Re: Apple Computer, What Are You Up To?

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

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.