Re: OS For IIGS

[nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)]

Mitchell Spector wrote:
>In article @vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Tilghman Lesher) writes...
>
>>KCUF airmaster (airmaster@KCUF.org) wrote:
>>: The Mac is just an art-deco paperweight.
>>
>>If this is true, then a Windoze machine is a waste of the metal
>>of which it is made.
>>
>>I currently work on computer sales at a major American university.
>>The computers, in terms of functionality, go like this:  UNIX, Mac,
>>Windoze.  In that order, from top to bottom.  When UNIX crashes (well,
>>actually, it hasn't yet).  When the Mac crashes, we reboot.  When
>>the Windoze machine crashes, we get a technician from service to spend
>>three hours trying to even _diagnose_ the problem.  And the Windoze
>>machines
>
>    This is yet another example of a completely incompetent technician,
>much like the example giving a few weeks back where a so-called support
>technician could not get a sound card to work, at all, in a PC running
>in a company office. Considering the qualifications required to be a
>"technician" today, and the numerous of people I've dealt with who have
>been given this title, I often don't except much from them. Years ago
>if someone was a "technician" it actually meant something, these days
>(except in rare cases, as there _are_ the odd experienced and fairly
>knowledable technicians out there) it doesn't mean a whole lot.


I think, Mitchell, that you may be just a little blinded by your love
for your PC.  There's nothing wrong with that, but playing devil's
advocate for a second, consider that the Macintosh _is_ easier to
set up and use.  Not everyone can figure out where to put .DLL's,
solve IRQ conflicts, change drive letters after plugging in a drive,
and the like you know.  Sure, you and I can, but just because someone
wants to get a computer that's to be used more like an appliance
than a gadget does not mean they are stupid and ignorant.  Think
about it this way: PC owners pretty much have to learn how to change
their own oil, tune their own engines, etc.  If you are willing to
spend to time to learn to do so, Win 95 is a rock solid OS.  However,
there are many people that want to just hop in a car and drive.  I've
used both _modern_ PowerMac (clones to be precise) and modern PCs and
both are pretty cool.  Sure, Win 95 can multitask, but try running
Photoshop on both a fast (say 200MHz) PowerPC machine and a 200MHz
Pentium modally and see what happens: The PowerPC clone wipes the
floor with the Pentium.  Right now, multitasking on the PowerPC is
hampered by MacOS, but if that's what you are worried about, just
find an old copy of Windows NT for PPC or OS/2 for PPC or Linux and
run it.  Sure, you'll be in the minority, but real power users on
80x86 PC's can't stand just running Win 95 either.  If you've used
OS/2 4.0 or NeXT, you will know that Win 95 is not that great compared
to them.  It may have some points better than MacOS, but MacOS and
Win 95 are not the best OS in the world.  Run a Unix variant (Win NT,
OS/2, NeXT, Linux) on a PowerPC and a 80x86 and see which one comes
out faster.

Incidentally, you keep saying you used an 80-100MHz PowerMac (very
low end) and that it can't keep up with a '486.  I happen to use
a 25MHz '486 and that statement seems off.  But let's suppose you
mean a 100MHz '486 DX/4.  Ok, several years ago when the PowerMac's
OS and emulation was buggy, this _may_ have seemed so.  I have,
however, used a very fast (>200MHz) Umax PowerPC MacOS system and
I've also used a 200MHz Pentium system.  Multitasking aside, the
PowerPC is so fast and so powerful that it can run the foreground
app much faster than the Pentium can.  In fact, it can emulate a
fast Pentium using a native mode BIOS and licensed Windows engine
and put up a Win 95 screen that's as fast as a real Pentium.

I've also used NeXT on a PC and have seen the pre-release Rhapsody.
NeXT is a GUI on the Mach version of UNIX and is very robust and
pre-emtively multitasks better than Win 95.  It _is_ UNIX, after
all.  Rhapsody is almost exactly like NeXT, right down to the file
viewer and icons, except that the interface has changed a bit and
includes Mac specific libraries.  The thing is, the Mac version
of Rhapsody runs faster on PowerPC machines than NeXT ever could
on a PC.  There will be a version of Rhapsody for the 80x86, btw
(not hard to do, as NeXT is already available for the PC).

The lines are blurring in yet another way:  Apple will soon roll
out 80x86 based Macintoshes.  Like Mr. Jobs' former company, NeXT
(which started out with an 68k specific OS that moved to multi-
platforms) the evolving OS is making them branch out.  Perhaps
these will include some ISA slots as well.  :)


>    I run Windows 95 and it is extremely stable and I'm not at all
>an isolated case. I find it uncanny how all these troubled PC systems
>given as an example are always in an office setting (as well as the
>opinions on PC's being based on the same, "I use a PC in the office
>all day and it is terrible..."). Are there office gremblins at play
>here, or do people out there just associate the computer they use at
>work (as opposed to the one used at home in a relaxed and comfortable
>enviroment) as something not very enjoyable and stressful? :)

As a single PC, Win 95 is pretty stable, but you have to learn how
to configure it.  You basically have to learn to be a techi.  You
may not know you are a techi, but you are.  :)  We have to know about
IRQ conflicts, writing config.sys, ini and autoexec.bat files, where to
put drivers, and much more.  After doing this for a while, it is
easy to say that it is easy, but some people just don't want to
wade through the muck.  Understand that _I_ have no problem with
it, but not everyone sees it the same way.


>>And strangely enough, prices for the Macs which are functionally
>>equivalent to a Windoze machine are actually LOWER than the Windoze
>>machines.
>
>    How about some pricing examples? That is just blantently false,
>especially considering the monopoly Apple Computer has on the Mac
>hardware market (there's a sprinkling of clone companies, but they're
>being stamped out by Apple so there is less competition and they can
>justify higher prices for Macs). I'm talking about generic clones,
>not brand-name clones like Compaq, Dell or IBM which generally ARE
>expensive. Besides which, a generic clone does not mean lesser quality,
>especially when _you_ hand pick _each_ part that goes in and assemble
>it yourself (no soldering, I'm just talking about snapping and
>screwing things in). Apple still charges more for their hardware
>than what is available in the PC world, and don't even get me started
>on the cost of servicing and replacement parts for Apple hardware.


That's true, but when talking about Apple, we are basically talking
about the high end PC markets.  Ask a graphic design company which
is better: Mac or PC.  The Mac wins hands down and you know why?
The Mac has made a niche market of graphic design and multimedia.
It has proprietary technologies that make it better than PCs for
these markets.  Its color-matching technology, for example: what
goes to the printer on a Mac is sure to match exactly the colors you
see on screen.  Special effects you see on Star Trek and even some
movies are done on Macs, probably because they are cheaper than
SGI machines.  In the high end markets, the Macintosh rules.
Remember that when you are rendering something, raw processing power
is important and the PPC is way superior to the 80x86.


>>From my experience, it is pretty clear that the people who
>>continue to buy Windoze machines are either forced to by their superiors
>>or else they are mentally incompetant.
>
>    So, I am mentally incopett, am I? It's interesting that I find
>people who continue to buy Macintosh systems are those whose judgement
>has been clouded by propaganda spread and nourished by Apple Computer.
>The Macintosh crowd doesn't look at the machine so much as they do to
>the philosophy behind it. Apple has convinced Macintosh users they are
>special people and creative individuals, they are the non-conformist
>who doesn't want to follow the rest of the crowd. They've also created
>a feeling of a sense of family between users (or should I say cult ;)
>that makes you feel you belong to something good; you are making a bold
>statement buying a Mac (much like people who fall for TV advertising
>that has them believe they're "hip, young, cool" if you they drink a
>certain brand of soft-drink or drive a certain kind of car).


I don't think that is such a bad idea, considering that Gateway 2000
is trying to foster the same sense: "We're the no. 1 customer
satisfaction rated company...recently we beat out the fruity company!"

You and I may find the idea of building a computer from scratch
attractive, but not everyone.  Heck, that's probably because we are
not computer novices, having used and upgraded the Apple IIGS for
so many years.  Imagine that your first computer, say an Apple IIGS,
needed to be assembled and you had _no_ experience.  :)


>    Proof of some of that? The fact they you (and just about any other
>avid Mac user) feel so strongly about the machine you'll claim people
>who choose the "other" machine are mentally flawed. In some regilions

I agree.  Some Win 95 users are this way too.  It is stupid.

The Mac has many real stregths, but Mac users don't know how to argue
them.  They should cite their dominance and strength in multimedia
and graphic design technologies and the raw power of their CPUs, not
sound like idiots making comparisons to communist countries and the
like.

On the other hand, I suggest you may want to go and see a _fast_
PPC machine in action.  You said you've used 80-100MHz models, but
those are _slow_.  I'm talking about 200MHz to 300MHz models running
first MacOS, then PPC native software like Win NT, OS/2, or Linux,
and then Win 95 under Virtual PC or Real PC and then come back and
still say that PPC machines are bogged down to the level of a '486. :)

I have a '486 and I know that's blatantly not true.


>people believe followers of other faiths will be cast into a so-called
>hell simply for following the wrong faith/god. I often feel Macintosh
>users have been so propagandized they are as emotional about their
>practically is a regilion with people taking such blind leaps ofs
>faith, unquestionable devotion and belief in Apple and their products.
>I think some of it has even rubbed off on us Apple II users and maybe
>part of the reason we still so strongly cling to and stand up for our
>machines today. When you critize the Macintosh you are fundmentally
>critizing the user's beliefs, and the user themself.


Many Mac users do behave in this way and it is strange.  For example,
I can say that the PowerPC is a superior microprocessor today, but
at the same time I can see that such technology could have been
developed for the GS line instead of the Mac line.  The GS of '86
was clearly superior in almost all fronts than the Mac Plus of '86.
Had Apple continued to develop the GS, today's PowerGS would almost
certainly be superior to today's PowerMac.  And Apple would be in
better shape because you and I and millions of other loyal Apple II
users would be using the RISC based 300MHz PowerGS from Apple today.
I also think it is stupid for Apple to kill off the clones and that
Umax, PowerComputing, and Motorolla PowerPC MacOS clones were superior
to Apples.  At the same time, though, _if_ money were not a factor,
I'd rather have a PowerPC Umax than an 80x86 PC.  Why?  Because they
are more powerful.  Sure, they are bogged down by MacOS 8, but once
Rhapsody comes out, the shackles come off.

So why is the PC still better in the low and mid range?  Because a
Pentium packs more power/performance per dollar than the expensive
PowerPC machines.

Which factor wins depends.  For Umax, PowerComputing, and Motorolla
machines, they'd win over Intel machines in my book.  Apple's Macs,
on the other hand, are way too expensive.  It is better to get two
fast PC's than try to feed one of Apple's PowerMac.


>>Now, a PC _can_ run Unix (such as FreeBSD), but those cases are the
>>_only_ times that the PC can be considered to be superior to the Mac.
>>Windows 95 is painfully incompetant when compared to MacOS.
>
>    Remove the emotion and look at facts. As much as many of us have
>a strong dislike for Microsoft, it is the MacOS that is painfully
>incompetent and inferior to Windows 95. Bare in mind I am not saying
>that as an opinion, but on strong logic and fact. There are dozens of
>things Windows 95 has that are completely lacking in MacOS, or
>similiar features that are executed in a much better and efficent
>way. Multitasking is just one of many examples.

But UNIX is superior to them both and NeXT is a very competent GUI
on UNIX.  Rhapsody will be the replacement for NeXT and there will
be versions for both PowerPC and 80x86.  The PowerPC versions will,
of course, run much faster because of the processor.

>    As for hardware, that is also far ahead of the Macintosh. The
>PowerPC RISC processor being a notiable exception, however, as I
>have stated many times in the past, it is terribly under used on
>the Macintosh (almost very much like when the Apple IIgs was first
>introduced and there was little to no software that took advantage
>of its processor. People were using mostly 8-bit applicatins then).
>Perhaps that will change, but that will still only be one step
>towards the many required to catch up to the PC technologically.
>
>Mitchell Spector
>spec@vax2.concordia.ca

Most of Apple's PowerMacs have way too few PCI slots, so this
would be true.  Umax PC's and the ones from the other former clone
manufacturers are much more expandable.

Most of the new high performance sound and video cards are dual
platform PCI.  All that's needed is more drivers.  The situation
is similar to SCSI scanners and the like that the GS can physically
use but have no drivers for.  Presumably, Rhapsody will fix this
because it will open up ease of port from the UNIX environment.

Hey, did you know that Microsoft deliberately adds things into
Win 95 that make other brands of software unstable?  It does things
to WordPerfect, Netscape, and Quattro.  Win NT was also deliberately
crippled to limit the number of Netscape connections that can be
run from the network.  Apple's no saint in what it did to the GS,
but Microsoft is no angel either.

-Scott G.