Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!udel!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: <0bC7tC_00awU0vZ2wx@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 90 21:36:14 GMT
References: <2540936@mtsg.ubc.ca>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 180
In-Reply-To: <2540936@mtsg.ubc.ca>

>>>...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".

Those were just examples.  True, there are a lot of IIgs applications
that use the desktop interface, and I've already admitted that the IIgs
just can't handle that interface very well yet.  However, there's plenty
of text stuff as well, AND the FTA stuff that makes the machine look
more impressive than any Mac I've seen (although, admittedly, it takes a
LOT of work to produce something that good, and it won't coexist with
anything else).

>>>>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". :)

Sorry; I didn't even see the (deliberate) misspelling of "Macintosh."  I
still do call Tandy's early machines "Trash-80s," but I still have one
at home (don't use it much), and the Z-80 is a REAL NICE processor
compared to the 65xxx series.

>>> 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.

I also have a 1.25 MB GS, and use AppleWorks GS now and then with no
problems at all.  And I don't have to go to a bare bones setup to do it.
 I don't normally have many DAs installed because I do a lot of
programming (software development in less than 2MB is tough on either
platform, but I manage quite well).  However, I DO have NiftyList 3.0
installed, which is pretty big for a CDA.  Are you using the latest
version (1.1) of AWGS?  Version 1.0 wouldn't unload a modult ot make
room for another; v1.1 will.

>> 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.

Well, not quite.  First, the Mac has NO text interface mode.  You simply
couldn't get the speed of pure text on a Mac; you'd still have to draw
all the characters.  On the IIgs or most other machines, it's not a
matter of providing a text-based interface, its a matter of NOT
providing a GUI.  Also, on the IIgs, most 8-bit software will support
CDA's (nice fast things because they don't use the GUI) with no
modification whatsoever.  On the Mac, to provide fast text-based stuff
you have to almost totally give up the functionality of the Mac OS.  On
the IIgs, it's simply not true.  GS/OS (or the Mac OS, for that matter)
isn't really whats all that huge.  Its the RAM-based toolsets that take
up all thr room.  Everytime a tool has to be patched because the ROM
verison is old, the tool has to be copied into RAM.  This takes up
space.  Software that requires 1.25 MB on a ROM 01 GS will often run in
only 1 MB on  a ROM 03 GS, simply because more of the tools and more
up-to-date versions are in ROM, and don't take up as much RAM.

>> 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

I'll, admit that; I know there is faster Mac software out there, and I
agree that the AW-Classic vs. MacWrite comparison is simply not fair. 
However, I also compared AW-Classic to MS Works for the Mac, which is a
program similar in functionality.  And in most places, AW-Classic comes
close to or exceeds Works.  Naturally, communications is an exception,
since AW doesn't have this feature.

> 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.

Yup.  Now compare it to faster Apple II software than AW.  And if AW is
written the way I think it is, it doesn't bother to bank-switch chunks
of memory on the IIgs.  It does, however, have the disadvantage that it
thinks it owns all the memory, and tends to destroy DAs.

> 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.

Oh??  I admit that TCP/IP connections such as those provided by NCSA
Telnet or MacIP are not yet available on the IIgs, but that's onoly
because the software hasn't been written yet.  It is being written as we
speak.  MacKermit??  I know you've heard of Kermit-65 for the //; you
mentioned it in your letter.  I'm sorry, I haven't heard of ZTerm and
QDial, but I imagine you will find Apple // software that can do the
same things.

> and still stay completely integrated.  On the Mac you've got a
> consistent interface structure among applications,
That's what the desktop interface is designed for, and the IIgs does it
as well, if you are willing to stay within the GUI.

> a clipboard to move data among applications,
The IIgs has a Scrap Manager and a MessageCenter, too.

> many standard supported file formats, and MultiFinder to let you move
> quickly from one program to another.
The IIgs simply can't support something like MultiFinder due to the
current design of the Toolbox and OS.  However, this can be changed, as
LeapFrog demonstrates.

> 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

In the case of Works, I agree.  I prefer to use Word for word processing
and Excel for database stuff, but you can't run MultiFinder effectively
in only 1MB.

> 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. 

Well, as I said, the IIgs just doesn't have MultiFinder yet.  So
integrated applications are a MUST.  And the available IIgs-specific
integrated stuff just isn't as good as AppleWorks Classic.  People stick
with AppleWorks Classic because they already have it, the only upgrade
path is to AWGS (I'm not sure even that path exists), and AW Classic
does the job better than most of the IIgs-specific stuff available.  I
have to make one exception for WordPerfect GS, which is an excellent
word processor.  Unfortunately, WP for the Mac simply doesn't compare to
other Mac word processors.

> 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.

Me too.  I try to avoid the GUI as much as possible.  However, it is
possible to get 400 line resolution using the Apple VOC.

> there are just a lot more things that I happen to like about the Mac.

There are things I like about the Mac as well, but I am primarily an
Apple // user and will be for a long time to come.

> Call me crazy.

OK, I will.  You're crazy. :)  Maybe I am as well.
--------------------
Jeffrey Hutzelman			America Online: JeffreyH11
Internet: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu		BITNET: JHUTZ@DRYCAS
>> Apple // Forever!!! <<