Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:23744 comp.sys.mac:50899 comp.sys.apple2:252
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Accepting the Mac (was Re: More Macweek Rumors)
Message-ID: <1990Mar19.110630.18913@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 19 Mar 90 11:06:30 GMT
References: <1848@crash.cts.com> <18491@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <12667@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <1990Mar17.105403.17776@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> <2595@unocss.unomaha.edu>
Sender: news@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 151

dent@unocss.unomaha.edu (dent) writes:

>The entire point of this rambling article is that the "Macintosh" is really
>more than simply the hardware by the same name that does the work.

This and all the bit about the Mac interface being largely hardware independent
is true. Apple has been trying to keep the O/S hardware independent from day
one of the Mac and the GS.

Problem is, they haven't been doing that hot a job of it.

>Similarly, certain Apple II machines will probably die.  The //e and //c lines
>really should be replaced with something similar to what the //gs is now (but
>for considerably less I hope!!).

Why bother? 65c02 based systems can be made for VERY CHEAP with Apple's latest
technologies and they could make a very nice 8 bit // that would do what most
people buy XT Clones for but for substantially less.

The 8 bit //'s are actually adequate for a lot of things but because they are
old nobody seems to realize that they would still have a market if they cost
about half as much (more like a third) or what they do now.

Especially when you consider what you really buy a portable for, I realize that
a portable //c+ would be a MUCH better deal than the Mac Portable.

> The //gs will also be replaced, but not by 
>a "Low Cost Mac" in the Hardware sense.  An "enhanced" //gs that runs the
>Mac-like Interface is really enough.

True, but we'd rather see some head-to-head competition with the Amiga -- the
IIGS is already an NTSC machine, and the extra features (DMA controller, video
Blitter / coprocessor) would assist so many toolbox routines (like QuickDraw!!)
that the machine would give wonderful performance levels for the price. The
"Apple //f" that I proposed to Apple works on precisely this principle. When
Apple realizes that the Toolbox gives them the freedom to make REAL hardware
upgrades without fear, then maybe they will do it!

> There's no need for over-engineered 
>Apple-II compatibility boards in every Mac.

There is a need. It's just that it is NOT the ultimate future of the Apple //,
as some would have us believe. The Apple // is a fine computer in its own right
and Apple is throwing money down the drain by not keeping it competitive with
the Amiga and the PC clones. many of these computers will still outsell the Low
Cost Color Mac because of price differences and because they are establishing
themselves in the market while Apple lets the GS rot. Expecting everyone to
drop everything for the Low Cost Mac A YEAR FROM NOW is ludicrous.

> There /is/ a need for the Mac
>functionality on the Apple II architecture, so the two lines can merge in
>that sense.

This I agree with most wholeheartedly. The GS more or less does, but the most
recent release is almost fast enough to be reasonable. Unless system 6 is yet
another order of magnitude faster (and I bet they could do it) the desktop
applications will still be about as fast as a Mac plus. The real solution is to
introduce a faster GS so that software developers will feel confident that the
base machine can handle their newer software. A 7mhz transwarp GS is already
known to be adequate; this can be the upgrade option for current machines.

>There is only one way that this all is going to work, however:  The Macintosh
>Toolbox has got to be freed from the Macintosh Hardware.  I have no idea
>how similar the GS Toolbox is to the Mac Toolbox, but I hope they are nearly
>identical.

They're close, but not identical. It isn't that hard to port a Mac Application
to the GS if you use MPW IIGS (or so I'm told). The GS toolbox does have a
couple things that the Mac toolbox doesn't (yet, I hope) because they managed
to put a little hindsight into it. There are also the sound tools which are
DOC specific, but these are like the Slot Manager in the Mac II.

> Only by making the Macintosh Toolbox the standard programmers'
>interface to hardware, can the same source code be used to generate machine
>code for various kinds of architectures.  Programmers shouldn't really need
>to know what specific machine their program is going to run on.

This is possible: at worst a new toolset could be created to act as a standard
toolbox interface. Yuck, I know, but that may actually be the easiest way to
do it. There are markets for both generic applications that are easy to
develop for many machines and for specific applications that really push a
particular machine. Both have their own merits.

>This is *NOT* going to happen overnight, however. :-)  The current state of
>programming on the Mac seems to be filled with minor inconsistencies that
>require the /programmer/ to correct for.  Is this machine an SE?  Do this...
>is it a Mac II?  HasColorQD is TRUE.. but then it could be an SE/30 too, so
>better check for that...  This is pure nonsense.

Ouch, I didn't know it had gotten that bad. The GS doesn't have enough software
for it that will break because of considerations like that; it's pretty ironic
really that we can take the neglect Apple has given the machine and turn it
into an advantage... I hope they get the system straight and THEN promote the
hell out of it, so that developers will not have to worry about that kind of
thing.

> The toolbox already is designed to be generalized.

In theory. In practice...

> You can have any size display you want on a Mac;
>it makes no difference to your applications.  This same generality needs to
>be perfected, and expanded to the other areas...

Hear Hear! I heard a rumor that the 640x400 graphics mode on the Video Overlay
was supported by a patched version of QuickDraw; I wish they'd release that and
drop the VOC to $300 so people will actually buy it. If someone can find a
monitor that interlaces OK then we will have a 640x400 desktop! (My monitor
does but it's kind of expensive if you buy it. I grubbed it from a prof)

>what we'll wind up with
>is the "Macintosh Virtual Machine", and if /only/ toolbox calls are used to
>access hardware, and dynamic linking could be used to link in the machine-
>specific implementations of the toolbox, the same applications /will/ run
>on different architctures, and not even know it.

Bravo! This is what I would like to see. For a couple years now I've been
wondering how we might actually do this. If Apple can pull it off then they
will have something that they can tout as a standard and that will shatter
the 'proprietary' image Apple has -- which will be good.

>The preliminary steps have been made; file transfer has almost become trivial,
>and hopefully future support for Foreign File Systems will make it moreso.

The GS has support for foreign filesystems already; I can't wait until the
get it on the Mac because it is too good a thing to deny to anyone.

>I know I'm asking for a lot here, but I don't think I'm asking for the
>/impossible/.

NO, you're asking for the next generation in operating systems. If Apple
doesn't do it first, then somebody else will...

> I suppose we'll have to wait around to see if /any/ of this
>occurrs (what a let-down ;-)... but it should be fun to watch if nothing
>else.  (It'd be even more fun to participate in, but what do I know.  I /liked/
>the Apple ///+. :-)

The ///+ _was_ a nice machine, but the reputation of the /// was so horrid that
Apple couldn't do anything about it. A pity, really. If the /// hadn't been so
rushed and flopped so badly, the IIGS might have had the Amiga's chipset and
there never would have been an Amiga...

Wouldn't mind if Apple made up for that mistake of not buying the Amiga chipset
when they had the chance. Their Low Cost Mac will be a flop if it doesn't have
a blitter to assist QuickDraw.

The GS is not doing too hot for exactly the same reason!

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu