Re: A Tale of Two Apples

[bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major)]

Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:

>B.J. Major wrote:

> >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). 

The Apple IIe and the Apple IIc were supported for many years by Apple
and by third party companies, despite what you say above.  I have the
software and hardware items in my possession to prove 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. 

And as I told them recently, that has to end and end soon or else future
upgrading or expansion will hit a brick wall.  No machine can remain
backward compatible forever, period.

> >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?

Sorry, but again I have to say "so what"?  For years I had an internet
shell account that I accessed with my Apple IIe and ProTerm.  The only
reason I no longer have that account is that it was more expensive per
month than what I'm paying now to use my Mac on the internet.  And in
every message now you are continuing to bash the Apple II 8-bit line.
*So what* that they were 8-bit?  They are STILL very useful machines.

> >*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.

And again, it's my machine and my setup.  Whatever else I decide to add
in the future will be my decision--not what someone who has no use for
Apple II 8-bit machines thinks I should have to be a "productive" or
"power" user.


-- 
--bj    Auto reply will not work; please remove "black" to reply.
Proud owner/user of Apple Computers since 1984.  
"None of my computers do Windows."