Re: Wozniak vs Jobs

[larry@somtel.com (Lawrance A. Schneider)]

In article <6hhgnt$aaq@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, toddpw@ugcs.caltech.edu (Todd
P. Whitesel) wrote:

> hattonr@aug.com (Rick Hatton) writes:
> 
> >Todd P. Whitesel <toddpw@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> 
> >> Apple called it 100% compatible, you call it deliberately crippled. If you
> >> wanted to use A3 features, you rebooted into SOS and ran it in native mode.
> 
> >The AII emulation was deliberately crippled. You could have only 48K of
> >memory and there were other things missing in the II emulation. Apple
> >deliberately crippled the II emulation.

Todd,I must agree with the above.  As I said in an earlier article, I was
told by a member of the design team that they could have had 100%
comatiblity but chose NOT TO DO SO  for reasons of marketing and marketing
only.  He said that they needed to develop a special chip that took away
the emulation mode from the III.  I just wish I could remember his name!
 
> A3 bank switching was cleaner and unlike any other II series bank switching.
> Thus it could not be compatible without special effort. Note that Titan did
> sell hardware for the A3 which provided language card expansion in II mode.
> 
> As for the other things missing: take your pick, 100% compatibility or A3
> features in emulation mode. YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH. Apple chose the former
> because it was ideologically pure and not-PC-clone and suited their clear
> market positioning goals for the II and the A3.
> 
> When Apple shoe-horned some of the A3 features into the //e, they learned
> how to do 99% compatibility and that lasted us pretty good on up to the IIgs.
> Please don't condemn Apple for trying to do a 'totally clean' job on the A3
> just because it is not what you personally would have wanted.
> 
> Todd Whitesel
> toddpw @ ugcs.caltech.edu