Re: _Infinite Loop_ by Michael S. Malone

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Dennis Doms writes ...
> 
> In article <37470386.20F5FBFA@swbell.net>, Rubywand
> <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> 
 ....
> 
> > A good joke! There was nothing "reasonable" about the price of the IIgs.
> 
> At introduction it *was* reasonable for a top-tier system. The problem
> came when Apple never significantly adjusted the price over the years
> (compare the price progression of the Mac SE to Mac Classic over the
> marketing life of the IIgs), and (IMHO) obscenely gouged on some items
> versus counterparts being integrated into the Mac (compare the cost of
> a complete Mac Classic with internal hard disk and SuperDrive with the
> cost for an external Apple hard drive or 3.5 drive required for an
> Apple II of the same vintage).
 ....

     When we ordered our IIgs in 1986, we knew perfectly well that we were
getting ripped off. All anyone had to do was compare the price of a color GS
with 3.5" drive to a color Atari ST with 3.5" drive. Fortunately for Apple,
Atari incorporated a number of super-dumb design flaws and Amiga was
over-priced.

     Meanwhile, PC was bumbling along without decent sound and no strategy to
attack the home market. We were, however, beginning to see incorporation of the
'186 and the promise of '286 machines. Everyone knew the PC had more raw
power-- definitely _not_ a good sign-- and the cloners were catching on to ways
to produce lower-cost machines.

     Basically, the GS was not a 'high end' machine. No computer lacking a hard
drive could be considered high-end in 1986. GS was a way to upgrade II
computing. That is why II users bought them.


 
> >     Hardware is a different ball game. The II/II+ looks like a machine
> >produced by a 'hardware person'.
 ....
> >overall, the design is fairly straight forward and not all that difficult to
> >expand upon.
> 
 ....
> 
> >     The hard-wired limitations of IIgs design more or less force going to a
> >new motherboard in order to optain needed upgrades in memory and display.
> >Since
> >a new motherboard seems unlikely, we are left with a 'separate box' add-on
> >approach in order to move onward to the next series of significant upgrades.
> 
> That also harkens back to the memory-mapped I/O model of the original
> Apple II. And I'm also not sure it's a fair criticism since
> motherboard replacements are forced on PCs due to the video
> progression to higher-speed buses (from ISA to PCI to AGP) and the
> various trends in memory (discrete chips to SIMMs to DIMMs).
 ....

     True. However, the II+ vs. IIgs comparison takes context into account. GS
design should have been optimized for the '816 just as the II+ was optimized
for the 6502.

     Whatever, we have both the advantages of old-II compatibility and the
limitations on IIgs expandabilty via plug-ins. It's too bad that Apple did not
follow though with a major upgrade in 1989; but, an expansion box with the RAM,
speed, video, and Slots we need for the next generation of GS software is not
so difficult to produce.



Rubywand