Re: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[Rob Kopp <rkopp@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>]

Mitchell Spector wrote:
> 
> In article pubpc1@library.ucla.edu writes...
> 
>

>
>     The fact of the matter is Apple purposely negelected the IIGS.
> As was stated previously in this thread, they failed to advertise
> it or reduce it's price over the years. Is there a reason the price
> remained virtually unchanged from 1986 until 1992 - when it was dropped?
> Or was there a reason why, during the 6 years Apple sold it, the only
> major update was the 'ROM 3' motherboard? The only significant advantage,
> from non-Apple users looking in from the outside: it shipped with
> a full megabyte of memory. If this was the *only* meaningful enhancement
> Apple could come up with in 6 years, perhaps they're not as good a
> bunch of engineers as some may have thought. The Mac 128 started off
> as a very limited machine, though they somehow got it where it is
> today. If the GS were a flop, it would have been discontinued fairly
> early in the game, but it made Apple large profits (I recall it even
> outselling the Mac one year!). Apple didn't want to kill it right away
> because it made them profit, so they instead choose to milk it while
> at the same time smother it (no enhancements, no ads, no cost cuts).

This thread becomes soo many sour grapes.  I remember being upset about
the lack of support from Apple.  It's ancient history, and not very
relevant today.

I eventually did go the PC route, and initially was somewhat
disatisfied.  BUt I wouldn't give up my 5x86 box for any GS past or
future now.  

What is more signifigant to me was that the Apple ][ was a fine piece of
engineering for it's time, and a brilliant hack.  That has aesthetic
value beyond what computer you are using to access the internet today.

My grandfather once had a 1929 Packard touring car.  It was probalby the
most beatifull car that our family ever had.  Yet I would not entertain
the notion of holding it to contemporary standards, or of making it a
daily driver today.  And yet, what I drive today (a Plymouth Acclaim),
while being much more functional and usefull, can not begin to approach
that Packard esthetically.  The Apple ][ is a rough analogy.  It seems
like an amazingly clever design for a box concieved as a garage
business.

As for contemporary times, I think Apple is desperately trying to
recapture market.  I think they'll throw anything on the wall to see if
it sticks.  I don't see much connection between the current company and
the one that eveolved in the genisis of the ][.

I like firing up these old 8 bit boxes just for fun, nostalgia, etc. 
I'm even debating writing some applesoft games just for fun.  

Rob