Re: Modern A2 successor

["Arkain" <rwking@no.usa.spam.net>]

You made a good point except for 1 small detail..

A2's were A2's not because of the hardware, but because of the
DIYS(do-it-yourself) nature of the A2 series. The fact is, if you couldn't
find it for the A2, you could take the tech manuals and make it yourself.
Everything about the A2 was wide open for everyone to see and use. The Mac
ha been a black box project since it's inception. Apple also made a point of
having backwards compatibility when building this series. Any true successor
to this noble line will have to meet the same standards. This is why both
Mac and Lisa were shunned by so many original Apple die-hards, myself
included. Mac is not and can never be the worthy successor to the A2 throne.

Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
397E424A.1EECB43E@inetnebr.com">news:397E424A.1EECB43E@inetnebr.com...
> **** **** wrote:
>
> > I would love to hear other's opinions too, even the goofy ones. Goofy
> > opinions, not the goofy people.
>
> Well, from one goofy person to another....
>
> The original Mac had no slots, the Mac II had the Nubus slots, the SE et
al had
> processor slots, and now PCI slots, the Macs have moved from 68000 through
the
> 68020, 68030, 68040, and then the various PPC chips, the Mac has moved
from b&w
> 9" screen to millions of colors and various sizes, and yet, the Mac is
still
> the Mac. Which is the point. If there ever was to be a successor to the
Apple
> II, that was still an Apple II, it wouldn't have to be a 6502 family chip,
nor
> to have the 70's Apple II bus to still be an Apple II, but it would have
to
> have the friendly "open me up and do things with me" feeling that the II
had.
> And, of course, the ability to run at least 90% of the Apple II library.
>
> Roy
>
>