Re: why did apple go mac?

[dev.null@personal.information.com]

Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
> After all, remember that in 1984 Apple had two new computers with 128K of
> RAM and no way to expand the machines - the Mac, and the //c. 

> The SE as an stop gap Mac while the slotted Mac II was created - a Mac a
> LOT more like the II: color and slots. In some ways, the Mac II was a copy
> of the IIGS, which preceded it.

But there were many all-in-one Mac's after the SE.  To my knowledge, Apple
never stopped making them (keeping the line alive for the education market,
at the very least).

It simply indicates that there is a market for the closed box design.  To
some, open hardware is simply not an issue.  They buy the machine and use it,
and that they really care about is the machine working.  Today's hardware
pretty much has everything that most people will need, so it is pretty much
a matter of buying the software to use those features you want.  Upgrading
components as you go.  What's the point?  There were at least three types of
memory which were commonly used in PC's over the last decade; ISA, VESA and
PCI were common expansion busses; the window for upgrading processors is
narrow indeed; now even the power supplies have changed.  By the time you
need to change, the rug is pulled from under you and you have to start all
over again.

There are different philosophies to upgrading your machine, and just because
it doesn't match the model of the Apple II does not mean that it is bad and
does not mean that it should fail.  The Apple II was, after all, pretty much
a processor and very basic I/O functionality.  It was also designed at the
infancy of the PC industry, when few people knew where computers were going
in even the most limited sense.

And that Apple IIc seemed to be a pretty popular machine, for a closed box
that is.

Byron.