Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

shack@onyx.southwind.net (Randy Shackelford) wrote:
>pubpc1@library.ucla.edu wrote:
>
>: >Yeah, Apple incurred the wrath of a couple dozen piss-and-moaners who hang
>: >out there and bitch about it, while other people understand that a machine
>: >based on an 8 bit processor dating from the '70s has little viability in
>: >the '90s. Apple came out with other products to remain competitive.
>
>: My God, man, the Apple II of the late 80's did NOT have an 8-bit processor.
>: The Apple IIGS has a 16-bit processor.  There was no reason why it could
>: not have evolved into a 32-bit computer, like Pentiums have evolved from
>: the PC/XT!  The demand WAS there.  Apple chose to ignore it.
>
>Hey Beavis, reread that paragraph. The 65816 is based on an 8 bit processor.
>Pentiums are based on a 16 bit processor with a 20 bit address bus. Ever
>wonder why any memory over 640K is considered extended memory? It's a throwback
>to the days when PCs couldn't have any more. Have you ever seen a 32 bit
>65816? It doesn't exist aside from some preliminary layouts.

Randy, the Pentiums are based on 8-bit processors too, if you think about
it that way!  Have you ever studied the architecture of the 8088/8086?

They use a memory segmentation scheme with 64K banks.  This means that they
were originally based on an 8-bit processor (the Intel 8080, I believe).

The 65816 was a 16-bit processor with a 24-bit address.  It can directly
access 16 megabytes of memory.  This was a better base design than the 8086
and the same address space as the 80286 and MC68000 processors.

The point is, if you can evolve a Pentium from a PC/XT and keep compatibility,
then you can evolve a Pentium *SCALE* extended chip based on the 65816.

There was no reason why Apple couldn't have come out with improved Apple IIGS
models.  Remember, in its first year, the GS outsold the entire Mac line.
Then a strange thing happened.  Apple *STOPPED* advertising the successful
GS and started a blitz campaign to advertise the Mac.  The Mac of the time,
the Mac Plus, was inferior to the GS in design.  It didn't even have an ADB
port!  It had a 1-bit screen (black and white) while the GS could do
16-grayscale and color.  It beeped while the GS had 32-oscillators for a
sound chip.

The only real advatage the Mac had was a slightly faster CPU.  I say slightly
faster because the 65816 is clocked differently from other designs.  It splits
the clock cycle, using different parts for different tasks.  The Intel design
uses one clock cycle per task.  The result is, based on benchmark tests, the
original GS was actually about the speed of the original IBM AT (equivalent
to 6MHz 80286 without the '287 math co-processor chip).  WDC already had
65816 chips twice as fast, but Apple deliberately chose not to use them for
fear of competing with the Mac!

>
>Apple was smart to make a clean break with the PPCs and provide 68K support
>via software emulation. They can keep getting better without having compati-
>bility holding them back.

The Pentium is remarkable.  It is fast and compatible.  They will eventually
migrate to RISC, but they will still maintain compatibility.

Apple should never have alienated much of its user base by chosing the
incompatible Mac over the compatible GS.

Remember, the GS uses the same GUI as the Mac.  Apple's only real innovation
was the GUI (and considering Windows 95 is pretty darn good even from this
Apple GUI user's viewpoint, Apple is in deep shit).

>
>Just ask the Operation Apple Storm participants who met with Apple back in '92
>if you want an idea of how Apple IIs were selling at the time.

Well Randy, that's a circular argument!  My God, in its first year, the GS
outsold the Mac!  Apple then repaid this strong sales showing with stopping
advertisement and improvement of the GS, using the money to advertise and
improve the Mac!

Then Apple comes back and blames the Apple II SIX YEARS LATER by saying it
did not sell well in'92?

Apple II sales would have NEVER dropped if they came out with a new model
every 2 years, like every other computer series out there!

>
>: When the GS came out, the Mac sucked.  It is better now, but what Mac are
>: we talking about in '86?  The Mac Plus?  The GS was and is better than
>: the Mac Plus.
>
>Depends on what you call better I suppose. You can run TCP client apps,
>current system software, and new apps still on a Plus you know.

WHAT new apps can you run on the Plus?  You can run new apps created by
GS programmers on the GS.

Ask Nate about TCP for the GS, he's beta testing.


>
>: Gee, IBM compats are doing pretty well and they still run PC/XT software.
>: They are doing better than Macs!
>
>We're talking system software. Windows NT 4.0 doesn't run on less than a
>386 but apps still run. That's how system 8 will work.

You don't understand.  I'm not saying we should force the OS to work on old
model computers.  GS/OS dosn't run on a //e.  I'm saying we should maintain
BACKWARD compatibility.  The Pentium can run MS-DOS!  The GS can run ProDOS!
This does not mean you have to make Windows 95 run on an XT or GS/OS run
on a //e!

Improve the hardware, but keep backward compatibility!


>
>Marketing is the sole reason wintel sells more, it sure as hell isn't because
>it's better.
>
>: Well of course!  The Apple II has been absent for years.  If it remained
>: all those years (Apple did not kill it), then John would be asking
>: if it runs **Apple II/GS** software.  If he asks about Windows, well hey,
>: AE would still be alive and the PC Pentium Transporter would be around!
>
>Dream on. AE went out of business because it couldn't compete with its 
>overpriced products. If you think that people would buy IIs with their under-
>powered apps over MacOS or wintel, marketing notwithstanding, you need a 
>reality check.

AE was doing well as long as the Apple II market did well.  If Apple kept
improving the II(GS) and kept it alive, AE would have stayed alive because
it would have had a market!


>
>: Apple could have kept compatibility and gone up to date.
>
>These at some point become mutually exclusive. System software support for 
>68000, '020, and non 32 bit '030 Macs is being axed so that performance on
>newer boxes can improve. Windows NT 4.5 will not run on 486s. That's the
>nature of the beast.

Well GS/OS dosn't support the //e!  I'm not talking about making system
software compatible with older models!  I'm saying make new models, make
new system software, but give the new models the ABILITY to run the old
apps.

>
>: The GS was a great example.  Compatible with the II but better than the
>: Mac of its day.
>
>If you say so

Have you ever used a Mac Plus?  I have.
Have you ever used an Apple IIGS?  I have.
The Apple IIGS was a better machine.

Macs are fine machines today.  If a fine Mac could evolve from a sucky Mac
Plus, a GREAT Apple II could have evolved from the superior GS!