Re: _Infinite Loop_ by Michael S. Malone

[CUTblakeney@home.com (Jeff Blakeney)]

On Tue, 25 May 1999 08:23:38 -0500, Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>
wrote:

>     In the mid-1980's we were very conscious of which microprocessor was in what
>machine. One of the reasons Atari's ST flopped is that Atari 8-bit owners felt
>betrayed by the shift to the 68xxx series. Similarly, lots of C-64/128 users
>rejected the 68xxx-based Amiga.

Actually, I think one of the big reasons they had such a rough time of
it was that the Atari ST and Amiga lines were not backwards compatible
with their repective company's 8 bit machines.  No one wanted to leave
behind their library of software to learn something completely new and
have to buy a whole new library of software for.

This is why I think the idea of a non-backwards compatible IIgs would
have been such a big flop.  I believe Apple was really hoping Apple II
users would flock to the Mac but, as in the case of the Atari ST and
the Amiga, most of the existing user base didn't want to abandon their
current investment.

>     The original Mac did not flop. To be fair to Apple, the 'hobbit' Mac was a
>clever concept. It was, very nearly, the perfect yuppie computer; and, lots of
>yuppies bought one. Still, when a friend brought over his nice, compact new Mac and
>demoed the super-res mouse-windows interface, we were very impressed; but, we never
>seriously considered 'going Mac'.

I don't have the actual figures but the original Mac was well received
by the critics and reviewers.  Everyone thought it was a technological
breakthrough but I don't think it sold very well.  It wasn't until
newer models of Macs came out and Apple continued to push the Mac
constantly for a few years that Macs really started to sell decently.

Don't forget that the IIgs was outselling all models of Macs combined
at the end of 1986 and the beginning of 1987.

>     We got a machine hobbled by compromises to squeeze in old-II compatibility and
>no hard disk. "Support" included zilch documentation, a partially-finished
>GS-BASIC, a make-do OS, and nearly zero applications and utilities. Given the GS
>package which Apple delivered, it had darn well better have been backwards
>compatible. 

Backwards compatibility comes at a cost.  Just ask any PC user.  The
Pentium machines could be working much better today if they had
dropped backwards compatibility but businesses would have stopped
using them very quickly had they done so.

Even though backwards compatibility reduces the performance of the
newer hardware, it is still something that everyone wants.

>     II users did not buy the IIgs to run old software. We bought it to run _and_
>create super-res, super-sound IIgs software. We wanted the best hardware possible.
>
>     Had the GS arrived as a pure 4MHz '816 machine with 256-color video and 20MB
>hard disk, hardly anyone would have missed old-II compatibility. Agreed, at first,
>the machine would probably not attract the 'average home buyer'. But, within a
>year, new games, productivity wares, and utilities would have attracted hordes of
>new users.

I upgraded my IIe to a IIgs in 1988 and used it as a fast IIe for a
couple of years until I was finally able to get all the extra hardware
I needed to use it as a real IIgs.  This included a mouse, 3.5" drive
and memory expansion.  The hard drive didn't come until much later and
the accelerator I didn't get until earlier this year.

Had the IIgs not been backwards compatible to allow me to do this, I
would not own a IIgs today.  I would have left the Apple II line
behind and gone totally to the PC.

>     A simple, fast IIgs with hard disk was doable by 1985. An old-II-compatible
>kluge packed with toolbox firmware possibly was not. In any case, we neither needed
>nor especially wanted either old-II compatibility or the toolbox firmware.

Maybe you didn't but as I said, I did and I'm sure that the majority
of Apple II users did.  If it didn't run Apple II software, how could
it be called an Apple II?

>     The one year delay was very costly. With the fancy new Atari and Amiga plus
>dropping prices on PC clones, there were many defections. 1985 was the year the II
>user base ceased to dominate home computing.

I agree that the IIgs would have done better if they had released it
sooner but don't forget that Apple was pushing the Mac at this point
so I'm just happy they actually released another Apple II instead of
putting out another model of Mac to compete with the Atari ST and the
Amiga.

>     A GS expansion with plenty of speed and RAM should be able to run current
>stuff okay under emulator software. Some software could be converted; and, as
>already mentioned, IIgs owners will always be able to run their present software on
>the old-GS front end of the expanded machine. How attracive old software will be
>once wares utilizing the new hardware start to arrive is, for now, unclear.

If you are just going to come up with an incompatible computer that
emulates an Apple IIgs under software you don't need to bother.  Its
already here.  Just go pick up a PowerMac and buy Bernie ][ the
Rescue.  Not only will you be able to run all your Apple II software
but there is no need to wait a year or two for new applications
because there is lots of Mac software already out there.

Oh, and with this method you can use Mac software from all the way
back in 1984 because the PowerMacs are backwards compatible with the
older Macs.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jeff Blakeney - Dean of the Apple II University in A2Pro on Delphi     |
|                    Delphi Apple II Forums Web Pages                    |
| A2: http://www.delphi.com/apple2   A2Pro: http://www.delphi.com/a2pro  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   HyperCard IIgs course now in session in the A2Pro forum on Delphi
        Learn to Program in GSoft BASIC course now in session