Re: why did apple go mac?

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

Morel wrote:

> guy-jin <guyvf@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >  why did apple 'upgrade' to the macintosh when
> > the ][ series was still going strong? i mean the
> > ][GS came after the mac! why switch? why didn't
> > apple just keep improving the ]['s, like IBM did
> > with the PC?
>
> Well, as much as I like the Apple //, I have to say that improving the
> // would not have made much sense. I mean, when people are asked what
> improvements could have been made to the IIGS, they usually suggest:
>
> -       Better processors
> -       Higher screen resolution
> -       Faster system bus
> -       Improved GUI
> -       Ethernet support
>
> all things that would make the IIGS more ...ummm... more like the
> Macintosh.

Or more like the Wintel machines.

>
> I cannot see any economic sense in investing money in IIGS development
> so that the IIGS would eventually converge to a Macintosh, which Apple
> already had.

I can. At one time. The problem is, do I try to update a machine, and
bring along my installed base, while gathering new users, or do I create a
whole new machine and try to create a new installed base, and a whole new
library of software. Note that the former is what Apple has done with the
Mac, and the Wintel world with the PC, while the latter was done by
Commodore with the Amiga, and Atari with the ST. What happened with
Commodore and Atari almost happened with Apple (Mac) and IBM (PS/2)
because of the above huge first step. What saved Apple, frankly, while the
Mac was killing off Apple, was that the //e and //c were bringing huge
sums of money, which Apple used to keep the company afloat, and develop
what saved the Mac line: the Plus and the LaserWriter. 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 Fat Mac/Mac 512 quadrupled
the memory, but still offered no sanctioned way to expand it. While it was
possible to put a meg in a //e or II+!! Only the Plus with 1/4 megs and
SCSI offered the power and storage that made desktop publishing with the
LaserWriter really possible, and that saved the Mac line, and (since
little development went into the II line) saved Apple. Once Jobs was gone
what happened? 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.

Roy

>
>
> A current iMac with Bernie is the not-so-rough equivalent of what a
> current IIGS would be if Apple had continued evolving the // line; so,
> you see, there was no need for Apple to develop it.
> --
> Morel