[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Apple II-Or Come on people, It's a 20 year old computer
In article <3951958B.C12EDF1D@wanadoo.nl>,
ruud.dingemans <ruud.dingemans@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>>>>>> I've never seen a more impotent computer than the Apple Lisa....
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, a bit more respect for the grandmother of all modern personal
>>>>> computers, ok.
>>>>
>>>>FYI: the majority of today's modern computers did NOT evolve from the
>>>>Lisa. Many people frown on this, but "the grandmother of most modern
>>>>computers" happens to be the IBM PC.
>> Well, without a CPU, a bus, mass storage, etc
>> you can do absolutely nothing with that stuff. And in THAT respect,
>> most of today's computers are descendants of the IBM PC.
>
> Jeez, are you displaying a wealth of ignorance here. Ok, you really
> think the PC was anything special in this respect, or "started" something
> in this respect?
I never claimed anything of that! The IBM PC was really a quite
non-remarkable computer, who happened to be manufactured by the
perhaps oldest coputer company in the world. But the PC was open,
and it was practical. So it got cloned, and then the price of PC
clones went down dramatically. This created the PC mass market, and
that's why most of today's personal computers are descendants of the
IBM PC.
If Apple had opened up the Mac as they opened up the Apple II, then
history might have been different, and the most common computer could
very well have been a Mac, or some Mac clone (yes, clones are vital
here, to keep the price down, and to offer the customer alternative
sources). But that never happened, because Apple was paranoid about
these clones: they didn't want them, but wanted the Mac all for
themselves. They succeeded in keeping the Mac for themselves, but
failed in making it the #1 personal computer -- which agreed well with
their priorities.
> Switch back another four years to the Apple II in 1977 (the ibm was from
> '81), and then tell me that this design didn't have a cpu, bus, mass
> storage, etc. All basic elements were there already. And I'll not even
> mention Intel's MCS-4 from 1971, or the French
> Micral from 1973. Let alone the Alto, also from '73!
>
> Read up first, and then try to argue in favor of the IBM PC here, ok?
Please READ before you respond, will you?
Once again: I never argued that the IBM PC was elengant, revolutonary,
or remarkable!! It definitely wasn't. The reason it succeeded was
that it was practical, and open -- the latter created a market of
PC clones, which also made the PC (now usually from some other manufacturer
tham IBM) quite affordable: you could easily get one for perhaps 1/3
the cost of a Mac in the middle 1980'ies.
>>> Now, who started the personal computer industry ?
>>
>> Intel did, back in 1972 when creating the 4004 instead of the special
>
> Wrong. Go to www.blinkenlights.com, do the quiz, and then come back,
> enlightened.
It was fun reading .... but OK, if you're going to include old
mechanical toy computers too, then the view will of course be quite
different.
(I have some homework for you: figure out how to construct a GUI
for that mechanical computer from 1949.... <g>)
> Besides, the 4004 was from '71, while its design started in '69.
Ok, Mr Nitpick -- another point for you!!! Aren't you feeling proud?
>> TTL logic requested by that big japanese calculator manufacturer.
>> Without microprocessors, there would be no personal computer industry.
>
> Wrong. There is no technical reason modern personal computers couldn't
> run without a 'processor on a chip'.
> A cpu board with multiple chips, like in the old pdp-11's, would do
> nicely as well.
There are very good reasons personal computers require a "processor
on a chip": size, cost and performance. Distribute the processor over
multiple chips (like in the old pdp-11's, or in the iAPX-432), or even
over discrete TTL logic chips, and you'll get a bigger, slower, and more
expensive processor, and as a result a heavier, more expensive, and less
powerful computer. Most likely it'll be too heavy and too expensive to
be called a "personal computer" (unless it's a toy computer).
But since you want to include mechanical toy computers in the
category "personal computer".... well....
>> And the very first personal computer - the Mits Altair - used the
>> Intel 8080 as a CPU.
>
> Now I'm certain: you must be either brainwashed by the pc industry, or a
> genuine (although ignorant) troll.
>
> Again, goto blinkenlights.com and then tell us the Altair was the first
> pc. It wasn't even close. Go back at least
> four years from the Altair, to 1971, and then come back - enlightened.
At blinkenlights they consider the "first personal computer" to be a
mechanical toy computer from around 1950......
>>>>> It may have been a flop at the time because of cost, but it started a
>>>>> revolution nonetheless.
>>>>
>>>> No it didn't.
>
> Yes it did, in the sense that it was the first *commercially available
> personal computer* built around the GUI/mouse
> concept. All modern personal computers today use this idea.
I consider that an evolution: behind the scenes the computers still work
the same way. It's just the appearance that's different.
<sarcasm>
Perhaps you're also considering the recent Imac's a "revolution"? After
all, they're strongly colored, and thus look quite different.....
</sarcasm>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Alto and the Lisa were
> (besides the II) the real revolutions in the
> personal computer industry. Certainly not the pc, which was basically a
> cheap rerun of basic concepts already used in the Apple II.
Just too bad Apple lacked the wisdom to use these concepts further.
The Apple II had shown that these concepts were a success, and the
PC dominance confirmed it indeed was a success. Now, suppose the
Apple hadn't killed the Apple II line of computers but instead had let
it evolve......
Visions and dreams are nice of course, but real life is often quite
different.
> That everybody copied *that* rather sloppy design because it had the
> label IBM on it, *set back* the industry's innovation for several years.
It also made computers much more affordable by creating that clone
market. Even Apple was in the end forced to lower the price on the
Macs, or else they would have priced themselves out of the market.
You seem to think that this doesn't matter? Well, to most end users,
affordability was more important than elegance and advanced designs.
Face it: if you aim at a mass market, then you're aiming at people
which don't have particularly advanced computing needs. In that
case, even "sloppy designs" can work quite well -- such as a
modification of the "sloppy design" of e.g. the Apple II (you've
accused the IBM PC to copy most of the design of the Apple II, and
you also accuse the IBM PC to have a "sloppy design". Did you
realize that these two statements imply that the Apple II also had a
"sloppy design"? Well, after all the A-II was born in a garage, so
why not? And even a "sloppy design" can be successful in the mass
market, as long as it is good enough, and affordable).
You wrote: "*set back* the industry's innovation for several years".
A few years passes quickly -- why are you so impatient?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch