Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!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: 13 Nov 90 06:23:01 GMT References: <2550568@mtsg.ubc.ca> Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 120 In-Reply-To: <2550568@mtsg.ubc.ca> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.apple2: 12-Nov-90 Re: Apple II / Mac discusson USERSIG@MTSG.UBC.CA (4071) >>>> 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. > Good point, but I really wouldn't want a true text only mode on the > Mac anyhow. Getting away from all kinds of different 'modes', > whether it be text/graphics or different resolutions is a very good > thing in my opinion. The world of IBM PCs is the worst for all its > 'modes', but the Apple II world is pretty confusing too for the > novice. (Not that I'd want to run an Apple IIe in a graphic only > mode or anything like that.) I have to disagree. A mode in which text is directly generated by the hardware has certain inherent advantages. Note that because of the way the IIgs is designed, all I/O actually occurrs at 1MHz, regardless of the system speed. Thus, even a text-only program on the IIgs is not as fast as it should be. However, I do agree about the PC. > Interesting thing to note is that a text editor like Vantage on the >Mac which does not support styled text (ie. you must display all > your text in one size and style) scrolls about the same speed as a > text only program like AppleWorks on an Apple II. Really? I didn't know there was anything that could draw fast enough to be equivalent to a true text mode. >>>I said "MacWrite is slow" and it's not the Mac OS that's the cause. >>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. > Ahh, but take a look at an ad for WriteNow and you'll see that Works > is even slower than MacWrite. My own experience with Works leads me > to believe it is likely the slowest program available for the Mac. I wouldn't be surprised. I wasn't trying to compare speed in this situation as much as functionality. > There really are very few fair direct comparisons of software that > you can make between the Mac and the Apple II because of differing > capabilities and differing emphasis on what's important. I can > think of a couple I'd like to try if I had the software, such as > Vantage versus the fastest 16 bit editor on the GS, and WriteNow > reformatting, spellchecking, and search/replace versus the fastest > word processor on the GS, but would anyone really care about the > results? I don't know. However, since I don't have the needed software either, we may never find out. >>>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 only >>because the software hasn't been written yet. It is being written as we >>speak. > What software is available determines what you can do with a > computer. Vapourware is no use to me. That is why a Mac was > useless to me years ago when it first came out. I could do far more > of the things I wanted to do using an Apple II in 1984/85 than I > could with the Mac. But now it's the other way around. That's because no one is willing to write for the // anymore. That is largely Apple's fault, although not entirely. >>MacKermit?? I know you've heard of Kermit-65 for the //; you >>mentioned it in your letter. > Whoops, I was thinking of doing graphic terminal emulation, which > MacKermit *cannot* do. PC-Kermit can. I should have mentioned > VersaTerm, or the Mesa Graphics Terminal program both of which do > very nice Tektronics emulation and graphics captures. I admit I have yet to see a Tektronix emulator for the IIgs. However, xterm does a pretty nice one. :) >>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. > Well, ZTerm provides complete ZMODEM protocol support, something > that ProTerm may have now (or very soon?). QDial provides fast > repeat dialing capability with busy-detect, completely in the > background whether you run MultiFinder or not (it works as a vbl > task). Yes, ProTerm has done it for quite some time now; at least since early this summer when I bought version 2.2. The Zmodem in v2.1 wasn't much good, but it is quite improved in 2.2. > Gee, I wonder if we've exhausted this topic yet or not? If we > haven't exhausted it, we've certainly beat on it pretty good. :) I think we just about have. Now, let's start beating on IBM. :) > Les_Ferch@mtsg.ubc.ca -------------------- Jeffrey Hutzelman America Online: JeffreyH11 Internet: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: JHUTZ@DRYCAS >> Apple // Forever!!! <<