Re: OS For IIGS

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

In article hattonr@aug.com (Rick Hatton) writes...

>Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>> That is just blantently false, especially considering the monopoly Apple
>> Computer has on the Mac hardware market (there's a sprinkling of clone
>> companies, but they're being stamped out by Apple so there is less
>> competition and they can justify higher prices for Macs).
>
>Well, I just bought a 200 mhz MAc clone for $999. They are all over the
>place.

    For US$999 I can buy a state-of-the-art PC clone, undoubtably better
equipped than the "package deal" Apple or these clone companies force you
to buy. What does that system include though? Just stating its speed
doesn't tell me much.

>> Apple has convinced Macintosh users they are special people and creative
>> individuals, they are the non-conformist who doesn't want to follow
>> the rest of the crowd.
>
>Apple didnt convince me of anything. I am a non-conformist in many things.

    I am strongly non-conformist myself, yet I still choose the PC.

>> There are dozens of things Windows 95 has that are completely lacking in
>> MacOS, or similiar features that are executed in a much better and
>> efficent way. Multitasking is just one of many examples.
>
>Well, a Mac coopertively multitasks, but it does multitask. W95 does
>pre-emptively multitask, but only 32 bit apps. Most of my work apps are
>still 16 bit.

    You make the difference between coopertive and preemptive multitasking
sound so trivial, but the truth of the matter is one is more true to the
term "multitasking" than the other (and not at all subtle either).

    Even when handling 16-bit applications, Windows 95 does a better job
at handling the switching than the Mac does. For one thing the system
does not grind to a _dead stop_ when you hold down the mouse button, nor
does it constantly bring up a dialog box with a bomb icon and bring down
all other applications when one crashes. I've spent many hours in front
of a PowerMac (more than one) using System 7.5.x and I'm talking from
experience here. "Multitasking" on the Macintosh is a joke to be blunt.

>> As for hardware, that is also far ahead of the Macintosh. PowerPC RISC
>> processor being a notiable exception, however
>
>The Mac has standard built-in sound input/output.

    Just a simple DAC/ADC, identical to what you would find in an old
Macintosh 128, except it now handles double the sound resolution.

    You have to add a sound card to a PC, but the standard is now
a hardware wavetable synthesizer along with the DAC/ADC. You do not
even have the option of a music synthesizer card as an option of the
Macintosh. Low-end wavetable synthesis cards for the PC are sold at
practically give away prices. Too bad you can't install a Yamaha XG
or Roland SCC-1 in a Macintosh (and even if you could with some
adapter, nothing supports them in software). The Macintosh does
not even support something as basic as FM-synthesis!

>SCSI is standard on al Macs.

    EIDE is standard on PC's, and if you want to use SCSI you can
purchase a PCI SCSI board. The PC SCSI board is quite affordable
compared to what Apple charges for the built-in feature.

>inexpensive networkingis on all Mac. Ethernet is built in on many.
>Multiple monitor capability in in every Mac.

    All available through add-on boards on the PC, and once again,
much cheaper when you add it all up in the end.

>The PowrePC is clearly superior and the G3 just came out.

    Clearly superior to anyone whose fallen for Apple's propaganda
about how evil and awful PC's are.

>If W95 was so great, I wouldnt have bought my new PPC. I use W95 at
>work, so Iuse VirtualPC at home to use the 1-2 apps from work at home.
>... but I USE my Mac, I PLAY with my Mac...

    And if MacOS was so great, I wouldn't be assembling a P133 box
as we speak. The difference is I haven't made my decision based on
emotion or hype, I looked carefully at both and made the logical
decision. I would be terribly disappointed if I purchased a Power
Macintosh, not just because of the software (lack of it and lesser
in features as it may be) but the hardware Apple is selling too.

    Chances are the Apple IIgs was the last thing I will ever buy
from Apple again. Not because I have a dislike for Apple Computer
(which I do, I make no effort to hide that) but simply because
they sell an inferior system, and to make matters worse, charge
more for it and offer lousy support. Poor product, poor price
and poor support will not win me over. I'm sorry if this offends
any loyal Macintosh supports out there but I'm speaking the
truth.

>I HATE that damn W95 machine.

    Your certainly free to do so, but you are missing out. Actually
I felt the exact same way about the PC and Windows 95 about a year
ago. It wasn't until I was pretty much handed over a free 486-133
which I've been using on the side with my Apple IIgs. When I started
using Windows 95 I changed my view of it, and I had been heavily using
the MacOS and GS/OS before as a comparison. It's not like I had no
other OS experience. Oh, and before that, much like you, I had been
exposed to Windows 95 but it was only brief encounters on a machine
that did not belong to me.

    My favorite computer is, and always has been the Apple IIgs.
However with its commercial market dead, the hardware having not
been updated since its introduction 11 years ago, and there being
no more software support, many of us have been forced to get
another computer for the side. The only option (at least at the
moment; I'm not optimistic about the Amiga resurrection) are the
PC and the Mac. Which of those two systems are closer to the IIgs?
On the very surface you might think the Macintosh because of the
similiar look and feel of the OS, but it ends there. I really see
the Macintosh as a complete opposite to the Apple II and probably
the reason I'm not a fan of it.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca