Re: OS For IIGS

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

In article gareth@vcn.bc.ca (Gareth Jones) writes...

>I've been staying out of the OS and hardware debate until now, but the
>issues that remain have become quite clear. On the one side is
>
>1. The Mac is more similar to the GS because its user interface is more
>similar. ("Tastes good!")

    Although not so similar in that you could "exit" that user interface
and drop into ProDOS 8, or for that matter, a text-based shell like GNO
that ran on top of GS/OS. The Macintosh has no character generator (no
matter how fast your machine, it is not faster than pure text. I want to
continue writing my Apple IIgs FAQ on my PC because its screen is easier
on my eyes. If I do that it will be in a text editor, not a graphical
one) and there is no such thing as really getting into the system, like
dropping into system Monitor.

    If the Apple IIgs could only boot into System 6.0.1 and made a 'sad
face' icon if there was no boot disk or hardrive connected, I would have
never bought one. The thought of a computer being forever _stuck_ in the
Finder makes me bored just thinking about it. :P Its like being trapped 
in a room without any doors or windows.

>On the other side is:
>
>2. The Wintel computer is more similar to the GS because of its slots,
>hackability, etc. ("Less filling!")

    Not too mention its superior sound and music abilities through add
on cards. I was thrilled to pieces about the Ensoniq 5503 synthesizer
when I bought my GS and for years I had a ball experimenting with music
synthesis. I'm having equally as much fun with the Roland SCC-1 board
I have in my Pentium now. I also find the type of free style programming
similar to the Apple II, there are no rules and people just use their
imagine to push the limits of the machine. On the Macintosh Apple has
very strict guidelines about the "Apple Human Interface", use of the
toolbox, etc, which all must run under the same Finder program.

    The PC is also similar in all the variety out there for add-on
hardware, there are thousands of _interface cards_ that do everything
imaginable (ISA cards being akin to classic 8-bit Apple IIe/IIc boards,
PCI being akin to IIGS specific boards). Macintosh users' claim all
they could every want is built-in to their machine, so often the only
things being added to Macs are external devices like modems, SCSI
hardrives, printers and scanners. I'm inside my PC as much as I was
inside my Apple II Plus and Apple IIgs, I _like_ getting close to
the hardware and knowing what each and ever parts does and what goes
where. In that respect, the Macintosh is about as exciting as my VCR
or Microwave oven in terms of tinkering.

>Both are, of course, correct.

    Well, to be truthful, the similarity between the Apple IIgs and
Macintosh begins and ends with the look and feel of the GUI (sure
they also share the same keyboards, mice and floppy drives, but
that hardly makes them very closely related). Anyone switching
to the Macintosh in hopes of an Apple II-like path will be very
disappointed (and I say that as someone who's used _both_ systems
intensively for many, many years). I suppose the Mac is also kind
of the same as the GS in the late 80's or early 90's, back when
software support started to disappear in favour of other systems.
If you like experiencing that kind of thing (all over again) then
the Macintosh may be appealing.

    OTOH, if someone has a fondness for the Macintosh that is okay.
People are entitled to different tastes and I respect that as
long as it is not harmful to me or others (and choosing one brand
of computer over another is not detrimental last time I checked,
except maybe to your wallet ;). It's the same as anything else,
for example some people love the Trinitron CRT in monitors, I
personally cannot stand it after finding better alternatives.
Some like chocolate ice-cream, others like vanilla, etc. 

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca