Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ANDREW.CMU.EDU!jm7e+ From: jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Jeremy G. Mereness") Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: To Clarify(Re: AppleSupport(wasre:ughh and the GS Message-ID: Date: 15 Mar 89 04:04:08 GMT References: <27151@apple.Apple.COM> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 104 Much of what I have written on the net has been the product of frustration. > *Excerpts from ext.in.info-apple: 12-Mar-89 Re: AppleSupport(wasre:ughh..* > *Keith Rollin@apple.com (5125)* > If you like your Apple II, then why are *YOU* trying to kill it? With all of > your comments foretelling doom and disaster for the Apple II, don't you think > that you are instilling a sense of foreboding in your audience? I only want some answers. I realize that Apple's policy is to not discuss pre-release information, but I am concerned about how much of my time I should invest in my Apple //. Over the summer, I would like to work on optimizing the device routines in GS/OS as well as the file structuring and the Finder (like why does it have to wait and close all the windows before launching an application?) I would hate to go to all that work and read something in MacWeek that Apple has canned the Apple //. I think that such a concern is reasonable, and I have seen such articles; luckily, they have been denied. My statement that the GS does not "work" as does the Mac is a result of my study into the capabilities of the machine as the "Ideal Student Machine" on the CMU campus, which the staff is currently working on. The choice will likely be a MacSE w/ a 20 Meg drive. I could see the GS in that role; there is nothing required of such a machine other than it being reliable and predictable. The GS, though, is still buggy, it is slow, and does not have a large base in productivity software (the most common applications used on Macs here on a day to day basis for assignments are Cricket Graph, MacWrite or MSWord, Excel, and a TCP/IP program; the GS can't currently meet these expectations) nor are there many languages for it, like Allegro Common Lisp or, excepting APDA, C. There are no centralized printing facilities either, such as in the Mac's chooser DA. The GS chooser requires one to leave the application, and the Imagewriter Emulator used by some applications is not supported by AppleServe. Finally, GS/OS does not support Appleshare in any regard. Why? I was very worried when someone wrote that many software companies like Electronic Arts were abondoning the GS. Why would they consider this? Since the GS came out in the Fall of '86, there have been five Mac releases: the SE, the //, the //x, the SE30, and now the //cx. Nothing except ROM upgrades have been offered hardware-wise for the GS. Why? > *Excerpts from ext.in.info-apple: 12-Mar-89 Re: AppleSupport(wasre:ughh..* > *Keith Rollin@apple.com (5125)* > How would you like us to support or license Softswitch? Do you want us to buy > it and put it into every GS sold? If so, then there is no advantage to > you. We would have to charge more for the GS in order to cover Roger Wanger's > costs and licensing fees. The net cost would either be a wash or higher than > it is now. My example of Softswitch was to demonstrate what could be done with the Apple //GS's hardware. SoftSwitch allows up to nine Prodos 8 applications to be online at once, putting 8 into stasis while devoting CPU time to the one selected. Depending upon memory, one 16-bit application may run as well. Why didn't Apple write something like this or pursue this idea? Especially since the idea was inspired by an Apple product "Switcher" that for a time was shipped standard with Mac Pluses? There is GS/OS, but it acts like a pre-release and is sluggish and very large. Nothing innovative like Switcher has ever come from Apple for the //, not even a shell like Davex or ECP, yet I see neato DA's and Cdevs for the Mac pour out of Cupertino as well a debuggers like MacsBugs. Further, I cannot accept cost as a factor, considering Apple's financial resources, and the minimal amout of money needed to manufacture an Apple //. My point is that Apple must set the standard for the GS's level of performance. Third-party ware will only meet, as Keith pointed out, about 5% of the market, which is not enough to convince software manufacturers to change their minds in supporting the machine. So far, Apple has done little in this regard, especially when compared to their Macintosh efforts. Why? I am under enormous pressure here at CMU to give the machine up, that it is a dead machine, that there is no point in developing anything for it. This comes from students and salespeople at the computer store that operates out of the Apple University Consortium. Many of them do not even know what a GS is.... Why? Apple representatives during Mac shows demean the //. Why? _I_ am not dooming the //, Apple is! Through their advertising (the // budget cut this year), R&D (this budget cut across the board), and their lack of effort to make it appealing to Universities and software manufacturers. The Ensoniq chip is for the most part unexplored as a MIDI instrument. Why? It's a good machine... I enjoy working with it. Why have all these things been neglected over the past 3 years? Why does the thing not perform as quickly as the 6 year old PC? That was what my community was looking for the in the //x; an Apple // that could outgun the IBM-PC. Not too much to ask as Apple had 4 years to develop such a machine... I just want to know why, and then I will shut up. I cannot ignore these issues being where I am, and each day without anything new only makes me more confused about Apple's faith and intentions. I don't see how these concerns are unreasonable. If they are, tell me. jeremy mereness ============= jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arpanet) r746jm7e@CMCCVB (vax.... Bitnet)