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.