cs225ck@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (09/06/90)
I have a general question for everyone out there on the net which has been
bugging me for a long time, so I'll ask you your opinion...
I am considering invensting in a 'new' pc system soon. Right now, I use my
trusty Apple //e and have for the past 4-5 years or so. At any rate, my
progblem is deciding whether or not to get a IIgs or go up to a Macintosh.
(I realize this is the apple2 discussion section but....) I've seen a lot of
GS systems advertised at really decent prices both around town and here on the
net. However, I'm not quite sure whether or not I want to invest in a machine
that may basically be dying. I love the Apple II line to death, and I know
the fate of it has been discussed here before many times before. To me, it
seems like the user support for the machine is almost endless, despite the
show of support from the big-wigs in Cupertino. From glancing at a few
magazines, it seems like software development has virtually ground to a halt
as far as the GS is concerned. (Flame me if you please, I'm going on what I've
been seeing lately) Again, it seems like the public domain sector is going
pretty well. I don't want to invest in a machine and be stuck with no programs
to run on it.
At any rate... if you don't want to clutter up the net with responses, feel
free to e-mail me. I'm basically looking for opinions on the GS, support for
it, programs for it, and whether or not you think investing in one at this time
is a wise idea or not...
So let's hear it GS owners -- and thanks...!
/\------------------------------------------------------------------/\
/ / \ \
\/ Randy Vose - University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana \/
/\ cs225ck@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu or rjv21207@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu /\
\ \ / /
\/------------------------------------------------------------------\/gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (09/07/90)
In article <15800135@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs225ck@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >I am considering invensting in a 'new' pc system soon. Right now, I use my >trusty Apple //e and have for the past 4-5 years or so. At any rate, my >progblem is deciding whether or not to get a IIgs or go up to a Macintosh. You didn't indicate what your application needs really are, so the question cannot be answered properly. However, one consideration is that your Apple //e software should, for the most part, continue to be usable on a IIGS, whereas it wouldn't be on a Mac (at least, not for a while and not affordably). I would also note that if a IIGS doesn't meet your needs due to lack of commercial software, then an IBM PC clone is more likely to meet your needs than a Macintosh, since most personal computer software is now provided for IBM PC and only some of it eventually shows up for other machines.
bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (09/07/90)
In article <15800135@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, cs225ck@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > I have a general question for everyone out there on the net which has been > bugging me for a long time, so I'll ask you your opinion... > > I am considering invensting in a 'new' pc system soon. Right now, I use my > trusty Apple //e and have for the past 4-5 years or so. At any rate, my > progblem is deciding whether or not to get a IIgs or go up to a Macintosh. How is your //E configured? I found that by adding a few pieces of hardware to my //c that I effectively moved up to a new computer. My system bears little resemblance to the one I brought home. Of course, the bottom line is "what capabilities do you need from your computer?". bob church bchurch.oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
AG0514@ALBNYVMS.BITNET (AppleEnthusiast) (09/11/90)
I think at this time investing in an Apple IIgs is a bad move (yes, I am a IIgs owner). Unless there is a miraculous decision at Apple Inc. to start promoting the Apple II line or even support it, the II will die within a matter of two years. I would say to get a Mac, with "II in a Mac", which will allow you to run Apple II applications (not GS). You would have a much easier time getting software for your machine then. <------------------------------------------------------------------------> Andrew Goldstein Internet : ag0514@rachel.albany.edu Applelink: GOLDSTEIN <------------------------------------------------------------------------>
aa404@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chric Roberts) (09/11/90)
>I $hink at this time invecting in an Apple IIgs ic a bad move (yes, I am a >IIgs owner). Unless there is a miraculous decision at Apple Inc. to ctart >promoting the Apple II line or even support it, the II will die within a >matder of two years. I would say to get a Mac, with "II in a Mac", which >will allow you to run Apple II applications (not GS). You would have a >much easier time getting software for your machine then. And you call yourcelf an Apple enthusiast... You know it goes the other way too... Anyo.e out there remember Duet is coming???? That way you get the power of a IIgs and a mac... led's go for "Mac in a II" It'll probably be cheaper anyway... Ad any rate, the IIgs is a great investment.. Yec, it is a little slow. But, you know what, I se"vive, and IES githout a TransWarp, and YES I do use GS/OS a`plications including Appleworks GS... And I personally find it no bother at all... I can't understand all of you power users out $here who insist that everything be done in 12 milliseconds or less... Oh my GOD it took a wh/le two seconds.... CALL THE JUNKYARD!!! I'm not ready to give up on the IIgs... And I've bead all the messages, I've seen all the articals, I TBUELY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT APPLE IS TRYING TO DRO@ THE II LINE!!!! It just doesn't make any business sense. Apple's CEO got his job for a reason, and that's because he has a good business sense... It )sn't any good business sense to get rid of or cease the support of your major moneymaker. namely, the Apple II line.. I really do love my GS. But when something happens that SEEMS to not be favorable to the II line, I don't take it personally and fobm a linch mob... (like I've seen happen to a lot of people) When something happens that you don't like, ask questions, don'd give Idle dhreats.. If Apple truely wanted to drop the II line, it would be for one of 2 reasons.... 1. Id stopped making money.. 2. The CEO has a personal vendictment against the Apple II line. (highly unlikely) So far, I haven't seen traces of eather... So, anyways, to that user out there who is looking into beying a GS... It is a good investment.. I really and treely do see the Apple II growing and expa.ding with apple, just as the Mac is.. (go ahead, stabt throwing the ctones all you pessimists out there.) Chric Roberts Oh, PS, if you agree, or even if y/u disagree, write me and tell me about it. I wa.t to know as mech as I poscibly can about the IIgs and about A`ple as a cobporation... -- Ap`le II fobever! Chris Roberts Channel 4 WCFT-TV Ap`le II SIG Sysop Cleveland Free-net ID's (aa404) / (xx00#) (Apple II SIG) Internet ID: aa$04@cleveland.freenet.edu
aa404@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chris Roberts) (09/11/90)
>I think at this time investing in an Apple IIgs is a bad move (yes, I am a >IIgs owner). Unless there is a miraculous decision at Apple Inc. to start >promoting the Apple II line or even support it, the II will die within a >matter of two years. I would say to get a Mac, with "II in a Mac", which >will allow you to run Apple II applications (not GS). You would have a >much easier time getting software for your machine then. And you call yourself an Apple enthusiast... You know it goes the other way too... Anyone out there remember Duet is coming???? That way you get the power of a IIgs and a mac... let's go for "Mac in a II" It'll probably be cheaper anyway... At any rate, the IIgs is a great investment.. Yes, it is a little slow. But, you know what, I survive, and YES without a TransWarp, and YES I do use GS/OS applications including Appleworks GS... And I personally find it no bother at all... I can't understand all of you power users out there who insist that everything be done in 12 milliseconds or less... Oh my GOD it took a whole two seconds.... CALL THE JUNKYARD!!! I'm not ready to give up on the IIgs... And I've read all the messages, I've seen all the articals, I TRUELY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT APPLE IS TRYING TO DROP THE II LINE!!!! It just doesn't make any business sense. Apple's CEO got his job for a reason, and that's because he has a good business sense... It isn't any good business sense to get rid of or cease the support of your major moneymaker. namely, the Apple II line.. I really do love my GS. But when something happens that SEEMS to not be favorable to the II line, I don't take it personally and form a linch mob... (like I've seen happen to a lot of people) When something happens that you don't like, ask questions, don't give Idle threats.. If Apple truely wanted to drop the II line, it would be for one of 2 reasons.... 1. It stopped making money.. 2. The CEO has a personal vendictment against the Apple II line. (highly unlikely) So far, I haven't seen traces of eather... So, anyways, to that user out there who is looking into buying a GS... It is a good investment.. I really and truely do see the Apple II growing and expanding with apple, just as the Mac is.. (go ahead, start throwing the stones all you pessimists out there.) Chris Roberts Oh, PS, if you agree, or even if you disagree, write me and tell me about it. I want to know as much as I possibly can about the IIgs and about Apple as a corporation... -- Apple II forever! Chris Roberts Channel 4 WCFT-TV Apple II SIG Sysop Cleveland Free-net ID's (aa404) / (xx003) (Apple II SIG) Internet ID: aa404@cleveland.freenet.edu
macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Robert MacAusland) (09/11/90)
>Message 37/41 from AppleEnthusiast Sep 10 '90 at 3:48 pm >I think at this time investing in an Apple IIgs is a bad move (yes, I am a >IIgs owner). Sadly, I have to agree 100% with this point. >Unless there is a miraculous decision at Apple Inc. to start >promoting the Apple II line or even support it, the II will die within a >matter of two years. The machine is already dead as far as I'm concerned (in terms of support) The GS is a machine which desperately needs the proper graphic and processing power in order to do the job it was designed to do, and being forced to buy third party peripherals in order to make the GS perform isn't the answer as far as I'm concerned. We need backing from the company that put the machine out in the first place. And we needed it yesterday. >I would say to get a Mac, with "II in a Mac", I find this statement rather strange as a selling point. It's kind of like saying, 'And as an added bonus our new PC 486 also run Vic-20 software.' Anything the ][ series can do, a mac can do better. Why bother to retain compatibility? The local Commodore vendor is having their annual back to school sale and their products are looking better and better the longer I wait for the machine that should have been released in the first place. I'm going to give Apple until Christmas and if nothing happens by then "Thats a wrap and I am ouuuuuuuuttta here" -- /* Robert MacAusland -> macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca */
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (09/11/90)
In article <90Sep10.200821edt.57352@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Robert MacAusland) writes: >>Message 37/41 from AppleEnthusiast Sep 10 '90 at 3:48 pm >>I think at this time investing in an Apple IIgs is a bad move (yes, I am a >>IIgs owner). >Sadly, I have to agree 100% with this point. Well I don't agree, although it might be wise to wait a few months. A lot depends on what you want to do with the computer. >>Unless there is a miraculous decision at Apple Inc. to start >>promoting the Apple II line or even support it, the II will die within a >>matter of two years. This is absurd. The GS has a strong educational base from which it can draw some breathing space. Your perspective from Ontario, where the educational computing situation is chaotic, does not apply elsewhere. As far as support, software support has been there all along. The hardware needs a bit of upgrading but it wouldn't take much. Consider the following scenario: Claris puts out a better version of AWGS( improving the communications' package which seems very weak), the GS is speeded up to 6-8MHz, the horizontal 200 line mode is improved in order to provide a monochrome 64x400x2 mode, Claris puts out a Mac AppleWorks, the GS becomes capable of reading/writing Mac disks, the video mode is speeded up. This is not a long list, and would be easy to implement. This would provide people with every reason to have a GS at home if they want to do a bit of work which they needed to transfer to their Mac at work and it would appeal to those people who are not looking for a business oriented computer at home. The GS and the Mac make a potent combination in providing a solution to education, home/education,etc...user. >The machine is already dead as far as I'm concerned (in terms of support) What makes you say that? It isn't a game computer, but I have plenty of software which is interesting and useful. Support is hardly dead. >We need backing from the company that put the machine out in >the first place. And we needed it yesterday. Well the GS is due for some improvements. Hopefully these will be forthcoming. > >The local Commodore vendor is having their annual back to school sale and their >products are looking better and better the longer I wait for the machine that >should have been released in the first place. I'm going to give Apple until >Christmas and if nothing happens by then "Thats a wrap and I am ouuuuuuuuttta >here" That says it all. What you want in a computer is not what the GS is aimed at. It appears as though you want an Amiga, which is an arcade computer(the A500). This is reasonable. If that's what you want then you should get an Amiga 500. I hope the GS NEVER becomes a Nintendo machine. I'm not putting the Amiga500 down, but its main purpose has been to play games( although they do have a nice version of TeX and have a bit of a niche in the video area). The A3000 is another computer which on the surface may appeal to you. But it has very few games, almost no educational software,etc...It also does not have the support of any major applications' developers except in the video area. Given that it is not much less than a MacII, I can't see the rational in getting one at this time. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
cbdougla@uokmax.uucp (Collin Broad Douglas) (09/11/90)
>[munch munch] >That says it all. What you want in a computer is not what the GS is aimed at. >It appears as though you want an Amiga, which is an arcade computer(the A500). >This is reasonable. If that's what you want then you should get an Amiga 500. >I hope the GS NEVER becomes a Nintendo machine. I'm not putting the Amiga500 >down, but its main purpose has been to play games( although they do have a >nice version of TeX and have a bit of a niche in the video area). The A3000 >is another computer which on the surface may appeal to you. But it has very >few games, almost no educational software,etc...It also does not have the >support of any major applications' developers except in the video area. Given >that it is not much less than a MacII, I can't see the rational in getting one >at this time. > >Philip McDunnough >University of Toronto >philip@utstat.toronto.edu >[my opinions] That game machine you speak of is easily upgradeable to 1 meg and in that state is at least as powerful as a Mac SE. MY major gripe is that Apple is just charging too much for the GS. They have to take into account what they are up against. I mean the Amiga. You can get a 25Mhz Amiga 3000 (based on a 68030) for about $4000. That includes the cpu, a monitor and a 50 meg HD. $4000 is about as much as I've invested in my GS and that system would include a hard drive (mine doesn't). also, even the lowly amiga 500 runs a pre-emptive multitasking OS, has great graphics and good sound (not as good as the GS though of course). If Apple would just LOWER the prices then they would sell more machines but it's just not realistic to expect people to pay the price of a GS. The unit alone costs like $800 mail order. That includes the cpu, a keyboard, a mouse and 1 meg RAM. Anyway, I REALLY am glad I got my GS. When I got it, the only other things I had to choose from were the Atari 520 ST and the Amiga 1000 (buggy...buggy). But, if faced with the same decision in this market, I really don't think I would do it again.
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (09/11/90)
In article <1990Sep11.123726.11265@uokmax.uucp> cbdougla@uokmax.uucp (Collin Broad Douglas) writes: [stuff related to my support of the GS and related Amiga musings] > That game machine you speak of is easily upgradeable to 1 meg and in > that state is at least as powerful as a Mac SE. What does 1 meg have to do with anything? Both the SE and the Amiga500 have 68000 cpu's. So what? The point is that the Amiga does not have a software base to compare with the SE. As it stands it does not have a good graphics mode, and is prone to flickering. Sure 2.0 will fix that but those are futures for the A500. Who knows what the future brings for the Mac/GS? Having a 68000 is meaningless unless you have software. > MY major gripe is that Apple is just charging too much for the GS. They > have to take into account what they are up against. I mean the Amiga. The GS and Amiga markets are different. I agree that the GS has been over-priced to the public( but reasonably priced to education) and this will probably be addressed. The Amiga is not a competitor for the GS. It has no presence in education, and the A500 is mainly a game computer... > You can get a 25Mhz Amiga 3000 (based on a 68030) for about $4000. That > includes the cpu, a monitor and a 50 meg HD. So what? You can get a MacIIci for not much more and the ci has a much better software base. The GS is not competing against the A3000, and it is unfair to compare what you paid for in the past for your GS with current prices. Try looking up the price of the A1000 when it first came out. I assume the GS will have its price reviewed in the near future. In any case, the A3000 is not the competition. IBM/Tandy is. > $4000 is about as much as I've invested in my GS and that system would > include a hard drive (mine doesn't). As I've noted computer prices are dropping. What you may have paid 2 years ago is irrelevant to today's prices. > also, even the lowly amiga 500 runs a pre-emptive multitasking OS, has > great graphics and good sound (not as good as the GS though of course). The A500 does not have "great graphics". As far as the Amiga's multitasking goes, please note that tasks are not hardware protected from each other. That makes preemptive multitasking next to useless. Try running a simulation only to have it crashed by some other task. > If Apple would just LOWER the prices then they would sell more machines > but it's just not realistic to expect people to pay the price of a GS. > The unit alone costs like $800 mail order. That includes the cpu, > a keyboard, a mouse and 1 meg RAM. I agree that the GS should be improved and have its price reviewed. The prices you are quoting are not those given to education which is the main target audience of the GS. In any case it all depends what you want in a computer. We pay around $3000 for a 12.5 mips Sparc. Does that mean that noone should buy anything but Sun workstations?(By the way, that price includes UNIX). > Anyway, I REALLY am glad I got my GS. When I got it, the only other > things I had to choose from were the Atari 520 ST and the Amiga 1000 > (buggy...buggy). But, if faced with the same decision in this market, > I really don't think I would do it again. Well I got my GS 10 months ago. I have Macs and a GS. They go well together. Faced with the same decision I would still get a GS. It's a real pleasure to use and the user base is knowlegeable, friendly and Apple has been good to me through my Macs, GS, LW's etc...I see no reason to switch to another vendor. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) (09/12/90)
> >I hope the GS NEVER becomes a Nintendo machine. I'm not putting the Amiga500 > >down, but its main purpose has been to play games( although they do have a >nice version of TeX and have a bit of a niche in the video area). > >Philip McDunnough > >University of Toronto > >philip@utstat.toronto.edu > >[my opinions] > That game machine you speak of is easily upgradeable to 1 meg and in > that state is at least as powerful as a Mac SE. > MY major gripe is that Apple is just charging too much for the GS. They > have to take into account what they are up against. That Amiga can also, very cheaply, EMULATE A MAC-SE!!!!! Why is there no decent productivity software for the Amiga? You buy a Mac-Emulator and run Mac stuff! I am amazed at how compatible these emulators are. Collin is right about the price of the //gs. It is too expensive for what it is, and the longer Apple waits to a) make it more valuable w/speed, capability, etc. and b) cut the price by bundling storage devices and such, the farther the machine will sink in the market place. Getting a GS up to speed is prohibitively expensive, as you've got to have memory and a harddrive. And then, there's software, which Apple doesn't bundle. The PS/1 is bundled with MS-Works, which makes the thing useful right out of the box. The GS needs lots more help out of the box to get it useful, and how do you explain that to a new computer customer in 20 words or less? Then there are the things we wish we had in the computer that don't come from the manufacturer. like a decent fan like the Conserver (mo' money) and decent CPU speed as with a Transwarp (mo' money) and some RAM to play with, not just the system minimum (mo' n' mo' money). Have we reached the $3000 mark yet? What else is in the Apple store for $3000 that's a lot less complicated? A mac, that's what. Third parties are great for hardware enhancement, but ridiculous for hardware necessity. Apple should offer a cpu that can carry its own weight without having to wait 4-8 weeks for a package from Applied Engineering. Well, the Fall Quarter is nearly upon us. So, where's ROM 4? Where's system 6.0? Amigas run Unix, for chrissake and cost half what Apple wants! Maybe A.Engineering could offer a GS clone with a Vulcan, 8MHz processor, 1.4 Meg floppy and a decent price.? I'd buy it! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |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. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
adamr@pro-novapple.cts.com (Adam Robey) (09/14/90)
In-Reply-To: message from aa404@cleveland.Freenet.Edu I agree with you completely. I have an Apple IIGS, an Apple II+, and a Macintosh IICX. My primary computer is the Apple IIGS. I use the Macintosh for things like getting laser print jobs done and converting files. I use the Apple II+ for external interfacing projects. (That way: if I blow it up, no big deal.) I use the Apple IIGS for just about everything else. I do not have a Transwarp. [I'm going to get a hard drive, I admit it.] But I have no plans for getting a Transwarp in the near future. I haven't heard of Duet at all but I think I just figured out what it is. Is it a Mac emulator for an Apple IIGS? Anyone that agrees or disagrees with me, send me mail or post. Anyone with information on Duet, send me mail or post. -AMR _____________________________________________________________________________ | PROLINE: pro-novapple!adamr | UUCP: crash!pro-novapple!adamr | | ARPA: crash!pro-novapple!adamr@nosc.mil | INET: adamr@pro-novapple.cts.com | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
adamr@pro-novapple.cts.com (Adam Robey) (09/14/90)
In-Reply-To: message from macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca Why does it matter if you have to buy external peripherals? If I buy a car and it does not come with air conditioning, that might be fine if I live in Alaska. Why buy what you don't need? If I want more speed, I'll buy a TransWarp. If I want more memory, I'll buy it. -AMR _____________________________________________________________________________ | PROLINE: pro-novapple!adamr | UUCP: crash!pro-novapple!adamr | | ARPA: crash!pro-novapple!adamr@nosc.mil | INET: adamr@pro-novapple.cts.com | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bill@braille.uwo.ca (Bill Carss) (09/14/90)
I couldn't resist the urge to say a couple of things about what I believe to mDbe some clear mis-guidedness!! I have been a failrDDrly active Apple//e user for almost six years. I am, as nearly as I can put it, emotionally involved with my computer. Even so, I would not, and frequently do not advise people to purchase Apple II ANYTHINGS!!! Why? You might ask.... For almost four of the past six years, I provided support, set-up, training and trouble shooting services for a very select group of Apple users in the Province of Ontario (Canada for those who don't know). During that time I was working for a Value Added Apple Retailer. For those of us who have been around for a few yeafDrs, you may recall that the //e was announced to be "dead" prior to the official release of EVERYONE'S FAVOURITE!!! the IIgs. You may also recall, that Apple retailers worldwide sold out of the presumed dead Apple//e over the next couple of months and the result was the NEW AND IMPROVED Apple//e with the new OPTION key and numbDewric keypad built right in. I wonder why Apple started re-issuing //e's? Could it be because they DID NOT REALIZE THAT THE IIgs wouldn't go over as well as they thought it would? Have we ever seen behavior from Apple such as this in the past? HINT!!! LISA, APPLE III, MAC? We all know that "Apple knows best!!!" Their brilliant marketting schemes related to those items in the hint above are certainly sufficient evidence to show that they don't give a damn about Apple II users!!! You would think though, when they started re-issuing the //e that they might get the hint!! Obviously - they haven't!!! So, where does this leave our potential iigsDDDDIIgs purchaser? If you are going to purchase a computer on the basis of how well the company that manufacturers it supports it, DON'T BUY APPLE ANYTHING!!!!! If you want to purchase a computer on the basis of how well the users support it, that's a different matter. I think Apple II users are among the most loyal and PIG-HEADED computer users in the world. We have continually dumbfounded Apple Inc. (evidence above) and I think we may very well continue to do so!! However......... On a purely hardware level, I can not, in all conscience, suggest that anyone purchase an Apple II ______. Because Apple Inc. did not , (until the introduction of the IIgs ) DDD) make any significant attempts at upgrading the technology (for which among other things they are being sued by Apple Music Inc.), the Apple II family even with all the spiffy fudges and "round abouts" is still ten of fifDDDDDr fifteen year old technology in a nice new case!!! There is no denying that, and if you want ot have a computer that is 20 years old in five years butDy a IIgs. If D, on the other hand you want something just a little older - buy a //e!!! Having said this, I would ntDot SELL, TRADE or GIVE my //e TO ANYONE for anything. I truly mean that. I use it every day, always enjoy using it and revel in learning more about it as time goes on. I am not, ready (like our prospective IIgs purchaser) to put out a couple of thousand dollars for a computer at this point in history. If I were, I would want to get as much BANG FOR MY BUCKS as possible - and frnakly Apple II ____ isn't the best you can do for your dollars!!! For those people who's feelings I have hurt I am truly sorry... BUT WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE - APPLE II's ARE TECHNICALLY ANTIQUES!!! Bill Carss bill@braille.uwo.ca (note the lower case please!!!) P.S. All comments are of course encouraged!!!
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (09/14/90)
Good thing you don't won't a Transwarp GS. You can't get 'em. I've had one on back order for almost six months now. Me thinks AE isn't long for this world. *** Randy Hyde O-)
cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) (09/14/90)
>That Amiga can also, very cheaply, emulate a Mac-SE!!!! Why is there >no decent productivity software for the Amiga? You buy a Mac-Emulator >and run Mac stuff! I am amazed at how compatible these emulators are. The Amiga has one small advantage that the Apple line doesn't...namely a 68xxx CPU, which means that the Amiga doesn't have to do the software emulation of a "larger" chip that the 65xxx line would have to. A "Mac in the //gs" board is in the workings, according to a (fairly) solid rumor. I'd give very good odds that the board would have a 68xxx chip on it. -- Charles William Swiger cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu
max@lgc.com (Max Heffler) (09/14/90)
In article <8648@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: >Good thing you don't won't a Transwarp GS. You can't get 'em. I've had one on >back order for almost six months now. Me thinks AE isn't long for this world. >*** Randy Hyde O-) It depends who you order the Transwarp GS from. We had one on order from one company that charged our credit card and lost our order and the reorder took so long. They were so rude. We switched our order to Roger Coats and got it within days. What a difference... -- Max Heffler internet: max@lgc.com Landmark Graphics Corp. uucp: ..!uunet!lgc!max 333 Cypress Run, Suite 100 phone: (713) 579-4751 Houston, Texas 77094
penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) (09/15/90)
Did you get a chance to look in the latest issue of Incider?
John Scully wrote a letter to the owners of Apple II's. most of it was hot
air, but atleast it shows he knows we're out here.
He did, however, plug that new MAC with Apple II compatibility in the letter
acouple of times.
Mark Steiger
[ 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
*******************************************************************************penguin@gnh-igloo.cts.com (Mark Steiger) (09/15/90)
I agree with you totally, Chris. I have a GS also without a transwarp. Many
of my friend ask me how I can survive waiting an extra 3 seconds for GS/OS to
load. :)
I don't know why all of a sudden every one is saying "Drop the II's. There's no
supprt." I never had any in the first place. I had a IIE for 7 years and
never got any support. That is one area Apple needs to improve on. I even
know of people with MACS that can't find support (Heaven forbid).
Mark Steiger
[ 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
*******************************************************************************AG0514@ALBNYVMS.BITNET (AppleEnthusiast) (09/17/90)
In response to Phillip McDonough's article: >I assume the GS will have its price reviewed in the near future. Don't count on it. How long did the IIe stay at the same price long after it was an anitique? Unless Apple has changed drastically, this be the same for the GS.. >As I've noted computer prices are dropping. What you may have paid 2 years ago >is irrelevant to today's prices. With Apple it is completely relevant becuase the price of the IIs does not change year to year. >The A500 does not have "great graphics". As far as the Amiga's multitasking >goes, please note that tasks are not hardware protected from each other. That >makes preemptive multitasking next to useless. Try running a simulation only >to have it crashed by some other task. The A500 does have better graphics than the IIgs does (much better, 640 x 400 with 16 colors), and for multitasking, I'd rather have it and crash than not have it at all. Andrew Goldstein aka AppleEnthusiast Internet: ag0514@rachel.albany.edu
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (09/18/90)
Hmm... I ordered it directly from AE and I've called them an average of once a month about it. I wonder if they simply don't like my money? *** Randy Hyde O-) .
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) (09/18/90)
>>The A500 does not have "great graphics". As far as the Amiga's multitasking >>goes, please note that tasks are not hardware protected from each other. That >>makes preemptive multitasking next to useless. Try running a simulation only >>to have it crashed by some other task. > >The A500 does have better graphics than the IIgs does (much better, 640 x 400 >with 16 colors), and for multitasking, I'd rather have it and crash than >not have it at all. > > >Andrew Goldstein aka AppleEnthusiast >Internet: ag0514@rachel.albany.edu The A500 has better graphics than the GS, but not because of 400 mode. If you remember, the Amiga's 400 mode is interlaced (pronounced use-less) which causes the display to flicker on anything by a slow scan monitor. Microway produces a device called a "flicker-fixer" which de-interlaces the 400 mode. Interlaced graphics are quite poor for animation, which is the Amiga's forte. The Amiga has two custom processor chips for graphics: one to handle most of the drudgery, one to manage sprites, multi-planar graphics, etc. Very little software for the Amiga uses 400 mode, most use the 640x200 screen (which is the same resolution as ours, though much better for animation). On the other hand the Atari ST series had 640x400 resolution; but monochrome only. This wouldn't be bad for the IIgs since it would give you more room on the desktop, thus improving the usefulness of such progs. as GraphicWriter III and PublishIT. A lesson for Apple: Commodore realized the mistake they made by giving the Amiga a interlaced 400 Mode and have included de-interlacing hardware on the Amiga 3000 (plus 640x480 minimal VGA. I say minimal since VGA works with 640x480, 800x600, and 1024x768; and VGA cards for the 1024x768 resolution on the PC aren't that expensive: $350 at most) Rumors in the July '90 Nibble seem to indicate that the GS's graphics may be augmented with a 400 mode in the future. I certainly hope that they have the forsight to make that mode NON-INTERLACED. It would be like watching a train wreck in slow motion for Apple to put a useless video mode on the GS. ---------------------------- Mark Orr + $CSD211@LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU + ----------------------------
don@brahms.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) (09/18/90)
In article <9009180128.AA00716@apple.com> $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: > >The A500 has better graphics than the GS, but not because of 400 mode. >If you remember, the Amiga's 400 mode is interlaced (pronounced use-less) >which causes the display to flicker on anything by a slow scan monitor. >Microway produces a device called a "flicker-fixer" which de-interlaces >the 400 mode. Interlaced graphics are quite poor for animation, which is >the Amiga's forte. The Amiga has two custom processor chips for graphics: >one to handle most of the drudgery, one to manage sprites, multi-planar >graphics, etc. Very little software for the Amiga uses 400 mode, most use >the 640x200 screen (which is the same resolution as ours, though much >better for animation). > Interlaced graphics are very useful... if you do video work. That's what's gotten the Amiga into so many TV stations, etc. That interlace is a part of the NTSC video signal... you see it whenever you turn on your TV. I can also switch to PAL mode, which gives 640x256 or 640x512 interlaced for compatibility with the european TV standard. Interlaced graphics are not inherently poor for animation. There's more data to move around on a 640x400 screen than a 640x200 screen, whether it's interlaced or not. The new enhanced chip set (one of the two new chips has been available for some time, the other is in the 3000 and will be shipping for the other systems when v2.0 of the OS is ready to be put on ROMs) has a 640x480 and 1280x200 non-interlaced mode, as well as 640x960 and 1280x400 interlace modes. (Note that the resolutions I'm mentioning don't take into account the ability to use overscan to further enlarge the screen size). 1280x800 mono is possible on any Amiga with a Moniterm or A2024 monitor. >On the other hand the Atari ST series had 640x400 resolution; but >monochrome only. This wouldn't be bad for the IIgs since it would give >you more room on the desktop, thus improving the usefulness of such progs. >as GraphicWriter III and PublishIT. > >A lesson for Apple: Commodore realized the mistake they made by giving >the Amiga a interlaced 400 Mode and have included de-interlacing hardware >on the Amiga 3000 (plus 640x480 minimal VGA. I say minimal since VGA >works with 640x480, 800x600, and 1024x768; and VGA cards for the 1024x768 >resolution on the PC aren't that expensive: $350 at most) > That 'mistake' kept the AMiga alive and going strong in the video industry when Commodore had no idea what was going on around them. Now Commodore has gotten its act together (I mean REALLY gotten it's act together, all around) and has included the flicker-fixer device in the A3000 to broaden the machine's appeal to other markets.
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (09/19/90)
$CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes: >Rumors in the July '90 Nibble seem to indicate that the GS's graphics >may be augmented with a 400 mode in the future. I certainly hope that >they have the forsight to make that mode NON-INTERLACED. It would be like >watching a train wreck in slow motion for Apple to put a useless video >mode on the GS. You can get an interlaced 400 mode for the GS _TODAY_. It's called the Video Overlay Card and it has to be interlaced because TV is interlaced. The O/S doesn't officially support it but I'm working on ways to get around that. Interlaced modes are not useless -- you can use them with NTSC monitors and for digitized pictures the flicker is not a real problem. (I have a demo disk for the VOC to back this up.) Putting in a non-interlaced 400 mode would require Apple to do something they should have done in the first place: put a _designed_ video system in the GS and not a _kludged_ one. I'm all for it. But I don't think the interlaced modes should be left out. Notice how the mac market is scrambling to make NTSC interfaces. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (Bob Lindabury) (09/19/90)
In-Reply-To: message from $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET > The A500 has better graphics than the GS, but not because of 400 mode. > If you remember, the Amiga's 400 mode is interlaced (pronounced use-less) > which causes the display to flicker on anything by a slow scan monitor. > Microway produces a device called a "flicker-fixer" which de-interlaces > the 400 mode. Interlaced graphics are quite poor for animation, which is > the Amiga's forte. The Amiga has two custom processor chips for graphics: > one to handle most of the drudgery, one to manage sprites, multi-planar > graphics, etc. Very little software for the Amiga uses 400 mode, most use > the 640x200 screen (which is the same resolution as ours, though much > better for animation). How can someone post information like this when they obviously don't know what they are talking about? It is almost completly incorrect. Let's see if I can clarify a few points: The interlaced mode (400/480) is far from useless. The author contends that interlace mode is poor for animation, which is the Amiga's forte. He's right that animation is the Amiga's forte. However, anyone that does ANY animation on the Amiga for video knows that the interlace mode is a REQUIREMENT. All NTSC is interlaced video. The Flicker-Fixer was created to de-interlace productivity software such as CAD and WP programs for use in 400 line mode. He then goes on to say that very little software uses the interlace mode. Again totally incorrect. Every Graphics program on the Amiga uses the interlaced mode and most other program also use the interlace mode. You can pick whether you want interlace on or off in about 95% of the available programs and even the Workbench (like Finder). > A lesson for Apple: Commodore realized the mistake they made by giving > the Amiga a interlaced 400 Mode and have included de-interlacing hardware > on the Amiga 3000 (plus 640x480 minimal VGA. I say minimal since VGA > works with 640x480, 800x600, and 1024x768; and VGA cards for the 1024x768 > resolution on the PC aren't that expensive: $350 at most) I already covered the inaccuracies concerning the interlace mode. Now he is totally incorrect about de-interlacing hardware. The new chipset that comes standard in the Amiga 3000 (optional upgrade for 2000's) produces a non-interlaced 640x480 output signal as well as the interlaced signal if you want it. The de-interlacing hardware that is built into the 3000 also acts as a scan doubler which takes intterlaced high-resolution screens and outputs them without flicker to a 31.5kHz VGA monitor for the purpose of VGA monitor compatibility. His contention that the Amiga produces VGA output is totally inaccurate. Although the Amiga works in VGA resolutions, it certainly doesn't do any VGA. Resolutions are software selectable in the following: 320x200, 320x400, 640x200, 640x400, 640x480(non-interlaced), 1280x400. Each resolution can be put into overscan which increases such resolutions as 640x400 to 704x480 for full video output. Yeah..and it's all standard! No $350.00 price tag on these resolutions. Apple should take a lesson from Commodore, but certainly not the incorrect lesson you elude to. > Rumors in the July '90 Nibble seem to indicate that the GS's graphics > may be augmented with a 400 mode in the future. I certainly hope that > they have the forsight to make that mode NON-INTERLACED. It would be like > watching a train wreck in slow motion for Apple to put a useless video > mode on the GS. Well, I've had about all the rumors I can stand about upgrades to the Apple //GS's graphics. It's been too many years and too few improvements in this department that makes the GS the slug it is today for animation. Maybe that's why there are only a handful of graphics/animation programs for the GS with it's "great" 640x200 graphics mode and why there are a ton of people out there with Amiga 500's and 2000's actually doing animation (in 2D AND 3D) rather than just talking about it! > ---------------------------- > Mark Orr + > $CSD211@LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU + > ---------------------------- -- Bob (GS AND Amiga owner) I also have an IBM AT with super-VGA 800x600x256 if that makes any difference. ______ Pro-Graphics BBS `It's better than a sharp stick in the eye!' ________ UUCP: crash!pro-graphics!bobl | Pro-Graphics: 908/469-0049 ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | America Online: Graphics3d Internet: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | CompuServe: RIP _________ ___________ Raven Enterprises 25 Raven Avenue Piscataway, NJ 08854
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (09/26/90)
In <gava_FS00VR0Q1v5Mb@andrew.cmu.edu> jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) writes: >Then there are the things we wish we had in the computer that don't come >from the manufacturer. like a decent fan like the Conserver (mo' money) >and decent CPU speed as with a Transwarp (mo' money) and some RAM to >play with, not just the system minimum (mo' n' mo' money). Have we >reached the $3000 mark yet? What else is in the Apple store for $3000 >that's a lot less complicated? A mac, that's what. Better yet! If you are in college, and you are gonna spend $3200-3500, just go to your campus computer dealer and ask for a NeXTstation! Complete with the new '040, 105MB drive (actually, ya need a bigger one to get all the bundled software), a big ole 17" monitor (not color, but still, ain't too bad), UNIX, a COMPLETE set of development tools (everything from compilers to editors to the Interface Builder (sorta like resources)), a 2.88 MB floppy drive compatible with MessyDos, and if you act before 12/31/90, you get Improv, a new Lotus spreadsheet that is pretty damn awesome! Redefines the meaning of spreadsheets! A $695 value free! Also, don't forget it's postscript capabilities, it's bundled word processors, etc., etc. Heck, except for the color bit, the NeXTstation could even compete against Amiga! Retail the machine is $4995, but name one other computer that can compare to the NeXTstations AND have all the bundled software it does? <crickets in the background> Tis what I thought. I really hate to leave Apple, but I really hate being screwed by a company for four years with my GS too. But my GS will see fit to a new home, as a add on terminal to my soon to be acquired Cube. (note, not the NeXTstation. Cube and Station are two different products). Come on Apple restore mine, and everybody elses faith! Or just get it over with, and sell the rights to the Apple II line to someone else. -k -- "It's been real, it's been fun, but it ain't been real fun!"
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (09/26/90)
In article <gava_FS00VR0Q1v5Mb@andrew.cmu.edu> jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) writes: >That Amiga can also, very cheaply, EMULATE A MAC-SE!!!!! >Why is there no decent productivity software for the Amiga? You buy a >Mac-Emulator and run Mac stuff! I am amazed at how compatible these >emulators are. They don't emulate AppleTalk though.. At least not the one I saw... I believe it was AMACS (AMAX??) and was fully done in software, thus I guess that means it had pirated MAC ROMs.. whoops 'twas kind of neat seeing my former housemate's Amiga run Mac stuff though. I don't remember why it was needed at the time,but one of the reasons he ran AMACS/AMAX at all was to do AppleTalk stuff.. and it wouldn't work... Oh yeah... I believe it was to test Appletalk routines he was writing/debugging! -- /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/
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (09/27/90)
In article <gava_FS00VR0Q1v5Mb@andrew.cmu.edu> jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeremy G. Mereness) writes: > > >> That game machine you speak of is easily upgradeable to 1 meg and in >> that state is at least as powerful as a Mac SE. > >> MY major gripe is that Apple is just charging too much for the GS. They >> have to take into account what they are up against. > >That Amiga can also, very cheaply, EMULATE A MAC-SE!!!!! >Why is there no decent productivity software for the Amiga? You buy a >Mac-Emulator and run Mac stuff! I am amazed at how compatible these >emulators are. Yeah, because they use Apple ROMS (or pirate copies thereof). BTW, they emulate a Mac Plus, not an SE, unless there is some new product I am not aware of. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.