In <41011576$1_5@corp.newsgroups.com> exegete@nunya.biz wrote:
Roger Johnstone wrote:
In <40fefc6d_5@corp.newsgroups.com> exegete@nunya.biz wrote:
Tadapope wrote:
The Apple III was among other things
what killed the Apple II - Woz
That's hardly likely, given that the /// was killed less than a year
after the IIe was released, and at about the same time that the //c
was released.
Roy
quote from Woz:
http://apple2history.org/museum/articles/byte8412/byte8412.html
I didn't see that quote in the above link. Perhaps I scanned the
article too quickly, but again. I didn't see that quote there.
There's a link at the bottom of that page to a second page, where the
interview continues. The last section deals with the Apple III versus
the Apple II.
My take on this is that because Apple was concentrating on the Apple
III they basically stopped ALL Apple II development for a couple of
years.
Agreed. But WHEN? And what of the Super II? It was basically a IIe,
and someone developed it. As I recall, it could have been released in
`81. So, SOME developement was being done.
Eventually they came out with the IIe, but it was still deliberately
hobbled so that it wouldn't compete with the III,
How so? The memory? But we've seen that both Apple and third parties
were able to extend the II's memory range. I've been assured that the
II could never had had a memory mangagement as the /// did because of
the original design of the II. I suspect the same is true of the
video.
This is another quote from Woz from that interview:
"If you looked at our advertising and R&D dollars, everything we did
here was done first on the III, if it was business related. Then maybe
we'd consider doing a sub-version on the II. To make sure there was a
good boundary between the two machines, anything done on the II had to
be done on a lower level than on the III. Only now are we discovering
that good solutions can be implemented on the II.
The Apple II was kept out of the business market to keep the III going,
to give our users only one choice. We wanted to make the III the success
it hadn't become and that it deserved.
Unfortunately, we made sure that the Apple II was nowhere close to the
market that the [IBM] PC took. We made sure the Apple II was not allowed
to have a hard disk or more than 128K of memory. At a time when outside
companies had very usable schemes for adding up to a megabyte of memory,
we came up with a method of adding 64K to an Apple IIe, which was more
difficult to use and somewhat limited. We refused to acknowledge any of
the good 80-column cards that were in the outside world - only ours,
which had a iot of problems."
Now this only really applies to the first year of the Apple IIe of
course, when the III was still alive. After they gave up on the III they
turned back to the II e.g. making a controller card to allow the Apple
III ProFile drives to be used on a II.
The Mac was announced less than six months after the IIe's release.
My point is, that many have telescoped those years, and ignored that
there was development for the II. Did Apple focus on other machines?
Yes. Did Apple largely (but not totally) ignore extending and
enhancing the II? Yes. Did the /// kill the II? No. The Mac did. And
it took the Mac 2-3 years to do so! The Mac only began to be
successful with the Plus model, and that was 1.5 - 2 years after
January 1984!
When the IIgs was released (Consider this!) It was the first color GUI
that Apple had. It was the first ADB machine. It was the first machine
designed by Apple that could use more than 4 megs of RAM. It was the
most advanced sound that Apple had ever released.
More than 3 years after the /// died!!
So, again, did the /// hurt the II? Yes. Did it kill it? The facts
doen't support that claim.
Roy
Did anyone claim it did?