Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!maddie From: maddie@crash.cts.com (Tom Schenck) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: If the GS meant business... Message-ID: <3243@crash.cts.com> Date: 25 Jul 88 04:32:26 GMT References: <8807131148.aa01449@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> <3214@crash.cts.com> <834@lakesys.UUCP> <3228@crash.cts.com> <6254@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <3231@crash.cts.com> <6267@uwmcsd1.UUCP> Reply-To: maddie@crash.CTS.COM (Tom Schenck) Organization: Crash TS, El Cajon, CA Lines: 77 >A typo? eh? Where did you learn to type? If your going to reply to a >message be SURE you check what you've written so that NO ONE will misinterpret >it! Sorry, next time I'll re-check the article 5 times before I send it, and have 5 or 6 friends double check it, and take a typing course in the mean-time. >the 68000? I think the //gs simulates a MAC. This is SOFTWARE we are talking >about. You do know the difference between SOFTWARE and HARDWARE do you not? Yes, I quite no the difference between hardware and software. The //gs IS built to simulate the 68000 environment as much as possible. It's not built to JUST do this, but it was designed to do this as WELL as many other things... >You don't build a computer to simulate a microprocessor. You make software >to simulate/imitate other software. The //gs is perfectly capable of running >non graphical software. And I think it does a much better job doing it too. The 68000 is in no way a graphics-only processor. You seem to have forgotten the difference between hardware and software here. And I happen to LIKE the ability of the //gs (being able to run text-only software). >The MAC on the other hand has nothing but graphics so that is what it uses. I know, and I dispise that about the Mac. The term programs I have seen are AWFUL. And a lot of utilites suffer from having to use the windowing idea. >The //gs can live in two worlds, text and graphics. And it lives in both worlds quite well. >Reverting back to your original posting: Okay, lets. > >>I have never really like the //gs OR the Mac (ANY of them) for any serious >>programming work. Why? Because everything you do, even if you write it in >>straight machine code, goes through an intepreter. The OS on the //gs and the >>mac has just too much overhead, and is to high-level for me to ever consider >>it as a serious programming machine. > >Now this is the real argument there. If machine language is too high-level >for you then what do you program in?? If you can program in a language that >is LOWER than machine, then tell the rest of the world and you will be >a MILLIONAIR! (I don't mean binary either.) (oops! I think I spot a spelling error there!) If you would like to provide me with a way to by-pass the toolbox to do operations, I'd be happy to start programming on the Mac again. I dispise having to depend on Toolbox routines to do things. I like the convinence, but I would like to be able to NOT use them if I can. > >Seriously now, I really don't understand why you even care if the micro >does a little pre-processing before it performs the given instruction. Every >instruction uses a specific number of clock cycles, and the microprocessor >is running at so many cycles per second. If that is too slow for you then >don't use it! It is too slow for me, and I don't use it. I no longer program on the Mac. An Apple //e (running at a measly 3.66 Mhz, not the snails-pace of 1.023) is about the same speed running a lot of operations I've been doing. Maybe my 68000 code is sloppy, but I doubt it. Tom Schenck, Member 52nd St Development Team -- UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!maddie ARPA: crash!pnet01!maddie@nosc.mil INET: maddie@pnet01.CTS.COM Disclaimer : The only company who's thoughts are my own is owned by me. Tom Schenck, member 52nd Street Development Team.