Re: _Infinite Loop_ by Michael S. Malone

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:

>Dennis Doms writes ...
>
>> > 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.

More like ALL the major brand computers (except for the Atari ST) was
priced high at the time.  Take the Amiga 1000.  When the IIGS was
released, the Amiga was priced at $999 for the CPU with 256k of RAM.
Of course the disk drive was built in, which helped, but with the monitor
at around $300 (similarly priced against the IIGS RGB monitor) and most
Amiga users running out for an extra 1MB of RAM, the full Amiga system
rivaled the cost of the full IIGS system.

It is true that the Atari ST was cheaper, but they had to cut corners.  It
lacked the sound chip of the IIGS or the graphics processor of the
Amiga so it really was neither.

When the IIGS was released, the price was not extreme FOR A NAME
BRAND, TOP TIER COMPUTER.  It was only when Apple failed to
lower the price as the IIGS aged OR release new, more powerful IIGS
models, did the IIGS become overpriced.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the IIGS was not overpriced for 1986
(and neither was the Amiga 1000).  But the IIGS was overpriced for
1990.  It would be like trying to sell the Amiga 1000 for the same price
as the Amiga 2000 in 1990.

>     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.

True, but at the time (1986), the 6Mhz/8Mhz genuine IBM AT (a '286
based unit) was certainly not very fast.  In fact, it ran GUIs much slower
than the IIGS could and can.  I know because I have such a unit.  ;-)
You have to remember that not only was the Intel architecture slower
per Mhz (so 6Mhz or even 8Mhz was no big deal) but the IBM AT
was LOADED with wait states.

Even as late as 1990, the "Turbo" AT clones that ran at 12Mhz still ran
the GUI slower than the IIGS does (even though by that time the
resolution had reached VGA).

Not until the '386 became very popular and really until the '486
(followed by AMD's "super-'486" the K5, and Cyrix' '5x86) did PC
power really take off.

>     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.

Well, for the $1000 price difference between the IIGS and the
Mac Plus or the IIGS and the IBM *XT* (yes, in 1986, IBM was
selling the genuine *XT* for $1000 more than a IIGS system),
you could add a hard drive to the IIGS.  Or Amiga for that matter.
Or Atari ST.