Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

shack@deimos.frii.com (Randy Shackelford) wrote:
>In article <28OCT199612481191@vax2.concordia.ca>,
>Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>>>Computers don't improve without newer processors. No successor to the
>>>65816 ever left the design phase.
>>
>>    If Apple had shown an interest in the Apple IIgs (or even a faster
>>65C816 for that matter), WDC probably would have finished the 32-bit
>>65C832 design. In any case, even a faster 65C816 would have done 
>>wonders for helping the GS.
>
>This is putting the cart before the horse. New computers are based on new
>processors, not the reverse. WDC needed to build new processors first.
>If you read Mensch's foreword in Eyes' and Lichty's 65816 book, which came
>out before the IIgs, he pledges that there will be future generations.
>The argument that Apple needed to fuel WDC's research doesn't hold up when you
>consider that 65816s are used in SNES boxes and 65C02s are in all kinds of
>embedded controller systems, from pacemakers to microwave ovens.

I have to disagree.  The processor's development is directly based on computer
sales.  If a computer sells well and the company demands a newer, faster
version of it, the processor developer will, base on sales of current models
and demand for future models, sink R&D into new designs.  This is a matter of
sound business decision.

Embedded controllers are not required to be fast.  This is why tons of 80186
and even 8080's are still sold for such purposes.

Even if WDC hadn't yet come out with the next generation '816, they did for
a fact have faster versions of the '816.  Why didn't Apple implement a faster
IIGS based on them?  IBM did that when they went from a 6MHz to an 8MHz
IBM PC/AT at look at them today.  Their new Aptiva models are amazing and
they decended from a computer that had a CPU quite similar to the '816 used
in the IIGS (16 bits, actual speed, 24 bit addressing).


>
>>>Memory was still expensive even when the ROM 3 came out. It went through
>>>the roof in mid '88, when a set of eight 256K DRAMs was ~$120. Gotta keep
>>>in mind the time context. No faster processors were available, memory was
>>>expensive, and hard disks were unholy expensive. It's easy to forget that
>>>in these days of $200 gigabyte hard disks and $100 16 mb SIMMs.
>>
>>    True, I remember that all too well (I recall paying several hundred
>>dollars just to add 768K to my Apple IIgs Memory Expansion Card in 1988).
>>Still, why was it the Macintosh II, SE and Plus continued to ship with 1MB 
>>RAM as standard in 1988, while the Apple IIgs shipped with only 256K? It
>>was no less expensive to supply those machines with that amount of RAM.
>>As well, the II and SE had support for internal hardrives which you had
>>the option of buying, why didn't Apple do the same for the Apple IIgs?
>
>Another case of present-centric thinking. There were no 2.5" hard disks or
>even 3.5"x1" drives in '86 or '89. Of course, a 5.25" wouldn't fit inside a 
>IIgs. Power supplies still took up a lot of internal space too before they
>were shrunk down.


Please don't insult our intelligence here.  A new model IIGS with a 5.25"
hard disk would have had a larger case.  How expensive would that be?
I put my own IIGS in a tower style case for pennies!

Did the Mac II have the same case as a Mac Plus?


>
>As far as memory amounts, remember that an SE cost >$3000 and a Mac II >$5000
>in '87. So putting a meg in a box jacked the price. You wouldn't have wanted
>a 1 mb IIgs box to top $2000 I bet.
>
>>    So that argument holds when you just focus on one computer, but then
>>falls to pieces when you see the _same_ company shipping their _other_
>>computers with these supposedly "unaffordable" extras. I see a bias here,
>>when a Mac Plus could ship with 1MB, but not a IIgs. The GS *required* that
>>1MB of RAM for running software just as much as the Mac Plus! Also, keep in
>>mind Apple bought things like memory and hardrives in bulk, so they paid 
>>much less than the public. I don't buy these excuses...
>
>But the list on a Plus was $2495 or so and it was $999 on a IIgs. I recall
>people saying they paid $1400 to up a Plus to 4 mb in those days.

Apple could have marketed different IIGS configurations, just like they
marketed different configurations on the Mac.  Example: IIGS, IIGS 2/40,
IIGS 4/80, etc. (the IIGS can use hard disk sizes in the gigabytes range,
but this was 1987-89, so 40MB to 80MB was standard).

>
>>>If you want a new up do date computer with Apple II compatibility on a card,
>>>all you need is a Powermac with a PCI Apple II card to go in it. Would everyone
>>>be happy if there were such a card?
>>
>>    I wanted an enhanced Apple IIgs, not a Macintosh. The two are not the
>>same, even though they may externally look and (to some extent) even feel
>>and act the same.
>
>It's really beyond me how anyone who has used Apple products would want to use
>anything else. I think a PCI powermac which could run II software would be
>what a IIgs should be today. Able to run the old stuff, but unencumbered by
>having the core hardware compatible with 10+ year old hardware.


Well, I might agree with you.  The "PowerMac" is as different from a 680x0
Mac as it is from a IIGS.  I would like to see Apple actually port GS System
Software (GS/OS and the Toolbox) to native PPC code, though.  This would be
more flexible than a mere emulator and be just like how the Power"Mac" runs
680x0 Mac software.

What is sad, though, is that by trashing the Apple II and IIGS years ago,
software development on these platforms have dwindled.  High caliber software
is definitely possible, as the excellent WordPerfect GS proves.  If Apple
supported the IIGS, this program would have been updated to the current
version today.  Unlike Mac programs, GS software is tightly coded and
efficient.  Imagine a modern WordPerfect GS zooming along on a Power"Mac"
with a ported native PPC code version of GS/OS.  Such programs would have
as many features as the gluttonous Mac versions, but will run MUCH faster
on the same Power"Mac."

I mean, I have access to a Wintel '486 box and it is OK.  Microsoft Works
for Windows and WordPerfect for DOS are available for WP.  But I find
myself prefering to use the (accelerator enhanced) IIGS with plain old
AppleWorks GS for my word processing because I actually find that I get
thinks done faster!  The output is the same on a high quality printer.
processing b