Re: OS For IIGS

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

In article shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford) writes...

>Mitchell Spector (spec@vax2.concordia.ca) wrote:
>
>:     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
>
>If you're hard core, you could always run MPW, or get Machten unix, and
>Linux is even supposed to be floating around.

    Unfortunately, those don't bypass the MacOS, sometimes even running
in a window on the screen. What about if I wanted a Unix OS that ran in
a pure text mode and not using a graphical bitmapped font?

>: 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.
>
>Looks like you've never pressed the interrupt button and dropped into the
>debugger.

    I have before, but I'm not really sure you could compare it to the
Apple II Monitor in terms of hackability and accessibility.

>:     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.
>
>Mine gives a sliding Apple when you do that, kinda like the sad Mac

    Yes, but you can hit Control-Reset and then you have an Applesoft
BASIC prompt to play around with. You can also go in the Control Panel
and play around, not to mention the system Monitor and mini-assembler
you can get with a 'CALL-151'. What can you do with a Macintosh with
no boot volume? Even a PC I can get started with just an MS-DOS floppy
disk with just 'command.com' and play around, it won't make a sad Mac
icon if I boot without one (and there's the BIOS you can get into too).

>:     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.
>
>Um, Macs have as many as six nubus slots and five PCI slots. Can we lay this
>"no expansion" bunk to rest?

    What kind of Nubus and PCI cards do you have to plug in? And
sure you can plug in any IBM PCI card on the market, but it must
have a software driver to support it and generally it's a good
idea to have programs that use it too. The analogy made between
the IIgs with SCSI and Mac with PCI posted recently was a good
one (you can plug any SCSI device into a GS with SCSI card, but
many are not supported with drivers). 

>:     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.
>
>I think they're quite alike. They both boast plug 'n play, they are 
>interoperable i.e. they can network and share files and printers, 
>and plenty more ways.

    Both are plug 'n play mostly because everything is already built-in.

>I personally can't figure out how anyone used to the way Apple stuff
>works would want to use anything else.

    You just answered your own question. I am very much used to the
way Apple stuff works, and that is crippled and lacking power, which
is one of the reasons I decide to try something non-Apple and found
I like it.

>:     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.
>
>I'll go along with this paragraph aside from the Trinitron part. All the
>high end DEC and Sun monitors at work use 'em, and of course Apple's high
>end monitors too. I have a 16" on my desk and a pair of 13 inchers as well.

    Originally I really liked the Trinitron, the colors are so much
more vibrant and brighter than most other displays (other monitors
looked washed and faded in comparison). What kills the Trinitron are
all the side affects of using an aperture grille. Have you noticed
the very concaved image? It looks like the whole screen is bending
inwards, many people I know jokingly call it the "punch-in" effect
because it looks like someone punched and dented in the screen! :)
There are other geometry problems too so things are not accurate.
I also find they have a very grainy looking image, it looks as
though you've overlayed a fine silk cloth over the screen. This
creates a terribly noticable moire pattern and colors that do not
have a solid look (in fact, it looks a lot like the GS's dithered
640 mode in a way). They also have terrible mis-convergence in
the corners quite commonly, unless your lucky.

    The Trinitron also has those one or two support lines that look
like a horizontal line of dead pixels, that is annoying. Have you
also noticed the brightness suddenly decreases when you make a
window full-screen? Not that the MAG DX15T Trinitron display I
looked at had much in terms of brightness or contrast to begin
with. I find in fitting that such an awful display technology has
been adopted as standard for the Macintosh. :-) There is actually
a better alternative to the Trinitron, and just a few weeks ago
I had no idea it even existed. Viewsonic, or their Optiquest V773
specifically, has incredible color quality even on their 17" screen.
It is the first monitor with a CRT _darker_ than even the IIgs's
AppleColor RGB. It actually superpasses the Trinitron for color
(it looks even nicer than my GS RGB for color) and for contrast,
brightness and sharpness. Actually I don't think I've ever seen
such a sharp display before, and with pretty much zero moire or
mis-convergence. Trinitron is just another example of what has
been highly rated but not necessarily good or better than the
rest. You should check out Viewsonic screens.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca