mholtz@sactoh0.UUCP (Mark A. Holtz) (04/30/90)
I hate to be saying this, but . . . .
MY NEXT COMPUTER PURCHASE WILL BE A IBM-PC.
It is going to be awfully hard to convince me that my next purchase
ought to be a Apple //-gs. Why?
First, IMHO, many small businesses are now using IBM-PC clones.
The place where I work at just acquired a PC a few months back
simply because the software which we needed to run was available
for the IBM-PC only.
There is a lot more software now available for the PC than the
Apple // (partially out of Apple's lack of support for the
II-series).
For $3,000, I can purchase a good 386 machine running at 20 MHZ
with 800 x 600 color graphics resolution with at last 65 MB hard
drive, a 1.2 Meg 5.25" drive, a 1.44 Meg 3.5" drive, and 1 Meg of
memory.
The competition in the IBM PC market allows for the making of
faster and better machines. (Just take a aspirin while browsing
through the pages).
However . . .
The IBM-PC's and Macintoshes are prone to more viruses than Apples,
due to the sheer number of machines that are out there. (At last
count, there were at least 60 viruses categorized for the IBM-PC
alone (according to McAfee)).
Compatability is sometimes a question, due to all of the different
brands that are out there.
Well, what do you folks think?
--
"Exotic swords are easy to *+* UUCP:
come by....Aces are rare." +$+ ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac! \
$@$ {ames att sun}!pacbell! --> sactoh0!mholtz
- 7th Doctor, "Battlefield" @*@ uunet!mmsac! /starpath@athena.mit.edu (David E Hollingsworth) (05/04/90)
> MY NEXT COMPUTER PURCHASE WILL BE A IBM-PC. >It is going to be awfully hard to convince me that my next purchase >ought to be a Apple //-gs. Why? Perhaps a more reasonable question is: why change? You probably already have a great deal of Apple equipment, software, etc... I suppose you could sell it all & use the cash help out with the PC, or you could keep two computers around. (Or three, or four...) But it might not be a bad idea to have two Apples around either. The question is though, what do you hope to gain by buying an IBM-type? For what MOST people do, Appleworks can handle MOST of your computing needs. Yes there are limitations. Yes, it is sometimes painfully slow. But it is NOT just a clear cut case of "this is better than that." You should decide if the extra expense is worth less than the extra gains by having a PC. And I don't just mean potential gains. As someone thoughtfully pointed out in a previous posting, there is no need for computer overkill when buying a machine. You have to realize that the market is providing machines faster than MOST people's needs are expanding. Having twice as many titles for a machine can be extremely useless. I bet there are more programs for the Commodore systems than for Apple ][s right now, but that's only good if you want 85% games. There may be a much wider selection of PC titles out, but are there more titles that would be USEFUL to YOU? I'm sure that having several hundred 1-2-3 clones would be of very little use to you at all. I could see someone saying: "But I want the extra power that the PC can give me. Lots of small businesses have this machine, so that means that I would be able to do the same kinds of things that they need to do." Yep. Of course small businesses will be buying NeXTs or Suns or VAXen or RISC machines or SPARCstations or CRAYS (used? Ok...so that is a little crazy :-), but that does not mean that the needs of the average USER. By the time you NEED the power of those machines, something else will likely be in their place. Do you WANT 800x600 color graphics? Why? Sure, you can get all kinds of neat demo programs, and maybe play some really amazing games, but you can buy an Amiga for a lot less than $3000! 65MB hard drive? Are you sure that's enough...not at all enough? The point is that it's all well and good to upgrade, but over-upgrading is a waste of resources. I'm using a Laser 128 with two 1.25s, one 3.5, 1/3 meg, monochrome, a joystick, a modom and an 9 pin dot matrix printer. That's all I need because I have access to a Vax. I don't NEED more power because I wouldn't utilize it. If you DO need the extra power, then why are you waiting to buy one? --D. Hollingsworth starpath@athena.mit.edu
ggray@wpi.wpi.edu (Gary P Gray) (05/04/90)
In article <1990May4.055855.23151@athena.mit.edu> starpath@athena.mit.edu (David E Hollingsworth) writes: >> MY NEXT COMPUTER PURCHASE WILL BE A IBM-PC. > >>It is going to be awfully hard to convince me that my next purchase >>ought to be a Apple //-gs. Why? Same here. I just can't justify the cost of the machine. The price performance ratio is way too low. >Perhaps a more reasonable question is: why change? Well, for me there are several good reasons. Yes, some of us *do* need the power. For things like graphics programming (like complex fractal programs, animation in realtime) operating systems programming, numerical analysis, the power of a 25Mhz 32 bit processor means the difference between waiting a few seconds or a few minutes and waiting hours. >You probably already have a great deal of Apple equipment, software, etc... >I suppose you could sell it all & use the cash help out with the PC, or >you could >keep two computers around. (Or three, or four...) That's so. I have my Apple //c side by side with my IBM XT. I don't have to wade through reams and reams of documentation in order to program it, but then again, the down side is that there are limits to what can be *easily* accomplished. I'll probably hang onto my //c (but the again, I'm sort of a cumputer collector anyway) >The question is though, what do you hope to gain by buying an IBM-type? Programming capability. Microsoft C, Turbo Pascal, C++... Better quality software. There are no ( < //gs) wordprocessers that I have used that I liked. I bought Borland's Sprint for my IBM for ~$100, how much would I have to pay to get Appleworks? How much would I pay to get Appleworks to have all of the capabilities of Sprint, (speller, thesaurus, Postscript output.) (Most of you might not have heard of Borland's Sprint, still an argument might be made price wise for even Word (im)Perfect) Operating systems. High level IBMs are one of the more accessible Unix platforms (why Unix? I'm a CS major focusing on operating systems and compiler design.) >For what MOST people do, Appleworks can handle MOST of your computing >needs. Yes there are limitations. Yes, it is sometimes painfully slow. >But it is NOT just a clear cut case of "this is better than that." You >should decide if the extra expense is worth less than the extra gains by >having a PC. Extra expense? I can easily buy an XT clone (turbo even) for what a //GS would cost comperably equipped. The software on the IBM isn't that expensive if you choose wisely. >And I don't just mean potential gains. As someone thoughtfully pointed >out in a previous posting, there is no need for computer overkill when >buying a machine. Actually, I have seen quite a lot of this. I was talking to an owner of a computer store who had a customer who had bought a 33Mhz system recently come back to him a month later and had him order a 486 system. He wanted to stay "up to date." And what does he do on this monsterous piece of computing iron? He plays games and wordprocesses, of course. Personally, I feel 1Mhz is a bit slow even for wordprocessing, but a //c+ or a //gs would quite likely be more than this guy ever needed. Kind of like buying an Indy Race car when a Yugo would do. > You have to realize that the market is providing >machines faster than MOST people's needs are expanding. Yes, but I'm not most people :) [oops, deleted one line too many... something about why you need 800x600 graphics or something] >of neat demo programs, and maybe play some really amazing games, but you >can buy an Amiga for a lot less than $3000! 65MB hard drive? Are you >sure that's enough...not at all enough? Funny you should mention Amiga. I have heard that it is a lot like the Apple // in design philosophy. Before I buy another computer, I'm going to have to look at the Amigas. If the inner details of the computer are as good as the surface stuff I've seen, Commadore will be making money off me. >If you DO need the extra power, then why are you waiting to buy one? A little something called money :) While i've got the floor, let me say a few things about the Apple // vs. the world. I do feel attached to my //c, it is an "neat" machine. The amount of knowledge needed to program it effectivly can be learned rather quickly. This is why, I suspect, it has the reputation as a hacker's machine. As someone stated a long time ago, a kid can manage to understand and "hack" on this machine and that is how many CS students got their start. I have no qualms about doing any assembly hacking on it, whereas I've not bothered to learn 8086 assembly, and have no plans to do so. I would abandon the IBM line without a second thought for a computer that is simple and "elegant" and has horsepower. I don't want a Mac, because I would rather have a the flexibility of a command line interface and text based display over an all graphics one. Also, I have some questions on how easy a Mac would be to program with its user interface the way it is. The Amiga could be the machine I'm looking for, the "high horsepower" Apple //. I guess what I am saying is that I really don't care about Apple // the architecture as much as I care about Apple // the design philosophy. Keep the computer simple. Support the user *and* the hacker (remember the good old days, when Apple gave you all the documentation you would even need with the hardware, including a schematic?) And most of all, deliver a good piece of equipment at a reasonable price. I believe that Apple once embodied these ideals, and hasn't yet totally lost them perhaps. Just random meanderings of a tired brain... > > --D. Hollingsworth >starpath@athena.mit.edu -- -- WARNING!!! The above opinions may be HAZARDOUS or FATAL if swallowed!!! -- "My mind is going... I can feel it... | Gary Gray -- ggray@wpi.wpi.edu I can feel it..." | GEnie: GGRAY6 (This space unintentionally left blank)
alfter@MRCNEXT.CSO.UIUC.EDU (Scott Alfter) (05/04/90)
First, isn't "PC" an abbreviation for "personal computer?"
You write,
------------------------------------start------------------------------------
For $3,000, I can purchase a good 386 machine running at 20 MHZ
with 800 x 600 color graphics resolution with at last 65 MB hard
drive, a 1.2 Meg 5.25" drive, a 1.44 Meg 3.5" drive, and 1 Meg of
memory.
-------------------------------------end-------------------------------------
Yeah--you get some no-name company you've never heard of, rather than a
reputable computer manufacturer. You also still have the problem of the
brain-dead 80x86 processor architecture to deal with. Why anybody would get
a machine based on such a piece of junk when 68030-based (and 65816-based :-) )
machines are available that are ten times better is beyond me.
------------------------------------start------------------------------------
The IBM-PC's and Macintoshes are prone to more viruses than Apples,
due to the sheer number of machines that are out there. (At last
count, there were at least 60 viruses categorized for the IBM-PC
alone (according to McAfee)).
-------------------------------------end-------------------------------------
PC viruses are indeed among the nastiest in existence--far worse than any
Mac virus, according to what I've heard.
------------------------------------start------------------------------------
Well, what do you folks think?
-------------------------------------end-------------------------------------
I think you're making a grave mistake. What are you going to do with all of
your II stuff? It'll be worthless on a MeSsy-DOS box. Also, you've spent so
much time learning the ins and outs of your current system; you'll have a
steep learning curve made even steeper by that kludge of an OS that Microsoft
makes--be it MeSsy-DOS or Slow-S/2. I'd avoid those machines like the plague.
If I was going to get a new computer today, it would have to be a GS. If it
wasn't a GS for some reason, though, it sure as hell won't be a Macintosh (too
expensive) or a MeSsy-DOS box (see the above reasons)--that Amiga 3000 that
was just recently announced sounds like a pretty decent machine. It will even
run UNIX eventually!
I also think you're going to get flamed many times in this newsgroup. May you
live in interesting times. :-)
Scott Alfter-------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: alfter@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu _/_ Apple II: the power to be your best!
cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu / v \
saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ( ( A keyboard--how quaint!
Bitnet: free0066@uiucvmd.bitnet \_^_/ --M. Scott, STIVgwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (05/05/90)
In article <12658@wpi.wpi.edu> ggray@wpi.wpi.edu (Gary P Gray) writes: >power of a 25Mhz 32 bit processor means the difference between waiting a few >seconds or a few minutes and waiting hours. Maybe you should learn how to do arithmetic before making purchasing decisions. >>The question is though, what do you hope to gain by buying an IBM-type? >Programming capability. Microsoft C, Turbo Pascal, C++... While there isn't a commercial version of C++ yet available for the IIGS, there certainly are reasonable C and Pascal development environments. Further, there is extensive standard support for desktop programs. >I guess what I am saying is that I really don't care about Apple // the >architecture as much as I care about Apple // the design philosophy. Yes, that's the most valuable aspect of the Apple II, although many of us think Apple is now managed by people who don't understand it.
starpath@athena.mit.edu (David E Hollingsworth) (05/05/90)
alfter@MRCNEXT.CSO.UIUC.EDU (Scott Alfter) writes: > You also still have the problem of the >brain-dead 80x86 processor architecture to deal with. Why anybody would get >a machine based on such a piece of junk when 68030-based (and 65816-based :-) ) >machines are available that are ten times better is beyond me. *SIGH* That's like saying we should all buy Connection Machines because the processor architecture is far better than that of 680x0 based machines. It is NOT enough to simply say that the processor makes the machine. Who cares if the 68030-based machines ARE "ten times better," (depending, of course on what "better" means) if it is not worth the money to buy such a machine? (Exactly which machine is ten times better which machine?) --D. Hollingsworth starpath@athena.mit.edu
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (05/05/90)
ggray@wpi.wpi.edu (Gary P Gray) writes: > I don't want a Mac, because I would rather have a the flexibility >of a command line interface and text based display over an all graphics one. >Also, I have some questions on how easy a Mac would be to program with its >user interface the way it is. The Amiga could be the machine I'm looking for, >the "high horsepower" Apple //. In many ways that is exactly what the Amiga is. The fact that Apple has allowed the Amiga to exist for so long (I maintain that Apple could easily nuke them in the marketplace IF they wanted to) is really sad because the Amiga appears to have finally gained the reliability image it needs to become a major market contender. >I guess what I am saying is that I really don't care about Apple // the >architecture as much as I care about Apple // the design philosophy. Keep the >computer simple. Support the user *and* the hacker (remember the good old >days, when Apple gave you all the documentation you would even need with the >hardware, including a schematic?) And most of all, deliver a good piece of >equipment at a reasonable price. I believe that Apple once embodied these >ideals, and hasn't yet totally lost them perhaps. This is yet another brilliant paragraph -- comp.sys.apple2 seems to have an amazingly high hit rate lately. My beef with the Amiga is that their design tradeoffs from 1985 are coming back to haunt them and I can devise a "Super GS" that should be able to solve most of those problems. When I first saw the Amiga I decided its design was too centralized (made sense then but not now) and that its special purpose hardware was often overkill or simply too complex compared to the usage it would get (excluding games of course). Using today's technology (VRAMs and custom gate arrays, mostly) it is possible to implement a much more distributed and truly parallel processing design -- unfortunately for the Amiga they have too much hardware compatibility to deal with. The GS is really just implemented inefficiently and a true redesign (ROM 03 doesn't count at all) would reveal just how simple the thing really is. Maintaining 95% hardware compatibility would be a joke, and providing adequate tools from the start (for once) would save developers from temptation. But until Apple sobers up and starts to make such a machine, you are probably better off buying an Amiga. Just make sure you check it out thoroughly first; I have found that the Amiga does not have the "charm" my //gs has, in spite of all the capability. I feel that a properly redesigned //gs would be able to give us the best of four worlds: easy as a Mac, cheap as a Clone, whiz-bang as an Amiga, cozy as an Apple //. The sad fact is that only Apple has the resources to construct such a machine, and they are very under the weather right now. It is a pity to lose another comrade, but not everyone can afford to wait. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
ggray@wpi.wpi.edu (Gary P Gray) (05/05/90)
In article <12787@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <12658@wpi.wpi.edu> ggray@wpi.wpi.edu (Gary P Gray) writes: >>power of a 25Mhz 32 bit processor means the difference between waiting a few >>seconds or a few minutes and waiting hours. > >Maybe you should learn how to do arithmetic before making purchasing >decisions. No, let me guess, you're one of those people who think a 1Mhz 6502 can beat the pants off of a 25Mhz 386, right? >>>The question is though, what do you hope to gain by buying an IBM-type? >>Programming capability. Microsoft C, Turbo Pascal, C++... > >While there isn't a commercial version of C++ yet available for the IIGS, >there certainly are reasonable C and Pascal development environments. >Further, there is extensive standard support for desktop programs. I'd heard that the //gs C compilers didn't have all of the bugs worked out of them (again, it's "what I've heard", not "what I know.") The //gs is probably quite a bit easier to program than the old // line because of this. Are any //gs C compilers ANSI? I know there is supposed to be a LISP implementation that runs on classic //'s (now that's something I would like to see :) but what about prolog? Actually, the language choice for //gs's probably isn't that bad. Are C compilers in an integerated enviornment? -- -- WARNING!!! The above opinions may be HAZARDOUS or FATAL if swallowed!!! -- "My mind is going... I can feel it... | Gary Gray -- ggray@wpi.wpi.edu I can feel it..." | GEnie: GGRAY6 (This space unintentionally left blank)
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (05/08/90)
In article <12699@wpi.wpi.edu> ggray@wpi.wpi.edu (Gary P Gray) writes: >In article <12787@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >>In article <12658@wpi.wpi.edu> ggray@wpi.wpi.edu (Gary P Gray) writes: >>>power of a 25Mhz 32 bit processor means the difference between waiting a few >>>seconds or a few minutes and waiting hours. >>Maybe you should learn how to do arithmetic before making purchasing >>decisions. >No, let me guess, you're one of those people who think a 1Mhz 6502 can beat >the pants off of a 25Mhz 386, right? No, but I do know how to multiply and divide. The ratio between seconds and minutes is 60, so immediately we wonder why you have them in the same timing category, whereas hours (another factor of 60) are in a different one. Where are all the factors of 60 coming from, anyway? Even if we were talking about 1MHz 6502s, which we weren't (current Apple II technology in wide use is 7MHz 65816), taking into account I/O bottlenecks etc. you wouldn't see a relative factor of 60. Compared to the 7MHz 65816 you see very little difference in effective computational power, no more than a factor of 2, depending on the application. Using a fast disk (<= 28ms average access, >= 1Mb/sec transfer rate) and DMA SCSI interface on the IIGS, I doubt that the 386 has any particular I/O advantage, either. The one thing the 386 might have a major hardware advantage in is memory management, allowing a reasonable implementation of UNIX on that platform. The software advantage lies simply in the relative amount of development being done for the PC line, not in anything inherent in its architecture. >I'd heard that the //gs C compilers didn't have all of the bugs worked >out of them I hadn't heard that the PC C compilers had all the bugs worked out of them, either! It is true that the initial releases of both APW C and ORCA/C had problems that often got in the way of application development, but despite the problems there are commercial products developed under these systems. The forthcoming ORCA/C Release 1.1 should be bug-free enough for most applications. Anyone licensed for Release 1.0 can become a 1.1 Beta tester simply by asking (see the ByteWorks product support board on America Online for details). >Are any //gs C compilers ANSI? ORCA/C will be nearly standard conforming as of release 1.1, now in the late stages of Beta testing. The few significant deviations are due to trying to remain compatible with similar deviations in Macintosh environments. The developer of ORCA/C has solicited input from Beta testers in an attempt to determine how important this really is. >I know there is supposed to be a LISP implementation that runs on >classic //'s (now that's something I would like to see :) but what >about prolog? I know of a Modula-2 implementation, Forth, and a few others, but no Prolog. It's not impossible to implement on the 16-bit Apple II line, but there probably isn't much market for Prolog for either home or pre-college educational use, which are the main Apple II markets. >Are C compilers in an integerated enviornment? ORCA/C is; APW C is typically used in a more traditional manner (although one can use it with the ORCA Desktop environment, it doesn't support ORCA's source-level debugger whereas ORCA/C does).
nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) (05/09/90)
In article <12699@wpi.wpi.edu>, ggray@wpi.wpi.edu (Gary P Gray) writes: > Are any //gs C compilers ANSI? Yes, Orca/C. > Are C compilers in an integerated enviornment? Yes, Orca/C. Shell, editor, source-level debugger, etc. andy -- Yeah!