Re: Woz's comments on Apple's handling of the II line etc.

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

Charles wrote:

>In article <SXV5d.52$RZ2.107@news.oracle.com>, 
>martin.doherty@undisclosed.com says...
>> Sean Fahey wrote:
>> > A little typo there....
>> > 
>> >>Everyone in the company had an Apple II <should be Apple III here>
>> >>only on their desk. This is the computer with extra chips forced in by
>> >>marketing so that the 80-column mode and extra memory would be
>> >>DISABLED when you booted it as an Apple II.
>> > 
>> > "Charles" <spammeister12345@aol.com> wrote in message
>>  >
>> >>From Woz's website http://www.woz.org/pages/wozscape/pgsinterview.html
>> >>
>> >>The world has no way of knowing what was going on in the company between
>> >>1989 and 1992. 
>> 
>> I think this may have been a typo too - the following discussion of the 
>> impact of the Apple III means that this range of dates probably should 
>> have read "1979 and 1982".
>> 
>
>Guys, it's not a typo. He was referring to the period after the Mac and 
>after he left active participation in Apple in 1988.  Go read the 
>original website.  He is talking about 1989 thru 1992.  
>
>The extra chips were forced into an Apple II to cripple it.  You're not 
>seeing this?  What am I missing?  
>
>That part was the interesting part.  The Apple II was intentionally 
>crippled by Apple to keep it from competing with either the Apple III 
>(intro 1980) or the Mac (intro 1984).  It didn't get any better until it 
>was too late.  That's his point.

No, it isn't.

The Apple III had the extra logic to prevent it from offering an enhanced
"Apple II compatibility mode".

All the desks at Apple had Apple III's on them, not Apple II's.

-michael

Check out parallel computing for 8-bit Apples on my
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/