20MHz systems. Desktop processing speed doesnt take up a great deal of time. Most of the time the CPU is involved in either performing the long and hard computations or just waiting for input. The main effect of a faster processor is that it helps in screen updates (ie scrolling, redrawing) in response to user events. And this is why Windows-based systems are perceived to be slow (even on 386s) even though they easily chew up the comparable Macs when performing other operations. Even 8-bit video on a IIfx is faster than 1-bit video on a IIci. When u top it up with Apple's AMD29000-based graphics accelerator, even 24-bit video looks piece of cake. But bare in mind that the only real thing that get speeded up is the screen response time rather than the internal throughput which is still very much dependent on the CPU hardware. By the way, screen size has little to do with video speed since normally the same number of bits are updated regardless of desktop size. The screen depth doesnt count up heavily in draw operations too because the number of bits drawn is normally relatively low (except for say scroll operations). Lastly, bear in mind that the A3000's coprocessors are not truly geared for a full-windowing system. Many of the features can only be activated on a desktop-wide basis. They are only truly effective for games that take over the whole desktop I'm not trying to point out the deficiencies of the A3000. I think it's a wonderful machine esp at about half the price of a IIfx (but not so attractive now that u can get a NeXTStation for about the same amount). Each machine has its own virtue. I'm seriously considering a NeXT as my NEXT machine. But the power of a IIfx is essential for some serious DTP jobs while Amiga users may want to maintain a kind of Amiga compatibility. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Calvin Cheng | | calvinc@ocf.berkeley The Best is Yet to Be! | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (12/18/90)
In article <1990Dec15.012100.21960@athena.mit.edu>, josh@athena.mit.edu (Josh Hartmann) writes: > In article <3136.2769275c@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: > |> > |> p.s. I just picked up the Jan MacUser, and they have just spent a half a > |> million dollars on a new testing lab. If a magazine can afford that much > |> money for a lab, there must be a lot of Mac people out there reading their > |> magazine. > > An Apple II person reading MacUser!?! :-) Really I'm an Atari ST person with IIgs's at work reading MacUser! :*) > But seriously, although I haven't seen that magazine yet, keep in mind that > MacUser is published by Ziff, which also puts out MacWEEK and several PC > magazines. I would be _very_ surprised if the new MacUser Labs will only > be used for MacUser. I imagine they will be shared, much as the columnists > are... Well, they say the lab is to mainly test networks. It consists of 30 Macs, a NeXTcube, a Sun Sparcstation IPC, a Dec MicroVAX 2000 and a VAXserver 3100, a Compaq 386/33 Deskpro and a Compaq Deskpro 286, a Zeos 386, and an IBM PS/2 Model 80. Also the windows can go from transparent to opaque at the flip of the switch so they can evaluate prerelease products in complete secrecy. The lab looks impressive, just from the specs and a view picures they show of it! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o__)\ rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET / ) RC1DSANU@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu / / ____ R.COLLINS1 (On GEnie) /(____/__(_) o)_/ /) [ || ] Atari Computers, "There is no Substitute." [ || ] They're not just Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er geniryvat // || \\ for breakfast gbb pybfr! // || \\ anymore ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yea, right, thats what I said.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~