Re: OS For IIGS

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

In article pdueck@pli.mb.ca (Perry Dueck) writes...

>In article <18DEC199712565013@vax2.concordia.ca>, spec@vax2.concordia.ca
>(Mitchell Spector) wrote:
>>     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).
>
>Boo hoo.  :) You could always slap your modern day Mac logic board into a
>empty Mac II case or even an old PC case.....believe me, nobody would
>care.

    How do you suggest doing that? The port openings are never the
same from one Macintosh to another. A PC case would be even worse for
reasons that need not be explained. Unless you want to go at the case
with a hacksaw and drill, your stuck with the current case Apple has
shipped your Macintosh in in almost all cases.

>>     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.
>
>Congratulations. I'm glad you're happy with it. I'm sure if it had an
>Apple logo on it (or Mac clone logo on it), you would be unhappy...

    Heh, interesting you should mention that since there is an empty
square recess on the front of my case meant for a company sticker.
One option that passed through my mind is sticking an Apple logo in
there (like the one from an Apple 5.25) just to be retro. :) I don't
care who made the case or machine guts inside, I am concerned about
how the thing works.

>>     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).
>
>Whoope deee ding. I order almost all of my Mac software via email.

    You made my point. I used to have to order all my Apple II
software the same way, through mail order vendors until they
all finally disappeared.

>There is more of it than I could ever hope to afford (unless I won a million
>dollar lottery). I've walked into three different computer stores in
>Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (which is in the middle of nowhere for those of
>you who don't know where that is) in the past month, and found more Mac
>software than I could ever hope to buy. If I can buy Mac software off the
>shelf in stores here, then I'm sure it is available in most other major
>cities and their computer software stores.

    Well to the east of you, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada we have Macintosh
software on the shelves here too. Though as I said, selection is very sparse
and with stores carrying something like 95% PC titles, 5% Macintosh titles.
That situtation is much like it was when I went shopping for Apple II
titles in the late 80's and early 90's.

>> 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.
>
>That's odd. I see MacWorld, MacUser, MacWeek, and about 5 others which are
>all equally as thick as "Windows" or "PC World". On the newstands in a
>small Canadian city in the middle of nowhere. Not too bad. Not too bad at
>all.

    That is odd, MacUser no longer exists since it merged with MacWorld
(a la inCider/A+). As far as I know, MacWeek is no more either since it
hasn't been available on newsstands here. I don't know what "5 others"
your talking about, but the only existing _newsstand_ publications left
are MacWorld, MacAddict and Mac Journal. As far as thickness, I've held
each issue next to PC magazines are they are 1/4th as thick. They're
maybe a dozen or two pages away from losing their spines and getting
stapled together.

>>     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 find it interesting that all monitors made for the Mac platform need a
>special adapter to connect them to a PC...guess we are even.

    PC users do not shop for monitors with the Apple logo them.

>And yes, as you are a PC owner, I'm sure it is quite difficult to pick up
>that phone and call the company for a FREE (in your own words) adapter for
>the Macintosh.

    My point is Viewsonic clearly states (even on the cardboard shipping
box) that the monitor is compatible with both the PC and Macintosh, yet
despite that fact Mac users are given the 2nd class treatment. You cannot
bring the monitor home and immediately start using it, you must order a
special adapter and wait for it to arrive. Nothing wrong with that, the
point is it doesn't ship _Macintosh ready_. If the Macintosh were as
popular and mainstream as the PC, the adapter would have been included
in every box.

>Things being as they are, I'm sure it would take almost an
>entire day for that adaptor to arrive via courier from across the
>continent. In that case, I would suggest you just simply walk into a Mac
>dealer, and purchase a monitor that plugs directly into a Mac with no
>adaptor....no more money, and you don't have to wait a day for the special
>adaptor to arrive!!! It's just that simple.

    It was very simple. I called their toll-free number, told them the
serial number on the back of my display and then gave them my name and
address. The adapter soon arrived by FedEx. No bother to me since I only
wanted it so I could use my monitor with a future Mac (I plan to add at
least one to my collection one day) but I imagine it would be frustrasting
for a person who purchased the display and only owned a Macintosh.

>>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.
>
>If you are a Mac customer, order from a Mac company....simple
>enough...I've never had any trouble. And nobody forces you to do so
>either....

    Why? Monitors are not created equal--even different models from
the same company--so I'd want to have as much choices as possible.
I must have looked at two dozens monitors before I found one I even
remotely liked.

>> 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.
>
>Excellent. So now you can lay the issue to rest. Let's talk Apple II.

    Sure, if other people in this group would too. I still have a
fondess and interest in the Apple II and that is the reason I have
subscribed to this newsgroup for the past 6 years (and the II is
what is what I want to read and talk about).

>>     MacWorld is obvious going to print biased and slanted articles on
>> the subject.
>
>And you are posting articles in favour of??????.......oh yes...PC's.

    If you want to believe that. I try and see the strengths and
weaknesses in both sides without being biased. Unfortunately Mac
people are extremely offended about any critical remarks made
about their computers or the company that makes them. No? Funny
that the biggest ISP in my area had to issue an internal warning
memo to all its staff, saying _never_ to state opinions about
Apple or the Macintosh in front of Mac customers as they are
literally regilious about their machines!

>> According to outside news sources the clone companies did
>> not erode Apple's business if you look at the figures.
>
>Can you so kindly post those hard cold facts and figures here?

http://www.news.com/Perspectives/js/js9_12_97a.html

>> 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.
>
>Well, it's worked so far.....let's see....1984 and still going..hmmmm.
>that's almost 14 years and still counting......and I think they make a
>darn good product.

    Years ago there was no real standard and the computer market was
much different. People used computers for specialized needs or as a
tool for hobby. Computers today have become something for the general
public to buy and a mass marketed item (like TV's, stereo's, washers).
I think quality has suffered because of that.

>> 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.
>
>But what, just what if, the company is still making good quality products
>that customers are happy with? I am happy with Apple, both of the past and
>present.
>Don't bother posting percentage points of market share here either, it
>won't make a differnce to me.

    If that is your perception, then great. We don't share it though,
and neither do many others out there.

>>     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.
>
>So technically, you should be willing to build and engineer a system from
>ground up, and program your own operating system to run on it. No package
>deals that way!!!! Guarranteed.

    My "building" entales snapping pieces in and screwing things down.
I'm not fearful of handling unprotected and loose motherboards, CPU's
and SIMMs. Sliding in floppy drives and hardrives or all their
cabling that attaches to them are no trouble to me either.

>>     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.
>
>Boo hoo, once again. If something is not selling, why try to push it on
>the customer....why not try to sell the product which IS selling? With

    Excuse me? The Apple IIgs was not selling? Gee, I recall it outsold
every other computer Apple made one Christmas, including the Macintosh.
Apple's response was to cut all advertising, keep the price high and
not ever upgrade the hardware.

>>     I said it before and I'll say it again, every single machine Apple
>> Computer has ever touched has been poisoned.
>
>Yes, absolutely <sarcasm>. I have been using my current Mac LC 475 for
>four years, and I can't believe how many times I have wished I owned a
>PC........ZERO times. Incidentally, I owned a PC before I owned a MacOS
>system....

    What PC did you own? Up until quite recently, I've never been very
fond of PC or what they were capable of.

>By the way, do you REALLY feel that your IIgs (and/or older II systems)
>are "poisened"?

    Absolutely. My Apple IIgs (and other Apple II's) are fantastic
pieces of hardware which unfortunately that have been crippled and
hobbled by Apple. "poisoned", "crippled", "negelected", use whatever
word you wish. I use poisoned because they were good engineering
that was tainted by a bad company.

>Why don't you get rid of them then? Heck, I'll buy them
>off you for the right price, if nothing else, just to get you to quit
>complaining about Mac's in this Apple II newsgroup!  :)

    Well poisoned or not, I still like them very much (if I didn't
I would not be on this newsgroup and keeping up with events in the
II world).

>> Sure, I sound like some
>> over zealot Apple hater
>
>Yes, you do. Time and time again.  *yawn*  But then again, we all have the
>right to freedom of speech (at least in North America....I don't know the
>laws of other nations).

    It's sad my opinion of a company or a computer platform makes you
think lesser of me.

>>....saying that, but look at their history and
>> you will see it is true.
>
>False.

    Then prove me wrong. Tell me how the Apple II, IIgs, Apple III and
Apple Lisa were not crippled (or the term I used, poisioned). If you'd
like, I could go over and rehash how they were.

>> 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
>
>http://www.apple.com
>Look at the products, look at the specs...doesn't seem crippled to me, and
>the prices look good to me too.

    When you wear rose-colored glasses (which most Macintosh fans do) I'm
sure everything on that page looks just great.

>> The Lisa for $10K
>> is one example, and I still cannot believe how insanely overpriced
>> my Apple IIgs was back in 1987).
>
>Why did you buy your Apple IIgs then? You could have easily bought a PC
>for the same price at that time.

    I bought the Apple IIgs because it was the best choice in 1987 (the
Amiga was the next best choice, but Apple's reputation for quality and
decent products, ironically now, made me lean towards the GS).

    The PC at the time would have been a 286 with EGA. I had absolutely
zero interest in that platform at the time, it was a dull and boring
business machine (it was especially dull compared to exciting machines
like the Apple IIgs, Atari ST, Amiga or Macintosh II). If you want to
know the truth, even a few short years ago when 386/486's with MCGA,
AdLib and Windows 3.1 were popular, I absolutely loathed them. I still
to this day cannot stand PC's of that era; Macintoshes clearly had an
edge back then.

>I'm sure there are a lot of 8088, 8086, 80286, and 80386 "PC" systems out
>there......I'm curious how many people/companies are still supporting
>those systems in late 1997/early 1998......probably very, very few.

    Probably none, but modern PC's are backwards compatible in both
software and hardware.

>>     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).
>
>Well, boo hoo once again. I am sure at this point, nothing will convince
>you otherwise.....but then again, nothing will convince us MacOS users
>otherwise either.....so I congratulate you on your statistics and so
>called facts....I'm just not totally certain why you feel so threatened by
>Apple's MacOS systems that you continually have to slam them in the
>comp.sys.apple2 newsgroup. Perhaps this issue should be discussed in the
>PC related or even Mac related newsgroups instead of here.....although I'm
>not trying to censor you and what you say, I just don't find it relevant
>to the newsgroup  comp.sys.apple2  since that is for discussing Apple II
>machines.....right????

    Your right, this is almost completely off topic for this newsgroup
(almost since Apple Computer is a relevent topic, so are PC/Mac's when
you consider many of us Apple II users us one or the other in conjuction
with our machines). I just like to give my opinions (or corrections) when
other people bring up the subject, but I'm not the one who starts them.
I'm all for ending this debate when you and the others are, though you
must admit, it is still much more relevent or interesting than the
childish fighting, name calling and now religious dicussions going on
here. ;-)

>>     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?
>
>The same performance, and/or even more than what you get out of your 486.
>Keep in mind, MHz is impossible to compare when comparing two completly
>different platforms based on completely different CPU's and supporting
>architecture. If you wish, I could probably dig up the actual facts, but I
>have a feeling you wouldn't believe them anyways....

    As an Apple II user I know that more than anyone else, you don't
know how annoyed I get when PC/Mac users snicker at how slow my "15 MHz"
Apple II must be when their machines are running at 100 to 300 MHz.
However I was never comparing megahertz, I'm comparing the raw power
of each machine. I've seen how 68K Macintoshes slowly redraw windows,
icons and have trouble scrolling compared with their PC counterparts.
My above question was valid though, I want to know how the Quadra 840AV
handles on-the-fly decompression and playing of MPEG-3 music and audio
(at full CD-quality stereo). I have no regard for megahertz here, I'm
looking for performance. I also wonder how a basic game would compare
in FPS, like say Duke 3D at 640x480 on both the Quadra and 486.

>>     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".
>
>Personally, I think it is equally as silly to condemn the Macintosh
>platform by comparing modern day PC systems to Mac systems that are 6
>years out of date. Case in point.

    Where? I was comparing a 486 against a 68040 Macintosh, the 486
is not a modern day PC by an stretch of reality.

>>     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.
>
>Just how much money did you give Apple? You bought what....one Apple IIgs
>brand new back in the late '80s? And one Apple II 8 bit clone back in the
>early '80s (not that any of that money from the 8 bit machine went to
>Apple anyways)?

    I gave Apple just under $4,000 Canadian, not too mention a couple of
hundred more when I bought accessories or had things repaired at an Apple
dealer in the area. That money was for a stock system I might add, nothing
fancy or out of the ordinary. Multiple the number of stock systems (and
not so stock systems) by all the number of GSes bought.

>>     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.
>
>Well, instead of repeatedly complaining about the Second Sight Video Card
>(which is still available for purchase), how about you come up with
>something wayyyy better at a cheaper price?

    If I was a hardware engineer and there was still an Apple II market,
I probably would. My example of the Second Sight was to show what happens
to products when there is no competition, not to complain about the card
any further (there is little point since it never took off and probably
never will at this point).

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca