Re: P-Source: A Guide to the Apple Pascal System

[Jerry <SNIPawanderin@yahoSNIPo.ca>]

Michael J. Mahon wrote:

> Eric wrote:
>>  And the long-term definitely does matter here! Apple II's
>> have at least another 20 years of life left in them. I can't say that
>> about the Dell I'm working on now - It will be in the garbage heap
>> within another year.
> 
> I've long found this an interesting contrast.

As you mentioned below, these old machines evoke emotions.  They bring back
memories, good memories; even the war stories are fun to remember.

> I suppose it's similar to "classic" cars, which are viewed as having
> persistent (or increasing) value, while current cars are seen as only
> utilitarian and disposable.
> 
> It seems that once an artifact passes some "impracticality" threshold
> it may become an object of desire.

It's true.  There are folks out there enjoying ZX81 emulators because they
had one back in 1982-83 and it was fun for them.  Same for most other
odd-ball machines from the 70s and 80s.

> This always goes through my mind when I see a 700MHz Pentium III
> system being thrown out--a lot more computing capacity than any
> Apple II, but much less interesting to play with.  ;-)

You can throw out your P3/700 and get the latest and it still runs all your
P3/700 software.  All you are doing is getting a faster box.  There's not
much, if any, heart in that.  Put another way, it's all commoditized now.

> Perhaps it's simply that we always have access to much better
> "modern" platforms that do all that the older "modern" systems
> do, but better, while "vintage" systems run hardware and software
> (and evoke emotions) that modern platforms don't.

Essentially, yes.

Perhaps one more reason the vintage boxes still have a following is their
characteristic of being understandable.  I was trying to think of why folks
who never used them back in the day have begun to use them, and maybe this
is partly why.  One can actually learn how a whole vintage machine works,
whereas the new stuff today is so mind-bogglingly complex, it would be very
tough for anyone to master it all.

The Apple IIgs actually is probably too complex for most people to master
when you factor in all the toolbox stuff and GS/OS, whereas the II and II+
hardware/software can be completely understood by one person.  You could
personally read and know every line of code in the monitor, BASIC, and DOS
3.3 or ProDOS.  Has any one person disassembled all the toolbox, and all of
GS/OS?  I'd say WOW to those who have but I doubt there are many if any. 
Put another way, the II/II+ was designed by one person, but the IIgs was
designed by a group.  (I'm not saying you can't master a more complex
machine, but that you won't understand down to the gate or byte what it is
doing.)

-- 
--  Jerry