Re: A Tale of Two Apples

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

B.J. Major wrote,
in response to my reply:
>>Even today, some Mac fans and GS haters still _deliberately_
>>keep the GS equipped with only 1MB and a 3.5" and a 5.25" floppy
>>drive.  They will never (or rather, they don't want to) see what
>>the GS could really do.  They prefer to think that their Mac
>>Plus ancestor was so great and powerful when the real GS was
>>superior.
>>
>>-Scott G.
>
>"GS haters"; Scott, did it EVER occur to you that Mac people like
>myself who also own GSs (and other Apple II's) wouldn't own them in
>the *first* place if they "hated" them?  I mean, what would be the
>point???  We simply would not waste our time with them if we hated
>them.  C'mon, make some sense here.

I did not mean to imply that _you_ were a GS hater.  :)

I'm talking about the Mac folks who regularly post nonsense in our
newsgroup about the GS not being worth giving away and all that
trash.

However, I do think that someone who got their GS at a Goodwill
store for pennies and has its base CPU, no hard disk, and no
extra memory _and_ does not run any modern GS software cannot truly
understand how GS users who have used and upgraded their computers
since the '80s feel.  We're not using our GS machines as fast IIe's,
B.J.  We prefer to use native software and the thought of using
only 8-bit software (because one does not equip the GS with
more than 256K) is to us like owning a PowerMac and only using
black and white Mac 128 software is to a Mac user!

Can you use TrueType fonts under ProDOS 8?  Can you print at 600dpi
or use Postscript from _every_ program under ProDOS 8?  Can you
FAX from ProDOS 8?  Can you make TCP/IP connections or web browse
from ProDOS 8?  Can you format and use Macintosh Zip drives, hard
drives, and floppies under ProDOS 8?  All these tasks and more
require a properly equipped GS!  Not a 256K one.  Can you decode
multiple large scans (8.5"x11") under ProDOS 8?  Now I know that
to some, you may wonder why not just use a Mac?  If that's your
solution, then fine.  But then don't go around telling _us_ that
256K is enough to run GS software.  Many of us still use the GS as
our primary computer, you know, and we _use_ the machine for the
above tasks (that an emulated ProDOS 8 IIe can't do).

Look, and I hope you are still reading this, I can run black
and white Mac software (up to System 6) on my little 25MHz
PC using the Executor Macintosh emulator.  How would you like
it if after using Executor, I shake my head and say: gee,
the Mac is cute, but I need my Intel box to do "serious"
computing.  Then you tell me: come on, Scott, that's old System
software running on an emulator.  Real Macs are much more usable
and have much more memory and so on.  What if I end up replying:
Macs ARE TOO _very_ usable with little memory and a black and
white screen and that's all I need to judge it.  No wonder
the Great Wintel machine beat out the cute but harmless Little
Mac.  How would you feel?

>And your other logic about a hybrid 8/16 bit CPU (which *is* what
>is in the GS, it's not a full 16 bit processor no matter what
>anyone says) being superior over a 68000 makes no sense.  We're
>talking about two different machines here.  They can't be compared
>that way because they are not alike in their CPU structure.

Hmm.  Did you know that the 65C816 and the 68000 are related?  Not
instruction wise anymore, but in terms of production history.  Both
started out life as the 8-bit 6800 from Motorolla.  Then part of
the design group, one of which was William Mensh, broke away and
started a company called MOS technology.  They released a similar
8-bit chip, the 6502.  The 6800 evolved into a 16 bit variant, and
then a 32 bit variant with a 16 bit data bus (68K).  The 6502
evolved into the 65C02 when Mensh started his own company, Western
Design Center, and finally the 65C816, a 16 bit processor with an
8 bit data bus.  If WDC ever has enough support, this design can be
refined, just as the 68K was.  Both started out as the same
processor.  Randy says that Bill Mensh said the 65C832 was to
be pin compatible with the '816.  What he did not say was that
WDC was also thinking of a separate chip, the '083(?) which
would not be pin compatible and have a 32bit data bus.  Both chips
would be _instruction_ compatible, of course.

Notice I never said that GS CPU is not a 16 bit CPU with an 8 bit
data bus?  The 68000 is a 32 bit CPU with a 16 bit data bus.  Both
processors have a 24 bit address (which means both can access 16MB
without bank switching.)  However, the 65C816 can finish most of
its instructions in a single cycle while the 68000 requires several
(in effect, the 65C816 is more "efficient.")  And that is why a
stock GS can run a GUI as well as a Mac Plus and a 13.75MHz one
beats out a 16MHz Mac LC.

However, what I was saying was not that the GS CPU was superior to
the Mac Plus CPU per se.  I was saying that the GS, _as a system_
is superior to the Mac Plus _as a system_.  It just had more
features.  Sound, color, addressable memory of 16MB using RamKeeper
-8 as system, 8 as storage- (the Mac Plus could only access 4MB of
RAM, despite its processor being able to handle more), up to 3200
colors at once with CPU assist., 256 without, greater horizontal
resolution, expansion slots, etc.

-Scott G.