[*] Mac & IBM compare-Version 1.9.5 pt1

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Bruce Grubb

unread,
Jul 3, 1994, 2:14:27 PM7/3/94
to
Send followups to comp.sys.mac.advocacy
{I have never figured out the followup fuction here and gave up after a year.}

{Archived on sumex-aim.stanford.edu (36.44.0.6) as
info-mac/info/hdwr/mac-ibm-compare195.txt}
{Changes: PC and IDE info updated.}
Mac & IBM Info-Version 1.9.5 {July 1, 1994}
Note: for proper reading off line this document should be in 9 point Monaco.

The reason for this general data sheet is to consolidate and condense the
information out there, so that people in both camps can be clear and accurate
about what they are saying about their machines.
Since computer technology is always changing there are always going to be
points in which the sheet will be lacking or incorrect on information. So,
please just don't say the sheet is incomplete or incorrect but also give me
clear and concise information to make the needed corrections. To keep this
data sheet accurate please provide article citations,if possible, for the
information provided or corrected and keep opinions to a minimum. As this is
a general data sheet, keep the info provided short and simple.
Baced on a suggestion from Faisal Nameer Jawdat I am dating each section from
the last time I updated it.
Please note that all magazine dates are in mm/dd/yy formats
Finally, keep the information relevant to the section corrected.
Also please edit the crossposting down before following up this.
Thank you.

Contents
Part 1
CPUs
Hardware
PowerPC rumors
Monitor support
Expansion

Part 2
Operating system
Mac
IBM
PowerPC
Networking & Printing


The CPUs {June 1, 1994)
Note: I am only showing Motorola & Intel CPUs used in Mac and most IBM/PC
clone machines. For example, since Apple never used the Motorola 68008 in the
Mac these chips are not listed. Years indicate use of CPU chip in new
machines.
Cache is "where data can be stored to avoid having to read the data from a
slower device such as a disk" (Dictionary of Computer Terms:61-DTC). Both
IBM and Mac use caches external to CPUs which increase the speed of the CPU
but are not a part of it. Since there are many different external caches
{CPU-Mac and IBM; SCSI, video, disk and static RAM-Mac}, each having a
different effect on CPU performance, with some built-in {present Macs},
other optional but installed {IBM}, and are machine, seller or expansion
dependent, I have decided to leave them out of the list.
Note: ALU is industry's de-facto standard for CPU bit classification.

IBM ALU Registers External CPU Features/
CPU data address cache Notes
8088(6) 16 16 8 (16) 20 none {1981-9} {198?-9}
80186 16 16 16 20 none {198?-9?} 8088(6) segmenting
80286 16 16 16 24 none segmenting + Protected Mode*
386sx 32 32 16 24 none 80386*
80386 32 32 32 32 none MMU & 32-bit Protected Mode
486sx 32 32 32 32 one 8K 80486 w/o FPU
80486 32 32 32 32 one 8K new CPU core {~386 + FPU}
486dx2 32 32 32 32 one 8K doubled internal clock rate**
486dx3 32 32 32 32 one 16K 80486 w/o FPU; IBM chip
[Blue Lightning] between 486dx2 and Pentium 5
lines in speed (BYTE 04/94:22)
DX4 32 32 32 32 one 16K 80486; Intel's version of the
486dx3.
Pentium 32 32 64 32 8K code, CRISC-like chip,
[P5] 8K data, 2 instructions/cycle max
Branch 2-issue superscalar, 386
target Write-Back, 64-bit FPU,
pipelining; 114 chips/Wafer
66 MHz-SPECint92: 66.3;
SPECfp92: 62.5; 13-16 watts***
P54c 3.3 volts with 6.5 watts.
203 chips/wafer
100 MHz-SPECint92: 100;
SPECfp92: 80***
P6 CRISC chip, .4 micron;
late-1995; transition chip
(BYTE 04/94:22)
P7 RISC with a hardware
x86 code translator,
late-1995

386sl: low power(3.3V) 386sx with built-in power management. Laptop use.
386slc: IBM 5V 386sx with a 16k on-chip cache added (John H. Kim). As far as
John H. Kim knows it is only used on IBM models.
486slc: Neither of two chips that have this name have a FPU. Cyrix: basically
486sx in 386sx socket with 1k cache and improved integer math speed. IBM:
equivalent to 486sx with a 16k on-chip cache.
486slcs: IBm chip equivalent to 486dx2 - FPU with a 16-bit external data path
and 16k on-chip cache.
486dlc2: IBM chip equivalent to 486dx2 - FPU and with 16k on-chip cache.
P24T{Pentium}: 64 bit internally, 32 bit for system I/O.
Pentium/150 .4 micron, mid-1995 (PC Week 05/30/94)

*16 MB maximum RAM
** ex. for 486dx2/50, chip runs 50 MHz rest of machine runs at 25 MHz.
*** (BYTE 8/93:62; Hambrecht & Quist/MacWeek 09/20/93; Len Schultz;
PC Week 01/10/94; BYTE 6/94:265). {P54c is called "Pentium II" in
Hambrecht & Quist/MacWeek article} CRISC {media term}: CISC chip with
RISC-like features (Computer Reseller News, Oct 28, 1991 n445 p140(2)).
CPU - 60 MHz ~$575; 90 MHz - ~$600 (PC Week 07/04/94);
66 MHz systems starting range is between $3500 - $4000
(PC Week 01/17/94). SPECmarks are with a Level 2 memory cache and
a 66 MHz 128-bit {64-bit interleaved} bus.

Mac ALU Registers External bus CPU Features/
CPU data address cache Notes
68000 16 32 16 24 none {1984-93} 16 MB limit*
68010 ?? ?? ?? ?? Lisa {Mac XL} This is a Mac?
68020 32 32 32 32 256 code {1987-92} parallel processing
68030 32 32 32 32 two 256 {1988-94} 68020 + MMU, 16K
burst mode.
68EC040 32 32 32 32 two 4K 68040 w/o FPU and MMU {~68020}
68LC040 32 32 32 32 two 4K 68040 w/o FPU {~68030}
68040V 32 32 32 32 two 4K 68040 w/o FPU, PowerBooks-1994
68040 32 32 32 32 two 4K MMU, FPU, pipelining, doubled
internal clock rate**
68050 development discontinued in favor of 68060
68060 32 32 32 32 two 8k 68040 + better FPU, superscalar
Branch pipelining, cache line bursts,
target 3.3 V, self power management,
equivalent capabilities &
speeds to Pentium {P54c}***

Note: the now defunct NeXT and Amiga machines used the 68030 and 68040.

*68000 Mac designs created a 4 MB limit.
** "Current 68040 chips specified as 25-, 33-, and 40-MHz are already
capable of running internal processing circuitry at 50, 66 and 80 MHz,
respectively" (Electronic Buyer's News Aug 20, 1993; pointed out by
Bradley Lamont and Motorola 68040 data book in 1992). Utilization
of this 'clock doubling' is _way_ different than for the 486dx2 which
is why I compare the 68040 to the 486dx {with 486dx2 comments}.
***Motorola claims (MC-68060.txt). Apple may not use this chip in the Mac
though third parties may make 68060 accellerators.

The following PowerPCs are to be in both IBM and Mac machines. They are
Motorola/IBM CPU RISC chips.

PowerPC ALU Registers External bus CPU Features/
CPU data address cache Notes
MPC601 32 int 32 64 32 32K 3 instructions/cycle max,
[.6] fp 64 combined 258 chips/wafer,
I/D 80 MHz-SPECint92: 77;
SPECfp92: 93. 9 {66}, and
~11 {80 MHz} watts*
MPC601 32 int 32 64 32 32K Faster and less power consuming
[.5] fp 64 combined version of .6 MPC601. 100 MHz
I/D uses 5 watts (MacWeek 04/04/94)
MPC603 two 8k Systems delayed in favor of
MPC603+ two 16k 603+, 80 MHz-SPECint92: 77;
SPECfp92: 93. 2.0 {66},
3.0 watts {80 MHz}*
MPC604 32 int 32 64 32 four? 4 instructions/cycle max,
[604] fp 64 16K 373 chips/wafer,
100 MHz-SPECint92: 160;
SPECfp92: 165, Systems: 95.*
MPC620 64 64 64 64 32K SPECint92 & SPECfp92:
[620] combined 200 - 400 {projected}
I/D 1Q 1995.

*(PC Mag 4/27/93:138; Byte 8/93:84; Hambrecht & Quist/MacWeek 9/20/93;
BYTE 04/94:61; MacUser 06/94:40; BYTE 6/94:265).
MPC601/50 MHz-$174; MPC601/66 MHz-$197; MPC601/80-$275
(MacWeek 07/05/94).
MPC601/100 is available (MacWeek 04/04/94) and Apple showed off a Mac
with a MPC601/120 (MacWeek 05/23/94)
MPC603/66 MHz-$165; MPC603/80-$195 (MacWeek 07/05/94)
MPC601/80 SPECmarks are w/o a Level 2 memory cache. With 1 MB Level 2 memory
cache the SPECmarks are SPECint92: 85; SPECfp92: 105 (Motorola) Both machines
use 33 MHz 64-bit bus (BYTE 04/94).
All MPC603 SPECmarks are with 1 MB Level 2 cache (Motorola).
The 603+ which will be faster than the MPC603 and have double the cache
MacWeek 05/23/94).
Systems: see Hardware, PowerPC machines.

CPUs Comparison List
As a general rule of thumb Motorola chips are faster than Intel chips at the
same frequency {030/25 ~= 386/33; 040/33 ~= 486/50}, but Intel has chips at
higher frequencies than Motorola, so this evens out. The Macintosh Bible
4th edition and IBM System User, 1/92 v13 n1 p43(1) support the comparisons
made between Intel and Motorola chips below and statements made here.

<=80186 ~ 68000 {16-bit vs 16/24/32-bit chip. The 4 MB limit on the 68000
Macs brings the chip in them down to the 80186 and lower chips, otherwise
the 68000 would compare to the 80286.}

286 ~ 68020 {hardware segmenting vs. 68020's 32-bit ALU and having no
usable built-in MMU unlike their successors [80386, 68030]. The use of the
hardware segmenting and the 16-bit nature put the 286 between the 60000 and
68030 in features and the LC's 16-bit data path strenghthens the 286 ~ 68020
comparison.}

386 ~ 68030 {32-bit chips with MMUs, and protected memory. At present
application protected memory is limited to A/UX 3.0. System 7.x uses this
feature to protect a RAM disk created by the Memory control panel which is
supported only on Powerbooks and Quadras. The Color Classic and LCII 16-bit
hardware data paths makes the 68030s in them comparative to 386sxs.}

486sx ~ 68LC040 {same as 486 and 68040 without the FPU; used as a low cost
solution for people who do not need the FPU. Only in comparison with Windows
programs does the 68LC040 approch 486SLC2 - chip cache or '486dx2sx'
speeds.}

486 ~ 68040 {32-bit microprocessors with built-in FPU, MMU, 8K internal
cache (which is implemented as two 4K caches in the 68040 and one in the
486). Only in comparison with Windows programs does the 68040 approch 486dx2
speeds and this varies depending on program and OS.}

Pentium ~ 68060 {Both are superscalar, but may flounder against the cheaper,
faster MHz, less heat producing, and partly ported to PowerPC chips. The
68060 will likly not even be used in a Mac except via third party
accelerators.}

PowerPC = PowerPC {This CPU line is planned to run programs from DOS, Windows
3.x, OS/2 and Mac OS through PowerOpen OSes [UNIX] (Byte 8/93:58) and later
Pink [Taligent OS] using emulators but at 486/Quadra/Sun SparcStation speeds
(Byte 8/93:58). Insignia's Windows emulator for Mac produces 486sx/25
speeds on Power Macintosh 6100/60 and 486dx/33 on the Power Macintosh
8100/80. Native code runs two - four times those speeds and is ~1.50 times
a Pentium of the same MHz (Ingram 94 report).}

Hardware
PowerPC machines
IBM PowerPC: 1Q 1994 (Digital News & Review 06/07/93 vol 10 n11) - MCA bus,
XGA video, 8 MB RAM, 200 MB hard drive (Computer Reseller News, 3/22/93).
Uses AIX and supports Windows/DOS, PowerOpen AIX {1994} will run Mac apps
(PC Week 3/15/93; PC Week 09/20/93).
Apple PowerPC: Now
$1,819 - Power Macintosh 6100/60: 8/160; 1 PDS, 1 cache slot
{Speed, Native: 2-4x 68040/33, emulated 68EC040: 030/25 to 040/40}
$2,899 - Power Macintosh 7100/66: MPC601/66, 8/250/1 MB VRAM, 3 NuBus 90,
1 PDS, 1 cache slot; {Speed: 1.25 times faster than 6100/60}
$4,249 - Power Macintosh 8100/80: MPC601/80, 8/250/2 MB VRAM/256 Kb
Level 2 memory cache, 3 NuBus 90, 1 PDS slot; 2 SCSI-2 ports.
{Speed: 2.00 times faster than 6100/60}
AV cards cause a video speed decrease of ~25% while VRAM causes a increase
of ~10% (MacUser 05/94:83).
Ethernet and GeoPort are standard features
Prices are averages and do not include color monitor and keyboard.
(PC Week 08/30/93; PR Newswire 10/19/93; MacWeek 11/29/93; MacWeek 01/17/94;
PC Week 01/31/94; MacWeek 02/07/94; MacWeek 02/28/94; TidBITS #214;
MacWeek 03/07/94; TidBITS #217)
Apple has developed an emulator that is twice the speed of the present one
(MacWeek 06/13/94)

Apple Power Macintosh Configurations
Power Macintosh 6100/60 - 8/250/CD: $2,289; 16/250/SoftWindows {Insignia's
Windows emulator}: $2,519; 8/250/CD/AV/2 MB VRAM: $2,599
Power Macintosh 7100/66 - 8/250/CD/1 MB VRAM: $3,179;
16/250/SoftWindows/1 MB VRAM: $3,379; 8/500/CD/AV/2 MB VRAM: $3,989
Power Macintosh 8100/80 - 8/250/CD/2 MB VRAM: $4,519;
16/500/SoftWindows/2 MB VRAM: $5,309; 16/500/CD/AV/2 MB VRAM: $5,659;
16/1GB/CD/2 MB VRAM: $6,159
(MacWeek 11/29/93; MacWeek 02/07/94; MacWeek 03/07/94; TidBITS #217).

Alchemy {Q1 95}: entry level machine, modular design; 1 PCI slot
Catalyst {Q1 95}: replacement for Power Mac 6100/7100; 3 PCI slots
Nitro {Q1 95}: replacement for Power Mac 8100; 3 PCI slots (MacWeek 06/13/94)
Tsunami {Q1 95}: 6 PCI slots, no built-in video (MacWeek 06/13/94)
TNT Macs {Q1 95}: MPC601/03/04 <=150 MHz; 6 PCI slots, DAV slot, better and
faster video {32-bit in/out} (MacWeek 08/09/93; MacWeek 01/17/94; MacWeek
06/13/94)

Mac->PowerPC upgrades
Apple - 68040 PDS Upgrade Card: $699; logic-board upgrades range between
$1000 - $2,000. In general every Macintosh that had a CD-ROM configuration
has {or will have} a logic-board upgrade option.

DayStar Digital Inc. - 66 MHz and 80 MHz processor upgrade cards for the
Centris/Quadra 650, and the Quadra 700, 800, 900 and 950. Have PowerMac ROMs
on the cards and allow 60ns 72-pin SIMM expansion. Will have trade in for
owners of old cards. Value range of old cards: from 15% to 50%.
Price: $1,200 to $1,700 dependent on speed.
(MacWeek 01/17/94; MacUser 05/94:36)

Reply Corp. - MPC603 logic boards.

Other PowerPCs: Canon-NeXT (NB 05/11/93), and Sun {rumored}. Other potential
sources: Radius Inc., MicroNet Technology Inc., SuperMac Technology Inc,
Acer America Corp, Dell Computer Corp and 11 other companies (MacWeek
9/27/93). Spacifics vague.

Companies with native Power Machintosh programs out:
About Software; Absoft; Access Privelege SA; ACI; Adobe Systems; Aetis;
Agfa-Gevaert N.V.; Aldus; ALSOFT; Artifice Inc.; Artwork Systems N,V.
AS-PLUS B.V.; Ashlar Vellum; Autodessys; Baltic Business Systems;
B.E.M.E. R&D; Brossco Systems Oy; Bungie Software; Canto Software;
Casady & Green; Central Point Software, Inc.; Charles River Analytics, Inc.;
Claris Corporation; Dantz Development; Data Description; DeltaPoint;
Diehl Graphsoft; Domark Software, Inc.; Dunaway Systems B.V.; Extools;
FIT Software; Fractal Design Corporation; Frame; FWB; Gibbs Systems;
Graphisoft; Gryphon Software Corporation; GTFS/GRAFTEK; Hash Inc.;
Hi Resolution Ltd; Insignia; Interstudio ITEDO Software; Jasik Designs;
Just Systems; Language Engineering Corp; MedImage; Metrowerks; Microland;
MicroMacro, Ltd.; Neon Software, Inc.; Now Software; Orange Micro Inc.;
ORKIS; Pole Position Software; Route 66 Geo Info Systems; SCITEX America;
Segue Software; SOFT Technologies; SofTeam Hardware & Software
Dist; Specular International; Sorting S.r.l.; Spider Island Software;
System Clinic; Trillium Research; Trio Systems Europe; TrueD Software;
UserLand Software; usrEZ Software; VAMP; Vicom Technology Ltd; VideoFusion;
Wilkensen SCOOP; Wolfram Research; WordPerfect (TidBITS #230)

PPC Mac programs in development:
Abacus Concepts, Inc.; Absoft; ABVENT SA, ACIUS Inc.; Aladdin Systems, Inc.;
Alias Research Inc.; auto-des-sys, Inc.; B & E Software; Brossco Oy;
CFrame Technology; CTM Development SA; Deneba Software; Electric Image, Inc.;
Emergent Behavior; Graftek SA; Great Plains Software; Imagine That, Inc.;
InterCon Systems Corporation; ITEDO Software GmbH.; Knowledge Revolution
Inc.; Macro Educational Systems; Macromedia; Microsoft Corporation;
National Instruments; Nisus Software Inc.; Oracle Corporation; ORKIS;
Quark, Inc.; Radius Inc.; RasterOps Corporation; Strata, Inc.;
Storm Technology, Inc.; SuperMac Technology, Inc.; Vibro-Acoustic Sciences
Inc.;; Visual Information Development, Inc. (VIDI); Virtus Corporation;
{PR Newswire 01/03/94; BYTE 06/94:210}

Color Support/Display
Mac
30.24 MHz Pixel Clock base standard. From Mar 1987 to late 1988 32-bit color
cards resembled the chaotic mess that SVGA would be for IBM {see SVGA}.
In 1989 Apple created 32-bit QuickDraw which totally standardized 32-bit
color and drove all non-QuickDraw graphic cards out of the market.
All present Macs support the use of 32-bit color through 32-bit color
QuickDraw {ROM} and most have a 32-bit path to video. 32-bit color QuickDraw
allows the editing of X-bit images in Y-bit color in a wide range of monitors
{69 dpi [12" color] to 94 dpi [PaletteBook] and autosynchronous VGA, MCGA and
SVGA monitors with 66.7 hz vertically and 35 kHz horizontally advalible via a
hardware video adaptor (MacUser Aug 1992: 158-176)} The SE/30, II, IIx, and
IIcx had only 8-bit color in ROM and needed a software patch to use 32-bit
color under system 6.x (MacUser Special 1993:28-29). B&W QD could support 8
colors.
To keep costs down and speed up most Macs have 8 to 16-bit display capability
built-in, with a 24-bit expansion option. QuickDraw QX will remove the
72 dpi display optimization.
In Macs with NuBus slots QuickDraw allows multiple monitor use, from several
monitors showing the same thing to multiple monitors acting as one large
large monitor with any degree of overlap of the pictures.

VRAM: Video RAM. Standard for present non-PowerBook Mac's handling of
built-in video {24-bit color palette}. VRAM provided runs a 8-bit color
640 x 480 display; all VRAM machines expand to 16-bit color or 832 x 624
{8-bit} display. The Quadras {except Q800} expand to 24-bit color
{640 x 480 and 832 x 624 only} (TidBITS #173, #185). Q650av allows the
display of 24-bit color up to 640x400. {640 x 480 and higher is 16-bit}.
The best PC description of present Mac video is "local bus" video.


IBM
{In an effort to remove the 'reconfiguring the system almost every time you
add something' requirement for add-in cards, drivers, video, and operating
systems in the IBM world; Intel, Microsoft, and 12 other hardware and software
developers are working out 'plug and play' standards (PC Week 03/08/93).}

Even though PCs have ROM BIOS definitions of how OSes interacts with the
video hardware (Nan Zou), the use of drivers bypassing BIOS, video hareware
inconsitancies {see Super VGA below} and nonstanderzation of clone BIOS have
left resolution of video display hardware/OS/program interaction up to the OS
and video hardware in question (Faisal Nameer Jawdat). In addition, IBM and
clone makers never bothered to provide a standard hardware mechanism for
software to determine what display mode is actually present (Matt Healy) nor
a standardized screen-drawing toolbox {like Mac's QD}. As a result detecting
some modes and/or use them consistantly is a challange, especially with some
third party cards. Things were so dependent on the interaction of
the program, OS, print driver and monitor card that editing 32-bit pictures
regardless of color mode, program, and monitor type/card combination as one
can do on the Mac was near impossible (Fortune 10/04/93:112). DOS has the
biggest problem, Windows is better, and NT-OS/2 are the best but this is a OS
feature, not hardware and so is inconsitant from OS to OS and even from
program to program {see OS section for details}. IBM machines are starting
have integrated graphics accelerators, faster processors, and modular
upgradeability and may have built-in sound cards, CD ROM, and Ethernet
(PC Week 12/14/92).

MDA: Monocrome Display Adapter
original character-mapped video mode, no graphics, 80x25 text.
CGA: Color Graphics Array
320x200 4 colors or 640x200 b/w with text-mode support of 80x24 color or
40x24 color, 16 color palette, bad for the eyes.
EGA: Enhanced Graphics Array
Resolutions are 640x350x16, 640x200x16 and all CGA modes {from 64 color
palette}. Additional text-modes of 80x43 color and 40x43 color. Some
versions could run at 256 colors, bearable on the eyes.
VGA: Video Graphics Array*
Resolutions are 320x200x256, 640x480x16 and all EGA modes. Additional
text modes of 80x50 color, 40x50 color, and emulation of all MDA text
modes. Can be programmed for many non-standard resolutions.
All modes have 256 colors, from a 18-bit {IBM} to 24-bit {IBM/Mac} color
palette. 25.175 MHz Pixel Clock (Mel Martinez). Monitors use analog input,
incompatible with TTL signals from EGA/CGA etc.
MCGA: Multi-Color Graphics Array*
subset of VGA that provides all the features of MDA & CGA, but lacks some
EGA and VGA modes, like VGA 640x480x16 (DCT). Common on the initial PS/1
implementation from IBM and some PS/2 Models.
SVGA: Super VGA {Quality of 99% of color Mac video monitors}*
This is not a standard in the way the others were, but instead was a 'catch
all' category for a group of video cards. As such, with each manufacturer
using their own implementation scheme, SVGA was chaos with people debating
as to what is SVGA and what is not. In an effort to make SVGA more of a
standard VESA was established and is used in the newer units, but things
are still a mess. Video is either 512K [~1990], 1MB [1992], or 2MB [today],
resolution of 800x600 and 1024x768 at 256 and 32,768 colors are common with
most 24b at 640x480. Speedwise, too much variation and change. Most
old limiting factors overcome by 40 MHz VL Bus & 386's linear address.
Other non-SVGA standards:
8514/a
IBM's own standard, graphics accelerator with graphics functions like
linedraw, polygon fill, etc. in hardware.
IBM version interlaced.
TMS34010/34020: high end graphics co-processors, usually >$1000, some
do 24-bit, speeds up vector-oriented graphics like CAD.
XGA: eXtended Graphics Array {May be used in IBM PowerPC}
newer and faster than 8514/a, only available for MCA bus-based PS/2s, clones
are coming out soon. Emulates VGA, EGA, and CGA (DCT). Max resolution:
1024x768x8b, also some 16 bpp modes.
XGA-2
Accelerates graphics functions up to 20 times faster than standard VGA in
Windows and OS/2, including line draws, bit and pixel-block transfers, area
fills, masking and X/Y addressing. Has an intelligent way to detect and co-
exist with other XGA-2 cards, so multiple desktops like on the Mac may not be
far away. Since this is an architecture, its resolution and color depth
isn't fixed {IBM implements only 16-bit [65,536] color, while other
companies can have 24-bit color through IBM technical licenses}. Refresh
rates up to 75 Hz, ensures flicker free, rock solid images to reduce visual
discomfort, and is VGA compatible. Up to 1280x1024 on OS/2.
*some monitor types usable by Mac. See Mac section above for specific details.

Expansion
{Speeds are baced on: throughput = (bus_clock_speed x byte_width) /
transaction_overhead (Mel Martinez)}
Both Mac & IBM {and maybe PowerPC} {July 94}
SCSI: only external device expansion interface common to both Mac and IBM.
Allows the use of any device: hard drive, printer, scanner, Nubus 87 card
expansion {Mac Plus only}, some monitors, and CD-ROM. Normal {asynchronous}
SCSI is 5 Mhz; fast {synchronous} SCSI is 10 Mhz {software drivers}.
SCSI is limited to a total of 8 devices (SCSI-2 spec 03/17/93 draft).
Main problem: a lot of external devices are internal terminated which causes
problems when two or more devises are off the SCSI port, due to the fact
that the SCSI chain is supposed to be terminated ONLY at the begining and
end. There are also strange quirks which create totally unexplained
problems.
SCSI-1: 8-bit asynchronous {~1.5 MB/s ave} and synchronous {5 MB/s max}
transfers. Asynchronous 8-bit SCSI-2 is often mistaken for synchronous
SCSI-1 {see SCSI-2 for details}.
SCSI-2: fully SCSI-1 compliant. Since asynchronous 8-bit SCSI-2 runs at
synchronous SCSI-1 speeds using SCSI-1 hardware/software drivers, it is
sometimes mistakenly consitered part of SCSI-1. 16-bit and 32-bit SCSI-2
require different ports, electronics, and SCSI software drivers from SCSI-1.
Ports are 68-pin {16-bit} and two 68-pin/one 104-pin {32-bit}. Transfer
speeds are 4-6 MB/s with 10 MB/s burst {8-bit}, 8-12 MB/s with 20 MB/s burst
{16-bit}, and 15-20 MB/s with 40 MB/s burst {32-bit}.
Mac SCSI: asynchronous SCSI-1 built-in standard since the Plus. Even though
Apple developed some specifications for SCSI controlers, the OS SCSI Manager
needs to be rewritten to take full advantage of the features of all SCSI
interfaces. As a result, present 8-bit SCSI-2 Macs are at synchronous
SCSI-1 Speeds. Quadras and Power Macintoshes are only Macs with a SCSI-2
controller chip built-in (Digital Review, Oct 21, 1991 v8 n33 p8(1); BYTE
04/94:47) though they only support 8-bit. Due to a CPU-NuBus bottleneck on
older Macs, 16-bit SCSI-2 cards are very rare. Since SCSI is built-in,
overall cost is lower for Mac than for IBM and PC clone machines though
the gap is decreasing.
IBM SCSI: SCSI-1 is new pretty common but it is generally not bundled with
systems, except as add-on with EISA and VESA Local Bus adapters avalable
{See IDE information}.
Like the Mac, 8-bit SCSI-2 is used as a very fast SCSI-1 by most controllers
out there. Unlike the Mac, IBM had no exact SCSI controller specifications
{until CorelSCSI} which resulted in added SCSI incompatibilities
(Byte 10/92:254). In fact some PC SCSI are incompatable with Mac SCSI.
IDE: Integrated Device Electronics
Asynchronous {~5 MB/s max} and synchronous {8.3 MB/s max} transfer.
currently the most common standard because its hard drives tend to be cheaper
than SCSI. Limited to two drives per controler. Apple is rumored to be
planning to use this for the internal drive in low-end Macs
(MacWeek 07/04/94)
FireWire [IEEE P1394; Serial Bus]: intended to replace ADB, RS-232, RS-422,
parallel and SCSI (BYTE 07/93:90). Has six shielded wires with speeds of
100 Mb/s {12.5 MB/s}, 200 Mb/s {25 MB/s}, 400 Mb/s {50 MB/s]. Does not
require terminators and ID numbers, nor does it have a limit on number of
devices on the chain. FireWire cards for Mac planned by 1995
(MacUser, 03/94 v10 n3 p40(1); Microprocessor Report,
Mar 07,1994 v8 n3 p18(4); Byte 07/94:37)
PCI: Peripheral Component Interconnect
Intel's version of Local Bus is designed with a PCI->ISA/EISA/MCA bridge
in mind (PCI spec (rev 2.0)) and Apple will use it to replace Mac NuBus
[summer 1994 PowerPCs {PCI->NuBus 90 adaptor will be provided} (PC Week
5/31/93; MacWeek 5/31/93)]. 32 bit {64-bit expandable}, combining EISA
and VLB advantages; supports up to 10 slots {5 cards} (Jay C. Beavers;
MacWeek 5/31/93). Burst mode: 132 MB/s {32-bit}; 264MB/s {64-bit}.
QuickRing: Apple's 64-bit peer-to-peer local bus - "architecture is
identical to that of the VL-Bus, since the high-speed PDS interconnect taps
directly into the CPU's signal lines and bypasses the slower NuBus control
logic." (Byte 10/92:128) Base through put: 350 MB/s (Byte 10/92:128);
supported up to 16 nodes each at 200 MB/s for a total of 3.2 GB/s (InfoWorld,
3/15/93 v15 n11 p1(2)). Was planned to be compatable with present NuBus and
PDS systems (Byte 10/92:132-133). Would allow 180 MB/s networks (Byte
8/93:27). Shelved in favor of PCI.

Mac
Memory expansion: Memory data width must match the CPU data bus (Noah
Price). Until Feb 15, 1993 the Mac has used non-parity 30-pin 8-bit
SIMM memory expansion since the Plus. While 30-pin 9-bit parity SIMMs
could be used in these Macs, only special IIcis could make use of the parity
feature. The IIfxs used 64-pin SIMMs with a parity option.
Non-PowerBook Macs made after Feb 15, 1993 use 72-pin 32-bit SIMMs. The Mac
does a complete memory check at startup by writing/reading every memory
location; if something is seriously wrong with a SIMM the Mac will not boot
and give a sound chord indicating what the problem is. With the C/Q650 and
Quadra 800 if SIMMs the same size are used then the memory is 'interleaved'
across the two SIMMs resulting in a 10-15% performance boost on RAM access
(MacWorld Apr 93: 108-109).
Sound output: Standard in all Macs since 128K. Stereo 8-bit 22 kHz sound
became standard with SE/30. 16-bit 44.1/48 kHz stereo became standard with
Sound Manager 3.0 and av Macs.
Printers, ADBs, and modems: built-in ports standard.
Sound input: mono 8-bit 22 kHz since IIsi; stereo 16-bit 48 kHz in C660av,
Q840av, and Power Macintoshes.
Monitor interface: built-in on most present macs. Of at least SVGA quality.
The best PC description of present Mac video is "local bus" video.
CD-ROM: option for all Macs released after August 1993.
GeoPort {AV Macs, Power Macintoshes}: built-in V.32 9,600 bps modem via
software and adaptor{PhonePod}. 14,400 bps speed can be achieved presently
(MacUser 10/93:89), but this speed will not be officially supported until
later (MacWeek 08/02/93). Via software the GeoPort-PhonePod provides
a 9600 bps FAX, answering machine, phone, and speakerphone. Later
adaptors will allow PBX and ISDN use when the Telephone Tool comes out
(MacUser 10/93:88-9). Supports normal serial devices.
Composite and S-video in/out ports: standard on av Macs.
PDS: Available in SE & all present non-Powerbook Macs except Q840av. 16-bit
{SE, Portable, LC, LC II, Classic line} and 32-bit {QuickRing is 64-bit
bus}. Operates at CPU's MHz. Maximum through put: data path * CPU's MHz
{Q700/900 & Q610: 100 MB/s; Q650/Q800/Q950: 132 MB/s; Q840AV: 160 MB/s}.
Standardized around LC, 040, and 601 bus designs. With an adapter one NuBus
card can be used in IIsi, Q610 and Q660av. In theory, the PowerPC PDS should
have the following: 66 MHz - 264 MB/s, 80 MHz - 320 MB/s.
Problem: some cards have timing dependency which slows through put down.
NuBus 87 {Mac II}: 32-bit, 10 MHz bus clock, 1-to-1 transaction/bus cycle
ratio, and contiguous, hand-shake transactions at ~10-20 MB/s; burst mode:
37.5 MB/s (Computer Design, 06/01/89 v28 n11 p97(1); I&CS (Instrumentation
& Control Systems), 07/92 v65 n7 p23(2)). First Mac standard bus; cards 12".
Built-in support on all Modular Macs except the LC series and Performa 400.
There was SE/30 adaptor and Mac Plus SCSI->NuBus. Limited to 8 {old Macs}
through 24-bit video, accelerators {some with expansion to parallel
processing}, CPU-ethernet task sharing, 8 to 16-bit SCSI-2, DSP, DMA cards
{block transfers}, real time video input, PC compatable cards, and Ethernet.
NuBus 90: NuBus 87 back compatable. avg throughput: ~30 MB/s (I&CS
{Instrumentation & Control Systems} 07/92 v65 n7 p23(2)); burst mode: 20
MHz 70 MB/s (Noah Price). I/O bottleneck removed with Quadra 660av and
840av (MacWeek 08/02/93). Present useful NuBus 87 cards - 24-bit video
{accelerator built-in}, 16-bit SCSI-2, real time video input
{DAV-NuBus hybrid cards will be faster}, PC compatable cards, and
accelerators {some with expansion to parallel processing}.
6" card standard is enforced in new machines.
DAV {Digital Audio Video} connector {av machines}: provides YUV video and
digital audio (Noah Price) as wall as full speed sound/video compression
cards such as JPEG, MPEG, DVI and H.261.
CPU expansion: handled either through the PDS or the NuBus. Unlike PDS,
Nubus CPU cards can allow use of multiple processors at the same time {Like
MCA; example-RocketShare} via parallel processing. Each NuBus card needs
its own memory but most NuBus cards of this type come with 8 MB RAM of SIMMs
on the card standard.

IBM
Memory expansion: parity SIMMs, non-parity SIMMs {some newer models do a Mac-
like SIMM memory check}, or a dozen or so different types of memory boards.
As with Macs SIMM expansion, memory data width must match the CPU data bus.

HD Interfaces {limited to hard drives by design or lack of development
June 3, 1994}:
MFM: Modified Frequency Modulation, RLL: Run Length Limited
Obsolete interfaces only used with old small [² 60mb] hard drives.
ESDI: Enhanced Small Device Interface
~1.25MB/s throughput. generally considered better interface than SCSI-1
in many ways but not common enough for practical consideration. Device
choices are very limited compared to SCSI-1.

BUS interfaces
{New 'plug and play' ISA and EISA compatable cards may have problems working
with old cards (PC Week 03/08/93).}

PC-bus {used in ISA machines}
8-bit
ISA {equivalent to most of the Mac's built-in ports}
16-bit bus. Has 24-bit address path limit {produces 16 MB limit for which
there are software workarounds} (PC Mag 4/27/93:105). 1.5 MB/s (Byte
3/92:132), 5.3 MB/s max. Uses edge-triggered interrupts, can't share them,
hence comes the IRQ conflict. Busmastering capabilities provided by
individial cards which tend to conflict with each other. Some cards aren't
bandwidth limited {COM ports, LPT ports, game ports, MIDI card, etc.} while
others are {video and disk controllers}. Dominant factor, but it's showing
its age. All ISA motherboard designs must be 16-bit (PC World 02/1993:144-5;
David Charlap).
MCA: Micro Channel {NuBus 87 equivalent (Personal Computing, 09/88 v12 n9
p115(1))}
IBM's 16 and 32-bit bus; "allows use of more than one CPU in a computer"
(DCT) with any two components 'talking' as fast as they can handle it, up
to 20 MB/s (Computer Design, 06/01/89 v28 n11 p97(1)). Also has a
80 MB/s burst mode. Never took off because it was incompatible with ISA/EISA.
Planned to be IBM PowerPC 601's bus interface (Carl Jabido).
EISA {compares to most of the Mac's built-in ports and NuBus 87}
32-bit, 8.33 MHz, burst mode: 33 MB/s. Back supports ISA cards.
It also has the ability to self-configure cards like MCA and allows
multiple bus masters, sharable interrupt and DMA channels and multiple
CPU use.
VESA Local Bus: VLB {PDS equivalent}
Local Bus standard. Runs at CPU clock rate, up to 40 Mhz (BYTE 07/93:84),
Burst modes: ~130 MB/s {32-bit} 250 MB/s {64-bit} (Byte 10/92:128).
Heavily tied to the 486 CPU line (BYTE 07/93:84).
Limited to three slots but allows bus mastering and will coexist with either
ISA or EISA. Consitered ideal for video and disk I/O. DELL has filled a
claim that this violates one of their patents (Mel Martinez).

Issa El-Hazin

unread,
Jul 5, 1994, 3:30:52 PM7/5/94
to

Bruce Grudd:

Why don't you stick with posting your biased stuff to the mac.advocacy
groups.

Apple will have less than 5% market share (or even will follow the lead
of Amiga/NeXT) in less than 10 years. Two main reasons are:
1) Microsoft is a big company now and they want the PC to win.
2) HP/Intel alliance. Have you heard that the P6 chip will have
256Kb of internal L1 cache, and how about the Post-RISC [VLIW]
P7 chip with the 1000+ SPECs projected?? There will be no PPC
chip that will be able to stand against the P7, and IBM don't
have the xtra billions to develop another new chip to compete
with the P7.

The Mac will survive [somewhat] for the next 3 years or so; thanks to the
PPC chip. After that, Apple will go down hard.

I know this has been said before a number of times, but this time it will
be for real. I'll even give 100 to 1 odds that the above is what will
happen.

Lastly, I'm not saying that this is good or bad - competition usually is
good; nonetheless, the above is what will happen, IMHO.

regards,

--
=======================================================================
Issa El-Hazin (is...@unomaha.edu)
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Technical Specialist (C&DC)

Jim Wong

unread,
Jul 5, 1994, 5:33:21 PM7/5/94
to
In article <issa.773436652@cwis>, is...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa El-Hazin) writes:
|> I know this has been said before a number of times, but this time it will
|> be for real. I'll even give 100 to 1 odds that the above is what will
|> happen.

100 to 1? Do you really think anything is that certain?

--
Jim Wong (jim...@es.rice.edu)

Clifford T. Tanaka

unread,
Jul 5, 1994, 6:43:45 PM7/5/94
to
Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.powerpc: 5-Jul-94 Re: [*] Mac & IBM
compare-V.. by Issa El-H...@cwis.unoma
> Apple will have less than 5% market share (or even will follow the lead
> of Amiga/NeXT) in less than 10 years. Two main reasons are:
> 1) Microsoft is a big company now and they want the PC to win.
> 2) HP/Intel alliance. Have you heard that the P6 chip will have
> 256Kb of internal L1 cache, and how about the Post-RISC [VLIW]
> P7 chip with the 1000+ SPECs projected?? There will be no PPC
> chip that will be able to stand against the P7, and IBM don't
> have the xtra billions to develop another new chip to compete
> with the P7.
>
> The Mac will survive [somewhat] for the next 3 years or so; thanks to the
> PPC chip. After that, Apple will go down hard.
>
> I know this has been said before a number of times, but this time it will
> be for real. I'll even give 100 to 1 odds that the above is what will
> happen.
>

Really? I'll bet you $1000. I can cover that bet, can you cover
$100K?? It's a bit foolish to risk your money on vapor. Whose vapor is
going to win, the PPC or Intel's chips? 620 vs. P6, 630 vs. P7. Funny
thing is, Intel could win, but I'd still win the bet since Apple's
market share will be > 5%.

Cliff.

Berit Erickson

unread,
Jul 5, 1994, 10:17:40 PM7/5/94
to
In article <issa.773436652@cwis>, is...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa El-Hazin)
wrote:

>
> Bruce Grudd:
>
> Why don't you stick with posting your biased stuff to the mac.advocacy
> groups.

People in glass houses...

>
> Apple will have less than 5% market share (or even will follow the lead
> of Amiga/NeXT) in less than 10 years. Two main reasons are:
> 1) Microsoft is a big company now and they want the PC to win.
> 2) HP/Intel alliance. Have you heard that the P6 chip will have
> 256Kb of internal L1 cache, and how about the Post-RISC [VLIW]
> P7 chip with the 1000+ SPECs projected?? There will be no PPC
> chip that will be able to stand against the P7, and IBM don't
> have the xtra billions to develop another new chip to compete
> with the P7.

P7, ooh, I'm scared. Vapour on stilts.


>
> The Mac will survive [somewhat] for the next 3 years or so; thanks to the
> PPC chip. After that, Apple will go down hard.
>
> I know this has been said before a number of times, but this time it will
> be for real. I'll even give 100 to 1 odds that the above is what will
> happen.

Okay, you're on. This is the deal of the century. I'll bet you $20. So if I
lose, you get $20, but if I win you pay me $2000. Sure you want to go
through with this? I'll give you a chance to reconsider...

Mark Rogowsky

unread,
Jul 6, 1994, 4:00:50 AM7/6/94
to
IQmarks:

Issa few
Grubb few

Flame-bait quotient:

Issa tons
Grubb tons

Relevance of commentary to discussions intelligent people have:

Issa little
Grubb little

Conclusion:

Issa=Grubb=nothing worth caring about...

Mark Rogowsky
ro...@forsythe.stanford.edu

Bruce Grubb

unread,
Jul 6, 1994, 10:35:38 AM7/6/94
to
Sorry about the crosspossing people but several people seem to not understand
what "Send followups to comp.sys.mac.advocacy

{I have never figured out the followup fuction here and gave up after a
year.}" means.

is...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa El-Hazin) writes:
>Bruce Grudd:
Bruce Grubb. An insult right off the bat, wonderful.

>Why don't you stick with posting your biased stuff to the mac.advocacy
>groups.

"Since computer technology is always changing there are always going to be
points in which the sheet will be lacking or incorrect on information. So,
please just don't say the sheet is incomplete or incorrect but also give me
clear and concise information to make the needed corrections."

I have been complemented several times on the UNBIASED nature of the sheet.
It is not perfect but it is certainly better than some of what is out there.
Remember the very infamous Computer Shopper, 07/93 v13 n7 p180(7) article?
They seems to have learned their lesson as the Computer Shopper, June 94 v14
n6 p146(12) article was much better and more neutral. They stayed away from
the ISA = NuBus, ignore Mac SCSI and other built-in ports, and delay over six
months blunders of the July 93 article.

Also the crossposting is as much to GET information as to give it.
It helped clean up the video section which was a total disaster and vastly out
of date back in 92 and has helped update the OS section.



>Apple will have less than 5% market share (or even will follow the lead
>of Amiga/NeXT) in less than 10 years. Two main reasons are:

We must remember that in the US the Amiga and NeXT NEVER got the marketshare
that the Mac has presently {~15%} and that they failed for reasons very
different from the Mac.
The Amiga failed mainly because of bad marketing and not due to cost or
performance {it was cheaper and better than Macs and PCs for almost six
years.}.
The NeXT failed because it was overpriced to the point that it made the pre-
Oct 1991 Macs look cheap. As Ingram keeps pointing out, Macs are generally
cheaper and faster than PCs and have been that way since Oct 1991.
Even Computer Shopper conceeded that with native software a 8100/80 out
performed a Pentium/90. Given their numbers it could hold its own against the
Pentium/100s that we are now seeing and this is igoring the MPC601/120 Mac
protype that was showed off back in May 94 and should be out by May 95.
This is assuming Apple doesn't opt for a MPC604/120 Mac instead. Computer
Shopper felt that a MPC604 would be 2 to 3 times faster than a MPC601 {which
is more optimistic than even Motorola's own projections}.



>1) Microsoft is a big company now and they want the PC to win.

Not really. MicroSoft is intrested in gaining marketshare for its programs
but not to a level that would _force_ the FTC and Justice Department to act
under the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
"Trust: any large industrial or commerical corporation or combination having a
monopolistic or semimonopolistic control over the production of some commodity
or service." (Ramdom House Dictionary of the English Language)

>2) HP/Intel alliance. Have you heard that the P6 chip will have
> 256Kb of internal L1 cache, and how about the Post-RISC [VLIW]
> P7 chip with the 1000+ SPECs projected?? There will be no PPC
> chip that will be able to stand against the P7, and IBM don't
> have the xtra billions to develop another new chip to compete
> with the P7.

If you want to talk vaporware there are MPC630 and the MPC7xx line.
As I could not conferm them I left out out of my sheet.
I have heard rumors of the MPC7xxs' speed that put it in the P7's class. The
point is that the MPC7xx and P7 are so far in the future that what information
we have heard about them is more rumor than substance. At least I can conferm
that the P7 is on the drawing board, which is more than I can do for the
MPC7xx.
Please note what the sheet said:
P7 _RISC_ with a hardware
x86 code translator,
late-1995

The references for this are (Computergram International, June 2/94; MacWeek,
0530/94 v8 n22 p1(2)).
"P7 will be a _full RISC processor_ that emulates iAPX-86 instructions in
hardware" (Computergram International, June 2/94)

As nei...@nestvx.enet.dec.com (Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz) wrote:
>In article <2vckv6$9...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> na...@uiuc.edu (Ramez Naam) writes:
>>VLIW as a concept can be adopted by other
>>architectures as well, and is only easier to implement on a RISC
>>instruction set with its nice, uniform instruction lengths.)
>That sentence doesn't make sense. Either you have a RISC or VLIW instruction
>set. Adopting VLIW means changing the architecture. Perhaps you are
>confusing architecture and implementation.

As for the HP/Intel alliance rumor is that is not even supposed to produce
chips until _after_ the P7 release. Some rumors put it as late as 97-98
before anything comes out of this. IMHO the 95-96 timeframe rumors makes more
sence.

Also please CHECK the references I give. (BYTE 04/94:22) shows a nice chart
that shows that the MPC6xx chip line outperforming all but SuperSparc II,
R4400, and the Alpha EV-5 clear into May 1995, with the MPC620 of April 95
being about 100 SPECMarks faster than a P6 of April _96_.

>The Mac will survive [somewhat] for the next 3 years or so; thanks to the
>PPC chip. After that, Apple will go down hard.

This is a replay of the same song the the pro-PC crowd has been singing for
the last 10 YEARS. Mac has not only survived but gained marketshare in that
time {from zilch in 84 to ~15% in 94}. Given what is going on presently there
is little to suggest a doom and gloom future for Apple {or Intel for that
matter}.

>I know this has been said before a number of times, but this time it will
>be for real. I'll even give 100 to 1 odds that the above is what will
>happen.

We don't have enough info on the P7, MPC620, MPC630, MPC7xx, or whatever else
is coming down the pipe for _anyone_ to see the future this clearly.

God

unread,
Jul 6, 1994, 1:15:40 PM7/6/94
to
In article <issa.773436652@cwis>, is...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa El-Hazin) wrote: > Bruce Grudd: > Why don't you stick with posting your biased stuff to the mac.advocacy > groups. Speaking of biased stuff... > Apple will have less than 5% market share (or even will follow the lead > of Amiga/NeXT) in less than 10 years. Two main reasons are: 1) Microsoft is a big company now and they want the PC to win. Wow. A big company. Oooooh. They want the PC to win. Are you sure? I don't think they care THAT much. Windows NT is platform independent from ground up, and they've already licensed Chicago to Insignia for SoftWindows. Marketing figures state that right now Microsoft makes more $$ per Mac than per Windows Machine. I'm not saying BILL is a Mac fan, but obviously he liked it enough to copy it :) 2) HP/Intel alliance. Have you heard that the P6 chip will have 256Kb of internal L1 cache, and how about the Post-RISC [VLIW] P7 chip with the 1000+ SPECs projected?? There will be no PPC chip that will be able to stand against the P7, and IBM don't have the xtra billions to develop another new chip to compete with the P7. Seriously, Issa, I'm comstantly amazed at the depth of your reasoning and undeniable insight you have in the industry. Did you ever consider that 1) With its 256Kb of L1 cache, it's going to get its ass kicked all over the place by the PPC 620, which will precede it in availability and machines. Perhaps ass-kicking is too inflamatory. How about soundly out-performed. to mention that the P6 Will require software recompilation. By next year, everything that's everything will be PPC Native - will it be P6 Native? Maybe we should wait for the chip, issa, and just realize that the PPC604, right now, is the fastest chip around with a software base. 2) What does Post-RISC mean to you issa? Did you read a cool hyphenated word with a need acronym [VLIW] and decide VLIW>RISC based on letter count Scrabble score? VLIW has some very real hardware problems. HP and Intel have only just announced this joint work, nothing has moved yet. And the P7 still will carry the wieght of both HP's line AND Intel's line. Note, they promise x86 emulation "at Pentium speeds or better" Ooooooooh. Amazing, but I'd suprised if the PPC620 doesn't match that claim 2 years earlier. 3) We don't know PPC plans past the 620, which will be announce w/in 6 months. That doesn't mean there are none. It's not like the engineers at Somerset are all, "we're done, let's party". No, they are already specing out better and faster chips. Rumor surfaced about a PPC7xx series due in 1997, which has supposed to be an order of magnitude faster than the PPC620. I'm not saying P7 won't be fast, it's just a question of whether Intel has market loyalty that allowed Apple to be "slower, but better" for 2 years. > The Mac will survive [somewhat] for the next 3 years or so; thanks to the > PPC chip. After that, Apple will go down hard. Once again, depth and insight are the hidden treasures here. > I know this has been said before a number of times, but this time it will > be for real. I'll even give 100 to 1 odds that the above is what will > happen. I'll bet you, right now, at 100 to 1 odds this does not happen. I'll put $100. Let Usenet be witness, if Apple/Mac is around in mid-1997, issa owes me $10000. Otherwise, I owe him a $100. Just off-hand issa, when is the last time you "knew" something was going to happen in industry, and it did? > Lastly, I'm not saying that this is good or bad - competition usually is > good; nonetheless, the above is what will happen, IMHO. Amazing, your softening. IMHO means In My Humble Opinion. You are not Humble, so don't try. > ======================================================================= > Issa El-Hazin In 3 years, you owe me $10,000 BUDDY. -Adam Nash adam...@cs.stanford.edu na...@interval.com smas...@leland.stanford.edu

Mark Koesel

unread,
Jul 6, 1994, 2:35:56 PM7/6/94
to
In article <issa.773436652@cwis> is...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa El-Hazin) writes:
>Apple will have less than 5% market share (or even will follow the lead
>of Amiga/NeXT) in less than 10 years. Two main reasons are:
> 1) Microsoft is a big company now and they want the PC to win.

Microsoft is a big company, and they will remain that way. So will
IBM, Intel, Apple and HP.

> 2) HP/Intel alliance. Have you heard that the P6 chip will have
> 256Kb of internal L1 cache,

If you call on a separate chip internal.

> and how about the Post-RISC [VLIW]
> P7 chip with the 1000+ SPECs projected??

The P7, for the P7th time, is (at this time) still an intel only project.
The HP/Intel alliance won't show a product 'til '97 at the earliest.

> There will be no PPC
> chip that will be able to stand against the P7, and IBM don't
> have the xtra billions to develop another new chip to compete
> with the P7.

IBM has already announced a 630. They've got enough 'xtra billions'
to do what ever they want with their architecture.

>The Mac will survive [somewhat] for the next 3 years or so; thanks to the
>PPC chip. After that, Apple will go down hard.

Yeah, the PPC life expectancy is about 3 years.

>I know this has been said before a number of times, but this time it will
>be for real. I'll even give 100 to 1 odds that the above is what will
>happen.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, by the time the P6 is here
the 620 will be doing win32 in emulation at P54/P6 speeds. Quote me.

>Lastly, I'm not saying that this is good or bad - competition usually is
>good; nonetheless, the above is what will happen, IMHO.

ditto.
__
__/\_\ Mark G. Koesel - koe...@engin.umich.edu
__/\_\/_/ Computer Engineering - University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
/\_\/_/\_\
\/_/\_\/_/ The future: Same old Mac/PC incompatibility problems, only
\/_/\_\ this time we're taunted by the fact they are both using the
\/_/ same processor.

ba...@ad.enet.dec.com

unread,
Jul 6, 1994, 4:11:04 PM7/6/94
to

>regards,

Boy, I guess the great 'Intel-Marketing-Hype-Machine' has you mesmerized!
What makes you so sure the PowerPC won't achieve 1000+ Specs in that time
frame? Do you think they'll just be hanging around 300? If nothing else,
Apple will hang around with the same market share just for the fact that it
has a sizable installed base. I don't think *that* will be the case either.
Quit making big assumptions and claims about future processors that haven't
been designed yet. HP/Intel probably won't have their joint chip out until
late 1997 at the earliest.

You are excused if this is just another post making fun of this newsgroup. It
is getting difficult to tell. :*)

-SB

Chris Umbricht, M.D.

unread,
Jul 6, 1994, 6:17:26 PM7/6/94
to
In article <issa.773436652@cwis> Issa El-Hazin, is...@cwis.unomaha.edu
writes:

>Apple will have less than 5% market share (or even will follow the lead
>of Amiga/NeXT) in less than 10 years.

You're on.
I think apple's market share will rise to 20-25% over your time frame.
Apple shipped more PPC's in the first 3 months than all P5's taken
together for the preceeding year.
The P5's can only keep up with PPC/Macs if you are looking at emulated
software.
The performance gap will widen with the 604 and 620, both of which are
ahead of schedule.
And I'm sure Chicago will be real stable after MS decided to chop off
10mo off the beta schedule to mask how late is is...

Bill Coleman

unread,
Jul 11, 1994, 11:06:39 AM7/11/94
to
In article <issa.773436652@cwis>, is...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa El-Hazin) writes:
>
> Apple will have less than 5% market share (or even will follow the lead
> of Amiga/NeXT) in less than 10 years. Two main reasons are:
> 1) Microsoft is a big company now and they want the PC to win.

Actually, Microsoft only wants Microsoft to win. If you look at the Mac
applications market, you'll find that Microsoft is a big player, and they make
a lot of money selling Macintosh applications. I'm sure that Microsoft wouldn't
want that business to disappear.

> 2) HP/Intel alliance. Have you heard that the P6 chip will have
> 256Kb of internal L1 cache,

Big deal.

> and how about the Post-RISC [VLIW]
> P7 chip with the 1000+ SPECs projected??

Another big deal.

> There will be no PPC
> chip that will be able to stand against the P7, and IBM don't
> have the xtra billions to develop another new chip to compete
> with the P7.

Where do you come up with this completely fabricated crap? Is Intel so sorely
behind that the only things you can come up with are projections of some
future processor that hasn't even made it to the design room yet? Sheesh!

The reality is, no one is standing still. Intel is working on future
processors, and so is IBM/Motorola. So are other chip vendors. That's the
nature of the market. Everything advances. Perhaps you haven't heard of the
PPC 604 or the 620 chips? Perhaps you haven't heard of the unusually fast
versions of the 601? Rest assured, when P7 arrives, IBM/Motorola will have a
PowerPC chip that is comparable (or even better) in performance.

> The Mac will survive [somewhat] for the next 3 years or so; thanks to the
> PPC chip. After that, Apple will go down hard.

In three years, the PowerPC will have just moved across the entire Mac
product line. What do you suppose is going the "kill Apple off"?

> I know this has been said before a number of times, but this time it will
> be for real.

Baloney.

This has been said more than a number of times. People have been predicting the
imminent demise of Apple CONTINUOUSLY since the Mac came out. Look what has
happened. In 10 years, 1 out of 7 personal computers bought is a Macintosh.
That doesn't sound like Apple is about to collapse. It sounds as though Apple
has done well.

> Lastly, I'm not saying that this is good or bad - competition usually is
> good; nonetheless, the above is what will happen, IMHO.

Baloney.

This "x is going to kill Apple off" stuff is just wishful thinking on the
part of your PC-heads. I'm sorry it pains you so much to see that the Mac
is such a nice machine -- to the point that you can only accept it by
predicting its demise.

Face it. The Mac is here, it is successful, and it isn't going away.

--
Bill Coleman, AA4LR ! Internet: bcol...@hayes.com
Principal Software Engineer ! AppleLink: D1958
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! CIS: 76067,2327
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA !
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Bob Zwarick

unread,
Jul 12, 1994, 11:50:04 AM7/12/94
to
In <1994Jul11.110639.9306@hayes>, bcol...@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>...

>
>Face it. The Mac is here, it is successful, and it isn't going away.
>
Yes I agree. Actually the powerPC MACS are pretty good. IMHO they are about on a par with INTEL based systems for the first time. Now if the applications follow, MACs could increase their market share.

INTEL chips aside from the religious ferver over risc vs cisc, can and will keep pace with the latest cult chips.

From my point of view, I use the system, os that best supports the activities/software I need. I am interested in such things as chip architecture, os philosophies etc. but never let those details interfere with the real world situation of application availability, suitability and support

----
R. M. Zwarick
------------------------------------------------------------
"One cannot, as a matter of principle, know the present in all it's detail."
------------------------------------------------------------


Patrick Hall

unread,
Jul 12, 1994, 11:18:50 PM7/12/94
to
Bill Coleman (bcol...@hayes.com) wrote:
: In article <issa.773436652@cwis>, is...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa El-Hazin) writes:
: > 2) HP/Intel alliance. Have you heard that the P6 chip will have

: > 256Kb of internal L1 cache,
: Big deal.
Interesting... However, without a source to back it up, and unless
they've done some serious re-design of cache architecture, that's either
untrue or going to take up a _lot_ of transistors.

: > and how about the Post-RISC [VLIW]

: > P7 chip with the 1000+ SPECs projected??
: Another big deal.

Sorry - the P6 is currently vapor, which makes speculations about
it pure speculation. Any speculation about a P7, or about a PPC 630, or
about a Power4, etc. etc. are pure pipe dream.

: > There will be no PPC

: > chip that will be able to stand against the P7, and IBM don't
: > have the xtra billions to develop another new chip to compete
: > with the P7.

: Where do you come up with this completely fabricated crap? Is Intel so sorely
: behind that the only things you can come up with are projections of some
: future processor that hasn't even made it to the design room yet? Sheesh!

Actually, they make some very nice chips - the i860 comes to mind.
As for the comment about IBM not having the extra money to develop a chip
to compete with a hypothetical Intel chip, I would like to mention a few
things, some chips, some not:
Power2
Power3 (speculated - at a guess, there will be a Power3, though I have
no information about it, and therefore make no claims
about it - I do not even claim that it is a fact that there
will be such a thing, just that I feel it is likely)
AS/400
In addition, I would guess that IBM has more than enough money to
develop another chip architecture or implementation, if they were to
decide to do such a thing. Not only that, but Motorola is a key player as
far as PPC's in particular, as well as IBM.

: The reality is, no one is standing still. Intel is working on future

: processors, and so is IBM/Motorola. So are other chip vendors. That's the
: nature of the market. Everything advances. Perhaps you haven't heard of the
: PPC 604 or the 620 chips? Perhaps you haven't heard of the unusually fast
: versions of the 601? Rest assured, when P7 arrives, IBM/Motorola will have a
: PowerPC chip that is comparable (or even better) in performance.

I agree the no party is standing still, and I would guess that the
PPC will be a player in the "personal desktop" market for some time to come.

: This "x is going to kill Apple off" stuff is just wishful thinking on the


: part of your PC-heads. I'm sorry it pains you so much to see that the Mac
: is such a nice machine -- to the point that you can only accept it by
: predicting its demise.

Speaking for myself, I would like to say that I personally use
80x86 architecture machines because they offer the best price\performance
for my needs, within my budget. In addition, I generally prefer a CLI of
some sort, which is somewhat lacking on the Mac. The Mac is a wonderful
machine for some uses and some people - I do not happen to be one of those
people, instead preferring other machines.

Patrick Hall
ph...@umr.edu

Simon K Boocock

unread,
Jul 13, 1994, 9:50:47 AM7/13/94
to
Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.advocacy: 13-Jul-94 Re: [*] Mac & IBM
compare-V.. by Patrick Ha...@saucer.cc.u
> In addition, I would guess that IBM has more than enough money to
> develop another chip architecture or implementation, if they were to
> decide to do such a thing. Not only that, but Motorola is a key player as
> far as PPC's in particular, as well as IBM.
As an aside I recall reading in a financial rag (Investors Weekly or
some such title), that IBM had huge debt repayment obligations. The
piece ran a couple of months ago. The tenor of the piece was that IBM
stock was not a good bet, they were not in a position to make radical
moves, nor avoid additional lay-offs and cutbacks.

Would anyone with a financial background care to provide more
information on this topic? How does IBM's financial position affect the
flexibility with which they can meet the changing demands of the
marketplace?

Meanwhile, I'll try and locate the source of my recollection.

Bruce Grubb

unread,
Jul 12, 1994, 1:09:31 PM7/12/94
to
bcol...@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>In article <issa.773436652@cwis>, is...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa El-Hazin)
writes:
>>Apple will have less than 5% market share (or even will follow the lead
>>of Amiga/NeXT) in less than 10 years. Two main reasons are:
>>1) Microsoft is a big company now and they want the PC to win.
>Actually, Microsoft only wants Microsoft to win. If you look at the Mac
>applications market, you'll find that Microsoft is a big player, and they
>make a lot of money selling Macintosh applications. I'm sure that Microsoft
>wouldn't want that business to disappear.
Also the FTP and Justice Department could not ignore such a domination of the
OS in the PCworld if the Mac went away. MicroSoft NEEDS the Mac OS to keep
the FTP and Justice Department from declaring them a OS trust and cutting them
up like a Thanksgiving turkey.

>>2) HP/Intel alliance. Have you heard that the P6 chip will have
>>256Kb of internal L1 cache,
>Big deal.

Agreed. Motorola's timetable puts the MPC604 and MPC620 in the same time
frame as the P6 and a chart in BYTE 04/94:23 showed that the MPC620 would
outperform in ~May 95 a P6 made in ~March _96_.
Besides the P6 and P7 have been part of Intel's projected chips as early as
1993.

>>and how about the Post-RISC [VLIW]
>>P7 chip with the 1000+ SPECs projected??
>Another big deal.

This is the timeframe of the MPC630 and MPC7xx line. Other than their names
we have little idea of what the speed of these chips are or even WHAT they
are.
Also it is strange that _all_ the references to the P7 up to as late as June
2, 1994 said that the P7 was to be a RISC chip (Computergram International,
June 2/94; MacWeek, 05/30/94 v8 n22 p1(2)) and now the projections are that
the P7 is to be a VLIW chip.
Since RISC and VLIW are totaly DIFFERENT instuction sets this means that the
DESIGN of the P7 is not even set. The P7 is not even vaporware; it is more a
dream of what is to be.
As for VLIW being "Post-RISC" that is total nonsence. While VLIW is supposed
to be cheaper and faster than RISC it is one of the oldest things around.
According to Microprocessor Report, Feb 14, 1994 v8 n2 p18(4) VLIW can trace
its origins back to horizontal microcode, Alan Turing {1946}, and Maurice
Wilkes {1951}. Formal VLIW dates from somewhere in the 1970's.

"The biggest problem with VLIW, one that Multiflow and Cydrome
were encountering just as they ran out of cash, is that each
successive VLIW machine is generally not compatible with binaries
for the previous design." (Microprocessor Report, Feb 14, 1994 v8 n2 p18(4))
For example, imagine that the Pentium design was incompatible with 486 code
and the 486 design was incompatible with 386 code. Imagine the chaos that
would result. This is why not much has been done with VLIW until now,
programming for VLIW will be a _total compatiblity nightmare_ until solutions
to the binary problem are found.
Neither of the soultions given in the article were promising:
1) intermediate language which is translated to CPU dependent binaries by
the installer {VERY large programs}.
or
2) translators and emulators {much like the present CISC->RISC set up on the
Power Macintoshes and likely with some of the same problems}

>>There will be no PPC
>>chip that will be able to stand against the P7, and IBM don't
>>have the xtra billions to develop another new chip to compete
>>with the P7.
>Where do you come up with this completely fabricated crap? Is Intel so sorely
>behind that the only things you can come up with are projections of some
>future processor that hasn't even made it to the design room yet? Sheesh!

This one of the reasons that I do not include the MPC630 and MPC7xx line in my
info sheet. The information on these chips is so sparce as to be all but
useless. More rumor and wishing than anything even remotely resembling fact.
For example, I have heard rumors that the speed of the MPC7xx line is in the
P7's range but cannot confirm them.

>The reality is, no one is standing still. Intel is working on future
>processors, and so is IBM/Motorola. So are other chip vendors. That's the
>nature of the market. Everything advances. Perhaps you haven't heard of the
>PPC 604 or the 620 chips? Perhaps you haven't heard of the unusually fast
>versions of the 601? Rest assured, when P7 arrives, IBM/Motorola will have a
>PowerPC chip that is comparable (or even better) in performance.

If somebody wants to talk about the P7 {which Intel has moved back to 'late in
this decade'} let us talk about the MPC630 and MPC7xx line. Those chips are
in the P7's time frame and are about as well know as what they could do.
The MPC6xx line has been meeting Motorola's expectations in speed and
surpassing expectations in when the chip comes out. The MPC6xx line is
already 3 to six months AHEAD of where Motorola originally projected it to be
back in 1993. Intel on the other hand has moved back the P7 projections from
late in 1995 to late in the decade {1997-2000, technically the decade of the
1990's is from 1991-2000 which puts the middle in 1996}

Mark Rogowsky

unread,
Jul 14, 1994, 6:36:50 AM7/14/94
to
In article <2vuiob$5...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, bgr...@scf.nmsu.edu (Bruce Grubb)
wrote:

> Also the FTP and Justice Department could not ignore such a domination of the
> OS in the PCworld if the Mac went away. MicroSoft NEEDS the Mac OS to keep
> the FTP and Justice Department from declaring them a OS trust and cutting them
> up like a Thanksgiving turkey.

Bruce, it's the FTC, Federal Trade Commission. The FTP is file transfer
protocol :-). Funny, Microsoft doesn't need the MacOS for what you
describe. Apple has chosen not to offer an x86 OS, Microsoft hasn't stopped
them. The issues that have Microsoft in Justice Dept. hot water right now
do *not* involved control of the OS market. As a matter of fact, a friend
and I were discussing the fact that Microsoft should buy Apple (after
spinning off Claris, which the FTC wouldn't allow Microsoft to buy). That
would force Novell to get off its behind and do a real OS, force IBM to
evangelize OS/2, and allow Microsoft to provide an even better OS to shoot
at.


>
> >>2) HP/Intel alliance. Have you heard that the P6 chip will have
> >>256Kb of internal L1 cache,
> >Big deal.
> Agreed. Motorola's timetable puts the MPC604 and MPC620 in the same time
> frame as the P6 and a chart in BYTE 04/94:23 showed that the MPC620 would
> outperform in ~May 95 a P6 made in ~March _96_.
> Besides the P6 and P7 have been part of Intel's projected chips as early as
> 1993.

Michael Slater of Microprocessor Report says that with the PowerPC 604,
IBM/Moto will open a performance gap that Intel will not close for years.
This is probably true, but doesn't necessarily threaten Intel too much.


>
> 2, 1994 said that the P7 was to be a RISC chip (Computergram International,
> June 2/94; MacWeek, 05/30/94 v8 n22 p1(2)) and now the projections are that
> the P7 is to be a VLIW chip.

Who cares what a bunch of pseudo-journalists think about Intel's chips?
Since when is MacWeek a source of information on Intel? I'd try Byte and
PCWeek, PC and PCWorld...

> Since RISC and VLIW are totaly DIFFERENT instuction sets this means that the
> DESIGN of the P7 is not even set. The P7 is not even vaporware; it is more a
> dream of what is to be.

The P7 is currently being designed by Intel engineers. I have no idea what
it's going to be like or whether it will eventually be merged with the HP
alliance. It is currently being worked on, though. It's not a dream.

> As for VLIW being "Post-RISC" that is total nonsence. While VLIW is supposed
> to be cheaper and faster than RISC it is one of the oldest things around.
> According to Microprocessor Report, Feb 14, 1994 v8 n2 p18(4) VLIW can trace
> its origins back to horizontal microcode, Alan Turing {1946}, and Maurice
> Wilkes {1951}. Formal VLIW dates from somewhere in the 1970's.

Big deal. If HP and Intel can get a really fast x86/PA-RISC compatible VLIW
chip, it will be an impressive chip. I'm not holding my breath on seeing
this chip, since 3-4 years is a long time, but it should be impressive
nevertheless.


>
> "The biggest problem with VLIW, one that Multiflow and Cydrome
> were encountering just as they ran out of cash, is that each
> successive VLIW machine is generally not compatible with binaries
> for the previous design." (Microprocessor Report, Feb 14, 1994 v8 n2 p18(4))
> For example, imagine that the Pentium design was incompatible with 486 code
> and the 486 design was incompatible with 386 code. Imagine the chaos that
> would result. This is why not much has been done with VLIW until now,
> programming for VLIW will be a _total compatiblity nightmare_ until solutions
> to the binary problem are found.

Successive generations may be incompatible, but that doesn't mean a first
generation can't be improved upon and made faster. The analogy of Pentium
and 486 as incompatible doesn't have to hold. It will be possible to design
binary compatible VLIW chips that are better than the previous ones without
being a whole new "generation."

> If somebody wants to talk about the P7 {which Intel has moved back to 'late in
> this decade'} let us talk about the MPC630 and MPC7xx line. Those chips are
> in the P7's time frame and are about as well know as what they could do.
> The MPC6xx line has been meeting Motorola's expectations in speed and
> surpassing expectations in when the chip comes out. The MPC6xx line is
> already 3 to six months AHEAD of where Motorola originally projected it to be
> back in 1993. Intel on the other hand has moved back the P7 projections from
> late in 1995 to late in the decade {1997-2000, technically the decade of the
> 1990's is from 1991-2000 which puts the middle in 1996}

All I know is that I know nothing should be the motto here. Let's stop
talking about the PowerPC 630 and the P7. Let's not worry about chips
without form and without intro dates. Speculation centered on the P6 (due
late next year) and the PPC620 (due around the same time) is shaky enough
as it is.

Mark Rogowsky
ro...@forsythe.stanford.edu

R S Rodgers

unread,
Jul 13, 1994, 11:35:54 PM7/13/94
to
In article <2vuiob$5...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, bgr...@scf.nmsu.edu (Bruce Grubb) wrote:
> Also the FTP and Justice Department could not ignore

I knew those daemons were getting out of control.

--
"[The Bible says that] child abuse is OK. I'm no nut. You can make
fun of this and PROBABLY WILL but dont you do it. Are we gods
children? Well he kills us so IN FACT he is guilty of child abuse."
[from email received re: a post on PC hardware in comp.sys.powerpc.]

David Harding

unread,
Jul 15, 1994, 9:22:09 AM7/15/94
to
In article <1994Jul11.110639.9306@hayes> bcol...@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>> There will be no PPC
>> chip that will be able to stand against the P7, and IBM don't
>> have the xtra billions to develop another new chip to compete
>> with the P7.

The guy who posted this point must be on some serious medication.

IBM brings in more money than the GDP of (I believe) atleast 42
countries in the world.

IBM certainly does have the billions to develop chips. And the nice
thing is, IBM doesn't have to do it all alone; IBM and Motorola work
on the chips together, and as such the cost is split between them.

IBM has made the PowerPC a *very* strategic product. The PowerPC
chip will be running every computer that IBM makes, from their
massively parallel supercomputers (PowerParallel, which by the way
is chip-for-chip the fastest parallel processor in the world),
the AS400, RS/6000, PowerPersonal Systems, their mainframes, etc.
It will be *everywhere* in IBM's product line. And that means
that it will be very well funded.

Evan

Steve Firth

unread,
Jul 14, 1994, 8:28:42 AM7/14/94
to

In article <1994Jul13....@umr.edu> ph...@saucer.cc.umr.edu (Patrick
Hall) writes:

> Speaking for myself, I would like to say that I personally use
>80x86 architecture machines because they offer the best price\performance
>for my needs, within my budget. In addition, I generally prefer a CLI of
>some sort, which is somewhat lacking on the Mac. The Mac is a wonderful
>machine for some uses and some people - I do not happen to be one of those
>people, instead preferring other machines.

Generally interesting Patrick, the end bit caused me to think a little. A
liking for the 80x0 series probably shows you don't use assembler much. Though
few do nowadays, at low level the 68k chips are satisfying to program. After a
short exposure most programmers love them.

The DOS CLI is one of the things that sets me against it, it is truly awful. I
was brought up on the CDC Cyber CLI, which in 1972 was knocking spots off the
current DOS offering. Apple and CLIs are no longer incompatible concepts, in
fact since the advent of HyperCard there has been a way to control your Mac
with a script. With AppleScript or Frontier, you have a _real_ CLI allowing you
to take control of applications in a way that DOS can't match.


.............................................................................
hic labor, hoc opus est
Stephen Firth
st...@firthcom.demon.co.uk CIS: 100023,3414

103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 6:17:21 PM7/18/94
to
In article <1...@firthcom.demon.co.uk>, st...@firthcom.demon.co.uk (Steve Firth) writes:
>
> The DOS CLI is one of the things that sets me against it, it is truly awful. I
> was brought up on the CDC Cyber CLI, which in 1972 was knocking spots off the
> current DOS offering. Apple and CLIs are no longer incompatible concepts, in
> fact since the advent of HyperCard there has been a way to control your Mac
> with a script. With AppleScript or Frontier, you have a _real_ CLI allowing you
> to take control of applications in a way that DOS can't match.
>

In fact, with the scriptable Finder, you have a way of controlling your own
applications and those on other folks machines in a way that no other platform
can match.

Here is an English version of a simple script:

tell application "Scriptable Text Editor"
activate
set selection to "Here is some sample text..."
select word 4 of document 1
set size of selection to 18
select word 3 of document 1
set style of selection to bold
select contents of document 1
copy
paste
paste
select word 1 of document 1
set font of selection to "Symbol"
select word 6 of document 1
set font of selection to "New York"
select word 10 of document 1
set font of selection to "Hoefler Text"
quit saving ask
end tell
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now here is the French version, created with a simple menu-selection and
perhaps two other mouse movements and clicks:

utilise l'application "Scriptable Text Editor"
activer
mets selection a "Here is some sample text..."
slectionne le mot 4 du document 1
mets taille de selection a 18
slectionne le mot 3 du document 1
mets style de selection a gras
selectionne contenu du document 1
copie
colle
colle
selectionne le mot 1 du document 1
mets police de slection a "Symbol"
selectionne le mot 6 du document 1 "New York"
selectionne le mot 10 du document 1
mets police de selection a "Hoefler Text"
quitte avec l' enregistrement au choix
fin de utilise

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Had I the Japanese language kit installed on my system, I could have obtained
the Japanese version of the script just as easily...


I don't know of ***ANY*** other platform that can do this, currently, besides
the Mac...


Lawson

Bill Coleman

unread,
Jul 19, 1994, 12:37:39 AM7/19/94
to
In article <1...@firthcom.demon.co.uk>, st...@firthcom.demon.co.uk (Steve Firth) writes:
>
> The DOS CLI is one of the things that sets me against it, it is truly awful. I
> was brought up on the CDC Cyber CLI, which in 1972 was knocking spots off the
> current DOS offering.

Gee, I used Cyber NOS as well, from 1979 to 1984.

> Apple and CLIs are no longer incompatible concepts, in
> fact since the advent of HyperCard there has been a way to control your Mac
> with a script. With AppleScript or Frontier, you have a _real_ CLI allowing you
> to take control of applications in a way that DOS can't match.

Except that HyperTalk, AppleScript and Frontier are SCRIPTING LANGUAGES, not
CLIs! There is a huge difference!

In any case, Apple has had a CLI available for years. It is called MPW, the
Macintosh Programmers Workshop.

Bob Zwarick

unread,
Jul 19, 1994, 9:40:29 AM7/19/94
to
In <1994Jul19.003739.9319@hayes>, bcol...@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>In any case, Apple has had a CLI available for years. It is called MPW, the
>Macintosh Programmers Workshop.
>
Isn't that interesting.

----
R. M. Zwarick
------------------------------------------------------------
Shave the whales.
Attention please! Flight 4.0 from Chicago has been delayed.
------------------------------------------------------------


R S Rodgers

unread,
Jul 18, 1994, 8:41:35 PM7/18/94
to
In article <1994Jul1...@west.cscwc.pima.edu>,

103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu wrote:
> In fact, with the scriptable Finder, you have a way of controlling your own
> applications and those on other folks machines in a way that no other platform
> can match. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How do you prevent someone from doing this maliciously?

--
Previous .sig deleted because some people couldn't parse "from email
_received_ re: a post on comp.sys.powerpc."

Yiupun Michael Kwong

unread,
Jul 19, 1994, 6:43:21 PM7/19/94
to
In article <lCnAkO9R...@wam.umd.edu>,

R S Rodgers <rsro...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994Jul1...@west.cscwc.pima.edu>,
>103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu wrote:
>> In fact, with the scriptable Finder, you have a way of controlling your own
>> applications and those on other folks machines in a way that no other platform
>> can match. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>How do you prevent someone from doing this maliciously?

I have not tried using AppleScript for remote access, so I don't know
for sure. But I believe you need to explicitly enable Program Linking
for a particular machine before you can start sending Apple Events
over the network. AppleScript depends on Apple Events, so unless you
explicitly allow someone to do so (or somehow forgot to turn it off
;-) you don't have to worry about other people playing games with your
mind.

>
>--
>Previous .sig deleted because some people couldn't parse "from email
>_received_ re: a post on comp.sys.powerpc."
>

Mike Kwong
Electrical Engineering
Stanford University

Terje Rydland

unread,
Jul 20, 1994, 4:06:41 AM7/20/94
to

> In article <1994Jul1...@west.cscwc.pima.edu>,
> 103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu wrote:
> > In fact, with the scriptable Finder, you have a way of controlling your own
> > applications and those on other folks machines in a way that no other
platform
> > can match. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> How do you prevent someone from doing this maliciously?

I would expect that the remote machine must have
enabled file sharing and program linking, and that you must
be listed as a user on the remote machine.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terje Rydland Tel.:07/591845 (+47-7-591845)
Dept. of Informatics Fax.:07/591733 (+47-7-591733)
UNIT/AVH E-Mail:terje....@ifi.unit.no
N-7055 Dragvoll AppleLink: NOR0103
Norway
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Rogowsky

unread,
Jul 20, 1994, 3:45:33 AM7/20/94
to
In article <lCnAkO9R...@wam.umd.edu>, rsro...@wam.umd.edu (R S
Rodgers) wrote:

> In article <1994Jul1...@west.cscwc.pima.edu>,
> 103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu wrote:
> > In fact, with the scriptable Finder, you have a way of controlling your own
> > applications and those on other folks machines in a way that no other platform
> > can match. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> How do you prevent someone from doing this maliciously?

They turn Program Linking off in the Sharing Setup Control Panel and/or
limit access to their machines.

Mark Rogowsky
ro...@forsythe.stanford.edu

Bruce Hoult

unread,
Jul 20, 1994, 1:39:28 PM7/20/94
to
rsro...@wam.umd.edu (R S Rodgers) writes:
> In article <1994Jul1...@west.cscwc.pima.edu>,
> 103t_e...@west.cscwc.pima.edu wrote:
> > In fact, with the scriptable Finder, you have a way of controlling your own
> > applications and those on other folks machines in a way that no other platform
> > can match. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> How do you prevent someone from doing this maliciously?

The same way you control File Sharing access -- the Users&Groups control panel.

Message has been deleted

srand...@gmail.com

unread,
May 14, 2020, 11:25:29 AM5/14/20
to
Ur wrong u narcissistic good 4 nothing bastard... Karma sure did come a knocking .. U were nothing but a cheater liar & abuser .. I’m sure ur burning in hell right where ur suppose 2 b .. Thank u Karma !

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages