Re: OS For IIGS

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

In article gjb_remove@wavetech.net (Greg Buchner) writes...

>In article <346f46b5.72967337@news.loop.com>, airmaster@KCUF.org wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 23:30:11 -0600, "Greg J. Buchner"
>><buchner@freenet.msp.mn.us> wrote:
>>
>>>Also, we probably would have ended up with a Mac that was about as messed
>>>up as the PC world is today.
>>
>>Well, seeing how the PC's are far more functional than the Macintosh, erm...
>
>I wouldn't think so...I run across sometimes several people a week who have
>PC's that currently aren't functioning because something has gone wrong with
>them that they can't repair.  It's far harder for the average person to keep
>the average PC running than it would be for them to keep a Macintosh running.

    I think he meant in terms of functionality and overall capabilities.
PC's do offer more features in software and hardware functionality than
Macintosh. Music synthesis is one area, unlike the Macintosh, PC's have
hardware music synthesizers through plug-in cards (all the Mac has is a
DAC. You can emulate a hardware synthesizer, yet it eats _tons_ of CPU
time and noticably lesser in quality, even to someone with an untrained
ear). Considering the Apple IIgs had an Ensoniq hardware synthesizer all
these years, I'm surprised those who have migrated from the IIgs to the
Macintosh were not disappointed by the lack of synthesis capabilities.
I don't know about others, but from the time I had my Apple II+ running
Electric Duet I was fascinated by music synthesis. Needless to say
the Apple IIgs was like a dream when I received mine (I mostly bought
the GS blindly, not knowing what it offered at the time, and was quite
overwhelmed to learn it had a state-of-the-art synthesizer built-in!).
I can add state-of-the-art synthesis to a PC, I cannot to a Macintosh.

    Another thing the Macintosh lacks is true multitasking. As I said
in a previous post, this is not a "neat" feature, it is something I
expect no less of in a computer today. If I go out and buy a computer,
I think I would be a little disappointed to learn it multitasks much
like the now very obsolite Windows 3.1 or The Manager on my 11 year
old Apple IIgs. Computing speed is another problem with the Macintosh,
I find there is something wrong when a 486 can out perform the speed
of a PowerPC based Macintosh (why is it I can play full screen 16-bit
color video and stereo audio at a _top frame rate_ on a 486, but not 
an 80-100 MHz PowerMacintosh?). If you like entertain software, your 
short changing yourself again on the Macintosh. Not only are there 
hardly any game titles, has anyone written games that support the new 
PCI 3DFX cards out there? These make the Nintendo 64 and Playstation 
look almost laughable in comparison.  I consider computers as much 
entertainment boxes as they are productivity boxes. There is no fun 
factor with the Mac, half of what makes a computer is missing here.

    There are countless ways in which the Macintosh is clearly behind
the PC feature for feature. This is how I see things, and I've used
both system extensively. I just get the feeling Apple Computer has
a way of crippling and limiting anything it touches. From the 8-bit
Apple II's and Apple III, to my Apple IIgs and the Macintosh today.
I thought at least Apple had an edge where they'd put _quality_ parts
in, cared about aesthetics of the machine and good support, but that
has all been eroded in recent years. They no longer have any edge,
they're just a company that produces inferior products at *very* high
cost. It is unfortunate since PC's _are_ kludges, but they do more and
cost less. I have no loyality to Apple, so I look at their products
objectively, not blindly, like I once did.

    Before I get flamed, this is _not_ a "Mac sucks" post, I'm just
stating how I see the way things are. Also worth pointing out, I find
the PC much closer to the Apple II than the Macintosh: The 7 internal
slots, openness, expandability, the freedom to program how you want to
(no toolbox and writing all your software to run in "The Finder" and
Apple's set of rules and strict guidelines!) all the plug-in cards you
can buy to build a custom system to _your_ liking. I find it almost
like dejavu seeing adds for the "Pentium II". :-) The PC is not and
will never be a replacement for the Apple II, but it approaches it.
I really do not understand how people can move from the Apple II to
Macintosh. Really all they have in common is the company logo on the
case, but the fundamental concept and sprit that made the Apple II
magical is completely lacking in the Macintosh. It is a closed and
structed machine. How can a person like the Apple II and then like
something that is so opposite like the Macintosh?

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca