Re: C64/128 Wolf and GS upgrade support

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

In article shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford) writes...

>Mitchell Spector (spec@vax2.concordia.ca) wrote:
> 
>:     I wonder if current management at Apple even remembers the IIgs,
>: though one thing is clear--they would never want it resurrected now
>: that they've successfully killed and burried it (at least as far as
>: the general public and the market are concerned).
> 
>Well all new press releases have a paragraph about how Apple ignited the
>personal computer industry with the Apple II.

    Though "Apple II" differs from Apple IIGS. I have no doubt people
at Apple have knowledge about something as significant as the company's
oldest roots (i.e. Apple I, the original Apple II) but I could easily
see something like the IIgs being forgotten about. What significance
does the GS hold to them, other than fueling Macintosh R&D during the 
days when it couldn't support itself. That, and maybe embrassment, as 
it was a computer with _tons_ of growth potential and future that Apple
killed off with terrible marketing and a complete lack of updates or
support due to spite (nothing to be proud of).

>:     That fear about competition is stronger than ever now, look at
>: how they got rid of all the Macintosh clones and returned to the
>: notion of isolating the company and its products.
> 
>This is not so. Apple asked cloners to work within the ground rules they set
>and those who didn't want to were told to piss off. Umax was still making 
>boxes last I saw.

    I wonder how long Umax will be permitted to continue building Mac
clones (maybe as soon as Apple sees them cutting into their profits
and market share like the rest?). Just how many other clone companies 
are left?

    Getting rid of the clone companies makes for a more priopretary
system--which makes for less choices and higher costs to the end
user (choice in what goes into my system is kind of important to
me, I don't believe in the-company-knows-what's-best-for-me kind
of attitude. I hand pick what goes into my computer).

>:     Well wait a bit, there is no doubt in my mind Apple Computer
>: will declare bankruptcy or be bought out within the next several
>: months. Perhaps then it will be easier to gain the rights to the
> 
>CNBC has been going on about how Apple's stock is rising so much lately,
>back close to 30 points. Funny how turning a profit can help your stock.
>I'd say that's becoming less likely.

    I'd say it's just a blip. Check out Apple's US and worldwide
market shares, and how they've continually been dropping. Do you
honestly believe Jobs is running things in a way that is in the
company's best interests, in long term? I think your being kind
of overly optimistic in thinking there's a future at Apple (at
least with the way things are going now and have been for years).

>: to purchase that. In some way it's kind of sad to see what has
>: become of the three major computer companies of the 80's (even
>: while Apple continues to live, they've become as dull a company
>: as IBM).
> 
>I dunno, Apple's innovations are showing up in lots of places these days. 
>ISO has chosen to base the MPEG-4 standard on quicktime, Colorsync is 
>emerging as a cross platform standard, and the list goes on.

    Coming up with new file standards or similar is not what I call 
exciting. The Apple IIGS was exciting, so was the emergence of the 
Mac II with color and slots, or the Powerbook notebooks (I'm sure
both you and I could name other neat stuff Apple came out with a
while back). PPC Macs were potentially exciting, but never really
amounted to much. All the neat stuff seems to happen in PC land,
while Apple tries to play catch up (used to be the opposite once). 

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca