Re: The IBM PC's slavish devotion to the Apple II

[great_hierophant@hotmail.com (Great Hierophant)]

"Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<z0WdnQrUobVEeHqjXTWcoA@comcast.com>...

> I'm sorry, but maybe my true point was misconstrued
> by my lashing out at something that I know too can't be
> avoided. All I am trying to say is that isn't it possible that
> the IBM had all the same designs as the Apple II, but they
> waited until they were to a higher level before their final
> release into the mainstream? 

What designs are we talking about?  Both the Apple II and IBM PC use
off the shelf chips.  You have to build computers with the technology
that is available.  They did wait and did observe the market evolve
before steppping in.  But the two systems have major differences that
users and programmers can appreciate.

> Couldn't it be that Apple
> was in such a rush to get their machine onto the market
> that they rushed it out with lesser options and features?

Remember that the Apple II came out in 1977 where the competition in
the arena of home computers was ill-defined at best.  These were
uncharted waters for Apple.  They put out the Apple II with the
features it had primarily because any more features would have become
much more expensive and would have hurt their supply lines.  It is
difficult to criticize the Apple II because its creators had virtually
nothing to compare it to when they built their machine.  The IBM PC
had the resources to build any type of technologically feasible
machine and they had the benefit of studying the home computer market
for almost 5 years.

> Why have the opinion that IBM "copied" them with a few
> minor improvements? Give it a little thought. When I asked
> that he check his sources, that means to quote someplace
> where I and others can go to look up his data and agree rather
> than simply tell us what he thinks he knows. Any smart
> journalist would. And I did not TELL him to go elsewhere,
> I merely stated that a better place for such an array of
> historical data might be better compiled on a website, such
> as Steven Weyrich has compiled. 

I had given it plenty of thought, and I never stated that the IBM PC
copied any part of the Apple II's design.  Copying leads to patent and
copyright difficulties very quickly.  The subject heading was not the
best, and it should read: "The Heavy Inspiration the IBM PC Took from
the Apple II."  I am also a newbie to Apple IIs.  I don't own one and
I emulate it primarily to play its great games.  I grew up with PCs
and I know of no greater loyalist to the PC than myself.  But loyalty
does not blind me to its faults or its blunders, and I find it hard to
get worked up over it in the abstract.  If I were old enough in those
days, I probably would have bought an Apple II+ rather than an IBM PC
5150.

As for the hardware specs, those are well-known and the sources are
widely available.  But the tenor of the original piece was one of
opinion and argument; I was not reporting objectively verifiable
facts.  That is why I chose my language with some care.  Examples:

Statement of Opinion: "So when IBM decided it was a time to take a
share of the office and home computing pie, what should it look to but
to the Apple II/II+?"

Statement of Fact: "So when IBM decided it was a time to take a share
of the office and home computing pie, they looked primarily at the
Apple II/II+."

Statement of Opinion: So, I believe that IBM took the Apple II and
tried to make their computer competitive or just a little better in
all respects.

Statement of Fact: "IBM took the Apple II's design and set out to make
a computer that would compete with the Apple II's features with some
improvements."

Statement of Opinion: "I don't think it could be any clearer that IBM,
when designing its home computing machine, tried to out Apple Apple"

Statement of Fact: "IBM, when designing its home computing machine,
tried to make a marginally better computer than the Apple II+."

I did make one serious error with my facts (to me, anyways).  I stated
that the Intel 8088 is an 8/16bit processor.  This is not entirely
correct.  The Intel 8088 has a 20bit addressing space, created by
viewing memory in 64KB segements.  (Apple II programmers could laugh
for awhile at PC programmers who had to deal with segemented memory
addressing while they enjoyed linear memory addressing.  Even the
memory bankswitching of Double Hi-Res is more preferable to program.)

> Please don't try to say that
> because I sell Apple II hardware that I am biased. There were
> many times I wanted to quit the Apple II scene and go on to
> bigger and better ventures that could bring me some capitol,
> but I stay with it, WHY?, because I believe in the Apple II.
> I think they are a great little computer with more potential
> than a little bit, but they had their day.

If the Apple II has had its day, why do you continue to deal in them? 
Perhaps to gouge users who do not believe that the Apple IIs day is
over with high prices for now-rare parts?  How can a great little
computer have "more potential than a little bit" and already have had
its day?

On your page you refer to an "IBM-XT 5150."  Let me assure you that an
"IBM-XT 5150" exists nowhere in nature.

> One day the new
> "COSMOTRONIC TRANSMITTAL ARRAY BUTTON"
> will take over as the greatest computer system around.
> BTW, that is fictional, it doesn't exist. It will be worn
> on the lapel and control everything you come into contact
> with, what then. Will someone say that the iMac and P4
> were it's predecessor. Doubt that. Anyway, as long as this
> post is, it'll never stop the technology war between Apple
> and MS, sorry M$, so I will drop it and go back to being
> the mild-mannered Apple II hard drive maker I was before.

I don't understand why you continue to bring Microsoft into the
discussion.  I never referred to Microsoft (founded by Bill Gates and
Paul Allen) at all in my original post, except indirectly by
mentioning BASIC and PC-DOS.  It is fair to point out that they were
important in the early days of home computing, having written the most
widely used BASIC interpreters around.  They also designed the Z80
Softcard for the Apple II so users could use CP/M.  But hardware wise
they were not dominant then, however powerful their influence on
hardware became in later years.  IBM designed the first PCs, not
Microsoft.

Btw, I am talking about history here, not making predictions.  The
Apple II preceeds the IBM by 4 years.  But the IBM has no predecessor,
it is a first design in a long line of computers.

> Thanks for listening once more,

People can read your posts, and yet you tell me to keep my posts to
myself?  My post could stir up hard feelings, eh?  Well then, with
whom am I going to create hard feelings?  I don't know any PC
partisans myself, and they certainly do not come to this group
regularly to badmouth the Apple II.  I think most people would have
moved beyond IBM PC v. Apple II rivalry by now, or at least be able to
compare the two without coming to blows.  Many other people have used
similar arguments, perhaps in somewhat stronger terms, to muzzle free
speech and fair criticism.  You ill-serve the public with such an
argument in times of safety.  A general newsgroup like comp.sys.apple2
can easily house help requests, component requests, and relatively
on-topic posts dealing with important aspects of the Apple II.  This
inclues the Apple II's legacy, both immediate and extended.

Finally, mine is a sensitive and delicate brain that does not
appreciate reading educated illiteracy like this sentence: "Pardon my
rebuttal, but one of the reasons Apple IIs are where they're NOT today
is due to a lack of cooperative ventures."  How can the Apple II be
where it is not?  What does "a lack of cooperative ventures" mean and
how is it relevant?  I believe this sentence translates to the
following:  "One of the reasons why the Apple II line of computers has
not evolved into contemporary computers with backwards compatiblility,
i.e. IBM PCs to today's PC-compatibles, is because Apple did not form
proper industry alliances and standards.  On the PC side, IBM, Intel,
Microsoft, and many other companies kept creating new standards for
hardware and software that allowed the PC to constantly evolve
throughout its 22-year history while retaining some meaure of
backwards compatibility."  (How many brain cells did I kill
translating this you ask?)  This is an interesting argument and worth
exploring.  I may brave the stormy waters and write about it myself
one day.  But assuming I translated your sentence correctly, it has
little to do with the subject matter of my original post.

GH