Re: Problems in Modernizing the IIgs, con't

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

In article bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major) writes...

>Sent:        11/1/97 5:26 AM
>Received:    10/31/97 8:14 PM
>From:        Lewin A.R.W. Edwards, sysadm@zws.com

[Why isn't this person posting to comp.sys.apple2 directly? I don't
want to get into yet another debate, but there were some corrections
I felt were worth mentioning.]

>Face it, the Apple II pre-GS was very successful, and Apple wanted to
>continue the success, but the GS was a false start along that trail.

    Let me get this straight, the Apple II was a hugely successful
product, until the Apple IIgs came along and bungled it all? Hmm,
strange that a product that was backwards compatible while adding
some state-of-the-art features would be so unpopular. It is also
quite strange that this machine outsold every other machine made
by Apple (including the Macintosh) during one year.

>>Then why did "someone" never implement preemtive multitasking in
>>MacOS?
>
>Why bother? Apple never did it because presumably nobody important
>enough ever asked for it. It wasn't until the mid-1990s that people
>have started to regard it as an important feature-

    What wonderful logic. If Apple doesn't include it, it is was never
an important feature to begin with. I suppose that is why most people
out there do not complain about having nothing more than a DAC in the
Macintosh for sound. Hardware based wavetable synthesizers are useless,
right? The Apple IIgs and PC were crazy to have added such a worthless
feature. I bet if Apple didn't make keyboards Mac users would think it
was a wonderful idea.

    It's interesting to note how the Amiga had multitasking built-in
since it was introduced in 1985. It is also interesting to note that
were approaching 1998 and the Macintosh _still_ does not support true
multitasking. Oh, that's right, multitasking is a silly and useless
feature obviously, because Apple decided it was not neccessary to add.

>though even now, 9/10 of computer users still use their machines modally
>and wouldn't notice the difference between Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 as
>far as multitasking goes. The most complicated operation most people ever
>undertake is to print a document while working on the next draft.

    Gee, you would have to be pretty dim to not notice the difference
between cooperative and preemptive multitasking. I am always doing more
than one task at a time, not because I am a "power user" but that is
simply how I and most people function. I want to get things done and
the computer should *do them*. The computer should wait for _me_, not
me wait for _it_. If a computer limits you and makes you wait around,
it is not a good tool. You know, I don't even consciously think about
it when I multitask, I just know the computer doesn't make ME WAIT
while I'm working. You see that is the key, I do not have to worry
about the computer getting tied down. The computer accommodates to
my speed and style of working, not me to it.

>>BS!  An GS accelerated to 7MHz will beat out a 7MHz black and
>
>BS yourself. You haven't measured it. I'm not talking a loop to see
>which MPU can execute more NOPs per second, I'm talking about real
>functional benchmarks. As I said earlier, you are letting your personal
>hatred of the 68k and Macintosh and basically everything other than the
>Apple II blind you to simple facts.

    Nevermind opinions here, pay attention to facts. The 65C816 gets
things done in one clock cycle while the original 68000 does it in
four clock cycles. There is roughly a 1:4 ratio in speed when you
compare the two (the same is true for the original 8088 and 8086).
That formula is no longer true when you compare newer versions of
the 68K and 80x86 processors, but is it for the very originals.

    Roughly speaking, a 7 MHz 65C816 will outperform a 7 MHz 68000.
It has nothing to do with opinions, feelings or dislike of the Mac,
we're talking about plain and simple logic here.

>>the PC.  Similarly, capable PC systems under $K no longer exist.
>
>Really? You might be tickled to learn that the retail price of a 133MHz
>6x86-based PC with 14" SVGA color monitor, mouse, 16Mb RAM, minitower
>case, 12x CD-ROM, 1.7Gb hard disk, 104-key keyboard and 3.5" FDD is
>about AUD$1200-AUD$1300 here if you shop for cheap clones. That's
>USD$840-USD$910. I read in Be developer news just a few weeks ago an
>aside about buying a Pentium PC for a little under USD$600.

    Ahh, it would not be a Macintosh vs PC debate without the classic
Lies About How Much a PC System Costs(tm). :) I wonder where people
dig up these prices. Maybe out of the back of 2 year old magazines?
Maybe on www.apple.com? (I loved those "75 Reasons a Mac beats a PC
Windows machine" on Apple's page btw. Great comedy, especially since
every single one of those points were in error or very misleading). :)

    Those are fairly low-end systems too, most people would want at
minimum a 15" monitor, 32 MB of memory, 24x CD-ROM, 2.5 GB hardrive.
I'll list some more accurate prices for you if you want, complete
with examples on web-pages so you don't think I'm making it up.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca