[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Yay! Finally got myself a IIgs!

mdj wrote:

Michael J. Mahon wrote:



Me, too--and it runs its relatively "closed system" software quite
well.  But because it is so wierd to develop for, given its low unit
numbers, there is relatively little software and it didn't keep pace
with competitive developments.

I feel like the best result of the "Sara" was that it resulted in
some good software migrating to the already-neglected Apple II,
particularly ProDOS and Appleworks.  In many ways, the Apple ///
prefigured the monomaniacal obsession that Apple contracted with
the introduction of Jobs other "child", the Mac.



To me, the biggest problem was that it was not an Apple II, and was
intentionally designed to distinct, even though there are architectural
similarities.


As it turned out, that was indeed it's number one failing.


Someday someone will write the history of Apple as the struggle
of an ego with a non-combatant engineer.



I think the entire board at the time believed they needed to build
something different, that would replace the II as a fair dinkum
business machine (and doesn't the Apple /// feel like it was built by
IBM)


It's funny that you should put it that way--it does.  ;-)  The fact
that you had to be an "official developer" to get info on programming
it, the fact that it was therefore "closed" to most users, all seem
very reminiscent of IBM, prior to the PC.

Of course, the irony is that IBM looked at the personal computer
field, evaluated the entrants, and decided to be like the Apple II
in terms of openness and extensibility, welcoming third parties.


Unfortunately, it meant we didn't see the Apple IIe until 1983, when
really, it could've been delivered substantially earlier, even 1980.
Had they just built the /// as a IIe back then, it would've been a much
smart decision.


I agree, but, as you noted, they really needed something to address
the business market, and they considered the II "tainted" as a "game"
machine.  I think that caused Apple management to doubt a successor's
credibility in a business environment.

If the only problem had been adding needed features, like 80-columns,
a clock, more memory, better graphics, and a hard disk option, all that
could clearly be done in an Apple II extension.

But they seem to have believed the FUD about personal computers being
put out (prior to the PC) by IBM, that personal computers were toys,
not worthy of serious consideration by businesses--after all, they
didn't even have parity-protected memory!  ;-)


But yes, I suppose the engineering work done on the /// paved the way
for most of the enhancements in the IIe, with the exception of the
accelerated processor (which they could have done in the IIe as well).
Ah well, what might have been.....


I guess I don't see the resemblance much.  Did the /// do 80-column and
DHGR graphics the same way?  And ASICs were the *big* difference in the
//e (which would have been a problem earlier).


Does any know the bank switching arrangement the /// used? I've always
been curious, and the information seems scarce.


There's a reference to it in a thread a few months back--an article
published in a magazine that's on the web.

-michael

Parallel computing for 8-bit Apple II's!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

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