Re: A Tale of Two Apples

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

In article bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major) writes...

>Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>> In article bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major) writes...
>>     Your not making sense, you claimed this software is not available
>> to the general public, so I assumed you were talking about a custom
>> written piece of software created for a _single_ business firm made
>> to fit _their_ system. Now your saying it is available to hundreds of
>> thousands for offices? Something that widely available sounds like
>> software available to the general public.
>
>By "general public" I mean that *any* joe user can walk into a software
>store and buy the software--or order it.  That's not the case here.
>Specialized real estate software is *not* available in software stores
>and can only be ordered directly through a manufacturer.

    Yes, I understand that bit, but if an identical piece of software
is available to *tens of thousands* of businesses across the country,
it is a publically available program. You may have to order it from
a software company, but it doesn't sound like it is confined to just
a few individuals. Anyone can order it, can they not? That is then
available to the general public by my definition.

>> >They are titles I have first hand experience and use with.
>>
>>     Very well, if you have first hand experience with this software,
>> what exactly makes it not compatible with a moderm PC? Your being
>> rather vage and giving me very little information about this.
>
>It just refuses to run, period.  I'm not in front of that particular PC
>(or at the office for that matter) at the moment so I am unable to tell
>you verbatim what it says on the screen once you start the software.

    Once again, you are being quite vage. "It refuses to run, period".
Something obviously happens when you try and run it. Does it report an
error message on screen, does the system lock-up or crash upon trying
to execute the program?

    If this particular program was made available to tens of thousands
of businesses, I would highly suspect the company that wrote it has
written an updated or patched version. Just the same way many programs
were patched or updated when the Apple IIgs ROM firmware revision '3'
was introduced and broke some programs. As I said, there is no such
thing as absolute 100% backwards compatibility; it is expected that
something will be affected by each change. What is your whole point
here anyway? Are you seriously trying to convience me that my IBM is
not backwards compatible with 8088/8086 PC-XT software, _again_?

>>     Nope. If someone comes trolling on this group and says "The IIgs
>> sucks, get a real computer like my <insert brand here>!" I will just
>> ignore them and think very little of that person. Though what does
>> tick me off is when someone comes in this group and starts posting
>> misinformation, claiming it is fact when it is blatantly not (even
>> after several people have informed them they're incorrect).
>
>I don't know what you are getting at here, except that you seem to be
>harkening back to the memory question and exactly how much of it the GS
>shipped with.  That is NOT disputable; it is a known fact exactly how
>much memory the early GS shipped with.  Now, whether it was enough
>memory to do what a certain person needed is a whole different ballgame,
>and a question I've tried to keep separate, but you insist on lumping it
>in altogether.

    You really _do_ ignore what I write (or have a very short memory
span, in which case you might want to reread my original replies on
Dejanews). How many times have I told you, I KNOW the original IIgs
motherboard came shipped with 256K of memory built-in, I have not
ever disputed that fact (and your perfectly correct, that is a fact
that is not disputable).

    What is also *not disputable* is the fact that native Apple IIgs
software could not run with only 256K of memory present. There were a
small handful of GS-specific software titles that managed to squeeze
themselves in that space of course, and we went over that. The thing
is they were: 1) Virtually all video games, 2) Extremely simple and
mediocre, 3) Used ProDOS 8 and sometimes even emulation mode sounds or
graphics, making them hybrid IIe/IIGS software. 4) They made up maybe
a total of ONE DOZEN titles, putting them in the absolute most extreme
of minorities. Point #4 is the most important one to take note of.

>> >It also leads to lots of problems, of which I have first hand
>> >experience.  Not all no-name parts will work with each other or with the
>> >motherboard.  There is a generic PC in our office that will not use its
>> >sound card, for instance.  Both the machine and the card have been
>> >checked and there is nothing wrong with either.  Nonetheless, the
>> >computer never makes a sound or uses the card in any way.  No technician
>> >can explain what's wrong.  And this is not the only example of why a
>> >machine made up of generic parts is not the best idea in the world.
>>
>>     Obviously the people in your office are very inexperienced and
>> lack any basic trouble-shooting skills. If the card and computer
>> have been tested and verified as working, then it is a simple matter
>> of something being misconfigured. If your interested in getting the
>> sound card working, mail me and I can probably help you out.
>
>What the computer level troubleshooting experience is in my particular
>office is not your concern (or business for that matter).

    If it is none of my business, then why did you bring it up as an
example? You cannot make a strong case if you cite examples for your
argument and then tell me they are closed for discussion when I start
questioning them.

>However, we were told at an official repair facility by two different
>supposedly competent professionals who do nothing but repair components
>and systems *all day long* that there was nothing wrong--and they
>checked the configuration, etc. as well, not just the components themselves.

    Gosh, that is really competent professionals. "There is nothing wrong
with your hardware, except that it doesn't work". :) Incidentally, I find
support technicians these days to be pretty clueless (no insult to anyone
out there who is one). My brother's MAG video monitor was not functioning
and knew more about the problem then the people repairing it, he actually
had to explain what was wrong and guide them through technical manuals
over the phone! I've had the same experience anytime something of mine
electrical has gone in for repair, whether my computers, TV or VCR (and
I've had all those things in recently and could tell you all sorts of
interesting stories).

    Remember, just because someone has the title "technician" does not 
make them all-knowing gods of knowledge and understanding. Your argument 
here is that because these so-called experts couldn't get the card working
in your office computer means a large number of sound cards out there
will not work in the majority IBMs, right? Weak argument...

>>     I guess you would rather be stuck with whatever sound capabilities
>> Apple provided your computer with (in most cases just a simple DAC)
>> rather than wavetable synthesis boards you can purchase for the PC.
>
>Sounds that eminate from PCs have not impressed me at all, regardless of
>whatever boards you can put in them or whatever speakers are added.

    Tell me, what sound cards have you heard in a PC? This statement
is probably the most misinformed thing you have said to date. I am
quite sure you have not heard anything beyond an FM-synthesis card
and are now making a blanket statement about _all_ forms of sound
PC's are capable of doing with cards based on it.

    FYI: PC are light years ahead of what the Macintosh is capable
of in terms of sound. We're no longer in 1984. In fact even the
Apple IIgs you own has something your Macintosh lacks -- a music
synthesizer chip. IBM PC's use hardware based synthesizers, many
times more advanced than even the Ensoniq chip in the IIgs. All
your Macintosh has is a 16-bit DAC (Digital to Analog Converter).
In essence, it is like a tape recorder, it plays back real-world
sounds. You can use it to emulate a hardware synthesizer through
software mixing, but this does not sound anywhere as good as the
real thing (you don't even need a good ear to tell). Furthermore,
emulating a hardware synthesizer requires a _huge_ amount of raw
speed and eats lots of CPU time in the process.

    There is much more a computer can do in terms of music than
just play back audio from a compact disc or playing fuzzy, tinny
and synthesized sounding MOD files. Ever hear a MIDI files played
through a Roland SCC-1, Yahama XG, AudioTrix Pro or even a low-end
Gravis UltraSound or SoundBlaster AWE-32? If I put that music on
an audio casette or CD, you would probably have difficulty telling
it apart from a live musical recording. I'm dead serious.

>In addition, for PCs, multimedia was an afterthought at best and not as
>integrated as on the Macintosh.

    Once again you are speaking out of ignorance or outdated facts.
I find it funny Macintosh users can say this when I can play a full
screen AVI/MPEG or QuickTime movie (with no obstructions or visable
window, at a full frame-rate and with stereo audio) on a lowly 486,
yet a PowerMacintosh (one over 100 MHz) cannot deal with this.

    Multimedia is also considered music, right? Why is it the PC has
hardware music synthesizers as standard, yet the Macintosh has just
a simple DAC and has to lose CPU time emulating this? (and not with
anywhere near the same quality too). Want to talk about animation?
Most Macintosh systems are slower moving graphics around, and I
consider animation a strong part of multimedia (I've used enough
68K, low and mid-range PPC Macs to see how they cope with moving
pixels around. Just look at the type of games for the Mac compared
with PC as a perfect example). Granted I haven't played with the 
very latest PPC Macs, but something is wrong when a low 386/486 
out performs a PowerMacintosh for moving pixels around).

>>> And comparing finding the SuperDrive for a IIgs is hardly a worthy
>>> comparison.  Unlike the PC 5.25, there were very few made, judging by
>>> the posts I've read on this group by others.
>
>>     Correction, several million were made. Every Macintosh shipped
>> from 1988 until sometime in 1993 had a Sony SuperDrive mechanism
>> installed inside the case. The reason it was difficult finding one
>> is you have to find someone with a dead Macintosh who can spare it
>> (or a rare case where you'd have two internal SuperDrives in a Mac
>> SE or II and they now only require one drive). Spares were also
>> made by Apple as dealer replacements of course. What is less common
>> are external SuperDrives, though they were simply the same mechanism
>> installed in a plastic case.
>
>I seem to remember a post by David Empson (I believe) that mentioned how
>hard the *cards* were to get for a Superdrive.  I never said the
>Superdrive itself was rare, only the card that the gs needs for it.

    He was referring to the Apple II 3.5 Disk Controller Card that was
manufactured in late 1991 through to 1993. Yes, they are quite rare to
find because they were made for such a short period (also considering
the high cost of the card plus floppy drive, few people rushed out to
purchase them). I have one in my Apple IIgs, but I was very lucky to
have found it (just like my IIc LCD screen or Apple II ProFile card).

    I put back your original quote above, it sounds like you were
talking about the SuperDrive itself since you made no mention of the
card. FYI: You can actually use a SuperDrive on an Apple IIgs without
the controller card, however it will operate just like an 800K Apple
3.5 floppy drive. I actually know a couple of people who use the
SuperDrive on their Apple IIgs without the controller, its a waste
sure, but it usable if that is all you have around and want to add
a second drive.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca