lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) (07/14/90)
I had a chance to read Byte Magazine's July issue from cover to cover (I was in Cabo San Lucas for a few days) and came across an article reviewing geography software (the article was entitled "The World According to Micros"). Amazingly, one of the programs that was mentioned (and given a fairly decent review) was "World GeoGraph"; an Apple IIGS-only software program. I've been reading Byte for awhile now, and find it extremely informative but totally lacking as far as referring to anything connected with the Apple II (it seems to be delegated to the "toy" or "antique" category). However, it is interesting to point out what they did say about this program (and inferences to the Apple IIGS); it sort of exemplifies the problems and frustrations we have with the current hardware. >World GeoGraph is a geography-learning tool designed primarily for >classroom use. It has a highly interactive relationship between the >maps and the database. This Apple IIGS program is designed around >five geographical themes--location, place, relationships within areas, >movement, and regions. It beautifully integrates these concepts in a >way that stimulates users to think creatively and analytically. >The manual and accompanying classroom guide are excellent, and the >program is quite intuitive to use. Despite the Apple IIGS monitor's >COURSE RESOLUTION (640 by 200 pixels), the global and regional maps >are clear and reasonably detailed. (emphasis added) >Although the SPEED of execution is sometimes a bit SLOW, you will find >World GeoGraph flexible in displaying its data with maps, graphs, and >tables. .... And there you have it, folks. Too slow; lousy resolution. Come-on Apple. We need a hardware upgrade. Lynda
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (07/14/90)
In article <3504@crash.cts.com> lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) writes: >I had a chance to read Byte Magazine's July issue from cover to cover (I >was in Cabo San Lucas for a few days) and came across an article reviewing >geography software (the article was entitled "The World According to >Micros"). > >Amazingly, one of the programs that was mentioned (and given a fairly >decent review) was "World GeoGraph"; an Apple IIGS-only software program. >I've been reading Byte for awhile now, and find it extremely informative >but totally lacking as far as referring to anything connected with the >Apple II (it seems to be delegated to the "toy" or "antique" category). >And there you have it, folks. Too slow; lousy resolution. Come-on >Apple. We need a hardware upgrade. To say that World Geograph is too slow is just not true. It may not be up to the speed of software running off 386 and 486 based computers( which is basically Byte's bread and butter with the occasional foray into the A3000 and MacII worlds), but I have had no problem running it off a server, from a hard disk or from a floppy. The graphics are rather nice, and while the GS does not have VGA resolution, keep in mind that VGA is only now just catching on. Until recently you had CGA( and the GS's graphics are much better than CGA) as the main video mode for educational PC software. I do agree that the GS needs some improvement in the speed and video areas, but let's not overstate what is required. An evolutionary approach, such as the "rumoured" ROM04 at a low cost, and better integration with the Mac is something I would like to see and I'm sure Apple will act responsibly, as it always has, and proceed accordingly. To do otherwise would certainly sour the relationship between GS users and Apple to the detriment of both. Perhaps Byte will be so kind as to tell us why a company as large as IBM can come out with a "home" computer of the likes of the PS/1 ? There's more to computing than speed. If you want speed, buy a Risc workstation. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com (Terry Guelfo) (07/16/90)
In-Reply-To: message from lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com
Heh... "too slow; lousy resolution"? Well, Lynda, I wouldn't go THAT far. I
have World Geograph. Even though I am a college student I have found it quite
useful for my own geography classes. It's a wonderful little program
(probably lacking next to PC Globe 3.0) but I have no complaints. The maps
are colorful and the resoultion (in 640 mode) is fine. Nothing is fuzzy or
questionable. And the 'gazetteer' is complete and informative.
As for the speed, sure, the maps don't POP up on the screen, but they don't
take three years either. The problem is, I think... everyone wants an IBM
inside an Apple case. I don't look at IBM and then look at my Apple and wish
it could go as fast or have VGA comparable grahpics. I look at my Apple and
say "Wow, good machine. It does just what I want it to. I'm happy with it
the way it is. After all, I DID pick it over an IBM."
If you want to go faster, get a Transwarp. Simple as that. Personally, I
can't afford one, but I'm not complaining. Maybe I am an odd one out here...
dunno...
"Journey of many dollar begin with one dollar." -- Decker Moss
_______________________ _______________________
| ProLine: tg.exc@pro-harvest |
| Internet: tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com |
| UUCP: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc |
| ARPA: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc@nosc.mil |
| BITNET: tg.exc%pro-harvest.cts.com@nosc.mil |
|_____________ SnailMail: PO Box 502, Lansing, IL 60438-0502 _______________|
If you're a college age, Australian Apple IIGS owner, please mail me.lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) (07/17/90)
In-Reply-To: message from tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com >Heh... "too slow; lousy resolution"? Well, Lynda, I wouldn't go that far. Well, perhaps I didn't say it clear enough. The article in Byte I was referring to said the program was too slow, and the resolution was coarse. I would imagine they were using it on a regular Apple IIGS (the 2.8 mhz kind... who knows, it could have even been set to 1 mhz...). Accelerators are great, but if the basic machine runs at 2.8 mhz, then that's how the whole world looks at it. It's slow, compared to what else is out there (BTW, I don't mean to set up another debate about the x4 factor with the 65816 vs the other guys...). The resolution is acceptable, but with the rest of 'em capable of 640 x 400 and better, our machine is getting way behind. Just think how neat it would be to have our machine with this better resolution, and a decent speed as standard. It would bring us up-to-date. BTW, I have a transwarp; it can run at 9 mhz. Lynda >Everyone wants an IBM inside an Apple case. I don't look at IBM and then >look at my Apple and wish it could go as fast and have VGA comparable >graphics. I dunno. I look at my Apple and say, why can't Apple make my 9 mhz Apple IIGS standard? A redesign of the motherboard would give the speed I have to everyone. I dunno. A friend of mine who designed a 640 x 400 card for doing graphics on the Apple II gave me a demo when I was curious to see what it would look like. It was monochrome, but resolution was terrific (the card was developed a few years ago for a specific use, and was never sold). Gosh, I had 640 x 400 graphics running at 9 mhz. I don't want an IBM inside my Apple. I want my Apple to be as good as an IBM (I know it can be).
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (07/18/90)
lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) writes: >Accelerators are great, but if the basic machine runs at 2.8 mhz, then that's >how the whole world looks at it. Exactly. Which is why we need system 6.0 ASAP. >The resolution is acceptable, but with the rest of 'em capable of 640 x 400 >and better, our machine is getting way behind. You want 640x400? Buy a video overlay card. I know how to hack display a 400 line graphic on it, and I'd love to see a QuickDraw400 INIT, but Apple either hasn't written one or hasn't released it yet. >Just think how neat it would be to have our machine with this better >resolution, and a decent speed as standard. It would bring us up-to-date. Essentially, yes. There's more that needs to be done, but those are the two biggies. > I look at my Apple and say, why can't Apple make my 9 mhz Apple IIGS >standard? A redesign of the motherboard would give the speed I have to >everyone. Bingo. Apple knows how to fix the GS. Hell, even I could tell you how to fix the GS. It's more a question of product strategy and internal politics. >I dunno. A friend of mine who designed a 640 x 400 card for doing graphics on >the Apple II gave me a demo when I was curious to see what it would look like. >It was monochrome, but resolution was terrific (the card was developed a few >years ago for a specific use, and was never sold). Gosh, I had 640 x 400 >graphics running at 9 mhz. I wouldn't mind seeing that, or at least hearing a technical overview of the board and the design issues that went into it. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (07/18/90)
In article <3575@crash.cts.com> lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) writes: >I dunno. A friend of mine who designed a 640 x 400 card for doing graphics on >the Apple II gave me a demo when I was curious to see what it would look like. >It was monochrome, but resolution was terrific (the card was developed a few >years ago for a specific use, and was never sold). Gosh, I had 640 x 400 >graphics running at 9 mhz. > Was the 640x400 running on the GS RGB monitor? If so, was it an interlaced signal? Where did you get a 9MHz TWGS? I have a ROM03 with a 7MHz TWGS, and in the 8 months or so that I have had it, I have gone through 2 TWGS's. I'm still waiting for the 2cond one to return from AE(fortunately the DMA SCSI card came out, otherwise the GS would be unbearable from the Finder). Let's see, AE has probably had the TWGS's around 90% of the time. I wonder if they are trying to redefine the meaning of a one year warranty? Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (07/18/90)
In article <3575@crash.cts.com> lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) writes: >The resolution is acceptable, but with the rest of 'em capable of 640 x 400 >and better, our machine is getting way behind. I think the restriction to 4 colors (per scan line, might as well be for the whole image in practical applications) is even worse than the spatial resolution. 640x400x4 would still be appreciably behind current expectations for small-computer graphics. 640x400x256 would be good enough for almost all purposes. >I don't want an IBM inside my Apple. I want my Apple to be as good as an IBM >(I know it can be). That's for sure. If I need an IBM PC clone I'll buy one; no point in setting up an incompletely compatible hybrid for about the same cost. But I'd much rather continue to have just one computer on my desk that supports my large library of existing software AND provides the capabilities I need for new applications.
tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com (Terry Guelfo) (07/20/90)
In-Reply-To: message from philip@utstat.uucp >I do agree that the GS needs some improvement in the speed and video areas.. I agree, also. But, let's not forget... if and when Apple improves the GS in either of those areas: 1) will they offer an upgrade? and 2) will it NOT cost an arm and a leg? It may sound funny, but, at the moment, I am not looking forward to a hardware upgrade. It would be nice, but, knowing Apple, VERY expensive. Not only that, but if they do upgrade the hardware, my current configuration will suddenly be outdated, and I haven't got the cash to get up to par right now. "Journey of many dollar begin with one dollar." -- Decker Moss _______________________ _______________________ | ProLine: tg.exc@pro-harvest | | Internet: tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com | | UUCP: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc | | ARPA: crash!pro-harvest!tg.exc@nosc.mil | | BITNET: tg.exc%pro-harvest.cts.com@nosc.mil | |_____________ SnailMail: PO Box 502, Lansing, IL 60438-0502 _______________| If you're a college age, Australian Apple IIGS owner, please mail me.
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (07/21/90)
In article <9596.apple.net.info-apple@pro-harvest> tg.exc@pro-harvest.cts.com (Terry Guelfo) writes: >It may sound funny, but, at the moment, I am not looking forward to a hardware >upgrade. It would be nice, but, knowing Apple, VERY expensive. Not only >that, but if they do upgrade the hardware, my current configuration will >suddenly be outdated, and I haven't got the cash to get up to par right now. I can understand you concerns, and I am sure that Apple will make every attempt to keep the installed base of GS users. Moreover, it is important that a distinction be kept between the GS and the more business oriented Mac(where upgrades are expensive). A VERY inexpensive GS( say $400) sold through Sears,etc...or computer shops which could choose to add value( and hence charge more) would be a great way to put a Finder oriented computer in many a family home. But a slight improvement to the graphics and a 5-8MHz processor are important. The key is getting marketshare, and the key to that is a very low price. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
rond@pro-grouch.cts.com (Ron Dippold) (07/22/90)
In-Reply-To: message from philip@utstat.uucp > I can understand you concerns, and I am sure that Apple will make every > attempt to keep the installed base of GS users. Moreover, it is Hahahaha! Right.... You think they're about due for an about face? UUCP: crash!pro-grouch!rond ARPA: crash!pro-grouch!rond@nosc.mil INET: rond@pro-grouch.cts.com
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (07/23/90)
In article <3284.apple.net2@pro-grouch> rond@pro-grouch.cts.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from philip@utstat.uucp > >> I can understand you concerns, and I am sure that Apple will make every >> attempt to keep the installed base of GS users. Moreover, it is > >Hahahaha! Right.... You think they're about due for an about face? Well, I assume Apple will act in its best tradition. What differentiates Apple from most other micro computer companies is that they are not afraid of approaching problems in their own way. Otherwise, we would simply be dealing with a micro world dominated totally by the Intel structure. I wish I had the figures on the installed GS base(in and out of schools). One question is whether an "improved" GS would only appeal to the installed base. Would people buy it? I am a bit out of touch with the market in the US, but is the GS actually selling? With CD-ROM, and the new drivers for the GS, I see a wonderful opportunity for a whole new type of software. Yesterday, I bought a "book" on CD-ROM made by a company called Decis. It's for the Mac but is in colour. The book is Cinderella. But the interactive capabilities make it a whole new experience. There are other titles(The PaperBack Princess by Robert Munsch- a canadian writer of children's books- is one of note) aimed at children of various ages. They are not using HyperCard for the interface, but a GS version of HyperCard could. This is the future. The GS needs to be able to take advantage of this sort of thing. There is much to be said for keeping the Mac mainly(but not exclusively) for business, and the GS mainly(but not exclusively) for education/home. Many people want a family computer, if it is related to their work or their childrens' education. The GS fits one of these requirements, but it is way overpriced and needs some improvements. Apple should be a bit concerned by IBM's PS/1(which is probably just an initial attempt before that product is given a 386sx, CD-ROM,etc...). A GS priced at $400, and sold through mass outlets would be one way to counter the PS/1. The Finder needs to be found in homes. Whether it is the GS or the Mac is Apple's decision. It is hard to imagine a colour Mac for $400. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions,really!]
lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) (07/23/90)
In article <1990Jul22.232121.25333@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >In article <3284.apple.net2@pro-grouch> rond@pro-grouch.cts.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >>In-Reply-To: message from philip@utstat.uucp >> >>> I can understand you concerns, and I am sure that Apple will make every >>> attempt to keep the installed base of GS users. Moreover, it is > >Well, I assume Apple will act in its best tradition. What differentiates [stuff deleted] > >I wish I had the figures on the installed GS base(in and out of schools). This is a rough figure, but there are about 5 million Apple IIs installed and about 1 million are GS. >One question is whether an "improved" GS would only appeal to the >installed base. Would people buy it? I am a bit out of touch with the >market in the US, but is the GS actually selling? Yes! If I dig a little I can find the source for this; but last year, the Apple IIgs was one of the top ten selling personal computers, and may have even been in the top five (I don't exactly remember). [more stuff deleted] >that product is given a 386sx, CD-ROM,etc...). A GS priced at $400, and >sold through mass outlets would be one way to counter the PS/1. The Finder >needs to be found in homes. Whether it is the GS or the Mac is Apple's >decision. It is hard to imagine a colour Mac for $400. It's hard to imagine a GS for $400 too. Apple's approach seems to be keep the price where it is and add more features. > > >Philip McDunnough >University of Toronto Ray Lang lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu
mvk@pawl.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) (07/24/90)
There has recently been discussion about whether the Apple II has been selling. I don't have the latest figures, but an early 1989 issue of an IBM mag had their top ten list. The number one model in sales in 1988 was an IBM PS/2 (model 30?) selling 350k units. Number 2 was the Apple IIGS selling 340k units. It was very interesting reading the IBM mag's explanation of how something like that could happen. The Apple IIe came in at about number 6. They didn't even try to explain that. :) Mike mvk@pawl.rpi.edu
pmcd@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) (07/25/90)
In article <?L1$-P&@rpi.edu> mvk@pawl.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes: >There has recently been discussion about whether the Apple II has been selling. >I don't have the latest figures, but an early 1989 issue of an IBM mag had >their top ten list. The number one model in sales in 1988 was an IBM PS/2 >(model 30?) selling 350k units. Number 2 was the Apple IIGS selling 340k units. >It was very interesting reading the IBM mag's explanation of how something like >that could happen. The Apple IIe came in at about number 6. They didn't even >try to explain that. :) Ok, would you have the exact reference to that. Was the 340k units via the retail market or what? This information is important. It's hard to believe that the GS would have sold so many in one year. Do you have any recent figures? Are these worldwide numbers, or just the US? Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.edu(down for a few days) [my opinions]