Re: Complete Basic?

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

Charlie wrote:
> "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message 
> iP-dnQMT_7ppDXTbnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@comcast.com">news:iP-dnQMT_7ppDXTbnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> > Charlie wrote:
> >
> > > "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message 
> > > lP6dnWNZgL35DnXbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@comcast.com">news:lP6dnWNZgL35DnXbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > *** much snipped ***

<not much more snipped ;-)>

> > > > The original Apple II "idea" was that its considerable capabilities
> > > > were accessible out-of-the box to anyone who was patient and could
> > > > read--a true "bicycle for the mind."
> > > >
> > > > By contrast, the Apple IIgs (like the III before it) had even greater
> > > > capabilities, but access to them was wrapped in prodigious complexity
> > > > and locked up by the absence of out of the box documentation and tools.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah..., now you've hit on what I believe are the true reasons that the 
> > > Apple IIgs was different.  No toolbox documentation out of the box and no 
> > > built in GS specific BASIC.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I still say that the IIgs, like the III, departed radically from the
> > > > original Apple II idea of *accessible computer power*, and having Woz's
> > > > signature on the case of the first 50,000 or so was irony.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, departed yes, radically no, I can't see that.  After all the IIgs 
> > > still has nearly all the capabilities of the other Apple IIs (more than 
> > > the Apple IIc in my opinion) and the bundled documentation deteriorated 
> > > with all the later Apple IIs.
> >
> > It's not "compatibility" that makes a machine an Apple II--it's the
> > whole spirit of the thing--the way the case snaps open, the way it
> > greets you with a "program me" prompt when you turn it on!
>
>
> I believe compatibility of both hardware and software trumps any other way 
> of determining what makes an Apple created computer an Apple II.

I understand, and can even defend that "platform-based" argument.
But the Apple II was much more than a platform--it was the
embodiment of an engineering esthetic.  It was "Wozland".  ;-)

> And by the way, the case snapping part eliminates the IIc more than the IIgs 
> and the IIgs greets you with the same prompt as any other Apple II.

I agree about the "closed" IIc.

But the IIgs "greeting" is asking you to program in //e compatibility
mode--it has no "program my fancy new IIgs features" prompt.  ;-)

> > (That's why I can't get excited about emulation of a II on a modern
> > structural behemoth.)
>
>
> Yes, emulators don't have the "feel" of a real Apple II (any model).  That 
> however doesn't stop them from being a good tool for learning programming 
> from scratch.

Emulation/simulation has always been a good tool for one willing to
abstract from the hardware implementation.

-michael

NadaPong: Network game demo for Apple II computers!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."