Re: A Tale of Two Apples

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

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

> In article bjblackbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major) writes...
> >> In article <17OCT199723141927@vax2.concordia.ca>,
> >> Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> >    What killed the Apple IIgs was _Apple Computer_. Other than the fact
> >> >that the Macintosh SE had a higher vertical screen resolution and more
> >> >powerful 68000 processor (although not necessarily much faster in terms
> >> >of noticable speed) the SE was inferior to the Apple IIgs. As for the
> >> >Macintosh II, with a price tag near $10k, it was well out of any average
> >> >person's price range (making the IIgs a slow, poor-man's Macintosh II).
> >
> >For some reason, I never got this original message on my server, but I'm
> >replying from cut and paste of Randy's reply....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.
> 
>     Well, there are people out there that have a distorted or biased
> view on just what did happen, and if I see that, I will correct that
> or state my opinions. That just happened in this thread and so I did
> follow up with a reply. 

You made your point that piracy did not kill the Apple II, but ACI, Inc.
did.  I happen to agree with the statement, but not the reasons you give
for it.  Others in the group who are firmly entrenched in the fact that
it was piracy that killed the A2 aren't going to change their minds on
that just because you or I post their opinion.  THAT was my point.   

> This is an Apple II discussion group, is it
> not? If we do not discuss the past, then just what would you propose
> we talk about? I'm not saying it is productive to dredge up stories
> about "evil Apple Computer" and such, but when someone misinterprets
> what happened, are you saying I should just turn a blind eye?

As I stated above, people's biases are not going to be changed simply
because you or I post their opinion on an issue, no matter what it is.

> 
>     The fact of the matter is that things are very much stagnant in
> the Apple II world today. There have been no major hardware projects
> developed in at least 3 years now (or even minor ones to speak of,
> except perhaps a memory card and revision to an existing IDE card).
> There has been relatively no new software development for almost as
> long, with a few exceptions here and there (e.g. LemminGS, Spectrum
> Internet Suite, Marinetti). Even the source of interesting talk and
> discussion, printed and electronic publications, have been falling
> one by one. We lost SoftDisk G-S, II-Alive, GS+ and recently GenieLamp
> A2, all within the past couple of months. With nothing NEW here now
> or on the horizon, what else is there to discuss? 

As I said to Scott G., one of the things talked about could be
everyone's personal use of the Apple II.  This could give others
productive ideas and maybe inspiration to do things they haven't yet
done with their II's.  The discussion needs to be kept current and not
always referring to the past.

> Nostalgic talk
> about the past and how we use our II's today is fine, but when Apple
> Computer comes up, it is would be just plain ignorance to pretend what
> happened did not. The topic of this group, the Apple II, is no longer
> mainstream and mostly forgotten today because of that company. Trying
> to forget (or pretend) Apple Computer had no part in the "death" of
> the Apple II is like trying to forget Steve Wozinak was the one
> who gave it "birth". No one should forget where and why its origins
> began and where they ended. Both are an ingrained part of its history.
> I for one don't like seeing history rewritten or changed.

No one is trying to rewrite or change history.  But, like the
Mates/Turley flame war, it gets real old after a while, with everyone
venting their gripes and anger.  Pretty soon, that's all that's being
talked about in all the posts.  And like I said before, everyone has a
different take on this as well.  We all know the main fact that ACI in a
certain year discontinued the II line.  But the *reasons* for this are
many & varied, despite what several people in this group have to say
about it.  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.

> >> >    It was absolutely disgusting that Apple was shipping the GS with just
> >> >256K of memory for the first 2 years the machine was out! Out of the box
> >> >the computer could not run any of the GS-specific software titles out
> >> >there, this was plain stupidity (it would be like selling a car without
> >> >a gas-tank and engine, later informing the customer they'd have to buy
> >> >that as an extra option when they discovered the car won't run!). It was
> >> >not until late 1989 that the GS shipped with a full 1 MB of memory out
> >> >of the box, pretty much towards the end of its life span (and by that
> >> >time most applications were demanding 2 MB or more).
> >
> >You indeed are comparing yesteryear's memory requirements with memory
> >requirements of present day.  Back then when the GS debuted, 256 was
> >ample for running games that were available; I have games on floppy disk
> >for the gs that only require 256K.
> 
>     Whoah, back up there! That is a hugely false statement. 256K in
> an Apple IIgs was anything but ample, it was sorely less than the GS
> required to run _any_ native software. There is the key here, native
> software as opposed to running 8-bit software in emulation mode. In
> the latter case, 256K was more than ample, but the Apple IIgs was a
> lot more than just a simple "Apple IIe compatible".

This doesn't dispute or change the fact that this is what the machine
shipped with at first.  And there *is* native (not 8 bit) software for
the gs that will run in 256K--software that will not run on any other
Apple II.  I know, I own some of it.  I *wasn't* trying to say that this
was enough memory for every person in the world or for every application
invented *after* the gs came out--only what it initially shipped with.

> 
>     256K is not even enough to load the Apple IIgs Finder into memory,
> or the complete operating system. What will run in that small amount
> of memory? Let's see, MouseDesk (an 8-bit leftover from the IIe/IIc),
> the original "Apple IIgs Tour" disk (which could be run on a standard
> IIe system, if you removed the digitized sound effects). Also IIgs
> versions of Music Construction Set, Silent Service, Pirates!, Tass
> Times in Tone Town, Paperboy and Gauntlet. Those were all fairly
> basic and mediocre programs, and just about the ONLY things I can
> name that run with 256K of memory. Oh, there was also Reader Rabbit
> that used Double-Hi-Res graphics yet dubbed "GS-specific" (the same
> was true of those Mindscape games in that list, which actually
> contained some single Hi-Res screens within the game). Does that
> give you an idea what types of programs could run with 256K?

I already know all this; you've misread my original statement on 256K.

> 
> >And, it was more than ample for running productivity programs such as
> >Quicken and Appleworks.
> 
>     Your talking about using the Apple IIgs for running old 8-bit
> software. Is this all you think of the machine, as a glorified IIe
> compatible? That is only one side, and leaves the "GS" part totally
> masked out.

(Sigh)....you are raising all the same arguments as Scott G. did the
other day, and I've already answered them all in that reply of a few
days ago.  No, I DON'T use the gs for running old 8 bit software.
Frankly, I don't like to use it for that.  I don't like having to change
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....I own plenty of gs software that is 16 bit:  Appleworks GS,
Printshop GS, etc. etc.  I run my 8 bit stuff on my IIc and IIe, period.

> 
>     You know, I could state the same. That the original Macintosh
> with its 128K of memory was ample, since you could run the version
> of MacPaint and MacWrite that came in the box. Would you agree that
> that was ample memory?

For the time it debuted, yes it was.  Those programs ran just fine in
that much memory, and you had room to spare.  As time went on, memory
demands increased.  Plus, you are forgetting how horribly expensive
memory was to purchase back then to "add on" to later models like the
Mac Plus.

>     That's correct, and I know from experience since I had to purchase
> memory during that worldwide memory shortage supply. This however is
> a flawed argument when the Macintosh Plus had been shipping with a
> full 1 MB of memory, and continued to do so after memory prices had
> sky rocketed. The same is true of the Macintosh SE and Macintosh II.
> Why did the Macintosh ship with 1 MB but not 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.

> 
>     I understand that the Macintosh required that memory to be usable,
> but the _same is true_ of the Apple IIgs back then. If you purchased
> an Apple IIgs, one of the first things you had to rush out and buy was
> a memory expansion card and the chips to populate it. That is, unless
> you planned to use the machine exclusively as a IIe compatible. 

No, this is a wrong statement.  As I mentioned above, there was plenty
of software to run on the IIgs on bootable floppy disks--material that
would not run on a IIc or IIe.  If you wanted to rush right out and buy
a memory expansion card right away, that's fine--but that was not
required immediately for the "average" user, only the power users.
Software I remember seeing in stores past 1990 specifically for the IIgs
did not require even 1 megabyte of memory to run.

> There
> was no excuse for this lack of memory. Your trying to rationalize
> Apple's motives is purely based on the fact your faith and loyalty to
> the company is very strong (this isn't an insult, and please don't take
> it as one. Quite often we can have such devotion in something that we
> can unconsciously be blind to its flaws and overlook them. I was like
> that about the IIgs for quite a number of years, maybe I still am a
> bit to this day :).

I don't overlook Apple's flaws and my loyalty isn't the same as it was
in 1984.  Your mind reading talent is not what you think it is....

> 
> >You either had to be a well-off (money wise) person back then to afford
> >megabytes of memory, or save up a long time to get it.
> 
>     Or purchase a Macintosh (for the same price as a IIgs) with that
> memory already installed?

As Randy pointed out, Macs from this early IIgs era were $3,000.  This
was not IIgs pricing.

> >And a IIgs is VERY usable without a hard drive, especially if you are
> >Appletalked to a hard drive connected to a Mac, as my setup is.
> 
>     Have you tried operating an Apple IIgs off floppy drives? 

Yes, I do it all the time when I don't use the Appletalk setup.

> Even
> for launching a game it will often take several minutes to load. If
> you attempt to seriously use the Finder (or any other productivity
> applications, like AppleWorks GS, HyperCard IIGS, synthLAB, Platinum
> Plantium Paint, etc.) you will be slowed even more by CONSTANT disk
> swapping. 

I only run AW GS through Appletalk and not with floppy disks.

> I strongly suspect you haven't done much more than tinker
> with the Apple IIgs and so your talking with inexperience here. I
> have been an Apple IIgs user/owner for 10 years, and have worked very
> heavily with the machine equipped with and without a hardrive. Believe
> me, I know what I'm saying when I say an Apple IIgs is not very usable
> without a hardrive (unless, once again, your are using it as an Apple
> IIe compatible or to just play a few basic video games). 800K disks
> also become very cramped in a hurry once you start using productivity
> software to _create_ data files.

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 can run a Macintosh off floppy disks. I've done it before, I
> used to do the page-layout for my high school's newspaper using a
> Macintosh Plus with PageMaker and nothing more than two 800K drives.
> Sure, it worked, but it was a _very_ unpleasant experience and had
> me almost dizzy with disk swapping.

If you had two 800k disk drives, you should have had to do no disk
swapping.

> I could run some IBM programs
> from floppy disk too, but in all cases (GS, Mac and IBM) it is like
> shoveling snow with a tablespoon. Sure, it is doable, but not very
> practical. Whether I'm using an Amiga 2000, Apple IIgs, IBM 386+ or
> Macintosh Plus or higher, a hardrive is essential (I've used all
> those and know from experience).

I've got a few Mac Pluses myself (all different memory configs), and my
1 megabyte one runs just fine from a floppy and an extra floppy drive
for when I care to use it that way.

> 
>     Incidentally, running your Apple IIgs through AppleTalk does
> eliminate the disk swapping problem, but the speed problem will
> still exist as AppleTalk only operates about as fast as a 3.5
> drive (at least this is what I have heard).

I have no problems with the speed of Appletalk, and until I get a hard
drive in the future, this setup will continue to do me just fine.

> >You are totally forgetting what markets each computer was aimed at that
> >Apple produced.  The II line was ALWAYS the home and school computer--no
> >businesses/corporations I know were using them (except small family
> >businesses which were using them).  The II line was never marketed to
> >the business community at large, because the business community chose
> >IBM from the start only because of the association with IBM's mainframes
> >and other business machines such as typewriters, etc.  The Mac was
> >designed to compete with the IBM pc from the very beginning--the Apple
> >II was not.
> 
>     Regardless of what market a computer is aimed at, is that any reason
> to cripple and neglect supporting it? 

Every model of every computer ever made is going to have to be
discontinued at some point--whether you like that cold hard fact or not.
Change is hard, granted.  But resistance to change brings only the
frustration out that you and others have spilled out onto this
discussion group.  You want something to last forever and to be
supported forever.  That's just not the case and will never be the case
with *any* manufacturer.  Perhaps you should read the "Problems in
Modernizing a IIgs" posts to read just how difficult it would be to
bring such a system up to today's standards....

>     The Macintosh was very poorly designed to compete against the IBM as
> a business machine. The IBM was expandable, modular and focused for the
> task of crunching numbers and moving words and editing them on screen.
> In comparison, the Macintosh was a closed, non-expandable all-in-one
> box with "cute" features and fluff someone in a business setting would
> find unnecessary. 

It was also (and continues to be) the number one machine for desktop
publishing, which is what it was designed for in the first place.  The
IBM PC of old was not such a system.

>     I hope what I wrote above isn't inflammatory (I just want to share
> my view of things) but I kind of find an irony about you telling me
> there is no point or value in dredging up the past. It seems that from
> what you've stated above you have a misunderstanding of that past and
> a blurred sense about the Apple IIgs. 

No, I don't.  I'm just very, very tired of others trying to force *their
own* view of history upon me, that's all.


-- 
--bj   Auto reply will not work; remove "black" to reply
Proud owner/user of Apple Computers since 1984  
Barbie & Ken doll fan since 1961