🚀 go-pugleaf

Does software compatibility count??

Talk about Mac compatibles, did anyone see the ad in last Sunday's(11/18/84)
New York Times Magazine for the IBM version of MacPaint. It uses
an optical mouse and looks "alot" like the apple product. Sure the
graphics layout is a little different  but the difference is insignificant.
(IBM's paint can, spray can, pencil, and pattern icons are practically 
identical to icons Apple uses in Macpaint. Not to mention the layout 
of the icons within the application itself.) 

Although IBMPaint is color, it does not offer the same resolution
as the Mac. Looks like the Boys in Blue have decided to sit up
and take note ( and pretty good notes too!!).

Sean Casey		...ihnp4!oddjob!sean

In article <> sean@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes:
>New York Times Magazine for the IBM version of MacPaint. It uses
>an optical mouse and looks "alot" like the apple product. Sure the
...
>Although IBMPaint is color, it does not offer the same resolution
>as the Mac. Looks like the Boys in Blue have decided to sit up
>and take note ( and pretty good notes too!!).

If it's the same optical mouse they have used previously it isn't as
handy as the apple mouse as when you run out of desk space you can't
pick it up and shift your rolling range. It gets lost.
-- 
 Jim Budler
 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
 (408) 982-6547
 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!jimb
 Compuserve:	72415,1200
 The Source:	STW265

> 	Is any company out there coming out with a Mac compatible ?
> 
> 	During the past few years, whenever a new computer was introduced,
> many new companies sprang up and started making compatible computers.
> This did not happen to the Mac.  It has been out for several months and
> no company has made a compatible (not including the Lisa which can run many
> of the Mac programs.)

Personally, I think it would be hard to compete with Apple by making a
cheaper Mac.  Apple's cost for the hardware can't be more than a few
hundred dollars, which means they can easily match any price cuts.

Even more important is the Macintosh ROM, which is as much a
part of the Macintosh as the hardware.  I'll bet it would be pretty hard
to quickly duplicate the functionality of that ROM without copying it.

Having won the lawsuit about the original Apple ROM, Apple looks to be
in a good position to challenge attempted copiers of the Macintosh ROM.

Looks to me like Apple has what amounts to a proprietary software interface.

I think Apple has already optimized the Mac to the point where they
can cut the throats of any price-cutting competition. (Of course, somebody
will probably prove me wrong.  Where there's a will...)

However, a higher performance Mac compatible might be interesting.
Perhaps the ROM functionality could be duplicated in a reasonable
time by throwing memory at the problem.

Waiting with interest,
Mitch Bradley

I think the reason there are no "Mac compatibles" is because of the
copyright on the ROMs.  Machines like the IBM PC require no more than
a bright high-school kid and a license from MicroSoft to (re)write the
necessary ROM software.  This isn't true with the Mac; it takes a pretty high
degree of sophistication to come up with things like a window manager
and an extensive bitmap graphics package in assembly language.  Some of
QuickDraw's basic algorithm's (i.e, the "region clipper") aren't even
published.  

There are companies producing retro-fitted Macs, though.  There's a company
now selling a mac re-fitted into a very rugged Osborn style case.

><
> 
> 	Is any company out there coming out with a Mac compatible ?
> 

It was more than a few months after the IBM-PC came out before the first
IBM-PC compatible machine came out.  And I've heard rumors that Atari
(I think it's Atari, although it may be someone else) is coming out with
a Mac-like product.  How compatible it will be, I don't know.


			robert
-- 
Robert Viduya
Office of Computing Services
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA 30332
Phone:  (404) 894-4669

...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!robert
...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!gitpyr!robert

> Personally, I think it would be hard to compete with Apple by making a
> cheaper Mac.  Apple's cost for the hardware can't be more than a few
> hundred dollars, which means they can easily match any price cuts.

	Rumor had it that counting just cost of hardware, labor, and utilities
a mac costs about $300 to produce. Of course, there is advertising, R&D, and
factory construction to cover also, but since Jobs fought hard for a $1999
price tag up front, I suspect that they are not loosing money on the little
darlings.

-- 
					eric
					...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!milo!eric

[]
This probably belongs in net.rumor, but what the hay!

I heard a rumor to the effect that Apple received a patent for
menus pulled down with a mouse.

-- 
"The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct."

Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO  80307

> > 	Is any company out there coming out with a Mac compatible ?


	Why would anyone want to come out with a Mac compatible?

	The Mac has been less than an overwhelming success.  Apple
	is not selling as many as they predicted and software is
	scarce.  Developers complain of the difficulty of interfacing 
	with the Mac internals, and hardware designers are severely
	limited.  Apple is scrambling to redesign the closed Mac to
	meet market demands meanwhile angering the current owners.
	Hell, the Mac isn't even software compatible with itself.
	Software which ran on 128k Macs won't run on 512k Macs.

	No. I don't think the market wants a Mac compatible.

	I believe the market wants a high-performance, low-cost
	computer.  Say something like the Amiga is rumored to be.
	A 68000 machine, bit-mapped color graphics, a serial and
	parallel port, user-expandable memory to 1 Meg (socketed
	for 256k bytes using 64k chips with a jumper to enable
	use of 256k chips when the price drops to give 1 Meg), and
	a couple of expansion slots (every designer knows you can't
	please everyone, but the slots will get you better than 90%).
	Built in 1 meg floppy, space for second.  A simple, usable
	operating system.  A simple, fast BASIC with every machine.


-- 
	Mike Eve     Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
	...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve

I will probably not be the first to claim that your "facts" are wrong.
Apple said that they wanted to sell 250,000 Macs the first year.  They
are apparently going to come very close to the target.  The computer
store that I frequent has 40 or 50 pieces of software for the Mac for
sale.  Of course, there seem to be a preponderance of filing systems and
only one word processor.  There are only half a dozen program development
systems.  However, that seems pretty good for less than a year since
announcement.  Mac owners that I talk to are generally delighted with
their purchase.

There will probably not be any Mac compatibles.  Few people seem to
realize the enormous amount of software built into the ROM.  I heard
that the first version of Quickdraw, done in Pascal, was 128K.  After
rewriting it in assembly it was 64K.  After another year or so of
optimization (and adding features) it was 16K, and that's what is in
the 64K ROM.  I think these numbers came from Byte, but I'm just remembering
them, so don't trust them too far.

There are many, many man-years of programs in that ROM, and it would be
infeasible to rewrite them.  Therefore, any Mac compatible will have to
copy the ROM, and will be illegal in the US.  In addition, Apple uses
custom chips in the disk controller, (and perhaps elsewhere) making
copying harder.  I assume that Apple did it that way on purpose,
to prevent the Mac from ending up like the Apple II in the far east.

One reason that the Mac is harder to program than other machines is
because it is so different.  Programmers are fastest at what they know
best, and the Mac is very different from anything else that they are
likely to have used.  I can remember the first time I used Lisp, thinking
I was a hotshot programmer who could master any language in a week.  A
lot of people have been learning similar lessons from programming the Mac.

Also, there is a lot more needed to learn to use the Mac than with other
machines.  However, the result is that programs have a more consistent
user interface that on other machines, and so are easier to learn how to
use.

One problem is that most languages are not suited for the object oriented
programming style that best suits the Mac.  Neither C nor Pascal are
really suitable.  I predict that an object oriented interactive language
would be vastly superior to the standard programming languages on a Mac.

Ralph Johnson

In article <> eve@ssc-bee.UUCP (Michael Eve) writes:
>	The Mac has been less than an overwhelming success.  Apple
>	is not selling as many as they predicted and software is
>	scarce.  Developers complain of the difficulty of interfacing 
>	with the Mac internals, and hardware designers are severely
>	limited.  Apple is scrambling to redesign the closed Mac to
>	meet market demands meanwhile angering the current owners.
>	Hell, the Mac isn't even software compatible with itself.
>	Software which ran on 128k Macs won't run on 512k Macs.
>

Obviously, YOU don't like the Mac but:

1.  You must not have read the news lately, business analysts say
that the Mac accounts for at least 30% of Apples $1.7 billion
gross.

2.  Apple is scrambling to expand the plant to increase capacity.
( Not selling as many as forcast but the plant's too small?????)

3.  Developers always complain.

4.  Software developed for the IBM with DOS 1.0 didn't work with
1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0.  Any any of the combinations thereof.

5.  Closed?  Inside Mac is available to anyone.  Software supplement
is available to anyone (It's even posted on Usenet).

-- 
 Jim Budler
 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
 (408) 982-6547
 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!jimb
 Compuserve:	72415,1200
 The Source:	STW265

>2.  Apple is scrambling to expand the plant to increase capacity.
>( Not selling as many as forcast but the plant's too small?????)

The reality is that Apple is in the process of doubling production in their
Mac plant in Fremont, CA (built in the US, no less!) from 40,000/mo to
80,000/mo (I don't remember where those figures came from-- probably the
San Jose Mercury News) in a plant with a capacity of 100,000/mo. They will
also be adding about 200 new employees. 

To be honest, sales of Mac's did seem to level off after the initial surge.
The main reason for this seems to be the fact that it turned out to be MUCH
harder to get decent software out for the Mac than anticipated so the third
party stuff stretched out beyond original estimates. That stuff is now
starting to show up, and sales are picking up again. If sales are below
what apple expected, I don't think they are significantly below. When I
went looking for my Mac most places I talked to had them in stock, but
didn't have a LOT of them in stock because they were selling quite well. At
least in california, they aren't a glut on the market.

There is a certain group out there that has been against the mac from the
start, mainly because it isn't IBM compatible. Some of us (I refrain from
saying 'those with a view of the future') find that a significant
advantage-- I wouldn't touch a PC if you gave it to me, and I'm sure there
are a lot of PC owners who say the same about macs. I personally think that
the Mac is a growing force in the market and will be a major player for a
long time to come.

chuq

-- 
From the center of a Plaid pentagram:		Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui  nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA

  ~But you know, monsieur, that as long as she wears the claw of the dragon
  upon her breast you can do nothing-- her soul belongs to me!~

In article <269@ssc-bee.UUCP> eve@ssc-bee.UUCP (Michael Eve) replies:
>> > 	Is any company out there coming out with a Mac compatible ?
>
>	Why would anyone want to come out with a Mac compatible?
>	The Mac has been less than an overwhelming success.  Apple
>	is not selling as many as they predicted and software is
>	scarce.

Apple has sold more Macs than they expected to.  It is already an overwhelming
success.  Software is not exactly scarce, and getting unscarcer.  Go to Comdex.

>	Software which ran on 128k Macs won't run on 512k Macs.

Name one.

>
>	No. I don't think the market wants a Mac compatible.
>	I believe the market wants a high-performance, low-cost
>	computer.  Say something like the Amiga is rumored to be.

How much software is available for this rumor?  Rumors of vaporware, now?

>	A simple, usable operating system.  A simple, fast BASIC
>       with every machine.

Basic??

You own PCjr stock, no?

Merlyn Leroy
"I like anarchy, but it's difficult to enforce."

> There will probably not be any Mac compatibles.  Few people seem to
> realize the enormous amount of software built into the ROM.  I heard
> that the first version of Quickdraw, done in Pascal, was 128K.  After
> rewriting it in assembly it was 64K.  After another year or so of
> optimization (and adding features) it was 16K, and that's what is in
> the 64K ROM.  I think these numbers came from Byte, but I'm just remembering
> them, so don't trust them too far.
> 
> There are many, many man-years of programs in that ROM, and it would be
> infeasible to rewrite them.  Therefore, any Mac compatible will have to
> copy the ROM, and will be illegal in the US.  In addition, Apple uses
> custom chips in the disk controller, (and perhaps elsewhere) making
> copying harder.  I assume that Apple did it that way on purpose,
> to prevent the Mac from ending up like the Apple II in the far east.

The MAC uses the same disk controller as the II series (The Woz machine). It
is not that difficult to imagine someone else writing the equivalent. I also
suspect that it is not to difficult to believe that a team of good programmers
couln't create something very close to the *magic* in the Macs ROMS. My claims
are based upon the inevitable - there will eventually be little machines far
faster and more complex then the MAC with better graphics and a better more
usable user-interface. Maybe it will even come from Apple. Maybe the Amiga
will bring us closer to what we want...

If you think that someone could just assemble a team of "good" programmers and
come up the the stuff thats in the Macintosh's ROM, guess again.  The innards
of the Mac come close in sophistication to the Internals of VMS (or any other
LARGE layered operating system.)  [Also, no flames PLEASE].  The Macintosh
user interface is implmented as a series of "services", i.e., the 

		Window Manager
		Desk Manager
		Scrap Manager
		  < et al >

and quite a few packages such as QUICKDRAW, The Standard File packages, etc.
The reason why the mac is "difficult" to program is because most programmers
who work with micros are used to do everything by hand, and have no conception
of a layered operating system.  Once you realize that Apple has given you all
of the "hard stuff" on a platter, all you have to do is concentrate on being
creative, which of course, is what programming (to me at least) is all about.

		David HM Spector
		NYU/acf Systems Group
		ARPAnet:Spector@nyu-cmcl1.ARPA
		UUCPnet:...!allegra!cmcl2!cmcl1!spector

"The opinions exressed are....(etc).."