Re: Apple ///?

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

joreilly@smtp.dorsai.org (James OReilly) wrote:
>
>Does anyone know who is the author, earlier in this thread, of the article
>on the histories and descriptions of different platforms and on what the
>IIgs might have been.  His name may have been Scott. 
> -- 
>My ISP has just done a major hatchet job on csa2 and not much remains of 
>what was here.

Yes, that's me.  Here's the article again.

(if your ISP does this again, check out http://www.dejanews.com/,
which archives almost all of the newsgroups)


>>>>>>>>>>>>>begin repost>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I find this Macintosh versus PC argument stupid, especially in this
newsgroup.  I have used many computers before, not only Macintosh,
PC, and GS, but also Amiga.  Reading this thread is like looking at
childish rants.  It is clear that BOTH the Macintosh and PC
following are blind to anything but their own platform.

Let me say this right off: the Macintosh and the PC are both fine
computers.  The GS is a nice hacker and creativity machine and the
Amiga had the potential to be a better multimedia computer than
either the Mac or PC.  But Mac and PC users still choose to not see
merits in any other computer, but insist on the absurd religious
"advocacy" of their own platform.  GS and Amiga users, in my
experience, are much more accepting of other computers.


The PC:
        The PC sucked at the beginning.  It had a crippled OS and
originally, the processor/OS combination had a 640K limit that
hindered further progress.  When it was introduced, it started as
a 64K computer, then a 128K one, but quickly 256K became standard.
PC users claim that IBM invented business computing, but in fact,
I remember looking at both Apple and IBM software back when IBM
was still doing the Charlie Chaplain commercials.  People do not
remember that the Apple II had more software than the PC up to
1987 or so.  Business software was invented on the Apple II.
The first wordprocessor, the first integrated software (AppleWorks),
and the first spreadsheet (VisiCalc) was invented on a II.
AppleWorks outsold Lotus 1-2-3.  Software for the Apple II series
matched the PC.  In answer to Lotus 1-2-3, the II had a clone,
VIP Professional (yes, VIP was light years better than VisiCalc).
What about SuperCalc 3?  The II had SuperCalc 3a.  You could plug
in a CP/M card and run WordStar or dBase II.  There was payroll
and accounting software like BusinessWorks.  WordPerfect was
available on both platforms, of course.  No, the Apple II had
a lot of business software, as well as educational and home
products.  Apple did push to II in the business market early
on, but there was resistance.  Businesses didn't trust computers.
The REAL reason IBM finally succeeded in invading the business
market was not because it was any better than the II, but because
they were IBM.  Remember, "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"
as the advertisements went.  The original PC sucked compared to
the IIe, but because IBM made it, businesses supported it.
Ironically, when IBM was building the PC, their offices had, you
guessed it, Apple II computers.
        But that's all in the past.  Mac people correctly note
that the PC originally had a bad architecture, but the money
generated by the legend of IBM and the hoards of clones has
helped Intel and Microsoft go on an R&D spree.  Today, PCs have
a pretty darn good (Win 95) GUI.  The software is very friendly
and the 32 bit pure ones can be multitasked pre-emtively.  The
processors are fast and things are pretty much plug and play.
Ok, Win 95 still has some problems, but face it - it is a fine
product.  As long as you give them enough memory and drive space,
today's PCs are great.  Apple II users often like PCs over Macs
because the slots are more open and standard.  With an Ensoniq
wavetable card, GS types almost feel like they're using what
could have been.  To many, a PC with lots of slots, a properly
arranged Win 95 desktop, and an Ensoniq wavetable card, is
almost what a new A2 could be.


