Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Path: utzoo!utstat!philip From: philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) Subject: Re: A low blow from Apple Message-ID: <1990Sep24.032342.12923@utstat.uucp> Summary:LONG Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 03:23:42 GMT References: <9009230630.AA24367@apple.com> Organization: Statistics, U. of Toronto In article <9009230630.AA24367@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >>If it is speed you want, then why not get a 486? >1. I dislike Intel Chips VERY much! >2. It's not compatible with ANYTHING I have. >3. I don't have the money. (Even if I did have the $$, I wouldn't get one.) The irrational dislike of Intel chips does not stand up in any objective discussion. Even Motorolla would acknowledge that the 486 is an excellent cpu( and has been out for a while). Whether or not it's compatible with your current software is another issue. People change platforms, and one of the problems in doing that is rebuilding your software library. Since you don't have the money to get one, and are biased against it, just get it out of your mind. >>if speed is the only issue. >It isn't. I realize that speed is not the one and only complaint some GS users have. >>Why do people keep bringing up the Amiga? >Why do people keep asking this? It's obviously the closest, comparable >computer to the GS. It's faster, has better 'supported' graphics and costs >LESS!... although, the sound isn't as good, but I don't think that's why the >GS is so much more. The Amiga500, which is the computer most bring up, does not have better graphics. It does have graphics' coprocessors and, unless you are into interlaced graphics' modes, it basically has similar graphics to those of the GS. But it doesn't have Quickdraw, is hard to expand, has a small educational software base, and is not for educational users a heck of a lot less than the GS. It is based on the 68000 cpu which makes life a lot easier.As for the sound not being as good, that is an understatement. >>There's more to computing than games. >Of course. >>The other thing you are forgetting when bringing up the Amiga is the quality >>of the people who work at Apple. >I'm not sure what you mean by 'quality of people'. Anyway, that doesn't change >the price or speed of the GS or Amiga. The software/hardware people at Apple are first class. The same goes with companies such as HP. I have a hard time drawing the same conclusion with Commodore. although they probably have some excellent employees. >> The GS's OS is just great. >Well, it's not bad, but I wouldn't call it great... but I don't like the >graphical interface (actually, I don't like not having the choice of a text >or graphic interface with GS/OS). That is your opinion. GUI's are the future. I didn't meant to say that the OS for the GS was a GREAT operating system. I just happen to find it well thought out and ahead of most micro OS's. >> I use and like the Mac. >I use and dislike the Mac. Although, I like it's speed. Well, I see no reason to dislike the Mac. It is a fine computer. As for speed, it isn't that fast relative to RISC workstations. But it is a personal computer which has reached a nice balance between ease of use and speed. >>I really like the GS. >So do I. That's why I'm pushing for it to be even better. I'd like it a Heck >of alot more if it were as fast as it should be (considering it has a graphical >interface.) The speed issue is related to the availability of fast 65816's in quantity. Do you have any evidence that this is the case? >>Both are way ahead of any other micro OS with wide acceptance that I'm aware >>of. >Sorry, but there's a heck of alot more messy-dos people than there GS/OS and >MAC combined and most of those people (if not all) think that ms-dos is way >ahead of any other OS. Although, I personally prefer GS/OS over ms-dos. I doubt if few people, even DOS users, would dare to defend DOS on an OS basis. Now OS/2 is a different story. But DOS is not an example of a good OS. People use DOS computers for the software, the price, etc...People involved in the DOS world are trying to get away from DOS, and having a hard time of it. >>The PS/1 may have VGA and a 10Mhz 286, but it doesn't have GS/OS. >Yeah, but it has VGA and a 10Mhz 286! AAAAAND for about the same (or less) >than the GS! I don't think GS/OS is an excuse for it being slow OR expensive. The PS/1 is a new computer. The GS's graphics are 4 years old. I suggest you look more closely at the PS/1. It's a first step. Its software base is the same as that available for most DOS computers. I do agree that the GS's price should be cut and the computer speeded up to around 7MHz. >>I