Re: Wozniak vs Jobs

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Jeff Lemke <lemke@terra.cira.colostate.edu> wrote:

>And by '87 the 386's had come onto the scene
>(I think it was '87), and I think it's quite an overstatement to call
>even the early 386's slow, cheezy pieces of crap.  It's a little ironic
>to hear that coming from an advocate of Apple II computers which ran at
>between 1 and 2.5 MHz, and even the Mac I's and early Mac II's were not
>exactly speed demons.

I have just one comment regarding the above -- you can't compare
Intel Mhz to Motorolla Mhz to 65C Mhz.  That 1Mhz Apple II could
often match (or even beat in some cases) the speed of the original
4.77Mhz 8088 IBM PC.  It has to do with how many cycles the CPU
takes to execute instructions.

In addition to an accelerated Apple IIGS, I own an IBM AT 286 at
8Mhz and a Turbo XT.  I timed the Apple IIGS, setting the on board
accelerated CPU to match the Mhz of the Turbo XT's 8086 and
found that (1) unzipping files and (2) decoding a JPEG file both
took much longer on the Turbo XT than on the accelerated GS set
to the same Mhz.  In fact, an 8Mhz 65C816 is most comparable
to a 25Mhz 286 in terms of performance (a fact that I can appreciate
because my IBM AT runs at 8Mhz -- it is the revision 2 model).

When you say "advocate of Apple II that ran at 2.8Mhz," know
that when that Apple II's 65C816 ran at 2.8Mhz, it often kept up
quite well with that IBM AT 286 running at 8Mhz (for example,
when running the GS/OS Finder compared to an IBM AT running
the GEM environment...with GEM in CGA or Hercules...moving
LESS screen data than the GS)...

(Although MIPS are often as inaccurate a comparison as Mhz
between different CPU architectures, it is useful to know that
when the 65C816 is run at 16Mhz, it gets 8MIPS....which is
better than a 286 at the equivalent Mhz...)

>IBM was amazed itself at the explosion in the popularity of the PC, and
>could hardly keep up with orders.  They had vastly underestimated how
>many they thought they'd be selling.  There was obviously a pent-up
>demand for a computer that a good many businesses who were hold-outs
>would trust - one with IBM's name on it. 

As for the IBM PC in business, you have a point that people
trusted the IBM name.  However, you have to remember the
stranglehold that the Apple II had on the schools.  It is not right
to say that the Apple II was "just the same as the Commodore"
or "just the same as the Trash-80s" in schools.  Well over 95%
of schools had Apple IIs.  Apple did not lose its grip in this key
market until it tried to kill the Apple II.  Instead of building on its
existing market, Apple abandoned it.  The Macintosh was
not originally capatible with A2 hardware and software, meaning
that it was not a true upgrade path (you could not take your OLD
software and hardware to your NEW Mac).  If you read this group,
you will know that (for example, Steve Jenson), it was Apple's
treatment of the A2 that caused many schools to switch from
Apples to PCs.  They did not want to get abandoned again.

Even Apple learned a lesson from this fiasco.  When the PPC
based PowerMacs came out, they could run 68k Mac software.
Imagine what would have happened to Apple's remaining market
share had Apple repeated the past mistake and made the PMac
68k incompatible intially?  That A2 fiasco was equivalent to what
would have happened had Microsoft initially released a Win95
that could not run Win 3.1 software!

If Apple held the schools, they would still have a much larger
market share, but the schools clearly saw that going PC meant
their hardware and software would never be obsoleted overnight.

>Business people were reluctant to begin
>with to buy any computer systems that didn't have Big Blue's logo on
>them, but a few businesses did try the Apple III's, but Apple stumbled
>at a crucial time.

Apple stumbled in business because the A3 was used to try
to break into business instead of a new A2.  You have to realize
that the A3 had A2 emulation, but a deliberately crippled one.
You could not access the A3's features from A2 emulation.
That's equivalent to building a computer that prevented DOS
programmers from accessing the VGA graphics screen because
you thought they would not use Windows -- while your old
DOS computer COULD do graphics and you had software that
used graphics...!

Apple kept wanting to REPLACE the II and start anew from
scratch rather than build on its existing user base.  If you want
to talk about business, A2's had some foothold in some
businesses.  If they built the A3's features into the proven A2
...to build a better IIe, for example...they could have met IBM
head on.  You shouldn't underestimate the A2s.  Of the non
IBMs, the A2s were quite prominant in the business setting
and AppleWorks outsold Lotus 123 (the bestselling IBM
software) for many consecutive years.

>Only a very small percentage of homes had computers then,
>even for years after that, and people didn't upgrade them nearly as
>often either.

Well, I don't know about that -- see for most of the 1980s, the
Commodore 64 and Commodore 128 together outsold all
Apple and PC computers!  The home computer was there, it
just wasn't IBM or IBM clone or Apple or Mac computers.

I hear that the C64 is STILL sold in some parts of the world!

If Apple had played its cards right, it would have been able to
swollow this market too, but it never built a REAL low end
computer for the (1980s) home.