The Macintosh:
        While I do not agree with Randy's trashing of the modern
PC, I also think Nate's attack on the Mac is unjustified.  Sure,
Apple (or rather, Jobs) was stupid to push a closed architecture:
one in which they later had to open up in a way that required the
Toolbox to be hacked up.  They took a Lisa OS that had pre-emtive
multitasking and crippled it, making it hard to add back today.
Because it originally had a closed architecture, Macs have had
SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES of slots, and only a few in each unit too.
What a mess.  Apple did not invent the GUI (neither did Microsoft),
but they did realize the vision the Xerox Palo Alto folks had.
        The Mac was ahead of its time in many ways, however.  It
was the first personal computer to push the GUI.  PC folks
resisted for a thousand years this innovation until Bill Gate's
came out with Win 3.x, a cheap rip-off that was terrible but
better than nothing.  PC users suddenly flocked to it.  Then Bill
Gates rolls out Win 95.  Win 95 is much more polished and pretty
darn good, but the way Bill Gates talked about it in the "MTV"
roll out was like he invented the GUI or something.  I would
still give Apple credit for having the best GUI.  The one button
mouse is more like a real "finger" pushing buttons on the GUI
than a two or three button mouse.
        The Mac was also the first personal computer to actively
standardize SCSI and the 3.5" floppy drive.  Sure, SCSI was
around before the Mac and Sony invented the 3.5" floppy, not
Apple, but it was Apple's Macintosh that pushed these to become
standards.  Today's Macintosh are powerful computers.  The
processors are, in fact, better than Intel's.  That's because
today's Macs use a revised architecture and basically emulate
the older hardware to run older software.  This processing power
means that they can also emulate Wintel machines and run their
software.  In this respect (but not hardware wise), Macs are
more flexible than PCs.
        My main problem with the Macintosh is not what it is.
It is what it is not.  Apple took the strategy of abandoning the
Apple II and building an incompatible Mac in order to force the
schools to buy new computers, thereby making money.  No excuse
about Mac LC w/IIe emulation here, people...that came seven years
after the fact, by which time they had went far in their strategy
of killing the successful II series.  Besides, the LC card was an
after thought and used the emulation chip designed to let the GS
run IIe software.
        Apple proved by introducing the GS that all the Mac's
innovations: 3.5" drive, Apple GUI, mouse, SCSI, etc., could be
implemented in combination with Apple II compatibility.  It also
gave a glimpse of how this "alternate Macintosh" could have sound
capabilities superior to even the multimedia Amiga.  A beefed up GS
with higher res, faster speed, and a blitter chip would have made
it an Amiga-Macintosh.  Its slots made it an Amiga-Macintosh-PC. And
II compatibility would have kept the user base happy.  But Apple
chose to discredit and kill off the GS by neglect, thereby forcing
the user base to migrate to the Mac.  Unfortunately for them, many
migrated to the PC instead.
        I actually like today's PowerMacs.  They are cool machines
and have the familiar Apple interface, making its applications
still superior to the PC versions, although the gap is closing
bacause Win 95 is pretty darn good.  Come on, Mac folks, Win 95's
interface is pretty nice.  I just wish Macs were more like the IIGS,
with easily accessable slots that you could build devices for and
a real synthesizer chip built in (not just a 16-bit sound beep chip
that you have to program a software synthesizer for...making sound
dependent on CPU and so vary among models and affected by the
non-pre-emtive MT OS).


The Amiga:
        This has got to be the ultimate "underground" machine.
When the Amiga was first released, it was the coolest, most
powerful machine around with one of the most advanced OS's.  It
had pre-emtive multitasking and used multiple processors with a
main 68000 CPU.  Graphics and sound were handled by independent
systems, freeing the CPU to do computation.  This meant that for
a given software, things were much faster than Macintosh.  The
graphics modes on the original Amiga were similar to those of the
GS, except that the graphics co-processor let it do motion graphics
that the GS can't.  It could also do an interlaced screen.
Imagine 3200 mode (4096 on the Amiga, because of interlace 400
scan lines) in motion!  The GS was much superior in sound, but the
Amiga's sound was in turn better than non-GS computers of its day.
Later peripherals for this machine made it a low cost video graphics
machine.  With a device called the "Video Toaster," you could
create broadcast quality raytraced graphics with it (the short
lived Video Toaster for the Mac was actually an entire Amiga with
a real Video Toaster shrunk onto a card).  The graphics for the
TV show Babylon 5, for example (at least the first season), were
done on Toaster equipped Amigas.  The downside of the Amiga is
its GUI: dog ugly and not as functional as Apple's or even Win 95's.
While cool in multimedia, the Amiga OS productivity apps are pretty
bad.  For word processing, AppleWorks GS with System 6.0.1 on a GS
is a breath of fresh air.
        Had Commodore survived and the world had not been
brainwashed by Mac and PC, the Amiga would have evolved into a
better multimedia PC than either of them.  That Video Toaster was
ahead of its time.  Sure, you could do those things with Macs and
PCs today, but if you could make broadcast quality graphics with
an Amiga back in the 68000 days, what would a modernized Amiga
be capable of if things had turned out differently?
        It is funny that today, Mac and PC users argue about who
invented multimedia when neither was good for it a decade ago.
They've forgot about the machine that was.


