Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!jarthur!spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Mac vs. Apple II line
Message-ID: <1990Mar21.062445.13965@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 21 Mar 90 06:24:45 GMT
References: <1990Mar20.103837.1940@rbdc>
Sender: news@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 74

barry@rbdc (Barry Newberry) writes:

>I have no doubts that the Mac is far more powerful than any Apple II,
>IIgs included.

And the point is that those of us who buy Apple II's don't buy for raw
power.

[ comments about register and machine code differences deleted ]

> Still, I prefer my IIgs over any Mac

I agree, and not because I hate the Mac -- I love using them -- it's because
what I want from a computer is provided much better by a GS than by _any_
other machine, Amiga and PC included.

>     The Apple II line is FAR from obsolete (IMHO, to use someone else's
>abreviation). Most of the time, I run my IIgs at "normal" (1 MHz) speed.
>The truth is that I spend most of my time programming (typing), and I
>just don't type fast enough to require the "fast" mode. I really would
>like to see the standard IIgs at 7+ Mhz, but the point is that most people
>don't need a super-powerful computer. People want a useful, inexpensive,
>and reliable machine.

I can't agree with you more. I've been writing my fingers raw trying to
convince the MIPS-mongers of this. 7 mhz is what we need, because it makes
all of our current software run very acceptably and is what Sierra needs
to run their game system. I susptect many other third parties would feel
the same way.

>Macs are expensive. My first computer, an Apple II+,
>started out with a cheap monochrome (green) composite monitor; I think it
>was something like $100. At the time, you could run a good number of
>programs off of a 5.25" disk (143K). Presently, a hard drive is a MUST on
>any Mac, and you have to pay for the high resolution which is part of the
>Mac. I do NOT like internal hard drives, due to the nature of viruses.
>Also, I am not fond of GS/OS (although it's a great OS) because of the
>frequent need to "Insert System.Disk."

I can also agree with most of this. The system disk switching on the GS
is far better than the Mac's -- trying getting info on a data disk with a
one drive Plus -- I did and had to go through three full swaps. On the GS
one swap at most. Some of them (like when you drage things to the trash)
are bugs and you can cancel them without hurting anything.

>     Apple still needs to make major improvements on the IIgs. BASIC in
>ROM should support Super Hi-Res graphics and the Toolbox, as well as using
>upper banks of memory. The Hi-Res graphics of the the II+ was a good
>selling point, because it could be EASILY used WITHOUT additional software.

Thank God for that. People don't realize how handy Applesloth is. I have done
stuff in it that would be sheer HELL on a real development system and I'm
glad I at least have a choice.

>The Double Hi-Res of the IIe was not a good selling point, because almost
>no one could use it. Even with all of my Assembly Language and Graphics
>experince, I avoid Double Hi-Res because it requires dithering and bank
>switching (bank selecting). It would be real nice to use the IIgs sound
>from BASIC, using a sine wave as the default waveform.

Yup. Double hi-res is an arcane art, and there appear to be some adventure
games that really exploit it now, so you get very nice looking graphics
on a 'lowly' television.

>     Apple management needs to realize that there are a lot of people
>who have money and want to buy computers, but THEY DON'T ALL HAVE $5000
>TO SPEND !!! Also, these people do not need multitask calculation of
>dynamic five-body gravitational interaction. But a 7+ MHz CPU would be
>nice.

I can't say it any better.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu