Re: A Tale of Two Apples

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

In article bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major) writes...

>Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>>
>>     Well one thing few can dispute is the fact that Apple negelected
>> to support the Apple II adequately and killed it off prematurely. Do
>> you disagree with that? I think that is more a fact than any personal
>> view or opinion. Yes, it is done and over with and something that can
>> not be changed, but we should at least be able to acknowledge that
>> fact before moving on.
>
>I think the main question here really is (and this needs to be separated
>from your question) is, did ACI neglect to support the early Apple II?
>To me, the answer to that question is no.

    Then you have a distorted view of the past, as any person in this
group who has avidly used and cared about the Apple II knows the answer
to that question is a clear: "Yes".

>The early Apple II line in the II, II+, IIc, IIc+, and IIe were adequately
>supported by Apple and other manufacturers for a number of years--many more
>years than most home computers on the market in the 1980s.

    The Apple II and II Plus, yes, were adequately supported. Beyond
that (from 1979 and onwards to be exact) Apple did everything it could
do try and kill the Apple II. Do you know the stories behind the Apple
III? Oh, and the Lisa and Macintosh were not just another interesting
product within the company, they were made to replace Apple's bread and
butter: the Apple II (which Apple feared people would lose interest in,
so kept looking to replace it as quickly as they could and let its
development lag).

    Notice the gap in years between the Apple II Plus and Apple IIe:
4 years! While that may not seem like much, in computer years that
is almost a lifetime. The Apple IIe has relatively few changes from
the Apple II Plus design, in essence it is just simply a II Plus
with full ASCII keyboard, built-in language card and bank-switching
memory socket. Apple could have done so much more in those 4 years,
like maybe even use the memory addressing technology of the III in
there? Story even has it a company came forward to offer a new video
technology to Apple to incorporate into the then "Super-II". Apple
refused and another computer company bought it instead, that system
you may have heard of, it is called the Amiga.

    All the 8-bit Apple II's are basically variations on the original
Apple II/II Plus design, relatively no new technology was put in those
machines from 1977 right up until 1993. The only exception is the IIgs
of course, which broke away from that. Too bad it was shipped out the
door lacking essentials to make it usable (memory, speed and storage)
and Apple failed to ever address that.

>In regard to the gs:  I do know that you can't move a totally backwards
>compatible computer into the future forever.  It starts to present
>problems as the years go on.  It just gets impractical and becomes
>impossible to upgrade at a certain point.  I *really* don't want to say
>more than that even though I have other thoughts on the subject as well,
>because I know that if I do, I will be barraged with nasty flames from
>others and frankly, I'm entitled to my own opinion on the subject.

    I think people who've brought up Intel machines make an excellent
point. Those machines are totally backwards compatible yet still are
able to maintain state-of-the-art technology and power. The Apple IIgs
was the first step in that direction, and certainly could have kept
going further. It is conveivable that things like the 1 MHz bus could
have been isolated, 32-bit variants of the 65C816 used, etc. Sure they
were never developed, but they could have been. I refuse to believe
that such developments were impossible, the only barrier was a company
that was unwilling to press forward (also try and pretend you have
unlimited money and resources to development such things, including a
65C832, it would almost certainly have been doable).

>>     Your quite right, you did not have to run System Software, the
>> Finder application or load any programs from a hardrive, instead
>> using just what memory was built-in and floppy disks. In fact this
>> is what many schools did, and why the Apple IIgs ended up being used
>> as a fast, color version of the Apple IIe. See my point?
>
>I don't work in the education field (i.e., teaching), so I have no idea
>how schools used or didn't use their Apple II's.

    Go watch any news broadcast or television documentary where school
children are seen using computers (present day or footage from 10 or
more years ago). You will _always_ see children and teachers running
8-bit software on GS's. Even in my own high school, the Apple IIgs
they had was constantly being used for running 8-bit software. The
only attraction anyone had to it was it ran at a slightly accelerated
speed and had a color monitor (all the IIe's had monochrome green
screens).

>The question really is, how much educational software was out there that
>took advantage of the special gs features when it first came out?

    There was a fair bit of GS-specific educational software produced.
No where near the number and variety of titles available for 8-bit II's
obviously, but there were programs that took advantage of digital speech,
near-photographic quality images and the mouse interface. Of course
to run these programs required more memory than the GS came built-in
with, so most educators were _stuck_ using their old 8-bit titles.

>>     Think now, what would have happened if Apple shipped the machine
>> with 1 MB of out the box and a built-in hardrive? Do you still think
>> schools would have used them as fast Apple IIe compatibles?
>
>I'm not sure.  I DO know that schools are on a fixed budget and I
>question whether they could have afforded those hard drives you mention
>above, as well as that extra memory.  That would add up to quite a bit
>of money per computer!

    Exactly. That is why after investing tens of thousands of dollars
on Apple IIgs systems, they could not afford to go back and purchase
all the things Apple inadvertently left out. So with systems _stuck_
as they shipped out of the box, they were not usable for anything but
color Apple IIe compatibles.

>> That does not make you any less welcomed as an Apple IIgs user,
>> but it makes Scott a little uneasy when you start making observations
>> about the Apple IIgs's history and treatment as if you had been
>> using and experiencing one since the time it was released.
>
>You forget I've been a II user since 1984; I think I know something of
>what I'm talking about here.  Just because I didn't physically own a gs
>until comparitively recently doesn't mean I didn't know a thing about it
>when I got it; I had been reading up on this machine for years in the
>Apple magazines and such.

    Well you seem to have misconceptions about the machine's history
and what was required to push it from being a fancy Apple IIe to a
completely native Apple IIGS. Bare in mind also that the Apple IIgs
is very different from any other Apple II computer made, so much so
there was justification for Apple to have made it separate from the
Apple II line and give it a different name (they did not of course).
I've always seen it as two machines in one box.

>And while I'm on this subject, I believe that the heart and soul of the
>Apple II lies with its 8 bit computers, not the 8/16 bit GS.  True, the
>GS was the last of the line, but it gets far more attention in this
>group than the other Apple II models get.  I presume that's because it's
>more powerful and such, but all the strong emphasis should not be only
>on this model.  Are you and others aware that there are people on this
>group who have *only* IIc's or IIe's (or even II+'s or II's), have no
>need or desire to "upgrade" to a GS and are perfectly content with their
>II's?  I really sympathize with these folks because I was in the same
>situation not that long ago--and I felt the very same way.  I still feel
>a stronger bond to my IIc and IIe than I ever will to the GS.  If that
>GS had not appeared in that Goodwill store, I probably would not have
>one, period--and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    Any future with the Apple II lies within the IIgs model, it is
much more capable for the type of jobs and applications most people
out there want. Considering it is also backwards compatible with older
Apple IIs, it makes sense to upgrade to an Apple IIgs. This is 1997,
not 1987, there is no price barrier as there was then. Notice how the
TCP/IP projects are being written for the Apple IIgs, not any of the
8-bit Apple II models. Have you also noticed TrueType font rendering
technology, FAX sending/receiving and 3-D model rendering has been
adopted to run on the Apple IIgs and not the Apple IIe?

    Older Apple II's are not worthless, but there are some things they
just cannot be pushed to do with any sense practicality. That is why
effort is better spent working with the Apple IIgs, it just makes
better sense. By the same logic, there are things on the Apple IIgs
which fall under the same category as the 8-bit Apple II. That is
why I use a PC on the side, it supplements the things my Apple IIgs
cannot do.

>>     I'm not trying to be insulting when I call you an inexperienced
>> Apple IIgs user, my point is (and most anyone out there will back
>> me on this) that an Apple IIgs without extra memory and a hardrive
>> is really nothing more than a glorified Apple IIe compatible. And
>> even that is cutting to the edge, an accelerator card makes it that
>> much more usable when using native 16-bit software. I also say you
>> should have a stereo card and set of amplified speakers to really
>> complete it, although it is not nearly as important as the rest.
>
>Well, thanks much for telling me what I should and shouldn't have, but
>I'll decide that for myself.  Neither you nor anyone else has the right
>to tell other users *how* to use their equipment or *how much* to use
>their equipment.  Or pass judgment on them because they're a different
>kind of user than yourself.  All this stuff simply should not matter; it
>should only matter to you that I have had a strong interest in the Apple
>II line since 1984.

    Hold on there! I never told you how you _must_ use your machine.
I do speak strongly about the type of setup _anyone_ would require to
take full advantage of the machine natively (rather than a fancy IIe
compatible) and will correct you if you try and state the opposite.
However, I have never personally attacked you for the way you equip
your IIgs, in fact, if you wanted to paint it and hang it up on your
wall that is your choice. I would probably tell you that is not being
very productive with the machine, but I wouldn't hold a personal grudge
against you or something. If I somehow came across as being offensive,
I do apologize, but I never had any intent to do so.

    That is why I wrote "this is a sensitive issue" a couple of posts
back. People seem to get easily offended by remarks about the computer
they use. We're talking about _machines_, not people, not religion,
not politics and not cultures (ironically, all those latter subjects
do seem to come up on this group :). If we got into debates about
those subjects I could see things heating up, but we're not. The way
things are always tense on this group, I'm sure discussing the weather
outside would be offensive to some people. :P

>*And for the last time*:  I have 4 megs of memory (and amplified
>speakers as well).

    That is good to know, that makes 1/3rd of the formula towards
getting the most from your Apple IIgs (a hardrive and accelerator
are the other ingredients). A stereo card would go along well
with those speakers.

    These are only meant to be helpful suggestions, NOT act as
a threat saying "you must have such and such components in your
Apple IIgs or your not welcome on this group or to discuss the
Apple II". I don't know about you, but I welcome advice about
any computers I own. I'm a fairly new PC owner, and if someone
tells me I should add more memory, get a faster CPU or use a
different type of monitor I appreciate hearing those suggestions.
I take the advise, considering it for awhile, then decide whether
to follow it or not based on _my needs_ and wants. I may even
question their suggestions and may not agree with them in the
end, but at least I've heard some constructive advise and facts
on how to get the most from the machine.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca