Re: OS For IIGS

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford) writes...

>:Mitchell Spector (spec@vax2.concordia.ca) wrote:
>:     That is only one of many reasons. Others including excessive pricing,
>: cutting corners on parts and manufacturing (Today's Macintosh is nothing
>: like the Mac's or Apple II's of a decade ago in terms of quality parts),
>: a blemished past and present in terms of support, the manufacturing of a
>: non-mainstream system that uses proprietary parts (which potentially is
>: okay since the Amiga was like that, but at least the Amiga offered
>: technology other platforms did not). I could go on and on.
>
>The only example of using cheaper parts I can name is replacing Sony floppy
>drives with manual inject drives. There was a huge cost savings as a result,
>and it's not that big a deal considering how useful a floppy drive is these
>days. But I'm not so thrilled about how they switched to IDE for internal
>hard disks and CDs in the G3 Macs. I would hop that someone can adapt the
>SCSI bus so that internal drives can connect up.

    Using cheaper IBM brand floppy mechanisms and IDE over SCSI hardrives
are some of the more highlighting examples, and those only include things
that are apparent to the user. Who knows what other cost cutting measures
have gone in that you cannot see? Off the top of my head, I can think of
more examples of low quality parts: The AppleDesign keyboard and the Apple
Display Plus monitor. I also do not at all like the new aesthetic look
of recent Macintosh cases, I much preferred the old style cases like
that of the Macintosh II and LC (and Apple IIGS).

    I highly agree many PC clone cases are an eyesore (the previous one
that was given to me for example), however, I managed to find a new tall
medium towercase that is platinum in color, rather plain yet still quite
stylish in look. IMO, much more attractive than any of the PowerMac
towercases I've seen, especially those from clone companies.

>If you consider Apple "non-mainstream", this is certainly a case study in
>how marketing and hype can allow an inferior product to take over a market.
>Apple invented the personal computer industry, and supplied the lion's share
>of the innovation.

    Nope, there is no marketing or hype making me think that. I know
the Macintosh is no longer (or close to) mainstream because the vast
majority of computer stores that used to carry them no longer do. If
I go into a software store I can hardly find any Macintosh titles,
except a single, small, shelf somewhere in the back (if you look at
the shelf signs it's "PC Action Games", "PC Adventure Games", "PC
Business", "PC Education", "PC Graphics", "PC Utilities", etc. Than
then there is a shelf that just plainly says "Macintosh Software",
with all the Apple software lumped together). I also see that there
are now only three newsstand publications left available for the Mac,
all of which are about as thin and skimpy as InCider/A+ back in 1991.
Most of the editorials and letters are not unlike those of Apple
magazines of the time either.

    I just bought a Viewsonic brand monitor that is compatible with
the PC and Macintosh last week. I thought it was interesting that
out of the box it connects directly to a PC, but if you want to use it
on a Macintosh you have to call the company and order a free adapter
which is _not_ included in the box. I figure the reason they do that
is there are only a small fraction of their customers who use Mac,
so rather than waste money including the adapter with every monitor
shipped, you have to ask and order it specially. I admit am I overly
exaggerating when I say the Macintosh is a non-mainstream system,
but is quickly on its way to becoming that (the examples above are
signs to what's coming). The PC _is_ mainstream, the Macintosh has
become a "side alternative" like the Amiga or NeXT years ago. The
thing is the PC is _the_ standard, not just a another choice.

>: >All the statistics show that the cloners weren't expanding
>: >the market share any.
>
>:     Apple II clones expanded the II market, PC clones expanded the PC
>: market, why would it not be any different for the Macintosh? Think of
>: what clones do for a minute. There is _competition_, and when there
>: is competition, innovation and advancements soon follow as each company
>: tries to out do the other. When only one company makes something they
>: have no competition and evolution of the system suffers. Look at the
>
>I'll dig up the Macworld article which substantiates this claim if need be.
>Cloners were eroding Apple's sales, which are mostly people replacing older
>Macs. They did nothing to get people to convert from Wintel to Mac OS.

    MacWorld is obvious going to print biased and slanted articles on
the subject. According to outside news sources the clone companies did
not erode Apple's business if you look at the figures. If anything,
they were forcing Apple to compete and have to spend more in R&D to
out do what the cloners were coming up with. Apple apparently wants
to set the pace and not have to worry about another company making
them look like they're behind. They want a monopoly, they will be
the sole makers of the Macintosh and they will decide what it will
be. Monopolies are bad, companies can set what prices they want and
what service and quality you get, you have no where else to turn if
you don't like what they offer. We've had monopolies on TV cable
service, phone service and power service. You can bet when some of
those lost their monopolies they had to work hard at providing
better service and quality.

>: Apple IIgs, Apple was the *sole* manufacturer of the machine for its
>: entire lifespan, yet it never evolved. In comparison, the Apple IIc
>: was being cloned by Laser and the development of the Apple IIc Plus
>: was a direct result of the Laser 128EX/2. Look at the PC market now,
>: there is innovation and change going on all over the place, every day,
>: and it is all due to competition. Imagine if IBM were still the sole
>: maker of the PC today, how far do you think it would have evolved?
>
>Funny you mention IBM. Do you know anyone with a real IBM box these days?

    Yep, they own IBM Aptiva boxes. The author of rSounder actually put
a mention in his program about owning one. Personally I have a dislike
for a brand-name clone (who would've imagined IBM would be making
something they invented but now considered a clone :) because you are
generally paying more for the name and get stuck with package deals.

>I think they might wish they had reined in the cloners a little, as Apple
>did. They let themselves be run out of the market for a product they
>invented. Apple was giving licenses to companies who played by the rules.
>When they didn't agree, Apple told 'em to get lost.

    Yes, but had they, the IBM would have been a long forgotten about
machine and something else would be mainstream instead. It could have
been the Macintosh, maybe even the Apple IIgs if it had been allowed
to grow and Apple licensed cloning. That may sound far fetched, but I
am convienced the IIGS had the potential to be where the PC clone is
today _if_ had Apple let go of it like IBM did to the IBM PC/XT/AT.

>As for no competition causing stagnation in a product, keep in mind we're
>talking Apple, not a stodgy company like IBM.

    Yep, we're talking about Apple Computer. The company that let the
Apple II and IIgs stagnate to death. They did not do much for the Apple
III or Lisa either come to think of it. What kind of a company makes
a computer like the IIgs, and during its 7 year lifespan the _only_
changes they make to it are fattening its RAM and ROM?! There are no
reasons in the world for that, except that they are not a reliable
company, period.

    I said it before and I'll say it again, every single machine Apple
Computer has ever touched has been poisoned. Sure, I sound like some
over zealot Apple hater saying that, but look at their history and
you will see it is true. The entire Apple II line, the Apple III line,
the Apple Lisa, the Macintosh and even the Newton. They monopolize
their products and seem to have a need to cripple them as they see
it fit (not too mention ruin things with their greed, charging
ridiculous prices for everything they've sold. The Lisa for $10K
is one example, and I still cannot believe how insanely overpriced
my Apple IIgs was back in 1987). Apple stagnates, Apple cripples,
Apple monopolizes and Apple overcharges. They've had some of the
best engineers and designers the computer world has ever seen, but
the bureaucrats that run things at the top and make all the decisions
have been destroying the company. Steve Jobs who was always been
detrimental to the company has came back and just as full of "widsom"
as ever.

>:     I only see two fairly major steps in the history of the Macintosh:
>: the first being the introduction of the Macintosh II line in 1987 that
>: brought color, slots and the move towards being modular. The next one
>: occurred in 1994, with the introduction of PowerPC RISC based Macs,
>: though despite the hype, didn't do much to catch the attention of
>: most computer using people out there. Sooner or later clones would
>: have forced Apple into competition and they'd have to work hard at
>: giving people reason to buy the _Apple_ Macintosh (the only reason
>: they've had for the longest time is "It is not a PC").
>
>So what would you call the equivalent milestones for Wintel? If you don't
>consider new processor generations as milestones. I would definitely include
>system 7 and Powerbooks as Mac milestones. Wintel hasn't made such great
>leaps.

    Well changing to more powerful and faster processors are big steps
certainly, but not milestones and break throughs that make people stop
and take notice. System Software is even less of an impact. I just see
those things as a kind of maintenance update. Wintel machines, as you 
call them, have made much greater impacts and leaps than System 7 and 
the change from a 68030 to 68040. How about stuff like wavetable based
music synthesis, 3Dfx boards that moves colors and graphics around
like liquid (have you ever seen 3Dfx games? Looks like workstation
or PIXAR animations). Windows 95 and NT that do true multitasking
(preemptive) are milestones, one the Macintosh has yet to reach.
Enhanced IDE technology was a milestone, so has been MMX technology
and the modular Pentium II's. Motherboards that support 83 MHz bus
speeds are milestones. I'm sure I could go one for pages listing
neat milestones in the PC world.

    The biggest advancements since the Mac 128 are the addition of
slots, color and RISC processors (which are proving to be unexciting
when crippled by a Macintosh). People keep saying "Wait until this 
happens, wait until that, then you'll see..." but the thing is we 
keep waiting and nothing ever happens.

>: >Just another pantywuss vendor buying into the hype.
>
>:     Whatever you may think he is, there are countless more like him
>: and his company doing the same. Even if they are just being scared
>: off by hype, the result will be the same in the end...less software.
>: After watching every single Apple II software and hardware developer
>: disappear one by one, I'd hate to have to go through it again as a
>: Mac user.
>
>It isn't the same thing. There are many times as many Macs in circulation as
>there are Apple IIs.

    Granted, but like the Apple II where people boost about 6+ million
machines being in circulation (not even including the clones), how many
are actually in use today? I'm sure it is only several thousand, and
only a few hundred are used by people devoted to using the machine.
I'm sure there are lots of Beta VCR's out there, doesn't necessarily
mean they are supported.

>"Experts" have been predicting Apple's demise since the mid '80s.
>Some of their assertions are really funny to look at now.

    Back then they were funny claims, today it is a whole different
story and much more serious than you think. There is one mainstream
system now that has become _the_ standard (Macs are out there, but
they only have a niche in schools mostly, and that is slipping).
Have you seen Apple's market share lately? It is at 3.3% and still
falling! Apple is still continuing to lose millions of dollars and
has no plan-B to save itself, all they are doing is coming up with
ways to accelerate their demise (i.e. starting a monopoly again).

>:     Yep, I couldn't help but notice my 5x86-133 (486 compatible) lasted
>: only about 10 months before I decided to upgrade to a Pentium. My Apple
>: II Plus lasted me a good 4 years and my Apple IIgs will have served me
>: a full _10 years_ as of next month which is not bad at all.
>
>:     The only thing is, that 486 box I retired is probably faster and
>: more capable than the 40 MHz Quadra 840AV your still using. :)
>
>Macs aren't as prone to obsolescence. As far as speed goes, one of the guys
>at work has a DX4/100 on his desk and complains about the slowness all the
>time. This 40 MHz box seems fairly fast to me. Clock speed isn't the only
>thing that makes a box fast or slow.

    My 15 MHz Apple IIgs seemed fairly fast to me, until I got the
DX4/133 and set it through its paces. Hmm, I am truely curious how
your Qudra compares with my old PC. Do you have the Macintosh port
of WinAmp installed? It allows you to play MP3 audio files, I used
on my 486 and was able to play at 16-bit, 44.1 kHz stereo at full
quality. I did have to add a slight bit of buffering and couldn't
touch anything else on the system to avoid skipping since it was
eating all my CPU resources, but it was doable. Switching to half
quality got rid of the skipping and I could still use the computer.
What kind of performance do you get on your 40 MHz Mac? 

>I think not having a byte of Microsloth code running on this box is
>a big difference.

    I agree Microsoft stuff usually is a kludge, but I think of the
Macintosh OS as more of one the way it slows downs the PowerMac's.
Heh, "Microsloth" and "Wintel", is there some unwritten law that
all Macintosh users must call them that? :) Personally I think it
is as silly as people who call the Mac the "Macintrash" or Apple
"Crapple".

>:     Well I for one don't like the idea of Apple having a monopoly on the
>: Macintosh once again, there is no advantage to this. What happens if you
>: don't like what Apple is selling, what alternatives do you have except
>: an alternative to the Macintosh itself, as mentioned above. As an example
>
>There is the advantage of having your dollars fund future R&D.

    I gave Apple plently of dollars, they didn't exactly spend the
funding where it helped me. I'm not so sure Apple spends their money
wisely today either, buying up companies like NeXT and spending tens 
of millions to buy back the licensing from PowerComputing, Motorola 
and UMax who were expanding interest in the Mac.

>: closer to home, look at video cards for the Apple IIgs, there was only
>: ever one sold. Is it any wonder the Second Sight was such a piece of junk
>: and was never supported or updated? OTOH, look at what competition did for
>: accelerator boards and SCSI controllers. I never did like the Apple HS
>: SCSI or AE TransWarp GS, luckly other companies knew they could do better
>: products and did, and in the end I got a RamFAST and ZipGS.
>
>Second Sight debuted when the Apple II market was nonexistent, a good example
>of what happens when there are no dollars to fuel development.

    Practically nonexistent, but there was enough of a II market
left where if they had competition from the TurboRez they might
have played their cards differently. Had there been competition
no one in their right mind would have purchased something as
awful of as the Second Sight. 

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca