torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (03/15/91)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1991Mar13.221028.8703@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >> One could argue that Apple has been more innovative than Commodore >>over the last 5 years. Apple started off with a monochrome, one-size >>monitor non-expandable system. >Letsee. Apple introduced the Mac in 1983. January 1984 actually. >You're claiming here that between '83 and '86, Apple did absolutely nothing? >Is that right? Essentially yes. All they did to the basic Mac design was to replace those soldered in 64Kb DRAMs [boy, remember those?? :-)] by 256Kb chips to give the Fat Mac in August 1984. The debacle of 1985, with Steve Jobs, and the non-arrival of new Mac products was responsible for the dismal sales of the Mac in '85. About the only bright spot was Apple's introduction of the Postscript Laserwriter in Jan 85 [another first from Apple?]. In Jan 86, Apple introduced the Mac Plus (SCSI built-in, SIMM memory modules, both innovations once again for a mass-produced micro). >Amiga was introed >in '85. In 1986, they introduced the expansion bus specifications. In '87, >an affordable Amiga (A500) and one with slots (A2000). In '89, a 68020 system. >In '90, a 68030 system. In '91, the A3000, a fully 32 bit system (expansion >bus, memory, hard disk, etc). Except for the Amiga chips, a completely new >architecture. How is this any different from the Mac evolution, albeit with fewer models in the Amiga line? >Apple has its innovations, but hardware isn't generally where they shine. The >Mac II and IIx, basically the same computer, were underpowered 68020/30 >systems, using slow memory and the same 8 bit PIO hard disk. The issue of the hard disk interface is really a red herring. If you're running a preemptive multi-tasking system, then yes, you really want DMA, and not polling. But Apple wasn't, and still isn't for most of its machines. Hence, the bottleneck in disk access for the MacOS 99% of the time is still the hard drive mechanism, rather than any problem on the Mac side of the SCSI port. Any Mac II can easily cope with 1.[1-3] MB coming down the SCSI bus, which more than suffices for most of the current 3.5" hard drives. It's certainly overkill for my Quantum 105. If I were running Unix (or System 8?), it would be another story. >Sure, you could >have decent graphics via an add-in, if speed wasn't a problem. At least you could have decent graphics! [a cruel barb there, but this is .advocacy!] >>Since then they've added things like 32-bit colour, >You have to get 24 bit color from 3rd parties on the Amiga (no one is selling >32 bit color displays for Macs, or much anything else, actually). Actually, there's a TrueVision/32 board, which has 24 bits of colour + 8 bits of alpha channel, which has been available for the Mac for quite a while. >>expansion slots, >Well, the Amiga had expansion slots before any Mac did. The A3000's Zorro III >bus is far superior to the Mac's NuBus, as 32 bit buses go. It's also a lot newer than NuBus. NuBus was originally designed a long time ago (I recall reading about it and Futurebus back in the early '80s). I guess Apple could have chosen to take a proprietary tack with their bus, but this was at the time when NuBus was still being seriously considered as the next alternative to the ISA architecture (before EISA reared its head). Apple decided to go the open route for a change, and then nobody followed them :-( (except for some of those TI machines) >Amiga expansion is >far ahead of Mac expansion, What does "far ahead" mean? Does it mean more cards available? >>and even A/UX [which runs old Mac applications as a task under Unix... >>something the Amiga can't do comparably with Amiga applications]. >The Amiga UNIX has the potential to attract UNIX people to the Amiga, >since it is in all ways a modern, standard UNIX. This has already been well beaten out on this group, but I fall in the camp who have a hard job seeing Unix people being attracted to an Amiga when they could have a NeXT instead. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "If it weren't for your gumboots, where would you be? You'd be in the hospital, or in-firm-ary..." F. Dagg
cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) (03/15/91)
In article <1991Mar15.092133.16140@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > It's also a lot newer than NuBus. NuBus was originally designed a >long time ago (I recall reading about it and Futurebus back in the >early '80s). I guess Apple could have chosen to take a proprietary >tack with their bus, but this was at the time when NuBus was still >being seriously considered as the next alternative to the ISA >architecture (before EISA reared its head). Apple decided to go the >open route for a change, and then nobody followed them :-( (except for >some of those TI machines) But, Apple took a proprietary track with their bus! They use a non-standard form factor, thus ruling out any sort of openness normally implied by using a `standard'. I believe NeXT uses the standard form factor with their implementation. Apple likes doing that (I have noticed...), they take a standard (a cutting edge standard, no doubt) and slightly mutilate it when they implement it! They did it with SCSI (the hardware interface, not the software interface, thank someone) and they did it with NuBus. I will say this, without Apple's backing, SCSI would not be where it is today. For this, I am quite happy. A lot of those PC type interfaces suck dead b... Loren J. Rittle -- ``NewTek stated that the Toaster *would* *not* be made to directly support the Mac, at this point Sculley stormed out of the booth...'' --- A scene at the recent MacExpo. Gee, you wouldn't think that an Apple Exec would be so worried about one little Amiga device... Loren J. Rittle l-rittle@uiuc.edu
amgreene@athena.mit.edu (Andrew Marc Greene) (03/15/91)
In article <1991Mar15.092133.16140@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > >>Letsee. Apple introduced the Mac in 1983. > > January 1984 actually. When was Lisa introduced, and how different was it from the first Macs? (I'm asking sincerely -- I don't recall.) > The issue of the hard disk interface is really a red herring. If >you're running a preemptive multi-tasking system, then yes, you really >want DMA, and not polling. But Apple wasn't, and still isn't for most >of its machines. I think that that's why it's not a red herring. Call me spoiled, but I *like* my preemptive multi-tasking system. :-) [He then quotes Dave H again:] >>The Amiga UNIX has the potential to attract UNIX people to the Amiga, >>since it is in all ways a modern, standard UNIX. > > This has already been well beaten out on this group, but I fall in >the camp who have a hard job seeing Unix people being attracted to an >Amiga when they could have a NeXT instead. Count me in as one Unix person who was attracted to the Amiga, even before the UX models came out. I'm running a csh, and I've got all my usual utilities, and I'm only on a lowly 2500. :-) Seriously, the reason I bought an Amiga was because it was closer to a workstation than anything else I'd seen -- including the NeXT, which felt like a multi-tasking Mac, not like a Unix box. -- Andrew <amgreene@mit.edu> | .sigs are for people with bandwidth to burn
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (03/16/91)
cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) writes: >In article <1991Mar15.092133.16140@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >>Apple decided to go the >>open route for a change, and then nobody followed them :-( (except for >>some of those TI machines) >But, Apple took a proprietary track with their bus! They use a non-standard >form factor, thus ruling out any sort of openness normally implied >by using a `standard'. Apple had a fairly good reason for doing this though - namely the original NuBus form factor would have just about precluded building a conventional "desktop" system. A form factor designed for rack mounted systems isn't really appropriate for your average pizza box workstation. If the Gang of Nine group had gone NuBus, they would have probably been forced to adopt the smaller form factor. Incidentally, the Apple form factor was later adopted by the NuBus committee as an acceptable alternative for microcomputers. >I believe NeXT uses the standard form factor with their >implementation. Hasn't NeXT hacked and modified their NuBus in various other ways though? I recall the original Byte preview was careful not to call NeXT's slots "standard" Nubus slots. >I will say this, without Apple's backing, >SCSI would not be where it is today. For this, I am quite happy. >A lot of those PC type interfaces suck dead b... You can say that again. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Today's maxim: All socialists are failed capitalists
thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar15.092133.16140@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>[...] >>The Amiga UNIX has the potential to attract UNIX people to the Amiga, >>since it is in all ways a modern, standard UNIX. > > This has already been well beaten out on this group, but I fall in >the camp who have a hard job seeing Unix people being attracted to an >Amiga when they could have a NeXT instead. > [...] >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Judging from his signature line, it would appear Evan hasn't yet endured the real world of (business) computing. Hey, I like nifty things, too! :-) I cannot believe people would want a NeXT when, for only a few million more, they could have a Cray. But ... Commodore is in the business of making money and selling computers. As for NeXT, I don't know, 'cause they sure haven't sold or delivered much to date. Simply by Commodore's correct decision of having supported SVR4 UNIX, they are assured of a LOT of sales to those who must comply with government purchasing mandates and the like, to those who must comply with "standards" and the like, and to those who want the best of several worlds. My own company is effectively "dumping" the Mac ][ A/UX systems and I'll be probably converting them to print servers for the secretaries and/or to endless loops of MacPlayMate machines since they (the A/UX systems) aren't even suitable for use as uucp nodes (hey, just try a newsfeed with a Telebit). Even the latest Mac 7.0 OS which I just received this past week is junk; but it looked real pretty sailing off into the sunset with the starlight glinting off the CD-ROM surface as it flew westward out my window and over the fence towards the distant horizon. Sigh, shoulda captured those moments with Video Toaster and sent the tape to Sculley. And maybe a similar tape featuring a NeXT optical disk's maiden flight should be sent to Jobs, except it'd probably end up misunderstood and be "featured" as a new use for NeXT technology. Sigh. SO what are we getting? Simple! A3000UX SVR4. A *REAL* computer system. A computer system that's GSA approved. A computer system for the billyuns and billyuns of us! :-) Thad Floryan [ thad@btr.com (OR) {decwrl, mips, fernwood}!btr!thad ]
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Sheckel) (03/19/91)
blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: > >Again, we'll see. Anyone can write code. It takes a little more to do it >with a good interface. NeXT has a great interface. They innovated, >Microsoft didn't. > God I'm sick of reading this BS. NeXT innovated? Apple innovated? Commodore innovated? You should really wake up and smell what you're standing in. Xerox innovated. The rest borrowed and improved, and that includes Microsoft. The only thing that Apple invented is the idea to borrow Xerox-invented ideas. Taking others to court for doing the same makes them look like the cheap sleaze they are. The Amiga owners just love to dwell on the point that Apple is not taking them to court because Commodore innovated, while Microsoft didn't. Give me a real big break. The real reason is that Commodore poses zero threat to Apple. If and when it ever does, you just watch those lawyers getting ready to fill their pockets. -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/19/91)
In article <1991Mar15.092133.16140@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>Letsee. Apple introduced the Mac in 1983. > January 1984 actually. I first saw it in January of '84 (over at Microsoft), but I though the BYTE article was out before that. >>Amiga was introed... > How is this any different from the Mac evolution, albeit with fewer >models in the Amiga line? That's the whole point. You don't need a new Amiga model to grow. Apple had to build a new model to go from 128K to 512K, and another new model to bring the total up to a meg or more and add a $5.00 SCSI chip. You never really need to throw out an Amiga; even the original A1000 can be upgraded to do most anything the newer machines do (though C= isn't the one with the upgrades, they work just fine). Certainly you eventually get to the point where new models make sense, but 3 or 7 different versions of essentially the same thing is pretense at innovation, not the real thing. I still contend that Apple's innovation has been strictly on the software side of things. >>>Since then they've added things like 32-bit colour, >>You have to get 24 bit color from 3rd parties on the Amiga (no one is selling >>32 bit color displays for Macs, or much anything else, actually). > Actually, there's a TrueVision/32 board, which has 24 bits of colour >+ 8 bits of alpha channel, which has been available for the Mac for >quite a while. And Silicon graphics systems come with 256 bytes/pixel. It's still 24 bit color, they use the other bits for other things (second 24 bit buffer, alpha channel, z-buffer, text overlay, etc). > It's also a lot newer than NuBus. NuBus was originally designed a >long time ago (I recall reading about it and Futurebus back in the >early '80s). I guess Apple could have chosen to take a proprietary >tack with their bus, but this was at the time when NuBus was still >being seriously considered as the next alternative to the ISA >architecture (before EISA reared its head). Apple decided to go the >open route for a change, and then nobody followed them :-( (except for >some of those TI machines) Well, that history's actually a little skewed. NuBus originated at MIT, and TI bought the rights from MIT and used the bus, along with its original large form factor, in some of their LISP machines. That's why NuBus developers for Macs still have to license the NuBus patents from TI. Apple decided to adopt NuBus long after TI used it, and in the process changed the form factor and added a traditional level sensitive interrupt line to their version of the spec. NuBus was originally conceived as a backplane bus, not something with a host processor, so this kind of interrupt didn't make any sense originally. There was talk and possibly even consideration of NuBus for PCs AFTER the Mac II came out. We looked at NuBus for the A3000, too. I doubt any PC vendor was any more serious than we were about actually using it, but we have very much the same problem to solve -- here's a slow 16 bit bus, and we want a fast 32 bit bus. So it's natural to look at what's out there, NuBus, VME, Multibus-II, FutureBus, etc. If you were doing it today you'd add in EISA, MCA, S-Bus, TurboChannel, etc. You still might come to the conclusion that Amiga and most of the PC market came to -- an upgrade of the existing bus, but you have to consider what's out there. And I really think that NuBus was a good match for the Mac philosophy. It's kind of a hardware minimalist's bus -- it's not fast, but it's easy to design for (being 10MHz and synchronous), and with TI backing it, you can get support chips that make the bus interface as easy as an Amiga bus interface. At the time, it was a step above ISA and AmigaBus, which is about all you had in a desktop machine back then. >>Amiga expansion is far ahead of Mac expansion, > What does "far ahead" mean? When you're taking to a hardware guy, it means features. >Does it mean more cards available? Depends on the cards. There are more cards in some market areas, more Mac cards in others. You can build an Amiga card for less money, but Macs have more of a share of the high end personal computer market, so it's easier to justify an expensive device for the Mac's NuBus. > This has already been well beaten out on this group, but I fall in >the camp who have a hard job seeing Unix people being attracted to an >Amiga when they could have a NeXT instead. Same reasons they might buy an $8,000 Mac IIfx rather than a $3,500 NeXTStation. They want expandability, they want low cost native mode software, etc. If you just want a network UNIX station, you might buy a NeXT. Then again, you might spend a little bit more and buy a Sun, like we do, where speed is the main issue. >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/19/91)
In article <1991Mar15.094649.23634@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> l-rittle@uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) writes: >In article <1991Mar15.092133.16140@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >> It's also a lot newer than NuBus. >But, Apple took a proprietary track with their bus! They use a non-standard >form factor, thus ruling out any sort of openness normally implied >by using a `standard'. I believe NeXT uses the standard form factor >with their implementation. NeXT does look to be much closer to the TI form factor, I suppose it might be. But they use non-standard drive levels (CMOS vs. TTL) and non-standard clock speed, so they're actually less standard than Apple. If you took a board for a TI LISP machine and shrunk it down to Apple size, it would presumably work in a Mac II, once you rewrite the ROM code. Going the other way could be a problem, though, because of Apple extensions. A NeXT board would have trouble in either system. >Loren J. Rittle -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett