From: arsouth@watson.ibm.com (Andrew R. Southwick)
Subject: Re: EGGPLANT, IMPLANT, EMPATH, BLAZEPLANT...
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 01:34:39 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14g by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: arsouth@watson.ibm.com (Andrew R. Southwick)
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Nov13.220134.7720@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.235511.69263@watson.ibm.com> arsouth@watson.ibm.com (Andrew R. Southwick) writes:

>In all the years I've used Mac's the only NuBus card I've ever used was the
>graphics' card. Most Mac users don't use the slots. It's not as though there's
>a pressing need except for very specialized cases.

Yes, graphics cards.  Does the Emplant + Amiga + 040 + (your choice) have
NuBUS slots?  If it does not, all the video options open to real Mac users
are closed.
Additionally:
- a MIDI box (external) that plugs into a serial port that works with 
  Vision and Performer;
- Accelerators, when I decide (and have the money) to upgrade
- Non-ethernet networking cards
- Radius Rocket multi-processing capable cards
- National Instruments' data-aquisition cards
- Application-specific accelerators
- Peripheral (e.g. Scanner) cards
- Wacom tablets (from the ADB port)
- SCSI devices (which the A4000 does not support out-of-the-box)
- Sound cards, for sampling or improved (4-channel or more) output
  and editing

>I not moving up, down or anywhere at this time. I simply find the idea of
>an A4000+Emplant+BB to be interesting. Moreover one of the reasons I do
>find it interesting is the preemptive nature of the OS. An OS which can't
>multitask has very little appeal to me anymore.

Are you even buying a computer?  If not, then what does it matter to you
whether one machine is better or not?

>>Why would you buy a faster computer?
>>        -to run the OS and standard applications faster
>>        -to run a more demanding OS
>>        -to run more demanding applications
>>        -to get better performance from the programs you do have
>>         (Paint programs, renderers, compilers)
>
>Why bother getting a fast computer that hogs the cpu while compiling.

Because there is much more to a computer than speed.  Like the OS.  If speed
is the only issue, then everybody in the world should be using 486/66's, or
HP workstations, because they offer the best price/performance ratio, and we
would all be blind idiots for using Mac's or Amiga's.
Co-operative multi-tasking is not evil.  Sometimes it is a pain, but most of
the time, compiles are not long.  And if they are, I can bg the app.
Infini-D, for example, has a after-dark (screen-saver) compatible module that
will let you render instead of starting up another screen saver.  Great for
caffeine, sugar, salt, carbohydrate, and urea breaks, too.

>... It would
>seem to me that you'd be better off with a 486+OS/2 or a NeXT or even an Amiga.
>Most of the native MacOS apps run fine with a ci. The Quadra is not that much
>faster. In fact performance using transcendental functions on an 040 is 
>poor (on any 040).

Most.  Not all.  Like Painter, or Infini-D, or MacRenderMan, and indeed a
good many games.  Transcendental functions on an 040 is better than a 386, or
030, or 68000.  Not poor, just not as good as a 68881.  And a Quadra IS that
much faster.  Running a Q950 compared to an IIci is a vast difference, for
at least the apps that I use.  Is a Q700?  Yes, there is still a noticable
difference; the Q700 also has much more than a faster processor, like
improved internal video and a microphone.

>I can see some reasons for getting a Quadra. But they aren't overwhelming.
>Why spend the money when for far less you can compile on a RISC workstation 
>at far greater speeds? 

The biggest reason for getting a Quadra is that it is a Mac, and has all the
software and hardware advantages that a Mac does.  And compiling is not my
only interest - having a development environment as elegant as ThinkC is one
of the primary reasons I develop on the Mac.  The Mac is simple for new users
to get started on (Microsoft products notwithstanding), and ALSO easy for
experienced users to work with.  I have been using computers for 13 years,
and doing real programming for 11 of those.  I know Pascal, C, C++, Lisp,
(Motorola) Assembly, REXX, Basic, and PILOT; I have written five languages
for my own use (all quite simple; only two larger than small BASIC's); I have
written a hundred thousand lines of code; worked with VMS, Unix, CMS, X,
MS-DOS, and early PC systems. [NOTE: intended to provide background, ignore
at will]
Again and again, the Mac comes back to me as the easiest interface and
environment to work with.  New applications are easy to grasp, and the
interface has kept its original orthogonality.  It is the most advanced
GUI available (in some respects; X is definately more advanced in others).
I am using a Mac because I don't need to fight with it to do what I want;
I never had to fight with new hardware to get it to work (both absolutely
and with certain applications).  THAT is the primary reason I am using a
"slow" computer like a Mac.

>... In fact, apart from the consumer computers and the
>PowerBooks, why would anybody buy a Mac now when the PowerPC will, presumably
>give you a worthwhile boost in power.

This is a now vs. later arguement.  Why buy a computer now when next year's
models will be faster?  Why buy next year's model when the year after that
they will be even faster?  Why not just wait until you are on your death bed?
One year is too far away for me to wait.
I do not see the Mac's being phased out; I do not see PowerPC blowing
away a Quadra at running the Mac OS.  Could be; I assign a low probability.

>Bottom line: If you were trying to sell us a Quadra with these arguments, it
>             wouldn't work.

"these arguements" refer to notes in my previous post; please look there for
context.  The four bulleted (dashed) items quoted in this article can be
considered the primary arguements.

I am not trying to sell you a Quadra with this logic; I am trying to
distinguish a Quadra from a Classic.  A Quadra is not just a fast computer,
it is a Mac.  THAT is why I advocate Quadras (to those who feel the need,
the need ... for speed!)

>Philip McDunnough
>philip@utstat.toronto.edu

When I Need Data Obliterated, Windows Satisfies
--------------------------------------------------------------
My views are my own; behaviorists can stick THAT up their ***!
Andrew R. Southwick
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA