Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!MTSG.UBC.CA!USERSIG From: USERSIG@MTSG.UBC.CA Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Apple II / Mac discusson Message-ID: <2540936@mtsg.ubc.ca> Date: 7 Nov 90 05:23:52 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 103 >>...but most GS specific software is written for the graphic interface... >BUZZ... Ever heard of ORCA/M, ORCA/C, etc. ? Sure I have. Read more carefully. I said "most", not "all". >>>Consider also the amount of memory needed by the Macintrash... >>And name abuse won't gain you any respect... >...I don't see any name abuse here. Read more carefully. "Macintrash" = name abuse. You don't hear me saying "Granny Smith" or "Goddamn Slow" - whoops. ;-) Really, I should have put a smiley after my comment. I recall myself calling early machines from Tandy "Trash 80s". :) >>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. >The Mac OS _IS_ large. In fact, it's HUGE. Yes, you can run AppleWorks >GS on a 1.25MB GS. Granted, the Mac OS is huge, but GSOS is no less huge. If you want a GUI with all kinds of resources for applications to use you're gonna pay big time with memory. Read more carefully. I said a 1MB GS, not 1.25MB. I just happen to have a 1.25 MB GS myself. It barely runs AppleWorks GS with a bare bones setup but if I want Appleshare on as well I'm outa luck. GSOS is every bit, if not more, of a monster as the Mac OS. >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. I totally agree (for once :)). But you could do the same thing on any machine including the Mac if you're willing to code meticulously in assembler, provide a text based interface, and not have to worry about working cooperatively with anything else. >Ahhh.. But the desktop interface is supposed to be what the Mac is soo >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. Please read more carefully. I said "MacWrite is slow" and it's not the Mac OS that's the cause. Like I said earlier, compare your favourite Apple II software to fast Mac software like WriteNow and you'll start to realize that good 'ol AppleWorks just ain't so fast. I've edited huge files with AppleWorks and boy do you notice the speed problems associated with bank switching 64K chunks of memory. >And I haven't seen anything for ANY Mac program like the TimeOut series >and other AppleWorks enhancements from Beagle Brothers. AppleWorks needs add-ins because that's the only way you can add capabilities and still stay completely integrated. On the Mac you've got a consistent interface structure among applications, a clipboard to move data among applications, many standard supported file formats, and MultiFinder to let you move quickly from one program to another. All this makes committing yourself to one application with add-ins unecessary. Microsoft Works on the Mac is really an example of unecessary integration that makes too many compromises. Picking really good individual applications is the way to go on the Mac because the OS integrates them for you. GSOS promises a lot of the same, but the fact that people tend to prefer sticking with AppleWorks Classic demonstrates that it just doesn't quite deliver. The problem is probably not really GSOS, but hardware that is too slow and some applications that are too big, too buggy, or too limited. For me, I think it's more the grainy the 200 line resolution that turns me off GUI on the GS. >>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. True. Red Ryder was completely rewritten and then released as Red Ryder 10 before being renamed to White Knight and revised some more. Yes, I have used ProTerm - very nice program and *very* impressive considering the memory space it has to work in. But there are lots of things it doesn't do or do well. I don't even use White Knight, but I do use ZTerm, NCSA Telnet, MacIP, MacKermit, and QDial. None of which are perfect, but they do provide me with capabilities that I need that are not available with any Apple II software. >And you do sound like a Mac fanatic, at least in this message I'm not fanatical about any machine, just realistic. I happen to like the Apple II. I wouldn't have spent countless hours contributing to the Kermit-65 effort if I didn't. You won't find a "Mac fanatic" sweating over 6502 assembler just to give away free to Apple II users. There are things that I like about every microcomputer available, but after using Apple IIs since '81, IBMs since '83, and Macs since '86, there are just a lot more things that I happen to like about the Mac. Call me crazy. Les_Ferch@mtsg.ubc.ca