Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: Re: Macintosh VR
From: Macbeth@cardinal.sc107.wesleyan.edu (Macbeth)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:27:49 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT USA

In article <84081@ut-emx.uucp> mustang@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Paul Christopher Miranda (I love Cheese)) writes:
>Subject: Re: Macintosh VR
>From: mustang@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Paul Christopher Miranda (I love Cheese))
>Date: 20 Nov 92 20:58:44 GMT

>In article <Bxrqtu.DGw@rahul.net> jonathan@rahul.net (Jonathan Heiliger) writes:
>>In article <74097@apple.Apple.COM> billc@Apple.COM (Bill Cockayne) writes:
>>
>>>As for forgetting the Mac, you seem to forget that one of the Macintosh
>>>computers is presently the FASTEST pc on the market (yes it blows 586 machines
>>>away) (oh yeah, don't compare a pc running DOS to a Mac, DOS is outdated).

>Sorry, but the MAC OS is so fat and disgusting that it cripples the otherwise
>good Motorola hardware.

I completely agree.

>>   Not really.  A 68040 doesn't even come close to Intel's 486/66MHz DX chip 
>>which is in a public/beta stage.  The Plantim will most definately beat away 
>>the 68040, even after the accerlation.  That was Apple's mistake to not make 
>>any higher end machines but to attempt to steal the 386 market away instead.

>Apple is selling on it's strengths of being a very easy to use OS for people
>who don't want to know about computers, just use them..  
>I doubt there is anyone knowledgeable who believes that the 486 is faster thanb
>the 040.. (even Intel engineers I would wager).. 

Excuse me? Which Motorola and which Intel chip are we comparing here? 
Remember, my dear friend, that there are various models of each chip, with 
varying speeds and, therefore, performance. Also, each chip has its own pros 
and cons and, for some things, the Intel chip is WAY faster than the 
Motorola, regardless of the OS. This can be proven by running NeXT-Step on a 
486DX and on a 68040.

>A Mac/PC or Intel/Moto argument is pretty useless so if you want to argue 
this,
>use e-mail.. A good argument is which platform is better for VR...

>1. cost - PC's are dirt cheap.. Macs are overpriced.

Very true.

>2. processor power - as I said.. i believe the 040 is faster than a 486 so
>        that would be in the Mac's favor, but it's not a big enough difference
>        to be worth it.

Disagree.

>3. video power - In common, stock configuration (A Mac LC vs SVGA for example)
>        The Mac OS has more overhead than the PC and is slower.
>        In high-end configuration, a quadra has much improved performance, but
>        so do PC video boards.. no winner here.

Also true. Video performance has been highly improved since the era of EGA/
VGA and PC chip manufacturers are coming out with some highly amazing true-
color accelerators. Difference, again, is the price.

>4. mass storage - about the same.

Agree and disagree. Although there are very large hard drives for the 
Macintosh, the PC platform has more options. And, pricing for the PCs is, 
once again, lower.

>5. input devices - they both have cheap mice at the low end, higher end 
devices>require alternate interfacing so there is still no winner

Of course there are mice and stuff, however, this is VR forum and we must, 
therefore, take VR equipment into account. There are A LOT more input 
devices for 3-D for the PC than for the Mac.

>6. programming - VR demands assembly language routines and anyone who 
>programmed in x86 and 68k will tell you that x86 is scary and nasty
>the Mac platform wins here

WHAT? Unless someone is totally scared of computers (and therefore should 
not even bother with programming in Assembly), the 386/486 platform wins 
this one by FAR! I have programmed in Assembly on the 386/486 and have 
worked at this level with Macs. To program anything good for the Mac, one 
must mess with the OS, something VERY FEW users appreciate. Also, the tools 
available for the PC are by far superior than those for the Mac. And, this 
statement was even made by one of my professors who happens to be a Motorola 
freak.

>7. market - the PC market is absolutely huge.. Mac is big too, but the 
installed>base of PCs cannot be beat.

Totally agree!

>my conclusion.. the PC is a superior platform because it is cheaper and has less
>OS overhead..
>If anyone can think of some other points of comparison, let it rip!

Of course it is a superior platform. Still doesn't even come close to 
workstation level, though!

>Part II :

>forget part one, shell out the extra bucks and buy an Amiga 4000.. the graphics
>speed stomps anything but high-end (expensive) boards, it has the superior
>processor (IMO), the OS is supportive to applications (it has true multitasking,
>something both previous platforms lack), it may not be as friendly as a Mac, but
>it provides much more power and control. Programming is a shear joy with the
>latest generation of compilers (use C and recode the guts as necessary). 
>As for price, it goes for ~ 2500 last time I checked.. I think the extra cost
>is worth it.

Come on! An Amiga 4000? True, the graphics speed is quite impressive and I 
like the 800 X 600 mode, however, 256 colors is passe, even for VR. We are 
talking about 3-D rendering here, not Shadow of the Beast programming. 
Virtuality needs all the graphic capabilities in this world and fast 
animation. This, as you mention, is only available through high-end, 
expensive boards. However, the Amiga 4000 is not cheap either and the 
processing speed is not that amazing. For the price of an Amiga 4000 you can 
buy a SUN SparcStation Classic with 16 MB RAM, 207 MB HDD, 3.5" HD, and 15" 
1024 X 768 monitor.

>Remember: any responses to this should be on the basis of a machine's suitability
>for VR, not spreadsheets!


>-- 
>"I have feelings too, I just choose to  | Paul Miranda  likes cheese 
> to hide them underneath bitter denial" | mustang@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
>-- Ms. Musso on "Parker Lewis" (FOX TV) | -- THIS SPACE FOR RENT --