also think Apple is in a position to be extremely competitive in that area, >Yeah, IF they speed up the GS and give it VGA comparable graphics. >>using both the GS and the Mac. > --- >They very well could be, but what does that have to do with people wanting a >faster GS for their money? The whole point of my message was that for $1000 >I can get a 2.8 Mhz GS with OK graphics (ok, compared to other computers that >cost $1000) or for ALOT less, I can get a 7Mhz Amiga with even better graphics. >(I'm talking about graphics that are supported). If you want an Amiga, then get one. The connectivity between the GS and the Mac is important to a lot of people. I must remind you that the target market of the Amiga is different. >>I don't need workstation speed, nor does the GS. >I do, but I am neither asking for it, nor am I saying the GS should have it, >only that it would be great (of course). But the GS NEEDS to be AT LEAST 7Mhz. >When I said, "I don't hink it's possible to have a computer 'too fast'.", I was >saying that in reply to this: >>I also would love to see a faster( not too fast) GS. The reason for the "not too fast" comment was that faster computers need more expensive supporting peripherals. I do need workstation speed, but I'm not looking for it in a GS or a Mac for that matter. The price performance of RISC workstations simply make them more attractive for Mips and MFLOPS. The GS would be at 7MHz if such cpu's were available in quantity. >>We will have to see what Apple has in mind, but many PC "power users" are >>unlikely to be happy with the 10Mhz 286 and are probably having the same >>conversation we are having here in another forum. >What Apple has in mind for the future is irrellevent to the fact that the GS >is too slow and too expensive NOW. If they speed it up in the future, without >increasing the price, well that's just fine and Jim Dandy, but I'm stil stuck >here with my 2.8Mhz GS for $1000 with only 256k on the motherboard. Well, I assume you knew the specifications of the GS when you bought yours. What Apple does in the future is very relevant to the continued health of the GS and people's software libraries. In any case, if you want a faster GS now get a TWGS or one of the Zip products. >>Also, don't forget that the GS has an excellent OS, networking, a well-defined >>SCSI and connections to the Mac wich you won't find with the PS/1. > >'excellent OS' is an opinion. There are other people (I'm not one of them) >that believe that MS-DOS is an 'excellent OS'. The PS/1 can be networked to >other PC's (to the best of my knowledge), an internal HD (SCSI not needed) >and connections to the PS/2. The SCSI for the GS is optional in order to keep costs down. I don't like that myself but I can see why. The PS/1 can't be networked as is, and certain networking solutions actually void the warranty. Having a SCSI based HD is far better than the 30 meg non-SCSI in the PS/1. Try hooking up a tape drive, CD-ROM.etc...to the PS/1. Nobody believes that DOS is an excellent OS. Nobody. >I'm not pushing the PS/1... I'd take my GS over a PS/1 anyday, but that's >just me. The PS/1 ALSO has VGA graphics, a 10Mhz CPU, a vast library of >software, and software support you just won't find for the GS. The GS also has software that you won't find(yet) on the PS/1. I'm not putting the PS/1 down. It is IBM's first real attempt at the home market. Not a bad one. I suggest you read the list of educational software that comes with the PS/1's market literature. >Also, I don't want to network my GS to a Mac. I don't want to network my GS >at all. The GS doesn't NOT have 'well defined SCSI'. That's EXTRA! You >have to pay for it. It doesn't come with the $1000 GS, so that doesn't >justify the price. Also, so what if it has connections to the Mac? I don't >have a Mac and I don't want a Mac and MINE isn't connected to a Mac, so, again, >how does that justify the extreme cost and slow speed of the GS? The built in networking of the GS is essential for its target audience. It would be foolish not to have it, and since you have no interest in networking to a Mac then don't do it. But that ability is a real value to the GS. The computer wouldn't exist without it. I have already said that the cost of the GS is too high. People in education don't pay the same price. The GS does have a well-defined SCSI(optional). I suggest you look at the problems other micros have been having implementing SCSI. As for your $300 Atari Mac solution, don't forget that it must use Apple 128k ROM's. That solution only exists for as long as those ROM's remain available. If you want a Mac, buy one. Same goes for the ST. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]