Re: What do you do with an Apple //?

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote,
in response to my reply:
>>By the way, after getting the chance
>>to use a PowerPC based MacOS clone, I have to say that the engineering
>>is superior to that of PC clones.  Umax has an excellent line of MacOS
>>clones that have blazing fast PowerPC processors, PCI slots that you
>>can plug in standard cards to, and even a parallel port that accepts
>>standard PC parallel port peripherals.  And Mitch, you gotta see it
>>run Virtual PC (an emulated Pentium MMX processor).  Incredible
>>performance and, after you load Windows 95 into it, the Umax can do
>>anything PC clones can.  You can even plug in your PCI sound card and
>>use it with PC software under Virtual PC.  Some models even have both
>>IDE and SCSI built in.
>
>    The ironic bit about this is, all your driving interest and
>excitement in this machine stem from the fact it is PC compatible.
>As for myself though, I would see the "Macintosh" side as extra
>baggage that is unneccessarily stuck to a PC clone. I rather pay
>less and just get the real thing (and if I really wanted/needed
>to run Macintosh software, I would use a software emulator).
>Furthermore, I would be able to continually upgrade without
>having to depend on a single clone maker (the Mac clone market
>is getting a little too small for comfort with recent events).

Actually, no.  Let me explain.  This machine is _both_ Mac and PC
compatible, but its PowerPC processor is so fast that it can pretend
to be either a Mac (68K CPU) or PC (Pentium MMX) at a speed equivalent
to the real thing.  That's neat.  Why?  Because anything _native_ to
this CPU will beat out any '586 type CPU's out there.

No Macintosh software emulator for the x86 type CPU can currently
pretend to be the fastest class of Mac.  Not so with the PowerPC,
which can do both a fast Mac and a fast PC.  What really blows
your mind is seeing it run native software.  Windows NT, for example,
exists in a PowerPC native version.  The performance is awesome.

Intel's CPU architecture is nearing the limit of CISC type performance.
The PowerPC processor is obviously superior.  You have to remember
that clones such as this Umax started off with a PowerPC Mac platform
and then proceeded to address its shortcomings, combining the power
of a superior CPU with the best of what many PC clones offer.


>    The reason for my dislike of the Mac has little to do with who
>manufactures it (certainly, I do dislike Apple Computer, I make no
>secret about that, but if they made a solid product that interested
>me, I would probably buy it. Unfortunately, it's been almost exactly
>11 years since they've made anything that interests me). Any of the
>reservations I have about the machine come from limitation in its
>hardware and software that makes it what it is. I won't go further
>than that since I don't want to start another debate. :)

The current Macintosh OS is certainly problematic in some ways.
However, the hardware is clearly superior to PC clones in the area
of the CPU.  Apple's design does have limitations, but that's where
clones such as Umax beat out Apple.  The Umax puts what's missing
back in.  For example, the Umax has a PC compatible parallel port,
a PS/2 keyboard and PC mouse port as well as dual platform PCI slots
and an IDE as well as an SCSI controller and you can even install
standard PC floppy drives in it (the built in one is an Apple type,
of course, to read the 800K format).

>>Well, of course on a _fast_ (compared to a 486/25) system like
>>yours, PC software is going to look good.  No one is debating that.
>
>    My Am5x86-133 is not really that fast, unless we compare it
>directly with your laptop (which does not equal the average PC
>system out there, which was originally my point). Compared to
>most systems out there, my PC is fairly slow actually.

Now wait a minute.  AMD K5-166 systems go for around $1K the last
time I looked.  $1K with monitor is a lot of money and I'd suspect
that many buyers will look at your system as the standard.  Not
everyone has the money to buy a Pentium II.

_If_ you are going to spend more an get a Pentium II based IBM
Aptiva class PC, for example, you might as well get a Umax for less
and get a more powerful (PowerPC) RISC processor to boot.

>>AppleWorks GS hardly ever crashes on me, btw.
>
>    Well I've used AppleWorks GS on three completely different
>machines, it has froze up consistantly on all three systems
>when using it's word-processor module. The program has not been
>touched since 1989, and even back then it was badly in need of
>an update. I had a renewed interest in AWGS when SQC promised
>to do a major rewrite, but when that fell through so did all
>my hope for that piece of software.
>
>Mitchell Spector
>spec@vax2.concordia.ca

Now that is strange.  AWGS 1.1 used to crash on me, but after using
it for a few months, it stabilized and has stayed stable for years.
I suspect it may conflict with some addons (NDAs, INITs, etc.) and
so is not stable on some systems.  I've also applied several patches
to the program, but I no longer remember what they were.  :)

-Scott G.