Re: A2 Users: Endanged Species? I think not.

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

sara2gs@aol.com (Sara2GS) wrote:

>The problem with older Apple II hardware is the same as that faced by older
>video games.  Since the hardware units are no longer in production, it is true
>that when the last board dies, that's it.  Emulation will never replace the
>original system.  I view it as a necessary supplement.
>
>Consider MAME (multi-arcade machine emulator).  As a result of circuit
>degradation, and in some cases, simple neglect or abuse, the original console
>systems will no longer function properly.  Certain arcade classics can now be
>run only via emulation.  Hardware will eventually fail.  And the Apple II is
no
>exception.  While I prefer the real thing, I'm glad that emulators exist. 
>Without them, there would eventually come a day when I could never run
>AppleWorks or GS/OS again.  And for a loyal ][ user, this would be a tragic
>fate.

I've been thinking, there is no reason why a IIGS could not be preserved
for posterity.  I'm thinking of finding myself a mint condition one and
putting it away.  Perhaps storing it in a humidity and UV controlled
case, like a museum piece so that 50 years from now, it'll still be new
or nearly so.

I already have IIGS units for use and backup, one more for preservation
seems to be the thing to do.  Who knows.  Someday, a mint condition
IIGS might be worth something not only for collectors, but for
research.

>While I would love to see the ]['s revive themselves, even a redesigned
>successor to the IIgs based on the (apparently mythical) 65832 would be doomed
>to a niche market.  Half of classic computing is based in a market of people
>that refuse to let go of their favourite old systems.  And more power to them.

>The other half is comprised of new or first-time users who learn to appreciate
>where their desktop PC came from (and usually through emulation).  But I doubt
>seriously that anyone with a PIII-500 would replace that system with a 32-bit,
>50 MHz IIgs, were it available.

Of course not.  For a system to evolve, there must be continuity.
Apple deliberately stunted the IIGS, breaking that continuity.  The
time for a IIGS successor has run out.  It is too late.

The Apple IIGSx w/50Mhz 65C832 would only have worked had
it been introduced in the early '90s at the latest, but thanks to
Apple's refusal to spend any R&D or marketing or even lowering
the price of the IIGS, they essentially flew the Apple II platform
into the ground.

I really think they could have handled the Apple II -> Mac xition
better, frankly.  They seemed to have learned their lesson with
the Mac -> PowerMac xition, which provided a bridge from the
old to the new of about 5 years.

>The power in older computers is necessarily limited.  With the ingenuity and
>labour born of love for a computer, the Apple II will continue to evolve. 
Look
>at Wolfenstein IIgs and GS-AIM for examples.  But without the widespread
>popularity the Macintosh and Wintel platforms enjoy, our older systems will
>never reach out to new users again.  At least, not in numbers large enough to
>ensure the evolution of the platform.

Of course it is.  Again, this is because Apple jettisoned their
original user base.

A more elegant solution would have been to release the IIGS
in '84 instead of '86.  It would have replaced the Macintosh,
but sent the same message of revolution as the Mac.  Apple
supporting the user base, backed by the full marketing power
of the company would then have fueled IIGS sales, staving
off erosion by IBM and clones.  The profits from a unified IIGS
(or Mac or whatever you want to call this unified platform)
would then have been used to improve the IIGS/Mac.  More
resolution.  Even better sound.  More memory.  Hard drives.
Such sales volume would have prompted WDC to go forward
with the '832 project.  By '86, you would have seen the IIGSx,
a fully GS side platform with 8-bit compatibility completely
rendered in software emulation.  By '89, 32-bit IIGS plus the
OS but retaining the capability to run 16-bit stuff.  By the
'90s, you could have seen a jump similar to the jump from
Mac to PowerMac.

In the end, the PowerGS would be similar to the PowerMac,
but HOW it got here would be different.  The users, WE,
would have come along.

Apple...no, Steve Jobs and his cronies, should NEVER have
set the Mac division against the II division.  Mac people
against Apple II people.  There should never have been a
distinction.

>While the RamFAST is beautiful, look at the Second Sight video card for a
>different example.  Enhanced graphics capability has been a long-time
>shortcoming of the IIgs.  And yet, of all the users on csa2, very few seem to

Well, when the IIGS first came out, its graphics were quite
comparable to the Amiga 1000 and the Atari 520ST.  The
sound, of course, of the IIGS blew those two away.

>have the SS card.  Why?  Even in this most loyal of customer bases, with so
few
>new products being released, it simply doesn't make sense to invest in
hardware
>for a dying (or dead -- it's really just semantics) platform.  There are few
>programs for the SS card, and, seeing none coming, the cards remain unsold,
>collecting dust on warehouse shelves.  If the Apple II community itself itself
>is reluctant to embrace new technologies for their own platform, how can we
>expect to reach out to new users?  Without the nostalgic appeal the computer
>has for those who remember it, there is almost certainly no chance to
>proselytise members into our ranks.  Let a 12-year-old play a couple rounds of
>Quake 3 over the Internet, and then show him Little Brickout on the IIe. 
>Realistically, which platform would he choose?

It actually depends, believe it or not.  I know a couple of 12-year
olds who prefer Out of This World on the IIGS to Doom on the
PC.

>The idea of implementing a FSF/GNU-style method of software development has
its
>merits.  Current ][ products, like ProDOS and GS/OS, could evolve.  New
>products would be made possible by documenting all system calls and entry
>points.  More efficient code would lead to better programs.  But new, better
>software wouldn't bring in new users.  At best, it would increase the amount
of
>time current users spend on their Apples.

The has reverted to the status of a hacker's machine.  Probably
because it started out as a hacker's machine.  This is probably
why it still has a life of sorts.

>I've had a dream for a long time of winning the state lottery, and using the
>winnings to make a Super IIgs available.  You know, buy the rights from Apple,
>rewrite the OS, add TCP/IP support, a good FPU... breathe some life back into
>my baby, and haul 'em all up to Kansasfest for distribution.  But even if I
>gave them away, I'm afraid that would be the full extent of the market.

What I would do is also shrink the case.  Turn it into a palmtop
or a cheap notebook to compete against the likes of PalmPilots
and Windows CE units.  If Brother can sell the GeoBook, a
"PalmPowerGS" with an enhanced AppleWorks GS, SIS,
HyperCard for the IIGS, and ProTERM all running under GS/OS
can still be pretty cool.  Especially if sold at a reasonable price.

>I was naive enough to believe the "Apple II Forever" slogan when I first heard
>it.  But Apple has abandoned us, and new members are not forthcoming to our
>community.  The last major enhancement to the Apple II was almost 13 years
ago,
>since the IIgs was introduced.  The ]['s growth has been stunted by
>malnutrition.

This I agree.  Pure infanticide by Apple, I say.  If you don't give
the "child" marketing and R&D "food," you'll "starve" it to death.

>I must agree with the original sentiment of this thread.  The Apple II will
not
>last forever.  It's more a case of "Apple II... for now."

Of course it'll last forever, maybe not in the hardware after the
last unit dies, certainly not in emulators (which are but shadows
of greatness), but we'll always remember the II and hopefully
so will history.