Re: What do you do with an Apple //?

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

In article pubpc1@library.ucla.edu (Scott G.) writes...

>spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote,
>>>Well, of course on a _fast_ (compared to a 486/25) system like
>>>yours, PC software is going to look good.  No one is debating that.
>>
>>    My Am5x86-133 is not really that fast, unless we compare it
>>directly with your laptop (which does not equal the average PC
>>system out there, which was originally my point). Compared to
>>most systems out there, my PC is fairly slow actually.
>
>Now wait a minute.  AMD K5-166 systems go for around $1K the last
>time I looked.  $1K with monitor is a lot of money and I'd suspect
>that many buyers will look at your system as the standard.  Not
>everyone has the money to buy a Pentium II.

    You haven't paid attention to what I said in the past. Once
again, I have an AMD 5x86. That is a chip that is pin compatible
with 486 motherboards, it will _not_ plug into a Pentium board.
Furthermore, it has the same instruction sets and functions as
a 486 compatible processor, it is basically a 486/DX4-133. In
terms of speed, this 486 is comparable to a Pentium 75 (but
with a less powerful math co-processor).

    Your thinking of AMD's K5 and K6 processors, those are pin
compatible with Pentium motherboards and Pentium compatible.
The 5x86 is an older AMD processor that is a 486 compatible.
So my system is not the standard out there, and by today's
standards, while very usable, is still quite _slow_.

>_If_ you are going to spend more an get a Pentium II based IBM
>Aptiva class PC, for example, you might as well get a Umax for less
>and get a more powerful (PowerPC) RISC processor to boot.

    I wouldn't buy a brand-name clone, you end up paying more for
the name than the actual product. I would buy a generic towercase
and assemble a quality system piece by piece, finding a top notch
motherboard, CPU, video board, sound card, hardrives, monitor, etc.
I really don't like the idea of letting the company bundle a system
for you and just take whatever you get, I like to have choice at
very level (yet another reason I won't buy a brand-name clone or
least of all, an Apple product).

    Certainly it was simple when I bought my IIgs 10 years ago.
When I ordered it from Apple there were no choices, I just said
I wanted a IIgs system and bought the accessories Apple sold
that were required to make it functional (floppy drives, an RGB
monitor and a memory expansion board). The only optional thing
I splurged on back then, was the color ImageWriter II printer.
Then again, I was kind of forced into that as well, since Apple
refused to supply drivers for 3rd party printers at that time
and even encouraged software companies to only support their
ImageWriter series. Years later I had fun though, upgrading it
with 3rd party products which I more or less hand picked. :)

    Sure it requires some researching and tough choices when you
assemble your own computer, but in the end it is cheaper and you
won't regret doing it. Here's a good analogy: Would you want to
walk into a restaurant, always the same one, and have all your
food and beverages all picked out for you, without much or any
say in the matter? Or would you rather pick each item of food,
drink and side-dish from a menu, and if you don't like what you
see, go over to another restaurant. In the case of the former
(just like the computer company), don't you think they'll give you
things you probably don't want and inevitably have you end up
paying more? (and while you may like some of the abritrary dishes
served to you, it's likely there will be several you'll dislike).
Like most things in life, I like to have choice, and that even
applies to computers. If you want to know the truth, I wouldn't
mind picking each feature and part that goes into my VCR, TV or
even alarm-clock. :-)

>>>AppleWorks GS hardly ever crashes on me, btw.
>>
>>    Well I've used AppleWorks GS on three completely different
>>machines, it has froze up consistantly on all three systems
>>when using it's word-processor module. The program has not been
>>touched since 1989, and even back then it was badly in need of
>>an update. I had a renewed interest in AWGS when SQC promised
>>to do a major rewrite, but when that fell through so did all
>>my hope for that piece of software.
>
>Now that is strange.  AWGS 1.1 used to crash on me, but after using
>it for a few months, it stabilized and has stayed stable for years.
>I suspect it may conflict with some addons (NDAs, INITs, etc.) and
>so is not stable on some systems.  I've also applied several patches
>to the program, but I no longer remember what they were.  :)

    Well I've certainly been using AWGS version 1.1, and on two of
the systems it was crashing on, none of those had any extension or
or add-ons whatsoever. In fact I was booting AWGS straight off the
disks it came shipped on (and no, there were no bad sectors). I've
also used the program on a hardrive with extra memory. On all three
systems it would constantly lock-up and bomb with that annoying
dialog box: "Restart" - "Other Button". I completely stopped using
it for serious heavy work, and these days I barely trust it for
even light tasks, like writing a letter or note. I do all my word-
processing in ProTERM 3.1. That is rock stable, fast and reliable,
though the 45K limit makes it of limited use.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca