Re: Former AppleII user...

[sb_spec@pavo.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article chance@liberty.com (Chance) writes...
>
[...]
>However, as my duties expanded, I found that I spent more time waiting
>for my AppleIIgs to reformat a page or even print.  As a result, I
>invested in an accelerator card and additional memory. Unfortunately,
>this did no improve my situation much.

        No hardrive? One of the most vital additions to upgrading a system
is adding a high-speed hardrive. I'm also curious as to just how much
additional memory you added and brand/speed of accelerator card you bought.
        Using the lastest System Software and a _decent_ layout program will
certainly help improve on speed, and I wonder if your not one of those people
who use System 3 (ProDOS-16) with some mediocre, lethargic program like Medley
or AppleWorks GS for page-layout! :/

>Then one day, I visited a friends' house. This friend had a 80486
>running at 50 Mhz. He was using PageMaker and was able to reformat a
>page or print almost instantaneously. Naturally, I investigated and
>found that hard drives, memory, etc. were dirt cheap. For example, I
>purchased a 340MB hard drive for $385. I just peeked in an old InciderA+
>and found a 200MB hard drive for $749.95. I could purchase 680MB worth
>of disk space for that price!

        Um, check current prices again, this is totally inaccurate and
outdated information! You can buy an external 240mb SCSI hardrive, along
with sturdy case, powersupply and fan for around $299 US (brand new) from
most vendors. Purchasing additional memory for a IIgs has also become quite
affordable over recent months -- for only $99+ US, one can buy a 4 megabyte
RAM expansion card from Sequential Systems (this includes 4megs installed).

>I then concluded that the AppleIIgs was truly dead. I sold it, for a
>huge loss I might add, and purchased a 80486 66Mhz computer. Since then,
>I have increased my work load and my productivity. There are those that
>claim that the AppleIIgs runs just as fast as any 80486 computer. That
>is absoluetly ludicrous and false. There is no comparision. Even
>Micrsoft Windows runs faster on my 80486 machine than my accelerated
>AppleIIgs!

        Ha! You sound just like my younger (and ignorant) brother. He recently
tossed aside his Apple IIgs and bought a souped up 486dx-33 clone (with
1.2mb and 1.44mb drives, 14" color display with 1meg SVGA card, 8 megs RAM,
Pro AudioSpectrum-16 sound card, mouse, and CR-ROM drive). I've had a chance
to sit down and really get a feel for this system, and actually found it pale
in comparision to my own stock (soon-to-be-upgraded) ROM 3 Apple IIgs. First
off, MicroSoft Windows 3.1 is probably the *poorest* written piece of software
I've yet seen on any machine. It's slow, backwards, confusing and utterly
useless for much else than looking "cute". I can't say much for MS-DOS 6
either, and even with my brother's current setup of _8 megabytes_ RAM, he's
constantly running into 'insuffient memory' errors due to it's 640k barrier.
Of course, it's no new news what most people think of DOS and Windows... ;-)
Your clearly speaking out of pure ignorance if you feel there's even a slight
comparison between current IIgs System Software 6.0.1 (GS/OS and Finder) and
MicroSoft's Windows 3.1!
        I could go on of course...I find the fact, that virtually all IBM
games use MCGA as a graphical standard, quite repulsive when compared to
the IIgs! (Note: MCGA/VGA 320x200x256 mode uses large "blocky" pixels,
regardless of your monitor's dot-pitch or CRT wide/length). The GS's
Super-hi-res 320x200x256 color mode (even with a 16 colors per/scanline limit)
by far surpasses what I've seen with MCGA/VGA -- not to mention the analog
RGB display of 12" Sony Trinitron display (AppleColor RGB) gives much
richer and sharper color, than what I've seen with most VGA display monitors.
        Shall I talk about sound? The standard among IBM is still FM-synthesis,
where as the IIGS uses an Ensoniq 5503 chip for wavetable synthesis. MCGA
graphics combined with the ear-filling (not!) sound of FM-synthesis, makes
me think my brother has downgraded in terms of graphics and sound. Yes, true
Gravis offers an add-on board (Gravis UltraSound) for simular wavetable sound,
and it's possible to display as high as 24-bit color graphics with various
other cards.... Yet tell me this: How much software supports, or is even
capable of, supporting this add-on hardware?? At last count there was only
three (yes, 3!) programs that used the Gravis wavetable card, and a small
handful of inaffordable programs that support 16/24-bit color. My brother's
machine apparently has the ability to display > 8-bit color, but I've yet
to see anything support it. I believe his CD-ROM copy of Corel-Draw 3.0 may
support some of his extended graphic modes, but he still hasn't figured
out how to install it or use a third of it's features yet (aren't Windows
GUI applications wonderful? ;-)

>I'm sure there will be replies calling me even more names, saying that I
>"jumped on the bandwagon", that I'm a "traitor", etc. The bottom line
>here is that I could no longer justify spending a pile of money on
>something that I could get elsewhere for less. And the less expensive
>hardware outperforms the more expensive!!!

        I'd also like to make it clear I'm not saying the Apple IIgs is
the end-all solution to everything, and that it's a "perfect machine" (based
on what I said above). It has many limitations that need addressing which
Apple Computer negelected to do (ie - speed, improved resolution, built-in
items like memory, SCSI port, stereo-out, etc), but with upgrading, is
a *VERY* capable system for the 1990s! In some ways, it even suprasses
what I've seen on so-called state-of-the-art IBMs and Macintoshes.
        The thing is, I'm getting rather tired of hearing from people like
you, who claim the IIGS is trash, and state that their IBM/Macs are perfect
and wonderful machines (and that we should all follow). I think it's important
that IIgs users be aware that much of the hype about PCs (and Macs) isn't all
that it seems, and should carefully investigate such systems before rushing
out to dump their machines for a PC clone. You may just be dissapointed
in the end.....

>Unfortunately, I am still very close to the AppleII community and would
>damage some by identifying myself here. Therefore, I shall remain
>anonymous.

        Oh, really? Someone who writes how horrible and useless the IIgs is,
than implies that we should follow and buy "better" PC clones, doesn't seem to
portray that message to me... :/ Sorry if my tone seems like flaming, but I
don't like to see misinformation spread about the IIgs (especially when
comparing it with other machines!).


Mitchell Spector
spector@vax2.concordia.ca
sb_spec@pavo.concordia.ca