The Apple IIGS:

        The Apple IIGS was brilliant for its day.  It was
compatible with the IIe because of a chip that was an amazing
engineering feat - an entire Apple IIe shrunk onto a single die,
resulting in the Mega II IC.  This also allowed the computer to
be essentially a new machine, since the Mega II could take care
of the IIe modes.
        In terms of sound, the Apple IIGS was a first.  It was
the first computer with a real synthesizer chip built in.  Back
in 1986, the GS's Ensoniq 5503 was state of the art.  No other
computer had 32-oscillator sound.  Even when PCs started coming
out with crappy 4-voice FM synthesis SoundBlasters, the GS's
sound was superior.  In was not until about four years ago when
16-bit 32-oscillator wavetable cards, built around newer Ensoniq
DOCs, came out that PCs began getting modern versions of GS sound.
The GS cooked the Mac Plus, its contemporary, alive in this area.
The sound was even better than the multimedia Amiga 1000.  (Also
see my comments above about how the Apple II had lots of business
software also)
        The GS employed all the advances of the Mac: mouse, GUI,
Finder, Toolbox, 3.5" disk drive, high speed serial ports.  It
also employed some innovations that were only later added to Macs.
The GS was the first Apple computer with ADB (before any Mac had
it!), the first Apple computer that could do *DMA* SCSI (the
Apple HS SCSI came out before any Mac had a DMA capable SCSI port),
the first and only Apple computer with a synthesizer chip, the first
Apple computer that could address 8MB of RAM and 8MB of ROM (both
the GS and Mac had 24-bit memory addressing, but Jobs had the
Mac's memory usage crippled...Mac engineers barely squeezed 4MB of
possible RAM space into the Mac Plus behind his back), the first
Apple computer with a color Finder, and the last Apple computer
with lots of *fully documented and user interface friendly* slots.
        Unfortunately, the GS's processor used a different clocking
scheme than Intel and Motorolla chips.  Thus, the original CPU ran
at 2.8MHz.  Benchmarks (originating on an Amiga, but compiled for
GS, IBM PC/AT, and Mac Plus) clearly show that the original GS
ran at about the same speed as the PC/AT, Amiga 500, and Mac Plus
and real world subjective (eg. word processing, etc.) tasks proves
it.  But because of Apple's indifference to the machine and its
failure propagate this fact, people took MHz at face value.
        During its first year, when Apple advertised it, the GS
outsold the entire Mac line.  But soon, the Apple brass wanted
to push its plan to make the schools abandon the older IIs for
new computers.  The GS provided a less lucrative upgrade and thus
got in the way.  So, Apple pulled advertising and let the GS
sell itself.  The old mistake of taking MHz to compare speed
between computers reappeard.  Without advertising to counter these
fallacies, and faced with massive advertising of the Mac, the
tide began to turn and Mac sales increased.  Increadibly, the
Apple II survived until 1992.  Still, when Apple canceled the new
"Mark Twain" Apple IIGS, they effectively killed the GS.  The
GS had more potential than the Mac Plus...it started out with
better hardware, but because Apple pushed the Mac, it evolved into
today's PowerMac.  Imagine if Apple had pushed the superior GS.
Today's "PowerGS" would most certainly be superior to the PowerMac.
        The idea that the GS could have evolved into a modern
computer superior to the Mac is logical.  The GS started out better
than the Mac Plus.  If Apple pushed it instead of the Mac, the
loyal IIe/IIc user base would have stayed instead of migrating to
the PC.  Funds would have fueled R&D at Western Design Center for
faster, 32-bit CPUs based on the 65C816 (like bucks allowed Intel
to transform the 8-bit 8080 into a Pentium) and probably locked
Apple and Ensoniq together into a deal so that PCs would have a
harder time getting synthesizer chips from the company while
GSs and their compatibles would dominate the area.  An upgrade
of the Video Overlay Card to include processing capabilities as
well as genlock would allow it to compete against the Amiga.
        The best measure of what the GS could have been is what
it was and is.  The GS is still useful today.  GS/OS is the
friendliest OS I've ever used, Mac OS, Amiga OS, and Win 95
included.  I have access to a '486, but do all my word processing
on the Zipped GS with AWGS and Pointless with a printer that
is shared with the PC.  The output is the same, after all, and
the GS "feels" so much nicer.  Now, having used the other
computers of the GS's day: Amiga, Mac Plus, IBM PC/AT, I can
say that if it were between any of these and that '486 with
Win 95, I'd use the '486.  The Mac Plus and PC/AT are USELESS
today.  The Amiga is still nice, but the interface always bothered
me when using productivity applications.  But the GS...for word
processing, it is still nicer to me than the '486 with Win 95.


Conclusion:

1) Today's Macs are very nice.
2) Today's PCs with Win 95 are very nice.
3) Yesterday's GS and Amiga were better than yesterday's Mac Plus
        and IBM PC/AT.
4) The Amiga revolutionized desktop video, but Mac and PC have
        rewritten history.
5) PC did not invent business computing, Apple II had all the
        early software.
6) A modernized GS and an alive Commodore would make Macs and PCs
        look bad.
7) The GS is still useful, as is the Amiga, but the Mac Plus and
        PC/AT are now pretty much useless.
8) This is an Apple II newsgroup, so I am supposed to say good
        things about the Apple II/IIGS.  :)  Mac and PC users
        should sing about their computers elsewhere!

-Scott G.