gross@umiami.ir.miami.edu (Mondo) (02/01/91)
Apple to release BLACK AND WHITE notebook Macs -- but we want COLOR!! (at
least I do.)
NewTek releases Video Toaster to Macs by selling it with a modified Amiga --
guess the Mac hardware just couldn't handle it (can you say audio and
video co-processor. Commodore can for less money.)
Ya know...maybe it's time for Apple to forget about System 8.0 and concentrate
on System 1.0 of the new line of computers from Apple. It's bad when to
use products that supposedly in the domain of Mac expertise have to be
shipped with the competition's machines.
Yeah, that's it. A new Apple computer replete with features enough to
silence the most ardent Amiga or Next user. :)
Apple changed 1984. But can they change for 1994?
--
Jason Gross Comp Sci Ugrad University of Miami Class of '91 (?)
===========================================================================
Hey, wanna save the world? | Got sumtin' to say? gross@umiami.bitnet
Nuke a Godless, Communist, | Pick and choose! gross@umiami.ir.miami.edu
gay whale for Christ. | gross@miavax.ir.miami.edu
- Anonymous | jgross@umbio.med.miami.edu
===========================================================================
The University of Miami has a lovely fountain. 231b3679@fergvax.unl.edu (CS 231 section 2) (02/02/91)
Me too. If you are programmer, I'll bet you've noticed how amazingly kludgy everything is getting; but that's not Apple's fault, though, they were the ones who pioneered GUIs (yeah, I know, Xerox...) and I complement them that their foresight was really pretty good. But now they know exactly what to do, perhaps they should put out a new machine, maybe an 88000 based machine with new ROM built from scratch, and make the programmer's life a little easier by taking a NeXT interface builder approach. Throw in some coprocessors (especially some graphics chips to make QuickDraw quick) and make them standard equipment. Oh, yeah, make it unix to start off! And of course after they finish that, put some people on a Mac emulator project so not to alienate us ;-) --mike gleason
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (02/04/91)
231b3679@fergvax.unl.edu (Mike Gleason) writes:
MG> Me too. If you are programmer, I'll bet you've noticed how
MG> amazingly kludgy everything is getting; but that's not Apple's
MG> fault, though, they were the ones who pioneered GUIs (yeah, I
MG> know, Xerox...) and I complement them that their foresight was
MG> really pretty good. But now they know exactly what to do,
MG> perhaps they should put out a new machine, maybe an 88000 based
MG> machine with new ROM built from scratch, and make the
MG> programmer's life a little easier by taking a NeXT interface
MG> builder approach. Throw in some coprocessors (especially some
MG> graphics chips to make QuickDraw quick) and make them standard
MG> equipment. Oh, yeah, make it unix to start off!
MG>
MG> And of course after they finish that, put some people on a Mac
MG> emulator project so not to alienate us ;-)
I have to agree here. It's time for Apple to stop fixing things up to run on
68000 Pluses and Classics, and start building a new set of machines, including
a brand new OS, from scratch.
--Adam--
--
Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix
INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORGbreidenb@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Oliver Breidenbach) (02/04/91)
hi,
I simply wonder why apple should do that? If you want an amiga, then why
didn't you buy one? And UNIX isn't userfriendly at all, even on a NeXT.
And remember 1984 nearly defeated Apple and not just because of Steven.
No, I think it's not time to change the Idea, but I think they can try harder
to improve it. And it's not a sign to change anything just because someone
does it another way... if it were, we would all end up using ibm pc's and
windows... I can tell you, there are a lot more than ONE company doing that.
But I agree, Apple should really watch out and be aware of the market,
especially concerning a note book computer. (I know they can do it again).
Color really would be nice, but only QUALITY is what really counts.
Share and Enjoy.
Oliver "Broke" Breidenbach
Oliver Breidenbach, CSD, Technische Universitaet, Muenchen
E-Mail: Oliver.Breidenbach@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.deewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (02/06/91)
In article <143454.27AE5944@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: > >231b3679@fergvax.unl.edu (Mike Gleason) writes: > >MG> Me too. If you are programmer, I'll bet you've noticed how >MG> amazingly kludgy everything is getting... But now they know >MG> exactly what to do, >MG> perhaps they should put out a new machine, maybe an 88000 based >MG> machine with new ROM built from scratch, and make the >MG> programmer's life a little easier by taking a NeXT interface >MG> builder approach... Oh, yeah, make it unix to start off! >I have to agree here. It's time for Apple to stop fixing things up to run on >68000 Pluses and Classics, and start building a new set of machines, including >a brand new OS, from scratch. Brand new OS? That's not exactly what he said. Amazing that someone who finds the Mac OS "amazingly kludgy" wants *UNIX* to start off. (Let's get rid of those kudgy word processors and port vi, too! :-) An "interface-build approach" is available on the Mac, using third-party products such as Prototyper and AppMaker. I have also heard from reliable sources that Apple did create an 88000-based Macintosh in the lab, but has no plans to release the machine.
tonyrich@titanic.cs.wisc.edu (Anthony Rich) (02/06/91)
>Mike Gleason writes: > > Perhaps [Apple] should put out a new machine, maybe an 88000-based > machine with new ROM built from scratch [...] History has been repeating itself. Apple's recent marketing and technical problems have duplicated a lot of angst that Cromemco went through in the 1980's. (Cromemco was a maker of high-quality but pricey S-100 micros; Dynatech bought Cromemco in late 1986). When it became obvious to Cromemco that they needed to move from the Z80 CPU to the 68000, they did a very nice thing to keep from obsoleting their existing user base; they just included a Z80 CPU on all their new 68000-based CPU boards. Users could then upgrade to use the new 68000 CPU and its new software and still run their old Z80 software, too. Z80 programs had a ".com" filename suffix which told the OS to run them on the Z80, while 68000 programs were given a ".bin" suffix to direct them to the 68000. I'm sure Apple could do something similar when it decides to move on to a new but incompatible processor like the 88000's. Of course, it was easier to upgrade CPU's on a Cromemco, since the CPU was on a board that plugged into the S-100 bus. With a Mac, one upgrades CPU's by swapping the whole darn motherboard. But there's already some precedent for that in the Mac II-to-IIfx upgrade path. -- Tony -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | EMAIL: tonyrich@cs.wisc.edu | The essence of learning is | | Disclaimer: I speak only for myself. | repetition, repetition! | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) (02/06/91)
In article <143454.27AE5944@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG>, Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: > > I have to agree here. It's time for Apple to stop fixing things up to run on > 68000 Pluses and Classics, and start building a new set of machines, including > a brand new OS, from scratch. Right. Just dump on all those people who have 68000 class Macintoshes. Remember, their are lots more 68000 based machines out there than Mac II class machines. The Classic is selling very well and so this situation isn't going to change any time soon. I think the Mac is much easier to program now than it was years ago even though there is more in the toolbox now. Things like MacApp, Jasik's debugger, and the THINK environments make life much easier than it was in the days of Lisa Pascal! I remember the compiling in Magamax C on a "Fat Mac" (512K!) and it would start consuming video RAM when it got low. When that screen filled up with garbage your code had grown too big. Programming the Mac these days is do much easier. Please Apple don't leave all those 68000 users in the dust just to shut up those few souls with Unix envy (Unix? ick, hack, phuhy!) -- michael (Sorry, but I just get so tired of hearing about how I should switch to Amiga/Next/whatever...) -- 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
time@tbomb.ice.com (Tim Endres) (02/06/91)
In article <0B010004.tr5b1m@outpost.UUCP>, peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) writes: > > > > I have to agree here. It's time for Apple to stop fixing things up to run on > > 68000 Pluses and Classics, and start building a new set of machines, including > > a brand new OS, from scratch. > > Right. Just dump on all those people who have 68000 class Macintoshes. > > Remember, their are lots more 68000 based machines out there than > Mac II class machines. The Classic is selling very well and so this > situation isn't going to change any time soon. This is important. As long as a large pool of machines is in active use, developers will continue to create new software and improve existing software for that machine. Look at the Apple II, or the IBM PC (DOS versus OS/2, text versus Windows). Clearly, as time marches on and new technology replaces old, the older generation dies. So be it. The market will drive this. Money talks. > I think the Mac is much easier to program now than it was years ago > even though there is more in the toolbox now. Things like MacApp, > Jasik's debugger, and the THINK environments make life much easier than > it was in the days of Lisa Pascal! I remember the compiling in Magamax C > on a "Fat Mac" (512K!) and it would start consuming video RAM when it got > low. When that screen filled up with garbage your code had grown too big. > > Programming the Mac these days is do much easier. No question about this!!! I remember *enjoying* my MacXL (Lisa) because MegaMax didn't "eat" my display! With the existing programming tools and the latest ROMs, the Macintosh is easier than ever to program. This does not mean that it could not be VASTLY better. Just that it is far better than before, and probably far better than most platforms. > Please Apple don't leave all those 68000 users in the dust just to > shut up those few souls with Unix envy (Unix? ick, hack, phuhy!) I personally feel that Apple could move to completely new CPUs and do a virtual rewrite of the MacOS and still maintain incredible levels of compatability and simplicity. I am not saying they should maintain binary compatabilty, but if a developer can port to the new platform/OS with nothing more than a recompile and several code modifications, then this is very acceptable. This happens now, for all practical purposes everytime Apple releases new systems or Macs. My IIfx was NOT binary compatable with everything. Programs required modifications and updates. I waited a couple months and had what I wanted. I believe the same thing would happen with a new platform, if Apple retained the important aspects of Macintosh programs at the Manager level. And Apple could move into new areas, such as pre-emptive multitasking and RISC processors and the like. > (Sorry, but I just get so tired of hearing about how I should switch > to Amiga/Next/whatever...) I wish people would come to realize that we *want* some different computers. The world would be in sorry shape if there were only one type of car, one type of truck, one type of TV, etc. Computers are a tool, and as such, the best tool for the job should be chosen. tim. ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Endres | time@ice.com ICE Engineering | uupsi!ice.com!time 8840 Main Street | Voice FAX Whitmore Lake MI. 48189 | (313) 449 8288 (313) 449 9208
jbr0@cbnews.att.com (joseph.a.brownlee) (02/06/91)
In article <143454.27AE5944@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: >231b3679@fergvax.unl.edu (Mike Gleason) writes: > > Me too. If you are programmer, I'll bet you've noticed how > > amazingly kludgy everything is getting; but that's not Apple's > > fault, though, they were the ones who pioneered GUIs (yeah, I > > know, Xerox...) and I complement them that their foresight was > > really pretty good. But now they know exactly what to do, > > perhaps they should put out a new machine, maybe an 88000 based > > machine with new ROM built from scratch [...] > > I have to agree here. It's time for Apple to stop fixing things up to run on > 68000 Pluses and Classics, and start building a new set of machines, including > a brand new OS, from scratch. To me, I agree and what Adam Frix said about the OS is the key. The Macintosh hardware platform isn't bad on the newer machines; it just needs a few tweaks and updates, such as the faster NuBus standard, 68040 support, and perhaps an on-board graphics co-processor (for which the Mac cries), but the OS is starting to get to be layer after layer of patches and obsolete routines. Want to find out about you machine? Use Gestalt(), which superceded SysEnvirons(), which replaced Environs(). Want color in your window? Call NewCWindow(), not NewWindow(), except if you don't have Color QD. You get the idea. And I won't even go into the things that they can't touch because of the problems it would create, like the 680x0 supervisor modes and protected memory. Apple has done a pretty darn good job of trying to keep up with new software advances, while not destroying backward compatibility. Speaking as a software engineer who has been in many similar situations, you do things you don't like because they are compromises between compatibility and progress. But there does come a time when you have to make some kind of break. Apple's foresight had allowed them to make many major changes to the system, while (for the most part) maintaining compatibility. To go from the days of 128K being more memory than any other PC of its day to competing with low-end workstations is something Apple can be proud of. So, perhaps Apple could work on a Mac OS II (OS/2 :-). Something we could use with current machines, perhaps by upgrading the ROMs and perhaps some of the boards. Maybe our old software wouldn't work as is anymore, but if things aren't too radically different, the software publishers could port existing code without too much trouble (mostly be taking out all the backward compatibility hacks), and then we could go from there. Food for thought... -- - _ Joe Brownlee, Analysts International Corp. @ AT&T Network Systems /_\ @ / ` 471 E Broad St, Suite 1610, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 860-7461 / \ | \_, E-mail: jbr@cblph.att.com Who pays attention to what _I_ say? "Scotty, we need warp drive in 3 minutes or we're all dead!" --- James T. Kirk
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (02/13/91)
peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) writes:
MP> Right. Just dump on all those people who have 68000 class Macintoshes.
MP>
MP> Remember, their are lots more 68000 based machines out there
MP> than Mac II class machines. The Classic is selling very well
MP> and so this situation isn't going to change any time soon.
Nononononono. I didn't say dump on the 68000 and 020 users out there. My idea
was that Apple look around, take note of some of the better ideas in computing
that have become available, and start working on a post-Mac that isn't tied
so tightly to the days of 1986. Simultaneously, Apple can continue to support
(and improve the lives of) all those who own lower end and older machines.
Of course, the post-Mac, to be hugely successful, would have some complex but
invisible-to-the-user way of running the current base of Mac software, all the
way down to copy-protected games. This would give a buyer of such a machine
two machines in one, and would give him time to transfer the way he works over
to the new system--software, etc.
I mean, Apple _is_ capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, right?
MP> (Sorry, but I just get so tired of hearing about how I should
MP> switch to Amiga/Next/whatever...)
Sorry, but I just get so tired of Apple and its fervent evangelists putting
their heads in the sand and refusing to acknowledge anything that's happening
in the outside world. I don't think you should get a NeXT, unless you do something
which makes that the obvious choice of tool.
Apple should rid itself of the NIH (Not-Invented-Here) syndrome, and acknowledge
that sometimes, someone else has a better idea. I don't gawk over or pray to
UNIX. I don't think Apple should look at the NeXT and automatically base the
post-Mac on a UNIX system. But Apple should weigh all the alternatives, and
look at what other people have shown can be done, and done inexpensively. Look
at the Video Toaster. $10,000 for a machine to do what it previously took a
$100,000 machine to do? And Apple ignored that market, out of NIH. It's time
for Apple to stop ignorning what the other guys are doing, and get the confidence
to occasionally swallow their pride and admit that they had better do *this*
type of thing, because *that other* company is doing it and showing that it
can be done well, and dammit, it looks like *that other* company had a better
idea than Apple after all. Of course, Apple pride being what it is, I would
fully expect Apple to look at it, insist they could do it ten times better for
no more than the same price, and have it done. Is that so bad?
It's time for Apple to move on from the Mac, but not necessarily from the Mac
ideals.
--Adam--
--
Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix
INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG