Re: A Tale of Two Apples

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

<pubpc1@library.ucla.edu> wrote:

> B.J. Major wrote:
> >Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
> >>What killed the Apple IIgs was _Apple Computer_.
> >
> >Is there a point to going over this stuff over and over again?
> >I mean, I just don't see what the point is.  Everyone knows what
> >happened back then and everyone has their own opinions on it or
> >who was at fault, etc. etc.  This is like constantly dredging up
> >the past--it doesn't help things NOW.
> 
> B.J., I respect your opinion, but I am just about fed up with your
> constant goading us, the GS supporters, for discussing the past of
> _our_ computer.  If this, _our_ newsgroup, is not the place to
> discuss it, what is?  What you are doing, trying to prevent this
> discussion because it is unfavorable to Apple Computers, is like
> if an Mac or PC user went into comp.sys.amiga.* and trolled about
> how it was justified that the Amiga died because the Mac or PC
> was better and so on.
> 
> Amiga users have a right to talk about their computer on their
> group and GS users _have the right_ to discuss what unjust actions
> happened in the past on _our_ group.

Sure.  Go ahead, beat a dead horse.  The POINT is, it's all been talked
about and discussed before on this group--ad nauseum.  Why not instead
talk about the way you guys use your GS's NOW, at this point in time?
Are you up to that challenge, or do you just want to waste everyone's
time talking about how wrong Apple was to do what it did, and offer
nothing new to the discussion table?  All this stuff about ACI's past
decisions has already been all talked out.  Tell me one instance where
mentioning all this can benefit today's users.

I've already stated publicly that I don't agree with many decisions ACI
has made--both past and recent decisions.  But I am realistic to know
that this is the nature of business (and corporations), and that it's
pointless to have a vendetta against a company because they didn't
necessarily do what I wanted.  Life goes on.

[entire discussion about early GS memory requirements and Scott G.'s
wrong assumption about how much memory B.J. has in her GS snipped
because it was answered in another message].

> And how much more complex is the GS compared to the IIc? It may
> not be evident to you, but just because the GS has a "hybrid
> 16 bit" CPU does not mean that it is just a bit better than a
> IIc.  The GS CPU has 24-bit addressing, meaning that it has a
> memory range of 16MB.  The IIc had a memory range of 64K, and
> it does bank-switching to get 128K.  In otherwords, the IIc was
> using twice the memory its CPU was designed to use, but the GS
> was using 256/16384 or 1/64 of what it was its CPU was capable
> of.  The 68000 also had 24-bit addressing.  Wouldn't you agree
> that a Mac Plus would be useless with 256K?

Mac Pluses have never shipped with 256K.  It's not enough basic memory
for its CPU usage which differs greatly from the GS.  This is not a
proper comparison.

> As for AppleTalking to a Mac: how many people in 1989 would want
> to buy a Mac just to use its hard drive?  This is absurd.  It
> would be like if Apple said: "well, we know you Mac users need
> a hard disk.  Just go buy an IBM PC and network to it to smuck
> off its hard drive."  Wouldn't you be upset?

Again, I NEVER said that everyone in 1989 would want a setup such as
what I have, today.  Let me put it to you this way:  having a GS
Appletalked to a spare hard drive on a Mac that has nothing but GS
software on it--is better than nothing--in my case.  It may not be YOUR
ideal setup or what you would want, but guess what:  I have to use and
afford what works *for me*.  The fact that Appletalk is built into the
GS as it is the Mac makes it ideal for file sharing and networking.
Apparently, you have a problem with that--I don't.  As I just stated on
a previous post, I do intend to get a hard drive for the GS someday--but
it certainly is no priority because my current setup works well, and
that's all that matters to me.  And I'll just bet I'm not the only one
who does file sharing between Macs and GSs.

See, you forget a very important point:  although I've owned my IIc's
and IIe's from when they first came out, I've owned my Macs *years*
longer than my two GS's.  So I'm not at all in the position that you
describe above where someone would go into a store and buy a Mac just to
use its hard drive.  The Macs were already owned by me as were the spare
Mac hard drives.

> B.J., since you don't have a hard drive in your GS and not enough
> memory and don't run GS/OS based software, you don't know what
> we are talking about.  In a sense, you are not really a GS user.
> You are using the GS to run a IIe emulation (literally).  I don't
> normally recommend emulators, but why don't you just get the
> Bernie II emulator from Henrik Gudat and run some real GS/OS
> software (available for free).  Run HyperCard IIGS and the many
> things on ground that require more than a meg of memory.  Bernie
> is not perfect (I'd prefer a real beefed-up GS), but at least
> Bernie on a PowerMac will give you a reasonably fast simulated
> GS with enough memory (allocate 8MB) and a simulated hard disk
> (faster and better than AppleTalk).  Then you'll know why we say
> Apple crippled the GS to kill it.  256K _never_ was enough memory
> and the GS _always_ needed a hard disk and a faster 65C816
> (which were definitely available by the time of the ROM 3; Bill
> Mensh, the chip's designer, argued in the open with Apple's CEO
> in the 1989 AppleFest about Apple's deliberate neglect of the
> GS while he had _much_ faster chips available).

Why don't YOU just read my other post and see that I have 4 megs of
memory in each of my GS's & that I run "native ProDOS 16" software
before you attempt to tell me what I should and should not use.  And I
already have HyperCard IIGS and System 6.0.1, thanks.  And it all runs
just fine on my own setup.

And for your information--although they serve a need for many people, I
dislike emulators.  Any kind.  I believe in using the real thing, where
possible.  So I won't be one of the people using any kind of IIgs
emulator on a PowerMac.

To me, you have one helluva nerve trying to tell me what I should and
should not use, period.  My "standards" in using a GS don't have to be
anyone else's "standards", including YOURS.

It's very ironic to me that someone like yourself should try to
discourage someone like myself from using a system I like very much from
within this particular newsgroup.  When you should be doing *just the
OPPOSITE*--encouraging use of the Apple II, no matter what the setup,
memory, or other limitations are.  I'm sure if you didn't already know I
was a Mac user, you'd never suggest such a thing to me.  Shame on you.

P.S.  If you are internet connnected with your GS as you say you are,
why don't you have a *real* email address, as in one that can be
*replied* to?????

-- 
--bj   Auto reply will not work; please reply to bjbear@ibm.net
Proud owner/user of Apple Computers since 1984
Barbie & Ken doll fan since 1961