Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!ucsd!ucbvax!MTSG.UBC.CA!USERSIG From: USERSIG@MTSG.UBC.CA Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Apple II / Mac discusson Message-ID: <2537983@mtsg.ubc.ca> Date: 6 Nov 90 03:09:12 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 98 >Well, I have worked on both Macs and GS's. OK, Mac's are faster >(even to the naked eye) when using SHR Graphics. But, the beauty of >the GS, and what makes it FASTER THAN A MAC is the implementation >of a TEXT MODE! So it has a text mode. Big deal. Most of the programs that run in text mode are 8 bit programs that don't exploit the potential of the GS. AppleWorks (Classic) is a prime example of this. If it were rewritten as a 16 bit application for text mode only it would be a lot faster, but most GS specific software is written for the graphic interface of GSOS which provides some nice features for both the programmer and the user, but is rather sluggish. >Do a spell check on a text file in both Appleworks (the Classic >version, either 3.0 or the older ones with Timeout installed) and >the Mac (up to say a II, there is QUITE a difference when you cross >that invisible boundary that makes one a II or an SE or +) running >say MacWrite, and see which does the spell check in less time. Come on. Anybody who knows even a minimal amount about Macs can tell you that MacWrite is one of the slowest word processors around. Make your comparisons with the best software on each platform please! Try the spell checker in WriteNow. No software (8 bit or 16 bit) on your GS is going to even come close. >Consider also the amount of memory needed by the Macintrash to do >SIMPLE tasks. Pull out a stock Mac with say 1 meg of memory and >7.0000 Mhz 68000, and then pull out a stock GS with 1.115 Meg of >memory and a 2.8 Mhz 65816, and run programs that do the SAME TASK >but are programmed only for the machines native ability. "native ability"?!? Where on Earth did you acquire this bizarre concept? And resorting to name abuse is not going to gain you any respect among intelligent beings. Are you trying to say the Mac OS is large and requires more memory than GSOS? Gee, last time I checked, you couldn't run AppleWorks GS at all on a 1MB GS but you can run most Mac software including Works and PageMaker on a 1MB machine. Or are you talking about 8 bit software under ProDOS 8? In which case, you are dealing with stuff designed for 64K, so what *is* your point? >IE Macwrite vs. AppleWorks. Red Ryder vs. ProTerm (or even for that >matter Snowterm, which isn't quite as fair of a comparison, because >it has only been out for a short time, and the author has admitted >that it still needs a bit of work to get it up to par). Run them >side by side and see which is more versatile and faster. Bogus comparisons dude. MacWrite is slow but is graphically based. AppleWorks is text based and keeps all data in memory. Try comparing AppleWorks to a memory based text editor like Vantage. No comparison baby - Vantage will search and replace circles around AppleWorks (and I'm talking about using big files like say 512K). To be fair to the GS though, you should pick a 16 bit text editor. I know there are at least a couple of them. The point is, you can make any machine look bad or good depending on how you pick and choose the software to test it. Communications software is not worth comparing when you're talking about machine speed because the bottleneck on virtually any system is the speed of your modem, not the machine or the software. As for features, give me a break. There are a lot more high quality communications programs for the Mac than for the Apple II that cover a much wider range of communications needs. Also you're really not up to date. Red Ryder was replaced by White Knight a long time ago. Sigh, it's hardly worth going on. I'm afraid you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. I am not a Mac fanatic (as you are probably thinking). In fact I started my computing career using Apple IIs (and continue to do so). But I also use IBM PCs and Macs extensively. You just need to be open minded and knowledgeable enough to understand where each machine, OS, and applications have their strengths and weaknesses. >Also, consider that with Apple II programs, there are always >companies (Beagle Brothers springs to mind) that will take an >original and improve it 150%. Open your eyes man. There are a lot more companies fiercely competing for the Mac owner's software bucks and this translates to more applications and more upgrades. Simple economics. There are some really good Apple II programs that I like, but the selection and quality of business, scientific, and utility software on the Mac is way, way ahead. The Mac only lags behind in educational (mainly K-12) software and you can bet this will change over the next few years. >The Mac can be a nice machine. However, I don't have the $10,000 >dollars needed to get one, and wouldn't get it if I did. That's >where NeXT and Sun MicroSystems come in... Boy, now you've really gone off the deep end. Your comparisons are all based on a 68000 Mac like the Classic which is available for just a wee bit less than $10,000. Consider this... a Macintosh LC will sell for about the same money as a comparably equipped GS did this year and is one heck of a lot faster machine with higher resolution colour graphics.