Re: PLEASE STOP THE MAC AND MICROSOFT MESSAGES

[shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford)]

Mitchell Spector (spec@vax2.concordia.ca) wrote:

: >Don't pull a Nathan and say that just because you have no interest, there
: >is no place for Apple Inc news.

:     It has nothing to do with my lack of interest, it has to do with
: the fact *current* Apple Inc news has nothing Apple II related to
: offer. I welcome you to prove me wrong on that point.

I just think that people might still want to hear about the company. There is
still a mention of Apple II stuff from time to time e.g. there was a link
to the Bernie page for a while on Apple's hot news page.

:     I admit your right about my opinion. The fact that I have zero
: interest in Apple Computer does have no relevance here, although if
: you look at the reason why I feel that way, that does (no products
: related to the Apple II). I was out of place saying that though,
: now that I look back at it.

No prob. People should in general keep in mind that not everyone thinks
exactly like they do.

:     The dictionary defines the word abandoned as: "To give up,
: forsake, desert". Those words sound very much like what Apple
: did with the machine, unless you have another definition for
: the same word. ;-)

OK, that applies to 68Ks as much as to Apple IIs. Apple gives lip service
to them still but in practical terms they've left them behind. Try OS 8
and Quicktime 3.0 on a 68K if you don't buy that.

:     Seriously though, the company stopped development of the
: machine when it was *very popular* and *selling better* than
: any other computer at the company. They also left users stuck
: with no upgrade path to follow, or even so much as an offer
: to trade in your hardware for a discount off a Macintosh. Not
: even so much as the truth was spoken, people were lead on to
: believe the company was still going to support them (do you
: recall John Sculley's open letter in InCider/A+ in the fall
: of 1990?). If sales dropped off and people lost interest in
: the machine, then I'd agree, but they didn't. Apple certainly
: did abandon the Apple II and that is pretty obvious. I really
: don't see how you can see otherwise.

I don't imagine that IIgses were outselling all Mac models combind in '89
to '90, when most people would say that Apple II support was tailing off.

:    Of course you wouldn't, you never were abadoned. The PowerMac
: is backwards compatible with 68K Macintoshes in hardware and of
: course software too. You can take all your software and hardware
: over to a new PowerMac G3 and continue as if you were still a 68K
: Macintosh owner. Whether you decide to upgrade or not is totally
: your choice, but the point is Apple II users never got an
: oppurtunity for a choice. Being left with no options or help
: is abandonment.

Coupla points: first, NO Mac hardware I own will work in a G3. Unless you count
a Plaintalk mic I suppose. I'm not counting external hard disks and the like 
since my IIgs can use them as well. Second, less and less software coming out 
runs on 68Ks. Take a look in CompUSA or wherever you see Mac software and see
how much isn't native only. You won't find much. 68Ks are getting left behind
in the sense of not having new software since everything requires a Pmac now 
and zero new hardware is coming out. When's the last time you saw a new nubus
card hyped? But that's progress and a fellow either keeps up or gets left 
behind. I'm planning to make do a little longer until it gets settled whether
Mac OS X will run on 603/604 Pmacs. I was gonna get one of the sub $1000 8500s
out there nowadays but I want to make sure it's not a dead end.

You could replace "68K" with "IIgs" in your paragraph up there given an
emulator. But as for continuing support, 68K Macs and Apple IIs are in
the same boat now.

:     Yep, so I have. It'll say they're updated for formatting and
: content. New TIL articles haven't been written in years, and there
: has been no maintenance performed on them either (except as mentioned,
: the occational reformatting so they'll look nice through a web
: browser or whatnot).

:     The Apple II articles in TIL are a nice resource (just as the
: information about other older Apple products is, like the Lisa and
: and Apple III) but as I said, much of it has been backed up and
: stored outside of Apple since it isn't going to change.

:     Hah! Good luck if you try, I'd say 95% of authorized dealers no
: longer know what an Apple II is (I called *Apple Canada* not long
: ago, and no one knew about the Apple II) let alone have the parts,
: proceedure manuals or knowledge to repair them. At the very least
: they'd have to send stuff out for repair, and you'd certainly be
: charged more than the computer is worth. Would you pay a couple of
: hundred dollars to swap a damaged Apple IIe motherboard?

It's getting harder since old fashioned Apple dealers are hard to come
by these days. Apple is deauthorizing a bunch who aren't showing enough
zeal in moving products according to a ZDnet article I saw online so that'll
mean even fewer. They're not the best resource but you have to take them
into account. And repairs involve the swap-the-whole-thing procedure which
makes 'em a bit pricey.

:     The software stored on Apple's FTP sites was put there years
: ago, and hasn't been maintained since (I recall there were Mac
: file headers in some of the ShrinkIt archives, but it took almost
: a full 1 to 1.5 years of complaining before something was done to
: correct the problem). I will give Apple credit for not going out
: of its way to have those traces of Apple II software removed.
: Trust me though, if the site crashed and had to be started from
: scratch again, you can bet the Apple II software would go.

I can't see why it wouldn't be put back.

:     The same idea applied to Apple would count. If you wanted to talk
: about Applied Engineering Vulcan hardrives, TransWarp GS accelerators
: or Phasor card, that'd be on topic. If you wanted to talk about their
: TransWarp LC, DataLink Mac modem or ShadowLAN software, that'd be out
: of place here. Talking about the AST Vision Plus or RamStack is okay,
: talking about AST's line of Intel PC clones is not. What fits in the
: scope of the group is couldn't be more simple: Anything Apple II.

Well it's moot since most of those companies are kaput

:     Incidentally, the whole point of this is just a discussion on
: how to make comp.sys.apple2 more enjoyable and a bearable place to
: read. At least that's the way I see it. I hope this doesn't come
: off sounding like its a personal attack on you, since I get the
: feeling you think that with some of the comments made above.

No not really. Having a different opinion isn't something to take personally
unless you start following the Nathan model of attacking people whose 
opinions you don't go along with.

:     Well the thing is there are key things about the 68K built-in
: to the PowerMac, like the Macintosh Toolbox for example. The only
: major thing being emulated in those newer boxes are the 68K CPU.
: A PowerMac running 68K Mac software is very different from F.E.'s
: Bernie ][ The Rescue running IIgs software.

There isn't much difference on the surface though.

:     I personally have no problem about the odd bits news about
: Apple straying in here, or some mention about the Macintosh that
: comes into passing (no more than when any other computers come up
: in messages, either as a tangent or because of some relation they
: have with the Apple II). What I do get annoyed at is when someone
: posts Macintosh or PC specific questions here, and several people
: post public answers to those questions as if this group were also
: comp.sys.mac.misc or comp.sys.ibm-pc, in additional to comp.sys.-
: apple2.

People need to ignore them or reply via mail since following up to complain
only causes more useless traffic.

:     I'm not trying to write up rules for this place, or about to
: go about enforcing any such ban on off-topic messages. And I'm
: especially not out to attack any specific person(s) here because
: they like Apple or the Macintosh. I just joined this message
: thread to share some of my views. Though really, if you want to
: look at what's more important here, I think first people here
: should focus on ending all the fighting and then worry about
: off-topic messages that filter in.

I'm all for that
--
Offsite mail to this host gets nuked.