Re: Have we forgotten this newsgroup is about the _Apple2_ ????

[jlee@ics.uci.edu (Orion Pax)]

Rob Tibshirani (phillip@utstat.toronto.edu) wrote:
: In article <CoEx09.12F@crash.cts.com> shack@crash.cts.com (Randy Shackelford) writes:

: [ ]
: >To see what an utter bunch of crap this statement is, substitute "GS" with
: >"Quadra" and "AppleII" with "Mac 128" and conclude that the Mac 128 kept the
: >Quadras from becoming successes by displaying the same name on the case, and 
: >that Quadras are not really Macintoshes. After all, a II can run IIgs software
: >about as well as a 128 can run current Mac software.

: Well, if you could try rising above 2 year old language it may be worthwhile
: explaining some things to you. I do not view my statement as nonsense, and
: just a few years ago when the GS was posed to become a real multimedia
: force, people insisted on using it as a IIe. What can I say? I don't accept
: your anology, and frankly I'd rather not discuss issues with people who
: have a hard time using reasonable lnguage on an international public forum.

He does have a point that the base of your argument seems kinda silly about
the Apple IIGS is not a Apple II.  As to whether the GS could've became a
multimedia machine, highly doubtable back then.  It was Apple Co.'s
responsibility to advertise the IIGS as a multimedia medium (which it
didn't do) and the GS could do only the barest of multimedia.  CD-roms
weren't so inexpensive nor fast, you needed lots of hardware enhancements
to the GS (memory, LD or cd-rom player, stereo card, VOC, etc) that makes
a GS not worth the price to be paid back then since most of the stuff came
from Apple and they were still in their premium pricing idiocy.  It takes
so much to put in to make what the GS should have been designed, how could
people not insist on using it as a fast IIe?

To make a fair comparison, look up how hard a time Apple had in convincing
the tight cliques of business world that the Mac was not a toy. Their
multimillion advertising was impressive to the public, but not to the
business people.  The way the Mac made it was through desktop publishing
where it impressed enough people to give it a second look.  It then slowly
spread by word of mouth and then through educational sources.  Now, it's
a common buzzword.  You say Macintosh to somebody and they'll definitely
remember the Mac pluses from school, but then they'll remember all the
neat stuff they saw Macs do on tv or heard from friends.  Sure aren't
hurt being a "toy" computer in the past.

Another contrast is PC's.  They're pieces of crap back then and they still
are now, but they are well supported and heavily advertised.  They also
got enough raw horsepower and openess in its architecture for people to
fiddle with and do what they want.  Sure aren't hurt by being a XT 
previously nor still running an unfriendly, archaic OS.

Therefore, just saying a computer is not what it is doesn't change its
design limitations and roots.  Image matters less.  Here's the
argument, if Apple Co continued upgrading the IIGS, being an Apple II
would not have hurt it.  A Quadra is world's away from a Mac plus.  A
486 is world's away from a XT, but a GS is only a step away from a IIe.

Btw, do you see these computers (mac, pc) denying their roots and previous
incarnations?

Joseph
--
jlee@bonnie.ics.uci.edu  | "If builders built buildings the way programmers
-------------------------+  wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that
     Creative 'Ware      |  came along would destroy civilization."
        II(><)II         |  -- Weinberg's Law