Re: PLEASE STOP THE MAC AND MICROSOFT MESSAGES

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

In article shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford) writes...

>Mitchell Spector (spec@vax2.concordia.ca) wrote:
>
>:     Sound familiar? It should. When I first bought my Apple IIGS,
>: I continued to use my 8-bit II Plus software titles, while slowly
>: trying out native IIGS software. Eventually, I found myself only
>: running native software. Sure, my Apple II Plus machine had been
>: abandoned by the industry, but it made no difference to me since
>: I had an Apple IIgs that let me move on painlessly. The transition
>: was very smooth and did not affect me negatively in the least.
>
>Suppose Apple bundled an IIgs emulator with all Pmacs. Then what?

    During what time frame, when they were first introduced in the
middle of 1994? That would have made an attractive incentive to go
purchase a PowerMacintosh, however it also would have been a case
of too little, too late, once again. Do you think 1994-95 is not a
little too late to be offering this theoretical upgrade path?

    Furthermore, I assume your talking about a pure software based
emulator, like GuS or Bernie ][ The Rescue. If that is the case,
what difference would it make whether the software emulator is
running on an IBM PC or PowerMacintosh. As you yourself claimed
in this thread, there is no difference on the surface. If Apple
had integrated the GS toolbox and 65C816 code into the firmware
of the then new PowerMacintosh's, it would be a different story.
Few 68K Mac users would have been happy if they had to load up
a software emulator *each* time they'd want to run their 68K Mac
software titles. There's a huge difference between emulating a
computer through software and integrated emulation built-in.

>:     Yes, but there were some serious problems your conveniently ignoring.
>: First of all, this migration came about 6 years too late for the Apple
>: IIe/IIc crowd. Shortly after the Macintosh was introduced is when this
>: migration path should have been offered. Secondly, the emulation was
>: just good enough to serve as *ONLY* a migration tool. The Macintosh
>: had to take care of video emulation, so in many cases it was slower
>: than a real Apple IIe, not too mention you had to give up something
>: the Apple II crowd valued heavily -- SLOT EXPANSION.
>
>You could run software at 2 MHz with the card. Can't see how that's slower
>than a real //e.

    If you carefully reread the above, you'll notice I said the Mac
had to take care of video emulation using QuickDraw, since there was
no character generator or dedicated graphic chip on the IIe card to
handle this. For that reason, it was noticeably slower than a real
1 MHz Apple IIe for most tasks (scrolling text for example).

>And the //e software let the host Mac's hardware stand in for everything
>from slinky type memory to a clock card to a hard disk card. Unless you
>have some really esoteric cards like a Z80 or A/D converter, you were set.

    Well some would arguably say the Apple IIc had everything built-in
so there was no need for slots anymore, but if that was true, then why
did the more expensive Apple IIe remain more popular? Answer: Slots!
What if I wanted to add a sound card to my IIe or speech synthesizer?
Sure, there wasn't much software to support sound options, but I've
always liked to plug one in from time to time and tinker with sound.
There is also the Video Overlay Card, the Quickie scanner card and
not too mention accelerator cards. Peopled liked Apple II's because
you could pop open the lid and play with them almost like computer-
Lego (add, remove, experiment, tinker, play to your heart's content).

>:     The biggest problem here is that it offered a migration path to
>: Apple IIe/IIc users *ONLY* -- there was not Apple IIGS emulation to
>: run GS software.
>
>Not a problem in my opinion.

    How can abandoning a user base with over 1 million computers
installed not be a problem? Forget about whether you think the
machine and its software were good or bad, that is not the issue.

>:     Whoah, excuse me? Whether the IIGS was a solid worthwhile machine
>: or complete rubbish is irrelevant here. The fact remains software for
>: it *WAS* written and there *WAS* an existing user base on that machine
>: with well over ONE MILLION units sold. You cannot simply brush those
>: facts under the rug and try and rationalize dumping that user base.
>
>First point: it has been said that 2/3 or thereabouts of the million IIgses
>produced went to schools and served as glorified //e's.

    I recall it being 1/3, and what schools did or didn't do with them
is besides the issue as the GS was more than just a glorified IIe. The
other half of the machine DID exist, and pretending otherwise is wrong.
There were schools who purchased GS-specific education titles btw, don't
make a blanket statement saying all GSes served as glorified IIe's.

>Second, what software do you use most? I bet 80% is ProDOS 8 based,
>e.g. 8 bit Appleworks and Proterm.

   Wrong. 1% of what I use is ProDOS 8 based. Ever since I added a
hardrive and memory, the only 8-bit program I continue to use is
ProTERM 3.1 (I refuse to use a graphical terminal program, even on
my Pentium I stick with Terminate or Procomm Plus because they use
a text character generator). All the software run on my Apple IIgs
is native software.

    Why someone would buy an Apple IIgs and want to use it mostly
for running older software today is beyond me (unless you have a
stock system with 256K and a 3.5 floppy drive and have no choice).

>I can't think of a solitary IIgs native title which is better than
>any equivalent Mac title. So the decision to not make a IIgs card, 
>taking into account the added complexity and added cost, makes sense 
>to me. Obviously not everyone agrees.

    As I said, I cannot think of a solitary Mac/PMac title which is
better than any equivalent Intel PC title. If Apple were to replace
their Macintosh line-up with Intel clones as a last ditch attempt to
save the company, would it then be okay to use the same logic here?

>Apple decided that scarcely anyone uses any type of
>ethernet cabling other than twisted pair, so that's all new boxes support.
>I'm not fond of that since I use thin coax cabling, but there ain't much
>I can do about it aside from converting part of my network to twisted pair
>one of these days.

    So abandoning a cable connector standard is the same as abandoning
an entire computer platform you're saying? We're losing perspective
here if you feel that way.

>:     Here's a thought. At present, I personally feel there is little
>: native software on the 68K or PPC Mac that is worth using, and there
>: are much better Intel equivalents or often, the identical title (using
>: Photoshop or Netscape is a lot nicer under a preemptive environment).
>: When Apple falls and the Macintosh slowly fades out of existence, how
>: would you feel if I said, "What does it matter, you can run all your
>: old 68K tiles in crippled emulation under Executor, and as for the
>: PPC titles? Well who cares since there are better Intel equivalents
>: you can run instead".
>
>Bad example since 1) Apple is becoming more profitable, not less;

    Just a temporary blip, it will certainly take more than one or
two consecutive quarters to fix things. It may let them tread water
for now, but it won't keep Apple from drowning in the long term.
Trying to sell computers based solely on a cute look (the iMac)
rather than expandability and functionality is a only going to
accelerate their downward spiral.

>2) Adobe has pledged support until doomsday;

    Heh, remember the Apple pledge to support the Apple II until
doomsday. What was it again? oh yes, "Apple II Forever!".

>3) I use Netscape under Win95 daily and it utterly sucks compared to
>even the 68K Mac version;

    Odd, I thought just that when I had the misfortunate of having
to run Netscape on a PowerMac weekly. I at least like the Win95
version better because if for some reason it should crash (which
was the case with version Netscape 3.x quite often) it didn't take
the whole operating system crashing down around it. Also, I prefer
the PC version since I can run Netscape while doing other things
and it still continues to run even while the mouse button is held
down. I'd be interested to hear some solid reasons why it "utterly
sucks" compared to the 68K version (speaking of which, I've used
Netscape on 68K Macs and they make Netscape a rather unpleasant
experience even compared to a low-end 486's. The screen scrolling
and updating is S-L-O-W).

>and 4) I can put in a PCI card with a 166 MHz Intel type chip on it
>and run all that stuff better and with fewer headaches than can be
>done with Brand X hardware.

    Can you throw a SB16 or Yamaha XG sound card in there? Gee, I
like have brand A, B, C through X and Z hardware, it gives me plenty
of choice so I can pick and choose quality stuff. If you just have
Brand-Apple, you had better hope what your getting is top notch and
does exactly what you want. For an example closer to home, I was
glad there were alternatives to the rubbish Applied Engineering was
selling for the Apple IIgs (i.e. Sequential Systems, Zip Technologies,
CV-Technologies, etc).

>If people think IIgs native software is good, bully for them. In my opinion,
>lack of good native software and the delay on the part of Apple to put out
>a real OS for it are fundamental problems which crippled the IIgs throughout
>its life cycle.

    So let's say the Apple IIGS was a horrible machine not worth a
second look. Does that still give Apple justification to abandon
all those hundreds of thousands of users out there?

    There was a lack of good native software and of course, a long
a delay before a decent OS was released (that took until late 1989).
Those were only a minor part of the reason the GS was crippled, the
biggest reason came from the source, Apple Computer. Do you honestly
believe Apple did not cripple the GS in any way or form?

>: >Having a //e card is a perfectly viable way to move from Apple II to Mac.
>
>:     It was a perfect example of too little, too late for the Apple
>: IIe/IIc crowd. It was not even an option at all for the Apple IIgs
>: crowd (how can it even begin to be, if it meant losing the entire
>: GS half of your machine and accepting a *crippled* half of the IIe
>: side). Now if the Apple IIgs never existed and this option was made
>: available in 1984, then your above statement would make more sense.
>
>There was nowhere to put a card in'84. But software emulation existed back
>then. You've heard of II in a Mac right?

    If Apple was so innovative, they could have figured out another
way to give a Macintosh Apple II emulation. You could have made it
built-in for one thing, or added some sort of small external box with
what was required to emulate a IIe. II-in-a-Mac was quite pitiful, it
ran far slower than a real Apple II and had no way of supporting color.

>:     It is what also killed the "Mark Twain" Apple IIgs. A low cost
>: Apple II that worked as a color Mac-like machine with a built-in
>: hardrive, decent graphics and speed (I have no doubt if finished,
>: the M.T. would have incorporated a faster 65C816 and enhanced VGC)
>: would make the Macintosh LC, Classic and IIsi seem superfluous.
>
>I suppose you gotta decide if you're gonna base future products on the past
>or on the future. I've heard talk that Intel will drop the x86 instruction
>set and make more RISC like chips in the future. I guess even they've caught
>on. When they get out of trouble with the FTC maybe.

    Yep, that is why the 68K Mac technology was dropped after about
12 years in favor of PowerPC based machines. However, Apple made sure
this time to make the transition as transparent as possible.

>:     Steve Jobs was not the only religious guy about the Macintosh,
>: there were still plenty of people working there who believed you
>: could not make an Apple II that was equal or better than the Mac.
>: Faith and interest surrounding the Macintosh today is based more
>: on a religious following, than actual merits the machine may have.
>: That is why the Apple II was ignored and pushed aside at Apple.
>
>People have to be pretty twisted to consider their platform choice a religion. 

    Go read some of the arguments in that URL you posted about 2 weeks
back, about why Mac's are supposedly superior. You should also look at
some of the links on that page to other Mac fan pages, they all sound
like the Macintosh is some sort of cult-like religion (some of my
favorite comments were that people who own Mac's are typically more
artistically talented and creative. Or that Mac owners are almost
never unemployed, while PC users are. *snicker*).

>Now brand loyalty is a good thing on the other hand. Apple is #1 in brand
>loyalty as you've probably heard.

    Is it really? I feel brand loyalty can blind you in terms of
other options that are out there. You end up not even wanting to
consider anything else because your so convinced one brand will
always be better than the others.

>:     Oh please. The cost of the Apple IIgs never dropped from what
>: it was when introduced in 1986. As the years went by, the cost of
>: manufacturing and parts went down, so the price of the GS should
>: have remained relative to that. Other computers and technologies
>: coming on the market have an influence too. The fact that the
>: Apple IIe (1 MHz, 8-bit CPU with 128K) sold for about the same
>: amount as 386/486 machines (33 MHz, 32-bit with 8 MB) in late
>: 1993 was absolutely digusting business practice.
>
>No one's gonna deny that Apple stuff was expensive. It reminds me of
>that Acura commercial with the line "paying for quality is a hard decision
>to make" in it.

    Apple products remind me of modern art. Like when someone takes
a rollerbrush and paints a solid straight line on a canvas, and then
somehow, people find deep meaning and beauty it in and pay a million
dollars for the "work". My Apple 3.5 costing over $500 Cdn is an
example of charging an arm and a leg solely because of the artist
name attached to it. The iMac is a good example of the rollerbrush
example above! ;-)

>That's why all my Mac stuff is secondhand and fairly well
>out of date. That it's at all usable any more is testament to the well known
>advantage in life span and return on investment in Apple products.

    That is what I did when buying Apple II stuff, and I still do
today when purchasing most PC stuff. I certainly do not need the
most cutting edge in technology today, nor do I want to pay for
that advantage only to find it no longer is a few short months
later.

>: >I can't reuse any of my hardware such as nubus cards in a new Pmac. And
>: >again, I'm talking continuing support of my existing equipment. There is
>: >very little difference between a IIgs and a 68K Mac there.
>
>:     Did you not tell me a few months back that there were early
>: PowerMac's with Nubus slot support? The important thing here is
>: offering backwards compatibility at each step, but not forever.
>
>Nubus Pmacs have been out of production for three years, and won't run
>Rhapsody, let alone OS X.

    Yep, but the point is there was a transition period offered (how
long it lasted is another story, but it was there and that is what
counts).

>: PC's have kept ISA slots for backwards compatible since the 286
>: era, but that is soon going to be phased out soon. Care to refresh
>: me on which, if any, Mac's have had 50-pin Apple II slots?
>
>It's as valid to ask what PCs have them. There were clones with both 
>with both nubus and PCI slots although I don't see the relevance of 
>that either.

    No PC's have ever had Apple II compatible slots (unless there is
some obscure clone I'm forgetting) but who said the PC was any more
or less an upgrade path for Apple II users? The Macintosh and Intel
PC are both foreign computer systems to Apple II, at a software and
hardware level.

>:     There was a huge following of people loyal to the Apple II, the
>: market was there and the companies to back it too. Apple decided to
>: squeeze the life out of that market so they could focus entirely on
>: the Mac market and eventually succeeded. Some people were unphazed
>: by what happened and remained loyal to Apple and its products (rather
>: like someone in an abusive relationship going through denial) while
>: the largest majority went elsewhere.
>
>I wonder if there are any statistics on how many Apple II owners went the
>Brand X route versus how many stayed with Apple. I guess you'd first have
>to figure out how many people you're talking. Units sold doesn't translate
>into owners when you figure how many went into schools. I'd bet it was
>half and half.

    I doubt it was half and half. If you want a sampling, go ask
some of the school teachers on this newsgroup what happened when
Apple phased out the Apple II line. Most will tell you when Apple
abandoned them, the schools abandoned Apple and went and purchased
Intel PC's to fill their labs (replacing the Apple II's and Mac's).

    Go look at Apple's current market share WORLDWIDE. They have
something less than 3%, down from high double-digits not that many
years ago. Part of those figures account for the education market
that they lost out to.

>I tell you what, I think the time has come to agree to disagree and give
>this thread the death it so richly deserves. Eh?

    I'm all for that, we just seem to be going in circles with our
arguments as neither one of us is going to budge from our opinions.
Besides, this is a road all well to traveled, this isn't the first
time we've discussed Apple their treatment of the Apple II. :)
(like I said early in this thread, talking about it over and over
again is not exactly a productive thing. Still, if I hear someone
say an outright lie like "Apple did not abandon the Apple II" or
"There was nothing Apple could have done to improve the GS design"
you can be sure I won't sit silent and ignore that).

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca