unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (11/02/90)
In article <9538.apple.net@pro-angmar> kgreen@pro-angmar.UUCP (Kevin Green) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from philip@utstat.uucp > >Phil, > You're is one of the few truely mature attitudes I've seen here on the net >regarding the Mac/Apple // debate. Personally, I like the looks of the NeXT >box myself but can't afford one yet. I also really like my //GS despite the >fact that it can't do some things some Macs can do. I plan to use my //GS >until the day it won't function. Then I will evaluate all the CPU's out there >again and determine which one best suits my home computing needs. A priority >would be Unix ability so the NeXT and the Amiga 3000 are the main contenders >now. What can the Mac do that the GS can't do? And I'm not trying to take this argument to such an absurd level where someone can say "What can the Mac do that the Commodor PET can't?" Maybe to make it a little more even playing field, we'll assume the GS has a Zip GS in it. Now I'll ask my question now from an application perspective.. meaning that obviously you can say the GS doesn't have the resolution the Macs have. -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (11/02/90)
In article <8432@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > >In article <9538.apple.net@pro-angmar> kgreen@pro-angmar.UUCP (Kevin Green) writes: > What can the Mac do that the GS can't do? And I'm not trying to >take this argument to such an absurd level where someone can say "What can >the Mac do that the Commodor PET can't?" > > Maybe to make it a little more even playing field, we'll assume the >GS has a Zip GS in it. > > Now I'll ask my question now from an application perspective.. meaning >that obviously you can say the GS doesn't have the resolution the Macs have. Well, theoretically, nothing. Any computer can "do" what any other computer can "do." In reality, the GS can't do whatever program hasn't been written for it. For example, MacroMind's Director. A truly amazing Multimedia preperation tool for the mac. We use it at work extensively to make videotapes describing what our group does (and we show these tapes to bigwigs at the Fed). Director doesn't exist for the GS, so you can't do that on the GS *right now*. It's also unlikely that you ever *will* be able to do it simply because the general view among publishers (whether accurate or not) is that the GS is not suited to do that sort of thing. Now, if everyone had a Zipped GS and gobs of memory (Director is a hog, BTW - we run out in our 8meg machine), MacroMind might be more inclined to port it. Why don't they anyway? Well, it's hard to do seeing as there aren't any VERY powerful tools like a GS version of MacAPP available (we need a OOP compiler first). The GS can do only what you can buy off the shelf. In terms of that, the Mac can do more and that's all there is to it. Note that I'm trying to be objective here - I'm not pointing out cost of hardware/software or what real people are likely to do. Just pointing out availablility of programs - which is the real measure of what any PC can do. -- Dave Whitney Computer Science MIT 1990 | I wrote Z-Link and BinSCII. Send me bug dcw@lcs.mit.edu | reports. I need a job. Send me an offer. Every now and then one makes a mistake. Mine was probably this post.
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Nov1.214909.18927@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) writes: >Director doesn't exist for the GS, so you can't do that on the GS *right >now*. It's also unlikely that you ever *will* be able to do it simply >because the general view among publishers (whether accurate or not) is >that the GS is not suited to do that sort of thing. While Director doesn't exist in a IIGS version, HyperStudio certainly does, and it has been used to do the sort of thing that you described. There is certainly more commercial software support for the Mac than for the IIGS, at least for non-educational applications; every IIGS user is painfully aware of that. On the other hand, now that a usable C compiler has finally appeared (no thanks to Apple, apparently), a lot more software for the IIGS has suddenly started to show up. In the IIGS vs. Mac discussion, remember that Apple has been really pushing the Mac and really discouraging development for the IIGS. The IIGS does have marvelous, useful capabilities, and there are ample illustrations of that. Personally, if I were buying a home computer from scratch, I'd get an IBM PC/AT compatible with VGA/EGA, etc. since it's a better buy than either a IIGS or a Mac and has much better commercial software support than either of the Apple product lines. That is not to say that the IIGS and Mac aren't generally good machines with good capabilities, perhaps even better capabilities in some respects than IBM PC clones. But if you're going to drag in commercial support issues, Apple is not really in the running.
kgreen@pro-angmar.UUCP (Kevin Green) (11/03/90)
In-Reply-To: message from unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU Unknown, Aside from better resolution, the Mac can multitask. Processor speed is higher. Numerous other little things that you find out about looking at Mac magazines. HOWEVER - It is not my intention to glorify the Mac over the //gs or any other platform. Each has its own uses/advantages/disadvantages. I personally think that most of the nifty software that the the Mac has can and should be ported to the //gs.
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) (11/03/90)
In article <9624.apple.net@pro-angmar> kgreen@pro-angmar.UUCP (Kevin Green) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU > >Unknown, > Aside from better resolution, the Mac can multitask. Processor speed is >higher. Numerous other little things that you find out about looking at Mac >magazines. The Mac CANNOT multitask. MultiFinder is NOT multiprogramming... It's a major hack whose usefulness in extremently limited by the fact that the OS is not designed to multitask in any way. Which one has better resolution? They're all different! "Processor speed is higher" has been proven over and over a null statement. MHz does not imply speed (witness my initial attempt at a RISC processor, which while running 25MHz, is only about 4 times as fast as an Apple II! Purists, please note that there is no pipelining implemented- I'm simply using this as an example). >that most of the nifty software that the the Mac has can and should be ported >to the //gs. What about that nifty software Mac people would like to run, but can't! Why? Becuase they don't have a 65816 in their box. -- 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)
kreme@isis.cs.du.edu (Eric Idle's Fish Eric) (11/04/90)
In article <9624.apple.net@pro-angmar> kgreen@pro-angmar.UUCP (Kevin Green) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU > >Unknown, > Aside from better resolution, the Mac can multitask. Processor speed is >higher. Numerous other little things that you find out about looking at Mac >magazines. Untrue. The MHz might be numerically higher on the Macintosh, but comparing MHz across processors is a lot like compating a BMW to the Space Shuttle. In fact, applications ported to the GS from the Mac tend to run faster on the GS than on the stock 68000 (8 MHz?) Crystal Quest is a good example. It runs faster on a srock GS than on a stock Mac II. >HOWEVER - It is not my intention to glorify the Mac over the //gs or any other >platform. Each has its own uses/advantages/disadvantages. I personally think >that most of the nifty software that the the Mac has can and should be ported >to the //gs. Absolutely. Sim City would be nice... heheh! I'm sitting here with 4 Megs of RAM trying to figure out how to use it all... :-) -- | kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu |Growing up leads to growing old, and then to dying, and| |---------------------|dying to me don't sound like all that much fun. | | The voice of the majority is no proof of justice. Johann Schiller |
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (11/04/90)
If you are asking the question : "What can the Mac do that the GS can't?", the only logical reply would be: "Well, the GS can pretty much do ALMOST everything the Mac can do!". For the sake of this argument I will leave out such trivial matters as that it is not System 7.0 compatible :-) or that it can't multitask (no matter what some of you might argue, it really CAN NOT do multitasking, not even to the peonic degree of MultiFinder...), nor can it handle Virtual memory. Now, some hard core techno freaks might say that these are relevant factors, but they really aren't. What counts is really what you can do in terms of productivity with the two machines. Well, there is a counterpart to Mac software on the GS side for quite a few of the applications: You can Telecom (Proterm, AWGS), DTP (Publish It, AWGS), Word Processing, and what have you. In many ways, the concept of AWGS in my eyes is a great bonus on the GS sides, as it indeed integrates all important applications a user might need. The difference between the two platforms is that simply on the Mac side you can do all the same things except that you can do them faster, better and with more versatility. For starters, the GS/OS does not support Adobe Laserfonts (nor will it ever according to apple) and that makes it hellish to do any serious DTP with a variety of standard fonts. The lack of decenty color capabilities in 640x400 mode hampers any hopes of serious color processing. The lack of square pixels makes any precision work like DTP or WP a chore. My point here is that the GS is a very good machine for the home and educational market, no doubt about it, but if you are looking into any more complex applications or more flexibility, the Mac has the advantage. The GS does not have any of the vast functionality of INITs and DAs and CDEVs the Mac sports, nor do many developers invest in good software for it (with the exception of a select few like Vitesse) - and those are usually treated like little pets (or worse) by apple (that is, until they start on the Mac). Sad but true, while I like the GS as a machine, I also fail to see the advantage of a GS emulation card for the LC, as the only functionality it lacks is Apple //e emulation. The GS part is more than adequately made up by being able to run Mac software. 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."
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (11/04/90)
In article <9624.apple.net@pro-angmar> kgreen@pro-angmar.UUCP (Kevin Green) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU > >Unknown, > Aside from better resolution, the Mac can multitask. Processor speed is >higher. Numerous other little things that you find out about looking at Mac >magazines. I like the Mac. I use them a lot. I use the GS a lot. I use a NeXT now a lot. So what's the point? The GS and the Mac BOTH do not multitask, unless you are referring to A/UX. It is time that Mac users realize that MultiFinder is not a multitasking OS. Many qualified people( who know a lot more than I do about computing) have been pointing that out to Mac fiends for years. What will it take for them to listen? The Mac uses the Motorolla which is better and faster, it has a better resolution but try looking at the ownership costs. Your nifty little things in MacWeek,MacWorld,etc...are not inexpensive. One last thing. The Mac sound does not compare to the GS's Ensoniq. All of this does not mean that the Mac should not be considered a very nice computer. It is. At the moment, it caters to the business world and other groups who do not have to pay for software, peripherals,etc...from their own pocket. >HOWEVER - It is not my intention to glorify the Mac over the //gs or any other >platform. Each has its own uses/advantages/disadvantages. I personally think >that most of the nifty software that the the Mac has can and should be ported >to the //gs. Yes I think we will see more Mac utilities appearing on the GS. As the GS approaches the Mac, I would hope that Apple sees fit to bring out a MacGS while cutting the GS pricing substantially. It should be cut in half now. Apple should bring out a MacGS of types as soon as possible. Time is short and Intel is not standing still. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto->philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my very own opinions]
MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (11/04/90)
On Sat, 3 Nov 90 12:11:56 GMT <info-apple-request@APPLE.COM> said: > > Which one has better resolution? They're all different! "Processor speed > is higher" has been proven over and over a null statement. MHz does > not imply speed (witness my initial attempt at a RISC processor, which I don't think it's really 'null', but I agree that the XXMhz numbers aren't a straight forward way of determining the speed of a chip, although, you can usually get a pretty good idea of the relative speed by these numbers. Anyway, I think the point of that original "Processor speed is higher" was accurate in comparing the Macs speed to the GS's speed. A 7 Mhz 68000 is definitely faster than a 2.8Mhz 65816. I'm not basing that on the Mhz numbers, but the actual speed of the two processors. Working with a GS and a Mac side by side, you can definitely tell that the Mac is faster. About the Multifinder and 'multitasking'.... I completely agree with you. Switching between aplications is NOT multitasking.... Having two applications both RUNNING at the SAME appearant time IS multitasking, which the Mac does not do. >-- >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) ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | | This is your brain on frog licking.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|
marekp@pnet91.cts.com (Marek Pawlowski) (11/05/90)
> I like the Mac.
A few days ago, you were slandering and degrading the Mac, and stating that
you'll be glad to see it go. I guess you DO change minds as much as Matthew
changes gears.. :)
/* Marek Pawlowski, marekp@{generic|pnet91|contact|bkj386|torag|aunix}.uucp */
/* President, Intelligent Twist Software, 250 Harding Blvd, PO BOX 32017 */
/* Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4C 9M7, CANADA. */torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) (11/05/90)
>About the Multifinder and 'multitasking'.... I completely agree with you. >Switching between aplications is NOT multitasking.... Having two applications >both RUNNING at the SAME appearant time IS multitasking, which the Mac does >not do. ^^^ In fact, Multifinder on the Mac DOES do exactly what you define to be multitasking... Any of the computation-intensive programs, like Mathematica, Excel, Hypercard 2.0, and most of the terminal programs are perfectly capable of running in the background while applications are being worked on in the foreground... I run my Macintosh system like this all the time, mostly letting the terminal program download from a Unix host, while I work on word-processing projects in the foreground. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Jim Bolger - a National landslide of incompetence
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (11/05/90)
In article <8432@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: [ stuff quoted...] > What can the Mac do that the GS can't do? Well the GS can't be a tektronics' terminal and it can't type a mathematical equation. There's a lot more...Still, the GS is a very nice computer( and makes a nice vt100 terminal) but it could do with a 640x400(monochrome) resolution. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto->philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions] Oh, and the GS won't run TeX.
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (11/05/90)
In article <9011040755.AA25630@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes: >I don't think it's really 'null', but I agree that the XXMhz numbers aren't >a straight forward way of determining the speed of a chip, although, you can >usually get a pretty good idea of the relative speed by these numbers. Anyway, >I think the point of that original "Processor speed is higher" was accurate in >comparing the Macs speed to the GS's speed. A 7 Mhz 68000 is definitely faster >than a 2.8Mhz 65816. I'm not basing that on the Mhz numbers, but the actual >speed of the two processors. Working with a GS and a Mac side by side, you >can definitely tell that the Mac is faster. Can definitely tell that the Mac is faster? Think of this hypothetical example.. You have one GS that has a Transwarp GS card in it.. It is running System Disk 1.0 for the GS... (Or whichever version is the first that's -NOT- running that non-Super Hires mode "Finder".. That one was relatively quick from what I remember).. You also have a standard 2.8 megahertz GS running System Disk 5.03 (I doubt they made speed differences between 5.0x verssions but I'm just using the latest in case they are)... So theoretically the standard speed GS would look faster to the user, correct? I do not actually know what would happen. If someone can make this comparison and post some kind of benchmarks, it would be interesting... (I didn't use the Zip GS in my example knowing that it was a looot faster than the TransWarp) My example is just trying to show very clearly that looking faster to the END USER does -NOT- mean the Mac is faster. I'm not saying the Mac isn't faster, I'm just being very very picky on this point. You go from System disk 4.0 to System disk 5.0.. Your computer didn't speed up, but it "acts peppier". Even that simple 'upgrade' seems to show my point. The software has a LOT to do with it, and I would bet that parts of the Mac finder are much more refined than the GS Finder.. (Or other programs, not simply the O/S) To directly compare the two, you would have to figure out how many clock ticks it takes to complete similar instructions, then you can make general comparisons.. -- /Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (11/05/90)
In article <9011040755.AA25630@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes: > >About the Multifinder and 'multitasking'.... I completely agree with you. >Switching between aplications is NOT multitasking.... Having two applications >both RUNNING at the SAME appearant time IS multitasking, which the Mac does >not do. OOPS. Wrong, but thanks for playing. MultiFinder is about as much multitasking as can be done non-preemptively (sp?). I know that you can run two (or 3 or 8) programs at once, and have them all chugging away on their own little numbers at once 'cause I've done it and I've written programs that do it. This discussion is pointless because everyone is going to argue about what is/isn't multitasking. MultiFinder is, but it isn't "safe" or "complete." It's not safe in that there's no memory or process protection. My program could easily trash another program's code or data. If my program crashes, it'll take down the whole machine. At the same time, in order for the multitasking to take place, my program must cooperate. Unix has all these problems solved - but solving the problems doesn't raise the OS to "true multitasking" levels. The Mac OS has made attempts to prevent these sorts of things from happening. Anyone who writes programs using MacAPP will be MultiFinder-compliant. Also, anyone who checks memory allocations to be sure it went OK won't be trashing random parts of memory. There are bits in an app's resource that indicate how much memory the app thinks is in the machine. The memory manager won't let the app allocate more than that amount. MultiFinder isn't just program switching - it really is cheap multitasking. Now, the GS can do this too. Leapfrog demonstrated this. By the way, have there been any more advances to Leapfrog? -- Dave Whitney Computer Science MIT 1990 | I wrote Z-Link and BinSCII. Send me bug dcw@lcs.mit.edu | reports. I need a job. Send me an offer. Every now and then one makes a mistake. Mine was probably this post.
MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (11/06/90)
On Mon, 5 Nov 90 09:03:19 GMT The Unknown User said: >In article <9011040755.AA25630@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU >>comparing the Macs speed to the GS's speed. A 7 Mhz 68000 is definitely >faster >>than a 2.8Mhz 65816. I'm not basing that on the Mhz numbers, but the actual >>speed of the two processors. Working with a GS and a Mac side by side, you >>can definitely tell that the Mac is faster. > > Can definitely tell that the Mac is faster? Yes. > Think of this hypothetical example.. You have one GS that has a >Transwarp GS card in it.. It is running System Disk 1.0 for the GS... ^^^^^^^^^^^^ If you would have my original message, I said a 2.8Mhz GS and a 7Mhz Mac. >(Or whichever version is the first that's -NOT- running that non-Super >Hires mode "Finder".. That one was relatively quick from what I remember).. It's hard to compare the GS system disk 1.0 to the current Mac OS... it's mor logical to compare GS/OS 5.0x to the Macs' OS. Also, I wasn't basing the fact that the Mac is faster than a GS on the screen update speed, but how fast they do internal calculations and the overall speed of all applications I've used on the Mac compared to the overall speed of all applications on the GS. From what I can tell from my experience with both of them is that a stock Mac is faster than a stock GS. period. Sure, you can speed up the GS. Sure, you can't tell 100% from the speed of the screen updates and the speed of ONE application to ONE application, but when you compare all the programs you've used on both machines, that's a pretty accurate and fair conclusion. > You also have a standard 2.8 megahertz GS running System Disk 5.03 >(I doubt they made speed differences between 5.0x verssions but I'm just >using the latest in case they are)... > >to the END USER does -NOT- mean the Mac is faster. I'm not saying the Mac >isn't faster, I'm just being very very picky on this point. I understand your point and I agree, but the point I'm making is that the Mac IS faster than the GS. >/Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP CDs\ >\"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/ ________________________________________________________________ | | | | HEY! They're licking | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | FROGS in Colorado!!!! | pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |_______________________|________________________________________|
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov5.074336.3086@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >In article <8432@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: >[ stuff quoted...] > >> What can the Mac do that the GS can't do? >Well the GS can't be a tektronics' terminal and it can't type a >mathematical equation. There's a lot more...Still, the GS is a very It can't type a mathematical equation? So what's that program I see in the back of InCider/A+ every month? And as for a tektronics terminal emulation, 80% of the Macintrashes out there can't do it either. It takes some very expensive hardware to emulate some very specialized hardware. Buy a Tek terminal if you're worried about Tek emulation. >nice computer( and makes a nice vt100 terminal) but it could do with >a 640x400(monochrome) resolution. > >Philip McDunnough >University of Toronto->philip@utstat.toronto.edu >[my opinions] > >Oh, and the GS won't run TeX. It will soon.. do you remember that post, asking for help with using LinkIIgs with a LARGE number of object files? Did you look at the filenames being linked? TeX left and right... The GS has a dearth of applications. If people would stop griping about "Well,the GS can't do such-n-such" and get off their butts and write the things they need, the world would be a better place. -- 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)
q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov5.060817.22702@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) writes: >>About the Multifinder and 'multitasking'.... I completely agree with you. >>Switching between aplications is NOT multitasking.... Having two applications >>both RUNNING at the SAME appearant time IS multitasking, which the Mac does >>not do. > ^^^ > > In fact, Multifinder on the Mac DOES do exactly what you define to be > multitasking... Any of the computation-intensive programs, like Mathematica, > Excel, Hypercard 2.0, and most of the terminal programs are perfectly capable > of running in the background while applications are being worked on in the > foreground... Ok, now, while you are downloading that file, go into the finder and copy a few files from floppy to hard disk, or, for that matter, save your word processing file. Notice how quickly all downloading stops. It ain't true multitasking. -- 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.
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (11/06/90)
In article <9011051728.AA15418@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes: >I understand your point and I agree, but the point I'm making is that the Mac >IS faster than the GS. With a 7MHz clock, the relative speeds are close for typical, COMPARABLE applications. Note that display update is not a good comparison, as the color IIGS has to move around much more data than the black-and-white Mac in order to attain a similar visual effect. Which is faster depends very much on the application.
SAB121@psuvm.psu.edu (11/06/90)
OPTIONS: NOACK LOG SHORT NOTEBOOK ALL XOPTIONS: REPLYING to NETNEWS article In article <9011051728.AA15418@apple.com>, you say: > >On Mon, 5 Nov 90 09:03:19 GMT The Unknown User said: >>In article <9011040755.AA25630@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU > >>>comparing the Macs speed to the GS's speed. A 7 Mhz 68000 is definitely >>faster >>>than a 2.8Mhz 65816. I'm not basing that on the Mhz numbers, but the actual >>>speed of the two processors. Working with a GS and a Mac side by side, you >>>can definitely tell that the Mac is faster. >> >> Can definitely tell that the Mac is faster? > >Yes. > >> Think of this hypothetical example.. You have one GS that has a >>Transwarp GS card in it.. It is running System Disk 1.0 for the GS... > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >If you would have my original message, I said a 2.8Mhz GS and a 7Mhz Mac. > >>(Or whichever version is the first that's -NOT- running that non-Super >>Hires mode "Finder".. That one was relatively quick from what I remember).. > >It's hard to compare the GS system disk 1.0 to the current Mac OS... it's mor >logical to compare GS/OS 5.0x to the Macs' OS. Also, I wasn't basing the fact >that the Mac is faster than a GS on the screen update speed, but how fast they >do internal calculations and the overall speed of all applications I've used >on the Mac compared to the overall speed of all applications on the GS. >From what I can tell from my experience with both of them is that a stock Mac >is faster than a stock GS. period. Sure, you can speed up the GS. Sure, you >can't tell 100% from the speed of the screen updates and the speed of ONE >application to ONE application, but when you compare all the programs you've >used on both machines, that's a pretty accurate and fair conclusion. > >> You also have a standard 2.8 megahertz GS running System Disk 5.03 >>(I doubt they made speed differences between 5.0x verssions but I'm just >>using the latest in case they are)... >> >>to the END USER does -NOT- mean the Mac is faster. I'm not saying the Mac >>isn't faster, I'm just being very very picky on this point. > >I understand your point and I agree, but the point I'm making is that the Mac >IS faster than the GS. Well, I have worked on both Macs and GS's. OK, Mac's are faster (even to the naked eye) when using SHR Graphics. But, the beauty of the GS, and what makes it FASTER THAN A MAC is the implementation of a TEXT MODE! Do a spell chack on a text file in both Appleworks (the Classic version, either 3.0 or the older ones with Timeout installed) and the Mac (up to say a II, there is QUITE a difference when you cross that invisible boundary that makes one a II or an SE or +) running say MacWrite, and see which does the spell check in less time. Consider also the amount of memory needed by the Macintrash to do SIMPLE tasks. Pull out a stock Mac with say 1 meg of memory and 7.0000 Mhz 68000, and then pull out a stock GS with 1.115 Meg of memory and a 2.8 Mhz 65816, and run programs that do the SAME TASK but are programmed only for the machines native ability. IE: Macwrite vs. AppleWorks. Red Ryder vs. ProTerm (or even for that matter Snowterm, which isn't quite as fair of a comparison, because it has only been out for a short time, and the author has admitted that it still needs a bit of work to get it up to par). Run them side by side and see which is more versatile and faster. Also, consider that with Apple II programs, there are always companies (Beagle Brothers springs to mind) that will take an original and improve it 150%. The Mac can be a nice machine. However, I don't have the $10,000 dollars needed to get one, and wouldn't get it if I did. That's where NeXT and Sun MicroSystems come in... > >>/Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu MAIL ME FOR INFO ABOUT CHEAP \ >CDs >>\"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa / >Simpson > > ________________________________________________________________ >| | | >| HEY! They're licking | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | >| FROGS in Colorado!!!! | pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | >|_______________________|________________________________________|
kgreen@pro-angmar.UUCP (Kevin Green) (11/06/90)
In-Reply-To: message from jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Jawaid Exactly, I like the //gs I have, the Mac I use at work, the NeXT machine I dream about....ad infinitum. I am a _computer enthusiast_ and refuse to berate any machine. They all have their places. As for any claims I make about the abilities of a platform...they are to be taken as 'partially' informed. If I knew everything about even one platform, I'd be happy...but I don't. Please feel free to correct any statements I make that have no factual basis.
kgreen@pro-angmar.UUCP (Kevin Green) (11/06/90)
In-Reply-To: message from hzink@alchemy.UUCP I will concede, now, that the Mac line does not multitask. However, if we are to judge which machines _do_ multitask, then only machines such as the "Connection Machine" which use multiple processors, can actually multitask. All other 'multi-tasking' is actually splitting the processing cycles of a single CPU among several 'processes'. By that definition, I'd say even the Multifinder 'multi-tasks'. And if you _really_ want to get technical, there is still only one CPU that can multitask: an organic brain. (And I know of some of those that aren't too good at it...maybe they need System 7 :) )
MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (11/06/90)
OK, here's what an Apple rep (or should I say a MAC rep) just told me about multifinder (BTW, he's also a good programmer and friend, not just an apple 'employee', and he's also president of the Mac users group here in Chatt-Town). He said multifinder DOES allow multi-'pseudo'-tasking. You can, in fact, run two applications simultianeously, BUT, they HAVE to be written for it. I was incorrect in saying that multifinder only allows you to SWITCH between applications (which, BTW, ISN'T multitasking). Anyone know when we're gunna have this for the GS? Hint Hint :) ________________________________________________________________ | | | | HEY! They're licking | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | FROGS in Colorado!!!! | pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |_______________________|________________________________________|
NOWAKO09@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (APPLE //GS - THE POWER TO BE YOUR BEST) (11/06/90)
I don't understand why Apple introduced the GS at all if it was
going to kill it with a line of "low cost" (uh hem) Macs four year later.
Well, actually I do understand. After Wozniak left Jobs tried to
build the company into the giant it has become (and reverting from). He
couldn't do it lacking the necessary buisness ability to make a company grow
without crash and burn. Sooo, he hired John Scully who did have the knowledge,
but Scully became more than a consultant (ah hem) and in the ensuing confusion
know one knew who was staying or leaving let alone try and have a coherent
policy toward the computer that built the company. The Mac literally carved
itself into the computer world when it was introduced. No one (except Xerox)
had every seen anything like it...they gambled the company and it payed off,
sort of. While apple stopped acknowledging that people even bought computers
for there homes and started to fight with IBM for the business market, IBM
held off Apple with its GNP like assests and did and end run into the home
market that BUILT APPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE! So its not that the Apple IIgs
(or earlier IIs) are bad machines or slow or obsolete, its just that at the
time they needed to be marketed the most agressively they where barely
acknowledged because of the internal confusion at Apple. Now Apple is coming
back into the fight but with the Mac again. Oh well, the GS should have been
marketed head to head with the Amiga as a Creativity Machine, because its not
really a buisness computer...it can be used for that but I think thats a waste
of some outstanding sound and graphics. Let IBM do that stuff with bare bones
pickup truck computers. The GS is a Corevette. Not as fast as a Porshe or a
Ferrari but fast and fun and sexy just the same.
- More than 'nuff said.
- Joe Nowakowski
- Nowako09@Snybufva
(bitnet)MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (11/06/90)
On Mon, 5 Nov 90 20:48:39 GMT Doug Gwyn said: > >With a 7MHz clock, the relative speeds are close for typical, COMPARABLE >applications. Note that display update is not a good comparison, as the >color IIGS has to move around much more data than the black-and-white >Mac in order to attain a similar visual effect. Exactly. I agreed that screen update times doesn't have alot to do with the speeds of the two... that's why I talked about internal calculations and overall speed of all the applications I've used on both the GS and the Mac. I want to point something out for those of you who seem to think I'm trying to compare tha Mac to the GS and say it's a better computer. I DON'T LIKE THE MAC!, but, it IS faster. That's the only point I was making. Someone on the net sent me a 4-5 page letter telling me why the GS is a better computer than the Mac. Well, I agree with that. Don't loose sight of the original message and blow it all up so we don't get another 'civil war' going on between us. Also, one point about that 4-5 page letter (I lost it somehow, don't ask how, so I'll post a semi-reply here). The person was talking saying that a certain communications package on the mac was slower than several on the GS, including Snowterm. Well, I'm using snowterm right now and use it every day, and I haven't seen a single mac-app that's anywhere near as slow as this (actually, snowterm is fast, but the mac- app's I've used are even faster (kermit, mac-terminal, and some other one). The person also went on to say that the GS is faster because it has a TEXT mode. Well, that would make screen updates much quicker, but that has nothing to do with the speed of the machine (CPU). He also talked about spell checkers on Appleworks 3.0 compared to some on mac-applications, saying that APWKS 3.0 is faster. Well, it probably is, because it doesn't use the toolbox and an Apple ][ programmer made it, and as we all know, Apple ][ programmers are much more efficient than Mac Programmers :), but that has nothing to do with the SPEED of the MACHINE. >Which is faster depends very much on the application. Right, but put that same application on both a GS and a Mac, with only the absolute necessary changes to make it run on both machines, and it'll be faster on the mac because the macs hardware is, unfortunately, faster. But, of course , if you have a text mode program on the // and port it to the mac, screen writes won't be as fast on the mac because the mac is doing a hell of alot more computations to gett all those bytes to the screen, but do both of them on the same size graphics screen on both computers (I know, they don't share a common screen, but...) and, not only will the 'unseen' computations be quicker, but so will the screen updates be faster on the mac. Using your same logic, that would be like saying a ][+ is faster than a GS because AppleWorks 3.0 is faster than Appleworks GS (I know, not all of it is, but most of it). ________________________________________________________________ | | | | HEY! They're licking | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | FROGS in Colorado!!!! | pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |_______________________|________________________________________|
johnte@microsoft.UUCP (John TERRANOVA) (11/06/90)
In article <9011040755.AA25630@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes: >About the Multifinder and 'multitasking'.... I completely agree with you. >Switching between aplications is NOT multitasking.... Having two applications >both RUNNING at the SAME appearant time IS multitasking, which the Mac does >not do. Hardly! If you're gonna rag on the Mac, you should atleast *try* to find some valid reasons to rag. (Hint: protected memory) So, I can't have "two applications both RUNNING at the SAME appearent time", huh? Maybe you should bop me on the head and tell me "No, you really don't see your program compiling at the *same* time that you document the source code." Yes, boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen, Mac bigots of all ages, my Mac+ can compile my Pascal source, recalc a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet *and* download a file via a remote connection *all while* I use my favorite text editor to comment my source code. And that is only a lowly Mac+. ;-) I am quite the proud Macintosh owner. Is that a crime? I am also quite fond of the Apple II family. Is that a crime, too? Or only a lessor crime? Why don't you quit bitching about what the Mac can or can't do and get back to the main charter of this newsgroup - bitching about Apple Senior Official's plot to kill the II. I'm not sure if that deserves a smiley or not. > ____________________________________________________________________ >| | | >| This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | >| This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | >| This is your brain on frog licking.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | >|____________________________________|_______________________________| -----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------- John Terranova | What the Hell do I know? | I speak/type for me johnte@microsoft.uucp | I come from Waunakee! | and no one else. -----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------- "You look so good; you feel good, too. When they see you shake it, baby everybody's gonna pay attention to you and you and you." --Gerard, Shake It
USERSIG@MTSG.UBC.CA (11/06/90)
>Well, I have worked on both Macs and GS's. OK, Mac's are faster >(even to the naked eye) when using SHR Graphics. But, the beauty of >the GS, and what makes it FASTER THAN A MAC is the implementation >of a TEXT MODE! So it has a text mode. Big deal. Most of the programs that run in text mode are 8 bit programs that don't exploit the potential of the GS. AppleWorks (Classic) is a prime example of this. If it were rewritten as a 16 bit application for text mode only it would be a lot faster, but most GS specific software is written for the graphic interface of GSOS which provides some nice features for both the programmer and the user, but is rather sluggish. >Do a spell check on a text file in both Appleworks (the Classic >version, either 3.0 or the older ones with Timeout installed) and >the Mac (up to say a II, there is QUITE a difference when you cross >that invisible boundary that makes one a II or an SE or +) running >say MacWrite, and see which does the spell check in less time. Come on. Anybody who knows even a minimal amount about Macs can tell you that MacWrite is one of the slowest word processors around. Make your comparisons with the best software on each platform please! Try the spell checker in WriteNow. No software (8 bit or 16 bit) on your GS is going to even come close. >Consider also the amount of memory needed by the Macintrash to do >SIMPLE tasks. Pull out a stock Mac with say 1 meg of memory and >7.0000 Mhz 68000, and then pull out a stock GS with 1.115 Meg of >memory and a 2.8 Mhz 65816, and run programs that do the SAME TASK >but are programmed only for the machines native ability. "native ability"?!? Where on Earth did you acquire this bizarre concept? And resorting to name abuse is not going to gain you any respect among intelligent beings. Are you trying to say the Mac OS is large and requires more memory than GSOS? Gee, last time I checked, you couldn't run AppleWorks GS at all on a 1MB GS but you can run most Mac software including Works and PageMaker on a 1MB machine. Or are you talking about 8 bit software under ProDOS 8? In which case, you are dealing with stuff designed for 64K, so what *is* your point? >IE Macwrite vs. AppleWorks. Red Ryder vs. ProTerm (or even for that >matter Snowterm, which isn't quite as fair of a comparison, because >it has only been out for a short time, and the author has admitted >that it still needs a bit of work to get it up to par). Run them >side by side and see which is more versatile and faster. Bogus comparisons dude. MacWrite is slow but is graphically based. AppleWorks is text based and keeps all data in memory. Try comparing AppleWorks to a memory based text editor like Vantage. No comparison baby - Vantage will search and replace circles around AppleWorks (and I'm talking about using big files like say 512K). To be fair to the GS though, you should pick a 16 bit text editor. I know there are at least a couple of them. The point is, you can make any machine look bad or good depending on how you pick and choose the software to test it. Communications software is not worth comparing when you're talking about machine speed because the bottleneck on virtually any system is the speed of your modem, not the machine or the software. As for features, give me a break. There are a lot more high quality communications programs for the Mac than for the Apple II that cover a much wider range of communications needs. Also you're really not up to date. Red Ryder was replaced by White Knight a long time ago. Sigh, it's hardly worth going on. I'm afraid you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. I am not a Mac fanatic (as you are probably thinking). In fact I started my computing career using Apple IIs (and continue to do so). But I also use IBM PCs and Macs extensively. You just need to be open minded and knowledgeable enough to understand where each machine, OS, and applications have their strengths and weaknesses. >Also, consider that with Apple II programs, there are always >companies (Beagle Brothers springs to mind) that will take an >original and improve it 150%. Open your eyes man. There are a lot more companies fiercely competing for the Mac owner's software bucks and this translates to more applications and more upgrades. Simple economics. There are some really good Apple II programs that I like, but the selection and quality of business, scientific, and utility software on the Mac is way, way ahead. The Mac only lags behind in educational (mainly K-12) software and you can bet this will change over the next few years. >The Mac can be a nice machine. However, I don't have the $10,000 >dollars needed to get one, and wouldn't get it if I did. That's >where NeXT and Sun MicroSystems come in... Boy, now you've really gone off the deep end. Your comparisons are all based on a 68000 Mac like the Classic which is available for just a wee bit less than $10,000. Consider this... a Macintosh LC will sell for about the same money as a comparably equipped GS did this year and is one heck of a lot faster machine with higher resolution colour graphics.
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (11/06/90)
In article <9011060151.AA08822@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes: >>Which is faster depends very much on the application. >Right, but put that same application on both a GS and a Mac, with only the >absolute necessary changes to make it run on both machines, and it'll be faster >on the mac because the macs hardware is, unfortunately, faster. No, that's what I objected to. A 7 MHz-clocked 68000 (not 68040) performs simple computations at approximately the same rate as a 2.8 MHz-clocked 65816. When things get complicated, the 68000's support of a general register set give it an edge. Also, it is harder to generate efficient code for the 65816 via a compiler, due to the warty architecture, and 68000 C compilers have been fairly highly refined by now by dozens of competing vendors. It's kind of pointless to compare Apples to Bananas, or to claim that Bananas taste better. >Using your same logic, that would be like saying a ][+ is faster than a GS >because AppleWorks 3.0 is faster than Appleworks GS ... Not MY logic! That's the sort of non-comparability I was objecting to.
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (11/06/90)
In article <9011060032.AA01528@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes:
[more on MultiFinder's "multitasking" abilities...]
MultiFinder does cooperative "multitasking". It is not a preemptive
multitasking OS. It is less of that than DesqView is.
Just because you can time slice does not mean you have a multitasking
OS. If that were the case any computer could be said to multitask.
I may be picky on this but MultiFinder is NOT a multitasking OS, and if
it were it would be the worst one in history.
Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
[my very own opinions]g8247032@cs.uow.edu.au (George B Zamroz) (11/06/90)
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >In article <9011060032.AA01528@apple.com> MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes: >[more on MultiFinder's "multitasking" abilities...] >MultiFinder does cooperative "multitasking". It is not a preemptive >multitasking OS. It is less of that than DesqView is. >Just because you can time slice does not mean you have a multitasking >OS. If that were the case any computer could be said to multitask. >I may be picky on this but MultiFinder is NOT a multitasking OS, and if >it were it would be the worst one in history. >Philip McDunnough >University of Toronto >[my very own opinions] True, Mac OS is not true multi-tasking OS, but then neither is Microsoft Windows, and they advertise it as true mutiltasking. -- George B. Zamroz, University of Wollongong Masters Student (Computer Science) Internet: g8247032@cs.uow.edu.au
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov6.074110.8104@cs.uow.edu.au> g8247032@cs.uow.edu.au (George B Zamroz) writes: [quotes re MultiFinder etc ...] >True, Mac OS is not true multi-tasking OS, but then neither is Microsoft >Windows, and they advertise it as true mutiltasking. I did not discuss Windows, which is another story. I mentioned DeskView which does allow some flexibility in the time slices alloted to processes. If Mac people are happy with their "multitasking" OS then fine. Just want to make it clear that they aren't kidding everybody. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto->philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions{
dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov5.141931.822@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> q4kx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Joel Sumner) writes: >In article <1990Nov5.060817.22702@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, >torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) writes: >> of running in the background while applications are being worked on in the >> foreground... > >Ok, now, while you are downloading that file, go into the finder and copy a >few files from floppy to hard disk, or, for that matter, save your word >processing file. Notice how quickly all downloading stops. It ain't true >multitasking. "True" is a relative term. You really mean, "It's not Preemptive multitasking," which is a different concept. Under Multifinder (as was pointed out in an earlier article), all applications must agree to multitask. They *must* make periodic system calls (even if unneeded by the app) so that the OS may time-slice properly. The Finder's copy subroutine does not make these periodic calls. Hopefully, System 7.0 will fix that. Multitasking means running more than one process at once. No more, no less. I can turn on a Mac and run more than one process at once - therefore it multitasks. Multitasking ability does not imply memory protection, preemptive interruption, or anything else (although those features make it easier on the author and users). Now, the technique behind it on the mac may be sloppy or incomplete or unsuitable for some people, but it DOES MULTITASK. The GS can do it too. A preliminary version of such stuff appeared in Leapfrog, but I think that only did switching - not multitasking (someone correct me on this). The GS (with the toolbox, and presuming you dump P8 apps) is no less capable of MultiFinder than the Mac is (except that it may be a "challenge" to implement it on the 65816). So there. -- Dave Whitney Computer Science MIT 1990 | I wrote Z-Link and BinSCII. Send me bug dcw@lcs.mit.edu | reports. I need a job. Send me an offer. Every now and then one makes a mistake. Mine was probably this post.
MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (11/07/90)
On Tue, 6 Nov 90 02:40:00 GMT John TERRANOVA said: >Hardly! If you're gonna rag on the Mac, you should atleast >*try* to find some valid reasons to rag. (Hint: protected >memory) First of all, I've stated that I was incorrect in saying that Multifinder doesn't allow multitasking. Second, I WAS NOT ragging Mac. THIRD, I had valid reasons to say that because I use macs everyday WITH multifinder! >So, I can't have "two applications both RUNNING at the SAME >appearent time", huh? Maybe you should bop me on the head >and tell me "No, you really don't see your program compiling >at the *same* time that you document the source code." Yeah, like I've been standing over your shoulder watching you work with your mac and then said it doesn't do it. Also, note that applications do NOT run simultaneously with multifinder UNLESS they're specifically written for it, or at least, that's what the president of the mac users groups, who's also the mac rep for aur university and a darn good programmer, so this time, if I'm wrong, at least I have a *valid* reason to be. >Yes, boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen, Mac bigots of all >ages, my Mac+ can compile my Pascal source, recalc a Microsoft >Excel spreadsheet *and* download a file via a remote connection >*all while* I use my favorite text editor to comment my source >code. And that is only a lowly Mac+. ;-) I think you've miss interpreted the intent of our discussion. No one was ragging the mac, in fact, it started out talking about the fact that the mac IS faster than the GS. >I am quite the proud Macintosh owner. Is that a crime? I am >also quite fond of the Apple II family. Is that a crime, too? >Or only a lessor crime? Is that a crime? Absolutely NOT! Please pay more attention to the messages you read on this net before you start accusing people of being 'bigots'. >Why don't you quit bitching about what the Mac can or can't do >and get back to the main charter of this newsgroup - bitching No one's bitching OR complaining of any kind. You need to be very careful what you say on here, because, as we all know, there are lots of people just itching to flame someone. >about Apple Senior Official's plot to kill the II. > >I'm not sure if that deserves a smiley or not. hehe, me either! >-----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------- > John Terranova | What the Hell do I know? | I speak/type for me >johnte@microsoft.uucp | I come from Waunakee! | and no one else. >-----------------------+----------------------------+------------------------- >"You look so good; you feel good, too. When they see you shake it, baby > everybody's gonna pay attention to you and you and you." --Gerard, Shake It ________________________________________________________________ | | | | HEY! They're licking | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | FROGS in Colorado!!!! | pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |_______________________|________________________________________|
MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (11/07/90)
On Tue, 6 Nov 90 04:04:14 GMT <info-apple-request@APPLE.COM> said: > >It's kind of pointless to compare Apples to Bananas, or to claim that >Bananas taste better. You're exactly right, and I see your point, but we're not talking apples and bananas. I guess you could say we're talking Apples and Apples, even though, they are different species. Anyway, the point is, from the experience I've had with both the mac and the gs (let me point out, I like the GS 1000 times better), the mac definitely seems to run faster even with 'unrefined' programs that were written A LONG time ago with unrefined C compilers (or pascal compilers). >>Using your same logic, that would be like saying a ][+ is faster than a GS >>because AppleWorks 3.0 is faster than Appleworks GS ... > >Not MY logic! That's the sort of non-comparability I was objecting to. Right. And that wasn't directed to you, but the person that sent me that LONG note. (unless you're the person that wrote me the long note... I can't tell, because there's no address with this message.) To Everyone: I have a request: Most everyone agrees that the mac is faster, some don't and from the look of things, nobody's gunna believe otherwise unless we see some benchmarks (I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong), so, let's start talking about Apple ]['s and not macs until someone shows up with some benchmarks for the 65816 vs. 68000 (using assembly language) and just post enough to show which is faster OVERALL. It's not that important to me, but it seems to be to alot of GS users on here. Fair enough? ________________________________________________________________ | | | | HEY people. learn when | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | to use "a" and "an". | pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |________________________|_______________________________________|
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (11/07/90)
Frankly, I care which system is faster, I only care which seems faster. To me a stock GS is about as fast as a Mac Plus. The plus certianly is not three times faster than a GS, no matter what application are being used. UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) (11/07/90)
Flame control set at minimum.... Here we go... > Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.apple2: 6-Nov-90 Re: Apple II / Mac > discusson USERSIG@MTSG.UBC.CA (5168) > >Well, I have worked on both Macs and GS's. OK, Mac's are faster > >(even to the naked eye) when using SHR Graphics. But, the beauty of > >the GS, and what makes it FASTER THAN A MAC is the implementation > >of a TEXT MODE! > > So it has a text mode. Big deal. Most of the programs that run in > text mode are 8 bit programs that don't exploit the potential of the > GS. AppleWorks (Classic) is a prime example of this. If it were > rewritten as a 16 bit application for text mode only it would be a > lot faster, but most GS specific software is written for the graphic > interface of GSOS which provides some nice features for both the > programmer and the user, but is rather sluggish. BUZZ... Ever heard of ORCA/M, ORCA/C, etc. ? Extremely FAST text-based environment. And it's 16-BIT, not ProDOS 8 (note: I'm talking here about the IIgs version of ORCA/M, not the ProDOS 8 version). However, I do agree that the IIgs does not do as good a job at the desktop interface as the Mac does. > > >Do a spell check on a text file in both Appleworks (the Classic > >version, either 3.0 or the older ones with Timeout installed) and > >the Mac (up to say a II, there is QUITE a difference when you cross > >that invisible boundary that makes one a II or an SE or +) running > >say MacWrite, and see which does the spell check in less time. > > Come on. Anybody who knows even a minimal amount about Macs can > tell you that MacWrite is one of the slowest word processors around. > Make your comparisons with the best software on each platform > please! Try the spell checker in WriteNow. No software (8 bit or > 16 bit) on your GS is going to even come close. Possibly true; I haven't worked with enough different Mac programs out > there to know what's considered fast on that machine. > >Consider also the amount of memory needed by the Macintrash to do > >SIMPLE tasks. Pull out a stock Mac with say 1 meg of memory and > >7.0000 Mhz 68000, and then pull out a stock GS with 1.115 Meg of > >memory and a 2.8 Mhz 65816, and run programs that do the SAME TASK > >but are programmed only for the machines native ability. > > "native ability"?!? Where on Earth did you acquire this bizarre > concept? And resorting to name abuse is not going to gain you any > respect among intelligent beings. By "native ability," he means a stock machine; I'm sure that most people out there understood that, although it could have been said a little more clearly. I don't see any name abuse here. > > Are you trying to say the Mac OS is large and requires more memory > than GSOS? Gee, last time I checked, you couldn't run AppleWorks GS > at all on a 1MB GS but you can run most Mac software including Works > and PageMaker on a 1MB machine. Or are you talking about 8 bit > software under ProDOS 8? In which case, you are dealing with stuff > designed for 64K, so what *is* your point? The Mac OS _IS_ large. In fact, it's HUGE. Yes, you can run AppleWorks GS on a 1.25MB GS. And not all P8 stuff is designed for only 64K, either. However, the fact is that there is a LOT of P8 and DOS 3.3 stuff out there that IS designed for 64K or 48K or even 32K that has close to the same functionality as programs that require 1MB or more on a Mac. > > >IE Macwrite vs. AppleWorks. Red Ryder vs. ProTerm (or even for that > >matter Snowterm, which isn't quite as fair of a comparison, because > >it has only been out for a short time, and the author has admitted > >that it still needs a bit of work to get it up to par). Run them > >side by side and see which is more versatile and faster. > > Bogus comparisons dude. MacWrite is slow but is graphically based. > AppleWorks is text based and keeps all data in memory. Try > comparing AppleWorks to a memory based text editor like Vantage. No > comparison baby - Vantage will search and replace circles around > AppleWorks (and I'm talking about using big files like say 512K). > To be fair to the GS though, you should pick a 16 bit text editor. > I know there are at least a couple of them. The point is, you can > make any machine look bad or good depending on how you pick and > choose the software to test it. Ahhh.. But the desktop interface is supposed to be what the Mac is so good at, right? So why is it so slow? And whether a program is desktop or text-based doesn't determine what it can do, only how the user does it. Here, AppleWorks far outperforms MacWrite in most situations, although it's really not a fair comparison since MacWrite is not integrated software. However, AppleWorks also comes pretty close to or exceeds Works in most places. And I haven't seen anything for ANY Mac program like the TimeOut series and other AppleWorks enhancements from Beagle Brothers. > > Communications software is not worth comparing when you're talking > about machine speed because the bottleneck on virtually any system > is the speed of your modem, not the machine or the software. As for > features, give me a break. There are a lot more high quality > communications programs for the Mac than for the Apple II that cover > a much wider range of communications needs. Also you're really not > up to date. Red Ryder was replaced by White Knight a long time ago. Red Ryder BECAME White Knight. Have you SEEN ProTERM? It is an EXCELLENT comm program; it does more than most Mac software I've seen, including White Knight. > > Sigh, it's hardly worth going on. I'm afraid you really don't have > a clue what you're talking about. I am not a Mac fanatic (as you > are probably thinking). In fact I started my computing career using > Apple IIs (and continue to do so). But I also use IBM PCs and Macs > extensively. You just need to be open minded and knowledgeable > enough to understand where each machine, OS, and applications have > their strengths and weaknesses. Well, I AM an Apple // fanatic. And you do sound like a Mac fanatic, at least in this message. I DO know what I'm talking about, and I do understand the different strengths and weaknesses of various operating systems. In this case, I think the original poster does as well. The Mac's major strength is its graphical interface, which makes the machine easier to use. There are other strengths, but I know the IIgs better than I know the Mac. The GS's strengths are its ability to run most Apple // software and the fact that you are not tied down to the graphical interface. True, it has weaknesses. It's not really well suited to the GUI do the the small screen and relatively slow processor (but not as slow as you may think). -------------------- Jeffrey Hutzelman America Online: JeffreyH11 Internet: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: JHUTZ@DRYCAS >> Apple // Forever!!! <<
USERSIG@MTSG.UBC.CA (11/07/90)
>>...but most GS specific software is written for the graphic interface... >BUZZ... Ever heard of ORCA/M, ORCA/C, etc. ? Sure I have. Read more carefully. I said "most", not "all". >>>Consider also the amount of memory needed by the Macintrash... >>And name abuse won't gain you any respect... >...I don't see any name abuse here. Read more carefully. "Macintrash" = name abuse. You don't hear me saying "Granny Smith" or "Goddamn Slow" - whoops. ;-) Really, I should have put a smiley after my comment. I recall myself calling early machines from Tandy "Trash 80s". :) >>Are you trying to say the Mac OS is large and requires more memory >>than GSOS? Gee, last time I checked, you couldn't run AppleWorks GS >>at all on a 1MB GS but you can run most Mac software including Works >>and PageMaker on a 1MB machine. >The Mac OS _IS_ large. In fact, it's HUGE. Yes, you can run AppleWorks >GS on a 1.25MB GS. Granted, the Mac OS is huge, but GSOS is no less huge. If you want a GUI with all kinds of resources for applications to use you're gonna pay big time with memory. Read more carefully. I said a 1MB GS, not 1.25MB. I just happen to have a 1.25 MB GS myself. It barely runs AppleWorks GS with a bare bones setup but if I want Appleshare on as well I'm outa luck. GSOS is every bit, if not more, of a monster as the Mac OS. >However, the fact is that there is a LOT of P8 and DOS 3.3 stuff out there >that IS designed for 64K or 48K or even 32K that has close to the same >functionality as programs that require 1MB or more on a Mac. I totally agree (for once :)). But you could do the same thing on any machine including the Mac if you're willing to code meticulously in assembler, provide a text based interface, and not have to worry about working cooperatively with anything else. >Ahhh.. But the desktop interface is supposed to be what the Mac is soo >good at, right? So why is it so slow? And whether a program is desktop >or text-based doesn't determine what it can do, only how the user does >it. Here, AppleWorks far outperforms MacWrite in most situations, >although it's really not a fair comparison since MacWrite is not >integrated software. However, AppleWorks also comes pretty close to or >exceeds Works in most places. Please read more carefully. I said "MacWrite is slow" and it's not the Mac OS that's the cause. Like I said earlier, compare your favourite Apple II software to fast Mac software like WriteNow and you'll start to realize that good 'ol AppleWorks just ain't so fast. I've edited huge files with AppleWorks and boy do you notice the speed problems associated with bank switching 64K chunks of memory. >And I haven't seen anything for ANY Mac program like the TimeOut series >and other AppleWorks enhancements from Beagle Brothers. AppleWorks needs add-ins because that's the only way you can add capabilities and still stay completely integrated. On the Mac you've got a consistent interface structure among applications, a clipboard to move data among applications, many standard supported file formats, and MultiFinder to let you move quickly from one program to another. All this makes committing yourself to one application with add-ins unecessary. Microsoft Works on the Mac is really an example of unecessary integration that makes too many compromises. Picking really good individual applications is the way to go on the Mac because the OS integrates them for you. GSOS promises a lot of the same, but the fact that people tend to prefer sticking with AppleWorks Classic demonstrates that it just doesn't quite deliver. The problem is probably not really GSOS, but hardware that is too slow and some applications that are too big, too buggy, or too limited. For me, I think it's more the grainy the 200 line resolution that turns me off GUI on the GS. >>Red Ryder was replaced by White Knight a long time ago. >Red Ryder BECAME White Knight. Have you SEEN ProTERM? It is an >EXCELLENT comm program; it does more than most Mac software I've seen, >including White Knight. True. Red Ryder was completely rewritten and then released as Red Ryder 10 before being renamed to White Knight and revised some more. Yes, I have used ProTerm - very nice program and *very* impressive considering the memory space it has to work in. But there are lots of things it doesn't do or do well. I don't even use White Knight, but I do use ZTerm, NCSA Telnet, MacIP, MacKermit, and QDial. None of which are perfect, but they do provide me with capabilities that I need that are not available with any Apple II software. >And you do sound like a Mac fanatic, at least in this message I'm not fanatical about any machine, just realistic. I happen to like the Apple II. I wouldn't have spent countless hours contributing to the Kermit-65 effort if I didn't. You won't find a "Mac fanatic" sweating over 6502 assembler just to give away free to Apple II users. There are things that I like about every microcomputer available, but after using Apple IIs since '81, IBMs since '83, and Macs since '86, there are just a lot more things that I happen to like about the Mac. Call me crazy. Les_Ferch@mtsg.ubc.ca
PYC121@URIACC.URI.EDU (Andy Kress) (11/07/90)
With all this talk about whether a Mac with Multifinder can multitask, I
have a question. I thought the Mac used interupts just as the GS uses
interupts? If this is the case, and as many have pointed out, this is not
true multitasking. You know what though, it does a good job and who really
gives a flying.....well you know what I mean. I use multifinder everyday
here at school and although it crashes, more than I want, I really like it.
If only there was the equivilant for the GS.
Andy Kress
PYC121 at URIACC
Apple II: The power to take over the world!jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) (11/08/90)
>>>...but most GS specific software is written for the graphic interface... >>BUZZ... Ever heard of ORCA/M, ORCA/C, etc. ? >Sure I have. Read more carefully. I said "most", not "all". Those were just examples. True, there are a lot of IIgs applications that use the desktop interface, and I've already admitted that the IIgs just can't handle that interface very well yet. However, there's plenty of text stuff as well, AND the FTA stuff that makes the machine look more impressive than any Mac I've seen (although, admittedly, it takes a LOT of work to produce something that good, and it won't coexist with anything else). >>>>Consider also the amount of memory needed by the Macintrash... >>>And name abuse won't gain you any respect... >>...I don't see any name abuse here. > Read more carefully. "Macintrash" = name abuse. You don't hear me > saying "Granny Smith" or "Goddamn Slow" - whoops. ;-) Really, I > should have put a smiley after my comment. I recall myself calling > early machines from Tandy "Trash 80s". :) Sorry; I didn't even see the (deliberate) misspelling of "Macintosh." I still do call Tandy's early machines "Trash-80s," but I still have one at home (don't use it much), and the Z-80 is a REAL NICE processor compared to the 65xxx series. >>> Are you trying to say the Mac OS is large and requires more >>> memory than GSOS? Gee, last time I checked, you couldn't run >>> AppleWorks GS at all on a 1MB GS but you can run most Mac >>> software including Works and PageMaker on a 1MB machine. >> The Mac OS _IS_ large. In fact, it's HUGE. Yes, you can run >> AppleWorks GS on a 1.25MB GS. > Granted, the Mac OS is huge, but GSOS is no less huge. If you want > a GUI with all kinds of resources for applications to use you're gonna > pay big time with memory. > Read more carefully. I said a 1MB GS, not 1.25MB. I just happen to > have a 1.25 MB GS myself. It barely runs AppleWorks GS with a > bare bones setup but if I want Appleshare on as well I'm outa luck. > GSOS is every bit, if not more, of a monster as the Mac OS. I also have a 1.25 MB GS, and use AppleWorks GS now and then with no problems at all. And I don't have to go to a bare bones setup to do it. I don't normally have many DAs installed because I do a lot of programming (software development in less than 2MB is tough on either platform, but I manage quite well). However, I DO have NiftyList 3.0 installed, which is pretty big for a CDA. Are you using the latest version (1.1) of AWGS? Version 1.0 wouldn't unload a modult ot make room for another; v1.1 will. >> However, the fact is that there is a LOT of P8 and DOS 3.3 stuff out >> there that IS designed for 64K or 48K or even 32K that has close to >> the same functionality as programs that require 1MB or more on a >> Mac. > I totally agree (for once :)). But you could do the same thing on any > machine including the Mac if you're willing to code meticulously in > assembler, provide a text based interface, and not have to worry > about working cooperatively with anything else. Well, not quite. First, the Mac has NO text interface mode. You simply couldn't get the speed of pure text on a Mac; you'd still have to draw all the characters. On the IIgs or most other machines, it's not a matter of providing a text-based interface, its a matter of NOT providing a GUI. Also, on the IIgs, most 8-bit software will support CDA's (nice fast things because they don't use the GUI) with no modification whatsoever. On the Mac, to provide fast text-based stuff you have to almost totally give up the functionality of the Mac OS. On the IIgs, it's simply not true. GS/OS (or the Mac OS, for that matter) isn't really whats all that huge. Its the RAM-based toolsets that take up all thr room. Everytime a tool has to be patched because the ROM verison is old, the tool has to be copied into RAM. This takes up space. Software that requires 1.25 MB on a ROM 01 GS will often run in only 1 MB on a ROM 03 GS, simply because more of the tools and more up-to-date versions are in ROM, and don't take up as much RAM. >> Ahhh.. But the desktop interface is supposed to be what the Mac is >> soo good at, right? So why is it so slow? And whether a program is >> desktop or text-based doesn't determine what it can do, only how >> the user does it. Here, AppleWorks far outperforms MacWrite in >> most situations, although it's really not a fair comparison since >> MacWrite is not integrated software. However, AppleWorks also >> comes pretty close to or exceeds Works in most places. > Please read more carefully. I said "MacWrite is slow" and it's not the > Mac OS that's the cause. Like I said earlier, compare your favourite I'll, admit that; I know there is faster Mac software out there, and I agree that the AW-Classic vs. MacWrite comparison is simply not fair. However, I also compared AW-Classic to MS Works for the Mac, which is a program similar in functionality. And in most places, AW-Classic comes close to or exceeds Works. Naturally, communications is an exception, since AW doesn't have this feature. > Apple II software to fast Mac software like WriteNow and you'll start > to realize that good 'ol AppleWorks just ain't so fast. I've edited huge > files with AppleWorks and boy do you notice the speed problems > associated with bank switching 64K chunks of memory. Yup. Now compare it to faster Apple II software than AW. And if AW is written the way I think it is, it doesn't bother to bank-switch chunks of memory on the IIgs. It does, however, have the disadvantage that it thinks it owns all the memory, and tends to destroy DAs. > doesn't do or do well. I don't even use White Knight, but I do use > ZTerm, NCSA Telnet, MacIP, MacKermit, and QDial. None of > which are perfect, but they do provide me with capabilities that I need > that are not available with any Apple II software. Oh?? I admit that TCP/IP connections such as those provided by NCSA Telnet or MacIP are not yet available on the IIgs, but that's onoly because the software hasn't been written yet. It is being written as we speak. MacKermit?? I know you've heard of Kermit-65 for the //; you mentioned it in your letter. I'm sorry, I haven't heard of ZTerm and QDial, but I imagine you will find Apple // software that can do the same things. > and still stay completely integrated. On the Mac you've got a > consistent interface structure among applications, That's what the desktop interface is designed for, and the IIgs does it as well, if you are willing to stay within the GUI. > a clipboard to move data among applications, The IIgs has a Scrap Manager and a MessageCenter, too. > many standard supported file formats, and MultiFinder to let you move > quickly from one program to another. The IIgs simply can't support something like MultiFinder due to the current design of the Toolbox and OS. However, this can be changed, as LeapFrog demonstrates. > All this makes committing yourself to one application with add-ins > unecessary. Microsoft Works on the Mac is really an example of > unecessary integration that makes too many compromises. Picking In the case of Works, I agree. I prefer to use Word for word processing and Excel for database stuff, but you can't run MultiFinder effectively in only 1MB. > really good individual applications is the way to go on the Mac > because the OS integrates them for you. GSOS promises > a lot of the same, but the fact that people tend to prefer sticking with > AppleWorks Classic demonstrates that it just doesn't quite deliver. Well, as I said, the IIgs just doesn't have MultiFinder yet. So integrated applications are a MUST. And the available IIgs-specific integrated stuff just isn't as good as AppleWorks Classic. People stick with AppleWorks Classic because they already have it, the only upgrade path is to AWGS (I'm not sure even that path exists), and AW Classic does the job better than most of the IIgs-specific stuff available. I have to make one exception for WordPerfect GS, which is an excellent word processor. Unfortunately, WP for the Mac simply doesn't compare to other Mac word processors. > The problem is probably not really GSOS, but hardware that is too > slow and some applications that are too big, too buggy, or too limited. > For me, I think it's more the grainy the 200 line resolution that turns > me off GUI on the GS. Me too. I try to avoid the GUI as much as possible. However, it is possible to get 400 line resolution using the Apple VOC. > there are just a lot more things that I happen to like about the Mac. There are things I like about the Mac as well, but I am primarily an Apple // user and will be for a long time to come. > Call me crazy. OK, I will. You're crazy. :) Maybe I am as well. -------------------- Jeffrey Hutzelman America Online: JeffreyH11 Internet: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: JHUTZ@DRYCAS >> Apple // Forever!!! <<
whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) (11/11/90)
You it's funny... they're right when they say the Mac IS faster... but how much faster... not very much, huh? Don't matter to me... by end of this month I'll be upgrading to a Apple IIgsx thanks to Zip Chip Inc... which will of course FLY pass an SE which is faster than a Plus... Apple can take it's Mac and SHOVE IT... That's only my opinion of course... oh, RAMFast makes my SCSI HD faster than it's possible on a SE... I can upgrade with out having to dish out the amount of money Apple wants... I mean I'd rather get a car then a fx, I don't need al that, thanks
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (11/11/90)
In article <m0iXy7o-0000ucC@jartel.info.com> whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) writes: >Don't matter to me... by end of this month I'll be upgrading to a Apple IIgsx >thanks to Zip Chip Inc... which will of course FLY pass an SE which is faster >than a Plus... >That's only my opinion of course... oh, RAMFast makes my SCSI HD faster than >it's possible on a SE... I can upgrade with out having to dish out the amount >of money Apple wants... I mean I'd rather get a car then a fx, I don't need al >that, thanks Well, I'd like to see some benchmarks... That is, unless you are AFRAID... -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
USERSIG@MTSG.UBC.CA (11/12/90)
>>> However, the fact is that there is a LOT of P8 and DOS 3.3 stuff out >>> there that IS designed for 64K or 48K or even 32K that has close to >>> the same functionality as programs that require 1MB or more on a >>> Mac. >> I totally agree (for once :)). But you could do the same thing on any >> machine including the Mac if you're willing to code meticulously in >> assembler, provide a text based interface, and not have to worry >> about working cooperatively with anything else. >Well, not quite. First, the Mac has NO text interface mode. You simply >couldn't get the speed of pure text on a Mac; you'd still have to draw >all the characters. Good point, but I really wouldn't want a true text only mode on the Mac anyhow. Getting away from all kinds of different 'modes', whether it be text/graphics or different resolutions is a very good thing in my opinion. The world of IBM PCs is the worst for all its 'modes', but the Apple II world is pretty confusing too for the novice. (Not that I'd want to run an Apple IIe in a graphic only mode or anything like that.) Interesting thing to note is that a text editor like Vantage on the Mac which does not support styled text (ie. you must display all your text in one size and style) scrolls about the same speed as a text only program like AppleWorks on an Apple II. >>I said "MacWrite is slow" and it's not the Mac OS that's the cause. >I'll, admit that; I know there is faster Mac software out there, and I >agree that the AW-Classic vs. MacWrite comparison is simply not fair. >However, I also compared AW-Classic to MS Works for the Mac, which is a >program similar in functionality. And in most places, AW-Classic comes >close to or exceeds Works. Ahh, but take a look at an ad for WriteNow and you'll see that Works is even slower than MacWrite. My own experience with Works leads me to believe it is likely the slowest program available for the Mac. There really are very few fair direct comparisons of software that you can make between the Mac and the Apple II because of differing capabilities and differing emphasis on what's important. I can think of a couple I'd like to try if I had the software, such as Vantage versus the fastest 16 bit editor on the GS, and WriteNow reformatting, spellchecking, and search/replace versus the fastest word processor on the GS, but would anyone really care about the results? >>I don't even use White Knight, but I do use ZTerm, NCSA Telnet, MacIP, >>MacKermit, and QDial. None of which are perfect, but they do provide me >>with capabilities that I need that are not available with any Apple II >>software. >Oh?? I admit that TCP/IP connections such as those provided by NCSA >Telnet or MacIP are not yet available on the IIgs, but that's only >because the software hasn't been written yet. It is being written as we >speak. What software is available determines what you can do with a computer. Vapourware is no use to me. That is why a Mac was useless to me years ago when it first came out. I could do far more of the things I wanted to do using an Apple II in 1984/85 than I could with the Mac. But now it's the other way around. >MacKermit?? I know you've heard of Kermit-65 for the //; you >mentioned it in your letter. Whoops, I was thinking of doing graphic terminal emulation, which MacKermit *cannot* do. PC-Kermit can. I should have mentioned VersaTerm, or the Mesa Graphics Terminal program both of which do very nice Tektronics emulation and graphics captures. >I'm sorry, I haven't heard of ZTerm and QDial, but I imagine you will >find Apple // software that can do the same things. Well, ZTerm provides complete ZMODEM protocol support, something that ProTerm may have now (or very soon?). QDial provides fast repeat dialing capability with busy-detect, completely in the background whether you run MultiFinder or not (it works as a vbl task). Gee, I wonder if we've exhausted this topic yet or not? If we haven't exhausted it, we've certainly beat on it pretty good. :) Les_Ferch@mtsg.ubc.ca
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (11/13/90)
>Good point, but I really wouldn't want a true text only mode on the >Mac anyhow. Getting away from all kinds of different 'modes', >whether it be text/graphics or different resolutions is a very good >thing in my opinion. The world of IBM PCs is the worst for all its >'modes', but the Apple II world is pretty confusing too for the >novice. (Not that I'd want to run an Apple IIe in a graphic only >mode or anything like that.) The worst thing about PC's???? It's the BEST thing about PC's... Competition has given PC's the edge over II's and Mac's in terms of graphic performance...EGA (which is now passe as far as PC's are concerned) is a higher resolution than can be had on a Mac (not Mac II's though), Amiga (not 3000 and not interlaced mode) and a GS. VGA can only be equaled by a Mac II (even there it's reeelly slow). A few months ago in BYTE magazine, there was a comparison of the video performance of a Mac II, and a Compaq Deskpro 386 w/ VGA and with TIGA boards...The Compaq smoked the Mac in all areas (it was a review for the Radius Quickcad display list processor - a $1500 coprocessor board to enhance CAD performance - with the board, the Mac could only equal the Compaq w/VGA, and it couldn't touch the Compaq w/TIGA boards (TI 34010s and 34020s) and the board only works for line drawing applications such as CAD.) Sure there are some compatibility problems but it's nothing to worry about...all PC's quickly upgrade to the new standard. Competition forces companies to produce better quality products rather than work within existing limitations...if anything, the graphics options are why PC's have taken the technological lead from Apple. This is why I like Todd Whitsel's idea (though it is not exactly new) of including a video direct slot in any future II's (even though we all know there won't be any). >Les_Ferch@mtsg.ubc.ca ------------------------------ ! Mark Orr ! ! $CSD211@LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU ! ------------------------------
USERSIG@MTSG.UBC.CA (11/13/90)
>>Getting away from all kinds of different 'modes', whether it be >>text/graphics or different resolutions is a very good thing in my >>opinion. The world of IBM PCs is the worst for all its 'modes', but >>the Apple II world is pretty confusing too for the novice. >The worst thing about PC's???? It's the BEST thing about PC's... There's still room for inovation and performance boosts with Mac video. The advantage is simply that the user is not burdened with the hassle of configuring software for the right 'mode' or making sure the software they buy supports the video card they have. If you've ever worked in technical support, managed a large library of software, or were responsible for a network with a mixture of PCs with differing graphic cards, you'd agree that graphic 'modes' are a major pain in the posterior. Compared to the Mac display, IBM was out to lunch until they brought out VGA. CGA is pathetic. EGA is better, but still gives you enlongated pixels (ie. a circle looks like an oval). VGA is fine, but when you get to higher resolutions and bigger screens, the software won't automatically use these better capabilities. you have to get new drivers or new versions of programs to support extended VGA or XGA or whatever. Sure, I agree about the advantages of competition - low, low prices. But that's more a function of the fact that there are gobs of IBM compatibles and clones and all together they make up the vast majority of the market. It really has little to do with what design IBM chose for its display. If IBM had gone with a video design similar to the Mac, there would still be lots of clone cards and they would still be cheap.
jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) (11/13/90)
Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.apple2: 12-Nov-90 Re: Apple II / Mac discusson USERSIG@MTSG.UBC.CA (4071) >>>> However, the fact is that there is a LOT of P8 and DOS 3.3 stuff out >>>> there that IS designed for 64K or 48K or even 32K that has close to >>>> the same functionality as programs that require 1MB or more on a >>>> Mac. >>> I totally agree (for once :)). But you could do the same thing on any >>> machine including the Mac if you're willing to code meticulously in >>> assembler, provide a text based interface, and not have to worry >>> about working cooperatively with anything else. >>Well, not quite. First, the Mac has NO text interface mode. You simply >>couldn't get the speed of pure text on a Mac; you'd still have to draw >>all the characters. > Good point, but I really wouldn't want a true text only mode on the > Mac anyhow. Getting away from all kinds of different 'modes', > whether it be text/graphics or different resolutions is a very good > thing in my opinion. The world of IBM PCs is the worst for all its > 'modes', but the Apple II world is pretty confusing too for the > novice. (Not that I'd want to run an Apple IIe in a graphic only > mode or anything like that.) I have to disagree. A mode in which text is directly generated by the hardware has certain inherent advantages. Note that because of the way the IIgs is designed, all I/O actually occurrs at 1MHz, regardless of the system speed. Thus, even a text-only program on the IIgs is not as fast as it should be. However, I do agree about the PC. > Interesting thing to note is that a text editor like Vantage on the >Mac which does not support styled text (ie. you must display all > your text in one size and style) scrolls about the same speed as a > text only program like AppleWorks on an Apple II. Really? I didn't know there was anything that could draw fast enough to be equivalent to a true text mode. >>>I said "MacWrite is slow" and it's not the Mac OS that's the cause. >>I'll, admit that; I know there is faster Mac software out there, and I >>agree that the AW-Classic vs. MacWrite comparison is simply not fair. >>However, I also compared AW-Classic to MS Works for the Mac, which is a >>program similar in functionality. And in most places, AW-Classic comes >>close to or exceeds Works. > Ahh, but take a look at an ad for WriteNow and you'll see that Works > is even slower than MacWrite. My own experience with Works leads me > to believe it is likely the slowest program available for the Mac. I wouldn't be surprised. I wasn't trying to compare speed in this situation as much as functionality. > There really are very few fair direct comparisons of software that > you can make between the Mac and the Apple II because of differing > capabilities and differing emphasis on what's important. I can > think of a couple I'd like to try if I had the software, such as > Vantage versus the fastest 16 bit editor on the GS, and WriteNow > reformatting, spellchecking, and search/replace versus the fastest > word processor on the GS, but would anyone really care about the > results? I don't know. However, since I don't have the needed software either, we may never find out. >>>I don't even use White Knight, but I do use ZTerm, NCSA Telnet, MacIP, >>>MacKermit, and QDial. None of which are perfect, but they do provide me >>>with capabilities that I need that are not available with any Apple II >>>software. >>Oh?? I admit that TCP/IP connections such as those provided by NCSA >>Telnet or MacIP are not yet available on the IIgs, but that's only >>because the software hasn't been written yet. It is being written as we >>speak. > What software is available determines what you can do with a > computer. Vapourware is no use to me. That is why a Mac was > useless to me years ago when it first came out. I could do far more > of the things I wanted to do using an Apple II in 1984/85 than I > could with the Mac. But now it's the other way around. That's because no one is willing to write for the // anymore. That is largely Apple's fault, although not entirely. >>MacKermit?? I know you've heard of Kermit-65 for the //; you >>mentioned it in your letter. > Whoops, I was thinking of doing graphic terminal emulation, which > MacKermit *cannot* do. PC-Kermit can. I should have mentioned > VersaTerm, or the Mesa Graphics Terminal program both of which do > very nice Tektronics emulation and graphics captures. I admit I have yet to see a Tektronix emulator for the IIgs. However, xterm does a pretty nice one. :) >>I'm sorry, I haven't heard of ZTerm and QDial, but I imagine you will >>find Apple // software that can do the same things. > Well, ZTerm provides complete ZMODEM protocol support, something > that ProTerm may have now (or very soon?). QDial provides fast > repeat dialing capability with busy-detect, completely in the > background whether you run MultiFinder or not (it works as a vbl > task). Yes, ProTerm has done it for quite some time now; at least since early this summer when I bought version 2.2. The Zmodem in v2.1 wasn't much good, but it is quite improved in 2.2. > Gee, I wonder if we've exhausted this topic yet or not? If we > haven't exhausted it, we've certainly beat on it pretty good. :) I think we just about have. Now, let's start beating on IBM. :) > Les_Ferch@mtsg.ubc.ca -------------------- Jeffrey Hutzelman America Online: JeffreyH11 Internet: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: JHUTZ@DRYCAS >> Apple // Forever!!! <<
scottg@gnh-starport.cts.com (Scott Gentry) (11/15/90)
Harry, in your post you say something like... The lack of decenty color capabilities in 640x400 mode hampers any hopes of serious color processing. Welp, dude... All I gotta say is get your hands on a GS that you have control over and I'll show you stuff that will blow your little mind. _______________________________________________________________________________ | Scott Gentry * ALPE AFL Scott * I never said that!| | 2051 Mercator Drive * GEnie W.GENTRY * But you never | | Reston, VA 22091 * UUCP: uunet!ingr!ne1300! * know! | | (703) 264-5652 * brnded!scott * Do You? | |_____________________________________________________________________________|
whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) (11/16/90)
|>Don't matter to me... by end of this month I'll be upgrading to a Apple IIgsx |>thanks to Zip Chip Inc... which will of course FLY pass an SE which is faster |>than a Plus... | |>That's only my opinion of course... oh, RAMFast makes my SCSI HD faster than |>it's possible on a SE... I can upgrade with out having to dish out the amount |>of money Apple wants... I mean I'd rather get a car then a fx, I don't need |all that, thanks | |Well, I'd like to see some benchmarks... That is, unless you are AFRAID... Well, I don't have an SE, but let's put it this way... I can format my ST-296N, which has a 34-blocks per track to 1:1 interleave... writing data is near negliable in most cases because it's done in the back-ground... larger files... I'll get back to you on that... On the SE the best interleave for a 26 blocks per track RLL encoded SCSI HD is 3:1... there's more blocks on the ST296N then normal RLL drives and the RAMFast can read that at 1:1 interleave. I'll get you some benchmarks though...
avery@netcom.UUCP (Avery Colter) (11/21/90)
jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) writes: > Also, on the IIgs, most 8-bit software will support > CDA's (nice fast things because they don't use the GUI) with no > modification whatsoever. Not quite; you have to give $50 of your good money to Roger Wagner for P8CDA... -- Avery Ray Colter {apple|claris}!netcom!avery {decwrl|mips|sgi}!btr!elfcat (415) 839-4567 "I feel love has got to come on and I want it: Something big and lovely!" - The B-52s, "Channel Z"
avery@netcom.UUCP (Avery Colter) (11/21/90)
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes: > For starters, the GS/OS does not support Adobe Laserfonts (nor will it ever > according to apple) and that makes it hellish to do any serious DTP with a > variety of standard fonts. The lack of decenty color capabilities in 640x400 > mode hampers any hopes of serious color processing. The lack of square pixels > makes any precision work like DTP or WP a chore. Hunnh? If the GS's pixels aren't square, then what the hell are they? GS/OS supports some kind of fonts that will print quite nicely on a PostScript printer, that's certain. Although I think Adobe's a major bitch for not making an Imagewriter driver of their own for the GS that could print akin to ATM... -- Avery Ray Colter {apple|claris}!netcom!avery {decwrl|mips|sgi}!btr!elfcat (415) 839-4567 "I feel love has got to come on and I want it: Something big and lovely!" - The B-52s, "Channel Z"
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Sheckel) (11/22/90)
In article <2551702@mtsg.ubc.ca> USERSIG@MTSG.UBC.CA writes: > >Compared to the Mac display, IBM was out to lunch until they brought out >VGA. CGA is pathetic. EGA is better, but still gives you enlongated >pixels (ie. a circle looks like an oval). > True, I was really disappointed with EGA. The resolution is OK (640x350), but the color palette used only 2 bits per primary color for a total of 64 different colors. VGA, however, IMHO, is brilliant. Beautiful graphics from super cheap cards. My friend just bought a VGA card with 1MB video RAM and resolutions up to 1024x768 w/256 colors, for $165. > >VGA is fine, but when you get >to higher resolutions and bigger screens, the software won't automatically >use these better capabilities. you have to get new drivers or new versions >of programs to support extended VGA or XGA or whatever. > This is becoming a non-issue. The only driver you really need nowadays is a Windows driver, and one is included with every VGA card. All Windows applications use whatever graphics mode Windows uses. The other problem is CAD, and VGA cards usually come with tons of drivers for CAD programs. This is all going to change, however, as these CAD programs are ported to Windows and/or OS/2. As for full-screen games, at least 90% of new games use the fantastic VGA game mode (320x200 w/256 colors from a palette of 256K colors). PC graphics have really changed in recent years. Take a look at a VGA game (like Wing Commander) and you'll see how far PC's have gone. Those of you who remember a game called Stellar 7 should check out the brand new PC VGA re-release with solid-shaded 3D graphics. People who dump on PC's these days should really take a second look. -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
MQUINN%UTCVM@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (11/24/90)
On Wed, 21 Nov 90 10:27:54 GMT Avery Colter said: >hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes: > >> mode hampers any hopes of serious color processing. The lack of square >pixels >> makes any precision work like DTP or WP a chore. > >Hunnh? If the GS's pixels aren't square, then what the hell are they? about twice as tall as they are wide (in 640 mode) which makes it very difficult to read black text on a white background (in 640 mode) (at least, for me, anyway). >-- >Avery Ray Colter {apple|claris}!netcom!avery {decwrl|mips|sgi}!btr!elfcat >(415) 839-4567 "I feel love has got to come on and I want it: > Something big and lovely!" - The B-52s, "Channel Z" ---------------------------------------- Michael J. Quinn University of Tennessee at Chattanooga BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm pro-line-- mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com
lucifer@world.std.com (Kevin S Green) (11/30/90)
Man that's wierd. I sent this post (about multitasking) about a month
ago from Pro-Angmar and it is just now appearing on the internet.
I'm glad I post to from The World these days.
--
Kevin S. Green / lucifer@world.std.com / {xylogics;uunet}!world!lucifer
AOL: Gargoth / BIX: Keving / Pro-line: kgreen@pro-angmar