Re: Apple ///?

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

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?

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.

What Apple had in mind was to force the schools to upgrade their
computers.  To this end, they made the Mac incompatible with the II
and killed off the upgraded, but compatible IIgs (and don't you
start with "Mac LC IIe card" which came years after the fact or
GS emulators, which came even later and in any case do not address
hardware compatibility).

A modern GS would itself be pushing 32 and 64 bits.  But it would
still have wavetable synthesis built in (upgraded, but backward
compatible with the Ensoniq 5503 DOC) and a couple of old style
slots to support older hardware, while having PCI type slots for
newer boards.  In otherwords, a PowerGS would probably have a
PowerPC CPU, not unlike today's PowerMacs.  It would, however,
have a built in PPC native GS compatible toolbox, with modernized
GS type hardware components, and would still run older GS software
and hardware.

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.
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).


>> : Let's say for argument's sake that the 8-bit // line was
>> : discontinued when they did, but they left open further
>> : development of the //gs.  Just how long do you think this
>> : could have gone on?  Computers are now pushing 64 bit CPUs
>> : and such; a machine with a dual 8/16 bit CPU as the //gs
>> : has would not have lasted much longer.  It would have had
>> : to eventually get totally revised, rebuilt, new CPU to
>> : replace the old, new OS, etc. etc.  So what would be left
>> : of what you now know as the //gs?  Not much.
>>
>> Hmmmm.  I believe "Lemonade Stand", as well as all those other educational
>> programs would still run native, and the schools would still be using
>> them.
>
>I like all the old Apple // educational software, but let's face
>it--that looks pretty dated now that we have CD ROM multimedia and the
>like....something like that (lemonade stand) would not be
>sophisticated enough for today's students.

You don't understand his statement: A modern GS would have CD ROM
multimedia, but at the same time it would BE ABLE to run even the
oldest Apple software, like lemonade stand.

My God, man, the GS as it is can access CD ROMs and have a couple
of GS specific ones, in case you didn't know.  A modernized GS
would have even cooler CD media.


>>
>> The hardware may change, but the software lives on.
>
>The software and hardware is only living on for us hobbiests who want
>to support it.  It is no longer a viable tool for the general public to
>go out and buy.

Again, you misunderstand his statement: the older software, viable or
not, "lives" in the sense that the modern computer CAN run it.  My
ancient copy of WordStar will run on a Pentium.  It may not be viable,
but it is alive BECAUSE the Pentium can run it.

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.


>>
>> For example, how long do you think Microsoft would stay in the market, if
>> they suddenly announced that they were no longer going to support the x86
>> architecture; instead, they were going to produce software exclusively
>> for a completely new machine which they call the "MicroSloth"?
>
>New Microsoft sofware (Win '95 and others) will not run on older PCs. 
>At least with Apple, older Apple // stuff runs on the "newest" Apple //
>and 90% of old Mac hardware can run System 7.5.5.  I say that's pretty
>darn good.

That's not the point.  Windows '95 not running on older hardware is
good.  This is progress.  However, a Pentium will run the oldest DOS
software as well as it does Windows '95.  Similarly, the //e can't
run GS/OS, but the GS runs ProDOS 8 as well as GS/OS.  However, a
Mac (at least when it was introduced and until around '89, which was
too late to do any good) could not run II software at all and still
does not support II hardware.

The GS was better than the Mac of its day, the Mac Plus.  It could
address more memory than the Mac Plus, had color and sound, even
a true grayscale, greater horizontal resolution, slots, the same GUI,
ADB that the Plus didn't have, and wavetable synthesis.  Apple
deliberately stopped developing it and developed the inferior Mac
Plus instead.

I'm not saying that yesterday's GS is superior to today's PowerMac.
That would be stupid.  I'm saying that given the same opportunities
by Apple, the development cycle would have yielded a PowerGS that
would probably be superior to the PowerMac, and Apple would not have
lost users to the PC either.  The modern PC is probably closer to
how the modernized IIgs would have been, with the exception of the
GUI, the OS, and a sound system integrated into the logic board.

-Scott G.