Re: ADTPro beta available

["mdj" <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

Michael J. Mahon wrote:

> No, you have to look at it with a time machine.  The Apple II *was*
> a big market, hence a big platform, and, to those who enjoy nostalgia,
> that period is forever frozen in time.

It was really three platforms in the end: 64k Apple II, 128k Enhanced
IIe/IIc/IIgs, and IIgs.

And always problematic for Apple as well: The third party market
extended the 64k platform and 128k platform in ways that later
'official' Apple II platforms were not compatible with.

> But from the point of view of *new* applications, the Apple II has
> (almost) ceased to be a platform.
>
> >>(Unix, for example, never quite made it to this status, mostly for
> >>competitive reasons.)
> >
> >
> > There was never just one Unix, true.  But that doesn't mean that a
> > particular Unix platform wasn't a platform.....
>
> Right, it's just that they were all separately much less viable
> than they could have been if merged--though that might have meant
> that some hardware vendors were winners at the expense of others.
>
> The cost of developing and deploying applications for the "Unix
> platform" was hugely increased by the disparity of the many vendors'
> platforms, which created considerable "drag" for the whole market.
>
> There was a window (no pun intended) of opportunity for a converged
> Unix to play a significant role (maybe even dominant?) on the corporate
> desktop, but that opportunity was missed.  The market growth that would
> have enabled $50 Unix applications never happened.

Isn't that more accurately put that no consumer oriented Unix
materialised? That's where your $50 software market exists. Until the
emergence of Linux, there was no flavour of Unix that truly exploited
PC class hardware, and did so in a 'user friendly' manner. Mac OS X
could now be considered in this vein, at least in the sense that Unix
people can use it as a Unix platform, although it's not really intended
to be one.

> Linux is trying to rekindle that flame, but it's so late and so far
> down the road that their primary "fuel" is not the excellence of
> thier offering, but fear and hatred of Microsoft.  Truly a movement
> driven by negative energy.  ;-)  (BTW, this in no way applies to the
> high priests of Linux, who are all devoted idealists--only to the
> _hoi polloi_ who chant in the streets waving firebrands, or to the
> corporate opportunists who see a stick to swing at MS.  ;-)

Aint that the truth

Matt