Re: Wozniak vs Jobs

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

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

>In article supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes...
>
>>The Apple II users NEVER had a period of transition.  See the
>>problem?  Basically, if the original Mac could run A2 software
>>and use A2 hardware, Apple would be a lot better.  The ARM
>>based A2 prototype says that this WAS possible, but Steve
>>Jobs wanted no part of it...
>
>    Apple II users actually did have a transitional phase, or
>at least the start of one; That of course was the Apple IIgs.
>Owners of the Apple II, II+, IIe and even IIc could upgrade
>to the new machine, while preserving their entire software
>collection and a fair bit of their hardware as well (through
>its built-in slots and ports). The GS gave you a near state-
>of-the-art computer during that time period without having
>to sacrifice _anything_ as an Apple II user.

The Apple IIGS was not the same...don't get me wrong as
I am a big GS fan, but did nothing to link the Apple II and the
Mac.  It was an UPGRADE for the A2, but not a TRANSITION
to the Mac.  If Apple killed the Mac and the GS was the future,
then the GS would have been a transition to the future of
Apple.  The problem is that when the GS came out, the Mac
was already Apple's future according to Apple.

The ARM A2 prototype that was killed existed in a different era.
It would have pre-empted the 68k Mac and become what we
now know as the Mac, but at the same time providing backward
compatibility to the A2.  The reason behind this comes from the
fact that the ARM can be used to emulate a 6502 on one hand
and the fact that the ARM was more powerful than a 68000 on
the other.  Thus, the ARM A2 could run old A2 software and it
also had more power than the 68000 so it could have easily
implemented the "Mac" GUI.

If Apple went with the ARM A2, several things would have
happen.  Whether they called it an A2 or a Mac, this
transitional computer would have lead to a line that
implemented the defining "Apple" or "Mac" GUI...it would
have evolved along the lines of what we know as Macintosh
...with one important difference...because it provided transition
and initial backward capatibility, A2 users would have followed.
It would have unified the A2 and "Mac."  Jobs controlled Apple
management vetoed the ARM A2....Jobs wanted NO ties with
Wozniak you see...illogical as it seems for the welfare of
Apple.

>    It was BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY that attracted me to the
>IIgs, even more than its fancy new features. I wanted to put
>one foot forward, while at the same time, keep one foot
>backwards. Over the years I slowly began migrating from 8-bit
>to 16-bit software--and it was great, I lost nothing and gained
>everything! The problem was the transitional phase never led
>anywhere. It was a promising road built by Apple that never
>saw construction completed, you'd follow it only to find
>yourself at a dead-end.

Yup.  That's why the ARM A2 made more sense.  It would
have migrated you from what was considered A2 to what would
have been considered Mac (in this case, Mac would have used
ARM processors initially and eventually used the StrongARM).

For IIgs fans, it is not implausible that by 1986, one ARM
model would have sported an Ensoniq chip.

What the ARM would have done would have been to make all
Apple computers kin.  Apple II, ARM "Mac/A2" and a "GS"
model ARM later.

This is 180 degrees from what Jobs wanted...that the A2 and
Mac lines remain very separate.  This guy was even upset
that the IIgs used a mouse and GUI!  Thank God he wasn't
there during the 68k Mac to PowerMac transition!  He would
probably have wanted the 68k world and the PPC world
separate...and repeated the same mistake!

>    That is what pisses me off about Apple, and if they
>planned this all along, maybe they should have never come
>out with the Apple IIgs in the first place (the other II's
>never evolved, the GS was the first and only II to do new
>things). It's the fact that they lead us down a road to
>nowhere. If the Apple II were a ship voyage, it'd be like
>promising to take the passengers across the ocean (which
>is what they'd paid for) then stopping the ship and sinking
>it half way. At which point telling the passengers "too bad
>if you can't swim". The majority took salvation aboard
>another passing ship rather than swim all the way back and
>take another "voyage" with HMS Apple again. ;-)

I agree.  Problem was that the IIGS was designed because
Macintosh (the 68k model that was approved) did not provide
a transition and did not sell well.  Once IIGS was produced,
it was only sold half-heartedly to keep the A2 line alive long
enough to nurture Macintosh.  This, of course, ended up
alienating countless numbers in the user base...

ARM A2 was different from the IIGS because it would have
BECOME THE MAC.  If the ARM A2 was approved, it would
have NEGATED THE NEED FOR A 68k MODEL because
the ARM itself was powerful enough to run the Mac GUI.

Rather than fragmenting into A2, GS, and 68k Mac, Apple
would have had only one line with different models...a line
based on the ARM!

By the way, did you hear Jobs killed the StrongARM powered
Newton.  He wants to make a MacOS PDA...which of course
will NOT be able to run Newton software!  Jobs does it again!