bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman) (09/11/90)
I think Apple has delt the Apple II world a low blow this month. They have announced that effective in October they will drop the Apple II Technical Bulletin which has been published for the past couple of years, and replace it with the Educational Technical Bulletin. The reason being they want to dilute it with Mac items, or perhaps I should say over-run it with Mac items.. as they have already done with user group mailings and developer publications. However the sister publication "Mac Technical Bulletin" remains untouched, and continues to be published (without Apple II items, natch!).. Looks to me like one more vivid attempt to banish the words Apple II from a visible profile.. At this rate, pretty soon they will be calling the company "The Big Mac Computer Company" to further banish the word Apple. -- bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu | bsherman@pro-exchange | MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (09/11/90)
In article <1990Sep11.000230.23140@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman) writes: >I think Apple has delt the Apple II world a low blow this month. > >They have announced that effective in October they will drop the >Apple II Technical Bulletin which has been published for the past >couple of years, and replace it with the Educational Technical Bulletin. >The reason being they want to dilute it with Mac items, or perhaps I >should say over-run it with Mac items.. as they have already done >with user group mailings and developer publications. > >However the sister publication "Mac Technical Bulletin" remains >untouched, and continues to be published (without Apple II items, natch!).. > >Looks to me like one more vivid attempt to banish the words Apple II >from a visible profile.. At this rate, pretty soon they will be calling >the company "The Big Mac Computer Company" to further banish the word >Apple. > >-- > bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu | bsherman@pro-exchange | MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that it's very expensive and not very helpful unless you're in a school lab situation or other heavy-duty, lots of Apple IIs-together lab, where 99% of the customers for this publication are? No, that would be logic, and we can't have that in comp.sys.apple2. -- ============================================================================ Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions represented here are Developer Technical Support, Apple II | not necessarily those of Apple Group. Personal mail only, please. | Computer, Inc. Remember that." ============================================================================
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (09/12/90)
In article <44681@apple.Apple.COM> mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) writes: > >Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that it's very expensive and not >very helpful unless you're in a school lab situation or other heavy-duty, >lots of Apple IIs-together lab, where 99% of the customers for this publication >are? > >No, that would be logic, and we can't have that in comp.sys.apple2. > I have already received enough mail to drive home the point that of all the ill-tempered responses I've posted, this is one of the most. I've previously stated in this newsgroup that it can be a real downer to read because there are a lot of people out there who will treat every move Apple makes, factual or rumored, as another step in the Illuminati-inspired conspiracy to kill the Apple II and drive those who purchased it insane. Although it makes sense to look at the people who were actually purchasing the Apple II Technical Bulletin (to my understanding, mostly schools and dealers, as it's a not-incredibly-thick monthly magazine with A+/inCider types of information and costs $125/year) and gear it more to their needs, even a name change is perceived as an insult and a threat. The customers of this thing (again, TO MY UNDERSTANDING) tend to be schools who have lots and lots of Apple IIs, often connected to Macintoshes through AppleTalk networks. The customers are looking for solutions for problems they'll encounter in such situations (slow network booting, programs that work on many Apple platforms, problems that don't show up often but will if you have lots of Apple IIs together). Since they're paying good money for this, I think it makes great sense to give them what they need. But that's what they need. If it turns out you're not part of that target audience anymore, please don't continue subscribing. Just because Apple publishes a journal doesn't mean we think our customers should behave that way. We also publish _develop_, which has shown how to do CD-ROM audio access programmatically from an Apple II and will, in the next issue, show how to write an Apple IIgs Printer Driver. We don't expect every user to do those things, either. Please don't feel so threatened in your use of the Apple II that an attempt by Apple to please a segment of the customer base is seen as "telling you what to do with your computer." Do what you want. You paid for it. We created it to empower you to do great things. -- ============================================================================ Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions represented here are Developer Technical Support, Apple II | not necessarily those of Apple Group. Personal mail only, please. | Computer, Inc. Remember that." ============================================================================
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (09/12/90)
Matt, Even though I understand your defensive position towards apple, and your valiant efforts to fend back any rumors or murmurs that could indicate the demise of the Apple II series at the hand of Apple Computer, we can not possibly ignore certain facets of Apples moves that do tend to support the idea that Sculley and Co. are not really very interested in pushing the Apple II series - at least not as much as Macintosh. Let us look at the facts: - During the rather pathetic on-line conference several months back on several services, users were told to look for a new and aggressive marketing startegy for the apple II line from Apple. Queried as to print and TV ads, the response was 'we do not believe them to be effective' (or something to that effect). Now I have seen quite a few TV ads for Macintosh and a multitude of print ads for Macintosh - yet none in the same or similar publications for the Apple II. I guess Apple prefers to use ineffective advertising methods solely for Macintosh... Furthermore, I recall that after the 'Gasee-Fiasco', several full page 'state-of-the-apple' ads graced the pages of MacWorld and Macuser and other publications. The 'Open Letter From Sculley' appeared in the GS buyers guide because it was 'free', yet I have not seen any similar efforts or ads with Sculley's letter in A+/Incider, Nibble, or any other Apple II specific publication. Then there is apples presence at the AppleFest (which I hear will be corrected in Dec.) because "it is too costly to attend so many shows". Yet, Apple is there in full force at almost all Macintosh Shows. Need I remind you that there is but one Apple II show, yet several Macintosh shows each year... - A videotape is circulated to 10,000 teachers with Sculley on it that stresses the importance to deliver a loc cost Macintsoh with color to schools, and that Apple will do so. No mention of the Apple II gs, or any evolutionary development on that one... In the wings are the new low-cost Macintosh, which is rumored to have an Apple //e emulation card available for it. As an older issue of Develop stressed, Apple IIe compatibility is much more important for schools that Apple IIgs compatibility. What does that leads us to believe that Apple plans for schools - in my humble opinion, more Macintosh penetration, and less Apple II presence... Need I go on? I do not think so! Now, don't get me wrong, I believe that Macintosh is wonderful technology, and I also think that Sculley has done a pretty decent job in the past to make Apple what it is now. Neverthless, I do believe that the two-faced treatment Apple Computer of this decade is giving the Apple II and its customers deserves the pointing finger and the cry of "J'accuse!". Unless apple is deliberatiely engaged in a policy of disinformation (now, that would be a new one) I believe the signs are rather clear. Furthermore, the apathy of Apple Computer towards its installed Apple II user base, and the lack of education of its user base has created too big a rift, in my opinion, to be bridged by any miraculous new CPU or new development. If Apple had less of a chicken-shit attitude (typical of the corporate mind) and more of the innovation and dedication that gave it its start, maybe we would be better off, and Apple II and Macintosh machines would be in a state of harmony and integration (as they could be). Unfortunately, Apple believe strongly that Macintosh=68000 based, and Apple II=65xxx based - ignoring the fact that both names concern a concept, not an architecture. I respect your efforts, Matt, but I just wish you would be right in your optimism. Unfortunately, we both know what goes on... Harry
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (09/13/90)
Harry, for someone who seems to be on top of things, I find it hard to believe that you can't understand some basic distinctions. We feel television and mass-market print advertising is not cost effective for the Apple II. If we felt it was not cost-effective for all products, we obviously wouldn't do it. Whether that's right or not is a totally separate discussion, but you seem obsessed with the idea that Apple should treat the Apple II exactly like it treats the Macintosh - if one gets print ads, the other should; if one gets new CPUs, the other should; etc. This is, frankly, ridiculous. They're not the same computer and no one around here thinks they are. They're bought for different purposes by different people and spending millions of dollars to satisfy my or yours or anyone's sense of "parity" when it doesn't make economic sense is quite ludicrous. If you need thousands of ads per week from Apple to prop up your choice to buy an Apple II in your mind, then I'm afraid you're going to be perpetually frustrated. We look very carefully at advertising and try to place it where it can do the most good. You see Apple ads for Macintosh a lot, but pay more attention to *where* you see them. You'll note a pattern if you do. Sculley's letter is now appearing in A+/inCider and will be available to other publications if they're interested. It's not an "ad", it's an open letter. That means other people can publish it if they ask for permission. It sounds like what you're looking for is a multi-million dollar effort from Apple to convince the world that the Apple II is the best machine ever, and that you were right to buy one and all those people who make fun of it are just total spam-brains. That's not what we do. We make personal computers to empower individuals to do great things. If you've been empowered, we've succeeded. We're not going to spend money to keep convincing you of this. (Spam, incidentally, is a trademark of Hormel, Inc.) -- ============================================================================ Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions represented here are Developer Technical Support, Apple II | not necessarily those of Apple Group. Personal mail only, please. | Computer, Inc. Remember that." ============================================================================
cromwell@acsu.buffalo.edu (mark j cromwell) (09/13/90)
In article <44737@apple.Apple.COM> mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) writes: >Whether that's right or not is a totally separate discussion, but you seem >obsessed with the idea that Apple should treat the Apple II exactly like it >treats the Macintosh - if one gets print ads, the other should; if one gets >new CPUs, the other should; etc. Any line of computers that doesn't have a new CPU in 4 years in dead or nearly so. The PDP-11 series has had a new CPU in the last 4 years. The Apple hasn't. Apple's Apple II "plan" has fermented anger among it's user base. It is very well deserved anger. - Mark Cromwell
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (09/13/90)
In article <35793@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> cromwell@acsu.buffalo.edu (mark j cromwell) writes: > Any line of computers that doesn't have a new CPU in 4 years in dead >or nearly so. The PDP-11 series has had a new CPU in the last 4 years. >The Apple hasn't. Apple's Apple II "plan" has fermented anger among it's >user base. It is very well deserved anger. I for one have been mystified by the constant flux of new computer models that offer no apparent advantage over others than merely a more recent date of introduction into the market. In fact, some (like the PCjr) have flopped; newer does not mean better. Wasn't the Apple //c+ introduced more recently than 4 years ago? (I honestly don't recall when it was.) A fundamental problem with the Apple II line is that its instruction set architecture depends on the 65xxx series microprocessor, and to put it mildly there hasn't been much improvement in that technology in recent years. WDC has made claims about what COULD be done, but what they HAVE done has not been very impressive. On the other hand, the 68xxx and xxx86 microprocessor families have been in a race for improved speed and capability that have at this point left the 65xxx architecture way behind. Thus, there really isn't a strong competitive position for the 65xxx family now. The main selling point is binary compatibility with existing software, but even that is becoming less of an advantage as less and less commercial software has been produced for the 65xxx family systems in recent years. That is not to say that improved systems using the current 65816 are not possible; they are. However, they're not likely to compete with systems based on more highly developed CPU architectures, and as time goes on the competitive situation will become even worse for the 65xxx machines. (I don't think in the long run the 68xxx and xxx86 architectures are going to win, either, but they certainly dominate the market today.)
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (09/13/90)
In article <44737@apple.Apple.COM> mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) writes: [response to a posting re how Apple markets the AppleII vs. Mac] >We make personal computers to >empower individuals to do great things. If you've been empowered, we've >succeeded. We're not going to spend money to keep convincing you of this. As a supporter of both the GS and the Mac, it's nice to hear that Apple tries its best to place tools in the hands of people so that they may be their creative best. It's a very encouraging statement. I for one would be more likely to do neater things if Apple were to produce a 6-8MHz GS with a graphics' mode for editing which had a proper aspect ratio. The possibility of having a faster GS with a 640x400 or 512x384 mode( even b/w) running an improved AWGS would be wonderful. This would be especially true if there happened to be an AWMac, and that files could be moved between the two. This would provide a bridge between the GS and the Mac and given the ability to read/write Mac disks on the GS and vice versa on the Mac we would all have the best of both worlds. However I do think it would be wise for Apple to indicate to its user base whether or not this is in the cards. The troops are a bit restless! Philip McDunnough Professor of Statistics University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (09/13/90)
In article <44737@apple.Apple.COM>, mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) writes: > It sounds like what you're looking for is a multi-million dollar effort from > Apple to convince the world that the Apple II is the best machine ever, and > that you were right to buy one and all those people who make fun of it are > just total spam-brains. That's not what we do. We make personal computers to > empower individuals to do great things. If you've been empowered, we've > succeeded. We're not going to spend money to keep convincing you of this. > > (Spam, incidentally, is a trademark of Hormel, Inc.) > -- > ============================================================================ > Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions represented here are I bought my Apple //c over six years ago and immediately regretted it. It seems that the Apple // was dead and that Apple Computer itself was in deep trouble. However, while I waited for the funeral I used my //c since I couldn't run out and buy a "real" computer. Six years later the rumours are still flying ( Paul McCartney's got nothing on the // ) and I honestly wouldn't trade my souped up c for anything on the market. No, that's not a [ insert model ] slam. It's just a testimonial from a satisfied customer. bob church bchurch.oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
daveharv@pro-novapple.cts.com (Dave Harvey) (09/13/90)
In-Reply-To: message from bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu > I think Apple has delt the Apple II world a low blow this month. > > They have announced that effective in October they will drop the > Apple II Technical Bulletin which has been published for the past > couple of years, and replace it with the Educational Technical Bulletin. > The reason being they want to dilute it with Mac items, or perhaps I > should say over-run it with Mac items.. as they have already done > with user group mailings and developer publications. > I agree with you that action is a bad sign for Apple II owners but did you notice in that same mailing they announced the publication of "The Apple II Guide". It will be out in late October and will explore a wide range of topics ranging from recent developments in hardware and software to new, exciting Hypermedia and video applications. The way the Guide is planned to be promoted would indicate that user groups can expect potential new members. Each user group will initially receive 25 copies. A flyer will be sent to all Apple Computer Club organizations in mid-Sept. User Groups can sell these Guides. I can see the trend that Apple is taking in regard to the Apple and some of it is not all bad. One of the things that used to gripe me was the apparent division of education user groups from regular Apple user groups. Apple is now attempting to cross pollinate these two groups, I think. One way is to make the Apple II technical bulletin more education oriented. What this tells me is that Apple considers the education market to be stronger than the home market or the small business markets. In that same mailing (September 1990) they encourage educators to contact their local user group and tell them how to do that. They also encourage user groups to start education Special Interest Groups. They also announced a new newsletter and included a copy of "EducatorsConnect". Another positive trend I see is that Apple is still hiring new employees for Apple II related work. proline: pro-novapple!daveharv | uucp: crash!pnet01!pro-novapple!daveharv | Pro-novapple BBS arpa: crash!pnet01!pro-novapple!daveharv@nosc.mil | 300/1200/2400/9600 Baud Internet: daveharv@pro-novapple.cts.com | 703-671-0416 | Northern Virginia Apple Users Group | P.O. Box 8211, Falls Church, VA 22041 |
jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) (09/13/90)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.apple2: 12-Sep-90 Re: A low blow from > Apple Harry K. Zink@alchemy.UU (3738) > I respect your efforts, Matt, but I just wish you would be right in your > optimism. Unfortunately, we both know what goes on... Guys, Even though Matt's reponse was nearly justified, as the publication concerned _was_ rather insignificant, no-one can ignore that it has been more than 4 years since Apple did anything significant to Apple ][ architecture. With the noted exception of System 5.0.2, a commendable job to all involved, nothing repeat nothing has been done to address the issues confronting the Apple // gs, issues such as speed, dealer support, price, and graphics resolution that have been obvious since the machine debuted in 1986. Now, as the fall quarter proceeds, it appears unlikely that a new, faster CPU will appear at all, and nothing has been heard about system 6. Am I wrong? Then upload a product announcement (no more rumors), and by George I'll send you a check! Lots of positive things seem to be happening, like Dave Lyons getting into Tools Development, but nothing tangible. And the only consolation is that a GS appears in a McDonald's commercial involving a preschooler for about 3 whole seconds. Why are there so many rumors that Apple is dropping the line? Probably wishful thinking! Atleast there would be no more suspense, and a company of die-hards like Barney Stone and Applied Engineering could spin-off a new company to do the job right! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ |Jeremy Mereness | Support | Ye Olde Disclaimer: | |jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (internet) | Free | The above represent my| |a700jm7e@cmccvb (Vax... bitnet) | Software | opinions, alone. | |staff/student@Carnegie Mellon U. | | Ya Gotta Love It. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) (09/14/90)
In article <44737@apple.Apple.COM> mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) writes: >Whether that's right or not is a totally separate discussion, but you seem >obsessed with the idea that Apple should treat the Apple II exactly like it >treats the Macintosh - if one gets print ads, the other should; if one gets >new CPUs, the other should; etc. No way, Matt. That argument doesn't fly and you know it. It is reasonable to compare Apple's marketing strategies between its two product lines. Perhaps the Mac campaign is not what the //'s should be, but at present, there IS NO // CAMPAIGN!! And we see that as representative of Apple's regard for the Apple // and that customer base. Except for the grade-school base and word-of-mouth, no Apple //'s would be sold to anyone. I stick with the machine because of loyalty and what I perceive as its unanswered potential. It did not size up in 1984 to the competition, and it certainly doesn't now. Apple's neglect in delivering a powerful product has driven away all but a few software companies. University CS departments don't even know what a //gs is, and the brightest development talent is lured away from the machine in favor of something that delivers power TODAY. You seem to imply that Apple "knows what it's doing" with the Apple // and shouldn't be questioned, much less compared to Mac'vertizing. But the Mac demonstrates what resources the company has, and how it will use them when motivated. This is not appearing for the Apple //. Thus, fewer companies produce things for it, ultimately making it less useful to the consumer. If not for Claris, Stoneware, and Beagle, where would the // be? Matt, this board had been quiet about this issue for a time. But this community is too talented and informed to stay quiet for long. And despite the efforts at Kansasfest and other demonstrations of support, Apple has not delivered an improved product, nor have they relinquished any rights so that other companies may step in and take over (read: they haven't dropped the Apple //). Neglect is a sorry state to be in, especially when compared to Apple's prodigal Mac. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |Jeremy Mereness | Support | Ye Olde Disclaimer: | |jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (internet) | Free | The above represent my| |a700jm7e@cmccvb (Vax... bitnet) | Software | opinions, alone. | |staff/student@Carnegie Mellon U. | | Ya Gotta Love It. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (09/14/90)
heels on the 65c832 part. Indeed, I doubt that chip would be worth it. What the Apple II line needs right now is a 65020 chip! Anyone got a million dollars they want to invest? *** Randy Hyde O-)
mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com (Mike Ungerman) (09/14/90)
In-Reply-To: message from mattd@Apple.COM Matt, you are obviously not a "marketeer", as I can tell from your signature. A true maketeer would spend what was necessary wherever it was necessary to sell his product. If Apple wanted to sell the Apple ][, it would market it. Apple doesn't market it very well, so I can only assume, as thousands of other have already assumed, that Apple doesn't want to sell the ][ any more. You don't have to change our minds, or the minds of most who read this newsfeed. But Apple does have to change the mind of John Q. Public who is trying to decide on what computer to buy. If he doesn't see ads in Apple related magazines, if he doesn't see ads in computer magazines generally, if he doesn't see ads on TV or radio, if he doesn't hear about the computer from any other media, then most probably he won't buy an Apple ][. Your company CAN make a difference. If it doesn't influence the buyer, then it won't sell the product...simple! I am a teacher and a consultant. I am asked all the time what computer to buy. If I recommend the Apple ][, it is usually because the person wants the same type of computer at home that his kid has at school. Otherwise I recommend an IBM clone; it's what the person wants to hear and what they see in the mass media. If Apple offered a compact, ][ based, computer with the same capabilities and mass storage that a typical 286/386 Hard Drive based machine offered, I'd recommed it, but you don't. As a developer, if you don't develop and market a competitive product you are out of the market, and right now, you are right out of the market with the Apple ][GS unless someone knows what he wants from the start. Good Luck, you'll need it. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mike Ungerman |Proline:mikeu@pro-magic Pro-Magic BBS: 407-366-0156 |uucp:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu 300/1200/2400/9600 Baud 24hrs |arpa:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu@nosc.mil Apple Tree of Central Florida, Inc |Internet:mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com Orlando, Florida|Voice:407-366-0060|Compuserve:71326,31 Prodigy: JSNP58A
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (09/14/90)
Matt, I would like to respond to your response. It seems to me that you are reading more into my original message, and that I apparently have not clarified myself too well. I am not asking apple to either launch a multi-million dollar ad campaign to push the GS; I am fully aware that the two machines are quite different and destined for different individuals; I am not asking that apple treat the GS as it does the Mac; I understand that you (and many other people at apple) build toopls to empower people. Nevertheless, as I have stated, the visible facts displayed by apple marketing and administration do not indicate any *relevant* support for the Apple IIgs platform. Sure, you are right that you build machines to empower people, but I am sure that you of all people know the importance of SUPPORT to the end user, as well as the need to provide the end user with what they need and what the technology can give them. Similarly, I am sure you will agree with the need of any sane computer company to support third party soft and hardware manufacturers and to convince them that the platform they are working for is a viable one. Your whole effort to empower people falls flat on its face if all you do is provide the machine to the end user and then let him figure it out on his own, in fact, making sure he realizes that he is now on his own, without a net. That is precisely what it seems like apple has done the past few years. Once again, let me expose a few facets of this problem: - Apple has not, since the introduction of the GS, released any significant upgrade to the machine. I do not consider the addition of 1 megabyte on the motherboard, and fixes to the sound and video circuitry any significant upgrades. Those were 'maintenance' releases at best. While every other computer maker has models (Amiga, Atari,...) that can run circles around the GS in many areas (except, I admit, sound...), apple seems to believe that a 2.8Mhz machine, with 640x200 resolution and 16 (forced colors) for apple prices is a great deal. Unfortunately, it isn't. - Apple has never, since the introduction of the GS, specified and pursued any specific markets for the GS (except education). The introduction of the overlay card, though introducing neat new technology, was too late as desktop video has been dominated by the Amiga by then. Plus, considering the price of an apple IIgs desktop video system, the Amiga is still more price competitive (ignoring the lack of any desktop video software..) - Apple still does not continue to inform the public (or even its dealers in some cases) that the Apple II exists. You see, Matt, empowering people is nice and jolly, but people need to be informed about what can empower them. Apple falls flat on its face on that one, except in the Soviet Union (and the only reason Apple advertises in the Soviet Union is because the 65xxx series CPU can be imported to the USSR, while the higher level 68xxxx can not. Also, the apple II is more familiar in the USSR than the Mac [at this moment]). I am not asking for miracles from apple, but I would like to see some actions and signs from those ivory towers that they do continue to support the Apple II platform. Furthermore, your statement that your sole job is to built tools for people so they can be empowered sounds very grabdiose, but I refuse to believe that you are ignorant as to the importance of marketing and market positioning. If you build a better mousetrap, the world will NOT beat a path to your door, unless you tell it about it. The impression I am getting right now (and judging by other people's comments I am not alone in that view), is that apple is so caught up in Macintosh that they simply do not place any emphasis on the Apple II line. A computer can only empower people if they are told how it can do so, and right now no one at apple seems to be the least bit interested in telling people how the apple II can empower them. In fact, I am sure you do not believe yourself that people have sudden visions of the right computer when they are looking to solve a problem. PLease, Matt, tell me how can your tool empower people, if they do not know about it. In fact, please tell me how can the Apple II in its current state empower people. Taking it on step further, in what ways can the Apple II empower people better that Macintosh can if they were both on the same price platform? I'm really curious about this. You see, I know what can be done on the platform, but all I see is that apple has successfully irritate a good portion of its user base, managed to turn third parties away from the GS (while continuing well to push them to the Mac - in fact, a wonderful Macintosh version of Rescue Raiders is available now...) - in other words, apple is giving a good indication that the platform is dead and that it does not care about it. Now, what kind of a person wouold invest in a platform that is sending such 'vibes'? Not many I am sure, and many buyers for which an adequet GS system would have been enough, are now buying either Macs or PCs. Building tools to empower people is a good thing to do, Matt, but it is equally important that these tools remain alive in order to be useful. Harry
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (09/14/90)
In article <4395@crash.cts.com> mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com (Mike Ungerman) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from mattd@Apple.COM > >If Apple offered a compact, ][ based, computer with the same capabilities and >mass storage that a typical 286/386 Hard Drive based machine offered, I'd >recommed it, but you don't. As a developer, if you don't develop and market a >competitive product you are out of the market, and right now, you are right >out of the market with the Apple ][GS unless someone knows what he wants from >the start. And what processor would this machine be based on? Would it be less expensive or more expensive than that OTHER line of Apple computer that I'm not going to mention. (Hint-- R&D to invent the processor is expensive) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
bbean@pro-grouch.cts.com (Bruce Bean) (09/15/90)
In-Reply-To: message from mattd@Apple.COM How can I subscribe to _develop_ ? It sounds like what I need, if you don't have to invest $2-300 dollars a year as an Associate Developer or some such. Bruce Bean UUCP: crash!pro-grouch!bbean ARPA: crash!pro-grouch!bbean@nosc.mil INET: bbean@pro-grouch.cts.com
mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com (Mike Ungerman) (09/15/90)
In-Reply-To: message from hzink@alchemy.UUCP Good comments, Harry. You've pointed out the key reason why Apple, Inc may fall on it's face over Apple ][ sales in the future: People don't know about it's availablility or support. In November, the largest computer trade show held in the world, Comdex, will be held in Los Vegas. Over 300,000 people are expected to attend based on prior attendance figures. Will Apple be there? If they are there, will they be marketing Apple ]['s and peripherals? Will Claris be there? Will they be marketing Apple ][ software? Will third party hardware and software developers for the Apple ][ be there? If the answer to the above questions are "no, why should we? It's an IBM based trade show" then you all know why the Apple ][ is a dead horse, white elephant or whatever. It will have no future without an active marketing campaign and participation by Apple, Inc. [flames intended] ______________________________________________________________________________ Mike Ungerman |Proline:mikeu@pro-magic Pro-Magic BBS: 407-366-0156 |uucp:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu 300/1200/2400/9600 Baud 24hrs |arpa:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu@nosc.mil Apple Tree of Central Florida, Inc |Internet:mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com Orlando, Florida|Voice:407-366-0060|Compuserve:71326,31 Prodigy: JSNP58A
philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) (09/16/90)
In article <35793@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> cromwell@acsu.buffalo.edu (mark j cromwell) writes: > Any line of computers that doesn't have a new CPU in 4 years in dead >or nearly so. Would you please explain how you arrive at this conclusion, after defining what you mean by "dead"? I keep thinking about this but it just won't sink in. Clearly, one uses tools which are appropriate for the task. I don't run large scale simulations on micros at all. They require a Cray. But much can be done with 65816's, 8086's, 68xxx,etc...which is both useful and enjoyable. The GS is not in the engineering workstation race. Do you feel it should be? Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
lhaider@pro-grouch.cts.com (Laer Haider) (09/18/90)
In-Reply-To: message from mattd@Apple.COM >In article <1990Sep11.000230.23140@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> >bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman) writes: >>I think Apple has delt the Apple II world a low blow this month. >> >>They have announced that effective in October they will drop the >>Apple II Technical Bulletin which has been published for the past >>couple of years, and replace it with the Educational Technical Bulletin. >>The reason being they want to dilute it with Mac items, or perhaps I >>should say over-run it with Mac items.. as they have already done >>with user group mailings and developer publications. >> >>However the sister publication "Mac Technical Bulletin" remains >>untouched, and continues to be published (without Apple II items, natch!).. >> >>Looks to me like one more vivid attempt to banish the words Apple II >>from a visible profile.. At this rate, pretty soon they will be calling >>the company "The Big Mac Computer Company" to furthe banish the word >>Apple. IIs-together lab, where 99% of the customers for this publication >are? > >No, that would be logic, and we can't have that in comp.sys.apple2. > >-- >============================================================================ >Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions represented here are >Developer Technical Support, Apple II | not necessarily those of Apple >Group. Personal mail only, please. | Computer, Inc. Remember that." >============================================================================ Don't be a jerk Matt. You know what he's concerned about. I think we all do. It just looks like another sign of lowering the level of support for the Apple II platform of personal computing (sound logical?). Admit it to yourself and to the rest of comp.sys.apple2; Apple Computer, Inc. hasn't been doing much for the II line for years. Sure, there's been a few neat things; just not much of a showing of any commitment to it. I think deep down, we all feel the end nearing for Apple II(xx) support, and it's got us all a bit uneasy, especially when we hear negative news. Show a little support and explain the moves Apple is making if you see one of us getting uneasy. Don't be a jerk about it. -- / \ / / \\\' , / // ______________________________________________________ \\\//, _/ //, Laer Haider (lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com) \_-//' / //<, /\\ (lhaider@pro-grouch.cts.com) \ /// <//` //\\\ / >> \\\`__/_ ///\\\\ My employer doesn't know who I am. /,)-^>> _\` \\\ ////\\\\\ The opinions expressed here belong to (/ \\ / \\\ // IIgs \\\ no person or group living or dead! // _//\\\ ------------------------------------------------------ ((` (( UUCP: crash!pro-grouch!lhaider ARPA: crash!pro-grouch!lhaider@nosc.mil INET: lhaider@pro-grouch.cts.com
cromwell@acsu.buffalo.edu (mark j cromwell) (09/18/90)
In article <15184@yunexus.YorkU.CA> philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: >Would you please explain how you arrive at this conclusion, after defining what >you mean by "dead"? I keep thinking about this but it just won't sink in. Dead = no one will buy it anymore, or possibly that no one will write software for it, or possibly no one will use it anymore. But actually, I meant Apple wants the series dead. The fact that Apple hasn't put out a significant new Apple II box in 4 years proves they are trying to kill it. In this business where processing power doubles every 5 years, the Apple II has languished with performance less than that of any competitor in the same price range. With each passing month that Apple Computer fails to bring out an Apple II with a better price/performance the deader the series gets deader. The software industry seems to recognize that Apple wants the II dead. How many new Claris Apple II products have there been in the last 4 years? How many companies do you know that dropped the II? Apple Computer could have easily brought out a machine with double or more the speed, competitive graphics and competitive pricing. The fact that they have not leads me to one of two conclusions: 1) they are incompetent, 2) they want to see the series to die. Apple has done nearly everything they could to make the series rot on the vine. I would be very happy if Apple would come out tomorrow with a box that was competitive with a 4 year old Amiga. But alas it seems they want us all to buy $2000+ monochrone Macs with a $500 card to run old Apple IIe stuff. As far as Apple is concerned, it seems they think the line is dead. >Philip McDunnough >University of Toronto >philip@utstat.toronto.edu >[my opinions] - Mark Cromwell
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (09/19/90)
In article <36597@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> cromwell@acsu.buffalo.edu (mark j cromwell) writes: [ lots of stuff re the GS being dead, lack of hardware improvements,etc...] >Apple wants the series dead. The fact that Apple hasn't put out a significant >new Apple II box in 4 years proves they are trying to kill it. Why? I don't agree. > In this business where processing power doubles every 5 years, the Apple II >has languished with performance less than that of any competitor in the same >price range. With each passing month that Apple Computer fails to bring out >an Apple II with a better price/performance the deader the series gets deader. >The software industry seems to recognize that Apple wants the II dead. How >many new Claris Apple II products have there been in the last 4 years? How >many companies do you know that dropped the II? Faster computers,etc... are not what everyone needs/wants. If that were the case I would recommend you get a RISC computer or a 486 etc...I do agree that the price of the GS has to be lowered. I also would love to see a faster( not too fast) GS with a good monochrome resolution which makes use of monitors used by the lower end Mac products. As far as companies dropping support of the GS, many have and new ones have come in. If there's a market you can be sure it will be filled. Actually processing power increases faster than you state. That doesn't mean that the market at which the GS is aimed at needs it. Take a look at IBM's PS/1 which is doing quite well. It's hardly a technological giant. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) (09/19/90)
Actually, If you look in the latest issue of A+ Scully's letter is in that one.
Right near the front.
mark
[ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142 300/1200/2400 baud]
ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo America Online: Goalie5
UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin MCI Mail......: MSteiger
Internet:penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com
ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin@nosc.mil
*******************************************************************************
h-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:05:03) Rcvd: 607 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:05:43) Rcvd: 3985 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:06:08) Rcvd: 1576 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:06:35) Rcvd: 1717 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:06:54) Rcvd: 614 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:07:14) Rcvd: 544 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:07:37) Rcvd: 1269 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:08:07) Rcvd: 2369 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:08:31) Rcvd: 1347 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:08:54) Rcvd: 1252 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:09:23) Rcvd: 2225 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:09:55) Rcvd: 2617 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:10:16) Rcvd: 871 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:10:37) Rcvd: 889 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:10:59) Rcvd: 988 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:11:25) Rcvd: 1601 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:11:44) Rcvd: 613 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:12:03) Rcvd: 343 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:12:24) Rcvd: 769 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:12:50) Rcvd: 1744 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:13:10) Rcvd: 626 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:13:32) Rcvd: 1093 bytes to: gnh-igloo!info-apple
(09/17/90 04:13:56) Rcvd: 1288 bytes to: gnh-igloo!ebbs-support
(09/17/90 04:14:23) Rcvd: 1917 bytes to: gnh-igloo!ebbs-support
(09/17/90 04:14:57) Rcvd: 2982 bytes to: gnh-igloo!ebbs-support
(09/17/90 04:15:20) Rcvd: 1132 bytes to: gnh-igloo!ebbs-support
(09/17/90 04:15:29) CONNECTION TERMINATED: carrier lost... (elapsed: 00:14:45)
(09/17/90 04:19:40) COMPLETED: 34 inbound letters processed
(09/17/90 04:45:06) Dial : GNH-STARPORT (1-703-931-0947), 0 msgs waiting
(09/17/90 04:45:41) Modem: CONNECT 2400
(09/17/90 04:46:00) CONNECTION TERMINATED: carrier lost... (elapsed: 00:00:18)
(09/17/90 05:25:05) Dial : PRO-PARTY (1-512-882-1899), 1 msgs waiting
(09/17/90 05:25:42) Modem: NO CARRIER
(09/17/90 05:50:05) Dial : PRO-PARTY (1-512-882-1899), 1 msgs waiting
(09/17/90 05:50:40) Modem: CONNECT 2400tribby@hpindwa.HP.COM (David Tribby) (09/20/90)
I read comp.sys.apple2 mainly for technical content, and skip most opinions. However, cromwell@acsu.buffalo.edu (mark j cromwell) recently wrote some things that seem to capture the feelings of a great number of posters, and with which I disagree... > ... But actually, I meant > Apple wants the series dead. The fact that Apple hasn't put out a significant > new Apple II box in 4 years proves they are trying to kill it. Corporations exist primarially to make profit. If they don't make a profit, they don't exist for very long. They don't pay a staff of developers and support engineers in order to kill a product. > In this business where processing power doubles every 5 years, the Apple II > has languished with performance less than that of any competitor in the same > price range. The performance of the IIGS doubled when they released system 5.0. The toolbox and GS/OS had significant speed improvements, an effort that required a major investment of time and effort. For a bit of fun, boot up your original system disk and see how fast the Finder runs...or is your original (like mine) old enough to contain that funky black & white version. Things HAVE changed! > With each passing month that Apple Computer fails to bring out > an Apple II with a better price/performance the deader the series gets deader. The ROM 03 machine wasn't a big change, but it did include an extra meg of memory at no extra charge. That improved the price/performance ratio. > Apple Computer could have easily brought out a machine with double or > more the speed, competitive graphics and competitive pricing. "Easily"? Have you ever worked on a project to bring out a computer system that's both a big improvement and compatible with the existing systems? > The fact that > they have not leads me to one of two conclusions: 1) they are incompetent, > 2) they want to see the series to die. How about: Apple is not willing to risk money on new hardware because they don't believe they can recover their investment. > Apple has done nearly everything they could to make the series rot on the > vine. I'm sure they could have done at least a *few* more things :-) ... Actually, Mark and I agree on a number of topics. Apple II owners have felt out of Apple's mainstream since the Apple III came out, followed by emphasis on the Lisa and Mac. We'd like to see an improved, faster processor and better graphics. We'd like more independent developers to write software for it. But I get tired of so many authors assigning evil motives to Apple. I figured this once Matt D. wouldn't have to be the one to respond! --Dave "I don't work for Apple, but I once sent them a resume" Tribby - - - - - ARPA: tribby%hpda@hplabs.HP.COM UUCP: hplabs!hpda!tribby
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (09/20/90)
>Faster computers,etc... are not what everyone needs/wants. It's what I need and what I want. The speed (or shall I say, LACK OF) is probably the biggest reason so many software companies have pulled. Even though new companies are being started, more are pulling out. How many GS specific (or //e) games have come out in the last year? How many for the Amiga? >I also would love to see a faster( not too fast) GS I don't think it's possible to have a computer 'too fast'. If Apple decided to make the GS 100Mhz, That'd definitely be better than 4Mhz (If price weren't an issue, of course). >Actually processing power increases faster than you state. That doesn't >mean that the market at which the GS is aimed at needs it. Take a look >at IBM's PS/1 which is doing quite well. It's hardly a technological >giant. Take a look at it's speed (what? 10Mhz?) and it's graphics-->VGA! I don't think anyone's asking for the GS to be a technological giant (but if they make it that, I won't gripe :), but at least equal to other computers in it's price range. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | | This is your brain on whole wheat.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|
scottr@gnh-applesauce.cts.com (Scott Rothstein) (09/20/90)
Apparently, Apple felt that ][ compatibility was more important than making a truly great machine. We could have had a fast machine -- they cut it back to fit the architecture for the older ]['s. scottr@applesauce.bb.ny
macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Robert MacAusland) (09/21/90)
Scott Rothstein said >Apparently, Apple felt that ][ compatibility was more important than making a >truly great machine. We could have had a fast machine -- they cut it back to >fit the architecture for the older ]['s. >scottr@applesauce.bb.ny I think that about sums it all up. I would gladly give of ][ compatibility in order to make the GS the machine it should have been in the first place. -- /* Robert MacAusland -> macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca */
unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu (The Unknown User) (09/21/90)
>Robert MacAusland said: >>Scott Rothstein said: >>Apparently, Apple felt that ][ compatibility was more important than making a >>truly great machine. We could have had a fast machine -- they cut it back to >>fit the architecture for the older ]['s. >>scottr@applesauce.bb.ny > >I think that about sums it all up. I would gladly give of ][ compatibility >in order to make the GS the machine it should have been in the first place. There is no way I can understand this mentality. If you don't want Apple II compatibility, GET AN AMIGA OR A MAC II or some other machine. You may think I'm not being "faithful" to the Apple II, but that's JUST what I'm being! I think I'm one of the people that harp the most about being fauthful to the Apple II. But I see no reason in having a "GS" that's not Apple II compatible. Are you talking about a machine based on a 65816? -WHY- if it's not II compatible? I am ABSOLUTELY serious. Something, ANYTHING, with hardware multiply and divide instructions would have a major advantage at least in that one aspect.. (Anything math related would be faster on an otherwise similar speed CPU as far as I can tell). Also, it sure wouldn't bode well for Apple to have -3- different types of machines when they don't seem to be supporting two equally as well as it is. You mean for a "GS" you want a machine with neat graphics and good sound? Get an Amiga. (But it doesn't have sound anywhere near as good as the GS we currently have that's II compatible!) I just wish someone could explain this mentality. Jeez, I screamed a lot in this post too, huh? (heh heh). -- / Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu \ \If cartoons were for adults, they'd be on in prime time./
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (09/21/90)
In article <0093CF947DB21A40.00000110@dcs.simpact.com> scottr@gnh-applesauce.cts.com (Scott Rothstein) writes: >Apparently, Apple felt that ][ compatibility was more important than making a >truly great machine. We could have had a fast machine -- they cut it back to >fit the architecture for the older ]['s. ARGH!! I am sick of people saying this!! The speed of the 65816 was (and still is) WDC's problem and had nothing to do with the ][ compatibility at all. ][ compatibility should not be blamed for the 1 mhz bottleneck, either. It was Apple's decision to use the Mega II chip. Worse, it was their decision to keep using it for something it was never designed to do. Apple knows how to fix the GS without losing any of its features. The problem is that they won't actually do it unless they think it's an efficient use of resources. That's a loaded statement and I won't beat the arguments to death anymore; I just wish Apple management would quit running from the truth. I wish Ralph Russo the best of luck. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) (09/21/90)
In article <9009200536.AA27514@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: > >>Faster computers,etc... are not what everyone needs/wants. > >It's what I need and what I want. The speed (or shall I say, LACK OF) is >probably the biggest reason so many software companies have pulled. Even >though new companies are being started, more are >pulling out. How many GS specific (or //e) games have come out in the last >year? How many for the Amiga? If it is speed you want, then why not get a 486. The 386/486 are probably the best price/performance computers you will find if speed is the only issue, which I do not agree with. Why do people keep bringing up the Amiga? I'm frankly getting annoyed at the analogy. There is more to computing than games. In fact the percentage of games worth buying is very small. There are excellent opportunities for people to come out with a whole new approach to computer games, now that we have CD-ROM's, Hypermedia,etc... It will be refreshing to finally see computers differ from the mundane one theme games that have been with us for years. There are a few good arcade type games( from Taito, Xenocide,etc...) but count the number of games on the Amiga and multiply by $40 and see what you get. People can't afford to be buying every little 2 minute attention getter. The GS is in a very good position of having excellent sound tools, new animation tools, great connectivity to Macs and even to Unix systems. Sure we probably could do with a faster GS and slightly better graphics. I feel these will come. If they don't, I have a wonderful computer with some great software to last me years. The other thing you are forgetting when bringing up the Amiga is the quality of the people who work at Apple. The GS's OS is just great. I use and like the Mac. I really like the GS. Both are way ahead of any other micro OS with wide acceptance that I'm aware of. The PS/1 may have VGA and a 10MHz 286, but it doesn't have GS/OS. I'm not putting the PS/1 down as I think IBM is thinking along the right lines for what people want at home. I also think that Apple is in a very good position to be extremely competitive in that area, using both the GS and the Mac. > >>I also would love to see a faster( not too fast) GS > >I don't think it's possible to have a computer 'too fast'. If Apple decided >to make the GS 100Mhz, That'd definitely be better than 4Mhz (If price weren't >an issue, of course). That's a very BIG "of course". Faster computers require expensive supporting structures. We aren't at the point of being able to produce these at a reasonable cost. That being said, I do feel an increase in speed for the GS is called for. I don't need workstation speed, nor does the GS. > >>Actually processing power increases faster than you state. That doesn't >>mean that the market at which the GS is aimed at needs it. Take a look >>at IBM's PS/1 which is doing quite well. It's hardly a technological >>giant. > >Take a look at it's speed (what? 10Mhz?) and it's graphics-->VGA! I don't >think anyone's asking for the GS to be a technological giant (but if they >make it that, I won't gripe :), but at least equal to other computers in it's >price range. Well, we will have to see what Apple has in mind, but many PC "power users" are unlikely to be happy with the 10MHz 286 and are probably having the same conversation we are having here in another forum. Also, don't forget that the GS has an excellent OS, networking, a well-defined SCSI and connections to the Mac which you won't find with the PS/1. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
THINGVOL@LAX.WISC.EDU (09/21/90)
>The speed of the 65816 was (and still is) WDC's problem...
-Todd Whitesel-
What do you mean the speed was WDC's problem? Apple never bought the chips from
them. WDC is capable of producing faster chips and DOES sell faster chips but
Apple is/was not buying from them.
Daniel Thingvold thingvol@lax.wisc.edu thingvol@uwlax.bitnetshatara@islnds.enet.dec.com (Chris Shatara) (09/22/90)
In article <54240009@hpindwa.HP.COM>, tribby@hpindwa.HP.COM (David Tribby) writes... > >But I get tired of so many authors assigning evil motives to Apple. I figured >this once Matt D. wouldn't have to be the one to respond! > >--Dave "I don't work for Apple, but I once sent them a resume" Tribby > Thanks Dave for writing a great note. I too share you feels and appreciate you taking the time to buck time tide. ============================================================================= | Chris Shatara | Internet: shatara@islnds.enet.dec.com| | Opinions expressed are | DEC Easynet: islnds::shatara | | mine and mine only! | UUCP: ...!decwrl!islnds!shatara | =============================================================================
cse0507@desire.wright.edu (09/22/90)
It seems that Apple has done a pretty thourough job of destroying the GS. When it first came out I had high expectations and bought one of the Woz editions (complete with certificate). The PC 500 showed the GS was in third place in units sold beating out all the MS-DOS clones, all the Macs, and taking thrid only to two IBM models. It had such great potential, but somebody at Apple decided that schizophrenia was bad news for the company, and somebody had to go. Since the Mac was the "new" machine, it was the machine to give the GS the boot. Apple stopped coming out with hardware upgrades. There has not been a new GS in the 3 years I have had mine. The Mac on the other hand seems to have a new model every 6 months. The ROM 03 machine doesn't count since only tools and other minor upgrades were made. I can still do everything on my original GS that an 03 machine can. With rumors of Apple introducing a GS board for the mac line, they now have the excuse to completley stop production of the GS since there will be an alternative. Education types a ranting since the wishy-washy signals from Apple over the IIs future are leaving them hanging. Schools who used to buy 95% Apple II are now faced with MS-DOS. Why invest in a computer line that has such a dismal looking future. Sure Scully paid lip service to the II, but there was no action to back it up. IBM on the other hand saw the break in Apple's stranglehold of the education market are now bending over backwards to get in. They are giving away thousands of dollars in software and computers taking a good loss on the deal, but deep pockets knows it will be worth it. Apple's response seems to be to try and offer lower priced Macs to schools as an alternative. Big deal. Schools have already invested untold millions in software, computers, teacher inservice for the II line which may now be flushed. One of the greatest joke ads Apple put out showed a kid going into her elementary classroom, having her picture scanned on what looks like a Mac IIcx and an Apple scanner and printed. Yeah right. One school system I worked for had a goal of getting one Apple IIe or c system in each classroom (at about $650 ea.) not to mention a $4,000 setup. Maybe in CA where Apple gives all those computers away. Anyway, the point is that I still use my GS almost dailiy and it still does everything it did back when I bought it, but it could have done so much more. I'm tired of having to scrape and search for companies that still produce for my machine. I feel like an Atari owner (for those of you familiar with the migration of most Atari development to Europe) owning an Orphan. I remember back in my II+ days getting Softalk Mag. where companies were clamoring to sell me there new stuff each month and interesting people were doing amazing things with the same machine I had. It looked a lot like the Mac mags. do today. But Softwalk went bankrupt and suddenly I was getting A+, then A+ joined incider, and now A+/Incider is getting so thin it looks like deja vu from Softalk just before going under. I can tick off the list the signs of a dead machine. Dealers who don't even mention it, software companies who ignore it, and the size of the magazines covering it shrinking. Even comapnies with great products for the GS are dying. Applied Ingenuity is gone, Sierra Online no longer will produce any new titles for the GS, The company who made Sword of Sudan is gone with no one picking up production, and Checkmate, publishers of that great term program ProTerm, is dead. There are of course small oasises of Apple II believers such as the good folks at A2-Central and the amazing FTA production team, but they are far and few between. Welcome to the new Apple II world, it will never be the same.
mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com (Mike Ungerman) (09/22/90)
In-Reply-To: message from tribby@hpindwa.HP.COM At dinner today, another teacher of Apple computer literacy and I wondered where Apple Computer, Inc would be today if the III and Mac had never been products. That is, if the Apple ][ line had continued as the only line of the company. Our feeling was that the ][c would have probably been a state of the art laptop with an internal hard drive and hi-res screen and the ][gs would have been on a competitive edge with the 386's of today in price and capability. Any thoughts along this line? Where do you think the company would be financially with this single product line? Technically? Especially if all that brain power were producing Apple ][ computers and peripherals. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mike Ungerman |Proline:mikeu@pro-magic Pro-Magic BBS: 407-366-0156 |uucp:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu 300/1200/2400/9600 Baud 24hrs |arpa:crash!pnet01!pro-magic!mikeu@nosc.mil Apple Tree of Central Florida, Inc |Internet:mikeu@pro-magic.cts.com Orlando, Florida|Voice:407-366-0060|Compuserve:71326,31 Prodigy: JSNP58A
spock@wrkof.incom.de (Martin Georg) (09/22/90)
In article <1990Sep21.015000.28653@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >In article <0093CF947DB21A40.00000110@dcs.simpact.com> scottr@gnh-applesauce.cts.com (Scott Rothstein) writes: > >>Apparently, Apple felt that ][ compatibility was more important than making a >>truly great machine. We could have had a fast machine -- they cut it back to >>fit the architecture for the older ]['s. > >ARGH!! I am sick of people saying this!! > >The speed of the 65816 was (and still is) WDC's problem and had nothing to do >with the ][ compatibility at all. (... some text deleted here ...) > >Todd Whitesel >toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu Sorry Tood, but that's not the whole story, as I think. A processor get's as much support as the company is willing to see the machine where it is running as a machine with future. Do you think that Intel processors would be so fast and powerful today without IBM's com- mitment to them and the insurance that they will be used even in future machines??? With the 68000, it's exactly the same. Without Apple, Atari and Commodore, the 68000 would still be the same chip as in 1984, perhaps a little bit faster, but without those new 68020, 68030 and 68040. And the 65XXX? With a clear commitment from Apple, insuring customers, software publishers and the market at all, we would see a true 32 bit version of the 65816 with one or two years. It's only the problem of Apple. If they can preannounce System 7.0, the low cost Macs and a lot of other stuff for the Mac, why not such clear statements about the Apple II. All Sculley can do is talking about the past and telling us that Apple is seeing the "technological limits" of the Apple II. BTW: Have you recognized that Sculleys letter in InCider/A+ was in one point different from that one in the Buyers Guide? He states, that "... the enhancements to the APple II on the drawing board come to fruition". A little bit hope is left... Martin Georg, Frankfurt, West Germany
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (09/23/90)
>> The speed of the 65816 is WDC's problem
AMEN. I'm finally glad somebody posted this. I was waiting for this.
Apple would be producing 10Mhz GS machines IF THEY COULD GET THE CHIPS!
Please don't remind me about the TWGS. AE can't get enough of these chips
to handle their customers (I know, I've been waiting quite a while for one).
If someone would build a fast, plentiful, upwards compatible chip, Apple would
release a faster GS. Till then, the whole point it moot. Flame the chip
manufacturers, not Apple. Personally, I can't even blame WDC. After all,
where would the Apple II be today had they not developed the 65c816?
*** Randy Hyde O-)rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (09/23/90)
WDC has managed to make a *FEW* fast chips, but in nowhere near the quantities that Apple needs. Apple *HAS* purchased WDC chips in the past, but mostly they buy from other sources who aren't so flaky. WDC, BTW, does *NOT* from (whoops, have) in-house production facilities. They generally have others (like VLSI) make their chips for them. No one else besides WDC is currently producing chips faster than 4mhz (to my knowledge, which, admittedly is old). *** Randy Hyde O-)
fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) (09/23/90)
In article <8824@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: >where would the Apple II be today had they not developed the 65c816? Being emulated by a high-speed RISC chip...? What ever happened to those two college guys who re-worked the 65816? >*** Randy Hyde O-) -- fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) ..!ucbvax!cory!fadden
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (09/23/90)
>If it is speed you want, then why not get a 486? 1. I dislike Intel Chips VERY much! 2. It's not compatible with ANYTHING I have. 3. I don't have the money. (Even if I did have the $$, I wouldn't get one.) >if speed is the only issue. It isn't. >Why do people keep bringing up the Amiga? Why do people keep asking this? It's obviously the closest, comparable computer to the GS. It's faster, has better 'supported' graphics and costs LESS!... although, the sound isn't as good, but I don't think that's why the GS is so much more. >There's more to computing than games. Of course. >The other thing you are forgetting when bringing up the Amiga is the quality >of the people who work at Apple. I'm not sure what you mean by 'quality of people'. Anyway, that doesn't change the price or speed of the GS or Amiga. > The GS's OS is just great. Well, it's not bad, but I wouldn't call it great... but I don't like the graphical interface (actually, I don't like not having the choice of a text or graphic interface with GS/OS). > I use and like the Mac. I use and dislike the Mac. Although, I like it's speed. >I really like the GS. So do I. That's why I'm pushing for it to be even better. I'd like it a Heck of alot more if it were as fast as it should be (considering it has a graphical interface.) >Both are way ahead of any other micro OS with wide acceptance that I'm aware >of. Sorry, but there's a heck of alot more messy-dos people than there GS/OS and MAC combined and most of those people (if not all) think that ms-dos is way ahead of any other OS. Although, I personally prefer GS/OS over ms-dos. >The PS/1 may have VGA and a 10Mhz 286, but it doesn't have GS/OS. Yeah, but it has VGA and a 10Mhz 286! AAAAAND for about the same (or less) than the GS! I don't think GS/OS is an excuse for it being slow OR expensive. >I also think Apple is in a position to be extremely competitive in that area, Yeah, IF they speed up the GS and give it VGA comparable graphics. >using both the GS and the Mac. --- They very well could be, but what does that have to do with people wanting a faster GS for their money? The whole point of my message was that for $1000 I can get a 2.8 Mhz GS with OK graphics (ok, compared to other computers that cost $1000) or for ALOT less, I can get a 7Mhz Amiga with even better graphics. (I'm talking about graphics that are supported). >I don't need workstation speed, nor does the GS. I do, but I am neither asking for it, nor am I saying the GS should have it, only that it would be great (of course). But the GS NEEDS to be AT LEAST 7Mhz. When I said, "I don't hink it's possible to have a computer 'too fast'.", I was saying that in reply to this: >I also would love to see a faster( not too fast) GS. because, it sounded like he was saying that there was something wrong with 'speed' in itself, which, of course, there isn't. >We will have to see what Apple has in mind, but many PC "power users" are >unlikely to be happy with the 10Mhz 286 and are probably having the same >conversation we are having here in another forum. What Apple has in mind for the future is irrellevent to the fact that the GS is too slow and too expensive NOW. If they speed it up in the future, without increasing the price, well that's just fine and Jim Dandy, but I'm stil stuck here with my 2.8Mhz GS for $1000 with only 256k on the motherboard. I'm sure that a power user wouldn't be happy with a 10Mhs 286 and NASA wouldn't be happy with a Commodore 64. What does that have to do with the fact that the GS is 2.8Mhz at $1000 and every other computer at that price is MUCH faster than 2.8Mhz. >Also, don't forget that the GS has an excellent OS, networking, a well-defined >SCSI and connections to the Mac wich you won't find with the PS/1. 'excellent OS' is an opinion. There are other people (I'm not one of them) that believe that MS-DOS is an 'excellent OS'. The PS/1 can be networked to other PC's (to the best of my knowledge), an internal HD (SCSI not needed) and connections to the PS/2. I'm not pushing the PS/1... I'd take my GS over a PS/1 anyday, but that's just me. The PS/1 ALSO has VGA graphics, a 10Mhz CPU, a vast library of software, and software support you just won't find for the GS. Also, I don't want to network my GS to a Mac. I don't want to network my GS at all. The GS doesn't NOT have 'well defined SCSI'. That's EXTRA! You have to pay for it. It doesn't come with the $1000 GS, so that doesn't justify the price. Also, so what if it has connections to the Mac? I don't have a Mac and I don't want a Mac and MINE isn't connected to a Mac, so, again, how does that justify the extreme cost and slow speed of the GS? I just think that a computer that sells for $1000 and has a graphical interface should at LEAST be as fast as every other computer in it's PRICE RANGE and have comparable graphics. Also, just about everything you mentioned that the GS has, has to be bought extra. You can buy extra stuff for just about ANY computer (and usually cheaper for the Amiga) that will do everything you mentioned. You talk about Mac compatibility... well, for about $300, you can make an Atari ST Macintosh compatible. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | | This is your brain on whole wheat.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (09/23/90)
In article <1257.26faaa35@desire.wright.edu> cse0507@desire.wright.edu writes: >... With rumors of Apple introducing a GS board for the mac line, ... I thought it was supposed to emulate an 8-bit Apple (e.g. //e), not the IIGS.
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (09/23/90)
>Our feeling was that the ][c would have probably been a state of the art >laptop with an internal hard drive and hi-res screen and the ][gs would have >been a competitive edge with the 386's of today in price and compatibility. I agree! I've thought this since the Macintosh was intruced! If there was no Mac, then the GS would be MUCH faster and much more powerful than it is now. Heres a few quotes from the November '86 issure of A+... The issue that introduced the IIGS: pg. 60, 1st column, 1st paragraph. "THE MAKING OF THE APPLEIIGS" Jeanne Duprau and Molly Tyson "To the executive staff, the IIx [what the GS was called by the press before it was released] was an insurance policy. If the Macintosh didn't work out, AP Ple would have an alternative machine to position against the IBM PC. As it turned out, the Macinstosh didn't need a pinch hitter, and the 65816 p rocessor chip fell behind schedule. So no one was surprised when the Brooklyn/ Golden Gate project [project IIGS] came falling down like one bridge it wasn't code-named after. In fact, the team leaders were the ones who suggested to the executive staff that the project be canceled. For six months after that, there was no more talk about a 16-bit Apple II, a nd Hillman was reassigned to a more mundane task--reducing the cost of the Appl e II." Here's something on the speed problem: Same magazine and issue. Pg 52. 2nd column 2nd paragraph: "A TECHNICAL OVERVIEW OF THE APPLE IIGS" Gary B Little "I do not expect to see developers of business and productivity software stampe ding to use QuickDraw and the user-interface tools to create Macintosh-like app lications on the GS. The reason is simple: Text-screen operations are much fa ster than graphics operations, and users want speed. The speed differential is particularly great for applications, such as word-processing programs and comm unications programs, that frequently update and scroll the screen. Ease of use is not really an issue, since programs based on the text-based f ile-card metaphor, such as AppleWorks, have proven to be just as easy to learn as those based on the Macintosh desktop metaphor. Obviously, some business app lications will use the super-hi-res graphics screen; they include charting and drawing programs, database programs that work with images rather than text, and word-processing programs that display text as it will appear when printed. Ju st don't expect them to run as quickly as the equivalent programs on the Macint osh do." Here's another excerpt from the previous article that about says it all: "In October 1983, Steve Wazniak, inventor of the original Apple II, made some r emarkably candid statements in an electronic conference on CompuServe. Comment ing on Apple's future plans for the Ii series, he said we could expect to see a new machine by the middle of 1984 that would use "a revolutionary 6502-based p rocessor" and be able to access 16 megabytes of memory directly. He was referring to the so-called Apple IIx project, but, for a variety of r easons, notably the infatuation of the Apple brass with the Macintosh (announce d in January 1984), the project was ultimately scrapped. But now, three years after this initial hint of things to come, Apple has fi nally created a computer that meets Woz's tantalizing specifications: the Apple IIGS. The GS stands for graphics and sound, the two sexy features Apple will use to lure customers from the grasp of Commodore and Atari. In this article, [...and people wonder why the GS is compared to the Amiga!...] I'll explain what makes the GS so special." I also remember reading, in A+, shortly after this issue (I can't find it right now... it's 4:37am) that Apple decided not to make the GS any faster than 2.8M hz because they were afraid that it would compete with the Mac. When I find it , I'll post it. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | | This is your brain on whole wheat.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|
jerryk (Jerry Kindall) (09/23/90)
macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Robert MacAusland) writes: > I think that about sums it all up. I would gladly give of ][ compatibility > in order to make the GS the machine it should have been in the first place. Take away the Apple II compatibility from the IIgs and you have a Mac.
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (09/24/90)
>>> Apple decided not to make the GS any faster than 2.8Mhz because they >>> were afraid that it would compete with the Mac. BS! Apple "limited" the GS to 2.8Mhz because the fastest ROMS they could buy at the time limited it to this speed. The 65c816 interfaces to memory in a completely different manner than the 68000. A clock cycle = 1 Memory Cycle. On the 68000, 4 clock cycles=1 memory cycle. Therefore, a 2.8 Mhz GS access memory at about the same speed as a 12 Mhz 68000. There is a *LARGE* penalty for introducing wait states on the 65c816, unlike the 680x0 family. This is why introducing wait states (like Apple did on the Mac) isn't viable. Finally, the maximum processor speed was 4 Mhz when they intro'd the GS. Introducing wait states at that point would have slowed the processor down to the equivalent of 2 mhz. Apple's 2.8 Mhz speed was the best they could do at the time. Today, they could probably do 7 Mhz *IF THEY COULD GET A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR THE PROCESSORS*. Such a source does not exist yet. The only alternative would be for Apple to develop their own processor. Given the costs of this, I can't imagine Apple going too much farther with the Apple II by building their own processor. *** Randy Hyde O-)
cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) (09/24/90)
>I thought it was supposed to emulate an 8-bit >Apple (e.g. //e), not the IIGS.
Apple is supposedly making two boards, one for the Mac line that will
emulate an enhanced //e, and one for the //gs that will emulate a Mac
plus. Since I talked to someone a few months ago who says he is
involved with beta testing the board for the //gs that emulates a Mac,
I'd say that this isn't a rumor.rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (System Administrator) (09/24/90)
In-Reply-To: message from macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca >> Apparently, Apple felt that ][ compatibility was more important than making >> a truly great machine. We could have had a fast machine -- they cut it back >> to fit the architecture for the older ]['s. >> scottr@applesauce.bb.ny > I think that about sums it all up. I would gladly give of ][ compatibility > in order to make the GS the machine it should have been in the first place. Those two statements seem to sum up the views of many of the folks who read/post to this group, but I find them a bit confusing. Apple *already* makes a machine which does all the things that have been requested, and isn't compatible with the early Apple II software. If what is wanted is a computer meeting those requirements, why not buy the one they already have in production? Or is the problem simply that it isn't *called* an "Apple II--"... ??? Would everyone be happier if Apple just changed the name of the various Macintosh models to "Apple IIM/n", where "n" is a model number? It seems like that would answer the *actual* complaints I read so frequently. It would do all the things people seem to want, and it would be named an "Apple II"!! I *like* my GS... I really do!! But I like it because it's compatible with all the older Apple software, even with the limitations. If I need to do things that exceed those limitations, I'll use a different computer, not sit around griping that my Apple II doesn't do what a high-end Mac does!
cyliao@hardy.u.washington.edu (Chun-Yao Liao) (09/24/90)
In article <9009230630.AA24367@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >> The GS's OS is just great. > >Well, it's not bad, but I wouldn't call it great... but I don't like the >graphical interface (actually, I don't like not having the choice of a text >or graphic interface with GS/OS). IMO, it is GREAT compared to almost any other micro computer OS. Just if the GS is fast enough to handle all that graphic stuff... >> I use and like the Mac. >I use and dislike the Mac. Although, I like it's speed. Mac has it's own "field" of attraction, I myself got more attracted by the GS (The only Macs I use are Mac IIx and up, SEs are not so usable) >Yeah, but it has VGA and a 10Mhz 286! AAAAAND for about the same (or less) >than the GS! I don't think GS/OS is an excuse for it being slow OR expensive. In my knowledge, not many ms-dos users satisfied with 12 MHz 286! VGA is nice though...16 bit color (possible) on screen. 12MHz 286 is really not much faster than a GS. > >'excellent OS' is an opinion. There are other people (I'm not one of them) >that believe that MS-DOS is an 'excellent OS'. The PS/1 can be networked to Very true... >other PC's (to the best of my knowledge), an internal HD (SCSI not needed) >and connections to the PS/2. uh... you have to be careful here. Many of today's PC disk controller card supports up to 2 harddrive, 2 to 4 floppies (1.44 3.5 and 1.2 5.25, 720k 3.5 and 360k 5.25 format included) BTW, SCSI is better than the one used by most IBMs (It is called something like EDSI, I don't remember it well) ONLY UNDER CERTAIN situations. The SCSI is much suitable to be used with multitasking OS such as Mach, Unix, etc. It is because of the way SCSI works. A SCSI device can close communication with its host when it is working on some internal jobs such as moving the read/write head, seek, etc, and reopen the connection with host when it is readly to transfer the data requested by the host. During the time that the connection is closed, the data line lis freed to OS so OS can access other SCSI device daisy chained in the same chain thus to improve disk access performace. This way, it also improve the performanced of an OS if its' disk based. However, because of this special feature of SCSI, it takes a few cycle to communicate between SCSI device and it's host. Therefore, when a SCSI with same characteristics of a EDxx drive hooked to a single process computer, theoretically the EDxx drive should perform better than SCSI although the difference is not very noticeable. I personally prefer SCSI because it is more flexible than must other types of harddrive, plus it's kind of "smart" >Also, I don't want to network my GS to a Mac. I don't want to network my GS >at all. The GS doesn't NOT have 'well defined SCSI'. That's EXTRA! You >have to pay for it. It doesn't come with the $1000 GS, so that doesn't >justify the price. Also, so what if it has connections to the Mac? I don't >have a Mac and I don't want a Mac and MINE isn't connected to a Mac, so, again, net work to a Mac via Apple talk is much easier, but what's the point? share a laser printer? a CD-ROM that is already connected to Mac? well, then yes, but otherwise, why bother? cyliao@wam.umd.edu o NeXT : I put main frame power on two chips. @epsl.umd.edu o people: We put main flame power on two guys. @bagend.eng.umd.edu o :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx.xxx (reserved) o RC + Apple // + Classic Music + NeXT = cyliao
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (09/24/90)
In article <8004@milton.u.washington.edu> cyliao@hardy.acs.washington.edu (Chun-Yao Liao) writes: > BTW, SCSI is better than the one used by most IBMs (It is called > something like EDSI, I don't remember it well) ONLY UNDER CERTAIN > situations. The SCSI is much suitable to be used with multitasking Well this is off your topic, but it's ESDI... And there are inexpensive (<$100 I'm pretty certain) controller cards that convert from ESDI -> SCSI. They go inside of the hard drive too so they're not computer dependent. So that means that you can buy cheaper ESDI drives and use them as SCSI devices. I myself will probably not go this route (as I want to buy 45 meg Syquest based drives that are already SCSI)... But it is a good route for someone who wants to buy a HUGE drive and save lots of money. -- /pqbdpqbdpqbd Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu dbqpdbqpdbqp\ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (09/24/90)
In article <9009230630.AA24367@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >>If it is speed you want, then why not get a 486? >1. I dislike Intel Chips VERY much! >2. It's not compatible with ANYTHING I have. >3. I don't have the money. (Even if I did have the $$, I wouldn't get one.) The irrational dislike of Intel chips does not stand up in any objective discussion. Even Motorolla would acknowledge that the 486 is an excellent cpu( and has been out for a while). Whether or not it's compatible with your current software is another issue. People change platforms, and one of the problems in doing that is rebuilding your software library. Since you don't have the money to get one, and are biased against it, just get it out of your mind. >>if speed is the only issue. >It isn't. I realize that speed is not the one and only complaint some GS users have. >>Why do people keep bringing up the Amiga? >Why do people keep asking this? It's obviously the closest, comparable >computer to the GS. It's faster, has better 'supported' graphics and costs >LESS!... although, the sound isn't as good, but I don't think that's why the >GS is so much more. The Amiga500, which is the computer most bring up, does not have better graphics. It does have graphics' coprocessors and, unless you are into interlaced graphics' modes, it basically has similar graphics to those of the GS. But it doesn't have Quickdraw, is hard to expand, has a small educational software base, and is not for educational users a heck of a lot less than the GS. It is based on the 68000 cpu which makes life a lot easier.As for the sound not being as good, that is an understatement. >>There's more to computing than games. >Of course. >>The other thing you are forgetting when bringing up the Amiga is the quality >>of the people who work at Apple. >I'm not sure what you mean by 'quality of people'. Anyway, that doesn't change >the price or speed of the GS or Amiga. The software/hardware people at Apple are first class. The same goes with companies such as HP. I have a hard time drawing the same conclusion with Commodore. although they probably have some excellent employees. >> The GS's OS is just great. >Well, it's not bad, but I wouldn't call it great... but I don't like the >graphical interface (actually, I don't like not having the choice of a text >or graphic interface with GS/OS). That is your opinion. GUI's are the future. I didn't meant to say that the OS for the GS was a GREAT operating system. I just happen to find it well thought out and ahead of most micro OS's. >> I use and like the Mac. >I use and dislike the Mac. Although, I like it's speed. Well, I see no reason to dislike the Mac. It is a fine computer. As for speed, it isn't that fast relative to RISC workstations. But it is a personal computer which has reached a nice balance between ease of use and speed. >>I really like the GS. >So do I. That's why I'm pushing for it to be even better. I'd like it a Heck >of alot more if it were as fast as it should be (considering it has a graphical >interface.) The speed issue is related to the availability of fast 65816's in quantity. Do you have any evidence that this is the case? >>Both are way ahead of any other micro OS with wide acceptance that I'm aware >>of. >Sorry, but there's a heck of alot more messy-dos people than there GS/OS and >MAC combined and most of those people (if not all) think that ms-dos is way >ahead of any other OS. Although, I personally prefer GS/OS over ms-dos. I doubt if few people, even DOS users, would dare to defend DOS on an OS basis. Now OS/2 is a different story. But DOS is not an example of a good OS. People use DOS computers for the software, the price, etc...People involved in the DOS world are trying to get away from DOS, and having a hard time of it. >>The PS/1 may have VGA and a 10Mhz 286, but it doesn't have GS/OS. >Yeah, but it has VGA and a 10Mhz 286! AAAAAND for about the same (or less) >than the GS! I don't think GS/OS is an excuse for it being slow OR expensive. The PS/1 is a new computer. The GS's graphics are 4 years old. I suggest you look more closely at the PS/1. It's a first step. Its software base is the same as that available for most DOS computers. I do agree that the GS's price should be cut and the computer speeded up to around 7MHz. >>I also think Apple is in a position to be extremely competitive in that area, >Yeah, IF they speed up the GS and give it VGA comparable graphics. >>using both the GS and the Mac. > --- >They very well could be, but what does that have to do with people wanting a >faster GS for their money? The whole point of my message was that for $1000 >I can get a 2.8 Mhz GS with OK graphics (ok, compared to other computers that >cost $1000) or for ALOT less, I can get a 7Mhz Amiga with even better graphics. >(I'm talking about graphics that are supported). If you want an Amiga, then get one. The connectivity between the GS and the Mac is important to a lot of people. I must remind you that the target market of the Amiga is different. >>I don't need workstation speed, nor does the GS. >I do, but I am neither asking for it, nor am I saying the GS should have it, >only that it would be great (of course). But the GS NEEDS to be AT LEAST 7Mhz. >When I said, "I don't hink it's possible to have a computer 'too fast'.", I was >saying that in reply to this: >>I also would love to see a faster( not too fast) GS. The reason for the "not too fast" comment was that faster computers need more expensive supporting peripherals. I do need workstation speed, but I'm not looking for it in a GS or a Mac for that matter. The price performance of RISC workstations simply make them more attractive for Mips and MFLOPS. The GS would be at 7MHz if such cpu's were available in quantity. >>We will have to see what Apple has in mind, but many PC "power users" are >>unlikely to be happy with the 10Mhz 286 and are probably having the same >>conversation we are having here in another forum. >What Apple has in mind for the future is irrellevent to the fact that the GS >is too slow and too expensive NOW. If they speed it up in the future, without >increasing the price, well that's just fine and Jim Dandy, but I'm stil stuck >here with my 2.8Mhz GS for $1000 with only 256k on the motherboard. Well, I assume you knew the specifications of the GS when you bought yours. What Apple does in the future is very relevant to the continued health of the GS and people's software libraries. In any case, if you want a faster GS now get a TWGS or one of the Zip products. >>Also, don't forget that the GS has an excellent OS, networking, a well-defined >>SCSI and connections to the Mac wich you won't find with the PS/1. > >'excellent OS' is an opinion. There are other people (I'm not one of them) >that believe that MS-DOS is an 'excellent OS'. The PS/1 can be networked to >other PC's (to the best of my knowledge), an internal HD (SCSI not needed) >and connections to the PS/2. The SCSI for the GS is optional in order to keep costs down. I don't like that myself but I can see why. The PS/1 can't be networked as is, and certain networking solutions actually void the warranty. Having a SCSI based HD is far better than the 30 meg non-SCSI in the PS/1. Try hooking up a tape drive, CD-ROM.etc...to the PS/1. Nobody believes that DOS is an excellent OS. Nobody. >I'm not pushing the PS/1... I'd take my GS over a PS/1 anyday, but that's >just me. The PS/1 ALSO has VGA graphics, a 10Mhz CPU, a vast library of >software, and software support you just won't find for the GS. The GS also has software that you won't find(yet) on the PS/1. I'm not putting the PS/1 down. It is IBM's first real attempt at the home market. Not a bad one. I suggest you read the list of educational software that comes with the PS/1's market literature. >Also, I don't want to network my GS to a Mac. I don't want to network my GS >at all. The GS doesn't NOT have 'well defined SCSI'. That's EXTRA! You >have to pay for it. It doesn't come with the $1000 GS, so that doesn't >justify the price. Also, so what if it has connections to the Mac? I don't >have a Mac and I don't want a Mac and MINE isn't connected to a Mac, so, again, >how does that justify the extreme cost and slow speed of the GS? The built in networking of the GS is essential for its target audience. It would be foolish not to have it, and since you have no interest in networking to a Mac then don't do it. But that ability is a real value to the GS. The computer wouldn't exist without it. I have already said that the cost of the GS is too high. People in education don't pay the same price. The GS does have a well-defined SCSI(optional). I suggest you look at the problems other micros have been having implementing SCSI. As for your $300 Atari Mac solution, don't forget that it must use Apple 128k ROM's. That solution only exists for as long as those ROM's remain available. If you want a Mac, buy one. Same goes for the ST. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (09/24/90)
>The irrational dislike of Intel chips does not stand up in any objective >discussion. I couldn't agree more! BUT -MY- dislike for Intel chips is not irrational. I have programed with the 6502, 65816, 8086, and the 80286. I had an opened mind before going into all of these and after working with all of them, I have decided I dislike the Intel chips! I see nothing 'irrational' about this. If I had just USED software on them and said I dislike the Intel chips, then THAT would be irrational, but that certainly is not the case. AND, my dislike of the chips DOES stand up in this discusion because it's not just 'speed' I want. If it were, I'd probably get a Mac IIfx. What I want is "speed in a 65816". >The Amiga500, which is the computer most bring up, does not have better >graphics. Apple IIGS Amiga 500 ------------ -------------- 320x200-16colors/scan line 320x200-32colors/scan line 640x200-4colors/scan line 640x200-?colors/scan line (at least 4) 640x400-non existant 640x400-mono? As I stated before, these are the 'supported' modes. Of these supported modes, the Amiga has more colors per screen and a video mode the GS doesn't even have. ...even if it is interlaced, the Amiga has it and the GS doesn't. >But it doesn't have Quickdraw, In my opinion, that's a plus! Quickdraw is just too slow for me. You listed several differences the GS and the Amiga have (most of which were negative for the Amiga), but even if those were the ONLY differences, They ARE similar and therefore worth comparing. >has a small educational software base, Is this a reason for the GS being twice the price? I can't imagine this has anything to do with why it's more expensive. Also, I don't use educational software for it so why should that be a justification to me about the price? What I'm interrested in is what the COMPUTER can do. This is also what should affect the price. When you compare all the pluses and minuses of both computer s (talking about what they can do and what they come with), I can't imagine why the GS is twice as much. >As for the sound not being as good, that is an understatement. Not hardly. The Amiga supports 4 voice sound (that's pretty good!), has built in stereo, and from what an IBM exec. told me, it not only has stereo, but 4 channel stereo... suround sound. This IBM exec told me this while he was doing some routine Apple bashing, so I take that last part with a grain of salt. I've also listened to the sound the Amiga puts out and, to say the least, it's impressive! >>> The GS's OS is just great. > >>Well, it's not bad, but I wouldn't call it great... but I don't like the >>graphical interface (actually, I don't like not having a choice of a text >>or graphic interface with GS/OS). > >That is your opinion. GUI's are the future. You're right. It IS my opinion AND I beleive that GUI's are the future too. It's also an opinion to say that GS/OS is just great! >I just happen to find it well thought out and ahead of most micro OS's. Well, that's an opinion too and can't be a reason for the GS being more expensi ve than the Amiga. I'm sure that there are lots of people that think the same of the Amiga DOS (but I'm not one of them). >Well, I see no reason to dislike the Mac. It is a fine computer. This is also an opinion... a matter of choice. >As for speed, it isn't that fast relative to RISC workstations. True, but it's fast compared to a GS, which is what we're talking about >The speed issue is related to the availability of fast 65816's in quantity. Ture, but they are selling at a 7Mhz (or faster) price. >Do you have any evidence that this is the case? That WHAT is the case? >I doubt if few people, even DOS users, would dare to defend DOS on an OS >basis. Believe me, they do! I have to put up with it every day at work. >The PS/1 is a new computer. The GS's graphics are 4 years old. VGA is even older. AND considering the GS's graphics are 4 years old, then that's another reason that it shouldn't be as expensive. >I do agree that the GS's price should be cut and the computer speeded up >to around 7Mhz. Well, lowering the price and having it sped up was the whole point. >If you want an Amiga, then get one. I DON'T want an Amiga! If I'm going to spend $1000 on a GS, I want it to do at LEAST as much as another computer will do for $500! Also, if 95% of my programing education WASN'T based on the Apple ][, AND if I knew about the Amiga in early '87, when I got my GS, AND if I didn't already have an Apple ][ with a great big software and hardware investment, I would have gotten one. >The connectivity between the GS and the Mac is important to alot of people. Yes it is, but that shouldn't drive the cost of the GS up. The Atari ST can be made into a Mac compatible computer and I -think- the Amiga can too, but to this day, the GS can't (not for long, though). >I must remind you that the target market of the Amiga is different. I must remind You that that's no excuse for the GS to be twice the price of the Amiga. >The GS would be at 7Mhz if such chips were available in quantity. But it isn't, so it shouldn't have a price tag of one that is. If the GS were priced for a 2.8Mhz computer, I wouldn't be dissapointed in the least bit, but it's priced at as a much faster computer, and I want what I pay for. >Well, I assume you knew the specification of the GS when you bought yours. Yes I did. BUT, I DID NOT know the specifications of the Amiga or the Atari ST, nor did I know of their existence. It would have been fine if the GS were the only computer in this category, but when there are other computers with similar or better capabillities for MUCH less, THEN I have a reason to gripe. It's like thinking that there are only three cars: Yugo's, Mercedes, and Porcshes. The Yugo is (in this scenario) priced at $30,000. The Mercedes is priced at $80,000 and the Porcshe at $60,000. So I buy the Yugo. Later I find out that there are a couple of other cars... Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme and a Buick Skylark, both for about $15,000. I know that comparing the GS to a Yugo isn't really fair, but the priciple of the story is the same. I knew what the one was before I bought it, but I didn't have any knowledge of the other. >What Apple does in the future is very relevant to the continued health of >GS and people's software libraries. Yes, but NOT relevant to the fact that it's overpriced NOW. >In any case, if you want a faster GS, get a TWGS or one of the ZIP products. I WILL! But why should I have to pay $1400 (retail) for a <7Mhz GS compared to almost THREE TIMES LESS for a 7Mhz Amiga??? If the GS isn't going to run at 7Mhz, it shouldn't be priced as if it were. >Nobody believes that DOS is an excellent OS. Nobody. WWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!! Have you met EVERY SINGLE MS-DOS USER???? I didn't think so. You really shouldn't make a 'Nobody' statement, especially when you're talking about opinions. I could introduce you to SEVERAL people that think MS-DOS is an excellent operation system. Even the cover of PC Magazine said, "Everyone agrees what the best operating system is..." refering to MS-DOS. They also made that same mistake of saying, "Everybody". >The GS also has software that you won't find(yet) on the PS/1. I didn't say the PS/1 has software you son't find on the GS, I said the PS/1 has software SUPPORT you won't find on the GS. Also, every computer has SOME kind of software you won't find on another. (except maybe the TI-99 hehe). >I suggest you read the list of educational software that comes with the PS/1's >market literature. Why? Even if it's nil, .... It still has great software support. >The built in networking of the GS is essential for it's target audience. I agree, but that shouldn't drive the cost up much at all! >It would be foolish not to have it, Right.... So? >since you have no interest in networking to a Mac, then don't it. I'm not... What does this have to do with the GS being too expensive or too slow? >But that ability is a real value to the GS. The computer wouldn't exist >without it. Well, I agree with that and I haven't said anything against it, except that I have no desire to take advantage of it. >I have already said the cost is too high. Again, that's the whole point of my posting. >People in education don't pay the same price. but not everyone is in education.... The GS is priced too high (I'm aware you agree). >The GS does have a well defined SCSI(optional). The GS has NO SCSI! The GS has no hard drive, printer, monitor, audio digitize r, video digitizer, disk drives, laserprinters, modems, stereo, speakers, joysticks, CD ROM drives, light pens, headphones, fan, surge suppressor, etc., etc., etc...! It DOES have 1Mb RAM, 256k ROM, 16 voice sound, graphics, a 2.8Mhz 65816, keyboard, mouse, slots, etc. etc. etc. If it does not come with the computer, it does NOT have it. You can buy virtually anything for it, but just because you can buy something for it, doesn't mean it has it. If you say the GS has well defined SCSI, then you must also say that it has 7Mhz (TWGS), any and all hard drives that work on the Mac, audio/video digitizers, etc. It makes no difference if Apple makes the extra hardware or not, if it costs extra then it does not 'have' it. >As for the $300 Atari Mac solution, don't forget that it must use Apple 128k >ROM's. I'm ahead of you here. $300 includes the price of the ROMs. Without the ROMs, it's only about $120. >That solution only exists for as long as those ROM's remain available. And the GS only exists as long as it's available. >If you want a Mac, buy one. Same goes for the ST. What the %$#@! makes you think I want a Mac? Or an ST for that matter? All I want is a FASTER GS! ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | | This is your brain on whole wheat.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (09/24/90)
In article <1990Sep24.032342.12923@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >The Amiga500, which is the computer most bring up, does not have better >graphics. It does have graphics' coprocessors and, unless you are into >interlaced graphics' modes, it basically has similar graphics to those >of the GS. But it doesn't have Quickdraw, is hard to expand, has a small >educational software base, and is not for educational users a heck of >a lot less than the GS. It is based on the 68000 cpu which makes life >a lot easier.As for the sound not being as good, that is an understatement. I was wondering if you think that education is the main (or seemingly close to ONLY) use for the GS... It seems that in your whole long post (that I'm responding to right now) you follow along completely with Apple's "the GS is for education" belief.. [For the time being, I'll ignore the fact that they're now pushing MACS into education] I think that GSs in schools are GREAT. Seventh grade was when I was first deeply involved with computers. And it was on Apple IIs. [I had used a Commodore PET in the 6th grade.. I think I learned a LITTLE bit of BASIC, but it was mainly for fiddling around and playing Sabotage! by the way, I just learned on TV's Computer Chronicles the other day that PET was an acronym... Personal Electronic Transactor or something weird like that]. My use of Apple IIs in junior high (and from then on!) was due to Apple's BRILLIANT idea of giving Apple IIs to schools and selling them VERY cheaply. Tangentially, today a new program (in CA only I think) began where you can give Safeway receipts to schools and they can get Apple computers in return... Strange it's a GS in their drawing, but EVERYTHING else is clear except the "Apple IIGS".. Wow that was a lot of rambling off topic... I seem to be known for that. I just feel that education is a FINE place for computers to be used.. I just don't want the Apple II to be viewed by people (and by Apple) as just an educational computer.. What about Visicalc?? I'm not saying that I -ever- expect the GS to be used much in business, but the home market exists... And as I alluded to before, I do have a GS (upgraded from //e) only because I used IIs in school and had to have what I used at school. But I haven't used IIs in an educational environment since my senior year in high school (I'm going to be a senior in college this year). There's more to Apple IIs than eduation. -- /pqbdpqbdpqbd Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu dbqpdbqpdbqp\ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
gminette@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (The Sylver Dragon) (09/24/90)
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET scribbles... > >>As for the sound not being as good, that is an understatement. > >Not hardly. The Amiga supports 4 voice sound (that's pretty good!), has built >in stereo, and from what an IBM exec. told me, it not only has stereo, but 4 >channel stereo... suround sound. This IBM exec told me this while he was >doing some routine Apple bashing, so I take that last part with a grain of >salt. I've also listened to the sound the Amiga puts out and, to say the >least, it's impressive! > The GS has the ability to do 4 channel sound if someone would ever bother to add $10 of hardware to the existing stereo cards. The sound output jack inside the GS has four multiplexed channels of output, so all that would need to be done is to double the stuff on a standard stereo card, and write the software. I hope someone will, as it could be really nice. -The Silver Dragon -AKA Garth Minette -- | _____ The Sylver Dragon, | gminette@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU | | | (_|_ \ Garth Minette: |prefer^ @nemesis.CalPoly.EDU | }>=:) | | __|_)_/ Rampant McCaffreyite | @fubarsys.slo.ca.us | Dragon Smiley | | DragonRider at heart | "Support your local dragon!" | |
scottr@gnh-applesauce.cts.com (Scott Rothstein) (09/24/90)
I meant that Apple tried so much for II compatibility, but only partially succeeded, so they lost on both accounts. scottr@applesauce.bb.ny
herwin@pro-novapple.cts.com (Harry Erwin) (09/24/90)
In-Reply-To: message from THINGVOL@LAX.WISC.EDU
>WDC is capable of producing faster chips....
But not in economic quantities.
Harry Erwin -->Remember, no good deed goes unpunished...
proline:pro-novapple!herwin uucp: crash!pro-novapple!herwin
arpa: crash!pro-novapple!herwin@nosc.mil Telenet: herwin/trw
Internet: herwin@pro-novapple.cts.com
alternate Internet: /PN=Harry.Erwin/O=TRW/ADMD=Telemail/C=US/@Sprint.comjm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) (09/24/90)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.apple2: 23-Sep-90 Re: A low blow from > Apple Charles W. Swiger@andrew (391) > >I thought it was supposed to emulate an 8-bit >Apple (e.g. //e), not > the IIGS. > Apple is supposedly making two boards, one for the Mac line that will > emulate an enhanced //e, and one for the //gs that will emulate a Mac > plus. Since I talked to someone a few months ago who says he is > involved with beta testing the board for the //gs that emulates a Mac, > I'd say that this isn't a rumor. The problem is, a great number of things that get to beta test, esp. hardware, don't necessarily make it to the market. I have a friend who works for IBM, and he's seen stuff in their development labs that would make you respect IBM. But the Pearly Gates to the open market are guarded by marketersand MBA's, not engineers and computer users. Sigh. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |Jeremy Mereness | Support | Ye Olde Disclaimer: | |jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (internet) | Free | The above represent my| |a700jm7e@cmccvb (Vax... bitnet) | Software| opinions, alone. | |staff/student@Carnegie Mellon U.| | Ya Gotta Love It. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (09/24/90)
>I meant that Apple tried so much for II compatibility, but only partially >succeeded, so they lost on both accounts. > >scottr@applesauce.bb.ny HUH? only PARTIALLY? I'm not really denying, this, I'm just wondering on what didn't they succeed in compatibillity. I haven't run into ANY compatibility problems and I haven't heard a single word about it either, until now. I know that chip accellerators for the //e aren't compatible, but, of course, that's reasonable. Don't get me wrong... I'm not 'flaming' you... just curious. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | | This is your brain on whole wheat.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (09/25/90)
>>> 7mhz GS vs. 7Mhz Amiga: A 68000 running at 7 mhz is *SLOWER* than a 65816 at the same clock speed. The bus cycles are completely different. You cannot compare processors on the basis of input clock frequency alone. I remember this argument back in the days of Apple II vs. TRS80. The TRS80 ran at 2 Mhz, the Apple II at 1mhz. Yet the Apple II was faster for most common operations. The same is roughly true for the '816 vs. the 68000. >>I didn't know (comparing GS to Yugo)... **Buyer Beware!*** No one stuck a gun to your head and made you buy that computer! I owned an Apple II (several, in fact), Two Apple IIe machines, and a GS. I also own a 386 and a Mac II fx. Sure it cost lots of money. But I got what I wanted. If you want a cheap system you shouldn't buy Apple. They've had premium products for as long as I can remember. Even with as little looking around as you've done, surely you recognized this. I would love to see a faster GS from Apple with a 32-bit Nubus and a big display.` I'm not holding my breath though. That's why I bought a mac.
lexter@pro-abilink.cts.com (Sam Robertson) (09/25/90)
In-Reply-To: message from cse0507@desire.wright.edu
Okay, I think I can make one response to the "A low blow from Apple" topic.
Let's face it, The II days are numbered. I still believe the machine I have
is not completely out-dated and possibly if Apple had given more support it
could have been bigger and ten times faster by now. But, lets not continue to
run Apple down. Is it totally necessary to constantly complain, when over the
past year and a half that I have been reading this feed nothing ever was done
in response to previous complaints! I personally feel I can still use my
machine for anything I need to do. I also feel that if things are going to
get better for the Apple IIGS I will have to make them better myself.
I think if we would all quit picking our noses and constantly complain about
the death of Apple and its all-famous II line and start to work on writing
games, bussiness programs, and general Gee-Whiz stuff that we could have a
substantial library of software for the GS without Apple's help.
Just a response to the millions I have already read!
Sam Robertson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applelink: Lexter || Sam Robertson Pro-Abilink 300/1200/2400
GENIE: SL.Robertson || 1357 Santos Sysop (Saw)
Proline: Lexter@Pro-Abilink || Abilene Texas 79605 (915)673-6856
INET: Lexter@Pro-Abilink.cts.com || UUCP: Crash!pnet01!pro-abilink!lexter
ARPA: Crash!pnet01!pro-abilink!lexter@nosc.mil
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"An Apple a day, keeps the Big Blue Meanies away!"don@brahms.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) (09/25/90)
In article <1990Sep24.032342.12923@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >In article <9009230630.AA24367@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: > > >>>Why do people keep bringing up the Amiga? > >>Why do people keep asking this? It's obviously the closest, comparable >>computer to the GS. It's faster, has better 'supported' graphics and costs >>LESS!... although, the sound isn't as good, but I don't think that's why the >>GS is so much more. > >The Amiga500, which is the computer most bring up, does not have better >graphics. It does have graphics' coprocessors and, unless you are into >interlaced graphics' modes, it basically has similar graphics to those >of the GS. But it doesn't have Quickdraw, is hard to expand, has a small >educational software base, and is not for educational users a heck of >a lot less than the GS. It is based on the 68000 cpu which makes life >a lot easier.As for the sound not being as good, that is an understatement. Doesn't have better graphics? Let's see... they're faster, take up less cpu time, have higher resolutions available (even if they are interlaced), and have a larger pallette with more colors on screen at once. What's not better about them? As far as not having quickdraw, I don't see how that's an issue. Yes, a device-independent graphics library would be nice, if that's what you're getting at, and one is supposedly in the works. As for 'hard to expand,' that was once a problem, but isn't really any more. The only problem is it's relatively weak power supply, which is easily replaced. It can be expanded internally to 9 megs, and can be accelerated (currently) up to a 33MHz '030. Hard drives are a little more expensive than for most machines becuase they need an external case and (sometimes) power supply, but you'd have to get that to add an external drive to any system. Also, most HD controllers have space for a few SIMM's on them. If you really need expansion, you can get a card cage with a number of Zorro II (A2000-style) slots. Some even have XT/AT slots for use with the bridgeboard. Its educational software base is relatively small, but it is there, and is growing; it includes some noteworthy software such as Distant Suns. What kind of educational prices does Apple have for the GS? I've seen the list of Mac ed. prices at some point, but the IIgs wasn't on the one I saw. You may be right about there not being much price difference. Educational pricing for the 500 is $799 for a 1-meg, 2-floppy 500 with color monitor & AmigaVision software, $1200 or so if you add a HD w/space for 2 megs of RAM on the controller. As far as sound; yes, it has fewer voices, but the sound chip (made, if I'm not mistaken, by MOS technologies, a company owned by Commodore) can only access 64K. The Amiga probably has an edge as far as digitized sound, esp. with large samples, but the GS is better as far as synthesized sound. > >>>The other thing you are forgetting when bringing up the Amiga is the quality >>>of the people who work at Apple. > >>I'm not sure what you mean by 'quality of people'. Anyway, that doesn't change >>the price or speed of the GS or Amiga. > >The software/hardware people at Apple are first class. The same goes with >companies such as HP. I have a hard time drawing the same conclusion with >Commodore. although they probably have some excellent employees. > Up until 9-12 months ago, I had a hard time drawing that conclusion about Commodore. They had some brilliant hard/software people (still do), but the only purpose the management was serving was to take money away from the R&D budget. But Harry Copperman (former Apple guy) took over as president and turned the company around. Commodore is really starting to get serious. They've got an uphill battle, fighting not only against the competition but against Commodore's past mistakes/image. They're doing a tremendous job, given the relatively small amount of resources they currently have available (I believe I read somewhere that CBM makes about 1/4 of what Apple does on average).
don@brahms.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) (09/25/90)
>>The Amiga500, which is the computer most bring up, does not have better >>graphics. > >Apple IIGS Amiga 500 >------------ -------------- >320x200-16colors/scan line 320x200-32colors/scan line >640x200-4colors/scan line 640x200-?colors/scan line (at least 4) >640x400-non existant 640x400-mono? > >As I stated before, these are the 'supported' modes. Of these supported modes, >the Amiga has more colors per screen and a video mode the GS doesn't even have. >...even if it is interlaced, the Amiga has it and the GS doesn't. > > Uuuh, the A500 stuff is a little off. It goes something like this: (My colors/resolution may be a little off, but I'll try to remember them): 320x200 32 colors 320x400 interlaced 32 colors 640x200 32 colors 640x400 interlaced 16 Also ham mode (4096 colors in any of the 320xXXX resolutions), extra halfbrite (in 32-color screens, shows half-tones of the original 32 colors to make 64 colors). Both are supported by the OS, the IFF file standard, and almost all software where there's any reason to support them (i.e. you won't find any HAM word processors around :-). Overscan for all resolutions is also supported, allowing screen as large as 708x480 interlaced or 708x240 non-interlaced. The new ECS chip set will have 4-color 640x480 & 1280 x 200 non-interlaced modes, as well as 640x960 & 1280x200 interlaced. On machines with the latest Agnus chip (which most have by now), you can switch to PAL mode via software and get 640x256 and 320x256 non-interlaced, 640x512 and 320x512 interlaced, with support, of course, for HAM, EHB, and overscan. > >I WILL! But why should I have to pay $1400 (retail) for a <7Mhz GS compared >to almost THREE TIMES LESS for a 7Mhz Amiga??? If the GS isn't going to run >at 7Mhz, it shouldn't be priced as if it were. Then spend the money you saved on a 25MHz '030 card for the 500 :-)
MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET (09/25/90)
>No one stuck a gun to your head and made you buy that computer! NO S___ SHERLOCK!!!!!!!!!!! What the $#@! difference does that make? I never said they did! THE WHOLE POINT I'M TRYING TO GET ACCROSS IS THAT THE GS RUNS AT 2.8 MHZ, COSTS $1000 AND THE AMIGA RUNS AT 7MHZ AND COSTS $500. PERIOD. >You cannot compare processors on the basis of input clock frequency alone. I'm NOT! I'm comparing their SPEED. The Amiga is MUCH faster than the GS, regardless of the fact it has a different processor than the GS. I don't care if the Amiga was clocked at 1Mhz and the GS at 100Mhz... the Amiga is FASTER and HALF the price. >I would love to see a faster GS from Apple with a 32-bit Nubus and a big > display.` >I'm not holding my breath though. That's why I bought a mac. I'd love to see that too, but I don't expect it. I'd buy a Mac too, but I just don't like working with Macs as much as I do a II, except for their speed. ALL I WANT IS A DECENT SPEED FOR THE MONEY I FORKED OVER! That's ALL. Can't you understand that? I don't want a Mac. I don't want a 486. I can't afford to spend several years relearning another CPU chip, DOS, or to replace my software library or my hardware investment. I want my GS running at least as fast as the 'competition'. I get sick of trying to tell people that aren't GS users how powerful it can be, when they know it's only 2.8Mhz. They just laugh. So, I'll say what I've said 100 times before: The GS should run faster OR it should be priced at a computer that runs at 2.8Mhz. No... No one MADE me buy the GS. Yes, I knew what it did before I bought. NO. I DID NOT KNOW WHAT OTHER COMPUTERS DID. Yes. I DID shop around... for PRICES... I found my GS for $729. No. I did not shop around for other computer... I didn't know they existed. Even if they did, I PROBABLY would have gotten the GS anyway, not because it's worth the money compared to the other computers, but because of the hardware and software investment I already had in my Franklin AND because of the knowledge I built up over the years learning everything I could about the Apple II. But that's no reason for The GS to be priced so high or to be so slow... at the time, I thought 2.8Mhz was FAST... considering I was used to 1Mhz. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | This is your brain... | BITNET-- mquinn@utcvm | | This is your brain on drugs... | pro-line: | | This is your brain on whole wheat.| mquinn@pro-gsplus.cts.com | |____________________________________|_______________________________|
bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (09/26/90)
In article <IavvVpS00Ud589WlgZ@andrew.cmu.edu>, jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) writes: > > And the only consolation > is that a GS appears in a McDonald's commercial involving a preschooler > for about 3 whole seconds. > The "Education" special edition of Newsweek has a two page ad which has a full page photo. The picture shows a little girl in front of a row of GS's saying something like "I'd be an expert at this if it weren't for all the naps" The ad was from Toyota. By the way, didn't all those posts to AOL clear up the GS problems? ( oops, there goes the blasphemy again. ) bob church bchurch.oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) (09/29/90)
Interesting thought there, Mike. Probably would be like that.
Mark
[ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142 300/1200/2400 baud]
ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo America Online: Goalie5
UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin MCI Mail......: MSteiger
Internet:penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com
ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin@nosc.mil
*******************************************************************************philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (09/29/90)
In article <7117@darkstar.ucsc.edu> unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes: > >In article <1990Sep24.032342.12923@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >>The Amiga500, which is the computer most bring up, does not have better >>graphics. It does have graphics' coprocessors and, unless you are into >>interlaced graphics' modes, it basically has similar graphics to those >>of the GS. But it doesn't have Quickdraw, is hard to expand, has a small >>educational software base, and is not for educational users a heck of >>a lot less than the GS. It is based on the 68000 cpu which makes life >>a lot easier.As for the sound not being as good, that is an understatement. > I was wondering if you think that education is the main >(or seemingly close to ONLY) use for the GS... It seems that in your whole >long post (that I'm responding to right now) you follow along completely >with Apple's "the GS is for education" belief.. [For the time being, I'll >ignore the fact that they're now pushing MACS into education] Well let me simply state that the main target area for the GS should be education. With that as a foundation, and with better connectivity to Mac's via both hardware and software( eg improving AWGS on the GS, adding a better "productivity' graphics' mode to the GS such as 512x384 or whatever is possible, and putting AW onto the Mac) you then have reasons for families to buy a computer for home. In this case it would be basically a home/educational computer with a minor role assigned to doing work, such as connecting to your work computer system via a communications' package or doing some work using AWGS which could then be transferred to the Mac's at work. I think the problem you are having with my post is that I do not believe in a home computer market. I can see a home/business computer such as the PS/1 or a low cost Mac and I can also see a home/educational computer which can do a bit a work. This latter role is where I see the GS fitting in. It needs some improvements and a lower price, but it should remain primarily an education based computer. Forget about the GS for business. It isn't the place for it. That area is dominated by Intel based computers and the Mac. There may very well be a place for Unix workstations now in business. The new NeXT computers have raised some interesting possibilities. Most computers need a base. This is why I have been sceptical about the Amiga, as it does not really have a well-defined target base( apart from the very small video market). The Amiga500 is not really aimed at this video market, and I have to wonder about the higher end Amigas in the face of competition coming from workstations( such as the NeXT) which are dropping in price every day. Look, it's around $3000 for a complete grey scale 040 NeXT for educational users. That price is just very appealing and prices will only drop. True a colour system costs more, but not that much more. That leaves the Amiga without a target base. Why bother spending x amount of $'s on a system to play games. It doesn't make sense. There are dedicated game players available, and these will presumably improve and become less expensive. Of course, people have to either rent or buy the games for a Nintendo system. I am assuming that families are basically not buying computers because they can "pirate" thousands of games. As for the Mac's going into schools, that's great. They are nice computers. So is the GS. There's room for both. It is to everyone's benefit if our children have enthusiastic teachers, interesting computers,etc... I don't see a plot here to get rid of the GS. The GS needs a healthy Apple. Apple is in an industry which is fast changing and in which the competition is very heavy. Between IBM and the workstations, I'd say they have their hands full. It must be rather exciting working for them now. I suggest you have a closer look at the prices for the new NeXT computers and the bundled software( note that SoftPC will be available for the NeXT). I would see if this announcement affects pricing on the new upcoming Apple products. These are interesting times, very,... Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu (The Unknown User) (10/02/90)
This very well may be a repeat article from me. I found an old (i.e. a week or two at most) article in my account, and I see no reason that I'd've kept it other than it not being posted correctly.. (I also remember no replies from it since it is replying to a subject debated a fair amount). If it's a repeat, sorry... Just trying to clean out my account but post my views.. ohwell... here goes: >Robert MacAusland said: >>Scott Rothstein said: >>Apparently, Apple felt that ][ compatibility was more important than making a >>truly great machine. We could have had a fast machine -- they cut it back to >>fit the architecture for the older ]['s. >>scottr@applesauce.bb.ny > >I think that about sums it all up. I would gladly give of ][ compatibility >in order to make the GS the machine it should have been in the first place. There is no way I can understand this mentality. If you don't want Apple II compatibility, GET AN AMIGA OR A MAC II or some other machine. You may think I'm not being "faithful" to the Apple II, but that's JUST what I'm being! I think I'm one of the people that harp the most about being fauthful to the Apple II. But I see no reason in having a "GS" that's not Apple II compatible. Are you talking about a machine based on a 65816? -WHY- if it's not II compatible? I am ABSOLUTELY serious. Something, ANYTHING, with hardware multiply and divide instructions would have a major advantage at least in that one aspect.. (Anything math related would be faster on an otherwise similar speed CPU as far as I can tell). Also, it sure wouldn't bode well for Apple to have -3- different types of machines when they don't seem to be supporting two equally as well as it is. You mean for a "GS" you want a machine with neat graphics and good sound? Get an Amiga. (But it doesn't have sound anywhere near as good as the GS we currently have that's II compatible!) I just wish someone could explain this mentality. Jeez, I screamed a lot in this post too, huh? (heh heh). -- / Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu \ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
cse0507@desire.wright.edu (10/03/90)
In article <9009240703.AA21897@apple.com>, MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: > Not hardly. The Amiga supports 4 voice sound (that's pretty good!), has built > in stereo, and from what an IBM exec. told me, it not only has stereo, but 4 > channel stereo... suround sound. This IBM exec told me this while he was > doing some routine Apple bashing, so I take that last part with a grain of > salt. I've also listened to the sound the Amiga puts out and, to say the > least, it's impressive! I don't know if I would call 4 voices good. Other than maybe game sound effects or a simple sound track you really can't accomplish much with only four sound channels. With the supported 15 channel sound you can really do some amazing sound on the GS, and if you use the 32 oscillators separatly (as Diversi Tune does) you can produce your own small orchestra. One of the hardest instruments to reproduce is a piano because with the sustain pedal you can have quite a few notes going simutaneously. While you could do a good sounding piano on an Amiga, four notes would not really do it justice. This was my main problem with the Casio CZ series in that they sounded good, but only had four voices. To say that the Amiga sound is impressive is really uninformative. To be persuasive you should have said what you were comparing it to. Compared to the AM radio in my brothers Olds, the Amiga really impresed me! Compared to my GS, the Amiga was a glorified Nintendo. Actually, I find that the GS sound is one of the most redeeming factors about the machine.
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (10/03/90)
In article <22547.apple.info-apple@pro-exchange> rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (System Administrator) writes: >>> Apparently, Apple felt that ][ compatibility was more important than making >>> a truly great machine. We could have had a fast machine -- they cut it back >>> to fit the architecture for the older ]['s. >>> scottr@applesauce.bb.ny > >> I think that about sums it all up. I would gladly give of ][ compatibility >> in order to make the GS the machine it should have been in the first place. YOU PEOPLE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND. Please try to find an article I posted yesterday. If you take out compatibility, IT AIN'T AN APPLE II. >Would everyone be happier if Apple just changed the name of the various >Macintosh models to "Apple IIM/n", where "n" is a model number? It seems like >that would answer the *actual* complaints I read so frequently. It would do >all the things people seem to want, and it would be named an "Apple II"!! No I wouldn't be happy. I want to be able to run TAXMAN and Rescue Raiders and Prince of Persia, etc... Things other than games too but games are one of my big vices.. heh.. >I *like* my GS... I really do!! But I like it because it's compatible with >all the older Apple software, even with the limitations. If I need to do >things that exceed those limitations, I'll use a different computer, not sit >around griping that my Apple II doesn't do what a high-end Mac does! I agree with you about why we like our GS.. But I feel that the GS should have higher capabilities. Sure, I don't expect to be able to do stuff a CRAY does, but I want to be able to do what an Amiga or ST does (most of which the GS can do.. obviously it does sound better than either)... AND RETAIN my downward compatibility. -- / Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu \ \"If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."-Lisa Simpson/
whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) (10/06/90)
|MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET scribbles... |> |>>As for the sound not being as good, that is an understatement. |> |>Not hardly. The Amiga supports 4 voice sound (that's pretty good!), has |>built in stereo, and from what an IBM exec. told me, it not only has stereo, |>but 4 channel stereo... suround sound. This IBM exec told me this while he |>was doing some routine Apple bashing, so I take that last part with a grain |>of salt. I've also listened to the sound the Amiga puts out and, to say the |>least, it's impressive! |> | |The GS has the ability to do 4 channel sound if someone would ever bother to |add $10 of hardware to the existing stereo cards. The sound output jack |inside the GS has four multiplexed channels of output, so all that would need |to be done is to double the stuff on a standard stereo card, and write the |software. I hope someone will, as it could be really nice. | | -The Silver Dragon | -AKA Garth Minette Amiga has 4 voice, that's true. BUT it two voice per channel. It's NOT Surround Sound. You need FOUR (4) channels to get surround sound. The GS sound chip (Ensoniq) has 15-vioces. Not surprising, since the Ensoniq chip is used in professional quality synthesizer. "Mirage" is one that comes to mind. GS kicks ass on ANY computer with the exception of the NeXT (which has a 16-bit sound using Motorola DSP chip) or expensive add on cards costing well over $500. It's possible on the GS to have upto 8 channels. More than enough for Surround Sound, although I'd just use a Stereo and hook it up to a Surround sound processor. Don't take a grain of salt, take a whole barrel. The IBMer you talk to don't jack about the GS sound capablity.
jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) (10/07/90)
whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) writes: > |MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET scribbles... > |>but 4 channel stereo... suround sound. This IBM exec told me this while he > | > Amiga has 4 voice, that's true. BUT it two voice per channel. It's NOT > Surround Sound. Not Quite. Quadraphonic Sound, I guess by definition, would be 4 channel, but 'Surround Sound' is not. Surround Sound is a third, rear channel that is used by the music, television an film industry. It involves incoding the track into the stereo tracks, and then decoding them when the music or whatever is played back. I believe what happens is that you reverse the phase of one of the channels, and then add it to the other channel. Things intended for the rear channel will be recorded slightly out of phase between the front left and right channels, and therefore emphasized in the rear channel if you have one. Normal monophonic recordings cancel out. And, by the way, the rear channel in Surround Sound is monophonic. I know this because my housemates and I built a Surround Sound decoder from an artical in Radio Electronics. Very simple design... and it is amazing just how many recordings employ surround sound. But then again, you start to notice things that don't. But again, Surround Sound is a track that is ENCODED within a normal Stereo Signal. You only need two channels to simulate surround sound, and the encoding is accomplished by judicious use of mixing and phasing. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |Jeremy Mereness | Support | Ye Olde Disclaimer: | |jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (internet) | Free | The above represent my| |a700jm7e@cmccvb (Vax... bitnet) | Software| opinions, alone. | |staff/student@Carnegie Mellon U.| | Ya Gotta Love It. | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu (SCOTT ALFTER) (10/07/90)
In article <Ab3XBOu00VQlIAus4E@andrew.cmu.edu> jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) writes: >I know this because my housemates and I built a Surround Sound decoder >from an artical in Radio Electronics. Very simple design... and it is >amazing just how many recordings employ surround sound. But then >again, you start to notice things that don't. Also in some issue of _Radio-Electronics_ they describe a quick hack to get surround sound: just grab a third speaker and connect it to the positive speaker terminals for both the left and right channel. It would look like this: __________________ | | | Surround Speaker | |__________________| | |_______ ________|_________________|____________________________________ | | | | | ___|______ ___|______ | | | | | | | | | | | + O O - | L R | + O O - | Amplifier | | |___|__|___| |___|__|___| | | | | | | | |________|__|______________|__|_________________________________| | | | | ____|__|____ ____|__|____ | | | | | Left Spkr. | | Right Spkr.| |____________| |____________| I haven't tried it, mainly because I don't have a stereo to try it with. :-( You want to be careful with speaker impedances, but if you have a third speaker lying around, you ought to be able to get surround sound dirt-cheap. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Alfter _/_ / v \ Apple II: Internet: alfter@uns-helios.nevada.edu ( ( the power to be your best! GEnie: S.ALFTER \_^_/
6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) (10/09/90)
the gs has 15 channels. current audio cards put even channels into one speaker and odd channels into the other. people have built cards that allow up to 15 different speakers/channels to be hooked into the GS (someone brought one to applefest '88 and we played around with it..funfunfun!). No mass production as far as I know. The motherboard isn't the limited factor, is the audio cards on the market.