Re: A Tale of Two Apples

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

B.J. Major said:

> >There are very few people here (if any) that can talk about this
> >decision that was made in a *truly* objective way, without adding
> >their personal slant or bias to it.  That's all I'm saying.

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.  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.

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.

> >the system speed back and forth, and besides, all the old 8 bit stuff is
> >not compatible anyways, with the screenfull of "2"'s appearing and
> >such....
> 
>     The screenful of "2"'s is a problem with the original Apple IIgs,
> it did not support hardware shadowing of page 2. To fix this problem,
> enter the Classic Desk Accessory menu when it happens (Apple-Control-
> Esc) and select 'Alternative Dislay Mode'. The only catch is the GS
> has to keep transfering data from bank $00 to $E0 in memory and this
> slows things down quite noticably, but the "2"'s will disappear.

I have done what you said, above, as well as change the system speed,
but the screenful of "2"s still appear in certain programs I have, so I
just don't run that software on the IIgs.

> >I would guess it was because the System requirements for the Plus used
> >much more memory and applications were getting larger for the Mac by
> >that point in time.  The IIgs appeared at least six months or more later
> >than the Mac Plus, and the setup was totally different besides.  You did
> >not *have* to run System software and a Finder on the IIgs to use it.
> >Bootable floppies for the IIgs were still very popular then--many games,
> >etc.
> 
>     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.  The question really
is, how much educational software was out there that took advantage of
the special gs features when it first came out?  I would presume to
think that these schools had literally years worth of IIe software, and
that's probably how they used the machines when they first came out.
You really cannot fault the schools for that; they used what they
already had.  I do see your point, however.

> 
>     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!

> >I really resent you and Scott G. referring to myself as a "non-user" of
> >gs and gs native software.  I'm NOT using it as an Apple IIe compatible.
> >And I don't just play games on it.  And no, I definitely have not just
> >"tinkered" with the gs.  I've spent a bunch of money on extra memory,
> >software, extra disk drives, an RGB monitor, etc. etc.  I don't spend
> >money and time like this on a system that will get only occasional use.
> 
>     I understand his reasons for saying that. You only entered the
> Apple IIgs scene in the last 3 years, after you picked one up at
> a thrift shop. Also at that time, you already had a computer system
> and had _no intension_ of replacing it, the Apple IIgs was mainly
> picked up as something to add to your collection and tinker around
> with. 

The "computer system I already had" at that point in time was my IIc and
IIe.  I owned NO Macintoshes yet, although I did know how to use them
from my work experience.  Again, a presumption on your part. 

> That does not make you any less welcomed as an Apple IIgs user,
> but it makes Scott a little uneasy when you start making obversations
> 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.

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.  

>     Your Macintosh Plus is in the same postition as your Apple IIgs.
> It is not your main system, you do not do daily or intensive work on
> that machine, do you? 

I used to, about a year and a half ago.  So *what* that's it's not my
main machine at this point in time; it still gets used as does every
other computer model I own.

>     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.

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

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