Re: Apple II obsolete???

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

hall@execpc.com (R.J.) wrote:
>>I disagree with your definition of obsolete, then.  I use both a '486
>>PC (25MHz) and an Apple IIGS regularly and equally.  For word processing,
>>I use the GS almost exclusively because at 13.75MHz, the GS runs its
>>word processing and page layout software faster than the '486 runs its.
>>For graphics processing and Netscape, the '486 is very useful.
>>
>>But then again, based on your definition, a '486 is obsolete too, right?
>>Come on, what is something that's obsolete?  A horse and buggy is an
>>obsolete form of transportation because, in fact, it can't do most of the
>>things that a car can.  However, would you consider a classic Mustang as
>>an obsolete transport?  No, because you know that it can be driven around
>>just like the latest Taurus.
>>
>>Back to computers, one a may consider the Timex Sinclair obsolete
>>because you can't even run a word processor on it.  However, when
>>a GS not only runs word processors, but run them well and generate
>>printout with TrueType fonts that is as sharp as you'd get from any
>>newfangled Mac or PC, how can it be obsolete?  Word processing and
>>page layout together still define the majority of the tasks that
>>people use their computers for.
>>
>
>Whoa.. take a break here... If yer 486sx is running a word processor
>slower than a //gs, you have something set seriously wrong.. I use
>486's all day at work and believe me its MUCH better than my //gs..
>faster, and much more powerful word processing programs..  If it seems
>to upgrade the screen slower its probably because your running it in a
>resolution thats 2-3 times greater than the //gs and perhaps hundreds
>of times the color depth.. The reason I bought my first PC was because
>of just how terrible the word processing was.. (I'm talking GUI word
>processing, not text based.)  If I ever boot up AWGS I am stunned with
>how poor the True Type fonts look compared to my PC, but its obvious
>why they look so bad - The GS is OLDER..

That's because you have a faster '486 and a slower GS, not to mention
a dot matrix printer on the GS and a laser printer on the '486,
correct?

Read what I wrote.  I have a 25MHz '486 running Windows 95 and
Microsoft Works.  My GS is running at 13.75MHz (hint: this is much
faster than the standard GS) running AppleWorks GS.  I have a high
resolution printer that is connected to both computers, selectable
from either by a rotary switch box.  I am dead serious when I say
that word processing on this particular GS is much faster than this
particular '486.  Printout with the same TrueType fonts is exactly
the same (excellent) from both computers.  Same thing with page
layout, with the '486 stuck in syrup.

If your '486 was running at 100MHz and your GS was slower than the
one I use, then I can understand your disbelief.  This is not my
case, however.  My '486 screen is running in 16 grayscale with
640x400, btw, because that's all it has.


>I don't use my GS very often anymore, its WAS a great computer for its
>time.. but I am getting a little tired of reading this newsgroup and
>every other post saying how bad windows is and how great the //gs is..
>Lets take a reality break here.. to compare machines running Windows
>95 today to a //gs and say the //gs is better is CRAZY.. Win 95 is so
>much better than GSOS it isn't even funny.. now don't get me wrong, of
>course I realize that GSOS is ancient compared to Win 95, and Win 95
>could be much better than it is.. But to say a //gs can do things
>better than a 486 running Windows is stupid.. Yeah I know how I am
>gonna get 6 trillion flames now for saying that but its just true.. To
>compare an OS written in 1995 to one started in 1987 or so is unfair I
>know but thats just the facts..

Windows '95 is a pretty good OS.  I have it and a couple of other
OS's installed in the PC.  However, I still prefer the interface of
GS/OS and the fact that it is one of the nicest, most intuitive OS's
I've ever used.


>There are just too many technological aspects the GS lacks in to make
>it better than more modern computers.. I remember when I first had my
>//gs.. I swore by the line that my computer was just as good as those
>new 386's out.. then 486's came out, and gosh darnit my system was
>still just as good as them.. I was living in a fantasy world, I had no
>idea how fast these computers were until I actually got one.. there is
>no comparing a 486 to a GS.. even an SX 25.. I mean your video card is
>running AT LEAST 8 times the speed of the //gs, and perhaps even 25
>times the speed depending on the system, and thats not even taking
>into account all the acceleration done by the video card which the
>//gs doesn't have.. and even an extremely cheap video card does many
>times the resolution and  times the color depth as the //gs..

My '486 does not have slots.  It is an old laptop computer.

I use both it and the GS and think both are great machines.  However,
my particular GS runs word processors and page layout faster and
that's a fact.  The GS also has better sound (no slot to stick a
sound card in the PC).  The '486 is much better at graphics, though.


>Don't bother flaming, I neither care nor will respond, I am just
>stating my opinion.. for whats its worth.. (Probably nothing.)
>
>R.J.

This was not a flame.

-Scott G.