Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!bu.edu!m2c!wpi!jayg
From: jayg@wpi.wpi.edu (Jay Giurleo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Mac vs. Apple II line
Message-ID: <9995@wpi.wpi.edu>
Date: 21 Mar 90 15:54:16 GMT
References: <1990Mar20.103837.1940@rbdc> <1990Mar21.062445.13965@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Reply-To: jayg@wpi.wpi.edu (Jay Giurleo)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester ,MA
Lines: 54

In article <1990Mar21.062445.13965@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes:
>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.
>
>> 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.

 In my opinion, the GS has a lot of potential.  But what I see now is a
computer that is trying to gain the ease of use, standardization, and
flexability of its manufacturer's bigger computers.  Just look at the
IIgs finder.  If that's not a copy of the Mac, I don't know what is.
Unfortunately, the GS isn't a Mac, and I don't think that type of inter-
face was the best solution for the computer.  Simply put, the GS isn't
fast enough to deal with a complex graphic interface.

 I have to say that there are a lot of things that I like about my GS.
It has a excellent sound chip, one that hasn't properly been exploited yet
by the majority of programmers, and good graphics.  What I DON'T like is the 
ridiculous operating speeds.  No computer that is being produced today should 
have a clock speed of under 3 MHz. Even when the original PCs were built, they
had a clock speed of just under 5 MHz.  Why couldn't the GS have a decently
fast chip?  Why hasn't Apple done something about that sooner?  There's a new
Mac, the IIfx with a 33 MHz processer. How come Apple Computer is
leaving us with basically no upgrade in performance?  
  
 What really bothers my, however, is the Apple II line's affinity for 
crashing much too often.  Maybe I just have bad luck, but my GS
crashes many times more often than comparible computers.  How can I get 
things done if my software keeps crashing and I have to wait for GSOS to
load up again and again.  Lately, I seem to be sticking to Prodos-8 material
because it runs fast enough, loads fast enough, and doesn't crash nearly as 
often.  

 Getting back to the point of the article, though, I believe the biggest 
difference between the Apple IIgs and the Macintosh line is not necessarily
the speed, or the power, it's the fact that the Macintosh design over the years has improved vastly.  The Mac is a machine that has been refined time and time
again.  That is what sets the Mac and GS apart.  The Mac is a smooth computer 
to use.  Its software works, and it doesn't crash as often.  It does this
with a transparency to the user that the GS doesn't offer.  

 I'm not trying to sling mud at the GS, its just that when I am forced to
compare it to the Mac, I see a computer that has been rather neglected in
design.  The GS+ may help that some.  I hope it does.

jayg@wpi.wpi.edu
jayg@wpi.bitnet