Re: Apple Computer

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article Togega@concentric.net (Gabriel Morales) writes...

>In the time I've been reading this newsgroup I've noticed that although there
>is positive talk of Apple IIs, there seems to persist a low opinion of Apple
>Computer. Is this true, or am I wrong?

    Yep, it is true. Among Apple II users, mixing the words "Apple
Computer" and "Apple II" in the same sentence rarely bring up any-
thing but negative memories or emotions.

    Anyone who has to ask the question, "But why...?", was either not
an Apple II user between 1980 and 1993--or, someone who holds a religious
kind of faith and following towards Apple Computer. The latter, just like
followers of a real religion, will deny anything that may cast doubt and
negativity (even in sight of plain facts) upon their following. What
Apple did to the users of the Apple II is not something that makes the
company look good in the eye's of outsiders, that's for sure.

>People, the Apple II was a step towards the Mac.

    Yeah, for it to step on and all over it seems. The Macintosh is not
part of the Apple II's evolution, or a step towards it as you imply; in
fact it's not even a branch off of the same tree. As you state below,
Apple started from scratch with the Macintosh.

>The Mac owes it's very existence to the Apple II and previous lines of
>computers.

    That's for certain, all the revenue the Apple II produced went into
Macintosh R&D instead of back into the Apple II. Apparently despite the
Mac not making enough to support itself, Apple refused to give up on it
and continued pushing forward. Nothing wrong with that since it paid off
in the end, but logically, they would have done better if they took some
of the revenue to put back into the real money maker at the time--the
Apple II.

>Apple is still very much an innovator- A real innovator-

    I disagree, I haven't seen very much innovation from the company for
several years now. What do you consider innovative, the iMac? A computer
whose sole innovation is the _cosmetic look_ of its plastic housing? If
Apple were a toy company, this might be considered innovation, but a last
time I checked, they were still a computer company.

    I guess I find it disappointing since Apple was once quite invovative
at one time, and I strongly believed in the company and its products back
then. I didn't just lose interest in Apple Computer because they dropped
the Apple II, but because their products have been so dull and grey ever
since. Their biggest focus is MONEY--not customers, technology or trying
to think up new and refreshing ideas no one else has. Granted that needs
to be a concern of any business, but there has to be more than just money.
I want to see technological innovation, not psychological innovation (the
iMac's innovation is based on flash and eye-candy appeal, nothing else).

>not like Microsoft, as a prime example.

    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.

    I must admit, it is kind of amusing how each and every Macintosh
user, by default, automatically must be anti-Microsoft. :) It just
seems to be part of the unquestioned Mac oath: "Thou-Must-Loath-
Microsoft".

>The Mac still offers the best graphical OS ever.

    Nope, that is past tense. Without being biased, I can honestly
say Windows 95, as well as other GUI's out there, have managed to
surpass the Apple GUI. I've used everything from a Lisa, to a all
kinds of 68K Macs, to the Apple IIGS and finally today's PowerMacs.
I have also used other machines too. I know Apple is no longer the
king in this area from hands on experience.

    I still very strongly believe, despite what others say, that
the Mac GUI was vastly superior to anything else offered several
years ago. An example: recently I had a job working on a 25 MHz
486SX machine running Windows 3.11. The experience was not at all
pleasant and I would have *much* preferred using a Macintosh over
this. When I'd return home and use my Apple IIGS running GS/OS, I
almost felt a kind of relief. Your statement only stands true if
your comparing a Windows 3.11 system. These days I'm sure even
the latest version of Amiga Workbench is equal or better than the
Mac's OS, at least it does true multitasking (that is something
that is just a plain given on any GUI system).

>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?

>When Apple built the modern computer, it built it right from scratch; They
>redesigned the computer, unlike a PC running Windows- which is only a "mask".

    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.

>And this all started before the Mac. The IIGS has a graphical toolbox, right?
>Well, then let's not be so critical of the Mac. The only thing that Apple
>shouldn't have done is to make the Mac incompatible with the Apple II, but
>this really has nothing to do with the Mac, herself.
                                             ^^^^^^^
    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).

    As for the compatibility issue, your right, it has nothing to do
with the Macintosh, it has to do with the company who was responsible
for building it. It was very unresponsible of Apple to abandon all
those millions of customers. I'm not even talking about whether they
should have continued the Apple II as a product line, I'm talking
about making a transition from point A->B painless, and it was
anything but that. You had to dump all your hardware and software,
as well as your experience and knowledge from the Apple II, and
start over again from scratch.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca