Re: PLEASE STOP THE MAC AND MICROSOFT MESSAGES

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

In article mdragon@eagle.ptialaska.net writes...

>Why do people keep on saying that Apple abandoned the Apple II??

    When you have to argue with people on comp.sys.*apple2* about
whether or not Apple Computer abandoned the Apple II, you know the
group is near death because all the Apple II users have left.

    To make such a statement is for one of two reasons. 1) Ignorance
of history, having not actually experienced it, 2) Blind devotion and
faith in Apple Computer, to the point you will create a revisionist
version of history where the company has never done wrong. I believe
the latter to be a stronger influence, as Apple has become like some
sort of regilious icon to Macintosh users. I could logically list
and explain how Apple abandoned the Apple II (with solid proof to
back up each point) but I get the feeling it'll fall on deaf ears 
(not too mention most people have added this thread to their kill 
file in any case, and not reading it).

>They didn't abandon it, they discountinued it so they could build
>a better (eventually) computer!!

    They did eventually build a better computer, but it took many,
many years for that to happen. Of course when you release a piece
of technology as-is, and absolutely refuse to update it in the
slightest for over 7 years (the case with the IIgs) it is not too
difficult to imagine its competitor surpassing it.

    I would love to hear someone hear tell me the "ROM 3" was the
Apple IIgs hitting an evolutionary peek.

>Did Intel "abandon" the 8088 chip??

    Well let's examine that. The 8088 evolved into the 8086, then
the 80186, 80286, 80386, 80486, Pentium and lately the Pentium II.
Each step of the way, the chip maintained backwards compatibility
with the older chip. That is why I can take a program written for
the original 1981 IBM PC, and chances are it will run on a machine
with the Pentium II processor.

>Did Texas Instruments "abandon" the TI-80?

    Not as far as I know, since they brought out computers that
were backwards compatible (the TI-99?). I'm not that familiar
with the TI line of computers, so I won't comment further.

>Did Nasa "abandon" Titan Rockets?  No!  They stopeed
>producing them so they could focus all their money on building better
>and more able products!!

    Gee, I didn't know Nasa sold their rockets to the public.
In any case, talking about rockets and cars make for a very
poor analogy. No one suffers or is left in a position of
abandonment when Nasa designs and updates their space craft,
or when Ford brings out a new line of motor vechicle.

>So please, stop saying that Apple abandoned the Apple II.

    What are you saying? Are you asking me to lie about the
truth, or just not speak about it anymore, since it leaves
a very negative impression about Apple Computer?

>At least they still support it somewhat.

    A statement like that does little for validity. Perhaps
I've been asleep and missed something though, so tell me,
just how Apple Computers still supports the Apple II. This
should be quite interesting to hear...

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca