Re: Apple Computer, What Are You Up To?

[nospamhattonr@aug.com (Rick)]

Supertimer <supertimer@aol.com> wrote:

> coaxial@escape.ca (coaxial) wrote:
> 
> >> 3) Most Win PCs that offer USB still have traditional IDE/SCSI and
> >>      parallel/serial ports.  Why did Apple completely and suddenly
> >>      sever all ties with the past?  A better move would have been to
> >>      include both traditional and new ports and not remove the
> >>      traditional ones until a model or two later.
> >
> >I'll tell you why they don't include built in SCSI and Mac serial ports on
> >the new Blue & White G3 systems..... Cost.  They have already thrown in
> >built in USB and Firewire and the price of the G3 systems is actually
> >pretty good. Personally, I don't see why they should include the old
> >legacy method connections. It's time to move on. As a legacy (68040) Mac
> >owner, I am glad they have chosen to dump the old stuff and instead build
> >in FireWire and USB in the new B&W G3. I have no problem with it. If I
> >don't like it, a simple adapter cable is all I would need to hook up my
> >old geezer peripherals to a brand new G3 if I owned one.
> 
> The Cost Excuse is the same one Apple used to justify putting a
> 32 channel Ensoniq wavetable synth into the IIGS but then not
> putting a sound input jack!  Same with the iMac, which HAS a floppy
> drive controller on the motherboard but lacks a $5 ribbon cable
> and external DB connector for that controller.
> 
> Come on, if it is so expensive to add those connections, many
> times to hardware that's already present, then why do Win PCs
> cost less and yet have both USB and "the old geezer stuff" as you
> put it?
> 
> >> 4) PC parallel ports may be slower than USB, but at least on a new
> >>      Win PC, I can take my old parallel peripherals with me without
> >>      buying an adapter (the new Win PC will also have USB ports,
> >>      of course.
> >
> >Excellent. Buy a PC then.
> 
> I did exactly that when Apple pulled the rug from under the
> Apple IIGS and I've not regretted it. Every new Win PC
> upgrade cycle always assures that the hardware from at least
> my current system is compatible.  I don't care if they chop
> support two or three cycles downstream, but Steve Jobs
> method of severing ties with the past in one upgrade cycle
> is terrible IMO.  If you don't agree, stick with the Mac.  I
> don't...
> 
> >> 5) I happen to like DOS 5.  It was one of the most stable DOS
> >>      versions.  I run most of my DOS software from a DOS 5 partition.
> >>      It my opinion, DOS 6 started to get too hacked up and the one
> >>      that comes with Win 95 and Win 98 is not "real" DOS.
> >
> >Sure.
> 
> It is a fact that DOS 5 is the most stable DOS and generally
> consider the best version.  I have a DOS 5 partition as well
> as a Win 95 one and regularly switch between the two with
> IBM's BootMaster program.  Apple IIGS users turned PC
> users tend to appreciate this capability because we can do
> this too.
Why would a DOS-head like you be here, except to troll?