Re: Solutions in Modernizing GS (Re: Problems in "Modernizing" a //gs)

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

B.J. Major wrote,
in response to my reply:
>>bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major) wrote:
>>>Scott G.:  I will forward these comments onto Lewin Edwards.  I'm sure
>>>he'll have much to say about them as he himself has programmed *many*
>>>Amiga items and still uses that platform himself on occasion.
>>
>>I read his reply and noticed he did not answer most of the points
>>in the post (see my reply to it).
>>
>>Why is it that both you and he seem to think that the Mac is the
>>best computer in the world and rag on everything else, PC, GS, or
>>Amiga?  His previous posts were all attacks on the PC and the GS
>>and his current reply is an attack on the Amiga.
>
>Our personal preferences are simply that:  our personal preferences. No
>one asked you to adopt them as YOUR personal preferences.  However, to
>say that either he or I "raggs" on the IIgs is simply ludicrous because
>Lewin & I both own gs machines (and he owns a PC and Amigas as
>well....)

I do not think you guys hate the GS.  I just think you two have a
misconception of what it truly was capable of and what it could
have evolved into had Apple given it half a chance.  I've upgraded
my GS just about as far as I can.  I have no illusions that without
Apple's support, the GS can ride into the future forever.  My point
was that, and I'm clearly keeping to the subject now, had Apple
kept developing the GS at its high point, we'd have a PowerGS today
and Apple would be in better financial straits and still be
"Microsoft free."  Instead, Apple crippled the GS to make it look
bad.  Also, a fully expanded GS matches about the Mac LC class of
computers.  However, I do not think you or Lewin seem to think the
GS is even that good, which is plain wrong considering what an
expanded GS can do.  (Note: I'm not assuming, just saying what you
two _seem_ to be saying and doing.)

>What has become crystal clear to both Lewin and myself, however, is the
>fact that you guys *cannot* stick to the subject at hand--which
>originally was the modernizing of the IIgs.  Sooner or later, it quickly
>turns into an ACI bashing fest.

That's because ACI was wrong to kill the GS.  I posted a quote
from Steve Wozniak in which he says that he thought so too.
He's the co-founder of ACI, you know.  Jobs was not the only ACI
founder.  Woz was an engineer and a co-founder.  He knew what
was technically feasable in upgrading the GS and he knew of ACI's
reasons for destroying it (to shore up the Mac) and he did not
agree.  Look through your 1988 InCiders for the interview if
you don't believe me.

>> (P.S. I happen to think that Umax [but not Apple] MacOS machines
>> are better engineered than most PC clones, but I don't hold much
>> hope for them.  They make superior machines to Apple and Apple
>> won't stand for that for long.  While Rapsody is a much needed
>> boost [heck, it is basically NeXT with a new face and the same
>> microkernal, Mach; that's why I was saying NeXT does wonders for
>> an Intel machine], the first step is to admit your shortcomings.
>> MacOS, as it currently is [not Rhapsody] has problems.  Why can't
>> Mac users admit that?  Don't believe me that I admire Umax clones?
>> Ask Mitchell: I had a big debate with him on csa2 just a few
>> weeks ago defending the Umax line against PC criticism.)
>
>I read this group on a daily basis and saw no such "debate" covering
>this subject.

How could you miss it?  It was in the "What do you do with an
Apple //" thread.  Look up my last several posts in that
thread at http://www.dejanews.com/ to see them.


>Yes, the MacOS does have shortcomings and no Mac user on
>this Apple II group would even say such a thing as "the MacOS is
>perfect".  But with each System software release and update it's getting
>better and better.  And, with the exception of the BeOS, it's still my
>choice over the competition.

I agree.  Running on a Umax or PowerComputing machine, it is the
superior system.  Running on an Apple system is a different story.
I'm just saying that had Apple developed the GS, it would even
have been better.  Also, the clones are the driving force behind
making the MacOS high end superior to the PC high end (the low and
mid markets are areas in which the PC is superior because they
can ship at low cost, high power ratios).  Now Apple is killing
the clones.  Just because one likes the MacOS platform over the
Windows platform does not mean one has to agree with the actions
of Apple.

>Personally, I'm still looking forward to Rhapsody because it will
>offer specific features we don't currently have.

Me too.  Remember that I've used NeXT.  It is my favorite OS on
the Intel machines and it does have true pre-emtive multitasking,
plus the advantages of the Apple Interface.  Rhapsody is simply
going to be NeXT with a true Apple Interface (but the same Mach
microkernal) and the ability to run Mac software on PowerMacs and
clones.  I'm waiting eagerly for Rhapsody Intel to come out,
as it is the next evolution of NeXT.  :)  Being able to run Win
programs under its superior interface is also nice.  Too bad,
if it were not for Apple's boneheaded decision to cripple
Rhapsody Intel from running MacOS software, I'd probably buy
some Mac software for the Intel box myself (esp. Bernie II -
Henrik, how about writing us a PC version?  XGS doesn't cut it!
I want to be able to stick a 1.44MB MFM high density GS floppy
into the PC and have Bernie II for PC read it.)

>--
>--bj    Auto reply will not work; please remove "black" to reply.
>Proud owner/user of Apple Computers since 1984.
>"None of my computers do Windows."

I make use of the Win 95 interface because I have to.  PCs have
always been and continue to be _much_ cheaper than the equivalently
equipped Macs because of cloning.  Umax price to performance ratio
was getting pretty good though, and it was superior to the PC and
answers just about every criticism to the hardware (parallel ports,
PS/2 mice and keyboard, PCI slots, drive bays for adding new drives,
even PC software under things like Virtual PC - with the ability
for said programs to run at Pentium speeds and address the PCI
slots), but I fear now Umax has to answer to Apple's "rules" or go
the way of Power Computing.  Thus, I'm eagerly awaiting Rhapsody
Intel.

Again, I like Umax line of MacOS machines _better_ than PCs.
However, PCs are just better deals in terms of performance/price
ratio.  My _only_ problem with you and Lewin is that you two just
don't seem to get that when the GS of the 80's was compared to
the Mac Plus, the GS was superior to the Mac of its day.  Apple
had to cripple it by giving it 256K (yes, you know it shipped
with this, my point is that it was not even enough to load its
own ROM tools and make use of them - that's crippling) to keep
this superior computer from competing against the Mac.  Apple
alienated its customers and today it is paying the price.  I like
Umax better than PC, but I would have liked PowerGS better than
any of them.

-Scott G.