Re: Apple ///?

[bjbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major & Dennis J. Gorin)]

In article <5hu16p$u02@uni.library.ucla.edu>, pubpc1@library.ucla.edu wrote:

> bjbear@ibm.net (B.J. Major & Dennis J. Gorin) wrote:
> in answer to Tilghman:
> >Regardless of whatever Apple decided to do with the // line, I can
> >assure you that Apple // would no longer be the standard in schools now.
> >Not with 32 and 64 bit machines reigning as king.  It's the *90s*, not
> >the 80's anymore!  Schools would have had to switch to something else
> >eventually when the 8/16 bit computer revolution was over.  Most of them
> >I'm aware of switched to Macintosh and are only now buying PC clones to
> >supplement their computer labs.
> 
> First of all, if Apple had continued improving the IIgs, do you
> honestly think it would have remained an 8/16 computer?  Think
> about this for a minute.  The Apple IIgs had a processor that was
> 16 bits internally with an 8-bit bus, but it had a 24 bit memory
> address (16MB of memory addressable).  The PC started off with an
> 8/16 processor, but only got 24 bit addressing with the '286.  The
> point is that from that era, the PC has evolved into the Pentium.
> What's to have kept the IIgs from doing the same?

Once you're leaving 8/16 bit, it would no longer be an Apple 2 anymore from
where I sit...yes, I guess Apple could have evolved it into infinity if
they wanted to, but the architecture/design of the machine is still 1970s
and is now out of date for more "modern" purposes.  There is more to
consider than the "bit-ness" of the CPU!!! (This is NOT a slam, I'm just
stating the facts....)

> 
> Second, you might say, well the PC evolved into a Pentium, but the
> II evolved into a Mac?  Wrong.  The fastest Pentium Pro can run the
> software of the lowly 8088.  The fastest Pentium Pro logic boards
> still have a couple of 8-bit ISA slots for your old hardware.

I don't like comparing anything Apple makes to the Wintel world, sorry. 
I'm just not comfortable with that.  Your last sentence may be correct, but
there is no way to run Windows '95 on a 386 or 286, which makes what
hardware is inside a moot point.

> BTW, have you seen a computer lab in a school in the past decade?
> Apple's tactic of trying to force II users to buy more new computers
> by making the incompatible Mac failed.  The majority went PC instead.

Not the majority I know of.  Most high schools I am connected with have
Wintel machines IN ADDITION to the Macs in their labs--not a replacement
issue there.

> Think about this for a moment: if I had lots of Apple II computers
> and a mouse and GUI based GS came along, I'd get the GS.  But if I
> were forced to part with my II software for either a GUI Mac or a
> GUI PC, I'd go with the PC.  The PC is cheaper and works just as well,
> if not better, than the Mac (although the Mac's GUI still has a slight
> edge...something that the GS had too when you compare it with the
> Mac Plus, its contemporary).

I disagree that the PC "works just as well" as Mac.  Totally.  I work on
PCs all day long and I KNOW the difference.  It's a relief to come home to
my Macs and Apple //'s.

> His statement was in reply to your comment that a modernized GS would
> not be a GS anymore, which is like saying a Pentium is not a PC.  The
> hardware may change.  New software will no longer run on old hardware,
> BUT _OLD_ software will still run on the _NEW_ hardware.

That is what is wrong with almost every modern OS out there.  Companies are
so worried about backward compatibility that it is crippling future
development.  At some point, you HAVE to cut it off and start fresh.

--bj
Apple //--///--Macintosh user/supporter/collector