Re: Apple, IBM and PCs (Re: Apple, Jobs, and the irony of it)

[Richard Kilpatrick <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk>]

In message <20040103181023.03858.00002497@mb-m07.aol.com>, Supertimer 
<supertimer@aol.com> writes
> The thread should really read:
> Apple/IBM versus Intel versus AMD versus Sun.

Sun are releasing Athlon64/Opteron systems.

And please, acknowledge that Apple, unlike so many other computer 
companies, supported and developed their 8-bit line way beyond the level 
that was considered reasonable in the 1980s. Imagine if Atari had 
continued to develop the 800/XL, or Commodore the C64? They /did/ have 
prototypes (though nothing as impressive as a IIgs), but no-one ever got 
to buy one in a store. Apple's IIgs was a stunning example of bridging 
the two worlds. They didn't fail to support the II range at all, they 
might not have been into putting their full resources behind it, but hey 
- if they had done, they might not have had the resources (made not only 
from the II, but also the Mac) to put behind anything, because the Mac 
development would have stalled.

Richard
--
Richard Kilpatrick, long haired prophet of doom.      |\      _,,,---,,_
Musical suicide - www.mp3.com/RichardKilpatrick      /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
Work: Icon Publications, Group Sales Manager        |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Homepage:  http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/          '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia