medlin@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (Roger Medlin) (03/22/91)
Best I can figure (correct me if I am wrong), my Macintosh SE/30 is rated at somewhere between 2 and 3 MIPS (not too bad), but when you consider that the new NeXT (retail priced at around $5,000) checks in at around 15 MIPS, I question the future of Macintosh. Hey, I for one love the standardization of the software, the graphically based user-interface, the operating system, etc., etc., but when one considers that (in theory) a software emulator could be (fairly easily) derived which would allow the NeXT to run Mac Software, it is questionable if Apple does not have a serious problem on their hands. Yes, Apple is finally becoming somewhat (but not truly) competitive price wise with the Macintosh, but to be honest, nothing Apple has (IIfx included) can come close to running with the new NeXT, and certainly not at the price! If you ask me, all someone would have to do is copy the Macintosh ROMS, make a Macintosh Software Emulator for the NeXT, and post it as freeware to the NET, and all of a sudden, I would say Apple Stock might take a rough ride. Adam Smith's version of capitalism might say someone probably wouldn't do this without the proper incentive, but the world isn't necessarily made up solely of those who cling to the virtues of capitalistic incentive. I haven't done any extensive calculations to prove it one way or the other, but I figure the NeXT should be able to (software) emulate the Macintosh and still run faster than even my SE/30. Hey, the instruction set should be close between the Motorola 68040 and the 68030, huh ? Right now, the NeXT disk drive is not set up to read/write Mac OS disks, but how long would it realistically take to change that. I for one am going to watch the computer market with great skepticism-- once again. Apple could quite possibly go from being the second largest supplier of personal computers in the world to simply a legend of the past within a matter of five years. Apple has for years built some innovative, fairly reliable, and satisfying to use products, but until recently, they have taken for granted their market share (allowing those God-awful MS-Dos clones to dominate the PC market). Yes, it appears they are making a symbolic gesture with their present pricing strategies, but I think perhaps they had better try harder to please (and by all means impress the heck out of) their customers rather than their stock-holders--Wall Street's financial capital won't keep the company afloat for ever (yes, I know their stock trades OTC)... Comments ?
rdeal@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (Butch Deal) (03/22/91)
>Best I can figure (correct me if I am wrong), my Macintosh SE/30 is rated >at somewhere between 2 and 3 MIPS (not too bad), but when you consider >that the new NeXT (retail priced at around $5,000) checks in at around 15 >MIPS, I question the future of Macintosh. Well you are wrong closer to 5 MIPS. But lets consider the LC, about 3 or 4 MIPS and around $1000 (educational price). >Hey, I for one love the standardization of the software, the graphically >based user-interface, the operating system, etc., etc., but when one >considers that (in theory) a software emulator could be (fairly easily) >derived which would allow the NeXT to run Mac Software, it is questionable >if Apple does not have a serious problem on their hands. Well I am a cs major and this is not at all an easy thing to do in fact rather difficult, and very leggal considerations to be considered. >Yes, Apple is finally becoming somewhat (but not truly) competitive price >wise with the Macintosh, but to be honest, nothing Apple has (IIfx included) >can come close to running with the new NeXT, and certainly not at the price! Granted I like the NeXT but only as a unix machine. I would wait for the faster 68040 chips. The NeXT is using the first rlease of the 68040 running at its slowest speed 25MHZ; it can go up to 80MHZ giving over 50 MIPS. The NeXT is not the kind of machine that most people whant. It has very limited software and is only supported by a few software developers. >If you ask me, all someone would have to do is copy the Macintosh ROMS, make go to jail ..... >a Macintosh Software Emulator for the NeXT, and post it as freeware to the >NET, and all of a sudden, I would say Apple Stock might take a rough ride. >Adam Smith's version of capitalism might say someone probably wouldn't do >this without the proper incentive, but the world isn't necessarily made up >solely of those who cling to the virtues of capitalistic incentive. >I haven't done any extensive calculations to prove it one way or the other, >but I figure the NeXT should be able to (software) emulate the Macintosh >and still run faster than even my SE/30. Hey, the instruction set should >be close between the Motorola 68040 and the 68030, huh ? why should they be close Apple has been having a great deal of trouble settting up a system for the 68040. The 68040 is vastly different from the 68030. Much of the instructions of the mac are in hardware also. >Right now, the NeXT disk drive is not set up to read/write Mac OS disks, >but how long would it realistically take to change that. >I for one am going to watch the computer market with great skepticism-- >once again. Apple could quite possibly go from being the second largest >supplier of personal computers in the world to simply a legend of the >past within a matter of five years. and NeXT could go bankrupt leaving no support to users. >Apple has for years built some innovative, fairly reliable, and satisfying >to use products, but until recently, they have taken for granted their >market share (allowing those God-awful MS-Dos clones to dominate the PC I love UNIX but if you don't like DOS you would !@$#^%* if you had to use UNIX and NeXT is a UNIX machine. Granted that the NeXT has a mac like interface on the UNIX but to do anything more than basic stuff you would have to get your feet mudy in UNIX. >market). Yes, it appears they are making a symbolic gesture with their >present pricing strategies, but I think perhaps they had better try harder >to please (and by all means impress the heck out of) their customers >rather than their stock-holders--Wall Street's financial capital won't keep >the company afloat for ever (yes, I know their stock trades OTC)... It is more than a symbolic gesture, an LC is far cheaper than a big blue windows speed not deamon. When the new mac 68040's are released then the 68020 machines will go down even more as well as the 68030's NeXT machines are fast and look good but just wait till you try and find some software to run on that speed deamon. Giv the NeXT another year atleast before you put any money into it but don't expect to run your mac software on it. Butch Deal The Butcher rdeal@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu
mkh6317@rigel.tamu.edu (HOWARD, MATTHEW KENDALL) (03/23/91)
In article <1991Mar22.145326.27445@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu>, medlin@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (Roger Medlin) writes...
Welcome, welcome. So you want to see the future. Come in. Come in.
Ah, I see you are a NeXt user. Sit down. Sit down.
Lets peer into my crystal ball. Yes, yes, its all becoming clear now.
I can see shadows of the future. NeXT is not there. While it was the
first to deliver an 040 it was only the first of many. Apple releases an
040 in 1991 and continues to be a HUGELY profitable enterprise. NeXT can
no longer afford to dump its machines. NeXT investors finally break free
of SJ's smooth and hypnotic spell they realize what a bad bad financial
mistake they've made. Refusing to wait another 4 years to see their first
yen of profit they pull out. Even the Mac emulator, developed with great
labor and TREMENDOUS legal expense, fails to save the NeXT.
NeXT owners are stuck just as the Atari, TI, Timex, S100, Commodore,
MindSet, and other "leading edge bang for your buck consumers" were
except that this time they are stuck with something that cost 5 times
as much.
... ah the crystal grows cloudy again.....rpm@sgi1.wag.caltech.edu (Richard P. Muller) (03/23/91)
In article <1991Mar22.145326.27445@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu>, medlin@rucs2 (Roger Medlin) writes: [...very interesting suggestion about a Mac software clone to run on NeXT platform...] >Comments ? Sure, a couple. I believe that someone is already working on a SoftPC-type clone of Mac Roms for the NeXT. Should be out RSN. Software clones are in general terribly slow. I've heard that SoftPC only runs at about IBM XT speed (i.e. awful), even though the NeXT is a tremendous platform (as you mentioned, 15 MIPS). If you want good performance on Macintosh software, you best bet for the money will always be a Macintosh, until the fabled clean-room hardware clones of the Mac ROMs materialize (also RSN), and maybe even then.
jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen) (03/23/91)
In <1991Mar22.145326.27445@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu> medlin@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (Roger Medlin) writes: >If you ask me, all someone would have to do is copy the Macintosh ROMS, make >a Macintosh Software Emulator for the NeXT, and post it as freeware to the >NET, and all of a sudden, I would say Apple Stock might take a rough ride. >Adam Smith's version of capitalism might say someone probably wouldn't do >this without the proper incentive, but the world isn't necessarily made up >solely of those who cling to the virtues of capitalistic incentive. Don't be a fool. Apple would sue their ass off 'til the cows come home, or pigs fly, or ... >I haven't done any extensive calculations to prove it one way or the other, >but I figure the NeXT should be able to (software) emulate the Macintosh >and still run faster than even my SE/30. Hey, the instruction set should >be close between the Motorola 68040 and the 68030, huh ? I just don't think NeXT would like to tangle with Apple's legal department. >Apple has for years built some innovative, fairly reliable, and satisfying >to use products, but until recently, they have taken for granted their >market share (allowing those God-awful MS-Dos clones to dominate the PC >market). Yes, it appears they are making a symbolic gesture with their >present pricing strategies, but I think perhaps they had better try harder >to please (and by all means impress the heck out of) their customers >rather than their stock-holders--Wall Street's financial capital won't keep >the company afloat for ever (yes, I know their stock trades OTC)... Take a look at the April issue of Mac World. There is an article about NuTek, a company that will attempt to license a Mac compatible chip set so that OEM's can begin building Mac clones. Most of the article discusses the legal ramifications and how diligently Apple defends its intellectual property. I hope NuTek is successful, but NuTek will probably spend megabucks and years in court fighting Apple. -- James B. Hansen {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen CONVEX Computer Corporation jhansen@convex.COM 3000 Waterview Parkway, P. O. Box 833851 Richardson, TX 75083-3851 Phone: (214)497-4802
medlin@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (Roger Medlin) (03/23/91)
>lets consider the LC, about 3 or 4 MIPS and around $1000 (educational price) Yes, a cute little machine (a Macintosh II warmed over with 1 expansion slot) which retails for roughly $2300 (no math co-processor), and I would venture to say that Apple's fate with Macintosh will rest more with the retail price than what the few, the proud, the starving college students can buy it for. It will be what the general public things (can afford to buy) which will make or break Apple in the end (IMHO). >>considers that (in theory) a software emulator could be (fairly easily) >>derived which would allow the NeXT to run Mac Software, it is questionable >>if Apple does not have a serious problem on their hands. >Well I am a cs major and this is not at all an easy thing to do in fact rather >difficult, and very legal considerations to be considered. Well, poor choice of words (fairly easily) on my part with regard to this. What I mean is that as software emulations for the Apple ][ and MS-Dos world are already available for the Macintosh, I presume that it will only be a matter of time before someone tries (successfully) to emulate the Mac, though I concede the Mac is in some ways more complex which might make the task more difficult. >>If you ask me, all someone would have to do is copy the Macintosh ROMS, >go to jail ..... I concede anyone caught doing this will at the very least need one really good lawyer to help them out in court, but theoretically, it is possible for someone to copy and use them in the creation of a software emulator, and then for the same person to post the emulator into the public domain and still remain anonymous (Internet Security isn't 100%) And, it would be tough to deny (that inspite of Apple's protest, etc.) that such an emulator would mean vastly larger sales for the NeXT world and fewer sales for the handsomely priced Macs. (Trying to keep every Joe and his brother from having a copy of such an emulator (even if illegal) would be at best wishful thinking)... >> <Apple making symbolic gesture with current pricing strategies> >It is more than a symbolic gesture, an LC is far cheaper than a big blue >windows speed not deamon. When the new mac 68040's are released then >the 68020 machines will go down even more as well as the 68030's Yes, but IBM and Compact are not the only competitors. There are a whole slew of third party vendure making high powered 386's and 486's which RETAIL (hey, that's what Joe Consumer pays, huh? ) for around the same price as the Mac LC. And, as partial as I am to the Macintosh (truly), I have to admit that even Windows on a 286 looks pretty tempting when compared to the Mac Classic--nice machine, but soooo slooowwww... >NeXT machines are fast and look good but just wait till you try and find some >software to run on that speed deamon. Giv the NeXT another year atleast before >you put any money into it but don't expect to run your mac software on it. Granted, Apple's software advantage is the only thing which may keep them (and the Macintosh alive for the next few years). I for one hope the Mac and Apple are around for a long time to come, but I also remember what happened to the Apple's other success (the Apple ][). Rather than concede that the technology was dated and price it accordingly, Apple lost a piece of the PC market to the clone makers (e.g. Laser, & then later again Franklin) where they should have had easy profits (hey, how hard is to build an Apple ][--kinda like putting together LEGOs). And, where they did not lose in the hardware market to the Apple ][ clones, they lost an even worse battle as millions of people moved into the MS-DOS camp (hey, even I admit MS-DOS has many advantages over Pro-DOS). Now Macintosh is admittedly a vastly superior computer which cannot be compared to the Apple ][ in all ways, but its fate might just as well be sealed (I hope not) in the same fashion if Apple does consider their long term strategry's carefully. Just remember, Apple is the same company which countered the challenge of the Amiga (and its sound and graphic capabilities) with the Apple ][gs. Even for an Apple Fan like myself, I have to laugh (still) at that GS ! One other thing. We already know there are Software Emulators which allow the Mac to run PC (DOS) software (e.g. SoftPC). How long will it be before NeXT has the same thing allowing the entire DOS world to fall into their camp ? With a (admittedly) very illegal Mac emulator floating around, the Apple Macintosh might fall upon extremely hard times...
lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) (03/23/91)
In article <1991Mar22.162359.1419@nntp-server.caltech.edu> rpm@sgi1.wag.caltech.edu (Richard P. Muller) writes: >In article <1991Mar22.145326.27445@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu>, >medlin@rucs2 (Roger Medlin) writes: >[...very interesting suggestion about a Mac software clone to run on >NeXT platform...] >>Comments ? > >Sure, a couple. > I believe that someone is already working on a SoftPC-type >clone of Mac Roms for the NeXT. Should be out RSN. > Software clones are in general terribly slow. I've heard that >SoftPC only runs at about IBM XT speed (i.e. awful), even though the >NeXT is a tremendous platform (as you mentioned, 15 MIPS). If you want >good performance on Macintosh software, you best bet for the money >will always be a Macintosh, until the fabled clean-room hardware >clones of the Mac ROMs materialize (also RSN), and maybe even then. The NeXT shouldn't need to do a software emulation like SoftPC does. Since the 68040 understands the same native machine code as the Mac uses, you wouldn't need to emulate the machine code with software, 'cause you've got hardware. You would still need to come up with a (legal) version of all of the Mac toolbox traps. A closer analogy might be Amax running on Amiga, which I understand does not suffer any performance loss. The Amiga uses 680x0 series chips, like the NeXT. Of course, the NeXT runs UNIX, so it runs preemptive multitasking; getting Mac programs to run in this sort of environment might be tricky, though Apple _did_ pull it off in A/UX. Once Apple starts shipping 68040 based Macs, the perfomance differences between high end Macs and NeXTs will become less significant, though the price difference will probably remain :^( Lawrence Miller
lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) (03/23/91)
In article <1991Mar22.154811.8691@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu> rdeal@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (Butch Deal) writes, in part,: >>but I figure the NeXT should be able to (software) emulate the Macintosh >>and still run faster than even my SE/30. Hey, the instruction set should >>be close between the Motorola 68040 and the 68030, huh ? > >why should they be close Apple has been having a great deal of trouble >settting up a system for the 68040. The 68040 is vastly different from >the 68030. Much of the instructions of the mac are in hardware also. > The 68040 _hardware_ is different from the 68030. However, the 68040 is able to run 680x0 machine code without any difficulty. As the Motorola technical summary puts it..."The MC68040 is user-object-code compatible with previous members of the MC68000 Family." What differences are you talking about? Much of the Mac toolbox is in ROM, but there is no reason that the toolbox traps can't be stored in RAM. In fact, that's how Apple updates the toolbox--traps that are not in ROM, or which have been changed are loaded into RAM out of the System File. Of course, to do this legally you would have to come up with an independant verson of the Mac Toolbox and System Software. This would be difficult, but certainly not impossible. Lawrence Miller
folta@tove.cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (03/23/91)
A poster mentioned that average users pay retail price. Do they really? As far as Apple student prices, more than a year ago there were local stores selling SEs for about $200 more than the local student price. I don't know about the LC or Classic, but I would expect things to be about the same: the cheapest street prices about 10% more than student prices. (On my street, comparing my school's prices, anyhow :-).) -- Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/23/91)
In article <1991Mar22.154811.8691@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu> rdeal@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (Butch Deal) writes: Well you are wrong closer to 5 MIPS. But lets consider the LC, about 3 or 4 MIPS and around $1000 (educational price). Don't forget about the floating-point coprocessor that ISN'T in the LC or SI? Ooooopps. forgot about that!! Granted I like the NeXT but only as a unix machine. I would wait for the faster 68040 chips. The NeXT is using the first rlease of the 68040 running at its slowest speed 25MHZ; it can go up to 80MHZ giving over 50 MIPS. The NeXT is not the kind of machine that most people whant. It has very limited software and is only supported by a few software developers. How much software do you need? A good word processor and spreadsheet. Some DTP software? Granted the NeXT doesn't have everything, but it is slowly getting the software that it needs to fill the bill for more and more people. Would you rather run FrameMaker, Adobe Illustrator, or Quark XPress on a Mac or a NeXT? Oh yeah, don't you think that your "it's only a 25MHz 68040 arguement rates a stupid?" It's 15 freaking mips. Twice as fast as the IIfx? Floating point is even faster. There will always be faster chips. HP is releasing a 57 mip machine within the next couple months for under $15,000. >I for one am going to watch the computer market with great skepticism-- >once again. Apple could quite possibly go from being the second largest >supplier of personal computers in the world to simply a legend of the >past within a matter of five years. and NeXT could go bankrupt leaving no support to users. Scare tactics. Freaking stop! I've heard it before. PC owners telling Mac users. Mac users telling NeXT users. That's what people were saying a couple of years ago about the Mac. If you want security, buy a PC compatable. You will own the machine everyone else is using, but you will have made the worst possible decision. I love UNIX but if you don't like DOS you would !@$#^%* if you had to use UNIX and NeXT is a UNIX machine. Granted that the NeXT has a mac like interface on the UNIX but to do anything more than basic stuff you would have to get your feet mudy in UNIX. For example? It is more than a symbolic gesture, an LC is far cheaper than a big blue windows speed not deamon. When the new mac 68040's are released then the 68020 machines will go down even more as well as the 68030's When Apple's 040 machine with Ethernet is released, a lot of Mac owners are going to come to their senses and realize how much of a deal the NeXT is. NeXT machines are fast and look good but just wait till you try and find some software to run on that speed deamon. Giv the NeXT another year atleast before you put any money into it but don't expect to run your mac software on it. What kind of software do you want? Why aren't we all using Apple II's? There are over 10,000 pieces of software for it. -Mike
ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) (03/23/91)
On 22-Mar-91 in The Fate of the Macintosh user Butch Deal@rucs2.sunlab. writes: >>Best I can figure (correct me if I am wrong), my Macintosh SE/30 is rated >>at somewhere between 2 and 3 MIPS (not too bad), but when you consider >>that the new NeXT (retail priced at around $5,000) checks in at around 15 >>MIPS, I question the future of Macintosh. > >Well you are wrong closer to 5 MIPS. But lets consider the LC, about 3 or 4 >MIPS and around $1000 (educational price). Sorry, but the IIfx is the machine rated at 5-7 MIPS, not the SE/30. And 16MHz 020's go for a little under 2 MIPS. And please, if you are going to compare two machines, compare ed with ed and retail with retail. NeXTstation ed prices are $3100. And let's not even start comparing features. On 22-Mar-91 in Re: The Fate of the Macintosh user Richard P. Muller@sgi1.w writes: > I believe that someone is already working on a SoftPC-type >clone of Mac Roms for the NeXT. Should be out RSN. > Software clones are in general terribly slow. I've heard that >SoftPC only runs at about IBM XT speed (i.e. awful), even though the >NeXT is a tremendous platform (as you mentioned, 15 MIPS). If you want >good performance on Macintosh software, you best bet for the money >will always be a Macintosh, until the fabled clean-room hardware >clones of the Mac ROMs materialize (also RSN), and maybe even then. The key difference here is that "SoftMac" will not have to emulate another processor. The 68040 contains the entire instruction set that the 68000 contains (from glancing at my 68040 manual). The only problem for this potential program lies in the information carried in the ROMS. Here is an artical from a January MacWeek that some of you may find interesting. Key in on the software only version.... ----- RDI Computer Corp. is erecting a bridge from Macs to Sun workstations, announcing software this week that lets users run Mac programs from SPARC-based systems for the first time. Companion, which runs under Sun's SunView or Open Windows operating systems, will work like a Mac SE or Classic by emulating the Mac's 68000 processor, RDI said. .... Companion will be available Feb. 1 bundled with an SBus card that includes a Mac Classic ROM for $1695. A software-only version will be available in early March for $895... ... Schramek added that RDI has not had any legal challenge from Apple regarding its Mac emulation. RDI Computer Corp. is at 6696 Mesa Ridge Road, Building A, San Diego, Calif. 92121. Phone (619)944-6381; fax (619)558-8943. -----
peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) (03/23/91)
A couple of quick comments. *** MIPS and the Mac: the Macintosh provides much more than a bare bones number cruncher. If MIPS is what you really require, don't buy a Mac, get a hot Unix box. There are *lots* of companies trying to compete base on MIPS (IBM, DEC, HP, Sun, but not really Next). Personally I think normal people, not us techno-weenies, want a computer that is fast ENOUGH. Meaning that they don't have to wait too long for the things they normally do with the machine. Macs provide this. A Classic provides this for people doing basic word processing and spreadsheet work. The higher end Macs provide this for more challenging tasks. *** Mac Clones: so far they are simply curiosities. No one buys an Amiga so they can run Mac software, I doubt people would buy a Next to run Mac software. Pure Mac clones might sell, but in over six years there hasn't been one yet... *** Next as threat to Macintosh: Get real! The Next is an interesting machine, but it is losing the marketshare wars to the RISC hot boxes in the workstation marketplace and to Macs & Windows in the PC marketplace. I expect to see it continue as an interesting niche machine - sort of like the Amiga. People don't buy computers because they have the best designed PC board or the cleanest software development enviroment, only us techno-weenies care about that. My Mom and Dad buy computers to get a job done. They also want to feel good about the computer they buy. They get warm and fuzzy over Apple, IBM, or Compaq. They expect them to be around in 10 years. They've never even *heard* of Next or Amiga and probably don't even care that Steve Jobs got married last week... Of course things change over time and the players will too. The marketplace is a harsh mistress. I love watching the various computer companies compete and try to one-up each other. That's the very essence of capitalism. On with the show! -- michael I figure if you can't beat the flame wars, join 'em! 1/2 :-) -- Michael Peirce -- outpost!peirce@claris.com -- Peirce Software -- Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place -- Macintosh Programming -- San Jose, California 95117 -- & Consulting -- (408) 244-6554, AppleLink: PEIRCE
dawg6844@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (<blank>) (03/23/91)
(sigh) I really wish people would stop talking about MIPS as if it means something. MIPS is the second most useless measure of computing power there is, just behind MFLOPS. Can you compare cars based on how many times the pistons go up and down? -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Dan Walkowski | To understand recursion, Univ. of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci. | you must first understand recursion. walkowsk@cs.uiuc.edu |
lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) (03/23/91)
In article <1991Mar23.055725.27761@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dawg6844@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (<blank>) writes: > >(sigh) >I really wish people would stop talking about MIPS as if it means something. > >MIPS is the second most useless measure of computing power there is, just >behind MFLOPS. You're right, of course, but only to a point. On the same kind of machines, running the same software, MIPS *is* a fairly reliable measure of performance between models of that machine. The fact that a Mac Classic is about 0.8 MIPS and a Mac IIfx is about 6 or 7 MIPS tells you something about their relative performance, does it not? And, on straight number-crunching and/or programming tasks, the MIPS ratings of machines, even across vendors and machines, does give a decent ballpark estimate of relative performance. Now for many users, other factors than raw performance are going to be more important, like the GUI, which is the main reason the Mac is so useful despite its lousy price/raw-performance ratio. But this is why MIPS ratings *are* somewhat useful when comparing Macs and NeXTs, since the NeXTs *do* have a graphical interface that is arguably at least as nice as the Mac's, and are comparable in many other ways (even philosophically). With those things the same, raw performance definitely becomes an issue again for some people -- which is where the MIPS come in. So to say that MIPS and MFLOPS ratings are completely irrelevant to comparisons (or don't "mean something") is almost as bad as overblowing their importance... - Trent Lange -- ************************************************************************** * UCLA: 1990 NCAA Football Champions (yes, the other kind). * * Oh yeah, 1990 Women's Volleyball Champions, too. * * And even our cheerleaders are improving (they're all human now). *
STREATER@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) (03/24/91)
I find it interesting the way in which this thread has developed. People are getting stuck over the Mac being/not being better than the Next (I refuse to pander to this NeXT rendition, it ain't grammar). What you have to look at is why we all thought the Mac is better than the PC. There are plenty of DOS-heads who positively revel in the complexity of the beast. I was at dinner with 20 or 30 random folks a few weeks ago, and to my left happened to be four guys who spent the whole evening comparing their PC-clones and talking about 33Mhz, access times, 486 upgrades, etc etc. *Not once* did the discussion rise to the level of what applications they had, why they actually had the machine in the first place. These folks operate at the lowest level of abstraction, and who am I to complain, since they were clearly having *fun*. The next level of abstraction has to do with trying to run applications under DOS, having to worry about EGA, VGA, CGA, 640k, autobat.exec (or whatever the hell its called), consys.fig, hymen.sys (oops sorry) and all the other random arcana that goes with it. There are plenty of people who do this and who get work done, albeit with frustration. The point about the Mac is that it took us to the next level of abstraction above that. All the trivial operations, such as copying files, renaming files, formatting disks, and the common application operations, such as open/close/quit, cut/paste, windows, etc, become identical. Not having to type the name of a files more than once, *ever*!! Having spaces in file names!! Well, you get the point. The net result is that people like my neighbour can do it. She bought a 2-floppy SE with a daisy wheel printer to prepare business letters, and told me she had to install the printer driver (drag the driver off the floppy and drop in the system folder), and this was "already more than I wanted to know about computers". Note the word "wanted". She is quite capable - just uninterested in the arcana. So she uses it as a tool, which is what it should be. The astute observer will have noticed my omission of Windows 3.0. It is my belief that this is the direction, if any, from which the danger for Apple will come. At present, Windows is hampered to some extent by the DOS past. However at some point all this history really will become history, and then there will be no reason to prefer a Mac over a 486 clone - the levels of abstraction will finally be the same. I don't know enough about, and haven't seen enough of Windows to be dogmatic about this, but I have a friend who recently spend three grand on a 33Mhz 386 system (commercial prices) which is rather more powerful, probably, than the IIsi I just bought at an educational price of three grand (with 13" Sony). He shares my jaundiced view of autobat.exec and all that stuff and we have had many discussions of where things might go. Clearly Windows will be a powerful competitor to the Mac as it gets better. We are both waiting to see what the next level of abstraction will be. In programming languages there are object-oriented offerings, in editors there are screen based systems following the Mac cut/paste paradigm (forget EMACS, JOVE etc, I have had UNIX systems at work for a year and have not had to worry about that stuff, there have always been screen based editors available). In desk top publishing there is Frame, Pagemaker, etc. Thus we can now get major *application* tasks done easily now. The Mac gave us a big leap over the line-by-line interface. Windows is now catching up fast in that area. Apple has to make as big a leap now as they did then - otherwise they will be history. Next has not really made a *big* leap, near as I can tell, just polished things up rather nicely. The other thing to beware of is becoming emotionally attached to a certain machine. Its a hard lesson to learn, but one risks being backed into a corner as it becomes harder and harder to defend a certain position. So take heed, all you partisans! (And this from a Mac partisan!). It will not surprise me at all if in say 3 years I am junking my IIsi, and buying a 586 clone with 32 mbytes, a gig of disk, all for $2k. And if Apple is s amaller company that today. If this happens, we will still owe Apple a lot. After all, they introduced the next level of abstraction. And forced those MS-DOS klods, finally, to follow suit.
krk@cs.purdue.EDU (Kevin Kuehl) (03/24/91)
In article <1991Mar23.064856.4877@cs.ucla.edu> lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes:
You're right, of course, but only to a point. On the same kind of
machines, running the same software, MIPS *is* a fairly reliable
measure of performance between models of that machine. The fact
that a Mac Classic is about 0.8 MIPS and a Mac IIfx is about 6 or 7
MIPS tells you something about their relative performance, does it not?
Sure it does, but so do a lot of other things -- like price. And not
too many people are trying to decide between a Classic and a IIfx. A
better example is a IIsi and an SE/30. And even then MIPS fool you
because you would think that a IIsi is always faster than an SE/30,
but timing comparisons posted to the net show that ain't true.
And, on straight number-crunching and/or programming tasks, the MIPS
ratings of machines, even across vendors and machines, does give a
decent ballpark estimate of relative performance.
I agree for number-crunching, but not for programming tasks. When you
say programming tasks, I assume you are talking about such things as
editing, compiling, debugging, etc. In these cases brute CPU power is
quite meaningless because the speed of your I/O devices such as the
keyboard, disks and memory are the true limits to speed. A good way
to find this out is to use a timing program that counts the real time
in a kernel, on the cpu and the total time taken. From my estimates
on Unix machines, a compiler spends about 2-3 seconds blocked for I/O
for every 1 second it spends on the CPU. And editing and debugging
are going to be in the range 10-1000:1 for the most part.
But this is why MIPS ratings *are* somewhat useful when comparing
Macs and NeXTs, since the NeXTs *do* have a graphical interface that
is arguably at least as nice as the Mac's, and are comparable in many
other ways (even philosophically). With those things the same, raw
performance definitely becomes an issue again for some people -- which
is where the MIPS come in.
But what you forget is that the Mac and the NeXT have two completely
different operating systems, buses and display systems. The NeXT is
going to seem somewhat slower than the MIPS figures would lead you to
believe because of the overhead in displaying on such a large screen
with PostScript. Also it has MACH which will provide more of an
overhead than the MacOS will because MACH provides a lot more services
than the MacOS does. They are somewhat useful, but only realizing
that a NeXT is going to be faster than a IIfx.
--
Kevin Kuehl
krk@cs.purdue.edu
kuehlkr@mentor.cc.purude.edublissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) (03/24/91)
In article <91082.084305STREATER@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> STREATER@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes: [stuff deleted] >abstraction will finally be the same. I don't know enough about, and haven't >seen enough of Windows to be dogmatic about this, but I have a friend who >recently spend three grand on a 33Mhz 386 system (commercial prices) which is >rather more powerful, probably, than the IIsi I just bought at an educational >price of three grand (with 13" Sony). He shares my jaundiced view of Depends on how you define power. Pagemaker runs faster on the SI at work than the 33mhz 386 at school. Noticeable faster. Ditto for excel and word win. [deleted to save bandwidth} >The other thing to beware of is becoming emotionally attached to a certain >machine. Its a hard lesson to learn, but one risks being backed into a corner >as it becomes harder and harder to defend a certain position. So take heed, >all you partisans! (And this from a Mac partisan!). It will not surprise me at >all if in say 3 years I am junking my IIsi, and buying a 586 clone with 32 >mbytes, a gig of disk, all for $2k. And if Apple is s amaller company that >today. > The one to watch is probably NewTek. Imagine the possibility of using their code to run Mac software on a NeXT 040. 5k for a b/w NextStation or 8k for a NextStation Color (both of these rip an FX in half). That or any number of the coming Mac Clone vendors. The chip set will probably cost $300. Add an 040 for another $1000 and you have a killer mac for under 3k.
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (03/24/91)
In article <1991Mar22.154811.8691@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu>, rdeal@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (Butch Deal) writes: > > Granted I like the NeXT but only as a unix machine. I would wait for the > faster 68040 chips. The NeXT is using the first rlease of the 68040 running > at its slowest speed 25MHZ; it can go up to 80MHZ giving over 50 MIPS. The > NeXT is not the kind of machine that most people whant. It has very limited > software and is only supported by a few software developers. Well, while you complainabout NeXT husing the slowest 68040s I should point out that Apple are still using the 68030's... How do you know what most people want? (NOTE: It is not fair to compare NeXTs to MAC LCs - comparing to IIfx is more reasonable.) Considering the age of NeXT it has quite reasonable software base. And it is supported by many _major_ software developers, as well. I, for one, can get just about anything I want on NeXT, except a MIDI sequencer (but that is going to change soon, too). I admit that MAC users have much more choice on software but the far and few programs on NeXT tend to be the state of the art (like Improv, Mathematica, FrameMaker, Allegro CL, etc.). > > I love UNIX but if you don't like DOS you would !@$#^%* if you had to use > UNIX and NeXT is a UNIX machine. Granted that the NeXT has a mac like > interface on the UNIX but to do anything more than basic stuff you would > have to get your feet mudy in UNIX. Where is this "knowledge" from? Ever programmed a NeXT? All the basic functions a programmer needs are implemented in ApplicationKit and MusicKit. They are ready to use with Objective C. I am pretty sure that a NeXT is far more easy to program than a MAC. Oh, and there is the Interface Builder, too. The Unix just provides multi-tasking, virtual memory and other goodies. If you _want_ to use the Unix tools they are always there, but there is no need to use them in normal programming - they just add more functionality. > > Butch Deal > The Butcher > rdeal@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland
tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd A. Green) (03/24/91)
In article <1991Mar23.190432.5683@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >In article <1991Mar22.154811.8691@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu>, rdeal@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (Butch Deal) writes: > [stuff deleted] >Where is this "knowledge" from? Ever programmed a NeXT? All the basic >functions a programmer needs are implemented in ApplicationKit and >MusicKit. They are ready to use with Objective C. I am pretty sure that >a NeXT is far more easy to program than a MAC. Oh, and there is the >Interface Builder, too. The Unix just provides multi-tasking, virtual >memory and other goodies. If you _want_ to use the Unix tools they are >always there, but there is no need to use them in normal programming - >they just add more functionality. > [more stuff deleted] > Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland Have you ever programmed the Mac? It took me all of 1 day from the time I received THINK C and Inside Mac I-V to get a program compiled and running. (And no it wasn't "Hello World" ;) ). While the IB is nice, I have to say right now I prefere ResEdit 2.1. I'll admit I'm biased as all heck having used ResEdit for a considerable length of time, and still being new to NeXT programming. But I find progamming the NeXT much more complicated. With all the .prog, .nib, .m's, .tiff, .iconheader files...objective C (which again is new for me). Having to learn about classes, inheritance, etc. I guess what I'm trying to say is that any Joe-blow C or Pascal programmer can pick up a book and learn to program the Mac (at least the basics) in a matter of days. I have not found the transition to the NeXT as easy. But this is just my personal experience. Maybe others have found it easier. (Especially those who are already objective C programmers, which seems to be my biggest hindrance, that along with the lack of information. The only sources that I have are what came online with NeXTstep 2.0 ). Well time will tell as I become more familiar with the IB, and objective C. Maybe I can make a more definitive comparison then. Right now I'd love to be back in THINK C. Todd ============================================================================== Todd A. Green "<_CyberWolf_>" ---> Pascal <- tagreen@ucs.indiana.edu Unix Systems Administration ---> Unix <--- tagreen@silver.ucs.indiana.edu Macintosh Systems Administration ---> VMS <---- tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu WCC Office:136.04 phone:855-0949 ---> C <------ tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana "Friends don't let friends ---> Mac <---- tagreen@iubacs.BITNET Use DOS" - Scott Ostrander ---> SunOS <-- tagreen@lykos (FTP only) ==============================================================================
lange@ewa.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) (03/24/91)
In article <14020@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> krk@cs.purdue.EDU (Kevin Kuehl) writes: >In article <1991Mar23.064856.4877@cs.ucla.edu> lange@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Trent Lange) writes: > > And, on straight number-crunching and/or programming tasks, the MIPS > ratings of machines, even across vendors and machines, does give a > decent ballpark estimate of relative performance. > >I agree for number-crunching, but not for programming tasks. When you >say programming tasks, I assume you are talking about such things as >editing, compiling, debugging, etc. In these cases brute CPU power is >quite meaningless because the speed of your I/O devices such as the >keyboard, disks and memory are the true limits to speed. A good way >to find this out is to use a timing program that counts the real time >in a kernel, on the cpu and the total time taken. From my estimates >on Unix machines, a compiler spends about 2-3 seconds blocked for I/O >for every 1 second it spends on the CPU. And editing and debugging >are going to be in the range 10-1000:1 for the most part. Yes, many compiling and program running tasks are more I/O bound than CPU bound. But, in general, you can get the same amounts of memory and the same I/O devices to run on low-MIP machines as on high-MIP machines. When this is done, then the difference in performance is going to return generally to CPU performance (also taking into account performance of the actual compilers used, etc.), of which MIPS ratings give a semi-reliable ballpark estimate. > But this is why MIPS ratings *are* somewhat useful when comparing > Macs and NeXTs, since the NeXTs *do* have a graphical interface that > is arguably at least as nice as the Mac's, and are comparable in many > other ways (even philosophically). With those things the same, raw > performance definitely becomes an issue again for some people -- which > is where the MIPS come in. > >But what you forget is that the Mac and the NeXT have two completely >different operating systems, buses and display systems. The NeXT is >going to seem somewhat slower than the MIPS figures would lead you to >believe because of the overhead in displaying on such a large screen >with PostScript. Also it has MACH which will provide more of an >overhead than the MacOS will because MACH provides a lot more services >than the MacOS does. They are somewhat useful, but only realizing >that a NeXT is going to be faster than a IIfx. > >Kevin Kuehl >krk@cs.purdue.edu >kuehlkr@mentor.cc.purude.edu Again, you're right, for most cases -- nobody should buy a NeXT because they think it's going to pop its windows up faster than a Mac IIfx will. But they might want to because it's generally going to run Mathematica or their long programs at least twice as quickly. My point was that some people hold two things about their computer to be of great importance -- its graphical interface and its raw computing performance for number-crunching and programming purposes. I'm one of those people. In my opinion, the NeXT is the first computer to really challenge the Mac in the quality of its GUI. Then the second issue becomes a factor -- and the NeXT's MIP rating of twice that of a IIfx and other raw performance advantages (i.e. DMA that it actually uses) becomes an important factor in a purchasing decision. The MIPS rating of a machine is indeed just one factor in evaluating its usefulness and performance. It is, however, definitely a factor -- especially for certain tasks -- and not completely irrelevant, as the poster I responded to originally claimed. - Trent Lange -- ************************************************************************** * UCLA: 1990 NCAA Football Champions (yes, the other kind). * * Oh yeah, 1990 Women's Volleyball Champions, too. * * And even our cheerleaders are improving (they're all human now). *
rdeal@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (Butch Deal) (03/25/91)
>>lets consider the LC, about 3 or 4 MIPS and around $1000 (educational price) >Yes, a cute little machine (a Macintosh II warmed over with 1 expansion slot) >which retails for roughly $2300 (no math co-processor), and I would venture >to say that Apple's fate with Macintosh will rest more with the retail price >than what the few, the proud, the starving college students can buy it for. I think that you are under estimating the educational area. It includes K-12 as well as faculty. This makes up a substantial market. You are also over semplify the LC, it is very different from the MacII: no NU bus, less bits for memory access and color, no PMMU, built in ram as well as simm's, built in sound I/O, no unix. >>>considers that (in theory) a software emulator could be (fairly easily) >>>derived which would allow the NeXT to run Mac Software, it is questionable emulators are rather difficult and expencive to produce. I think that it will be a long time before anyone spends the time and money to give away a mac emulator. >Well, poor choice of words (fairly easily) on my part with regard to this. >What I mean is that as software emulations for the Apple ][ and MS-Dos >world are already available for the Macintosh, I presume that it will >only be a matter of time before someone tries (successfully) to emulate >the Mac, though I concede the Mac is in some ways more complex which >might make the task more difficult. The Mac is in may ways more complex than a simple dos box. >I concede anyone caught doing this will at the very least need one really >good lawyer to help them out in court, but theoretically, it is possible >for someone to copy and use them in the creation of a software emulator, >and then for the same person to post the emulator into the public domain >and still remain anonymous (Internet Security isn't 100%) I think that your remarks should stand on their own(you are your worst enemie), But again who would spend such a great deal of time and money to give the product away?!? >>It is more than a symbolic gesture, an LC is far cheaper than a big blue >>windows speed not deamon. When the new mac 68040's are released then >>the 68020 machines will go down even more as well as the 68030's >Yes, but IBM and Compact are not the only competitors. There are a whole >slew of third party vendure making high powered 386's and 486's which >RETAIL (hey, that's what Joe Consumer pays, huh? ) for around the same price >as the Mac LC. And, as partial as I am to the Macintosh (truly), I have >to admit that even Windows on a 286 looks pretty tempting when compared to >the Mac Classic--nice machine, but soooo slooowwww... Well you must have never run windows on a 286 then or the Classic would seem pretty nice. An LC has better speed than 386 machines with windows. >One other thing. We already know there are Software Emulators which allow >the Mac to run PC (DOS) software (e.g. SoftPC). How long will it be before >NeXT has the same thing allowing the entire DOS world to fall into their >camp ? With a (admittedly) very illegal Mac emulator floating around, the >Apple Macintosh might fall upon extremely hard times... Well you don't seem to keep up the NeXT has softPC for some time now. I don't see Big Blue stock falling much why are you so sure that Mac's will. I don't think that there will be all that many people try to use unsupported illegal software for their lively-hood. The NeXT is a unix box and I think that you should only compare it with another UNIX box. There is a lot of difference between a workstation and a personal computer(price, software availabiltiy, etc.) People that have any Mac under a II are not going to be interested in a NeXT. If they are then they didn't get the right Mac in the first place. I would not recomend a NeXT to a small buisiness owner for accounting and record keeping. I also would not recomend a Mac SE to and enginere for drafting, a Mac II would be far better for drafting. If it is just speed that you want, you could upgrade your SE to faster than the NeXT cheaper than you could get a NeXT, and you wouldn't have to be conserned with legal problems.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/25/91)
In article <1991Mar24.222404.7549@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu> rdeal@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (Butch Deal) writes:
The NeXT is a unix box and I think that you should only compare it with
another UNIX box. There is a lot of difference between a workstation
WRONG. Workstations have power, and PC's have a cornucopia of
friendly apps. Well, that has all changed. There are now some
workstations with friendly apps(about to become plentiful).
and a personal computer(price, software availabiltiy, etc.) People
that have any Mac under a II are not going to be interested in a NeXT.
If they are then they didn't get the right Mac in the first place.
I would not recomend a NeXT to a small buisiness owner for accounting
and record keeping. I also would not recomend a Mac SE to and
enginere for drafting, a Mac II would be far better for drafting.
The people who bought an SE instead of a II did so because they
couldn't afford a II(I'm going to flame anyone who say's a 68000 with
a b/w 9" screen is optimal). When people manage to scrape some money
together to buy another computer, I think they might be interested in
the NeXT. At least it's worth looking into. I wouldn't spend $5000
w/o at least checking out(i.e. examining firsthand and not listing to
hearsay) what NeXT has to offer.
If it is just speed that you want, you could upgrade your SE to faster
than the NeXT cheaper than you could get a NeXT, and you wouldn't have
to be conserned with legal problems.
No, in addition, I want virtual memory, multitasking(preemptive),
memory protection, Display Postscript, a DSP, high res. monitor...
-Mikekrk@cs.purdue.EDU (Kevin Kuehl) (03/25/91)
In article <qhcG!c!71@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes:
The NeXT is a unix box and I think that you should only compare it with
another UNIX box. There is a lot of difference between a workstation
WRONG. Workstations have power, and PC's have a cornucopia of
friendly apps. Well, that has all changed. There are now some
workstations with friendly apps(about to become plentiful).
Michael's completely right on. The difference between PC's and
Workstations is fading rapidly. NeXT and some of the 486 boxes are
the cause (or to blame if for some reason you see this as bad. :-))
--
Kevin Kuehl
krk@cs.purdue.edu
kuehlkr@mentor.cc.purude.edudavoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli) (03/26/91)
In article <i.5G0*c61@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > In article <1991Mar22.154811.8691@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu> rdeal@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (Butch Deal) writes: > > It is more than a symbolic gesture, an LC is far cheaper than a big blue > windows speed not deamon. When the new mac 68040's are released then > the 68020 machines will go down even more as well as the 68030's > > When Apple's 040 machine with Ethernet is released, a lot of Mac > owners are going to come to their senses and realize how much of a > deal the NeXT is. > Nice to see you're back an uptight as ever Mike! :-) I think you do have a point about the pricing/(pefomance-features) of the Mac versus the NeXT. $10K is a lot to spend for a Mac that has most of the features of the Nextstation at around $5K (these are retail, not edu. discount I believe, but everyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) The thing that really hurts NeXT IMHO is what Apple has been fighting for years - the suits running purchasing departments throughout corporate America. Generally all they can keep in mind is "DOS", "IBM", and "386". NeXT doesn't fit in there. Also, another problem I see with NeXT is they're non-standard implementation of the NuBus. Like it or not, Apple's style is the de facto standard for the 10 MHz bus, and I don't think that NeXT adheres to the NuBus '90 specs for the 20 MHz bus either. This makes it esp. hard for people making hardware expansions boards for the Mac to justify switching over to the limited NeXT market. Maybe if NeXT can hang on and pick up a little market share, then things will change. Basically, I'm very skeptical that NeXT will be the next big mover and shaker of the computer industry, despite their cool machines. Even though they've started off with a vastly more powerful computer than the original Macintosh, the NeXT doesn't seem to capture the imagination like the early Macintoshes did, which I think in large part contributed to their survival by creating scores of fanatics. Nowadays, most people look at the NeXT and see an imcompatible Mac-like thing, not something to crusade about. Before you hit 'f' and start heaving nepalm bombs, please note that I'm not an apologist for Apple. There just has to be a way for them to build more powerful machines for the prices they charge now, or sell their current crop for less. --Russell
kap1@phyllis.math.binghamton.edu (Dietrich Kappe) (03/26/91)
Just thought I might throw out this interesting fact: MPW, the official Apple SD environment, makes use of a command line interface. Think about it. --Dietrich Kappe-- (Mac partisan) kap1@math.binghamton.edu
mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar22.172314.29602@midway.uchicago.edu>, lrm3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Reed Miller) wrote: >the Mac toolbox traps. A closer analogy might be Amax running on Amiga, which >I understand does not suffer any performance loss. The Amiga uses 680x0 series Quite the reverse, AMAX gets *higher* performance on equivalent chips than the Mac. -- Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,## Everyone should try to kill themselves once in a TCD,EIRE. <mike@maths.tcd.ie>## while, it gives you a whole new outlook on life. ###############################DON'T MISS TRINCON400 7th, 8th, 9th FEBRUARY 1992 And she wore Black Contact Lenses when you said you liked her eyes......Toasties
mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar22.170902.878@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu>, medlin@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (Roger Medlin) wrote: >good lawyer to help them out in court, but theoretically, it is possible >for someone to copy and use them in the creation of a software emulator, >and then for the same person to post the emulator into the public domain >and still remain anonymous (Internet Security isn't 100%) There is such an illegal version of AMAX floting around. Uses a dump of the ROMs. And I've heard rumours of EPROMed versions for sale through the grapevine RSN. -- Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,## Everyone should try to kill themselves once in a TCD,EIRE. <mike@maths.tcd.ie>## while, it gives you a whole new outlook on life. ###############################DON'T MISS TRINCON400 7th, 8th, 9th FEBRUARY 1992 And she wore Black Contact Lenses when you said you liked her eyes......Toasties
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (03/28/91)
In-Reply-To: message from peirce@outpost.UUCP While the NeXT's impact on the UNIX market remains to be seen, your comments regarding the Amiga were pretty near-sighted (as per usual in this conf.). I'll agree that nobody (at least I hope not) buys an Amiga to run Mac software...regardless of the fact that it runs most Mac software faster than the real thing. Mac clones haven't turned up in the past 6 years because Apple's hyperactive litigation department wouldn't hesitate to nuke'em. However, the notion that the Amiga is only known in esoteric hacker circles is a thing of the past. Coverage has been increased across the board...or haven't you read a recent Byte, InfoWorld, etc. Most of this is due to the Toaster, destined to be the Amiga's 1-2-3 or PageMaker :) Computer graphics is not a niche anymore...the market has been mainstream for more than a year now. 1991 shipments of graphics hardware, software, etc. will exceed $20 Billion. And the Amiga has made an impact on Apple, where it hurts. Commodore's Educational Purchase Program is a great success. In fact, I know of no less than TEN Mac dealerships in the Dallas/Ft Worth area that BEGGED a regional educational manager from Commodore to set them up as dealers! And back to the Toaster, what do you think the hit of the last MacWorld Expo was? Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc RealWorld: Sean Cunningham ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil Voice: (512) 992-2810 INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com ____________________________________ // | * All opinions expressed herein | HELP KEEP THE COMPETITION UNDER \X/ | Copyright 1991 VISION GRAPHICS | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Spencer) (03/29/91)
Dietrich Kappe writes in a message to All DK> Just thought I might throw out this interesting fact: DK> MPW, the official Apple SD environment, makes use of a command DK> line interface. Think about it. While it is true that there is a CLI in MPW, that arises out of the need for a full blown scripting language. Virtually all commands have a dialog interface as well plus you can add any command, script or tool to a menu.
Jim.Spencer@p510.f22.n282.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Spencer) (03/31/91)
Lawrence Reed Miller writes in a message to All LRM> Much of the Mac toolbox is in ROM, but there is no reason that LRM> the toolbox traps can't be stored in RAM. In fact, that's how LRM> Apple updates the toolbox--traps that are not in ROM, or which LRM> have been changed are loaded into RAM out of the System File. LRM> Of course, to do this legally you would have to come up with LRM> an independant verson of the Mac Toolbox and System Software. LRM> This would be difficult, but certainly not impossible. Actually the trap dispatcher is in RAM even for those routines which are not patched. A copy gets copies from ROM and then patches modify it as necessary to cause patched routines to jump to the new code.