Re: The Apple II Now and Forever

[mattd@apple.com (Matt Deatherage)]

In article <1fq5vbINNf69@gap.caltech.edu>, toddpw@cco.caltech.edu (Todd P.
Whitesel) wrote:
> 
> Ah yes, the standard "discredit" defense. Matt, when are you going to
> understand that we don't _have_ to have "been there" to reconstruct a lot of
> what happend from the sheer mass of evidence contained in the result? After
> messing with the toolbox for a while, I would tend to agree with Hal's
> assessment, for the most part. I suspect that I am not alone in this.

You don't have to read "Moby Dick" to write a book report on it, either, 
and you're just about as likely to get it right.

> You are perfectly free to contend with any
> of his suppositions and give the _real_ scoop, you know.

This is not true.  Unlike folks who may have been in a meeting where there
were not non-disclosure agreements, I _am_ bound by an employment agreement
with Apple that gives other people the choice as to what I can and can't
discuss regarding Apple's internal policies.  I say what I can.

> Wake up. Just because you knew the people who did the work doesn't mean they
> were deities.

"Were" is hardly appropriate; all of them are still alive.  And disagreeing
doesn't mean I'm canonizing the design team.  You can ask anyone involved
with the Apple II to realize that while I'm happy to have known most of the
team, we did not always get along nor do I always agree with design
decisions, and sometimes this becomes a very sore point between people.
Bring up the phrase "Sound tools" in front of Dave for a good example.

You can't know any of this, of course, because you weren't around to see
it.
But of course, as you insist, it's not important -- you can guess and fill
in the rest and that makes up for lack of personal experience.

> given the
> circumstances I think it's truly impressive that the whole thing came
> together the way it did. [...] But they cannot
> change the fundamental flaws in the IIgs toolbox, and I wish you'd start being
> more realistic about them. After all, there is nothing to lose at this point.

Who's not being realistic?  Hal claimed, or at least strongly implied, that
the original design team wanted to build in multitasking support and they
had to jettison it for cost/time reasons.  I don't buy that, and I said so.

You continue to think that I won't admit shortcomings in the system
software
design, or that I'm some kind of apologist for Apple.  This is because
you're not reading what I'm saying, but rather what you think I'm saying.
This won't get you much of anywhere.

============================================================================
Matt Deatherage, Developer Support Center, Apple Computer, Inc.
Personal mail only -- please POST technical questions, questions about
Apple and its policies, where to find documents and related inquiries.
The opinions I express don't represent Apple, which makes us both happy.
============================================================================