Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!jh4o+ From: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Apple II / Mac discusson Message-ID: Date: 6 Nov 90 22:16:59 GMT References: <2537983@mtsg.ubc.ca> Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 128 In-Reply-To: <2537983@mtsg.ubc.ca> Flame control set at minimum.... Here we go... > Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.apple2: 6-Nov-90 Re: Apple II / Mac > discusson USERSIG@MTSG.UBC.CA (5168) > >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. BUZZ... Ever heard of ORCA/M, ORCA/C, etc. ? Extremely FAST text-based environment. And it's 16-BIT, not ProDOS 8 (note: I'm talking here about the IIgs version of ORCA/M, not the ProDOS 8 version). However, I do agree that the IIgs does not do as good a job at the desktop interface as the Mac does. > > >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. Possibly true; I haven't worked with enough different Mac programs out > there to know what's considered fast on that machine. > >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. By "native ability," he means a stock machine; I'm sure that most people out there understood that, although it could have been said a little more clearly. I don't see any name abuse here. > > 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? The Mac OS _IS_ large. In fact, it's HUGE. Yes, you can run AppleWorks GS on a 1.25MB GS. And not all P8 stuff is designed for only 64K, either. However, the fact is that there is a LOT of P8 and DOS 3.3 stuff out there that IS designed for 64K or 48K or even 32K that has close to the same functionality as programs that require 1MB or more on a Mac. > > >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. Ahhh.. But the desktop interface is supposed to be what the Mac is so good at, right? So why is it so slow? And whether a program is desktop or text-based doesn't determine what it can do, only how the user does it. Here, AppleWorks far outperforms MacWrite in most situations, although it's really not a fair comparison since MacWrite is not integrated software. However, AppleWorks also comes pretty close to or exceeds Works in most places. And I haven't seen anything for ANY Mac program like the TimeOut series and other AppleWorks enhancements from Beagle Brothers. > > 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. Red Ryder BECAME White Knight. Have you SEEN ProTERM? It is an EXCELLENT comm program; it does more than most Mac software I've seen, including White Knight. > > 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. Well, I AM an Apple // fanatic. And you do sound like a Mac fanatic, at least in this message. I DO know what I'm talking about, and I do understand the different strengths and weaknesses of various operating systems. In this case, I think the original poster does as well. The Mac's major strength is its graphical interface, which makes the machine easier to use. There are other strengths, but I know the IIgs better than I know the Mac. The GS's strengths are its ability to run most Apple // software and the fact that you are not tied down to the graphical interface. True, it has weaknesses. It's not really well suited to the GUI do the the small screen and relatively slow processor (but not as slow as you may think). -------------------- Jeffrey Hutzelman America Online: JeffreyH11 Internet: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: JHUTZ@DRYCAS >> Apple // Forever!!! <<