Go Fig

In article <[email protected] .net>,
Calif Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

> >>
> >>For PS, benchmarks show Macs faster, After Effects, the PC is getting
> >>much closer.
> >
> > Have you a pointer to the test results?
> > --
> >
> > Martin
> >
>
> Years ago, Macs were better processor wise as they used the Motorola 68K,
> which was much superior to the Intel Architecture. 23 bit addressing and no
> segmentation registers. Removed lots of overhead in the program for bigger
> than 64k size programs. The newer Intel running Native mode negates this
> benefit. The major problem for the Mac was the closed architecture. You
> had to buy cards or disk drives from Apple and there was not add on slots
> like in a PC for interface cards to other equipment.

No slots in a Mac... what are you talking about ?

jay
Wed Feb 07, 2007
mailto:[email protected]





> Plus internally the
> Mac was crap. Minimum power supply and no parity on internal busses. The
> Publishing world embraced Macs for the reason they were tuned to desktop
> publishing. Good programs and powerful processor. But for anything else
> they were worthless. You could not add a ROM emulator or any of the other
> add ons that every PC supported. Plus the added cost to deal with Apple.
> The disk drive was the same disk drive as everybody else used, but had added
> firmware to identify it as Apple and the Mac would then accept it for use.
> PC equivelent to a Mac is processing power will always be cheaper. All the
> competition from all the small factories in Asia drives the price down on a
> PC.
>
>

Deeply Filled Mortician

Let is be knownst that on 7 Feb 2007 00:11:57 -0800,
[email protected] writted:

>On 7 feb, 08:59, Deeply Filled Mortician
><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>> Let is be knownst that on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:02:00 +0100, Martin
>> <[email protected]> writted:
>
>> >Which is David and which is gRunge?
>> >http://www.apple.com/getamac/
>>
>> This marketing strategy for Macintosh is really pathetic.
>
>Sorry, Deep - you aren't an audio/video genius, so your opinion is
>worthless.

Did you read what I wrote?

(or what you wrote for that matter)
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

-Martin

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:12:04 GMT, "Gregory Morrow" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Martin wrote:
>
>> I notice the Independent no longer offers cut price holidays to exotic
>places
>> alongside articles blaming global warming on cheap flights.
>>
>
>A pity :-(

I assumed the advertiser went elsewhere.
--

Martin

Calif Bill

"Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:070220071140215804%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected] .net>,
> Calif Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >>For PS, benchmarks show Macs faster, After Effects, the PC is getting
>> >>much closer.
>> >
>> > Have you a pointer to the test results?
>> > --
>> >
>> > Martin
>> >
>>
>> Years ago, Macs were better processor wise as they used the Motorola 68K,
>> which was much superior to the Intel Architecture. 23 bit addressing and
>> no
>> segmentation registers. Removed lots of overhead in the program for
>> bigger
>> than 64k size programs. The newer Intel running Native mode negates this
>> benefit. The major problem for the Mac was the closed architecture. You
>> had to buy cards or disk drives from Apple and there was not add on slots
>> like in a PC for interface cards to other equipment.
>
> No slots in a Mac... what are you talking about ?
>
> jay
> Wed Feb 07, 2007
> mailto:[email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>> Plus internally the
>> Mac was crap. Minimum power supply and no parity on internal busses.
>> The
>> Publishing world embraced Macs for the reason they were tuned to desktop
>> publishing. Good programs and powerful processor. But for anything else
>> they were worthless. You could not add a ROM emulator or any of the
>> other
>> add ons that every PC supported. Plus the added cost to deal with Apple.
>> The disk drive was the same disk drive as everybody else used, but had
>> added
>> firmware to identify it as Apple and the Mac would then accept it for
>> use.
>> PC equivelent to a Mac is processing power will always be cheaper. All
>> the
>> competition from all the small factories in Asia drives the price down on
>> a
>> PC.
>>
>>

That was the problem! You could eventually buy a add on small card cage,
but there was no way to add an interface card for other devices. Apple
made it's original mark when Woz said that lots of people were putting
together S-100 Bus systems (at a few thousand $$) to run experiments. So
they took a design from a book and modified the design and added an
interface slot with a small operating system and a manual on how to
interface your board to the system. One of the first "open architecture"
systems. After Woz left and Job's came up with the Mac and made it a
closed architecture (with an user interface that was ripped off from Xerox
PARC). Xerox neglected to patent lots of stuff in the early days. The Mac
was great with the programs written for it and the user interface, but if
you wanted to add something else hardware wise you were SOL.

Deeply Filled Mortician

Let is be knownst that on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:19:19 -0800, Go Fig
<[email protected]> writted:

>Good Grief Norway, build your own iTunes... better yet how bout an OS
>or EVEN a media player... pathetic !!!!!!

Better yet, download the music illegally, and give some money direct
to the artists.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

-Hh

Calif Bill wrote:
> "Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > No slots in a Mac... what are you talking about ?
>
> That was the problem! You could eventually buy a add on small card cage,
> but there was no way to add an interface card for other devices.

(A) this is ancient history
(B) its also got a big spoonfull of bullshit topping.

The Apple ][ series had an internal bus, and component-level boards
were available for it (I had one).

When the Mac came out in 1984, yeah, it was an all-in-one so you had
to suffer for 2 years until external SCSI was added, but the ][ line
was still being produced at that point. An internal expansion slot
came back in January 1987 (Mac II), although I'm sure you'll complain
that it was the NuBus architecture. If you wanted PCI bus, its been
continuously available since 1995. Yes, more than a decade.


BTW, your "64k" bit was an MS-DOS problem, not Intel. It was fixed by
Microsoft in 1994...for Windows 3.1


> The Mac was great with the programs written for it and the user interface,
> but if you wanted to add something else hardware wise you were SOL.

If we choose to move forward a decade to join the 21st Century, Macs
today use the same industry-standard 3.5" interal SATA hard drives and
standard configurations of RAM you'll find in PC's...before that, they
used IDE's, which were also an industry standard. Yes, you'll have to
go back a half decade to even find SCSI internals...even though
they're still supported as externals. The internal bus on the Tower
is PCI (Express, if I recall correctly), which is another industry
standard. If you can't find a driver for some 3rd Party PCI card, go
ask the 3rd Party why they didn't write one. Keyboards and mice run
on USB, which is ...gosh... another Industry Standard. If you want to
add eSATA, that can be done too, although with Firewire (IEE1394 a &
b ...another standard), why you would want to is a bit questionable,
unless maybe you're going to build an external RAID 10 (yeah, another
standard and YA "can do").

And for those that don't care about ever doing all of this sort of
internal brain surgury, there's also still "all-in-one" designs such
as the iMac which now even include built-in webcams.


-hh

-Hh

Calif Bill wrote:
> "Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > No slots in a Mac... what are you talking about ?
>
> That was the problem! You could eventually buy a add on small card cage,
> but there was no way to add an interface card for other devices.

(A) this is ancient history
(B) its also got a big spoonfull of bullshit topping.


That Mac has had models with internal expansion slots since 1987.

20 years is a hell of a long time to whine over some sour grapes.


> The Mac was great with the programs written for it and the user interface,
> but if you wanted to add something else hardware wise you were SOL.

Sorry, but your complaints are as irrelevant today as the Pinto is to
Ford's current business operations today. Try looking at something
that Apple has released this Century: they have all used industry-
standard EIDE or SATA hard drives, standard RAM, Video and USB ports
and so on.



-hh

VainGlorious

On 6 Feb 2007 23:39:29 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>On 7 feb, 07:32, VainGlorious <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>
>> A superficial swipe at the Mac. It's just the kind of fodder that
>> Maccers love to disassemble on their blogs.
>>
>> I am a computer geek and audio/video genius. As such, I do have some
>> opinions on the subject.
>
>[..."opinions" deleted ...]
>
>Ya see - why bother paying to read ill-informed nonsense in the
>Grauniad, when we can have a good laugh at folks frothing at the mouth
>for free right here ?

Are they hiring?

- TR

VainGlorious

On 7 Feb 2007 01:15:17 -0800, [email protected] wrote:


>I'm sure we would have if it had been funny:-) However, we got to
>laugh at UglyHalfwitted instead, so musn't grumble.

Laugh away, but I read no substantive response to my post.

Hopefully, you have the brains to seperate the pokin'-fun hyperbole
from the honest opinion.

Fo instance, calling myself a "genius" is just a bit of fun
self-aggrandizement. Have you noticed my pen name?

Now, since I'm so stupid and ill-informed, please dazzle me with the
breadth of your knowledge on media applications and hardware
interfaces in Mac and PC viz my post that Mac is robust but
limited/proprietary and PC is more convoluted but more powerful and
flexible.

I'm all ears.

- TR

Calif Bill

"-hh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
>
> Calif Bill wrote:
>> "Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > No slots in a Mac... what are you talking about ?
>>
>> That was the problem! You could eventually buy a add on small card cage,
>> but there was no way to add an interface card for other devices.
>
> (A) this is ancient history
> (B) its also got a big spoonfull of bullshit topping.
>
> The Apple ][ series had an internal bus, and component-level boards
> were available for it (I had one).
>

But not easy to add a board that would run external devices. PC were
friendly that way. I still have a ROM emulator for Bit Slice on the shelf.
By the time they added the extenal cage, they were history for most things
needing a board addition.


> When the Mac came out in 1984, yeah, it was an all-in-one so you had
> to suffer for 2 years until external SCSI was added, but the ][ line
> was still being produced at that point. An internal expansion slot
> came back in January 1987 (Mac II), although I'm sure you'll complain
> that it was the NuBus architecture. If you wanted PCI bus, its been
> continuously available since 1995. Yes, more than a decade.
>

SCSI did not give the easy access you needed to run external devices. By
1995 was way to late. At least 10 years to late.

>
> BTW, your "64k" bit was an MS-DOS problem, not Intel. It was fixed by
> Microsoft in 1994...for Windows 3.1
>

Was an Intel limitation. Not enough address lines. The 68K had 21 address
pins, Intel had the 64k addressing lines and then you had to address a
segment register to get which 64K in memory you wanted. Messy. Made it
real hard to do memory mapped addressing.

>
>> The Mac was great with the programs written for it and the user
>> interface,
>> but if you wanted to add something else hardware wise you were SOL.
>
> If we choose to move forward a decade to join the 21st Century, Macs
> today use the same industry-standard 3.5" interal SATA hard drives and
> standard configurations of RAM you'll find in PC's...before that, they
> used IDE's, which were also an industry standard. Yes, you'll have to
> go back a half decade to even find SCSI internals...even though
> they're still supported as externals. The internal bus on the Tower
> is PCI (Express, if I recall correctly), which is another industry
> standard. If you can't find a driver for some 3rd Party PCI card, go
> ask the 3rd Party why they didn't write one. Keyboards and mice run
> on USB, which is ...gosh... another Industry Standard. If you want to
> add eSATA, that can be done too, although with Firewire (IEE1394 a &
> b ...another standard), why you would want to is a bit questionable,
> unless maybe you're going to build an external RAID 10 (yeah, another
> standard and YA "can do").
>

Go forward to the 21st century and yes things have changed. But was way
late to get in the game of add on boards. The BIOS call book was about the
size of War and Peace. Way to many calls embedded in BIOS. The drives in
the 1990's required firmware to tell them were a Apple supplied drive. You
could not take a standard SCSI drive and install it. I wrote part of the FW
for the drives so was intimately involved in them

> And for those that don't care about ever doing all of this sort of
> internal brain surgury, there's also still "all-in-one" designs such
> as the iMac which now even include built-in webcams.
>
>
> -hh
>

Sure, now, but the people that needed hardware wrote off MAC's. So the PC
thrived and took over the market. More PC, for less cash.

Calif Bill

"-hh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
>
> Calif Bill wrote:
>> "Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > No slots in a Mac... what are you talking about ?
>>
>> That was the problem! You could eventually buy a add on small card cage,
>> but there was no way to add an interface card for other devices.
>
> (A) this is ancient history
> (B) its also got a big spoonfull of bullshit topping.
>
>
> That Mac has had models with internal expansion slots since 1987.
>
> 20 years is a hell of a long time to whine over some sour grapes.
>
>
>> The Mac was great with the programs written for it and the user
>> interface,
>> but if you wanted to add something else hardware wise you were SOL.
>
> Sorry, but your complaints are as irrelevant today as the Pinto is to
> Ford's current business operations today. Try looking at something
> that Apple has released this Century: they have all used industry-
> standard EIDE or SATA hard drives, standard RAM, Video and USB ports
> and so on.
>
>
>
> -hh
>

But the 1987 was too late to the game. People used and thrived on PC's.
PC's developed lots faster than they would have if MAC's had been hardware
friendly in the early years. Then the licensing of the PC to the world,
made for PC that was 25% the price of a MAC. Closed architecture killed the
growth that would have made MAC the majority home and business computer.

Jeremyrh Geo

On 7 feb, 23:16, Deeply Filled Mortician
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
> Let is be knownst that on 7 Feb 2007 00:11:57 -0800,
> [email protected] writted:
>
> >On 7 feb, 08:59, Deeply Filled Mortician
> ><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
> >> Let is be knownst that on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:02:00 +0100, Martin
> >> <[email protected]> writted:
>
> >> >Which is David and which is gRunge?
> >> >http://www.apple.com/getamac/
>
> >> This marketing strategy for Macintosh is really pathetic.
>
> >Sorry, Deep - you aren't an audio/video genius, so your opinion is
> >worthless.
>
> Did you read what I wrote?

No - I noted it was not written by a genius, and passed on quickly to
the words of wisdom from VileGormless.

> (or what you wrote for that matter)

God no - why would I do that?

B;

Jeremyrh Geo

On 8 feb, 03:55, VainGlorious <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2007 01:15:17 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >I'm sure we would have if it had been funny:-) However, we got to
> >laugh at UglyHalfwitted instead, so musn't grumble.
>
> Laugh away, but I read no substantive response to my post.

A dog barked at me in the street this morning. I have to confess that
I didn't respond in a substantive manner to it either.

> Hopefully, you have the brains to seperate the pokin'-fun hyperbole
> from the honest opinion.

I can make a guess, but it's hard to be sure. You don't seem too clear
on the concept yourself. Into which category do you put your comments
about "paying silly $$ for a Mac" ?

> For instance, calling myself a "genius" is just a bit of fun
> self-aggrandizement. Have you noticed my pen name?

OK - I guess I had a preconception that jokes would be funny. Thanks
for clearing up the confusion.

> Now, since I'm so stupid and ill-informed, please dazzle me with the
> breadth of your knowledge on media applications and hardware
> interfaces in Mac and PC viz my post that Mac is robust but
> limited/proprietary and PC is more convoluted but more powerful and
> flexible.

Why bother rehashing old and tired discussions? I buy the computer I
want, you buy the one you want. If it makes you happy, go ahead.

> I'm all ears.

Must make wearing glasses a bit tricky.

B;

-Martin

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:28:16 +0100, Deeply Filled Mortician
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

>Let is be knownst that on 8 Feb 2007 00:18:04 -0800,
>[email protected] writted:
>
>>On 8 feb, 03:55, VainGlorious <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> For instance, calling myself a "genius" is just a bit of fun
>>> self-aggrandizement. Have you noticed my pen name?
>>
>>OK - I guess I had a preconception that jokes would be funny. Thanks
>>for clearing up the confusion.
>
>Your witty retorts have resulted in many a LOL.

Now to clean up the keyboards and wash the screens.
--

Martin

Deeply Filled Mortician

Let is be knownst that on 8 Feb 2007 00:18:04 -0800,
[email protected] writted:

>On 8 feb, 03:55, VainGlorious <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> For instance, calling myself a "genius" is just a bit of fun
>> self-aggrandizement. Have you noticed my pen name?
>
>OK - I guess I had a preconception that jokes would be funny. Thanks
>for clearing up the confusion.

Your witty retorts have resulted in many a LOL.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--