Re: Complete Basic?

["Charlie" <charlieDOTd@verEYEzon.net>]

"Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message 
lP6dnWNZgL35DnXbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@comcast.com">news:lP6dnWNZgL35DnXbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@comcast.com...

*** much 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.

Charlie