Re: Apple Computer

[MacPerson <Togega@concentric.net>]

Mitchell Spector wrote:
> 
> 
>     Which companies and machines are you referring to? There were few
> manufactures that would qualify as having done this, and the few that
> did, are no longer in business. You still managed to dodge the issue
> above, just because another company did something wrong, does that
> justify Apple to have done the same?

	I was not dodging the question, as you say. Let's be clear about this: I
believe that terminating the Apple II line was a terrible decision.
> 
> 
>     It is much more regrettable they didn't expand (or a better word
> perhaps, "complete") the Apple IIgs. It was such a trivial matter to
> fulfill the GS's potential. A faster 65C816 built-in, support for
> 640x480 and 256 colors per scanline, built-in hardrive, FDHD floppy,
> 2 MB RAM (with SIMM sockets for adding the rest), stereo-out, sound-
> in and 128K for the Ensoniq and you would have had a *killer* machine
> in the late 80's. Unfortunately, it would have made the Macintosh
> look like a toy, so Apple kept the GS in a crippled state.

Maybe. As I said, I think it was a terrible decision.
> 
>What's wrong with creating colorful computers?
> 
>     Absolutely nothing, so long as there is something good *inside*.

These are the specifications for the iMac:

                       -233MHz PowerPC G3 processor
                       -512K backside level 2 cache
                       -32MB, expandable to 128MB SDRAM
                       -4GB IDE hard disk drive
                       -24x (max) speed CD-ROM drive
                       -Built-in 15-inch monitor (13.8-inch viewable)
                       -2MB, expandable to 4MB SGRAM video memory
                       -Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet
                       -Built-in 33Kbps modem
                       -Two 12Mbps Universal Serial Bus (USB) ports
                       -4Mbps infrared technology (IrDA) port
                       -Built-in stereo speakers with SRS sound
                       -Mac OS 8.1
                       -Apple USB Keyboard
                       -Apple USB Mouse

The processor that this machine has is much faster than any comparable Pentium.
This machine sells for only $1,299, and you can probably get it even cheaper.
>  
>     Nope. It originally stood for color graphics the Apple II offered
> in 1977. These days it is just a symbol indicating such-and-such item
> costs a fair bit of money and, serves as a religious icon to most.

I would not tear it open and from time to time give my Mac a little "tap" if I
considered it a religious icon.
> 
> >It's not only the cosmetics, but it's design makes it easier to carry around
> 
>     Innovation is making something that is easy to carry around? Gee,
> again this rings of the type of innovation you would except to hear
> about from a toy company, not a computer company. So far, the best
> features of the iMac are it looks nice and it is easy to carry around.
> Those weren't exactly the reasons I purchased an Apple IIGS from the
> same company 10 years ago.

Well, I, for one, think that it is important for a computer to look good. I
wouldn't buy one ONLY for it's looks, though.
I remember reading an old article stating that the Apple //e was one of the
most good-looking computers of it's time.
>  
>     And ends "useless" features such as a SCSI port, serial ports,
> ADB port, video port or floppy drive. How are you supposed to get
> data on and off this wonderful innovation from Apple? What if I
> write a word processing document or download a file. How on earth
> do I get it to another computer?

	I have long thought that computers should have no storage drive other than
it's HD. All other info would be transmitted via networks (like the Internet)
or "beamed" via IR to a portable storage card capable of re-transmitting the data.
> 
> >True there's more hype than anything else, but isn't Apple entitled to it?
> >God (and everyone else) knows that Intel, Microsoft and the multitude of
> >PC makers out there have done their share hyping.
> 
>     What happened to Apple's "Think Different" motto?

Well, Apple has to make sure everyone knows Apple "thinks different" no?

> 
> >That's not true. True Apple has made, and, well, keeps on making mistakes. But
> >what about software - OpenDoc, PlainTalk, AppleScript, ect, ect.
> >Hardware - Firewire, the Trackpad, ect, ect.
> 
>     None of those developments you list above, most of which are software,
> scream of the word innovation. Speaking of software, why is it Macintoshes
> still cannot do preemptive multitasking with a GUI? That is not just some
> negative issue, it is a totally unacceptable one.

I don't like it, mind you, but it is certainly not unacceptable when you
consider the advantages.
> 
> >>     I'm not fan of Microsoft either (I'm pretty digusted how Windows
> >> 98, an operating system of all things, can contain so much blantent
> >> advertising) but Apple isn't much better, acting like a miniturized
> >> version of Microsoft. Despite those warm and fuzzy TV ads, Apple is
> >> only interested in money and monopolies too.
> >
> >MANY would argue with you on that.
> 
>     Yes, those blinded by such ads and Apple's propaganda.

And those blinded with regret would do the opposite.
> 
>     Oh? Explain to me how it is not better than MacOS, I'm quite curious
> to hear your arguements. Just the simple fact that it cannot multitask
> and halts _all_ operations when you hold down the mouse button does very
> little towards making that statement hold any validity.

If you don't care about hearing the Mac's side it's doesn't.
> 
> >Just throw out all the technical issue
> 
>     Sounds like a motto for defending current Apple products. :)

I was referring to looking at the matter from the user's perspective.
> 
> >and use Windows95 and the MacOS and see which one freezes more often and
> >gives you more headaches.
> 
>     I have, extensively. I will say that neither is perfect, but
> in my experience it is the Mac that freezes and gives me headaches.
> If one Mac program crashes, I found the entire OS crashes around it.
> If your working with floppy disks and CD's, beside not being able to
> get them out when you want, I've had the Mac consistantly "forget"
> the disk was present and had to go running for paperclips. Ignorning
> crashes and lock-ups for a moment, the fact that I couldn't multitask
> and that the machine was so sluggish left me feeling unhappy with the
> machine to say the least.

Then we have had different experiences with the Mac.
> 
> >> >And, let's not forget, that the Mac is the only REAL graphical computer.
> >
> >>     That's nonsense. My Apple IIgs is real graphical computer, so
> >> is the Amiga, Atari ST, NeXT and yes, even today's Pentium PC. If
> >> not, what makes a "real graphical computer" then? Does it have to
> >> have GUI code in ROM and lack a character generator? How do these
> >> things make it any more or less real?
> >
> >The Amiga, yes, the IIGS, maybe, the Pentium PC- no. The Mac, like the Amiga,
> >I believe, was made for graphics, and has no command lines.
> 
>     The Amiga has a command-line incidentally, it's built-in to WorkBench.
> Does that make it any less of a "real graphical computer"?

Yes, only that it also had a command-line interface.
>  
>     Now your being silly. Having graphics built-in from the beginning
> or having graphics capabilities on a separate card make no difference
> as far as being a real graphical computer. Actually, it is an advantage
> to have your graphics on a slot card because you have this concept
> called "upgrading" available. Look what happened to the GS when the
> video was intergrated into the motherboard.

This is where the true meaning of "Think Different" comes in:

Before there were automobiles, people would breed horses to run faster &
faster. At one point there came a new idea, excluding horses from the picture
altogether; the automobile.
It was not a matter of adding an engine to the horse, but to think up
something completely different, beyond the boundaries that some had already
set for themselves.

	The GUI and the hardware should be one! Not something to be simply added!
And about the IIGS: although a terrific machine (specially for it's time) is
not a perfected GUI machine.
> 
> >>     Windows 95 is not a mask, your confusing Windows 3.11 which was
> >> a graphical shell (and a pitiful one at that) running on top of DOS.
> >
> >If you could enlighten me on this, I'd be willing to listen.
> 
>     Windows 3.11 is just an MS-DOS application, not much different from
> running any other DOS program except this one offers a graphical shell
> to operate DOS and run GUI applications. Windows 95 is different in that
> while it offers DOS support, it is more or less a stand-alone operating
> system. There is also native 32-bit application support and preemptive
> multitasking. On my own system, when I want to run MS-DOS games or
> emulators, I don't merely open a DOS prompt, I have it setup to reboot
> the system into "pure" DOS mode.

OK, now I understand. Only I don't know what you mean by "more or less" a
stand-alone OS.
> 
> >>     You mean "itself". The Macintosh is an object, not a person or a
> >> living thing. It is also the reason people shouldn't be so offended
> >> when a critical comment is made about it, it is just a machine (the
> >> same way people shouldn't take it so personally when something is
> >> said about the Intel PC, or even the Apple II).
> >
> >Okay then, throw away those old Apple IIs. They're only computers right?
> 
>     Sure, I hold nostaligic attachment towards my GS, or my very first
> computer which I've still kept after 15 years. I just don't value and
> worship them like a religious artifact. They are just machines, and as
> a mass produced object, they're replaceable (like say if there were a
> fire or something). They're not irreplaceable works of art or such.

Obviously, we have different views on the matter. This doesn't affect the
argument, though.
> 
> 
>     I don't require a specific machine to be creative. The creativity
> comes from me, not the machine! It makes no difference whether I have
> an Apple II, Macintosh, IBM or Amiga. It's rather sad if you need a
> specific machine to inspire you to be creative.

I did not say this in the least! I said that a machine may <<represent>>
creativity. Now, as for needing a specific machine to inspire creativity, no
not necessarily, but as a tool, I can tell you the Mac is much more inviting &
flexible than "other" tools out there.
> 
> >True- but would Apple have been able to create the Mac while supporting the
> >IIe, and is that enough reason to leave Apple products behind?
> 
>     Why not? The company could have handled two separate lines of
> computers, and if not, they could have launched a spin-off division
> (a la Claris) to handle the Apple II line. The only reason the II
> was killed off, especially the IIGS, was because of the Macintosh.

Be that as it may, 
> 
>     Now, can we wrap this up? This is started to get off-topic. :)

Yes, shall we?