Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

christw@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood) wrote:
>In article <5534t9$8ur@darla.visi.com>, nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates) writes:
>>   In the early to mid 80s, there were tons of platforms (A2, IBM,
>>Commie 64, Amig, Atari, TI*, etc) out that have fallen extinct; there
>>were companies that stayed exclusively for one or two platforms, and
>>plenty (Broderbund, EA, lots of others) that developed for many
>>platforms. At the time, developers routinely developed for multiple
>>platforms, so A2 _and_ Mac was not a problem for them.
>
>Except the Apple II had the least-capable hardware out there.  Even
>after the IIGS was introduced, the competing platforms had a lot more
>horsepower, and better graphics.  By then, the world had gone PC, C64
>was gone, Amiga and Atari were struggling, and TI was gone.  Apple was
>fighting for business penetration with the Macintosh.
>
>Chris

Chris, you said you had a //e, right?  Because of that, I can
understand why you keep claiming the "incapable hardware" thing about
the Apple IIs.  If you think //e's are representative of Apple II
computers' capabilities, you are not correct.  (Besides, even the
//e is more capable than the C64, non-ST Ataris, and the TI, man!)

Having been exposed to the //e, PC/AT, C128, Mac Plus, IIGS, and
Amiga 500 before, let me point out a few things...

Let me answer your "horsepower" assertion first.  A couple of years
ago, a friend who owned an Amiga 500 took the source code for one
of the Amiga system utilities index benchmarks and recompiled the
code on both the IIGS and an original IBM PC/AT.  Based on this
benchmark, the IBM PC/AT (a 6MHz '286 without a '287 math
co-processor) benchmarked 510.  The IIGS made 595.  The Amiga 500
scored 610.  The Amiga 500 uses an MC68000 processor, so the
result should be representative of, say, a Mac Plus as well.

Where is the "lots more horsepower?"  The IIGS basically ran at
the speed of computers of its day!

Of the above computers, I would say the Amiga and the IIGS
shared most in common.  Both are "graphics and sound" computers.
The Amiga owner and I used to compare the two machines. The
graphics modes are similar, both computers have a 4096 color
palette.  Yes, but you say the Amiga has a greater vertical
resolution?  Most early (eg. 1986-89) Amiga software used the
same 320x200 and 640x200 modes as the GS.  Why?  Because the
400 scan line interlaced mode flickers too much.  Such is the
price for color in the early days.

The Amiga's graphics hardware could also pull off palette tricks.
The early Amigas normally display 16 colors, but they had one
mode that went up to 64 colors.  This mode used multiple palettes
divided vertically and looks an a lot like the IIGS's 320x200x256
(16 palettes of 16 colors) mode, except that it had less colors.
It also had a HAM mode which threw the whole 4096 colors (with
some limitations on placement) on the screen.  This mode resulted
in pictures of the quality of the IIGS's 3200 color mode, although
it worked differently (the Amiga manipulated the screen with a
graphics co-processor while the IIGS uses the CPU).

Set up an early Amiga running Alter Beast and a IIGS running Task
Force and you could swear that one company made both machines.
Once back in the desktop, though, it is clear that the IIGS has the
better GUI and quality apps.  The Amiga has pre-emtive MT built
into the OS, though.  In this respect, it was superior to most other
PCs of its day.

I would say that for motion graphics and mutitasking, the Amiga
was superior to the Mac or PC of its day.  It has a cool blitter
chip to move graphics around without straining the CPU.  In terms of
GUI and stable OS and architecture, I'd give the IIGS the nod.
It could accept 16MB of RAM (8 RAM/8 ROM), had both ports and the
seven general purpose expansion slots, and ran the same interface
as the Mac of its day, except in color and 16 grayscale rather than
black and white with no grayscale.  The PC/AT was a solid computer,
nothing fancy.  Because it was IBM, people bought it for business
so there was much business software.  The Mac Plus had nothing
going for it except the interface which it displayed in black
and white.

Now let us explore the final component of a computer: sound.  The
Amiga had a flexible 4 voice sound chip (with fancy programming,
you can squeeze 8 voices out of it).  The PC/AT had none.  The
Mac Plus was sorely lacking in this area.  The Apple IIGS had the
most sophisticated sound chip used in a PC of its day, the Ensoniq
chip used in the Mirage synthesizer.  It had 32 oscillators (sound
generators) that are able to do anything from music to speech
syntheses.  The IIGS had the best sound of any personal computer
in the '80s.  It was not until recently, with the advent of
16-bit wavetable cards for the PC, that you could get better
sound in a personal computer (these are not the cheap 4 voice
SoundBlasters from 1990, btw...those were no match for the IIGS).

So what do you mean by "least-capable hardware?"  Memory?  The
65816 could address 16 megs, same as the 80286 and MC68000. The
IIGS could take 8MB as RAM and 8MB as ROM.  The Mac Plus could only
take 4MB of RAM, period (even though its processor supported more
- the stupidity of Steve Jobs).  Graphics?  The Mac didn't have color.
The Amiga does, but had (in the mid 80 models) to drop to 320x200
and 640x200 for most applications because of flicker.  The IIGS
still graphics display was very similar to its Amiga competition's
and it had a greater color range (4096 colors) than the Atari ST
(512 colors).  The PC/AT had EGA, which had a range of 64 colors.
Interface?  The IIGS has the same interface as the Mac Plus, except
in color.  Expansion?  Lots of slots, unlike the Mac Plus.  The IIGS
has lots of ports too...the best of both worlds.  Sound?  THE APPLE
IIGS HAD THE BEST SOUND OF ANY PERSONAL COMPUTER OF ITS DAY...PC/AT,
C64, MAC, AMIGA, OR ATARI!

By the way, you have the time line messed up.  When the IIGS was
introduced, Commodore did not cancel the C64.  They put it in a
new case and bundled it with GEOS and called the package the
C64C.  The C128 was also introduced at around this time.  The
Amiga came on the scene in late 1985, putting it a couple of months
before the IIGS.

Regarding someone's assertion that Apple II's were not in business,
business software was developed first on the Apple IIs.  The first
spreadsheet, VisiCalc was developed on a II.  The first integrated
software, AppleWorks, was developed on the II.  Were early Apple II's
in business?  Sure.  I see Apple ads in circa 1980 magazines
advertising the II for business.  For several years, according to
Compute, Family Computing, Incider, and A+ magazines, AppleWorks
outsold all software packages, IBM ones like Lotus 1-2-3 included.

It was not that the II was doing bad.  Apple had a 54% market share.
Its strength was not in the home, but in the schools where PCs
had a hard time competing.  Commodore had the home market, but
Apple IIs were strong competitors there too because they were in
the schools.  When IBM appeared, it is true that many businesses
shifted from the II to the PC (not because the original IBM PC was
better, but because "Big Blue" was a respected maker of business
hardware like typewriters and mainframes), but the II was still
prominent (witness software like BusinessWorks, AppleWorks,
SuperCalc 3a, WordPerfect, even Lotus 1-2-3 clones like VIP
Professional - slap in a CP/M card and you could also run WordStar
and dBASE).  Why Apple lost the computer wars was because they chose
to abandon the successful II series, thus alienating users, and
starting up new with the Mac.  Remember, I am not saying we should
sell Apple II Pluses today.  What I am saying is Apple should have,
based on the GS outselling the Mac Plus in its first year (source:
Compute's list of the best selling personal computers), came out
with a GS II instead of a Mac II - followed by a GS IIcx, GS IIci,
leading to a PowerGS today.

The GUI was the wave of the future, yes.  Apple was right about that.
The IIGS gave them the opportunity to carry their large user base
into that future.  Apple chose to ignore that opportunity, so they
lost a lot of users and are now struggling against the PC onslaught.
They really should avoid doing this again...if they want to dump
their 680x0 Mac user base, at least they could provide them with
a trade in or motherboard swap.  Hasn't Apple learned its lesson yet?